Music I'd like to welcome you to the November 14, 2012 meeting of the Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The Board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958, and 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, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The historic preservation office is located at 101 East Fine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for 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 the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 38 approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the South Ashland and Central Avenue Historic Districts, at 280 South Ashland Avenue install utility line. At 291 South Ashland Avenue replace garage roof. In the Aylesford Historic District, at 203 Arlington Avenue install chimney caps. At 312 East High Street replace roof and repair box gutters. At 321 Grabsonner Avenue prep for painting. At 320 Linden Walk, remove dying trees. 307 East Maxwell Street, remove dead tree. At 143 Woodland Avenue, renovate front porch. At 160 Woodland Avenue, install gate. At 171 Woodland Avenue, remove tree. In the Bell Court Historic District, at 200 East Bell Court, renovate structure. At 625 East Main Street, install fence and gates. In the Constitution Historic District at 151 Constitution Street, renovate structure. At 163 East 3rd Street, renovate structure. In the Ellesmere Park Historic District at 632 Ellesmere Park, install satellite dish. In Gratz Park Historic District at 201 North Mill Street, construct fencing around AC unit. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 343 North Limestone, replace windows. 353 North Limestone Replace Fence 359 North Limestone Renovate Structure At the Northside Historic District At 262 North Broadway Re-Roof Structure 464 North Broadway Replace Replacement Windows At 432 North Broadway Construct Wood Gate and Fencing At 617 North Broadway Renovate Structure 324 Hampton Court Renovate Structure At 244 Miller Street Construct Fence At 340 New Street, renovate front door and replace garden gates. 421 West 3rd Street, renovate structure. 421 West 3rd Street, install fence to enclose yard and regrade the site. At 431 West 3rd Street, remove tree. In the South Hill Historic District, 219 South Limestone, renovate structure. 289 South Limestone, install awning. 412 South Mill Street, remove dead tree. 602 South Mill Street, renovate structure. in the Seven Parks Historic District at 128 Barbary Lane install satellite dish and 221 Barbary Lane renovate structure excuse me, Barbary Lane renovate structure in the western suburbs Historic District at 501 West Short Street install roof fence 511 West Short Street tuck point structure and chimney and the Woodward Heights Historic District at 341 Madison Place free grade yard and install sod and landscaping We shall now proceed with the review of applications for a certificate of appropriateness. And folks, I'll just say up front, this is our first meeting that we've been able to meet in the last three available meetings. The last two were canceled due to a lack of quorum, and I apologize for that. Thank you for your patience. because we do have such a long docket this evening of cases to hear, we're going to make an effort. Any case that can be sounded simply, we'll go through it, check with the applicant. If there are little to no comments or questions, we'll sound that case quickly and move through those. If there are any cases that require a presentation from the staff or in-depth conversation beyond the quicker ones, we'll set those aside. So we'll do the fast ones quickly and then come back and have in-depth conversation where we need to throughout the docket. So if everybody will be agreeable to that, we'll discover those as we go along and set them aside and come back to them as we need to. That all being said, the first case on the docket this evening is at 325 Park Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? That applicant is not here. She is working but did receive a copy of the report. Thank you very much. The scope of work in this application is to install front yard fence and change opening. And the staff recommendations at this time state staff recommends approval as submitted with the following condition. One, all exposed wood of the picket fence in the front yard be painted. Two, final details of rear entry door stoop and steps be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the purchase of any materials for said work. for said work. And number three, all exposed wood of entry stoop and steps be painted except for the stoop flooring and the treads of the steps. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time concerning this case? Very well. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, this is 325 Park Avenue. Seeing no motion from the audience, I would certainly entertain a motion from the board. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 14600325-A at 325 Park Avenue, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the three staff recommendations mentioned earlier. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Very well. Any further discussion with the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 852 West High Street. Is that applicant here this evening? Very well. Please come forward and introduce yourself. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Jimmy Emmons. I am the property owner at 852 West High Street. Our application is a fairly simple one for just installing a front yard fencing for a wooden picket fence. we've read and understand the staff recommendation and agree to the conditions very well questions for me i'd be happy to try and answer them well let me read the staff recommendations just to make sure that we agree on what they say there it's good to hear that you are in agreement with them the staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions one final details of the fence and gate be submitted and two all exposed would be painted or stained yes sir and And you're in agreement with that. We are. Are there any questions or comments from the board at this time for the applicant? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is 852 West High Street. That application is installed front yard fence. Seeing no motion from the audience and hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in case number 09300852-0 at 852 West High Street, I move to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness contingent on the staff recommendations that details of defense and gate be submitted and that all exposed would be paid or sustained. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Edmonds, I did want to say that we appreciated the sort of comic book character of some of your photographs. It led a little levity to that. I enjoy my comic book creator. I try to do that for a lot of things. It was very nice. Thank you. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 359 North Limestone in the Mulberry Historic District. Is that an applicant here this afternoon? Very well. I'm Wendy McAllister. I'm a landscape designer with Hinkle, Denmark. I'm representing the property at 359 North Lyme. We have an amended plan. I'm sorry, what's your home address? My home address is 225 Stone Avenue. Very well, thank you. We have an amended plan that we've made to reduce the square footage of the limestone, crushed limestone in the back, and I think we're agreeable with everything else. Is there any questions that you guys have for us? Hold on just a moment. Sure. In reviewing of your rendering that we have here, compared to the original application, I can see your effort to reduce the limestone per the recommendation from the staff, which was really the only recommendation from the staff so I take it you're in agreement with everything here let's see if there are any comments from the board are there additional comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant anybody over there have questions, you guys are good very well, is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening again this is at 359 North Limestone Seeing no motion from the audience and hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 11660359-D at 359 North Limestone Street, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted per the revised plan that was just submitted today. To approve that, yes. Very well. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Actually, I'm wondering if we could somehow put an A or a B or do something on this plan just so for the record we understand that this is the one that was approved. I think that's a good point, and I would also add as maybe a possible clarification to your motion that the plan has been revised per the previous recommendations from the staff. And that amendment would be acceptable. And that plan submitted by the applicant today can be labeled option B. How about exhibit B? Exhibit B it is. Okay, exhibit B is absolutely acceptable as well. Is the second okay with the amendment? I'm good. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you very much. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 165 Woodland Avenue in Aylesford Historic District. That scope of work is to change window design. Is that applicant here this evening? That applicant is not here, but has received a copy of the report and is receptive to the recommendations. Very well. Thank you. Let's see here. Staff's recommendations. Staff recommends approval is submitted with the following conditions. That number one, emollient four inches in width be inserted between the coupled windows with the revised window details sheet to be submitted indicating the change prior to issuance of a COA. And that number two, windows be of wood construction, aluminum wrap is permitted, and simulated or true light design. Are there any questions or comments at this time from the board concerning this case? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is 165 Woodland Avenue. Seeing no motion and hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Pardon me. No, no. Could staff just recommend that a third condition be added to this, which I think we might have wished as staff to have put? which the details of all the, I'm on number two of the conditions, the when to be a wood construction and simulated a true light design. We have in number one when to details be submitted indicating this change, but it needs to also apply to number two. So you could make a third condition just saying all details per the above to come back for review by staff. Currently, the way it's written, we haven't covered number two. I understand your recommendation. Thank you very much. Thank you. With that, under consideration, is there anybody who would be willing to make a motion at this time? I'll move that in case number 21030165-A that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions that number one, mullion four-inch in width be inserted between a couple of windows with a revised window detail sheet to be submitted indicating this change. Number two, windows be of wood construction and simulated or true light design. and number three, that details of those windows be also submitted for staff review prior to purchase. Thank you very much. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 370 Marino Street in the Woodward Heights Historic District. The scope of work is to restore openings. Is that applicant here this afternoon? Evening. Hello. Captain Rob King, Lexington Fire Department. Yes, sir. We look to take the fire station 3, which is 373 Marino Street, restore it back to a two-bay house to house the rescue company and a new buggy or ambulance. Yes, sir. And have you had a chance to review the staff's recommendations and findings this evening? Yeah, we agree with those. And you're agreeable to them very well. The staff states that they recommend approval of this condition and that the door details come back to staff. Sounds like a good recommendation. Are there any comments or questions for the applicant at this time from the board? Hearing none, does anybody in the audience speak to this case this evening? Seeing no motion, hearing no further comment, and certainly entertain a motion for this case. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 13020370-B, 7370 Marino Street, I make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the following recommendation. Door details come back to staff. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 137 West Bell Court. The scope of work here is to expand the deck. Is that applicant here this afternoon? Hi, my name is Scott Campbell. My address is 124 Forest Avenue, and I'm the landscape and general contractor for the project. Well, good to see you this afternoon. Have you had a chance to review, or has the owner also had a chance to review the recommendations made by the staff at this time? Yes, we have. And are you in agreement with those recommendations? We are. Very well. Just to review, the staff recommends approval as submitted with the following condition, that the deck's band board is to be painted. It's pretty clear. Any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? Hearing none. And I will state that we received a few letters concerning this case with some recommendations and some comments for the record. We did receive those. Is there anybody in the audience this evening who can speak to this case? Come on down, maybe one at a time, if you like, and introduce yourself. Oh, you know what? I tell you what, have a seat. I just forgot my own rule about going fast today. Because it sounds like there might be a conversation with this one, We're going to set it aside for a moment and go through the quick ones and come back to it first thing. If that's okay with everybody here, I hope it is. Setting this one aside, the next case on the agenda this evening is... Next case on the agenda this evening is at 611 Russell Avenue in the Belcourt Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? I need to restate with everything. Mr. Campbell, so good to see you again. Yes, it's been a long time. Well, have you had a chance to review the findings and recommendations on this application? We agree. Very well. The staff's recommendations in this case. The staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. Number one, wood lattice infill with small opening design be installed beneath the deck to grade at the porch steps. And that number two, all exposed wood of deck except for decking, excuse me, deck flooring and stair treads be either painted or opaque stained. Any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, this is at 611 Russell Avenue. Seeing no motion from the audience and hearing no comment from the board, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 16520611-F, regarding property at 611 Russell Avenue, I make a motion to approve the application and for the staff recommendations. Those recommendations are, number one, wood lattice infill be installed beneath deck to grade at porch steps, And number two, all exposed wood of deck, except for deck flooring and stair tread, be either painted or opaque stained. Thank you very much. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you very much. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 341 Madison Place in the Woodward Heights Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present but has received a copy of the staff report and is agreeable with the findings. Very well. Thank you. Just to review, those staff findings and recommendations are Staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. One, the final details of the rail design come back to staff prior to manufacture. Final construction details come back to staff. Number three, height of railing to be as required by building code. Number four, should other LFUCG division require changes, those changes are to come back to staff for review. As stated, the applicant has said that they are agreeable to these recommendations. are there any comments or questions at this time from the board I just I have one just it's more of a clarification this case of course has been kind of floating out there because of the meetings being off schedule but I have one drawing that shows the traditional the others kind of a more I'll just called contemporary right which one are they the actually they have changed that a little bit now but the the original one is on there because it has the dimensions that will be the same and i'm sorry that was why that was included in the packet okay so the dimensions on the more traditional one has the dimensions but the schematic is changing as something more like right to much more contemporary and okay okay so but they are still a little on the you know they might change it to a bit more streamlined than that so but it sounds like those final details are coming back to you as as we speak if the recommendations are approved that's correct by our vote then you'll have the last look at those and if they need to come back to us we'll see them again okay i just i was just sorry about that confusion no i mean it that it just happened with the except in the schedule here so thank you thank you for the clarification yes uh good question any other comments or questions at this time from the board anybody here this evening to speak to this case again this is 341 madison place seeing no motion in the crowd and hearing no further comment from the board i would entertain a motion mr chair in case number one two two zero three four one dash m for 341 madison place i move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness with the following the conditions previously mentioned one through four as identified by the staff thank you very much is there a second to the motion second thank you any further discussion of the motion at this time hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye all those opposed the motion passes the next case on the agenda this evening is at 160 162 woodland avenue in the aylesford historic district the The scope of work is to construct a roof above the rear deck. Is that applicant here this afternoon? I'm sorry? I think you will want to wait because we have a discussion about this one. Okay, that's fine. Let's go ahead and get your name and address for the record. I'm David Lafferty at 162 Woodland Avenue. Thank you, sir. and I take it you have take some exception to the recommendation from the staff? Unfortunately, it just won't work that way. Okay, well, we'll talk about it in just a moment. Thank you for understanding. Setting that case aside for the time being, the next case on the agenda is at 522 Arcadia Park in the Seven Parks Historic District. That scope of work is to construct dormers. Is that applicant here this afternoon? Alan Goins, 107 Commerce Drive, Brea. Good to see you again. Glad you could be here. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I have. And are you in agreement with the recommendations? I am. Very well. Just to review, staff states that they recommend approval as submitted with the following conditions, that the west elevation should have openings, and that number two, final details, come back to staff. Very well. Is there any comment or question from the board at this time for the applicant? there is a note in the staff findings that the proposal to remove the chimney requires further discussion but I'd refer anyone interested in that issue back to previous minutes because we did discuss it pretty extensively and came to some conclusions so I just wanted to make that note because it was referenced in the materials. I agree. Thank you. I would only, as far as the staff recommendations go, I'd like us to consider also that the, just clarifying that number one, the west elevation should have openings that would pertain to the addition built there, not that they'd land anywhere else. I think we're all clear on that from previous discussions. But just to clarify that, and then I think their second recommendation that the final details come back to staff is what will make sure that we're all on the same page before the application is approved or the certificate is distributed. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, is there anyone here this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is 522 Arcadia Park in the Seven Parks Historic District. Seeing no motion in the crowd and hearing no further comment from the board, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 00510522-A at 522 Arcadia Park, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the two staff recommendations noted earlier, also with the note that Mr. Pol had mentioned about the removal of the chimney, referencing back to the previous meeting regarding this case. Very well. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you for working with us through the conceptual process. I think it was pretty successful. Yeah. I was able to make an unapprovable application. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is the 332 Lafayette Avenue in the Alesford Historic District. The scope of work is to construct dormers. Is that applicant here this evening? Or afternoon, I guess. Hi, I'm Anthony Humphress at 1108 Fontaine. Good to meet you. Have you had a chance to review the staff findings and recommendations at this time? I definitely have, and I'm in agreement. Very well. Just to review, they're pretty straightforward. Staff recommends approval is submitted with the following condition, that once reviewed by other LFUCG division, any changes need to come back to staff. Any questions or comments for the applicant at this time from the board? Hearing none, anyone in the audience to speak to this case this afternoon at 332 Lafayette Avenue? Seeing no motion and hearing no further comment, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 10980332-A, 332 Lafayette Avenue, make a motion to approve application with the staff recommendations. And that one recommendation is once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions. Any changes must come back to staff. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Thank you. All those in favor? Oh, excuse me. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next case this evening is at 345 Ellesmere Park. 645. I'm sorry, I don't know why I said the wrong number. 645 Ellsmore Park. Scope of work is to demolish out building, construct garage, and site work. Is that applicant here this afternoon? The applicant is not present now but has, of course, been here in the past and indicated that he would be here so he might have just looked at the long agenda and thought that he might not have been heard for a while. So if we could maybe put him to the end or come back to him. Yes, and I imagine there will be some conversation concerning this case, so I agree we should perhaps put this one at the bottom of the list and proceed. The next case on the agenda this evening is somewhere under this deck. It is at 3017 Old Todd's Road in Cadentown Historic District. Scope of work is to refresh gravel of an existing driveway. Is the owner or the applicant here this evening? Please come on over and introduce yourself, sir. There. Clayton Lewis, 141 St. William Drive, Lexington. Very well. Have you had a chance to read the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes, sir. And are you in agreement with those recommendations? Yes, I am. Just to review, staff recommends approval as submitted with the following condition. The gravel be contained so as not to spread or expand. And I'd just like to clarify. I believe the intent of the recommendation and my understanding of the guidelines is that this be the entire driveway being refreshed, not just the turnaround area. Yes, sir. And that's the way you see it, too. Okay, very well. Good. Good. Any other questions or comments from the board at this time for the applicant? Anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, this is at 3017 Old Todd's Road. Staff would just like to suggest that a second line be put on that recommendation, that the manner of retaining that gravel be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to the work being done. I think that's a sensible recommendation. Any other comment from the board concerning that recommendation or any other thoughts? Very well. That being the case, I'd certainly... I'm sorry, do you have anything you'd like to add? No, sir. Okay, fine. That being the case, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 43793017-B at 3017 Old Todd's Road, I move to approve the application for the certificate contingent on the staff recommendation that the gravel be contained so as not to spread or expand and that the manner of the gravel containment be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to the work. Very well. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 462 and 464 West 2nd Street. That's in the Northside Historic District. The scope of work is to pave existing graveled parking lot. Is that applicant here? Please come forward and introduce yourself. Hi, I'm Mary Jane Amick. I'm the property owner. Good to meet you. Thank you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? And are you in agreement with your comments? Just to review, the staff recommends disapproval of the stamped finish for the proposed concrete slab. The staff recommends approval as submitted for the concrete slab to have an exposed pea gravel finish with the following conditions. Number one, that three six-foot-long wheel stops be installed at the east end of the paved area to prevent vehicles from overrunning the turfed area. and that number two, should other LFUCG divisions require changes, that those changes come back to the staff for review prior to the start of any work. And that's agreeable to you? Yes. Very well. Are there any other comments or questions from the board at this time? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case? Seeing no motion and hearing no further comment, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 16840462-D, 462 and 464 West 2nd Street, I make a motion to accept application as submitted with the staff recommendations. One, staff recommends disapproval of stamped finish for a proposed concrete slab. The staff does recommend approval as submitted for the concrete slab to have exposed pea gravel finish with the following conditions. Three, six-foot-long wheel stops be installed at east end of paved area to prevent vehicles from overrunning turfed area. And two, should other LFUCG divisions require changes, those changes come back to staff for review prior to the start of any work. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? before i second the motion i i wanted to uh acknowledge the fact that we got a letter about this project um i'm assuming this is uh yeah um yeah we got a letter about this project Am I right? Yes. That letter was received by the office a day or so ago and was emailed to you all. It had photograph attachments. Does that ring a bell? Right. It was very entertaining and very well written. But my sense is that it doesn't really address the guidelines in a specific kind of a way. but I wanted to acknowledge it because it was a carefully put together piece of correspondence with a lot of passion behind it. Did you receive a copy of that? No, I didn't. That's what I was going to... I would like to. Yeah, it would be good for you to have it, I think. I'll give you one just in a second here. Thank you for calling that to my attention. I actually had not seen the letter myself, but that's probably my own fault, and I apologize. But at any rate, again, I would iterate that the letter, while I think there is a lot of validity to some of the issues raised, It doesn't directly address the guidelines or the proposed work relative to the guidelines, except in a sort of indirect way. And so I second the motion. Thank you very much. Reading the letter now, I tend to agree with your comments. Any other discussion? of the motion at this time. Hearing none and seeing no further motion from the audience, I would entertain a motion from the board. Wait, I already did that. I'm sorry. I was distracted by reading the letter. So, no further discussion. The motion's been made. Second's been made. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes. Thank you for your patience. Next case this evening is at 158 Constitution Street. The scope of that work is to demolish stairs and change the opening. Is that applicant here this evening? Yes. Keep saying that. Hello. My name is Chad Needham. My address is 409 Southridge Drive. Very well. Have you had a chance to read the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes, I have. And are you in agreement with those recommendations? Yes, I am. Just to review, staff recommends approval of the proposal as submitted with the following conditions. Number one, final deck material for balcony. Come back to staff. Number two, final details of windows surround and trim come back to staff. And that number three, once reviewed by other divisions of government, final details to come back to staff. Those are agreeable to you. Are there any other comments or questions for the applicant at this time from the board? Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience this evening who speaks to this case? Again, this is at 158 Constitution Street. Seeing no motion and hearing no comment, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 04600158-C at 158 Constitution Street, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the three staff recommendations noted earlier. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda is 155 East 3rd Street in the Constitution Historic District. The scope of work is to change front porch material. I see that the applicant's here this evening. Good afternoon. I'm Charlotte Lundergan. I'm the owner of the property, and I have with me my construction engineer and manager, Mr. Gary Wise. I live at 5 Deepwood Drive, Lexington. Good to have you here this afternoon. Thank you. Have you had a chance to read the staff's recommendations? Yes, I have. Yes, I have. And I have a disagreement. and I can speed up your process because mine's the next two following this. This is one of a twin house on East 3rd Street and what we're proposing to do is to make the twin houses twins again. And the existing 155 was we wanted to replace the porch material with a concrete porch instead of a wooden porch. The wooden porch that was there was a hole that had fallen through, so we shored up the building, fixed the foundation, and we were going to pour a concrete porch, and it has wonderful stone steps that go to it. However, the other house, the twin of it at 159, has a concrete porch and wooden steps that are falling in. So we wanted to put the stone steps on 159 to the concrete porch, and we wanted to put the concrete porch with the stone steps on 155. We agree with everything that they have recommended for 159 and one, I believe it is, 163. Those are the next two things on your agenda. We're in total agreement with what the staff has recommended on that. But the only thing that we have is we would like for you to consider a concrete porch on 155. Thank you very much. You're very welcome. I appreciate everything you're saying. I would like to hear the staff's presentation on this case, 155 East 3rd. So what I'm going to do is set it aside. Okay. Just to hear their comments and get some clarification behind their recommendations. But to save you some steps, stay right where you are. Okay. I think we can, like you said, breeze through the next two pretty simply, since you've already stated that you're in agreement with the staff recommendations. Just to review, I'm skipping ahead now, gang, to 159 East 3rd Street. As you've stated, you're already in agreement. I'll just review those recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the restoration of the front porch, the demolition of the concrete block addition, and the brick as submitted with the following conditions, that number one final details of rear porch come back to staff and that number two any changes to come back once reviewed by other lfucg divisions are there any comments or questions for the applicant at this time concerning 159 east third street from the board I assume that the proposal is to... Are you trying to recreate the porch details to match the arch on the other side? 155 was in better shape than 159. 155 had the original details. 159, someone came in there and knocked them all out. So what we're proposing to do is restore what 155 had and put it on 159, which the staff has agreed with. There's a sunburst-type pattern for spindles around the top of it. so you're using the other houses as the as the example 159 we want to do the same thing to match because they're twins right taking out and we're going to match the sun and you can see where they removed the spindles and the those kinds of things so we want to sure no i think i think since there is clear cut um a very clear precedent and example and the details you know the the indication of where the details were there, it's quite a reasonable... It was kind of like a no-brainer. Why wouldn't you? They're twins. Sure. And I think it'll be a nice project. Work is coming along very well. They're doing... It's going good. Thank you. Thank you. That clarifies my question. Great. Great. Any other questions at this time for the applicant concerning, again, 159 East 3rd Street? Is there anyone in the audience this evening who can speak to this case? Seeing no motion in the audience and hearing no further comment from the board on 159 East 3rd Street, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 18790159-B, 159 East 3rd Street, I make a motion to accept application for the staff recommendations. And those recommendations are, one, final details of rear porch to come back to staff. And number two, any changes to come back once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions? Very well. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Second to motion. Thank you. Is there any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Thank you. Motion passes. And now for your next house. 163 East 3rd Street, and that application is to demolish rear addition. And you've already stated that you agree with the staff's recommendations and findings? Yes, I do. I'll just review those quickly. Staff recommends approval of the demolition of one-story concrete block addition and lean-to addition. And I'll just state, too, at this time that, just for everybody's general knowledge, that demolition is taken pretty seriously, and that it's one of those things you really can't undo. So the staff gives that very strong and hard and thorough consideration to make sure that that is an appropriate action, and that is also what took place in this instance as well. So that being said, you are in agreement with recommendation. Are there any comments for the applicant at this time from the board concerning 163 East 3rd Street? Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Again, this is 163 East 3rd Street. Seeing no action from the audience, hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 1879011635-B at 163 East 3rd Street, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with, oh, just to approve it as per the staff's recommendation. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes. Thank you. And we'll talk to you again in just a moment. I'm 155. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 625 West Short Street in the Western Suburb Historic District. And the scope of work is to construct an addition and do site work. The CD applicant is here this evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the staff and board, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. And I'd like to say additionally I commend them for the work they're doing on East 3rd Street. Yes. I hope they're done soon. There's a lot of dust over there. I appreciate your recommendations to approve the plans as drawn. If you don't mind, before you get going too far, we need your name and address. Greg Martelli, 147 East 3rd, Fox Hill Company. Since the plans were submitted and the approvals were recommended, I have met with the Kentucky Heritage Council, and the architect is out of town this week. She's on vacation. but I would like to discuss some alternate plans for the back of the House. We're prepared to accept the plans as approved. However, the Kentucky Heritage Council, when they were down, looked at the scale of the windows that were drawn, and they've recommended that they be additionally reproportioned to a more vertical proportion than is currently drawn in the plans. I have brought the plan as revised, if anybody would like to look at that and give consideration to that. Well, let me just ask you a question for clarification, and then we'll see what happens next. Am I to understand that the only change between those drawings and the drawings we have in your application are the shape of the windows? And reducing the roof pitch by 1 and 12. Okay, so a change to the roof and a change to the windows? Well, change the roof, which would eliminate the window wells. Okay. Those are the two. Right. Well, I'd certainly want to see your alternate proposal before I made any motion on those, and that'd certainly be a little bit more involved conversation. If nobody's against it, I'd like to set it aside and get back to yours in just a moment, if that's okay. That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We'll talk to you in just a moment. How about that? Okay, the next case on the agenda this evening is at 141 Forest Avenue, renovate site, construct site work. That applicant has requested that it be postponed until the December 12th hearing. I believe we have to make a motion on that or do we just say that's the way? If you would, please reflect it in a motion so that everybody will be aware that that is going to happen in a formal sense. Very well. Let's keep that in mind for the next couple. Can I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, motion to postpone is accepted. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 321 and 323 Arcadia Park, Construct Garage and Site Work. That applicant has also requested a postponement until December 12th. Can I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Is there a second to the motion? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Excuse me. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 216 East Belcourt. Install retaining wall and landscape. That applicant has also requested postponement until December 12th. Can I get a motion to that effect, please? So moved. Second. Very well. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Postponement passes. Staff, the next case on the agenda is at 501 West Short Street install roof fence. I suppose by your note in the agenda this means that this has already been approved. Yeah. The 501 West Short Street and following 432 North Broadway both turned out to be with further work with the applicants, items that could be handled by staff, and so they have been reflected in the list. You've already entered into the record. Very well. So they're not separate cases. They're one and the same case, and they've already been approved by staff. They are two separate cases, and so there's each by each address. 501 West Short Street had a permit issued. This is St. Paul Church. And then 432 North Broadway was a fence and gate that the board heard previously, and there were details to be resolved. It seemed earlier on when the docket had to be put together that that still was going to need to come to the board, but then some further adjustments were made and it was able to be issued at staff. So what I meant to say is there are not two 501 West Short Street applications. There's just the one. Oh, no, no, no, I understand what you're saying. No, it's left this list and joined the list that you've already read. Well, fantastic. So there's really no motion to be made here. It's just a statement that it's already dealt with. Reporting of the news. Very well. Well, that takes us to the end of the agenda of cases this evening, which puts us all the way back up to the top of the bypass cases, the first one of which was 137 West Belcourt. That application was to expand the deck. This is the project at 137 Westville Court. I'll run you through that. This is the rear yard looking at the rear deck. existing. Could we turn the lights in? We're not having to do that, but we can try. Randy, can you manipulate the images? The proposed deck would extend out from this deck, and was aligned with the north side of the deck. This is an earlier drawing taken from the file. and this is the current patio, which I'll address, which is in place now, And the proposed, this is the proposed deck. The applicant submitted a request for COA to expand the existing rear deck, construct a patio in the rear yard, and install landscape in the rear and side yards. Staff has subsequently issued a COA for items 2 and 3. At this time, the applicant is requesting that the Board grant a COA to expand the existing rear deck by approximately 215 square feet. The proposed wood deck having a 2-inch by 8-inch joists is to be constructed right at the grade level such that the finished floor elevation is just one step up from the existing paved walkway. The north edge of the deck expansion is to align with that of the existing deck. The outside corners of the new deck are to be clipped. there is to be no railing. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. The findings, the development of the open space, guidelines 3-7B, staff finds that an ample amount of green space will remain within the rear yard of this property. Since some 67 square feet of the existing rear yard paved walkways to be covered by the deck expansion. Only 148 square feet of additional green space will be lost due to this proposal. The band board around the deck should be painted in accordance with guidelines 2A-1B. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. the findings excuse me I've already gotten there recommendation staff recommends approval is submitted with the following condition the deck's band board is to be painted the applicant is here which you already know thank you very much Mr. Gianocchio the applicant wouldn't mind to come back and talk to us for just a moment as i stated before i could see again as i stated before we did receive a few letters from a concerned neighbor they had some questions and comments and i believe we'll probably hear from him in just a moment for my information can you speak to the size of the trees that were removed from the backyard do you know roughly their trunk diameter the uh the existing trees that were there mainly red buds they were probably now this is a guesstimate i don't i didn't put a caliper on them i would say they were in the six inch five inch range they were mature i planted them they were They were planted 15 years, 10 to 15 years ago. So they were in a mature state of a redbud. No cultivar. It was just a regular redbud. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments from the applicant at this time from the board? All right. If you don't mind, I believe we have an audience member who would like to speak to this case. You're more than welcome to come down. Hello. Hi, my name is Beverly Miller, and I live at 141 West Belcourt. Would you mind pulling the microphone down just a tad and hugging the microphone? Okay. Thank you so much. Good to see you this evening. Thank you. What can we do for you? I have a statement I'd like to read. Sure. My name is Beverly Kay Miller. I hold 3D Reason Architecture, and I'm a licensed architect. I've lived at 141 West Belcourt in the Belcourt Historic District since 1999, and I volunteer as a docent at the Bluegrass Trust Hump Morgan House. The issue at hand is a community issue for the Belcourt neighborhood. it is also an issue for the residents of 137 and 141 West Bell Court, whoever they may be. It is about community members being able to enjoy their homes. I would like to start with a quote from Preservation Matters, a publication of the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. A major advantage to those who own property in historic districts is the confidence that your neighbor will not be allowed to make any modifications to their property that will diminish the value of your property or vice versa. The owner of 137 West Bell Court is seeking approval to enlarge a backyard deck. The work on this project began without seeking approval from the Historic Preservation Office or applying for a building permit. The work was halted after notification was given to the Historic Preservation Office. Unfortunately, numerous trees had already been cut down in the backyard. other demolition work had also occurred all without approval from the HPO or a building permit the owner of 137 West Bell Court has lived in the house since 1996 in 1998 two air conditioning units were installed in the homes four foot side yard between 137 and 141 West Bell Court the side yard width of 141 West West Bell Court is 7 feet. These units were installed without seeking approval of the Historic Preservation Office. When notified of the installation, the HPO stated that the work was done and they could not require the removal of the units. The noise created when these two units operate precludes conversation both outside and inside 141 West Bell Court. The canyon effect of an 11 foot by 40 plus foot space with two operating air conditioning units between two masonry buildings, first floor only at 137 West Bell Court, is intolerable. Yet residents of 141 West Bell Court are forced to tolerate this condition. Subsequent modifications at 137 West Bell Court have followed historic district approval requirements, indicating that the owner of 137 West Bell Court knows the required procedures of seeking and obtaining approval prior to beginning a project. The demolition which occurred in September 2012 removed landscaping that was included in a project that included a home addition and deck to 137 West Bell Court in 2001. That landscaping is believed to be a condition for the approval of the 2001 project. However, the Historic Preservation Office does not have minutes from the 2001 meeting in which approval for the prior addition and deck were granted, nor are the requirements included in the certificate of appropriateness that was issued for the project. However, Historic Preservation Office does have notes from that BOA-R meeting which state the landscaping requirements for the project. At this time, the Historic Preservation Office is recommending approval of the project at 137 West Belcourt. This approval appears to contradict the Historic Preservation and Board of Architecture Review's earlier landscape requirement. The Historic Preservation Office did provide records of the prior condition to 141 West Bell Court's owner. How can the prior landscaping condition requirement no longer be valid? How can the landscaping requirements be less for a larger deck? The new project calls for a deck that extends down the fence line between 137 and 141 West Bell Court. The deck will be built four feet from the property line. Given the close proximity of the houses, this project is invasive and imposes an additional externality on the residents of 141 West Bell Court. There was no privacy in the rooms on that corner of the house on 141 West Bell Court when gatherings have occurred on the current smaller deck at 137 West Bell Court. The close proximity created the feeling that the outdoor function was occurring inside 141 West Belcourt, the adjacent home. A larger deck can only lead to larger gatherings and further invade the interior as well as exterior environment of 141 West Belcourt. I'm here to seek relief from the invasive nature of the proposed project. A licensed design professional with stated program requirements that include preserving privacy at 141 West Bell Court, along with 137 West Bell Court's needs, could design a project that will satisfy both parties. In closing, I would like to quote another article from Preservation Matters written by Linda Carroll, Bluegrass Trest Board President. For instance, does anybody really question the legitimacy of zoning laws that would prevent a coal-burning power generation plant from being plopped down in the middle of the Ashland Park neighborhood? I believe zoning, planning, and good governments lead to culture, society, and civilization, as evidenced long ago when Lexington was defined as the Athens of the West. My confidence has been shaken. The proposed project at 137 West Belcourt is like a coal-burning power generation plant to me. I would like to experience planning and good governance leading to a solution that will allow both properties to enjoy their respective homes and backyards. Such an action will additionally preserve the Belcourt neighborhood community. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I may have some questions for you and the staff here in just a moment. Is there anyone else in the audience to speak to this case? this as part of the record? Yes, please. Yes, come forward please and introduce yourself. Got to unhug this microphone. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is William Kevin Murphy. I also reside at 141 West Belcourt. You mentioned two letters, and I would like... I think I meant to say three letters. Pardon me. That was my mistake. All right. Well, I just wanted to verify which letters you had received. One should be dated June 18, 2001. Is that one of the letters? Mm-hmm. Okay. One should be dated October 9, 2012. Yes, sir. And the other October 10, 2012. I have all three of those. Okay, great. Well, then I can move to the last letter that I wrote, which was dated October 19, 2012, and you probably do not have that. I do not. Okay, all right. Well, first of all, let me state that I appreciate the work that is done by the Historic Preservation Office, by the Board of Architectural Review, and when you read those letters, you'll find no reference to historic guidelines. I'm not an expert on that. Don't begin to try to interpret those. However, I do put forth some arguments regarding intrusive nature of proposals. And in the third letter that you received, there is reference to the potential for there having been a condition for a landscape plan put on the approval for the June 2001 project at 137 West Bell Court. I wrote the letter dated June of 2001, but was unable to attend that meeting a couple of days later. I have regretted that decision for 10 years now. So, in my recollections of what happened after that meeting from talking with staff, I was told that there were landscaping requirements put on that approval to buffer my property from that addition and deck. I never saw them. I trusted the staff and moved forward. However, my letter from October 19th of this year is a letter to the staff requesting, under the open records law, copies of the minutes from those meetings so that I could ascertain what exactly was said and what was agreed upon. I requested minutes from that meeting. There are no minutes from that meeting. I requested landscape drawings from that proposal and that meeting. There are no landscape drawings in the file. I also requested a copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness, which I got. There is no condition for any landscaping. on that certificate of appropriateness. I contacted GTV3, thinking I could get a video of that meeting. I was told they weren't taping those meetings then. I got a list of Board of Architectural Review members from that meeting. I called several of them. None of them could remember that meeting, much less that case. One of them, Carol Fennig, though, strongly recommended that my wife and I come down here with photographs and be vehement and that we will get your attention. I hope we've gotten your attention. What I really would like to request is a clarification. I don't know exactly how you guys can go about doing that, but I did bring a few images that I would like to indulge your permission to show that perhaps will give you a little bit different point of view and perspective of this edition of the deck. If we could look at those, please. Okay, and the lights are down. Is this the command module? There's one button that moves things and another one does a laser pointer, and people often get them confused. Maybe get a quick lesson there on how it works. Forward, laser pointer. Okay. Right here? Right there. All right. Okay, so I put together a few images of 137 and 141 West Belcourt. there are some historic photographs in the sense that some of them are 10 to 15 years old. This one is a view of 137 from my front corner of my front porch, just to illustrate the length of the existing building with the front porch prior to any additions being put on. A lot has happened. The photograph on the left is from 2002. The photograph on the right is 2010. I think it clearly shows that over the last 10 years, lots of landscaping has been going on on both properties, partly to beautify, partly to buffer. Oh, I meant to take that one out. Okay, this photograph again from 2002 shows the width of the property distance and the fence at 137 and the garage in the background. This close-up view shows basically the same location at the back of the house. The white fence defines the approximate side yard of 137, and then the seven-foot dimension is over to the back corner of our kitchen wall at 141. A little bit closer view, and this begins to show in 2001 when I learned of the approval of the addition and deck, I knew it would radically change the quality of life in my backyard, and I began landscaping. I planted river birch trees. I put a 15-foot landscape buffer on my side of the fence because I knew that part of my yard would be virtually unusable. This is a view of the back of 137 prior to that 2002 addition, and I would ask you to pay attention in particular to the location of the back door as it existed originally to the house. There's also a change in foundation material here and you can barely see a line of brick change that indicates originally this house had an enclosed porch that was probably in the 1950s or 60s closed in to make indoor space. okay this photograph which you can barely see the back door at 141 is recessed on the original back porch and the relationship to the original back door at 137 is shown very much remote from each other very much opposed in directional views this is a view from the fall of 2012 that shows again the back door and the porch at 141 and the 2002 edition showing the raised new back door at a 45 degree angle looking into the backyard at 141. The deck area is in this location. This view is a view from my backyard looking at the back door at a 45 degree angle that now faces directly into my yard so that anyone coming and going from 137, well, it's like an observation deck. There's no privacy. We get virtually little or no use. This is the night view from that same door, same location into my backyard. This is a view on the left from 2001, again, prior to the addition. and it shows the alignment of the back porch and kitchen pantry of my house and the back of the 137 house. You can see even in this photograph they line up. Here is how far that 137-2002 edition protrudes past that, and right now if we have a few more nights like we've had the last two nights, those ferns hanging there will be dead and removed, and you will clearly see two large windows in the back door on that addition from 2002. This is a photograph on the left from Sayre Avenue in 2001. Again, the quality of the light is bad, but you can see the backs of the houses line up. This is a view from Sayre Avenue this fall, and you can clearly see the projection of the addition and the porch just to orient you. This is a view, I didn't go in your backyard, David, holding the camera up over the fence to illustrate the scope. This is a view looking from that addition over to the area where the proposed deck will be. And this is a photograph looking from the second floor bedroom that my daughter resides in when she visits on the back corner. Again, when the ferns die, we may as well be on their back porch. They may as well be in my daughter's bedroom. Excuse me. Can you go back one slide, please? Yes, sir. Are the trees along the fence existing to this day? They are new. They were planted this fall. But they are there, and they intend to stay there. Is that correct? As far as I know. Thank you. Okay. Sorry to interrupt. Please keep going. No problem. Okay. This is a view from the back window in the same bedroom. And again, you can clearly see the relationship of the back porch, the ferns, the deck, the proposed deck area, and where it will be from inside of my house. This is a view from the middle window on the back of my house. Again, looking out over my back porch roof and still very clear, very plainly visible. This is a view from the window at the farthest corner of my house on the back on the north side of my house. And it shows clearly, again, still the proximity of the proposed deck expansion. This is a view from my kitchen window, looking out, again, the ferns. And when they die, there's no screen. And then enter the dogs. I won't go there, but they're there, three to four at any given time. There they are again. This is a view looking over my fence prior to the removal of those redbud trees. And you can see they were pretty substantial up until this summer when they were cut down. They, when planted, didn't do a whole lot of screening, but over the last 10 years, they grew to be pretty effective in terms of a noise buffer, in terms of shielding lights from the house into our backyard. And, well, when they went, we noticed a huge difference. This is a view, again, looking from the back of my house. I just wanted to show the distance between the porch edge and the fence. These are new. Those are little gem magnolias, aren't they, Scott? Well, they're magnolia trees. They are an evergreen tree. But I believe that the plantings that were put there in 2002 all pretty much died, didn't they? So, you know, the space for planting is not adequate. It's on the north side of a house. It's four feet wide. The deck and the porch are both raised above. There's a seven-foot fence on the other side. You can't grow anything but moss there. And this is, again, a view showing the proposed deck, the existing deck, and the extent of the ground cover and the 15-foot buffer that I put in on my side of the fence back in 2001. and again this is a view once again of the existing deck and the proposed location from my side which I can barely read my text under here but again this is from my house this gives you a sense of how close this is okay I thought I would throw in this photograph ironically the same architect did an addition on the house on the other side of me a year before no year before i moved in but he saw fit to put appropriate lattice screening even though that deck and porch is as close the screening method virtually makes it a non-entity okay and again the existing deck and porch in relation to those three second floor windows that i was showing you photographs out of. And again, this photograph was taken from Sayre Avenue. So if you were to go into the yard, go up on the deck, go onto the porch, you would literally be right underneath that structure. Okay, so end of my images. Again, the dilemma is invasiveness, too much, overbuilding, and how are we going to make that compatible with 141. If you guys can come up with something, I would be eternally grateful. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Are there any comments or questions at this time from the board as a result of these comments? I just, one comment I had, what is the elevation of the new proposed deck above, what's the elevation of that? So you're saying six inches? Yes, it would just be the one step, which would be approximately six inch step. Okay, thank you. The evergreen, cedar, whatever, trees that have been planted along the fence line recently, what is their projected height and width? There's two different types. There's a cultivar magnolia grandiflora, which is southern magnolia. And the cultivar, I can get that to you. The attributes of the cultivar is that it's tall and columnar. Not your normal 80-foot wide, 80-foot tall, but the maximum height. They're very prunable. I've been doing this for 35 years and have some that have been in the ground for about 20 years. They're very moldable. Mold, you can prune and pretty much turn it into a green fence. They're pretty fast growing. It has irrigation. The height that would be appropriate is kind of up in the air right now. They don't just grow right before your eyes, but I would assume. Just a general. I would say they have a maximum of about 40 feet. The Leyland Cypress, the ones if you look at the more Christmas tree looking, they're probably the fastest growing evergreen. Again, there's not a lot of evergreens that are manageable. Say a white pine would be a horrible plant to put there. Leyland or Leyland Cypress are very prunable and clippable into what I would just call a green fence. And those maximum height on those can get into the 40 plus even more. But my intentions are to keep them the same width except to grow together. And then up. I don't want to encroach on the fence or the property and have them go up as tall as we can let them go. Right. And then what is their kind of just, again, just in general terms, what is their kind of lifespan as a tree? The magnolias have a long one. Again, I'd have to come back with exact... Again, I'm just asking for general. The Leland are not like an oak. They're not going to stay around 100 years. They're going to probably have a viable period of about, let's say, 30 years. Okay. Now, the redbuds that were removed that you said that you had planted about 10, 15 years ago? I consulted with the owner. Actually, it was 2002, I believe, is when it happened. And the caliper size was not the six inches I thought. It was a little smaller, which is neither here nor there. I just wanted to get the record straight on that. Right. But they were planted more or less in conjunction with the original addition. Yes. After all of the hardscape was installed, there were several other birches that went in, and there were three red buds that went along the back of the property. Not along the fence line, but along the back of the property. Okay. Thank you. I was just going to make some general comments on what the Murphys had to say. I understand that you have a concern with this overall addition onto the deck. I guess the one issue I see is that everything that you've kind of talked about is looking over into their backyard, your neighbor's backyard, and what you see. We can't really do anything about the previous addition and the fact that the existing deck is only six inches above the existing grade. as a board member i don't see that being a huge issue versus what the existing porch shows and the fact that the exist the proposed new deck is only going to be six inches above grade i don't really see that as an issue either granted you can have more people out there but if you look at the landscape of the backyard that's there currently you know they have places for people to go as there is. So, you know, I understand that you see it as an invasion on your privacy, but as a board, I see no problems with this addition. Granted, you know, I understand that you all have concerns, and it seems like planting the evergreens along the fence row may help alleviate some of the noise that you may see that comes about in the future for gatherings that will be back there. Thank you very much. Just one other comment. I think that, as Ron has already said, the staff has reviewed the proposal for the deck, and it does fall within the guidelines. The issues about privacy and noise, these are issues that often have to be worked out between neighbors. I think that the plantings that have been reintroduced to replace the redbuds that were removed near the property line will fall in the same category that the redbuds did, in that over time they will grow up and you'll create a more private environment for both properties. But it's going to take some time for that to happen and maybe lots of miracle grow or something like that. But I think that overall the issues that you're having between the two property owners are things that are very typical of many urban sites. when you have properties that are in close proximity this kind of thing happens and I think that when design ideas and precautions are made to try to keep privacy levels as high as possible when that involves plant material you simply have to wait for it to mature to get to the point where it's going to really do what it's supposed to do So as long as the proposal for the new deck at 137 falls within the guidelines and there's nothing really, you know, there's nothing that seems to be outside the guidelines in that, there's really nothing that the board can act on to make a difference. going back to the earlier issues that Mr. Murphy brought up about the 2001 edition and the lack of information about that as far as the minutes and things like that. Unfortunately, technology just hasn't exactly caught up with the LFUCG, so it's an unfortunate thing that there is nothing there. But if the COA did not specify anything, then that's the only legal document that can be used. And even though I know that there's people that may have an understanding of what was supposed to happen or not happen, if there isn't something down in writing, there's nothing that we can use as a precedent to reinforce an idea. I do think that what both property owners have done as far as landscaping were good-faith measures to ensure privacy for both parties, and I think that that just has to be carried through with whatever new work happens either at the 137 or the 141 property. Thank you. I'm just going to add to what's being said so far in two issues that have been brought up. One concerning the redbud trees and the original, or not the original COA, but the one that was issued in 2002. It's kind of being looked at as a very static, this certificate and the action that happened afterwards is being treated as this static event that happened that nothing can change after that. Once the trees are there, the trees have to stay there. And I think this whole process is a demonstration in that things do change, and that is permitted. So for the trees to be permitted by COA in 2002 and then to later, at the owner's decision, to be removed is not an impossibility. We heard, you know, without any official measurements, we did hear that the trees are certainly within the range of trees that can be removed. So I don't really have a lot to say about that, except that, you know, I don't think there was any wrongdoing with the trees removal, except maybe to the issue that they were removed without staff approval. Well, they wouldn't have needed to be reviewed because they were less than 10 inches in diameter. Because of their size. And that's the threshold for any need for review and issuance of a permit. So that being the case, I think that argument has maybe gone in a different direction than I would have taken it as far as the decisions that were made before to plant those trees and treating that as a static, carved-in-stone decision. This will never change. And that's just not the case, I think, in this instance. Not to mention, I hope that there's some satisfaction gained in neighborly relationships that new planting has been put back in its place. And I certainly do. I'm happy to see that the neighbors on their own have also gone to plant landscape to help mitigate the situation as well. The other issues brought up, again, much to what has already been said by the board, seem to be neighborly issues. And I'm sorry that it's a problem, and I don't think any of us discount that. I mean, I live in the Bellport neighborhood, too, and I think it's inherent in that neighborhood. I mean, the home's proximity one to another is how it is. They're very close together. I live in a two-story house next door to a two-story house. From some windows, there are some noticeable interaction between me and my neighbor at odd times. And what happens is that's just not a surprise that that house is there. It's not a surprise that my neighbor is in it or that their lights are on and mine are off or vice versa, that you need to pull down the window shades sometime. But that's something that gets worked out between neighbors. And I hope that nothing has happened this evening and nothing has happened in the past that conversations can't continue to occur between the two addresses to deal with some of the problems. Again, I don't know that they are all issues to be addressed by this board or by action of this board. Certainly one of the comments that came up in the letters were spotlights. You know, if there are spotlights on your neighbor's house, you know, hopefully there's a conversation that can happen that says, I appreciate that you want lights in your backyard. However, this light in particular is going to be some grief. Is there something we can do to help you fix it? I can't say how that conversation is going to go, but I would hope that you would leave latitude with one another to work that out. Can't force it to happen, though. It's not a board action. Also, like my other board members have stated, the porch as proposed in this case, which is the final line for what we have to rule on, is the size and shape and height and location. All of these things are well within the guidelines. As found evidenced by the staff's review and everything we've heard tonight, the porch itself is an approvable action as far as I see it. Now how we find in just a moment by board action is yet to be seen, but that's the way I see it up to this point. Are there any other comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? any other comments or questions from the audience at this time if you'd like to come back forward sir please come on once again Kevin Murphy and I do appreciate your comments and your recommendations and concerns however I would like to clarify one or two points I believe we were told the deck is going to be constructed of two by eight members and there's going to be a decking material on top of that so it could be potentially a foot above the grade level four feet away from a fence that is not seven feet tall would put the owner of that property at eye level over the fence just want to make that comment number two regarding the redbud trees again i'm i don't think you guys can give me a clarification as to whether or not they were part of the original condition. Well, that new deck could not have been built had those trees not been cut down. Plus, in one of the letters that I sent to you, the first letter that I wrote in 2012, October 9th, I did ask that if you did choose to approve this, that you would give some consideration to moving that deck a little farther than four feet away from the fence line. And there are a couple of reasons for that. One, it is very difficult to grow plant materials in that relationship of four feet in the fence and the deck. Number two, there is a zoning ordinance requirement that requires additional side yard setback for structures on buildings that are greater than 50 feet long. I quoted that in my 2001 letter. I'm sure there have been subsequent revisions to the zoning ordinance, and the sections are different, but it's still in there. It's the same requirement. So my point is you all can choose not to deal with that, but I assure you at the issuance of the permit stage, I will be dealing with it with code enforcement people. If you guys could give some credence to that, and I understand you're not code enforcement people, but it's clear that when they get finished with that deck, if that's a 150-foot deep lot, barely 40 feet of it will be clear of buildings or decks along my property line. and I think that's excessive. I do not understand why that deck cannot be moved over some. It would give some additional relief. Thank you. Thank you again for your comments. Any other comments from the audience at this time for this case? any final comments from the board at this time hearing none staff do you have anything to add no very well that being the case hearing no more comment and seeing no more action in the crowd i would entertain a motion Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 01540137-L at 137 West Bell Court, I would like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the recommendation that the deck's band board be painted, the staff recommendation. Very well. Is there a second to the recommendation? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. The next case on the agenda this evening that we haven't gotten to yet is 116, 162 Woodland Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. Is that applicant here? Hello, David Lafferty. Good to see you again. I understand from our previous conversation you take exception to the staff's recommendations. If you don't mind, I'd like to have the staff make their presentation of their findings, and then we can hear what you have to say about it. This is the house at 160-162 Woodland. And that was the front and this is the back. As you recall, I guess it was in September that the board granted the COA to build a deck back here at this rear corner. This is the rear yard from that corner. At the Board meeting in September, the afternoon's grant COA to conduct a rear deck at the northeast corner, with conditions that the final details of railings and skirting be submitted to staff and all exposed wood be painted or stained. That work has not yet started. At this time, the applicants requested the Board grant a COA to construct a roof above the previously approved 12-foot by 16-foot wood deck. The proposed work includes the removal of the existing wood canopy from above the rear entry, with repairs being made to the clapboard siding, installation of 6-inch by 6-inch wood posts as required to support the roof system, and the installation of a wood gable frame roof system above the previously approved deck. Although a typical section of the roof system was not available at the time of this writing, the apcom has indicated that the support posts are to be 6x6 in size, have a deck floor to raft or barren height of 8 foot 8 inches, a soffit projection of 6 inches, and a roof pitch of 4 and 12, having dimensional asphalts, jingles, and half round metal gutters. There is to be no ceiling in the porch. The roof structure would be exposed. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. I guess I could show you the drawing. this this is is this working this is the drawing this is the deck this is from the rear yard the gable roof system and this is the location of the previous the approved deck. This is the roof system showing the gable draining and a little section there to keep the water away from the face of the building. Staff has recommended approval in approving of the September 12th meeting of the 12-by-16-foot deck, elevated four foot above grade, approximately four feet above grade, indicated that they had weighed the location of the proposed deck, which pushes more into the side yard and found that the deck did not project past the north wall of the one-story masonry entrance at the front corner of the historic structure. However, the staff at this time finds the proposal to construct a roof above the existing deck, creating a porch element that is within four feet of the north property line and having an eave elevation, which would be something like 12 foot 8 inches above grade, to be inappropriate for this site, the Elshort Historic District had not in accordance with guidelines. Guidelines 2A-3A, 2A-4J, and 2B-1F respectfully state, porches should be compatible in scale and material with principal structure and surrounding buildings along the block and within the district. Additions should have skylights, decks, or balconies placed so that they do not detract from the historic character of the building. And porches and decks should be compatible in scale material with principal structure and with the adjacent surrounding buildings. Placement and scale should be compatible with that of the existing buildings along the street and in the historic districts. A more appropriate solution would be to rotate the orientation of the approved deck by 90 degrees, such that the 16-foot projection of the deck extends into the rear yard, thereby moving the roof deck an additional four feet off the property line. Recommendation. Staff recommends disapproval of the request to construct a roof above the deck located within four feet of the north property line. Staff recommends approval of the request to construct a roof above the previously approved deck with the following conditions. one deck's location be rotated 90 degrees such that its north edge is approximately four feet off the north property line two all exposed wood of the roof system be painted three all final drawings and details be submitted to staff prior to the issuance of the COA and four, should other LFUCDG divisions require changes, that information come back to staff prior to the start of the work. The applicant is here. Thank you. Martin, before you sit down, just a question for my own nosiness. the issue is simply the height of the addition because of its location to the wall. If it were just a porch, no roof, that is A-OK. Is that correct? If it were just a deck. If it were just a deck. Because there would not be the profile raising up. With just the deck? Mm-hmm. The staff had recommended approval of that in September. That's correct. But once you start raising this element up that close to the property line, it's construction of the porch that close. Sure. and it's not there's no out and out opposition to having a cover over the porch having a roof of any kind it's just simply the location so if that can be held back or per your recommendation the shape of the porch can be changed to move that height element away from the wall or the fence that would be acceptable. Is there a magic number in mind how far away does it need to be By turning it, it pulls at four feet. So four additional feet, so a total of eight feet. That's right. Okay. Okay. Or if not turning it, if you just made it a 12 by 12 instead of a 12 by 16. Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, then it clears up some questions I had. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions for? Go ahead. Well, first let me say the staff's been great to work with. After Reese Reinhold made these drawings for me, he got on two other projects, and I was stretching our friendship to get him to take it another step. So I really appreciate their input. They've been great to work with. The problem is, if we turn it this way, we could put a picture back up of the parking area if that's possible. Unless I invade the existing parking area, my deck can only be five and a half feet wide. So by turning it, it has to be pushed into the parking area, and I lose parking, which is, of course, valuable on Woodland Avenue. I hadn't heard this thought of just making it smaller. But eight feet from the property line, you could see here it would have to come over. There's a line of river rock. It would only be about five and a half feet that direction toward the Blue House from that when you measure for eight feet. If you don't mind, you want to grab the pointer and one of you all showing which button. If I might, I didn't give you this additional info. I didn't give you this drawing which shows which actually shows the 16 feet this way and the 12 this way I'm saying if you just cut off 4 feet there would do it if you just went to a 12 by 12 I don't know how to get that off. That's the drawing of what we did in the field, showing the dimensions of that corner. Was there a photograph there? Just to review the mathematics of it while we're looking at that slide, there is 10 feet, 7 inches of real estate available from the edge of the house to the fence. That's right. Pull that back eight feet from the fence. That's going to leave you two feet and seven inches of porch going towards the fence, or at least covered area of the porch going towards the fence, for a grand total of 11 feet and nine inches total width. Does my math check out? Does everybody agree that's about what the staff is requesting? So that gives us something to visualize. Roughly 30 inches, 31 inches past the face of the house towards the fence. Towards the fence, right. Okay. So how do you use the laser? You won't use the laser. It's right there. I see. And this goes back? No. No, here. These guys, thanks, forward and back. Okay, this one I'd like to talk about. Is that yours? Yes, thanks, man. Okay, this right here is the edge of the front entrance to an upstairs apartment. My vision was that the deck would be directly in line with that. that space is only about four feet to the property line you see a gate here so my guess was that i think you have to keep five feet anyway i don't know is that right but that the roof would hang over just a little more so that was where i wanted to go to somewhere in this area but what they're saying eight feet would put it over here, right in that general vicinity. That would be about eight feet from there to the property line. The fence is right on the property line. So it's just not the same thing at all. Mr. Laffer, you know that if the roof projects beyond that five feet, that the materials that are projecting have to be fire rated? I don't know any of that. But imagine when we start to build it and get the permits that we'll have to address all those. So that would mitigate a little bit about a little of this. Right. Well, even if you kept the, I mean, but eight feet, eight feet's all the way over here. Well, again, you know, the staff's not saying the deck can't be that far over. they're saying the roof or the built-up and tall portion can't be that far over. So this is something to consider addressing them separately, or I would if it were my house. Would there be a possibility that the deck is built as originally proposed, but the covered portion is only the 12 by 12 section? So basically you'd still have this, the floor space would be 16 inches, and just the covered space would only be 16 feet. The covered space would just be 12. That's an interesting thought. It's sort of a, it wasn't what was in my head, but that's probably a reasonable suggestion. Yeah. It's almost like a covered portion with a catwalk around it. Well, you'd still have the majority of it still would be covered. It's just the extra four feet or so would be uncovered, but that would alleviate some of the issues. I do think, though, that as Graham pointed out, if there are certain code things that are coming up, when you're building that close to the property line, you might want to investigate that first. because if you get this great design and everything's great with it and then you find out that everything has to be higher rated or sprinkled or whatever, you're going to have to either change the design or it might cause the cost of the project to go up substantially. So you may want to get that information from the code enforcement. right? Building inspection. Building inspection, thank you. I need to ask Reese as well from his original concept. I would think he would have probably had that in mind. Who knows? You can't assume these things. Well, he may not have been aware of the exact property lines and locations and so forth, but I think that it would not be a bad thing to get that information and then have the design react to it rather than going all through the process of having a design and then having to change it? I think where I would fall on that is whatever that number is. If it were five feet, that's where I would want to build it right to that limit. I don't want to exceed that and have to do the things that Mr. Pohl mentioned. But still, that's not going to be eight feet. They're not going to require me to be eight feet off the property line, like their recommendation says. I don't know. Probably not. I'm just saying get that number. Can I throw out a hypothetical just as a point of conversation? Please. Looking at your design, which is very nice in terms of the way it responds to the existing structure, one of the features of that design is the way the stairs come down off the raised deck and the stair that's running toward the front of the house and is the width of that element that you pointed out what if that stair were reduced to four feet of width which would give you a 13 foot 2 inch wide deck at that point would that be something that you'd consider yes let me see if i can just be sure what we're talking about here okay these are i mean i can see that if you pull it back to eight feet you're you're you're down to a minimal stair coming toward the front of the house at about three feet wide which which perhaps is a little mean-spirited if you think of it strictly from a design standpoint. Are these the stairs you're referring to, sir? Yeah. Because that heads toward the front. That's right. Right, so that could be more narrow is what you're saying. Right. I think the way you have it drawn, they're over seven feet wide at this point. And so I was just looking at a way to maintain some of the character of what you've got designed, but try to defer a little bit to the neighboring properties and try to bring it into a place where it's more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. That part sounds good. So I don't – do we get to approve this with some remarks like that, or do I have to go back and work on it more? Well, as far as process goes, if we were to come to something we all liked and agreed to on the board, we could certainly vote on that and make that a condition of the approval. I think for everybody's sake, we would probably want to see the final details, or the staff would want to see the final details before any construction began or before any certificate were awarded. But they would expect the drawings to reflect the comments made or the recommendations made and voted on. So we can certainly make action. I think we have a bit more discussion to go as far as the tall element. We need to address the staff's concern over having such a tall thing, whether it's four feet or five feet away from the property line. I think their point is it's close to the property line and it's tall. Again, whether the edge of a flat porch and just guardrails is at four or five feet away, I don't think that's their concern. I think their concern is for the height of the roof and its location. So I think we've got the floor plan kind of, or at least the parameters of the floor plan that would have a flat porch figured out. And with the stairs, do we have any comments or ideas or anything we need to talk about as far as polishing or changing the shape and size of the tall part, which, like I said, was the staff's? Mr. Chair, actually, I wanted to go back to the floor plate because I'm still not sure why you don't want to go with the staff recommendation of turning at 90. I know you made the comment that you're taking up parking space, but you're already intruding on your parking space for your site plan. And you're only going to intrude four more feet. I mean, to me, it seems you could almost have everything you want if you just rotate it 90 degrees and you have the shorter, you have your compact space where that area is. I mean, I'm a little... I'm not completely understanding that parking drawing. Where did we have that? These sight plans that are not... I'm not sure they are not accurately accurate. Well, I mean, you even look at the photograph that you, this photograph. I mean, if you build this deck out where it is, I mean, you're going to come out in this parking space anyway. Well, it was just a corner of it, though. See where this folding table was sitting? The plan took that away in just a little corner of it because it comes straight out from this corner. Not this far, not the pointer, but somewhere like that and across. was the way the original you can still park a car here well if i can only build the decks of this then it's only five feet five and a half feet wide so i understand that you don't want to give up that corner of the parking area but there's a balance to be struck here right i mean you want a 12 by 16 deck and yeah it's something to consider and we're trying to dig into it and figure out where we we can meet you. But you know, in the design as you've got it, you're getting your way in both directions. And really the staff would like you to be further away from the fence if you'd like to keep all your parking. And I'm not sure both can be accomplished. So what are you willing to give up and what is the staff? I mean, the staff doesn't have to give up anything because the guidelines are there. But I guess if you're... I'm not exactly, I don't mean to be slow about it, but I'm not an architect and I'm just a homeowner. But I don't understand where, I mean, there's a point here somewhere near where I'm pointing with the laser that would be the corner. Yes. And I don't exactly see where that, I guess I could go over and draw it with chalk or something and I'd understand it better. But turning it, I don't see how that changes it. Well, if you turn it, you're just going to take up four more feet toward you, so to speak. Okay, so instead of here, I'd be here. Yeah, and then you went through the parking lot. And the flip of that. Sorry, go ahead. You would need true field dimensions to make this really come out truly accurately about your parking dimension spaces and so on. So this is an approximation in our discussion, is what I'm saying. It is possible that you could probably get a compact car, and you're not going to be able to get an SUV. I'm looking at a print of this same thing that we looked at on the screen. And you're not going to be able to put an SUV as it currently takes it on this drawing, but you could probably put a compact, I mean a small, sedanish. And I'm not sure you couldn't have the same thing one more spot over and still accommodate numerically. But now if everybody drives a Navigator, you're out of luck. So things like that are what the staff and the board, I believe, are trying to suggest that you be weighing and the tugging and pulling of where can this give and take in order to try to get the best solution. so the staff's glad just from the board's efforts with this as well as you as the property owner you know to work out finessing whatever you all arrive at as a as a board um well because it sounds like you need to get your architect re-involved is is part of this yeah he's working on a farm or something i guess my point is seeing him out there he's he's got a good project going I guess my point is something's got to give either. Well, if I could just not have that eight foot from the property line issue, if it was just okay to go to the five that I think is probably the right number, I mean, I can adjust the other dimensions or even not make it square so that I can. The parking might look good numerically for a compact, but as it is, it's just really hard to turn around back there already, and any prospect of giving much of that up is negative, and I'd probably just build a deck with no cover over it just to get around that. I mean, I hate to send you sort of running in circles with this, but there's some key information missing right now to really make a full decision. What, as I mentioned before, what's the code? Is it really five feet? I mean, that may be it. I'm not sure. but it's like there is an actual number that's required. And then what is the true dimension of where exactly it does fall as proposed in your parking area as opposed to what the staff has suggested, or if there's alternatives utilizing the code distance from the fence and the staff suggestions if there's a way to create something that incorporates both, which means that you need to maybe look at design a little further. I think that if you had all this information then it actually would be pretty clear cut and the board could make a decision quickly with all the information at hand but right now I just feel like there's a little bit too much missing to know exactly how this is going to work Well, we'll try to find that out if we can know exactly what we have to know. Well, I think that, I mean, it's come up here. I mean, what is going back and forth. You know, if the staff is recommending eight feet but the code is only five, is it really five? Or does it have to be eight? Does it have to be three? I mean, does it have to be two, 18 inches? Put a sprinkler system on it. You can put it on the property line. I mean, these are the things you need to find out to know exactly where you're going with it. And then you can look at the impact that it truly does have on your parking. And if you can afford to, you know, if the existing plan is only taking up that corner, but you can even maybe give up another foot or two or something, Maybe that changes the width and the length so you end up with the same square footage, but it doesn't impact your parking too much. These are just all different questions that could probably help create the best solution for the problem. Okay. That's just my recommendation, but I do realize it's sort of running in circles again and having sat here all this time and all that good stuff. But I think it would be helpful, and you'll end up with something that really works, and you're not having to rethink it, especially not have to rethink it once it starts under construction. Now, approval is still in place for the deck with help. Yeah, if you want to just do what you have, that's cool. That's there. But if you want to investigate putting the roof on it a little further, I think you may want to find out, get this information, and then come back and resuppit. I'd be interested in seeing the footprint of the porch, the flat porch that's been approved, carry out, and then see what it looks like with a smaller enclosure on top of it that is 12 by 12. then you have an exterior portion of uncovered porch that's closer to the fence and you're not dealing with any height issues within that eight feet of the fence and then you've got your covered area of the porch too but that's my opinion that's something for you to consider I think though if you go away from here without a motion and continue to work on this or think this through I think the two things to keep in mind and balance out are, one, what is the, as was stated, what is required by building code as a setback from that property line? And two, how do you match, how do you meet the staff's recommendation for that height being eight feet away from the fence line? Because those are the two issues. After that, it's up to you where do you want the edge to be as far as how close it gets to or overlaps or does not overlap the parking area. We don't have much of an opinion on that because so far everything we've discussed coming out into the parking area of the house, I haven't heard any complaints one way or the other from the board on that issue. So that direction is up to you. But those other two issues need to be balanced out. in a proposal. So that I understand fully, the height is the only issue we have here because you previously approved the entire deck where it was going to be. Yes, sir. And, I don't know, if you want to. Okay. It's not just literally height by measurement, but it's height by introducing a mass up there that is going to be a roof and able end and all the things that come with that. So, you know, you're creating a physical presence on a plane up that will be highly visible and impacting of your house and the next door neighbors too. Even if I built it as I proposed it's still smaller than we don't have pictures of the other house but the right rear of their house I'll still be much smaller than them. That was all done before it was historic. But it kind of is an issue I learned from the previous discussion when you're comparing one house to the other and where the back of it. Well, every property has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. And this property we look at first, how does it fit with your structure, your site, your open space, your vertical relationships of mass, et cetera, et cetera. And then it ripples on out from there in terms of neighbors and so on. I think what I would recommend is that you get with building inspection and we have a meeting in our office, bring building inspection over to sit with us, you and whoever you want, and staff from Historic Preservation and Building Inspections representative to talk about the code issues tied to what's trying to be accomplished here. And that way it can be one meeting with everybody on the same page. Okay. That's just an option. If I'm hearing this correctly, and then the way you're walking away from the microphone. I don't want to take the whole night. I think that means that you're looking to withdraw your application and make a new one or table this until you can come back with new ideas. What is the best way to proceed without gumming up the works? A continuance would be appropriate, perhaps, so that it can go on the next meeting in December and not have to be re-advertised and so forth if that's the board's desire. And that certainly does you some favors as far as time scale and not pushing this thing out farther than we have to. It does us a favor that it's fresh in our mind when we talk about it again. Sounds good to me. And it leaves a gap in between where we can get the various parties together. So just get with either... Amelia, have you been working with this? Martin? I've talked to both of them. Oh, well, we're a small group. We pretty much whoever answers is who you get. But anyway, just give us a buzz and we'll set it up. To proceed with the continuance, does that require a motion on our part? Yes, please. Very well. Any other comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? Anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Hearing no more comments and seeing no action from the crowd, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that this case be continued until December 12th. for the next meeting, December 12, 2012. Can I get a second to the motion, please? Second. Any additional conversation? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, we'll see you soon. Good luck. Thank you. Before we go on to the next case, I'd like to take a three-minute break, if that's okay with everybody in the room, and go to drink water and use the restroom. Actually, for the viewers and all, you want to do like a five-minute break? I mean, something predictable? Five minutes is fine with me. Thank you. We'll be back in five minutes. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you for not minding the break. The next case that we've gotten back around to is at 645 Ellsmore Park. You'd like to come and talk to us about that. You weren't here when we went through it the first time, and we actually just decided to wait until you got here. That's okay. I'm extremely sorry, actually. It's worked out just fine so far. My name is Greg Urie. I'm property owner at 645 Ellesmere Park. This is a continuation of the conceptual meeting that we had some time ago. and since that meeting I've reconfigured the drive and the exterior padding. The orientation of the garage doors are still oriented toward Ellesmere Park And once again, I guess the issue and the main challenge is the curb cut on Ellesmere Park versus orientation toward Spence Alley. So my request is I guess we discuss the curb cut issue first so we can cut to the chase. Sure thing. we'll have the staff make their presentation and then we'll we'll have some questions and comments for you and go from there we went before the board in August for a conceptual review on this and now the applicant has come forward and has made changes to the site plan and driveway situation as far as the two strip dimensions and we'll walk you through the project a little bit and sort of the site so the proposal is at 645 ellsmore park is to demolish the existing outbuilding and to construct a new garage plus a driveway apron with two strips off of the ellsmore park alley as you see here and sort of walk you through the mouth of ellsmore park So to speak here, this would be the proposed location for the driveway apron alley on the other side of this tree, actually. Sorry. There we go. This is the location of the proposed driveway. And as you can see, here's the building in the foreground. The foreground is the building to be demolished, and the proposal is to construct a new garage of 28 by 22 feet. And sort of looking at the rear of the structure, the rear of the yard, and the area and the foreground. We'd be the proposed driveway pad, or the concrete pad for the proposed garage. This is the alley street that is on the rear of these structures, and you can see the existing outbuilding. Part of the proposal, too, would, his proposal is to put an eight-foot fence alongside this alley. This is the proposed outbuilding to be demolished. and again the proposal will be to continue the eight foot fence all the way to the corner of the property now sort of on the other side of that tree again just sort of view shed of the rear of the property along the alley so the walk you through a bit more here's the curb cut he's proposed having 30 inch strips with a 3 inch strip between the two 30 inch strips and here is an overall proposal plan of Ellesmere Park this is the proposed property a bit more in detail this is his proposed plan as you can see with the pad a little bit more detail here. So the 26 by 32 concrete pad right in front of the garage, which would be a board and baton siding with a hip roof with an arbor over the door leading from the garage towards the west, towards the main structure. And here's your plan. It'll be a two-car garage with a pedestrian door facing west, as we just discussed. The guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to demolish the outbuilding and construct a garage, driveway, driveway, apron, and fence is within the design guidelines. However, it requires further discussion. As proposed, staff finds the demolition of the existing outbuildings within the guidelines B1D, which states demolition of structures and guidelines should not be detrimental to the character, scale, rhythm, and design and importance of the group of buildings. Streetscape or district. The outbuilding is in poor condition. Its removal will not have a negative impact on the Ellesmere Park Historic District. The construction of a new garage within the LFUCG design guidelines 2B2A and 2B2B respectively state accessory buildings be simple in design and considerably smaller in scale than the primary building, and accessory buildings should not be located in character with other secondary buildings to the street, near an alley, or the rear of the property, not close to or attached to the primary building. However, staff finds that the orientation is inappropriate to the character and the pattern of development of Ellesmere Park Historic District. The property is in the northwest block of Ellesmere Park, addresses 645 through 673, and are only accessed by the alley system. No property has a driveway on that section, and the alley is where all the service buildings are located. The proposed location of the garage contradicts the intent of the LFUCG guidelines in two ways. One, it interrupts the historic pattern of Ellesmere Park, and two, it creates more paving. In addition, having the proposal to orient the garage towards the mouth of the Ellesmith Park versus the alley creates more paving, which is not in keeping with the character of the historic neighborhood. If the garage were oriented towards the alley, such as a large parking pad would be eliminated, the only amount of paving needed to have a driveway open would be used. When the Board reviewed this at the conceptual review, they expressed concerns about the paving. the staff still finds that even with the reductions, the paving would need to be further reduced. Staff suggests the paving be reduced in size because it is not in keeping with the character in the open space. Guidelines 3-5-F, state driveway and parking lot requiring a new curb cuts for excesses should be kept at a minimum. The proposal to install an 8-foot high fence along the rear property line requires discussion. While the guidelines state fences should not be more than six feet, there are particular circumstances that would allow an eight-foot fence. Many of the neighboring fences are eight-foot fence, and the rear property line backs up to commercial property that has signage that was backlit. And staff does not typically approve eight-foot fences, but it could be considered as part of the continuity of this fence along the alley. It could be considered. Sorry, sinuses are bothering me. The proposal to install new fence and arbors within the design guidelines for fence states. 31D states, fences of wood boards for privacy should be located in the rear yards and generally no taller than six foot. Privacy fences should be at least halfway back from the front part of the back walls and the side of the house. And privacy fences of flat boards in simple rows, which is historically correct, than the shadow box fences. and are acceptable and stockade fences are discouraged. Recommendation. Staff recommends disapproval of the proposal to construct the driveway apron and driveway off the street in lieu of the alley, and staff recommends approval with the following condition, the garage be oriented with the vehicular doors facing the alley, and final details be submitted to staff of the board. Once reviewed by any LFECD division's final details be submitted to staff, and applicant is present. Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? I'm going to abstain from this because I have a friendship with Mr. Yeary that I'd rather keep intact. Thanks, Graham. Love you, Greg. You too. All right. Good. Any other comments or questions at this time from the board members concerning this case? As you recall, we walked through quite a bit of this during the conceptual review, and my memory of that event is that the board disagreed with the staff's findings a bit as far as what we would find appropriate. and that a great deal of our conversation has been reflected in your application here this evening. Of course, I'd like to make clear anything that happened in the conceptual review. There were no actions, no motions taken that evening, and of course there's no guarantee of any sort. But I do see our comments reflected and adjustments have been made that match our conversation we had that evening in your application. Is there anybody? Would you like to add to that at this point? Well, one of the comments was bring one of the issues, a safety issue. That's actually the main issue for me. Oriented the garage doors toward the alley is not feasible from a building inspection and a traffic engineering point of view because of the site triangle issue, which I brought the zoning regulations for that. If it's necessary. Do you want to read any of it? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. While you're handing that out, can I ask a question tied to site triangle? It is certainly understood by everybody, I think, board and staff, although I'm not attempting to speak for the board, that the site triangle would need to be appropriate if, indeed, it had an entrance off of the alley. But are you suggesting that there is no manner in which to accomplish a site triangle on an alley? And if so, why not? Well, currently, if we keep the garage in its current location and we orient the doors, the property adjacent to mine already has an eight-foot fence, which obstructs the view. there's no way that I can get a 55-foot clearance to the right, which is what the site triangle mandates. And if you want to look to the left, I would like to construct an 8-foot fence to block the commercial view that's directly in the rear of my property, so that would obstruct that view as well. What is the overall width of your lot? Is that on a piece of paper here somewhere that I've overlooked? Probably not. And I don't have that dimension. I don't believe. I guess the point of my asking that question, that might be good enough. approximately 80 feet. It's 80 feet total. I just wonder, you know, there are a couple tricks that could be made to... I'm sorry, it's 60. 60 total. Well, that pretty much locks it in then. Well, we have an issue with the trees. Right. Well, by the time... Let's pretend the trees aren't an issue. The fence to your neighbor's fence is locked in place, and the minimum distance you can have an apron from the rear of your property into the alley from the adjacent street, Ellesmere Park, how much window of opportunity do you have to exit the rear of the property and still maintain that vision triangle? From Spence Alley, you mean? Yes, sir. I think it's quite limited. Yeah, you don't. I mean, you've got basically six feet, and that's to the current structure. Amelia's had some discussion, just to have everything out there to think about. Amelia's had some discussion with traffic engineering on this, and you want to just tell her about what you've got on that. Right, well, and this is something that Mr. Uri has sent into some of these discussions, too, with traffic engineering. and the discussion was if he were to keep his garage in the location facing that area, that they would, of course, prefer him to sort of have a background alley and then pull nose first out onto the alley itself. And it would be where we saw previously in those photographs that would be a tree or two potentially removed to make that, and it would be sort of at the corner of, if you were looking at this particular site plan, it would be in this discussion, sort of in this location, circled, that, no, they can't see that. How do you turn this on? How do you turn it on? Oh. Maybe if you could pull up the photos, please. And then it really is. I will go. If you have something to set on the Elmo at some point, that would be helpful versus getting our binoculars out. That's it. How do you go, bud? How do you go back? How do you go back? How do you back up? Like go back to the other? Oh. Oh, no, no. Oh, sorry. No, no. Either one of these dudes. Oh. No, don't touch that guy. Don't touch that guy? No, yeah. Just these two. There you go. Again, we did quite a while ago have a staff meeting with traffic engineering and building inspection, and at that time the traffic engineering representative said they would not have an issue with us taking a drive to the right of this corner tree into the alley. Well, again, if I construct an eight-foot fence, I have no site clearance pulling out onto the alley. So I'm kind of stuck. If I have you all approve one orientation, building inspection and traffic engineering won't approve it because I have no site triangle. that's basically where it stands unless an orientation to utilize the alley is structured to meet the criteria for a site triangle you couldn't do it, how could you do it? by pulling your garage back and having more aprons so to speak we got them all over town But the fence row? Of your next-door neighbor is a stationary thing. Your own property, you could structure your fence to accommodate a site triangle. How so? By stepping it back. But anyway, the board needs to discuss this. I just want to be sure that it's not just a given that engineering says you can't come off the alley. There are ways to come off the alley, but it necessitates a different design approach. Well, I'm talking about building inspection and the site triangle. The same group, traffic engineering and building inspection. Traffic engineering is fine with orientation on Ellesmere Park now. They objected to it before. Okay. Traffic engineering is the organization, the part of government that has the final say, yes or no? It's both, building inspection and traffic engineering. And you have met with both those groups, and they have told you that you cannot put a garage with an entrance off the alley because of the site problems. Right. I have to have site clearance. Okay. And they've told you there's no way to do that? They've told you there's no way to do it with the proposed location. In the proposed location. But they've not ruled out anything. They've just said as it currently stands, it wouldn't work. Right. Okay. So we've got that. That's just for a clarification on my part. It seems to me that I completely understand where you're coming from with this. The easiest thing to do is what you're proposing. Historically, it's not the correct thing at all to do. But what is it that outweighs it? Would you be willing to investigate alternative designs that would allow access from the alley? Or do you simply not really want to do that and go with the existing design that has been approved by all the organizations entering from Ellesmere Park? Well, I'm open to anything, but the problem still stands. Orientation of if we step the garage back, we're cutting severely into the yard. Well, you're taking out more yard already by enlarging the garage. Yeah, eight feet. Right. Right. So let's say what? Well, actually less than that, six feet, because I was going to place the garage and its current just in the same footprint, so we're coming back into the yard six feet. Okay, and that's just with the size of the new structure. Right. Okay. So that's not much intrusion. The other issue is the privacy issue with the eight-foot fence. I mean, that's obviously a major concern of mine, blocking the view of the check exchange building, which butts my property line and the lighting of the parking lot. Yeah. Historically, I understand the staff's viewpoint that there are no curb cuts on the northwest side of Ellesmere Park. However, there are curb cuts all over Ellesmere Park. There are six driveways on the east side. There's a drive exactly across from my property on the other side of Ellesmere. Their argument is also that any storage building access is through Spence Alley. Well, there are no other garages. There are maintenance or garden sheds, but no other property on the northwest side of Ellsmore Park has a garage for access. To me, it's still a safety issue. We have a lot of foot traffic up Spence Alley. We actually have people that pass out in Spence Alley and lay in the alley. So safety concerns are an issue for me as well as, well, for people in the alley as well as safety concerns for my family. Right. I really do understand those concerns, and those have to be taken into account when we're looking at the project. I mean, how much would you step back the fence, Betty? I don't have the math on it because it will, whatever would be necessary to meet the triangle. because I'm not suggesting that you can ignore that reality, that you do need a legitimate site triangle. But I know we've done some in South Hill where the pavement, when you turn off the alley onto the private property pavement, it's far enough to get pretty much a car length. Generally, like Max Alley, the garages that are newly built that come along there, They're about 20 to 22 feet in. Some are a little bit less, actually. Right. Because essentially what it's doing is allowing you to get off the alley into your parcel and then enter your garage, and then when you come out, that's when your site triangle really kicks in. The tradeoff, of course, the downside to that, I don't misunderstand, is that it's putting your structure further into your green towards your house. But it also takes away creating a driveway from the side. So it's taking the driveway part of it and uniting it back to the alley. The downside, I'd be the first to admit, is pushing the garage unit closer to your structure. Well, but the physical presence, the physical reality is the lot side width is only 60 feet. If you have to have 55 feet clearance to the right, that means no structure could go back there, not even the garage, unless we step it back another 10, 12 feet. So I don't, I mean, there would be no fence. Well, I just, it would have been helpful to demonstrate why it can't work looking at attempting to put it off the alley. I think to pursue it in that direction, you end up with the rear fence further towards your house. That's correct. At an angle, usually. It angles. Well, it'd have to be at like a 45-degree angle. Which is in who wants to do that, what homeowner wants to do that. Yeah, I'm just saying throughout some of our other historic districts, this has been some of the solutions that have been done to continue these rhythms. I just want to be aware that there's no confusion about, oh, it can't be looked at at all because of X, Y, and Z. It can be looked at whether or not the outcome is what this board wants to approve. It's an entirely different topic. I suppose the problem that's in my mind, too, and I've doodled it a couple times, and even when we met the last time, having it access the alley and having the room to get into the garage and approach the alley and have your vision in both directions. And I didn't do the math, so I'm not even sure it solved the problem. But no matter where I put it, if it were against the neighbor's fence, like in a similar location of where the existing garage and the proposed garage would be, you're so close to the fence to your right, you can't see to the right until your car is halfway out into the alley. To put it on the opposite corner in my mind, And again, I can't give you the math on what parking or what engineering would approve, but to put it against the other fence puts you right up against the road, and your turn out into the alley is too close to the opening of the alley, or the beginning of the alley, which leaves you in the middle of the yard. And to me, that creates a rather awkward situation in the backyard altogether, altogether where by that time you might as well make the whole last 20 feet of the yard a paved apron because there's time it creates weird shapes and that's how it's been addressed I think on max alley is that the width of the lot is so narrow it it makes sense or it fits and works out well that the entire back end of the lot becomes a paved parking area because they're so narrow and most of the discussions i've been a part of at max alley weren't close to the road at the end of max alley whereas this one's right on it and it kind of limits the options in the other direction none of those are definitive but they're things that stand out in my mind and i'm trying to hash my way back through the conversation we had in the conceptual review and remember why it was i talked myself into thinking that it was a good idea well the staff certainly is not trying to negate in any way what the Board's work with this has been to date, nor your considerations today. We're just wanting to be sure that tied to the mission we're charged with of interpreting these guidelines, as are you all, that all the options are truly looked at and not just taken as a well engineering won't let it happen or building inspection won't let it happen because it's not that simple. Now, what you just described illustrates it's not simple. No, it certainly isn't. And so all the staff wanted to be sure was that all the various formulas that are possible are available and fully considered, as you do with every project. And then the board needs to, with the property owner's application, make the best decision you all need to make. And we're fully supportive of that. Yes, of course. well all that being said are there more comments from the board for the applicant at this time well the only thing i was going to say is that you know to me the the driveway does meet you know the the regs and the fact that it's not on the front yard that he is actually putting some green space on his drive, which helps kind of give it a feel of something older and not just all concrete. You know, and it is, you know, it will be seen as you come into Ellsmore Park, but from the park itself, it's not visibly dominant. So, I mean, I think in those sense, I think the guidelines were met in that aspect. I do understand the fact that, you know, if you have a garage with garage doors facing the alley, I think it could invite some prodding by unsavory types, possibly, because I know how that, living on North Limestone, I've had issues of that nature before. So, yeah, I like what his proposal has currently. Any other comments from the board members at this time or questions for the applicant? Is there anyone in the audience this evening to speak to this case? hearing no further comment from the board and seeing no action from the crowd i would entertain a motion mr chair regarding case number 06510645-h 645 Ellsmore Park. I would like to make a motion that the garage be built as designed and submitted per requirement 2.B.2.B and requirement 2.B.2.C and the fact that safety is one of the concerns for this. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Actually, can I amend my motion? Yes. I would like to add one other thing. There was one staff recommendation that I'd like to add. Once reviewed by any other LFUCG divisions, final details must come back to staff. Sorry about that. That's all right. So that's the motion. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Thank you very much. Any further discussion of the motion? If law might interject over here, we may want to give more some case-specific deviations from the guidelines. I think safety is a good example, but it's something specific in this case to have some findings to deviate from the guidelines. More specific than 2B2B and 2B2C? That's what you're deviating from. I guess the question is why. Let me go back and look. Thank you. to set a specific guideline as to avoid setting a negative precedent for other areas where the alley system might be in use. Understand. So the character of the second building, the accessory building should be located in character with other secondary buildings for the street near an alley or near rear of the property, not close to or attach to the primary building. So it meets that guideline. The accessory building should be capable in design, shape, material, and roof shape of other secondary buildings in the historic district. I feel like it meets this guideline as well. I'll also note that in guideline 5B, that a new driveway should be located at the side or rear of the building and not visually dominant, which I believe is true in this case, as well as that the driveway is made of concrete but also has a grass stripped down the center, which I feel lends to a bit of a less dominant feel for that. Does that help? I think if you could feather it with the spot-specific information, such as that the existing lot conditions don't lend themselves to having this rear garage entranceway there tied to site triangle issues, something that is limited to this parcel's characteristics as it has come to be and why not utilizing that alley in this situation makes sense. You're there with the guidelines. You just want to put specific to this property why the door is open to utilize this alternate method. Please. So to add to my motion, relating to this specific property of 645, the site triangle per the traffic engineering cannot be achieved by this further regulations. We also have the screening of the commercial parking lot and signage in the back of the building. We are also preserving the major trees in this property as well. Thank you. So did I help? Thank you. And possibly the adjacency of an eight-foot fence on one side and the nearness of Ellsmore Park to the other side for your consideration. Considered. and added. All right. Well, that's a whole heap of detailed information. And I'm sorry it was so chopped up. You did very well. Hopefully you can get that in the record. We'll sort it into order, and then when you all see it in minutes, you can tell us what worked and what didn't. Right. Rob, do you accept those amendments to your second, roughly? Okay. Some yes and some no. The reason that I seconded the motion, my only feeling was that this was entirely a traffic and safety issue, that these other elements were not studied and did not play in the reasoning for changing the orientation of the entrance to the garage. So that's a no? I guess that would be a no, sorry. So there's no second. Here's a first. It's been amended. I think we need to make a more concise motion that addresses the unique issues of this site and go from there. So I'm not going to second the motion either. So we're going to let this one die? He can either choose to withdraw it or it will die for lack of a second, either or. Sure. So we're going to, as you see fit, withdraw, we're going to sit here until it dies. I will withdraw it so we can get a more concise version. I think that's a good idea. So anybody else would like to take a stab at it? I'm working on it. Thank you. C. C. C. C. They're going to frame another motion. I'm going to do that to mine. Okay. I'm going to make a motion. I recommend that the application be permitted as designed, overturning the staff's recommendation number one, that the garage to be oriented with the vehicular doors facing the alley and final details be submitted to staff and board. again be disregarded in this project for reasons of perceived driving and pedestrian traffic safety, as well as immediate adjacency to Ellesmere Park and 8-foot neighbor's fence on the opposite side of the property, unique to this applicant's location. Thank you. And issue number two, or staff's recommendation number two, I would uphold with, once reviewed by any other LFUCG divisions, that final details be submitted to staff. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Nay. Very well. The motion passes two to one. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Deere, for enduring that. Thank you. Thank you, Greg, for the best. Hey, no problem. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 155 East 3rd Street in Constitution Historic District. Thank you so much for your patience and understanding of our incredibly lengthy agenda this evening. That's all right. So I believe we left off. We discussed your other two properties, and those were found acceptable. Staff recommendations were okay with you, and we approved those. And where we left this one was that, as I understand it, it had a damaged or rotting wood porch that needs removing. You'd like to replace it with a concrete porch. Yes, sir. It currently has stone steps or concrete steps? It has stone steps now. It currently has stone steps. All other issues were, well, staff didn't have any other issues with what was proposed. It was simply limited to the front porch where they recommended. And I call to your attention the findings of the staff. Not that I'm questioning. I have a picture of the porch. The staff says that the porch at 155 appears to be original. It was not the original porch. It has been replaced. It was not tongue and groove because the materials that it was made out of are newer materials that had rotted. So it was not original to the home. They may have tried to have duplicated it, but they didn't. I see. You're talking about just the floor. I have a picture if you'd like to see it. No, that's okay. I just want to clarify that that is. Oh, the Easter Bunny. Okay. I'm getting letters that the Bluegrass Trust have brought in during the meeting on your topic. So one for you. Oh, okay. Giving them to the board members. Okay. And a couple of representatives of the trust are here. Oh, well, that's nice. Oh, thank you. They didn't write this during the meeting, did they? I was going to say. They've had time. They certainly had time to do so. Anyway, did you want this picture? I don't know if I'm allowed to give that to you all or not. Oh, and actually, if you want to, we can actually put it up on the screen so we can all see it at the same time and discuss it together. That's my only. And then I do have, I guess, I guess I have one up. A while ago you all just approved that I could take the posts for $159 and take them over there. Well, I'm just asking to be able to take the concrete porch at 159 over to 155. And that's an interesting point that you bring up. There she is. Yes. In all of her glory. So at this point, does the board have comments or questions for the applicant? Do you want to hear the staff's presentation, which we haven't heard yet for this property or the front porch? I think it would be a good starting place to hear the staff report, and then we'll have some more conversation with the applicant, if that's okay. Of course, this is the properties, both 155 and 159 in this image that we're looking at. And, of course, the particular front porch is in question. And this is, of course, the structure now to give you a little idea. Also, this is the structure as of circa 1970s, early 1970s, I would say, that the wood porch was intact at that time. Having a wood porch system was part of its identity. The applicant at this time is requesting, of course, the board grant to replace the front porch. The existing wood porch has a wood plain floor with stone steps. The applicant would like to replace the wood porch with concrete slab. The plan calls to retain the existing stone steps. And so from discussions in the applicant and looking at the images, that they're, of course, interested in replacing the porch to match 159. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to replace the wood porch with a concrete slab requires further discussion. From earlier photos found in the Division of Historic Preservation Office files, the peer support has been wood. Guidelines 11A, 2A, 3A, and 2A, 3B, respectively, say that architectural details and features should be maintained, retained, and should not be removed or changed if original to the building. Porches should be compatible in scale materials with principal structure and surrounding buildings along the block and with the district. Porches should be compatible with historic district architectural style and not be of an earlier architectural period. The porch at 159 East 3rd Street has already been altered, and the porch at 155 East 3rd Street appears to be original. and staff suggest the wood porch be retained at 155 East 3rd Street and replaced with a tongue of groove of wood flooring in lieu of a wood slab. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the replacement of the wood porch with concrete, and staff recommends replacement of the front porch with a tongue of groove of wood flooring and band board. And the applicant is present. Okay. Are there any comments or questions at this time? We've kind of flipped the order around a little bit. I think now is a good time. I understand that the house next door has the concrete, which was probably introduced 30, 40 years ago at this point. The thing that happens with concrete is, and this has been proven over and over and over, It does not expand and contract in the same rate as stone or brick. And it can, although it seems a more permanent material and more durable, it actually can cause a lot more destruction to the historic fabric of the main part of the structure. And, you know, I imagine you could find a dozen studies that show this. I mean, the famous buildings all over the country, all over the world, have had concrete introduced, and it made the situation worse, and they've had to remove it at a later date to preserve this dark structure. You know, with the other house, it's already there. You know, it would be great if at some point it could actually be removed and a tongue and groove wood floor system put in, but I understand that's a cost, and no reason to add more at this point in time. Thank you. But in that this, even though that is not the original floor that's on there, even though this one, I mean, you're going to have to do something with the floor, I think that the staff's recommendation really makes a lot more sense than trying to introduce a concrete slab in that area because I think that in the long run you're going to be better off. It's more authentic, of course, to have the wood floor because neither of them would have had concrete to begin with. But you will save yourself from the potential of having some issues down the road with the brick and stone that are on the inside of that porch area if you go back with a wood system. The only answer that I can give you, and then I'll let my contractor answer that further, is the addition of the concrete to the way that we've buffered the foundation, which was in terrible shape, the way that we've buffered that, I don't find that the concrete will shift like the wood will. Also, if you will look on our street, there's not a wooden porch to be found. There's no wood. Everything on our street, on my side of the street, on our side of the street, is concrete. So it is a rose in the middle of a patch of thorns, obviously. Right. So in just trying to keep the likeness the same, if I'm going to the expense of installing the stone steps that match what is over at 155, which that's what we would like to do, then is that going to look a little out of place if I add the wood? And I don't know if the picture, it looked to me like there was wood on top of a foundation-type material in the original picture. You mean the existing part? The existing, yes. Well, I mean, if that's the case, that's a totally different issue. Yeah. If it's a wood structure that is holding the current wood flooring, which is, I mean, I can't tell from the photograph. Yeah, it looks to me to be there's something, that floor is not sitting flush with the stone. It's sitting on something. Right. So does that indicate that there is another, an additional foundation under that? Well, there may be a foundation. Where did all of that second story come from? I've never seen these pictures. That's interesting. Yeah, that awning's real. That's awning's cute, isn't it? It won't go back. No, the thing that I'm getting at with the addition of the concrete, if it's never been there, there is a chance that it's not so much that it's going to move around, unless we have another earthquake, you never know. But there's actually chemical issues that can take place between the stone, the concrete, and the brick. And it's just something that I'm not saying is going to happen. You could pour it, and you could have no problems at all. But it also could potentially cause this problem. Whereas if you go back with a wood structure, which, as I said, most likely was the original, original structure, was some kind of wood structure, then you alleviate any possibility of anything negative happening with this reaction between the concrete and the stone and the brick. Unless the wood that is chosen now is not of the same quality. I mean, a one-inch board now is not one inch. It's five-eighths of an inch. So we're not going to go back to... You'd have to really look at what your materials are. and I believe that some synthetic materials are allowed in porch flooring. But then I go to, are synthetics allowed? Are they? Well, the process thus far, it has opened the door to things like cementus board and that kind of thing, but thus far the process has held those to being on back porches and decks and that kind of thing, and that if a front porch, primary entrance porch, has evidence of its wood system to continue a wood system in place. This photograph comes, of course, from the Historic Preservation Office, and when you see the actual print to the photograph, we believe it's the wood band board that you're seeing below the boards forming the porch floor, the wood band board being of a wood structure system supporting that wood floor. We can't guarantee you that, but it seems pretty normally to be the case. And I've got some questions. Yeah, sure. You know, a lot of what Rob's saying is true. Concrete can make things worse, but I also think that there are details and physical bond breaks between the concrete and the brick that can help deal with those problems. I'm kind of split I think it'd be great to see a wood porch go back there I'm interested in the way that the porch and it's hard to see here because of all the plant life but to have a porch there and have the lattice underneath it and see that that's a lighter object and then there's the house, the heavier object planted behind it that relationship interests me and maintaining that interests me as well to further highlight the woodwork in the porch area. I think that's interesting and unique woodwork that holds up the awning above, and not this awning, but the awning slightly behind and above the photograph. I think that's part of the wood character of this porch, and I think the porch decking is part of that. Now, at the same time, it's hard for me to approve concrete if I haven't seen how you're going to do it because I think that's important. and I don't think that a concrete top with sheer concrete edges is appropriate. And I don't think that's what you would propose, but I don't really know what you're proposing either because I haven't seen a drawn detail. So I don't know if we're talking like, you know, you see the formed concrete blocks that people use that have the almost looks like today's split face, but it's got that dimensional effect to it, and then there's a concrete top on top of it. Or are you talking about something else? I just don't know what you're proposing. There are several concrete options that might be okay. Excuse me. We're talking about a 7 1⁄2-inch concrete slab. Full-size concrete slab with steel reinforcement, expansion control joints, and polyurethane for a vapor barrier underneath that. So materials, moisture, anything can't get to it. I mean, it's going to be the same thing as the height of a step. We're going to pour 7 1⁄2-inch of stick is what we've got, the full size of a step. But I think you're missing... If you can't, it would be a slab on top of the existing foundation there, exposed at the ends. So it would be with the expansion joint, concrete, everything. I mean, it's going to be structurally. If you expand, it can track with anything else it moves. So from what you just said, the concrete porch is going to be 12 inches lower in elevation than the existing wood porch? No, it's finished. I don't understand. It's going to fit right up under the door. Okay, so there's going to be. We've got seven and a half inches from the very top step to the bottom of the door. So when you step off the last, when you go up the first three steps and you step onto the porch, you want the same step, which is seven and a half inches, and it's going to fit right up under the existing threshold of the front door. Just like the original. Yeah, and I guess my question is what part of the detail I'm looking for is what's underneath the concrete. What holds it up? What are the exposed edges? It's got a five. It's got foundation already, and it's got gravel underneath of it already. There's a stone foundation that is around. There's gravel already. And then gravel inside the... It's already got gravel. It's full. I guess I misunderstood that part. Okay. I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't say it. It doesn't have latticework. It has stone foundation. Well, that's good to know. Interesting. And weird. It is. You're right. A little different combination. There's a lot of different little elements in those houses. Yeah, okay. Well, that's more information for me. Thank you. Now I understand a little better. Well, again, it's less wood. It still relates to the porch above it, and I appreciate that relationship. But at the same time, I'm not real upset about a concrete porch given what's underneath it. And, again, I'm sure the staff would want to see it, and if the motion shook out that way, I'm sure final details would need to come back. But with care, I think that can be accomplished in a nature that doesn't damage the property. Good. Are my initial thoughts. I think that the big problem that we have as a board, if it's a problem, is that the guidelines are really explicit about this. The guideline says, 1.1.E says, architectural details and features, if replaced, should approximate the size, shape, material, color, texture, and other visual qualities of the original materials. And concrete doesn't do that. The original materials are wood. Concrete doesn't approximate those characteristics. So for us to overturn this guideline, we have to have some really, really strong reasons. And so far, I'm not really hearing them. And I can appreciate that. My only response to you is, then, does that mean I'm going to have to tear off the concrete porch at the other house? At 159. At 159? No. It's in existing condition. Then, okay. then should I leave the square post and the A-frame looking crazy things? That would be up to you. Of course, we would rather see the restoration of the porch as we already approved. I would agree. But there is nothing saying that just because what happens at one property will happen at another property. I think it's great that you're trying to replicate these things and make those two houses twin again. But don't assume that just because what happened at one property can happen at the other. Or has to happen at another property. But they're twins. I understand that. I understand that. And if I remember correctly from the picture of the other house, that slab was about four inches. Is that about right? On the other house. On the other house. On 159? On the 159? Yeah. Yeah, it's about four inches there. there's a difference between four and seven and a half yeah you're right you made a you made a comment that i thought was very telling you said that that you know should you should you have to have the rose in a in a better form and you know the answer is absolutely the answer is absolutely because from a historic standpoint it's really important for future generations to understand what was there and if you eliminate any memory of what was there then it's gone forever but if you retain a rose among the among the concrete thorns on the street you've done a service and so and that's exactly what this guideline is all about well we have to put we'll have to put a wood band then around that won't we Yeah. Because that, and then that will raise, will that raise the porch? No, we'll make it the same step after you do it. Okay. We're still going to have a seven, even though when we put the other steps in on the other side of the match step, we're still going to have a seven and a half inch step from the porch up. We're going to have a gap, so we'll have to make that work. So we're still going to have a seven and a half inch thickness from the last step to the top step anyway, to the top of the existing porch over there anyway. It's going to be the same. You mean a 159? Mm-hmm. We'll be the same elevation. So we'll still have a 7 1⁄2 inch. We'll be down lower to get what code requires for a step up. I see that you're saying. So we're going to have still a 7 1⁄2 inch height. So whether it's a 4-inch slab or what, when we match the existing stone steps, we still don't have the same thing. Yeah, sure. Well, we know it can be done because it's been done before, right? Issues of maintenance, of course, lead to a big hole in the middle of it, and that's why it's been replaced. But that doesn't mean that's what's going to happen as soon as you build a new one. I think the board members bring up great points. I mean, we have these rules we have to follow. It's a different combination, but I think that's a nice, unique touch to the house that's there. If there's a chance to maintain that, that's nice. I just ask for consideration for the concrete porch dissolved. Thank you. I understand. Thank you. Any other comments? I just want to say that I think that all of these projects are great, and I think it will be a real benefit for the community having these houses restored and a real boost for the East 3rd Street Historic District, or the Constitution Historic District. So no matter what the decision of the board is, please understand that we really appreciate the work that you're putting into these houses. Thank you. And I will note that the letter we did receive from Bluegrass Trust during this meeting states as much as well. Those representatives are here, by the way, if you all, when you get to the public comment part. Sure. Any other comments from the board at this time? I would just like to say I agree with my other board members. I do feel like this is a rose in a bed of thorns, and I really think the wooden porch is definitely integral into the design of this property. I think since the other one has gone concrete, obviously there were other renovations done on that house, as you can tell by the way the porch now looks. So I think it's worth saving that wooden porch just for the history of the house and the history of the neighborhood. So that's my two cents. Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions or contributions from the audience this evening? Anybody here speak to this case? seeing no action from the audience and hearing no further comment from the board at this time, I would entertain a motion. May I ask one question? Could I cover the other porch? For the benefit of those watching at home, if you'd please come to the microphone. Could I cover the other porch with wood? the porch that's currently a concrete I think that it's a possibility if there's the spatial areas to allow for it to dovetail in properly for your wood floor surface to still tuck under the front door sill and that sort of thing we'd be glad to meet you over there and talk out what are some other options in terms of, like, if you want to finesse the concrete one you've got on the 150. I've lost track of the numbers, but the middle house. 159, thank you. Well, without opening up the whole 159 issue that we've already heard and approved up to this point, that seems to contradict the reason we're asking you to put wood on this one. I would agree, but... Am I mistaken? No, one can be, I mean, the topic of retaining the wood concept on this one is what the guidelines are all addressing, as you've been very well discussing. On the middle house, that the concrete is an existing condition, their application didn't address that. It's just to continue its existing condition. But if we were to be discussing that issue on 159 this evening, it seems like we'd have to support the existing concrete the same way we're supporting the existing wood at this location. I don't think so. I don't agree. What we're talking about is a restoration effort because, you know, all the work that they're doing to restore 155, 159, no, 155, they're learning from 155 to restore 159, and it works the other way as well. It's evident that the original porch floor was wood. On both houses. It's evident that the concrete floor was something that was added at a later date, and so part of a restoration effort could be to replace that with a wood floor, and it would make sense. Right. And per the guidelines, if on 159 the concrete deteriorated to the point it wasn't functional and you decided you needed a new porch, you would have the legal right to continue that existing condition of concrete. But if you were wanting to be more appropriate to the historic character of the house, we'd certainly be saying, you know, another option is to return it more to what was appropriate originally and through much of its life, that being wood. So you're always able to keep existing conditions as long as they're still functioning. But when they stop functioning and or you're stepping up the level of the appearance of the house tied to, you know, it's had all these changes over time, and you're reversing some of that that hadn't been very positive, some of those rear additions, that kind of stuff, then it opens the door to what would be the appropriate material, just in a similar discussion as has been with 155. So it's an interesting concept to think about removing the visual reality of that concrete stoop in 159 by improving it with something more appropriate to the house but not jackhammering it up. We can get with you. Interesting. So those are all fine points, and should that action ever come before us? Should it happen? Should it happen? This whole conversation? But I did understand you correctly. Synthetic material, that is a viable option. I think that what Betty was saying was that it has been approved, but not for front portals. Not for front. For back. For decks, back portals, things like that. Okay. More utilitarian type spaces. I think that since materials come out all the time, all kinds of things, you would need to look at a material and then take it to the staff and have it looked at more closely to see. But in general, the guidelines would state that it would be replaced with a like material, especially in that particular location. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So all that being said, I would entertain a motion. Okay. Well, Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 18790156-B at 155 East 3rd Street, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted. Oh, excuse me. To, per the staff's recommendations, I would like to recommend that we disapprove the replacement of the wood porch with concrete and follow the staff's recommendations to approve the replacement of the front porch with tongue-and-groove wood flooring and band board. I'll send you the motion. All final details are to come back to the staff before issuance of the COA. Thank you. Second. And a second. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Last but not least, and again, thank you so much for your patience. It has been quite a long evening. 625 West Short Street in the Western Suburb Historic District. This is back. We'd like to hear the staff presentation of that, and then we can talk to the applicant and go from there. I'm going to let him then. You want to do it? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Is that much? aren't we just discussing the proposed yes the proposed alternate i guess if we can skip ahead and you've approved it or recommended approval uh if we could just get a brief show an explanation of the rear elevation on the screen so that we can get uh see the two see the two proposals side by side and discuss that i guess is where we left off I don't know. I've not seen what others propose. He has it right there. So if we can get the original drawings on the screen for a moment, and you can just tour us through the parts that are proposed and then the parts that are proposed to change, that would be wonderful. The difference is almost imperceptible. We made you wait for imperceptible. I don't know how you put that up there, but let's check the date on this. This is November 2nd. This is the one that was submitted. That's it right there, Martin. Okay. So you want to? Well, between the two of you, if you could just point out the parts that you're proposing to change from your application. Yeah, the two windows, as proposed, the state. These windows. Those two windows, yeah, and this grouping of windows as well, so the three windows all together. The Heritage Council, the lower windows, the new windows. The Heritage Council proposed that the proportions of the windows, the width to height ratio, was not consistent with the width to height ratio of the windows above. So they suggested that we approach it and attempt to create more verticality in those fenestrations. This is what's been approved. We're content with this if it's going to be disapproved, however. It's been recommended for approval, hasn't it? Oh, okay. It's been recommended by. I'm sorry. I apologize. That's okay. So there's where we started. We all see that. Now, if you'd like to, is that going to fit on your magic device? No. Do you have a smaller set? What's the smaller set? The old ones? Oh, okay. Well, we'll do our best. You can just grab the roaming microphone and come our way. Bring them up to you. Sure. Yes, sir. I think that's where it's headed. The width to height ratio on these windows, and then we've lowered the roof pitch by 112, which eliminates the necessity for the window wells that are shown. this was suggested as a conventionally framed roof that was my proposal and to get an 8 inch duct from this section of the house into this room back here we have to travel through that section and it was the only way we could get in here one of the reps from the heritage council suggested we use trusses I typically have a version of trusses in residential construction. I would use them multifamily. But if we beef up the bottom cord and we put a membrane underneath it, we're going to put a wood ceiling in here anyway. That lowers the entire section by 14 inches if I go to a wood truss. That's what lowers the pitch, and it still allows us to penetrate through the truss with the ductwork where we couldn't penetrate the conventional framing. That's how we achieve the lower elevation. And then the windows, as proposed, are consistent with the proportions of the windows above. So that was just offered as a combination. There's no change then in roofing material. Both are EPDM roof. That's correct. That's what I see. i don't have any problem with the amendment if any i think it's easy for us but i have to hear what the other board members say i think it's an improvement personally i thought that it was an improvement that's why we're proposing it and i thought their proposal was uh was well made and it's well received well good yes it does yep any other comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant hearing none anybody in the audience this evening to speak to this case anybody left in the audience to speak to this case looks like we're getting thin roughly lonely now that's all right well that being the case and uh hearing no further comment and seeing no action from the crowd i would entertain a motion at this time uh mr chair regarding case number 17170625f 625 west shore street i make a motion to approve application as submitted with exhibit b with the lower roof pitch and the newly designed windows second the motion any further discussion of the motion hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye all those opposed the motion passes thank you i appreciate the board's decision and the staff thank you thank you we used to note that as exhibit b right there all right we have two remaining items of other business mr chair um there's a slight add-on that's not really an add-on but it's a continuation of the three houses you've just been discussing about concrete porches and and wood porches. I've just been speaking to the property owner who was here with us. She would like to ask that 159's permit that you've already acted on tonight, have you all consider having her have an option to make that 159 have a wood porch also, so that her current permit just will reflect retaining her existing condition, that being a concrete porch. But it will simplify things. In the after discussion, she was saying mostly she wants these two houses' porches to match. So if she's going to do a wood porch on 155, she would like the option to put a similar wood porch on 159. Is it possible to revise your previous action to open the door to that? If I'm hearing you correctly, what might help everyone is if we were to reconsider our motion and include the opportunity for the applicant to pursue that with you, the staff, and should it need to come back to us? The details would all come back to staff per matching the conditions that you put on 155. I'm pursuant to the conversation we already had at the tail end of reviewing 155. I personally don't have a problem with that, but I'll open it up to the board for their consideration. Again, this is discussing 159 East 3rd Street and adding to the request of renovate front porch and demolish addition. I'd like to hear what counsel has to say. Can we open that motion back up? You can't. You'd have to vote to open it back up and then vote to have an amendment to it and then vote to approve the amendment. And we've already advertised to cover this because we advertised to remodel the porch. Okay. You don't have a due process concern. Legally, you're fine. But procedurally, you're going to need to vote to reconsider your motion. That would make it open season, and you could add anything to it. then if someone wanted to add the possibility of wood as an addition to the motion, the second would have to accept it. We'd also have to reenter the original motion or at least the parts of the original motion we like. You're just reopening it. The motion, as you have it right now, is passed. She can do the concrete on the porch. You can vote to reopen talks, reconsider the motion, and then make some changes to it and then re-pass it. Does that make sense? They wouldn't have to re-state the whole thing. You wouldn't have to say it again. You could just say our existing motion plus you can have put. I found it. It's okay either way. Well, is there, can I get a motion? Yeah, I would like to make a motion to reopen whatever. Case number 18790159-B at 159 East 3rd Street. Second motion. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion is reopened. Pursuant to all conversations up to this point, concerning 159, can I get a new motion? Will the amendment to the existing motion that wood flooring be considered as an option? Tongue and groove. Tongue and groove wood flooring, thank you. be considered as an option for the front porch area with all details going back to the staff before COA. Second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? I do have one question. I'm looking at the photograph, and would we have her rework the foundation on that as well? It looks like it is concrete. She's indicated an interest in tearing down the concrete porch. So we should include in the motion's considerations or in your considerations for the motion to remove the existing concrete porch and what you just said. Okay. Amending the amendment with the addition that the concrete could be removed to facilitate the installation of tug and groove wood flooring. Second. Second that. The amendment's been seconded. Any further discussion of the motion? Put a gag on that boy. Very well. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. I'll talk to you about it. Motion passes. Good. Thank you all for that. She was realizing she would like that option, and it facilitates things greatly. Thank you. I think it will actually be good. I'm glad that it was pushed through that way and that we opened it back up. Hey, on the other business list, which would be the final two items of tonight's agenda, first of all, we have to review the BOAR meeting schedule for 2013. Has everyone received that? I had a chance to review it. It's very similar to years past, except that it changed for January, which only has one meeting in the proposal. Any comments on the schedule as proposed? All those in favor, please. Can I get a motion? Sorry. I'm getting ahead of myself. So moved. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? To accept the schedule as proposed. Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well. The motion passes. The final item on the agenda this evening is a review of the minutes from September 12, 2012. Has everyone had a chance to review those? Yep. Are there any comments or amendments to be made to the minutes as presented? None. Rob, are you okay? Yeah. Good, very good. Golly. The most entertaining minutes ever. It's quite an adventure to relive. Very well. That being the case, can I get a motion? So moved. And a second? Second. All those in favor of accepting the minutes as written, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. That is the end of our agenda for the evening. I certainly entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Very well. Thank you.