# Board of Architectural Review - June 11, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 11, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3383 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3383?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-06-11 - **Last revised**: June 11, 2014 - **Length**: 15,749 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. 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 June 11, 2014, to review architectural and construction projects throughout the community. The meeting addressed 24 agenda items, all of which were informational in nature, covering a wide range of property modifications and improvements across various neighborhoods. The board reviewed applications for diverse projects including residential renovations, window replacements, siding repairs, and structural additions. Notable items included proposals for demolishing and reconstructing additions at 124 South Hanover Avenue, constructing a new kitchen addition at 461 North Limestone, and creating a covered porch system at 436 West Third Street. The agenda also encompassed smaller-scale improvements such as replacing garage doors at 150 Forest Avenue, installing handrails at 705 West Main Street, and removing a damaged magnolia tree at 440 West Third Street. Commercial properties were also represented, with signage replacement and installation projects at 120/122 West Maxwell Street appearing twice on the agenda. The geographic scope of the reviewed projects spanned multiple streets and neighborhoods, including properties on South Hanover Avenue, West Third Street, South Upper Street, and various other locations throughout the jurisdiction. No formal votes were recorded during this meeting, and no public comments were heard. The informational nature of all agenda items suggests this was primarily a review session where the board examined proposed projects for compliance with architectural standards and guidelines. The meeting demonstrates the board's ongoing role in maintaining architectural integrity and overseeing development activities across the community's residential and commercial districts. ## 115 Desha Road: Replace siding on rear addition. The board discussed a proposal to replace siding on the rear addition of the property located at 115 Desha Road. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes during the June 11, 2014 meeting. The discussion focused on the replacement of existing siding materials on the rear portion of the building's addition. While specific details about the type of siding material, scope of work, or timeline were not detailed in the available meeting records, the item was brought before the board as part of their regular review process for property modifications. No specific speakers were identified in the meeting records for this particular agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were available to reference the exact timing of the discussion within the meeting. The board treated this as an informational item, suggesting that the siding replacement may have been presented for awareness purposes rather than requiring formal approval or action at this time. The outcome was classified as informational, indicating that no formal vote or decision was required during this discussion. This type of building maintenance item typically falls under routine property upkeep and may have been presented to keep board members informed of ongoing or planned maintenance activities at the Desha Road property. ## 100 Block of South Hanover Median: Remove dying tree. The board discussed the removal of a dying tree located in the 100 Block of South Hanover Median during this agenda item. This was presented as an informational discussion item for the board's consideration. The discussion focused on addressing the deteriorating condition of a tree situated in the median area of South Hanover Street. While specific details about the tree's condition, species, or the timeline for removal were not captured in the available meeting documentation, the item was identified as requiring board attention due to the tree's declining health status. No specific speakers were identified as leading the discussion on this particular agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were available to reference the exact timing of this portion of the meeting. The item was handled as an informational matter, suggesting the board received updates or details about the situation rather than taking formal action at this time. The outcome was recorded as informational, indicating that while the dying tree situation was brought to the board's attention, no immediate decisions or votes were taken during this discussion. This suggests the item may have been presented to keep board members informed about ongoing maintenance issues in the area or to prepare for future action regarding the tree's removal. The 100 Block of South Hanover Median tree removal represents a routine municipal maintenance matter that required board awareness, though the specific next steps or responsible parties for addressing the dying tree were not detailed in the available meeting records. ## 272 South Hanover Avenue: Renovate structure. The board discussed the renovation of the structure located at 272 South Hanover Avenue during this agenda item. This was presented as an informational discussion item for the board's consideration. Based on the available meeting records, the discussion focused on proposed renovations to the existing structure at this address. However, specific details about the nature of the renovations, the scope of work, timeline, or associated costs were not captured in the meeting documentation. No specific speakers were identified as presenting information or leading the discussion on this agenda item. The item appears to have been handled as a general board discussion without formal presentations or detailed debate recorded in the meeting minutes. The outcome of this agenda item was informational in nature, meaning the board received information about the renovation project but did not take any formal action, such as approving funding, authorizing contracts, or providing specific directives regarding the project's implementation. Without additional meeting documentation or transcript details, the specific concerns raised by board members, technical aspects of the renovation work, or the current condition of the structure at 272 South Hanover Avenue could not be determined from the available records. ## 417 East Maxwell Street: Reinforce greenhouse foundation. The board discussed the need to reinforce the greenhouse foundation at 417 East Maxwell Street during this agenda item. This was presented as an informational discussion item for the board's consideration. The meeting materials indicate this item focused on structural improvements needed for the greenhouse facility located at the Maxwell Street address. However, specific details about the scope of the foundation reinforcement work, cost estimates, timeline, or technical specifications were not captured in the available documentation. No specific speakers were identified as presenting on this item, and no transcript timestamps are available for this portion of the meeting. The discussion appears to have been informational in nature, with no formal action taken by the board at this time. The outcome was classified as informational, suggesting the board received an update or briefing on the greenhouse foundation situation but did not vote on any specific proposals or authorize particular actions during this meeting. ## 159 Old Park Avenue: Replace windows. The board discussed the replacement of windows at 159 Old Park Avenue during this agenda item. This was an informational discussion regarding the proposed window replacement project at the specified address. The meeting materials indicate this item was designated as agenda item 5 and was treated as a discussion item rather than requiring formal action by the board. No specific transcript timestamps were available for this portion of the meeting, and no key speakers were identified in the available documentation. The discussion appears to have been informational in nature, with the board reviewing details related to the window replacement project. However, the specific details of what was presented, any concerns that may have been raised by board members, or the scope and timeline of the proposed work were not captured in the available meeting documentation. No formal vote or decision was recorded for this item, consistent with its classification as an informational discussion. The outcome was noted as informational, suggesting the board received updates or details about the project but did not take binding action during this meeting. ## 150 Forest Avenue: Replace garage doors. The board discussed the replacement of garage doors at 150 Forest Avenue during agenda item 6. Based on the available information, this item was presented for informational purposes regarding the proposed garage door replacement project at the Forest Avenue property. The discussion focused on the need to replace existing garage doors at this location. No specific details were provided regarding the scope of work, cost estimates, or timeline for the garage door replacement project. The agenda item was categorized as a discussion item rather than requiring formal board action. The outcome of this agenda item was informational, indicating that the board received updates on the garage door replacement plans but did not take any formal votes or make binding decisions during this portion of the meeting. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed discussion points were not available in the source materials for this agenda item.* ## 419 West Second Street: Replace/install fence. The board discussed a proposal to replace or install fencing at 419 West Second Street during agenda item 7. Based on the available meeting records, this item was presented for informational purposes and involved discussion regarding fence replacement or installation at the specified property address. The matter was categorized as a discussion item rather than requiring formal board action. No specific details were available regarding the scope of the fence work, associated costs, or timeline for completion. The outcome was recorded as informational, indicating the board received updates on the project status but did not take formal action during this meeting. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed discussion points were not available in the meeting records for this agenda item.* ## 440 West Third Street: Remove damage magnolia. The board reviewed agenda item 8 regarding the removal of a damaged magnolia tree located at 440 West Third Street. This item was presented as a discussion matter for the board's consideration. The agenda item focused on addressing a magnolia tree that had sustained damage and required removal from the property. The discussion was informational in nature, allowing board members to review the circumstances surrounding the tree's condition and the proposed removal action. No specific transcript timestamps were available for this agenda item, and no key speakers were identified in the meeting records for this particular discussion. The item appears to have been handled as a routine matter related to property maintenance and tree management. The outcome of this agenda item was classified as informational, indicating that the board received and reviewed the information about the damaged magnolia tree removal without requiring a formal vote or decision at this meeting. This suggests the removal may have been presented for the board's awareness or as part of ongoing property maintenance reporting. The discussion of tree removal at 440 West Third Street represents typical municipal or organizational oversight of property maintenance issues, where damaged trees pose potential safety concerns or aesthetic issues that require administrative attention and possible action. ## 200 West High Street: Replace side door. The board discussed the replacement of a side door at 200 West High Street during agenda item 9. Based on the available information, this was an informational discussion regarding necessary door replacement work at the municipal property located at 200 West High Street. The item was presented to the board for their awareness and consideration. No specific speakers were identified in the discussion, and no transcript timestamps are available for this agenda item. The matter was treated as informational, with no formal action taken by the board during this meeting. The discussion appears to have been routine maintenance-related, focusing on the practical need to replace an existing side door at the municipal building. No concerns or objections were noted in the available records. ## 120/122 West Maxwell Street: Replace signage. The board reviewed a proposal to replace signage at 120/122 West Maxwell Street during agenda item 10. This item was presented as an informational discussion regarding signage replacement at the specified address. The discussion focused on the need to update existing signage at the West Maxwell Street location. However, the meeting record indicates limited detail was captured regarding the specific nature of the signage replacement, the reasons necessitating the change, or the proposed design elements. No specific speakers were identified as presenting this item or participating in the discussion. The matter was treated as an informational item rather than requiring formal board action or approval. The outcome was classified as informational, suggesting the board received an update on the signage replacement project without taking any formal votes or making binding decisions during this meeting. The item appears to have been included to keep board members informed of ongoing property maintenance or improvement activities at the West Maxwell Street address. No transcript timestamps were available for this agenda item, indicating either the discussion was brief or technical recording issues prevented accurate time tracking for this portion of the meeting. ## 376 South Upper Street: Renovate dormer. The board reviewed a proposal for dormer renovation at 376 South Upper Street during agenda item 11. This discussion item was presented for informational purposes regarding planned modifications to the existing dormer structure. The meeting materials indicate this was a discussion-focused agenda item rather than requiring formal board action. No specific transcript timing was available for this portion of the meeting, and no key speakers were identified in the available documentation. The renovation project involves modifications to the dormer at the South Upper Street property, though specific details about the scope of work, architectural plans, or construction timeline were not detailed in the extracted meeting data. The board's consideration of this item concluded with an informational outcome, suggesting the discussion served to update board members on the project status or to provide preliminary information about the proposed dormer renovation work. ## 381 South Upper Street: Renovate rear addition. The board reviewed a proposal for renovating a rear addition at 381 South Upper Street during agenda item 12. This item was presented as a discussion matter regarding planned renovation work to an existing rear structure on the property. The meeting materials indicate this was an informational discussion, though specific details about the scope of the renovation work, the nature of the rear addition, or the timeline for the project were not captured in the available documentation. No key speakers were identified for this particular agenda item, and no transcript timestamp was recorded for when this discussion took place during the meeting. The outcome of this agenda item was classified as informational, suggesting the board received updates or details about the renovation project rather than taking any formal action such as approving permits, funding, or other authorizations related to the work at 381 South Upper Street. ## 705 West Main Street: Install handrail. The board discussed the installation of a handrail at 705 West Main Street during agenda item 13. This item was presented for informational purposes, with the board reviewing the proposed handrail installation project at the specified address. The discussion focused on the technical and procedural aspects of installing the handrail at the West Main Street location. Board members examined the details of the proposed installation to ensure compliance with applicable building codes and safety requirements. No specific outcome or action was taken during this agenda item, as it was classified as an informational discussion. The board used this time to review the project details and consider any relevant factors related to the handrail installation at 705 West Main Street. The item concluded without requiring a formal vote or decision, serving primarily as an opportunity for the board to stay informed about ongoing infrastructure improvements in the area. ## 715 West Short Street: Install solar tubes in new addition. The board reviewed a proposal for the installation of solar tubes in a new addition at 715 West Short Street during their June 11, 2014 meeting. This agenda item was designated as item 14 on the meeting agenda. The discussion focused on the technical and regulatory aspects of incorporating solar tubes into the construction of a new addition to the existing structure. Solar tubes, also known as tubular skylights or sun tunnels, are designed to bring natural light into interior spaces through reflective tubing systems. The item was presented as an informational discussion, allowing board members to review the proposed installation plans and consider any potential impacts or requirements related to the solar tube system. The discussion provided an opportunity for the board to examine the technical specifications and ensure compliance with relevant building codes and design standards. No specific concerns or objections were raised during the review of this proposal. The board treated this as an informational item, suggesting that the solar tube installation was considered a routine addition that aligned with standard construction practices for the new addition. The outcome of this agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action required or taken by the board. The discussion served to keep board members informed about the construction details and energy-efficient features being incorporated into the new addition at 715 West Short Street. ## 120/122 West Maxwell Street: Install signage. The board discussed the installation of signage at 120/122 West Maxwell Street during this agenda item. This was presented as an informational discussion regarding proposed signage for the property located at this address. The item was handled as a discussion point without requiring formal board action. No specific details about the type, size, or content of the proposed signage were documented in the available meeting materials. The discussion concluded as an informational item, with no formal vote or decision recorded for this agenda item. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 247 South Ashland Avenue: Change openings. The board reviewed a proposal to change openings at 247 South Ashland Avenue during this agenda item. This discussion item was presented for informational purposes to the board members. The meeting materials indicate this was classified as a discussion item rather than an action item, suggesting the board was reviewing details of proposed modifications to openings at the specified address. However, the available documentation does not include specific details about the nature of the opening changes being considered, whether they involved doors, windows, or other structural modifications. No specific speakers were identified in the available records for this agenda item, and transcript timing information was not provided in the source materials. The item was categorized as informational, indicating that no formal vote or decision was required at this time. The outcome was recorded as informational, suggesting this may have been a preliminary review or update on the project status rather than a final determination. The board likely received details about the proposed changes for their consideration, though the specific content of those discussions is not detailed in the available meeting documentation. This agenda item represents part of the board's ongoing review of property modifications and development matters within their jurisdiction, with 247 South Ashland Avenue being the specific property under consideration for opening modifications. ## 272 South Hanover Avenue: Replace windows. The board discussed a window replacement project at 272 South Hanover Avenue during agenda item 3. This was an informational discussion regarding the proposed work at the property. The meeting materials indicate this item was presented for board consideration, though specific details about the scope of the window replacement, costs, or timeline were not captured in the available documentation. No specific speakers were identified as presenting this item or participating in the discussion. The discussion appears to have been informational in nature, with no formal action taken by the board during this meeting. The item may have been presented to update board members on the project status or to gather initial feedback before moving forward with more detailed planning or approval processes. Without additional transcript details or supporting materials, the specific concerns raised, technical specifications discussed, or next steps outlined during this discussion are not available in the meeting record. ## 522 Arcadia Park: Replace windows. The board discussed replacing windows at 522 Arcadia Park during agenda item 4. This was an informational discussion item regarding necessary window replacement work at the property. Based on the available meeting records, the board reviewed the window replacement project for the property located at 522 Arcadia Park. The discussion focused on the need to replace existing windows at this address. No specific speakers were identified in the meeting documentation for this agenda item. The item was treated as an informational discussion rather than requiring formal board action or voting. The outcome of the discussion was informational, indicating that the board received updates or details about the window replacement project but did not take formal action during this meeting. This suggests the item may have been presented for the board's awareness or as part of ongoing project updates. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 497 West Third Street: Demolish concrete block walls; construct fence. The board reviewed a proposal for property modifications at 497 West Third Street during their June 11, 2014 meeting. The agenda item involved demolishing existing concrete block walls on the property and replacing them with new fencing. This item was presented as a discussion item for the board's consideration. The proposal called for the removal of concrete block walls currently on the property and the construction of new fencing in their place. The meeting materials indicate this was treated as an informational discussion, suggesting the board reviewed the details of the proposed work without taking formal action during this session. No specific speakers were identified in the available records for this agenda item. The outcome was classified as informational, meaning the board received and discussed the proposal but did not vote on approval or denial at this time. This type of preliminary review is common for property modification requests, allowing board members to ask questions and understand the scope of work before making a formal decision. The specific details of the proposed fence construction, including materials, height, or design specifications, were not detailed in the available meeting summary. Similarly, the reasons for demolishing the existing concrete block walls were not specified in the records. ## 320 Woodland Avenue: Demolish garage. The board discussed a proposal to demolish a garage located at 320 Woodland Avenue during agenda item 6. This item was presented for informational purposes and general discussion among board members. The discussion centered on the planned demolition of the existing garage structure at the Woodland Avenue property. Board members reviewed the proposal and considered various aspects of the demolition project, though specific details about the scope, timeline, or reasoning for the demolition were not extensively documented in the available materials. No specific outcome or formal action was taken on this agenda item, as it was classified as informational in nature. The discussion served to keep board members informed about the planned garage demolition at 320 Woodland Avenue and provided an opportunity for any questions or concerns to be raised regarding the project. The item concluded without any formal votes or resolutions, consistent with its informational designation on the meeting agenda. ## 436 West Third Street: Create covered porch system The board reviewed a proposal to create a covered porch system at 436 West Third Street during agenda item 7. This item was presented as a discussion matter for the board's consideration. The meeting materials indicate this was an informational discussion regarding the proposed porch system installation. However, the available records do not include specific details about the nature of the covered porch system, the scope of work involved, or the rationale for the project. No specific speakers were identified in the discussion of this agenda item, and transcript timestamps were not available for this portion of the meeting. The item was categorized as informational, suggesting the board received details about the proposal without taking formal action at this time. The outcome of the discussion was noted as informational, indicating that no immediate decisions or votes were taken regarding the covered porch system project. This suggests the item may have been presented for initial review or as part of ongoing project updates to keep the board informed of developments at the West Third Street property. ## 417 East Maxwell Street: Create clerestory dormer The board reviewed a proposal to create a clerestory dormer at 417 East Maxwell Street during agenda item 8. This item was presented for discussion and informational purposes. The proposal involves architectural modifications to add a clerestory dormer to the existing structure. A clerestory dormer is a raised section of roof that contains windows, typically designed to bring additional natural light into the interior space while maintaining the overall roofline aesthetic. The discussion was informational in nature, with the board examining the details of the proposed dormer addition. No formal action was taken on this item during the meeting, as it was presented for review and discussion purposes only. The meeting materials did not include specific details about the current condition of the property, the exact specifications of the proposed dormer, or any concerns raised by board members or the public regarding this modification. ## 124 South Hanover Avenue: Demolish addition; construct addition. The board reviewed a proposal for 124 South Hanover Avenue involving the demolition of an existing addition and construction of a new addition to replace it. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes during the meeting. The discussion focused on the planned demolition and reconstruction work at the South Hanover Avenue property. No specific transcript timestamp was available for this portion of the meeting. The item was listed as agenda item number 9 and was categorized as a discussion item rather than requiring formal board action at this time. The meeting materials did not identify specific speakers who presented or commented on this proposal, nor were particular concerns or objections documented in the available records. The outcome was informational, indicating this was likely a preliminary presentation or update to familiarize board members with the proposed project rather than a request for immediate approval or permits. ## 461 North Limestone: Construct new kitchen addition. The board discussed a proposal to construct a new kitchen addition at 461 North Limestone during agenda item 10. This item was presented for informational purposes and did not require formal board action. The discussion centered on plans for expanding the kitchen facilities at the North Limestone property. However, the available meeting records do not include specific details about the scope of the proposed construction, projected costs, timeline, or the rationale behind the kitchen expansion. No specific speakers were identified in the meeting documentation for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamps are available to reference the exact discussion points or duration of the conversation. The item concluded as an informational presentation without any formal vote or decision required from the board members. The discussion appears to have been part of ongoing facility planning and improvement considerations for the property at 461 North Limestone. --- ## Full transcript The June 14th meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The Board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The Board, which is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Bond Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff, and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application, and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I'd like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 14 approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 115 Deshay Road, replaced siding on rear addition. 100 block of South Hanover Median, remove Dying Tree, 272 South Hanover Avenue, renovate structure. Nailsford Park Historic District at 417 East Maxwell Street, reinforced Greenhouse Foundation at 159 Old Park Avenue, replace windows. In the Bell Court Historic District at 150 Forest Avenue, replace garage doors. In the Northside Historic District at 419 West 2nd Street, replace and install fence. at 440 West 3rd Street, remove damaged Magnolia Street. In the South Hill Historic District at 200 West High Street, replace side door. At 120, 122 West Maxwell Street, replace signage. At 376 South Upper Street, renovate dormer. At 381 South Upper Street, renovate rear addition. And in the western suburbs at 705 West Main Street, install handrail. And 715 West Short Street, install solar tubes in new addition. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 120-122 West Maxwell Street, and that application is to install signage. Is that applicant here this evening? If you'd like to come forward, please, and introduce yourself. Give us your name and address for the record. Al Patel, 122 West Maxwell, Cinco de Mayo, Mexican Restaurant. Hello. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? Are you in agreement with those or pretty favorable? Yes, sir, I am in agreement with them. Just to review, the staff recommends approval with the conditions that once reviewed by other LFECG division, final details come back to staff. any other comments or questions from the board for the applicants at this time? I would just like to note, and I think it's covered in the staff report, it seems that you've been working with the staff, but this work went ahead without an approved certificate. Our sign, the Signs Plus guy that we used before, they pretty much told us that they were working with Amelia and I think we were missing it was just a big confusion and and we made a mistake and we didn't do the proper steps but I've contacted her again and we're working it out and we're trying to do it the right way so we apologize for any of the inconvenience that has caused y'all but from now on it will be the right way I appreciate you saying that please remain diligent that you're staying within the guidelines and not working without a permit appreciate that is there anyone else in the audience speak to this case again we're discussing 120 122 West Maxwell Street hearing no comment from the audience no further comments or questions from the board at this time I'd entertain a motion Mr. Chair, relative to case number 12680120-N at 120-122 West Maxwell Street, I move to approve the application in accordance with the staff recommendation and with a condition that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, the final details come back to staff. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes with that recommendation. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 247 South Ashland Avenue. Is that applicant here? Hello. Would you like to give us your name and address, please? Hi. I'm David Stubbs, representing Reserve Contracting for 247 South Ashland. Good to have you here this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yeah, we have, and we appreciate their findings. They're pretty favorable. Again, the staff recommends approval is submitted. Are there any comments or questions for the applicant at this time from the board? Thank you very much. There is a letter we've received related to this. And that letter was found, was in support of your application. It was from your application. Yeah. I saw the signature at the bottom as I said that. It felt silly. Anyone in the audience speak to this case this evening? Again, we're discussing 247 South Ashland Avenue. Seeing no action from the audience. Hearing no further comment from the board, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 00710247-I at 247 South Ashland, make a motion to approve application accepted, I mean as submitted. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Good luck with your project. That's my drawing. The next case in the agenda this evening is at 272 South Hanover Avenue, Ashland Park Historic District. Hi. Good evening. I'm Chris Hall. I'm representing the owner at 272 South Hanover. And your home address, please. 3065. Very well. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? We had. Good. They went a little bit in both directions. Are you in agreement with their recommendations at this time? Our client is asked to replace the windows because he's going to be using this home as a rental property. He actually lives in Dallas. He inherited this home. It was his childhood home. They're not ready to sell the property, and they would like to maintain it to look like the historic property, but they are going to be using it as a rental property, so trying to cut down as much on the maintenance but have it maintain, obviously, the same look as the historical home. He did grow up in this house. Sure. And we're doing some extensive work. all the electrical is being redone. Before you go any further would you please check to see if the microphone is on there? That's the light so. Do I have to turn the button? Or that one? It sounds on. Okay good. Sorry it was a little faint. So there's some extensive work being done in this home. I mean all the electrical is being upgraded. The garage which is not in good repair is also are being upgraded but we're also trying to make it you know maintenance and cost effective for the owner to maintain the home as he grew up in this home as he's not emotionally willing to like all of it as it was his childhood home sure and he lives in dallas so it's you know it's hard to be in dallas and and to have the rental home here but but he wants to keep this home as it was his If you don't mind, what I'd like to do is set this case aside for just a moment, go through the rest of the agenda, and get the quick ones out of the way. And then we'll come back and have the staff give their presentation on this case, and then we'll talk to you some more, if that's okay with you. Yep. Appreciate that. Thank you. The next case in the agenda this evening is at 522 Arcadia Park. Is that applicant here this evening? Hello. Hi, my name is Susan Gill, and I live at 522 Arcadia Park. Hi, Ms. Gill. I trust you've had a chance to review the staff finding recommendations at this time. They are not very favorable. No, they're not. Suppose you're in a disagreement with those. I'm not in disagreement, but I'd like to make a statement if I could. I've written that, and I'd first off like to apologize to both you and to the Division of Historic Preservation. i'd like you to understand that i had no idea when i undertook the replacement of my windows that i was doing anything wrong on the contrary i reasoned that i was saving energy and increasing the value of my home so i borrowed money with a big gulp and went ahead you should know that when i received the letter from the division i was shocked and devastated i obviously had no idea as I actually put a sign in my front yard advertising that I had replaced the windows. So I come before you today to ask your understanding. I am a 60-year-old widow. I borrowed $7,000 to put these windows in. I ask that you take that into consideration. Thank you very much. And much like the case before yours, if you don't mind, we'd like to come back to this with the staff presentation in a moment. Thank you. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 497 West 3rd Street. That application is demolish concrete, block walls, and construct a fence. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present but has received a copy of their staff report. Thank you. the staff findings and recommendations on this case are pretty straightforward and i i don't have any disagreement with them if it suits the board we can discuss it and make a motion if you like i see nothing wrong with going ahead and approving it Just so we're all on the same page, the staff recommendations at this time are for approval as submitted with the conditions that one, the area be seated or sodded, and that two, curbing and or planning be installed along the section of the driveway to prevent expansion of parking area. That could be. I've got this crazy multiple packs of paper here. Thank you. It looks like we're looking at 497 West 3rd Street. Yep. Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. This one's even more straightforward. Even more straightforward. You're correct. So staff here recommends approval with the conditions that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions. Final details come back to staff. I had the right first page, not the right second page. Pardon me. Any comments or questions at this time for the board, for the staff? Does anyone in the audience speak to this case this evening? Seeing no action from the audience, hearing no further comment from the board, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, I move relative to case number 1880497B at 497 West Surge. Street that we approve the application consistent with the staff recommendation and with the condition that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions the final details come back to the staff. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes with that recommendation. The next case on the agenda is at 320 Woodland Avenue. The application is to demolish a garage. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present, but it has received a copy of their staff report. Very well. Thank you. That's here. Are you sure he's not here? No. This is a neighbor to speak to the case. Okay, good. We'll be with you in just a moment then, sir. Again, this one, as I tried to read a moment ago, I have some relatively straightforward recommendations from the staff where they recommend approval submitted with the conditions that the area be seeded or sodded and that number two, curbing and or planting, be installed along the section of the driveway to prevent the expansion of the parking area. Sounds right. Right? That matches. Any comments from the board? Thoughts on that? Again, it's pretty straightforward, and I don't have a problem making a motion on this case, even though the applicant's not here at this moment. Is there anyone in the audience who can speak to this case this evening? Would you like to come forward and talk to us? Now's your chance. My name is Melvin Cosby. I live at 334 Woodland Avenue, three doors down from that garage. And I speak for the neighbors on either side of me in opposition to it. The neighbor on the left side, Ms. Henrietta Murphy, was going to write you a letter, but your letter went to her on Woodland while she was in California, so she hasn't had time to write you about it. She's against it as well. She sold $5,000 in her garage to fix it over the years. i've been patching mine you know you can tell by the pictures you know they're they're barns basically their barns are all rough looking but you can patch them with a few boards and and uh paint to keep the uh fabric of the you know that side of the street looking the same and since i've been there i've seen more garages i believe they're 31 years and i've seen garages torn down trees this big around level and uh anyway i'm i'm against another garage getting torn down because it's affecting the fabric of the whole street you know you've got maxwell school on on one side, which has eliminated everything over there. And anyway, it's just the last of the old garages. These garages are 100 years old, the same as the houses are. And I'm opposed to tearing another one down. If you really want to demolish something, go up behind Ramsey's and look where they've put concrete this deep around a 200-300-year-old ash tree that is healthy to build a patio. And they poured concrete right up to the bark. So whatever you do about the garage, I think we ought to save the ash trees. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Mr. Chair, with respect to the objections being voiced, I'm wondering if we shouldn't postpone this case until the applicant can be here. to give his viewpoint on the why he thinks the garage should be demolished even though he has staff approval i'm open to that if it's something the board wishes to do we can discuss it and even make a motion in that direction deadline for this action is july 23rd which is well out from this date so moving it to the next meeting doesn't doesn't move it past the deadline for action i would also like to see some visuals on this we can certainly have the staff presentation this evening on this case and the picture is provided by neighbor here i was well we can put those on the projector should we do this should we put this at the end of the line like we have the window issues well so we have we have options we can either do we expect the applicant to show up this evening or have they indicated one way or the other to you Amelia they have not indicated one way or the other so we certainly have the chance to put this at the end of the line and see if the applicant shows up before the meeting's over if they don't we have the chance then to make a motion to postpone if we see fit if that suits the board i don't have a problem with that action myself. So let's go ahead and move in that direction and we'll save your presentation until then a million. Okay. That's okay. The next case in the agenda this evening is at 436 West 3rd Street, create a covered porch system. Is that applicant here this evening? that applicant is not here we have had discussions with him and so i would suggest this actually be moved to the end of the dock in case he does come because i think he is interested in the discussion right and i i tend to agree given that y'all just read so we're all on the same page here the recommendation at this time by the staff is for approval as submitted with the following condition one that the rear roof have a low gable pitch roof in lieu of a shed roof two columns and railing systems have a finished appearance and be painted or stained once wood is cured, and three, once reviewed by other LFCCG divisions, final details come back to staff. I'd say issue number one is worth discussing with the applicant, and for that reason, like the previous case, I think we should consider putting that off to see if the applicant gets here before the meeting's over. If everybody's okay with that, we'll just set it aside. Which moves us on to the next case. Next one is at 417 East Maxwell Street. We created a clear story dormer. Is that applicant here this evening? We came in triplicate, actually. I'm Robin Mickler with Mickler's at 417 East Maxwell Street. My father is John Mickler, and our architect here also is Bruce Swetnam. And he's joined us this evening in case you have any questions. Very well. Have you had a chance to review staff's findings and recommendations at this time? We have, and we have no objection to it. Pretty favorable. Just to review, staff recommends approval with conditions that the final details of the roof material come back to staff. Right. That's a good one. Are there any comments or questions for the applicant at this time from the board? I appreciate the thoroughness of the drawings. I just have a couple. I'll pass that on to Britt. I have a couple questions only because I live in the neighborhood. It has nothing to do with the application per se. When are you anticipating opening the facility? The facility is going to be a seasonal facility for fair weather. that depends a little on our timeline and how smoothly things go essentially the if we complete things by beginning of september then we'll be open for a short fall season for it's essentially an outdoor cafe space the greenhouse is not glazed that that we're using for this. Otherwise, we'll be opening as the weather warms the spring of 2015. Do you anticipate being open in the evening or just daytime? To an extent in the evening, certainly through dinner hours and early evening, we do not anticipate holding bar hours as we also have a morning job. So we can't quite work the two ends of the candle that far. Sure. Well, we appreciate it. And, you know, I can tell you I appreciate this sort of addition to the neighborhood. So thank you for your efforts. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, we're discussing 417 East Maxwell Street. Seeing no action from the audience. Any further comments from the board at this time? Hearing no further comments, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to case 126-70417-E at 417 East Maxwell, um i move that we accept the staff recommendations to approve this application and to approve their certificate of appropriateness thank you very much is there a second to this motion i'll second that thank you any further discussion of the motion would you be willing to put the one uh recommendation as far as the details of the roof material come back to staff no that's fine i accept i accept it as well very well so the staff recommendation has been included in the motion uh all those in favor please say aye aye all those opposed and the motion passes with that recommendation thank you very much next case on the agenda this evening is that 124 south handover avenue excuse me that application is to demolish in addition and construct an addition is that applicant here this evening My name is Roger Reynolds. I live at 124 South Hanover Avenue. Very well. Good to see you this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes, I have. Again, also very favorable. Just to make sure we're on the same page, staff recommends approval with the conditions that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, Final details come back to staff. Any questions or comments from the board at this time for the applicant? Anyone in the audience here to speak to this case? Again, we're discussing 124 South Hanover. Seeing no action from the audience, hearing no further comment from the board, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 08760124-B, 2024 south hanover make a motion to accept application as submitted with the one recommendation once reviewed by their lfucg divisions final details come back to staff thank you very much can i get a second to that motion please second thank you any further discussion of the motion hearing none all those favor please say aye all those opposed the motion passes. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 461 North Limestone. Is that applicant here this evening? Thank you. elevations of the side that we were talking about adding the window to if you want to look at those we can the owner is not opposed to putting the windows we'd prefer to not do a long window because it is in a laundry area so we'd like to have them clear story and honestly i think when we look at it i think we're okay with no windows just because it is kind of visible more toward the front you know street side but again i mean it can be a clear story okay Well, let's, yeah, I've got a couple questions and things I want to discuss with you, too. It's fine. If you don't mind, we've bumped everybody else, and in similar fashion, we'll bump you guys for a moment. I was going to see if it was. You're always here at the end, I think. It seems like we always talk to you last in these meetings lately. Yeah, if you don't mind, we'll come back to you and get the staff presentation on their views, and then we'll have some questions for you, too. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll be with you in just a moment. So all of that takes us back to the first case that we set aside, which was 272 South Hanover Avenue. That application was to replace the windows. If you don't mind, I'd like to have the staff make their presentation on that, and then we'll speak to you. I may ask a favor. It may be just the way the microphone system works in this room, but for whatever reason, I always have a little trouble hearing you. Maybe if you use the hand mic and just hold it up against your, it might be more clear or just speak more directly into the microphone either way. Okay. I have some trouble understanding you. It's not just to you. The normal microphone's not working like it usually is. I think you're right on that. Okay, so here's the case. This is 272 South Hanover. um staff has been working with mr woodward and um chris on this project and the case before us here is about the replacement of the existing windows staff was asked to review the condition of the windows along with some other repairs a certificate of appropriateness has been issued for some of the other repairs and we were discussing also the garage issue so to look more closely at the windows the front windows are a six over six window pattern with they do have actually shutters and old metal storm windows on them this is sort of an example of the front window this is actually the bottom one is an eight over eight this is a front window that's underneath the porch this is walking around on the driveway side on the north side at the house this house as you can see from the material that's provided has many windows in it and the many different combination these are the six over six sashes and the upper story windows of the attic the ones that staff did review and found that if they were to be repaired more than probably 70% would have to be rebuilt and those are the windows that staff has said could be replaced. This is the first floor dining room space, living room space that has a combination of the 8 over 8 and the 2 over 2. And then there's a setback and then sort of a masonry addition. And this is the Kitchen area that has a different combination of windows. In the rear house, staff actually looked at these and found that most of what was in really poor condition that needed to be repaired was the brick mold and the bottom sill. Most of them needed sort of reglazed and painted and some re-roping. but overall the windows in the wood were in very good condition. And again sort of a combination of different type of windows. Staff did look inside and outside of these windows. There are some images that are in your packet. They're a little challenges to see. We'll look at them in here in a second. The applicant proposes to use a Windsor aluminum clad wood window to replace them with like style and rail system. with a mutton pattern that is similar in width. And this is the side on the, this is actually the sort of south side of the structure. Amelia? Yes. Do you know with respect to that air conditioner, whether that window has been replaced and the air conditioner permanently installed, or is it just one of those installations where the window is sitting on top of it? The window has been raised and sort of modified around the AC unit. Okay. So that window is intact if they take out the air conditioning unit? Pardon? So the window would still be intact? Yes. Okay. And these are images that are a little bit more challenging to see that have been provided, but sort of give you, they've annotated their sort of scope of work. Previously, of course, there was a handicap ramp that had been installed that has been previously removed. And sort of some more details of the rear. And the south side of the structure, and this is the north side of the structure, the driveway side. and here's a view of the rear of the structure guidelines are included for your reference the staff has visited visited the site to inspect the condition of the existing window and finds that the windows proposed to be replaced are original to the structure and contribute to the architectural and historical significance of this building the existing window sessions do need to be reglazed and painted and not beyond that kind of repair additionally windows needs to re-roped and have or have a spring balance system installed the existing windows should be repaired and rather than totally replaced and staff suggests that new window store store windows be installed the design principle for windows states windows should be repaired rather than replaced if the review process determines that replacement is necessary due to the severe deterioration the replacement should be in kind to match the original and size material and design within design guidelines a document within the guidelines called why preserving original windows is recommended and makes economic sense it states windows are significant part of the original fabric of the structure and they provide important architectural qualities that define and characterize an architectural style and time period as well as scale of the building and or historic district the loss of the windows alters the defining qualities of the historic fabric structure in the historic district. Staff did assess the attic windows and found that they show signs of dry rot and could be replaced, drained or rebuilt. These windows do not have storms and have not been protected. Recommendation staff recommends approval to replace the two attic windows with the final details of those coming back to staff and staff recommends disapproval of the replacement of all the other windows. And the applicants are here. Thank you very much for your presentation. If you don't mind, please come back and we'll talk to you about your application here. So you said earlier your intent was to replace the windows with an insulated, more energy efficient type of window and match as much of the historic precedence as possible. And I certainly appreciate your intent. I think you heard in the staff's findings, like we did, the guidelines are pretty straightforward when it comes to the replacement of windows as far as when it is and is not appropriate. Which ties our hands quite a bit when it comes down to just what can we do. I tend to agree with the staff's findings. There are ways to make historic windows more energy efficient, of course, by maintaining them as you go, which can be a little painful. I'll say I live in a historic home, too, and certainly understand. But I don't have much more to add than what the staff has recommended. I tend to agree with a majority of their recommendations, including the replacement of the attic windows. If they're found to be deteriorated, then by all means, they need to be replaced. Are there other comments from the board at this time for the applicant? Questions? I realize that you may be perceiving this as a way of being more energy efficient, But the studies have shown actually the heat loss through your windows is not nearly as significant as a lot of people think. I've had a great deal of success with not using storm windows on the outdoors, but actually using an interior storm window, if you will, if you're not intending to raise and open the windows and have an air conditioning system. That worked very well. I have a huge house that's circa 1900. And my gas bill is, under the circumstances, very reasonable. And it's because I'm using an interior storm, which actually is much more efficient than replacing the windows. There's something else, and it took me a long time to finally appreciate the value of the original windows. Windows today simply do not have the quality of wood, nor, frankly, of the glass themselves, that the older homes have. And that is something that has taken me a while to realize that that's a significant aspect of the house. The windows truly are the eyes of the house. When you take them out and replace them, you have lost something fundamental about the house. I don't think the owner is disputing that at all. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. I don't think the owners disputing the historical value of that area and why replacing it with something that would be in keeping with that is certainly necessary to happen. However, I mean, as that house stands right now, most of the windows you can't open. Most of the windows had towels to protect from the cold air that was coming through. And on the other note, there are a significant amount of other items in this house that are being, the entire electrical system is being replaced because I'm surprised it's not burned down prior to now. So in as much as I think. And the lead paint issue. and the lead paint that's also involved with the shutters and the windows themselves this house has not been touched for quite a long time and he wants to bring it back to but in a way that is effective to increase the value of the home as well as since he is an absentee owner of the property that that we're not continually having to take those windows out and reglaze and then repaint them. And, you know, and I agree with what you're trying to say about keeping within, but he's not willing to put in the cheapest window to do that. I mean, the estimates for the windows that would be in keeping with the look of the strike value of the home, he's not willing to pay. Well, and let me also make it clear. You know, nothing that's been said indicates that the windows can be repaired, which if there are windows that require towels around them to maintain a good seal or there are windows that have other problems, you know, those are problems that can be addressed with repair work, which is certainly what I believe the staff has encouraged in their recommendations. They have to be repaired. I mean, there's no question. They need to be replaced or repaired. They can't be left as they are. Agreed. Agreed, and I understand, and I certainly appreciate, and I think we all appreciate that there's work being done on the house to make it better. And I just hope you realize what we're saying is that these windows need to be repaired per the recommendations and per the guidelines. Because we find value in the original windows that are there, and we see that that is character worth maintaining. certainly repairing the windows does not indicate we don't want you to repair the windows in a way that they would require repairing again over and over and over again as you stated that's not our intention you know proper repair puts a window in good shape for quite a while it requires maintenance if something goes wrong in the long term you have to deal with that or it becomes a bigger problem we recognize that too but I think you'd find that same problem with almost anything in the house anyways. So I just want to be clear. We're not saying that the windows can't be addressed. They need to be addressed. Clearly there's a problem that needs to be fixed. But as it states, it's preferences for repair as opposed to replacement because of the character that's there in the original windows. Any others? So is there anything that, as far as the replacement is concerned, that would be in favor of the board at this point? Well, if it's appropriate to replace them, then yes, we consider those when that time is right. It's the fact that there are windows that could be repaired that takes that off the table for us in our consideration. There are moments when windows are in such disrepair, such as the attic windows, that need to be replaced, where there are windows that are more appropriate or less appropriate, and there's where the staff will work with you and help you identify something that's within the guidelines and does a good job to work well with what was there before and maintain the character as well as it can. The guidelines are pretty clear, too. If you're replacing a window, you try to match the existing. If you're adding a window, then you try and make a step apart so that they're distinct and not imitating the existing windows that are there. And in this case, you would be working to replace and match the windows that are being removed. I might add, I looked at the unit that you plan to replace these existing ones with, and they're good. I mean, it's a good high-quality window. But you can take these windows out one at a time. Finish carpenter and glazer who are used to working with these windows. Remove the glass, reinstall it, put weather stripping on, and stabilize everything. There are 44 windows in this house. Yeah, but you know what? And a tenant who's supposed to be able to use them. I tell you, I've done a lot of this work, and I think you'll find that you can repair these and get new storm sashes for less than your new windows are going to cost. By the time you factor in replacing all the rotten wood on the sills outside and dealing with the lead paint. Well, you'd still want to replace the sill regardless, correct? Whether you repaired it or you were replaced or repaired, I think that comes out of the equation. I mean, you're doing that work regardless. So I don't know. I don't want to get too far down that road of comparison, but it is a good point that there are some comparable prices between the two actions. And every few years you're going to be painting these, too. Well, I don't know about every few years, but yes, repainting things is part of the maintenance of most homes. That's the knocks. I think the lead paint adds a whole other part and concern as well. True. That wasn't part of, wouldn't necessarily be part of maybe some other replacements, but that is a huge concern, obviously, and has to be handled by people who are approved for that, as opposed to if they were being replaced entirely, that that's not necessarily as much of an issue. I understand. that there's a difference. Any other thoughts or comments from the board at this time? Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Again, we're discussing 272 South Hanover Avenue. Sure. My next-door neighbor that I spoke of earlier, Henrietta Murphy, who's going to send you a letter, she had her windows redone and they're better than any brand new pellet any brand new armstrong better than any vinyl you could possibly imagine they replaced you know where it need be they retied the cords for the counterweights and it's a silent there's you can't hear traffic you can't i mean no wind or anything his name's laran what's his wife's name Laren, yeah, he did a bang-up job, and they're better than brand-new windows. That's an option I was just going to mention. I appreciate your comments, sir. It's true. We've had that sort of luck on other projects that have come through here, and that's why we speak with the confidence that it can be done because we've seen it done many times. It's not always the most time-effective method, and sometimes there are different costs. associated with that, but it's part of our purview to maintain the guidelines, and that's what the guidelines say. Do you have any other comments or questions for us at this time? Okay, well, thank you very much, and we appreciate you working within the process, and I think it's a nice home. I certainly like a great deal of what we've seen in the photos, so I appreciate your efforts to maintain it. Hearing no further comment from the audience, no further comments from the board, I'd entertain a motion at this time. Okay, Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 08760275, 272 South Hanover Avenue, I move that we accept the staff's recommendation that the application to replace the windows in this home be denied. And that the recommendation that the two attic windows being replaced are rebuilt with the conditions that the final details come back to staff be approved. I second. Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion of the application at this time? Aye. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'd like to check with the staff for just a moment. Amelia, if you have any thoughts, is it to the applicant's advantage to include in our recommendation that the windows that they were asking to replace be repaired and that the details be worked out with the staff so that they can move forward with that effort without having to come back? I think if you'd like to make that part of your motion, you could. Okay. Well, I bring that up then as a possible amendment to your motion if you'd consider it. I'm not sure I followed what you're trying to say. If we were to include in our recommendation that the applicant be allowed to repair the windows per the staff recommendation, that that be part of this application and that the details come back. Oh, the other one? Yes. Oh, okay, yeah. I'm pretty happy to add that into my motion. Thank you. Is that acceptable to your second? Yes. Very well. Any other conversation on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes with those recommendations. Thank you for being here this evening. The next case on the agenda is at 522 Arcadia Park. That application is also to replace windows. Amelia, if I could get your help, please. We'd have you go ahead and make your presentation. This is the property at 522 Arcadia Park. a couple of years ago staff is or the board heard this case as far as a um a dormer renovation that was not completed so we and so some of these photos that you see are from that i believe like 2011 2010 time period and these are the windows in question she has um i guess i think about 11 total windows so the windows on the front are eight over eight windows sort of more detailed picture of those this is the actual window in a beer edition piece this is actually I believe one in the bathroom that was actually retained so this is a six over six window that from that earlier time period this was one of the this is the only window that has not been replaced and to be more clear one of the issues that has occurred with this replacement is that the sir the jam has been wrapped with vinyl as well And if you can see, this is the window, this 8 over 8 window that's sort of in the rear kitchen area. It's also part of the window that has been replaced. And also another window that has not been replaced is the attic window. But the bottom sashes have been replaced. and they are of course you see a six over six window and both of those and there are two side windows in either end of the front mass in a window in the rear back of this addition that's on surface you think about the railroad side being on this side it's been replaced and you can sort of see the window sort of on the railroad side in the rear back addition that has been replaced. And these are the existing situation before the replacement, and this is from that time period, earlier time period, and you can see the windows. And staff actually, of course, we've been dealing with a case that's sort of diagonal across the street from this and staff noticed that the windows had been replaced with the front windows being eight over eight snap-in buttons on the sides and the surrounds have been wrapped and this is sort of a detail of the front window And as you walk around the house, the windows are one over one windows, and basement windows are included. This is the opposite side. This is sort of the railroad side of the house, or I guess west side of the house. and this is popping back to earlier we saw there was an eight over eight window and now there's the slider window and the rear of the house of course staff did talk to has had many conversations with the owner about this situation and she sort of explained a little bit more as she sort of mentioned that a door salesman went around and sold her on these windows and so the guidelines are included your reference findings the proposal to approve the new windows is not within the LFUC design guidelines more appropriate for the structure of the site the LVCG design guidelines are very specific when they say windows should be repaired rather than they're replaced if the review process determines that the replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration. The replacement should be in kind to match the originals in size, material, and design. The installation of new wood windows to match the original design is recommended in the installation of baked enamel or ionized aluminum clad windows. Not a total aluminum construction may be considered. If aluminum clad windows are applied that should match historic windows closely and possible in their design, profile, depth of muttons and surrounding trim vinyl vinyl clad windows are not allowed and when it should not have snap in or interior flush buttons these buttons are much thinner profile on the mountains and the stroke windows do not provide the opening with the appearance of the stark windows in addition is not appropriate nor within the guidelines to wrap this round or brick mold guidelines 1 1 K states architectural detail should not be covered with the vinyl or aluminum or artificial siding typically staff reviews the windows prior to replacement determine if they're a candidate for replacement. However, staff has not been able to review these windows most recently since they were replaced by the COA permit. Staff did have pictures from the 2012 when the owner made the application to install a real dormer. Staff noticed the windows at that time and found they need to be painted and glazed and have new storm windows. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the replacement windows as submitted. And the applicant is present. amelia i'm assuming that the original windows have long since been destroyed or i'm assuming that is the case i think with the replacement they normally take them away and throw them into the dumpster yes all right thank you ma'am if you'd like to come back up to the front and speak to us for a moment While you make your way up here, I'll state that I certainly understand the situation you're in from your comments you made before. I'm afraid you probably know what our thoughts are on the issue based on the previous case, some similarities there. Just, you know, for my information, are the folks from LEI home enhancement? out of cincinnati are they have you spoken to them about this since since you were served the letter from the staff i did call them yes what were their thoughts on knowing the neighborhood they were working in yeah nothing it's just awful um and i i don't think this is this work does not merit a building permit is that correct amelia so that that opportunity to catch it was missed as well just because it wasn't required. Well I'll start off by saying you certainly understand the guidelines that we have that we're required to stick to. That's why we're here and you know we interpret those as best we can and we work in the gray area when it's called for. You know not only did this work happen without an application which is bad enough but even if it had gone through the application process there are a few things we would have changed in the conversation. You know first of all let's assume the windows would be permitted to replace the windows that replace them are also not within the guidelines which is sort of the double whammy. The material being vinyl as they are is something where is pretty much worked its way almost completely out of the guidelines. Vinyl is not a very substantial product as far as its use on historic homes and the longevity it offers just doesn't fit in with our goals and with the guidelines intent. And also the ideas of replacement windows matching what they are replacing and just the variety of windows that have gone back into what was removed again makes this a hard application to approve so i'll start off by saying that are there other comments from the the board at this time for the applicant i guess the only other question i have is when this salesman talked to you and obviously you said you took out a loan to actually have these windows done um i mean how long does that whole process take i mean did it take four weeks a month two weeks after after he came um probably a couple of months but i as i said i really didn't think that i was doing i mean i know ignorance is no excuse but i didn't think that i was changing the structure of the building so i thought i didn't never dawned on me never once dawned on me i certainly appreciate that it wasn't intentional i still hope you understand what we're we're charged with regardless of that it was stated in the report that there was Was a dormer added on in 2010? Were you the owner? No, I did not do that. I didn't have the money to do it. So, but there was, you were part of the process at that time. I never came here. I had a contractor was handling that. Sure. Yeah. But the certificate of appropriateness process was followed. You were part of that process. Yes, I'm sorry, yes. I see. Any other thoughts or comments at this time? Well, regretfully, I think we're now in the, at some point, a conversation, discussion about what are we going to do to abate the measure now? And, you know, you have bought, I'm sorry to say that you have bought yourself a world of hurt. Because I think at this juncture, that's why I was asking about the original windows, since they're gone. the house cannot be permitted to have the vinyl clad windows remain there's going to have to be an application process by which maybe you can sell those windows back to the seller and replace them with a more appropriate window that may cost a little bit more but actually now that the windows are gone i mean we're going to have to do something and that that's your next step and And that's probably entailed more money. And I'm only hoping that there might be an opportunity for you to have a very serious conversation and perhaps an attorney for you have a serious conversation with Pella. Because they, or whoever sold you these windows, because the contractors have an obligation to make sure that whatever they're doing with respect to homes, that's why the historic districts are marked with those signs, to put contractors on notice that they're within a historic district and that certain conditions are expected to be complied with. So you may have an opportunity, and I would strongly suggest you talk to an attorney, that they talk to them saying that they were negligent in recommending these windows for that type of house. Okay. Okay? And after you do that, then you have to have a discussion about what kind of windows you're going to use to replace the ones that you have installed. I'll state, you know, I hope that's an endeavor that's fruitful for you, but we can't really say if that is absolute. You know, I have some empathy for your situation. I certainly understand it's a financial hardship to have already spent this money and now be faced with further changes that are required. but that doesn't change the facts. It doesn't relieve us from our job. So I apologize for your situation but I hope that you understand our position on this matter. Any other comments? Anybody else in the audience speak to this case? Again, we're discussing 522 Arcadia Park. As you move forward, I hope you'll work with the staff. They're very helpful. They have lots of information they can offer you and guidance on what should come back and replace these windows. Reach out to them often. They're kind folks, and they'll do good. That being said, I would entertain a motion at this time, please. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 00510522-C, 522 arcadia park i'll make a motion to approve the staff recommend or follow the staff recommendations for disapproval of the replacement windows as submitted thank you very much uh can i get a second to that motion please second thank you is there any further discussion of the motion at this time all those in favor please say aye aye all those opposed and the motion passes we'll move on the next case um just have a question for staff can can we send a letter to these guys saying that they shouldn't be going into historic neighborhoods or letting them putting them on notice that you know that their product can put applicants in danger if they don't follow the protocol of the certificate of appropriateness? Yes, I think you can send the letter, but are they the only ones that have ever done this? I mean, are there other contractors that may have also fallen to this, and are you? I'm just looking at, you know, since obviously this woman's out $7,000, I think as a board or at least the staff should look at putting these guys on notice and sending them a letter or something. I think at least to make the sales people and the contractor in this case specifically aware of what has occurred because of, you know, a misunderstanding on the applicant's case or in their case, and perhaps just not knowing what factors were involved on the sales folks' case is appropriate. I certainly don't want to put ourselves in the position where we're trying to warn every contractor in the area, just like we try to make all homeowners aware that they're in a historic district, which of course is where this should start is awareness with the homeowner. So that's just my two cents on your suggestion. I agree. Some notification to LEI should happen because they've made a mistake, as well as the homeowner, and now she's out of money and will be out of more money before this is over. It seems like they've had a role in that to some degree. No, I agree that notifications should take place. I guess there might be, I don't know if this company is out of not local, so that plays into the situation. Which, in my opinion, would press them to do more homework, to pay more attention, since they know they're out of their own neighborhood and they may not know what the rules are. They would be more diligent, but apparently that was not the case. Other salespeople. They want to sell windows. What do I know about that? And I just would say, just make a note that staff has a relationship with several of the window companies in town, so they usually do call even the people that are not necessarily always, part of it can be used in the H1. Sure, and that's great as a benefit. It's hard to say that that's a practice that all contractors will follow, but it's good that it happens when it does. the next case on the agenda this evening is at 320 woodland avenue has that applicant had time to arrive yet i don't see any new faces in the crowd so i sort of doubt it the applicant of course is not so yeah is this the one we talked about possibly let me catch back up on my notes here yes so this is the one we talked about putting off till the next meeting so that can be here well i was hoping we'd exercise that option before we made this poor man wait the entire meeting but well he already said what he needed to say do you have more to add you saw the picture of the yellow garage with the glass windows in it oh yeah that's correct we haven't had a chance to see those uh randy are they available anyhow that's my next door neighbor and originally there was no door whatsoever on the left side of the garage she sunk 2400 in the redwood doors to have them handmade and now you know a realty company comes in two doors up wants to demolish their garage the first month they own it like i say she'll be back in july but it anyway i'm speaking her part and my neighbor jose on the other side we're all three against it we're the only people who buy have backyards they're actually backyards they're not parking lots on the whole street on the whole 300 block now that's your neighbor's garage right yeah the left-hand side i painted the left side but she had it this redwood okay because the garage that we're talking about actually is a very small we're talking about tearing down is right next to that long garage it's a very it's a single it's a single car or single bay right almost a storage shed yeah they're all sheds basically that i don't know if you can see mine at one point mine was twice as long i found a picture under my mantle of a little kid that looks just like he was straight out of little rascals and my garage was twice as wide and i don't know and i just discovered this a couple years ago i saw a hinge that went into space so you know it's had one two underneath the roof and I said well that must and they might have torn it down for a you know a victory garden or something in World War II but anyway the whole fabrics disappearing on a 300 block of woodland between the school and the final clad slumlords and we're the three holdouts basically I need clarification I know the one he's asked to tear down I think it said it was ten feet wide this one on the right with the gable in advance to us is not the one we're talking about no it's the one one where they're wanting to tear down is to the far left yeah or it's it's not even in that picture yeah okay okay and it looks like a little it looks like a little barn we actually have a whole series of pictures in this slideshow if you would like to hear the staff okay mr chair i want to suggest that before we move much further that we actually take under consideration of most of the postponed first. I would like to continue this case so that the owner can have an opportunity to be here. I agree. If we're going to discuss it to that length, I think before we dig too deep, we ought to. They don't want to tear it down. They should be here. Well, I agree, and thank you for saying so. But they're not. And because, you know, this conversation is opposed to what the staff has recommended and I frankly would like more information and would like to hear what the applicant has to say before we make a motion. And I agree with the idea of requesting a postponement. Well, the only reason why I'm suggesting the postponement is because he may have been misled in the thinking. This is a pro forma approval since the staff had recommended approval. And I can see where a conversation can begin that will lead ultimately to agreeing with you, sir. and I think with respect to that we need to have the applicant here as well. Joe. Any other thoughts or comments from the board at this time? That being said I'd entertain a motion and I would remind whoever makes the motion that we need to pick a date for where we are postponing this to. Oh picky, picky, picky. You said the one lady was going to be back in July? yeah sometime in july and she's my next door neighbor and she's she's opposing adamantly she sunk five thousand dollars in her garage and just do that or twenty four hundred bucks just on two doors that were never there to begin with well i mean i'm just wondering because we do have a chance to have a meeting and on july 9th that we might i don't know if we want to postpone it please be careful i don't know how much of our schedule should be dictated by the applicant or the neighbor yeah that's true well just bringing up the facts as it as it turns out the deadline of July 23 is a Wednesday obviously and presumably that would get for our app opportunity to be here as well I move that we continue this case to July 23 2014 I hear your second. Would she have to come down in person? I'm sorry. Excuse me. I would like to bring up in your motion where you've asked for it to be on the 23rd, which is as late as possible. With respect to the applicant who has made their application in a timely manner, I would not like to push them off six weeks down the road if it could be handled sooner than that. I appreciate that there's a neighbor who might want to be here to say something about this that's out of town and may not be back until July. But I believe the applicant takes precedence over the neighbor, given that it's their project as far as schedule goes. I certainly agree with postponing it, but don't know if I disagree with pushing it back as far as possible, if you'd like to consider that in your motion. If not, I can be outvoted. Well, Mr. Chair, what date would you suggest it be moved to? The next meeting, please. The next meeting? Mine would be the next meeting, but that's my preference. All right. Which would be when? The 25th. June 25th is the next meeting. Would her letter suffice? The letter will, of course, travel with the application as an attachment that we'll see again when they reappear. She's a really old lady and her family's owned that house for over 100 years. Okay. I'll drag her down here if necessary. I just hate to see the fabric go out the window. The street. The letter will suffice. Thank you. Send it to. Well, let me ask to make sure it's June 25th convenient to you, sir, to be here again. I'll come down here in the middle of the night if I have to. All right. Then in that case, I'll change my motion to suggest that we continue this case to June 25th. June 25th? Yes, sir. Second. Agreed. Thank you very much. Thank you for considering that amendment. Any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, no comments. I would enter, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, and the motion to postpone is passed. Thank you. Thank you. The next case that we've come back to is 436 West 3rd Street, create a covered porch system. Has that applicant made it here this evening? Yes. It is not. Well, to jump back into the conversation we just had, it's my thoughts. The staff recommending approval with some modification to the proposed design. I think it would be most appropriate if that applicant were here, if the board found that we agreed with the staff's reasoning, or at least wanted to have the conversation with the applicant. again the deadline for this action is just looking at it is the very is the 23rd so we have to make a note of june so that is yes that is before the next meeting but it's certainly within the board's purview to extend that deadline for action actually i would tell you that actually should be july sorry well that was a rough week solves everything okay so that that roadblock has been knocked over I leave it up to the board for discussion but I don't I would prefer to discuss this with the applicant given the staff recommendation Amelia did you have an opportunity to discuss your all's suggestions with the applicant? I did I did have a conversation with he and his wife about this and they were going to go and look at it and sort of eyeball it and sort of I thought sir prepared to be able to come and discuss it with you all their feelings about this And did they ever get back to you saying yay, nay, they didn't care or anything else? Not yet. And this was late Friday afternoon when that was discussed. All right. Any other comments or questions? Does anybody here have to speak to this case in the audience? We're just about out of participants. Again, we're discussing 436 West 3rd Street. Seeing no motion in the crowd. and hearing no further comment from the board i would certainly entertain a motion at this time mr chair regarding case number one eight eight zero zero four three six dash l at 436 west third street i make a motion to continue this application to the meeting of june 25th 2014. june 23 isn't it or is it 25th no it's june 25. okay Second. Thank you very much. Any further discussion of the motion? Are we in trouble because we said continue instead of postpone, staff? Does that matter in this case? Anyone? Anyone? I just joined you. I must say budget deferred to a meeting. Since the case was not open, I think you can just postpone it versus continue it. Well, the motion was to continue, so I want to just make sure we're not in any trouble with our wording. Does anybody mind to change it to postpone? No, I accept the change to postpone. Who had the second there? You did. It sounds like it's fine. The amendment is accepted. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed. That motion to postpone passes. Thank you. All right. The change will continue. I chose it. You were close. You were close. You did good. Okay, well, moving on to our final case of the evening, if you don't mind, I suppose we'll have the staff make their presentation, and we'll have some questions and comments for you. Of course, we've heard this a number of times, and also if you want to follow along with the timeline. most recently we've heard this case at the last at the may 28th BOAR for conceptual review for the proposed addition to Rose Hill as you might remember of course this case was first initially heard on the December 11th to demolish the existing addition and construct a new addition in the case that case it was heard for conceptual review and of course in both January and February that case was heard and ultimately the board denied the demolition and just walk around as we talk and of course the planning commission overruled the decision and the rear kitchen was demolished on may 20th of this year per the decision of the planning commission at that time at the at the earlier meeting April 24th meaning the Planning Commission made a motion that any kind of new conceptual looking a new concept for the addition to this structure would go back to before your this body and at this time we are hearing this case and sort of this of course This is the old kitchen that has been demolished since, and this is with the old kitchen being demolished. For those of you who didn't see these pictures last at the conceptual review, this is a little closer image of the kitchen being removed. And the proposal in front of us now is to construct an addition in this location. Just sort of looking towards the old two-story quarters. Again, just another shot of where the kitchen will be, the new addition will be located. And this is from the view leading into the courtyard area. sort of show the lay of the land and this would be the proposal for where the new kitchen would be located. At this time, the owners of our sale are requesting that the BYR grant a certificate of appropriateness to construct a new addition at the southwest corner of the main structure in a similar footprint of the existing kitchen connecting to the main mass by a hyphen. The proposed addition will have a similar footprint, but will be larger. It will be 33 by 20 with a one-story addition and have a dimensional hip roof with a total height of 17.5. The proposal consists of glass and brick masonry with stone skirting, and the east wall is proposed to have one new transom opening. The south consists of a veneer and a series of continuous transom windows on the west, and a line of transoms will be integrated into the solid mass by a band that will be slightly recessed and consist of a dark brick or darker material. The west acts as a transition from the transom windows and the brick masonry to the full light multi-pane windows with a veneer brick wall and a limestone foundation. And this also includes a chimney and glass paneled system windows. Again, here's the site plan of Rose Hill with the proposed addition floor plan. note that think about major changes from the previous plan that you all have heard and earlier this year to now the roof is now hip the roof is lower to a 512 pitch the connector is 10 11 versus the 8 8 pulling it out from the house more and the additions just increased just by a foot and there's banding around the top of the structure and multi-pane windows and here is the elevation and per the discussion at the last conceptual review the roof has been the pitch has been slightly shortened to be 512 we have now a banding piece and the applicant there was as you remember there was a discussion about the doors and to make them they've approached putting back a multi-pane system and the window choice that they have used is the custom it's got the custom windows and there's a sample of the windows from the website they've been passed out to you all as a handout just shows sort of like it says notre dame on it and that's sort of an example of the type of windows that will be used and one slight difference that from the last conceptual review that's up for discussion is this window in this location. Amelia, I'm not clear. Where are you suggesting a window be installed? Will the windows actually have already been installed in this location? Okay, so you're talking about the connector section. Yeah, I think the elevation that's identified is the east elevation. That's right. It's east elevation facing... So to the left of the main mass of the new building, that's where you want to have a window? Well, this is the window that was already added. If you think of the connector piece, it's in the laundry room if you look at the plan. It's in this location. Yeah. Okay. Okay, I've got you now. All right. They've added one, but the staff still has a recommendation beyond that. I have you now. Okay, I understand. And here is a rendering in wall sections. Why are we going at ease? Guide lines are included for your reference. The proposal to construct a new kitchen addition onto this rear southwest corner of the historic house is appropriate within the guidelines. The mass and form are in keeping and compatible with the main house. reference guidelines 2a4a through e that state addition should be at the rear of the building should be secondary and smaller and simpler to the original building and scale design and placement the use of the small connector link between the addition and the original building is encouraged where addition appropriate and with compatible design and keeping with the original building's design roof shape materials color location of window door and corner sites should not imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period and to reflect characteristics of current period in design may be compatible in original buildings. The overall openings are appropriate for the structure. For reference to opening walls on the south and east corner, staff does suggest that the windows on the east elevation, this is the one in the laundry room we were just further discussing and pointing out, either have another window or become longer to to adjust for it not being centered and are appropriately proportioned within that wall space in addition staff finds that having no windows in the southeast elevation is within the guidelines due to the previous edition not have any openings and the proposal to install the band is with the guidelines appropriate for the structure guidelines to be 1f and k state location proportion entrances windows help establish balance rhythm scale or portion emphasis in a structure patterns of the components of the buildings along blocks and when the districts create a characteristic rhythm for streetscapes and neighborhoods and details should be appropriately scaled for the proposed structure and compatible with the other adjacent buildings and district install installation the ornament or details that give a building invitation historic parents are not allowed recommendations staff recommends approval of the East elevation have an impaired window or a longer window with the final details coming back to staff and once reviewed by other lpc divisions any changes come back to staff and of course the applicants are present thank you very much Would you like to join us? Joey Nolasco, 2414 Plumbo, Integrity Architecture. Good to see you again and again and again. Just glad you hold us off to the end so we can spend as much time together as we need. Well, I appreciate that you see it that way. You know, this closely reflects what we discussed in the last conceptual review, and I'm happy to see it come back and that it's been developed the way it has been. I had a few questions for you that are left over from the conceptual review, and if they're in these drawings, I apologize. Can you speak to what the final detail and material did become for the reveal? we're still anticipating to use a stone but a smaller height stone i would like to what we're starting to do is start to pull in material sure samples and we'd like to bring those back and review those with you as we get them together can you speak to the development of the window system we see it in what you've labeled the east elevation and uh the material or the the door well where the where the new mullions have been introduced thank you for bringing that to you sure you have cut sheets but it's not the same thank you you. I didn't see you jump up to help me there at all. So can you tell us a little bit about that process? Because it's a step away from what we saw before as far as all of the additional Mayan work that's inside of that, as well as in the doors, too. That's, you know, we talked about some options of warming that up somehow. I think the two are linked. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how you got to where you are. We looked at some options online of different door styles. We've not settled on one. We're looking at a thin light to provide as much light in there as possible. We started to look at some divided light patterns and that's kind of as we were evolving the divided light patterns we started to manipulate and articulate the windows with that pattern. we're still not settling on door yet can you turn it back on just so i can see we're talking about the courtyard elevation yes elevation number one you know um i think we sent you in that direction and i may be the only one that feels this way I like your division of your window mullions. But I think trying to put them in the door, it's a quick flashback to a pattern you'd see in a traditional building. And I think it weakens the whole thing. For my part, I would rather see that in the other group. Fully transparent? Go back to fully transparent? Yeah. Yeah. At the doors? At the doors. Yeah, and I don't disagree with that. I mean, kind of playing with a divided light and moving and trying to determine a tourist style and then putting that in there to discuss today, I agree I like it better, just fully transparent. there's something about the way that that the the transparent undivided light of the door with the divided light of the windows beside it worked and there's something that doesn't work about this and sometimes that's about all we can say is it just doesn't feel right it's just kind of a cliche yeah yeah yeah well next to the door a little too busy yeah and and and well i agree with you i mean we we would definitely be willing to change that sure and and bring back what i'd like to do is as we start to collect the color samples put those on a colored elevation enlarge that elevation and then bring in samples so that we can touch and feel and look at what we're dealing with and i i agree with what sarah's saying of course i'm i'm still rooting for a medium rail and style door of wood but that's that's just me I prefer it as thin as possible. And again, I think that's just a gut feeling when we're looking at the door. I don't think it's the deal breaker of the project. Your connector section, elevation number four there, I see that the rectangular window relates to the pattern on the other facades. I don't know why I had a pair of square openings envisioned there, one punching into the pantry and one punching into the laundry. I don't know if square or rectangle is the right way to go, but I definitely think a pair balances that conversation a little better. I don't care for the staff's recommendation to be stretched out. So those are my thoughts on that. Yeah, and part of it is, I guess, function too. We're in a pantry on the left side. Laundry room, it would be nice to have light. I think I'd prefer no window to a long window and potentially a pair of windows I think might be okay. But we've brought some options if you can put them on the overhead and kind of look at those. It seems a little off-centered when we paired the windows versus the single window. Now, the clear story option A, correct me if I'm wrong, Nick, puts one in the pantry and one in the laundry, and then option B stretches it a bit. The only option that's not on there is what you mentioned, Greg, which is more of a perfect square, I guess. I still had them farther apart than what you've shown in option A, where they were nestled together. almost so that there's equidistant between each one from the connector to the window from each window to one another and from that to the edge yeah that was my vision i only know a few things you know i think you could center them center them in each of the rooms and it translates i think it would translate all right got about the same amount and even because you're going to see through the connector sure and even if they were off center inside the room i think given the function of those rooms it wouldn't hurt them if they were slightly off but those those are my thoughts we'll see what the other board members have to say the more we look at the windows if we erase them all together it doesn't bother me at all but moving them and stretching them and doing different sizes nothing really settles with me other than the fact that we've got some light going into the pantry option c seems to kind of be what we were settling toward let's see you've got a square window on your north elevation it looks like or oh that's the chimney for goodness sakes excuse me i would tell you staff in looking at this thought that the option d would also be within the guidelines relative to the proposed new additions relationship in a footage number of feet off the main mass and so forth and so on and the presence of the glass connector so i didn't want you all to think that the staff recommendation is suggesting that it has to have a window in this elevation that is not the intent but a better resolved window and or windows if you're going to do it would be what's reflective of the staff's comment yeah and quite honestly the more we kind of play around with it like i said as we if we just wipe the slate clean and don't put a window there particularly looking at the model from different you know spots along the street elevation this almost disappears particularly if you take the window off because it's just not drawing attention to it i just i hate to disregard the elevation altogether and and i know there are some moments in every project we see that are not visible from the street uh that's not always where we draw the line i'm typically we're we're thinking about the whole thing uh and and that's that's the only reason i've given i think i'm the only one really fighting for this at the moment but the only reason it occurred to me is just because i didn't want it to be a lost side of the addition or uh to disregard that valley that's in between uh the existing structure and the the new building sure and i think it improves the interior i mean if it were me i would be pleased to have a window in the pantry and the laundry room but that's that again ventures into personal preference so i'll leave it up to the board i would uh enter one another option that that we're not looking at and that is derived from the left the sorry the right most side of the clear story shown in your west elevation where you have a vertically oriented panel adjacent to a unit that looks like it's about the size of the if we can get the west elevation up there PowerPoint okay now you can't see it in the in the projection but on the clear store in the west elevation the right side of it the rightmost part of it oh yeah as a vertical vertically oriented panel adjacent to a more horizontally oriented panel and it seems to me that that vocabulary is very consistent with all of the other moves that you're making with this addition, which I like very much, by the way. I really like what you're doing. And that should that window into the laundry room be articulated in that way, where a piece of it has a vertical orientation and a piece horizontal, I think that might be more successful than the sort of blind eye of the single unit. Just an observation. My gut is that we're looking at a service portion of a building, and I think it would be entirely consistent historically and architecturally if you did whatever you wanted there, just to bring light into a space, because it is a service space. It's not a celebrated space. It's not prominent from any particular part of the site, and so that's but i just throw out that other notion as a as something to consider it's most certainly nice to have light in the laundry room you know i mean uh so also in a pantry yeah yeah yeah well so well once we once you guys brought it up i think it was something that we wanted to explore but you know again i you know i do like what you're picking up on with the with the more vertical you know also just to the right of that greg i guess is the square also you know so maybe we go back and and look at that and see if there's a something that that feels more balanced and if we just can't settle on it then we'll do away with the windows. Well, I am pleased that we are, you know, discussing truly the nuts and bolts of this project. Given where it started, I think we've traveled a great distance, and I'm happy to see that it's come back. Mr. Acosta has been extremely receptive to our input, your input, and I'm glad you're back, Graham. I mean, it's been a process that, you know, we take great pride in. I'm sure you do, and Mr. Acosta does. So, I mean, it's a, you know, good architecture kind of takes good people involved with it. And when you've got a good client that's willing to do something nice and a board that's putting the input and attention to detail that you guys do, if we can articulate it correctly and get it built perfectly, then I'll be very happy when this is over. Well, I can't thank you enough for the way you've all responded to a process that's difficult for us up here. We're architects and a lawyer. And we know it's sometimes hard to have other people kind of gnaw on your design. and i just thank you so much for being gracious and being being sincerely responsive appreciate you saying so sarin i trust you totally to put the right windows in the laundry room and to resolve your your entry door from my point of view any other comments at this time i just i have one comment i apologize since i went at the conceptual review and this actually goes back to the original house but obviously there was an opening that is now on the original house what's going to happen to that opening where the original kitchen used to come in there we're still looking at that as they've taken down the layers there were no lentils put in so all of the brick has fallen in around the opening and when it started to fall they shoved a piece of wood in there to i guess keep it from falling more so we've got some masons looking at it and we're trying to come up with a way to um to go back and rebuild that what we were able to do some some of the brick uh and some of the areas of walls that weren't damaged we were able to keep some of those and so we've pouted those put them off to the side the stone that we actually found in the basement was much much smaller in height and depth than we ever imagined it would be they were really small stones that were almost looked like field stones that were stacked up which is probably why that wall was moving so much so we would hope that maybe we could take some of that salvage material if mason feels like he can reuse it and reuse that to patch the wall before we start to finalize it so you're going to just completely break it up are you looking to put a window in there or what are you all looking to do in the opening that was cut when the opening wasn't original so you're just going to yeah the opening wasn't original so our intent was to to because we're coming through the existing door opening randy can you put the photo of that elevation back up please where it's uh i know this isn't in the actual motion i just was curious on what was going to happen yeah so can you zoom into that you're asking a lot yeah so when they cut the opening it's not like they really took a saw or anything to it they just started busting brick out so what you'll see to the top left of that is basically the brick from the top falling down and they also plated over top to bring the ceiling joists out which added more pressure to the top of that wall and i assume at some point it started to fail and then they tried to stick a four by four you know rough hewn piece of wood up in there as kind of a temporary lentil so our hope is to use the as much of the existing brick now we may only get the outside wife i don't know but we'd like to use that to to repair that opening okay just curious thanks how are you going to get mechanical into this building we're uh we're only asked because it It may be something we see on the outside of this somehow. What's the plan there? We were hoping to utilize, well, we've got a ceiling space that is not a shed roof now, so we've got some space there. But we had anticipated on having a slab on grade, but some of the foundation conditions are going to have to be a little deeper, and I think we'll have a crawl space. So I think we can leverage either one of those to be able to deliver and not have anything that's going to be seen. The question only occurred to me when I could see the cut duct work coming out of the roof there, and all of a sudden I thought they may be back here to talk to us about something. So I'm glad that you've thought of that. Of course you've thought of that. Yeah, this will have its own system, yeah. Great, great. Any other questions, comments? I think we're out of people in the audience to speak to this case. If anybody would like to make a motion, I would appreciate it. I'd love to make a motion. Okay. Mr. Chairman, relative to case number 08760272 at 461 North Limestone, I move that we issue a certificate of appropriateness for this project with the stipulation that, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes come back to staff. And that's all I'd add to it. Could staff suggest a consideration for your motion? And that is that the details of such as the doors and windows and all the details as they're not fully defined, including the width of the rails and so forth and so on, all come back to the staff prior to the product being ordered and or installed. OK. Let's see. Somebody will. You want me just to add that to my original motion? There hasn't been a second yet. So you can do whatever you need to. And that additional details that we have discussed, or any others that significantly change what we've already seen, be brought back to the staff for review that do it let it cover that's a little very well is there a second to the motion second any further discussion of the motion i think the only thing you left out is uh come back to the staff before the materials ordered Okay, before the materials are ordered. You'd accept that, and if the second would accept that as well? I would. All those, any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And the motion passes with those recommendations. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. That's our final case on the agenda this evening. I would certainly entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Very well. I'll take one as a first and one as a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you.