As things over me I I We've heard from the first of the shopping center centered on the pavement stacked up, all the trucks stacked up, and our wheels locked in the morning. I was in the world of a headache. I had a good one. I knew it all. I knew everything. I knew everything. I followed. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to the December 12th meeting of the Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The Board was established by Zoning Ordinance in 1958. The first historic district was Grads Park, and we now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource, and the Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the Board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so the information can be recorded correctly. I'd like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, limiting necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 23 approved applications noted on today's agenda that I just had in front of me. In the Ashland Historic District, 259 South Ashland Avenue, repair a chimney and install caps. In the Ellsford Historic District, 604 Central Avenue, replace tree, 316 East High Street, renovate structure, 343 East High Street, renovate structure, 530 East High Street, replace private sidewalk, 646 East High Street, renovate structure, 205 Kentucky Avenue, install bike pad, 315 Oldham Avenue, renovate structure, 140 Ransom Avenue, renovate structure. In the Constitution Historic District at 158 Constitution Street, renovate structure. In Ellesmere Park Historic District at 628 Ellesmere Park, replace fencing. In the north side, Historic District 218 North Broadway, replace tree. 322 West 2nd Street, replace two deteriorated sashes. 450 West 2nd Street, tuck point structure. In the South Hill Historic District at 120 West Maxwell Street, report repair gutters and windows rounds. At 208 West Maxwell Street, repair windows and sills. 210, 212, 214, and 216 West Maxwell Street, repair windows and sills. At 328 South Upper Street, replace replacement windows. Replace replacement windows, excuse me. In the western suburbs, Historic District at 625 West Short Street, renovate structure. And 712 West Short Street, replace roof. we shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificate of appropriateness the first application on the agenda this evening is at 718 and 720 West Short Street construct a pergola and hardscape and rear yard is that applicant here this evening? if you'd like to come forward please and introduce yourself and give us your address for the record Joseph Joseph, Custom Carpentry, and it's 850 Wyndham Hills Drive, Lexington, 40514. Excellent. Thank you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, sir. And are you in agreement with those findings and recommendations? Absolutely. Very well. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? while they think about that. I'll just say that I appreciate your rendered views and the sketches that were given. It gives a pretty clear picture of your application, and I appreciate that. Any other comments or questions at this time? Hearing none, are there any folks in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is 718-720 West Short Street. The scope of work is to construct a pergola and hardscape in the rear yard. Just to make sure we're on the same page, the staff's findings and recommendations are staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. Number one, final details of the masonry seat wall and stone stoop slash steps be submitted to staff for review and approval. And number two, any changes as required by other LFUCG divisions to come back to staff for review prior to the start of any work. Yes, sir. Understood. Hearing no further comment and seeing no action from the audience, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 17170718-F at 718-720 West Short Street, I would like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the two staff recommendations noted earlier. Thank you very much. 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? The motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you, y'all. The next case this evening is in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 341 Madison Place. That application is to modify a kitchen bay window. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here at the moment. if you wanted to maybe put that at the end of the agenda in case they show up, that might be an option. But they have received a copy of their staff report. Thank you very much. Seeing that the staff's recommendation is not so simple, I would certainly be okay if we set this one aside and gave the applicant a chance to get here to discuss the case. Is everybody okay with that? Very well. Let's move on to the next one. We'll come back to this one. The next case is at 141 Forest Avenue in the Belcourt Historic District. The scope of work is to construct a retaining wall and instill backfill and landscaping. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here, has received a copy of this chat report, and I would also suggest maybe we put this at the end of the agenda in case they do show up. All righty. Well, again, this is not so simple a recommendation from the staff, and I agree we should set it aside until the applicant shows up to see if the applicant shows. Moving on to our fourth case on the agenda in the South Hill Historic District at 407 and 411 South Mill Street. Scope of works is demolition addition, construction of a new garage, construction of a new addition, combined 407 and 411 South Mill Street. is that applicant here this evening. If you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself, please. Give us your name and address for the record. I'd appreciate it. My name is Andrew Moore, and I'm a resident at 407 and hopefully 407 and 411 South Mill Street. Yes, sir. Well, good to see you this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes, I have. And you're probably not in agreement with him, is that correct? Okay. Well, let's go ahead. If you don't mind, I'd like to have the staff make their presentation. Okay. And then we'll bring you back up and ask you some questions. And I will note before that gets started, we have received two letters of support for the project that's presented concerning this case. We sold this case. Of course, this is 407-411. The scope of work is to demolish a rear addition, construct a new garage, construct a new addition, combining the two properties together and a new driveway, fencing, et cetera. We did see this case as a conceptual view in August of this year, and now applicants have come back with a full proposal. And to walk you through this property, we'll just look through some images again. and of course this is they own and live in 407 they have purchased the 411 here and to sort of walk you through the property a little bit more and sort of walk around this property does need a lot of restoration as far as other details and at this time they have not made complete application for those restoration details at this time and the rear L that they're proposing is this one-story, the two-story they are intending to retain as part of the overall proposal. And this rear L is 36 by 16, and the staff has evaluated it for its condition. Of course, this also is a one-story garage that they're proposing to demolish. This is sort of the rear side of the structure. And you can see the overall mass and volume of the two additions. Staff evaluated the rear L for its, of course, looking at the mass and the volume, the construction details, the masonry work, the windows, et cetera. and you can sort of see some more images here. And the proposal that they have is to demolish this structure, or construct a glass enclosure that would connect these two buildings and then an outdoor room that would be starting where this rear L comes into, the two-story L, and connect to a one-story two-bay garage. This area would be enclosed, sort of encased in the volume of the glass enclosure, and it calls for the widening of this one-story opening and the two-story opening and then new openings in this location that would connect across to this structure on the second floor and the first floor. the window openings will be retained and new openings will be created and then the proposal also this is sort of looking from the parking lot calls for a 8 feet high fence that would sort of enclose the backyard there's an existing fence now and it would just be replaced with an 8-foot fence that would be 8 foot from inside the yard. So the glass enclosure, of course, is a two-story volume and it would rise above the roof and the corner is 411 to this height. And the back wall here, it would connect back to that particular point. We can see the overall plan. Here's the site plan. What we're not seeing on this particular plan is this is the two-story L, and then the one-story L is here, so we'll be calling for that, calling for the glass enclosure, an outdoor porch, and then the garage, and then the widened driveway. I'm sort of walking you through the plans a little bit more. Here's the schematic showing the additions in the garage. Floor plans. Yes. Can you outline approximately where the one story would be? This wall here, and the owner is saying that he has those plants here. The wall here, it comes out this wall here and then comes back and joins up because it pretty much continues out this line. and this is a 10 by 16 this would be a 36 by 16 out to this point does that help? and again this is the second story plan and sort of showing the mass This is a roof plan that you can see in your renderings much better than this. Here you go. And then here's your side elevations. And the front elevation. the wall of the connector comes between those two buildings sort of right at the same location is sort of in the middle approximately about right where the chimney would be is where this wall comes forward on the sides we can see that better you can see it better in your floor plans, I forgot to point that out There's just sections. And then this is the existing, and this is the demo plan. So you can see the addition to be removed, the one-story L. Thank you. an inventory written in 1986. 411 South Mill Street is a much older structure, and according to Clay Lancaster's Vetchesses of the Venable, the house was built in 1816 by a joiner, Cornelius Wellman. Then it was later altered by adding the porch and the gable to the front. In addition, the brackets were added and the windows were elongated, and probably the door was moved from the front center to the side at that time. The bird's eye map of the 1850 indicates the structure on the map with the one-story rare ale intended to be retained, and then the bird's eye map of 1886 and later the Sanborn maps of 1888 depict a rare ale. That's the one story we see now. And the proposal to demolish the one-story rare ale requires further discussion. The HP staff has evaluated the addition and found that its mass, form, and scale is indicative of an earlier form, while the age of the addition cannot be totally determined, the physical properties in place the building pre-Civil War. The brick has a varied amount of mortars, and they appear to have high sand content, and there's also evidence of pegged windows. Given the age of the materials coupled with the mass and the scale, the addition has determined by staff to have equal amount of significance as the main structure. Therefore, the request to demolish the rear addition does not meet the intent of the guidelines. 6B and 6D respectively. Demolition of any original features or part of the historic building should be avoided. Demolition of features or the structure of the building should not be detrimental to the character, scale, rhythm, and design, importance of groups of buildings in Screapscape or the district. After reviewing the plans, the rear addition could be retained, the new addition could be constructed, and the garage could be constructed at the rear L could still be retained, and the burials should be retained. Should the board allow the demolition of the one-story addition, staff finds the proposed addition that connects the two structures meets the intent of the design guidelines. The proposed addition constructed mostly of glass does not obscure or hide any of the rear edges or architectural features of the two buildings and or cornice. The guidelines 2A for A, 2A for E, and 2A for F additions are most appropriately located at the rear buildings. Editions should reflect characteristics of current period in the design, but be compatible with the original building. And editions should be built in the manner that avoids substantial removal or loss of historic materials, which does not damage to destroy the main architectural features of the building. The contemporary edition, as proposed, retains and references the architectural features of both buildings. However, they now become interior features. The proposal to create new openings by changing windows to doors, two openings on the southwest corner of 407, widening the openings to the northwest corner of 411, and creating new openings inside the northwest corner of 411 is within the guidelines. LFUCG Design Guidelines 17E and 124E state, installing new doors openings is not recommended new openings when permitted shall be compatible in scale and size proportional in placement and style to the historic openings new openings should be located on the sides and rear elevations rather than the main facade windows and new openings are not recommended and new openings when permitted by the review process shall be compatible in scale, size, proportion, placement and style to historic openings new openings should be located on the sides and the rear of the buildings and are discouraged on the primary facade. The proposal to construct an outdoor patio in connecting the garage does require discussion. The proposal to construct the patio, which is attached to the addition and the two structures is attached to the garage, requires discussion. Guidelines 2B to A and 2B to B respectively say the accessory building should be located in character with the other secondary buildings on the street and near an alley or at the rear of the property and not close to the or too attached to the primary building. Accessory buildings should be simple in design and considerably smaller in scale than primary buildings. Staff finds the garage location is too close to the main structure and should be pushed back further. Staff also finds the garage should be separated from the outdoor porch. The proposal to construct a new paved wide driveway surface requires discussion. Staff finds the width of the driveway and driveway openings is too much for the site. The driveway open should be reduced to no more than 12 feet, and the width of the driveway should be no more than 10 feet wide that could potentially fare out to the bay of the proposed garage. The design guidelines 3.5b states driveway parking lots that are new and should be located at the sides of the rear of the building and should not be visually dominant. The proposal to install the 8-foot fence requires further discussion. Typically, staff does not approve 8-foot fences for residential properties. However, this property abuts commercial properties in a parking lot that has a higher grade than this property. The proposal to install the 8-foot fence is within the guidelines. Design guidelines reference 3-1-D. This references wood board fencing to be located in rear yards and generally no taller than 6 and would section to be higher than 8-foot wide by 6 feet. So recommendations. Staff recommends denial of the demolition of the one-story rear addition. Staff recommends denial of an attached garage. Should the BOER grant the demolition of the one-story L addition, the Board grant the construction of the proposed addition, staff recommends that the new addition of garage, driveway, and fencing with the following conditions. The driveway and dryer apron be reduced to no more than 12 feet for the driveway apron and 10 feet for the driveway, and the garage be located further back on the site. And all plans, once reviewed by the LPCG divisions, come back to staff or Board. And the applicant is present. Thank you. Sir, if you'd like to come back and we could hear some more of your thoughts. I've kind of updated some of the drawings from your previous ones and kind of added some shade studies to so far they're a little bit clearer to read. This is obviously the two properties. I'll just go real quickly through some of the existing conditions that you can see of where it's really deteriorated. You know, this was prior to me purchasing the house. One thing I was going to point out in this lower This lower This one right here I did some investigation in the ceiling below. There's actually no brick between the window and top of the door. So that's why... Can you hear me? I was going to say I did some further investigation of why this floor is sagging right here. And there's no brick between the top of the door and the window below. And it's literally the floor is holding the joists in place. So I've essentially had a structural engineer come through and several contractors. And for the most part, it's about the only thing that can be retained. And the entire structure is pretty much the brick. And then the chimneys are actually so severely deteriorated inside the attic that one of them actually has a three-foot hole in them that I'll basically have to take them down below roof line and rebuild the top portions of all the chimneys. These are some of the details, some of the kind of more ornate work that I'm proposing on retaining. I believe most of this is, you know, even though the railing is sagging, I think it's still, you know, hopefully solvable. If not, then I would match the exact pattern. There's some different cornice details and trim work. And hopefully this is some shots of the front porch. And the front porch itself is completely shot. Termites, wood bores. There's actually a piece of plywood just to keep you from falling through the floor. So the front porch would have to be completely taken down. But, again, I'm planning on replacing it back in its previous form. And so, again, these are some of the cornice brackets up at the soffit. Again, I think for the most part, these all seem to be in pretty good shape. So when I would be replacing the roof, I would take great care to remove these brackets and put them back in their previous location. This was a survey. I had the property surveyed by Enders Engineers, and it shows the current forms. and you can see the you know, it's pretty tight at the current house to the property lawn so the property lawn basically runs here it kind of has a weird little jog in the parking lot and kind of sends back and then the face of the Japanese Auto Works is the property lawn on one side and then the face of the CPA office on Maxwell Street is the other property lawn Is it clear how wide Is there an existing apron where you're proposing a new driveway to go? Yes. Unfortunately, they replaced the sidewalk about a year ago, and the guy that just replaced the sidewalk just kind of went over. The driveway was almost kind of covered up. But you can see they've got a big gravel pile. That's what that's indicating. But this is sort of a bituminous asphalt driveway here, and there's the current apron right there. Is there any indicator on the existing width versus the width you propose? And we'll talk about that some more, but while you're here, I just wondered if you... I've got some pictures that show it. I mean, it's really narrow, and I think probably what's happened, it's a little strange because the driveway actually only goes to half of the garage. The other half, there's no driveway to. And then I believe, too, that this driveway was probably here before the building next door was built. okay well they said you know in some format so actually if you look at this this picture right here this this shows you what the current condition so you can see what I was talking about where they just sort of took the sidewalk right across the the previous apron and then you can see kind of the proximity of the the Japanese auto works so this is what this was what I was proposing as is the revised site layout. So one of the big issues, really for the reasoning, I've tried to pull it off the building a little bit and then widen the apron. A lot of that has to do with just sight lines. There's virtually no sight line. And, you know, I have two small children, and trying to pull out of the driveway back in or out of this, you virtually can't see anything. Also for pedestrians, you know, we get a lot of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk, and it's virtually impossible. You can see the rest of the houses step back, and the houses across the street are all set back from the property, back off the street, so you have nice viewing triangles. But here, with this literally right on the sidewalk, you really can't see almost anything. So you can also see I'm basically retaining the same yard that I have previously with the 411, and then what I've proposed, is taking the previous garage sat about right here, and I'm proposing shifting it forward. And then one thing I wanted to point out, this may look like a big yard, but in fact it's actually a very small yard. The distance from the back of the garage to the back of the lot is 30 feet. So I measured that, and for me, the face there, that's 30 feet, just to give you an idea of the depth of the yard there. And that's one of the two big objectives we were trying to do when we purchased this property was, one, we have a small family, and currently you can see we really don't have any kind of a yard. It was to provide them a safe place to play. And then also, currently this property just has on-street parking, which is across the street. So if you ever drive by my house in the morning, you'll see with me two small kids in tow trying to load them in a car across the street during rush hours. we actually have quite a bit of traffic so these are the existing elevations as it is now i've kind of dashed in the areas that i'm proposing to demo so this is the the one-story garage here um um these windows right here are aluminum replacement windows and then the two large windows in the front um you know it's caulk and some other things that are really kind of holding those things together. And then also the state of the roof. There's really not much left. I hope to keep at least the ceiling joists. I'm hoping those are at least intact enough to be able to retain those. And this is the one story portion I'm proposing removing here and here. so again this is a this is a you know a little bit clearer floor plan so again the two areas i'm talking about is this one story here there's just sort of a concrete pad which one time was a side porch um there's really no remnants left of the porch other than just a concrete pad and then the one story garage Is that concrete pad elevated more than a few inches, or is it roughly on grade? It's maybe four inches. Yeah, probably it's almost on grade. That's one of the big problems with the house, actually, is the floor level is actually below grade in a lot of places, where when they built the parking lot in this area here, and I think there was a house that stood here at one time, And I think when they tore the house down, they kind of elevated the grade so that water, at least in the parking lot, would somewhat slope to the street. But what it's actually done is it's sort of sloughed off, raising the grade up against the house and causing water. So that actually the grade, pretty much the grade all around this one-story structure, it gets a little bit higher up here or lower here. but pretty much all around here is actually at about floor level, so the entire floor joist is below grade. In fact, one of those previous pictures was kind of hard to depict, but there's a hole in the kitchen floor, and the floor joist inside what Little Crowley is are sitting directly on the dirt. So again, this is kind of the proposed new additions, and so I sort of kind of highlighted. and the dark are the walls that are being retained from the previous structure. And so the lighter walls are the new addition. So this is basically the two-story glass connector in here that kind of connects the two houses. And then on the second floor, it's just purely just a simple bridge that kind of connects the two levels together. So this is an elevation. So the top one is if your back was up against the Japanese Auto Works and you were looking towards the house, this is what you would see. So we have the 8-foot privacy fence. This is the one-story garage. And then this is 411, and this is the whole two-story. So this is the front part of the house and then the two-story wing. And then there's a gate here. And then this is the CPA, basically the facade that faces Maxwell Street. So again, this is 407, kind of extending just a little bit beyond the 407 as sort of a glass, two-story glass structure, and then kind of a chimney-like structure, sort of the rear porch area. Again, the one-story garage in the background and then the eight-foot privacy fence. this is the sort of the front elevation so you can see basically the intent is to keep the front facade i'm not necessarily noting all the the intricate detail of all the the front porch but the intent is to maintain all of that and basically rebuild the front porch as it was you know that the sort of the italian eight uh edition and then we have the about midway set back in the house we have the two-story glass and then the 407 one thing I did want to point out and I've got a section that I'll get later in my presentation but one of the comments during the conceptual review was this cornice area here about dropping up below the the 407 roof I saw the top of it aligned but the bottom drops slightly and I'll show you in section that basically at the top of that sort of stair bridge the ceiling height is less than eight feet there so if I was actually drop this ceiling at this roof level which I've made it a flat roof that's actually to drop it below the box gutter I would have under a seven-foot ceiling at that location so I've got a section that kind of will demonstrate that a little bit better the rear of the property is pretty similar to what i showed in the original conceptual review one difference i've noted is before i had doors that sort of opened up to the back i've changed the floor plan a little bit where now that's the kitchen to the rear and so i've got just a series of casement windows that open up and then this would be The wood siding that would match what's on the 411 would be below the windows here. And then the brick fireplace and then the brick garage. Unfortunately, this turned out a little bit darker, but I did sort of a front perspective. So if you're kind of staying probably a little bit in front of the 407, just slightly, it kind of shows the the glass in the background so you can kind of see how it's sort of almost hidden from view and actually we've got there's even a tree here so it even be kind of more obscured but it's basically you know almost it almost reads as a void because it's all all glass and then you can kind of see this is the garage and you kind of talk about it being a you know dominating feature on the front elevation but actually you know kind of tucks behind the house a little bit and with the Japanese Auto Works being here there's really kind of just a small window where you'd get a full-on view of the garage but for the most part it would be sort of tucked back to the side and again this is a just sort of an updated perspective of what we've what I've shown before you know this is the existing stone stone wall and this would kind of carry that motif into a sort of a modern contemporary with sort of a kind of like a limestone sort of veneer and i brought some product samples to kind of show you what i'm talking about materiality for for the project and then again the eight foot privacy fence and then the one story brick garage this is this was the section that i was referring to so this is the the box gutter elevation here and this is the new flat roof on the one-story section. And so from here to here is slightly less than eight feet. So you can actually see that the two-story space actually has a reduced ceiling level than the 411. And then these are just some images of what I was kind of talking about, materiality. So this sort of eight-foot privacy fence, I'm looking at using sort of a vertical orientated wood fence, probably something like a cedar or something along those lines, sort of a contemporary feeling. And again, our surroundings are to the rear of the property. I've got a center block, one-story building. Then I've got the Japanese Auto Works, which is a center block building. I've got a parking lot on another facade. And currently, with the yard being completely open, we have a lot of transient traffic walking through the yard and cutting through at night and all kinds of characters. And there's also a halfway house that backs up to the alley behind this house. And I think there's about five or six currently on the sex offender list there with two small children. Again, it's providing that sort of additional sense of security. And the hope of the idea is by limiting access through the middle of the block, again, it pushes people onto the sidewalk so they can't be cutting through people's backyards and kind of hiding. And then the garage, what I was proposing is basically it would be an aluminum, an opaque glass. so again it the idea with the garage is you know a little bit larger scale type of materiality and I'll show the brick it's kind of an oversized brick and with the garage so that it has just a real kind of simple clean line sort of a contemporary feel in a way it still kind of relates to its surroundings where I've got sort of more to kind of commercial properties on on to the to the property so that's the that's the end of the drawings and as far as materials go this the two-story chimney this is called air airs craft tile and so it has a limestone appearance and it's either used with clips or they can also put it up almost like tile so that would be the continuation of that that sort of limestone fence you know in kind of a more modern contemporary the garage this is not necessarily the brick color but what I'm proposing using there is its interstate company makes what's they call a structural brick and says in of having like a brick and block garage the brick is actually wide enough and big enough that actually serves as a structural component so you'll actually have a brick interior finish and exterior and so it still kind of relates to the house and the fact that it's masonry but you can see that the scale of the brick is slightly larger larger so that you know it's clearly that it's a it's a more contemporary structure than existing And then the two-story, I'm looking at either sort of a dark finish. Probably this is sort of a dark bronze, but it may be a black. That's what the curtain wall structure would be. That's kind of the material palette in the project. If you've got any questions or want me to go back to anything. I'll just open it up to the board if they have any questions in particular. Could you speak to the feasibility of your intended renovations, and particularly with regard to the financial issues, should you be required to keep the one-story element that you're proposing to demolish? Yeah, if you'll notice in your packet, I had two reputable builders. One is Annis and Dwyer. They do a lot of historical renovation, and the other is Crawford. So I did try to pick quality builders. And, again, those are two builders that I'm looking at doing the whole renovation, so it wasn't on one, like just went hand-picked just for that one portion. And if you notice that the numbers, they actually vary quite substantially between the two, but even the lowest of the two numbers is pretty substantial for the amount of square footage that you're talking about for that one story. I think the least of the two is $130,000 for 700 square feet. they did bring out several different masons I know Miles Miller came out and actually looked at it and sort of the determination was because of the severe deterioration caused by basically holes in the roof the grade being up higher than it was and lack of maintenance that essentially large sections of it would basically have to be completely taken down and built back. In fact, the structure is so bad on the inside that all the floors obviously are, like I was saying, they're sitting in dirt now and are full of termites and wood bores and different things. We would actually have to build a foundation inside the house to be able to support the roof load. Also, if you'll notice that I've got a letter from a structural engineer, Brown and Kubican, who also surveyed the building. And this also speaks about the severe deterioration. I'm not saying that the front of the house doesn't have its major issues also. But it's not quite as bad as the back. You know, for one, it doesn't have the grade elevation issue, which I think largely, and it doesn't also have the number of holes in the roof that that rear addition does. So, you know, the whole front portion of the house, you know, is almost the same as what it was going to take to just renovate the small one-story portion of the house. I think that with the intent of the guidelines of retaining historic elements, all historic elements of a historic property, it does make demolition of any part of it, something that really has to be looked at and studied very closely. I think it's unfortunate that there was not a sort of alternative design solution that might incorporate it, separate from restoration costs, but just as a proposal to see what could be done. but with the information that you have presented from the contractors, from the structural engineer and of course from what you've done in your studies and what even the staff has seen the section of the house is in severe deterioration and certainly you've brought some very good justification for its demolition with its demolition I think that the concept that you have proposed for the new additions and the connection to the building is very clever and very well thought out and could be a real asset of course it will be a real asset to the neighborhood but really make a unique solution to this particular design problem I just think that it's kind of hard to just make this a general determination. But as far as I'm concerned, and the other board members may differ, I think that you have shown just cause to remove the addition in this particular case. It is not something that I would do personally, and it certainly is not something that's recommended, but I do think that it is something that can be considered for this particular case. Just addressing a couple of other things, I do think that the driveway width needs to be reduced a little bit as it's coming out to the street. I understand the sight line problems. Part of that is due to existing conditions. I mean, we have a garage that is right on the sidewalk. I mean, we're backing straight into traffic most of the time, and you just have to be very careful. But I do think that that amount of paving right there at the front of the house is a little bit excessive. So if you could look at a way to reduce that, it might help just with the section there, basically in front of the line of the house. One thought I'd add, too, is that I could potentially add additional grass tracks to help kind of break the volume of painting. I think that might be a possibility or possibly using maybe some of the grass paver systems or something like that just to give you a drivable surface but without it being a paved surface. But I think that that can be studied further, but I do think that that needs to be reduced a little bit. The actual garage structure, it sort of recalls what's there now, the existing garage, the concrete block sort of box. when you look at the roof the sort of massing plan that you've provided in here somewhere okay it's possible to pull the presentation anyway you can tell it basically from your site plan This one here that's sort of a black and white graphic. You can use this for contemporary art. What sheet are you on? Randy's going to pull it up. The A15. Yeah, it's very, very heavily Xeroxed. When you're looking at that particular sheet, I think in the straight down view, which is not a view you would ever see unless you're in the Goodyear blimp or flying over, it really shows how big that garage is. I mean, that's pretty massive when you look at the scale of the other roof forms in both the two existing structures and the addition. And I was wondering if there was any way to just tighten that up so that it doesn't read as quite that big of a mass. A lot of it is based on architectural graphic standards versus what the recommended widths are for a two-car for each side. And then it's got a little bit increased depth just so that I can have some storage for bikes and things like that. on the back end. And if you do notice, though, it does kind of tuck behind. Oh, sorry. You know, this is that kind of edge of the house here, so there is a good portion of it that does sort of tuck behind the house. So I think from the street perspective, you won't really read the width of it so much. But that doesn't really reduce the mass. It just hides the mass, which we have to think about all angles of the house. and just the relationship between the garage and the house. And I recognize there's not a whole lot of fat to trim based on your desire to have storage space and two-car garage. I mean, they're urban lots. They're tights. They're not your residential where you have a lot of space to create big buffers. Well, one of the things, I mean, I was going to say that if that could be brought down in mass, I mean, even just shaving off a foot or two, and I realize it makes the garage much more tight and less functional, which is sometimes just the way it goes in downtown. But I think just reducing that might help with sort of the mass and the scale. The other thing is that I know that you're looking for storage on the yard side wall, but there is another house in Lexington that years ago they built a garage in the back, and they put basically kind of a garage door on either side, and it allowed the garage to actually work as a secondary purpose as kind of an entertaining pavilion. and it made it, even though in the existing case it's two solid doors, but if you had the opaque glass, it would sort of give a transparency and a lightness to that other elevation that might visually reduce the scale. And it also gives you that additional possibility of using it as access to the yard when the cars are not in there. That was kind of the intent, like actually, I'll show it on the, if you'll notice, that's essentially what this is. It's not a full garage door, but this is basically a sliding barn door. Right. So if you're moving planing materials or a lawnmower. I was just thinking if that opening was made larger to correspond with the actual garage door, then you're reducing all of that solid material to a glass-like or even opaque glass. Is that part of the objection, is just sort of the blank wall versus not having... I mean, I could put some windows and stuff like that. Well, I mean, I don't think you need to just arbitrarily throw windows into it. But I just think that it just... everything else that you've done has a really nice dexposition between solid and, we'll call it void or glass area, and the garage is sort of this very heavy mass. And it would be nice if it's going to be a large piece, if somehow the scale of it could be lined up through the way the openings are treated and its relationship to solid and void. I think the problem is where the garage is. I think the staff is absolutely correct in their assessment that it is too close to the house. The guidelines are very clear about it, that accessory buildings should be located in character with other secondary buildings for the street near an alley or at the rear of the property, not close to or attached to the primary building. I don't think there's a good argument for where you have it. I think there are many other ways in which you could achieve the objectives that you've stated using walls and gates, for example. I also think that if you move the garage to the back of the property, it would give you the opportunity to create a turnaround that would solve your problem of backing out into the street. With the garage where it is, you can't do that. And the turnaround could be done with grass pavers so that it would have all the character of a turf. But then you're basically pushing my kids out beyond the, I mean, they're out playing in a driveway at that point. I mean, the whole point is, again, it's a very tight lot. And the recommendation last time from the conceptual review was, because at one point I did actually have them physically touching it. I was asked that I pull him three feet back and provide a gate, which I did do. And, yeah, the urge at that time, as I recall, was to separate the mass from the house. And I think physically you have separated it, but I think also it's still conceptually quite connected to the house. I appreciate the awning over the back patio area and that connection in the covered walk from the garage area into the back door of the house. and I think those are fine things. But I can't get over how large a connection or how large the addition is to the house, even though, like I said, fiscally in plan you have made that disconnect, and I appreciate that. Given the precedence of the neighborhood and the guidelines, I agree with Mr. Pohl that the appropriate location for that garage is at the rear of the property, which is certainly disconnected from the house. I think some other things that go in your favor, like Mr. McGish said, was to use tricks to break down the scale of the building, whether that's fenestrations or the top edge is all level all the way around, and I don't know if you consider a single slope roof or something that brings down the scale of the structure, but that would certainly help kind of chew away at the the tall sharp edges that make it so big and so present i don't know if the scale would be so bothersome if it were farther away from the house and at the rear of the property again part of it a lot of it boils down to functionality too i mean there's there's two things i'm trying to achieve here is one take a a small lot and try to carve out some yard space because that's currently part of the problem i have in my current houses i have no yard and then two is like it's you know like i'm talking about taking two kids in tow and crossing the street now i'm still having to go out in inclemental weather you know and hold one kid you know while it's pouring down raining trying to balance an umbrella and hold one kid in and you know so it's you know garages are connected to houses all the time, so I don't see why, because I'm a historical overlay that I can't have some sort of covered. I'm not enclosing the connection. I'm simply just putting a roof over it so that during inclemental weather, I'm not having to soak my kids. and this is just I mean this may not be practical at all but if the if you could pull the garage back even slightly more than what you have I don't know what the scale would be even, let's just say, eight feet. That may not be the correct footage. Are you talking about eight feet tall from the rear? Just from where the front wall is, just push it back eight feet. And you brought that line of that one-story piece all the way across the front, creating kind of an awning, per se. It would bring that line across that would break up the mass of the front facade. It would still be technically connected, but it would read further back. Maybe I'm not saying this right. I'm just thinking of if you've got sort of this sliding of horizontals and verticals, and if it kind of slid into the garage, that was separate, but the roof is what connected. So you're saying sort of the covered porch roof somehow have it engage the garage? Yeah, like if your porch roof, if that mass, you know, went basically to the width of the garage. Maybe sort of like an eyebrow or something like that over the garage door? Is that what you're kind of talking about? Yeah, something like that. It would just continue that line over, but it would give it some depth and it would push the actual garage back, but it would give you that covered area to get sort of in and out. and it would be on the other side of the privacy fence or wall that's dividing it from the driveway. I mean, this is just off the top of my head, so that may or may not be fun. I can explore some things of trying to maybe, you know, reducing the height a little bit, because I'm basically sloping from front to back. I'm draining off the back of the house or the garage. So there's a slight parapet wall there. I can look at reducing the parapet height. I can maybe look at reducing the garage door itself, which in turn would then maybe reduce the height. I could squeeze the side in maybe a little bit, but again, I'm trying to keep it to function so you can open the door and get things in and out. I think that just if there was – I mean, I totally appreciate the idea of trying to keep as much yard as possible because, I mean, 30 feet of yard is nothing, and every foot you take away from it is going to – That's part of the problem, too, is that the yard that I'm replacing it with is basically a non-functional space. Well, it's not necessarily non-functional. It just makes it more difficult. But, I mean, we've had some similar issues at our house about the garage placement and the yard and so forth. And, you know, it's sort of a semi-connection that's not really connected. I mean, ideally I'd love to have a garage, not at all, on the front, and I'd come back in off the alley. But the center block garage, they want $300-something thousand for it. That might blow the budget a little bit. We've actually approached them because that would really be the preferred, would be to own the block garage that actually is on the alley, not have any driveway coming off of Mill Street whatsoever and coming off the alley. But when he's asking, he thinks it's prime commercial space because it's street furniture. It's on an alley. It wants $300,000 for it. Go figure on that one. What is the size of the garage as proposed? I can't remember off the top of my head. I'd have to pull it forward to the dimension to get back to you. Rough numbers on the site plan that give it not quite 18 feet, but then it goes out beyond where the dimension line is taken. I think it's interior-wise, it's probably about 24 by 26 1⁄2. Yeah, the staff looked at that and tried to scale it, But the scale had been reduced. I mean, the drawing had been reduced. So we figured your pedestrian door was a 3-0. Is that correct? I think it's a 2-8. Okay. If it's a 2-8, then our 24 by 26 is probably off by 8 inches to a foot. So is that out to out or inside? Out to out. Outside edge. And that structural brick is about 8 inches. So you have about a foot and a half as far as what the structure would be, difference from the outside to the inside. But the 24 by 26 is what we came up with creating a scale off of the pedestrian door, essentially. And the fact is 637 square feet. Is that right? Yes. So I'm saying that there's probably a little bit I can try and squeeze it in a little bit, but there's not large means I can do as far as reducing the garage and the actual footprint. Is the existing block garage the size? It is slightly larger than the existing block garage, but it's not considerably larger. I guess what continues to occur to me, yes, I'd like to see it trimmed down if you can do it and reduce that mass, but I still keep coming back to the staff recommendation of that garage being pushed back to the back of the lot. I know that it reduces your green space, but it also creates new space in front of it. Now, while that would be driveway, it's paved patio area, which, I mean, people take advantage of all the time. I mean even with it moved back your backyard is bigger than mine and I don't have a garage anyways and that's not to say that that's the right way or wrong way it's just saying that there are lots of ways to get things done and you know there's as we were just chatting about here briefly in the middle of everything else there are opportunities here too to extend the canopy across the driveways you know we've seen port cocher's come through here before which gives you that covered entryway in and out of the house from the driveway. I think there are opportunities to meet the staff recommendations and still meet your requirements of having a covered way from the driveway into the house as well as still have open space because, like I said, it's not like once the garage moves, the space in front of it is useless. There's still space there as a volume. I mean, with two kids, it's basically unusable to me, other than to park a car on. I mean, that's part of the reason I bought the property was, you know, and made considerable investment in this, and I've taken a house that's been a huge blight on the neighborhood, and we've tried to help them in the past, and I won't even go into the things that we found in the property. And don't take our comments in any way that goes against any effort you've put forth so far. We appreciate that a great deal and are happy to see both properties get life put back into them and be better pieces of property for the town and for the fabric of the neighborhood that you're in. That's great. I mean, we're all for that. One thing I'd just like to point out is most of the properties that have the garages to the rear have alley access, and so they have a much deeper lot. You know, this is the shallowest lot on the entire block. All the rest of the properties, every single property other than the CPA office on the corner, which has the big parking lot, extends fully all the way back to the alley. I don't see it as the impossible situation that you're committed to. You know, if it moves, I see a lot of possibilities here. still. I don't think now is the right time and I'm not even going to try to design it for you but I think there are some things that should be addressed as far as location of the garage. I think it should be I think moving it to the rear of the property should be strongly considered. I think we've covered the other staff recommendations, the issue of the width of the driveway, which sounds like you're agreeable to narrow that up, at least visually. Yeah, I can probably try and squeeze a little bit at the entry, and again, I can maybe add some additional grass tracks just to try to break down the actual pavement mass of it. And then maybe you all can even look at maybe at the street edge, looking at like a paver or something like that, just to help even just kind of break down and soften the materiality. Sure, and that's the type of thing. I can't say what we're going to make a motion on and vote on for sure at this moment, but that's the type of thing that in other cases we've agreed in general and stated that you can work out the details with staff. And so long as they feel like you're meeting our recommendation, then you don't have to come back before us. You can just submit the final details to staff. And if there's a problem, then maybe it might come back. But for the most part, that usually works up pretty well. I think that the, not to beat a dead horse, but as I read the guidelines, the intent of the statement that the garage or the accessory building should be built to the rear of the property and not adjacent or close to the building, the intent is to protect the integrity of the building, to not allow the accessory structure to compete with the building. And my sense of what you're proposing is that it still is doing that. It's still overscaled and too close to provide the kind of deference to the existing building that I think would be appropriate. So I agree that a little further study would be wise. And whether it's, you know, it could be scaling it down just a little bit if possible. It could be moving to a translucent glass as opposed to an opaque glass would be helpful, I think. I guess I missed it. It wouldn't be opaque. It would be translucent. It's not a clear glass, but it would be translucent. So you could use lighting in there, too. Right. So that could help, and it could help to increase the size of the opening in the rear and make it translucent as well so that there is a sense of transparency. but also the proximity to the house. It's three feet or so from the house now, and I think it's just competing heavily with the scale of the house, and I think it really could use some more study. I did have two other smaller questions. You showed us the section with the bridge and explaining the eave height having to be where it is. Can we bring that drawing back up or that image, please? Randy might have to do it for you to get the ball rolling. And while he does that, staff, we've talked about privacy fences before. And this one is 8 feet tall and opaque. and I didn't see. I mean, there's a comment here, but I wondered if you guys could elaborate on your thoughts on that, just being different than what I'm used to seeing. Yes. We don't very often recommend an 8-foot is what I believe you're alluding to or concur with a request for an 8-foot. But it's tied in this situation to the almost industrial nature of the adjacencies. And we have in other situations where there has been a substantial change of use and physical character on a very limited basis recommended and the board is approved, an eight-foot fence. Most often they have been literally a rear yard fence. This happens to also be a rear and a side. But your south side has that problem, as does your north side. I totally agree. So we do look pretty closely at what are the site issues, and I don't mean just visual sight, but physical sight of adjacencies to open the door to considering doing that. Because broadly, it is certainly the intent of the guidelines that a six-foot fence is more human scale and appropriate within most of our historic areas. So when we do go away from that limitation and open the door to the 8-foot, we have looked pretty closely as a staff to recommend to you all. Thank you. Thank you for that elaboration. I also think just as a precedent, the project on the alley that goes between 2nd and 3rd, is that Ross? Are you at Miller Street? Maybe it's Miller. There's a row of New York Town houses on one side, and then there's a very contemporary house. Miller. Miller. That contemporary house, that project was allowed with a foot fence because they had a very similar condition in that it is totally industrial and commercial on three sides. I think it's an appropriate separation in this instance. I just wanted to hear the staff's elaboration on the situation. so the section here and and i see the head height problem when passing through the wall of the property on the left that you're you're right up against it that's actually under eight feet right there so what happens if the stairs on the if the stairs get pushed to the left into the existing building on the left, then you pass through the wall at a lower elevation? Does that give you room to? I put the first step right on the face of the wall. I'd be basically having to modify the floor structure here on the current house and push the staircase into here in order to get that. I know those are the realities of making it work. I'm wondering, did you give it any thought or consideration? because it would certainly give you the room to bring the additions roof lower. Let me go back to the floor plan real quick. Another kind of issue it will create is you can kind of see where the door is to the laundry. Even if I kind of flip it up here, there's not a lot of room, even if I was to push it back in from just a floor plan standpoint even. i guess i don't really understand why you couldn't have a six foot eight inch ceiling height at that location where you go through the door um you know we're or or as you say seven foot ceiling height for that landing um at the top well there isn't there's no longer that plan is not caught up with your section is it right the plan shows a landing um well we're looking let me go back to the plan that section is cut oh the other way, gotcha, okay looking this direction so I don't quite understand looking at this section why it would be a problem for the opening height at the top of the stair to be say 6 to 8 or 7 feet there's a couple other things in consideration one is you've got this sort of grand sort of two story space and then you're kind of compressed at the top and then also in talking with roofers about tying in this roof it seemed like the best detail was basically what i because i've you know it's not it's a copper roof but it was not constructed all that well the idea is to have the box gutter tied directly into the flat roof and the way we were working through the flashing details with the tapered insulation and by stepping it down, it creates more opportunity for water to get in there. And currently right where this connector is is there's a downspout. So I've got to bring that water onto the new roof. And fortunately they didn't put enough downspouts to begin with on the house. So I'm hoping that will actually help correct and eliminate some of the leaking issues that I currently have. And I also looked at the guidelines, and I know it was mentioned before, but the guideline talks about the peak of the reef. That's what it talks about is that the top of the roof should be below the peak of the reef. And I guess I wouldn't consider the box gutter to be the peak of the roof of the existing. The way I read the guidelines was basically it seems to be more referring to the relationship of, you know, this peak up here to where I'm tying in below, where clearly I've stepped down from, you know, the peak of the roofs. actually our interpretation of the guidelines has always been or as long as I've been involved has always been that the ideal condition is for the new roof to tuck underneath an existing roof so that the existing roof could be read fully in its current form And just staff would just note that that part of the intent of the guidelines is reflected in not obscuring architectural features. So it's not just in the section about roof. We find that to join, what you're saying about the peak is true. I mean, we've had roofs go over the cornice, and then the line of go or no go has always been, and RE is the top of the roof below the eave, like you've said, which holds with what we've done before. One thing I was going to point out to you, though, is that I'm actually, because of the thickness of the structure and because the box gutter drops, that that fascia board actually would be, the bottom of it is lower than the box gutter, the bottom. So it's not necessarily going to be this continuous line. There will be a clear, you know, it's probably four or five inches difference on the bottom side because I'm with the tapered insulation. So that cornice will actually be taller than the fascia on the box gutter. So visually, it may not be on the top, but on the bottom, there will be a visual difference between, you know, what's existing and what's new. Well, to finish up with what Ms. Currie just said and what I was trying to say. We find that where a new cornice and an existing cornice align and butt into each other, that it does, you know, like Betty said, it doesn't do a good job preserving the original detail, but I also find that it just muddles up the composition of the original house versus the new addition, and that's why we try to avoid it. Sometimes it's not possible. Sometimes it's acceptable, I just prefer that they don't collide. And I think in this case that there could be a strong argument for this being an exception because the connecting element of which the new roof is part is so distinctly different from everything around it, for one reason, for one thing. For another thing, it's very narrow and clearly articulated as an intervention, as something that connects two things together. It expresses itself as a sort of subordinate, service-oriented element. So I think those two also, I guess there's a third factor, and that is that it's set back in a narrow space between two buildings and consequently has the specific readings of an issue like this are much more difficult to make, even if you're looking for it, because of where it is. So I think there are some arguments to be made. It's basically, it would be a six-foot section of roof. Sure. And then on the 411, then it's clearly underneath. So it's really just the connection to the one house. On the 411, the roof kind of overlaps the existing. I'm making peace with it. As a first option, I'd want them not to bump into each other, but if the two are going to collide, it's a pretty ideal combination of shapes. I didn't ignore your old's comments. I did consult some roofers, and we went through flashing details, and I was looking at it in section and things like that. But like I was trying to say, if the two shapes are going to meet, it's a pretty ideal combination of the two in that you've got the shape of the original cornice, and then you've got this nice, flat, new, modern shape and material coming into it. So it can be a nice, clean joint. So like I said, it's not my first choice, but I'm making peace with it pretty readily. So I don't think it's a deal-breaker, not at this point. Are there any other thoughts and comments for the applicant at this time from the board? Is there anyone else in the audience this evening that can speak to this case? If Law could interject for just a moment. In the packet that was provided by the applicant, just because I think this may become a factor in the motion, not to guess what you all would do, but there's a letter from a structural engineer that references that it's in regards to 407, and I think it meant 411. Is that accurate? That's correct. Okay. I just wanted to make clear that that letter that indicated that there were some structural issues were with 411 and not 407. I believe that's clear. If not clear, it's made clear in their recommendation when they describe the one-story addition. But, yes, thank you. We'll note that the letter pertains to the addition to 411, South Mill Street. just so the record is tidy. Thank you very much. And we might get on the record that in that letter is an estimate that over half of the structural components of the edition would need to be replaced to, of the one-story edition would need to be replaced to make it viable over time. And I think that's a pretty significant consideration. I agree with everything we've said so far. One thing I'd point out, too, is the intent is to try to salvage as much as I possibly can. I'm hoping there's some joists. There's going to be a lot of brick and masonry repair, especially with the chimneys and other areas that are deteriorated on the front portion of the house. So I would try to salvage as much material as I can and then hopefully reclaim them in the front portion of the house when I'm kind of doing that renovation. Well, and I think it's clear that the position of the staff and the position of the board is how seriously we take demolition of historic property just because you can't undo such a thing. I mean, once it's done, maybe you can rebuild something in its place or rebuild something like it. At a later time, you're never going to capture the history and the character as completely as what was torn down does. Now, obviously, it can't always help that property has been let to deteriorate to the point where demolition is the best and safest option. And when that happens, it's a bad day. It's too bad. It's not like you. Unfortunately, I've been watching it over the past 10 years that I've lived in the house, and I've tried it on multiple, multiple occasions. Sure. And you can't help when it's not yours to fix, that it's not getting fixed. We recognize that. And we do appreciate, like I said before, your efforts on this property and what potential it has to improve the fabric of the neighborhood that it's in. So we are glad that you've worked with us the way you have so far. and hope that it can continue and we can end up with a good project. I have a question for staff and maybe legal as well. It seems that through our discussions here, we have pretty much addressed satisfactorily in some form the first three requests on this particular request for appropriate, certificate of appropriateness. The fourth element being the garage, which we've also discussed at length. It seems to me that that element of this particular certificate may require some additional study and design. is there a way to remove that from this particular case for further study and then approval at another time or whatever? Well, certainly if the board can, through their action, postpone any portion or, excuse me, continue any portion of this application that you don't feel is in a position to be acted on today. Okay. And so you can continue it to a stated date, as you are aware, and indicate, as you have already articulated in your discussions, that you feel that it needs further study and whatever else you feel you would like to add to that. Okay. You okay with that, Law? Hello? Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. No problem, Severin. My feeling is that I would be comfortable with expressing our agreement with the staff that the garage should be moved back, and I would be comfortable with the owner and staff developing a solution between them, which would mean that we wouldn't have to continue that portion of the application. I'm glad you brought that up. It certainly is another option for motion. It also provides if the need should arise and an agreement can't be reached between yourself and the staff as far as meeting our recommendations that we make a motion on if that's how it goes this evening. It gives you the latitude for a conversation without us, and should it need to come back to us, of course it certainly can under that type of motion. So it's two options. We'll see which motion comes up and see what the board thinks. Any other folks in the audience this evening speak to this case? Any other comments from the staff or board members? Just, again, to get it on the record, there are two letters, one from the Bluegrass Trust and one from the president of the South Hill Neighborhood Association supporting the applicant's request, particularly with regard to the demolition issue. Yes, thank you for adding more detail to that. Hearing no further comment and seeing no further motion from the audience, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time concerning this case. And you might keep in mind if we're going to make a motion that goes against the staff's recommendations, we need to have some backup behind that, some listed cause. Want to try it? You want me to write it. I've got to find the first page here. I move to case number 13150407-K407 and 411 South Mill Street. I move to approve the application with two recommendations, actually with three recommendations, One being the driveway and driveway apron be reduced to a width to be determined in communication between the owner and staff, so for staff approval. to that the garage will be located further back on the site and the final configuration and location of the garage again be worked out between owner and staff. The staff authorized to make the approval, the final approval on that. And with regard to the aspect of the application that has to do with demolition of the one-story addition, I would cite in guidelines 6A, it says demolitions should only occur as a last resort after all other avenues to protect historic buildings and structures have been exhausted. and if you look further down at 6C, item 3, the property owner proves that no reasonable economic return can be gained from the property through a design process. It's evident from the evidence that's been submitted that the condition of the addition is so deteriorated that the cost to the owner of renovating the addition meets the criteria, indicating that it is an unreasonable economic burden for the owner to be required to make those changes. so consequently move that we approve the demolition request very well is there a second to the motion I'll second that. I'll second that, noting that the materials that were presented that justified the demolition came from competent professionals, engineers, and contractors, and that it is through their recommendation and cost estimates that that decision was made. Are you, with that intent, suggesting people that have demonstrated knowledge with historic structures? Yes. Thank you. If you'll accept it, I'd also like to add to the motion that once reviewed by any other LFECU divisions, that this application come back to staff if required. Are there any changes? Required by any other divisions? I accept it as a second. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with recommendations. Thank you very much. All right. We elected to pass on a few applications because the applicant wasn't here when they came up. and we'd like their input in the conversation, so we bounce back up to the top of the list at 341 Madison Place, and that application is to modify bay windows. Is that applicant here this evening? Does that applicant know he's here this evening? My apologies for being late. It's okay. It worked out. So you're here. Have you had a chance to review the stats findings and recommendations at this time? I have, yes. Are you agreeable to those findings and recommendations? It all makes sense, and I've spoken with a customer about what we're proposing to do in regard to the pilasters on the bay addition off the kitchen. We're still interested in installing the pilasters, if we can, just to I guess the grievance is it's a recreation of history which is not really cool but we I don't want to make any excuses for anything but there's already a recreation of history on the bay window and it doesn't necessarily make it okay but we're interested in maybe designating a portion of the structure or like a permanent piece of the structure indicating a date of renovation for those two outside corners. Like the date of renovation would probably be 2013. In the footer, above grade. I'm sorry if I'm a little confused by that last section you just said. Could you restate that? To get the pilasters approved, we would like to incorporate a piece of the foundation having a permanent designation, like a date, for renovation of those two pilasters. So as to literally date the addition of those to make it clear when they were built. If that seems reasonable. Well, it certainly does make a point. Well, that's interesting. If you don't mind, I would like to have the staff make their presentation on just this issue, just to keep it concise. I think we all agree on the other issues. I would like to hear the staff's thoughts on the pilasters themselves, and then we can talk to you about that some more. This is the site of Botherham, and, of course, you all heard this. Many of these issues have come up on this case, and I won't go into the length of them. In particular, we'll just sort of walk through and look at the bay itself. And this is the bay. And, of course, the proposal is to install the pilasters, which, of course, one of the proposals, too, is to reduce the size of the width of the opening now and so that you would be able to install the pilasters and still have spacing that would be appropriate for the lengthening of the windows. on these two corners, here and here. And this is, of course, one perspective of that. Like I said, we'll go and look at the plane here in a second and just sort of walk you through some of the images. Of course, what we can establish is the fact that the bay was put in in the late 70s. It is a concrete block. The physical wall of the kitchen is still intact, and you can be accessed through the store. I've physically seen it. And here's the plan sort of overall. And then this is the bay presently, and this is sort of the dimensions. And, of course, the proposal also is to reduce the size of the openings to 36 growth opening inches and then install the pilasters. The pilasters on the physical house are 22 inches, and so they would be sort of bent around these corners with 11 inches on either side. And so, of course, now what the applicant is asking is that they be physically dated to note that they are of this era. Here is a rendering of that facade. Guidelines are included for your reference. And I'm sure to go through a little bit of history. Of course, this is an 1851 classical structure. And then, of course, we've seen several editions. The kitchen is brick-stuccoed over. and as we stated earlier that we believe that many of these changes, including the bay, happened between 1970 and 1979, the second major phase of this construction. The proposal for the plan for the bay in which the bay is retained and calls for the change of the design of the windows, the existing design of the windows having snap-in buttons, not keeping with the LFEC design guidelines anyway. The proposal to change the size of the windows is more in keeping with the design and the character of the house. In addition, the bay is not original, and the reconfiguring provides a better opening to solid ratio. Staff suggests that the windows be one over one without any buttons to reflect the non-original character of the bay. LFUC Guidelines 1, 1E, 1B, 1F, architectural details and features if replaced, should proximate the size, shape, material, color, texture, and other visual qualities of the original materials. Openings, such as entrances and windows and architectural features, such as divisional bays and porches, are design components to help establish the balance, rhythm, scale, proportional emphasis in the structure, and it is very important that the new construction respect the balance, proportion, and scale of the existing buildings along with the block and the district in regards to the components. Window openings should be compatible in scale size, proportions, to help the patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings. The proposal to install engaged pilasters in each corner of the bay requires further discussion. Staff binds the proposal to install the pilasters. Inappropriate creates a false sense of history. Staff suggests the stucco be reparged with a smooth finish as previously requested and approved. LTCG guidelines 2B1K state architectural details help give a building character and scale. Details include, but are not limited to, corner boards, rig boards, cornices, brackets, downspouts, railings, columns, steps, doors, windows, and moldings, and decorative elements. Architectural details may be appropriate when they are given and create a good sense of belonging on the street and within the district, and details should be appropriate, scaled for the proposed structure and compatible with adjacent buildings and district. Installation of ornaments and details that give a building an imitation history appearance is not allowed. Recommendation staff recommends denial of adding the pilasters to the corners of the bay. It recommends approval of the window changes I submitted with the following additions. Final details of the brick mold be submitted to staff. Final details of the windows be submitted to staff. And the applicant is here. Thank you very much. If you'd like to come forward, sir, and we can discuss it some more here. I'm going to start off with a few comments, and then we'll see what happens next. I guess I'll ask you a question first, and then I'll have some things to say. The use of the pilaster you stated was to help narrow the windows. Is that their only purpose, or how would that? Just an aesthetic to kind of, I mean, the bay window is what it is. The outside corners kind of fade off and seem incomplete and just kind of wrap up the structure and make it look like it's a little more permanent. Okay. Well, I think I understand your intent then. First of all, to date them and then make them look like any of the other pilasters on the building, I think it's like waving a red flag that you have imitated history that says, hey, here's this pilaster that we built in 2013. That further emphasizes that it's new old, and we don't want that, of course. now I wouldn't be opposed to a modern interpretation of a pilaster a pilaster in general is something you see built today, yesterday and will continue to be used but I think the problem that I have with the pilasters as proposed is their rhythmic placing in relationship to the rest of the building in that it creates a even if it were done in a modern shape so as to very clearly not imitate history, I feel like the size of the bay itself and putting those two new pilasters so close together in that arrangement along with the density of all the other action that's happening in a bay window or this bay window in particular, it doesn't fit well with the rhythm of the rest of the house. And that's not to say you're imitating the rhythm, but the relationship between the new rhythm and the old rhythm is uncomfortable and inappropriate, in my opinion. And I'll just, whatever anybody else has to ask or say about that, I'm happy to hear. I think there's another issue that's more troubling to me, and that is that the surface of the bay finished materials are the same as the existing original materials. And I think that you could do the pilasters, but only if the bay addition were articulated in a different way. For example, if it had a clabbered siding that differentiated it from the stucco surface that's on the rest of the building, that then would make it clear that it's not the same animal as the rest of the building. And that's what the problem is, that the stucco finish and the pilasters of the same scale and mass and treatment as the existing house really confuse the reading of the bay as being something that was of the original house. So if that's something that would be considered, it might be a way of achieving the kind of gravitas that you're trying to get with the pilasters, but also deferring to the, you know, making it clear what the historic realities are. There is one, at least one original bay on this house that faces towards Madison Place, I believe. And if I'm not mistaken, it has a pilaster system, but it's of reduced scale. Am I correct? I think your first picture might have shown it, the very first one that you had up. Possibly. Well, just barely. but see how this is handled there's a foundation that is the stone or stucco or whatever and then there's a clear water table and then the pilasters are set between the windows on a reduced scale that would be a great detail to recreate here's what I'm getting at with this thing when this was built in the 70's the owner at the time chose to replicate exactly the cornice up above, the dental moldings and the way that is done. If you're going to retain the bay and change the configuration of the windows to more accurately reflect the existing conditions in the other part, then make the bay look like the other part. And I'm not saying exactly copying it, but by using that reduced scale, you could imply smaller scale pilasters by simply using raised molding pieces. It doesn't necessarily even have to have a capital or a base. It just could be implied utilizing depth, you know, three-dimensionalism. But if you're going to go that far, then, you know, in my opinion, And because you've already got this sort of mixed juxtaposition of replicating old, new, existing, non-existing, then play with that and go with it. And I think that your end result would be something that reads as something different than the rest of the mass of the house. and that's as Graham was saying that's one of the things that makes I mean its dimensions are off but the fact that it's utilizing the same material or appears to be the same material is the thing that really makes it kind of awkward so I think that if you could study that a little further it's a good idea there might be a way to handle it that doesn't totally emulate history but it It sort of gives a gesture to it that breaks down this mass of this bay window, makes the new windows read more appropriately in scale, and reads as something that is clearly not part of the original. That scale change, that material change, and again keeping in mind that there's an opportunity for a modern version of all of this, may solve my rhythm objections. I'd have to see it to believe it, but I think we're heading in the right direction. Well, just if you go look at the house at 353 South Mill, there was a Greek Revival door surround that had been added to an earlier house and then removed, and then it's been recently replaced. while it follows the Greek revival form and there was actually still ghosting on the walls so we knew exactly about scale and so forth it didn't recreate the exact profiles of the mornings, it's very geometric and that is the hint that it's actually not an original thing, so you can kind of play with this period design but by not doing it literally but making that gesture to it, but maintaining the correct scale and proportion, I think you can end up with a project that is clearly new but then it gives very much a gesture and reads as part of the whole of the original structure. I like it. Any other comments from the board at this time? Hearing none, did anyone in the audience speak to this case this evening? Seeing no action from the audience. and hearing no further comment from the Board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Well, after making all that, I think we kind of need to look at some. We need to revisit it. Yeah, revisit it. And I think that probably a continuation might be in order. You certainly can do that. The only catch would be we do have to do it to a date specific. And I don't know how much time you're going to need to study this and come up with new drawings and such. Probably a couple of weeks. A couple of weeks. A week and a half. Our next meeting is January the 16th. Yes. So you have a little longer than usual, so to speak, between meetings, which is helpful to your schedule. That's fine. We would need it, your materials, by about the, we're not going to need to re-advertise, so we would need it, oh, around the 4th, probably, 4th, 5th. I'm not sure what day of the week that is with the calendar. Maybe the 3rd, that Friday. Okay. Let's say the Friday at the end of the first, New Year's Day is Tuesday. So the Friday, the 4th. Thank you. How about, could you do by the 4th of January? I'm pretty sure I could, yeah. Okay. In which case, if the board wants to consider this, if you would, consider the date of the 16th for the continuation. Well, then, if there's... I believe we have to make a motion for a continuation. Well, then I'll make a motion that this case be continued to January 16th, 2012. Very well. Is there a second to the motion? Could you make it 2013? 2013, excuse me. Second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, then the motion to continue passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Just for you, I was reading the postponement out of item 6, January 16, 2012. Let's go ahead and start that out so we don't make that mistake twice. It's written that way every time, isn't it? We'll get in the groove, I promise. All right. Well, we skipped another case earlier this evening in the Belcourt Historic District at 141 Forest Avenue. Is that applicant here at this time? No, the applicant's not here. He did receive a copy. Very well. Did the applicant, he did or did not? Did receive a copy of the report. Thank you. I feel like the staff's recommendations are pretty clear, and I would feel comfortable making a motion. I think it's a shame that the applicant is not here to state their case. If the other board members feel comfortable proceeding, we can do that. Okay. Then, Mr. Chair, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion for this. Very well. Okay. This is case number 0728-0141-Q at 141 Forest Avenue in the Belcourt Historic District. I would like to make a motion to deny the application as submitted per the staff recommendations. Second. And second. Is there any further discussion of the motion? We didn't really ask if anybody was in the audience to speak to this case this evening. But seeing no motion in the audience this time, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion is denied. Thank you very much. The next case listed on the agenda this evening is at 321 and 323 Arcadia Park, and that application is Construct Garage and Site Work. That application has asked for postponement until January 16, 2013. Can I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Second. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion to postpone passes. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 200 South Ashwind Avenue, and that applicant is also requested to postpone the case until January 16, 2013. Can I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. I'm sorry, aye also. All those opposed? the motion passes. The next two cases on the agenda at 116 and 162 Whittlin Avenue as well as 216 Belcourt have been withdrawn which takes us to the end of our formal agenda. We have three conceptual reviews on the agenda this evening and if no one minds I'd like to take a four minute break to use the restroom and get a drink of water before we go into the conceptual reviews. I'm sorry.