July 18, 2022 — Meeting Transcript

Good evening,

everyone. And welcome to the plan commission ARB for July 18th. Anyone in the audience that has a question or a comment, please raise your hand, whether you're in the council chamber or on zoom. So with that, let's start with

the roll call. Here.

Okay,

we'll move right into our first item, which is a discussion on solar panel regulations. And let's see, I think

Ryan.

Sure, so we're going to put on the screen.

One second here. So this is a letter from the sustainability committee they met previously in May to discuss and have recommended that the ARB consider modifications to this renewable energy section of the zoning code specifically addressing the restrictions from solar panels being located on a front facing roof. If you want to see if there's any panelists here. We were hoping that a member from the Sustainability Committee would be here tonight to represent this request. So we're going to check the panelists now. If there is not, then I recommend that we could still have a little discussion and you can either decide to wait for another meeting when we can solidify attendance from the sustainability committee members or direct staff to look at this and review some similar regulations and potential drafts and directions to go. Any revisions to the renewable energy section of the code would require the text amendment process, so this would include staff writing some draft recommendations for the code language, and then would also involve a public hearing. It would come before this plan commission, and then also the Board of

Aldermen. I'm stopping the screen. Yeah.

It looks like there's no representative from the Sustainability Committee in our attendees list at this point.

Well, with no one from the Sustainability committee, I think we should start the discussion, see where it goes. I think without their input, it would be beneficial for our staff to begin looking into other revisions in other jurisdictions for us and eventually come back with the Sustainability Committee to more or less meld it all together. But we've been waiting, as you can see from Malik's direction that was in May. So we're moving quite far forward and I think we should move it on as

quickly as we can. Do we

need to go through the staff report?

So for this one, we didn't prepare a staff report. If you want to switch over to the regulations, Ryan. So the sustainability committee recommendation that was on the letter just shown on the screen specifically talked about removing the regulation that prohibits solar panels on the front facing side of the roof. And so this would be, I mean, there's a substantial number of regulations within the solar panels and also renewable energy in general. So right now the recommendations only related to that one aspect of the code, which is why it would fall a little bit under our ARB hats here because the rate reason for that piece of the code when the renewable energy section was originally written had a lot to do with the aesthetics and appearance and tied back to the neighborhood character. The sustainability committee letter that was a brief summary from the director of public works Matt Malik kind of talked about how the required the restriction, not allowing solar panels on the front facing roof, removing that would help with encouraging the use of solar panels. We've also heard from TAB, Some applicants who are attempting to get approval for solar panels on the front facing roof that there are properties within the city where to make the most efficient system with solar panels. the front-facing roof is an important part of that system. So I think here we need to decide if the times have changed and the goals have changed as they relate to renewable energy and aesthetics that make that efficiency of a system and promoting that alternative source of energy, if that is now placed as a higher priority than the aesthetics and neighborhood character that were originally the priority when this code was written. So some brief discussion about that could be helpful.

Okay, I'll start it out. I think the way I see energy going is that we're going to probably have more and more applications for solar energy panels, whether they be roof mounted or ground mounted. So I think we need to really encourage that as we go forward. I would hope the sustainability committee will agree with that comment, but I also have some aesthetic concerns about putting it on the front facing roof of a house. Part of those are, we have quite a few homes that are on these historic record in the city. Some of them have slate roofs, some of them have Spanish tile roofs and I'm not sure how you do that without destroying the historic character of certain buildings. So as we go forward, I'm sure there will be other issues that might come up. But I do think we have to look at where energy production is going in the future and also be concerned with maintaining the aesthetic quality that many neighborhoods have worked very hard to maintain. So those are my two first items that I'll throw out there for discussion and we'll open it up. Bob.

I was Googling before I came here, see what other places have done. And the general trend for sure is in the South or California where the sun is more prolific. that the use of solar panels in the front is becoming more common. And the thesis of some of these articles was that as they start spreading, they'll just blend into the fabric of the neighborhood and you really won't think twice about it after a while. And that seems to be what is the trend from what I gather in my limited research. I think Steve's point is well taken. I think times have changed. We're looking at this with a rear view mirror with a present ordinance and we need to move forward. He makes a very good point about preserving historic character of a neighborhood. And to the extent that a roof contributes towards that, I would sure hate to tear up a nice tile roof uh i i didn't think about that till you mentioned that um i'm not sure uh how you draft the ordinance except in some general language uh that that there is discretion to preserve if the roof contributes to the historic significance of the neighborhood or of the house then um then maybe we draw the line there perhaps, or it has, I don't know, conditional use. I'm not sure how you draft that, but it's a point well taken there. But for sure, times have changed.

Steve, I would agree with you. My concern would be the aesthetics aspect on some of the homes that what we've seen to date, the roofs have been fairly simple and not a significant piece or a significant part of the architecture of the overall building. I think when you get into the more complex roof shapes it's going to look like an add-on. It won't look like it should be there, it will look like it's been forced to be there. That concerns me. I'm all for being energy efficient. I grew up turning on the light when I went into a room and turning it off when I left the room. And if there was enough light in the room that I didn't need it, don't turn it on. So I'm 100% energy efficient, but the aesthetics are a concern because that does impact us more than we realize psychologically. So I'm concerned, even without going to a slate roof or a tile roof where it definitely would look like something had been plopped on it. The shingle, the asphalt shingle roofs, fiberglass shingle, all of those can handle, if it's a simple roof plane, it can handle solar panels. But when you get into something more, I think it's going to visually be a problem. So I don't have the solution.

Jamie.

So I agree and disagree because I definitely think that we do need to, you know, move forward with the times. I think energy is a huge issue, you know, for the world. So ideally, it would be best to optimize you know people using solar panels if possible, I do appreciate the aesthetic part of it, so I wonder. You know if there's a way to word something where you can say like you know maximize. to the best extent on the back, like, you know, do calculations to try to put forth an argument of why, if you're in a historic home, why that would be needed to be in the front. Also, I know, you know, technology is always changing. You know, I did it again, like a quick kind of Google search about solar panels when this originally came up and, you know, there's a lot of options out there that might not be so obtrusive, you know, and like we're picturing these huge, you know, panels and maybe as technology changes and becomes more viable to people that it might not be such an eyesore if you put it on a tile roof. So maybe that's something also considered like maybe, you know, doing specific ones if you want them in the front versus if you just want them in the back, something like that.

David? I just think it's a tough spot. I think we all recognize the importance of solar energy and alternative energy, and this is a way to go about that. And trying to balance that with aesthetics is very, very difficult. So, you know, I kind of agree with what Ana had said. You know, I think the next step is to play around with the language a little bit. Steve, I guess you were saying this. And then have a conversation with sustainability, but try to see what's out there to sort of mitigate this because Just listening to the comments, there are aesthetic concerns, especially with historic structures here in the city, and we have a lot of them. And how exactly you go about regulating that, it's difficult. It's not something you see done around here at all. So we really need to do some research and see what we can find kind of nationwide in areas that are sensitive in that way from a historic standpoint. We were dealing with new construction or buildings that were 20 or 30 years old. I don't know if it would be as much of a consideration as it is where we have six, seven neighborhoods on the National Register. So yeah, there's a lot of work to be done here.

With the aesthetic concerns, I would hope that the owners of any buildings that are historical would have sensitivity to this issue. But I don't think we can go and just assume that that will happen. So as we look into it, I think as our staff takes a look at other jurisdictions, if we can pull out anything specifically on the aesthetic side, it would be very helpful. I think we're all pretty much in sync about we need to update it for alternative energy right now.

Steve, can I ask one question? Is anybody on this panel aware of any solar panels put on the back of a house above tile roofs or something like that? Historic roofs, I'll call it.

All the ones that I can recall have all been on asphalt shingle or similar, maybe a composite shingle. Not on anything that we would think is historic unless you've seen

that. No, we didn't run an inventory of all the ones that we have previously approved. The ones that I've been involved in approving in my past year have all been on the kind of asphalt or composite shingle. But as part of figuring out where we stand right now, we'll do an inventory of all the properties that we know of that have panels that have been approved under the existing ordinance as well as some other examples.

So I'm not sure if we're ready to close the discussion, but

if we are. I do think we should see if there's anybody from the public that wants to speak in this since it's an open session.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Okay i'm Kathleen oh no Mr saying. COB,

Kathleen Dunn I just I was just unmuted myself this is Kathleen gunned. PB,

Harmon Zuckerberg, Did you have a question Kathleen. COB, Kathleen

Gunn No um I have a comment for the board um as i've been listening to the discussion i'm there, the discussion has kind of talked about like well if someone wants solar panels. Why do they want to put them on the front? Couldn't they put them on the back or couldn't they put them where we don't see them? So because I have a solar system on my house, you are not open to putting them everywhere. South facing roofs are the most efficient and effective. You don't put them on Northern facing roofs, or at least not at this point in time. You can't put them on East facing and West facing roofs. this isn't a matter of, you know, so-and-so wants to put a solar array on the front of their house. They don't care about what their neighbors think or what the aesthetic is. Solar systems are about generating energy and anyone who puts a solar array on their house is not just helping themselves, they are helping you, the people on the board, they are helping society in general. They are moving us forward when we're talking about renewable energy and they should be allowed to put panels where they can generate the most electricity efficiently and effectively. And you don't also have the entire roof space, you've got venting, you've got, you have to like pull the panels back from edges so for fire safety. So it seems like aesthetics are getting a lot of play in here. And I think that, you know, clay tile roofs, historical roofs, that's a little bit of a red herring because basically, and I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that currently it's cost prohibitive to mess up your tile roof to put solar panels on them, which is why we don't normally see them. So I just kind of want to like bring the discussion back to people aren't putting solar panels on the front of their house because they don't care about aesthetics. They're putting them there to help all of us make more renewable energy. So I just wanted to kind of throw that out there. So thank you for listening.

Thanks, Kathleen. We appreciate the comments.

Mr. Zhang?

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, thank you very much panel for the discussion and I agree with a lot of the points discussed here. And thank you Kathleen for pointing out that the fact the energy efficiency and I agree with one of the points that the solar panel putting on the south side is most efficient. But in our, in my home, first of all, it's not a historical home. It's a very simple flat roof, shingle tile, not tile, it's a shingle roof. And then in the south, because it's the edge, there's no way to put any panels. So it has to be in the front side or the rear side. And then the way that the engineering team from the Pink Energy designed for us is most efficient way. Um, so since we have, uh, put the panel on, it's already been six months and now we have not be able to use it. And then we have already been paying for the loan to get the panel on for already six months. So it's a very frustrating to us. Um, I'm glad that, um, you know, we are realizing this and we need to move to a more of a sustainable, um, trend and then encouraging the solar panel installation. Just in my neighborhood, people are very interested. There's already three to four families are already submitting the request to any negotiation of getting the panel installed. So I think that's a good thing. So regarding for us, what does that mean to us? I know this discussion is probably going to continue And then more hearing and things changing the language and things like those. But what will mean to us? Are we going to wait for a longer period? So does that mean we're not be able to use this panel for the end of the year?

Sorry, sir. This discussion right now is a general discussion about a code change. We're not at your item specifically on the agenda yet.

Okay.

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Zhang. As the director has already said, this is part of the discussion. We'll get to your actual application in a few minutes. But eventually we will have to be dealing with applications that either meet all of our regulations and the regulations may be open to change in the near future with the sustainability committee and what our staff discovers being used in other jurisdictions, or there could be alternative compliance or an application for a variance. that could also be done. So are there any other comments in the discussion part of the section?

Just one, I think I recall seeing information in one of the many trade magazines I get on solar shingles. which would be something that we, I think should look into. And maybe that's what's on the front of a house so that it blends in more with the roof at the front and then the panels in the back. I don't know, but it's another, I think coming technology. And obviously it's far enough along that it was in one of the trade magazines that you could you know, circle a number or email them for information.

I too have seen that in the periodicals, but I could never determine how efficient those were compared to regular solar panels. So I think that's another thing that may have to be looked at. If I recall, I think it was the Tesla Corporation that is putting the solar shingles together.

and maybe some competitors also. Any other hands up? No, okay.

I think we can close the discussion at this point or does staff have any other questions for direction?

No, we'll touch base with the sustainability committee and get another discussion on the books for us and them. And in the meantime, staff will start gathering some information to address some of the comments and figure out some options. Then we can kind of present almost like case studies, I think would be really helpful for us to kind of go through and see how these have been addressed in other similar communities across the U.S. And then we'll start to lead into some drafting of code.

Thank you. Let's move into old business. Item number one, 750 Wenneker Drive.

So the subject request was first discussed on may 16 2022 and a meeting agenda sorry guys thanks click something there. The meeting agenda was continued to the following meeting the architecture review board voted to give the applicant more time to consider options for the city sustainability committee in regards to the existing solar panel regulations. CoB, Jay Sugnetter- Without any updates from the applicant or the sustainability committee, the request was again continues in June and again June 20 on the sixth and the 21st. CoB, Jay Sussemane, So currently as we've discussed solar panels are not permitted on front facing roofs in order to get approval for the panels already installed on the subject property facing the street the applicant must receive their variants from the existing provisions from the board of adjustment or receive alternative compliance from the architecture review board. or there must be a text amended to change the regulations. This is sustainability committee is supposed to have been discussing that and was supposed to be here today to provide some input on that. So the subject property is located on the east side of Winokur Drive between Windlow Drive and Tanglewood Drive. The applicant proposes to install six Or has installed six rooftop solar panels on the West front facing portion of the picture, the home and eight solar panels on the East rear facing portion of the pitch roof. The solar panels measure six and a half or three and a half feet in a position in a symmetrical fashion they're set back at least three feet from the edges of the roof. Article 27 of the city's zoning regulation includes provisions for renewable energy systems. Section 405380 outlines the requirements for the construction, installation and design assistance, including roof-mounted solar energy. When located on sloped roofs, solar energy collectors shall be located on the rear or side facing roof as viewed from the front street. Six of these proposed panels are on the front facing slope of the roof, while the remaining eight are located in the rear. Other than location of the six panels, the proposed design conforms with the city's regulations. Section 405.3920 outlines a process for approval of designs that do not comply with provisions of renewable energy systems, but meet the intent of the regulations. As mentioned before, the Architecture Review Board may approve with alternative compliance or the Board of Adjustments made forward with a variance. While the installation of solar panels has grown in popularity across the country, there is still a relatively small number of single family homes with renewable energy systems in the city. This makes the location of solar panels on a roof facing the street more noticeable and less compatible with surrounding character. Given the orientation of the house, the style of the roof, and the location of adjacent existing trees, the proposed location of the solar panels would likely yield best results for the success of the energy system So the front of the slope, the low slope of the roof will help reduce visibility. However, with one story structure, the proposed solar panels will be visible from the public right of way. Staff recommends that the applicant apply for alternative compliance or variance.

Okay,

thank you.

Mr. Zhang, are you still there? Yes, I'm still here.

Now that we're talking about your property, do you have further comments?

No. It's just been a long time and we really wanted to find a solution quickly so that we can still leverage the summer which is the best time to harness the energy and not wasting the effort and money that we're putting to the solar panels.

Well, our purpose is not to delay the activation of the solar panels, but as the staff recommendation states, they recommend that you apply for either alternative compliance or a variance. And I know we've brought this up in previous meetings also. And we'll find out what the rest of the committee or board recommends, but I would recommend that you follow one of those two routes, either the alternative compliance or a variance at this time. But let's see if there are other comments. Bob?

I'm in agreement with you, Steve, so we can get off the dime.

Ellen?

I agree with you, Steve.

Amy? I

agree also.

David? Yes,

I agree.

Let me ask staff, if the property owner were to come in, could we get a response to them at our next meeting, which would be the first August meeting?

Yes, you can continue it again to that meeting. The alternative compliance would be approved through this board. Variance would be heard by the Board of Adjustment. The criteria here is pretty clear for alternative compliance that you need to show that you're meeting the intent of the code with a different version than what the code states. The applicant's information has not been geared specifically towards requesting alternative compliance. However, that doesn't prevent the board from having that discussion tonight or you can continue it requesting that they specifically submit something related to alternative compliance.

Well, I would recommend that Mr. Zhang make an application back to us to follow the rules that we have on the books for the alternative compliance, or if he prefers the variance, but I think the alternative compliance would be much quicker.

The alternative compliance would not require

the postings and other elements necessary. They would still have to, this board would still have to find that they meet those standards for alternative compliance.

So Mr. Zhang, did you follow our discussion?

Yes, yes, thank you. I will submit the application for the alternative compliance. Do we usually, do we know how long does it usually take? Is it for another couple weeks or month?

So you can be on the next agenda. I can read here. So alternative compliance, the regulations that you would need to find in order to approve that. Basically state, in unusual circumstances arising from the unique location or character of the proposed site and or surrounding land uses or structures, if a site-specific alternative standards would provide results that are equal to or superior to those which would be provided by the standards of this section. The plan Commission or architecture review board as appropriate, depending on the type of development and application then pending may approve an applicant's request for alternative standards. So in this case, the request would be that panels on the front slope are equal to or superior to the regulations as they currently stand.

with that, you would probably be able to show us what the energy output would be both on the east and the west facing roof of your home. And we would certainly take that into account in a determining whether the alternative compliance would work in this case. So we look forward to that. I will make a motion to continue this item to the next meeting. Second. All in

favor?

Aye.

Aye. I didn't ask for any comments, but I don't think... Kathleen, did you want to talk? She's gone.

That's just the list of attendees, not people that have their hands up.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Zhang. We will look forward to seeing you at our next meeting.

Thank you so much, all.

Now we'll move on to new business. And we'll start with 7601 Westmoreland.

Do we have the applicant? Mr. Sherbourne? No, he is for the public art piece. Ms. Wolfe? Looks like the applicant might not be here.

Okay, if we don't have the applicant, I'd like to continue this one also.

We can, if you would like, we could move it and check again after at the end for our next item, just to be sure before we

continue. Let's do that. Okay. We'll move on to new business number two, 8027 Forsyth Boulevard.

Right, so this is referring to a public art installation that is going in at the subject property located on the north side of Forsyth Boulevard between North Brentwood and North Merrimack. This has a zoning designation of planned unit developments. And on March 24, 2020, the Board of Aldermen approved plans for 965,000 square feet of mixed-use building with a 14-story tower on the west and 16-story tower on east end. The development is currently under construction and will contain just over 18,000 square feet of retail, over 492,000 square feet office, and just over 1200 parking spaces. So PUDs are approved through a point system with points awarded for different public benefits in exchange for relief or modification of certain zoning regulations, subdivision regulations. Per ordinance 6648, which governs the development of public art This was awarded five out of five points. And as described, the building will include art pieces at both the Western and Eastern Tower. And the owners of both of those towers shall hire a consultant for the selection of public art and sculptures. The approved development plan for the property also mentions using public art. The art commit, let's see. The Public Art Advisory Committee met with representatives on Tuesday, June 28, 2022 to discuss the concept. The community unanimously voted to recommend approval to the Architecture Review Board. It's kind of discussing the visual impact of this. This piece is going to be positioned at the corner of Forsyth and South Brentwood Boulevard. This is directly opposite to the Chapman Plaza Fountain. Its position will place it partially under the building's portico. The piece called Campfire is made of 12 steel curved ribs that include LED lights on the interior. The LED surface is described as a canvas for the artist's composition. The composition is described as slowly changing forms and colors. The exterior of the rib Gribbs is described as mirrored and designated to reflect the surrounding environments. The reflective elements of the piece are not anticipated to pose a distraction to the surrounding environment. Staff recommends approval of the art piece.

Okay, thank you. Good evening. Come on up

and

introduce yourself.

Meredith, can you just hit the microphone light so it turns green?

All right, we'll try that again. I'm Meredith McKinley. I'm with Via Partnership. We're representing our consultant. Also here is Scott Haley from the developer and William Sherburn, who is my co-consultant on the project. Do

you have any other comment?

Sure. Well, first, thank you so much for hearing us today. We're very excited about this piece by Mads Christiansen. He's an internationally known artist from Denmark. He currently resides in Los Angeles. This piece, Campfire, we think is a fantastic piece. It'll be a real focal point and gathering point for the plaza at the building. We think the scale is going to be fantastic. It'll be really approachable and interactive for pedestrians using the plaza, but also visible for cars traveling along Brentwood and Forsyth. And then of course it's proximity to the park and the Chapman Plaza. This idea of campfire we think is really a great sort of, a very sort of contemporary piece, but the idea of gathering as well as sort of the idea of campfire related to parks is really special. I think another thing to just sort of point out, it's quite obvious, it's a piece that has LED lights. It has a very different presence during the daytime as night with its sort of glowing, ever-changing sort of palette of colors. So again, this will be a piece that'll look different, different times of year, different times of day. So again, we're very excited to bring this to you today for your approval. Scott, do you have anything you want to add or? Okay, thanks. Any questions? Of course.

First, I really liked the piece. But I did have a couple of questions and one of them is location. Staff did send me a plan showing that it's very near the corner of your property line. Is that correct? So that even though it's under the recessed cutout corner, it is as far forward toward the intersection as possible. Is that

correct? My name is Scott Haley with U.S. Capital Development and I swear to tell the truth. The positioning of that was really had nothing to do with the property line. It would look more about the proximity to how we envision that the plaza to be functioning both from the public realm, from the intersection, from across the street, as well as how that the plaza which we will be very inviting with how it's positioned with having a front door on Brentwood, as well as foresight. And we're looking to have our plaza be something that We want the public to use. We'll have a variety of things. That positioning went through a lot of discussion internally.

Well, as I said, I really do like the piece. But where are the lights? Are they in the base?

There actually is an L. So the lights are throughout the room. The lights are throughout the ribs. So there are LED lights that are actually embedded in the ribs. So one side of the ribs is the polished steel, and the other side is LED. So almost like an LED screen. So that's where the color comes from, are the lights that are embedded into the actual. They're

embedded inside the fins.

Inside the

fins, yeah. Not on the outside, but on the inside. On the inside. So it'd be like a glow. occurs, not on the outside. The light is not projecting out. You'll see the polished stainless steel as the flames or the ribs.

So we will not see the LED lights themselves, just the glow that comes from it?

There's an acrylic cover over the light so you won't see the individual pixels of light.

And then the color that we saw That comes from the light. So the stainless steel is stainless steel.

Stainless steel is stainless steel, right. OK.

I like it. Anyone else like it? Bob?

I think it's OK. During the day, are the LED lights working?

You know, the lights will be on and typically, you know, and I think that's in part, you know, from an ease of operations point of view, but also, you know, as you know, you know, certain times of day, it's going to be darker in there than others. And so in different times of year, it gets, you know, the sun, you know, 830 right now. But in January, you know, it'll be dark by 430. And so Again, that's sort of the difference of how you experience that piece at different times of days. People who are coming out of the building at 4.30 in the middle of winter will experience a lot of color or glow, but if you're coming out Right now, you might experience a little bit of color glow because of the way that the shade is working on the site. So they'll be on all day, but the color, it'll be different. It'll appear different, different times of day. So it won't look like that full color. Am

I getting a psychedelic show or the appearance of a flame?

It's more the appearance of a you know, I think he describes it as a sort of very slow changing composition. So it's not going to be sort of the difference between almost like a breathing light versus like a Las Vegas light, you know? So it's not gonna be some sort of like, you know, fast moving, you know, right through psychedelic sort of light show. It's more just sort of a pulsating breathing sort of campfire.

Ellen?

I'm wondering about the headlights of cars. Have you thought about that?

Yeah, I think that was taken into consideration with the sighting. So it's elevated up on the plaza. So you're not going to have direct lights because of the elevation and then the piece has a base on it as well. So so and I know that you've looked at that in the sighting that it's not going to be you're not going

Okay um so the seating in your renderings will not be there, it will just be the sculpture.

there's no there's no seating shown here, I mean we have a program that we are we're not going to fix seating we're gonna I mean Jim Jim Coleman has been. He just got back from Europe and very different countries. And the prior two years, he brought back a lot of concepts that we've been incorporating. A lot of cool seating that we've seen in London, Norway, that we're going to be doing that's going to be able to be interchanged depending on the functionality for that space rather than having static benches there that will be maybe in the way or not be conducive to what we think will be occurring there. I mean, one, we want it inviting. One, we love the idea of the, even though it's called Camp Fire, the whole idea of the creation of people coming together for eons and how it's situated from the fountain has been, I think, very important to us. But how we look at probably having public pop-ups or we're going to have, you know, Lemonade Day or Snow Cone Day or Margarita Day or whatever, we're going to, we're going to be unlike any other building. We're not unlike the centene building. We're trying to get people invited to our building in the lobby. And I think our artwork and what we're doing throughout the building is indicative of what we're trying to achieve. And we think this, we went through a lot of pieces. I know Willie's on, on the zoom, but we went through a of pieces and it wasn't until we got to this where the seven people on our group said, individually, not all into said this is the piece. So for a lot of different reasons, but I think it complements what we're trying to do in our corner. And we're excited about how that plaza is going to be a public plaza.

I like the piece. I think it'll be interesting.

Kami?

I like it too, just a quick question. So the ceiling that it is under, like what is that ceiling height? Because this is what, 10 feet? Well, the art piece is 10 feet. So what is the?

We're 18 feet to that where you see kind of the wood. And that wood runs from inside the building all the way throughout. So the wood looks like it's extruding from the buildings. there is another roof where you see this indentation where you can partly, there's another roof that's like 30 feet. So it's not completely, it's still covered, but still open based on that.

Okay. Yeah. Cause the scale of this one just seems to dwarf it a

little bit. There's another shot potentially same image perspective, but.

Okay. Yeah, I

mean. We actually went through Originally, we're looking at doing a taller piece. We actually mocked something up on a Saturday and we decided the 10 foot, eight foot was too small. And the 10 foot was a good two thirds. Yeah, that looks much better. You can see that other, you see the other taller. It's not going to give it really any protection. It just feels more of a coverage. So, but the other, that other roof is at 18. So that gives you a perspective.

And just the last question, the color of the lights is it will it be mostly campfire colors are we going to have like other I guess you have the option to always do whatever colors but in general, is it going to have like the campfire orange red glow most of the time or

will you might want to jump here and here on this but I think that's something the artist is still working on. Okay, that correct.

Yeah, I think that's open to discussion. And I think that you're right. I think it will most likely be colors that relate to the campfire. But I think as the piece is installed and we see it in different times of year and different times of day, that can be altered. And so I think speaking to the committees, the committee, you know, the Vegas versus this sort of more subtle light it's definitely be a subtle light that will enhance the space and not really draw attention that that is, you know, in a disparaging way. And I'd also just like to add I mean. I think that Meredith and Scott have spoken specifically to the piece, but I'd just like to inform the committee that working with Scott and Jim Coleman, the developers, and Meredith, we worked really hard to identify the best possible piece for this corner. And we led the developers, Meredith and myself, led the developers through a really extensive search for artists. And this piece was vetted from many capable candidates. and that we're confident that it is and will be the perfect piece for this corner. We're pleased to have the full support of the Public Arts Advisory Committee. I think that was very important for us to speak to them and get their input. And we really believe it's gonna be a great compliment to the piece that Commerce chose from their collection, the Barbara Hepworth, which will be installed at the entrance of the East Tower. So I think that it was an extensive search. And I think we, as Scott said, we landed on the right thing. So I'm glad you guys like it.

Thank you. I did have a question about security. If people come up and touch it, can these 12 pieces actually move?

No, they can't. And we've actually had some discussions with the artist about maintenance and conservation. He's already provided us with good instructions on how to keep it clean, how to keep it safe, you know, how to take care of it over time. And he's providing a two-year warranty on the piece as well, which is really fantastic, so that if anything does happen in that first, you know, couple of years with the piece, that he'll be here to make it make it work but no there it's intended to be very fixed and it will be very fixed on site

is this piece commissioned for this location or is it being relocated

it is being as a new piece it's being commissioned he has created other pieces in this series uh but this is the only piece of this scale and is being created specifically for this site

thank you david

i like it i think it's gonna be a neat intersection with chapman plaza across the street with the lights that they have there. So especially at night, this being one of the major entrances and really exits from our downtown, I think it's going to be probably the most striking corner we have in town once both of those are lit up. So I think it's pretty cool.

Any other comments?

I have a

question. Can you guys hear me finally?

Yeah, Carolyn. Yes.

Thank you. Oh my God. Computer issues. I have a question about, it seems like the sculpture is more or less standalone and not really, you're not providing seating around it or any kind of interaction with it. So I kind of wonder about that. Like what's the value of it just being Can you describe a little bit more of what you're thinking?

Carolyn, this is Scott Haley. I'm not sure if you heard me speaking earlier. Sure. We did not want to put static seating, secured seating in that plaza because we have many different ideas on how that would function both on a day-to-day as well as after work or even evenings. We do have conceptual seating that we have been investigating that Jim has seen and we've seen and been vetting that it would be interchangeable, movable to allow for different settings and different events and different activities. We are going to have seating out there. It's just going to be in a different realm. We are going we are contemplating putting some more permanent seating along the Brentwood side on that, under the arcade or near that arcade there, that would be a more permanent basis. But our intent is to make really activate, God, I love to say that word, activate this intersection and having the multiple different, you know, seating that's gonna allow us to create that, I think will be, make the Art Plaza very enjoyable

Right, but you're not showing it, right? You're saying it, but you're actually drawing it or showing it to us right

now. We are here for the art piece. The seating is important, but I think that we're certainly not showing it in this context.

Okay. To me, I

understand what you're trying to get to, Me it's about creating space right. So if you're not actually showing us what space you're creating, then I don't know how to. review it. Steve you might have commentary on that, but it feels like all right there's a piece of sculpture and. It's pretty cool, but how do we interact with it and how do we approve it? How do we decipher if it's benefiting the city, frankly?

Carolyn, following up on what you said, I look at it as a piece of sculpture that accentuates that corner. That corner used to be a parking lot And of course, the other three corners have the fountain in Shaw Park and two other completed corners. So I saw this one as relating to the park and being a standalone sort of monument on this intersection that I really didn't see any seats being needed around it. In fact, I felt if there were seating around it, then it becomes more like a campfire that we've all known as kids. But I thought the seating would take away from the actual appearance of the sculpture. So I feel comfortable with it in that location. without any permanent seats around it. Hopefully people will see it, want to walk around it, see it from different angles, look through it, see the different colors, maybe seeing the sunlight reflect off of it at various times. So hopefully it will have a lot of change built into it, even though it doesn't move.

Okay, I can see that point. I think if it draws people in, right? I mean, it's not just a piece for people to be like, oh, that's cool, which is fine. But I mean, do people, what does it draw people into? I guess this is a question I

had.

Hopefully this development will spur on more pedestrian activity on both North Brentwood and Forsyth. Hopefully we'll see retail and other uses come in when the building is completed, and this could then be a focal point for pedestrian activity, as well as a focal point for cars driving by. So I see a lot of potential opportunity for it to be seen and related to by people either on foot or by car.

Thank you. Thanks, Carolyn. Other comments? Well, we do have a staff recommendation

to approve the art piece. And do we have a motion to that effect? I move to

adopt the staff recommendation to approve of the art piece.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Carolyn, were you an aye?

I am an aye, yes. Thank

you. Okay. Well, it's passed. Thank you, Meredith and Scott. When will this be installed?

We can't hear them.

Scott was explaining, it'll be four to five months to build transport and install the piece. And so it'll depend a little bit on the site's readiness as well as the weather. So if we can catch it before the end of the year, then it'll install before the end of year, if not in the spring.

Okay. Thank you. Good luck with it. We look forward to seeing it in position.

Okay.

Let's see, do we have anyone

for 7601 Westmoreland? Well, I would recommend that we continue this also.

I'll make a motion to continue 7601 Westmoreland Avenue to the next meeting. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Okay.

I think we've come to the end of our agenda. There's no one else in the room, in the audience at least. And from staff, do we have anything else we need tonight? Nothing else

tonight.

Amy?

No comment.

Ellen?

Nothing.

Bob? Nothing. David?

Nothing further.

Okay. Well, with that, we are adjourned and we can turn off the recording.