Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome you to the March 12, 2008, public hearing of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate all of you who are here this afternoon. The board was established by a zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. This afternoon, we have four board members present. I'm Clyde Carpenter. I'm currently the chair of the board, and I would like for the board members who are here to introduce themselves. Terry Hanley. Derek Wingfield. Jim Dickinson. Thank you. The Historic Preservation Office, of which we are part, maintains a full-time staff to assist applicants with projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street in 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 hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application, and then hear comments from anyone in the audience who is interested in a particular application. If you wish to speak to the board this afternoon, we will ask that you come down front to the podium here and talk into the microphone. We would also like to ask that you sign in on the sign-in sheet, which is back by the door, if you plan to speak. Because we have a lot of cases on the agenda this afternoon, we will probably be assigning a time limit to how much time you will have to speak, and I will announce that as we come to each case. This afternoon, we have several items which have already been approved. There are certain items that the staff can approve without the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. These are called staff approvals, and there are a total this afternoon of 22 staff approvals, and I need to read those into the record. In the South Ashland Historic District, at 217 South Ashland Avenue, we put in place a fence. In Aylesford, there are several approvals. 401 East High Street repair fence due to storm damage. 431 East High Street remove trees. 604 East High Street remove two damaged trees, replace the carport. 157 Kentucky Avenue replace second floor railing. 348 Linden Walk remove damaged tree, replace the roof. 415 East Maxwell Street renovate the structure after the storm. And 338 Woodland Avenue replace the roof. In Belcourt, there are several approvals. 130 East Belcourt replace chimney repair roof. 206 East Belcourt renovate after the storm. 232 East Belcourt replace the fence. 524 Thayer Avenue repair chimney and roof system, replace the bay window roof. And 624 Thayer Avenue replace the carport roof and siding. In the Northside Historic District, there are several approvals. 336 Hampton Court renovate the front porch. 315 North Broadway repair rebuild damaged chimney. 486 West 2nd Street install signage and lights. In the South Hill Historic District, there are several approvals. 214 West Maxwell Street replace the sign. 315 West High Street replace sign. 390 South Upper Street rebuild porch foundation. And in the Western Suburb Historic District, several approvals. 640 West Short Street replace the fence. 700 West Short Street replace the fence. 704 West Short Street replace the fence. So that's a total of 22 approvals and I want to commend the staff for accomplishing so much and for their diligence in making certain that these cases have already been processed and that the owners of these properties already have their Certificates of Appropriateness and hopefully are proceeding with the work they need to accomplish. We will now proceed with the review of applications for the Certificates of Appropriateness. In a few cases, the staff has recommended approval as submitted and in those cases, we will ask the applicants to come forward to see if they have any comments or questions and we, in some cases, will be able to very quickly approve these cases. In some cases, we will, which are not quite so straightforward, it may be necessary for us to have a full-blown public hearing. So we'll deal with that on a case-by-case basis. But the first item on the agenda is Item 1 in the Yale Short Historic District, 409 East High Street, Demolish the Porch and Construct a Porch. Is that applicant present? She is. She'll be here in a second. The staff has recommended approval as submitted. Is that acceptable to you? Yes, absolutely. Okay, good. All right, thank you very much. Is that all you need? That's all I need, yes. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval and issuance of the COA for 409 East High Street. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. The next item on the agenda is at 336 Hampton Court. The application is to renovate the porch and replace the sidewalk, floor, and walk. That's in the Northside Historic District, and I assume you're the applicant. Yes. Are you in agreement with the staff findings? Yes, I am. You are, okay, including the conditions that they specified. Yes, sir. Good, thank you. Could we get your name for the record, please? Yes, I'm sorry. Carl Kuhn, 336 Hampton Court. Thank you very much. I'm not doing my job here. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make any comments about this application? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Note that there are some conditions that the staff included in the report. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval and additions of the COA for the three unconditioned items listed in the staff report, in addition to those four items with conditions. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. I want to be clear. You know, we are disapproving the stone towel, and you're okay with that. All right. I saw that look of puzzlement in your eye for just a moment. I thought, let's make sure we're on the same page here. I'll second the motion. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, motion carried. Okay, thank you. All right. The third item on the agenda, Item 3, Constitutional Historic District, 262 North Limestone. The application is to install signage. Is that applicant present? The applicant is not here, but has seen our recommendation and is receptive to that. You recommended approval as submitted, and so he should accept that. Yes. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, we move for approval and adjustments of the COA for 262 North Limestone. Second. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay. The next item on the agenda is Item 4, 229 Barbary Lane. That's in the Seven Parks Historic District. The application is to demolish the garage and to construct a garage. Is that applicant present? Hi. Please give us your name. John Book. Okay. And your address, please. 1320 Bryant Avenue, but we're here for the clients that we're working for, for 229 Barbary. Okay. Have you had a chance to read the staff recommendation? Yes, we have. Are we in agreement? We are. Okay. So you're agreeing to simplify the door? We'll simplify that and get some plans back down to the board. Okay. Well, thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Anyone in the audience care to comment on this application? Okay. Hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion and note that there are some conditions in the staff recommendation for approval. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the COA for 229 Barbary Lane, subject to the three conditions listed in the staff report. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay. The next item on the agenda is the 371 South Upper Street. That's in the South Hill Historic District. The application is to remove a wall and construct an addition. Is that applicant present? If you'll give us your name and address, please. I'm Mike Kovash, 371 South Upper Street. The staff has recommended approval with a condition. Have you had a chance to review the report? Just this afternoon. I'd like to talk about this. All right. We'll come back to you. Okay. Thank you. 359 South Mill Street. Is the applicant present for that? I see you want to talk about that. Yes, okay. We will do that. Okay. And then 727 Caden Lane. Is that applicant present? The applicant is on his way. He's not here just yet. What should we do? If you were wanting to, I mean, I think you could wait and come back to this case at the end of the agenda. All right. All right. The next item on the agenda, we'll come back to item seven. Item eight is in the South Hill Historic District. That's 421-437 Lawrence Street. Construct townhouses and site work. This is actually to renew a certificate of appropriateness that was previously issued. Is the applicant present for that? My name is Carrie Milner with WML Properties. Staff has recommended that the permit be reissued. Is that okay with you? Yes, it is. Good. Thank you very much. Anyone in the audience like to make comments about this application? This is to renew a previously issued COA to construct some new townhouses. Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval and issuance of the COA for 421, 423, 425, 429, 433, 435, and 437 Lawrence Street, subject to the two conditions listed in the staff report. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. The next four items on our agenda, 9, 10, 11, and 12, I believe we'll have to hear those cases because they are disapprovals. So we'll come back to Mr. Kovosh, 371 South Upper Street, if you'd like to come up and talk to us. The staff has recommended approval with the recommendation that the addition of a flat roof, and that's the only. If you have any brief comments to make. Could we show the pictures? Are we not going to have a staff presentation first? Yes, we should. Sorry. Sorry, we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. I guess you're disagreeing about the flat roof. Okay, okay. We could have a staff report then. Sorry. This is Project 371 South Upper. And the project, the request is to put an addition on this rear L. The applicant has been before the board for a conceptual review. Drawings have been revised. Wall construction changed from solid brick to a hardy plank. And the openings changed from the glare doors to the flanking and the wide boot trim has been eliminated. In addition to these revisions, the applicant has furnished a complete set of drawings. At this time, the board grant a COA to remove the existing two-story masonry baron wall, construct two-story additions four foot wide, 17 foot long. Although the roof of the addition will override the historic roof of the rear L some 10 inches, the applicant has stated that it will still tuck in beneath the soffit of the main structure. Just talking about the roof, I think that is reference that we've included in the guidelines reference to this project. The findings, the proposal to construct a two-story, four-foot wide addition to the rear L is found appropriate. The guidelines have the manner by which it is achieved requires careful consideration. The owner should be very careful in removal of the brick wall to protect the roof structure. Reference new construction so as to not override the historic roof system. The roof of the addition should be flat, thereby maintaining the historic roof in accordance with guidelines 27.1, which states significant historic roof forms, materials, and architectural details should be retained, maintained. Staff recommendation was that approval as submitted with condition that the roof of the addition be tucked in flat under that soffit so the roof pitch would be flat in lieu of the 2 and 12, which is shown. The applicant is here. Thank you. Okay. Do you mind giving us your name once again? Certainly. My name is Mike Kovash, 371 South Upper Street. And he's going to... There we go. What I've done is I'm coming to you with questions like we had our conceptual review two months ago, basically. These are the guidelines, and 27.1 says significant historic roof forms, materials, and architectural details should be retained and maintained. But also, guideline 38.1 says the roofs of new buildings should relate in shape, pitch, and materials to the roofs of adjacent and surrounding buildings. So this is my question. If we go to the next slide, please. This is the drawing that I submitted intending to show the slope on the new addition at a level of about 2 and 12. 2 and 12 allows us to tuck underneath the roof of the front part of the house, but it rides up about 10 inches on this old part of the roof. If you go to the next slide, this is what the house looks like with the flat roof. And so my question to you is we have two guidelines, one which says we're to leave intact this last 10 inches of the old roof, another which says that any new roofs have to conform to the style, materials, and flow, if you will, of the old roofs. And frankly, to my eye, I'm not an architect, but that looks fairly obnoxious. So that is one issue. Could we go to the next slide, please? Until 1 o'clock this afternoon, and this again comes in the form of a question, I was under the impression from the printed materials from the staff that divided lights were not approved. That's only a couple hours ago that I was informed otherwise. And it was cited that Guideline 41, 40-1, installation of ornament which gives a building an imitation historic appearance is not permitted. So until 1 o'clock, that's what I was working under. I intended to propose a compromise which is based on Guideline 38-1, which is that contemporary design compatible with adjacent and surrounding structures is strongly recommended. So if we could go to the next slide, please. This is what I originally proposed. This is the addition, two identical 12-foot wide basically walls of glass, divided lights in a 3-by-5 pattern. When I first drew this and submitted it, I intended that the divided lights would fairly imitate the divided lights on the other parts of the house. However, when I was here in January for the conceptual review, the board made continuing comments about how this should contrast with the existing parts of the house, and that previous guideline says that it should be more contemporary in style. So if you go to the next slide, please. This is what the staff had recommended, removing those guide lights altogether. And if you go to the next slide until 1 o'clock this afternoon, this is what I was coming back with, which is a more contemporary look, which is not 3-by-5, but just 2-by-5. And so, frankly, I've sort of taken a liking in the last two weeks to the 2-by-5 look, given that the staff has sort of thrown me into an open discussion here. Again, this is sort of a question for you all. This looks to me to be a more contemporary styling than the traditional 3-by-5. Thank you. Let's see if there are questions that the board might have or comments. Mr. Hainley? When I looked at this, I really couldn't tell whether, and maybe staff can help me out with this, was the intent of trying not to alter the existing roof. What's the quote in here? Roof form 27. Significant historic roof forms, materials, and architectural details should be retained and maintained. Does the gutter and the fascia board, does it attach to where the existing fascia board is, or is that lowered below that? No, the intent would be that it would be lower than that. Okay. Is there a head clearance height problem that would be problematic with code compliance? I think what's happened is the applicant desires to sister onto the ceiling joists that come through onto the masonry wall, and so he's brought that same size on over to the new wall. Okay. Well, I don't... Could I speak to that? The existing second floor clearance on the floor is 7 foot 6 inches, and indeed I had planned to bring the ceiling joists straight out, and so the new roof would extend straight from the position of the current soffit, because to do otherwise would lower a 7 foot 6 inch ceiling unacceptably. So I guess that tends to go back to my question with the proposal that staff has made. Would that lower the ceiling height inside this new space below 7' 6"? I don't think it would necessarily do that if the structure that is attached to those existing joists are sized to carry that load. Okay. I mean, I think you could reduce the height. Well, I think, you know, with a lot of these older constructions where we're putting on new pieces, I think we get into, and we've run into this in the last several months, where we start getting into head height clearances, and I know the code's just changed that we're required to have higher head heights now than what we were previously required to have, and that's going to create some interesting issues on future submissions. Personally, I don't have a problem with the pitched roof. If the staff was concerned about the aesthetic of the original roof massing, there could be a possibility that instead of going all the way to the end of the vertical edge of the masonry, it could be pulled back to allow that detail to expose itself of the original. But, you know, I particularly don't have a problem with the sloped roof. What about the windows? With the windows, I think what staff's approved is compatible. There is, in fact, a four-inch setback on this new roof so that the existing soffit will show itself for four inches. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Wingfield? I don't particularly have a problem with the pitched roof that I submitted. I think Terry's, Mr. Hanley's, comments were right on the money, and I think that the flattened, have you thought about using, I know that you had, and we talked about some of the conceptual view of sistering onto the existing roof choice. Had you thought about enlarging the structural members and lowering it at all that Mr. Giannacchi had just suggested? In fact, lowering it all, I don't see how it avoids the problem of seven foot six inches on the existing ceilings. And with regard to the windows, or to the doors, I think that the undivided glass is cleaner, but the recent option with the two or five is acceptable as well. Mr. Dickinson? Maybe I'm a little confused with respect to the new roof design, which I thought was applicable, and I know this is in a sense a new building, but it's also an addition to your building, and I was under the impression that when we're talking about additions, the roof of the addition has to relate to the roof of the original house. Is that correct, Betty? That is the intent. What happens is, though, that in the interest of keeping the identity of the roof line of the historic mass, the two concepts butt heads. Well, and that's why I was wondering if there's distinction when we're talking about a new building and we're talking about its roof line being compatible with the adjacent buildings. A freestanding new building, you're saying. Yeah, as opposed to an addition. And to be honest with you, I haven't studied the guidelines well enough to know if there's a set of guidelines specifically for additions or not. The new construction is both looked at, as you say, for freestanding buildings and or new additions to existing historic structures or existing structures. And so the philosophy that you see reflected in the staff's recommendation is tied to retaining the identity of the historic mass, but it is certainly the board's decision as to what you think will work. Well, there may be an aesthetic and headroom issue, but I'm concerned that we seem to be hitting a problem here because we had exactly the same problem with the project over on Limestone, which had the sloped roof and we were insistent on a flat roof, and that went to the planning commission and ultimately he got his flat roof. I don't think I have a feeling your slope roof is going to obscure more of your roof line on that addition than you care for it to do. I was wondering if there's some other compromise that can be worked out. You've been very good at finding compromises. On this particular point, I don't have a strong feeling, and so I'm happy to oblige by what this board has to say. I just thought that these two guidelines ought to be heard. Well, they are somewhat in conflict. They are somewhat in conflict. My preference would be to see the flat roof, quite frankly. I think it looks better, and frankly, I think the way that you redid the windows as you submitted in the revised application looked better than your newest revision. I like that clean look that they have, and I think ultimately in terms of light getting into that room, you're going to be happier with that appearance. So I prefer to go with, and I think you're just raising questions at this point. My preference would be to accept your application on the windows without revising it, and I would like to see the flat roof. Thank you. Well, I don't know. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't see how the flat roof proposal can really work given the ceiling height problem that we're talking about. I think if the ceiling heights were not an issue, then I would probably favor the flat roof, just from a design point of view, but I think given what is happening, I think the slope roof is certainly acceptable to me, and I could go either way on the window proposal, either the undivided lights or the proposal that you have come up with. The two-by-five. Yeah, I really prefer the undivided lights personally, but I don't see that the divided lights are really a big problem. So any other questions from the board? Let's see if there are any comments from the audience. Anyone in the audience care to make any comments about this application? Okay, hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion if someone would like to try to make a motion. Could the staff note one clarification or furthering of something? Talking about the issue of how to handle the windows, the staff's report reflects on partly what is a unique situation to your property, and that is the decision relative to your front windows, and so therefore, this submittal, the divided lights would be consistent with what's been approved for your front, and so that's why it is a rather unique situation, and put the staff in the position to be able to recommend approval of those divided lights. Technically, I think in terms of the guidelines, that any of the three proposed window designs are within the guidelines, but it's up, of course, to the board and applicant to work out what's your desire, but given that it is new construction, that there's going to be an existing condition that has the divided light in the manner that it will be on the front and so forth, all these things are coming into play that, pardon the pun, open the window to any of the three design proposals from the guidelines perspective as the staff perceives it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the issuance of the COA for 371 South Upper Street. Striking the staff condition, so sort of as submitted, sort of as submitted, I find that the proposed 2 over 12 pitch roof is in accordance with guideline 38-1, and this particular situation, that that guideline supersedes guideline 21-7. Additionally, I'll have the condition that the applicant be allowed to use either the undivided light, the 2 by 5 light, or the original proposal, as all three of them do meet the guidelines, and that whatever your selection may be, just have the revised drawings come back to staff prior to issuance of the COA. Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? I have a question. When you say supersede to my lawyer ears, that says something that you may not be intending. I think there's a conflict between the two provisions, and in this particular case, given the situation of the headroom in that particular addition, that perhaps aesthetically we need to be going with a sloped roof as opposed to a flat roof, and not say that one provision supersedes another provision. And I would like to, if I may, amend your motion to reflect that finding. I shall certainly accept your amendment. Okay. All right. I'd also like to note that this is a rather unique situation regarding the windows, in that we had disapproved divided light. The planning commission had overruled that disapproval, and so with this particular house, and as far as I'm concerned, this particular house only are we allowing divided light on the new addition. Okay. All right. Any more discussion? That was a very long second, I know, but. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's see. We were going to come back to the Cadentown History District project at 727 Cadent Lane. Is the owner here now? The applicant? Okay. All right. Would the applicant come forward, please? Would you give us your name, please? It's Jeff Morgan. What's your address, sir? 5150 Old Boonesboro, Winchester, Kentucky. Have you read the staff report? Yes, sir. Are you in agreement with it? Yes, sir. Okay. All the conditions, et cetera? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Okay. Okay. Hearing no comments, the staff has recommended approval, estimated with several conditions which the applicant has agreed to meet. So the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, we move for approval and issuance of the COA for 727 Cadent Lane, subject to the four conditions listed in the staff report. Second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. I'm going to abstain. Oh, you're going to withdraw? I'm sorry. You're withdrawing? I mean, you're withdrawing? Yes, I am. Yes. Okay. He's abstaining. I have a conflict of interest. Mr. Hanley is abstaining. Okay. The motion carries. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Let's see. I believe that we're now ready to go back on the agenda, if I'm not mistaken, to 359 South Mill Street, and we will probably need to have a staff report on this since the applicant would like to talk to us about that. So if the staff will give us a report on 359 South Mill Street. This is the property at 359 South Mill Street. As we remember, we've been dealing with this project since November when we first heard this as a conceptual review. This is the property. This is an early structure with a late L edition that has a filled-in 1960s porch. This is the porch. Presently, there's gravel. In fact, here's the main mass and the L with the porch that was covered with a side porch, covered in the 40s. Excuse me. Here's the rear of the structure. This shows sort of the evolution of the building with the main mass of the two-story and the rear L, one stories, and another rear L, and then the filled-in frame porch. This is the area where the garage is proposed to be constructed. Here's the property standing at the very back looking forward. Here is the north side of the property showing the brick Ls. If we can go to the drawings, please, Randy. Site plan, please. The proposal calls for the construction of the second floor and rebuilding the rear edition. It also calls for a one-and-a-half-story two-bay garage, paved areas, patio, and walkway. Two-bay garage, paved areas, patio, and walkways. Here's the site plan. With this being the original rear L, this being the porch rebuilt, and here's the rear back. This is of the proposal. The proposal calls for a two-story that will go atop of this area with a rear patio porch area, a new drive leading back to a garage. If we can go to the next plan, please. This is the existing structure now. You can see this is the evolution house with this being the rear brick L, this being the side porch. There would be an addition that would sit atop of this, and this wall would be removed to rebuild this back wall in a different way. And this wall would be removed to rebuild this back wall in a different configuration. Next plan, please. Here's our floor plan. And this also, if you could shift it to the right, please. Thank you. And this also shows the garage plan. This is option one. This is the original proposal that we saw in November with some minor tweakings. The major difference is there's a larger patio area with a chimney attached. Then if we can show option two, please. This is the site plan, which is slightly different. And then if we can show the side elevations. This is option two. There was a discussion by staff with the agency that they wanted to make sure that this was the right way to go. And they wanted to make sure that this was the right way to go. Next, please. This is option two. There was a discussion by staff with the applicant working out trying to reduce or minimize the mass of the structure. And this is option two that has been submitted. And this is the addition that's added on top of the brick. The deck, I mean the rear patio area that's covered patio and the chimney remains the same as the others. Those are just the plans I wanted to briefly go over with you. The guidelines are included in the staff report. The findings of the proposal to construct a second story addition garage and site work is within the guideline. However, it requires further consideration. The material choice of hardy plank and the style of windows proposed for the addition and garage are appropriate and within the guidelines. Guidelines 41-2 and 41-3 state materials should be in scale to the buildings in which they are located and should be compatible with materials in the adjacent surrounding buildings and in the areas where strong continuity of materials, texture, and material color is a factor. The continued use of materials is strongly recommended. The proposed addition, which adds a second story atop of existing L, is appropriate. However, the mass of the addition is not within keeping the guidelines. The overall mass of the proposed addition needs further discussion. After reviewing the minutes and recording of the BOAR conceptual review for this case, the majority of the board as well as staff were concerned with the mass of the proposed addition. During several meetings between staff and the applicant, the mass of the proposal has come up. The plans proposed overwhelms the historic structure. Both the rear gable and the alternative hip are at the same height as the existing building. Guidelines 35-3 and 35-4 respectively state new buildings should have the same number of stories should be within 10% of the average height of adjacent buildings and the complexity of building form and shape should be compatible with adjacent building. Staff recommends that the gable portion of the proposed addition be reduced in height so as not to overwhelm the main mass and also help reduce the overall mass. The proposed rear porch having the dimensions of 28 by 16 takes up too much green space. Guidelines 14-1 and 39-1 respectively state historic green areas and spaces of site should be retained and maintained and the porch and deck material should be appropriate to the building in which they are located. Staff suggests the porch be reduced in size and configuration so as to retain more green space. The proposal to install a garage is within the guidelines and appropriate for the structure. Guideline 35-5 states a new building should be placed on the site in a compatible relationship to the setbacks and placement of the adjacent surrounding buildings. Recommendations, staff recommends approval of the garage and paved areas. Staff recommends further study of the following items listed, the mass of the new addition and the mass of the rear porch. The applicant and owners are present. Would the applicant like to come forward? You will give us your name and address please. I'm Jack Stewart, Stewart Architecture, North Eagle Creek Drive. We appreciate the cooperation the staff has shown through this process and our diligence together to find a proper solution here. I believe as it stands now we have the mass issue of the addition at the second floor and the porch issue. I would have sympathy that what we have shown is appropriate. The mass is what's allowed for us to build. The geometry of the mass, I think we've given an alternative as the hip indicates. I would be very reluctant to do anything flat or of that sort to the roof of that second floor. A compromise I could suggest as far as discussing this and finally reaching some conclusion is that we might bring the eave down of the addition a nominal amount. No, I don't think we've got room to keep the ceiling heights as we want them or have them be in the house like the second floor of the house is. It would approach probably eight inches or so. We could bring the eave down to be lower than the principal structure. That's yet another suggestion beyond what we're showing you. I'm not sure what else to do. Besides, I think what we've done is successful that we've repeated the front image and the footprint of the building is basically unchanged. We've just added a small amount on the side, the driveway side. I've always felt good about the overall appearance and wouldn't want anything to be there that's not appropriately exciting and properly placed. Some comments on the massing of the addition. The porch, I feel, is appropriate size. Our client is very much an outdoor porch user, an outdoor living space user. We have a fireplace grill constructed there for that to accentuate that. The nominal amount that's smaller or larger than anything else is pretty nominal. We have pushed the garage to the left corner as much as we can and should and made it as nominal a size as we can. So I think there will be a chance to make great green spaces. As you just saw, currently there's gravel back there and we're certainly going to make a nicer thing than that. I really feel strongly we shouldn't compromise the dimensions of that porch just for the functionality. It's completely hidden. You would never see it from the street unless you were in a second floor neighbor. You would not see that porch. So a starting point, I hope, for some discussion to help us get this thing to construction. You're aware that the staff has recommended approval of the garage? Yes. That's off the table. Yes, garage. Yes, thank you. All right. We'll see if there are any questions or comments or suggestions from the board members who are here. Thank you. Mr. Wingfield, comments? I certainly think your proposal to look at reducing the eave height is certainly one that we'd like to entertain as a board as well. I can't speak for the rest of the board. But myself, I think anything to reduce it just a little bit would be advantageous. As far as the patio is concerned, you've almost got a flat roof on it already with a 1-12 pitch. Shallow pitch, let's say that. You have to measure the windows above. In looking at the dimensions of it, sometimes elevations can be deceiving. Looking at the elevation, it looks too massive. When you go back to the plan and look at the overall site, it's 16 by 26. I think 28 is what the staff report says. I believe that's proper. It's less than the full width. It's set in from the structure. The only thing that I can think of is to try to lighten the roof on it to make it not appear so massive. Aside from that, dimensionally, I think it fits in well with the rest of the site layout. I was reading my comments from the conceptual review and I read Mr. Carpenter's comments as well. When this case came on the docket for review, I went back and carefully reread Mr. Carpenter's comments again. I really do think this is a very innovative way to get additional using space in a very tight situation. I'm not sure how else you could do it. I think that lowering the eave height and maybe lightening the porch roof might be beneficial. Aside from that, I think it's an innovative proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Dickinson. Well, I have a question, I think, in that if we had ñ it's going to be posed as a question but as a comment as well. I think if you had come at us and initially said, we want to air off the addition and we want to build something new and build the second building at the same height, I think the staff would absolutely say no because that would be just too much structure for that particular historic house. And I think the dilemma we're wrestling with is contemporary standards trying to jerry-rig itself into a historic property where I think you need ñ most of us in today's world, we're accustomed to much larger homes. And my initial impression, and I'm still somewhat of that impression, is you've got too much house for too little lot line. And I know what your client's desire is, but I just ñ the way you have configured the second story of the far addition, in my mind, to match up is a nice way of doing it, but then basically you're putting two houses on a very small lot. Now, the problem with this whole property is the way that L has sort of jumbled itself out into the yard anyway, which is why I think Clyde is saying this is taking perhaps a pig's ear and making something attractive out of it in terms of a purse, and maybe it works. I'm not enough of an architect to say yay or nay. My impression, even though I look at the dimensions on it, is I think it's going to be awfully big for that lot, and I don't know how ñ I don't know where the compromise would be. Reducing the ease line is certainly a help, but I'm not sure in a way if we just shouldn't accept your proposal and acknowledge that this is just a very weird lot, given how that existing L grew and kept growing, because there was no bore to review it back then. The porch, I think the porch is going to have to be a hair smaller. I think you've lost ñ you've eaten up so much of the green space that you're not going to have a yard left, and this is a residential property. So I think the porch needs to be reconfigured in some manner. Now, Mr. Ballard had made some suggestions. I can't remember specifically what they were in terms of trying to reduce the overall mass of the property. Did you look at those suggestions? Well, we did, principally with the roof line and suggesting the hipping of the roof line rather than the gabling. And that does help. Which would push it back and not ñ I think that's very significantly a way to minimize the mass. And then the compromise to lower the eave. How much can you lower that eave, do you think? It's a difference between burying the rafters on the top of the ñ at the plate above the ceiling joists or lowering it down to the top of the plate to the wall. That's really what the difference is going to be. So in terms of its length, that's going to be a significant ñ it's going to really have a ñ I think the disjoining of the existing house with the addition will appear at that point when you don't align them or you misalign them. And that's what this would be doing. So I think that will, again, help that be less massive if that's the goal. See, one other thing we have to take into consideration is that you emphasized how the front is not going to look any different. And unfortunately, that's not what the guidelines call for. The guidelines call for the overall 360 appearance. So we can't say, okay, because most of it's obscured behind the front elevation, we can just ignore it. And that's the problem we're wrestling with here. Philosophically, I would have it look seamless and all look alike, but that's not what the board wants and what the staff recommends. So we are looking to find a way to be historically proper here and respect this original house as it is. The neighbor on the right, I do have a photograph to show somewhat the similar context that resides here. May I pass this? Sure. Well, maybe. Yeah, there we go. Now the house we're looking at is yours, right? Yeah, we're looking at the house as it is in the yellow here. The house beyond it to the upper left there is the, you know, we kind of have a precedent here, so it's not quite like we're standing out like something unusual. And then it's just about the geometry and how it complements or separates and distinguishes itself. This roof line, I feel that we're, I think we can probably say we're good. I mean, if we lower the eave down. I mean, I hope that's a good compromise. The porch issue is very important in that we have a nice, good outdoor living space. The 16 feet is compromised somewhat with the fireplace and apparatus of that sort and column dimension and so forth. So it is a very active coming and going place, so I want it to have that opportunity and be everything that the owner would expect it to be. So we'll jump to that comment as well. But the mass hopefully is tactfully approached here as far as being what it is. Any other comments, Mr. Dickinson? No. Thank you. Mr. Hainley? I was always concerned with obviously the mass of this, and I think the approach of maybe pulling down the eave height a little bit probably would be successful in reducing that somewhat. And as far as the porch, really don't have a problem with that either. As far as the size, I mean, it's an urban infill site. As far as historic green space, there's not a whole lot of that on the site right now from the photograph that I saw. It looked almost like an older commercial parking lot. It looked like about five or six parking spaces back there. So I don't think that it would be detracting from the green space that's already there now. So I don't have a problem with the size of the porch either. Okay, thank you. Well, as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with the proposal, and it doesn't bother me that they line up. I mean, this is a very small house. Mr. Dickinson says we're putting two houses on the lot, and I don't agree with that particularly. But the main house, that main mass, is essentially a one-room deep structure. And I had some friends who owned the house who found it so small that they actually sold it and bought a house someplace else. So I think we're adding another small mass on the back, even though it does rival in size. I'm not against lowering the eave line. I think that would be okay if you can do that. But I don't really particularly have a problem with it as it is. The size of the porch, I kind of agree with Mr. Hanley. I mean, I think I could see it made slightly smaller, maybe 12 feet instead of 16, but I really don't have a problem with it, and I quite agree with what Mr. Hanley said. I think already, because of the nature of the addition and the need to have a driveway, a lot of the green space that's on the site has already been compromised and doesn't exist, and I don't think this really would affect that. It is a porch. It's open. It's not a structure. And true, the floor is not going to be green, I don't think, unless you're very clever and innovative as an architect. But I don't really mind the fact that you're actually doing that. I do have one observation, which the staff didn't pick up on. I don't particularly think the windows on the frame part of the addition in between the two masses on the second floor go very well with what you're proposing on the first floor. And if you're going to be re-studying things, you might want to really think about that. On the north side of the property, the windows seem to follow kind of a regular pattern. But on the south side, it seems like they're very random in a certain kind of way, and you might really want to think about that. That, on the driveway side or south side, the second floor is the result of having that open common area or work area, and then the lower windows were kind of where they were. We wanted to leave those alone and then make this band up above. The other side, the north side, we have the existing windows on the lower level, and we just pretty much replicate above with that. So we would entertain some adjustment of that. I just think it might be good, or maybe the second floor has some additional paired windows added in to kind of make that second floor actually more transparent in a certain kind of way rather than having the windows grouped together. And then there's a space where you have the solid wall, and then there's another pair of windows. Maybe if you add some more windows in there just so that it's more like a continuous porch or sleeping porch idea on the second floor, that might improve the appearance. I think that would lighten up the mass, too, if you did that. We did have them kind of, you know, show that elevation if we could. I'd like to look at that and make sure we're agreeing on any of those issues. I think what we're really saying is that we could probably go ahead and improve the garage, but we would probably like to see another iteration of this. Yeah, if you look at that lower elevation, if you added another pair of windows in on the second floor. On this lower elevation here. If you added another pair of windows in on the second floor, it would really lighten up the mass of that. Also, I think it would really look more like a gallery or something like that. I like that. I'm very sympathetic to that. I think it would actually, it doesn't have to necessarily relate to the lower windows, which I know are there, but I think the fact that it was just sort of one continuous. Now that I'm completely happy with that, I think that's a great comment to make, and I think we'll do that for sure. And then, again, the eave line lowering is not what I would prefer to do, but if it really helps carry the day, then as far as your feelings. I think I think probably, you know, given the comments from the board, it's probably worth having a look at that. Personally, from my point of view, the hip roof doesn't do very much for me. It seems very incompatible with the rest of the building. I feel the same way. I would go back to the gable and I would have it have a little more continuity that way, but we're responding to the staff and to anticipating your all's, and from the preliminary view, wanting to be a team player and get this to be correct. So I think, you know what, you've gotten some feedback from us. Yes. And I think if you could, if you could, we could go ahead and approve the garage today, and then if you would like to come back, having thought about some of the comments that we've made, we could continue. I guess that's how we would do this. If we continue this case, then I guess, would we approve the garage? That's certainly at the board's discretion. I don't anticipate you'll be starting construction on the garage prior to resolution of your building permit for everything. No. The owner is anxious to start and have something happen, so any resolve we can come away today with, we'd like. You know, the EVE line discussion has been had. The window notion, I think we can agree to. And then this porch dimension, I guess, is the remaining thing. If I think the difference between 15 and 16 or 14 and 16 is negligible one way or the other, I think it's more useful, satisfying if the owner can have that dimension to live in their house and what is almost a cracker box outside. I don't have a problem with the size of the porch, but it's something you might want to think about. I'm sorry? I don't personally have a problem with the porch. I don't think Mr. Hanley did either, but it's something you might want to think about. Okay. Okay. Any other comments? I guess the chair will entertain a motion. I guess we could, and I'm sorry, did I ask if there were any people in the audience who would like to make comments about this? I don't think I did. Sorry. Anyone here to make any comments about this application? If we continue, we're going to need permission because we won't be meeting. Yeah, we'll be meeting again before the deadline's up, won't we? Yes. We'll be meeting next on the 26th. Okay. Of March. Yes. That's correct. Okay. That's very quick. Very rapidly turn this around. Two weeks. Okay. And that would mean that any amendments or alterations to your drawings would need to come to the staff very quickly. Yes. Yes. In order to get the package back out to the board. That's quicker than I thought. So we will do that and be right to you and look to see this thing move forward. We would need it, well, end of this week or first of next. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. The absolute deadline. We can do that. Mm-hmm. Thank you, gentlemen. Well, in light of that, Mr. Chair, I move that we continue this case to 326. Okay. And we can do all the approvals at that time. That would be satisfactory. This is the 26th, correct? Yeah. Yes. All right. There's a motion to continue this case until the 26th. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All right. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. All right. The next item on the agenda is in the Aylesford Historic District. That's Item 9 on our agenda. That's at 302 East High Street. The motion is to gravel the rear yard. Is that app been present? Unfortunately, she had to leave to pick up a child, and so she would like to reschedule this for March 26th. Okay. She's asking for a postponement to March 26th. So moved. I need a motion to postpone. So moved. Second. All in favor of the motion to postpone, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Very good. All right. The next item on the agenda, also in Aylesford, is 346 Aylesford Place. That's Item 10 on your agenda. The proposal is to gravel a rear yard covered with soil. Is that applicant present? The applicant is not present. Okay. If the applicant had been present, I was going to suggest to the applicant that in all likelihood there would be no way on earth we would approve this proposal, no pun intended with the earth. But so if the applicant is not present, I guess the board could take whatever action they wanted to. Mr. Carpenter, I believe there's some people from the Transylvania area that may want to be heard on this comment as well. Even though staff has recommended a dispute a lot, they may want to be heard. I think the board is going to disapprove this also, so I don't know. But do we need to have a hearing on this, or would anyone just like to make any comments about the case and then we can? It's the board's decision. But let me defer to our attorney. I think the people who are in the audience who are concerned with this case probably have the same concerns that we have. What we're asking is whether or not we would hear the case or just entertain comments from the floor. Because we're going to take action on the case, even though the person's not here. My suggestion would be to go ahead with the staff presentation and ask for any public comment, and then you can go ahead and take whatever action is appropriate. We'll go ahead and do that then. This is the property at 346 Ellsworth Place. As we remember, we've been dealing with this property owner who has removed the lattice off the porch and demolished the garage. And part of the stipulation of demolishing the garage was to keep a curb area. Here's the rear of the structure that shows that there is a patio paved back here. But part of that was to keep this edging and so as not to spill parking over into the green area that is remaining. And that was part of the recommendation that was made for this project, I believe, in December. Here's the parcel now, and here is the existing situation many years ago. This is the garage being removed, and here you can see the green space. This picture was taken back this past summer after the garage was removed. This is in December, and this reflects the closing in of that side porch. It also reflects the gravel that was put in, and staff responded to a notification that this happened on December 28th. Pictures were taken at that time, then in January later, reflecting the gravel that was installed without a proper permit. So the applicant is now asking to retain the gravel in his application. He stated that he would like to install grass or sod over the gravel in order to help with erosion. However, that does not happen. Of course, that's due partially to the weather, but also it is not a proper erosion method. Again, this is the area that is graveled. And the site again. Randy, if we could see the site. Previously, this is the house, this is the driveway, here's the going back to the garage, and there was sort of a natural, not natural, but a brick, and then a concrete wall. This is the house, this is the driveway, here's the going back to the garage, and there was sort of a natural, not natural, but a brick, and then a concrete spot here that would sort of prevent spillage, and we sort of asked that that be retained as a curb in the last time that we met, and that has not taken place, and now we have a gravel swath of 24 feet that has been installed connecting this property to this property. Guidelines are included for your reference. According to earlier photos, the rear yard of this property is a mixture of green space, brick-lined patio area, and a dirt driveway. Due to the house being used as rental, the influx of cars into the area, there's been a drive circulation from 346 Ellsworth to the neighboring property to the south for some time. This is unfortunate because the rear yards of the properties have lost their focus of being green yards and now are ad hoc driveways, parking lots as well as with this yard. While our office cannot review if people park in the rear yards, the office can review the material they park upon. The installation of gravel driveway parking in the rear yard of this property is inappropriate for the site and not in accordance with the guidelines. Guidelines 14-4 and 14-5 respectively state green areas and space of site should be maintained and retained. New paved surfaces should not be visually dominant or intrusive or suggest a false sense of history. The installation of gravel as a form of erosion is not a desired method of stopping erosion. Staff suggests the gravel be removed and the area be resodded. Recommendation staff recommends disproval of the installation of gravel. I also would note that the deadline for board action is incorrect. It should be March 26, 2008. Excuse me. Okay. The applicant is not present. I guess we ought to, following our procedure, I guess we ought to hear any comments that the board members would like to make about this and then we'll see if there are any comments from people in the audience. Okay. So, Mr. Dickinson. Yeah, I have, unfortunately, in some respects, too much acquaintance because I live one street over from Ellsford and I have been walking Ellsford quite a bit and have become alarmed at how all the yards are beginning to significantly deteriorate because of graveling. What has happened here is, quite frankly, an illegal cut through between the two adjacent properties and we are one part of the process that can put an end to that kind of impermissible use of property. I thought, and Amelia, maybe you can jog my memory, I thought when we were looking at this application about a year ago that we were going to put in some kind of a curbing that would prevent the cars from being able to enter into the yard. Right. And I mentioned that in my staff. Well, I'd like to see. There was supposed to be actually one retained and not a total curb but an area where the drive, where at that time it was more of an issue of parking along the back fence. Right. And our stress was to make sure that the garage pad area was not to be used more than that. So, we asked that at the garage area that a curb be put in. Now, has he complied with that? No. Okay. This raises another issue, and that issue being what exactly is the appropriate action that the staff takes when an approved COA has not been complied with or completed? I know we sometimes just let them expire, but in some instances they're necessary for the maintenance and overall integrity of the property. Well, I would respond in the sense that the application that was granted to the applicant at that time has not expired. So, there's a year to when that actually, the permit is still open. And, you know, as many times people don't do the work right, but right then, you know, the permit, I review this and inspect it within that year, and after that year if that work is not done, then that's when I sort of step and bring the action forward to you. Okay. But because that permit's still there, they could at any time do that work. Well, one of the things we need to do is remind Mr. Howard he's supposed to be doing that. Obviously, you know, I'm in favor of what the staff has recommended, that this gravel be removed. Is there a way we can shorten the time period, though, in terms of, of course, he's asked for an application which we're denying. What would the next step be, assuming that, you know, this application is denied, with respect to having that gravel removed? He just received a letter that the board's actions reflected a denial of his application, and he's aware that it's in violation, obviously, since he's been cited that he needs to get right with the process. So he would have 30 days to appeal the board's decision to the planning commission, and that would be the next, what, the word he will receive per the board's action. Okay. If the appeal or the appeal is denied, can we refer this matter to the division of building? Because of the- Building inspections already also cited this property owner for being in violation, and so then they, concurrent with historic preservation, would both be then left with a situation of an owner not coming into compliance. Okay. Can a referral then be made to the law department to pursue this matter? Usually some reasonable amount of time is given to people to come into compliance, and then after that it can be referred to the Department of Law. All right. I'll basically state that I'm in full concurrence with the staff's recommendation of disapproval. Thank you. Mr. Hingley? So we're asking for removal of the gravel? That's correct, and to return it to a green space condition such as it was prior to the violation occurring. Okay. I'm tempted to add a comment with tweezers, but I won't. I agree with the staff's recommendation. Mr. Winfield? I also concur with the staff's recommendation. Okay. So those are the comments from the board. If there's anyone in the audience who would like to make any comments, we'd be glad to have a few brief comments. You can give us your name and address. Thank you. I'm Debra Hensley, co-owner of 357 Transylvania Park, one of the adjacent properties to this. This was a matter before your board two weeks ago when we had six other folks that were going to be here, but I think you may have a letter from the Transylvania Park Neighborhood Association also objecting to what this property owner has done. I would like to give just a few more photographs. They're not as good as the ones that you have, and these are just from my digital camera, on the day that this was to be heard before you. Just to reemphasize, and it's dated and timed, and what you will see is actually one of the vehicles pulling out and forming what we call a de facto alley. So I think it's very obvious what's going on. The day of this photograph, there were ten vehicles there, including those stacked up and down the driveway, and then throughout the 30 minutes that I was there, I saw other vehicles from the adjacent property going through the cut-through as well. There was a time not too long ago, I would submit to you, that there were maybe not so beautiful, but some kind of green life between these property lines that would have precluded that from happening. And there was a time when I was on this board, when we had a request like this, there was an interest in preserving for the future of the green space, that we would look at a site, I mean, at some kind of a landscaping plan. I remember Billy Van Pelt being a very strong voice for landscaping plans, et cetera. So I would submit to you that I think this is timely. We cannot lose any more of this historic green space. And if we were coming to you today with what I thought was someone who just made a mistake, then I probably wouldn't be here and would be a little bit more forgiving. But the reality here is that this is not the first time that this property has come before you with alterations made, a garage demolished on a Saturday with no one around to call or talk to or to complain to, no one that could understand my language, and I couldn't understand theirs, to be able to find out what was going on. And then at the dark of morning, gravel is dropped on this property, and this property owner, whether it is the one on the PVA site of Wayne Morris or whether it is John Howard, I want that for the public record because it still does not clear to us who is the owner of this property, but the applicant was fully aware, and so was the former property owner, if Mr. Morris is a property owner, of what these guidelines are, fully aware of what you all asked him to do when you issued certain conditions for the last COA, which has been discussed here a while ago. So, you know, I think what we see here is not a demonstration of someone who is ignorant of the law, but someone who is defiant of this ordinance. And we've seen it once, twice, and actually three times. So we're very concerned that this happens, and it sounds as though when I hear Ms. Kerr say that an item like this can be referred to the law or law department, I want to hear this body say that it will be referred when these things do occur. We have no recourse. And frankly, all the hard work you do, all this work that the staff does, is completely thrown down the tubes when we give up and roll over and be dead. Even if we say, gee, we're understaffed, we don't have the time, you know, there's too many things on our docket. So we want to make a real strong statement that we really do hope that if this is followed to the proper place, it will be to the Division of Law. The other thing is these photographs, I'll just leave them for you guys to look at. I used to have some women up here. Just for the record, this is from the PVA site indicating who is listed as the owner. I just want that on the record because I don't know if Mr. Howard is the owner or not. I'm assuming he is. I know he is the applicant. I don't want to take any more time. I know that your intent is to preserve the historic green space, and I know it certainly is true of the staff and the people who've had to deal with this time again. Preserving that green space is important to us also because it deals with the stormwater runoff. When you throw gravel on top of this and as these cars continue to drive by, you could look at how much that green space was lost in a short period of time with all the cars driving on it. That also creates a real problem for those of us who are a little bit lower, and we already see that kind of runoff happening, so we're very concerned about that. We just respectfully request that you would hear our concerns, that you would vote accordingly, that you would consider possibly some kind of a landscape plan that would prevent this de facto type of alley that is happening, and thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Any other comments? Anyone else? Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments, and certainly it is our intent to not let things like this happen. Are there any other comments from the board or from the staff? I have a question of the staff, I guess. I almost hate to admit this publicly, but once upon a time I ran afoul of the restrictions and was requested to, mainly because I was removing a tree without permission, and part of the remedial plan was to submit a landscape plan. In a sense, Mr. Howard or Mr. Morris, whoever it may be, has sort of done a landscape change impermissibly. I'm wondering if we would be in a position to require him to submit a more formal landscape plan to us as part of the remedial measures, along with a suggestion by us that some kind of hedging be installed between the two properties to prevent the cut-through from being used. Is that something we could do? We were just discussing that, the attorney and myself. I was reading your mind. That could be very boring. Because the process is not empowered. We're empowered to review permits people put requesting work. Now, when people do things in violation, obviously they are bringing to themselves that they will participate, even though they have not chosen to come forward. But we're still not empowered. You can put as a condition of an approval of something they've asked to do, you know, that as part of accomplishing this, like that curb situation that you put on this property, that was a condition of agreeing to the removal of that garage and the driveway and so on. But the process is not empowered to order people to carry out additional work. And do you have some thought on that further, to further explain that? Well, I'm not. It's a fine line between making it a condition of something and ordering work to be done. Well, he's interfered with an existing green space. I would think that we could impose remedial measures as to how to repair that green space. Well, he certainly would be, I think, the board would, or the ultimate enforcement part of this, when, you know, if he doesn't appeal or if he does appeal and loses and there's an enforcement by a building inspection or whomever, that part of that would be to order or require that the property be placed back in the condition that it was in. In terms of, and I'm just looking at the, I'm not here all the time, as you guys know, but I do deal with the zoning ordinance some. I don't see anything in here that would give you broader authority to put larger, you know, larger requirements in terms of landscaping. As Betty was saying, if you get a request to do something and you say, well, we like it, except really to make it look better, you'd have to put some kind of landscaping in. Clearly, I think that authority would flow from your natural ability to review, you know, the request for certificates of appropriateness. But they're probably, in order to do what I think you're wanting to do, you would need to get an ordinance changed. You need to get an amendment to the ordinance so that the trigger would be, and I'm not even sure you could do this, but if you could have the trigger to be when somebody in a historic district comes in and is dealing with certain things, then you would have authority to review the landscape and maybe require some additional things, not just what they're asking to do. But that would, to be legal to do that, I think you'd have to have an ordinance amendment. That's why I wanted to explore the question because it is frustrating to a lot of people. I invite any of you to walk down Aylesford sometime and just look at the backyards. Some of them were grandfathered in from and were in that state before the historic district came into play. Other districts, other places, that's significantly deteriorated. And I don't know whether there's some kind of code enforcement actions in order or housing and building needs to go back there and start addressing the issue of the fact that we have basically lost the backyards on a significant number of properties along Aylesford as well as Woodland. Woodland's the same way in certain respects. And it is creating drainage issues, and it certainly is a complete loss of green space. One other thing I would like to suggest is that perhaps on whatever schedule the staff would like to do this, if we could receive periodic updates as to the status of this particular property and other properties you may think we'd be interested in. We'll be glad to do whatever. We'll get with you about more what you have in mind about that kind of information and the scope of it and that kind of thing. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? The staff has recommended disapproval as submitted. The chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for disapproval of the COA for 346 Aylesford Place. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming and for expressing your concerns. The next item on the agenda is at 430. I'm sorry. Excuse me. The next item on the agenda is also 317 Aylesford Place. That's item number 11 in the Aylesford Historic District, and the application is to remove balustrades, and the staff has recommended disapproval. So I guess we will hear about this case. And then if the applicant is present, we'll hear comments from that person. This is 317 Aylesford Place. This is the railing in question that we're concerned about that has been removed. We're here today discussing this railing. In 2005, in fall of 2005, I came upon this property, and the railing system was removed and a wood deck system was placed atop this area. The applicant who is here and I met about this project, and we discussed the issues involved. They had recently taken over this property at that time and had just come into this historic district, and so we discussed the issues that any porch to be replaced needed to be a tongue and groove situation similar to what was there and not the wood decking system. And we also at that time looked at the railing system that had been removed and placed in the basement. The applicant had at that time made attempts to put the actual tongue and groove system back on, which is presently there, and at that time we left it that the porch railing system, which did have some deterioration, was going to be repaired. Of course, being in the October and him being in school, it wasn't practical for him to actually make those repairs, so we issued a permit to repair the floor and then to make attempts to work on restoring the balustrade. So then the year passed, and we revisited this case again and called and talked with the applicant regarding the situation of the railing still not being up and asked him how the progress was going as far as the repairs being made. Again, at this time, he was still pondering the repairs, and then he also asked if he could just keep it off, and I said, well, you're still in violation of removing an architectural feature, so you have to decide if you want to leave this off or put it back on. If you do want to leave it off, then we are not empowered to do that. This is something that would need further review from this process. And so here we are. We again have discussed the situation of removing the balustrade, which are architectural features, and the applicant has submitted an application asking to remove these items. Here's another view, and this picture was taken about when the district first became a historic district nine years ago. And then this is the porch today with the railings removed. There are ghost marks still present where the railing system was removed. Guidelines are included for your reference. The removal of the balustrade from the first four porch areas of this 1930s Colonial Revival apartment building is not in accordance with Guideline 27-1, 28-1, and 30-1 noted above. Guideline 29-1 states, significant historic ornament and other architectural details should be maintained and retained, and the removal of this unique balustrade railing alters the appearance of the structure. In addition, Guideline 43-1 states, demolition within historic districts or demolition of landmarks is not recommended, or the demolition of the balustrade railing does not meet the intent of the Guidelines. Its removal adversely affects the character of the structure as well as the streetscape of the elsewhere historic district. After a few reviews of the balustrades in October of 2005, the balustrades did have some parts requiring replacement, but the overall condition was very good. The balustrades have been kept indoors all this time, and staff suspects their condition has not changed. Staff suggests the balustrades be repaired and reinstalled, and staff recommends disapproval of the application to remove the balustrades as submitted. And the applicant is present. Would the applicant like to come forward? Give us your name, please. My name is Stuart Hellebush. My address is 137. He's speaking to the microphone. I live at 137 Hamilton Park. Do you have any comments? I don't agree. I didn't know that it was a historic district when I first started moving the decking, or the original tongue and groove. It had rotted through, and there were holes. And in order to do that, I took the balustrades off and put the new flooring down. And after having them off, I feel the building is more attractive with having the bottom floor open. All right. Anything else? We'll see if there are some questions from the Board of Comments. Mr. Hanley? How far is it from the existing floor of the front porch to the grade? It's about 24 inches approximately. Well, that takes care of that. I believe 18 inches is the new code for needing railings. And so there's really not much of an option that's outside this Board's purview. But I'm just stating that as kind of a point of information. And I guess other than that, all I can say is I have to disagree. I didn't really get a photograph of the existing condition in my packet. I just got two photographs of what it looked like previously. And with the photograph that we saw tonight and evidence, I think that I have to agree with staff that the previous photograph, previous versions, are much more in compliance with what we try to do here as opposed to taking those off. So I would agree with staff for this approval. Mr. Wingfield? Excuse me. I also agree with staff that the removal or the permanent removal of the balustrades do adversely affect the integrity of the structure. Mr. Dickinson? Well, your timing is magnificent, as I think you have now realized. First of all, this case concerns me because of the slow pace of the enforcement that has finally brought your application to our attention. Second of all, no, we can't – if you had looked at the guidelines, you would have known that we could not have approved the removal of these balustrades, both from a historic building perspective as well as a code enforcement issue. I figured there was no harm in that. But what bothers me is that you had made – you had inferred to the staff that you were going to put the balustrades back in and then decided not to, and it was only through prodding you twice that you're finally before us with an application to make the removal of the balustrades permanent. And now that you've been informed that the balustrades need to be reinstalled, I hope that you'll reinstall them promptly. And in fact, I'm wondering – well, I guess we can't impose any kind of a time limit on that, can we? Or could we? I'm not trying to be – A similar scenario, once your decision is rendered, he would, by law, have 30 days to form the appeal. Right. Should he not do so or that – or the appeal be denied? I can frame that language up. I don't think the Planning Commission can put a time – I can frame that language up in a heartbeat. We well understand the wish. It's the legally how to get there. We've not – we're not empowered. The ordinance, Article 13, is not an enforcement ordinance. It is a review. It's that you need a permit, and if you violate that, that you need to get right with the process. Right. I would like for us to go on record somehow, though, saying if at the period of 90 days from the termination of the appeal before the Planning Commission or 90 days from today, whichever is earlier or later, that some kind of a referral be made to the law department. There's certainly nothing wrong with your putting that language in, and it meets the intent of what would already be the intent of the process. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. I have to agree with the other members of the board. I mean, frankly, when you look at the photographs, there's just no comparison with how it looks now, in my opinion, with how it used to look. And it's like you have removed the lower teeth, you might say, from someone's mouth. Not to use – maybe that's not the best analogy, but it does seem that way. And I think those railings are extremely handsome, and they probably make that building, which is a sort of a fourplex, which we see a lot of places in Lexington, they really give it a lot of unique character that many of those buildings really don't have. And so I think it's extraordinary, and it's a real asset to the building, in my opinion. And so I think they just have to come back. That's how I feel about it. And I think it's – I mean, we have people who want to take shutters off, and we have people who want to remove other kinds of detail. And in a way, if we allow this to happen, then we're really greatly undermining the integrity of what we really are all about. And that is trying to preserve for – not only for our own satisfaction, but also for the betterment, I think, of the city of Lexington, things which really give the city a lot of integrity. And I think – so I think you have an architectural treasure on your hands, and I think the balustrades really are part of that, and they make such a huge difference, in my opinion, when I look at the photographs. Of course, that's my opinion, but that's what I'm supposed to do here on this board. So, anyway, those are my comments. Do you have anything else to add? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to – Martha Birchfield, yes. Would you like to come forward? There is someone who would like to speak. Okay, thank you. If you'll give us your name and address. I'm Martha Birchfield, 320 Linden Walk. We share a property line with this property, and I will say that the owner is a good neighbor. We have shared fence issues and hanging limb issues, and he's a good neighbor, and I would invite him to be an even better neighbor by putting those balustrades back. You know, I think, gosh, if those balustrades go, there goes the neighborhood. Next, he's going to want to take off the top balustrades. Then he'll want to take off the porch. Then he'll want to tear down the house. The fellow down the street will start doing the same thing. So I would say withdraw your application and put those things back on right away. It will be nice. Thank you very much. Any other comments from anyone in the audience? All right. The staff has recommended disapproval of the application. The chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for disapproval of CO-8-317. Any else for a place? I second. Second. Any discussion? I would like to second that, but I would like to add into it a ‑‑ It's already been seconded. I'm sorry. I would like to add then I would like to suggest an amendment to the motion that it be resolved that the board add to this disapproval that 90 days from the date that the matter is affirmed by the Planning Commission on appeal or within 90 days from today, whichever date is applicable, that the balustrades be reinstalled. Okay. Is that an acceptable amendment to both of you? Yes. Okay. All right. All in favor of the motion as seconded and amended, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you all for coming. The next item on the agenda is in the Northside Historic District, 432 North Broadway, and the application is to demolish the structure. This is item 12 on our agenda. So we will have a report. Well, we don't have an applicant. We don't? Okay. All right. So yes, it is. Is there anyone in the audience who's here on that? And actually he's been here twice, so he came the first round too. Is there a way that we can, you know, open the case without going through and waive a presentation of findings and allow interested public members to make a comment? I think we have read the package, and the package does speak for itself as a matter of record, and I'm just wondering if we do not necessarily have to go through a verbal recitation of the written record and just open up the case for comments. I think that would probably be all right if you made a formal motion to make a part of the record of this proceeding. You're talking about the packet material? Right. Related to 432 North Broadway. I know in my experience with administrative hearings, that's what we used to do in state administrative cases, that we very often started from the written record and then asked for additional comments. I would like to so move that we open this case for consideration, that we waive the verbal presentation of the staff findings, and that we allow any interested persons, including the board members, to make comments. But I also need the motion to put in the record of this proceeding. And I will also move that the recommendations of the staff be placed into the record along with their findings. Would that do it? Okay. Sorry, I forgot. All right. You've heard the motion. Is there a second? Second. Okay. All in favor of the motion? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. I'll abstain since I missed the motion. I realize that there's an issue regarding whoever may be watching the televised proceedings, and I think that they'll be able to gain a sense of what the case is about. This is a case involving a demolition application for 432 North Broadway, and basically the staff has recommended it's a denial because of insufficiency of compliance with Article 13. Okay. Other comments from the board? Mr. Wingfield? I'm sorry, there's no applicant? There's no applicant. We just made a motion that we would waive the formal presentation and that the staff comments would be put into the record. Oh. So we're at this point where we're hearing comments from the board and then from any interesting parties in the audience. Thank you for the catch-up. Excellent. Well, Article 13 is very clear and lists three conditions by which a property in a historic district may be demolished. While the applicant has supplied some anecdotal documentation, full documentation to support his application for demolition has not been provided, and it's very clear that it does not meet the zoning ordinance of Article 13. We have no choice but to deny this application. Thank you. Mr. Dickinson? Well, I'm going to construe the appearance of the applicant without explanation and not being here is basically he has accepted the staff recommendation. I would also like to point out that Article 13, the section that we're dealing with, has a fairly extensive checklist. If you look at 13.7C1C1 for all properties, there's a fairly extensive checklist that they must submit in terms of avoiding any kind or trying to make any kind of argument they may want to make that this is an unlawful taking, the denial of the demolition by reverse eminent domain, if you will. Those elements include items A through G. I won't burden the record with reciting those conditions, except to note that none of those conditions, as far as I can tell, have been complied with, and for that reason and that reason alone, the application is patently insufficient on its face. Furthermore, I do agree with the staff's findings with regard to the historic significance of the property and that no effort has really been made to rehabilitate the property, nor has it been clearly demonstrated from the written record presented that this would work an economic hardship on him to deny the application. All right. Thank you. Mr. Haney? I concur with my colleagues. I do, too. Okay. So we'd be glad to hear any comments from anyone in the audience. If you will give us your name and address. Thank you, gentlemen, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm actually an attorney with McBrayer McGinnis. At the opening, I'd just like to state that I'm not retained to represent Mr. Adams. My firm doesn't work for him. I'm here as a property owner at 424 North Broadway, where I have rental property. I also reside at 221 West 4th Street, which is just around the corner. The rental property is an H1 overlay, but my residence on 4th Street is not an H1 overlay. I come to you today in some futility to recommend that you all approve the application. There are two things I think that the board needs to examine. The first is the guidelines set forth in the staff report, which are both from Section 18 and Section 43, and probably more importantly is to review Article 13 of the ordinance. Most particularly, the article says that demolition is not permitted unless an owner proves that there's no reasonable economic return to be gained from the property being demolished. From my review of the staff report, I don't believe that they have countered Mr. Adams' provision that it's not economically feasible. Admittedly, I don't have the full packet that the staff has prepared for you. Prior to the hearing that was scheduled for two weeks ago before it was canceled with the snow and ice storm we had, I spoke with Mr. Adams on the phone when I got the notice letter. I talked to him for about an hour, an hour and 15 minutes on the phone to find out why he wanted to demolish the property. As a neighbor, I was concerned about that. Let me go back and talk briefly about what happened to this property. In March of 2007, there was a fire. It was caused by a gas explosion. It was not a spark. It was not a gas heater. It was an explosion that blew out external windows. Two doors down at 424 called me at 1230 in the morning because it scared the daylights out of them. I rushed down to the property. The flames coming out of this property were unbelievable. They had shut down North Broadway. They had shut down the alley behind it. It was an all-consuming fire. I'm sure that the staff report has photographs in front of you that you can see the extensive damage caused to this property. I talked to Mr. Adams and asked him about the structural problems with it. Why couldn't he just renovate it or add? There's a small addition on the back that had been added at some point. It looked like in the 1950s, perhaps, although I don't know the exact date. It was clearly not original. Why he couldn't work in renovating that? He indicated to me that he had estimates from two contractors as well as a structural report, which I am sure you all have in the record before you. I asked him what the cost of that was, and he said $500,000 or $600,000. I'm sure your documents will prove with much more specificity the dollar value of those renovations than what I have with me in just talking to him. He said he had tried to sell the building. In fact, he said he tried to give it to Transy for free, and Transy wouldn't take the property. Now, as you all know, I'm sure, Transy bought every piece of property they can on Bourbon, on the two small streets between Fourth and Fifth Streets, Campbell and Kenton, that they can get their hands on to tear down and make parking lots out of. If they wouldn't even take this to make a parking lot, that tells you all what's wrong with it. If there's something wrong with this property, there can't be anything done with it. I believe that Mr. Adams has proven that it's economically not feasible for him to do anything with his property. If a nonprofit won't take it, how is he supposed to be able to do something with it? The cost of renovating this would essentially be exorbitant. The structural scape, streetscape of this block between Fourth and Fifth Street on North Broadway on the eastern side is, my estimate is about 80 percent or 90 percent rental property. On the left side of the street, Transy just tore down a historic property, which I'm sure you're all aware of, when it burned about two years ago. Currently, there are only three structures left now on the left side of that street. I don't believe that the demolition of this building is going to affect the streetscape, as the guideline says in guideline 43.2 indicates, that it should not be detrimental to the character, scale, rhythm, and design or importance of the building, streetscape, or district. As a result, the staff report also indicates that the letter from the realtor does not state that the – that it's not clear if all efforts to sell the property have been made. The Article 13 does not require a homeowner to make all efforts. They require them to prove that it's no reasonable economic return. So I believe the staff report is deficient insofar as it's trying to require a property owner to do more than what he is required under the article. For these reasons, I submit that as a property owner on the street, as a resident of this neighborhood, although I'm not an H1 overlay, I believe that demolition is proper for this property, and I would recommend that the Board, despite its prior comments, reconsider their comments in light of a lot of these factors. I thank you all for your time. Thank you. If I may address a couple of comments made. 13-7C1C in its entirety, and I think it's been selectively read to a certain extent, in its entirety says no reasonable economic return can be realized from the property and the denial of the application would result in the taking of the property without just compensation. There are two prongs to this test, not just one. And with respect to that, that's where we get into the subsection that was discussing of C1C1 for all property, that A, the amount for the property in the day of the purchase and the party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, be submitted to the Board along with a number of other items. That's why the application is deficient on its face, because the second prong of the demolition request, if you will, has not been fulfilled, which is why, in a sense, perhaps I was making a little short shrift of this. I would also like to point out that the staff made findings with respect to the consultant letters that were submitted, in part stating that the engineering firm of Pyramid Consulting detailed its observations of a walk-through inspection of the property. The report offers a visual assessment of the structure, noting such recommendation for repair. The report provides just visual observation and nothing in the letter stating the building should be demolished or that it's not structurally sound. I also looked at the submittal by Phase 4 Inc., where it was noting that a renovation, building new, would be $200,000 to $250,000. A renovation would be $350,000 to $400,000, which, given its location, is not necessarily so extreme to make this property economically unsound to be repaired. And finally, I took a visual look at the property. There are four or five buildings running down from 3rd towards Trancy. The removal of that particular structure would create a gap from 432 down towards Trancy. If you took that property out, you would have an obvious gap in what is otherwise a complete historic facade. So I think that the staff was absolutely correct in its recommendation that we disapprove this application for demolition. Other comments? Okay. Thank you for your comments. The staff did recommend disapproval as submitted, and it's time for us to consider a motion. So the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for disapproval of the COA for demolition of 432 North Broadway. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you. All right. There are three items which are to be postponed until our March 26th meeting. The chair will entertain a motion to postpone Item 13-611 Main Street until March 26th. That motion is to paint the masonry structure. And Item 14 on the agenda, 460 East Maxwell Street, second floor deck. So the chair would entertain a motion to postpone both of those items, 13 and 14, on our agenda to that meeting on March 26th. So moved and so moved. Second. Second. Any discussion? No. All in favor of the motion to postpone 611 East Main Street and 460 East Maxwell Street, Items 13 and 14 on our agenda today to March 26th, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. And then I would like to note that the application for 313 Lafayette Avenue, remove the chimney and install skylights, as Item 15 on our agenda, that has been withdrawn. Other business? We have minutes of the January 23rd, 2008 meeting. They were circulated to all of us in our packets. Are there any corrections, additions, deletions? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion to approve the minutes. So moved. Second. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. Is there any other business? I wonder if the board would indulge me and perhaps we could reopen 346 Ellsworth for a moment. I'm sorry, I can't hear you. I was wondering if the board would indulge me if we could reopen the case in 346 Ellsworth Place. I'll make a motion in a moment. Let me explain. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to perhaps add that 90-day condition for the removal of the gravel that we had done for 317 Ellsworth. Betty, I know I've been innovative today. So I'd like to move that we reopen 346 Ellsworth Place for further consideration. Is there a second? I'll second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. I would like to add to our disapproval of the application to cover the gravel with sod that we impose a condition of 90 days from the date that the matter is affirmed by the Planning Commission. If appeal is made or within 90 days from today, whichever date is applicable, that the gravel be removed and that the area be resodded. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. All right. Is there any further business? Thank you. Thank you. If there's no further business, the Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you.