The Thank you. by the Urban County Council as 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 will have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 24 approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 113 Deshea Road, repair roof. 101 South Hanover Avenue, install BGT plaques. In the South Ashland Historic District at 240 South Ashland Avenue, renovate structure. 271 Clay Avenue, install railings. 598 East High Street, renovate structure. 719 East High Street, remove dying tree. 317 Lafayette Avenue, repair and replacement of driveway. 348 Linden Walk, renovate structure. 462 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure. 330 Woodland Avenue, replace and install fence and gate. At the Bell Court Historic District and 525 Boonesboro Avenue, renovate structure and prepare for painting. 605 Boonesboro Avenue, renovate structure. Excuse me, 150 Forest Avenue, renovate front porch. The 530 Sarah Avenue renovate structure. In the north side historic district at 417 West 3rd Street install satellite dish. 465 West 3rd Street renovate structure. 324 Hampton Court renovate rear addition. 200 West High Street renovate structure. In the South Hill historic district at 522 Arcadia Park renovate structure. 433 Jersey Street replace awnings. 371 Max Alley remove trees. 330 South Mill Street renovate structure. 336 South Mill Street remove dead trees. 340 South Mill Street and remove dead tree. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for a certificate of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 559 North Broadway. The application is to close the side porch and restore roof railing. If you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself. I'm Lynn Pettigrew and I live at 559 North Broadway. Good evening. It is unusual for you to be at the beginning of the meeting, I think. Yeah. Good to see you. And my own project, so. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings or recommendations at this time? Yep. Are you agreeable to their recommendations? They're pretty favorable. I sure am. Sure. Okay. Well, just so we can all be on the same page here. The staff recommends approval is submitted with the following condition. Once reviewed by any other LFECG divisions, All changes come back to staff review and approval prior to the start of any work. Any comments or questions for the applicant from the board at this time? Anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, we're discussing 559 North Broadway. Do you have any comments for us? It's strange that it would go so fast for you. No arguing. All of that being the case, I would certainly accept or appreciate a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, relative to case number 02500559D at 559 North Broadway, move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness, conditional upon all the changes coming back to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work after review by other LFUCG divisions. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that motion. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 515 North Broadway. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here, but it has been sent a copy of their staff report. Very well. I'm going to have to, we have plenty of people here to talk about this and vote. I'm going to have to sit this one out as I work with most of the people in this group. So, Vice Chair, I'll let you lead the discussion. All right. so anybody on the board want to start with comments on this as far as raise roof and install new siding if not the staff recommends approval with the final door details coming back to staff and for review and approval and then once it's reviewed by other divisions any of those changes come back to staff so if nobody the only procedural issue I have is that there is a recommendation that the final door details come back to staff and I'm not quite clear what the concern was with the or what the door design was in the first place other than mentioning of they have been replaced with new doors. Staff would just prefer to have or actually would like to have a spec sheet on both the vehicular and pedestrian door. Just for that reason. Okay. All right. All right. Since they are going to come back to staff about the door, I think that it would be wise for them to also address another issue that comes to mind for me, and that is how the siding is brought to grade because they're proposing to use a cementitious siding board with batten strips. and it shows it coming to grade this actually is a concrete block garage that they're facing so I think they still you know of course you have to bring it up nine inches above grade the drawing shows are coming down to grade so they they need to be they need to be alerted that they should not be bringing the siding down to grade and that they should be following the manufacturer's recommendations about how far to keep it from grade that can be a motion in the motion one of the one of the elevations on a03 shows it held up and then the one just above it has it going to grade so they just need to clarify that maybe a drafting mistake and we also do have images of that of the garage okay um in situ Okay. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Anybody in the audience to talk to this? about this case? If none, I'd hear a motion. I would move relative to case number 02500515W at 515 North Broadway to approve the application for Certificate of Appropriateness conditional upon the two staff recommendations, One being that final door details come back to staff for review and approval. And two being that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. And with the third recommendation that the details with regard to the proximity, the siding to grade, also come back to staff. and with an eye to the applicant meeting the manufacturer's recommendations with regard to such a detail. Do you hear us? Is there a second of the motion? I'll second it. Any other discussion on this motion? If none, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Any opposed? Motion passes. Now I'll hand back to our chair. Thank you. The next case in the agenda this evening is 440 Fayette Park. That application is to change the design of a previously approved garage and driveway plan. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present but has received a copy of their staff report. Question. Did he get back with you and discuss the proposal in item one about changing the configuration of the driveway? He is not. And this was as a result of a conversation with traffic engineering about the proposed design layout that you see in the site plan, and they find that the curvilinear approach that is indicated is not going to be acceptable. and so it and so he has not responded back okay about that given that some of the staff recommendations are a little in-depth and I'd know it would be better off if we had a conversation with the applicant I propose we table this in case the applicant gets here later in the meeting you have any indication if they have indicated indication if they'd intend to come this evening no kind of surprise it doesn't be here that it could also be that he might have forgotten the time it may be some people think well I think at a minimum we need to get some clarification from him as to whether or not he accepts the conditions or not and if he doesn't I used to be at the next meeting I agree let's if everyone's okay with it on the board I'd like to set this aside and see if the applicant appears before we're done this evening. The Supreme Court is eternal, doesn't it? Well, always an optimist. And if it turns out that he does not make it to the meeting at all, we have some time before there's a deadline for action. We can consider later in the meeting if we want to postpone this to the next meeting or not. So moving on to the next case for the time being on our agenda is 330 Clay Avenue, replace and increase front yard sign. Is that applicant here this evening? I am. Very well. Would you like to come forward please and introduce yourself? My name is Gerald Huber-Mail, owner of Picture Perfect Frame Shop. Yes, sir. What's your home address for the record? 330 Clay Avenue. Thank you. Good to have you here this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I doubt that you're in complete agreement with their recommendations. and did you receive the staff report that was sent yesterday that um changed this slightly i did you know and i actually did read it but i didn't bring a copy of it with me but this guy did so give me a moment well these recommended recommendations are much more favorable so have you had a chance you you have you've reviewed these and are you in agreement with the staff's recommendations i am just to review those and make sure we're all on the same page because there has been some last minute paperwork changes staff does recommend approval with the following conditions that one final details of the sign be submitted to staff prior to issuance of coa two that the front freestanding sign be located 20 inches above grade and that three remove wall mounted gable in sun and you're agreeable to those terms i am excellent are there any other comments or questions did you just receive this for the first time down there i'll give you a moment to come through in the meantime are there other comments or questions for the applicant well to be clear are we are have we dropped the proposal of the sign that's being depicted in the photograph that was presented to us with the original application Well, maybe for clarity, we can go through the staff report. I think that would get us all the same. I think I would be more comfortable with that, if you don't mind. Thank you. If you don't mind, with this last change in the last couple days, it would be better for all of us if we went through the report. To give you a sort of synopsis on this on 330 Clay Avenue, so the applicant had changed the sign in the front yard that he previously had the sign that was there was a four by five sign and it appeared to be about 20 inches above grade he has then installed this signage, which is larger, and it's roughly about six by almost five feet, or four and a half feet, and it is, you know, 29 inches above grade on one height and 27 on the other. staff did send a citation to the applicant to say that this signage does require approval to install such a large sign aboard architectural approval and he also has additional signage the other signs are in this location and then on the side of the building. This is sort of from the Euclid. Staff did talk to the applicant several times about the signage because he'd also, of course, increased the height. Since, as of this week, the applicant has proposed a solution sort of to rectify this and to make his signage more in compliant this is the previous sign that was located in this yard and to go back to this particular one excuse me he is proposing to take the sign that's in the front yard and reduce and put a new sign in the front yard that is like the old sign which is the four by five taking this sign replacing the four by eight sign that's in the side of the building with this sign and in addition as you know if you can see in the staff report there were there was a variance that was given to the sign in 1990. So he's actually sort of fixed with the 4x5 only 20 inches above grade for this particular location in the front yard. So he's, to clarify, reversing that situation. The situation you see in front of you. Guidelines include your reference. Staff finds a proposal to replace existing freestanding signage with the 4x5 sign is within the design guidelines. Guidelines 5C would state signs should be sized in proportion to the buildings and relate to and complement not overwhelm the site building and street and avoid oversized design. Staff finds a replacement of the sign on the side of the building meets the guidelines and staff finds a proposed sign is smaller than the existing and this is relating to the wall sign and it would be within the guidelines 5C that also states that signs should be located in traditional sign locations for the building and site and it should be located so the top of the edge of the sign aligns with the top of the second floor windows as it does presently. The concept of the second wall-minded sign is a previous existing addition and was granted prior to the Aylesford Historic District designation. Staff's consideration of the replacement of this wall sign reflects the reality of this grandfathered situation. staff suggests that the gable in sign that we saw sort of in the side enclosed porch area be removed since it is not in use recommendation staff recommends approval with the following condition final details of the front yard sign be submitted prior to issuance of the coa and the front freestanding sign be located only 20 inches of upgrade in the in the removal of the wall mounted sign at the end that's in the closed porch area. And of course, applicants here. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Amelia and the staff, their report? If you'd like to come back up, sir, thank you for letting us go through that. Any other comments or questions for the applicant at this time for the board? I have one just observation. The sign being, I assume, black on white, or is it black lettering on white? Dark green. Dark green. Oh, the sign you're referring to in the front yard? Uh-huh. Okay. In your new sign, would it be possible, instead of having it on a white background, to do it on like a gray background so it's not it looks very commercial um the way this sign looks and i think some of it is just the starkness of the um lettering on the on the field do you understand what i'm saying i understand what you mean but i i wasn't aware that the color was a was it was a situation i can't hold your feet to the fire i'm just giving you my reaction to it. I understand, but if you notice the old sign on the previous signs, when I first made those, it was my fault. I made two, it wasn't contrasting enough. Therefore, for the last five and a half years, I've had complaints from customers, we can't see your sign. Because it was a dark green with a black and a small gold, and it just wasn't visible. So this time I said I will make a contrast. You solved that problem. It might be a little atrocious. And I asked that you let me put the replace sign that now is in the front yard that you saw. And, by the way, that was just those photographs were just taken. I hadn't even completed it. There's still the third leg on it I hadn't cut off. There was no trim on it. We're painting the house, and it's about complete. So it's a shade of green with beige trim and with red, a dark red door and so forth. I had thought in order, if you let me use the big ones with the colors that it has, that our main concern about getting visibility from the from the euclid highway and kroger's and before even with the front yard the blockage of the shrubs prevents that yeah so it really doesn't matter i built it a little larger primarily for that purpose this made me get rid of the spot on the building but i saw i was wrong so now i ask that i put this sign up it may be a little stark on that side but it's facing a commercial area the sign in front i had intended to do a light beige background like the house and maybe red lettering with a com with a post the the green that i'm painting the house so it will correspond this one i'd like to keep it as is on on the on the building sure okay and i think sarah's comments were limited to the the yard side which sounds like you're you're heading in a direction she was sort of asking for anyway so that's yeah that's good. Any other comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? Anybody in the audience this evening who speak to this case? Again, we're discussing 330 Clay Avenue. Seeing no action in the audience, hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Let me go ahead. Mr. Chair, relative to case number 0 4 1 5 0 3 3 0 dash a I move that we accept the recommendations of the staff subject to the following three conditions and based on the findings there set forth in report of the 4 by 4 sign that the final details of the sign be submitted to the staff prior to the issuance of the COA that the front freestanding sign be located 20 inches above grade and that the applicant will remove the wall mounted gable in sign Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? A second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes with those conditions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next case in the agenda this evening is at 520 West Short Street. That application is construct a masonry wall to buffer a rear fan set up in here this evening. Good evening. My name is Dean Hunt with Gail Hunt, and we're the owners of 520 and 522 West Short Street. We have a problem at our property with respect to a fan that is venting the garage from the 500s building which is behind us. And the history there is that that building was originally built by the Schneiders. That garage fan was supposed to be placed on the Main Street side and vended over Main Street, and Schneider went bankrupt, and so the fan was never moved to the place where it was supposed to be moved because they were in bankruptcy. the 500s on main homeowners have not done anything to move it or adjust the problem. The noise at that location, I mean, we went out there with a decibel meter. It's like having a jet engine in your home. We did have a violin repair shop well established and running from us in the back of that building. Obviously, he couldn't tune his violins with a jet engine in his ear all the time. We have struggled with trying to find a solution to this problem. It also is a problem for Gail. She teaches art, and she'd like to have her studio in the back of 520, 522. but she can't teach art back there because the kids can't hear her. You cannot have a conversation in the backyard. I would have to yell as loud as I possibly can and you probably still couldn't hear me. That's how bad it is there. So as a solution for us, we've proposed to build this sound wall. I have looked at the objections of the 500s on Maine. If you don't mind, sir, as a means of process, we're not quite ready to discuss that part yet. Oh, I'm sorry. If you don't mind, it's clear to me you have reviewed staff's findings and recommendations at this time. We are not agreeable to the staff recommendations. Well, the staff recommendation is to table it for further discussion at the moment. Oh, okay. So that's a tough one to disagree with. No, I thought the one that they handed to us. Right. We're not agreeable to that. Okay. It won't help to solve the problem. Okay. That being the case, what I'd like to do is have staff make their presentation of their findings, and then we'll continue the conversation from there. Okay, but I'd like to say one thing. I find this a really difficult case because you can show pictures, you know, of signs and houses and things that need to be improved, but you cannot hear the sound unless you experience it. I think I have a pretty good appreciation for the issues up to this point. It's hard to bring the sound into this room for you to fathom and experience the volume of it. I'll take that under consideration. Okay. If you don't mind, we'll have the staff make their presentation, and then we'll talk to you some more. Okay. I appreciate everything. so this is of course the proposal is to install a 13 foot masonry buffer wall and this is actually one of the properties 520 west short street and then to lead you in this is standing on the street looking at the garage and the fan amelia yes does um the hunts property go all the way back it does it goes all the way back actually to this masonry wall and there's an easement to access that garage through their property okay and this is a bit clear this is actually of course the fan in question. So the proposal would be to install a 13-foot wall, the 13 feet, and we'll look at some other renderings that are a bit more clear on this, but just to give you an idea now. So the wall would start under here and then continue through this area and continue up to the level of where the railing is. it would go up to the top of the railing correct of the railing it would not stop at the edge of the concrete work right no okay it would be a concrete block wall faced with brick and it will stop short of the this is the motor for the garage you know so it stops right here in this is sort of looking back towards that area to the to the fan and underneath the motorized piece and just so this is where the wall will die into this area underneath the sort of deck and sort of some more images and it will be a foot away from this wall and the fan And this is the site that gives sort of a bell, and you can see the wall. The wall will actually have pier system, and it's every five and a half feet, I believe. and this is sort of an overview site of the whole area of the 500s and the whole complex half these buildings are in the h1 overlay and half of them are not so So this is the location where the fan and the garage is located. Here are the buildings along Short Street. These buildings here belong to the applicants. This is the old Baptist church that has been turned into units, and this is the garage that accesses. And the fan is in this location. an elevation view of the fan or the buffer wall excuse me and then this is a site plan so half of this actually the area underneath is going to be filled here with rock and there'll be another little connector piece and so this area sort of stops here in his field. And here's some sections of that wall. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to construct the masonry buffer wall requires further discussion. Staff finds the concept of installing a masonry wall fence is with the guidelines. However, staff finds the height request 13 feet is too massive for the site. Staff suggests the wall be reduced to 8 feet. And guidelines 3.7a and 3.7b respectively state site elements should be visually intrusive and suggest false sense of history. And open space should be developed in scale, use, and character with the site and the local historic district. In addition, staff suggests consideration be given to the proximity of the fan of the wall, fan against the wall, and for functionality and maintenance, and staff suggests the wall be located at least three feet away from the fan. Recommendation, staff recommends continuing this case for further study of the above-mentioned items. I would say also this case does require going before the Board of Adjustment because there is, regardless of how this is considered a buffer wall or not, it's still within the Fayette County, within the backyards, you can only go up to eight feet. So this will have to go before the Board of Adjustment for anything larger than eight feet or taller than eight feet. And the applicants are present. Amelia, can I ask you a question or two? Sorry. Are there, just from my knowledge, are there any minimum setback requirements at the rear of this property? No. None at all? Okay. Mr. Chair, I have to abstain on this project. I have a previous business relationship with the owners. Okay. Well, all that being the case, if you'd like to come back and we'll talk to you some more here. I'm sure we have some questions and comments for you. So as you heard Amelia say regarding the Board of Adjustments, regardless of our findings this evening, there's still a second step beyond us as far as having a wall that's taller than eight feet in this location. Right. We understand that. We've talked to them. Okay. They said come here first. Right. And that's perfectly appropriate, just to please understand. Yeah, we understand that. There's more to go after us. So short of the staff's recommendation to table this for more conversation and design development, you know, the recommendations. With all due respect, we don't think it requires any further discussion. I don't know what else you would do. Okay. We're not going to shorten the wall, and we're not going to move the wall. So you should either approve it or disapprove it. Well, they might have other suggestions. Do you have other suggestions? I have several. Okay, I'd like to hear them. Well, what I was going to say is there are several points that the staff makes that I tend to agree with as far as how they fit in with the guidelines that we're – that our job is to stick to, interpret as we need to when situations deviate from typical. I don't think this is a typical situation. I'm not sure eight feet is tall enough to meet your goals. I take that as a given. I don't think – and this is just me. We'll hear what the rest of the board has to say in a moment. but my own opinion is that the height to the top of the guardrail is inappropriate just because of the size. What it's going to do to your neighbor's view sheds, despite what they've done to you with the noise level, I don't think it's a good move as far as that height goes. And if it were up to me or my own idea, I think I would probably limit the height of the wall to the deck of the patio that you're going against. The other issue I have as an architect is I can't get excited about an idea that keeps a function of the building from operating correctly. And I know part of that issue is on them for having the fan where the fan is, but there needs to be a balanced response, I think, and this is really when it comes down to a neighborly issue that I have no control over. So to build the wall directly against the fan is going to, beyond, it's going to cause an ill effect to that garage to the point that it's useless as far as providing adequate ventilation to the garage space. So I can't just approve one without knowing that the problem is being remedied on the other hand. I don't have complete control over that. I have no control over that, but I'm not comfortable granting permission to do such a thing without knowing that there's some other solution to the problem that gets created in the works. A possible solution that I would urge you to consider is pulling the wall away from the fan enough to the point that it allows clear circulation down to the fan. You'll still have a barrier directly between you and the fan. that deals with the direct line of travel of the noise. I know it's not perfect. We could move it back a couple of inches, but anything more, we'd lose parking. So we can't, you know, we're not going to move it back and sacrifice our parking lot or their fan. We'd sacrifice plenty. I mean, I can't work in my building. And if I was to put my building on the market, it's devalued because of that noise. I sincerely mean that. You know, what we're trying to do is make a compromise to allow them to vent their fan. Well, I think what I'm getting at is your actions will not allow them to vent the fan. All right. Then that's fine. Then the board can disapprove it on that basis if that's the board's decision. I think there's room for a middle answer there isn't you know we either we either if we come back with a different proposal it will be a different proposal but we would like a yes or no on this proposal okay that mean the case of anything you know let me make sure mr. Hunt understands what he's saying recognize that if we just disapprove this proposal as it is presented to us you will need to come to us with a completely different proposal you just can't do a tweak and bring it back to us I understand because we're not going to want to build this wall if it's not going to work okay so if we if we tweak it you know you know we could tweak it a couple inches here maybe we could short-knit foot we could move it back a couple inches that you know the 500 speak folks are here if that kind of a tweak but we're not going to bring it down to eight feet and move it back three feet that's not that's not a fix so you know that that is not a that has us building a wall that doesn't solve the problem have you explored actually with the owners of the 500 building whether or not they can modulate that fan or change the pitch we've been told over the years we have we've been they have a new board and I recognize that and we've talked to Ernesto who said that their board is now wanting to look at alternatives and we we're fine with that if they want to look at our lines of communication are open with them we know Ernesto we've been across the street neighbors with him for you know a decade or whatever long you know it's been and And we, you know, we know they're honorable people over there. But, you know, if they come to us with another solution, I'm thrilled. You know, I don't want to build the wall. But we've been fighting this, you know, not fighting it, but I mean, we've been struggling with this, what to do with this for a number of years. So we have spent a lot of money in trying to come up with this design. And this design, we think, will cure the noise problem. If we have to reduce it to eight feet and move it back three feet, it will not solve the noise problem. So there's no sense in building that wall. If it's a 12-foot wall back six inches so they have 18 inches instead of 12, you know, that's fine. I mean, if that's the kind of tweak that we can do, we can do that kind of tweak. But we can't do a tweak that doesn't work. The only comment I have here that in the future you might be able to consider is if the wall just is built around the area where the fan is, it won't be as massive as if you go all the way over to the property line. and an eight foot I mean an extension up to the height of the top of that railing in a smaller piece okay that's something we could consider yeah because it still allows them to us that would be a new proposal yeah I mean I don't know if you're saying we can't do that but yeah we would we would consider that well I'm ready to vote on this proposal because it's clear you know we can't vote on something when an engineer says that it's going to not allow the distribution of carbon monoxide the way it needs to be. But their carbon monoxide is not our problem. No, it's not. But we, it's ours if we were to allow you. Well, I can tell you what the architect, their architect, the prior architect told us about that. Okay. He told us the fan didn't have anything to do with carbon monoxide, that they could put on a switch that it would only come on if there was carbon monoxide, in which case it would only be on a few days here or there when there was enough cars in the parking lot. But the problem that they had, we were told by Scott Guyon, who was the design architect on that building, was that because the fans are in there, I mean not the fans, but because the AC units are inside the garage, that when the temperature reaches a point, it damages the AC units, which is why the fan has to be there and why it has to run. They have every winter when it's gotten cold enough that they're not running their AC units, they've turned off the fan. So it's not a carbon monoxide issue as far as we understand. as well. It's still, you know, I'm just going to go back to finish a few of my points that I started to make earlier. Whether it's heat dissipation or carbon monoxide, the fan requires a certain clear area to operate correctly, which I can't speak to how, what offset that requires, what clear space that requires, so I can't say a two-inch shift. I don't see how we're required to care. I'm not having a good time talking to you about this. You know, I'm here. I don't get paid to do this work. I'm interested in your problem because I'm a board member. That's why we're all here. We like to hear these problems and talk to people about them. We like to come up with good solutions. If you don't mind, I would like to talk about this project. I'm fine. I'm sorry. Thank you. I can't speak to what spacing it would require between the wall and the fan to get enough air circulation down over the top of that wall to meet the needs of this fan. I don't know. I think it's worth finding out. I think we might find out that it's not a three-foot offset. It might be some acceptable number. I don't know what that number would be as far as you're concerned, but I would urge you to consider it. as far as the height of the wall I don't have a problem with it being taller than eight feet but that requires further discussion as well I feel like if it were as tall as the bottom of the guardrail which is more than eight feet that might be a decent place for it to be I think it's worth investigating if we hear tonight I don't feel good about your chances of getting passed on a vote it's a better expense of your time I believe if this were given further consideration and brought back to us after these other options had been considered just as a typical means of process something we're used to seeing if we know it's not something we can vote on and pass but you have the opportunity to consider other options I think it's an opportunity for you to pull it back look at it get an engineer's comments on what the free space is required for that fan if you find out the one foot that's there is enough then that's great and then I'll feel better about it and it'll be something I can vote for but I don't have any proof of that other than the comments that say that one foot is too close so what I would like to know is how close is the appropriate distance for that fan to do its job there are some other concerns of mine that were also brought up by the letter from the folks at 500 about the gap that's left between the wall and their building as far as trash collecting down there and the chance of you know something awful a pet or a person falling down in that area not being able to come out that's a real safety issue it sounds a little ridiculous but things like that really do happen it's a simple solution with just adding a metal grate across the opening that keeps people out of there no problem uh something else to consider it's it's not a it's not to be dismissed that gap is a weird gap to leave especially with its proximity to a patio that's above which again is not your patio but it leaves a dangerous situation that I don't I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving out there for others to hazard into so that those that's all I can think of to say at this moment I urge you to take the staff's advice and pull this one back and think about it a little bit run through some of those questions and see if it's something you can live with that would also solve your problem if it's your wish and you want us to vote for it we will but I'm I'm telling you you'll have better luck if you give this a little more thought in my opinion my question is so what what are the requirements of a fan well engineer can tell you that yeah I mean in other words it seems to me that if I If I were building a building and putting in an enormous fan, there would be rules or regulations. And this is way not in regulation of any fan I've ever seen in any city I've ever been in. So, you know, I'm just wondering how... Rules and regulations? I'm sorry, if you could define that for me. So can anybody put in a fan that is the level of a jet plane all over the city? So the noise, are there any regulations dictating the governing over the noise created? Where do they have the responsibility to deal with the issue as well? Well, that's where you have to talk to the 500 folks. And really, I mean, from the letter that we got from the 500 guys, they're saying that you all haven't really approached them. We've been dealing with this for a decade. Well, this board, you need to talk to because they are the ones that are now governing this building. We will do that indeed. So I would advise you to talk to these guys. We will indeed, but I'm just correcting the fact that we've talked to many people. I've been talking to Ernesto about it, and he's on the board. So, you know, I think that they're obviously trying to block us from building that. So I think their comment was a little bit extreme. But that's fine. I don't mind that. We know Ernesto. We're fine. We'll talk to them. Yeah, we're going to do it. It's fine. And, you know, if this proposal is denied, you know, obviously we'll have to come back with something else. you know and we will advise them of what we're going to do next the other thing i have is you said it's going to take up your parking this photograph shows green space there so i'm not sure what parking you're talking about right in the you know they never finished the schneider was supposed to finish that corner but to me it looks like there's enough room to put that wall out farther it is part of the parking people park on the grass yes yes that is the parking spot okay Okay. Well, it's good for us to know and understand. Okay. You know, if the problem, the problem's bad. I understand. I think you guys have legitimate complaints. I'm not opposed to solving this problem. We're not trying to put you into the problem of solving this problem. We have a solution. We'd like a vote. Well, I want to say one other thing. And I read your all's letter. and just to give you a piece of advice if you want to write another letter like this i would keep some of your quippy comments out of it because really all that does is put us at a puts a really bad taste in our mouth i understand you're you know you're trying to make a point but i'll tell you that this is a very unprofessional letter and i i mean to me when I read the letter I was like I cannot believe these people think that they're doing something in their favor by writing it so just just to give you a piece of advice all right okay well I thank you for your consideration and I beg you to go buy that property and listen to it yourself it's really essential to experience it and I think we all under I think we all understand that but I think that I mean to me you all seem very close-minded on how y'all want to get to solution and if and what Greg the chairman is trying to tell you all is that you all need to open up a little bit and have discussions and try to figure out the best way to do it you know and it's and that's I mean that's all we're asking and and the fact that we table this and let you all look at talk to 500 and do that and you know maybe they can do something to mitigate the sound without you having to build a wall wouldn't that be great I mean maybe that could be a possibility but I mean right now I mean to me mr. hunt you're like it's this for the highway you know and to me that's ridiculous well it's frustrating I understand it's extremely extremely and we've had to redo the designs the drawings we've had to hire architect you know so apologies for any rough spots you know it's not our intentions we want to work with our neighbors and we would take all your suggestions I certainly appreciate you saying so if I may yes just as a matter of procedure sorry about that I think Procedurally, if you all would just mention that you're referring to the engineer report that was presented from the 500s on May. I think you just lost over where it came from, just so you can say. I understand. A rejection letter just to where it came from. Yes, absolutely. So to have it on the record and in the minutes, the engineer comments and statements and recommendations, yes, of course, were gathered from. The letter submitted by the board at the 500s on Main Building. And that's our best, that's our only engineer, engineering information to go off of at this time. And again, I think we've said in our own comments we can't verify what the distance would take, but we understand that an engineer has found that the distance proposed is detrimental to the fan's operation. Any other board comments at this time for the applicants? Questions or otherwise? Thank you very much. Are there others in the audience that are here to speak to this case this evening? I'll be brief. My name is Jeff Walker, and I'm a director on the board, HOA board for the 500. I may not represent the owners. I just want to say that we would like to open up a dialogue with the Hunts. We understand the noise is a problem, and I understand their aggravation, and we'd like to remedy the situation with them and have an opportunity to work with them. We've already worked with an engineer and HVAC experts, and there's a lot of cost-effective things we can do fairly quickly to lower the sound. For example, there's a transmission you can put on the fan that lowers the RPM. and it'll severely reduce the sound. We'd like to explore options like that and work with the hunts. So I just wanted to say that. I appreciate you being here and saying those things. Thank you. Okay. We get a lot of, we get a few cases where neighbors don't agree on the best line of action, and I think the neighborly approach of at least talking to each other and at least trying to see if there's something in between you that can solve the problem is a good thing. So I urge that dialogue to be as open as possible and hope it goes well. Any other folks in the audience speak to this case this evening? That being the case, no further comments from the poll? You are an audience member. I'm now in the audience. I'm Graham Paul, 977 Fincastle Road. And I abstain from this case because I have a familiarity where that having worked with the Hunts, not on this particular proposal but on another one related to this. And I just want to testify to the extreme burden that that situation places on them. It is incredibly extreme. It has deprived them of their property, and it is a major, major problem and has been ever since that building was constructed. They are getting no compensation for that. There was nothing about the development as it was developed that indicated to them that this was going to be a problem. and so I just wanted to support them and to just to give them you know just to let you know that their frustration and their the pain their feelings very real I mean it's it's unbelievable how bad it is I just I just wanted to put that on the record I appreciate you saying so and I think we all, you know, get it, that it's incredibly loud and that it's a problem that needs to be addressed. So no one here is opposed to the intent of dealing with the noise, is my belief from the comments we've heard so far this evening. I just wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you, Graham. and we will accept the opportunity to talk to the 500s. Are you withdrawing your application at this time? We'll withdraw our application at this time. I think that's a good move and we look forward to hearing any new application that comes back as a result of your efforts with your neighbor or if there's a problem that they're solving that doesn't require your application. I look forward to the problem being solved so I appreciate that direction. Thank you. that being the case I don't think we need any further action at this time now that this case has been withdrawn for the moment the next case on the agenda this evening is at 826 West Maxwell Street that application is to rebuild rear addition change openings and install covered porch that applicant has requested postponement until October 22nd 2014 can I get a motion to that effect please so moved second any further discussion of the motion hearing none all those in favor please say aye all those opposed in that case has been postponed October 22nd that takes us back to the case that we skipped at 440 Fayette Park I believe that applicant has arrived if you'd like to come come forward it worked out this one time Chad Needham 440 Fayette Park good evening have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time I did it was quite it was a it was a list of some things are you in agreement with the recommendations they're kind of open-ended if you are yeah it's pretty open-ended I mean I I think the biggest thing that, where were we here? We came up with a little different design. I think the biggest thing is the, there we go. Driveway be L-shaped in lieu of angle. Do we have a, well, I'll tell you what, before we get into the nuts and bolts of it. Okay. Just to make sure we are all in agreement and for our fans at home, the staff's recommendations at this time are for approval with the following conditions that, number one, the driveway be L-shaped. In lieu of angled, the driveway apron be reduced to 16 feet in width. Final details of doors, windows, and or garage doors are brought back to staff for review and approval. And finally, once reviewed by other LFCCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. So that being said, I agree with you the L shape needs further definition on just how that fits. I'd like to hear. If you'd like to discuss that, and it sounded like you did, I'd like to maybe go through the, have the staff in their presentation. we're the L shape in lieu of angle so this is angle personally should we do the staff report let's go ahead and go through the staff report so we can well we get a little more definition on angle and L shape could we possibly limit the staff report to the discussion of the L shape I think I'm not hearing any disagreement on the other issues I think the 16-foot apron is directly linked to the angle of the driveway, wouldn't you say? I haven't even, that's just number one. All right. Okay. So, of course, this is a, we've seen this as a conceptual review and an approval earlier this year. We've seen this before because he's, the last motion that was made at the May meeting was to review the driveway entrance, and he's reviewed that driveway entrance and sort of change his whole perspective on how to approach the garage. Garage should be located in this location, which is directly behind the house. There is an existing curb cut in this particular location that will be retained and be used as sort of in a secondary entrance into the rear. And sort of here's the back view of the property. The most immediate area behind the property, which was once paved, will now be actually green space. And sort of where the stump. this particular location and this is sort of still location where the proposed garage would be located and then if you see several these trees some have been already indicated and have been previously approved for removal and then just hasn't happened yet that areas where the proposed location of the new curb cut will be in driveway to leading to this garage the proposed garage and then this is location of looking back house sidewalk green space and garage and this is on the other side of on willie street the proposed area where new curb cut in and in the angle drive we will be located serve on where the red car seems like there are some discussion about that power pole power was moved to accommodate the previous location so that powerful is actually it's fixed location and I believe at this time can you for our reference can you locate that on the site plan we have a that plan it is there so we we all agree that's where it is that's the new location that's where it's gonna live right the staff did review these plans and as we always do with particular curb cuts with traffic engineering they have indicated that plan for this angle drive is not going to be is not appropriate within their purview and they suggested it be curved I mean to be an L shaped in that I guess because I don't visualize well exactly what you mean by L shape well right now it's angled so what they want them to do is go straight and then turn so an L shaped drive into this particular area in this area stays the same so it would be reducing this flare down to 16 inches from 24 16 feet from 24 come up in and just go have an L shape so as you have this is your turnabout area you're pulling out and then turning back in this location I guess my question and I know you're not them but why do they if the curb cut is only 16 feet wide if it is reduced to that do they have any other care about the shape of the driveway well what they were particularly looking at is the fact that That is, if Willie is a two-way street, and your angle to turn out at the Willie Street, if you were turning to the north, does not give you enough flare. And so specifically, what they were looking at is a more traditional way to approach this. And I think... So you pull it and then turn and go into the wrong. So if in the end, the approach is straight, but then it, you know, makes an offset S or a T, they don't care about that. they care about the perpendicular approach to the road for the safety view in both directions pregnant and correct so could be angle if it actually had much more perfect flare on the society approach at the road but that would be still something that would have to be reviewed by and traffic engineering person before uh... that you know anything new proposal uh... understand now thank you so guidelines are included for your reference the proposal to redesign the garage is found to be appropriate within guidelines 2b 2a and through 2b 2d with regards to size, location, design, and material in addition the garage design is much more contemporary approach which is also in keeping with the guidelines for new construction and the proposal to have an optional for this trellis piece which we didn't really address the photographs and let me mention to you real quick elevation there's this um... sort of timbered member trellis piece that was proposed as an option by the architect sort of go through the plan to request and you can see the bit more illustrated in this time image this is not a continuation of that roofline the roofline still stops in this location is just a potential vertical there and member trellis piece they could potentially be added and set funds opposed current new kerr cut individual to drive way out leading to the at that area in the front of the garage needs to be less angle angular and in squared Guidelines 37A and 37B respectively state landscape elements, site elements should not be visually intrusive or suggest false sense of history. Landscape elements and site elements, open space should be developed in scale, use character with the site and local historic district. In addition, staff has consulted with LFVCG Traffic Engineering who have recommended the driveway be more L-shaped to access the garage area. And staff finds the driveway apron is too wide and needs to be no more than 16 feet wide. in guidelines 3 4 C are referenced recommendation staff recommends through with following conditions that drive we be L shaped in lieu of angled the driveway apron be reduced to 16 feet final doors windows garage doors all be brought back to staff for review and approval and once reviewed by other LPC divisions all changes come back to staff for view approval prior to start of work in the evidence here I agree with it all I'm hungry so a friend of mine had this all transpired as the chain the changes our initial not to go into much history But the curb cut on the right side with keeping the two trees just with our radius to come all the way around just didn't make any sense. And it would have been about a six-point turn. And I don't think my wife would have used it, and the car would have always stayed out in the driveway. And why build a garage then? So that didn't make sense. So a friend of mine came up with a different, totally different idea and look. and you know I'm I'm fine with it I think it's a little more modern I don't know if we've got exactly that roof line right but I think overall it reduces somewhat the size of the garage I don't know about the structure but the garage goes back to a two car garage and I asked for a three car initially I don't think we so much need a three car now with how this driveway is coming in and then just asking for a car next to that so I think that's a reduction overall this L-shaped drive I didn't really have my head around it now I understand the 16 feet is just the apron coming in from Willie and that's fine honestly now that I look at it and I've been thinking about this I think the safety from Willie would probably better if that was really just a straight across I'm gonna have to put a gate there anyway but I think continue keeping that fence line continuous actually is a little safer really and I don't it doesn't break the plane no one can kind of get back in there and kind of look over and it doesn't suggest that there's really anything that's changed and so in that respect my friend drew this up but I think I think it does make sense really to keep it on the same plane really and that kind of goes in total in line with what the staff recommended so I'm okay with that really and how this fits into this garage that L shape whether it's a longer L or shorter L I would just have to figure that out at the time but I would I'd actually prefer that now and thinking about it obviously final details of all that stuff that's fine to go back to staff for approval and then all changes come back to staff LFU CG division all changes that's just a billing department right because I would there right yeah yeah I mean I don't have any any issues with it okay any other comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant Do you claim Darren Taylor as a friend? He's a new friend. No, I'm just kidding. Darren's, I've just recently met him. I've heard a lot about their organization. He's a nice guy, and so he's given me a few little helpful ideas on the corner of 5th and Limestone, which is a building we've been redoing. But yeah, he gave me a few times. Good. Well, I think we're, unless you have something to add, I think we're out of people in the audience to speak to this case. We'll take the thumbs up as a comment. I'm so sorry. Hearing no further comments from the audience or from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. From someone. All right. Relative to case number 069004440-G. i move that we accept the staff recommendations subject to the following four conditions that the driveway be l-shaped in lieu of angled that the driveway apron be reduced to 16 feet that the final details of doors windows and our garage doors are brought back to staff for review and approval and that once reviewed by the other lfucg divisions all changes come back to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Can I get a second to that motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? I actually would like to recommend an amendment to the comment. The requirement that the driveway be L-shaped, I think once the design work is done, we may find that a T-shape or something with room for turnaround may be appropriate as well. I think we could leave a little more latitude for that portion. All right, I'll change my motion to reflect that be L-shape or some other appropriate design with final details to come back to staff for approval. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I second that. Thank you. Any other discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed. The motion passes with those recommendations. Thank you, board. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. the next item on the agenda this evening before we get to conceptual review we've actually had the minutes were shared with the board members from August 27th 2014 has everyone had a chance to review those minutes at this time I have a review I have one quibble with the minutes I can't remember where it was on the page but it's not mustard and UST ARD it's muster and the UST ER So it sounds like there's a typo to fix, mustard to muster. Any other comments or changes? I didn't get to that. I didn't either. I think that's a . They were issued by an email. Oh, would you like to review a copy for a moment? We do have another item of business we can deal with. issued by email to the board members was the draft of the meeting schedule. Is that set for our vote at this time to approve those? That is correct for 2015. Okay. Has everyone had a chance to review the proposed schedule? It's good to me. It doesn't really vary from last year's schedule as far as frequency. If there are no comments on the proposed schedule of meetings, I would certainly entertain a motion to accept those as proposed. So moved. Second. And a second. Any further discussion of that motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The new schedule as proposed has been accepted by the board. I know it's short notice, Graham, if you had a chance to review the minutes. I was not at that meeting. I have no comments to add. Other board members that were present have any comments? That being the case, no further discussion on the minutes from August 27th. I would certainly entertain a motion to accept them. So moved. Second. catch that we had two of each any further discussion of the motion all those in favor please say aye all those opposed and the minutes are accepted with that one correction final item on the agenda this evening is conceptual review Thank you.