Good evening, I would like to welcome you to the June 12th Public Care Board. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and we now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a 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 the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for 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 22 approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the Aylesford Historic District, 342 Aylesford Place, renovate structure. 234 Kentucky Avenue, replace roof. 315 Oldham Avenue, renovate structure. 319 Oldham Avenue, renovate structure 368 Transylvania Park, renovate structure 148 Woodland Avenue, remove pine In the Bell Court Historic District 607 Boonesboro Avenue, renovate chimneys 509 Russell Avenue, repair front steps In the western suburbs Historic District 704 West Short Street, renovate structure 724 West Short Street, renovate structure In the north side Historic District 338 Hampton Court, repair front entryway 445 West 6th Street Renovate Front Entryway 453 West 3rd Street Renovate Structure In 7 Parks Historic District 318 Arcadia Park Renovate Structure 321 and 323 Arcadia Avenue Renovate Structure 128 and 130 Barbary Lane Renovate Structure 212 Dantzler Court Re-Landscape Yard 146 Shawnee Place Remove Trees 148 Shawnee Place Remove Trees in South Hill Historic District, 423 South Upper Street, renovate structure, and in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 802 West Maxwell Street, renovate structure, and 368 Moreno Street, renovate front porch. We shall now proceed with the review of the applications for certificate of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 234 Kentucky Avenue. That's in the Aylesford Historic District. And the application is to demolish the garage. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant's not here, but he has received a copy of our report. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Again, this application is to demolish the garage. Are there any comments from the board this evening for this? The staff recommendation is to approve as submitted with the following condition, just one being prior to the demolition of the garage. The applicant is to submit a COA application for a proposed fence extension to secure the rear yard once the garage is removed. No comments or questions. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case at this time? Again, at 234 Kentucky Avenue to demolish the garage. Seeing no action from the crowd and no further comment from the board, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chairman, it spreads to case number 10620234-B, located at 234 Kentucky Avenue. I move that we adopt and approve the staff recommendation as submitted. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the case? Second. Motion. Thank you. And I'll say before I ask for a vote, we do typically, I know the staff and the board also take very seriously an application to demolish a property, but the staff's findings and the applicant's efforts have been pretty thorough in determining that this structure is in pretty bad shape and that the best solution is to demolish the structure. So I'm confident in staff's findings and am comfortable with the motion made this time. So that being said, and no further discussion of the motion, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, motion passes. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 205 South Limestone. The application is to install an awning. It is that applicant here this evening. Would you please come forward and introduce yourself? I'm Mary Beth Tolson, and I live at 551 West 2nd. Thank you. Have you had a chance to read the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? I have, and, you know, we're kind of fish and chips is our thing. It's kind of a, you know, fish shack type thing, so I guess we weren't really going for a real finished appearance. But I see here that you guys say it's okay for acrylic and canvas and vinyl-coated materials. so maybe you could give me a little extension so I could look into what sort of materials I might use. I was thinking something like Molly Brooks. They've got that. Not Molly Brooks. Next door to McCarthy's. Spider's Well, they've got that. Well, we have a couple options as far as the process that we can go through. So you can withdraw your application and go come back with a different one with a new material that you're proposing. And then we don't have to make a ruling on this at all. Or we could do an extension and you can alter your application and come back. Well, the thing is, it's already up. Well, that is true. And I didn't do it. I came in and it was there and it was, surprise, we love you. I was like, oh, that is really nice. Well, I understand from the staff's findings that that is the case. The third option you have is we can hear it as it is, make a motion. If that motion were to disapprove the application, your new application would have to be significantly different, which I think it would be if you're talking about a new material and a new awning. So to me, I don't think there's a problem with any one of those. It might be simplest, and I'll get the staff's opinion on this, to extend it so that you have time to alter the application and then we re-hear it. Let me get your take on that. Amelia? Presently, she is extended to the 25th, which is two days before the 27th, which is our next available meeting. If you'd want to, the board can, say, give a particular date that you want to postpone this case to. Okay. But that leaves her the latitude she needs to work with you on a new material and update her application and for us to get a new application in our hands for review before the next meeting. Well, right. So right now she's extended to that. if you all say she's postponed to, say, July 11th. That would be better. I have two big things to cater, and then Pride's downtown, and then Fourth of July. So I've got a lot of other stuff I need to take care of between now and the close. That would be the Board's choice to extend that. So possible target dates for our consideration. June 27 will be simply too soon. And July 11th is the next feasible date. Yes, I'm okay with that. If that works for... That works for me, I think. I'll see why not. Pardon? July 11th. July 11th. So if I could find somebody to cover it in Canvas, you all are okay with it just like it is, but covered in a canvas or acrylic material? Yes, but we and the staff would like to see the final details of that come back. That is certainly a possibility. Let me answer that question without actually having what you're proposing in front of us. Okay. In principle, it sounds okay. Obviously, campus isn't approved material, but it still has to be in conformity with the character and nature of the streetscape. We've given people the latitude before to say, you know, approve material and recommend they work with the staff. And if the staff can't approve it, then it comes back to us. So go find the material and then get with the man. We could even make a motion tonight if anybody were willing to propose it. And that would give you... I haven't had a chance to shop around for anything. I don't know. Are you suggesting covering the tin in canvas? Or are you suggesting using the framework that you have in place? The framework in place. I'm not sure how you would cover this in canvas, but... Yeah, it's a pretty definite shape that's up there now that would protrude through most things. I'm afraid. Actually, a can of time may actually give you more sidewalks covered, too. I'm thinking something flat and then, you know, get it covered. Okay. Well, that's good information for us to consider. Are there questions or comments from the board for the applicant at this time? I'm always a big proponent of yes-ifs, as I said many times before. Yes, you can do it if rather than no, you can't do it because. So I'm in favor of that type of framework. Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case tonight? Seeing no motion and hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. So it seems like there are several possibilities here. Are we delaying action until the 22nd? I think it's possible to make a motion at this time that specifies the material and the frame that's in place and that it could be worked out with staff, and if they can't come to an agreement, it comes back to us. So relative to case number 19450415-A at 205 South Limestone, I move that we approve the concept of the awning but ask that the owner work with staff to come up with a material solution that is acceptable to the staff and that if that can be accomplished, then authorize the staff to make the final approval on the awning and that if you can't come to agreement, then that you can come back to us with an application. Thank you. Is there a second with that motion? Second. Thank you very much. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with those changes, of course. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 203 and 205 West 4th Street in the Mulberry Hill Historic District, and that application is to construct townhouses and site work. If you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself and give us your address for the record, we'd appreciate it. Steve Albert with Albert and Burnworth Architecture, representing the owner, 118 Constitution Street. Thank you very much. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I have. I'm sorry, you have or have not? I have. Okay, very good. I have reviewed. Very good. And are you in agreement with their recommendations? Yes, I have a, I brought in an alternate drawing if you want to look at that. The painted, does that include pre-painting? On item number two. On item number two, all exposed wood, with exception of flooring or porch and deck, be painted. Pre-painted, like Hardy, includes that. Well, this is just for exposed wood. Right. So painted includes pre-painted. I differentiate those two things, personally. Oh, okay. Well, I think the big deal is just that, you know, even if it were like pre-painted lumber, If it were ever cut. I'm thinking of hardy pre-painted. Okay, well, hardy's not a wood product, so I think hardy's okay. I don't know. It's gray, but it's not really finished. I'm not sure how that applies to this comment number two, but it is an interesting question I'd like to hear the staff's input on as far as wood and its finish. You're talking about the siding, correct? Right. Yeah, that's number one then, really. He's talking about the deck and the flooring. Is that all he's talking about? Number two? Yes. Yeah, that's right, isn't it, Martin? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Okay. We're all on the same page now. Okay. Okay. We're okay with number two, and yeah, we'll do number three. And then the siding, the staff really didn't like the corrugated metal. Actually, the corrugated metal was only in the middle part. The rest of it was metal, but it wasn't corrugated. I didn't know how the BOAR thought about the metal, but we have an alternative. Okay. Well, it sounds like we're going to have some conversation on it. If you don't mind, I'd like to have the staff make their presentation. Well, we agree with this, but it says to be approved by the board or staff. Right. I would like to at least hear the staff's comments on sliding the structure and hear more about their reasoning for that, and then we'll bring you back up. I need to do one little half score. Yes, sir. What do I need to do when I do that? I'll switch. Okay. Okay. Martin, it sounds like the only thing we need, if you could limit your presentation to your comments on the siding of the structure. It's all that there is contention over to discuss at this time. What's pretty quick is that as far as the siding is concerned, we've not done a structure, to prove the structure of metal siding. And I'll have to read down through here for the findings. I think that starts right off with the findings. The design principles for new primary building states. New primary buildings should be designed to be compatible with adjacent historic buildings and those along the block. Compatibility is demonstrated by having similar orientation, roof forms, materials, windows and door sizes, placement, porch sizes, location, foundation, heights as adjacent buildings. The proposed structure to be compatible with adjacent structures of the neighborhood, reference size, mass, setback, roof shape, orientation, opening sizes, and porch deck designs. However, the proposal to use corrugated metal siding material, having no sense of scale or compatibility with any adjacent or surrounding buildings, is found to be inappropriate, not according to guidelines. Guidelines 2B1J states material and material color, a material color, texture, patterns, and construction technique help define building characters and scale. Materials are incorporated into all parts of the building but may vary from building to building. Installation materials that gives a building an imitation historic appearance are not allowed. Materials should be in scale to the building on which they are located and should be compatible with materials on adjacent and surrounding buildings in areas where strong continuity of material textures, material colors factors the continued use of those materials is strongly recommended. Recommendation staff recommends the denial of the request to use corrugated metal siding for the purported structure. Staff recommends approval of the request to construct the two townhouses and the site work with the following conditions, citing the structure to be of material as approved or materials as approved by the Board of Staff. All exposed wood, with the exception of the floor and her porch and decking, be painted and final location of all HVAC, electrical, phone, water service, and proposed screening be submitted to staff for review and approval. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Appreciate it. All right, if you'd like to come on back, we'll hear some more of your thoughts on those recommendations for at least the metal. Well, the metal was being used as economy reasons. It went up fast. And these have to be built by August 1 or August 15, I think. But we're okay with changing that to using hardy with the horizontal hardy on the bottom. What's the reveal? The center part is the hardy panel with the reveals, and then the top part is a hardy solid panel with no reveals. I know the white line, but on the two sides, It looks like those are on the, not the center portions, but it looks like they're just rectangular panels on the two sides. What's the reveal on those? Four inch side end, six inch? The lap. Yeah. You mean the reveals in the solid part? The lap of the side. Oh, the lap. Six inch or? Six inch. I'm sorry. Okay. And then the reveals in the solid would be painted the same color as the hardy. They wouldn't stand out. And that goes all the way around. The solid panels on the top Thank you. That doesn't show it very good. You can see the joint right there, but it's kind of a hardy-makes-a-stucco kind of finish. From a distance, you don't even see that. This is on another house somewhere. So basically what you have is a clabbered siding on the side elements, right? And then a hardy panel with some sort of batten strip on the central elements, right? Yeah, this is the horizontal siding, the solid panel with the metal reveals, kind of like we did over on Upper Street. And what is in the upper part of the gabled form? This. Just the solid, hardy panels butt joint. Could I talk you into putting the horizontal siding up there instead of the panel on the gabled elements? It seems more consistent with your original presentation, which had consistent material on the side elements and then something different on the middle element, which makes sense architecturally. I understand that. There's an ease of construction and economy, according to the contractor. Well, I have a real problem with a panel like that, butt joined, with no way of controlling the quality over time of those butt joints. The middle piece that goes behind it, and there's an actual detail recommended by Hardy for that. So you would actually see the seam? There would be a piece of caulk in it, and it would all be painted the same color. There's a recommended detail. Yeah, I'm familiar with that detail. You are familiar? Have you used it? Have you used it? Did something happen? I don't even think it has to do with the functionality. To me, it seems like in the neighborhood where this is, and I've got about ten properties within about a two-block radius of this one, that the design of this doesn't fit with a lot of the old clabber-sided shotgun and two-story houses in the neighborhood, and that whether you use a hardy board or another cementous-type board for the siding, that it's very confusing to see your horizontal space cementous board, your panels with the reveal, and then panels without the reveal. to me just strikes me as very chaotic and not consistent. Then if we continue that up there, it would be okay? That's what I think. I don't know about the actual functionality of it. I just think from a characteristic of the neighborhood, it just makes sense that especially when you're carrying it on the side, it needs to go up. I can agree and relate to what both of you are saying. it's a lot of different materials and patterns in one small area. If it were a bigger structure, we might find a way to make that work. But I think the two masses on either side being the same material top to bottom would contribute to them being more cohesive. Okay. What happens on the side elevations? So, again, there's a split. Well, in this photo, it was the same thing with the solid, but we can take that and put it up there. Is that just a band that runs between them? A band. Floor line. I mean, it didn't look like there was an overhang or anything. It's just that I guess it was just a band for construction. Just a band. Right. And the material that you originally proposed wasn't actually a corrugated metal. Was it a metal panel with a vertical groove? Yes. From a distance it looked like a vertical board and batten. There was corrugated metal in the middle part. Right, I understand that. But is it a T111 sort of look with a groove in it, or is it a projected piece? It was a projected piece. So it looks like board and batten. Yes. I wasn't here at the conceptual review meeting for this, I don't believe. We didn't have one. No, there was one. Oh, he did have one? The applicant had one with a previous design. Before he purchased the property, I thought he was. Well, this is totally different. It is. I wouldn't be a force. The signing was one thing that concerned me about this. The second one was that the way that the entranceways are done with that projecting bay for the front doors, the front doors actually put facing the exterior sides of the property. Yes. It almost appeared to me that this was flipped. In other words, what I would have expected to see on the front of the property for a small stoop with overhang back close to a street was actually out in the parking lot in what was the rear, which would be maybe a side entry rear door or into a storage space off the rear of the property. Actually, it was the front underneath the roof. It has a front porch. I understand. It's underneath the shed roof. Yeah, I understand that. But when you see it from this view or like in the drawings of this view, that's what it struck me as. Can you talk briefly about why the front doors are going to be from the side entry instead of to the front? One of the reasons is in the front of it, it is not clear to me that this is a side-by-side townhouse design which would reflect the primary purpose of this parcel when it was in its development plan for all the other townhouses. Well, the reason these two shapes are like this was to give you the idea that it was two different townhouses. Yeah, okay. But on the front door. And with each with a little porch. I understand the door is there, but you have to be looking straight on to see it. This is just like a little entry foyer in the porch. Why were the doors put sideways from the side instead of the front? To save space in here. They're really small. I think I understand it in plan, too, the effort to create an entry vestibule into the spaces. is kind of how we got to the result. A little entry vestibule, and then you have this big space. Well, I mean, I'm not sure where Nathan was going with his comments, but I guess I would like to reflect on that as well. To me, not having a door facing the street is an unfortunate aberration from what's typical and what's expected. I don't really understand why the porch roof couldn't have been extended slightly to give a little protection and those windows turned into doors on this elevation that we're looking at here. I don't know how critical that is to the reading of the building, but it seems that that would give a much more clear indication to a passerby as to how the building works and what it's about. I disagree. I think the point that you have a porch there invites entry. The overhang, the point that we have a porch here invites entry, and that's the entry point. I guess what Graham's talking about is I'm troubled by this, that I don't know of a single, not saying there isn't one, I just don't know of a single property in this area under the H1 overlay or otherwise that has front entry doors that aren't actually on the front. In other words, there may be some that have more than one front door, that have a front door and a side door or a rear door or maybe even have been converted to a duplex that have a front door and maybe a second door. But this is an aberration of the area. I'm just going to try to think it through my mind, if I know of one, because there may be one. I like the idea of the porch. I think that it is consistent with the area. I call it a stoop, but that's just the Eastern Kentucky guy in me. that allows for congregating areas when either the sun's hot or it's raining. But none of them, I think, have had that little vest field that comes out where the porch door is actually off of that into the side instead of... See, I don't understand. Extending that window just two more feet down gives you the sense of a door. What? More so than a porch entry. Whether it's that window where the porch comes out farther than that... We can't go out any further. We're right on the lines. And there may be building setback issues you have. The plot isn't clear with those for what the old plot development plan that you should have copied and what this is on the site plan. Very clear. Actually, honestly, I'm not nearly as concerned about that as I am about the side elevations. No one said anything about them, the horizontal windows and the side elevations. are much more troubling to me. But I'm inclined to want to restrict our comments to the siding choice at this point, deferring to the staff's side windows, obviously to get some light in, but also that you can have furniture placement so that they don't interfere because of the smallness of the spaces on both the top and the second floor because the bed would be right in there in the floor plan. And the sill heights look like they're about? The top of the windows are at the top 6'8". And the sill? Another 2' down. You know, the fact that the windows on the lower level are opening into major public living areas and the ones above are opening into bedrooms would imply to me that they would want to be different units, but they have completely different functions, and the way you relate to them on the interior and on the exterior, frankly, is very, very different from top to bottom. You know, I understand that a lot of this decision-making is driven by budget, but I have to voice my opinion that a lot of it is really unfortunate as a result of that, this being the one place where it really sticks out in my mind as an unfortunate concession to budget. Well, it's not a fenestration pattern that you see in the neighborhood. elsewhere and that's but it's out of character for the neighborhood on top of the fact that you know they seem very small and out of scale on the large plane of the wall I guess I'd like to hear the staff to speak about their findings because really the only thing that they objected to was deciding and I'd like to understand the staff's position with regard to, particularly with regard to these windows and with regard to the door issue, front door issue. But for me, mostly these windows, it seems so out of character for a historic neighborhood. The staff struggled with the location of the doors, but the fact that this structure is kind of like an island, it's standing alone in that one block from limestone over to upper, except for the side view of structures that face the major streets. The feeling was that indeed the plan worked well, it seemed, but the location of the door was the concern. But it was mainly going to be either walking traffic that would see those doors or automotive traffic that would just be, and I think when you see the perspectives drawn from either side, the door is visible, and the porch, I think, as Steve is saying, is saying, you know, entry. So that's where we were with the door. As far as the windows, we wind up getting windows like this because of furniture arrangements. And so, in effect, we didn't question as much as the door. I don't know. I have a whole house full of windows that are deeper than that that haven't kept me from putting the furniture where I want to. So while that's a good reason or a reason to put them up high like that, I don't feel like it overrides the rhythm and the size windows that you see on other buildings in the neighborhood. And, you know, to say that it's an island and that gains the latitude it needs to be a little different is maybe true to a degree, but it doesn't fit with the argument that they shouldn't use corrugated metal because there we're leaning on the compatibility of the adjacent buildings and the surrounding neighborhood. So it's hard for me to argue one way and then the other. I agree with your findings about the metal and your reasonings for it, but I also carry over that reasoning, and that's why I am uncomfortable with the windows as they're shown. We've had windows like that in elevations before, but there were never all of the windows. It was, or at least cases that I'm familiar with, might have a few windows in the pattern of larger windows on the whole facade. And in that case, it developed a rhythm and was part of an overall design with a mixture of window sizes, not just these small horizontal windows. is what I can recall, and correct me if I'm wrong. The foot? I would have thought a couple of deep windows on the first floor. I mean, it's almost for uniformity if indeed you just go with the top strip windows. Without designing the whole thing while we're here talking, I'm certainly open to something. I'd like to see an alternate to this, though. And the front door issue, because the approach to this building will never be from the front, but along the sidewalk or along the street, I can make peace with the door. I agree. It's different than what you see, but the door is still at the front of the property, and I do believe that efforts were made to identify a division between the two units and that the door is visible from the front or from the primary approach. So I'm not as concerned about the door placement, but the fenestration on the side elevations is between that and the siding material, which I think we've covered the siding material. I think we're in accord there and are doing okay. It's the windows is the only sticking point left in my mind. But that's for... I guess I really didn't do the visuals. That's an alley that is right across 4th Street, which... May I have that back? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought maybe you were going to do the visuals for me. I guess really I'm going the backwards way, wouldn't I? I didn't know we had this many. This is from one of the units on limestone. Thank you. So that's it. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I appreciate it. You'd like to come forward and say more things? That's fine. I'd like to speak about the side windows. Sure. Some more. We start at the second floor first. This is a small 12 by 13 bedroom, and it's got five feet of window in here. and these are added to bring some more light in from the side. The property line is five feet off, approximately, each side. There really is no view this way or that way. And it's really to bring light into each one of these. Both of them, you were talking about more windows and making these bigger. They really don't need more windows. We could take them out, but that'd be... Down here, it was just more to bring light and the furniture, and we had two big windows back here and just the one here that lines up with the one upstairs. But really, as far as views, there's nothing. It was, like I said before, it was mainly for light from the top and to be able to have a furniture placement that you can just do however you wanted. I don't know. We can do the issue with the windows. Would you rather them not be there at all? How far is an adjacent building on the one side? You'll have to forgive us. We don't have... This is part of these condo associations. This is an empty lot that for some reason they didn't, I don't know if they ran out of money or what, but they didn't build these there. Oh, in fact, this old site plan has them on there like that, so they must have thought about it at one time. But we're right in there, and the property line is somewhere right there. So what is that, 30 feet maybe? But pretty exposed from traffic down 4th Street, wouldn't you say? I'm sorry. Both side elevations of the property are pretty exposed to 4th Street as far as traveling up and down 4th Street. Oh, sure. If you're traveling this way, yeah, you'll see that. I understand everything you're saying about the function of these windows from within the building and understand your efforts there. But I'm sure you understand also we're charged with the exterior of the building, and our concern or my concern is how does this surface of the building, which is in its height, it's pretty big for having nothing around it and surrounding areas, even though it's a small building. It's a new, big, broad surface. and to have such small openings punched into it and their horizontal nature is just out of character for its surroundings. And so I guess what I'm trying to get across is that the different shape fenestrations is what I would prefer that are deeper in the elevation or deeper, you know, top to bottom. I respectfully disagree. I think that the windows on the side elevations in the transom style provide a very contemporary feel for this property that will show that it's contemporary considering some of the other things, especially what I'm going to say with the doors. It doesn't bother me that they are transom style on the sides. I think that if they were transom style the way around, I don't agree completely with you. But those styles on the side don't bother me. The same way that if you try to put one in a bathroom, we'd have a transom in there, probably. If the bathroom's wrong with the size, for example, then you need to bring it above the toe. And don't get me wrong. I'm not against the transom-style window or that a transom-style window has been used. It's that all of them on this elevation are transom windows is what I mean to articulate. So if there's some combination of deeper windows, down low and higher windows up top, or something other than these tiny horizontal punch windows, I would be more comfortable. I'm going to go back to my earlier comment. There's two focuses in my discussion on the front door and the back doors. One, one of the things everyone who comes before me knows, I'm really big about the guidelines. I cite the guidelines because that's the law we follow. And the guidelines say that new primary buildings should be designed to be compatible with adjacent historic buildings and those along the block. This section of 4th Street, actually for about three blocks of 4th Street, there's very few structures actually on 4th Street itself. Right across is the old church that's converted to basically a warehouse for antiques. You have some side structures along 4th Street. The next block up, you have literally three houses in transity, either parking lots or commercial buildings or church side. The other way, you have several commercial buildings. So it's unique insofar as that. If you turn around the corners on the residential areas, it goes on to say, compatibility is demonstrated by having similar orientation. So I think this meets compared to especially the townhouses that were originally developed as part of the parcel. Roof forms, which I think that, although they're not specifically like it, but they're substantially similar to the type of house built around the corner. Materials, which we've talked about, window and door sizes and placement, porch size and location, foundation heights, adjacent buildings. New construction of primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt the existing pattern of surrounding buildings, the streetscape and historic district by being similar, and then it goes through shape, scale, height, width, et cetera. when i when i looked at these drawings even knowing what was labeled as the front elevation and the rear elevation the way that the front porch was designed and the rear stoops were designed it appeared to me that they had been flipped being for one one is the way they're they're actually created and i think there's probably a practical standpoint that being almost across from the alley if you have another doorway there you allow additional light to shine in from cars fitting there, but what is the front projections on those imitate the rear projections on the adjacent townhouses in substance, not specifically in form because they're a little different, but that's what the townhouses have. Second, from a practical standpoint, understanding this is probably going to be rental property or potentially, even if it's not, I'd be sure that the front doors are never going to be used on this property. I mean, I don't mean never in the absolute sense. I mean it in the practical sense that people are not going to park on the street and walk to the front door. They're going to park around back. They're not going to walk all the way around the front of the stepping stones to the front, come in the front doors to the vestibules. The practical sense is to put the vestibules in the rear of the property where people are actually going to come in, where they're going to put their trash can, where they're going to take off their muddy boots, because that's what's going to happen. They're going to come up on that rear porch. They're going to come in the back door because that's the closest direction from their car. That may not be what the person who owns the parcel wants, Mr. Van Meter. I think that's the realistic expectation for what's going to happen on the parcel. And I think that that design fits within the character and scale and is compatible with not just the neighboring townhouses that were built, but also in the character of the neighborhood, would be to essentially flip those, whether you want to do actually a portion of the front side, too, just like you have what I would call a limited awning over. It looks like maybe one step in the kitchen area. Those are my comments on the porch. I'm fine with this discussion on the windows. I'm fine with what's been proposed. And once the hardy plank was raised, as you indicated, you'd be willing to raise to the second level. I think that would resolve that issue, too, just the placement of those front doors and the vegetable in the porch situation. Okay. So where are we? We're in discussion phase. To summarize what I've heard so far, it sounds like we all agree and are pleased with your willingness to extend the hardy siding, the horizontal planks, up to the top on both masses or both sides, which is fine. and I think that takes care of the staff's moment of disapproval. It sounds like some of us would like to see some further development of the side elevations and the fenestrations therein, and it sounds like some of us would like to see the main entrance on the front of the property facing the street. Leave anything out? All right. Can we give a give and take where we can leave the front entrance the way it is and do something with the windows on the side and resolve it tonight? Well, I'm fine to resolve it tonight. My vote is going to be that if the front door is proposed that it is, I'm going to vote no tonight. Because I think that the front doors are a mistake to put them like that. Okay. I mean, I can say tonight, yes, if. I'm a big, I mean, I'm very consistent in two things on this board. One is I always look to the guidelines and cite them for what I say. The second one is I always believe you tell an applicant, yes, you can do it if ABC, rather than say, no, you can't do it because X, Y, Z. I disagree with you because of the front porch and the front porch and all the other buildings around the side. Just because the door is on the side there, I don't see that. But the windows? Okay. And I understand we can just, I mean, we don't understand what you're saying, but I just disagree with you. All I've got to say is tell me the address of a single property. that has this type of front door down there? There isn't any other property around there. Or, like Martin said, in an oasis. No, that's within that street. I'm talking about anywhere downtown. I mean, just, I'm trying to think. So if I go around and find a side door like that somewhere downtown and take a picture of it and bring it to you. I'm trying to, if you can make a case that says that there's a compatibility, the word is compatibility in the guidelines. If you can make a case for compatibility, absolutely yes. All right, let's say I don't find a door on the side like that, But you're looking at that one little door and not the whole thing about the porch entry. No, you're missing my point. The way the porch door is set in that vestibule coming in from the side is what causes the problem with the front. That's the problem that I have with the compatibility on the front of these two townhouses. I called a duplex earlier. I misspoke. So if I made that one window in the front of the door, you'd be okay with it? No, I think that the problem is how that's done. You have to have a porch across the front there, and the vestibule entry, that kickout, should not be in the front of that property. Even if the front door was moved to the very front of that kickout, it would still not be appropriate for that. It would be better because at least the front door is in the front then. But you don't have that type of thing in any of the neighboring historic districts. that was my discussion point that those type of vestibules, kick outs, bump outs whatever you want to call them there's probably a technical term that I don't know appear in the rear of the property not the front of the property there are some that have maybe an octagon shape that would come out but normally the door isn't in that that's a bay window and the door is usually next to it alright, you're a no I'm a no, I'm a yes if you say put a porch roof across there and move the vestibule on the back of the property. You've got enough room on the... We're not going to put the vestibule on the back. On a site plan. Because the vestibule belongs along with the closet in the front. And you know, you could social engineer it any way you want. You're thinking the people are parking in the back and they're walking in that way. That might be the right thing to do. But all those houses along there, they built them on the understanding that people are walking on the sidewalk. They see their neighbors on the porch and they come up to it. the postman, everybody else, the pizza man will come to the front door. I don't disagree with that at all, and I'm in favor of having a porch. There. Matter of fact, if that's the argument, then if that's the position, just following logically here, is that my position is actually stronger because it creates a bigger front porch for socializing than the current design. Well, yeah, it creates a bigger front porch. What people get from me is candor. Bring it. I mean, argumentative, that's what you can get from me. No, that's fine. I don't know what to do. Do you have anything? Paul? I have a suggestion for the side elevations. Yes, sir. and this could potentially help with budget issues. I'm wondering if some of my objection or concern about the side elevations is that there is a sort of brutal, I don't know how else to put it, but a sort of mean-spirited quality to the elevation. And I really like the way you resolved the texture of the front and rear elevations with the horizontal siding juxtaposed against a gridded panel system. And I would suggest that you could perhaps have a condition where the horizontal siding could wrap to the side elevation, terminate where the windows begin, and then go to a gridded panel system between the outside jams of the two sets of windows. You can share your sketch if you'd like to. I hope you illustrate your point. Something along these lines. Yeah. It might enliven the elevation a little bit, and it introduces to me that if you are buying the argument that the windows are a contemporary intervention, which is a valid argument, I guess, then it makes sense to articulate some of that with the siding in some way, and introducing that sort of gridded panel system would help to make that argument, I think. So just a suggestion. If we did that, would you be willing to leave the smaller windows? Totally. Okay, so that's a trade. Well, just looking at his sketch, I agree it goes a long way to break up that elevation and keep it from being just so bare with the tiny openings punched in there. So that would be something. Sure. Can I see your sketch? Okay. Should we put it on the screen for people watching? We would be willing to do that, and I could redraw and show it to staff if they could. I don't have a problem with that. Okay. I don't have a problem with this now. If you could approve it with these conditions and let staff see the, you know, so we don't have to come back here. that is a possibility let's see how the motion shakes out that's just my suggestion we still have to do something to to get nathan off your back i see two to one but you know honestly you know i say that jokingly but i totally understand where he's coming from And I just wonder if there isn't some way of—I understand it, I just don't agree with it. Well, let me ask you, Steve. If the rear elevation became the front elevation and the awning elements that you're showing on the rear were extended so that they became front porches of an equivalent or even greater size than the front porches that you currently have. Would that be more acceptable to you? So we're eliminating the front entry. So the door is swinging into the room and not off the side. That doesn't work well in the plan. I can see where it's... It works great for compatibility, though. I mean, how many of these houses have you been in down there? Every one of them does that. The rooms are bigger. I don't know. Come and I'll show you some of the properties I've been in. This is the one room. I mean, the downstairs is one room. I know, it had to be. It's an 18 by 32 foot room. We got to get a living, dining, and a kitchen in there. No way you just die in there. It's a living kitchen. It's a living room. It's a big. It's also the laundry room if you want to be careful. I really don't want to do that, but if you're all going to fail it because of that, we'll... I mean, this is what I would say, just common sense perspective. If I went out to the general public and I went up to 10 people and showed me these drawings that said east, north, south, west, and I said, you draw on here, what's the front and what's the rear elevations? And on the side elevation, so where the front and rear are, they're going to get, I would bet that more than half of the people, if not 80%, would draw them reversed. because that's what it looks like. That'd be a good test. Well, all that being said, you know, I'm 50-50. I can make peace with it either way, to tell you the truth. I mean, for all the reasons that I had said before, you know, the character of the neighborhood certainly does. I can't attest to it being every single residence in the area, but a majority that I can recall certainly do feature a door facing the street on the front of the property. However, I'm not real upset with the way it looks just because of the approach along the street, not from the front of the house. The front door situation is not killing me. And I think we've come to a decent solution on the side elevations is kind of where I leave it. Just for my verification, on the front elevation, the drawings that we were given, that you've shown a revised version of, the front elevation featured one central gutter down the middle, or downspout, pardon me. And it looks, has that been revised? Correct, we put two on there. Two, so I... The more we thought about all the water that's coming down there, we thought it would be best to have two. And it speaks better to the units. And then we're delineating the center. Is that not shown on our elevation then? It's on the new one, but it's not on the old one. I have one down the middle in our elevations. And then his revised elevations, I couldn't quite tell the dark line on the edge. I'm glad you brought that up. yeah but i'm glad to see that there are two and just the way it works across the front of the building now so no you're correct thank you just wanted to confirm it just wasn't showing on the rendering and then it comes back in the middle and we there's two yeah okay do you have any other thoughts at this time graham no any tad we've all we've all said our final thoughts i think so I want to see the restrictions on who's going to pay for the overpair. You know, Mr. Albert whispered something to me when he was up here, and I have to say that one thing that I want to say, I just want to say that a lot of people come here having put a lot of time into their proposals and considered many different options, and I recognize that, and I value that. I value the work that goes into trying to get something that works for both the owner and for the BOAR. are. So I hope that what we're doing is helpful and serves that effort and doesn't throw wrenches into the works. No, you're very helpful. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience here this evening speak to this case? I think I'm the audience. Seeing no motion and hearing no further comment from the board at this time i would certainly entertain a motion if either of you are too just bold enough you've stated where you stand right i think it's literally you make a motion okay i'll make a motion i will die for lack of a second so um i appreciate your thoughts on on the matter. Regarding case number 07370203 and 07370205 at 203 to 205 West 4th Street, I move that the application be approved contingent on change of the siding strategy to reflect the party panel or panelized, cementitious product in the central portions of the four elevations with a gridded detailing. And the horizontal hardy plank or similar siding on the two side elements with the gables on the front and rear elevations and wrapping to at least a portion of the side as was discussed and sketched. Is that all we need to cover? You might also mention the staff's other recommendations. Right. This would also include the staff's recommendation that all exposed wood, with the exception of floor or porch and deck, be painted, and that the final location of all HVAC, electric, phone, and water service and the proposed screening be submitted to the staff for review and approval. Thank you very much. Would you, do we need to consider, do we need to second this before we talk about adding a small comment to it? Senator Roberts, yes. Okay. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? I feel my suggestion for clarification. Understanding where I am already, I would just suggest that we also find that we deny the request to use corrugated metal siding for the proposed structure so that the record is clear that that part of the application is denied, understanding that's what's already been agreed, just to make sure the record's clear. In other words, that's the first staff finding to include. Okay. I accept that. I would also add the comment that the final revised elevations come back to staff for final review to make sure that what you propose matches what we discussed this evening and that if there are any problems from that discussion, it can come back to us if it needs to. Accept that amendment. Accept that amendment. I accept them all into my second. Any other further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Nay. Very well. The motion passes with those additional comments. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you for your patience working through this with us. The final, let's see, I'm sorry. The next case on the agenda this evening at 347 South Mill Street, install fence and gate. That applicant has requested that it be postponed to June 27, 2012 meeting. Can I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Second. Very well. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 321 and 323 Arcadia Park, and that proposes construct garage structure and paved area. That applicant is also requested it be postponed to June 27th. Can I get a motion to that effect, please? So moved. Second. Very well. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. And that motion passes as well. The last item on the agenda tonight is the review and approval of meeting minutes from the April 11, 2012 meeting of the BOAR. Have board members had a chance to review those at this time? Mr. Chairman, I was not present for that meeting. I won't be voting on this. Very well. Thank you. I myself haven't had the chance to review them before now. I'd like to take just a minute to look over them one more time, if that's okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you. Are you ready over there? I am. Having had a chance to review the minutes, are there any additional comments or revisions from the board at this time? Nope. I agree. I have no corrections. Four minutes as I've read them. That being the case, I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes. Move to accept the minutes. And I'll second the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Abstain. And one abstains. The motion passes. Thank you very much. That is all that is on the agenda for this evening. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring up a final matter. Several meetings in the past two and a half years I have inquired with respect to getting the agendas, the applications and staff reports put online. And the new Commissioner of Planning, Dr. Paulson, has followed up with Ms. Kerr and Department of Law with respect to this and has obtained an opinion with respect to what information can and cannot be put online. I would respectfully at this time ask the board to resolve that the agendas, the applications, the staff reports, and all supporting materials except those the Department of Law has found to be copyrighted architectural plans be posted online at or about the same time that we receive the staff reports on Friday, and that Dr. Paulson, as the Commissioner of Planning, asked the staff to submit a plan of action to him with respect to how that would be implemented and to report back to the board. So that's your motion? Yeah. Being the board we are, we resolve to ask the commissioner to do the act. Does that make sense? I understand. So we're asking for a report on implementation? We're asking the commissioner to actually make sure it gets done. That's correct. And then the staff to report back to us on what was done to implement it. Is there room for, is there wiggle room? Should there be technical challenges to posting it? Or even staffing as far as the feasibility of having people actually get this work done in that time frame? That's why the motion is not that everything be done in two weeks. It is that we resolve that the commissioner would direct staff to get it done and to report back about how it's being accomplished that way. I mean, ultimately, as the board, we don't have, we're not the boss, so to speak. I mean, that's the parlance language. The commissioner would be, so it would be a resolution from our board to him, and he, being the commissioner, actually has the authority over employees of the LFECG to accomplish a resolution that we would make. That's why I haven't said that they have to do it within two weeks, but to say within two weeks for the commissioner to. So as I understand it, we are asking that it be looked into being done and we'll get a report back to the feasibility and how it will be done? In a timeline in which it will be done to the extent. Okay, thank you. I mean, there are certainly technical questions that have to be answered with respect to it. My concern is that I've been asking for this for two and a half years and have gotten a number of excuses with respect to how it can be accomplished. And the last one seems to be that the Department of Law had questions about the propriety of putting potentially copyrighted materials. The Department of Law has now answered that question in a very good, thorough legal memorandum by Mr. Walburn, which has answered that question in that, therefore, now it would be appropriate for the commissioner to oversee the technical steps of getting that accomplished. that planning does it, Board of Justice does it, Council does it. Sure. Other boards do it in that we get our packets on Friday. The public should be able to have access to this information. I understand. Second the motions. Motion has been seconded. Any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion for implementation plan is approved. Thank you. Thank you. And that really is the final item on the agenda this evening. Sorry, I almost didn't bring it up, Nathan. That being the case, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Very well. Thank you.