Music We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz 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, as 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 Vine 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 that the board members enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the 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 20 approved applications noted on today's agenda. First in the Aylesford Historic District at 453 East High Street to replace siding, and the Bell Court Historic District at 237 Del Mar Avenue to remove trees. In Constitution at 112 Constitution Street, renovate structure. Also 145 Constitution Street, renovate structure. in the Ellesmore Park Historic District, 609 Ellesmore Park Install Gate, and at 632 Ellesmore Park Renovate Roof. Back in the Constitution, Historic District at 194 North Limestone, install fence, garden, and walkway. Mulberry Hill at 353 North Limestone Renovate Structure. In the Northside Historic District at 429 North Broadway Renovate Structure. At 475 West 2nd Street Renovate Structure. In the Seven Parks Historic District at 328 Arcadia Park, replace storm windows. At 110 Dan Slayer Drive, renovate front porch. In the South Hill Historic District at 426 South Broadway, renovate fire escape. At 275 South Limestone, number 110, install barbershop pole. At 289 South Limestone, renovate storefront. At 325 South Mill Street, renovate site. At 333 South Upper Street, install new utility box. and at 365 South Upper Street, renovate structure and in the western suburbs, Historic District 632 West Main Street, renovate masonry and at 716 West Short Street, regrade front yard and replace sidewalk. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. The first project on the agenda this evening is a 507 North Broadway in the north side Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? Yes, he is. Very well. Would you please approach the microphone? Just to review, the scope of work for this project is to cut masonry openings, install a roof deck, pergola, and guard rails. How are you this evening, sir? Hello there. My name is Anton Giovanetto. I'm the owner of the structure at 507 North Broadway. And how would you like to proceed? Well, have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Oh, the recommendation, I don't know what the staff recommendation was. All I know is they gave a lot of information to them. Was that the letter that came out? I'm not sure how or when you would have received it, but the staff recommendation that I have, I think you would have gotten it by mail. Right, you got it on Monday. That's the staff report that was sent to you. What is the staff report I received? That would be the last section. Yeah, and then you should have scrolled down, and that's what I was reading. Oh, okay. Well, no, I did not receive that. May I look that over quickly? Yes, please do. And actually, I'll just read through the staff's recommendations for everyone's knowledge. First of all, staff recommends disapproval of cutting of masonry wall opening, the wing wall of the third floor sun deck. Staff recommends disapproval of the request to construct wood deck, guardrails, and pergola on the roof of the historic structure's two-story addition. Staff recommends approval of the request to construct a pergola above the sun porch of the third floor living unit with the following conditions. One, being all exposed wood to be painted. And this is the first you've heard of these recommendations. Okay. All right. How do we proceed from here? I have no problems painting the wood of the percolous structure. In fact, that was part of the plan, so it needs to look good from the street. It also needs to look good from the location. Sure. So that's the easy one, and I'll assume you're fine with that based on what you've said. And then I would say you disagree with our first two recommendations? Oh, absolutely. Okay. The best thing to do from this point, then, is let's go through the staff's presentation of their findings and hear the reasoning behind the recommendation, and then we'll bring you back up and have some questions and comments for you. This is the property at 507 North Broadway. The proposed work is on the roof of this addition here in this southeast corner. this is looking at the rear section this shot being done from 5th Street another shot from 5th Street the structure is in the left hand corner up there And this is from the rear alley. This is probably the best view of the proposed work, which shows this is the sun deck that's existing, and the request is to cut an opening in this three-foot-high wall and then to put a deck across this roof area for this entire length. This one set is kind of looking, this is like from Broadway looking back at the area that is to get the top covered. Now I've spun here around 180 degrees. And I went too fast. So now, this much proposal, this is the existing sun deck. This is the four-foot opening in the three-foot-high brick wall. And then the pergola would cover this L-shape right here in the deck that entire length. This little detail up here shows how the post and the columns would be attached to the back edge of the parapet. This shows the railing and the pergola in the front view. and this is the side view showing the railing coming all the way to the front facade and then further half the distance. These views below show this view here is from the back corner looking forward and this view here is from the front edge here looking back This is the detail of the pergola. The columns are fiberglass and all the trellis work is wood. and the railing. Those are metal pickets with the wood top and bottom. And the posts are four by fours. And then they have a covering of a and a fiberglass stone impression and painting with a copper top. This detail shows the wing wall and also the proposed deck. and then the parapet, which would be notched for the 4x4 post and the 6x6 post, 4x4 post for the railing and the 6x6 post for the fiberglass. This case has been continued due to the nature of the work, but still having separate case numbers and deadlines for a Board of Action date. The APKIN's original COA application indicates the proposed work was to install a pergola over a part of the third floor patio and to install a handrail along the outer perimeter of a third floor patio. As this case was advertised as to install pergola and guide rail. As the staff reviewed the application submitted for the drawings, details, and photographs, it was realized that only approved existing patio area was the 11 by 12 foot sun porch area as seen on the drawing in previous office dated 2000, December of 2000. As noted from the submitted photographs, the breach had made in the porch's south wing wall to allow access to the roof area of the structure's two-story addition. A violation letter was submitted for the cutting of the opening. It was also learned that the wood deck had already been installed on the existing roof of the two-story addition. The applicant has now responded with an additional COA request for the following work, to cut masonry opening in the wind wall of the third floor sun porch and to install wood decking atop the roof of the existing two-store addition located at the south side of the third floor living unit. At this time, the applicants requested the board grant COA to perform the following work. To cut the 4' x 3' masonry opening in the wing wall of the third floor sun porch, install an L-shaped pergola over the entire sun porch and the rear 24' length of the two-story addition, install a wood decking over the entire 8' x 48' roof area of the two-story addition, and to install a 42-inch high guardrail around the three exposed sides of the roof deck. The pergola is to have an 8-inch diameter fiberglass columns with all wood framing members. The guardrail is to have the wood. I've told you already that we've listed the guidelines for your reference, the findings. staff finds the proposal to cut the masonry opening guard wall of the sun porch and to construct a wood deck for the third floor living unit on the roof of this structures two-story addition to be inappropriate not in court with the following guidelines guideline 1 15 F roofs added as skylights deck or dormers should not be placed where readily visible but should be carefully placed to be compatible and to have the least negative impact on the exterior appearance of the site the structure and the date adjacent surrounding buildings guideline 2 a 1 a Decks, patios, verandas, and balconies should be located at the rear of the building. Guideline 2A1E, deck, patios, verandas, balconies, second-story decks, and balconies should not be built on the primary elevation, but may be appropriate on the rear elevation. and guideline 2A5C, dormers, and other roof additions such as decks or balconies should only be added when in character with the existing building. Staff finds the proposal to construct a pertula for the third-floor living unit on the roof of the structure's two-story addition not in accordance with the design principles for landscape elements and guidelines 37A and 37B. However, staff does find the proposal to construct a pergola within the 11-foot by 12-foot area of the sun porch to be appropriate within the guidelines. Recommendation. Staff recommends disapproval of the cut of the masonry wall opening the wing wall of the third floor sun deck. Staff recommends disapproval of the request to construct wood deck, guardrails, and pergolas on the roof of the historic structure's two-story addition. and staff recommends approval of the request to construct a pergola above the sun porch of the third floor living unit with the following conditions. All exposed wood be painted. The deadlines are April 30, 2012, and that would be for the pergola, for doing the pergola. and the guardrails. Installing the roof deck and cutting of the masonry opening would be June 3, 2012. The apkin is here. Thank you very much. Martin, before you have a seat, just while you're here, I'd like to know if staff has a recommendation or opinion on the work that's already been performed, what should be done about that as far as the opening cut in the masonry wall. Is there a staff recommendation for, obviously you've already stated you don't recommend it happen, but now that it's happened, do you have a recommendation for a remedy? Oh, no. It would have to be restored. Okay. Thank you. And the building inspection would also require that. Okay. But it's partly dependent upon the board's decision today. Right. What would become the outer perimeter in the sense of security of safety. I understand. And if it is what is left to be the outer perimeter wall, then, as Martin has said, it would need to be closed back up. Okay. Thank you. Any more? Mark, before you, one other question? Yes. What was the preservation? I don't really understand when you say the preservation office dated December 2012, the attachments. Yes. Was that all? What all was sent to the office at that time? Oh, that was in all. What was sent? No, none of that was back in 2000. That little map that was included, that one sheet, was in reference to the windows that the applicant was putting throughout the house. Okay. But, I mean, that was the last view that we had of there being that wall, that wing wall around the sun porch. Okay. And we never had any applications since then. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. It's long here. I think they chose the page. I think they chose the page. All right. Well, thank you, Martin. You're welcome to come back up to the microphone, and we'll ask you some questions and hear some of your thoughts on these issues. Okay. I'll just open it up to the board here. Does anybody have any questions or comments? May I say something about the deck? Oh, please do. Yeah, go ahead. I've had some problems with storm damage over the last several years, and including the flashing to the roof on the addition was severely damaged, I had to replace that and when I needed access to that, safe access to that, so the opening facilitated that through the ring wall. When I was repairing the flashing around the deck, I also installed a band around that to support the flashing so it would not flop up in the wind as it was doing before. In the process, I realized that part of the problem I've been having for the last 10 years is that debris from neighboring trees would blow up on the deck of that roof, and it would fill the two commercial drains that were installed. On the front of the house, when that happened, the drain that was put in the house before I built it was not connected, so it drains into an open pipe. So when the drain on the roof gets clogged up, the water in the house backs up, It comes down into the walls, and I've had to repair several of the front rooms because of water damage. So in my attempt to protect the roof drain from the debris and to make my repairs, I put the deck down. Now, in realizing that the deck and the sunroof were ripe together, I realized that this would make nice living space. So at that time, I approached the Historic Preservation Office with my proposal for the guardrails and the pergola, shade pergola. At that time, I was informed that I was in violation, and so I asked, how do I get out of violation? So another COA was submitted. The pergola is very much important because when the sun hits the roof, and in the sun deck there are sliding glass doors that it heats up the apartment to an effect that the air conditioning unit cannot keep the unit cool. So the pergola would form as part of the air conditioning system, shading that part, but also allowing me to have a roof garden. If you would mind to clarify, because we are talking about two areas of proposed pergola. Yes, sir. So the area you're discussing now is the section that is contained particularly at the rear or the section that is extending along the side of the building? Part of the pergola would go over the side of the house. That would also offer shade to the structure. The house is a big masonry structure, and it absorbs all the sun all day long. So I'm just trying to facilitate cooling my apartment down, energy costs. Plus, I think it would be a very nice addition to the property. Since it's so high, I don't think that it would have an adverse effect on the structure. In fact, I had talked with the staff about eliminating some of the posts because they were concerned that that would create another architectural element. So getting rid of some of the 8x8 stone simulated posts and going with a wrought iron post from top all the way down into the cap of the parapet solved that problem, but it also gave the guardrail idea some safety, some strength. If I'm not mistaken, and I don't know if you know this or Martin might be able to answer, the wing on the side of the house was built in the late 70s, early 80s? Mid 80s. Virgil Vance bought the building in 82 and then started renovating. So between 82 and 89, the side structure and the back structure was added. Right. That structure architecturally is not really in keeping with the original structure. structure. Its scale, its proportion, the window placement, everything about it is probably something that would not be allowed today. Right, right. I think that was before the establishment of the historical... It was built before the Northside local district was initiated. Okay. Anyway, what I'm getting at here is that it's already more or less defaced that that side elevation of the original structure. And I think that the addition of the roof deck with or without the pergola, but with a more appropriate railing, would not be really out of character, especially since that is clearly a new section, a less than 30-year-old section of the overall building. It does, you know, the guidelines don't really want things to appear on the front facade, and because this is in line, the smallest section of the rail would be visible from the front. But again, by getting rid of the faux stone completely and finding a railing design that is more compatible with the overall structure, sort of the character of what the overall structure has, I think that that could minimize its impact. The pergola, it may be something that is pulled back further so it's less visible from the front, or it may just have to be contained back over the original sun porch area. But I think that because that whole section of the house has been so radically changed, I don't see where there's any dire connection to what would be considered the historic structure of the main part of the house. That said, overall, and I do appreciate the idea that it would be a great space to have up there to use and so forth, But the fact that you've gone ahead and done all this work without approval, putting the decking in, no matter what your intent was, was clearly a violation. And that kind of doesn't sit well. Well, I apologize for that. My intentions were not to violate any codes. My intention was to secure my building. but putting a deck over an existing roof to keep leaves and other natural debris off is not the normal way to go. It's a creative solution. It is a creative solution, very much so, but it is certainly not an accepted standard. Netting and screening and things like that are usually used in those cases. So, you know, that pretty much, that excuse is a little bit questionable. Well, my intentions were not questionable. I did not intend them to be questionable. No, I'm not intending that. I'm just saying that looking at it objectively, that is not a typical solution for the problem. So you can't really use that as an excuse without having the proper permits and permission. So that aside, I think that the overall project could still go ahead with some alterations. And as I said, the actual location of the pergola being pulled back to just the area around the existing sun deck, as the staff suggested, would probably be the first thing. And for the remainder of it, while the staff has denied it, I think that it could stay in place as long as the railing design is rethought in such a way that it makes less of an impact on the visual appearance of the structure. Thank you. Are there other comments from the board at this time? One question. Since you now have a deck over your drains, how are you going to maintain those drains with the deck over it? It's much easier because there's no debris falling into the deck. Also, access panels are over them. So you can pick up a piece of deck, get to the drains, put the deck down. So you did make sure you could actually access them? Yes. I did not want to close up something that may need some attention. Okay. My overall concern is somewhat echoed by Mr. Magrish's. My biggest concern is that guideline 2A1 talks about that new decks or patios should be placed at the rear side elevations, and the proposed deck railing really extends all the way to the front elevations property. I just think that's inappropriate under the guidelines, and that it needs to be pulled back. probably no further than where the proposed pergola would be, because that's clearly the site elevation, but pushing it forward would violate the guideline. I understand where you want to capture as much of that space as possible, but I think that when you put the railing all the way forward, it clearly violates it. There's an interesting dynamic going on here because the staff recommendation recites 2A, 1A, that talks about decks, perdias, verandas, balconies should be located at the rear of the building, But the design principle says when building a new deck or patio, it should be placed to the rear side elevations. So there's actually an inconsistency in the guidelines with respect to where they're supposed to be placed. And looking at that, I think the design principle overrides the actual subpart. And so I think that it is appropriate to have one on the side and the rear, but not on the front elevation. So that's not only really common on here. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with Mr. Magrish's comments. So essentially, yes. Thank you very much. Yeah, I think what's being said up here, I think we're all kind of in agreement. You know, the guidelines, whether they say front, rear, or rear side, or rear and side, they clearly say not in the front. So, yeah, what I'm hearing is consistent with what I had also thought, too. I agree with Mr. Magrish about the pergola being just too much. If we're going to have that on the side elevation, I think that is too large and noticeable an element as it approaches the front of the building. I agree that the railing should be toned down a bit so it's to blend in. But I also think the side porch could be maintained to a degree. I think it would need to come back off the front a ways. 10 feet or so would be appropriate. Choose a nice moment to align with somewhere in this neighborhood. And I think that would alleviate that problem with it being on the front elevation. I think the height buys you some favors as far as hiding. I think you're right. You're standing at the street. Are you saying that the pergola would cover a part of this? Well, because of its exposure, the pergola on the side, I think, ought to be omitted per the staff's recommendations. The pergola at the rear is in the rear. It's a rear porch. You know, we can study the pergola at the side, I think, to a degree. I think the staff's already made the recommendation that it just be omitted. Now, whether it be permitted at the side, I think that's the gray area. how far forward can it come on the side before it's considered in the front is what needs to be determined. I wouldn't want to see the pergola go any further towards the front of the building than halfway. Where the sun deck ends. Well, the sun deck appears to go maybe the rear quarter, right? My opinion is that the pergola should should really go no further forward to the front of the house than halfway. I think that's what he's proposing. Well, I wasn't going to cover the whole deck with the pergola. In fact, that's what I wanted to do, what you're suggesting right now. I did not want the pergola to be to intrude on the front of the house. I wanted the shade benefit to the back of the house, but I did not want you to be able to see a prominent pergola in the front of the house, because that would be another architectural feature. And I think Martin and his staff is correct about that. I don't want to turn beautiful structure into something other. Sure. And now the gray area for me is if there's not a building in front of it, the easy ones are here's a building and then built off the rear is a porch. And you know it's in the rear because there's a building in front of it and it's never misconstrued or seen from the front. You're talking about the addition and then the porch is in the rear of the original house. Right. And that one's easy for me. and the gray area for me is are we okay here if we see this from the front this edge because there's no building to block it right right gotcha so i'm kind of on the fence about that part bring it back to just the sun deck where it's not going 24 feet into the middle of the house but just covering the sun deck and part of the um addition so the first 12 feet yeah 12 about 22 It covers 24 feet over the side. Then there's 24 feet that has nothing over it. This is your proposal, first 24 feet. Right, that would be 24 feet. Cut 12 feet off of it. That would just have the length of the sun deck, and that would limit the view from the front. Now, the side view of the house, you're seeing the new structure. Well, sure. And I don't, you know, strictly speaking of just side and just rear, if that's all that we're concerned, that would be easy to. So I don't have a problem with it from the side elevation. It's how it approaches the front. Well, I can definitely reconsider that the faux stone. That was just a nice idea. What I have on the back porch is just a wrought iron fence. and that's minimal, and that could be the design. I think continuing that is appropriate, but we'll hear the board consensus. I guess the other thing I do want to address, and it's been mentioned, but I'd like a little more clarification from you just so I get a better sense of how this occurred. You did receive a COA for work, and you went through the process for some of this. right so you've done this before yes I guess the part that I'm having trouble reconciling is after having I'm a little confused about the process because I have the last 10 years I've done repair work on the house last summer I repaired the front porch because I had a guest who was standing on the front porch excuse me and he fell off So I repaired that. I've done several repair jobs around the house, and talking with Amelia, she told me that that's not appropriate. I misunderstood the scope of this office. So part of what I've done, in my eyes, is I've done repairs. I submitted work for something new. Now, apparently I'm an error. and I apologize for that. But to build a whole new porch and cut an opening in a wall, I think, goes beyond repair work. And I think that's pretty readily clear, or apparent to me anyways. And I think that's the part I'm having trouble with. You know, if you've got, you know, a loose shutter or something chips off and you repair it, that's a repair in my head. To construct a whole new structure, when you went through the steps and the effort to get a COA to do a similar task once before, I just feel like you should have known better, and I wish you had come forward with going through this process before, because I'm afraid even though we are going to meet in some middle area perhaps, based on however we vote. That doesn't quite overrule everything you've done. I mean, that would be the best-case scenario. It still seems like there may be some work for you to undo, and that's unfortunate. And I hope, you know, though the work's not unrepairable, that could be a problem. Has the deck already been laid on the side portrait all the way to the front, the entire 48 feet length? beg your pardon is the deck on the side edition been laid the entire 48 foot length there yes sir okay I couldn't tell from the pictures that had it on yes well are there any more comments or questions for the applicant at this time from the board Any comments or additional thoughts from the staff at this time? Actually, I had a quick comment. Are you looking to leave this thing white, Ms. Pergola, or would you be willing to tone it down? White? Yes. There's no, oh, oh. The Pergola, white. The design is just a design. The building has beige, hunter green, and burgundy in it. The last two colors are just highlights. But the color, besides the British brick, the main color of the house is a beige. I'm not interested in painting white. I got rid of the white, and I detailed the house, which I thought was very appropriate. well i mean i think if we could you know i was thinking this thing being white on the roof but if it's toned down maybe it's not so prominent up there so that's just a thought i don't want anything sticking out like a source for some thumb i had columns like that for several years before i before i painted them they were white and they they were they looked like yeah they didn't fit the house. Now with all due respect, I've spent almost a million dollars in this structure. It's my home. I have a lot of pride in what I've done. And I have a lot of pride in being in this city. Again, I apologize for being in violation, but in my eyes, I was doing an appropriate fix on something that has been a real big problem. Repairing the water damage to new construction two or three times over the span of six years is just really extremely stressful. I wanted to have a fix that would fix that. I apologize for being inappropriate with my actions, but the fix is what I was focusing on. I mean, it's a relatively easy step that you could add in your future fixes. When in doubt, just call the staff. In fact, even if you're not in doubt, call the staff. That might help set up some guidelines for future projects because the worst thing they're going to tell you on the phone is, we're not sure, let's talk about it some more, and they'll come look at it or you'll come in with pictures and comments, and you'll figure out if it's a project that warrants the COA process or if it's something simple that can be, well, this fits under typical repair and it's not a reviewable issue, or they say, yes, this requires an application and we can review it and help you and approve it right now. There's a whole range of things. Nobody here wants your house to get water damaged. We all want to help you protect your environment or your investment in the home. And on top of that, we're happy that people take care of their structures and do things to improve it. We do have the guidelines we try to stick to to help guide those improvements and changes, which is fine. Things change over time. That's what they're supposed to do. That's great. But let's take advantage of the staff being here to help us determine how to walk through the process and how to make sure that we can make sure that what you do fits in with the guidelines that have been agreed to and maintain the historic overlay district. And I think that's the purpose of everyone here, what their intent is, and none of that is meant to be a negative or hurtful action. It's all to help. I understand that. All that being said, any other comments from the board at this time? I think I've asked a couple times. We keep coming up with something else to say. Is there anyone in the audience here to speak to this case tonight? Again, this is 507 North Broadway. Seeing no action from the crowd, I would certainly entertain a motion. If anybody cares, to give it a stab. I'll take a stab at this. Mr. Chair, in reference to case numbers 025-00507-I and K at 507 North Broadway, I'd like to make a motion to approve the cutting of the masonry wall in the wing wall at the third floor sun deck sun deck that has actually already been performed, and the approval of the construction of a wood deck on top of the two-story addition on the side, holding it back 10 feet from the front wall. I would also like to approve the construction of a wrought iron guardrail around the new section of wood decking at the parapet with the details going back to the staff for approval prior to the issuance of the COA. and then also the approval to construct a pergola above the existing sun porch and then extending out another, I think it's eight feet. Nine feet. I would say to extend sideways as needed and not to exceed. to extend sideways as needed and not to exceed 12 feet towards the front of the house. Does that make sense? These are after, oh, and then the staff's recommendation all would be painted and colored to be selected by the owner. This is reflecting after discussion here of the guideline I-15F-2A1A-2A1E, and that's it. Thank you very much. I have a question. Was the 12 feet to the front, you mean from the back wall, or 12 additional? It's just 12 feet. So it's just to extend the program straight across. Right. The width of the sun deck extended out to the side, 8 or 9 feet or whatever that dimension is. And then, of course, all details for everything need to go back to the staff. prior to the issuance. So then the front 10 feet of the deck would be removed? The existing front 10 feet needs to be removed. Okay, thank you. May I ask the rationale for that? I may. We'll come back to that in a second. Is this closed? Let's get a second of the motion so we can discuss it. Okay, right. Hold on just a Can I get a second to the motion? I second the motion. Thank you very much. I'd like to offer up a bit of clarification. At the front edge of the deck, the guardrail would need to be located at the front edge of the deck, correct? So there would be no guardrail on the front of the house or on the front parapet at the front elevation of the house. The idea is to move the porch back away from the front of the house along with the visible guardrail. Can you move the deck back? Well, that would propose a safety hazard. Part of this design is all about public safety, public safety in my family, to bring the deck back and the rail back. We have an open in the roof. May I ask for a roof? I see what you're saying. Now you're going to have a deck up here and a deck up here. There would be an opening. this could be a safety hazard. Can we reconsider that? I'm missing something. I think he's saying that wherever the deck runs forward, if we remove it, this is going to be a 12-inch step down, something like that, roof material, and that this area may be a safety hazard even with the railing system here. No. If there's a guardrail there, the safety issue is... Hold on, I'm just explaining what I think he's asking. Okay. Is that correct? Yes. The guardrail needs to meet all standard codes, and the code, I believe, is 42 inches high. With the parapet where it is, the guardrail will be approximately 30 inches high. Right, but on that front? It goes from the surface of the deck to the guardrail, and there's 11 inches already there. so that, in fact, the parapet will be part of the guardrail system. Understood. But where it cuts across the front of the deck, it will have to be full height. It will go off the parapet, go along the front of the deck. But it won't be 42 feet high. 42 inches. It has to be. Excuse me, it won't be 42 inches high. It will be from the deck to the top of the rail. Okay. And there's already 11 inches there. I can show you this in graphic form a lot easier. It's basically... Okay. This is as if the house is cut in half. It's called a section. Right. Your railing, what you're telling me, will you see built on top of the parapet wall? No. From the side of the... It will be an extension from the deck up. Right. So from the deck to the top of the rail will be 42 inches. But then there's no rail below this? So it's over here, basically. The parapet will be part of the rail structure. Yes. That's interesting. Okay. So it's here. It will, if there's a 4x4, there'll be a notch, and it'll be notched and lag screwed into the cement blocks. And so the 42 inches will start at the bottom, and at the top of the rail it'll be 42 inches. but the rail itself from the parapet to the top of the rail will be 31 inches. Let me just cut to the end result. The end result that we've recommended, the end result that we're the proposal on the table. The system down the side, fixed to the inside face of the parapet wall, that is a guardrail down the side. That's one type of guardrail. Now across the front you may have to do a different type of guardrail system to meet all the heights and shapes. That's pretty much the proposal. It will be where the wood decking is. So wherever you can stand you have to have a guardrail. We've pulled the front off the lead edge of the decking back from the front parapet. that wood decking will require a guardrail. And the intent of the motion is to keep that guardrail and that wood decking off the front of the property. Now, a guardrail fixed to the wood decking that extends 42 inches from the wood decking up to the top of the guardrail at the lead edge should solve this problem, unless I'm misunderstanding your question. No, I was trying to address a concern of Rob's that the guardrail would be on top going 42 inches up atop the parapet. No, no, no. It's from the standing. We're on the same page. The wood deck that you stand on. Right. 42 inches from that height ought to be the top of the guardrail. Right. Okay. And I think that's how the motion was meant to be. That's how it was intended. completely that's what the second was seconding yes very well okay and you're you're clear on the motion yes i am okay good may i made an addition to that uh i would request we may discuss the motion yes beg your pardon we may discuss the motion sure okay Go ahead, please. Please proceed. I still, considering that the handrail will be visible even at 10 feet back of the front of the house, I still request a reconsideration of just letting the deck go all the way out with the guardrail all the way around the house structure. I'm requesting that for consideration, if you would please. I'm very pleased with your recommendation. I think, honestly, that having the railing cut across and having the decking extend, not necessarily with you or any member of your family, could be a future owner of the house or a guest, seeing a decking surface that looks just like the surface they're walking on, extending beyond the railing, gives the impression that one can just hop over the railing and go on out. Oh, I'm sorry. You misunderstood me. I'm asking that the decking go all the way out to the end of the building, including the handrail. No, that's what we were just talking about, about pulling it back. Yeah, the problem there, real easy, is this guideline 2A1 says it has to be at the rear side elevations, and by doing that it's at the front, so we can't do it on the guideline. That's the simple answer to that question. So there's no wiggle room on the guidelines. Well, there is, but I believe we've wiggled just a little bit already. I appreciate that. I mean, I guess, I mean, is it 10 feet? I mean, my thought was halfway, but I was, I mean, 10 feet halfway, I don't know. I mean, is it two inches behind there? I understand what you want. Because you already have the decking all the way forward, and it makes more sense to have your railing go all the way forward around the parapet, it creates some additional design and construction issues with you to remove decking you already have in place and then to create a new railing across the middle where the deck is with no parapet, correct? Mm-hmm. Well, how about glass railing up front where it's not visible? But it's not the visibility. It's not what the guideline says. The guideline says the deck can't go there. That's what I was trying to explain, is that the guideline says, when building a new deck or patio, it should be placed at the rear or the side elevations. Later on, it says it actually should be located at the rear, which I was pointing out to you as a discrepancy in the guideline of rear versus side. Instead of having to go through the whole conversation again, all I was trying to point you out is the guidelines are the law that we have to follow. And by being the attorney, I'm the stickler for what the words say in here. That's as reasonably as I can put it. That's just what the guideline says. The planning commission disagrees with us sometimes, but thank you. Any other discussion on the motion at this time? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Hearing none, the application is approved with the condition set forth. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 201 North Mill Street in the Gratz Park Historic District. Scope of work is to replace column bases. Set applicants here this evening. Would you like to come forward, please, and introduce yourself? Hi, my name is Jason Sloan. I'm the Historic Preservation Specialist for the Bluegrass Trust, and I take care of the Hump Morgan House, 201 North Mill Street. I'm sorry, could you say your last name again? Sloan, S-L-O-A-N. Gotcha, thank you. Have you had a chance to review the findings and recommendations from the staff this evening? Yes, sir. And are you in agreement with the staff for recommendations? No, sir. All right. If you don't mind, I'd like to have the staff make their presentation and discuss their findings, and then we'll have you back up for some conversation. Okay. Thank you. Did you do all the work this week, Martin? No. Okay. I just get two of them. Thank you. Thank you. This is the house of the Morgan House at the corner of 201 North Mill Street. This is a shot from the southeast, seeing the office entry on the West 2nd Street address. This is the columns and base. Went too quick. To be discussed. The applicant at this time is requesting board grant COA to replace the wood base and planth of the two existing columns with new polyurethane base and planth having the same design as the existing. The location of the columns is at the 2nd Street office entry of the historic Hunt Morgan House. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. The findings, the proposal to replace the wood base and plant on the side doorway with fiberglass of the Hope Mont the Hunt Morgan House requires further discussion. The Hunt Morgan House is an example of an early architectural preservation of Kentucky. Over the years, carefully attempts to restore and conserve the houses character had been made. Although the 2nd Street Office entry to this historic structure is not original, the drawings approved by the Board at the meeting on August 2nd of 1978 indicated it to be a restoration. When the doorway was created, it was based on documentation. The philosophies for the restoration were based on the documentation to recreate the doorway as authentically as possible, including the design and materials. Staff finds the proposal to replace the existing wood column base and plent of the two columns at the restored office entry of this circa 1814 federal-style structure with polyurethane column base and plent, inappropriate and not in accordance with guidelines. Guidelines 11B and 113B respectfully state, architectural details and features should be repaired rather than replaced, and porches and their details should be retained intact with repair work and replacement of the missing parts, such as columns, posts, railings, balusters, decorative molding, and trim, to match the original and design materials, scale, and placement. Staff recommends this approval of the request as submitted. Deadline for action, May 26th. Thank you very much. You're welcome. If you'd come back forward, please. First of all, do you want to say anything to us before we start asking questions? Yes. One of the reasons that we're looking to use a different material than wood is that this will be the second time in less than five years that we'll be repairing these column bases. The last time was June of 2008 at the cost of $2,500 to put mahogany, and mahogany is a good wood to use to help avoid rot. So mahogany was used in June of 2008, and then our current estimate for repair with mahogany again is $2,000. So after consulting with several contractors and knowing that that entrance is not an original entrance but an interpretation of what could have been there, We decided to use another material for the column bases but repair the column shafts with wood. And then looking at guideline 114C, it states that while fiberglass or a different material may be used for the column shafts, that fiberglass bases and caps are acceptable. So we felt that that was an appropriate solution to help mitigate both the cost of continuously repairing that as well as rot to the column above that base. Can you speak just a bit more to the addition of the door and when that occurred and how historic that is? Late 70s, as far as documentation goes, it was a really good addition. I mean, I've never seen any close-up photos of it, but historic photos that I've seen of it are generally across the street, and you can't get any real close view of it. Actually, every photo that I have, and I have some here, from the turn of the century through the late 60s or so, show a bay window on that side. staff can shed a little bit of light on that relative to the photo that was used back in 78 it was a photo in clay lancaster's collection and it did show close detail and they did very uh close drawings um reflecting that specific details from that image and so it was an unusually intended to be closely copied. Not an interpretation, but truly a copy or a returning of a missing element based on that photograph documentation, which is what makes this a little bit of an unusual situation. So which of these photographs are the current ones and which ones are the old ones? Because I just took them all as being the current photographs and maybe missed some data in this. are they all current photographs we don't yeah like we don't have in our no those are all current or certainly not historic but i know that's what was utilized at the time um okay so that to create the drawings that they built this from was a clay lancaster archival image the staff board indicated you see attachment and so i was thinking there was an attachment from 78 here. So one of these photographs is not from 78. No. This one is from the Clay Lancaster collection. Is this? But that's from his recent collection. Right, no. It was to show you that. It's a different... No, and the replacement that Jason has, and Mr. Sloan, pardon me, but we're all friends, was a bay window. So there's only one image, and it's really taken because it's capturing that corner, kind of looking up the street before the bay window was put on the house by the Morgan family in the late 19th century. So the historic image that Clay Lancaster located, they isolated the portion obviously that showed the doorway, and he based his research and detail on that information. And we're not looking to change the design at all. We're looking to maintain what's there. Are there more questions or comments from the board at this time? Well, I guess I have a question because it seems like I-1B, it says future should be repaired rather than replaced. E says should appropriate size, shape, material, color, texture. So in the front part, it seems like it should be replaced with what is there. Then on 14, it says fiberglass bases and caps are acceptable. So, I mean, it's like, I mean, according to that, it seems like he's. . . Our understanding of that was if it was a historic material that was there, and that's why we relied on that 14. I think that this does present a very unusual situation. But as Betty was saying, when the decision was made to remove the Victorian two-story bay from that elevation, there was a lot of study and actually a lot of discussion about that. And I think, Betty, I think you were probably part of some of that. Well, I personally wasn't, but the reason I know pretty closely about it is my brother was the leader of that effort. And so, trust me, I heard a lot about it. So, but, you know, if you're looking at preservation, different views, you know, you retain all the elements of the past. I mean, maybe if the decision was being made today, the belly window might have been left on there. Who knows? But given that they did this restoration at that time, it was extremely well done and very studied. So, as Betty said, it is not an interpretation. Just that is entirely the wrong word. But it is a reconstruction. And as such, that is not original material to the house. The key thing is, this is a house museum owned by one of the principal historic preservation organizations in Lexington, Kentucky. So do we do as we do or do as we say? I think that because of this case, because this is a specific house of note and open to the public and an example of historic preservation and everything that goes along with it, including maintenance and preservation technique, that it needs to be replaced with the same material. Using the fiberglass base, although less expensive and less maintenance, which I totally understand because funds are tight, will not give the same trueness to this doorway that using the material of mahogany or whatever it ends up being that a true material will give. So I really think that in this particular case that the staff's recommendation holds true. For my information, the construction of the mahogany pieces that were put in. You know, it seems, judging by this photograph, where the splits are pretty apparent, you know, down the face, you know, is the construction that was used previously appropriate? Well, mahogany is a fine material for outdoors, but you still have to put it together in a way that doesn't readily spread apart. Now, if that did or didn't happen, I don't know. It's something to consider, something to think about. It's certainly in my mind. I don't know the answer. I don't know how we get the answer, except whatever product, if wood, is voted on by the Board and whatever is found in the future, I think that should be a careful consideration, is the wood that goes back on while the species may be appropriate for outdoor, is the construction appropriate for outdoor exposure? Can you speak to that? Do you know? That side of the house does get hit very hard weather-wise. I mean, the sun's on it for the entire latter half of the day, and then wind and rain hitting there. It probably gets hit harder than any other side. And as far as any records I have, anything along that side gets repaired more often than anywhere else. And so that's the real problem is the exposure and the rain and then sun? Yeah. Okay. The guideline 1.1 talks about architectural details and features, but it talks about all of the different details and features. I mean, it talks about gingerbreading, barge boards, eaves, brackets, dentils, cornice moldings, trim work, shingles, columns, filisters, balusters, and any decorative or character-defining features. And it talks about things clearly in one. The essence of that guideline is that the same material is the word that's used in at least two if not three areas in that thing is clear. But then if you turn to 14, porch columns and railings, the design principle is historic porch columns and railings should be maintained and repaired with, again, the word materials to match the original. If the original porch columns and railings are missing, replacement should be appropriate, but they're not missing, so that's not really applicable. Then when you go down, it talks about 114A. They should be preserved and maintained if repairs require these materials to match. But then in C, it says if replacement of wood columns is necessary, wood is preferred, and some material, however, fiberglass may be considered for the column shaft. But the final sentence of that says fiberglass bases and caps are acceptable. So I agree with the sentiment that Mr. Magrish is saying that of all the applicants coming before the board, the Bluegrass Trust is, I'm not going to say have the higher standard, but has looked at sort of the epitome of preservation. but I think that we can't make it apply to a guideline that doesn't exist, which is it says you have to use wood all the time when the guideline clearly says you can use a fiberglass base or they're not really applying for a cap. And that if the guideline allows it, we can't sort of put another requirement on it that says fiberglass bases are acceptable but you all have to use wood because you're the Bluegrass Trust. I don't think we can do that any more than they can say it to a different owner who was a professor at U.K. of historic preservation, for example. because a professor in historic preservation used wood. But he didn't have to. But he doesn't have to. That's my point, is that he could have used wood. That isn't a lab material. I understand what you're saying completely. I just think that while this is not an original section of the house, or original element of the house, it's an original detail. Are there any comments from the board in addition to what's been said so far? No. Are there any comments from the audience at this time concerning this case? Again, we're discussing 201 North Mill Street in Gratz Park Historic District. Yes, sir. Please come forward and introduce yourself and speak into the microphone. I'm John Hackworth, and I live at 220 Market Street. I'm on the board of the Bluegrass Trust and chairman of the Morgan House Committee, so I'm kind of closely involved with this. And Mr. Magbris said that it affects the trueness, or something about trueness, and I guess I kind of get it, but this will look pretty true with fiberglass, and it will be painted, and nobody will look at that and go, darn, that's not authentic. I don't think anybody will do that, and we certainly don't want that to happen. We want it to look, I mean, I've been involved with the Hunt Morgan House for 10 years now, and we want it the best it can possibly be. And we want it to look the best it can possibly look. And being involved with that long, and I live in almost 200, my house was built two years later than the Hunt Morgan House, and it's a money pit, and, you know, it's the way it is. and I appreciate, you know, that's just part of the territory, but the fact that this will look the same, and all these other factors about it's a reconstruction and all that sort of thing, but the fact that it will look the same and that it is in the guidelines here that it can be acceptable, I would appreciate really careful consideration of the decision. Thanks. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to speak to this case this evening or any additional comments? Very well. Just one quick comment. if preservation is about looks, period, and I understand that appearance is very important, that sort of discounts all the other guidelines that are very implicit about maintaining original materials. So if the column basis, in this case, and I totally understand the use of fiberglass, and the maintenance issues that would go away, basically, by using that. But if the look is the same because it's made out of fire glass for the column bases, then will the look be the same on a window, on a shutter, on another element of this house or any other house, if it's made out of a different material, but it looks the same? Is it the same thing? And, I mean, that may be a more philosophical debate than a practical one, but I think that we have to look at preservation a little bit more than just what it looks like. And, you know, that's where my thinking is coming from as far as utilizing the same materials in the construction. And, I mean, I'm very familiar with it. my house was built in 1813, a year before the Heimborgen house, and I know exactly what a money pit is about. So I do appreciate your thoughts and your ideas, but I think that this has to be looked at a little bit more carefully. Thank you very much. You know, I feel like the guidelines are pretty clear, you know, replace material for like material. Throughout all of them, it says that quite clearly. And then that last one that's a little, that's shady, that does say fiberglass bases and caps are acceptable, is still preceded with wood is preferred. So it's like a bunch of votes in favor of like material and then a 50-50 vote that leans towards wood is preferred. The efforts that were made to recreate what was here and to make sure that they used original type materials, original type shapes, construction, because that effort was so pointed, I guess at that time you could have used fiberglass columns to start with, but you didn't. The effort was very intentional to use the original materials and to use the original design. So now here we are with this recreated historic piece of the house that was meant to be historic. And that pushes me back towards the original material. I don't know how we'll vote or how that will shake out, but I can tell you that that's my line of reasoning. Now, I hope that there's some wood construction that is more tolerant of its location in the sun and in the rain. I don't know. I think there's research to be done that goes beyond what I know at this time. But I hope there's a happier solution out there than five years. I mean, that's a pretty quick turnaround on a wood base or column. But that's what I have to say in conclusion. Are there any other comments from the board at this time? Yeah, I've got two. The first is the comment about it being preferred. That's like having a speed limit sign that says you can't go over 35. But we prefer you go over 25. But if you go over 25, we're going to give you a speeding ticket, although it says 35. And I just don't think that's fair. The second thing is that in applying the guidelines, we really have general principles and we have specific principles, and as matters of law, specific principles always prevail over general matters in that here the specific rule talks about fiberglass being used, and we're not going to talk about the base here. Whereas generally the rules talk about the same materials, but when it talks specifically about base, it talks about fiberglass, and I think the sentiment that you were talking about is exactly correct about the importance of it. being architecturally consistent. But the inconsistency is that there's a specific sentence that says it can be fiberglass, and to say that it has to be wood when it says that you can alternately have fiberglass is a decision, if that decision would be made by the board, would be inconsistent with the guidelines. Well, I hear what you're saying. I feel like the other guidelines that mention material are pretty clear, too. So we have to make that decision. Those are general guidelines versus one that specifically talks about columns. You're talking about all the ones in guideline 1, subsection 1, architectural details and features? I feel like 113B is pretty detailed. Pretty specific, yes, sir. I hear what you're saying about general versus detailed, and I feel like 13B is pretty detailed, such as columns, post-railings, bolsters, decorative molding, trim work. It's matched the original. And in this case, you know, that's the gray area again, but in my mind, I feel like they've recreated the original with the intent of it being the original. if it were a new one or a new interpretation or an altogether modern addition to the Hunt Morgan house. But it's not the original. It's the recreation of the original. It may be as specific as it can be, but it's not the original. But their intent was to match the original. Oh, I don't disagree with that. So I feel like they set the rules, and those are the rules I'm trying to follow. It's my lean on it. I hear what you're saying. One quick question just as a side issue. Was the 2008 replacement of the column base due to when the car hit that side of the house? I don't think so. I think it was done with extensive maintenance and repairs around the exterior of the house, trim work. Okay, because at some point those steps, that whole doorway got hit by a car, and I didn't know if that had something to do with that 2008 replacement. Was that before that? I was thinking it was a couple years before that. My vague recollection, which may not be being vague, totally correct, was that the car only impacted the steps proper. The stone part. Yeah, the stone part, and that they replaced, like, bottom two risers. Now, that's the part I'm kind of fuzzy about. Okay. So to be clear, I don't think it impacted high enough up for what we're talking about. So to be clear, when they were replaced in 2008, they were in similar condition as they are today, the same type of splitting that we see in the photograph? I didn't see them in 2008, but that would be my guess is the same. We've got head nods from knowing individuals in the crowd that agree. Okay, well, if there are any additional comments, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Well, Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 131-40201-U at 201 North Mill Street, I'd like to make a motion to deny the request as submitted per the staff recommendations. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? It's not a second. Mr. Chairman, I submit the motion. You guys, for like a second. Very well. Is there a new motion to be made at this time? Mr. Chairman, in case 131-40201-U at 201 North Mill Street, I move that the board approve the application as submitted, citing guideline 114C. And is there a second to that motion? I second the motion. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Very well. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. We have a split vote. Just kind of how I thought it would go. So there's only four of us here. That's interesting. Do I go out and recruit somebody? Doesn't the rule say that lack of board action means that the applicant wins, that the application is granted? Not until 60 days ago by hour. Well, I mean, not lack of. Well, but you all have taken an action, so I don't think that is implied. Pardon us while we do some thinking. Council. Council. I'm happy to hear about Mike. Last meeting, Mrs. Fresh. Thank you. bless his heart is brand new with us but I believe he's thinking over here may we like take a five minute break or something and get back with you thank you that's your authority Yes, in the interest of everyone's time and this issue being researched further by legal counsel, we're going to take a five-minute recess. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I see that you want to make a comment and we'll get to that in just a moment. First, let's deal with the procedure, just an explanation of what has occurred and what we can do next as a board. And that would be from our legal counsel. This is a Robert's Rules of Order issue. Both motions have failed, one for lack of a second, one to garner a majority. So what would need to happen at this point? As of now, the board has taken no action. We could remain in that state. Our recommendation was to continue this matter until another member could be present, thus breaking the tie. But as it stands right now, the board has not taken any action. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this hearing until we have another quorum present to take this matter up with an uneven number of board members. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? I second it. Very well. Before we continue, is there any discussion of this motion? Staff has one suggestion to your motion to consider, and that is to make it date-specific, that being the next meeting, which is May 9th? 9th. Okay. Amendment is accepted. Thank you. Is there a second? I second the motion. Is that acceptable? If you have anything to say about that motion, please come forward. You can jump down on the motion. I'm Bill Johnston. I'm on the board of the Bluegrass Trust, limit 645, West Short Street. And it seems to me that there are two things that I didn't hear mentioned. is, one, you can't really get the identical materials that they used whenever they created what they did originally because the wood is different. It's very difficult to find wood that has the tight grain that they had back then, and it rots much faster. I've seen many instances where we've used wood to replace rotted materials on the older houses, and it just doesn't last very well. And you can also make a case for the fact that this base is sitting right down on the concrete, or on the limestone, I guess, and water is going to get in there and rot it, no matter what it is. Maybe it was a design flaw, so we're asking to preserve what was originally a design flaw. Now if you build a porch column, you raise it up a little bit so it can dry out. So I don't understand why we want to preserve something that was done poorly in the first place. Thank you very much. the motion on the floor is to continue this hearing to the next meeting may 9th in hopes that we have an odd number quorum and it's been seconded any further discussion of the motion at this time seeing none uh hearing none all those in favor please say aye Aye. All those opposed, the motion to talk about it again on May 9th passes. Thank you very much. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 123 Dantzler Drive, and that application is to enlarge parking areas. Is that applicant here this evening? Very well. I want you in. Good evening. My name is Bob McMahon. I'm one of the owners of JB Real Estate LLC, which owns 123 Dantzler. Thank you. Have you had a chance to review the findings and recommendations of the staff this evening? Yes, sir. And are you in agreement with their recommendations? No, sir. All right. If you don't mind, I'd like to have the staff make a presentation, and then we'll talk to you about it. This is the property at 123 Dantzler. And last month, the request now is to expand the paving area. It currently has a driveway leading to a garage and a carport area. And this would be the proposal is to expand this area and to sort of get a little closer to allow parking in this vicinity. in the proposed area is 18 by 25 feet long for a total of 450 square feet. And, of course, he's on a corner. He's on the corner of Dantzler and Elizabeth. And staff did stop the work and then talk with the owner about this. And so at this time, he is making an application for this. And this will be concrete. In addition, he would also, he was requesting to repair the existing driveway. And this is the area you see here just to give you a little bit more idea. Here's the site plan. It was presented by the applicant, and this is the area again. And this is sort of an aerial view from Google Earth showing the same area in the driveway area you see here. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to expand the paving is found inappropriate for the site. The staff finds a proposal to install the 25 by 18 foot parking area too large and consume too much green space for this yard. guidelines 3-6-B and 3-7-B, respectively state driveways, parking lots that are new and should be located at the rear or side of the rear of the building and should be visually dominant. Landscape, land features, and land formations, view sheds, and archaeology that alter or introduce should be compatible to the site and with surrounding properties and landscape elements and site elements and overspaces should be developed in scale, use in character with the site in local historic districts. Recommendation staff recommends approval of repaving the existing driveway, but staff recommends disapproval as submitted of expanding the driveway. And the applicant is present. Thank you very much. Sir, if you'd like to come back up and give us your thoughts on your efforts here. Yes. First, I do want to start off by thanking Ms. Armstrong for all her helping us through this process. I live in Cincinnati. We own this house here in Lexington, and there's no question we screwed up in not catching. We knew we were in a historic district, but we did not catch that we should have sought or filed for COA before trying to expand, widen this existing driveway. And we apologize for that, and in talking to Ms. Armstrong, we realized we had to go through this process, so we have filed for the COA. I believe under the guidelines, as they read, our application is consistent with the language of the guidelines. First of all, the existing driveway is asphalted. It's not concrete. It's a minor technicality. But as I go through the guidelines as cited by staff, 35B, talking about driveways and parking lots, should be located at the side or rear of the building and not be visually dominant. This is a corner lot, you know, legally. It's addressed on Dantzler. I don't know what's considered for a corner lot to be the side or the rear of the property. You all, I'm sure, have dealt with this before. Facing the front of the house, the picture Ms. Armstrong put up there, it is a Dantzler Drive address. and there already is an existing driveway in this area, which is either on the rear or the side. I would consider it, I guess, the rear side of the house by the unattached garage. So I think it is consistent with 3-5-B. As far as the threes not be visually dominant, I'm sure you can see it from the pictures that Ms. Armstrong showed. There are the area in question that we're seeking to expand the driveway to. It is surrounded by existing hedges that are, I haven't measured them recently. They're at least 12 feet high probably. and they go from the side of the existing driveway right by the front sidewalk left and then straight down the side of the property line next to the next door property. So two full sides of this area are completely covered from view and also the elevation of this side expansion, I would call it. the existing driveway sits slightly above what would be the addition. I don't believe anyone, and sorry, let me back up. The third side of this addition is by the carport and the existing garage, the rest of the back rear yard. And then the other fourth side would be the existing driveway. I don't think from a visual perspective, an aesthetic perspective, anyone would even know this driveway, the addition existed. If you came around Dantzler onto Elizabeth, you wouldn't even see this new addition in my mind. And if you came from Elizabeth going past the existing property further down Elizabeth or left on Dantzler, you're also not going to see it either because it's completely blocked by the existing hedges. Going on to Guideline 3.5C, it talks about driveways should be concrete, asphalt, or grassy pavers. We propose putting in asphalt, which is consistent. 35D, driveways and parking lots, should have their parking areas located in rear yards and be screened with hedges, shrubs, or fences as appropriate. Again, I think we're in the rear yard and we're screened by hedges. 36A talks about landscape. Existing things should be preserved and maintained, and we are doing that. But when the staff talks about the green space, I think that's the word that staff used, we're talking as we measured it. We estimate 450 square feet here. It's probably a little high just because I measured it as a rectangle and it actually curves in a little bit there up toward the garage. The total square foot of our lot, based on the records that we found, is 10,305 square feet. We're talking about 450 square feet, so less than 5%, actually 4.36% of the footprint of the lot. We're talking about adding as asphalt driveway next to an existing driveway. So I think that is consistent. We're not anywhere near the front yard. We're not anywhere near the side yard from the driveway forward. we're right next to an existing driveway that is almost completely surrounded by yard or 12 foot plus high hedges or bushes. I think it's consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Again, I don't believe any, aesthetically, I don't believe anyone will even know it's there. The purpose and intent of this was to make sure that our residents have adequate parking without having to, you know, get in and out of their cars, move out, and people can come and go. And we also want to make sure that it's secure parking for our residents. We have four young ladies living in there now. Four young ladies will be living there next year. Parking has been decreased on Elizabeth. We want to make sure that they can park on site, again, which is visually and aesthetically consistent with the historic district. And when you read the language of the guidelines and the intent of them, to be compatible with the design, scale, and character of the historic district, I think we fall well within those guidelines, and we'd ask that our application be approved. Thank you very much. Are there any comments from the board at this time? I should note, in addition to your application and the staff's findings and recommendations, we are in receipt of a letter from a neighbor. And she is not in favor of expanding the paved area. Okay. I haven't seen that, so. I think that one of the issues in this particular neighborhood is that other residents in the neighborhood have also seeked to put forth applications to expand the parking area, paving more area in their, I think in the past, it's been mostly backyards, but because of the corner lot, tomato, tomato in this one. But the full-time owner-occupied residence properties, those owners are very concerned about expanding rental and student housing in the neighborhood, and by providing additional parking that encourages that type of use. and I think that that has been pretty consistent in other projects, other proposals that we've seen in this neighborhood for extended parking and their views, the people that have attended about that were very explicit and very pertinent to property values and quality of life in the neighborhood. So that is something that certainly has to be taken into account. when we're looking at expansion of parking, vehicular parking spaces. Now, another question. Have you thought about at all this expanded parking area being done in a grass paver? I have discussed it only because Ms. Armstrong mentioned it to me. We have not considered that as owners until she brought that up as a possible alternative. visually i'm trying to i mean i guess it could work next to an existing asphalt driveway it does no i mean i know it would work i'm just trying to picture it think of a lawn sure sure i mean i'm aware of them i've never done one i've never owned a house or a property that uses that i'm aware that the board has made similar suggestions to other owners And that's all I know about it. Okay. I know that they're more expensive, but I literally looked into those. I don't know if we talked yesterday or the day before. I forget. The first time I heard that possible suggestion. Okay. Thank you. My only response on the issue of ownership versus rental, we're very aware of those concerns in the neighborhood. We've owned the house since 2006, I believe. I can stand on the front side yard and visualize at least a half a dozen homes that are rental housing in that historic district that I can see from our property. And maybe they weren't rental homes six, eight years ago. I'm not that familiar with the process. I believe part of the issue of rental versus single family residential, though, is more of a zoning issue and not appropriate for this board, per se, because I think this board is bound by the guidelines. And as I read the guidelines, I think what we're proposing is consistent. And whether Lexington, whoever that body is, and I'm from Cincinnati, is the body that determines where zoning is appropriate, that's for a different time and day. Point taken. Yeah, and I'll agree. You know, zoning, you owning property and renting it out is certainly within the zoning guidelines for this property. and it's really none of our business. However, what is of our concern is maintaining the fabric of the neighborhood as it was incorporated as a historic district. And it's a neighborhood. It's a residential neighborhood. To expand parking and for it to happen here and everywhere, it goes from driveways to parking lots, which takes it out of the realm of the type of neighborhood that it is, whether it's zoned rental property or otherwise, the fabric we are to maintain as the board, which is our purview, is one of driveways and not parking lots, which I think is the real issue here. You have some other concerns about safety and lighting, and I'm not quite sure how expanded paved parking helps that problem. But we don't disagree with, you know, we want occupants to be safe, and we don't want to hurt that. And I don't think anything that we would decide today would really affect that one way or the other. What does occur to me is also there's a convenience factor, right? And you mentioned it. You don't want your tenants to have to juggle their cars around like happens in any house that has a narrow driveway or more than two cars in the driveway at a time often. I'm looking at the aerial photo, and just based on the size of the cars that I see there, I'm not sure that while it would be a hassle and that you'd have stacked cars in there, There is paved area for all four tenants to park at the same time and be off the street, which eliminates the problem of missing street parking since those numbers have been reduced, in the current footprint of the driveway. And like I said, it's a hassle. However, it also maintains the shape of the driveway as it is now, which is in more of keeping of the neighborhood as it was incorporated as an H-1 district. So those are my thoughts on it at this point. Of course, grass pavers are an excellent option. They have some cost drawbacks, but they do allow for firm parking structure underneath your grass and the really fancy versions. And part of the one I noticed on Ms. Armstrong's one, I don't know if it was a Google Earth photo. I'm sure it was taken a while back. And I have no idea if we even own the property. Yeah, I think it was a, yeah, that might be the one. This is Google Earth. It shows someone parked behind the hedges in this area, I thought. I saw it. It shows them parked in the grass. We actually aren't big proponents of that either. And what we would rather not have is our yard torn up. And while, yes, we can tell residents not to do it, we can't police them 24-7. And my understanding is that the police don't even police them 24-7. In fact, they don't even care that they park to the left side of the driveway in the grass. and we would prefer not to have that area of the yard torn up, muddy, ruts in it, and all that sort of thing. And there are ways to accommodate that. We've worked with other applicants before that have used all sorts of solutions that range from as invasive as a fence to as subtle as landscaping timbers to create an edge. That's not really what's up for review today, but there are options out there to protect the edge of the driveway and keep the cars where the cars belong, which I'm certainly in favor of. I recognize the historic area. All I can talk about is our property. I don't know what other owners have tried to do. I don't know how other owners are situated, the size of their lots, the location, what's next door, what's not. All I can picture is ours. And when I look at the guidelines surrounded by these hedges next to an existing driveway, I don't think it interferes at all with the guidelines as they're written or just visually with the aesthetics of the property, anyone driving by, looking at it, walking down the sidewalk, anything. I think for someone to even know the driveway's been expanded, they almost have to walk up the driveway and see it. Let me just clarify. Whether it's covered by a hedge or on the backside of a house that's never visible from the street, we have to consider the whole bottle of wax. Oh, sure. And that being the case, we do have to consider how much of the yard is this new driveway taking up. And while your numbers, less than 5% of the overall property, do make it sound rather small, what I'm more concerned with is what percentage of the new driveway will be taking up the existing green space. Because your number includes the footprint of the house, the existing sidewalks, the existing pavement, all of that. So it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison for what I'm concerned with. And my concern is maintaining that green space or landscape, land features, land formations. And I appreciate that. I don't know the answer. Just visually looking at it. It's quite a bit. I don't need an exact number, but I think we'd both agree that it's a chunk of the yard. Excuse me? I think without, we don't need to put a number to it. I think we can look and see that it's a pretty sizable part of what is now green. I would say it's no more than 15, maybe 20%, but I don't even think it's 20%. So I don't know if I would agree with the word very sizable. I agree that adjectives are inappropriate. It's more than I would like to see covered by Dave. Okay. Thanks for your time tonight. I've just got a couple of questions or a couple of points, I should say. You're right that the 800-pound gorilla or the white elephant in the room, however you want to describe, the issue is that, and you're not isolated in this, is that with the transition around the U.K., especially in the last decade as the University of Corona and student housing is pushed out into traditional residential, owner-occupied neighborhoods, that issues like this crop up. I'm always very clear up here that we have no business over the building code issues. We have no business over zoning stuff. It's just not what we do. What we do is this, the guidelines. The interplay is causes that sometimes people want to do changes, though, because of the changing nature of it, being rental property versus owner-occupied, that they see changes that change the nature, scope, or layout of the land. And this is one of those where you're basically probably increasing the size of the driveway, 35%, 40% is sort of a guess, with existing parking. I own eight historic structures in downtown and have similar issues with my tenants. I've got one with five bedrooms and I have three parking spots. And they just got to go find their own parking. So, I mean, sometimes they double park and they might get tickets. That's their thing. But your concern that I like what you're doing is saying we don't want to carry up the yard because then it just doesn't serve anybody's purpose. It's not what we want. It's not what you want. It's not what the tenant wants. It's nobody's interest, so how do you solve that problem? The idea of additional paved area in here is, I think, incompatible with the guidelines. And one of the letters it says in here, and I think there's maybe somebody in the audience who wants to address that tonight. But it's not a new issue that's come up for the board. You haven't been here before, but we had one hearing that I think we had four hearings on it. And it was significant issues with respect to the neighborhood and the issues because of the ongoing dynamics between traditionally owner-occupied neighborhoods changing, which generally I have no interest in at all. It's just that once you put more people in the house, it starts to change how many cars are parked, how much is needed for parking, and other issues. And it's gone from everything from gravel to asphalt to grassy pavers. The increase in the size, especially looking what appears to me to be enough for at least four cars, is definitely an inconvenience for your tenants. There's no question about that. and it's definitely an inconvenience to you all to have you tear them up the yard. In my mind, the answer is either a solution that doesn't traditionally pay either concrete or asphalt, and, of course, you can't use gravel in Fayette County. You may know that now. I didn't know if you knew that. I found that out. That's one of the questions people want to do first. You can't use it anymore. If you have it, you can still refresh. But if you can't use new gravel, is a grassy favorable solution or a solution that stops them from parking in that area if you can't do it, rather than traditional concrete or asphalt. I know not which one I hear tonight, but as you've talked to me in the other three hearings, I'm pretty sure you're going to think the guidelines say. Correct. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any additional comments? Is there anyone in the audience speaking? Oh, excuse me. Staff, do you have something to say? Well, while that party is coming up, be walking. I'm going to be short. You might just find it of interest to know that on corner properties, you really legally have two front yards. That's by definition in terms of the zoning regs and fences and all the things that come into play. But, I mean, that guideline where that conversation started really does talk about new things, and here we're talking about an expanded thing. I'm just offering that for base info, not suggesting what it might mean. I'm just saying uniformly throughout the county, corner properties are considered to have two front yards. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. My name is John Snyder. I live at 1609 Elizabeth Street. If you think about this house being on Dantzler, my house is almost directly across from where Dantzler hits Elizabeth. It is visually apparent, the size. I think you've really covered a lot of the things that concern the neighborhood, of trying to keep the spirit and the historic nature of the properties as they were. Quite a few years ago, the neighborhood made that statement. As an example, I think, just on driveways, I kind of envy this situation. My driveway is a single car wide. I could probably put three cars in it. And tonight when I came over here, I had to back out my wife's car so I could get my car out. So it goes with the territory. The other things that I had thought about were that, in general, street parking is available all the time or most of the time there. Some things that the applicant may want to consider is, I would be willing to work with somebody on getting a parking plan for the neighborhood. I don't know if you're aware of that or not, but we can get street permits and only residents park in the area. And it's a safe neighborhood. There's very few problems in that neighborhood. Thank you very much. I appreciate your contribution to the conversation. Certainly some points to carry away for the applicants and ourselves. Is there anyone else here to speak to this case this evening? Are there any additional comments from the board at this time? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Can I ask the applicant a question first? Absolutely. Would Joe be willing to withdraw the application to go back and consider either a grassy paver or one of the underlying plastic grids with grass on top for parking? I know that those are just two of the solutions that are available, and this may be explained, but one of the downsides of having a denial of an application is you can't come back before the board for a year unless it has substantially new evidence. And so I wasn't sure if you were aware of that or not. Well, it's not. I was sort of betting that you weren't, which is why I brought it up. Although, if it was a new material, that would be a substantial difference. Well, it's because we don't really vote until it comes up. I didn't want him to be caught in catch-22, in fairness to him. I mean, if the – well, go ahead. Sorry. I just want to make sure you're aware of that so that you can think about that instead of after we vote, and then you're like, oh, I can't come back for a year if you all would find that. So I thought I might pose that to you. Generally, what you're hearing from the board is very, very consistent with how we approach parking in all historic areas, I think. It's probably very consistent with what Amelia told you. If I can read the writing on the wall, it doesn't look good. Well, it does. It just may not be good for what you want. Right. It doesn't look good to me. Let me ask this, because I just had the pleasure of sitting through the prior two hearings. Is there a way to grant the application on the condition that grassy pavers are used so I don't have to start the process over? We do it, right. And I don't know for sure that we will do that, because I had talked to the other owners, but I'd rather not have to start the process over. My general approach to this is always tell applicants, yes, you can if, rather than no, you can't because. Yeah, we've done motions like that in the past where we grant latitude and where the details are worked out between you and the staff under the general idea that you are going to do however we describe the motion. Right. And we've had success with that, I think, as far as timelines and speeding things up go. So, you know, we could put in enough guidelines in our motion that would describe the size, like the things that I'm worried about, like how much space are we talking? Are we talking about stacking cars all over the yard? Because now we're back into another issue of unsightliness and things that we really don't care for. So I'd want to know a little more information before I just granted, well, if you use a different material, it'll be okay. but I think the motion could probably be tailored to that effect. Ms. Kerr, we correct it. Even if a CEO is granted, they don't have to actually do the work they don't want to. Correct? That's correct. They would be electing to carry out that work. Now, the one caveat, if they start that work, they would need to complete it in accordance with the permit or reverse it back to its now condition, which is in violation, actually, its now condition. I think I have to do something. I understand that. Something has to be done to resolve what's evolved. I guess my only point on the grassy pavers would be I think that addresses the green space issue, which seems to be the more paramount concern. Obviously, people park in the grass, whether we put pavers there or not, that happens. Thank you. I'd rather have something that's designed, suited, aesthetically nicer, safe, you know, fine for the environment, the green space, whatever, if that's what the board desires. Do you know the width of the existing driveway, where the garage and existing carport are? I don't, off the top of my head. Just looking at the... Do you know, Amelia? Looking at the measurement on the house of 27 feet, it looks like it's inside that. I would say it's more like 20. Well, I don't know if it's a scale, though. Right. Yeah, I don't either, so I don't know for sure. The application states that the proposed addition is 18 feet wide. Right. But, you know, we don't really have a scaled image to have an apples-to-apples comparison. The reason I ask that question is in at least one of the photographs, when I look at it, It almost appears as if the driveway flares out enough, it's almost enough for three cars, but not quite. It's really not. The part that pulls in before it flares out, you cannot put two cars next to each other. They're in my experience. Especially depending on what type of cars you drive. I think the cars in the picture or two, like a Toyota Corolla and something else, which appear to fit there. but you get anything larger and people can't get in and out and people are pulling into the grass and whatever else. Because I think that one of the things that strikes you about the parking situation is that it's not organized parking the way they've parked here if they've just sort of done what's traditional. People, as they pull and park in wherever they are, they are. I don't want to say you have striped spaces, but clearly delineated parking space. is maybe one of the space issues you have is that what I'd like to, in my mind, is if it's on a direct square, but can you actually have four across there so that your flare-out doesn't start so close to the road when it flares out? That's one of the questions I'm thinking in my mind. So that when you pull in, instead of having an immediate wide flare... Angle it out or something? Well, instead of an immediate 90-degree turn back right parallel to the street, You actually flare in so that when somebody pulls in, you have four spots to go across there, which significantly reduces that area if it's possible. I'd be really surprised that four cars could fit across. Something I'd like to bring up as a point of the conversation, maintaining the green space is a factor that we've discussed and a heavy-weighted issue that you're up against. I think one of the other things, though, we have discussed also is the parking lot nature. that we're trying to step away from. So even with the addition of grassy pavers, which I prefer to expanded asphalt, concrete, and especially gravel since it's not allowed, is that we're still going to have cars in the area where cars ought not be now. And in light of the neighbor to this home's comments, of reserved spaces on the street curb and other alternatives that are unique to this area. I would like more investigation into that before we consider expanding the parking area, just because the other big issue in my mind, not only is there the green space issue, but there's the parking lot issue versus driveway issue. While no cars are in it, it still looks like you just have a single driveway. The end result is you have a driveway with two cars and then grass with two cars parked on that, which I think is probably not the spirit in the neighborhood or the spirit was the other commenter's words. But the fabric is not to have so many cars off the street and they're parked by the house. So I think that's one of the other issues, and it's just hanging in my mind. I don't know the answer to this, but I believe it's possible that there would need to be a variance granted from another part of the government if this is a front yard. Because parking within those first 20 feet or whatever is not legal in a front yard. So, as I say, I don't know the answer, but I just want to put out there this might be an issue. Is it possible that variance is already in place if they've been parking there all along and no one's cared? Nothing is impossible, and since I don't have knowledge of this parcel. It's not been a designated parking space. I mean, it's in the grass. Right. My answer to that is I'd be surprised, but I don't have knowledge of it. Very well. I mean, if we did a COA on this anyway, I mean, we always make them subject to any other LCCD divisions. That's sort of a discussion for us to have. Sure. That was really more with an eye to this gentleman being from out of town and maybe not knowing other things he needs to check into. You know, I kind of feel like there's still a lot of unanswered questions about this. I mean, the possibility of the grass pavers, the code issues, you know, looking at some visual sight lines and things like that. maybe the thing to do is to redo a continuance on this so that this information will be brought before the board before a decision is made? Certainly if that's the board's desire. I know it extends it out for you, but it keeps it in process so you're not having to start from scratch at any point. I was like, yes. They get to the bottom all the way to this area. Just an idea. Are there any other comments at this time? We're hearing no other comments at this time and no motion in the crowd. I'm sorry, sir, did you have something to add? I think you're right. You need to think about this grand scheme for us. I'd like to see what he's promoting. I'm sorry. If you're serious about grass pavers, I'd like to see what's really being proposed visually. It's difficult for me to, I think you've got some ideas here, but I also agree with you that we're trying to avoid parking lots in the neighborhood. And my point is simply that it only addresses one of the issues, and I think there are two issues here. Thank you very much. Any other comments? Hearing none, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Do I need to make a motion for a continuous? Is that correct? Yeah, we'd have to vote on that. Okay. Well, then, Mr. Chair, for case number 30870123-H at 123 Dantzler Drive, I'd like to make a motion for a continuance for this project so that we can acquire additional information, such as the use of grass pavers, the actual visual sight lines, and other information about parking in the area, so that a decision can be made after having that information. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Can you just repeat again to make sure I understand it correctly, Rob? If I can remember it. Basically, a continuance to acquire additional information about grass pavers, sight lines, and other parking issues before a decision is made by the board. I second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? I have a question. The motion or the proposal is written. It would have to be revised, changed. How does that work out? And then you have to advertise that, et cetera, et cetera. Within some parameters, it could have adjustments made by the applicant that still would be addressing that he is proposing to create parking area adjacent to this driveway. The manner in which he's going to accomplish it, such as materials, more specifics of the footprint, et cetera, et cetera, still would fall under what the legal notice covered. the flip side would be you know you can't as you're already well aware say oh i've decided now to put the parking on the far side of this driveway or whatever it would have to be in the basic concept of what's before the board currently sure but some adjustment could be made on by the applicant and that information will need to be provided to the staff uh in a timely fashion tied to getting it into the information for the next meeting and we'll get with you about that May I suggest on your motion again, need it to have date specific, please. I will add to the motion that it be postponed until May 9, 2012. I second that. Very well. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Nay. Motion carries 3 to 1. Thank you very much. The staff's here. You've been working with them. We'd expect that you'd continue to work with them, and they'll know if you've gone beyond a revision versus a new application, and they'll talk to you about withdraw one and create a new COA and that sort of thing. So good luck with that. We look forward to having you back and hearing what other fine ideas you have. The final case on the agenda this evening is at 333 South Upper Street, installed parking lot and lighting. That applicant has requested to postpone their hearing until May 9, 2012. Can I get a motion to that effect, please? So moved. So moved. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? No. Very well. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, motion to postpone carries. Post to adjourn. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Very well. Thank you.