Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to the January 21st 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 in 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 that 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, limiting the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 23 approved applications noted on today's agenda. in the Ashland Park Historic District at 342 and 344 Deshay Road. Install ceiling fans at 308 South Hanover. Replace shutters in the South Ashland Central Historic District, 128 South Ashland Avenue. Replace front porch roof. 298 South Ashland Avenue. Renovate structure in the Aylesford Historic District at 202 Arlington Avenue. Install utility pipe. 342 Aylesford Place. Replace tree. 319 Clay Avenue, renovate structure 530 East High Street, renovate structure The Bell Court Historic District 146 East Bell Court, installed chimney dampers 223 East Bell Court, replaced storage shed 232 East Bell Court, replaced tree 611 East Main Street, renovate structure 601 Russell Avenue, replaced driveway 602 Sarah Avenue, replaced roof Negrads Park, Historic District 243 North Mill Street, renovate structure 250 West 3rd Street, remove dying sugar maple. In the north side, Historic District, 436 West 3rd Street, replace garage doors and replace roof. 136 Shawnee Place, install fence and gate. In the South Hill Historic District at 323 South Upper Street, renovate structure. 327 South Upper Street, renovate structure. At 365 South Upper Street, prepare for paint, replace windows. replace windows. At 380 South Upper Street, replace windows and install storms. At 334 Merino Street, renovate structure. That final one, I'm sorry, was in the Woodward Heights Historic District. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificate of appropriateness. The first item on the agenda this evening is at 104 Dansler Drive, pave existing parking area. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present but has received a copy of their staff report. Thank you very much. If the board members recall, this application was on our agenda the last time we met. We had hoped to discuss it with the applicant. The recommendations are pretty straightforward, and we also discussed wheel stops or adding some method to prevent parking to overspill the paved area into the yard. I don't know. Are we ever going to see the applicant here to discuss this case or do we need to just move on it and move forward? I tend to. The applicant has been strongly urged to try to be here and thus far has not been. Well, I think we have enough to say what we want to say and make a movement on this or a motion on this. I just have one question. It indicates, and this might be a typo, that the proposal calls to plant 10 bushes 10 inches apart. And 10 inches seems... That was actually supposed to be 10 feet, sorry. Oh, okay. 10 feet apart? They said 10 feet, and I questioned her, and she said 10 feet. But apparently her husband proposes to plant 10 bushes along that stretch. Okay. On the bush topic, the staff also had recommended that they be planted, you know, at angles back and forth so that there would be density green when they mature and would continue to recommend that, that they be staggered is what I'm suggesting. Okay. And obviously that recommendation, I guess I should complete the thought, would take some more planting materials than just the 10 bushes. Well, with the applicant not being here this evening and speak for themselves, I would certainly hope that any motion included a recommendation that a final planting plan come back to staff for you before the COA is issued would help button that up. And if there's any dispute over it, they can always come back here. If they're asked to bring the specifications of the particular taxes that they're proposing, I think it said they were going to use taxes so that you know what the diameter of it will be when it's fully grown, it would help. I thought we had discussed a more permanent barrier than a planting barrier. Was that not part of the discussion? I remember that landscaping was acceptable. Okay. We discussed both. I agree. Any other comments from the board at this time for this case? Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Mr. Gibbs, would you like to come forward? Introduce yourself. How do you? I'm Jay Gibbs. I live at 220 Delmar Avenue, and I'm the council person for the third district in which this property is. And as you guys know, this is an H-1 district. I'm very new at this. This property has a long and messy history, as I'm sure you guys know. I just want to let you know, I think it's a shame that they paved it over. My understanding is it should be an impervious service back there, and it's an impervious surface. I know that that's apparently that's not an issue anymore. You guys are talking about the little bit that's left and what's going to happen to it. I fear that shrubbery is not enough. I don't know if you I've been over to look at that property. Given the condition of the property, the tenants just drive over everything. There are deep ruts in the empty ground right now. This is not relevant to you guys, but there are piles of garbage all over the place. I've reported this to code enforcement. But the point is this property gets rough usage, and I don't trust the people who live there to— I'm not sure that the shrubbery would be well-maintained. If the shrubbery wasn't well-maintained, I would think that the tenants would plow it over as soon as they thought they could get away with not damaging their car because it's easier for them to go right around the other building. So I'm asking you people—you did talk last time. My memory is that you didn't dismiss it, the idea of a curb. I think it needs a real poured concrete curb to prevent them from trashing whatever landscape is in there. And this is very important over there. We're already losing a lot of ground where things could soak in. You know, this is an area that's got a history of flooding problems. You know it's about 200 feet from where those young men drowned several years ago. And you know all the problems. I don't need to tell you guys the problems with runoff. And they're going to have increasing problems with runoff there. So it's my feeling that you need to have a serious impediment to the students going over the landscaping. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate that. I'm not opposed to requiring both at this particular project, but at least the wheel stops on a permanent basis accounts for what happens if the shrubs were to die or not be maintained. It's something for us to consider. That's not a good report. Anyone else in the audience this evening speak to this case? Any other comments from the board at this time concerning this case? Well, that being the case, I would entertain a motion at this time. I'm just requiring a curb after him. Well, go ahead and make a motion. Relative to case number 30870104-I at 104 Dantzler Drive, I move that the owner be required to install both a concrete curve and the landscaping as proposed here, pursuant to the staffs reviewing their final proposal and approving it as adequate. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? I might. I do have one comment on your motion. that we not require that it be concrete, but it be a permanent barrier, and that the final detail for that come back to staff to review. The guidelines list several materials that those barriers can be. Okay. But we're looking for one that would be a wheel stop type barrier, and so that detail will come back to the staff for review. Yes, sir. Given my observations over there, a wheel stop might not do it. They're also capable of how difficult are they to move? I wouldn't trust the residents not to remove it, to be honest with you. It's a very rough property. I'm sorry to cut you off. Sure. It's a very rough property. In fact, the property is an embarrassment for an H-1 district, in my opinion. Sure. And let me clarify by what I mean by wheel stop, by barrier. There are several different barrier materials listed in the guidelines. and by wheel stop that just means it'd be one that they can't drive over. I don't feel comfortable demanding that it be concrete. It could be railway ties and there are several others that are there in the guidelines. What I'm proposing in my amendment to the motion is that the owner come back with the detail for an approved material per the guidelines that is capable of being a wheel stop type barrier. and that it be one that can be approved by the staff. And if it can't be approved by the staff, if they can't come to an agreement, then it would come back to us to review again. I just, my feeling is it needs more than less. You know, I can see a couple of guys with a few beers saying, sure, this thing's our way in removing it. I agree. I understand. That's my concern. Again, given the condition of this property and the way people treat the property, I find it very worrisome. Sure. Well, I understand what you're asking for perfectly, And I hope that, so my amendment, my suggestion or amendment would be that we, when this does come to the staff, that they review it with the understanding that it's meant to prevent vehicles from going off the driveway onto the grass. Okay, excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. As in it would be fastened to the blacktop? fastened or recessed in the earth alongside something capable of stopping a vehicle and preventing it from going over the edge. Any other comments for the motion? Do you accept the amendment to your motion? I'd like to add some language that the installation of anything that's a wheel stop be fixed in such a fashion that they cannot be moved. Permanent wheel stop? Permanent. Installation? That's a good one, yeah. Okay. Okay, so there's. I accept that. Okay. Do you accept those amendments to your second? Yes. Hearing no further comment, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And the motion passes with that recommendation. The next case in the agenda this evening is at 203 South Limestone. That proposal is to install signage. Is that applicant here this evening? If you'd like to come up and introduce yourself, please. Give us your name and address for the record. How y'all doing? My name is Adam Routt, and the address of the location is 203 South Limestone. It's located between Old Hooker's Bar and Bombay Indian Restaurant on Limestone. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I have. Are you in agreement with those? I have one. I guess I'd like to see if we could maybe tweak it a little bit. Sure. My original proposal was an 8-foot wide by 3-foot tall sign, and your proposal was to shrink it down to a 6-foot by 2-foot. By 2-foot. Uh-huh, 6-foot by 2-foot. Okay. Amelia had suggested that I do a border around the sign to kind of make it look as if it's – I'm going to have it printed on an aluminum material, and I thought about doing a border around the edge to make it appear as if it's a wooden frame. Well, since you're not in total agreement with staff recommendation, if you don't mind, I'd like to have the staff make their presentation. Sure. And then we'll talk to you some more about it, if that's okay. Yep. Thank you. Okay. As stated previously, this case is at 203 South Limestone. This is an image of the building. I would note this is the front door. This door over here is sort of to a different hallway, and these are the two windows flanking or indicate the building, the entrance or the windows of the store. This is the store itself, and the proposal would be to install the sign in this particular location. Staff recommendation, as we'll talk about here in a second, lends itself to being in this particular vicinity. I'll give you a little bit more detail of the building. This is sited in vinyl. and this is the proposal that was submitted. It's a three foot sign by eight foot sign that he proposes to go over the three bays here. Sort of another view of the sign. And this will be aluminum. And he did actually, in the previous image, indicate that there will be a border around the sign. There will be no illumination. The guidelines are included for reference and the findings. The concept of installing signage to identify the businesses with the guidelines. However, the size of the sign requires further discussion. staff suggest the sign be no more than two feet tall and six feet wide, but the sign graphic and lettering be appropriately scaled. In addition, staff suggest the sign be relocated to the center over the door with the right edge aligning the north side of the door jamb and the south alignment over the outer edge of the paired window. In addition, it should be raised up to four to five clapboard planks above the door header. the design guidelines respectively say 5 c d state signs should be proportioned to the building and relate to and complement or not overwhelm the site building and street and avoid oversized signs and signs should be relocated in the traditional sign locations for the building sites recommendation staffs or recommend recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions the sign be reduced to two by six with the graphic and lettering appropriately scaled The sign be relocated to the center of the building with the right edge of the sign to be aligned with the north edge of the door. And the left side be aligned with the outer edge jam of the paired window. Final details come back to staff prior to the issuance of the permit and once reviewed by any other LFUCGs. Divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Thank you very much. If you'd like to come back, we'll ask you some questions. Sure. Well, first of all, are there any comments or questions for the applicant from the board? No, other than I agree with the staff's recommendation. I think it's too big. Okay. How do you feel about the staff's recommended location, straddling? If my understanding is correct from what Amelia said, I believe what I heard was that you've, Amelia, I'm sorry, I should have asked this while you're still up here. the proposed location in the staff's recommendation is that the sign be slid over and center on the address and that the, is my sketch correct? Where I've shown the red box, that's what you're Yes, except raised up just ever so slightly Yeah, I read or saw the four or five clapboard part right after I colored it Correct So I don't know that I'm, I agree that a smaller sign is appropriate in height but I'm not as excited about the staff's recommendation for the location. I think the location over the door and window unit is more appropriate as proposed by the applicant. But that's my own opinion. We'll see what the other board members have to say. If anything at all. I think that the way the sign was rendered on your photo, the problem for me with the way it was rendered is that it confuses the architecture and the sign. So it's exactly the same width as the trim on the windows and door, and it's exactly aligned above them. And I think that's, for me, the most troubling aspect of the way it was presented. Right. And for my, in my opinion, the important thing is for the sign to reside, to be read as an object on the field, the field being the clabbered. and so that's why the staff is suggesting that it be raised up a number of clavards because ideally maybe it should be centered between the cornice line, the top of the wall, and the top of the window somewhere in there. So that's my opinion. I think that the precise configuration of the sign relative to what's below it is less important than those kinds of considerations. I did want to note that the dimensions are, you guys suggested that we move it over to the left from door frame to window frame, and that is 8 feet from that door frame over to that window frame. We measured it last night, so if we shorten it to 6 feet, it's going to be a little off. Well, in my opinion, it's better if it doesn't align with what's below it, that it read, as I say, that it read as a distinct element and that it be read against the field of clabbered and the relationship to the elements below, especially because in this case there is no symmetry. The door's not in the middle of the building. The windows are pretty randomly organized. And so it sort of makes sense for the sign to kind of find its own location. That's my opinion. And for me, the precise dimensions of the sign are not an issue, like two foot by six foot. I think it would be, I agree with the staff that that's a more appropriate scale. but if you need proportions that are more like three to eight in in other words three colon eight yeah but it would be something like say two foot four to six feet or whatever yeah i was going to suggest maybe not doing three feet tall but maybe doing 30 inches two and a half feet just to make it scalable with my my logo make it work a little better yeah i don't have a problem with you getting the proportions of the two sides of the sign to work with your logo. But I do think that the staff is right that it should be closer to 2x6 than 3x8. I'd be willing to make a recommendation on this if there's no further comment. Well, let's see. Sarah, do you have anything else to add? Is there anybody in the audience speak to this case this evening? Do you have anything else to add before we make a motion here? No. Very well. That being the case, I would entertain a motion at this time. Relative to case number 11670203-B, I move to approve the submittal with the following conditions, that the sign be reduced to approximately two foot by six foot with the graphic and lettering appropriately scaled to that the sign be relocated to closer to the center of the building and somewhere in the neighborhood of the right edge of the sign aligned with the north edge of the door, the left side of the sign aligned with the outer jam of the paired window, and with the final details of the size and location of the sign to come back to the staff prior to the issuance of the permit. So, and number four, once reviewed by any other LFUCG division, all changes come back to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed. And the motion passes with those recommendations. Thanks. Thank you. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 125 Ransom Avenue. Our proposal there is to demolish a two-story addition and garage and construct a two-story addition and parking. I believe that applicant's here this evening. If you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself. Good evening. My name is Kyle Holscher. I live at 629 East High Street, and I recently purchased 125 Ransom Avenue. This is my business partner, Greg Kuklo, who's working on the project with me. Good evening. Good to see you. I'm sure the board will be happy to hear I didn't come with a 45-minute presentation tonight, so I'll defer to a staff presentation or open it up to questions. And just to walk through the steps here, I'm sure you've had a chance to review staff's findings and recommendations. and I'm quite sure you don't agree with their recommendations for this approval. Well, I certainly agree with demolishing the garage. It's going to go on its own if it's not done in a controlled fashion. Sure. I think. Well, if you don't mind, I'll have staff make their presentation and we'll talk to you about your proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Of course, we heard this at the last meeting, and just to walk you through and re-familiarize yourself with this site, this is 125 Ransom Avenue. We're walking down the driveway. Here's the rear yard. You can see a bit of the existing addition, the yard space, and the existing garage. A bit more of a close-up of the garage. This is the existing addition. Existing addition in the yard space. This is from the existing paving looking towards the rear of the house, showing the existing addition in the grease mace that's existing presently. and this is sort of on the north side of the structure. And this is from Old Vine Street looking towards the structure, looking at the existing addition presently. Of course, this case was heard, and this case was continued for further detail on items discussed at that time. just to re-familiarize yourself this is the existing edition is 9 by 19 and the applicant proposes to increase that proposal this is the existing floor plan that shows the existing edition and then this is the proposed site plan this is the second floor site plan so proposals to add a two-story addition increase the rear existing addition that's there now and then this is the attic elevation existing elevations. And then this is the proposed site plan. It shows that this will be a 24 by it says 20, but it's actually 19 on the first floor, or 20 and then 19 on the second floor. It steps in. We saw that there was many things discussed at the last plan. siding, paired window scenario, and the stairs. And many things have changed. Some things have stayed the same. The stair location is in the same location we saw before. The applicant did change up the siding, whereas each elevation has different siding choices. where you have a shake shingle, then a six-inch reveal, and then with a horizontal member changing to a four-inch siding below on the rear elevation. He did propose to take the lower hip roof that tucks under the existing eave line. On the side, there's a similar rhythm of having three different types of siding with breaking up with the vertical and the horizontal members. There was a discussion about pairing the windows. Those windows have been paired instead of separating them out. And then also having more window relationship with the existing structure. Most of that is happening except this window in this location. Again, there was discussion about removing of the other eyebrow and just keeping the vertical and members. There is a step back here. It sets in. The rear of the structure sets in a little bit more. And then the stairs have sort of stayed the same. There is more of a hip that comes over that door. It's going to give you some schematics here. this sort of gives you the indication of that hit piece that comes over that door. Those are the changes that have happened from the previous panel you saw in the December meeting to present. And then just some more schematics. This is a roof plan. And then sort of a cross-section. The guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to demolish the existing garages and guidelines 6D, which states demolition of structure and buildings should not be detrimental to the character, scale, rhythm, design, and importance of the group of buildings, streetscape, or district. The garage does not have a does have a new roof but the wall systems appear weak and its removal is within the guidelines The proposal to demolish the existing addition requires further discussion The rear addition does need repairs The dishes is wrapped with vinyl so it is unclear about the condition of the siding underneath and the upper story is pulling away from the house It needs to be shored up the concept of demolishing the two-story addition and the construction of the new tour new two-story addition is within the guidelines and could be considered. Guidelines 6E state demolition of time to future development of the property and future demolition should be compatible in scale, size, and use with existing zoning and existing characteristics of the historic properties where developed is located. However, as proposed, staff finds the new addition requires further discussion. As proposed, the addition is still too large and overwhelms the site. The overwhelming footprint of this addition is too massive, and it creates too much linear volume. As experienced on the north elevation, this addition appears to be in the same plane as the historic mass and rivals the main mass in size and length. Guidelines 2A4C, 2B1C, 3, 6F, respectively state, additions should be compatible in design and in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, material, color, and location of window, door, and corner sites. Setbacks, consistence, and distance of buildings from the street and adjacent buildings help to convey a pattern and sense of rhythm along the block and within the district. Placement should be consistent with that of adjacent surrounding buildings with the block and within the historic district. This includes front, backs, and setbacks in landscape and views of vistas. Approaches should be preserved and maintained. Per the roof submittal, staff finds a low-pitched roof does meet the guidelines of 2A4F, which states additions should be built in a manner that avoids substantive removal and loss of historic material, which does not damage or destroy the main architectural features of the building. Staff finds a proposed fenestration of the addition now has a similar rhythm to the main house. Guidelines 2B1F states, openings such entrances and windows and architectural features such as divisional bays and porches or design components that help establish balance, rhythm, scale, proportion, emphasis and structure, and the pattern of components in buildings along the blocks and the districts for the streetscapes in the neighborhood. The proposed deck system requires further study. Guidelines 2-1-A of this addition should be a balcony's place so they do not detract from the historic character of the building. Seth finds the stairs should be compact and still comes too far out in the yard. The proposal for the new paving and parking still results in too much loss of green space. This level of addition parking requires five spaces and results in a loss of legitimate green space. The design principle for driveways and parking lot state. Paving, parking should not be visually dominant. The design principle for sites and settings states. Historic sites and settings and features should be preserved to maintain. Guidelines 3, 6B, and E, state landscape. features view sheds that alter and introduce should be compatible to the site and with the surrounding properties, and view sheds of the open space should be developed in scale and character with the neighborhood. Overall, as proposed, this addition is too linearly massive and projects too far out in the yard and simply takes up too much green space. The proposed addition is simply too long of the rear addition, and the scale of the addition, 24 feet long, rivals the length of the main house, which is 34 feet. The amount of space also brings on the need to create five new parking spaces, which results in the realignment of the paving and loss of green space. Recommendation. Staff recommends disapproval of the proposed plan as submitted. Staff does recommend approval of the demolition of the garage. And the applicants are here. Thank you very much. If you'd like to come back to the podium, we'll hear more about it. So as you saw in the pictures, based on the feedback that I received from you at the last meeting, I've implemented all of those changes in the project, including scaling the windows and changing up the siding in order to break up the space. One brief note on the stairs. I did experiment with some alternative stair design, including a landing and having it switch back to the sidewalk leading to the first floor entrance on the addition and also having a landing and then continuing on down to the parking area or turning and going to the other drive. Unfortunately, all those other designs ended up consuming all of the green space. If you go to a landing and then continue going straight, it protruded out into the driveway area. And when you do a U-turn and bring it back to the sidewalk, essentially the landing consumes the green space right next to the house there. One note on green space, the entire back half of the parking area is all grassy pavers, which would be a good mixed-use area for parking and grassy area. Well, you know, I'll make a couple comments. We'll hear what the other board members have to say. First of all, I agree or am happy for the effort you've put into it so far from our last meeting in that it is considerably shorter and less massive than it was in the original proposal. I think the roof is headed in the right direction as far as its relationship to the original structure. But I think some of the staff comments are still very correct in that the addition is still quite massive compared to the primary structure. Just some rough math, I find that the footprint of the new structure is a little more than 40% of the footprint of the primary structure, which is pretty good size in a plan exercise alone. You know, if this were one story, it would be a different conversation, less mass. But for a two-story structure to be such a big percentage of the square footage of the original footprint, that's not always the determining factor, but I think it's a pretty good indicator that it's a pretty big addition. You know, I'm by this house quite a bit, and lately I've made it a point to look at it since this case has been on our last agenda and then coming up on this agenda for this meeting. And just comparing it to just the view you get from Central Avenue and seeing the addition that's there and how it pops up and how you see it, this can be very visible. I mean, we always consider things from all sides of the house. We can't just make a determination on what you see from the street, what you don't see from the street. This is one that you will especially see from the street. no matter what, it's really going to peek over the buildings that are on Central Avenue, and it's not going to be blend in. The impact that this is going to have on the neighborhood I think is going to be noticeable. It's not to say that the addition can't be a good addition and it can be a positive impact, but I do feel like the staff's comments and concerns about the massiveness of the secondary structure compared to the primary structure is still not quite in the right balance yet as far as I'm concerned. The stairs are, wood frame stairs are funny in that if you add a switchback and a platform by the time you do that, it's not going to be much shorter in footprint as far as projecting to the rear of the property. and by having it wrapped back on itself, it's probably going to appear more massive than it would if it were just a straight shot. So sometimes a straight shot is the most lightweight and delicate way to handle it. I don't know. I would want it as far away from the addition as possible. So if it can be aligned to the outside edge of that porch, I might feel better about that. But it's not off by much, as it's proposed in your plan, your most recent four plans. So rather than hugging it close to the addition, you'd rather see it protrude off the far edge of the deck and closer to the driveway? Am I understanding that correctly? I'd like to see it scooted over to the left on the page to align with the edge of the porch. I drew a switch back, and it was too big. I didn't like it, but that was just a minor. Just to create more space here, I'd feel better about that. I don't know if that fixes it. Would you be happy to slide it to the edge of the deck? I don't know if that fixes it, but it's something I would feel better about. The other major comment I think that's happening is the amount of paving. Even with pavers or permanent parking or grass grid or anything that you can park on back there, The amount of paving for the driveway is still a lot of it, and that's got to get toned down tremendously before I'll feel happy about that as well. So part of the design requirements is to meet planning and zoning parking requirements. They did require five spaces for the property there. I thought introducing the grassy pavers and keeping half of the property back there as grass would help quite a bit. I believe the zoning requirements are X number of spaces per occupant. Is that how it's determined? They have several guidelines. It's an either-or situation based on the number of bedrooms or the number of locations, the number of units. So this is an instance we bring up a lot with folks that are trying to fit as many units into a home as possible. If the yard's not big enough to accommodate all the parking spots you require, then perhaps you're trying to fit too many occupants into the building. So our goal is to reduce the number of occupants rather than turn this into like a sixplex or something like so many people have done. The goal is really to reduce the number of units but make them high-quality units so that we can attract high-quality tenants to the location. Really what's driving the size of the property is a way to fund the renovation. The foundation is, since taking ownership of it, we've been able to do some exploratory analysis and demolition to the interior. And, you know, just the amount of money required to fix the foundation and the box gutter situation, a new roof, makes it very difficult to put together a business plan. And I did bring the numbers with me. I'd be happy to walk you through that and why I feel the size of the addition is absolutely necessary in order to fund the project to save the property and do the necessary renovations. This property is set vacant for over a year on the street. I have the support of a lot of the neighbors in the community there. They're very happy to see the property going in. And although you may see an extended roof line in the back over the commercial properties, the overall impact of the neighborhood will be quite a positive one since it is being rehabilitated and going from an abandoned vacant property to one that will have multiple high-quality, young professional type of tenants that will care and appreciate the property. Well, and I appreciate what you're saying. I agree that it's good that this home is getting some attention. that necessary repairs are being made. I understand the financial realities of making enough money off the project in order to pay to fix the house. Those are very real concerns. I understand what you're saying, but it can't be at the detriment of our guidelines for the way that a mass should relate to the primary structure and the amount of green space that should be covered up in a backyard. I mean, it's just looking at the usage plan, you're going to have everything paved except for where the cars will park. So basically when fully full of parked cars, the backyard is going to be paved to the bumper of parked cars that will go to the rear of the lot, leaving a green perimeter about the house and in the front yard. and that's where the guidelines are a little constricted. I understand that you require a set number of parking spots per residential unit, but if it doesn't all fit on the site and meet the guidelines, then it comes back to the problem of how many people or how many units should you be putting in this property. And I understand why you've put in as many as you can, but I'm telling you that the guidelines are requiring more green space and a smaller addition. It's not that far off as far as massing goes. I think with some tweaks and some more square footage cuts, it can be brought into something I would feel comfortable proving as far as the size of the secondary structure. But the amount of paving is hard to take. and I won't get into the other details I think some of the other board members will speak to that as we go but those are my big concerns I definitely appreciate your comments and your concerns and be curious to hear the thoughts of the other board members I get outvoted sometimes let's see what they have to say I'm looking at your floor plan trying to decide the best way to reduce the additions side. And if you look at the first floor plan, if you've got yours in front of you. Thank you. Thank you. Do you think you could pull in the rear unit, the larger unit, pull the kitchen into that family room space? So one of the things that we've done to save costs in the plan is reuse the existing kitchen. It had been updated recently. It's got nice granite, nice countertops, very nice stainless steel appliances. So if you look at the existing floor plan versus the proposed floor plan, we're actually not touching the kitchen at all. It will remain exactly the same. The larger concern is the second-story unit. The kitchen is only about nine feet back from the original outer wall of the house. On the second floor, there's actually two bedrooms back there. and again anytime you eliminate a bedroom you're eliminating basically the sources to renovate the home and that's where reducing the length of the house becomes more of a challenge to make a high quality livable space. I'm really happy to hear any ideas for kind of reducing the footprint a little bit without maybe reducing the number of bedrooms. If we're talking about shaving a foot along the back edge of the property, I think that's something that we could definitely find a way to make happen. If we're talking about eliminating bedrooms, it will put us in the red on the project. One concept I experimented with, reducing the overall size of the dish in and also helping reduce the mass from the outside. As you're looking at this first floor drawing here, you see how we stepped in the rear addition on the left-hand side of this picture. That's the southern facing side of the building. The right-hand side backs up to a two-story commercial building, but I experimented with stepping that in right along the edge of the original addition, kind of a way of paying tribute of the original floor plan. And on the second floor, it reduces the size of the closet a little bit, and it puts a jog into the room. But that's certainly one way we could both reduce the footprint of the building and also the size of the mass on the side. I'm having a hard time here because I don't want to see this project fail because of these issues. but I do feel like you're going to have to give up something. You're either going to have to reduce the space so that you can bring the addition back in closer to the house. And I don't think it's not appropriate that we try to design this for you. We're trying to help you meet the guidelines so that your project can go forward. And I really don't see very much change in this proposal. Yeah, I didn't realize this was an issue last time I came before you. We talked a lot about the windows, talked about the masks, and tried to make every single recommendation. and I'm always eager to find ways to meet the guidelines. This particular project has been a very challenging one. I've been working on it for over six months, and it's cost me a considerable amount of money already in holding costs. I'd really like to find an approvable design tonight, maybe meet your recommendations. so that the project can move forward I have a question by Mike this might sound like a silly one but I guess the silly questions going you don't ask when we use the term mass how much would you like with this board like to see that thing reduce are we talking width and depth are we just talking just depth you know i think the depth front to back okay we have a number that would appeal to you guys are we talking how many feet would you like to see i would probably be comfortable with the minimum of three feet okay I think in moving your roofs, all of them down beneath the eve of the existing building has diminished the mass of it. Excellent. A little bit. I don't think it's... I agree. I like that, too. I'm okay with that. I think it looks pretty good like that. I don't think it's going to be a very beautiful roof, but it does help. Certainly pays homage to the original structure. So, yeah, if you can get three feet off, that's why I was looking at moving that kitchen. But I'll let you all decide how you want to do it. I kind of see that back bedroom as the guest bedroom. It may not be utilized on an ongoing basis. It may be for grandchildren to come visit or family friends. So for bed would be another. Yeah, I think, and on the second floor, we're just talking about a foot and a half per bedroom. I think that's absolutely doable. Okay. if I may for just a second I know you just responded to a question that was posed to you but a lot of these things might better be served to discuss with the staff only because the only thing the board can decide is whether or not you can approve what's in front of you or not if that makes sense and I know that you all just wanted an answer to your question of what was you felt comfortable with, but that would be what Sarah's comfortable with. It may not be what Graham's comfortable with. It may not be what's comfortable for others. And we don't want you to make a design decision saying, well, the board told me to do that, if that makes sense. I guess I would pose the question to Graham and to Greg if they would be comfortable with that. Do you think that would accomplish the reduction in math if necessary? No, we can't be going that route. The board is Our attorney is counseled, charged with reviewing the plan put before them. They cannot sit here and on the fly give you parameters of something other than that that they would consider. They've given you feedback along the way through this, but they, by process, have to act on what is drawn and presented to them. That's what happens when you have architects on the board. We can't help ourselves, so we need reminding. I thank you very much for your feedback. It's very, very valuable feedback. I do have one other comment. Yes, please. I think the breaking up the hardy plank siding in so many different textures could be restrained a little. It's easy to fix. And that's just my opinion. I think you took our comments from last time and took it pretty far. So maybe we'll see. I think it could be interesting. I'm very eager to please you guys, so I take your feedback very seriously, and I thought that I had done everything that was manifested. Well, it's better. I agree. I'm much happier with the house that's drawn now than when we originally started out. Just looking forward to having an improved design so we can get started. I think that the siding issue that Sarah mentions is symptomatic of a larger problem, and that is that you don't have design expertise on your team. You need design expertise. This is a really major project. It has a major effect on the community. You should be using someone who is a design professional to help you. I don't think you'd be here now. I think you'd be done if you'd done that earlier. That's my opinion. I think you're really working hard to get it to where, and I think you're really listening hard, and I admire that. But, you know, that's all I have to say. I think you would benefit enormously from that. I think you'd be done by now if you'd engaged a design professional earlier on. And as has been said, I mean, I recognize that you've made changes, that you're moving in the right direction, and that your heart's totally in the right place. but it's missing that it's just you know when I look at it I'm going to be this is going to sound awful but it looks to me like cheap student housing that's what it looks like and I'm being honest with you it doesn't have to look like that for the same money it could look really nice and it could it could really be an attribute for the neighborhood So it's just finding where that solution is that achieves what you need financially, but also meets the guidelines in a way that, you know, we can look at it and say, yeah, there it is. I did actually hire an architect to review the plans and make recommendations, particularly for the exterior elevations, and implemented those into the plan. The one that I didn't implement was we went the hardy shake instead of the hardy panels. I really don't like the board and batten and the big blocky nature. I think it's a distraction from the original property. But I did spend quite a bit of money on a couple of review sessions and implemented those in the exterior design. One other concept was maybe doing a metal casing structure for the deck. But as you guys know, that's a considerable more amount of money. Certainly wish that I had found an architect that could help get this designed and approved a lot sooner. And I can certainly seek further guidance from an architect, a professional architect. It's just we're operating on such a small budget here. There's frankly not a lot of funds available. And I thought based on previous experiences with the board that I would be able to handle the project on my own. And I think obviously that was a mistake. This project is too large in scale and too complicated. it, and I think I'm just going to have to spend the money in the future if I ever try and take on this sort of project ever again. And let's look at the big picture here. We're talking about getting it right. We're not just talking about getting the square footage down to an appropriate number. We're not, I mean, while that's part of the equation, but the real issue here is before we can approve it, it's got to be correct. because it's going to be there forever is the plan, right? Once you build it, it's there. So you certainly, if you're going to spend money somewhere, having good design is one of the places you want to spend it. You mentioned resistance to the idea of shifting the kitchen down and further to the front of the house. I think that's an easy place to budge of all your choices. if you can take size off the addition and ship that kitchen down. If that's the type of thing it takes to get it right, then maybe you should open yourself up to these ideas. So far I'm the only one to speak about the paving on the site, and I don't know how we get that problem fixed. I just don't know the answer to that. If there's an opportunity for more on-street parking to replace the amount of off-street parking you have to provide, I don't know what the deals are that get struck that make that work. On-street parking can't be counted to meet the zoning regulations. So the answer is tied to having an appropriate number of units in the building relative to what the lot and historic structure and its new addition can accommodate appropriately. Sure. And I don't know if we reconsider more of that material be of grassy, drivable type. I don't think it's going to weather well, but that's just my own opinion as far as a driving surface versus a parking surface. But they're big-ticket items that are going to mess you up more than taking 18 inches out here and 18 inches out there. it's these two or three big ticket items that are your deal breakers that need to be solved first. And then I don't know, maybe the rest of the board is okay with this much asphalt, but I don't know. I don't know the math on 24 foot wide driving lane behind all the parking spots, if that can be reduced and still function the way it needs to. I mean, you've just got to find a way to chew out the fat and bring back as much of that green surface as possible. I was originally drawn to be slightly narrower, and I've gone through the planning and building inspection process and met with parking and everything already, and they had requested a little bit more space in the width of that. So we reduced the length of the parking spaces themselves. That still met parking requirements and code to allow for a little bit more space for backing up and turning around. Is the turnaround required? On the right-hand side? Does it have to be there? Recommended. I don't know if it's an absolute requirement. I can certainly contact the planning and zoning and the traffic team. Sure. That's determined by what level of street ransom would be determined to be in their regulation. And we would need to look to them for that answer, as you say. Yeah, and like I said, I mean, I'm not the parking guy. I'm the BOAR guy, so that's a little, it's outside of my wheelhouse. But, you know, is this the best configuration? Is there not another configuration where spots four and five swing down 90 degrees and you buy back that corner of the backyard? And that was the way I originally had it designed, and it was requested that I move them to the back so that they could back out of the spot and pull out forward onto the street. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the street, but it's a pretty quiet neighborhood street. There's a lot of multifamily and single-family homes on the street, but it's not a major thoroughfare. So I would absolutely love to do that and keep the corner of the yard a green space if that's something that the city allows me to do. I'm looking for something. I mean, anything. Yeah. To get the paving chewed down to a less severe amount. Because it's a shift for the neighborhood, right? I mean, how many of the houses on that road, and there may be more, I'm sure that's possible, but how many of them have a parking lot for backyard, which is what this becomes, right? It's no longer a backyard. It's a parking lot. Yeah, I haven't inspected every backyard. I know there's a serious number of four plexes on the street. I would say maybe six to eight or so have a parking spot for the backyard. As you look at this view to the right, the back of the property and the entire right side is kind of engulfed in commercial property. The one to the left has basically a parking lot for a backyard. Kind of out of things to say. This dialogue is very constructive. It's not absolute answers. I know that aggravates your schedule and what you'd hope to get out of this evening. It's not just about the timing. It's financial burden. Sure. You know, it's probably cost to, you know, I won't go into the details. I'm sure you guys can imagine it's incredibly expensive. And understand, it's not lost on us. It's just not our highest priority, or it can't be. Yes, sir. I understand. Unless we can't do our job. So I don't know. Board members have anything else to add at this time? I don't. Well, I guess I'd like to find a way for you to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. So I guess, you know, how can we help the applicant move forward? Well, we've certainly made it clear that we'd like reduced mass in the addition by some amount. We haven't really picked a number because we can't. It's a perceptive deal where we'd have to see it to, I mean, you could take off eight feet, and we might feel like that's too much, but we can't say that until we've seen it. which is why it's hard for us to pick a number and why we've been asked not to pick a number, I think. Because even if, you know, we throw out four feet as a proposal and you bring it back, it may still appear more massive than we'd imagine, and then we'd feel like we'd made a mistake by committing to four feet before we'd seen it on paper. So with that being the case, I hesitate to just simply say, reduce the mass and bring it back to staff for approval. Or my thoughts on that issue. I don't know. I want to give you as much lead way as you can, too, because I want you to keep moving forward. Because overall, I think it's a good project, and it's going to be good for this house and good for the neighborhood. Definitely. I agree with Greg that the biggest bugaboo is the parking situation. I think that's the biggest obstacle. I'm not as concerned about the massing. I think you can get the massing down. I think it would help enormously if you had, we discussed, I don't know if we used this word, but a hyphen between the existing building and the addition. Do you remember that? Where the roof would drop down, you'd have a virtually flat roof, and then you'd go to a hip roof. That would help enormously. That would help enormously. That's something you didn't accommodate. And so there are ways in which you can make this thing feel more appropriate. And, you know, I don't know what else to say. I know it messes with your schedule, but I think we have to see it again before we can improve it. So how does that work? Can I come back in two weeks for the next meeting? We'll let the staff talk about the deadlines. The deadline for action on this, we were just, legal counsel and I, looking at it. It's January the 30th. And so the board would need to take some action tonight to extend the deadline. Either vote on, take action on the matter, yes or no, or to consider extension of that deadline to a set date. And what is the? The next date for the BOAR is February the 11th, and then there's February the 25th for your next two upcoming meetings. And the new materials to be provided for this would need to be in about the 2nd or 3rd, I'd say 2nd of February, which is roughly 10 days from now. Can you get back by then? Yes, that can help prevent further delays. Sure. Absolutely. So what would we do? We would vote for a continuance? Are you agreeable to a continuation? I think it's clear the current plans cannot be approved by the board, and I don't think if I take a pin to the plans and draw a line for the new footprint, that would count as being able to review the plans. So I'm definitely amenable to, I believe we should be able to get the plans redrawn by then. And I will reach back out to the architect as well and get further input, see if there's any other recommendations. We will definitely reduce the footprint at the back of the property. Absolutely not against moving the kitchen in, if that's what that means, or if it's just making a smaller bedroom at the back. and so we didn't talk about we didn't get down to the detail of uh of this comment but the doors you're showing are six panel doors on the exterior of the house yeah um i mean that's what i'm telling you i kind of just downloaded a readily available door there's an existing door on the first floor that will be reused on the side i did include a picture with the records more careful consideration yeah uh doors kind of work like the windows do where we're not looking to replicate what's there, I think the doors can be part of. Is that a design that can characteristic and come back for staff level review? Yes. Excellent. But it would need to be included in your proposed plans for the next cycle, a detail of that. These details need to be on your drawings as submitted, and then as the board renders a vote and a decision, they will direct what other detail adjustments to some things and or additional information under their auspices of their decision would be needed. And that could be handled by staff. But that comes through the board making that action. Okay. Understood. So I guess the request would be to grant me the extenuance so that I can submit the plans and come back before you in two weeks. Right, and I was just looking if we granted, if the board considered an extension until February the 27th, that would, of course, cover the time period we just discussed of the meeting of the 11th. I'm not suggesting you're going to need another meeting, but it would also encompass the 28th. so if that's amenable to both parties, to yourself as the applicant and to the board, the staff would suggest to you as a board, that's certainly a consideration for you. So that wouldn't be coming back at the next board meeting? It would be delayed until the following one? No, you could still come back on the 11th. Oh, excellent. With bringing your material to the preservation office staff on the 2nd of February. 2nd of February, excellent. That's a Monday, the 2nd. Uh-huh. It's Groundhog's Day, which seems appropriate. Groundhog's Day, wow. Please bring a groundhog with you as well. No, we'll provide the groundhog. Well, all that being said, I think continuing this case is a good idea. It gives you a chance to fine-tune some things and go on a little bit of a building diet, a bit of a driveway diet. Is there anybody in the audience here to speak for this case this evening? Again, we're discussing 125 Ransom Avenue. Seeing no action from the audience, hearing no further discussion from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. So we are, what's the word? So relative to case number 15740125-D at 125 Ransom Avenue, I move to extend the deadline to February 27th. And that we'd continue? Continue, continue, sorry. So I'm moving to continue the project. Very well. Is there a second to that motion? A second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion to continue this case passes. See you next time. Good luck. Thank you. All right. The next case in our agenda this evening, 319 Clay Avenue, that applicant has requested a postponement until February 11th. Are the deadlines okay with that case? There's no action from us required. Is February 11 okay? The next case, Clay Avenue, was requested to postpone until February 11. We don't need to do anything with the deadline for that. It's okay. I don't know. I'm asking. Yes, I understand. That will also need an extension. Well, it's got none at this time. No. Oh, okay. Amelia, I'm sorry. Do you have a correct deadline for action on the Clay Avenue address? We just have a none at this time. I'm sorry. It would be... It would be... You want January? I want December. You want December. Can you all hang on one second while we calendar? Sure. Thank you. And actually, Mr. Chair, if you would like, I'll be carrying up to you the extension from the previous case for your signature. is its deadline for action. Okay. This case then, our wizard of deadlines, Amelia, has figured out it's February 27th. It should be for Clay Avenue. So there's still two meetings to go. Excellent. So no further action. That case has been postponed, and that's just fine. I guess the next item of business, I'm going to go ahead and do the review of minutes so we can get that done, and then we can go straight to conceptual reviews if that's appropriate, as we can end the formal part of the meeting and go to conceptual and not get serious again after that. So that being the case, December 10, 2014, meeting minutes were distributed to the board members. Has everybody had a chance to review those at this time? I have. Are there any comments or corrections to make for staff? I had one comment on the minutes, and that is there was a mention of a direct vent fireplace, and I can't tell you which project it is, but it quotes me as saying that, I'm sorry? 200 East Bay Accord. 200 East Belcourt, and it quotes me as saying that they would need to put some vegetation to prevent children from touching the outlet from the direct vent fireplace. And I think that more correctly, that's just a dangerous issue that needs to be dealt with one way or another. Appropriately. And sometimes vegetation isn't an adequate method. And we'll study the word structure there and be sure it reflects what your indication was. Thank you. There were a handful of typos that I had noted that I've already transmitted to the staff for their corrections, so I won't repeat those, but they were minor, like I said, typos. Any comments from you, Sarah? No. Well, that being the case, anything to add to the comments? Hearing none, all those would. appreciate a motion to accept the minutes. So moved. Thank you. Second. A second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. And the minutes are accepted with those corrections. That ends the formal part of our meeting this evening. The next item on the agenda is the conceptual review. Thank you.