Music Good evening, I'd like to welcome you to the October 12, 2011 hearing of the Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The Board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and 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 them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Fine Street, room 220. It is our procedure 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 any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of eight approved applications noted on today's agenda. In South Ashland Historic District, we have 293 South Ashland Avenue, Remove Dying Tree. and Central Historic District Central Avenue 554 Central Avenue replaced roof. In Aylesford Historic District 456 East High Street replaced sign. In Bell Court Historic District at 211 East Bell Court renovate structure and 218 Bell Place renovate front porch steps. In Grass Park at 216 Market Street renovate structure. and South Hill 423 South Upper Street replace and install new fencing and Western Suburbs at 700 West Short Street install chimney caps. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. The first case on the docket this evening is at 621-625 West Main Street, numbers 101, 104, and 105 in Western Suburbs Historic District. scope of work is to install fencing. Is that application here this evening? Applicant here this evening? Excuse me. The applicant is not here, but has received a copy of the staff report and is agreeable with the findings. Thank you very much. Are there any comments from the board about this application? I believe just to review, again, the scope of work is to install fencing, and the staff recommendation is for approval as submitted. Any comments, questions, concerns from the board? Nothing from the staff. Anyone here this evening speak to this case? No real comments. Thank you. That being the case, the chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 12210621-E slash 12270625-B at 621 to 625 West Main Street, Unit 101, 104, 105, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the application is accepted. Moving on to the next case this evening at 478 West 2nd Street in the Northside Historic District. The scope of work is to leave masonry walls unpainted. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here but has received a copy of the staff report and is agreeable with those findings. Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions from the Board concerning this case? Again at 478 West 2nd Street. I just have one question for the staff. I haven't had a chance to see the work that has already proceeded. Is the tuck pointing done in such a manner that it doesn't affect the overall character of the building if it's left unpainted? Yes. It's been actually done to very minimal, and the paint removal actually drew out very little joints as it was accomplished. Well done. Thank you. Any other comments from the board? Does anyone here this evening speak to this case in the audience? All right. Well, hearing nothing, the chair will take a motion. I move in case number 16840478-D at 478 West 2nd Street that we approve the request for a certificate of appropriateness. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Thank you very much. Any further comments on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well. Motion passes. The next case this evening is at 446 East High Street in the Ellsford Historic District. The scope of work is to change window material and design. Is that applicant here this evening? Sir, if you would, please approach the microphone and introduce yourself. Give us your name and address for the record. Chris Kelly. I live at 435 West 3rd Street, and I own 446 East High Street. Thank you very much. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, I have. And are you in agreement with staff's recommendations and findings? No, I'm not. If you don't mind, could you pinpoint the parts you're in disagreement with? Yeah, the original, I don't know if you've got photos there, but the original windows had a lower section that opened up. The building was built in 1958. They are uninsulated aluminum windows. They're in pretty bad shape and horribly energy inefficient. So we elected to change those. Didn't realize that it would have been an issue. So we elected to go with windows that don't operate to be able to control HVAC systems better along the front of the building. So we went with single. It's very similar to actually what has been done on this building on the first floor. Okay. Well, if you don't mind, I'd like to set this case aside and see if we can breeze through the next case quickly. And if that's not the case, then we'll come back to yours and get into the hearing, have the staff give their report and have some questions for you. Okay. Thank you very much. Setting this case aside for the moment, the next case is at 411 West 6th Street, and that's to enclose porch and change siding and add openings. Is that applicant here this evening? Good evening. You could give us your name and address. I'm Carl Leonard at 663 Ellesmere Park. Good evening. Good to see you here. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? And you're in agreement with them? Yeah. Very well. Let's see what the Board has to say. Hold on just a moment. Are there any comments or questions concerning this case from the Board? Again, to review, the scope of work is to enclose porch, replace siding, and change openings. And the staff recommendation at this time is that the application be approved as submitted with the following conditions, that one, final details of rear entry stoop and railings be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the purchase of any materials for said work, and that, number two, all exposed wood be painted. That's fine. Any comments from the Board at this time? I do have a comment. I think we need to have a conversation about this. I don't agree with the staff's statement that the proposal maximizes the amount of glass with a minimum amount of solid area in accordance with guideline I-13D. and so I think it warrants a discussion. All right. Anybody else have a comment to add at this time? It sounds like there's more to say to this. If you don't mind, because this is not going to be breezed through, it sounds like, we'll go back to the first case and get back to yours and we're done. Thank you. All right, moving back to 446 East High Street. Mr. Kelly, if you'd like to come back up front, or actually, if you'd like to keep your seat, we'll have the staff at their presentation, and then we'll get back with you in just a moment. This is the property of 446 East High. You see the windows. We're just discussing the front facade. The windows at the second floor have been replaced with single pane construction, full light, I should say. And the ones below are the originals with the hopper window bottoms. During a routine tour through the Ellsworth Historic District, The preservation inspector noticed that the second floor windows of the front elevation of this circa 1958 office building were being replaced without a certificate of purpose. The work was stopped, and the APNASIS Times requested the Board grant a COA to replace the raw, aluminum, clear-glazed, hopper-style windows of the structures front elevation, first and second floors, with fixed, full-light, insulated, dark-bronze aluminum windows, having one-inch insulated, bronze-tempered, low-E glass. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. The findings, guideline 124A, is specific about the windows preserving their size, design, original material, and number of panes. Staff finds that the elimination of the windows horizontal members at a point approximately a quarter of the height of the opening above the seal not only changes the scale of the opening, but also diminishes the strong horizontal design element of this structure. It, in effect, changes the number of panes in the unit from two to one. While the use of bronze timber glass as a replacement for the existing clear glass in the windows of this building would not be in accordance with Guidelines 124A, reference preserving original materials. The bronze tinted glass is found to be consistent with glazing materials and similar commercial structures constructed in the 1960s. The recommendation staff recommends denial of the proposed full pane window design in lieu of the two pane design for the building's front elevation. Staff recommends proof of the proposed bronze tempered glass in the front windows of this commercial structure. The apkin is here. Thank you very much. Mr. Kelly, if you want to come back forward and tell us some more. um i guess i take exception to the um strong horizontal design element of the the original windows um my contention is that wasn't a architectural element it was just to be able to open the to have a operable or pain because when the building was built it didn't have air conditioning so it was for ventilation so it's typical if you're not going to open windows to redo that. Obviously, they're already purchased and installed. When you purchased this building, were you aware of the fact that it was in the Historic District? I was not. Actually, it's interesting. My wife and I were involved intimately in the Ailsford neighborhood gaining H1. I lived on the other side of the street, and a bunch of commercial properties got carved out during that negotiation, and I just thought that building did. I guess I had forgotten. It had been a while. So I didn't do it intentionally, not get an approval. I didn't realize it required it. So it was an oversight on my part, yes. Okay. Just for future reference, you can go to the Historic Preservation website and see the exact outline and properties that are included in any historic district in the city. You can also go to the Fayette County PVA website, and it says what the overlays are on a particular piece of property. I think that the problem here is that had you realized that it was in a historic district and you had come before the board, what you have already installed and what you have purchased might, I mean, if that was your proposal, it might have been changed. And we're at an awkward place here because there is, if you're going by the guidelines strictly, there's a very strong wording about how windows are handled. And what you've installed is in violation of what they're saying. there are contemporary window components that would have done what you need. They would have given you the R ratings and the double insulated glass, but also maintain basically the historic carry. Yes, we could have done a horizontal mullion at that point. And it also could have been done in the aluminum finish. So there's two things there. without bronze glass. But I think that we're kind of at a little bit of an awkward place here because so much of the work has proceeded in that you've already purchased these things. In my opinion, I have to say that at this point, it's kind of all or nothing. The staff is recommending that you are allowed to use the bronze anodized windows and glass as long as you add the horizontal mullion on the first floor. Now, can the horizontal be added to the second floor at this point? We could, I guess, do an applied mullion. But, I mean, it's cost prohibitive to replace the windows. Well, this is the problem that you're at. Yeah, I understand. So we certainly don't want to force you into incurring extreme cost overruns, but if we're... I would just ask the board to kind of look at the building and, you know, the windows. And in my opinion, I think it looks better. And I'm an historic preservationist. I've won two historic preservation awards for previous properties, so I'm not in any way against historic preservation. No, I understand, and I appreciate that very much. I think that the problem is that to allow you to continue with the design that you've already established, that you established without board approval, is setting a precedent that may not be that great for other property owners who do not have the sensitivity that you have. I understand. I think the broader point is while this building is a little on the plain side, to say that it has a strong horizontal design element of the structure with the windows or to say that the building itself is a strong horizontal element is about all the building has. It's pretty plain Jane. The windows, like you said, were pretty utilitarian. They were aluminum milled finish with hopper windows for circulation. That being said, that's what's there. We don't have the opportunity to disregard that or make it more plain by putting in single pane windows and taking out what little elements that it did have. I mean, try to understand when I see this case and see the windows that are there versus the windows that used to be there, you know, the aluminum frames are certainly brighter and more noticeable. The line that they did make through the frames with the horizontal member that's been omitted from the new windows is as strong an element that the building has. There aren't many other characteristic features. and then to take those out is noticeable, but then to also put in dark frame glazing and it kind of blends together into one big black square per opening as opposed to glazing and then these bright silver lines. These moments of character are what we're charged with preserving and the shapes of the windows, it's not like we get to pick up our mind on this one. And, I mean, that's in the guidelines pretty clearly where going from two-pane to single-pane is a problem. I think those are the broader overreaching issues. I hate that it's come to light after you've spent the money on windows. and as Bob Robb said it puts us in that awkward spot of how do we look a nice guy in the face and say sorry about the money you've already spent but that's certainly the dig of the conversation so far is that if it had come up sooner we certainly could have put more input in your ear and maybe gone with a different finish or maintained this horizontal element where we could But as far as work moving forward, where are you in the purchase of materials? Are all the windows on site or just the upper level? Well, all the windows are purchased. They only we stopped at the second level when we were notified that it had to have H1 approval. The windows are already made there at the window installer's shop. Well, let's see. I believe. So it seems to me that the staff sticking point is the loss of the horizontal mullion. Is that correct? I would also add the finish of the material, the framing finish. But it says the bronze-tinted glass is found to be consistent with the glazing materials. That's the glass, though, not the frame. Okay. Am I mistaken? Martin, was that your... If you can clarify, Martin, that would help us. I'm thinking where we were, the feeling was that although the aluminum, the raw aluminum is lost, is that we, as far as the bronze frame as opposed to the raw aluminum, would be acceptable. Is acceptable. So you're... Okay. That's a little different than what I read here, but thank you for your clarification. You're welcome. So there's the beginning of compromise. Yeah, so I could entertain installing an applied mullion so it would look like it was too light. For me, that would be a minimum. I have to say that I disagree with passion that your windows look better than the original. I think that the originals, and I also disagree that this is a plain Jane building. I think that whoever developed this building had some pride, and they worked out proportions very nicely, and that there are some aspects of this building that are quite elegant. The entry is clad in a cut limestone, and somebody put some great care and attention into how this building went together. And I think it's incumbent on owners of buildings to try to recognize those efforts and respect them, particularly if they're in a historic overlay zone. So I personally think that the configuration of the windows, because the building is not covered with ornament, the windows are particularly more important, relatively more important than they would have been had the building been more ornamental. And so not paying attention to them is, I think, particularly egregious in terms of its effect on the overall presentation of the building. But I recognize we're in a tough spot, and it appears that really the only reasonable alternative is to ask you to apply the Muntins as accurately as possible and move forward. Are you replacing the entry doors? No. So they'll remain? And those are fixed, and they don't have that horizontal mullion, but no, we're not replacing the, those are set back. I don't know if you can tell from the picture, but the entryway is set back about three feet from the face of the limestone. But they'll, because you're just doing nothing with that, they'll retain the brushed aluminum finish. Yes, yeah, we don't have any. Well, you know, generally we don't, it's sort of frowned on to glue on mullions. That might be a solution in this case because it's gone so far. But my gut feeling is that it needs to be maintained with not only the two-pane design in the same proportion as the original, but in the brush aluminum finish. Because now you're going to have two different finishes on the front facade. because you're not replacing the doors. Of course, they are set back. It's a different design. You know, these black and white photographs that we get because of budget issues really show exactly what the windows are doing because they stand out. Yeah, well, in live, in person, looking at them, you don't see a total blackout like it looks like in those photos. Right. Well, you approach it on an angle because of the street. goes. But anyway, I think in my opinion, if we had if there wasn't a substantial cost involved and so forth I would say that you would have to go back and start over with appropriate materials and appropriate design. I think that we could possibly compromise and at least if you got the additional horizontal member on there it might at least give some semblance of what the original was. I'd like to make another point, and this is perhaps tangential, but I also don't agree with your assessment that replacing these units with inoperable units is kind of latest technology. In fact, it really flies in the face of all the thinking with regard to green buildings today, which would indicate that you really should have operable windows so that the individuals in the spaces can get fresh air and can moderate their thermal environment personally. And so from the standpoint of a green building, you would have been serving yourself and your building much better had you replicated the operability of those original windows. And in fact, you're taking a step back to something that was kind of cutting edge 30 years ago and is not at all considered appropriate from a green building standpoint today. I agree. Yeah, it is funny. That struck me also when you said it, that the fixed windows is actually closer to the period that the building was built than what's being put in now. But that is slightly tangential, yes, but true, absolutely true. There is the issue of applied millions. I think it's about the only remaining opportunity we have to go back to the reference that we would like to have maintained. I think it's unfortunate that the finish is what the finish is on the new windows. And to have mismatched finishes between the windows and the doors is less than desirable, in my opinion. and I don't know that's a new issue in the mix. I know it wasn't mentioned in the application and hasn't been brought up as an issue of protest by the staff. Is there... Mr. Kelly, I have a question. Was the window in the stone-clad portion of the building above the door, was that in that original window in the same plane out toward the front of the cladding? Yeah, the upper is the same as all of them in the same plane. The windows that are to remain untouched are the ones that are recessed back in, and that's a completely different window system. I mean, it's original to the building, but it's more of a storefront fix. Those never open. They don't have that horizontal mullion one quarter up. It's a completely different system. Those have never been operable. They're fixed. Have you spoken with your supplier to determine if it's feasible to attach a mullion or mutton? I haven't spoken to him, but I've spoken with a couple of architects, friends of mine that have done it before. I've seen it done before also. As Rob did mention, it's frowned upon in the guidelines, but I think it might be the closest chance we have to get in our way on this issue. I would say that the details probably need to come back to staff for review on that. I know that we would want it as proud as possible, at least flush with the frame, just to maintain that liner, keep up as much as possible with the frame that's in place. Would you want to match the original width or more match the new? I think just to compete with the new framing it would have to match the aluminum portion, that is. I'm not sure. It's hard for me to say without seeing the dimensions, the verticals and horizontals together. I don't want it to get lost, though, or put it up there as some sort of thin applied membrane. It needs to have depth and thickness in keeping with some proportion of what is there, the new piece that's there now. I also would like to discuss just the finish of the doors. is perhaps like a gel stain can be applied to the doors. I know that takes it further away from what it was originally, but at least it puts it back in the context that the framing of the doors is related to the framing of the windows. In that facade, they are linked elements, or at least they were originally. And to make all the windows anodized bronze and to have the door be this bright, shiny finish, Now they're not as tightly related as they once were. I have no idea how feasible that is. I've never heard of it. It can be done. I'm just wondering if it should be done. Do you guys have any thoughts on that? Is it more important to leave it the way it is than it is to link the new finished windows with the finished remain at the doors? I'm not really sure. That may be a little bit beyond our territory since the doors were not mentioned in the application. Eddie? It does go beyond the scope of the application. With the doors not being part of the application, it's really not within the purview of the process. You could, of course, make a recommendation that the owner could elect to carry out or not, a recommendation not tied to your action, but just if they would like to think about X. So basically just a statement that makes me feel better. Yeah, okay. Okay, well, I'm not sure what motion will come forward, but I can tell you gel stain is a pretty reasonable thing, easy to do. It's not crazy expensive, and it's not really hard to do. And that might tie everything together when it's done. But I'm out of things to say. Does anybody else have anything to add to this conversation? Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? That being the case, the Chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 0929-0446-C at 446 East High Street, I'd like to make a motion to follow the staff recommendations for the submittal for the application. that number one, the staff denied the proposed full-pane design in lieu of two-pane design, that an applied mutton be placed at the same dimensional height as the existing horizontal element, and approval of the bronze-tempered glass and anodized bronze framing of the windows. But all details for the windows are to come back to the staff before the issuance of the COA. Second a motion? Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? I don't know. It is on, okay. I think we're going to need some rational, factual basis as to why we're allowing mullions or muttons applied, since there are guidelines that say should not or are not permitted. So this is something a little bit different, and so I think you're going to need to make some factual statements. Okay. As specified in the guideline I-24A, that windows preserve their size, design original materials, and number of panes, due to the fact that the applicant has already purchased the materials and substantial costs would be involved and applied mullion is being allowed in this particular case. Thank you. Do you accept the amendment to your second? Reluctantly. I understand. Understood. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries with the recommendations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Leonard, if you'd like, we can have the staff make their presentation, and then we'll discuss it further with you. Again, that's at 411 West 6th Street. This is Prop 106, excuse me, 411 West 6th. The proposed work is on this left or west wall. Right here in the foreground is the original structure, and you're looking at that porch, the original porch that started right with the white walled area, which is vertical tongue and groove boards. And this is the rear end of that porch, which was enclosed at one time, but it seemed like all of that was open to go with. And then the south side enclosed now, It looks like the north side was, but the roof line is from early Sanborn maps. The applicant received a staff-issued COA this past month to replace the wood post foundation system among the structure's west wall with a continuous footer and stucco parged concrete block foundation wall. Now that this work has begun, the applicant is requesting the Board grant COA to enclose the existing 4'8' x 15'4' open porch located at the north half of the new concrete block foundation wall, and to rebuild, reside the existing exterior wall located at the south half of the new concrete block foundation wall and change window type and openings of the rebuilt wall. I can show you. So the upper elevation. This is... I think I've lost power again. But this is the... Sorry. The existing open porch and below is the reworked porch. The existing shed roof system above the area received in the new masonry foundation wall is to be supported and protected during the proposed work. The rebuilt wall is to be resided in the same one-inch by four-inch tongue-and-groove vertical siding and the existing single-dunkable hung window is to be replaced with four fixed windows of various sizes. The wall of the proposed porch enclosure are to be sided with clapboard heaven four-inch reveal. The existing exterior door of the porch is to be relocated to the new north wall. Windows in the enclosed porches west wall are to match the same design proposed in the rebuilt wall. The new steps at the rear door are to be of wood construction and a metal handrail. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. This circa 1887 late Italian tea-planned cottage is shown on the 1902 Sanborn map as having an open porch for the entire length of that portion of the west wall, which is now receiving a new masonry foundation wall. The 1907 Sanborn map showed the entire length of the porch being enclosed. In any case, staff finds the proposal to enclose the northern half of the earlier porch to be appropriate in accordance with the Guidelines 113D, referenced being on the side of the building and maintaining the height and shape of the porch roof. The contemporary window design proposed for the west wall of the structure retains the more open character of the earlier porch with maximum amount of glass and minimum amount of solid area in accordance with Guideline 113D. Reference the rear entry as stoop or landing will be required at the top of the proposed steps. Also required will be a guardrail and handrail. Recommendation staff recommends approval is submitted with the following conditions. Final details of the rear entry stoop and railing be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the purchase of any material. for the said work and all exposed wood be painted the apkin is here thank you sir if you'd like to come back to the microphone we'll talk to you about your project here so i have a question um the the description says four windows but the elevation shows it's eight not four eight yeah and and so the intent is to build the elevation as drawn Yes. And presumably those are stopped in windows, in other words they're built on site? Yes. I have questions concerning the staff's definition of what's happening here. Are we closing in a porch or are we building an addition? We're closing in a porch, but that's the answer I can't give you. I don't know. Sure. But basically we're closing in a porch. Let's see what the staff says. Yes, closing in a porch. We concur. We're closing in a porch. Okay. So that goes back, I think, to Graham's first question or concern. I think going back to 1.13.C. Is that correct? I'm not going to speak for you. I'll let you explain it, but I think that's the one you were getting at. Right. Because the issue I have with it is that the addition blends. I already said it wrong. The infill of the porch blends in too well with the existing portion of the house. It doesn't maintain clear separation between the two. So it should be more different than the rest of the house. I would argue that it is actually quite different. Well, there's the rest of the house, and then there's this part. Right. And I think what you've done is blended the two together to the point where it's hard to know what's old and what is new, which is usually one of our efforts here. Well, you know, I actually had that in mind. I mean, one of the things I attempted to do with this was to make it different. I was afraid you might say it's too different. I'm very surprised by you saying it's too the same. You can see that the shapes are clearly not the same shapes that existed there before. I am using that sighting coming down, but certainly in a way that would never have been used back then. It's clearly, to me, quite different. I'm surprised by the argument. I thought it would be the other way around. For clarification, first of all. Can I say one more thing, too? Oh, sure. Because one thing I emailed in that either I forgot to do it, which is quite possible knowing me, or it just didn't get down here, was that the rest of the library was going to be a much smaller reveal than four inches. And I was going to, I mean, that's certainly something I intended. It would probably be more like two inches. Okay. Just for my own clarification, and Martin, you might be the one to answer this. According to Sanborns, there was this porch. It was there as a fully open porch from the back of the T. Yes, that's right. Was it one unit always? I mean, I understand it got enclosed in a different way, but it started out as one unit as an open porch. That's right. That's like phase one. That's right. And at some point, the entire thing got enclosed, correct? That's right. Then at some point, half of it was reopened. Well, right. Okay. And we know not when that happened. No, yeah, over time and so forth. That's right. And then at an even later date, the vertical wood siding was applied to the section that was still enclosed. Correct? The existing vertical. No, when they first, it appears that when it first got enclosed, the way that was done is that the lower half had the board worked on it. Okay. And the upper half had windows in it or something? No, it was just open. Oh. And so they closed it by doing the top half. Okay. But just in that first. I think that one photograph. Well, I. Wait. You have that one photographed. There's a possibility we have that photograph. I think we need one of those things on the screen that shows its thinking. Yeah. Go in circles. Okay. Here we go. You can see on that is this porch had a rail up this high. Okay. That's typical we've seen. And so to enclose it, they put one window at the one end, and they repeated this vertical side. Okay. Okay. And we don't know when, but at some point that full height, full enclosure did exist for the entire length of the porch. That's right. So basically there is a precedent already set that at some point that porch was enclosed completely. Right. And the roof is not being touched. Okay, so that's always maintained at the same time. That's on those earlier Sanborns, 1907. Okay, and those are the ones that we have here. Right. Okay. I think that the enclosure of the porch obviously has the historical precedent, so I think that is not particularly an issue. The use of the vertical siding seems to have a type of historical precedent because there's a section that's still there. It was added to. It might have gone on a little further. We don't know. So kind of the joint of that is something that kind of, I mean, it's not something coming out of the blue as far as the structure is concerned. I think that overall, it's what your proposed design is showing something that is clearly contemporary. Definitely that configuration of windows and so forth would not have been original, so you're not making any kind of false, creating a false sense of history. The one thing I'm just wondering, though, is with this particular design, and as a contemporary design, it's really pretty nice. The thing is that because this was a porch, you're losing any reference to that. And I think that maybe the configuration might be something that lends itself to sort of expressing that that was an open porch at some point. So, you know, there might be a way to sort of do that by having some kind of slight projection that sort of represents where the original columns or so forth were so that there's sort of a rhythm, that the porch rhythm is maintained through there. I have no idea what the original columns would have been like. Oh, I'm not saying you use original columns. I'm just saying a vertical element. Just to create sort of a rhythm of what an open porch would have. Okay. I mean, you can use the spacing that's on the existing open section. I imagine the roof would probably give you a hint of what that is. And that sort of fits into my concern from before, and I think there's a misunderstanding. When I stated that the new part, the differentiation that I'm looking for, it fits in with what Rob is saying here, that your proposal for this change in this area makes all of this one congealed changed unit. It's all the changes from here to here. Right. and it's one thing now. Right. Whereas before it was an enclosed space and an open space. But I would argue that before that it was a continual one unit piece. That's what it was originally. Well, fair enough. It's an argument you can make. For me, there's one issue here, and it comes from the guidelines. And this is why I asked to have a conversation about it. And the issue is in guideline 113D, which says, porches on the rear and sides of buildings may be enclosed if the height and shape of the porch roof is maintained and the open character of the porch is retained with a maximum amount of glass area and a minimum amount of solid area. So the question in my mind is, does this... Well, let me throw the curve back at you, if I may. Can I finish? I'm sorry. Go ahead. The question is, is there a maximum amount of glass area here? And furthermore, I think that this guideline is very specifically attempting to, it's asking you to think about how you might manifest the original open quality of the porch in the way that you enclose the porch which I think Rob suggested one strategy which would be to suggest the frame that might have originally or a frame that one might understand would be needed to support the roof in an open porch configuration so that the design might have a rhythmic frame-like manifestation that you could read from the outside. I'm not wed to this at all, and I'm not entirely opposed to what you're trying to do at all. I think that the intent of that guideline is not being manifested by your proposal. If I may. The building is, I think, within an inch of being six feet from the property line, which means I can't put in a lot of windows. I'm not allowed to. So I'm limited to 25% window space, no more. You have to have a, are you saying you have to have a rated wall there? Pardon? You have to have a rated wall, yes. It has to be a fire rated wall? So how are you achieving the glazing in that fire rated wall? They didn't mention glazing to me. They said it had to be fire rated drywall on the inside and outside of the frame. Well, they're not going to let you have the windows in that wall if it has to be fire rated. that it's not within three feet. There's two differentiations here. One is within three feet, one is within six feet. If you're within three feet, then you really can't have any openings at all. Everything has to be fire rated, has to be shot off. If you're within six feet, you can clad the inside and outside of the framing with the proper fire rated jar wall. And you can put in glass, but the glass has to be less than 25% of the area. They're limited to the amount of glass you can put in. Another problem is that the building sits six feet away from the building next door. Too much glass becomes a problem. The problem was getting as much light in for me when I was thinking about it. The problem was getting as much light in, which I wanted on one hand, but yet on the other hand not exposing the people there to someone who's from here to Betty next door. Probably closer than that. So that was an issue also. The third issue is I'm not particularly wedded to this design. I'm willing to consider any reasonable design on the outside. I just wanted to come up with something that didn't look old. That was part of what I was trying to do. But on the other hand, I have an odd constraint on me now, which is time. When we started taking off the tin that was underneath, we had permission to put in a foundation, and I started pulling off the tin to see what was underneath and how I was going to do it. The last stretch of the original porch is still there. the front part of it, has no support. There's nothing underneath it, nothing to support it. Why it's standing, I don't know. I mean, I really don't know. And I will not allow someone to go in there and put in a foundation without getting that off, except for the roof. I need to get it off so I can put the foundation in. And I need to do that before the weather breaks, which is not much time. So I'm under, and this is something that wasn't planned. This is something that came up fairly quickly. I wasn't planning to do this, so I couldn't have come in here in June and told you this is something new. But this is a new addition on it yet again. And so I'm really most concerned about being able to get that foundation in and get a wall up before winter strikes so I can continue to work in the building and not have to leave it open for six months. You already have the COA for the foundation, right? Yes, I do. Yeah, I do. So that work can proceed, correct? Yeah, but to do that... To do that, I'm going to have to take off a great deal more than I realized from what's there now. Okay. I mean, really, from the roof down, it's got to go. You need basically more demolition than what the COA that you have will have. I need to be able to indeed put the foundation. But I also need more than a foundation. I need to be able to build a wall and insulate that wall or something up there so that the building doesn't have to stand through the winter. Right. Just as an example, there are several instances in Lexington, in other historic districts, and even in Northside, where porches have been enclosed. Many of them involve probably more glass than you're allowed. But as sort of a guideline or a visual reference, you could look at a couple. there's a porch that actually was reconstructed on the side of the Oldham House which is on Upper Street it's three do you remember what the address is of the Oldham House? I'm sorry? it's limestone, that's it it's got a little pyramid thing in front it says Oldham House if you just look down the driveway You can see a nicely done porch reconstruction that's enclosed now. What it will show you is what I'm talking about, maintaining sort of this vertical spacing. Now, they filled all the space with windows, but you wouldn't have to have a transparent area, but it would give sort of the impression of that spacing. There's some other enclosed portraits around the Gretz Park area that have been done in different ways. Again, most of them do have a little bit more glazing, but it's sort of a visual reference. And I think that if you and your designer could sort of reference these things and develop another, you can have a very contemporary design, which would be fine, but utilizing that kind of idea that when you're looking at it, it's clearly enclosed, but it does still reference the fact that it was a porch structure, that it was not, although it was fully enclosed at one point, it was originally built as an open structure to a house. And there's lots of different ways you can do it. But I think utilizing the vertical siding and the fixed glazing and things like that can all be done. And even some playing with window sizes and so forth. But to maintain a consistent rhythm would be a little bit better solution. Which is all well and good and fine, but how do I do this in the time frame I've got? Well, what I was thinking is if you already have the COA for the foundation, I'm not sure how that would work. Well, the COA is actually for the foundation, but also we discussed at that time the rebuilding of the wall, knowing he had to frame that up. So he practically has a COA to put the new foundation in and rebuild the vertical wall that's already existing. What he's really asking for this time is the closing of that porch plus the addition of openings in the part that didn't have any openings. So in some ways, he has a COA to pretty much do partial demo, but it's just the rebuilding is really what he's requesting at this point. Thank you. Revisiting the guideline that to me is the bugaboo. I think in light of the fact that you are limited in terms of how much glass you're allowed, that sort of argues for the sort of solution or for a solution, your solution being one of the potential solutions. I think there's a better solution. I think that, and I'm going to try to explain this, but it may be a little abstract, but the guideline talks about the open character of the porch, and your solution is what it presents is a wall with very distinct punctured openings in it. So when one looks at it, one reads, wall. There is a way to articulate a wall that suggests frame with infill. It's a different reading, and it's a reading that is closer to suggesting openness. And so that's where I go as I read the guideline. I think, you know, how do I maximize the potential for the design to speak about openness? And I don't think that your design does that. But on the other hand, I don't think that given the proximity to the neighboring home and just the nature of the property, that what you're doing is contravenes the guidelines enough for me to feel strongly about rejecting it. There are certainly some limiting factors given the property line. I agree it chomps away at the opportunity to really open it up and maintain the openness that I think the guidelines do refer to pretty clearly. As far as our issues of old addition or old existing property versus new addition and maintaining that contrast, for the two to become one part of the addition, I don't think that's a deal breaker either in that the whole area is going to be the new area. And as you've stated and as it's clear, I think we all agree that the new part that you're proposing is very different and in contrast to the existing. So I don't think that's an issue that would stop this project either. I don't know. Well, I'll just agree with Graham and leave it at that. I don't know that the arrangement of the openings that are here have done the best they can do at moving to that effort. I understand your time constraint issue is also a factor, and you're concerned about that. But I feel like, and if it's depending on how the motion goes, if it comes out that we need to have a further discussion on the design of the windows and their placement, there are ways to build temporary walls that will meet your weathered-in issues that will have pieces in place that are reused. Can I make a suggestion if I might? I'm sorry? Can I make a suggestion if I might? It's a bit presumptuous, but I'll do it anyway if I can. Is it okay? It's fine with me. If you're willing to approve it as it is, I can proceed. but in return I am quite willing to consider a different configuration for the outside. I just don't want to be stopped. I don't know if that's reasonable or fair or not, but if you're willing to accept it as it is now, even though you don't like it particularly, I am quite willing to come back to the staff and give them a different configuration. I'm quite willing to do that. I just don't want to be stopped. That's what I don't want. We can't. I think the intent is good, and I think the motion can be crafted as such, but we can't accept it on the good faith understanding that you won't build it the way that we approve. We can't do that. It's on paper. You can go do whatever you want to after that point for the paper, and then we're left going, well, we thought he was going to do it differently. We're going to talk about it again. We can't let that happen. Not that you would do it, but we can't create the opportunity. If it's the board's choosing and if the motion should go that way, it seems like there are ways to craft the motion that creates the opportunity to further discuss the opening locations without stopping you from doing your demolition work or constructing a temporary wall as you need to for that weathered-in process and to hold up your roof as you go and get weathered in before the winter gets here. because that's a very real issue, and we all recognize that and understand that it would help you if we could do that. So let's see what shakes out of the motion here. Do you have anything else to add before we move on? No. Okay. Is there anyone else here in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, we're at 411 West 6th Street. Are there any other comments from the board? Are there any comments from the staff? You're hearing none from either. Either or any. The Chair would entertain a motion. I move in case number 17310411-H regarding 411 West 6th Street that we approve the request for certificate of appropriateness with the understanding that the final details are to come back to the staff for review and approval and that all exposed would be painted per the staff's recommendations. When you're saying final details, does that include that the final configuration of the openings is also part of that final details? You know, that's a good point. The staff recommendation indicates the final details of rear entry, stoop, and railings be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the purchase of any material for said work. I would add to that that the details of the window openings should also be submitted to the staff for review and approval. And is there a second to that motion? I will second that. Any further discussion of the motion? Just that when the details go back to the staff, if there is any issue, that it can come back to the board. And the staff is certainly fine with that. The only question I would ask is, is it your intent for the basic configuration to continue to be approved and just furthered through the details to staff? or is your expectation that there will be substantive changes in the rhythm or approach to these window openings? It's only the million-dollar question. I'm personally comfortable with accepting it as submitted. That will be fine then. That clarifies exactly what we need. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well. The motion passed. Can I ask a question now? With the staff recommendations. If indeed I do change this exterior, which I think I want to do, do I just go to the staff? You go to the staff. Okay. And so long as everyone can reach agreement that guideline 1.13.C has been met to the best of the ability with the limitations of the openings and the six-foot clearance and the problems, or not problems, but issues you have there. And if staff feels like it's a comfortable solution, then that's as far as it needs to go. If you can't reach an agreement, it generally comes back to us. Okay. All right. Mr. Lennon, just not as a design, but as a sketch of what we were trying to talk about, this is the vertical element that I was trying to get to. You should never hire an architect, because I did that one in there. If you would like to give that to the staff, we would be glad in discussion with you. Okay, the staff will have my very good sketches here, just for reference. To further the wealth information. All right. The next item on the agenda this evening is at 607 North Broadway to construct paved areas. That applicant has requested postponement until the October 26th meeting. Can I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Thank you very much. And a second to that. All right. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well. That case has been postponed to October 26, 2011. The final item on our agenda for this evening is a conceptual review for 324 South Upper Street. And the proposal is to construct a case.