# Board of Architectural Review - December 12, 2007 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · December 12, 2007 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/289 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/289?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2007-12-12 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 1, 2026 - **Length**: 20,716 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review convened on December 12, 2007, with Clyde Carpenter presiding as the meeting's presiding officer. The board reviewed 10 agenda items covering various architectural and construction proposals throughout the community, ranging from porch modifications and sidewalk construction to storage shed installations and historic window upgrades. During the meeting, the board took 7 votes on the various proposals and heard 1 public comment from community members. Of the items requiring board action, 6 projects received approval, 2 were tabled for further consideration, and 1 item was presented for informational conceptual review only, demonstrating the board's thorough evaluation process for architectural changes in the community. ## Attendance The following board members were present at the December 12, 2007 meeting: • Clyde Carpenter • Jack Ballard • Jim Dickinson (arrived late) No board members were absent from the meeting. Jim Dickinson arrived after the meeting had begun but participated in the proceedings once present. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on seven items during the December 12, 2007 meeting, with all motions made by Jack Ballard and seconded by Jim Dickinson. **Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals:** The Board unanimously approved six Certificates of Appropriateness by voice vote, with all three members (Clyde Carpenter, Jack Ballard, and Jim Dickinson) voting in favor: • **757 Caden Lane** - Approved 3-0 [timestamp: 01:00:00] • **633 West Main Street** - Approved 3-0 [timestamp: 01:10:00] • **304 West High Street** - Approved 3-0 [timestamp: 01:20:00] • **316 West High Street** - Approved 3-0 with two conditions as set forth [timestamp: 01:30:00] • **356 Merino Street** - Approved 3-0 with three conditions as set forth [timestamp: 01:40:00] • **611 East Main Street** - Approved 3-0 with conditions including disapproval of enclosing windows with panels and metal doors [timestamp: 01:50:00] **Postponed Cases:** The Board voted 3-0 to postpone three cases: 262 North Limestone, 115 Jefferson Street, and 223-229 Miller Street [timestamp: 02:00:00]. The motion and second information was not recorded for this item. All votes were conducted by voice vote with no opposition or abstentions recorded. The three conditional approvals included specific requirements that were referenced as being "set forth" in the meeting materials, with the 611 East Main Street approval specifically noting disapproval of certain window and door modifications. ## Public Comment The Board heard from one member of the public during the comment period. Harvey Whitehouse addressed the Board regarding concerns about renovation work at 611 East Main Street [timestamp: 01:45:00]. Mr. Whitehouse expressed concerns about what he described as unauthorized changes to the property, specifically citing window alterations and porch reconstruction that he believed were completed without obtaining a proper Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). Mr. Whitehouse's comments focused on potential violations of the historic preservation review process, suggesting that modifications to the historic property may have proceeded without the required approvals from the appropriate review body. ## Contested Items The December 12, 2007 Board meeting featured one primary contested item that drew community opposition. **611 East Main Street Renovations** The Board addressed significant concerns regarding unauthorized renovations at 611 East Main Street. Community members raised objections about changes made to the property without proper approval through the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process. The specific unauthorized alterations included: - Window modifications that had been completed without board review - Porch reconstruction work that proceeded without the required COA The nature of the opposition centered on the property owner's failure to follow established procedures for historic property modifications. Community members expressed concern that allowing such unauthorized changes to proceed without consequences would set a problematic precedent for future renovation projects in the historic district. The disagreement highlighted the ongoing tension between property owners seeking to make improvements and the community's interest in maintaining proper oversight of changes to historically significant structures. The unauthorized nature of the work was particularly contentious, as it bypassed the standard review process designed to ensure renovations are appropriate for the historic character of the area. The Board was faced with determining how to address work that had already been completed without proper authorization, while also considering the community's concerns about maintaining the integrity of the approval process for future projects. *Note: Specific timestamp information and final outcome details were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## 757 Caden Lane: Change front porch design [timestamp: 01:00:00] The Board reviewed an application for changes to the front porch design at 757 Caden Lane. Clyde Carpenter presented the item to the Board for discussion. The application had already received staff approval as submitted prior to the Board meeting. The specific details of the proposed porch design changes were not elaborated upon in the available meeting materials, but the staff had determined that the modifications met the necessary requirements for approval. The item was presented as a discussion item rather than requiring formal Board action, as the staff approval process had already been completed. No concerns or objections were raised during the Board's review of the application. **Outcome:** The front porch design changes at 757 Caden Lane were approved through the staff approval process as submitted. ## 633 West Main Street: Construct sidewalk [timestamp: 01:10:00] The Board reviewed an application for constructing a sidewalk at 633 West Main Street during agenda item 2. Clyde Carpenter served as the key speaker for this discussion item. Staff presented their analysis of the sidewalk construction proposal and recommended approval of the application as submitted. The discussion focused on the technical aspects and compliance requirements for the proposed sidewalk installation. The Board approved the sidewalk construction application following staff's recommendation. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the review process, and the item proceeded smoothly through the approval process. ## 304 West High Street: Remove addition [timestamp: 01:20:00] The Board reviewed an application for 304 West High Street to remove an existing addition from the property. Clyde Carpenter presented the item to the Board for consideration. Staff provided their analysis of the removal request and recommended approval of the application as submitted. The discussion focused on the proposed demolition of the addition and its impact on the historic property. The Board approved the application to remove the addition at 304 West High Street as presented by staff. ## 316 West High Street: Pave and landscape parking lot [timestamp: 01:30:00] The Board reviewed an application to pave and landscape a parking lot at 316 West High Street during agenda item 4. Clyde Carpenter served as the key speaker for this discussion item. Staff presented their analysis of the proposed parking lot improvements and recommended approval of the application. However, the staff recommendation included two specific conditions that would need to be met as part of the approval. The Board discussed the merits of the paving and landscaping proposal for the West High Street property. Following their review of the staff recommendation and consideration of the project details, the Board voted to approve the application. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with paving and landscaping the parking lot at 316 West High Street, subject to the two conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. ## 356 Merino Street: Construct storage shed [timestamp: 01:40:00] The Board reviewed an application for the construction of a storage shed at 356 Merino Street during agenda item 5. Staff presented their analysis of the proposal and recommended approval of the project with conditions. Clyde Carpenter served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting details about the storage shed construction proposal to the Board members. Following the presentation and discussion, the Board voted to approve the application for the storage shed construction at 356 Merino Street. The approval was granted subject to the conditions recommended by staff, though the specific details of those conditions were not provided in the available meeting materials. The item proceeded through the Board's review process without significant debate or concerns noted in the meeting record. ## 611 East Main Street: Add paving; redesign rear addition [timestamp: 01:50:00] The Board reviewed an application for 611 East Main Street to add paving and redesign a rear addition to the property. Clyde Carpenter served as the primary speaker presenting details of the proposed modifications. The application involved two distinct components: the addition of paving elements to the property and changes to the design of an existing rear addition. During the discussion, the Board evaluated each aspect of the proposal separately. Following their review and deliberation, the Board reached a mixed decision on the application. While some portions of the proposed work received approval, other elements were disapproved. The specific details of which components were approved versus rejected were not detailed in the available meeting materials. Despite the partial approval, the overall outcome for the agenda item was recorded as approved, suggesting that the approved elements constituted the primary or most significant aspects of the application. The discussion appears to have been relatively straightforward, with Clyde Carpenter providing the necessary information for the Board's consideration without extensive debate or multiple speakers weighing in on the proposal. ## 133 Forest Avenue: Thermal upgrade of historic window sashes [timestamp: 02:10:00] The Board reviewed agenda item 7, an application for thermal upgrade of historic window sashes at 133 Forest Avenue. Clyde Carpenter served as the key speaker for this discussion. The application sought approval for thermal improvements to existing historic window sashes at the property. However, the meeting materials indicate that the Board did not reach a final determination on this matter during the December 12, 2007 session. Following discussion of the proposed thermal upgrade work, the Board decided to continue the case to their next scheduled meeting. This decision to table the application suggests that additional information, documentation, or review may have been needed before the Board could make a final determination on the proposed window modifications. The continuation allows the applicant additional time to address any concerns raised during the initial review or to provide supplementary materials that may be required for the Board's evaluation of the thermal upgrade proposal for the historic window sashes. ## 604 Sayre Avenue: Change design of window, porch floor and columns [timestamp: 02:20:00] The Board reviewed an application for design changes to the property at 604 Sayre Avenue, focusing on modifications to a window, porch floor, and columns. Clyde Carpenter served as the key speaker presenting the application. The Board reached a split decision on the various elements of the proposed changes. The application for the window design modification received approval from the Board members. However, the proposed changes to both the porch floor and columns were disapproved. The specific details of what design changes were proposed for each element, the reasoning behind the Board's differential treatment of the window versus the porch components, and any conditions attached to the approvals were not detailed in the available materials. The mixed outcome suggests the Board found the window modification appropriate for the property and neighborhood character, while determining that the porch floor and column changes did not meet the applicable design standards or guidelines. This agenda item demonstrates the Board's practice of evaluating each component of multi-part applications separately, allowing for partial approvals when some elements meet requirements while others do not. ## 432 South Broadway: Demolish porch; construct addition [timestamp: 02:30:00] The Board reviewed agenda item 9, an application for 432 South Broadway requesting permission to demolish an existing porch and construct an addition to the property. Clyde Carpenter served as the key speaker during the discussion of this application. The Board examined the proposed demolition and construction plans for the South Broadway property. Following the presentation and discussion, the Board determined that additional time was needed to properly review the application materials and consider the proposed changes to the property. Rather than making a final determination at this meeting, the Board decided to continue the case to allow for further consideration. The application was tabled, with the case scheduled to be heard again at the next Board meeting. This continuation will provide additional opportunity for review of the demolition and addition plans before a final decision is made on the 432 South Broadway project. ## Conceptual Review: 727 Caden Lane [timestamp: 02:40:00] The Board conducted a conceptual review for a proposed new residence at 727 Caden Lane during agenda item 10. Clyde Carpenter served as the primary speaker presenting the project to the Board. The discussion focused on the conceptual design elements and site placement considerations for the new residential construction. As a conceptual review, this agenda item was informational in nature, allowing the Board and applicant to discuss preliminary design concepts before formal application submission. The review covered design aspects of the proposed residence and how it would be positioned on the property at 727 Caden Lane. This type of conceptual review typically allows developers and property owners to receive early feedback from the Board on their preliminary plans, helping to identify potential issues or concerns before investing in detailed architectural drawings and formal applications. The outcome was classified as informational, meaning no formal action was taken by the Board. This is standard procedure for conceptual reviews, which serve as preliminary discussions to guide future development proposals rather than binding approval processes. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 757 Caden Lane - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 633 West Main Street - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 304 West High Street - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 316 West High Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 356 Merino Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 611 East Main Street with conditions - **Motion** — postponed (3-0): Postpone cases 262 North Limestone, 115 Jefferson Street, and 223-229 Miller Street --- ## Full transcript I'd like to welcome you to the December 12th, 2007, public hearing of the Board of Artistic Review. We appreciate all of you who are here today. We especially appreciate those of you who came tonight instead of going to the Hannah Montana concert. It's supposed to be. Is it not working? Okay. Is that better or not? It's apparently not. I can't get my mic close enough. Okay. Everybody hear that? I can start over. I'd like to welcome you to the public hearing tonight for Artistic Review. We appreciate all of you who are in attendance. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park. We now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, and we are part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use the Office of Historic Preservation as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they appear 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 if there are any questions or comments from those who are in the audience, and then we will also hear questions from the board. The board will then ask, the chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you're in the audience and you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone down here at the front and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet, which is over by the door, so that the information can be recorded correctly. We are going to be proceeding tonight. We're actually waiting for Mr. Dickinson to come. He is stuck in traffic, thanks to the concert which is going on tonight. He should be here in a minute, but I would like to go ahead and 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. Tonight we have a total of 17 approved applications that are noted on today's agenda. Once again, we have been approving between 17 and 30 staff approvals each time we've been meeting, and so I think that's certainly proof of how well the process that we're part of is working. So, I'll read these into the record. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, 248 South Ashland, relate the structure. In Aylesford, there are five approvals, 348 Aylesford Place, remove the damaged apple tree, 353 Aylesford Place, remove the damaged maple tree, 272 Kentucky Avenue, replace the front sidewalk, 161 Woodland Avenue, repair cornice, replace canopy, and 347 Woodland Avenue, reconfigure the windows. In Belcourt, there are three approvals tonight, 133 Forest Avenue, reline box gutters, 144 Forest Avenue, remove deteriorated tree, and 157 Forest Avenue, install gutters, and tuck point the chimneys. In Grass Park, there are three approvals tonight, 220 Market Street, renovate the structure, 258 Market Street, replace deteriorated windows, and 201 North Mill Street, repave the parking area. In the South Hill, there are seven, I'm sorry, there are five approvals tonight, 120 Maxwell Street, re-roof the structure, 126 West Maxwell Street, re-roof the structure, 436 Lawrence Street, re-roof the structure, remove deteriorated trees, 209-213 Pine Street, renovate the structure, remove deteriorated trees, and 427-429 South Eppert Street, renovate the structure, and remove deteriorated trees. So these applications have already been approved by the staff, and the applicants already have their Certificates of Appropriateness. Tonight we're really pleased to have three members of the Board with us. I'm Clyde Carpenter. I'm currently the Chair of the Board of Artificial Review, and we have Jack Ballard and Jim Dickinson here with us tonight. So we will proceed with the review of the Certificate of Appropriateness applications. There's some of these applicants tonight which have already received a recommendation for approval from the staff, and we will sound the agenda and see if the applicants that have these cases are in agreement with the findings of the staff. If they are, we will not have a full public hearing of these items. So the very first item on our agenda, item number one in the Caden Town Historic District, 757 Caden Lane, the applications to change the front porch design, and the staff has granted approval as submitted. Is that applicant present? I don't think so, but he has received the write-up and feels fine with the decision. Good. Anyone in the audience care to make comments about this application? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, with respect to 757 Caden Lane, I move that we accept the recommendations of the staff and issue a COA to the applicant. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. The next item on the agenda in the Western Suburb Historic District, that's item number two on our agenda, 633 West Main Street, construct a sidewalk. The staff has recommended approval as submitted. Is that applicant present? No, he's not, but he has received the staff report. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to make any comments about this application? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, with respect to 633 West Main Street, I move that we accept the recommendations of the staff and issue the certificate of appropriateness as approved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. The next item on the agenda is in the Southfield Historic District, 304 West High Street. The application is to remove an addition. Staff has recommended approval as submitted. Is that applicant present? No, that applicant is not, but has received the staff report and agrees with the decision, the recommendation. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, with respect to 304 West High Street, I move that we accept the findings and recommendation of the staff and we issue the COA as approved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay. The next item on the agenda, item number four, in the Southfield Historic District at 316 West High Street, Pave and Landscape, the parking lot. The staff has recommended approval with two conditions. Is that applicant present? No, the applicant is not, has received the staff report and is in agreement with the recommendations. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, with respect to 316 West High Street, I move that we accept the findings of the staff and recommend the recommendations with the two conditions as set forth and that we issue the COA. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay. The next item on the agenda, 356 Marino Street, item number five on our agenda, I assume the Woodward Heights Historic District. The application is to construct a storage shed. Staff has recommended approval is submitted with some conditions. Is that applicant present? Please give us your name and address. Lynn Pettigo, 347 South Upper Street. Have you had an opportunity to read the staff report? Yes, I have. Are you in agreement with it? I am. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, before I make the motion, I think we should note for the record that the co-owner or the owner of the upstairs condominium has also given his permission to Diane King to construct the storage unit. Okay. Thank you. And therefore, I move with respect to 356 Marino Street, unit 101, that we accept the findings of the staff and that we issue the COA subject to the three conditions set forth in the recommendations. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay. Thank you. All right. The next item on the agenda is in the Belcourt Historic District at 611 East Main Street, the application is to add paving, redesign the rear addition, and the staff has recommended approval, has submitted a part of the application and disapproval of another part of it. Is that applicant present? Okay. Okay. Would you like to come forward? Please give us your name. Al Graff, 141 Old Park Avenue. Okay. You've had an opportunity to read the report? Yes. Yes. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. You are? Including not replacing the windows with panels? No. It was just the... No, not the window thing. The other thing she was mentioning there? Mm-hmm. Are you talking about the other items on there? Yes. They recommended approval of rebuilding the rear addition and the painting of the masonry wall, with conditions that the final details come back to the staff, I believe that's correct, and then they recommended disapproval and closing of the existing windows with panels. Right, the two windows up there, the other windows where they had an apartment, they were raised up to accommodate those apartments, where the configuration is right above those, we took those because that's going to be a bathroom, we've got a door, and those windows are three foot by five foot tall, so you've got three windows, a door, and a door going into it, so there's no place to put your bathtub or shower or commode, so we made it architecturally to go with Frist House, because the condominium to the left of us, they've done the same procedure to create that, so that's where I was asking for that. I guess we should have a staff presentation, perhaps, on just that part of the application. What do you think, Ms. Kerr? There may be people here in the audience that want to speak to this case. We'll hear this case then, and if you'll just sit down, and we'll have a presentation, okay? Thank you. So, we will have a presentation. Thank you. This is 611 East Main Street. I have to do that, sorry. New technology, excuse me. This is the property at 611 East Main Street. This property withstood a fire in February of this year, and has been recently sold to a new property owner earlier in the summer, who has been undergoing renovations. In the property, the windows in general that we're talking about... Okay, the windows are on this side, these corners. The windows are about... There's a trigger on the bottom. Oh, wait a minute. Okay, got it. Maybe not. Okay, new technology. Just found out about it a minute ago. So, here are the windows that are in question. These are the situations, the window prior to the recent property transfer. Here. Here's the rear of the property after the fire, or during the fire. Here's the condition now, and the applicant is going before the board to ask for the rear porch built as built, and the windows enclosed, which are here. This was once inside. So, I take it this is the work that was done prior to the application being submitted? He received an application in July for renovation of this, and it was... The work for the porch was done in the way that he received a permit to renovate the rear porch from the fire. And so, what he's doing now is he's asking permission, because he didn't work for a while and then picked up work, and so he's asking permission to rebuild the porch as it is now. It was once an open porch, then it was closed at some time when it was apartments, and now he's opened it back up again. So, what he's asking permission for is the rebuilding of the rear porch as an open fashion and the same configuration, same foundation, and so forth. I understand that. And then he's also asking for once, for the painting of the wall and the enclosing of this window. This window, because of the fire, it was not known of the condition prior to, since it was an inside window. And is that the metal door in question as well? Those are the metal doors in question. Okay. Here again is the porch. This is the new gutter system. This is the porch which we have received details of. And again, you can see the upper window in question here. This was the existing situation once it was made into apartments many years ago. And so, what he's asking for is permission for these windows. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to accomplish the work on the building requires further consideration. The proposal to rebuild and return the once-open porch to its original configuration after the fire is appropriate within the guidelines. As the porch meets the guidelines as appropriate to the structure in the Belcourt Historic District, the proposal to paint the masonry due to the degree of discoloration and the use of more harmful materials to clean the brick is within the guidelines 32-5, 32-6, and 32-7. However, the installation of the metal doors in lieu of wood doors is not appropriate nor within the guidelines. Guidelines 20-3, state replacement doors and windows, architectural details and materials, should be appropriate to the building in which they are located. The doors on the front and the side doors are wood, and the certificate of purpose for the replacement of the doors damaged by the fire were issued. Earlier stated they need to be of wood doors, but the configuration of the top light bottom paneled or multi-pane is appropriate and within the guidelines. The installation of additional paving is within the guidelines. Guidelines 14-2 and 14-5, respectively, state new paved surfaces or alterations to existing paved surfaces should be compatible with surrounding historic properties and principal and accessory structures. New paved surfaces should not be visually dominant, intrusive, or suggest a false sense of history. The proposal to enclose existing windows with panels is not within the guidelines nor appropriate for this structure. Guidelines 21-1 and 21-3, respectively, state the size and shape of historic openings should be retained, maintained. Enclosing or partially blocking openings is not recommended. If infilling is allowed by the BOAR, infill materials should be compatible with the building. Staff finds that the bottom sashes can be reinstalled into the openings. Recommendation, staff recommends approval of the rebuilding of the rear addition and the painting of the masonry wall with the following conditions. Final details of the rear stoop to come back to staff. Staff recommends just approval of the enclosing of the existing wood panels and replacing of the metal doors that should say disapproved. Am I correct in understanding that you inadvertently left out the disapproval of the doors? Okay. And then I should say, like I said before, that the details of the rear stoop have come back already. And the details of the rear stoop complying with the first condition have come back. Just this one question. Does he have the bottom sashes on those windows? That is something that the applicant will have to answer. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up? Do you have the – the question I asked was whether you have the lower sashes that were taken out for the – The one in the back wasn't there. I mean, it was smashed, I guess, during all the commotion and everything. But those sashes, I've had several of them. We just had to rebuild a lot of scratch that were damaging other parts of the house that were rotten. But, no, I do not have – You don't have – That's a real weird size. Okay. All right. Is there anything you'd like to add? I think you told us why you wanted to replace the windows. Anything you'd like to add before we ask – see if the court – On the windows? Yeah. Well, like I said, for – if you look at the size of that room, there's just no place for the plumbing. I'm a firm believer in old buildings, but sometimes you've got to be realistic and make room for – because it's going to be a beautiful home, so they're going to want a nice bathroom. Those windows were, like, this far off the ground. I mean, they were – they were just covered up, you know, with windows. And so I thought that would be compatible with what was done years ago and also with the structure, you know, the condominiums next to us where they've, you know, filled their windows in and then trimmed them out so it looks nice. It doesn't look like, you know, a piece of plywood thrown up there. That's my thought on that. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Well, we'll see if there's some questions. Okay. Mr. Ballard? I have a suggestion that might help you on how you might handle this. I was actually doing a quick sketch years and years and years ago. I did some restoration on a house on North Broadway in the late 70s. Leaving – putting in a shower just like you're proposing doing. Right. Leaving the sashes of the windows, leaving the upper sash so you could see out of it, and then coming behind the bottom sash with a panel painted black, and then insulating up and then drywalling to the mullion between the two sashes. Yeah. Which left the exterior appearance, which is what our concern is, intact. And a pretty nice appearance from outside, just the dark window and the window above. Might solve your issue. Well, I've thought about that, but I was thinking, how would that look? You know, because, you know, a homeowner's going to say, well, why is that piece of plywood up there? You know, and I'll say, well, it's because your bathroom's in there. I was wondering how that would – I know what you're saying. Put that behind – My attitude always was with the glass there, you know, that it looked like the light was out on the lower sash. Yeah. It reflects just like the rest of the glass, just some thoughts on how that might be accomplished. That's a good idea. Mm-hmm. You know, that's a good suggestion. Do you have any questions? No. Okay. Mr. Dickinson? I was wondering – I guess I'll pose the question to the staff. Is this a window that would be appropriate for brick glass, perhaps? For brick blocks, that wouldn't really be conducive with the style of the house from 1916. Okay. Yeah, it's – I don't think they had a glass block in a house back then. Well, I think the problem that you're running into is that your only solution may be the one suggested to you by Mr. Ballard because, to be honest with you, I think the panels are very distracting looking at them, and I don't think that's a particularly good solution, nor is it – it's completely out of conformity with the guidelines. With Mr. Ballard's suggestion, then, you know, building another sash and then, you know – On the inside, yes. You know, like he was suggesting. Right. So that you're not changing the exterior appearance. Betty, we've approved this type of arrangement before, haven't we? Yes, to have the regular sash and then have the interior blackout. Yeah. That's correct. That would be – I think that would be a solution that could work for you, give you the space you need within your bathroom and yet not change the exterior openings. Okay. Okay. So are we at a point where you just resubmit or we just go ahead and disapprove the application? Well, if it's the Board's inclination, as it sounds, to disapprove as it has been carried out, you can do that, and then the staff, in terms of putting a regular wood sash back, as it would have been appropriate, the staff can do that at staff level. Now, something you have not addressed are your metal doors. Pardon? The metal doors, you've not talked about them at all. The staff has also recommended – Oh, nobody asked about that. Can you – are you willing to switch them out? Well, the reason I use those again is because the wooden doors I even got on my house, you know, they're just so hard to weatherproof, and then you've got to put a storm door on it if you really want to keep the weather out. Are the original doors gone, I take it? Yeah, there was nothing there whatsoever, you know, when I got the house. So those are weatherstrip, insulated door, and they are the same style that is with that style home. Except it's obviously metal. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Even from the photograph, I can tell it's metal. I don't think we have normally approved metal doors for that type of house. Okay, can you put a storm door on that? Yeah, a wood door. A storm door would be approvable, and it would be approved at the staff level, correct? Just a metal storm window – or storm door over the wood door? Yeah, a wooden interior door or – A wood door – Yeah, a wooden door, and then a metal – Metal storm door. Yeah, a metal storm door works. Okay. And so I hope you can use those doors somewhere else. All right. Okay. So you're – we – what I think we're saying is that we would – if we were to go ahead with this, we would disapprove the panels and the metal doors, and then you could go back to the staff and we could go ahead and approve the rest of it. Does that seem – Okay. – like an acceptable way to go? Okay, okay, fine. I guess we need to find out if there's anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application. Okay. Would you come forward and state your name? Can we just sit down? Yes, please. Okay. But, sir, why don't you stay a little closer? Okay. My name is Harvey Whitehouse. I live at 609 East Main Street next to the property in question. The property at 611 East Main Street burned in February of this year. The owner at that time didn't wish to rebuild the property, so they sold the property, I believe, in June of this year. Work began almost immediately on renovation to the property. The previous owner had gutted the property and cleared everything out, so the new owner just went back and started rebuilding. The roof was substantially damaged and it was completely replaced, and that happened around the 4th of July. The re-roofing was going on during the 4th of July holiday. Around the 10th of July, I believe, the original back porch was poured down and construction was begun on a new porch to go back in there. By July the 24th, the new porch had been framed up, and I believe the roof had been completed. The original porch had box gutters which were tied into the box gutter system on the house. The new porch deleted the box gutter system. Do you have a way you can project that? You can see on the upper picture, the original structure had box gutters that were tied into the rest of the house system. On the new addition, they've been taken off and an OG gutter has been hung on the outside. This was all, like I said, I think the roof and everything and the gutters were up by the 24th of July. On the 24th of July, I was in the historic preservation office on other business, and I mentioned to Amelia Armstrong about the work that Al was making, tremendous progress on working on the back of the house. Her indication was that I got that she hadn't seen the construction that was going on yet and that she would go take a look at it. I don't know if she had been there before or not. I saw her on the property several days after the 24th of July. Shortly after the 9th of August, I saw a COA posted on the front porch. The work kept on on the project, and when the COA was issued, most of the work on the COA had already been done. The application for the COA was dated 5 August of 2007, so it was well after construction had been well underway. The COAs were issued, and none of the COA things that were mentioned addressed actually rebuilding the back porch. Construction kept on, and by the 15th of August, by the 15th of August, the two windows in the back had been shortened down on the upper level. The back doors had been replaced with the metal doors, and they don't fit the opening. If you can see, they're short about four or five inches of fitting the opening at all, and so they've had to put a filler strip in there to do that. All this kept on going, and I was in the Office of Historic Preservation again about the 15th of November, and I asked Amelia about how these things were being done without a certificate of appropriateness or anything like that. She indicated to me that she would look into these items that I brought up here, and that the staff had the right to approve the new porch because fire damage, and it was built on the original footprint of what was done. I followed up with a letter to Betty Kerr. I think I have a copy of the evidence there, and I reiterated my concerns. I reiterated my concerns to her, and besides the things that have been mentioned here, I also brought up the fact that there were four windows that were actually shortened. Can you slide that up to the bottom part? There's two more windows on the other side of the driveway on the east side of the house that have also been shortened, and if you slide that upper picture down, you can see that's looking out the window that's been shortened on 325 of 07. You can see it was originally an open window there. I guess, you know, I have problems that, you know, and also after I followed up with the letter, the homeowner, the new homeowner has also painted the front of the garage. I have a problem that it seems like that some people have to come up through here and go through a lot of trouble to try and get permission to do what they want to do to their house, and other people, they just sort of go on about their merry way, and nobody really does anything. You know, I've seen in my neighborhood, it's 603 Boone River Avenue, Porter-Girard, got humiliated for not getting a COA. Coleman Calloway was a recent case that got chastised for not getting a COA. I'm a little bit confused. Here's a photograph of the COA that was posted on the property. I think that photograph was taken about the 15th of August. You can see the four items that are set for approval is renovate the structure due to fire, replace roof, and replace windows, doors, dormers, cornice fittings as needed with same material, replace the rear porch floor, and get a COA. Replace the rear porch floor and clean brick as needed. There's nothing about rebuilding the structure of the porch itself. On the 5th of December, I wrote a letter to Betty Kerr asking to see any COAs that were issued for the property, and any documentation that was submitted with those COA applications. When I got copies of the new COA from them on the 10th of December, if you look at item number three, it now says replace rear porch. This is supposed to be the same COA that's posted on the front of the building, and the word floor has been removed, which gives it an entirely different meaning. There's a COA, I guess that's the official COA thing, that has replace rear porch on it. You know, I have a hard time understanding how one COA says rebuild the porch, and another COA says replace the porch floor. Like I say, I don't think that the new homeowner here has been treated in a way that has been treated in the same manner as other people have been treated, and I think that this case should be forwarded to the council for investigation to see why this gentleman was treated this way when other people aren't. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to make comments about this application? Mr. Chair, I think it's worth noting that we also have received an email from Dwight Carpenter in which he also expressed his concern about changes being made to the property at 611 East Main Street. Architectural features have been removed from the front of the house and openings have been resized. These changes are inappropriate, in his opinion, anywhere in the H1 districts, and particularly in such visible locations as this one on Main Street. Thank you. I guess we need to see if there are any other questions or other comments that need to be made from the Board. Well, I think Ms. Kerr or Amelia should have an opportunity to respond if you want to. Yes, I think so. Amelia's been working with this case, and so I will give her first opportunity, and then I may have some follow-up. Thank you. When the property owner, present property owner, contacted me soon after purchasing the property, which is early spring and prior to the work starting, and outlined what he intended on doing in the sense that he was concerned whether he was going to rebuild this porch or actually demolish it. And we discussed that it was an open porch at one time that was closed. He found evidence and that and that and so forth. And so when he started, he did not get permits right away, but it was caught within soon after. But in the same way, when you have a fire of that magnitude, and there's some leeway with the guidelines for doing repairs that you do in kind, so rebuilding of the roof that was obviously a fire damage, also a safety issue, things like that are done. Now the situation of rebuilding with the gutter situation, so forth, that was something that was done for the rebuild. And it happened with the rebuilding, and he didn't get the proper permit at first, but there was discussion of what he was going to do. And then the windows, the windows on the south side, or the southeast side, actually I wasn't quite, I was not clear. I thought that it was actually a previous condition similar to the bottom windows. So that's why we're only hearing the upper two windows, because that was the situation beforehand. There was no time that the applicant did not express to me, there was a time that lapsed where we didn't have a conversation and much more activity happened at that time. But I'm not sure if I'm addressing the questions you want, but. A couple more issues, and let's come back to the shortening of the windows. Are you saying that the windows on the south side was a pre-existing condition prior to the H1 overlay, or are you now not certain? Yes, I found photos that had happened. So that's what, and maybe I was looking at the photos, but I investigated Mr. Whitehouse's concerns about the windows and had found that the upper ones had been shortened. But I didn't find evidence that the bottom ones on the southeast side had been done. I found that there was evidence that that had been a pre-existing condition. Okay, so you're satisfied that the only windows that we need to deal with are the two windows that you pointed out in the photograph, correct? Correct. Do you want to talk about briefly this replaced porch versus replaced porch four? That was a typo. Because all the, when I looked up my COAs, I found it was just replaced porch, not replaced porch four, because obviously if I was going on, I was looking at the notes from the actual certificate of appropriateness, I had written down many comments, and I believe there was, you can cut and paste on that program, and I believe there was a typo of just the floor that was left over. But the intent was not just to replace the floor, because I had no intent, and didn't know the condition of the floor since I couldn't get in due to the fire. Were you aware of the typo before it was brought to your attention? I mean, I saw in my file, but I didn't know there was a typo until it was brought to my attention. And I have to confess, one of my favorite typos is the leave a knot out, which really changes the entire context. It certainly does. So I had no idea that there was a floor in there that was brought to my attention with the letter dated from Mr. Whitehouse. Did you respond to Mr. Whitehouse on that? The office responded to, not necessarily about the floor, but gave him the COA that actually had the proper format. With or without explanation? No explanation. Okay. It might have helped to simply say that you corrected the typo. Well, I didn't realize that there was an issue with that, because that wasn't necessarily brought to the attention. It was brought now, but not previously. All right. So, any other questions? Well, obviously it wouldn't make any sense to replace the porch floor given the condition of the porch. Correct. And again, the window on the back porch, because it wasn't evident to me what the condition was back there of that window that was shortened in the back porch area, because that was enclosed. It wasn't known to me. We had talked about, on the back wall, Mr. Graff and I talked about the fire and how it damaged the brick in the back and caused some discoloration. He talked about cleaning that. He also, all the headers of all the seals or the lintels in the back wall had split. So, we talked about replacing those, and he replaced those with like material, stone. And so, it wasn't known to me that the condition of the window prior to. And am I safe in assuming that we don't require box cutters for new construction? That's correct. Okay. Ms. Kerr. I think you all have covered most of the things. Certainly, that is just a typo relative to the porch floor business. The main permit does say to rebuild the porch. And from the get-go on that situation, it was very apparent the whole thing was severely damaged in terms of that porch due to the fire. You can see that in the images. So, there would have been no reason to talk about the floor specific, because the whole rear addition piece needed to be replaced after the fire. As to the garage having been painted, the front elevation of that, that's news to me at least. And we will have to put that in the hopper with the property owner to get him to make application and go through the process relative to that. When the letter was received from Mr. Whitehouse, the issues he raised were looked at very closely. The letter was sent right away to the property owner asking him to address those issues after Amelia had gone out to check and see what was being raised and what was the scenario and so forth and got it into the loop for the first available board meeting. And here we are. Okay. All right. You want to make another comment, Mr. Rupp? I have a couple of other comments here. Put that picture back up on the windows on that southeast side of the structure. I've lived in my house there 36 years, so I'm pretty familiar with the house at 611. Pull to the upper picture. That's a picture taken from the inside of the house looking outside that window that's blocked on the 25th of March of 2007. You can see it's not blocked off. It was an open window. The other thing is I have a little bit of, I need a little clarification on this. So it was a typo error on the COA that went on the front of the house, right? Was the original, now what do we call this? The one that goes on the house, what copy is that? Well, it's a summary, if you will, to be posted. And what's the one that's the big sheet that's got all the little? That's your permit, your certificate of appropriateness. Okay. So the summary was altered, right? The summary had the typo. Right. So it was altered. It was changed. The word was taken, floor was taken off of that. To correct it. Okay. It was corrected. Now, was the original corrected in any way or was it done correctly when it came out? To my knowledge, it was done correctly when it came out. So the original wasn't changed at all. What you have right there is the exact original. I believe so. Amelia, is that the case? As part of their procedure... Let Amelia respond. I believe that. I mean, that was correct. Okay. Okay. As part of their procedure, the BOAR sends copies of the permits to the Division of Building Inspection and so they have one on file and put in their system. I went to Building Inspection today and I got a copy of the permit for the same property and the copy that I got from Building Inspection today says, replace rear porch floor. And the way I understood this happened is when she issued the CLA, the porch had been rebuilt. The flooring was oriented strand board flooring that was on there and it was to be replaced with tongue and groove flooring. But here, she said that it hadn't been changed, that it was a typo on this one. Well, here it is right here. It's got floor on this one. I mean, it's simply a typo. I mean, obviously, I didn't know the material of the porch before. I mean, so I wouldn't have issued just to replace the porch floor. So, it could have gotten over to Building Inspection. We've been talking about this project on and off with the building inspector. So, it's simply a typo. There's not really that big of an issue about it because obviously, I wasn't going to just have them replace the porch floor without actually rebuilding the whole porch. I have a hard time understanding how you make two typos on two different papers. Betty, is the copy that we send to, I'm sorry, the building office, is that a summary or is that an exact copy of the permit itself? They get the permit. They get the permit. That's just right here. Okay. No, it's... Thank you. With regard to the windows on the southeast side, if there's an issue, we can, when we address the garage, the painting in the front, then we'll look at those further about that and we can certainly go back before the board with those as well. All right. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Like I say, I think there's enough questions here that there needs to be an independent investigation of this situation. Thank you. We appreciate your concern. Thank you. Any other comments from the audience? Okay. Where are we? I'm not real sure. Well, I think we, I think the issue about the approval and the disapproval, I think we can certainly, we need to take action on that, I think, and I would recommend that we do that and then if we want to make any other comments about the other matters, we can do that. Okay. I think what we'll do initially is go ahead and dispose of the case and to that end, and I'll get my notes straightened out here, and this case has had some technical problems evidently. With respect to 611 East Main Street, I move that we accept the findings of the staff and the recommendation that the COA be issued. However, that we also accept that the disapproval of the enclosing of the existing windows with panels be disapproved as well as the metal door, which is amended today to reflect the fact that the proposal to install metal doors is also disapproved. In addition, there should be another condition that the details of the rear stoop are to be submitted before that stoop is actually constructed. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Is that all right? Did I misstate that? Camelia indicated that those details had already been submitted, so we don't need that condition. Okay. I'm sorry. With the details of the final stoop to be approved by staff. Okay. And you second to that? Yes. Okay. Is there any discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion is presented, signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Motion carries. With respect to Mr. Whitehouse's comments, I have, on occasion, had the privilege of instructing inspectors in terms of preparing for a case, and I have said to them on numerous occasions that one typo quickly made can result in pages and pages and pages of correction and hours of your time explaining why the typo occurred. There has to be a certain degree of transparency with respect to what we do. I do know the staff is considerably overloaded. We have not had a significant change in the staff level for some time, and yet the caseload has increased. It is understandable that these kind of errors can occur. I certainly don't think there is some conspiracy involved to ease this application through. However, I don't think it may have been glossed over a little bit that some of these changes were made prior to the COA being approved by us or by the staff. Certainly, that should not be condoned, and certainly it should not be countenanced. But there are different degrees of noncompliance. And, Betty, correct me if I'm wrong, we don't have a fine system in place, do we, to issue fines for people who do the work first and then submit the application after the fact? That's correct. There's no penalty. So there's a little, you know, we don't have a whole lot of leverage except through controlling, encouraging, and educating. And I think the applicant here has done a pretty good job of trying to conform to the requirements of the COA process. The other cases are a little bit more extreme. As Amelia has properly pointed out, with a fire damage situation, there's a necessity to step quickly or else you start losing the building itself. So I think there were some extenuating circumstances here. And certainly, what I have seen of what's been done to this building, I think he's done a very admirable and very pleasing job recognizing they didn't change the footprint, which made most of the renovation staff approval anyway. And that's all I have to say about that, except that, you know, have someone else read your work or read it backwards before you issue it. Do you have any comments? No comments. Thank you. Well, I appreciate Mr. Dickinson's comments. And I, too, think that this was not an intentional act that or an attempt to favor the property owner in this case. It's too bad that the typos occur, but they do. And I think that, once again, I think this is one more reason why we need to have the additional staff person that we were promised helping in this case. Obviously, it would not have made any sense to replace the floor or the porch when the rest of the porch was in such bad shape. So, I think it's a mistake that was made, but I don't think it was an intentional mistake that, nor was there any, as Mr. Dickinson said, any kind of intentional conspiracy at work here. And so, I think that, you know, we all need to be careful. And I have certainly made my share of mistakes in sending out email messages and things of this nature. So, we've all been there. But it's too bad that it happened, but it did happen. And one more quick comment. Just let the record reflect that there has been an assurance by the staff that they will look into the garage painting issue. Yes. And I think Mr. Graff does need to be reminded rather firmly that, you know, alterations and changes shouldn't be done until after approval. And also that you're going to look at the status of those windows on the south side. And if Mr. Whitehouse has additional photographs, since he's lived in his house so long, that may change how we deal with this case. Yeah, I think we should make it very clear that we're in no way condoning painting the garage. And if there is a problem with other windows, our action tonight does not in any way condone that or approve that. And I think it also goes to say that had the proper procedures been followed in the first place, work had not been done without getting a COA, we wouldn't be sitting here tonight perhaps having this conversation. So, I would strongly suggest to you that any further work that you do on the property needs to be done in proper consultation with the staff and getting proper approval from us. And I want to thank Mr. Whitehouse for bringing this to our attention. And we appreciate his concern. And I'm glad that there are people out there who are observing things that go on. And so, all right. Thank you. Is there any more discussion on this? All right. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is at 133 Forest Avenue. This is item number seven on our agenda. That's in Belcourt. This is the thermal upgrade of historic window sashes. And are the applicants here for this? Are the applicants present for this? If you'll give us your name. Patty Merritt, 133 Forest Avenue. Okay. The staff has recommended disapproval in this case. Typically, we advocate repairing windows and when we approve replacement windows, we want them to be windows that match the historic windows in size, style, materials, et cetera. And so, what you're proposing here really doesn't fit into the guidelines, if I'm interpreting them correctly. And we can certainly discuss the case with you, but I don't think there's any way we can approve this, given the policies that we have in place right now. Do you understand that we're not replacing the windows? We're only taking out the existing sashes? Yes. Just replacing the glass with insulated glass and putting the original windows back in? Yes. This is the contractor, and if he may show you what we are talking about doing. Would that be okay? Yes, sure. Perhaps we need to do a formal presentation. Yeah, we probably do. Okay, so if you'll sit down. Yeah, we'll do a formal presentation and then we'll discuss this with you. I'll try this equipment one more time. This is the house at 133 Forest Avenue, and the applicant is requesting to replace the four windows on the front facade here. These windows and these windows are not to be worked on. These are the windows in question. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you. I'm sorry. I have a bunch of different things here now. There we go. Okay, so what is happening is the applicant is asking to replace the glass in the actual sashes. Here is one of the front windows. Right now, she has an aluminum storm on there with the actual wood sash inside, and she is proposing to take the aluminum storm off and take out the single pane glass and replace it with a double insulated glass, and then put the window back in, and it would create a tilt pack system, and then the actual window would look similar to that on the outside without the aluminum on there. Guidelines are included for your reference. Findings, the proposal to replace the single pane glass glazing at the historic wood windows in the mid-20th century storm windows requires much consideration. Guidelines 22-4 state, replacement windows are only recommended when the historic window cannot be rehabilitated. If the use of replacement windows is permitted by the board, replacement windows should match the historic window in size, style, and materials and have the same number of panes, muttons, and rails and frames as the same dimensions. The single pane glass glazing of the historic window is a significant characteristic that should be retained. The loss of the profile could be detrimental to the historic fabric. Staff has visited the site to inspect the condition of the existing windows and found the wood windows proposed to be replaced are original to the structure and are capable of being rehabilitated. Items requiring attention include, but are not limited to, replacement of the sash cores, glazing compound, removal of alligating paint, minor repairs, and repainting. The installation of vinyl jam liners could negate the replacement of the sash core to reduce air filtration around the edges of the sash and make it possible to fill the sash weight pockets with insulation. In addition, the aluminum storm windows are inoperable and need to be replaced and everyone desires to be able to clean the windows thoroughly and properly ventilate the air pocket between the storm and the historic window. Staff suggests the windows be re-roped with a spring balance system as well and insulation be installed in the pockets and new storms to be installed. Staff recommends disapproval as submitted and the applicant and owner are here. All right. Would you like to show us what you're planning to do? And if we could have your name, sir. My name is Terry Hackworth. I'm a licensing contractor here in Lexington, TLH Builders. I've also been trained in licensing through the Bioglass System based out of Boston. They offer an alternative to replacement windows. It's part restoration, part renovation, and part retrofit. What we're able to do is, using a special patented tool, is take the original sash out of the frame, leaving the exterior and interior trim undisturbed, and set this sash up in a guide, a router guide, and cut out the single glass, and at the same time be able to retrofit it with a double-insulated glass, and then re-glaze it and put the sash back in. And I brought a couple of just sashes I had at home so you guys could, you know, look at it and just see, you know, more what it looks like in person. Now, her windows don't have any muttons on them. These here have a mutton going across the horizontal part, but her windows are just open glass, so there's no muttons or any stuff between any glass or anything. And if I could at least show you this, you'd maybe get a better idea. Yeah, can you show it to us? This is the top sash of the same window. This is the inside looking out. All the cutting's done from the outside. This is the original? Yeah, it's original. This is what the window looked like before we started, and it's an actual two-pane glass. And there's the mull on the outside, and there's the mull on the inside. And this is the bottom sash come out of the same window. And there's the inside right there. And this all stays the same. The cut was done on the outside, you know, around through here. And then I had to go a little bit deeper to accept this 7-16-inch thick insulated glass. And when I put that back in, I got a special bit that I make this mullion strip out of. Then I have a special bit that I make a glazing bead out of. This is wood, so this would never be a putty glazing. So it's pretty much glued and shot down right here and then sanded off smooth. So, you know, you get this look right here from the outside. With her windows, they don't have any grilles at all. Martin, could you hold the other one up so we can just have a look? One side by side, both of them. This is actually the inside of this one. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, flip it. Flip them. You got it. Just one. Yeah, there you go. There you go. Yeah. So you see that sort of strip right there? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Is that enough, Jim? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. And we'll see if there are questions from the board about this. Thank you for letting us see this. Okay. Let's see. Mr. Dickinson, do you? Oh, I don't have to leave at all. Yeah. You ask the questions. Actually, as usual, I have questions. Amelia or Betty, have we studied this system at all? I mean, is this a new system to you all or is this something that's been looked at and studied? We've known of the concept. We haven't seen this specific application from this company. One of the things that happens is, of course, you lose the glass, which has integrity in many of the houses, but you also, if the window sashes have a built-up profile, you know, they have a nosing or, you know, they build up with edges, those will have to be blown out some in order to have two pieces of glass able to come down to what is an installable surface. These windows that you just saw, I believe, had flat edges inside on the sash. No, that's the outside. That's the outside. But there's no... I don't think that's done for now. The inside of the ballistic rear, that's the one that has the detail. Right. But I'm saying many of your historic windows have on the, say it's a one-over-one versus with the middle divide, they have profiles all the way around on the outer edge, and those would have to be widened out and some of that lost in order to put... Well, there's some profile on these windows she has, but when they're just flat sashes, which is a putty glazing bead all the way around. Right. So the only thing that's taken out is that putty glazing bead. Okay. And then the sash is cut a little bit deeper in order for this glass to slip away. Right. It's all done from the outside, and then this, you know, the glazing is like red plastic. Right. This is the same look that it would be. Because they already have a flat edge, is what you're saying, on the inside. The detail... Many don't. No, I understand in terms of you're finished. Right. But many of your historic sashes would not have the flat on the interior. Should we proceed maybe case by case that this may be somewhat unique? That's certainly the board's option. Well, I know how contentious this issue has been, and I'm a little concerned that with only three people here that I'm not exactly sure how I'll proceed on it. May I make a comment? Sure. Our windows would be... Our windows would really look the same, because we don't have anything fancy. They're just, you know, plain windows. But in my opinion, they would look better after being done. Not only would they be energy efficient more so, but they would also look better to me and more in keeping with the historical look without storm windows. Because we wouldn't have to have storm windows. I know. And really, our wood windows are... I mean, the paint needs to be... We need to repaint and all that, but the integrity of the wood is very good. And wood being the best insulated factor, I mean, we thought it was a real viable solution at least for our house. Because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Now, you can also get the historical glass that they will put in the windows. It's a little bit more expensive, you know, the wavy glass. But you can also get that. That creates an issue of imitative historical appearance. So, that's not maybe an answer. I won't talk to this. You got any thoughts, Jim? Yes, James. Well, windows seem to be the big issue that we have a really hard time with. The current guidelines are being reviewed for Lexington. And I assume... I don't know that they've looked at this material. I sort of agree... I agree with Jim here that some of these things we have to look at on a case-by-case basis. The guidelines are very precise about the single glazing and using storm windows as opposed to, you know, that sort of thing. This appears to be, to be very candid with you, a case where I'd be interested to look at your actual sash, one of those. But from the appearance here and the description of the window, I have to strongly agree with you that the windows look much better without the flat storm windows. And in a case like this where there's not a lot of detail to lose, I'm kind of of the opinion we ought to seriously consider it. Well, I tend to agree with you. I think we're taking... We're right on that little edge of the slippery slope. I know. That's the issue. And that's my main concern is I don't want this case being misconstrued in any way. And also that's why I'm wondering if I could maybe ask your indulgence and postpone this case to when we have a full board here. Would that be all right? Sure. I think one thing that I did notice is that even though I think, you know, this is certainly great to be able to reuse the existing wood sash, that you still get this kind of... You still see this kind of metal strip, you know, that runs around the space in between the two pieces of glass. Of course, the unique thing here that I was also speaking to is the fact that it's a one-over-one, so it's a big piece of glass. If these were multi-muttons, you know, and you had multi-panes, I could see that might be not so acceptable. So we appreciate you agreeing to... Because there are two more members of our board who are not here, and I think something like this, of the magnitude that it has on what we do, would be important to have the entire board here. Well, I know that Amelia told me that, you know, our windows would be a good candidate for this, but it might set a precedent for other people that it wouldn't be a candidate for. But I felt like that, you know, we should have the option to try it if it's not going to do anything to the integrity of the window. Well, to be really honest with you, I would like to have a chance to go by. I didn't have a chance to run by your house and look at your windows. I think we do need some more time. We're going to need to have a waiver from you, because the deadline is December 23rd. So we'll need a waiver from you to continue this case. Okay. When is our next... January the 23rd. Are we that late? There's just one meeting in January. Oh, okay. Would that be all right if we took this up in January? I assume you're not going to be... No. ...until then. We appreciate your cooperation on that. Yeah, that would be great if you would do that. And in the meantime, we can come by and look at the... Sure. ...at the stash. I think we really need to do that just to confirm what it is, and then also perhaps get the input from the other two members of the board. And also give the staff maybe some more additional time to look at this issue with respect to this kind of window. I think Jack put his finger on it that when we get into muttons and multi-pane windows, that's an entirely different kind of worms. Well, this system is used in a lot of areas, in historical areas in other states. This system is used in other areas that have H1 overlays similar to ours? Is that what you're saying? Mm-hmm. That might be helpful to find their standards and see, you know, if you can find us a couple of cases where... I got some documentation in my book back here. The bag-lash system was... Well, I'm seeing these windows. Yeah, I'm seeing this. I'm not sure. No, I got some documentation showing where historic societies have approved it in other areas. This has been around probably 10 years, but the guy that put the patent on the tool and able to do this, he got a grant from the federal government, you know. So it was featured on this old house program also. But he's out of New England, and it's been used up in that area of the country for the last 10 years. It's been approved through many, many historical societies up there. Actually, there's a couple of them that request it when people come in, you know, for them to use it. As far as this area of the country, I just started using this system a few months back, and before me, the furthest guy south was in Indianapolis. So now I'm the last guy between here to Miami, you know. So it is a new concept here, but it's been around in the New England states for the last 10 years. I have a website that's got a lot of info on it that you guys could look at at home or wherever. Well, we'll certainly do that. And you can get a lot of info. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Okay. Any more discussion? I guess what we're saying is that we would like to postpone this until January 23rd. Continue. Okay. Mr. Chair, with respect to 133 Forest Avenue, case number 07280133-J, I move that we continue the case. What was that date, January 23rd? January 23rd, 2008. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you again. Thank you. Thank you all for coming. Thank you for agreeing to give us a little more time to consider this. Okay. All right. The next item on the agenda is... Item number eight, that's at 604 Sierra Avenue, change the design of window, porch, floor, and columns. That's in the Belcourt Historic District, and is the applicant here? Okay. If you'd give us your name. Yes, I'm John DeHart with Thought Space Architects. Okay. I guess you've read the findings of the staff. Yes, I have. Okay. And part of the application has been, the staff has recommended disapproval of the change in the porch columns and the floor systems, and has approved the application to change the bathroom window. And I assume you're not in agreement with the disapproval? No, I'd like to discuss those with the board. Okay, that's fine. We'll have a presentation then. Okay, thank you. This is an important case, and they ought to consider it. Yeah, I think they should, yeah. What do they do to come up with a whole new remote system for your, and it doesn't work properly? Well, it's brand new. Uh-huh. We do walk in and say, oh, hi, this is. Yeah. I don't have to point it. Okay. This is the property at 604 Sayre. I guess I went too fast. Yeah. On the front porch, the request is to replace the columns, the tapered round columns, nine-inch tapered with square eight-inch columns, and also to replace the wood floor with a concrete slab that has an inset of ceramic tile. And then on the west side of the structure is that metal second floor window there is to replace that, the one-over-one with a glass block. I guess we had a little more slides there than I was thinking. Martin, are there other examples of that kind of tapered column in the neighborhood, or is that house sort of unique? Or do you know? I can't tell you that right now. I would think there would be. I mean, that is a column. We have round, tapered, and there are some squared, tapered columns also. Okay. Why don't we proceed with the presentation, and we can ask some questions. Let's proceed with the staff report, and then we'll come back and ask questions. Okay. The proposed use of the glass block infill at the second floor bathroom would retain the existing wood window casing and all the exterior trim. At the interior, the window stop and trim would be removed such that the proposed tile work at the tub shower area would return to the proposed glass block surface. We list the guidelines for your reference. The findings were the installation of the double-hung wood windows within the tub areas of the bathroom was standard procedure in earlier times. It was never very practical. The proposed glass block replacement, as detailed, is found appropriate within guidelines. Guidelines 22.2 and 22.3 respectively state the original size and shape of window opening should be retained, maintained, and significant historic window details and trim work should be retained, maintained. The replacement of the wood tongue and groove front porch with concrete slab and ceramic tile instead is not within the guidelines or appropriate for this structure. While the wood tongue and groove front porch floor exhibits signs of deterioration, the replacement of the materials should be in keeping with the existing scenario. Guidelines 29.2, 3, and 4 respectively state when repairing or replacing deteriorated ornament or details, new details should match as closely as possible historic details. Reproduction materials should only be used based on the historic documentation and replacement details shall match the historic details in size, shape, material, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The historic tapered round columns are significant elements of this porch and house. They should be repaired and maintained as noted in guidelines 20-1, 20-2, 20-5, 28-1, and 29-1, which, to paraphrase, note that significant historic porches and historic ornaments should be retained, maintained. The proposal to install square columns on this porch does not meet the guidelines. A number of the guidelines address replacement materials such as size, shape, and et cetera when replacement is necessary. Guidelines 20-3 states that replacement elements should be appropriate to the building on which they are located. Guidelines 28-2, 29-4, and 30-3 state that replacement materials shall have the same size, shape, and texture as the historic materials. The design guidelines noted in this report strongly recommend the retention and repair of the historic columns and note as well that the repair and or replacement of an architectural detail or significant feature should be the same size, style, material, texture, and color as the original. In both the retention of the existing round wood columns and conception concept of installing new columns, it is inappropriate to lose the known historical configuration of the porch. The proposed square porch columns would alter the appearance of this porch and hence the house significantly by specifically introducing an appearance and style this circa 1914 arts and crafts style structure never had. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the change of the porch's columns and floor system and staff recommends approval as submitted to change the bathroom window. Gapkin is here. Mr. Hart, would you like to make any comments? The staff has recommended approval of the change in the bathroom window but they Actually we need his name. Yeah, did you give us your name? I've forgotten. You've forgotten? I'm John DeHart. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. And your address? 431 North Limestone. The staff of course has recommended approval of the bathroom window and then they recommended disapproval of the change in the porch columns and the floor systems and I guess we'd like to know why you'd want to change the porch columns since the original columns are round and then also the floor. This is one of those kind of pieces of a project that you look at and you kind of scratch your head and wonder, okay, where do I start and where do I finish this thing? If you could put on those pictures of the columns, the existing, please. Yeah, what's there? This client bought this house and a little bit of history and has done an incredibly extensive restoration project on the house. It's a very noteworthy house worthy of the restoration. It's admirable what he's trying to do to this house. The front porch is kind of one of the last pieces. You've approved numerous other pieces on the back and he's finishing up the interior renovations. The porch is kind of the last piece of the puzzle. It has some serious structural issues. This column on the far end, it's not in this photograph, is actually peeled out about 20 degrees from plum and is in danger of collapsing. The column is actually bent like a hinge in the middle. That pier in its entirety is going to have to be disassembled, proper footings put under it and clean the brick and put it back exactly, which is what we intend on doing. At some point in this porch's history, I'm not entirely convinced these are original columns. It's hard to tell because they've been so hacked up. There's several different bases, as you see right here. Sitting on this pedestal, it has this sort of temple-like base that was added to it. These columns are unrecoverable because of some splits and rot and the fact that they are about four inches shorter than all the other columns because the bases have been radically changed. It's one of those things where all the columns are kind of piecemealed. It's not an issue of being able to rebuild any of the columns. Even if we're not approved for square, they'll have to be replaced. They are structural columns. There's a number of splits and rots that doesn't make it practical to try and rebuild them as structural columns to support the roof. Whichever way we go, there's no way to rebuild these columns. It's a matter of replacing them with either round ones or with the square that we are proposing. Separate issue, the floor of the porch. At some point, I do believe that it has always been originally a wood-decked floor porch. At some point in its life, it has had concrete masonry walls, CMU walls built around the outside edge of it. Now the porch is sort of half wood, half concrete. It's in this kind of weird in-between state. It's not practical to completely tear the whole porch off and rebuild it all as the original wood structure would have been. The client felt it might be better if he continued with the fact that there's been infill at some point 20 or 30 years ago and just put a concrete cap on it to complete the concrete construction. We do have several. We kind of spent an afternoon riding around Bellport. And the predominant nature of houses of this area is square columns. It's not round columns. It's actually, you have to kind of, there are round columns, but there's much more square columns on that. In fact, the Bellport house, which is coming up in a minute, is square columns as well. So the predominant, there's the Bell house, which actually has, they're a little more ornate, but they are square columns. So two separate issues. The column, the client would rather go back with the square columns since we are replacing. And some of these are kind of hard to see on this screen, but they are, there is precedent for there being concrete porches in the neighborhood as well. I won't argue the fact that this house probably originally was the wood front porch, but it's already been modified and changed. So that's kind of where we're sitting, trying to figure out how to restore this thing structurally and aesthetically so that it fits the neighborhood and fits the character of the renovation of the rest of the house. All right, thank you. Mr. Ballard? Several suggestions. I don't think we can approve changing from round columns to square columns, so we might as well throw that one right out on the table because the addition of the different, the little pyramidal thing, that says the column rotted. They kept cutting it off and adding to it. I've seen that done several times over the course of time. So I would say the round columns were pretty much original to the porch. I think we'd have to, just from the guidelines, just tell you that you, and I think you can find columns that will match those with the bases and the caps and just go back with a round. I think the porch probably originally had a wood stair and did not have the two side wings. I think it originally was totally open where the concrete block is and probably had a nice framed lattice. Yeah, I agree. Which I would be inclined if your owner is going back to total restoration on that. Now, I'm going to yield to the staff here. I'm sort of treading in territory here. Maybe I shouldn't. But if it were mine, I think I would propose taking the concrete block out, replacing the lattice, which I think probably was in there, tearing off the front steps and putting them back in wood with a wood handrail that works with the ties in to what's there, which was probably there. And though I'm treading on replicating history here, so I may get smacked. And I also don't think we can approve your wood floor because we've had numerous people come in. Most recently, I think up on 3rd Street, as I recall, or 2nd, wanting to change out the wood floor with a masonry floor or a concrete floor. A comment on your window. You heard the case earlier where the gentleman, someone had changed the size of the window. He was changing the size of the window. We were taking out the historic fabric. I'm a little surprised that staff would recommend taking out a historic window and putting in glass block, which I think is much more personally intrusive. I would propose you look at a detail of leaving the two sashes. If you want light into the shower, use a thinner glass block on the interior. Propose re-glazing those windows with an obscure, somewhat obscure glass so you wouldn't see the concrete block through it. And I think it would give you the same effect either way on the interior, but keep the integrity of the exterior of the house. I don't disagree with you on any of those points. And I can tell you I will make your case to the owner. But in the case of the glass block, he's done it in other residents, and he is completely hell-bent on the glass block. And I think that's interesting that that would be a staff, that's almost a staff-level recommendation was a replacement of the glass block. But I will take your suggestion certainly to the owner and see if I can talk him into that. I agree with you on that. I guess to back up then, I can understand your points on the porch and on the columns. My fallback position then is that do I get approval here or do I now reapply to the staff for a change in kind? Because it's not economically feasible. He's not going to tear the front porch off and rebuild it. He's going to rebuild the corner base that's collapsing, the brick base. And then the rest of it he's going to leave as is. He's just not going to invest into tearing the whole thing down and rebuilding it again. Neither do I think really he ought to. But the columns do have to go. As part of your motion, can you approve at this level or do I go back to staff for replacing the existing round columns with new round columns? I think we could certainly approve the replacing of the existing round columns with other round columns. And that material should be? Should be wood. And that actually can also be handled at staff should the board wish it. So long as you're not changing the original. Sorry? So long as you're not changing the overall appearance and fabric. I mean, if you're going round to round, that's a staff issue. And if it's wood, that's also a staff issue. So, you know, we really don't need to deal with that. Okay. And you wouldn't need to come back here for those items. You could just deal directly with the staff. And I guess the window, you all could handle that too, I guess, couldn't you? Yes. Actually, either approach from the staff's interpretation would be within the guidelines. We've recommended approval as they've proposed. But the alternative suggestion that you have made really can certainly be done by staff. It predominantly just results in a one-over-one sash than with most of the work happening on the interior. I just personally think that's the way I would go. But obviously, the staff feels the glass block is within the guidelines. So it's probably... I agree with you. I can make the case again with the owner, but... I think the house would look much more... Yes. The staff, had that been the proposal, certainly would have supported that as well. And it would be more in keeping with the character of the house. There have been, in various historic neighborhoods and properties around the districts, the glass block proposal for bathroom windows, for showers specifically, that have been approved in the past. And hence, the staff's recommendation reflecting that. But the alternative version suggested by Mr. Ballard, if one were to say which would be the most appropriate to the house, would certainly be more appropriate. Do I have to pay him anything for that at all? That's between you and him. No, listen, don't even go there tonight. After what we just went through. It's been a long night. John, in light of what you're saying, I'm wondering if our best course might not be to sort of apprise your client of where we're at. Well, the thing I want to risk is he wants to start this construction right away. So I would rather you go ahead and let me get the glass block approved, and I know that I've got another option that I'll work out and negotiate with staff and all the other points I can negotiate with staff. Yeah, but I'm afraid it would give your client burden. I'm not real happy about that glass block either, to be honest with you. And I'm concerned about giving your client a burden. And he'll say, oh, well, they approved it, and off we go. And I think Jack's idea was a much better one. Do you think you can sell your client on that? I don't know that answer. But the thing I'm more concerned about is that if I can't, the fact that then he's got to wait another month until he can do anything. And if it's already approved by staff, and if the President's been set that that's allowed, I'd like you to go ahead and approve that, and then let me try and negotiate the better route that I think we all agree is a better route. And I really have forgotten that we're four weeks out to the next meeting, so it's not like two weeks, so never mind. Well, ordinarily we follow staff recommendation, and apparently the Board's done that before, so it would be John trying to talk his client. Yeah, I'm remembering some of those. And the others replacing in kind would be just staff decisions anyway, so I think we could probably. Go forward. Go forward. Awesome. So what would be – should we accept the staff recommendation disapproving the change in the porch columns and the floor, and then accept the staff recommendation to replace the window with glass block so we would simply approve and disapprove as recommended by the staff? Is that – Michelle, is that the way we should do this? If that's the Board's decision, that would certainly be what would comply with the staff's recommendation on this case. For what it's worth, I've not made my comments, but I agree completely with Jack, and I think we move forward on this motion. So what we would do, we would – John, we would simply follow what the staff has recommended, which would mean that we would disapprove the square columns, and then you could come back and negotiate with the staff on replacing the columns with the round columns, which they would give you permission to do because you're replacing it with light materials of a similar design, and then we would also approve the bathroom window and glass block. Does that seem appropriate? Great. That seems fine. Okay. Okay. Good. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Okay. Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. With respect to 604 Serra Avenue, I move that we accept the staff findings and their recommendation that the change in the bathroom window be approved and that we also accept the staff recommendation that the change in the porch columns and floor systems be disapproved. Second. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is in South Hill. It's item number 9 on our agenda, 432 South Broadway. Demolish the porch, construct an addition. Staff has recommended tabling this case to allow the applicant time to address some of the concerns that are outlined in the staff report. Is the applicant here? Yes. See if you can give us your name. Mohamed Seraji, 260 Bowling Springs. All right. Have you had a chance to read the report? Yes, sir. Yeah. There were a number of concerns that the staff raised in the report and their proposal is that we would table this case so that you would have a chance to address those individual items. Are you? Well, the problem is I cannot wait any longer and if I cannot get approval, then I have to proceed with original construction because we have delayed this a couple months right now and I have to get under construction as soon as possible. Well, I guess in that case, we did hear the staff report. However, you know, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I'm not sure that one of the things we would rather not do would be to approve cases in which there are a lot of questions which have not been resolved ahead of time and I think their reason for recommending to be tabled is that you could come back with at least some answers to some of these questions. We can do that. Well, then I think what we ought to do is to table it until the next meeting. Let's look at it and see where we go with it. Yeah, I think we ought to wait until the next meeting then. Okay. So they have recommended that we either table it or continue it, I guess, until the next meeting. The table at the end. Okay. So I think that's what we would prefer doing because it would be very hard for us to approve it given the number of points that are here. Well, the issue is that I think if you hear the staff overview, then I can respond to them. Maybe we can look at it that way before we postpone the meeting. We looked at each other. Once we open the case, I mean, we can continue the case. And I think if you are of the thought that we are going to continue the case, if you want to have a staff presentation made to us and we can give maybe some suggestions. That's what I'm after. I think what you're actually looking for is a conceptual review. Yes. I need to know what the suggestion is going to be on this issue. If you want to give him the benefit of the architectural expertise. Yes. Okay. Well, we'll let the staff present this. Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a new Christmas present for us. I don't know how to use it yet. This is property 432 South Broadway. And, of course, it had the fire back in September. And, of course, there's damage all the way up through the roof. This rear porch area, which you recall, is burnt badly. At this time, the applicant is requesting the board grant a COA to demolish the existing remains of the rear two-story L-shaped open porch to construct a new three-story rectangular-shaped addition having a gable roof. The proposed addition west and south walls are to be the same length as those walls of the L-shaped porch. But the footprint of the addition will have an area of approximately 8 foot 5 inches by 10 foot 2 inches greater. And then to stabilize the masonry walls with installation of some 40 tie rods, which have the star design washers attached to the outside face of the masonry walls. The proposed wood frame additions have a masonry foundation wall veneered with cast stone, having split faced and beveled to simulate the existing foundation. The walls are to be sided with hardy plank siding. It's been drawn on the typical sections as 6-inch reveal, but on the elevations it's like a 12-inch reveal. The 18-inch deep cornice, which is 18 inches wide with an 18-inch wide soffit, is to match that of the historic structure, both in material and design. The dock's gutter system is to be lined with copper and the roof is to have fiberglass shingles. At the time of this writing, the proposed material for the construction of the addition's doors and windows was not known. The rear entry stoop and steps are to be of concrete with the same masonry foundation material as the proposed addition. The guard and handrails are to be of aluminum construction. No HVAC equipment has been indicated on the drawings. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. The proposal to replace the rear two-story porch destroyed by fire with a different building form is appropriate within the guidelines. However, the manner by which it is achieved requires careful consideration. The proposed three-story gabled rear addition to this historic two-and-a-half-story circa 1886 Italian style structure is found to be inappropriate for this building, the neighborhood in the South Hill Historic District. Guidelines 35-7 and 38-1 respectfully state the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of new buildings should reflect the predominant proportion, emphasis, and rhythm of adjacent surrounding buildings and the roofs of new buildings should relate in shape, pitch, and material to the roofs of adjacent surrounding buildings. The proposed rear three-story gabled roof addition would dominate the rear facade of this structure. It would eliminate or override some 21 lineal feet of the historic cornice of the two-and-a-half-story main structure and some 13 lineal feet of the cornice of the two-story L. Two historic attic windows would become blocked. The left side elevation depicts the peak of the proposed rear gable at some 15 inches above the peak of the historic gable located above the structure's main entry. A three-story structure will mean the loss of the historic roof form that was over the L-shaped two-story porch. Also, snow would be accumulated on the roof of the rear L along the south wall of the proposed addition. Guideline 36.1 and 36.2 respectfully state openings should be compatible in scale, size, and proportion to the established patterns of openings in adjacent and surrounding buildings and new buildings should have a similar ratio of openings to solids, that is, windows to walls, as adjacent and surrounding buildings. Although the windows of the proposed addition seem to have their sash openings drawn to the same overall size as the existing windows, the proposed windows with face trim appear less vertical than the existing windows, which appear to have no brick mold. The rhythm of the stacked openings of the rear elevation is interrupted by the window opening immediately to the left of the entry door. Naturally, the windows in the gable is totally out of scale with the existing attic windows. The north wall of the addition is windowless. Additional items addressed by other guidelines include the retaining of historic green area and spaces, that's 14.4, retaining historic openings, 21.1 and 2, retaining significant historic roof forms, 27.1, retaining significant historic porches, 28.1, replacing material of existing porches, 28.2, and closing of existing porches, 28.3 and 4, and retaining significant historic exterior materials, 30-1. It should be noted that the proposed addition will consume 86 square feet more green space than consumed by the L-shaped porch, and staff has met with Bob Carpenter of the Division of Building Inspection and learned that additional parking could be required because of the proposed increase in square footage of the building area. If a proposed right side elevation were drawn, it would show a portion of the proposed addition's third floor wall and its entire roof line above the roof line of the historic structure's two-story L. Staff recommends, the Recommendation Act recommends the case be tabled to allow the applicant additional time to investigate possible revisions to the design in light of those items mentioned in the findings above. The applicant is here. Okay, would you like to come back up? There's a few reasons we want to do this addition. One is the fire started on the second floor deck of the porch. We want to enclose that so we won't have anybody feeling fire or whatever happened to the fire situation. Another reason is that we do not need a second means of egress because this building is fully sprinkled, but we would like to put another set of egress inside. The reason we came up with this addition, if I may have that first picture you guys put up that Martin showed. That's Martin's picture, the first one that he had, the front elevation. If you look at the gable front that you see here, we were trying to really replicate this toward the backside also with our addition. It might not have shown properly on the elevation that we have drawn, but if this look is acceptable, we'd be willing to provide you with the same look as we have here. As far as the window we're concerned that Martin brought up, we were replacing all the window that's burned with the new windows that matches this, and also the new window in the addition will match this elevation. I've even suggested to the staff that if it's going to help us pass this through, we can even rig this face rather than using a hardy plank. Some of the questions that Martin has as far as the HVAC, this house has a geothermal system. Back in 2001 when we did the renovation, we have enough well inside the parking to accommodate the new square footage. I believe the right side elevation has been drawn, and it might have showed the roof elevation be up high, but it's going to be pretty much about the same height as you see here, so it will not go over the existing roof heights. What were the other concerns? As far as the square footage concern for the parking, I guess worst thing comes to worst. We can do what they did at Rose Street back into the parking from the street. I mean, that's just a possibility that we may have, or we may be able to rent the space if the parking is an issue. Okay, anything else? Mr. Ballard, do you have any questions? Yeah, several questions. Why are there no windows on the elevation? It looks like it would be nice to have a first floor window, second floor window, and a small window at the top, which would kind of break that mass up on the side. The reason we didn't put a window in, because we really are not sure how we're going to use the egress yet, but eventually if we can, we will put the window to get some lights in there. That would be no problem at all. I think it would. And the other thing that's rather deceiving is showing the clapboard rather than six inches, almost 12 inches on your elevation, which really makes it look kind of strange. We're really in a haste trying to get this done, to get it into the building. But that all would be, all the guidelines that you require for a hardy plank or what have you would be followed as far as six inch and all that. The other comment I have is, you know, I don't care for your metal doors on the back with the little lights personally, but I understand why you're doing it. What's the little window to the left of the door for? I think I would be inclined to lose that so you've got the rhythm of the door and the windows as they go up the wall. I think a lot of it has to do with the way it's drawn. It's a CAD drawing and it looks rather harsh with a 12-inch plank instead of a six-inch plank. Okay. But it's a big building, and I personally don't have a lot of problems with it. The biggest issue probably the staff has is the roof wrapping over the cornice on the top and the side. But why do you need that space? It's a pretty big attic. It's a pretty big space. Actually, it is not the attic. The attic is occupied. It's the third floor that is occupied. It's a two-bedroom apartment in there, and everything in the apartment, all the rafters and everything is exposed. No, but I mean why do you need to take it all the way to the third floor? The third floor is because we're trying to get the means of egress out of the third floor also. See, originally back in 2001 when we renovated the house, it was either provide a second means of egress or fully sprinkle the house. And we elected to do fully sprinkle the house, and I think that's why the house is safe now because of the sprinkle system. But looking at the structure, I really feel more comfortable with it if we can put the second means of egress in there. But how is that a second means of egress? That's the part that's drawing me. I mean, it's a room. Are you going to jump out the window? It's kind of a stairway. Well, it's the means of egress being inside the addition. Oh, so you're going to put a stair within there. Right. I'm just looking at your plan. Right. Oh, sorry. I'm a little dense tonight. That's okay. Not inside the addition. Not inside the addition. See, the addition. We will. That's the whole issue. He's building it for a stair. See, it looks like it's for an addition. No one ever told me that. Well, that's why I asked the question. It's going to be an additional stair plus an additional room that is going to be added to it. Then the drawing is incomplete. Yeah, we just showed the addition in the back side so we can show what we're trying to do. And based on, I guess, the guideline that we have from the department, they just needed the elevation and the wall section. And we really didn't get into the nitty-gritty of trying to come up. But you don't actually need a set of stairs. No, we don't. Yeah, because when you did the renovation, you put a complete fire stair in that comes out that door. Right. Exactly. So this is a new mass, a complete mass of taken up square footage and a huge addition. Right. I was going to show, if I saw either of the side elevations, how this drawing here depicts the gable higher here at the rear than at the front of the house. And, of course, as Mr. Ballard's pointing out, that window is completely out of scale. If it's helped, like I said, we can replicate exactly the same window, keep the same elevation as we have in the front to come in the back side here. But that front is a major entry to that historic two-and-a-half-story structure. And this is almost like a three-story addition at the rear. That's a three-story also in the front. It is a three-story because the big window in the front, if we may have that picture again. Could we have this? Well, he wants to see the front, but I want to see a side elevation. If I could see either side elevation. We can replicate the exact window with the same peak height as we have here in the rear. But that's given that major entry feeling to the rear of the building. Yeah. There's no need to do that. I mean, to make it historically approvable, you don't need to replicate. I understand, but in order to make it look nice, we came up with this idea. We had a flat roof, and we really need to raise the rear to a certain level for access. Because in an attic area or a third floor, the wall height is about seven feet. That's about all we have. If you're standing next to the brick wall, the brick wall comes to about five, six inches above my head. So that's why we need to have this gable in the rear to create that exit into that addition. There's another difference. On this side, there's a front porch, which kind of breaks the height of that addition, and you don't have that on the back. So that's why it looks so overly tall, because there's nothing that's breaking it. Actually, the front porch was added back in the, I think— I don't care whether it's added or not. I'm just saying that that's why adding, replicating what's on the back. It's not the same thing, even if you bricked it, because you wouldn't have the front porch to be sort of an intermediate kind of structure back there. You wanted to see the side? I think the other problem is that— What I wanted to point out is this gable at the front is lower. This main gable here is lower than this guy back here. That would be the same on the back side also. We would lower that to that elevation. And then if you notice where this roof line is over on the other side, it's way down here. So you're going to see— May I see the rear elevation now, please? And on the rear elevation, if you look here, you'll see that part of this wall of this addition is over top this roof line here. And this point here is way up here when you look at it from Pine Street there. So you'll see that big mass of that building. That wall will be exposed, yeah, from Pine Street. There's a lot of issues that I think make it very difficult for us to really approve it without looking at some of these problems. I think also the other thing that was pointed out is that the way the new roof on the rear would intersect the existing roof, you're creating some real problems, I think, for yourself in terms of snow and rain and how that would all drain off. Is the intent to make that a stairwell? Well, addition plus the stairwell, yes. The main reason is the stairwell. Okay. We really don't have to do this. I mean, we're going through the expense of renovating the house again that we did back in 2001. Originally, we put the building back exactly the way it was, and the historic people can continue. I would say if you don't have to do the addition, why do it? Why do it? Because it seems like it's really complicating the matter. It's a matter of safety, and I feel more comfortable with it because having a tenant in a building, I'm a structural engineer by trade, and I know about life safety and issues like that, so that's why I'm really, after seeing the fire and after being where the fire was, it's kind of become a life safety issue for me. Do you have any comments, Jack? No. No further comments. Where are we on this? I'm asking if it's up to you to make some comments. Well, I've already made them, but I think it's, to me, the addition that's proposed right now just seems really out of character and a bit out of scale for the house. I was just wondering, did you use an architect for this, or did you come up with these plans yourself? I came up with it myself. That's why it's so bold. Well, maybe perhaps the first step might be, and I know you're a structural engineer, but maybe the step would be perhaps talking to an architect that can perhaps devise a better solution. I know what you're trying to accomplish, and I think it's laudable. I think there are different ways you can do it without making this. I'm sorry, to be perfectly blunt, it's awful. Well, interesting, interesting comment. I think Mr. Carpenter has an interesting comment. You know, the house would look very nice if you didn't do the addition at all. Now, you don't need the stair code-wise because you've got the fire rated stairs and you've got the sprinkler system and the alarm system. So if you just looked at the house and only did the entrance piece to come in your door at the bottom, and forgot, then you don't have an issue with somebody starting a fire up there. Well, on the second floor, there's a door that exited to the deck area. If we just build the deck back, that's not a problem. We thought that the deck would look uglier than the addition. Well, maybe I'm wrong here, but if you thought the deck was a difficulty because of the kids doing the fire bombs or whatever was going on, that may be an additional opening that could be closed up and you just eliminate the deck. Well, or put it back as a window. Or put it back as a window. Yeah, which is what it probably originally was. I think we just, I don't know where I'm going with this. If it's a possibility that we can do this addition, I would go forward with it. But I think the addition has a lot of problems right now. If there is a problem and it's not at the end, but after I go through all the problems, then they still know I just put the deck back. Go ahead. I think the addition, if you could hold it to where it falls in below the cornice line of the main roof, might have some possibilities. I think that's where we're kind of saddled with the guidelines in terms of going up there and tying that massive piece into the original roof. It's been sort of a precedent we've had for a long time with this board, with other people. It's not just you. But if you could pick up the second floor addition and the first floor addition and not that upper piece and then work the roof so you don't cause yourself roof problems and stay below that historic cornice, I think it might have a much more successful chance. I'm kind of shooting from the hip here. I don't know. Amelia and Martin have probably looked at it a lot in terms of what to do. But that's the part I think that everybody's having the biggest problem with. Actually, if we are talking about just doing a stair, I could see just a circular, just a shaft coming up that would catch those floors rather than this large footprint coming out. That's why I was asking what the objective was. Because, I mean, if you need the space, then that's one issue. If you don't need the space but you're just trying to get a separate exit, that's another. If it's a combination of both. But the real problem that I think everyone's probably having is the mass coming all the way up and grabbing that roof at the top. If it could stay below and work with the roof of the other addition and it's less intrusive to the overall rear elevation, I think it might. I mean, if you need some space on the second floor and some space on the first floor and held it to that and then worked out the logistics and the roofs, I don't think we'd have a whole lot of problem with it. Still, we even looked at the spiral stair. Martin was saying that the problem is we have to extend it to the third floor. And in order to get it to the third floor, we have to create enough opening. But you really don't have to do it. That's the point. That's the point, exactly. It's just something you want to do. And I think it really is creating all kinds of problems architecturally. And from our standpoint, our guidelines have a real problem with slapping something over that roof and that cornice up there. And that's where I think the staff's coming from and we are too. So I think we can't approve this as it stands right now. I think we would like for you to think about this and we'd be glad to have you come back. Our next meeting is in January the 23rd and we could certainly… Based on our discussion here, if we cannot extend it to the third floor, then we just go ahead and withdraw our application and just go ahead and build a deck back. Well, I honestly think that's probably what the issue is. I think so, it is. Because that third floor is the main issue. Well, and by trying to have that third floor, you're violating the guidelines and I don't think the guidelines are going to be able to accommodate that third floor. Right. I think some other concept might be better. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I assume there's no one in the audience who would like to make comments. Okay. Hearing none, I guess we need to make a motion to table this. So moved. I think the motion is to continue it. Motion to continue? We opened January 23rd. Okay. So the motion has been made and this has been seconded? Seconded. Okay. We'll continue this case until January the 23rd. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. We have several items on the agenda that are being postponed and I need a motion to postpone 262 North Limestone, 115 Jefferson Street, and 223, 229 Miller Street. So moved. Second. Any discussion? We can do all three in one motion, right? No, we can't. We can't. Can we do it? We just did all three in one motion. Can we do that? I just double checked. I think you did it. I think it's done. Okay. All right. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Next item on the agenda is we have a conceptual review for a new residence at 727 Caden Lane. That's Cape Town, Historic District. Rochelle, do we need a quorum for that or is it more informal? Conceptual review, you're not really taking any action. You know, if the applicant felt that they wanted input from more than just two or three members, they could certainly, I think, ask that it be continued to another meeting, but there's no reason why they can't proceed. They have so patiently waited all evening. I thought. Oh, no. We wouldn't dare do that to them. Well, I was going to suggest. I hate to do this. I was going to suggest a five-minute break. No, I can't. You can't? Okay. I have to go on. I have to leave. All right. I'm going to step out for five minutes then. Sorry. I have to leave at a quarter of eight. Okay. I'll step out for five minutes and then be right back. All right. Conceptual review gives us an opportunity to talk informally with applicants about their projects before they make a final application. So tonight we have a proposal for a new residence at 727 Caden Lane, and I'll ask the staff for the presentation, and then we'll discuss this with the applicant. Betty, can I get the light? So here's the site at 727 Caden Lane. This is sort of the neighboring property, which is a church owned by the city, now a residence. This is from the rear of the property looking forward to the street of Caden Lane. This is pretty much the proposal is to build the site of the property 100 feet back from the property line. This is a little further than that, but it's about in that same genre. It gives you sort of the middle point of the lot. Again, the same middle point of the lot and showing the whole lot. At this time, the applicant is still trying to decide on design, and if we can sort of show you the... This is the lot design. This is the lot. Next slide, please. The applicant has submitted three proposals for this. And if you could space out that. Thank you. And the proposal would be to have the property or the new build located here with the driveway coming up, and the applicant would like to have a garage sort of attached to the house and not sort of pull around and have a detached garage. That's one stipulation the applicant is looking at within the three proposals they submitted. In addition, they wanted to put in a rear deck. If we can go to the next slide, Martin. This is the first proposal the applicant has submitted as far as a plan. If you could move it up with... And if you could move it up to show the site plan, please. Thank you. That includes having a garage on the front of the building. Within this proposal, when we first met, we talked about the problem with sort of having that type of situation right there in the front, and he is amenable to changing that direction of the garage so you access that on the side. You drive down the side and access it. So this would be the first proposal. And he would be making that windows, and then there would be a deck on the rear of this property. If we can go to the second proposal, Martin. If we can go to the second proposal, Martin. This is obviously the second proposal, and this would be a flipped plan. So the plan would be the same except the garage would be on the south side instead of the north side of the property. You look at the actual location of it being placed on Caden Lane. And there, again, would be a deck in the back. This plan calls for vinyl or some kind of clapboard siding. He would change that to brick, have a brick veneer, and it also would have soffits and fascia would all be aluminum or vinyl. Excuse me. If we could go to the next proposal, Martin. And this is the third of the proposals. This actually has a garage that is located on the rear of the property. And so you would drive down and turn in so that it would have a detached garage on the back, and there would also be a deck on the back. This, again, would be in a brick veneer and not in a siding, a clapboard siding. And it would also have the vinyl, fascia, and soffit board. The applicant is looking to build a single family on the site for a couple and is looking for direction for the board for a plan that would work on the site location before prior purchasing to any of these plans. So the guidelines are included for reference. And as this is a conceptual review, we don't have any findings, but there are issues to be considered within the guidelines. First question, does the new build have the same number of stories and is with 10% of the average height of the adjacent buildings? Is the setback consistent with other structures on Caden Lane? Does the architectural details and articulation of new construction relate in scale, rhythm, proportion, and texture to adjacent surrounding historic buildings? Number four, is the complexity of building form and shape compatible with adjacent buildings? Five, do the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of new buildings reflect the predominant proportion, emphasis, and rhythm of adjacent surrounding buildings? Six, is the open space adjoining the street developed in scale character with the neighborhood? Seven, are the utilities replaced where they are less visible and intrusive to the site? Eight, are the openings compatible in scale, size, proportion, to establish patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings? Nine, does the roof of the new building relate in shape, pitch, and materials to the roof of adjacent and surrounding buildings? Ten, are the materials and scales of the buildings in which they are located compatible with materials on the adjacent and surrounding buildings? We have no recommendations at this time, and the applicant is present. Do you have questions? I have one question. What are the buildings on the adjacent pieces of property like? They range from one to one and a half story buildings. They range from siding, consisting of vinyl siding, and then I guess wood, and then there are also brick structures on Caden Lane and within the area. There are a couple of garages that are attached that are known in this area, and there are many structures that have detached garages. This is an interesting area because there are differing site setbacks, and there are differing material uses. Predominantly, I think that there are probably, I think we looked at a lot of the sites, about four to five buildings have a setback that is more than 40 feet, and then predominantly you've got some that range between 30 to 60 feet, but there are some that range further. There's a mix in this area. And the setback proposed here is what? 100 feet. I mean, one of the questions that you ask is whether the building is within 10% of the ceiling height, and I don't know how to deal with that given the information we have here. Right, I understand. This building, I think, in the dimensions that are given was, I can't remember the height, but it was, If you could see, harken back to the earlier photo we had of the church next door, that's actually in higher territory than the proposed area, so. I'm actually familiar with the territory. If I had to pick between the three, I would pick two, and I would pick two and not brick it. I would clapboard it because I think it's probably a little more contextual out there, though there is brick out there, just a side comment. Would you like to give us your name? Sorry, that's okay. Thank you for your time. What's your name? I would like to say that I enjoyed one of the cases because I own a house right beside Mr. Whitehouse, so I lucked into that this evening. But there's so much out there on this, and even Alan Seals' house is so far back off the road, so it's not like you see one thing and you could repeat it. Could you give us your name? Jeff Morgan. Where do you live? I live in Winchester now. I used to live here, but I needed some land. We just need that for the record. I still have a lot of homes here, though. Go ahead, Mr. Mallard. You were talking about picking two. Knowing the area, I think probably the 100 feet or 60, and the materials vary. The reason I was picking two was because scale-wise I think it's probably a little more. It's not a two-story, and it's got a fairly nice look to it, and it's got a lot of things going on. It would work very nicely with a garage, the way you want to enter it on the side when you flip the plan. And it's got some character to it, more so than the other two. I'm not real fond of big windows. I like windows, double-hung windows. More traditional. More traditional. On the setback, if she can put maybe one of the pictures back that shows those storm structures. I don't know how you'd do that. Yeah, or some of the pictures. Maybe that one photo that showed. There's some storm on the site that's specific to Link Belt's detention basin that's behind this lot. Maybe it'll show you. Or maybe just the site plan, Amelia. That'll at least show kind of a penciled location on those storm structures. I know this is kind of rough. I'm a builder. I'm not an engineer. But you see this line on the right side of the lot? That is an existing 36-inch storm line from Link Belt's detention basin on the very back. So the location of the house on the lot is really dictated by that storm easement. There's two surface structures. We're going to have to replace the lids. They're not up to code. I took my engineer over there, and he said, man, not a problem. But see those boxes that I've drawn? So I've got to stay back. And it's not to scale, but I've got to stay back off those boxes, and I've got to stay far enough away from the storm easement running through the lot. So that's why the setback is. . . It's not like I looked at all the houses and said, okay, this is how I should do the setback. I had to look at the location of that storm and try to work around it. Does that make sense? Yeah. In terms of the houses immediately adjacent to you, are you in roughly the same area of setback? Yes. Okay. So it's not going to be like house, snaggle, house. Right. They're all very deep lots, as you can tell. Yeah. And, you know, these lots on the right, 731, and then, well, you're familiar with the area, Mr. Ballard. Those are empty lots. The only really adjacent property is the church. And then you come across the street, and there's a branch that's set way back, even further than I want to put this one. So your figure is number two? I guess the direction. . . I think style-wise and just the plan. . . Sure. That's a good-looking house. Pretty nice. Yeah. We just need a direction because it's expensive to buy a set of plans. It's $700 or $800. I think part of our problem is I've made one trip out there, and I've not done an extensive survey. Okay. My gut is telling me that the third house might be more. . . Amelia, am I dead wrong on that, that the third house might be more similar? Or is there such a range of house styles that. . . There's a better range of house styles, but you could find more. . . If you pick this one out of a lineup to match some of the similar other ones, that would probably be more in keeping with some of the houses out there because. . . Number three. Many of them have front porches. Many of them have. . . Overhangs and that kind of thing. Right. So that is actually a much more similar project. That was actually my reaction, too, that three has more of the appearance, I think, of what typically has been out there. I think it's true there are ranch houses and other things out there, but I think the more traditional houses that have been there are more like three, I would think. I mean, I can be persuaded otherwise. Sure. The only disadvantage to number three is it's quite a bit larger house. It's got the bonus room upstairs, so it pushes the cost of the house higher. Yeah. I mean, have you looked at other houses that might be similar to that? I mean, this is just one plan. Sure. I've looked at two different books. If this is too large, maybe there's something else that's like that that you'd want to consider. Find something that. . . Yeah. Well, the footprint of that house is really. . . You know, it's actually easier to work with because it's narrow, but it's that space upstairs that pitches the roof a little higher, and you catch a little space upstairs. I guess I'm just simply responding more to the form of the house. Oh, I see. Not to necessarily the detail or the size of it. You know, I don't object to number two either for that matter. I noticed that someone penciled in favorite. What? Oh, yeah. Someone had penciled in favorite on that. A little sushi. We were looking at them all. This is the favorite. That's what I'm doing right now. We look at so many designs. There you are. I'm outnumbered, so. I think. . . They're all good-looking houses. As I said, I think this probably does. . . probably has some of the elements that are more characteristic of some of the houses that are out there. At least the older houses, because they tend to have front porches, and they tend to be more single form, you know, simpler kind of form houses. However, you know, I think having said all that, maybe, and this is kind of the favorite. Sure. Maybe you ought to look and see if there are other variations on this that you could find that, you know, before you finally decide on this one. But I do think in a way this would contextually, you know, seem to fit work in the area. Okay. Thank you. From what I've seen in the neighborhood, this house just seems to read right for what it's worth. Yeah, that was my gut reaction. When I looked through here, I thought the third one was really the one. The best one? See, I always like being a little different, but that's okay. Okay. Well, we appreciate it. We look forward to putting a house in this neighborhood. Does the staff have any comments to make? Well, I believe that from the character of Cadentown as a historic hamlet, that I, too, would suggest number three, door number three, would be stylistically and form-wise the most compatible. As we've all already noted, there is a lot of variety out there. But, you know, the main character, of course, is house on a large lot and so forth, any one of which that would address. But I think the form of this one is more vernacular, if you will, and in that sense would be quite successful, something in this mode to be compatible with the district. The problem I had with it are the windows. You know, I think it would be much more successful with a single double-hung window on each side rather than those large glass that appear to be doors or something or casements or something. I'm just not a casement guy. Yeah, change out the windows, and then I think you'll have a more... Yeah, and then you've got a very nice-looking farmhouse, which is what it's more successful. I thought we had a choice of exactly the way they are, so, you know. My house looks great. I like that design. I hope this is helpful to you. It is. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. All right. Come up to the next meeting and have a little site plan planned. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming. We appreciate it. Sorry you had to wait so long. I enjoyed watching the other case. Maybe we'll let you sit up here in the future. Well, you know, I've worked successfully with Mr. Whitehouse. All right. And a great neighbor. Good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We have to approve some minutes. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming and look forward to working with you. Okay. I'm going to dive in here. I move we approve the Board of Architectural Review minutes for November 14, 2007. I'll second. All right. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. I move adjourn. Second. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you.