Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 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 Fine 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 the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the Board. There are a total of 14 approved applications noted on today's agenda. At 608 East High Street in Aylesford Historic District, renovate the structure. Also in Aylesford Historic District, 645 East High Street, replace entry system into Child Care Center, 152 Old Park Avenue, reissue COA. At 137 Ransom Avenue, renovate structure. In the Belcourt Historic District at 125 Forest Avenue, replace repair stairs. At 535 Russell Avenue, recoat and seal the driveway. In the Constitution Historic District at 151 Constitution Street, renovate structure. At 140 East 3rd Street, renovate structure. In the Fayette Historic District at 431 Fayette Park, renovate attic windows. At 124 Barbary Lane in the Seven Parks Historic District, renovate structure. 117 Shawnee Place, remove walls of collapsed garage. In the north side of Stork District at 507 North Broadway, reissue a COA. 444 West 3rd Street, remove two damaged trees. And in the South Hill Stork District at 365 South Upper Street, replace vinyl window. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 605 Boonesboro Avenue in the Bell Court Historic District. That application is to construct a rear deck. Is that applicant here this evening? If you'd like to come forward, please. Good to see you. If you'd give us your name and address for the record, please. My name is Ryan Crowley, and I'm at 605 Boonesboro Avenue. Good to see you here this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes, I have. Pretty favorable. Do you find that you agree with those? I do. All right. Well, the staff did write that they recommend approval with the following condition, that after final review by other LFUCG divisions, that you return all details to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Okay. And that's agreeable? Yes. Well, let's see. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, this is 605 Boonesboro Avenue. Seeing no motion and hearing no further comment from up here, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 02140605E at 605 Boonesboro Avenue, I move to approve the application for a certificate with the condition that after final review by other LFUCG divisions, all detail be returned to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further comment on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And the motion passes with that condition. Thank you. Good luck. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 341 Madison Place in the Woodward Heights Historic District. That application is to construct a new parking area. Is that applicant here this evening? Would you like to come talk to us for a moment? If you could give us your name, please. John Karloftis and Dale Fisherman. 341 Madison Place. Very good. Glad to have you here this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes. And are you in agreement with those? I think it's great. We wish we'd have thought of it. It's good. Well, just to make sure we're on the same page, I'm going to go through there. Staff recommends approval of the parking area with the following conditions. One, that the parking area be reduced to three spots. Two, that the parking area consists of grassy pavers or the paver crete in lieu of asphalt. Three, final details of the parking area be submitted for review and approval prior to the COA. And four, once reviewed by any other LFUCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. And everybody's agreeable to those terms? Excellent. Any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? We're in an easy lot today. You came for the easy one. Is there anybody in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, we're discussing 341 Madison Place. Seeing no action from the audience, hearing no further comment from up here. Any other comments? Very well. I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 12200341-S, 341 Madison Place. I'd make a motion to approve application as submitted with the following recommendations. The parking area to be reduced to three spots. The parking area consists of grassy pavers or crete in lieu of asphalt. Final details of parking area be submitted for review and approval prior to issuing of COA. and once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Second. Second. 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. Thank you very much. Thanks. Next case in the agenda this evening is at 113 Shawnee Place in Seven Parks Historic District. That application is demolish stoop and construct a stoop. Is that applicant here this evening? Hi. Hello. Scott Book, 1320 Bryan Avenue. Good evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes, sir. They also were pretty favorable. Are you in agreement with them? Yes, sir, we are. Excellent. There were three. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. One, provide the final specification and details of door and windows to staff for approval. Provide final details of railings to staff for approval. And then number three, after final review by other LFUCG divisions, return all details to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. And you're agreeable to all those terms? Sure. Are there comments or questions from the board at this time concerning the application? Anybody in the audience speak to this case this evening? This is record pace. Well, then, that being the case, all those in, excuse me, I won't vote yet. I would entertain a motion. I was getting ahead of myself. All right. With respect to case number 17020113-C, I move that we accept the recommendation of the staff's approval with the following conditions. for the issues of the certificate of appropriateness. One, provide the final specifications and details of door and windows to staff for approval. Two, provide final details of railings to staff for approval. And three, after final review by other LFCUG divisions, return all details to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with those conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. That's such a mouthful. I've never gotten to see it. Well, the next case on the agenda this evening is at 505 East Main Street in the Bell Court Historic District. That application is to demolish an addition and construct an addition. Welcome. Join us. If we could have your name and address, please. Megan Winfield and Brady Barlow, 505 East Main Street. Good to see you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? We have. They had a few comments. Are you in agreement with those? Sorry to break the streak, but we are not completely in agreement. That's okay. That's what we're really here for. Would you like to identify any in particular, or is it all of them? What's? Numbers one through three. One through three, okay. Just pretty much the meat of it. Okay, well what I'd like to do, if you don't mind, is set this case aside for just a moment, see if we can't scoot through the rest of the list and get those with less conversation taken care of, and then come back to yours and have the staff make a presentation and we'll talk to you about your application. Sounds good. Thank you very much. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 137 Ransom Avenue. That application is to demolish back porch addition and concrete wall and construct an addition. If you'd like to join us, please, and introduce yourself. I'm Pam Duncan. And your address, please? 137 Ransom Avenue. All right. I'm catching up on my stack of paperwork here. I'm sorry. There you are. Well, good to have you. Have you had a chance, like we've asked the other folks this evening, have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? I have. And they're generally favorable. Are you in agreement with what they have to say? We're in full agreement. Wonderful. Just to review, staff recommends approval with following conditions. One, provide final details of railings for staff for approval. Two, redesign the brackets to a simpler design. Provide details of brackets to staff for approval. You're okay with that? Yes. Okay. And then three, after final review by other LFUCG divisions, return all details to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Yes. Excellent. Okay, well, any comments or questions from the board at this time? Nope. Anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Wow. Okay, well, that being the way it is, I would accept a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 15740137-L, 137 Ransom Avenue, make a motion to approve application with the following conditions. Provide final details of railing to staff for approval. Redesign brackets to a simpler design. Provide details of bracket to staff for approval. and after final review by other LFUCG divisions, return all details to staff for review and approval prior to start a work. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? A second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And the motion passes with those conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with your project. All right. So I think this takes us. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 834 West Maxwell Street, and that applicant has requested to postpone until April 22, 2015. Mr. Chair, staff has an update on that, please. The applicants have contacted the office today and asked to withdraw this application. Well, then. Number six. So there's no motion required for that. So the update is at 834 West Maxwell Street, the applicant has withdrawn their application? That's correct. Okay. The next case on the agenda then is at 701 East High Street in the Ellsworth Historic District. That applicant is also requested to postpone until April 22, 2015. Are we okay on their deadline for action, no problems going to that date? Excellent. can I get a motion to that effect please so moved thank you can I get a second to the motion second any further discussion of the motion all those in favor please say aye aye those opposed motion postponed passes so that takes us back to 505 East Main Street and I think we'll just start with the staff presentation and if there's anything in particular I want to highlight about the first three conditions that would help this is the property at five five east main street now walk you around the structure and of course this is from the side this is the forest avenue side in you can see there and existing portions that are already sort of the glass-enclosed pieces that are there. Then sort of walking around to the back side, the proposal in question is requesting to demolish this porch and construct a new one. In 2007, there was an application to sort of redesign this whole thing, including new siding and so forth and entryway. And the work never had occurred. And so now they're requesting to demolish the structure and to build a new structure back, having a similar footprint except to be two feet towards the northwest. I'm just going to give you a little bit more detail on this porch. And sort of this porch sort of stuck behind or tucked in besides a bay that sort of projects out. Sort of another image of the rear porch and the trampoline. And then the roof will increase. It's still below the roof line, but will increase ever so slightly. This porch has also been altered by an infill piece below already. Another view of the addition to be demolished. And sort of all of the work happens in the back. And this is the demo plan showing. This is the existing plan. And this is the proposal. It will have a stone foundation with walls consisting of windows and paneling below. And the roof will be a low-pitch roof. The elevations of the existing are above and then below. We'll have a round stoop with splayed steps. I think we can see that a little better in the floor plan. Guidelines are included in your reference. Or in the findings. The proposal to demolish the existing addition and construct a new two-story addition is within the guidelines. the existing two-story porch has been altered over time with infill and masonite addition. It also has been previously approved to be renovated. Guidelines 60, which states, Stimulation should not be detrimental to the character, scale, rhythm, design, and importance of the building. The proposal to construct an addition requires further conversation. Circa this 1897 Richardsonian Romanesque structure has had several formal sun and open porches added over the years along the front and the forest avenue. The existing two-story porch proposed to be demolished was a surface porch and was very simple and functional. Staff suggests the details of the new porch reflect the simple style and not compete with the other high-style porches. The other enclosed porches have panels below and staff suggests the treatment below the windows not replicate the other porches. Staff finds the addition should also have three wide divisional bays in lieu of the floor bays, which is three equal size bays with one bay, the skinny bay that's along against the masonry wall. Guidelines 2B1F and K-State entrance should be compatible in scale, size, proportion to established patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings. Divisional bays are where the side of the building is divided into a series of vertical bays and sections using designs such as pilaster columns and projecting inset sections. Divisional bays in new construction should not be compatible with the balance and proportion of divisional bays and existing buildings on the block and within the district. And details should be appropriately scaled to the pro structure and compatible with other adjacent buildings and districts. Installation of ornament or details that give building intubation historic appearance are not allowed. The proposed window size is appropriate with the use of glass helping to create a porch feel, and the use of multi-pane windows is appropriate because of the use of one-light windows that would appear to be too commercial in such large expanses of glass. In addition, the main house has one over one windows or two over two windows, and the other porch windows have smaller panes of glass, and the use of multi-paned windows as proposed would be compatible with other porches but reflect of today's era. Guidelines 2B1F, state windows and openings should be compatible in scale, size, and proportion to established patterns of openings and adjacent surrounding buildings. The proposal to raise the roof and bring the addition out is within the guidelines because the original corner slice is still retained and the corner of the rear mass is still intact and remains evident. The design principle for the room and wing addition states that exterior walls of new additions should not be flush with those existing buildings and additional roof lines should be stepped down so as to that existing main roof remains evident. Per the proposed stone steps and stairs, staff finds the concept of a stone stoop and steps within the guidelines however staff finds the proposed stoop and step needs to be more simple as proposed the stoop and step compete with the high style porches on the front staff finds the porch should be square rectilinear and that the stairs not wrap around or flare but be more straightforward guidelines 2a3 a b and c state porches should be compatible and scale materials with the principal structure porches should not be of earlier architectural period and porches that give building imitation historic appearance are not allowed. Staff recommends approval as submitted with the following condition. Vertical bays have three wide bays in lieu of three evenly spaced vertical bays and small paneled vertical bays. A different tree may be explored below the windows in lieu of the panel system. The stoop steps being square or rectilinear in lieu of the round porch and wraparound splayed approach. A sample of the stone be submitted for staff review in regards to the porch and all final details be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of the permit. Once reviewed by any other LFU divisions, all changes come back to staff review for approval for prior to the start of any work. And of course the applicants are present. Thank you. Are there any questions for Amelia before she gets to settle? I have a question. I have a question, Amelia. you're going to have to convince me about your the staff's recommendation that the use of the multi-pane windows would be compatible with and would reflect today's era because I don't think we've ever had a case where we made a finding that use of a multi-pane window was reflected today's era. So I guess I don't buy that, and I want to know where that comes from. Well, I think this house has several styles of opening glass, as you are well aware. And the existing porches do have multi-pane, as you're also aware. The main body of the house has both some one-over-ones and I believe a few two-over-twos. So all of those options already exist in the building in terms of the idea of the most basic intent of the guidelines, continuing with the concept of not mimicking or replicating any of the existing window systems. Most of our options are already in place somewhere on this building. So then I think the matter that the staff discussed was, you know, given that there are already in existence those different rhythms, you know, is one of those less copying of the past or representative of the past or more contemporary. And unless the decision were to go to a non-divided light, just full light, that would, of course, be truly a contemporary read and would be a new interpretation on this house. Any other divided mechanism has already got compatible or similar design concepts somewhere on this building. So we felt that the guidelines have room for consideration from the board's role to look at the option of including multi-pane windows. It is a nice scale on this to have the multi-pane because they are large openings, and just single light would be rather commercial in the outcome potentially. So it is a bit of a conundrum in terms of what would really be the most appropriate outcome within the guidelines, but we felt because of what I've just mentioned that there was a little more room for consideration of alternatives and or options than is often the case of what we encounter. Yes. You know, my reading of the proposal is, and one of the reactions that staff had to the proposal was that the panel solution was inappropriate. And I think that that comes from the same sensibility and guideline that my comment about the divided lights comes from. It is an imitation historic feature, and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with these lights being single-pane, non-divided lights. I think it would be a much stronger design if there weren't panels and if the windows were not subdivided. I think it would be much clearer about the era in which it's built, And I think it would have a fine scale with the rest of the building. That's my personal opinion. I understand. And the staff had a similar discussion about to what you just referenced, specific to the panels as well, that perhaps eradication of the panels would, I was going to say open the door, never mind, but would allow for a reinterpretation of the entire opening in a different fashion, such as perhaps large light. So I think staff would concur with the opportunity that you have just outlined as being also a possibility within the guidelines. I guess while I'm expressing my opinions, I don't really share the staff's concern about the panel that's adjacent to the masonry portion of the building. I think the way it's articulated is a little problematic, but I think it's a very clear and obvious response to the planning needs of the interior, and I respect that. I think it makes sense. And on that, I think the staff also did talk about having it would be a cleaner design if that solid wall is to remain in that rhythm to just remove the paneling features and have it be a simple wall. If indeed that was something the board is interested in doing. I was going to ask about the same thing as far as the fourth, the sliver panel on the end. You know, we would go to this effort to ask that the applicant re-space that. And then on the, around the corner, I think they run into the same uneven spacing because of the way it correlates to the door on the first floor. So because there's already that unevenness on the front side to gain back the three that can be equal but have the space off the wall, I'm just not as, I don't take offense to it the same way that the staff, well, the staff didn't sound offended. But, you know, I wouldn't have listed it as a comment on my staff report. So I agree with what Graham has said there, and I'm glad he brought it up. Well, now that we've argued with the staff, any other comments for the staff? I guess, you know, the implications of what we're talking about also go to the neoclassical kind of station of the design, where you've got these columns that are articulated between each of the window bays. and I prefer it to cutting a column in half and sticking it right on the wall. I think the articulation is better, or at least the idea of it is better. I don't know how it will get detailed. I think that's up for conversation. I can see that removing the panel appearance definitely would challenge the larger the general design approach where those columns are really important to the way it's articulated and I suspect that that may have to be rethought a little bit if in fact the paneled approach is abandoned for something more simple. I guess that's just more of an observation than anything else although So the idea of using a neoclassical kind of precedent for the design seems suitable, as long as it doesn't disagree with the guideline that clearly states that the result should not be imitation historic. This is a position we get in a lot, that we have to work very hard against kind of the logic of the building in order to not mimic history. And sometimes we have to work so hard that I think what we end up with maybe is less kind to the house than this kind of solution. I can live with the glazing pattern. I could live with the panels if they were reinterpreted more simply. I do have some pictures if it's helpful on the panel detail if that's any point helpful in the conversation. Okay just a list. Just kind of what we were thinking for the panels just to make sure you know because they are quite a bit more simple than what we have today on the house okay we took a picture so if that's how then I have one more comment okay the one that does matter to me is I think that though it's it's lovely your your exterior porch and steps down I think it's too grand for a back porch which I'd like to see you keep it look like a back porch into a simpler stairway. Is it? I thought about that some too. And I'll ask your opinion. In looking at the photographs of the front of the house, and then the rear, and then the guideline that, you know, points that it should be, you know, in comparison, it should be secondary. Yeah. Is I think the intent of the guideline. I think it would be hard for what they have proposed to compete with what's on the front of the house. Just given its size and grandeur, I think they've got a long way to go before they've gone past what the guideline permits. So I just wonder if you'd consider that in your comments. Because I started to agree with the staff, but then I compared it to the front porch and said, well, you're not going to outshine the front porch and its size. and I started to wonder too if it were made into a rectilinear pattern how you would get the stairs pointed in a direction that was functional without being even bigger than what's proposed. It could probably be reworked that way. I just don't have a clear vision of it in my head yet at this point. I think I would have the stairs. It would just point and do page right. And you'd be looking at the side of them. I'm going to express my opinion that I see nothing wrong with the stoop and the stairs. In fact, I really like them, I think. I agree with Greg's implication that the grandeur of the house is such that they're not, in my view, overly grand. I think in a way they kind of finish out the house in a nice way. And I think that there's something about the way they orient in a diagonal, that they have a diagonal orientation that is a really lovely solution in light of the fact that you have basement steps right next to them. And if you didn't do that, I think you would sort of have a little bit of a wrestling match with how you respond to those basement steps. so that's this is one of those places where you know you can tell there are so different so many different levels at which one can interpret the guidelines and so we need to find a place that everybody is happy with so you're here Yeah. We're talking to you now instead of arguing with the staff. Well, just to give a little bit of history on where we've been with these drawings over the last three years now. We've lived with them and revised them a couple of times. So on the first point with the window bays, we've drawn it up both ways, actually, the way the staff recommended and this way. And what happens is the panes then get inconsistent as they round the corner. And so it's like one of those judgment calls of which one of those competing kind of guidelines is more important. We also had the interior function to consider. So this one sort of won out in that case because we have that closet in Chase there that had sort of no clean solution on the interior if we went with the other design. So our architect did consider that option, and this is where we ended up for that reason. And the stairs themselves, really, the problem we're trying to solve there is we are a family of four with pets and other kids. And this entrance is only semi-functional with the current width of the stairs, plus with the basement stairs there. It's a really awkward entrance. So we're trying to make it functionally where we can all get up to the door and have our bags and sports bags and groceries and all that stuff and still stand on this tube while somebody unlocks the door. So we're trying to kind of increase traffic flow there, but also stay within the guidelines in an appropriate way. We were also trying not to mimic the big square front steps because we knew that, you know, that is a very similar design. If we go square and then there's a big railing down the middle per code, then it looks very similar. It starts to look more similar to our front course. We're trying to avoid that. And then on the actual paneling, it's really, I think it looks a little bit more ornate in the drawings just because you see all those lines. But we do have, on our current windows, we have a very detailed paneling system that has a lot of depth to it. And they're, you know, they're this thick and they have these big grooves in them. What we were really envisioning was a very simple, almost no relief at all to it, panel treatment that our goal is just to kind of make it disappear. So it's not something you notice. It's not something that is really an architectural detail at all. It's just sort of it's there. It's pretty flat. It's just not glaring out at you as something weird that doesn't work right with everything else that's there. So we took a picture of one that's actually in our next-door neighbor's house that's kind of similar to what we had in mind, although ours might be even a little more simple than that. But that's really what we kind of envisioned with that paneling. It's not trying to mimic what's already in place in any way. I'd be fine with the... Can we see the picture? Yeah, that's fine. Get the hamster wheel spinning over there. Keep going. That's the beadboard. So that was the other treatment we considered was beadboard. But that's there today. We felt like, okay, are we doing imitation? Then if we go back with that. So we kind of wrestled over materials for a while. So we went away from that. And then if you can keep going, I think, keep going. That's the current paneling. So we're trying not to go to that extent. And then if you can keep going, that's current again. That's the front porch for reference. So that's our neighbor's house paneling. And that's even probably a little deeper than what we would want to go to. But it's a very simple, flat, you know, sort of not the thing you notice when you look at that, you know, that addition. I think the frame around the panel can be like full three-quarter inch board anyway or five-eighths. I just didn't want to see any molding or molded panel. Any flat panel with a simple frame. So it's important for us to know then that in the elevation drawings, the single line that we see is truly a single line. It's an edge. It doesn't represent a thick molded material or anything. No, and it's hard to tell that from our existing. I know it from the drawing. Is that the same with the pilasters that are on there? Those seem to be a little... They show to protrude a bit more in the plan drawings. Do you want to speak to that? What? depth or raised thickness of the pilasters between the windows? I think overall our goal was to stay pretty simple with all of that. So we weren't trying to do a lot of detail in that woodwork. The goal was to stay pretty simple with all of those, but also just have the pieces look consistent with each other, right, so that we're not doing weird patchwork kind of things. They just have sort of their own cap and base shown? Yeah. They start to really become a... Well, and I think the cap and base are, I mean, if that's a sticking point, that's probably negotiable. It's just, you know, it's where that line is, right? I would say it's just the culmination of detail lines here and there. When you start to put them all together a little bit here and a little bit there, it's starting to build up to probably more ornate than what you're describing to us now. And I think that might be, I mean, that was some of my initial thoughts, was that this is a little more dressed up than it ought to be. And what you're saying sounds better to me than what I saw in the drawings the first time I looked. It appears on the building section, the wall section, that the panel surrounds are actually about three-quarters of an inch thick, so that it calls out for a one-by-seater painted trim over cement board. So, in fact, the profile of that would be three-quarters of an inch. Yeah, I don't – actually, the wall panel was the last piece that came in, so I didn't get to review that with the architect before it was submitted. But if that depth is a concern, we can certainly alter that. that piece of it was not something that we were able to review before it came into the office. I think there is something very nice about the subtlety of that photograph that you're showing. Do we have a photograph of the side of the building showing the stair to the basement? Amelia, I think yours had the basement. You? the one with the back of the car in it should also have the basement stairs can I ask a question about the rough cut limestone at the base you're showing the drawings are showing that with this just are just representing that with the horizontal line and I I guess I'm curious about what your intent is with that. Are those large blocks? I actually have a picture of those. We have the same treatment on our front porch, which we did just a few years back. And I have a drawing of the stone that we use, but it's just... Oh, the foundation? You're talking about the foundation stone, sorry. I think it's just a facade around concrete block, I believe. It's shown as a, it says rough cut limestone with a concrete block behind it. Yeah. And I guess I'm just, I guess what I want to make sure you don't end up with is a creek stone kind of articulation, you know. Right. No, I think. Because rough cut limestone could be interpreted a million different ways. Right. No, I think we can agree on that for sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they have. It's kind of hard to see from the planner, but there's like this big concrete sort of thing that comes out on the side of it that kind of splays at the bottom, which is not ideal, but something we're going to have to deal with in a future remodel. And why did you not consider just taking your stairs down to the backyard so that we'd be looking at the side of the course? We did. And so the primary reason for actually kind of the primary reason for the angle is this is obviously where we park and where we come in. So when you're carrying stuff through the rain, because we don't have obviously attachment garage, so we're, you know, out in the elements and you go kind of go around. Then there's some sort of a kind of a path that then has to kind of go through that area and then up. And it just became the distance and the awkwardness then of that sticking out into we have a play structure there. that I don't know that you can completely see, but it gets really, really close to that play structure, and it just becomes a really snug little entrance on that side. We did actually have it drawn that way. I think in our plans we submitted in 2007, I think it was, but that was with the intent of moving the play structure, and it's become a little bit more permanent. We now have a trampoline and a play structure. Sarah, that stairway squared up. Well, I do still feel that the relationship of the new stairway and the basement stairwell is awkward. But I appear to be in the minority, so you don't have to worry about it. Actually, Sarah, I agree with you. Oh, thanks. so it's fifty fifty well i'm not sure okay uh... you know insteading those architecture books we see here and you're right public public comments uh... first of all this is absolutely one of my most favorite houses on main street i don't help richmond road while financing that house every time and i just love the look of the house i'm going to agree with the overall comments that i don't see really a whole lot wrong with what you all have done with your design. Given the magnificence of the house, I think anything in the back porch that is a little planar is going to be fine, and I don't see any problems with how you've done the bays. And given your interior considerations, I think that probably trumps, to a certain extent, what might be an overly aesthetic concern about simplicity versus ornateness, given the fact that nothing you do in the back can outdo the front. That said, with respect to the porch or the back, Stu, recognizing that they're play area considerations, those in time will go away. And to be honest with you, I think the plainer look, it looked too much like a front entrance, if you will. And I'm the layperson. I'm not the architect. And from a lay perspective, it looked like you were sort of imitating a little too much an ornate porch as opposed to a back porch. So I think aesthetically, I would go with a plainer look. So I think we agree with the plainer concept. what happened with this back porch is we really like the width you know the graduated width to us is probably one of the more important features for us well you can have that can't you with the rectangle yeah but so you can but to the point that Mr. Paul made earlier is that you start to then get into that basement step or it actually starts to look even bigger so with the rounded it sort of can just slice into it without having to have like a clean edge that comes off of it it oh i'll point out too i was trying to figure out where the stairs would go if they were a straight run right and i don't like where they land uh and to me you know looking at it in plan here if they come south on the page and you know straight towards the driveway well then there's no real landing to the stairs you're you're on the driveway so if there's a vehicle parked there. You're right at the foot of the stairs. And to turn it to go towards to the right side of the page, without pulling it back into the porch or the porch we're trying to make here, it's going to be right into the building or very close to it and not leave a whole lot of passable space. It's making that pinch. so that that was the the beef i had with trying to straighten out the stair run um is is a comment you know maybe it's the scale of the stairway that's that's troubling more than the configuration of it i wonder if if the um if the uh westmost edge of the stair, or the landing at the top of the stair, if that were to be pulled in so that it didn't project out beyond the face of the addition, so that the whole width of the curved steps would then be narrowed accordingly, the whole element would become a little more diminutive, a little more... I think that's a good point. Yeah, I mean, again, it's a practicality thing for us. We have Razor scooters and sidewalk chalk, and, you know, we're in that phase. So for us, it's where do you put all that stuff? We don't have a garage that's got doors on it. You know, we just have kind of a less than ideal little spot back there for all that stuff. So we're trying to balance those two things in a functional way. I mean, I'm talking about a change that's a matter of less than a foot. Yeah. And it would allow the railing to die into the column at the corner instead of sort of float out in space where it ends at the corner. Yeah. So, I mean, I think there may be a compromise here. I think Sarah's got a good idea sketched out, and it's in line with what you're saying. I'd like to hear her describe it. Come on over. I don't know if she was going to charge the button for dogs now. Yeah, there you go. So, Sarah, do you want to talk through the finer points? I mean, the whole issue is just the scale. The finer points is it's still from the road. It will read like it's the side of the porch, and it will allow you to come down at enough of a diagonal that you're hitting your existing pavement. Can I interrupt you for your mic? Thank you. I'll have to describe this to you. I just took the porch from the building side straight back toward the garage about half the distance, so we're further away from the basement step, and have a smaller angled semi-round step. You'll have to come out a little bit further here because you're losing a riser. But this way, this reads as the side of the porch, and this reads as the diagonal, and then this is the side. And it gives you adequate room to get all the kids up there and open the door. So you may consider it, I'm not telling you. It just seemed like a logical way to go. And they could still be four feet wide instead of three feet like you're showing between the handrail at the top. Yeah, you could do it. And still be, still have some beef to them, you know. So this would maybe angle that way, or is that what you're saying? Well, just as far as how far in the edges come into the stairs. You know, you don't have to bring it down to just three feet at its narrowest point. You can still be four feet at the top and be within reach of a handrail and that sort of thing. Okay. I think it's a pretty nice compromise. and brings down the scale of it. I don't know what the other board members think. Pass it to you. Pass it to you. Okay. All right. Well, what else can we talk about? I think we've discussed the panels. We've discussed the spacing of the windows. You know, Graham had comments for the staff about the windows and their dividing, their paneling. I don't know if we want to talk about that as a board or not. I agree it is different. we don't typically hear that it's okay for a new window to have any sort of division or grill pattern to it. You know, the windows it replaces, or the existing windows, have that same feel to them as far as their divisions. I don't know if that means we're imitating the history that's there, or if it just means we're talking about a steady language of a window that's used today as often as it was at that time. Just like we talk about a brick is a brick then and now, it's still kind of a timeless material. My objection is that that interpretation has never been, in my experience on the board, has never been the interpretation of the board. The subdivisions in the windows has always been interpreted as an imitation historic condition that is to be avoided. There has been one other recent one, another new build on Kentucky that the staff recommended having had multiple pains. Not a dissimilar situation in terms of that house had different styles of windows have evolved over the years on different elevations. So that situation is the one on Kentucky. This is the one kind of mid-block on the west side of the street. I'm sorry. I keep saying Kentucky. Woodland. Was on your docket two meetings ago, three meetings ago. It's been on my... Anyway, these all run together after a while. But we gave considerable discussion to that one as staff. That's why it's sticking in my mind as far as the concept. And the answer to these, I think, per the guidelines, is obviously much cleaner when there aren't such changes over time in terms of the various openings as they have come to be today. Not changes to the size of the openings, but changes to the window divisions in the openings. So that's why we felt there is room to interpret it with multiple panes. You could accomplish it and be within the guidelines with one-over-ones. You could also be within the guidelines with larger single-light windows. But in terms of the scale of what's being proposed, the multiple pain seems in character with what is a desirous outcome. I wonder too if it you know as we've discussed it and it seems that the panelization is simpler than we're reading on the paper if the single light isn't more compatible with the pieces and parts that are going around it anyways as far as an addition built in this day and time to speak to Graham's point. I think the flat panels are, the way we described them, are fine. Mm-hmm. And we just have to thrash out the divided lights. You guys actually haven't said anything about it yet. I know your drawings have divided lights, so that gives me an inkling as to what your preference was at least once. Is this a huge sticking point for you? I mean, we obviously prefer the divided lights. We looked at other options in that as well and just felt like, I don't know, and keeping it kind of with a porch feel also, which was sort of the goal, right? So it's kind of supposed to feel more like a porch than a permanent original part of the house. It kind of felt right. I don't know. How do these windows open? As you all may recall, we can't shut this thing off. It's a storm warning. As we came over, they were doing storm warnings. We're almost done. We're almost done. Up our ears and go. So persevere would be my recommendation. The question is how they open. So I think that they are currently designed to be casements that all open the same direction. So they all, I don't remember which direction, but they all open the same way. So they show divided light, but they swing open? Yeah. The single swing. That makes me wish they weren't divided light even more. I don't know that for sure, though. So I remember having this conversation with the architect on how they would open, and we haven't actually gone to the window place to touch them yet. So that's, you know, that's one thing that I think probably we could determine if we needed to change that. But I think that the – so she specified windows in the design plan that were sent to the BOAR, and I believe they were the casements. You might have them take a look at them getting rid of the divided lines and having them center open so that you could buy the European center open. So clearly we still have a porch. Right. Well, so that was the tricky thing because we have those today on our other porches. So that's where we weren't sure again if that was going to be a sticking point or not. Not with me. Yeah. We have center opens on our other porches, or what used to be porches and are now enclosures. Okay. Well, now I can. Don't take your hand off. But it's so nice when it stops, isn't it? Uncross my eyes. Well, if they were the center open type windows, I mean, that certainly clears things up. but I would, even if that were the case, I would still want them to be non-divided light type. Oh, yeah, type divided. Just to keep the clearness and the openness and keep some of the fussiness out of the windows is my own preference. And I think if we can get to that general understanding, then we can easily make the recommendation that the final details for the windows come back for staff review so as not to hold up any vote this evening on that issue, that you guys can further explore it. understanding our intent, which we would need to make clear in our motion, and providing that latitude that a center open window could be part of what comes back to the staff to review. So the proposal would be that we would still have a lower single window and an upper single window, and then the above treatment would be the same. None of them would be divided? Is that what the proposal is? none of them would be divided your window frames would be the same but what is now one glass that pivots out will be two open to the center in the middle and I don't think anybody's changing like on the lower level you've got a tall window and then a shorter window above it the shorter window is still in there and that's just fixed Yeah, and above too. The above windows are fixed as well. On the second floor, those are fixed. So the first level would be divided vertically as two panels that open up. That's kind of another reason why we did the division is because it's a laundry room, so we don't ever have a reason to open those windows. They're just fixed. They're fixed was the plan. And so we didn't have a, you know, so that was part of sort of the thought of not having those be consistent with the division. As long as the, I think those could look pretty good. As long as they're all the same width stacked that way, even if the bottom are the two, you know, two opening sashes, it could look good. That's just me. Well, let's go. What about the pains? Any other open points we want to make sure we cover? I think we've talked about all your three concerns and then our additional concerns. Does anyone in the audience speak to this case? About other things to talk about. No further questions or comments from the board at this time? I would entertain a motion. Let's see how it goes. I am not very good at making motions, but here we go. And I'll remind you, too, before you start, if we're going to omit any of the staff recommendations, we have to give a guideline reason why. All right. You listen carefully because you always step up with the amendments. I'll try. Mr. Chairman, relative to case number 12260505-Q at 505 East Main Street, I recommend, excuse me, I move that we accept the staff recommendations for the submittal with the following conditions. that the vertical bays that have three wide bays, evenly spaced bays, be changed from divided lights to center-open casements at the bottom with the upper two rows being fixed windows without any divided lights. And number two, that the panel system is discussed in this meeting of a flat board frame over a flat panel would be acceptable. Number three, that the stair steps be reduced so that the porch, the stoop part, reads from the street as though it's the side of the porch. with the stairs going down at what would be the 45-degree corner. Number four, that a sample of the stone be submitted to staff for review. Number five, that all final details be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a permit. And number six, once received by other LFUCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Can we discuss it for a moment? Well, I think we have to second it. Well, I'll second it. Okay. Any further discussion of the motion? Yeah. I didn't understand. And Sarah, did you indicate the staff's recommendation, number one, regarding the vertical bays? She kind of just changed it to talk about the windows and didn't address the staff's comments for re-spacing the vertical bays, which I think as a group, you know, I would offer up as an amendment to your motion that we keep the language you suggest about the windows, but then that we also note that we're omitting the staff requirement that the vertical bays be altered from the proposal based on guideline 2B1F, if that's acceptable. Okay. I think that some of that hinges on the second recommendation regarding the panel system. And I think that the intent of simplifying the panel system is consistent with the staff's recommendation. and I would suggest that three-quarter inch material shown in the wall section actually be no more than a half inch material to reduce the depth of the panel system. And that would help with the small bay that is part of the problem cited in recommendation number one. Because I think some of the problem with that small bay is that it's so fancy, there's so many lines. A lot of stuff in a narrow space. A lot of stuff in there. I agree. You know, I would like to clarify something about the windows, too. This is probably out of place at this point, but for me, the subdivisions in the windows, there's another way of solving it, and that is to make the individual panes larger. Part of my objection to it is that there's so many panes that it is a very historic look. And I think that another way of thinking about it is to reduce the number of subdivisions. So that you could still have a subdivided light, but that it would have a more contemporary kind of expression if the panes, in fact, were considerably larger, the individual panes. so I'm not sure how to get to that except that it seems that there that would be another approach for the architect to explore and and bring to the staff for their approval it doesn't lock them into the two-part casement that we've discussed So your comment, your possible... I guess what I'd like to suggest, an amendment to the motion that opens the possibility for exploring subdivisions in the windows that provide a much larger pane size so that they're clearly not of a historic nature, so that the owners and the architect are not necessarily locked into the double-action, double-acting solution that we've described so far, and that whatever they decide upon be presented to the staff for their review. So, yeah, so just to summarize what I think you said there, and you tell me if I've got it, and if I said what I think you said and you agree to it, then you can say so. Okay. So I think you said, let's simplify the language for the window comment in that revised design, come back to staff for review based on the comments made tonight on either a simpler form of subdivision or a more modern language of subdivision. And we let those details be explored and brought back to staff for review. I'd be happy with that. Yep, that's right. I agreeable to that. Okay. Could staff just reference one possible concern, which we don't have to resolve this minute? I think this is all positive, and, you know, we can work with this, but just something that immediately comes to mind is we want to be careful to not end up with two over twos if you enlarge the size of the glass. And I do think philosophically I certainly understand what you're saying, and that's just a caution comes to mind. But I believe that we all understand where we're trying to get, so I think we can get there without two over twos, because there are two over two historic windows adjacent to this porch. The next logical step, we're four over four. It might be the only other thing we can. Which will give you smaller window panes, but anyway. I think there's lots of opportunity to explore even a 2 over 2 in that if you start moving the vertical and horizontal lines around off center, it could be acceptable. Oh, if you don't want equidistant, there are all sorts of possibilities. I agree. So I'm not closing. I don't want to shut the door on that. No, I'm not suggesting we do. I'm just wanting to raise an alert that we're not trying for an outcome of 2 over 2s. Yeah, I agree. Okay, so the amendment has been accepted? Yes. Do you accept the amendment to the motion? I do. To your second? Second, I think. Who had the second? I'm sorry. I had the second to begin with, and I concur with the suggested amendments that are being made. Okay, I think we're all on the same page. I think I seconded the motion, but I'll third it now. I'll force it if I have to. One of these days, I'll teach you the procedure by which you make an amendment to a motion, but we won't go into that today. I think we're getting a little nerdy. Okay. This is Robert's real nerd in me. Is there any further discussion of the motion at this time? No. Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, and the motion passes with those recommendations. Thank you very much. The final item on the agenda this evening for business is the review of minutes from the March 25, 2015 meeting. Those minutes have been distributed to the staff, or to the board, excuse me. There were only three of us present at the last meeting. Have you two had a chance to review those minutes, and do you have any comments to make? I do have a comment. I want everybody to notice that we adjourned the meeting at 5.12 p.m., a record. It was a rather speedy event. Any other comments? Hearing none, I'd certainly entertain a motion to accept the minutes as they've been written. Thank you. A second, please. Second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And the motion to accept the minutes passes. I would accept a motion to adjourn. So moved. So moved. And a second? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you. We'll be right back.