# Board of Architectural Review - September 10, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 10, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3452 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3452?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-09-10 - **Last revised**: September 10, 2014 - **Length**: 11,700 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 September 10, 2014. The meeting addressed 15 agenda items, all involving architectural and construction proposals for various properties throughout the jurisdiction. The board reviewed a diverse range of projects, from minor maintenance items like gutter installation and chimney cap repairs to more substantial renovations and new construction. Properties considered included residential addresses on Desha Road, South Ashland Avenue, Old Park Avenue, and West Bell Court, among others, as well as commercial properties on West High Street and East Main Street. Of the 15 items reviewed, 14 received approval from the board. These approved projects included routine maintenance such as installing gutters and downspouts at 233 Desha Road, installing chimney caps at 237 South Ashland Avenue, and repairing a front porch roof at 259 South Ashland Avenue. More substantial projects that gained approval included renovating a structure at 300 East Maxwell Street, renovating a garage at 349 Madison Place, and constructing a side garden and columbarium at 533 East Main Street. The board also approved the demolition of a dormer and construction of a new addition at 602 Sayre Avenue. Only one item was postponed: the installation of new signage at 200-214 West High Street. No public comments were recorded during the meeting, and no formal motions or votes were documented in the available records beyond the approval decisions on the agenda items. ## 233 Desha Road: Install gutters and downspouts The board reviewed a staff approval request for the installation of gutters and downspouts at 233 Desha Road. This item was processed as a routine staff approval matter without extended discussion. The proposal involved standard gutter and downspout installation work at the residential property located at 233 Desha Road. No specific details about the scope of work, materials, or contractor were discussed during the meeting. The item proceeded without debate or concerns raised by board members. No speakers addressed the board regarding this application, and no questions or objections were noted from the public or board members. **Outcome:** The installation of gutters and downspouts at 233 Desha Road was approved through the staff approval process. ## 237 South Ashland Avenue: Install chimney caps The commission reviewed a staff approval request for the installation of chimney caps at 237 South Ashland Avenue. This agenda item was processed as a routine staff approval matter. The application sought permission to install chimney caps on the property located at 237 South Ashland Avenue. No specific details about the design, materials, or scope of the chimney cap installation were provided in the available meeting materials. As a staff approval item, this request was handled through the commission's administrative review process rather than requiring extensive public discussion or debate. No speakers were identified as participating in discussion of this particular agenda item. The commission approved the installation of chimney caps at 237 South Ashland Avenue. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the proposed chimney cap installation work as submitted in their application. This type of routine maintenance and improvement work typically falls under the commission's standard review procedures for minor alterations to existing structures. The approval indicates that the proposed chimney caps meet applicable guidelines and requirements for the property. ## 259 South Ashland Avenue: Repair front porch roof The commission reviewed agenda item 3, a staff approval request for repairs to the front porch roof at 259 South Ashland Avenue. This item was processed as a routine staff approval matter. The proposal involved necessary repairs to the front porch roof structure at the residential property located at 259 South Ashland Avenue. No specific details about the scope of work, materials, or timeline were recorded in the available meeting documentation. No speakers were identified as presenting or commenting on this agenda item during the meeting proceedings. The matter appears to have been handled administratively without extended discussion or debate from commission members. The commission approved the front porch roof repair request for 259 South Ashland Avenue. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the necessary roofing work as submitted in their application. This type of routine maintenance and repair approval is typical for residential properties seeking to maintain their structures in good condition while ensuring compliance with local building and safety standards. ## 300 East Maxwell Street: Renovate structure The commission reviewed agenda item 4, a staff approval request for the renovation of the structure located at 300 East Maxwell Street. This item was processed as a routine staff approval matter. The renovation project received approval from the commission. No specific details about the scope of work, timeline, or budget were documented in the available meeting materials. No key speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were available to reference specific discussion points or concerns that may have been raised during the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## 121 Old Park Avenue: Install storm windows The commission reviewed a staff approval request for the installation of storm windows at 121 Old Park Avenue. This item was processed as a routine staff approval matter without extended discussion. The application sought permission to install storm windows on the historic property located at 121 Old Park Avenue. Storm window installations are typically considered minor alterations that help improve energy efficiency while preserving the original window elements of historic structures. The commission approved the installation of storm windows at 121 Old Park Avenue. As a staff approval item, this matter was handled administratively without requiring extensive deliberation or public input during the meeting. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with installing the storm windows in accordance with the submitted plans and any applicable historic preservation guidelines for the property. ## 11 Preston Court: Remove maple tree The committee reviewed a staff approval request for the removal of a maple tree located at 11 Preston Court. This item was designated as agenda item 6 and processed as a routine staff approval matter. The request sought authorization to remove the maple tree from the property at 11 Preston Court. No specific details were provided in the available materials regarding the condition of the tree, the reasons necessitating its removal, or any replacement plans. The item proceeded without recorded discussion or debate from committee members. No speakers were identified as participating in deliberations on this matter, suggesting it was handled as a standard administrative approval. The committee approved the tree removal request for 11 Preston Court without recorded objection or concerns raised during the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## 141 West Bell Court: Install awnings The board reviewed a staff approval request for the installation of awnings at 141 West Bell Court during agenda item 7. This item was processed as a routine staff approval matter. The proposal involved installing awnings at the residential property located at 141 West Bell Court. No specific details about the awning design, materials, or installation specifications were discussed in the available meeting materials. The item proceeded without recorded debate or discussion from board members. No speakers were identified as presenting information about the project or raising concerns about the proposed awning installation. The board approved the awning installation request for 141 West Bell Court without opposition. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 153 West Bell Court: Install landscape plan The commission reviewed agenda item 8, a staff approval request for the installation of a landscape plan at 153 West Bell Court. This item was processed as a routine staff approval matter. The proposal involved approving a landscaping installation plan for the residential property located at 153 West Bell Court. No specific details about the scope of the landscaping work, plant materials, or design elements were provided in the available meeting materials. The item proceeded without recorded discussion from commission members or public speakers. As a staff approval item, it appeared to meet standard requirements and guidelines without requiring extensive deliberation. The commission approved the landscape plan installation for 153 West Bell Court. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 633 West Short Street: Replace rear door The commission reviewed a staff approval request for the replacement of a rear door at 633 West Short Street. This item was designated as agenda item 9 and classified as a staff approval matter. The request sought approval for the replacement of the existing rear door at the property located at 633 West Short Street. As a staff approval item, this type of request typically involves routine maintenance or minor modifications that fall within established guidelines and do not require extensive deliberation. The commission approved the door replacement request. No specific speakers were identified in the record for this agenda item, and no transcript timing was available for the discussion. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with replacing the rear door at 633 West Short Street in accordance with the submitted plans and applicable regulations. ## 349 Madison Place: Renovate garage The board reviewed a staff approval request for renovating the garage at 349 Madison Place. This item was processed as agenda item 10 during the meeting. The proposal involved renovation work to the existing garage structure at the Madison Place property. As a staff approval item, this matter had already undergone preliminary review by city staff before being presented to the board. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamp was available for the discussion portion of this matter. The board approved the garage renovation project at 349 Madison Place without recorded opposition or significant debate. ## 114 Barberry Lane: Construction of a stone "sitting wall" The commission reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for the construction of a stone "sitting wall" in a horseshoe shape at 114 Barberry Lane. The application was approved by the commission. *Note: Specific details about the discussion, speakers, and deliberation were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## 228 Market Street: Change rear door to window The board reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for 228 Market Street to change a rear door to a window. This agenda item was listed as item number 2 on the meeting docket. The application involved modifying the rear elevation of the property by replacing an existing door with a window. No specific details about the proposed window specifications, materials, or design were documented in the available meeting materials. No key speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were available to reference specific discussion points or concerns that may have been raised during the deliberation. The board approved the certificate of appropriateness for this modification. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with changing the rear door to a window at 228 Market Street as proposed in their application. This type of exterior modification typically requires review by the appropriate municipal board to ensure compliance with local historic district guidelines or zoning requirements, particularly for properties that may be located within a historic district or area subject to design review standards. ## 533 East Main Street: Construct side garden and columbarium The commission reviewed agenda item 3, an application for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a side garden and columbarium at 533 East Main Street. The application proposed the construction of both landscaping elements and a columbarium structure on the side of the property. A columbarium is typically a structure with niches for storing cremated remains, often found in cemetery or religious settings. The commission considered the appropriateness of the proposed construction within the context of the property's location and any applicable historic district guidelines or zoning requirements that would govern such installations. Following their review and discussion of the application materials, the commission voted to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the side garden and columbarium construction project at 533 East Main Street. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with the proposed construction as submitted, subject to any standard conditions or requirements that may apply to such projects in the jurisdiction. ## 602 Sayre Avenue: Demolish dormer; construct new addition The board reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for 602 Sayre Avenue to demolish an existing dormer and construct a new addition to the property. The application was presented as agenda item 4 during the meeting. While specific details of the presentation and discussion are not available in the meeting records, the board considered the proposed changes to the historic property in accordance with local preservation guidelines. The application was **approved** by the board, allowing the property owner to proceed with demolishing the existing dormer structure and constructing the new addition as proposed. *Note: Detailed discussion points, speaker names, and specific concerns raised during this agenda item are not available in the provided meeting documentation.* ## 200-214 West High Street: Install new signage The commission reviewed agenda item 5, an application for a certificate of appropriateness to install new signage at 200-214 West High Street. The application was postponed during the meeting. No specific details about the proposed signage, the reasons for postponement, or discussion points were available in the meeting materials. **Outcome:** Postponed --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo Welcome to the September 10th meeting of the Board of Architecture 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 a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'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 staff can approve eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 10 approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 233 Deshea Road, install gutters and downspouts. In the South Ashland Historic District at 237 South Ashland Avenue, install chimney caps. The 259 South Ashland Avenue repair front porch roof. In the Aylesford Historic District at 300 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure. 121 Old Park Avenue, install storm windows. And at 11 Preston Court, remove maple tree. In the Bell Court Historic District at 141 West Bell Court, install awnings. At 153 West Bell Court, install landscape plan. And in the Western Suburbs Historic District at 633 West Short Street, replace rear door. 349 Madison Place, renovate garage. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificate of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 114 Barberry Avenue, construction of a stone sitting wall in a horseshoe shape. Is that applicant here this evening? If you'd like to come forward, please introduce yourself. I'm Joey Maggard. I'm the owner at 114 Barberry Lane. Good evening. I wonder if you've had a chance to review staff's findings and recommendations at this time. Yes. They're very favorable. They were. Stating staff recommends approval of the wall, some fire pit as submitted with the following conditions, that any changes be provided to the staff. And you're agreeable with those? I'm in agreement, yes. Very good. Are there any questions or comments from the board for the applicant this evening? Very well. Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Seeing no motion, hearing no further comment, I would entertain a motion. Okay, Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 0118014-D, 114 Barbary Lane, I move that we accept the staff's recommendation of approval subject to the one condition that any changes be provided to the staff. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I 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? Motion passes. Was that a late aye? Very good. All ayes across the board. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 228 Market Avenue. Change rear door to window. Is that applicant here? Yes. Hi, I'm Donnie Redden, owner of 228 Market Street. 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. They were pretty favorable. There were some conditions. Staff recommends approval with the conditions that, one, the final brick mold detail come back to staff for review. Of course, that's before construction. And then, two, that no shutters be installed. Are you guys agreeable to those conditions? Yes. Any questions or comments? No. Great. Any comments or questions for the applicants from the board? Pretty good stuff. Anybody here speak to this in the audience this evening? Well, seeing no action out there, hearing no comment from us, I would entertain a motion at the time, at this time. Mr. Chair, relative to case number 12520228C at 228 Market Street, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness conditional upon the staff's suggestion that the final brick mold detail come back to the staff and that no shutters be installed. I'll second the motion. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And that motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. No, it's all right. Good to see you. Here it is. The next case this evening is at 533 East Main Street. Construct a side garden and columbarium. Is that applicant here this evening? I'm Mark Arnold, the project landscape architect for the church. I live at 191 Kentucky Avenue. Good to have you here this evening. Thank you. I wonder if you've had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time. Yeah, we've looked at them. They were pretty positive. Just to make sure we're on the same page, I'll read through those. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. Number one, that the wrought iron fence have a simpler appearance, and those final details come back to staff for review. Number two, the paved walkway leading to the 10 by 10 area be reduced to a minimum. Number three, once reviewed by other LFU CG divisions, final details come back to staff. And then number four, any changes and final details come back to staff before construction? No problem. Well, very good. That's good to hear. Do you have a size in mind when it comes to the staff's recommendation of the walkway alteration? I think we sketched it out originally at approximately 7 feet wide, and we can certainly reduce that to the 5-foot range, which would be half the size of the 10 by 10 space, and I think that would work out just fine, if that's agreeable to you. I think it's agreeable to us, our team. So. It looks very nice. I look forward to seeing it executed. We do too. Any other comments or questions from the board at this time? Any comments or questions for us? I would like to add something. It's difficult for me to see at the scale of this rendering what the detail of the ironwork is. I don't at all mind the shape, and I don't think it, from my opinion, has to be radically simplified. Okay. But the staff will be able to react to that better when they have a more detailed. I think our intention, if we were to simplify, this is sort of, I'm hearing this today, and we've talked about it, would be to potentially take the arc of the rail off the top and look at a more simple detail where we flatten that. We'd still like to have potentially three horizontal pickets in the rail with vertical pickets. I'm not sure that we feel like we have to put any more ornamental detail into that and, you know, any other sconce elements or things. but I think we would like to at least have three horizontal rails and then with vertical pickets, and then we'll obviously fix it to the stone walls on the end. It's only going to be approximately 24 inches high, I think. We haven't done the sectional detail just yet. We've just prepared sort of the concept, but it's only anticipated that that piece is about 18 to 24 inches in height. I would observe that the elliptical tops that you're showing make a visual reference to the windows. That's what we were thinking about when we put them in. And so to my way of thinking that the more appropriate place for that to happen is at the gate because that's an opening. I would agree. And so I think that to my, in my opinion, keeping the curvilinear top would be fine on the gate. At the gates. I mean, that's an opinion, but for what it's worth. Well, there was the two details we were trying to pull at well three, the stone, obviously pulling it off. There's a belt band on the building of smooth stone that we wanted to consider continuing in the columbarium wall at the next detail level. And then the arch of the window, trying to duplicate it in some place, I would be perfectly comfortable working that in at the gates and then simplifying the infill pieces. I don't think we have a problem with that at all. But those are good comments that hopefully the staff keeps in mind in the conversation or understands our thoughts on the matter. Certainly. And we, as you would know, will need your full architectural drawing to review prior to issuance of the permit. We understand that. Okay. This was our putting our toe in the water to make sure that the concept in general would be suitable for the neighborhood and suitable for you all. And then we'll definitely move it into an architectural plan here in the next few weeks. So that's our intention. I think you may have an audience interest. Well, you don't have any more comments for us. I'd like to make sure, is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? If you'd like to come forward, please. introduce yourself and miss Tate while he's coming forward would you pull your microphone down some we're not picking you up very well mr. chairman members of the board my name is Kevin Murphy and I live at 141 West Bell Court, and I would like to make three brief points here. First of all, I'd like to say that I praise Good Shepherd for their efforts and Mr. Arnold, beautiful ideas tying the wall into the building. I do not object to the idea of a columbarium at all. We've considered them at my church. I understand all the benefits, and they are a wonderful feature to have. However, I do have an issue with the location of the proposed columbarium. And just to bring this to your attention, I notice the report does refer to a development plan that was submitted in 2000 that was part of a zone change application then. And I have a copy of that. I don't know if you've seen it or not, but if I would be allowed, I'd like to have an enlarged portion of that shown so I could make a point. And what it really addresses is the location, and I understand it's not your purview to interpret the zoning ordinance or look at development plans. I fully understand that. I understand that you're here to apply the guidelines, and that's where I want to go with this. And as I have appeared before the board several times before, I will once again restate I am no expert in applying the guidelines. But there are two that I just want to mention to you, and the first one has to do with view sheds. And I'm really not sure what a view shed is, so I'll defer to the experts on that. But what I interpret that as being in this application is a transition space from Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, as what I consider the grand gateway into the Belcourt neighborhood, which is really a very quiet residential neighborhood. And it, to me, constitutes a form of what I would consider a viewshed. The second guideline that I'd just like to mention is one that's mentioned in the staff report, and it deals with the appropriateness of masonry walls in front yard spaces. Now, it's arguable whether or not where they're placing this is a front yard or not. I think it can be argued several ways. It's open to interpretation. But I think when we look at the development plan from 2000, and it's oriented here toward Main Street with Belcourt being on the upper right corner. I forgot about this. I don't know if I can make it work, though. Well, never mind. Okay. Belcourt here, East Main Street here, the main body of the sanctuary of the church here. At that time, there was a proposed addition and new building, all-purpose building, I believe. And the columbarium was proposed to be in the space between those two buildings, which to me is a good space in the sense that it would provide a more appropriate space for the types of activities that might occur there, contemplative meditation, privacy, whatever. Plus, it would preserve the open space here on the Bell Court side, which does serve as sort of that open gateway into our neighborhood. And as I say, it's debatable whether or not that would be called a front yard, but I don't think anybody can walk or drive up and down East Main Street and turn onto Bell Court without being struck by the fact that it begins to open up and becomes a more peaceful, open area. And again, I understand they're not building a structure, but they are not an enclosed structure, but they are putting a wall in. They are closing off the area. And I just would like to suggest that in my amateur opinion, that would affect a current view shed. So that's really all I have to say. Thank you very much. And I would be happy to entertain any questions. Are there any follow-up comments or questions to Mr. Murphy's statements? No, I don't have any. I have nothing to add. Thank you for your comments. Anybody else in the audience speak to this case this evening? any further comments from us i don't think so that being the case i would entertain a motion at this time i do have a comment i do have a question stemming from mr murphy's comments and that that is about the reading of the front yard And I guess I'd like the staff to respond to this. If this were a residence, it would be receiving a very different kind of review, I think. And so could you speak to that? Well, the corner location is certainly part of the issue, pro and con. If it were a residence, any sort of perimeter definer, which this kind of becomes, if you think about not that it's to be a columbarium and a garden inside, but just think about what its impact is on the periphery of the two sides, the entrance street and main street. If it were residential, following your introduction as an example, A property would be allowed to put up a fence that would be encouraged to be transparent as practical. And because corners, people do have the right to use that yard, but they're encouraged to not bring it all the way forward to the front plane of the structure. And I think in this instance, there is some transparency in the wall, and it does not come all the way forward. Now, the flip side is, it is a significant open green, I think, in terms of the setting of the church itself, and then the pulled back view of more of the bookend, what happens when you enter. On the opposite corner, the east corner of this, the house there sits rather close to the street on the side yard sense. It has a stone wall coming down, a retaining wall coming down along, and it by necessity comes all the way to the front because it's holding the land. It comes all the way to the sidewalk. And so when you think about the bookend kind of thing, I don't think that the proposal by the church philosophically is that different in orientation than what you see on the other corner with the residential building. So that goes, that comment goes to the view shed issue more so than the fence in the front yard issue. I think it's a little of both. It's a site presence and view shed comparison. I guess, I mean, I raise the question really out of curiosity from a procedural standpoint more than anything else, because my sense is that it complies with the guidelines and that, in fact, is a really tasteful and appropriate development. And when I respond to it, I think of other urban ecclesiastical developments that come to mind, like in major cities like in Boston or even in European cities, in a lot of American cities where you have urban conditions and you have a church in a situation like this, there are often developments like this that provide a place of solace that's neither public nor private and is sort of transitional between the public zone and the private zone. But it is an interesting question, the front yard fence question, Right. And within the guidelines, I mean, obviously from the staff's review of this, we, in studying, it felt that it is within the guidelines. Certainly there are other ways this could be approached, which would also probably be within the guidelines. It could be on the opposite side of the church. It could be a slender piece that comes closer to the church proper and doesn't create a garden space as much as being an abutment almost to that. Christ Church, I know, has done that, and their garden is a very different setting in that sense. So it's not to say that this is the best and brightest solution, but it is something that I think is when you weigh the proposal before the process, it does meet the intent of the guidelines from the staff's perspective. I'll just add, I think it'd be a completely different conversation if we were discussing the location that's shown on the older drawings that puts it on Main Street. I think that's, I think its location on Bell Court is better for the users as far as the setting it creates and the way it would be used. And the scale, the scale of Main Street versus the scale of Bell Court, I think it's more appropriate on the side than it would ever be on the front. I don't find it detrimental to the view shed entering Bell Court. I mean, the view doesn't get pinched until the addition that's beyond this, and it still opens up to the same view that is Belcourt. So I don't find it as detrimental as some others might. I think it's an elegant solution. It's not been made obtrusive. It's kept nice and succinct, and I think it's going to meet a good purpose where it is. I don't know where there may be other locations it could go, but I like the location it actually was landed in. Well, and the only last thing I'd say relative to the staff's review is that one of the things we discussed is the fact that it does step back or not commence until a certain number of feet behind the front elevation of the structure. And again, I think that's significant to meeting the intent of the guidelines. I think the other thing that we may make note of is that the line of the wall, the fence edge on Bell Court continues the line of the building. And I think that's a very significant design decision that is completely consistent with the way the property looks and feels. And that edge of the building has a really lovely sort of varying levels of transparency as you move down Belcourt. And I think that this feature will repeat that sort of idea in a subtle kind of way. I like it very much. Do you have something to add? Sure. Sure. I'm Brian Cole. I'm the rector at Good Shepherd. I also live at 136 Forest Avenue. I think I've been the rector at Good Shepherd for two and a half years, so it was my job to do everything they hadn't already done. And so the plans from 2000, I think for us in looking at beginning with the columbarium first, Some of that came out of a pastoral reality of some folks who had a need around that. And then realizing in some ways, I think also the world we're living in is now very different than the world of 2000. And I think Good Shepherd has the challenge of lots of historic churches, that we're both a historic church and actually a church that's still growing. And we have a commitment to Belcourt and to that building and want to maintain an integrity of the space. realizing the way that the plans in 2000 had the columbarium. To me, the challenge pastorally is to have a columbarium right on Main Street, thinking of people attending to that space. I think, again, our sense was to have it on the opposite side and somewhat removed from Main Street. Also created the potential of more of a buffer that if you're there attending to that space that you're not so immediately on Main Street and feeling that. So tried to create a buffer both of space and also emotional buffer. So this group was very aware of those plans and realized really at this point the idea of this option was, I think for us, really intended to really respect both the lines but also kind of just the reality of how to create an appropriate columbarium space, realizing we're in an active, busy part of downtown. Thank you for your comments, and I tend to agree with the location and for those reasons. This is off the subject, but sort of related. it's interesting to note that the word columbarium is derived from the Latin word for dovecote and so there is the symbolic aspect of peace and I think that's consistent with what you're saying. Any other comments or questions at this time? Anybody else in the audience have a comment to add? Very well. That being the case, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, relative to case number 12260533-G for a certificate of appropriateness for an addition of a garden and columbarium, to the Church of the Good Shepherd on 533 East Main. I move that we approve this application with the recommendations of the staff, which include that the wrought iron fence have a simpler appearance and final details come back to the staff, that the paved walkway leading to the 10 by 10 area be reduced to approximately 5 feet and that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, final details come back to the staff and any changes in 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? Could the staff make one recommendation? And I know we verbalized this, but I think for housekeeping purposes, it would be appropriate to put that full architectural drawings will be provided to staff prior to issuance of the permit. It's pretty standard, and I think we just didn't add that sentence this time. We should have. Right. I would just suggest we change that fifth item to any changes and final drawings and details come back to the staff. And it needs the prior to issuance of the COA. I beg your pardon? It needs to include the language of prior to issuance of the COA. Prior to the issuance of the COA. Thank you. I second the amendment. Thank you very much. Any further discussion of the motion and the amendments? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with those recommendations from the staff. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 602 Sare Avenue. That application is to demolish a dormer and construct new additions. Thank you. Oh, Lord. I'm okay. Okay. Each one of those goes. This is. This is totally, this is the other. Okay. We can put it aside. Okay. Is this just the alternate with the. That dude? No. Oh, the board. Sorry. It wasn't made. The economic. Ah, gotcha. Is this to replace what we have? It is. It's two. Yeah, it doesn't have the lines in it, but it shows on the plan. Okay. What's in this plan? Well, you can't on this drawing. Well, you can because there's an extra session there. So, Rob, good to see you. Introduce yourself up there before we get ahead of ourselves. My name is Rob Magrish. My address is 318 Pine Street, Lexington. And we're addressing 602 Sarah Avenue, the Hager residence. Jerry Hager, the owner, is also present. Good to see you this evening. I suppose you've had a chance to read the staff's findings. Yes, I have. I don't know. But given your new drawings that are here, do we want to start with the staff presentation or will it be as applicable to these new drawings? I haven't had a chance to review, so I don't know. But why don't we do the staff presentation and everybody will be on the same plane and then we'll go on from there. It's okay. I must tell you, process-wise, it's a little problematic to walk things on when the staff hasn't gotten the materials in advance for y'all's packages and reports. I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying procedurally this is the real world of how that works. I will comment at this point. I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to discuss whether or not we should have a continuance and let the staff have an opportunity to review your alternative. Well, I mean, we've got three sets of plans. Okay, here's the deal. The proposal that you all have that has the more or less horizontal window wall, I believe you all have that. There are two systems that we've looked at. Jerry got estimates from one back, one's Optima, and the other's Euroline. And that came in at a rather high number. There is a secondary system that is actually currently in use in a project in the 400 block of South Mill Street, Andrew Moore's house, that has a substantially lower cost. And this information has only come back to us since the deadline for this meeting. and in that they're both metal window wall systems even though one is more of a horizontal mode to it the other is more vertical it really is I didn't see that there was that much of a difference in the overall design concept because it's still the same amount of glass area sure and so forth well that helps us understand a little bit of what the new drawings are versus what the old drawings are that we have. I'm not, I think some of our larger general comments would be the same as far as glass wall system versus not. And I'm happy to discuss the issues that came up on the staff report and so forth. We do have sort of a little bit of a time constraint, so we'd rather not move this back if it's at all possible. But, you know, you all can let us know. I'd almost say let's hear the staff report and let's start our conversation with you. And then we can decide. If it's getting a little too hairy or some of the decisions are still too wide open, we can talk about a different course of action. That'll be fine. Is that okay? Yeah. I don't want to commit one way or the other yet. Okay. All right. Is everybody okay with that approach? You're comfortable. so yeah let's go ahead and have uh does amelia have the report on this this is the property at 602 sayer and um just for everybody's memory we've actually heard this as a conceptual view twice within the last 11 months, I believe. Most recently in May of this year, and this is for an addition on the rear of the structure, and just sort of to walk you around. Some of these pictures are current, and some are from that time period, just because of the trees sort of blocking the back addition. So this is the addition you have now. There's a screen addition and then a one-story addition, which is right here. So these are back from the December pictures. And there is also note the dormer. This is sort of from the East Belcourt side, looking at this addition, another view of the existing wall of the structure. of course the proposal is to remove this piece and that dormer and to install a two-story addition to the rear of this. Here's just a general site plan and a first floor plan. so this addition can almost be broken into two separate oops sorry two separate pieces with this being the addition a smaller piece here and then a piece that sort of projects forward of this with this being an addition. And again, the second floor is the same. And here's the side elevation. The bay and row of windows are then siding, and this is actually the cant, so this piece is actually canted with this actually being a canted piece here, slanted. And this is on the west elevation. This piece here is approximately 15 by 20, and then it gets larger. Oh, sorry, that's... This is 13 by 15, and this piece is 15 by 23. And there are two plans that were provided in your packet of this rear addition for this glass wall. One that shows the chimney just coming up in a flat piece before it comes to the actual pipe and the one that has a slant here. It slants to the watersheds off. This will be masonry with this pipe rising above. This will actually, this will be clapboard and clapboard with these glass window systems, with the cant being these pieces right here. wall system and then another detail of the fire section and as Mr. Magrash has mentioned previously there were other glass systems that were considered and these are sort of indicating those details There will be a deck that the doors lead out onto, but at this moment there are no details. They were really focusing on the addition, and the deck will be coming soon. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to demolish the one-story rear addition in the dormers within guidelines 6B and 6D, respectively, demolition of any original feature part of the historic building should be avoided, and demolition of structures should not be detrimental to the character, scale, rhythm, design, and importance of the group of buildings, streetscape, and district. The demolition of these elements will not be detrimental to the site. The proposed additional requires further study. The guidelines in several instances discuss the importance of not replicating history and having designs that are contemporary and or using contemporary material. The proposed additional does have a contemporary appearance, yet staff finds that the rear wall has too much glass and not enough opening to solid ratio, which results in a more commercial appearance or commercial storefront. In addition, the scale and organization of the glazing has little relation to the residential feel of the house. The design of the west and east elevation and the west portion of the elevation addition does seem to have more residential approach. However, the rear wall, which is the east portion, simply looks too commercial in this residential neighborhood. Guidelines B1F states window openings should be compatible in scale, size, proportion to established patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings. New buildings should have similar ratio of window openings to solid wall space as adjacent surrounding buildings as per the buildings in the district. Per the shape of the east portion of the addition, it has cantor corners and reduces the mass of the larger portion of the addition. It does reference the bay in the main mass, yet it is contemporary without replicating history. The guidelines state 2A4A and 2A4E additions are most appropriately located at the rear buildings, and additions should reflect characteristics of the current building, a period in which the design would be compatible with the original building. Per the roof of the east portion, the design of the two-story addition as proposed does meet the guidelines because it is making a new feature in a bay which is compatible with the other gables in the house. Guidelines 2A4C prospectively state additions should be secondary to original buildings in scale, design, and placement. Exterior walls should be stepped in from the minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building, and roof lines should step down from the peak of the existing roof line so the existing main roof remains evident. And additions should be compatible in design in keeping with the original building's design, roof, shape, materials, color, location of window, doors, and corner sites. The addition steps down from the main mass and steps in from the corners. The proposed chimneys and with guidelines B1K, chimneys and other roof features should be incorporated and designed for new construction and provided they do not dominate the building or streetscape or appropriate to the new construction. Recommendation staff recommends continuing further study in regards to the rear wall of addition. And the applicants are here. Before you sit down there, Amelia, I have a question about your findings on the chimney. Did I understand that you feel like those are within the guidelines and that's A-OK? The chimney piece? Yes. Okay. Any other questions for Amelia before she sits down? Thank you. Okay. Where would you like to begin, sir? Well, I guess, first of all, addressing the roof line of the larger mass of the two sections of the addition. After looking at other houses in the neighborhood, first of all, in the Belcourt area, there are not as many or there is not a language of a rear L being added to the house. additions in the neighborhood, for the most part, seem to be all sort of like enclosed sleeping porches, little sort of boxes and things, sort of what you saw in the pictures before. It's very prevalent, especially with that group of houses right there as you come in. To break up the mass of the addition, to have the one side taller than the other, sort of speaks to that. It gives the idea that the lower portion is sort of that sleeping porch addition, sort of a little boxy thing that seems to be the language of the neighborhood. I know that the guidelines usually call for all of the addition to step down, but in this case I felt that with the use of the glass division between the original house and the new structure, plus the contemporary element on the end, that there wouldn't be a mistaking of that element as being original simply because the cornice line met up. Also, on the interior of the house, to maintain ceiling height or uniform ceiling height on both floors, we really need that extra height, especially in the master bedroom, because in the lower port, there will be a slight clip in the ceiling as it gets to the outside wall. So, you know, really volumetrically on the interior, it really works best to have it uniform throughout. that, you know, I think that the guidelines speak to what is typical and that in this particular case, that this is something that could, an exception could be made because of the language of the architecture of the house and the language of the neighborhood. The second issue about the glass, or too much glass, Um, the existing structure is kind of unusual in its own right, in that majority of the window openings are either on the, uh, I think it's the west side, the driveway side of the house, and the front. If you look at the, I guess that's the east side, towards the neighbor's house, there are actually only four window openings and massive amounts of brick wall. The back of the house currently only has two openings and solid brick wall. And I thought that sort of playing the opposite architecturally by adding the glass would sort of speak to those massive amounts of brick that are in the original structure. And if you look at the east elevation, with the glass divisions and then there's still a very large panel of brick or brick facing in that section, I think it all reads as sort of solid void, solid void, solid void. And I really think that the full glass wall at the end gives that great juxtaposition between all of that solid masonry that's in the rest of the house. Also, just as sort of an architectural trick, the idea is that we're playing on the idea of the bay that exists in the house, that canted corner area. And sort of by using the glass as sort of the way to sort of draw it out, it's almost as if it's being sort of pushed out from the original structure. I thought that it lent sort of a nice feeling to have that transparency in that end piece, especially since it is facing towards the rear yard. So that's in general. I can address specific comments. Appreciate that. Do you want to, before we start cutting into you, want to address the alternate drawings that gave us the difference between the windows? I mean, you mentioned the price difference. Yeah. What happened is we, as I mentioned before, we had looked at two systems, Euroline and Optima. Euroline is a system that I had used in a project in Washington, and the Optima products are being used currently. The apiary on Jefferson. And for this relatively small project, the price was 100 and something a square foot, basically. A bit of a budget breaker, slightly. The other system, as I mentioned before, that we then looked at is one that has already been approved for a project in a historic district here in Lexington. And as I mentioned, it's the one that is being used in the 400 block of South Mill. And it has a much, much lower price tag. The only difference is that it is a much more vertical system. It's a more traditional sort of curtain wall system. It does, you know, the mullions are slightly reduced. It's not quite what you'd find in a commercial building. But it is, you know, it has, the way it's set up in its module is it really works much better as a vertical element. So the drawings that you all received tonight, it's the exact same glass area that was in the other proposal with the more horizontal. It's just utilizing a more vertical motif that accommodates that particular system. And, I mean, the owners really wanted to go more with the horizontal and that design, but we do have to be a little bit more practical and identify that, you know, sometimes things that look great in design cost a little too much. So that's where we're coming from with that other design. But as I said, I mean, it's exactly the same amount of glass. It's just really the case that the mullions are changing direction. Well, I think there's some advantage to your case, too, in that the mullions themselves are a little thicker. Yeah, they are. It helps the conversation of volume or of void and solid. This is true. I think it's a favor for your case, I hope. There's also, I mean, the other thing that's available, if it makes any difference, the house is currently obviously painted white. It's a brick house, but it's painted white. The intent is to keep it the white paint. Even the new brick areas and the new siding, the hardy plank that would be installed in the addition, would be painted white. And there is a possibility in addition. with the less expensive window oil system to actually use the white mullions as they are doing in the house on South Mill Street. When I saw this Euro line, these cut sheets, I thought, oh, it's really nice. You don't get to see those European ones very often. No, and we found out why. You know, these are two really different systems. I mean, in a drawing like this, you can see, you can imagine that they might be similar, but they're not. I mean, the one you're changing to is a hollow metal system, right? I believe it is, yes. And these European ones are solid steel. Right. Exactly. So you're able with the new system to get insulated glass? Yes. What is the dimension of the mountains on the new system? They run, it's basically two inches, but where the corner comes around, you're going to get four. So the drawing is appropriately to scale? Yes. Yes. I think that the new system is vastly superior aesthetically to the previous one because I think that the vertical orientation of the windows is much more in keeping with the house and with the neighborhood. And I think that the staff's concern about the, that was voiced about the windows, my hunch is that a lot of that probably came from the predominantly horizontal quality of that appearance. And it really has no relationship to the aesthetic of the neighborhood or the house. And I think this really does a better job of doing that. I have a question for the staff. Is that appropriate at this point in time? I'm sorry. Could you? Sharing plans. I'm sorry. Sharing plans. That's okay. There is no discussion in your findings about the fact that the cornice line of the addition is coincident with the cornice line of the existing house. and normally we make every effort to have the eave at a lower elevation than the existing eave. Could you speak to that? One tux under. The smaller piece is under. The smaller piece is under, but the larger volume is going to be. And that's consistent with what we traditionally do. The larger one, we had quite a discussion about that, staff end. so vastly takes on a new presence that it's really not demonstrating, it's becoming this new element that creates a new roof form that then ties into that roof further up, way higher up. The ones we usually run into that contradict the guidelines just want to meet it, but they don't create a new roof form above it very often. And so this one really becomes, with the roof going partway up the main mass, the staff's interpretation is that it takes on its own identity as an addition and can have that segment of the cornice disappear within that add-on. So I guess the point being that the staff's interpretation of this one is that it's such a substantive change in the system up there. that it doesn't miss tucking under, it creates a whole new element. And the other disappears under it, essentially. So traditionally, the guidelines, the staff's interpretation of them is, you know, where we see them is that they want to just continue the corn is straight on out, but often with like a flat roof or a slightly pitched roof. This guy with the big pitch that's coming with it and that gable end that's going to appear at the far end of the chimney, it is taking on a different role as an addition to the house. So staff made a distinction between this level of overriding that cornice and something that misses it by a bit. The missing it by a bit is more problematic in our opinion. This is the best solution for water management to be able to die right into it, and for that reason, it's fine with me. Well, the whole addition does set back in. There's a foot on either side from the main block. In our conceptual review, on the one side, it actually did meet because of the angle, but we did bring that in. So it does create one thing on the main part of the house, whenever there's sort of a gable or a, do we have an aerial view picture of the roof of this house? Sure. Well, anyway, the roof is sort of set up that all the gables and the little dormer on the front and everything kind of lines up and becomes part of the plane of the other roof. And the one thing that happens with this is it totally pulls it in. It's not part of the plane of the original roof structure. So even though it does mimic the form and it will have the same pitch and all that kind of stuff, it is definitely an element that has been brought in and it doesn't, you know, it's not pretending to be part of the original roof. Well, that sells me to where you break the plane on, as I look at the rear elevation, you're talking about breaking the plane on the right side of the dormer. Right, because throughout the rest of the house, all of those are the same. So you're putting a new valley in there. Right, and we come in. And then, as Sarah mentioned, then the gutter system can continue on around. And actually, in the new one, you can see, I think I did show the downspouts on the east side. Is that brick on the east side? It is. It's brick facing. So would there be a brick molding at the juncture with the window? Right now it looks like you're... No, it's intended to be just very clean with no molding. There's an inconsistency in the elevations in that the side elevations are drawn with chimney pipe penetrating through the roof so that the roof, the rake fascia would be in front of the chimney pipe, whereas the rear elevation shows the chimney pipe proud of the roof. You know, those draftsmen, they just can't get it together, can they? I guess, you know, I really like the rear elevation with the chimney pipe proud of the roof, but I also really like the extension of the roof on the side elevations. I mean, the detail was, oh, yes, there you can kind of see what's going on there. But, yeah, the intent was the chimney would actually penetrate, so you would actually see that piece going up. But, you know, that piece of soffit and so forth can be sort of modified to accommodate it if it's better to have it go on without interruption. Well, would you enlarge the, I guess, conversely, would you consider enlarging the depth of the masonry portion so that you can move the chimney stack further away from the house? Yeah, I mean, we can play with that. I don't want to get it too much larger than it is, but we could definitely play with it within a few inches so that the stack could clear one way or the other. Because I like the cleanliness where they bypass each other, but I'm with Graham. I like the extension of the roof past the wall. Well, if you look at the front of the house, that gable is recessed considerably and the roof comes out further and I think you're going to need to pull your roof out further anyway because it's too close to the edge of the roof to get your roofing in there and your on the rear elevation? On the rear Well the intent is to match the overhang all the way around to the original on that section So without having actually measured it, I don't know what it is. So is the gable infill set back in the same way that it is on the original house? Yes, that's the intent. Those details would be the dimensions forward and back and so forth would be the same as the original house. The gable would be more, rather than the one on the front, it'd be more closely identified to the one on the side that is above the canted bay, which we don't know if you have a picture of. Yeah, it looks like it's... But it does the same thing. It's just a matter that the front gable is actually brick, and the side ones are all... We see a detail there. I think they were shingle originally, but they've got some kind of vinyl or something. Okay. it's some other material well overall i knew we kind of dove right into the details but rob i i appreciate the approach of the addition i jotted this down so i didn't wouldn't leave anything out i'm sorry uh i think there's a nice balance in the plan and i think it it's a good solution to an addition to this house uh i'd like the volumes and the relationship to the house I think it's right on the edge of just big enough versus too big. We always talk about that relationship between structure and structure. And that is something that, you know, is a big problem because not only do you not want to overscale the original structure, but the interior space, if you have, you know, a series of spaces that have a certain scale, you know, a room scale, and all of a sudden you're in something that's tremendously bigger or way smaller, it never really works well on the inside. So we were trying to get that balance there. Sure, sure, and I think it turned out pretty well. I think that conversation carried over well from the conceptual reviews of squeeze a little but not too much. the rear elevation I think it's one of those issues where a true rear elevation drawing is a bit deceiving versus reality I think an oblique view of the addition it's not the amount of glazing is not going to read as heavy as it does in the true rear elevation but at the same time I think the alternate proposal helps that wait, but I still agree with the staff that there's still more glazing in the void-solid relationship in just the pop-out. And I like the glazing at the corners, though, so I don't know where you start filling things in or what openings you give up in order to bring some of the balance back? Well, as I said, because the existing house really has so much mass and so much solid, you know, I really didn't feel that the glazing, sort of the abundance of glazing, would overpower the existing structure in any way or not relate to it. It's playing on that, massive amounts of bricks against a large area of transparency. I don't think I'd want you to add back so much that you stepped away from that concept. I wonder if the masonry box for the fireplace can fill that void. Does it get taller? Not all the way to the top. I still like the stovepipe and the relationship it plays, But if it became taller, would that, how much taller does it have to get to fix the balance? Well, we run into another problem there, that the whole point of having this sort of masonry box with the glass around it and just using the sort of stovepipe chimney was to give the interior a view to the exterior over the top of the fireplace, which is not only adding to that transparency for the space, but it also is picking up on a very traditional late 19th century motif where they would place windows above fireplaces in primary rooms. And it's sort of a play on that. I didn't say take it all the way up, just up a little. Well, I mean, it could go up, but you don't want to get it out over. No, my first pass of the sketch was just hack you right off. You wouldn't like it at all. I actually took it all the way up to the second floor and left an opening above that, which solves my problem on the outside, but it doesn't solve your problem from the inside. Except that you have so much glazing. Well, that's the problem. We're going to have plenty of you. Yeah. Yeah. The interior of the house, as I said, has very little, very few windows, quite frankly. And what we're doing is we're creating a suite of rooms, three rooms on the interior. That is the existing front room, which was originally a parlor, which is now used as a dining room. The secondary room, which was the original dining room, is going to become the kitchen. There's a pocket door between the two with about a six or eight foot opening. And then we're opening up the back wall with a 10 foot opening into the new living room. So that you basically have a tripartite suite of rooms. Of which, in the original section, there's one four foot window in the front. In the center section, there are two 32 inch windows on either side of the fireplace in the bay. And then the idea was that the glazing would come up at the end. So as you're walking in, you sort of have an awful lot of rooms to this rear glazed area with the fireplace as the center point. I'm just curious, what kind of window treatment are you going to use for the windows? Window treatment? Mm-hmm. Oh, I think something with swags and tests. That you're going to have a south. No, seriously, you have a southern exposure during the wintertime. You may have a sun issue. Right. You've heard a lot of sun coming through. There is a system that is commonly used in this case in residential settings, which I forget what it's called, but it's like a shade that comes down to it. It's sort of perforated. And what I was trying to get at is that might actually mitigate all that glass because it's not going to be totally opaque or totally transparent. It's going to be somewhat opaque with the shades. but I mean that's as needed or when they would want to use it well I was going to say Rob I don't think the first floor is an issue I mean I think it's a beautiful transition like you said to this really beautiful living room I think what really is is the I guess it's the bedroom above where you have all the glazing I think I don't know if there's a way somehow that we could add more solid to that part because i think that's for me i guess that is the only issue i see i i think with the with the chimney below and the fireplace i think that's solid is fine is there just some way we could do something like that on the second floor to help help that balance i guess is what i'm looking for and i don't know what that is i'm I'm struggling to come up with an idea that I could throw to you. Right now, I just can't. Well, again, in the new bedroom, the primary glazing is on the rear. And the idea was to have it as open as possible. Jerry and his wife could speak to whether they want a little more privacy up there or not. It's going to be a big issue if it is a bedroom. and you wouldn't, you know, if you had drapery, it would really compromise the window system. I'll just ask you to think through that better. No, I mean, certainly it's something that can be considered. And obviously we're not really in a position to talk about drapery inside the house. I think it'll be part of the new guidelines, right? What you can see from the outside is fair game. But I think what I'm hearing consistently across the board, and it's lining up with the staff findings, is that there's a lot of glazing in the back. Even with the new proposal, I think the idea is that is there a way to chip away at the balance and shift it a little bit back towards more solid? I don't think we're asking for a lot more to change. I think it's a minimal, well, minimal. It's a smaller amount. It's not, you know, go to square or rectangular openings in a solid wall. I think that would be a mistake. I think what you're trying to do is a good idea. I like it. But I think there's a little bit, just a little bit more than come back in our direction, and we feel better about it. Well, as far as the glazing, would the use of opaque glass, frosted glass, things like that, would it still a glass element still be in the system, or would that still not make it? I don't think that does it to me because it's texture, and it's, well, I myself, and we'll see what the other board members have to add, I feel like the texture would still read like glass. If it were a metal panel in the opening, that might be different to match the mullions. That texture versus the glazing texture would be different, different enough for me. But I also like my tall chimney, so I don't know. Well, hey, you know, we can look at that. Well, it's, you know, obviously it's up to you. But the balance is what I'm after and how you achieve it, you know. Well, if you remember in the original conceptual design, the original design for the first round was similar, but it was slightly flipped. The bayed area was on the opposite side. And it absolutely was speaking to exactly what's there in that it only had windows on the corner and the entire center section of the bay was brick. and that's what we started with as phase one and we moved away from. Well, don't get me wrong. I like this better than that concept. We just need to see the balance. It may be going back in a circle. I personally don't agree that there's too much glass. I think it's a bold statement and I think it's okay. However, I do think that it would be improved by reducing the glass a little bit. And I'm talking about a very little bit. And what I would suggest is looking at those bottom panels on the upper floor becoming opaque only on the sides and the canted sections so that when you get to the back elevation, those bottom panels are glass. And I think that would solve the problem. I think it's a very subtle change. And one of the reasons I think it solves the problem is that it restates the sill height of the original windows on the house. Right. And I really admire the fact that your drawings were sensitive to that. But I think that they would be so much stronger if the opaque portion that starts at the underside of the second floor were to continue to the elevation of the sill, at least on the side and at the canted pieces. I don't think it's necessary at the back section because I think there's a completely different statement going on there, and I feel like it's, in a way, it's sort of a payoff back there. So that's a suggestion. No, I appreciate that, and that's certainly something that could be considered. It also gives you a wall of the... Yeah. Making a statement of vision between... That's very true. It's different. It's doing the same thing as that. I don't think it wants to be different. Where were your drawings? Oh, that's fine. It's color time. I should have brought you more copies. I'm using blue, she's using black. That works. No, but I see where you're going with that. But just to get a frame, a ratio, a rhythm. And it wouldn't produce, I mean, it wouldn't produce your wall, your experience inside very much at all. You just did two fingers going up adjacent to the chimney stack. It's just one with many thoughts. It's at least the fifth option I've seen so far. We're actually going to have more pens over here for different, you know, grims. They have colored in one color. I've got some blue. No, I mean, I appreciate all the input. So, I mean, whatever it takes to get it right and make it work. Well, and I think your solid horizontal band is lost also in the rendering or in the drawing, not solid, solid, but you know there's a band in there that's not glazing. You mean at the floral line? Yeah. You know, an oblique colored rendering would have really... I'll speak to these draftsmen. There is your draft monkey when you need them. You just don't pay them enough. So next step, you mentioned there's a time crunch. Obviously you'd love it if we made a motion this evening. It would think that's what I heard you say. Well, the time crunch is mostly the house, the Hagers have taken possession of the house, and, you know, sort of time is money as far, and they do have to get out of their other place. So ideally, it would be great to be able to move ahead, you know, where if you want to make a motion and have, you know, details of things either come back to the staff or particular details come back to the board, that's fine. but we'd like to at least be able to start, I mean, getting it framed up and so forth. I mean, I think, or it appears that at least sort of the massing size and everything seems to be okay, and it'd be nice to sort of be able to move ahead with that. Because we do have, we're using pyramid engineering. They still have to, we didn't want to give them the go ahead to start any of their engineering work until we knew what we're going, you know, as far as the structural parts of the building or the addition goes. So there's sort of, you know, a dominoes that goes on, as you well know. Let's talk as a group here, as a board, you know, do you feel like the comments we've made that are on the record and with the staff are enough direction for the staff to consider revised drawings between Rob and the staff alone, where they don't need to involve us and they can approve this change at the staff level, or is it too great a design change and something that we would require to come back to us? Well, the lawyer in me is going to say that you're getting, you're trying to be very practical, but at the same time we are potentially laying a major issue of disagreement between the staff and between the applicant as to exactly what we are proposing because we have made several different proposals. I think it actually is going to be beneficial to Rob that we postpone this or continue it to another session two weeks out and give him time to come up with revised plans to review the staff. I don't think it's going to take a lot of work, but I think it's always safer to be on the same plan as opposed to having varying ideas that we might ultimately disagree with. Sure. And, of course, like I said, I'm just pitching that out there for your consideration. And, of course, if there's still major disagreement between the staff and the applicant, they always kick it back to us. But if you bring up a good point, we've certainly had different ideas. Not to interrupt, but I just spoke a little bit with the owner. And if you feel that it does need to come back in two weeks, we'll do that. But we can, there's other things that we can get going sort of that, you know, that will fill the void. I think that's the safest answer for us. I also think it's respectful to the staff. I think that, you know, these drawings they hadn't seen until this evening. And I really value their ability to consider something carefully and discuss it among themselves. And I think that this gives them that opportunity. Absolutely. And I do apologize for that sort of springing things at the last minute. It's just that we, you know, it was sort of like the sticker shock syndrome. It was like, oh, shit, now what do I do now? So that was a very last minute thing that was done. So I do apologize to the staff for that and sort of springing that on you at the last minute. I'm just looking at the calendar relative to the two-week sequence. and so we would need staff in your revised drawings say by the 16th, Tuesday the 16th. Packets will go out the 19th. Okay. You better bring in more draftsmen. Yeah. I've got to get the dogs working. And so if you could, you know, early in the day on the 16th so that we have enough time. That can be done. And if you want, you know, come with them and we'll chit-chat about, You can point out all the things, and that'll facilitate everything moving along. We'll take care of that. And dark pens. And dark pens, yes. Line, wait, line, wait, line, wait. Some of the plans came out a little light. I'll agree. Yeah. Jeez. You need a better cop here. So that being the case, do we need a motion to continue? Is that, I always forget which ones need motions, which don't. But that being the case, everything we've heard, I think we're out of other people to speak to this case in the audience. Do you have anything to add? I guess my only question is everything's in continuance as far as demoing that back edition existing would need to wait as well. Well, you bring up a good point because I don't think there was any contention towards the demolition of the existing. We could certainly approve that part and continue the rest. It's certainly at the board's discretion. Normally you approve demolition tied to the fact that a new build is coming along and known and all, but this is not an unknown, but nor is it in a position to concurrently get its permit. But that's totally up to you all. I wouldn't consider it in some cases. There are some instances I'm glad we don't split them apart. We can do that, but you have to get a building permit. Absolutely. They'll give it to you without your drawings. They will grant you your demolition portion independently if indeed this body has issued the permit for that demolition. So that being the case, no further comments or questions from the applicant before the applicant i would entertain a motion uh... concerning those items let me see if i can pull together right uh... relative the case number one six seven eight zero six zero two dash k uh... i move that we postpone or continue the hearing until what's the next date twenty fourth of september but that a limited coa be issued authorizing the demolition of the existing uh addition or l that's on that property consisting of that small closed-in porch is that what you're looking to demolish yes okay does that do it for you yeah you just you know per the i'm making sure i'm I'm being specifically specific. All right. Good. Okay. Very well. Is there a second to that? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Anybody feel like it's pretty clear? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with those conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. It's too late now. Oh, wait. It's not too late. The next case in the agenda this evening is for 200 and 214 West High Street install new signage. That applicant has requested to postpone that until September 24, 2014. Could I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Second. And there's a second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. That's the end of our agenda for this evening. I would certainly entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Oh, no, let's stay for a while. Can I get a second to the motion? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.