♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Okay, good evening. I'd like to welcome you to the October 24th, 2007, public hearing of the Board of Artificial Review. We appreciate all of you who are in attendance here today. I'm Clyde Carpenter. I'm currently the Chair of the Board of Artificial Review, and we have three other members of the Board here with us this afternoon, and I'll ask them to introduce themselves, beginning over here. Jack Ballard. Derek Wingfield. Jim Dickinson. The Board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park. We now have a total of 14 historic districts. The Board, which is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use this office as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street in Room 220. As I proceed here to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda, in each case, we will have a presentation by the staff, and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application, and then hear comments from other interested parties in the audience. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you are in the audience and you wish to speak to the Board, we will ask that you come forward to the microphone down here in front and state your name and address to the public record. We would also like to ask you, if you plan to speak before the Board, to sign in on the sign-in sheet, which is located on the counter near the entrance door by the door, so that the information can be properly reported correctly. There are certain items that the staff can approve limiting necessity for all applicants to appear before the Board. There are a total of five staff approvals this afternoon, and I would like to note the following staff approvals before we can begin our review of applications. This afternoon we have staff approvals in the South Hill Historic District, 340 South Broadway, landscape of the site. In Aylesford, at 465 Euclid Avenue, rebuild the dormer and chimney, and at 168 Woodland Avenue, renovate the structure and remove trees. In the Northside Historic District, at 431 West 2nd Street, install railing. And finally, in Belcourt, 521 East Main Street, tough point the wall. These applications have already been approved, and I have noted that really for the past six months, we have been approving a number of cases at the staff level. And so the process is moving forward, and these people already have their applications and certificates of appropriateness. We have several items on the agenda this afternoon that do require public hearing, and these are certificate of appropriateness applications. In some cases, the staff has recommended approval with no conditions or with minor conditions, and we will go down the agenda this afternoon and see if we can dispose of some of these cases without having to hear them. If the applicants are agreeable with the staff findings, we will be able to go on and approve these items without having a full public hearing. So the first item on the agenda in the Grants Park Historic District, this is item number one on the agenda, 253 Market Street, change of roofing material. Is the applicant here? Just arrived. The staff has recommended approval as submitted, and I assume that you're in agreement with that. Yes, sir. Greg Fitzsimons, 112 West 3rd Street. I've read the staff recommendations and agreement with those. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make any comments about this proposal? Okay. Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the issuance of the COA for 253 Market Street. Is there a second? Second. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you very much. Thank you. In South Hill at 410, 420 Lawrence Street, convert office space to a single loft. That's item number two on our agenda. The applicant is here. Would you please give us your name and address? Good evening. I'm Robert Trujillo, 150 Forest Avenue. Have you had an opportunity to read the staff report? Yes, I have. The staff has recommended approval with, I believe, with the condition. Are you in agreement with that? Absolutely. Good. Anyone in the audience like to make any comments about this particular application? Okay. Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of the COA for 410, 420 Lawrence Street. Second. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you. All right. The third item on our agenda, item number three, is in Mulberry Hill Historic District, 442 North Limestone Renovated Garage. Is that applicant present? No, he's not, but he has read the recommendations and he has said that he was going to put the electricity underground anyway, and he was. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion to approve on this case with a condition. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the COA for 442 North Limestone Street, subject to the CEQA condition in the staff report. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. 168 Woodland Avenue. In A.L. Historic District, that's item number four. The application is to construct an addition. Is that applicant present? Give us your name and address, please. Lynn Pettigo, 347 South Upper Street. Have you read the report? Yes, I have. Are you in agreement with the recommendation? Yes, I am. Good. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to make comments about this proposal or this application? Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of the COA for 168 Woodland Avenue, subject to the single condition listed in the staff report. Second. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. I believe the next three items. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I believe the next three items are probably going to require. I believe so. Yes. Okay. Yeah. The next three items on the agenda, I think we will have to hear. The staff has recommended approval on one of these, but I think there may be some people here who would like to talk about that. And that is in the Seven Parks Historic District, that's item number five on our agenda. And the proposal is to install a traffic calming plan. So we have received letters in support and opposition of this, and we'll have a staff report on this. And let me say that if you're here on this application and you want to make comments, we're going to limit your comments to three minutes, which we will be timing because we want to keep the meeting going. So Amelia. I would like to first just sort of go over the area where the traffic calming elements are proposed to be installed. And in this area, there are proposed bulb-out extensions. This is on Dantzler Avenue looking towards the west of the street. Down in this location are two other proposed bulb-out extensions. In this area, there are proposed bulb-out extensions in this location. So there will be a total of four on Dantzler towards the end and towards the end of where the street splits off. This is Barbary, and there will be a total of four bulb-out extensions on this street. One in this location, and then one on this location on this other opposite side. Again, this is sort of looking towards Nicholsville Road. The proposed one in this location, then over in this location. And again, this is looking from Nicholsville Road. And so there will be one, I believe, in this location, and one down in this location. Amelia, about what time of day did you take these pictures? Or was it a weekend or a weekday? No, this was on Monday and midday. Okay. This is on Arcadia, and this is sort of showing the view towards Nicholsville Road. And the bulb-outs will be, there will be only two sets of bulb-outs. And so they'll be in this location and on this location down here. And then this is looking, going west on Arcadia. And there's already an island here, as you can see in the foreground. And there will be the proposed other traffic island will be down towards the other end of this island. This is looking towards Arcadia on the, this is the north side, looking towards the north side. And the bulb-out, the traffic island, excuse me, will be located in this area. This is on Elizabeth, and there's proposed a race traffic circle by Bulberry, I mean, Barberry, right by the FedEx truck. And then there will also be a little dividing island that's going to be mounted to concrete that will be able to be driven over. And again, this is looking north, and this is the intersection of Barberry and Elizabeth. And the traffic island will be low concrete with a raised concrete in the center circle island. So it can be, parts of it can be driven over. And then this is, again, the area of Elizabeth and Barberry where, and down away, there will be two bulb-out extensions proposed to be connected to the islands in the foreground here. The Southern Parks and Neighborhood Association has been working with engineers from the Department of U.K. and the Traffic Engineering, and help for regulating traffic. And they have come up with this proposal. They've actually had this plan reviewed by other visions of LFUCG, such as sanitary sewer. And then they've also had the Fayette County School System come by to look at this plan to see if they can get their school buses around this area. And also fire and emergency have also been looked into, and it appears that they all have signed off on this plan. And these divisions provide input, and so we saw a conceptual review back in May or in June, and this plan has brought them back to only these particular elements. The crosswalks will be painted at all intersections of Arcadia Park for pedestrian traffic in these locations. And it's not quite known at this time if the traffic elements will be landscaped or what type of material will be used for the truck apron itself in some parts of the directional island. The proposed elements will be similar. All the bulb out extensions will be 4 to 6 inches, similar to curbs, and they will be set off about a foot away from the actual curb to help for water. We can show some of those details. So here are the proposed traffic islands at Elizabeth and Dantzler. And this is the traffic circle with the directional island that's mountable concrete. And this is at the corner of Barbary and Elizabeth. And this is at the north Arcadia. This is the existing island already, and this is where this kidney-shaped new proposed traffic island would be going. These are the bulb out extensions, or called chicanas, and they'll sit off a bit from the curb to allow water flow. To be clear, what you're calling a bulb is what they're calling a traffic island. Is that right? Well, these are called the chicanas, and I'm not quite sure if I'm saying it correctly. Okay. These elements here, which are half-moon circles, they're going to be raised about 4 to 6 inches, similar to your curb that you would have along here. They would sit off a ways to allow water to go through. Okay, so it's not going to be attached directly to the curb itself? No, it's going to sit off, so about maybe, and you can maybe clear this up. So how far is it intruding into the street itself? It would intrude enough that it's going to be a foot to 18 inches away from the curb, and so there would be enough that would slow down two-way traffic here is the whole intention of this. So you would drive up, and you would have to allow, what car over here would have to sort of stop far enough back to allow this car through and allow another car through. Now, parking is permitted on the? On the south side of the street. Okay. North side is no parking. So if there are cars parked near that protrusion, the street's barely wide enough to handle two cars side by side anyway, correct? So they just have to navigate around each other? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Mandy, if we can have the next slide. Oh, that's it? Okay. Thank you. Guidelines are included for the reference. By means of proposal to install traffic calming islands into this neighborhood are appropriate within the guidelines. Guidelines 14-2, 14-3, and 14-5 respectively state, new surfaces alterations to existing paved surfaces should be compatible with the surrounding and historic properties and principal and accessory structures. Significantly historic sidewalks, curbs, street patterns, and paving materials should be retained, maintained. New paved surfaces should not be visually dominant, and tree surface suggests false sense of history. The Seven Parks neighborhood has existing islands, and the installation of additional islands is within the guidelines. The neighborhood has various curvilinear streets, and the plan seems to have enhanced the curvilinear nature of the streets. The traffic calming plan is not visually dominant to the streetscape. In addition, the Woodward Heights neighborhood has many of these same features that will be implemented in this area. Staff would only ask that if the plans change once the traffic elements are marked and any changes need to come back to staff. The recommendation staff recommends approval with any changes to come back to staff or board as needed. And the applicant's here. Would the applicant like to come forward? You do not have to give us your name and address. Nick Stamatiaris, 125 Barbary Lane. Do you have any additional comments to make? Yes, and I can elaborate a little bit more on some of the elements that your staff person had presented, because I'm the one who developed the plan for the area. Right. And I'll be more than happy to answer any questions that you might have. Just for the record, all curb extensions, let's call them that way, they will be two feet off the existing curb to allow for adequate water drainage. We have not made any decisions in the landscaping, as we've had before. And on the issue about the parking, there will be no parking in the vicinity of those curb extensions in Dantzler, Barbary, and Arcadia. And there is enough, the way that these things have been designed, it's enough for two vehicles to cross paths within that area, so they will be able to navigate between those areas. So not, we don't stop one vehicle for another to come by, but both of them can cross paths within the same area. And it's been designed so at least to accommodate one side, what we call a single unit track, which is practically- I'm sorry, slow down just a hair. Sure. I'm having trouble understanding you. I mean, I assume that I'm not bound by the three minute regulation. No, no, you're not. Okay, very good. My question was whether or not two cars could pass each other with that bulb there, or would one have to slow down and stop to wait for the other car to pass? The way that these things have been designed is adequate for two vehicles to cross right at the middle of that bulb out. Thank you. We can see if there are any questions that the board members have. Okay. Mr. Dickinson, do you have any more questions? Did you want to solicit input from the audience first? Well, I think the order is that we answer questions and then we solicit input. Okay. Not at this time, no. Mr. Wainfield? It might not have been clear during the background information presented. I just wanted to make it clear that there was a conceptual review for this plan. I don't remember if it was earlier this year or it was late last year, but it has gone through the conceptual review process. Just wanted to get that on the record. If I remember correctly, there was some time in March or April. At that point, we were still in the process of getting some discussion with the LHCG various divisions, so that's why it was a conceptual review at that point. I don't believe I have any other. Just a question about the conceptual review. I wasn't present. I think I was out of town. Was the conceptual review favorable generally to the proposal, or do you remember? Yes. As all conceptuals are, it was very informal. If I recall correctly, the plan and the reasoning behind the plan was very well presented, and if I recall, there hasn't been a whole lot of change between the conceptual review and what's presented tonight. Right. Okay. Good. Mr. Mallard? None at this time. Okay. I don't think I have any questions either. I've looked at the proposal, and I think I understand what is happening. Would you like to make any more comments? We'll see if there are comments from the audience. The only thing, I have a couple of rendered pictures that will show what the roundabout would look like and also what some of the bulb outs would look like if you care to see those. Do you have images of them? Well, I have them in here, and they can be brought up. Yes, sure. We'd like to. Okay. Thank you. Are we? The presentation was a little bit more elaborate because it was planning to address a number of different issues. If you mind, can you go to the next one? The next one, please. And we've seen, Amelia saw this slide or a similar kind of a concept. The next one, please. And, again, the idea behind it is we tried to work very closely with the LFUCD on a number of different issues and tried to develop alternatives. And if we move to the next slide, you probably are aware, and you've read some of the elements, that we have a number of spots throughout the area that the posted speed limit sign of 25 miles per hour has been exceeded. We did what we call an origin destination study where we actually had people at various places at the entrances and the exits of the neighborhood, and we've documented that about 70% of the traffic on Elizabeth Street, both at the morning and the afternoon peak periods, is actually traveling through the neighborhood as opposed to be traffic from the neighborhood. And that exceeds sometimes several hundred vehicles. Next one. And if you click, if you keep on, there's a little bit of an animation that shows you how the traffic moves through. And the next one, this is the points where we actually did our study for the cut-through traffic. Next. And that is where the LFUCD study identified where the speeding areas are for that particular neighborhood. The next one gives you an idea of what we are proposing. And the traffic counting devices that we are installing, if you click on the next one, please, those are the areas where we are addressing actually the speeding elements with the ones that we are introducing. And if you go one more, that's the areas where we will address in the cut-through. So it's a combination of different issues that we are addressing at the same time with the various elements. Next. And to give you an idea, as we talked about, the Belbat or the curb extensions is something that we are using, the directional islands, and as we said earlier, the crossroads will be colored. Next. As far as the speeding, we are considering traffic circles against some directional islands and the median island that will be introduced on Arcadia. Next, please. What we also considered throughout this process was alternative ways that we can affect the traffic and we don't have to go through some of those new constructible elements. And we looked at stop signs, four-way or two-way stop signs, and our conclusion was that there's two things. First of all, they don't meet the warrants that they require the placement of stop signs throughout the neighborhood. And then what our research experience tells us is that those things are ineffective because if you have a lot of stop signs one after another at an intersection, people will typically stop at the stop sign, but then they will race until they will make it to the next one, and then they will keep on doing the same thing. We've also examined for speed humps or speed bumps, but the current position of the LFUCG Traffic Engineering Division is that they will move away from those because of problems with school buses, snow plows, and a number of different issues. So, again, that becomes not one of those usable elements. The next one, please. That gives you a little bit of a timeline that, you know, it's a plan that has been well thought over almost a year now as we move through the process. And the thing that I want to spend a moment to talk about, and Amelia highlighted that, in July we went with the division of police, the fire, the school, and the sanitation, and we set up these devices on the ground in the parking lot of the LFUCG, and we had them drive through it so we can demonstrate that they are appropriate and they are capable of doing, and we had even trucks crossing paths with vehicles. And that's where it was my comment that we were able to document that everything works, or at least the way that has been conceived here, it will work with what we have in place. The next one, please. A question at this point. There was a notation of a neighborhood ballot on your timeline. Right. Did you actually do that? No. If you go back one slide. What was done in February, we talked, we presented the plan to the neighborhood before we had. When you say you presented to the neighborhood. We had a public meeting at the neighborhood. How many people attended? About 70-some people. 70-some people? Yeah. I mean, I have the information here, but I think if I remember correctly, it was about 70 people. Is there a neighborhood, is there one neighborhood association for seven parks? Right. Okay. There is one. Do you know how many people belong to that association? Well, we know that there are about 170-some households. Now, you know. And is the neighborhood association formally in support of this plan? The president is here, and we can talk about it. Okay. She can address it. I'm not going to interrupt you or the president. I'll come to that later. Right. Well, all in all, the comments that we received at that point from that meeting, they were positive. We had to make some minor changes that they were included in the submittal that we did sometime in March. And then also, as correctly Mr. Winfield identified, there haven't been some significant changes between the conceptual and the final design, some minor modifications that were a result of the July trials that we did, especially for the fire tracks because they had required some new fairly long tracks. Next one. And again, the basic idea, all the entrances along Nicholasville Road, we are recommending to have some painted crosswalks. And the emphasis is to demonstrate to the drivers that they are leaving a fairly high-speed facility and then moving into a residential lower-speed area. Next. The bulb outs at the Elizabeth Street, as we said before, they will try to address both issues, the cut-through and the speeding. And again, just to reiterate, those are going to be approximately two feet from the existing curb lines. They will match the curb lines as the curb height as it is. And at the same time, they will have an approximately eight foot, six or eight feet, depending on the element height at the widest point. The next one. The traffic circle at Elizabeth, again, is to provide some speeding relief and slow people down. At the same time, we want to provide a consistent message throughout the neighborhood that this is a residential area. And if we move to the next one, that gives you an idea. And again, mind you that this is an artistic rendering. We're not advocating that it will have that kind of a landscaping or that color on the concrete, but that gives you an idea of what this traffic circle would look like. You see two different things here. You see the central island, which at this point has some kind of a low hedge, which it will be unmountable. And then we have the red, what we call apron, where ambulances, trucks, school bus and everybody else, they will be able to drive on so they will be able to complete their turning maneuvers. So it's to facilitate those, while vehicles, automobiles, in this case, they will be forced to slow down and negotiate these turns at a slower pace. Next. We talk about the chicanes. As we said, the three areas, they will be addressing speeding and cut through, and we are recommending on Barbary and Dantzler two sets of those and only one set on Arcadia. Fairly back from the intersection with Nicholasville to allow for any possible traffic backup. Next. That gives you, again, an idea of what those bulb outs would look like. And, again, the landscaping, it may not be what we will eventually have, but that gives you how much offset they will be, what's their height, and you can see that there's still enough space for two vehicles to cross paths. A question. Will, are you going to restrict the parking that's immediately parallel to the, how do you pronounce it, chicana? Chicane. Chicane. Are you going to restrict parking on that side of the chicane? Let me see. For example, if there's a car park there. Okay. Parking will be restricted from the top of the chicane all the way down here. So there will be no parking in between those areas. So you're eliminating. We'll be eliminating in the way that we have placed three parking spots per pair. Now, I'm not that familiar with the neighborhood. Is that local parking or is that student parking? Well, we haven't done a license plate matching, but some of that will be local parking. Other is people that they work at various locations, either at the university or at the hospital, and they leave their vehicles there throughout the day. Okay. Thank you. Sure. So, again, if we move on to the next one, if we don't have any questions. The Arcadia Park, this, again, is what the directional island would look like. That has been saved in a way that will delineate movements through the intersection, and also we are proposing some painting to be done at the same time or striping on the lanes so it will clearly indicate how the traffic will be able to move. The two different colors, the gray color will be a mountable entry to that island simply to allow for bigger vehicles to be able to negotiate the cairn, while the green part will be raised, again, to match the curb height. Next. So, in general, as I said, we have worked very closely both with the LFUCG and also with the neighborhood to come up with a plan that will be acceptable to all. We don't have any landscaping ideas, at least at this point, and that's something that probably we'll have to come back to the staff, as we've heard earlier, for approval once we decide and get things done. Next one. So, the bottom line is that, you know, being a resident of the neighborhood, I have firsthand experienced both the speeding and the cut-through problems that the neighborhood experiences that have been well-documented both with the LFUCG study as well as ours. We do believe that the devices that we have installed are appropriate. Both our research and experience recommends that, and as we've earlier heard, those are within the historic constraints. I'll be more than happy to answer any additional questions that any of you might have. Okay, thank you. I need to remind everyone here that the purpose of this hearing is not to talk about the merits of the traffic proposal itself, whether that's a good idea or not. We're simply here to review the design aspects of what is being proposed, and the question is not for us to pass judgment on the traffic engineering aspects of this proposal. That's not really within our purview. We can make comments on the design aspects of the elements that have been proposed to regulate the traffic. So, when we as a board and when people in the audience speak to this, we're not going to be allowing, or we should not be allowing ourselves to debate the merits of the proposal on any other terms other than the aesthetics that are involved. If I understand what our legal counsel is advising me. So, I hope everybody understands that. So, if you want to speak to the board, or if we want to ask questions, we're really talking about the aesthetics, and the traffic engineering obviously is a generator and a motivator behind the design proposal, but our purview, our area of responsibility, is to really talk about the aesthetic issues that are involved. All right. Should we hear from other people, I guess, in the audience? Do you all have any questions? Okay. All right. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this proposal? Okay. You have three minutes, and if you'll give us your name and address, please. My name is Michael Rush. I live at 1605 Elizabeth Street, which is at the intersection of Elizabeth and Dantzler. As you saw here, and I'm not sure if this fits the purvey after your last comment, so correct me if I'm wrong. You can make comments about the aesthetic aspects of it, but we're not here to discuss the aesthetics. The utilitarian aspects. In other words, if I can no longer back a vehicle out of a driveway due to a bulb, that's an issue. Is that within the realm of this, or is that, and if not, what is the proper form for that? It's not. Traffic engineering here in the urban county government would be the spot to go and take those concerns, which either in writing or in person or both, because it will be under their purview to determine exact location and things like functionality issues such as you would like to provide. As well with neighborhood flooding problems. I know we've talked about that and how they won't cause flooding. That also would be engineering. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Other people? Yes. Thank you. I'm Anne Mernice Stamatiatis. I live at 125 Barbary Lane, and aesthetically speaking, things like traffic circles and chicanas where you can put landscaping definitely make the streets and roads more appealing, and I think that does make overall the streets and the neighborhood a much more attractive place. I've been in neighborhoods in Seattle where they have done wonderful things with traffic calming devices, and I've been very attracted to this kind of stuff. So I think it is aesthetically pleasing to neighborhoods to have this. Thank you. Thank you very much. Other comments from the audience? Yes. If you'd be kind enough to give us your name, and we're limiting comments from the audience to three minutes, and we're happy to hear from you. Nancy Stingo, 114 Arcadia Park. I've lived at this address 21 years and 53 years in the general area. I very strongly support this from an aesthetic view. This is a historic district, and I think the landscaping and the way it will be laid out will be a very positive attribute for the neighborhood just from an appearance standpoint, and I won't make other comments to limit myself as you instructed, but I do support this as a beautiful improvement to a historic district. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience would like to make comments about this? Yes. My name is Kelly Cole, 300 Arcadia Park, and I would also like to throw in my vote of approval aesthetically. I've driven down Madison Place, I believe is the name of the street, by Rupp Arena. It has the curb bump outs, and those homes are also older, and I think that street is beautiful, so I welcome these changes. Thank you so much. Anyone else in the audience would like to make comments about this application? Okay. Do members of the board have any more questions or comments? Mr. Chair, I think it was referenced earlier that there have been several letters submitted with regard to this case. Just for the record, I'd sort of like to tally those quickly. I believe that there's one letter submitted supporting the proposal and two against the proposal. All right. Any more comments or questions from the board? No. I have a question for the staff. I'm just actually trying to do a record development here is all I'm trying to do. I honestly cannot recall what we did with that court. Did we finally approve a calming plan for them? Did we just go through a conceptual review? Right. And it didn't go any further. It didn't go any further than that. Okay. And being that what they were pursuing was not a landscaping approach, but at that time they were looking at various things, but that they ended up only talking about in seriousness the bumps. Humps, actually. Thank you. Thank you. That would not have been a landscape issue. Okay. I was just trying to recall what we had done because they were proposing humps and then it just never came back to us for further evaluation. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from the board? No. The staff has recommended approval with the condition that any changes that are necessary in the process of the evolution of this come back to the staff and or the board. If there are no further comments, the chair will be glad to entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the COA for the Seven Parks neighborhood, case 01180125B, subject to the single condition listed in the staff report. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? I had a couple comments. I won't vote in favor of this proposal. I was initially concerned when there might have been insufficient neighborhood input into the plan, but I gather from the presentation that this plan was presented to a call neighborhood meeting of which 70 people were present, and although I don't see a formal letter from the neighborhood association, I'm assuming from the comments made today that the association is supporting this plan. And for that reason, since the neighborhood seems to be online with it and the staff has recommended its approval, I'm going to vote in favor of it. Any other comments or discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you all very much. I appreciate your coming. All right. The next item on the agenda, number six, Woodward Heights Historic District, 356 Moreno Street. The application is to install a storage shed, and the staff has recommended tabling this motion. I assume the applicant is present. Yes. Okay. And I suppose you had a chance to read the staff report. Yes, I have. Yeah. Okay. And the staff has recommended tabling it, I guess, to address some of the issues that were raised, and I guess the question is whether you would want us to table this or whether you would want us to go ahead and hear it. I would like your thoughts on the options, I guess. Okay. And my name is Diane King, and I live at 356 Moreno, number 101. Okay. I guess we'll go ahead and have a presentation. Okay. This is the house at 356 Moreno. The applicant is the new owner of the first floor, that's unit 101, of this duplex constructed in 2004, which has since been condoed. In the process of condoing, the two-car garage became the property of the owner of the second floor of the structure. Therefore, the applicant is looking for storage space that could normally be found within a garage. At this time, the applicant is requesting that the board grant a COA to establish an 8-foot, excuse me, install an 8-foot by 12-foot by 8-foot 10-inch high storage shed on the concrete patio immediately adjacent to the rear door and beneath the second floor deck. The storage shed would be located 12 inches off the rear wall of the main structure and would extend some 12 inches past the pining of the building's north facade. As outlined on the attached new elevation, it would virtually cover the window of the laundry room. The proposed mid-structure is to be constructed on the steel floor joist system, having tongue and groove, OSB flooring, textured 111 side, asphalt shingles, and composite trim boards. The single door is to be located on the 12-foot wall. No windows are proposed. The findings of proposal to erect an outbuilding for storage purposes found appropriate within the guidelines have the manner by which seen as accomplished requires careful study and consideration. The proposed shed, which is to be located within 12 inches of the main structure and beneath the second floor deck, is to project some 12 inches outside the pining of the main structure's north wall. It would virtually cover the rear window of the main structure. It has a gable roof and an existing rectangular space. We'll have its floor system, the north ledge, can be levered above the existing grade without a foundation and is proposed to have a vertical-style siding adjacent to the main structure's horizontal siding. All this is not found to be in accordance with guidelines noted above. Reference the appropriateness to the site compatible with adjacent structures, the placement on the site, and the relational details to adjacent surrounding structures. Typically, outbuildings are located at the rear corner of the property. Staff recommendation is the case be tabled at this time. There is one letter in your packet from the owner of the condo on the second floor in favor of what was going to be done. Yes, it's here. Thank you. Ms. King, would you like to make any comments? We understand your dilemma in needing to have more storage space, and the staff in their report has raised several areas of concern, and so we'd like to hear whatever you have to say. Well, I arrived at this particular proposal after looking at a lot of different options. I looked at prefab units. I was not calling them sheds, but somehow that word worked its way in, because I didn't want a garden shed type of thing. This is for bicycles and other things that actually need some security as well. I mean, if it were just plastic, it wouldn't look good and also wouldn't be very secure. This was the only one that I could find at Home Depot and Lowe's that would allow a side door. Other models would have the door at the end, which would be exposed to the elements, et cetera. So this is a proposal to go with the prefab unit. I did not want to build something that was more permanent and that was actually attached to the structure. That would be, I guess, with a different goal in mind. So I'm basically looking for, at this point, since this has been tabled, I'm interested in your input and advice, and what would you do in my situation? I have two parking places in the back that are next to the garage. I wouldn't be opposed to even building a garage next to my upstairs neighbor's garage. I don't know how he would feel about that. But I am not an architect. I don't have any training in this area, and so I would like your advice on options. We haven't tabled it yet. That was just a recommendation. Okay. Thank you. We'll see if there are questions from the Board and possibly if we have some suggestions to make or comments about how this might be done. Mr. Ballard? Just a couple of questions. I'm familiar with the house, and I think it's very well done. Is there sufficient area on the site to expand the garage to get you two parking spaces in the same form, or is that even a possibility? I do have them. I have two parking spaces. No, but I mean in terms of expanding the existing garage, or I don't know. I haven't really gone. I looked at your proposal, but I didn't go over and look at the site in terms of where you might fill the garage or that might be more in keeping with the existing garage or whether that's too expansive. I think if we could see those pictures. I don't remember if there's one that shows the garage, but basically there's a large two-car garage. That's the square. And then on either side of those, I have a parking place. Certainly the structure could be added on to. I haven't talked to Jack, the upstairs, the owner of the garage, about this at all. I was just asking. Yeah. From my point of view, I don't know why not. It might be a building code issue that you can't get that close to the adjacent property line or the setbacks or some of those sorts of things. And I don't know whether it would be too much site coverage from the guidelines, just exploring the issue because I didn't really look at it. I do imagine it would be a pretty tight turn to get a vehicle in. Well, I don't know if we're talking about a vehicle, but if it is a garage, then it should have the option of allowing a vehicle to come in. Into the one on the left, looking at the diagram this way. And it would cover, it would take away some green space. That was also one thing I was thinking of was trying to, I just wanted to put the storage unit on the cement because I didn't want to reduce the green any further than it's already been reduced by the amount of cement that's already there. So, yes, this is one of the spaces. You can see the end of the car right there. That's one of the spaces. So, and the other one is out of view here. The storage shed you're proposing is kind of a temporary building. It's not a permanent sort of thing. Right. It's a fully enclosed. I'm familiar with the ones that Lowe's and Home Depot have. Yeah. This is the highest end one at Lowe's and Home Depot. I mean, it's very well built. Yes, it is. Can it be painted and match the structure and all those sort of things? Yes, absolutely. I'm proposing that it match the house. I don't know. We've never dealt with a temporary. It's not a permanent structure per se. They're ready made, but they are not considered temporary. They arrive as a unit, but they become part of the site. They can be picked up and relocated, but temporary is only something with a limited time span, you know, three months or less or something like that. And in that scenario, it's not temporary because she's planning for ongoing use. Sure. Okay. If it were truly something temporary, the process wouldn't review it. Okay. Do you have any? I'll yield for the moment. I think of that as a strong field. I think I have two options. Martin or Emilio, could you speak to how close to the lot line, like a small shed addition could come off the garage? As far as building inspection is concerned, anything less than 120 square feet does not need to go to them. Well, I think I. . . So in effect, if indeed and typically these sheds are usually toward the back corner of the lot, if indeed she is willing to give up one parking slot to put that structure there. I think I was actually talking. . . I don't know how to do this. Perhaps if. . . Can I add something? This poses a bit of an issue as far as building onto the garage because she doesn't actually own the garage. And so building onto a garage that she doesn't own is not necessarily something that is going to be easy to review to building inspection because of the fire rating issues. In condo situations such as this, it's going to be into a lot more discussion with building inspection to have this happen because while it seems a very small issue, building onto somebody else's property or building. . . I think it can be solved fairly easily with a permanent easement. I guess my. . . I have two basic ideas. One, well, I think the. . . I didn't think. . . I didn't think you were talking about building onto the garage. Yes. Yeah, I don't think. . . I don't think the setbacks on the lot would allow that. Is there a location on the lot that's acceptable to put this prefabricated building? What's this? Right where it is? No, like further back on the lot or where, as you were headed, where one of her cars is, one of her parking spaces is, to put it back on the far corner of the lot rather than adjacent to the house. I could see. I'm thinking that that would work. So that would not be a guideline issue in your all's mind? Make it compatible and paint it to match the garage and the other buildings? That's the way sheds usually work, you know, to the very back. And I'm not saying we. . . They would be watching it for as far as if there's any easements, but I think the way that property line, that survey shows that it would work. If the process has approved on other properties, some of these other areas. . . Oh, some of these prefabricated. Out in the yard spaces. Oh, okay. Usually toward the back part of the property, but I think a serious look could be given to finding a spot within the yard space for something such as this within the guidelines. I think personally it would be much nicer not having it, like, jammed up next to your outdoor space. I mean, if. . . Could we hear what Mr. Wainfield was going to say? Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. No, that's okay. We're fine. My only other suggestion, if giving some sort of permanent easement and building, like, a small. . . Basically what would appear, for all intents and purposes, to be a small shed addition off of the garage to the east or west is out of the question. Maybe just a small room type thing. Is everyone following what I'm saying? Okay. If that's not doable, the only two solutions I see is to keep the prefab condition and move it basically into one of your parking spaces back to the rear of the site, or perhaps not use a prefabricated structure and design something that fits inset of the eastern building plane there where that patio is and basically almost like you're closing in a porch space, the patio space, and closing that. . . Those are really the only two solutions I see if building onto the garage is not doable. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Dickinson? Well, I think I'd like to hear from Ms. King. We may have a resolution. Ms. King, would you be willing just to move your storage shed into one of your parking spaces next to the garage? I would not. Okay. No, I'm not going to give up one of my parking spaces. You started the conversation initially by saying that you're willing to add on to the garage. Well, that's a different matter. Actually, if we could see that picture again, it would be really helpful. But that does present some easement issues and ownership issues. Yeah. No way can I say I want to do that without talking to John Malloy, who is not here. I don't know. I hadn't thought this through, so. . . Oh, great. Don't look at it. Okay. This area here is a de facto walkway. Okay. This is how I get from my car into my house. I don't know why there's no walkway there, but there's not. So I would lose a. . . Everybody who comes and goes from the back here would lose a way of going across here. So I don't think this way, this side would work. On this other side, we keep our trash bins, et cetera, but I could possibly see putting something over there. The two parking spots are back from the garage, so we're really talking about four possible spots here. I don't know. I don't know. I really favor on the concrete. Also because of the access being right by my back door. I mean, I don't want to. . . I'm not proposing to keep garden tools in there. I mean, these are things like my very expensive bicycle. It's not the use. It's the design, and the design just conflicts horribly with your house is the difficulty. You're covering up a window. You're using a gable-style design when you've got horizontal lines and vertical lines that are incompatible. The problem is you're trying to mesh a prefabricated building that, unfortunately, will be considered a permanent part of your house, and we have to look at the design guidelines to make that addition, if you will, compatible with the rest of your house. And the storage shed is not compatible is the problem. And unless we can figure out a way to. . . Betty, is there a way that we could add a condition saying that if upon sale of the property, that shed will be removed? Could we do something like that? Let me defer to the law department on that. What about. . . Ms. King. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a solution that we can say, okay, it's approvable. . . What would be your basis of saying the next owner can't have it there? Oh, I don't know. I mean, if you're saying it's appropriate for one owner to have it because they need storage. . . I think we might be going a little off. All right. Have we ever dealt with this issue of storage sheds next to the house? We've approved. Not suggested as physically adjacent to the house in such a manner. All of them are, thus far to my recollection, have been ones proposed for the rear yard.  All right. Forgive me for weighing in here, but it seems to me that if this is the location you want, then it seems to me that Mr. Winkfield's suggestion that it be, that you enclose part of the porch, possibly leaving a walkway between the window of the laundry room and the edge of the storage shed and literally enclosing something, I think it could be done so it would look nice and would complement the house because I think the integration of the storage shed with the . . . this simply doesn't work in that particular location. If that's the location that you want and it seems to me to be a very sensible location, then I would probably rather see you spend the money doing something that would be permanent that would really look nice with your house. And I really hate to say this. I hate when people tell me, you're not going to like that. You're not going to be happy with that. I'm about to do that to you. But I really think over the long haul that your enjoyment and appreciation of the back of your house would really be enhanced if you did something that was really more permanent. And I'm not sure what the economics are, whether that would be more expensive or less expensive, but it certainly could be done so it would complement the house, and that would be my suggestion to you. It seems to me like the other things we're talking about, although they're feasible, in terms of putting the storage shed back on the parking, that's something you're not interested in doing. So that would be my suggestion. And I think it could be done so that it would fit really within the footprint and the architecture of the house. And you could really back it up so that it came either close or actually engage those supports, which you're holding up the roof. You could even have a lattice in between there and then put the wall of the storage shed right behind those supports and pull it back far enough so that you would maintain a passageway between the window and the laundry room and therefore the problem of blocking the view and creating something which is, I think, sort of not engaging the house very well could be solved. Okay. I appreciate that, and I'm not at all opposed to looking into having something built that is more compatible with the house. I wonder why the walkway should be there because I actually am trying to cut off the view of that neighbor and enjoy the view of the hedge, which is behind. And so I would prefer to have it actually attached to the house. But I think that's an option you could certainly explore. I mean, we're not necessarily married to the window. Okay. Just right now there's a very awkward relationship because the storage shed is just so very close to the house, and so it looks like it's not a well-resolved design issue, I think, right now. I actually turned down a whole lot of other options and put a lot of research into this, and this was the model that would allow, that would be able to sit there, that was wood that I could actually paint the same color as the house, et cetera. I suppose I'll have to put in more. I think we'd like for you to, I mean, we appreciate the effort you put into it, but I think what I'm hearing from the board is that we don't think this is a very satisfactory solution as it stands right now, and I think we'd be glad to entertain other things. I think permanently attaching it to the house, eliminating the window, and pulling it back so that you have more space in front of it so you can enjoy the yard, that's certainly another option, too. But I think that might be the way to go. If you want to put it in that location, I think it then should probably become part of the architecture of the house. Okay. And I don't think you're going to find that sort of solution off the shelf. Right. Yeah. No, I won't. I wouldn't recommend that. I found it, believe me. I really think the window is high enough that I can come in just under it with a roof, I think. I think procedurally what should probably happen, actually, I would encourage you either to come back for a conceptual review where we can actually help you design the project or talk to a builder or a design professional, an architect, to help you design the project. And that process could also, if you hire a builder or a design professional, we could also have a conceptual review on that level. Okay. And I'm hoping for the fastest process possible because all of these items are currently in my living room. I understand. So, you know, what we would like to do, I think, rather than to take action on this at this point in time, if you're willing to come back and talk to us again, we'd be very happy to do that. And we could simply table this until a future date. If you continue it to the next meeting, that will be November the 14th, we would need some submittal from you indicating what it is you're requesting no less than 10 days before that. So it's a pretty quick turnaround for you. I don't know how fast architects work. Do they work that fast? They might. I think the architect for this particular building, I believe, was Scott Gyan, if I'm not mistaken. I think he designed the original building. He might be someone to talk to. Yeah. No, that's a good idea. But I think we, our next meeting is the 28th. No, it's November 14th. No, I mean the meeting after that. Oh, I'm sorry. It would be December the, because of Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving, we're skipping. There's not a meeting. We're going to get that date for you. One thing you could do is continue it until November 14th, and if you're not ready in time for that, if it is the board, your pleasure, as the applicant and the board's pleasure, they could continue it again to the December meeting. Okay. 12th? 12th, yeah. November 14th or December 12th are the two meeting dates, and the staff can get with you and talk about when we would have to have materials accordingly. Okay. What Ms. Kerr is suggesting is that this afternoon we could table it until, or we could continue it rather until November the 14th, and then if for some reason you're unable to comply with the deadline, then we could continue it again until December the 12th. But, you know, you may be able to get some kind of quick turnaround on it and be able to move ahead with it. So if you're agreeable, that's what we'll do. I am agreeable to that, and I will try to get the wheels of architecture to turn. Okay, thank you. As fast as possible. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion to continue this application until November 14th, 2007. So moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay. Next item on the agenda is in the Balesford Historic District. And I'm sorry. Yes, it is. Yeah, at 173 Old Park Avenue. And that applicant is here. Good evening. My name is Van Meter Pettit, and I live at 155 Constitution Street, and I'm here to represent owner Bruce Nickel for 173 Old Park. You've read the findings of the staff report. You've read the recommendations of the staff? Yes, I have. Okay. And are you in agreement with them? Well, I'm not. Or let's say that I'm representing the owner and would like to prevail upon the board and speak to it. We will then hear this case. Okay. We can have a staff presentation. The application is to delete chimneys that were part of a design proposal for a new structure at 173 Old Park Avenue. So, Mr. Genocchio. This is a project at 173 Old Park up just past the two brick townhouses there. At this time, the applicant is requesting the board grant, the COA to delete the chimneys from the previously approved, that's February 22nd, 06, design of this duplex structure, which is now under construction. The brick parapet walls with their enameled steel coping would then extend up to the vertex of the gables. Can you? This may be ought to go over here. Thank you. This is what was proposed. And these are the chimneys that would be omitted from the design. We'll see the other one. And this is the appearance otherwise. We can show you, and I'll go over there with Randy to show what the appearance, the front elevation. That's correct. This is the appearance of an earlier design before the chimneys were moved forward from the side elevation. And if we can see, that's correct. And this is the appearance of the design that was finally approved. Attention was paid to the chimneys introduced into the design of the duplex structure. They first appeared on the side elevation, approximately 60 percent of the building in depth from the front face of the structure. At this time, they were not seen on the front elevation drawings. When the board approved the issuance of the COA, the chimneys had been moved forward to a location approximately 20 percent of the building's depth from the front face of the structure and had become an important element of the front elevation. The board conditioned their approval that the breadth of the chimney, as seen on the side elevation, be increased from three foot to four foot. That increase to the four foot width has not been shown on the partial elevation submitted with this request. These chimneys are a very important vertical element in the design of this structure and are a significant addition to the roofscape of the Aylesford Historic District. The elimination of the chimneys from the previous approved design is found to be inappropriate for this structure and the historic neighborhood. Recommendation staff recommends this was submitted, and the applicant is here. Mr. Pettit, would you like to come back up? I appreciate hearing any comments you might want to make about why the chimneys should be deleted. Yes, sir. Just very briefly, as you saw the first iteration of the design, the chimneys ... Well, first of all, the owner requested wood-burning fireplaces which would have load-bearing masonry chimneys that are very much in keeping with the neighborhood and with the historic fabric of the H-1 District. In the earliest design, those chimneys were towards the back of the project, and they really weren't part of the streetscape, per se. It was a staff request that we move them forward, and we're happy to do so. I think it probably was an improvement, and just to speak in general to the process, we're very pleased with the process of working with staff from the BOAR and feel that the design has definitely improved as a result of the feedback and the give-and-take. It's been a great experience. But the owner determined that, for a variety of reasons, they were interested in using ventless gas fireplaces instead of a wood-burning fireplace. The target of these units is really potentially handicapped and elder clients, and they're not as likely to haul wood, and so they went with a ventless gas fireplace. It was just requested that I make an effort to see if the chimneys could be deleted because they become very expensive sort of veneer boxes that are no longer serving any purpose. And speaking to the sort of authenticity of the design, it says chimneys and other roof features should be incorporated in designs of new construction, provided that they do not dominate the building or streetscape and are appropriate to new construction. And, you know, if all things were considered, the chimneys might be an improvement, but it's not something that the owner necessarily feels compelled to do for themselves, and there are a couple of houses right next to them that don't have chimneys that are the precedent for the design. And so, you know, we would be putting steel from the basement all the way up through the attic to support a veneer box of brick, you know, that simulates a chimney, and that sort of starts to undermine the sort of, you know, authenticity of the construction. So that's kind of the – that's the vantage point of the owner, and so we just wanted to prevail upon the board to consider our point of view. Okay. Thank you. So we'll see what the – how the board feels about this. Mr. Wainfield? Mr. Petty, thank you for your comments. I sympathize with the owner's request. However, I feel that the staff's interpretation of the guidelines is quite appropriate and that the removal of these chimneys would have an adverse effect both on the – both of these properties and to the street. So I'm going to – I'm going to side with the staff, but thank you. Mr. Dickinson? Mr. Kerr, the townhouses that are to the, I guess, south or to the north, they were built prior to the historic district being formed, correct? That's correct. They were built before the Aylesford area was designated Historic H-1. If those townhouses had been built when it was an historic district, would we not normally be requesting chimneys be added to it as part of the streetscape? Well, certainly each proposal would be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but relative to the concept of what was built, I think that the general approach taken to that project, that it come forward under the criteria of H-1, that inclusions of chimneys would have been very much looked at as an appropriate measure within the design guidelines. Okay. I'm going to concur with the staff and with Mr. Winfield's comments that given the overall streetscape with chimneys on virtually every house other than new construction, that I think a chimney is a perfectly appropriate feature that probably would have been, needs to be included in this particular design. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ballard. I agree with Mr. Pettit. I had a real hard time as an architect putting fake chimneys up there just for the sake of making the building look nice. I mean, it would be easy enough to do. I don't think you'd have to frame them from the bottom. I think you could probably frame them up there and put them up there. But it's just kind of a deceiving thing. I don't disagree that they look really good on the initial elevations that the board approved. But fake is fake, you know. Yeah. Well, I've found myself somewhat in Mr. Ballard's camp, and while I do think the chimneys really enhance the design of the building so much, it's really kind of a shame to lose them because I think the building is going to become a little more harsh, I think I would say, without them. Of course, I have a confession to make. I have, after having a wood-burning fireplace in my house for years, I now have the gas logs that are vent-free. However, anyone who bought the house, for me, would certainly have the option of taking those things out and using the fireplace as they can. I just wonder if, in the long haul, going ahead and creating the fireplaces, that you could put the gas logs in and not open the damper, if that wouldn't give any future owner of the house more options than right now. And I don't know whether your client B would consider doing that or not. But I also think that, you know, as much as I really like the elements, I also understand that it's not providing any kind of functional purpose. I do have sort of a question about that. But I kind of regret the fact that they're not going to be there, because I think they answer very much to the character of the houses. So I don't know if it's a problem. Do you have any comments? I'm a big fan of peaceful resolution, so I could suggest that we delete one and not both, and that the one we keep is the one that's towards Central Avenue. And so the approach up Old Park, you see the chimney. And the one that's one of the two units is set back five and a half feet, and its chimney would be much harder to even see. And it's got a tree line. And so the aesthetic benefit of the fake chimney on the south side, yeah, sorry, on the north side would actually be minimal. So could we cut the loaf of bread in half and keep one and not two? Well. Interesting. Yes. Okay. That's an interesting proposition. Okay. How do you all feel about that? That indeed is a very interesting proposition. I still have a problem with the fake chimney. I understand. I think that's a valid, that's certainly a valid point. I do have a procedural question. If we don't split the baby, you know. For council, since there happened to be an even number of board members here this evening, in the event of any motion coming forward that would be tied, what would occur? If it's tied, then basically no action has been taken, and the prior COA would remain in place unchanged. But at the same time, there would not be a disapproval of it. And I think that the applicant, based on the bylaws, which only prevents you from coming back with the same application in the event of a disapproval, I think the applicant could come back again, perhaps when there was an uneven number of board members, simply because there is not anything that prevents him from doing so. You've dealt with this situation before, haven't you? On several boards. I think maybe, I am sensing we may be a tied board, and we may just need to continue to the next meeting in hopes that we'll have an uneven number of people. With respect to Derek's idea, I can't support that simply because, first of all, we have never looked at whether or not you can see it as being in this. I believe that was Mr. Pettit's idea. Oh, Mr. Pettit's idea, okay. So you were sort of supporting it. I don't think I ever finished it. Mr. Pettit, I would suggest that you go back to your owner and say, you know, I think Clyde has the best solution, that you can actually enhance the marketability of the house by installing a real chimney, two real chimneys, if you will, that can have the option of being either rentless or being used as a wood fireplace by some future owner, and not necessarily limit your market to just people who you think might not want to be bothered with hogging in logs or whatever. You know, I'm sort of, I know the term fake chimney has been bandied about a little bit, but those chimneys really ought to be operable, and I think they are an intrinsic part of the neighborhood fabric. Okay, any other comments from the board? Is there anybody in the audience who would like to make comments? I don't think so. I don't see anybody here. All right. Just briefly, because this is well under construction, this is kind of it. And I understand the board's feeling and the staff's feeling about the chimneys. Just trying to prevail on behalf of a client and was hoping that, say, maybe cutting it in half and meeting out the differences would be acceptable. I've actually looked at those two townhouses and walking the neighborhood. Is there consideration that you might use the prefab boxes and the flue liner and just use some angles to build the chimney so you actually, at this point in time, where you are on construction, I can appreciate where you are. Yeah, I mean, if we're compelled to do it, then we're going to look at ways to do it as, you know. Well, I personally am not trying to compel you to do it. It's going to be fake. It's going to be really fake. I was going to vote with you to leave them off, even though I think they're a nice feature because they were going to be fake. Well, I mean, the owner is not. I was just trying to come up with another compromise that would get you off dead center and keep going. I don't know. I know your client. I don't know that expense is particularly an issue. But, I mean, this is a business venture. Oh, well. And it's two years old, so, you know. I will have to say this. I think, you know, in terms of what you try to do with the design, which draws very heavily upon references to tradition in the past, I think the chimneys are really an appropriate design element. You know, if you had taken a more contemporary approach and wanted to leave the chimneys off, I would be more sympathetic. I'm not saying that I don't agree with the fake chimney concept, but it does seem to me that it's kind of part of the aesthetic package, if you will, that you presented to us, and you would expect chimneys, I think, to be part of that given the character of the design. So, I think it might be prudent to consider how you might do that. I think we'll just accept the will of the staff. And we certainly cannot predict how the missing member this evening might choose to vote on this anyway. Well, we haven't got a month to spare. We're laying brick. So, thank you for your time and consideration. Okay. Thank you. So, may I ask a question of our council? Is it appropriate to – should we disapprove this or should we continue this or table this? I think the applicant has accepted the proposal, hasn't he? Did you not accept the staff recommendation? Either. Okay. Okay. We have to have some action taken. Either the applicant can withdraw this request in light of the fact that he is concurring with the staff's recommendation of disapproval, or the board can make a motion to accept the staff's recommendation, as it often does. But, I mean, it's something – some kind of action has got to be taken. If it simplifies things, we will withdraw our request. That certainly keeps your option open, certainly. Okay. All right. And that requires no action by the board, then? Right. Okay. So, the applicant has decided to withdraw the application, so we don't need to take any action on that. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Paddock. We appreciate your coming and your comments. Okay. All right. We have several other items on the agenda which have been postponed, and I will need motions to do this. 500 North Broadway, that item has been postponed. That's number 8 on your agenda. Is there a motion to postpone that? So moved. Mr. Chair, may I – the staff suggests on all three of these, four of these, that the date to postpone them to at your consideration would be the next meeting, November 14th. Okay. Can we do all of these at once, or – You can postpone all three at once. Four? Or four. Four. Okay. We have 500 North Broadway, 757 Caden Lane, 223 Miller Street, and 229 Miller Street. All four of those items are to be postponed. The Chair will entertain a motion to postpone. So moved. That was until November 14th. So moved. So moved. Second? Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. And 465 Euclid Avenue, rebuild the dorm room chimney. That has been withdrawn, and that was actually handled as a staff approval. We do have a conceptual review here tonight in the Northside Historic District, 223 and 229 Miller Street, constructed residence and site work. The Board can have conceptual reviews with applicants who are contemplating a project in a historic district. This is an informal presentation and discussion to allow the Board to learn more about the proposal for a project and also for the applicant to receive some feedback and an opportunity to discuss the merits and possibilities for a project. So we have such a project tonight. And if we could have a staff presentation on that, we will then proceed to have that discussion. 223, 229 Miller Street. Currently, this is two separate properties, two separate parcels. At the last BOER meeting, there was approval to demolish these two buildings. So now there is a conceptual review here to look at constructing a single-family home on these two lots. To do so, there would have to be a merging of the two lots, which would also have to change the zone to allow to go from an industrial zoning to a single-family zoning that would also ensue a development plan as well. So presently, the applicant, Ms. Gallagher, is asking for a conceptual review to look at constructing a three-story structure on this lot. And if we can go to the illustrations. Guidelines are included for this reference. Since this is a conceptual review, the staff has no findings at this time. Here again is the proposal for the construction on this lot. This building is oriented to Miller Street, so the drive, the garage, would actually be accessed on Miller Street. This is the side elevation. This is actually the south elevation. This is the north elevation of this property. Rear elevation. This is a schematic perspective of what this would look like in proximity and adjacency to the buildings that are proposed to be under construction at the moment across the street. And again, this is looking north at the same perspective. And this is sort of an aerial view. This is the proposal right now. This is actually the structures that were removed last year at this time, or last year. This backs up to various industrial buildings that are along Jefferson that it's supposed to face and have a relationship with Miller Street. Since this is a conceptual review, staff has no findings. However, some of the items to be considered is, is this site appropriate for a single-family home? Should the structure have an attached garage or carport? Is the complexity of the proposed building form, shape, height, scale, site utilization compatible with adjacent historic structures? Is proposed building of contemporary design compatible with adjacent surrounding structures? Has the new building been placed on the site in a compatible relationship to the setback placement of adjacent surrounding structures? Does the scale, proportions, directional emphasis, and rhythm of the proposed building reflect the predominant scale, proportion, and emphasis and rhythm of the adjacent and surrounding structures? Does the roof system of the proposed building relate in shape, pitch, and materials to the roof of the adjacent and surrounding buildings? Does the proposed structure have the same number of stories that is in the height within 2% of the average height of the adjacent buildings? Are the openings compatible in scale, size, proportion, to establish patterns of openings in adjacent and surrounding buildings? Does the proposed building have a similar ratio of openings to solids as adjacent and surrounding buildings? Are the materials and scales of the building in which they are located incompatible in the materials of adjacent and surrounding buildings? Is the foundation of this design appropriate for this structure? Are the significant historic sidewalk, street patterns, and paving materials retained and maintained? Is the open space developed in scale, use, and character with the neighborhood? Are the new boundary definers visually dominant, intrusive, and suggest a false sense of history? Are the new paved surfaces compatible with the surrounding historic properties and principal and accessory structures? Are any of the green historic areas and spaces of the site retained and maintained? Are the new landscape fixtures alterations to the existing landscape compatible with surrounding historic properties and principal and accessory structures on the property? Recommendation, there is none at this time, and the applicant is present. Would the applicants like to come up? If you can state your name and address for us, please. My name is Benjamin Gallagher, address is 265 North Limestone, Lexington, Kentucky. Anything you'd like to tell us about this? The only thing I would add to the staff's presentation, just some facts that make this site sort of unique, it's the only property that fronts that particular side of Miller Street. All the other lots that are adjacent are actually rear yards for Jefferson Street lots, so it won't ever actually have another structure built directly adjacent to it. The existing structure, the existing use, and the existing lots are all three non-conforming with the current zoning, and with the size of the lots that would be required by the zoning. So, in a sense, it's sort of unique in that there isn't really any other development that we could sort of move forward with on the two lots individually, and that this seems to us to be the best proposal to go ahead and combine them. This is a single family structure? That's correct. All right, okay. Comments? My initial impressions are I really do like it. I was familiar with the request to tear the buildings down, and have biked over there quite often living up on Mill Street. A couple of questions. There are no dimensions on your plan, so how tall is the building? The building is approximately 28 feet tall. It's still being developed in terms of the more technical aspects. So, from a height-wise, it falls within what's acceptable zoning-wise on Mill Street and that area? Yes. Yes. Twenty-eight feet probably wouldn't be higher than most of the large buildings in the neighborhood. That's correct. That's correct. I'm trying to keep that in mind. If you say a combination of concrete, foundation, metal, and wood, can you be a little more descriptive as to what, on your elevations, what the materials are? Because nothing's noted. That's correct also, and that's going to be coming in future iterations of the design. I wonder if you guys have copies of the color presentation that was submitted? No. Okay. Well, there does exist a color one. It's quite lovely, actually. But the foundation is light-cast concrete, the ground level. The upper level, you see sort of a panelized system. That's a three-quarter-inch concrete panel that's fastened over top of exterior jib board. So the concrete panel is really aesthetic. It functions as a rain screen architecturally, and the membrane is maintained by- That's color would be? Excuse me? Color is what? It would be sort of a natural concrete color. And then what you see as horizontal siding is actually a mahogany siding that would be stained a very sort of natural warm color. If anybody's familiar with- Then your structure for the band that runs around the building, is that steel? No, that's also going to be in the panelized system, the concrete panel. It would be in color only. What's the edge of the balcony? That is going to be painted wood. I'm still actually considering other options for that as well. Right now, we're- Well, having done some of this over the course of time, wood balconies are a bit of a maintenance issue in about five or six years. But I like the concept. I like the design. I like your floor plans. I would like to see a site plan that kind of shows your development for the back, and that, and the spiral stair that goes up. Looking at it in black and white, I was reading it as the concrete base metal panel system, as the sort of modular symbols that you have shown here, because it comes out as a light gray. And the band running around the building, kind of tying it all together as a 12-inch or something channel that might work through and be your cantilever for your deck. And then we had a conceptual review last meeting of a proposal up on North Broadway where they were using a metal surface for the deck. Okay. Painted or stainless steel or any of those materials. Aluminum that might be more durable and long-lasting and maintenance-free might be some consideration. But I think other than my comments saying, think through some of your materials and how it all looks together. And we were not privy to the color rendering and what's going to happen in ten years maintenance-wise. But the overall concept, I think, is quite outstanding, and I'll push. If I could respond to that. The structure of the cantilevering balcony actually would be steel. It's just what it's sort of wrapped in, or just what the finish has exposed. I'm very concerned about sagging or the structural integrity of that. One other caveat, I'm simultaneously working with Building Inspection and Division of Planning, because sort of all three of these are going to have to come together kind of at the same time, really. They're just so many issues at stake. But because of the building's proximity to the property line, it's going to need to be fire rated on the two sidewalls, and there won't be any openings permitted. You'll probably notice that the design doesn't feature any openings on those sidewalls for that reason. And that does when you were commenting possibly using a channel at that floor-level structure. There really sort of needs to be a continuous fireproof membrane there, and that's one of the things that's sort of governing how that exterior comes together, in terms of the structure being protected. As long as the rating of the wall's intact, you could carry even your wood element around as a decorative piece that would not be a problem that might sort of tie the pieces together. I was having a much better image before it became mostly concrete. Okay. So, anyway. I have a suggestion. When you said that there was wood on there, I kept thinking that these panels that we're seeing on the second and third floor must be wood panels of some sort, but they're not. So where is the wood? Is it just that one place where you inset the clapboard? That's correct. It was sort of an L shape. It should show up on two elevations. All right. I like the design myself, too. I guess one question I had was that I certainly am not opposed to the use of concrete at all. I guess, you know, I suppose you could have considered brick and other materials, I suppose, in place of the concrete, and I just wondered if you had thought about that. I had. I was hoping to avoid masonry on the job, if I can, and keep the system easier to install, you know, while still being satisfactory aesthetically. Just the enormous labor and cost associated with a brick veneer, and for me liking honesty of materials, most brick buildings that are brick veneer nowadays, I personally don't find it as appealing. It's like fake chimneys, I guess. Well, fake chimneys. Yeah, I know. I have to agree with you. I think the correct term for brick veneer, as well as this paneling, is a rain screen, in terms of what it functions as. So, to me, it's, well, the brick's more porous. In general, I like the design of it. I think the scale is very nice, and, you know, it is a new element on the street. So, anyway, I'll just pass on to the next members of the board here what they have to say. I also think it's quite refreshing to see more contemporary design coming before us. I think the concrete foundation and the paneling, I think it's all very successful. I think there's enough play, especially on the right elevation. You're not going to have to worry about any sort of fenestration issues from an aesthetic standpoint. Some final detailing could be worked out later, but conceptually, I think this is very successful. Again, I want to compliment you and reiterate how refreshing it is to have some good contemporary design. I like contemporary design, as well. I have a concern that I'm not sure was really expressed in the issues that were raised. That being, I'm not sure how this building's going to relate with the building across the street from it, and I'm not sure if they really, you know, the streetscape, there's another developer ahead of you, and I think those buildings are starting to go up already. I think that's correct, yes. I'm concerned that your building may, with respect to the buildings on the right-hand side of your picture, is going to be too dominant for that street, is my concern I'm dealing with. And for whatever reason, the Concrete Foundation is just not sitting well with me at all. Okay. It looks too, I like the look of it, but it looks too industrial at the same time. Mm-hmm. You follow what I'm saying? Yes. And I'm concerned that it looks, it looks like those school buildings that, you know, everyone's saying, oh, wow, this is a nice, neat, contemporary design for these school buildings that were done about 25 years ago, and now they look awful, because the concrete has gotten pitted and marked, and it's just not doing, now you say you're using what, some kind of stucco on it, or, not stucco, but some kind of? It would be site cast concrete, just cast in place. How would that hold up? Is it just concrete? I think if it's, it's just concrete. Okay. Just concrete. The concrete base bothers me. I just don't think it looks good. Okay. The balconies I like. I think that's a nice look, but, again, I have a concern as to how this building is going to relate with the other buildings across the street from it, and I'm not sure that's necessarily, since these are new buildings as well, that's going to be a particular concern to the staff or not. But other than that, the overall look is, other than that base, is nice. Well, Ben, I think, you know, generally, I think we're positive about that. I think you might want to consider some of the comments that were made tonight. I personally think it works well with the street, and, anyway, it's nice to see what you're up to these days since you. Staying busy. Since you came out of our program. I did. It's nice to see what you're doing these days, so it's great. Well, I would love for you to see the color presentation of it as well, because that really, I think, helps present its case much stronger in terms of how it would relate to the street. I would certainly, you know, I mean, when I asked about the brick, I wasn't necessarily suggesting that you should do that. I mean, that would be certainly one thing you could do, and I guess Mr. Dickinson is voicing some concern about the concrete. I don't mind that so much. To me, what's probably more important is the sense of scale that you get when you look at the buildings, and I think you've modulated the forms quite effectively, and I think if you, you know, I would suggest that you might think about predominantly, predominant regulating lines that are along the street with the new construction, and if you're making reference to those, I think that's a big step. So for me, the scale of the thing is more important maybe than the actual materiality of it, and it seems to me that without seeing this drawn in conjunction with the buildings across the street, that there is a certain kind of scalar relationship between the two things. Would the staff like to make some comments? Relative to having the garage on the primary elevation, we're not unaware of your landlocked situation. However, we really don't have other primary structures in the historic neighborhoods that have the garage doors in the front elevation, and I don't know what the answer is to that, but I just think that we would be remiss to not all be kind of weighing that relative to the guidelines. Which we do on New Street. You have sort of a garage structure that enters off what is the side, that's right, but they're not in the front of the Gratz house, you know. I mean, I'm talking the front elevation of the primary structure. What were two houses next to you? Well, there are the two townhouses next to me do have garages in the primary elevation. In their bay, that's right. I'm going visually down the street with you as you're talking. But predominantly, it is not a characteristic in the historic districts, and I think it's something that should be thought about. I don't know that there's an alternative in this situation because of the nature of the parcel, but certainly I think if it were possible, it would be more in keeping with guidelines to not have a door in the front, and I'm sure you would like that too. I have looked at other options, and obviously this is the best that I was able to come up with and tried to aesthetically, this is a coiling overhead door that I've shown in the concrete wall, and I think the two materials are going to be very successful together. I'm familiar with the example on New Street. I think those are a four-panel overhead door, which is fine. I think this looks more designed, more intended, to do a coiling metal door with the concrete, and so in that sense, I think it's going to be. I think actually what Ms. Kerr is referring to is just the whole idea of having the garage door. On the street. Maybe not so much the actual choice that you've made. I guess I'm saying that choice was to try to make the best of the situation. No, I think the approach to how to handle the materials in that door relative to the overall design is very successful. It's just the concept in the streetscape sense. Nothing else on Miller Street certainly has a garage on the front. So just relative to weighing the character of the areas being placed, it would be a different situation for that. But, again, you aren't able to drive through the Jefferson Street properties to get to the rear of your property, so it's just something everybody, I think, needs to be pondering relative to the overall character of it. Betty, can Miller almost be looked at as being an alley? Well, Miller technically is called a street and meets the measure for a street, although it's a teeny one. Because the narrowness of it almost makes it have an alley appearance, which is why the garage door didn't jump out at me and scream that this is wrong for the street. I don't believe it actually complies with subdivision regulations on the street. It certainly wouldn't in today's standards. But the urban county government's measure of it is that it is a street and not an alley. Measure is not a linear. Historically, do we know how that byway was added in? Because it looks like it was sort of inserted. It doesn't fit the normal street grid, if you will. I missed the front end of your question. Miller Street itself? Yes. It was created post-Civil War as an area for housing for workers. And so it was a strip of land that is parallel, obviously, to Jefferson that was developed on both sides to a point initially, well, the predominant developed side, as they mentioned. So it wasn't part of the initial street planning for that vicinity of the city, correct? I have not had occasion to research the street development history of the layout, but Lexington street layouts evolved as neighborhood developments or development of parcels versus a grand plan for allocated streets. And then that plan gets broken. That's really not the way they've shaken out. It's driven, they've come to exist with growth as it moves forward. Those blocks were, at one point in time, super blocks where they actually raised hemp. And so you have Hampton Court and Fayette Park were kind of insertions into what was originally, I guess, the super block. And I guess it might be that Miller Street was actually cut through at some point in time to develop that. Some of those areas start to, people have been infilling for a long time, which is what you're saying. I was asking the question only because it just had the feel of an alley as opposed to being a regular street. I'd like to bring to your attention a couple of things. If you look at the little 3D rendering, I think the way he's handled the garage and the doors, the coloration of both the natural steel and the cast-in-place concrete is going to kind of blend. It's recessed so that you're going to get a lot of shadow play with that elevation. And I dare say, depending on how you treat your front door in terms of coloration, you could actually bring attention to that entrance point and the rest of it is just going to kind of blend into your overall elevation. I think it can be very successful. I agree. I never felt, I agree with Ms. Kerr. I never liked seeing garages just tucked on the front of, without some, and I think these are probably much more successful than the couple of townhouses on New Street where it's just part of that flat facade. Just to add another comment. Okay. Any other comments from anyone? Staff? Audience? Okay. Is this enough to help you move ahead? I think so. I think so. Thank you. I just wanted to add one thing. Mr. Gallagher and I talked about this at all, and I didn't know if in trying to have much more of a relationship to the buildings across the street, where it would be maybe thought of whether the roof pitch, instead of a flat roof, should have maybe a bit of a cant to it so it actually has much more of, I didn't know if anybody would respond to that, instead of being flat, maybe sort of have a little bit of an incline or shift so it, because the relative nature of Miller Street is these really exaggerated sheds and gables. While I don't think it's appropriate for the design to have a gable, would it be appropriate to have a flat, or would it be better if it had a bit of a pitch to it? Not a huge pitch, but just an ever so slightly one that would relate to the gable nature of the houses and the shed nature of the roof lines on Miller Street. It seems to me that if you were going to do that, given the fact that you're so close to the buildings, that if you're going to have a pitch roof and you wanted to have that relationship, I think the pitch would have to be much steeper, I think, than just a slight one. That's certainly an option that you could consider. I think because the buildings are so close together on the street, that the roofs, I think, would have to be more steeply pitched, like the ones across the street, in order for it to really be perceptible from down where you're standing. That's certainly an option you could consider. There could be even some architectural reasons why that would be advantageous, particularly if the front pitch and you've got a clear story window in behind. I don't know whether I think that's necessary from my point of view, but it's certainly an option to think about. Excuse me. I was going to say, of course, looking at what he's done, if you count the two-story building and then the steep roof pitch across the street, you've got the three components that you've modulated with, and leaving the flat roof doesn't get it so much higher and dominant than the adjacent properties across the street. I think there's several ways to kill a packet. I would say, to that, to repeat, again, it's the only property that fronts that side of Miller Street, so there won't ever be another structure built directly adjacent to it to relate to. The other warehouse buildings that are around it on that side of Miller Street, in other words, the Jefferson buildings, all do have flat roofs. In that sense, you'd be more likely to use maybe that. Subtlety may be the better solution. But I arrived at the flat roof based on exactly what you said, that with the two stories plus pitched roof on the other side, they end up overall 28 feet high. Just with the language of being a little bit more contemporary, the flat roof, I think, really was much more appropriate. I personally look forward to seeing your colored renderings. Any other comments? Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming. Thank you. Thank you. We need to approve some minutes here, and they were circulated to you. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. I move that we approve the minutes of the Board of Architectural Review dated October 10th, 2007. Second. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. No extensions since I wasn't present at that meeting. Okay. Is there any other business? The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor, stand up. Thank you. Thank you very much.