# Board of Architectural Review - October 11, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 11, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4367 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4367?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-10-11 - **Last revised**: October 11, 2017 - **Length**: 17,894 words - **Speakers**: All Right. > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review met on October 11, 2017, at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. The meeting addressed three main agenda items, including the review of minutes from the previous meeting held on September 27, 2017, the election of officers, and consideration of Certificate of Appropriateness applications. All three agenda items were approved by the board during the session. The board conducted five votes throughout the meeting and heard one public comment. The meeting accomplished key administrative tasks with the approval of previous meeting minutes and the election of new officers, while also addressing substantive matters related to architectural review through the consideration of Certificate of Appropriateness applications. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on October 11, 2017: • William Sutherland • Jimmy McKinney • Mr. Rhinehold • Matthew White • Jim Turpin No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All five members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered five motions during the October 11, 2017 meeting, all decided by voice vote. **417 Fayette Park Certificate of Appropriateness** [timestamp: 15:00] The board approved the application for a certificate of appropriateness for 417 Fayette Park. The approval included the condition that if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, the applicant must submit the changes to staff for review and approval before the start of the affected work. The motion passed by voice vote. **316 Desha Road Certificate of Appropriateness** [timestamp: 30:00] The application for a certificate of appropriateness for 316 Desha Road was approved by voice vote. The approval was contingent upon the deck skirt details being a continuation of existing detail. **227 South Ashland Avenue Certificate of Appropriateness** [timestamp: 45:00] The board approved the certificate of appropriateness application for 227 South Ashland Avenue by voice vote. The approval required moving the fireplace to the southwest corner of the deck and reducing the height of the chimney. **403 North Limestone Certificate of Appropriateness** [timestamp: 1:15:00] The application for 403 North Limestone was approved despite one dissenting vote. The board acknowledged this as an exceptional approval due to the planning commission's prior decision. The motion passed by voice vote with one member voting against. **662 Caden Lane Case Continuance** [timestamp: 2:00:00] The board voted to continue the case for 662 Caden Lane to October 25. The motion to continue passed by voice vote with no conditions attached. All motions were decided by voice vote rather than roll call, so individual member votes were not recorded for most items except where noted. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one resident addressed the board regarding a proposed development project. **Lin Gates** spoke at [timestamp: 40:00] to express concerns about the proposed development at **227 South Ashland Avenue**. Gates raised specific issues regarding how the planned chimney and roof addition would impact neighboring properties, particularly citing concerns about: • View obstruction from the proposed additions • Privacy impacts on adjacent residents The speaker's comments focused on the potential negative effects the structural modifications could have on the surrounding neighborhood's character and residents' quality of life. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that highlighted tensions between different city boards regarding historic preservation standards. **Approval of Vinyl Windows at 403 North Limestone** [timestamp: 1:15:00] The primary point of contention involved a procedural dispute over the installation of vinyl windows at 403 North Limestone. The board expressed frustration with a previous decision made by the planning commission that had allowed vinyl windows at this property, which directly contradicted the board's established guidelines for historic preservation. The disagreement centered on jurisdictional authority and adherence to preservation standards. The board members were concerned that the planning commission's approval of vinyl windows undermined their guidelines, which presumably called for more historically appropriate window materials. This type of dispute reflects common tensions in municipal governance where different boards or commissions may have overlapping authority or conflicting priorities regarding development and preservation standards. The nature of the dispute was primarily procedural, focusing on which body had the appropriate authority to make decisions about window materials and whether proper guidelines were being followed. The board's frustration suggests they viewed the planning commission's decision as overstepping boundaries or failing to properly consider historic preservation requirements. The outcome of this contested item was not clearly specified in the available information, though the board's documented frustration indicates this remained an unresolved tension between the two municipal bodies regarding their respective roles in overseeing historic property modifications. ## Review minutes from September 27, 2017 The board reviewed the minutes from their previous meeting held on September 27, 2017. This agenda item was handled as a routine administrative matter during the October 11, 2017 meeting. The minutes from the September 27, 2017 meeting were presented to the board for their review and consideration. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, suggesting it was handled through standard procedural discussion among board members. The board completed their review of the September 27, 2017 minutes and approved them without any noted objections or required amendments. This approval formally ratifies the record of proceedings from the previous meeting and ensures the official documentation is complete and accurate. The approval of these minutes represents standard governance practice, allowing the board to maintain proper records of their deliberations and decisions from the September meeting before proceeding with new business items on the October agenda. ## Election of Officers The board conducted elections for officers during this meeting. The agenda item was approved, indicating that the necessary officer positions were filled through the election process. Due to limited information available in the meeting records, specific details about the positions elected, candidates considered, or the voting process are not documented. The outcome shows that the board successfully completed the officer election process as required. *Note: Detailed discussion points, speaker names, and specific positions elected were not available in the provided meeting documentation.* ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 15:00] The board reviewed multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this agenda item, with three specific properties receiving attention. The applications under consideration included: • 417 Fayette Park • 316 Desha Road • 227 South Ashland Avenue Key speakers during the discussion included William Sutherland, Jimmy McKinney, and Mr. Rhinehold, who presented details and participated in the review process for these applications. The board conducted their standard review process for each Certificate of Appropriateness request, examining the proposed work or modifications against the applicable historic preservation guidelines and standards for each property's district or designation. Following their deliberations on the various applications presented, the board approved the Certificate of Appropriateness applications that were under consideration during this meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the application for certificate of appropriateness for 417 Fayette Park - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the application for certificate of appropriateness for 316 Desha Road - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the application for certificate of appropriateness for 227 South Ashland Avenue - **Motion** — passed (0-1): Approval of the application for certificate of appropriateness for 403 North Limestone - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Continue the case for 662 Caden Lane to October 25 --- ## Full transcript good evening I would like to welcome you to the October 11 meeting of the board of architectural review we appreciate those of you in attendance today the board was established by a zoning ordinance in 1958 our first historic district was grants park we now have a total of 15 historic districts the board which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the urban County Council is a part of the division of historic preservation the historic preservation office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects the board encourages and recommends that the applicants use them as a resource the historic preservation office is located at 101 East Vine Street room 220 it is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff who will hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 36 approved applications noted on today's agenda. Starting in the Ashland Park Historic District, 236 to Shea Road, Tuck Point Chimneys. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District 211 South Ashland, remove damaging tree repair house. In the Ellsford Historic District at 359 Ellsford Place, replace trees. 324 East Maxwell Street, renovate rear structure. 324 East Maxwell Street, remove damaged tree. 324 Transylvania Park, renovate structure and site. In the Belcourt Historic District at 150 Forest Avenue, install site work. and they're still continuing to install gas meters on Ellsmore at the following addresses 620 608 617 645 640 623 Ellsmore Park in the North Broadway excuse me in the north side historic district at 319 North Broadway renovate structure and garage and at 444 West 6th Street remove dying tree and finally at and 2450 West 6th Street, remove dying trees. And 205 Arcadia Park, we also are installing gas meters at the following addresses. 205 Arcadia Park, 117 Arcadia Park, 110, 114, 303, 605, 211, 119, 107, 203, 568, 601, 609, 209, 514, 530, 214, and classly 108 Arcadia Park. In South Hill Historic District at 388 South Broadway, renovate structure. In the Western Suburbs Historic District 563 West Short Street, rebuild rear addition. Those are the staff approvals. We will now turn to the first application pending on our calendar, that being 417 Fayette Park. This is actually the Fayette Park median. The scope of work is to install limestone boulders and flagstone ground cover. Here's the applicant here. Step forward. And I believe you're appearing on the behalf of the... Fayette Park Homeowners Association. All right, and state your name for the record. William Sutherland. All right. 434 Fayette Park. Okay. Mr. Sutherland, have you reviewed the application and the recommendations by the staff? Yes. I'm assuming that you might be in agreement with them. All right. All right, just for the record, I'll note that these are the standard recommendations made by the staff, that being if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the affected work. And number two, once reviewed by the other LFUCG divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of affected work. Do you have any comments or questions from the board members? uh any observations from the audience if not then the chair is ready for a motion mr chair regarding case number zero six nine zero zero four one seven dash t i move to approve the application for certificate appropriateness uh with the following conditions that if any changes are made that alter the information submitted that um the applicant resubmit the the changes to staff review and approval prior to start of affected work. And the second being that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes shall be returned to the staff or the board for review and approval prior to start of affected work. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? I would make a note that there were two letters of support in our file from neighbors. Thank you for noting that. There are two letters regarding this application that are supportive. Any other comments or discussion? Chair calls the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the certificate appropriateness has been approved. Appreciate your all. Thank you so much. Turning to our second case at 316 Deshay Road in the Ashland Park Histoire District. Construct new screen porch and large existing deck. Is the applicant here? I assume you're the applicant? I am. Good evening. I'm Jimmy McKinney with J&R Construction. All right. This also has been approved for, the COA has been approved with the recommendation that they be just the two standard changes that I've already recited on the earlier case. Have you read those over? Yes. Are you in agreement with them? Yes. All right. Any comments from the board members? I have a couple of questions. One is I'm curious as to why the existing railing system is not being reused or extended rather than in lieu of building a railing system being proposed. So we were, our instructions were that the railing that's on there is just standard two-by-two spindles, and they wanted something that was going to be a little bit different from just the standard that was there, so we went with the aluminum. I guess what caught my eye is that the existing railing is a cable rail system that's really pretty elegant and what's being proposed is kind of a standard standard two by two system. I have the metal spindles with the wood handrail. The size of the deck is increasing also from what was existing. I'm sorry? The size of the deck is also increasing from what it was before. Yeah, I understood that. well it's it's actually probably not a relevant question since the owner's not here but I was disappointed to see a higher grade of railing replace it a lower grade of railing that's where my question came from the other question I had is there's a note about skirt a deck skirt would that be a continuation of the skirt or the design of the skirt that's on the existing deck correct that's all I have I don't think that really affects I mean the guidelines you know are fairly flexible in terms of what the owner wants but I think mr. Graham is making mr. Paul's making a good point that is a much nicer looking the existing deck and maybe to save them some money and recycle it and reuse it for the new porch construction the owners are here if you'd like to ask them no we're just making that suggestion all right Any other comments? Any comments from the audience? If not, then the chair will call or ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 191-30344-G, 316 Deshay Road, I make a motion that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. to construct a screen porch and enlarge the deck. One, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. And two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Okay. Any further discussion of the motion? um yeah could we add two um two other contingencies um would you agree to add number three being um should the owner desire to retain the existing design of the railings and extend them to meet the new size of the deck that that would be acceptable to the board and and also that the approval is contingent upon the deck skirt details being a continuation of existing detail. Yeah, I'm good with those. Do I need to repeat them or that they – I think that's sufficient. Okay. Since you agreed to the amendment, with the understanding – I think we're good. Okay. All right. So I second the motion with those additional contingencies. friendly amendments being made. As amended, there are now four conditions. Any other discussion about the motion? If not, then the Chair calls the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion for the certificate of appropriateness is approved, subject to the four conditions that have been recited to you. Thank you. All right, thank you. I jinxed that. All right, turning now to case number three, which is at 227 South Ashland Avenue. Scope of work is constructed roof and fireplace at rear deck. I'll note that we have a letter of slash objection concern from, I think, a neighbor, Ms. Gates. Have you seen this letter, sir? Yes. State your name for the record, please. Reese Reinhold. Ms. Reinhold, how are you today? Mr. Reinhold, there are what I call the standard conditions, but there are also a couple changes suggested as well. Have you reviewed those changes? I did. And one change has changed the roof proposed from a 312 roof to a low-slope roof? Yes. And the other has moved the fireplace to the southwest corner of the deck and reduced the chimney height to the minimum height required by the KBC. Yes, I discussed that with the owners, and they are fine with changing the roof slope to a lower slope, but they like to keep the fireplace where it is. Okay, in that case, then I guess what we need is to have a staff presentation. Okay. Okay. Whose case is this? Yours? All right. I guess just focus on the chimney. Actually, given the objections we've heard, probably just a brief narrative description and pictures of the entire Decker-Bones deck area. This is 227 South Ashland. the deck that was approved there your salmon color drawings that are included in your package what was previously approved by the board it is in is located in this position and this is a photo of the construction that's ongoing so the to just kind of hit on the the fireplace it's a painted brick masonry fireplace located in the center of the south elevation and it's about five foot six from the wall our recommendation was to move to this corner uh the height as you can see here is required by the building code in order to be two feet above any roof that's within 10 feet of the chimney so that's what creates that unsupported height above the roof mr. Reinhold has provided a a new drawing which takes this shed roof and turns it into a low slope roof as recommended. so this is the new roof that mr. Ryanel has proposed just to skip ahead here the The unsupported height of the chimney is not in scale with other chimneys in the area. 2B1L states chimneys should be incorporated into designs for new construction provided they do not dominate the building or streetscape and are appropriate to new construction. Chimneys should be lowered in height so as not to dominate the deck addition. And then in recommendations, change the roof proposed at 312 to a low slope roof, which Mr. Reinhold, I believe, agrees with. Move the fireplace to the southwest corner of the deck and reduce the chimney height to the minimum height required by the KBC. And then there are the two standard and the staff is available for any questions. Does the guidelines say anything about the placement of where a house or deck should be placed relative to the house? I don't believe it does, does it? Well, I'm referencing the letter saying for her and for the neighbor it would be more palatable to her if it was more in the center of the house as opposed to the end, to that corner. I guess based on her letter and discussions with her that is true but the board has already approved the deck and its location and the construction has started this application is only for the fireplace chimney and the new roof you're right okay all right so the deck's already there so so what we were seeing the patio area is already constructed Correct? Partially. Partially. All right. Mr. Bill? Did you have a question? No, I have a concern. I don't think that approving the deck is the same thing as approving the deck with the roof, and I don't think the deck would have been approved had it been submitted with the roof because of the way the roof is intersecting the main volume of the house and actually projecting beyond the main volume of the house. i don't think we we would not have approved that period and so i'm concerned about the westmost edge of the deck and roof and the way in which it engages the main volume of the house miss lenole i think that was one of my questions because it seems like we always say hold 12 inches off and then once you add the roof now like it's one thing when it is a deck i'm sorry i'm a little nasally today so sorry uh and um i agree with graham it seems like once once a deck and it comes off the back it's fine but once you had the roof it seems more like a structure and we don't hold that back 12 inches from the side of the house so I don't know that I have anything more to say about that it's not that I dislike how it looks but it seems like it is getting to be an awfully kind of massive structure on the back of that house I guess I need to speak up sorry if we could go back to that so the picture of the back of the house with the triple windows on it there is I mean if we tied anything into the house there's really not even 12 inches to step it back it has to be right on the corner or it's gonna block the windows it's less than 12 inches I think from the corner edge of the casing and if it's just the roof the projection that's overhanging on that we can change that so it doesn't overhang and see from the front but in order to get any type of post or anything in there it almost has to be right on the corner. It's probably back an inch to an inch and a half, but it is, there's just not much room there to do it. And the location of that porch is off that main room with those three quadruple windows in it. So they wanted to mirror the room that's inside the house. And also it kind of breaks up the bank of windows that are above it so that you don't have the whole house is just one big bank of windows kind of organizes the back of the house and that was why it was pushed to the corner the uh if it was moved over to the other side of the house that's the dining room those triple windows to the left there. And the room with the three quadruple windows also has windows in the end so the light was another issue on that. They didn't want to cut all the light since they had light in the end of that room. That's basically why the deck was positioned there plus that's where their entertainment space is. Just to be clear, how are they accessing this deck? Are they going to be accessing it from the house at all or just by... There's a, in the last... Because I don't see that on... In the middle there was a set of double doors that replaced the left windows. I'm sorry, I was just looking at the plans. And there's also a set of stairs that come off to the back. Well, it does look like another structure is being added on to the house with this roof being proposed can i ask a question and maybe for barry maybe maybe you can answer it reese when they say southwest corner is is that where your walkway that your steps are coming down to the grade No, it would be the opposite corner on the back. The steps are down the other side. Where are the steps? There. This location would be the southwest corner and the steps are going to be in what would be the northwest. so you're actually moving the chimney closer to the house than it's originally proposed correct no sir this is this is the house with the windows the fireplace location this is the staff's proposed location So the primary objective of the staff in proposing that is to reduce the height of the chimney? Yes. And do you know what the reduction would be? Well, with the change in the roof slope, I would think it would be 10 to 12 feet. I guess the height of the chimney as drawn is in response to the existing building, right? It has two things. One is to make it draw because of where it's located in front of a big building. The house behind it is pretty big. and the other is to get it high enough that of course it'll draw and then get it so it's above the roof of the main part of the house but that's the chimney at that point was just to get it up so it'd draw because it's an outside to get it to draw because it's an outside fireplace and they have a harder time drawing than interior fireplaces because they suck so much more air. So the height of the chimney is critical to make outside fireplaces draw. It's too dominant though. It's about I think 14 feet above the roof is what it's drawing. The house at 221 South Ashland, two houses to the north, is just over 12 feet tall and that chimney is on the front of the house. It's two doors down. Similarly, there's other houses on the street that are in the 10-foot range for chimneys. So it's not completely, it's not that far off of what the other ones are, but it is tall in order to make it draw. And it looks a lot taller just because it's thin for a long distance, too. if it was maybe thicker going up it might not look so tall but and I did a drawing where it has a flat roof on it which reduces the height of the chimney because the roof is higher. Have you actually discussed with a consultant what the minimum amount of chimney you need to give to give you the draw that you want? Have you actually talked to someone to to get the recommended height? that for the chimney I just on the original plans I didn't draw the original corners so I drew it so it made sure that it was above the roof where it needs to be and that's what gave me the height for the chimney that and that it needs to be tall to make it draw in the staff report it talks about the height of the chimney it's 29 feet above grade and 14 feet above above the proposed deck roof and you can also see that on on his drawing well when you say lower the height of the chimney I think it might have been helpful to us to know how much you want to lower it so that we have a frame or framework the Staff requested it to be two feet higher than the new roof. We didn't know what the new roof would be at that time, so it would be approximately this high. And how many feet is that? I think it would have to be higher than that because of the proximity to the main volume of the house, and it would have to be two feet above any flammable material within a 10-foot radius of the top of the chimney. Correct. You're really probably only going to be able to drop it a few feet by moving it over to the corner. Well, if talking about with the new low-slope roof, if it's moved to this corner and then the two feet would be approximately here, so I believe it's going to take 10 feet off of the height of the chimney I'm reading it differently because you have to measure a 10 foot radius from the top of the chimney and that 10 foot radius is going to strike the existing volume of the house and it has to be 2 feet above the existing anything within a 10 foot radius thing within 10 feet but if the unless the chimney is at least 10 feet away from the existing if it's moved to the corner would it be more than 10 feet away more than 10 feet okay where it's located now is i believe five five feet six so by moving it to the corner it will exceed the 10 feet and just for clarification the kbc is kbc kentucky building code okay i think what we can do is just accept the staff recommendation to reduce the height and they can work out the details of that height in another plan yes there is also someone here to speak about the project all right if that person will come forward then I guess that's you my name is Lynn Gates I'm in the brick house to the left of 227 as you look at it and for the record you're the person that wrote the letter yes all right it is hard to hear it here if you can pull that microphone sure is that better much better thank you I have some photos here I don't know if we can I can show them to you that might make it a little clearer some of your questions about the stairs and things but there are my phone no these are ones I took today but go ahead and try that anyway I was very happy for a new deck I always thought that people next door should have a place to enjoy their beautiful yard but it was the addition of the roof and the fireplace that concerns me there you can see the stairs are on the far end and this is from my deck so and i mirror the house the house was built by the same people so the architectural, a lot of the same details are seen in both homes. Just like that corner on both floors is glass for them, the same goes for me. My sunroom upstairs of the sitting room is all glass and downstairs, and that makes it less insulated, I guess, against noise, and really, I know that that chimney has to be high, because Rhys and I talked about it, but it is a massive chimney to go up that high, above that roof, that it's a big house. And I'd just like for my view to be considered, in more ways than one, I'd like to keep my view. I love my patio. I like a little privacy, but neighbors see the best and worst of each other. But my view and my peace and solitude are most important. And so I would appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? All right. Any other comments from the audience? Any observations from the board members? mr i guess uh luis i'm i'm curious about um i know you have a outdoor chimney at your home and it's two stories high and i haven't had that experience with a with an outdoor chimney of that scale so on your chimney does it have both an upper and a lower um firebox two fire boxes yes one on each level and uh both of them draw uh well they are they draw well unless the wind's blowing a specific way it's blowing into the firebox they will roll some smoke will roll out of them but in ours my my fire process fireplaces over 30 feet tall and I it's it's on a different side of the house it's on the leeward side where the wind comes from but it has some problems if the winds blowing from out of the west if it's blowing really hard it is a hard time drawing and that's it's why we made it as high as we did, but it has a second porch. So when you light the fire, once it gets going, does it draw properly? Not if the wind's blowing. I had to come back and modify the firebox to put wings on it, shut the opening down so that it wouldn't draw as much, and it'll roll out of there. If it's really windy, it has problems. because it sucks so much air in it if it's blowing the right direction. And it's similar in height to this one. This one's probably four or five feet lower than ours. But yours is on a much, much larger volume than this one. Yeah, but the flues are separate. So our firebox, we designed it smaller so that it would be able to draw better. but I've got a feeling it's going to need as much height as we can get on it to make it draw and it's probably going to have to be you know it's very close to what's drawn there to make it work well and I it really doesn't matter where it's on the corner or it's on the end it's still going to have the same problem I think just because of the the height of the house in front of it because that is the lowest part of the house too. Everything to the left of that drawing is much taller, the main body. That's a two-story part of the house. There's still a full third floor on this house with an eave space above it. So I think the height of it is pretty critical to making it function. I'm having trouble conceptualizing this chimney. The top of the chimney is going to be where relative to the rest of the house itself? Is it going to be above the roof line of the house? Yes, you can see the roof line right there above that where it says 12 to 2.5. That's the corners of the house, the main body of the house. All right. So it's how many feet above that roof line is it? Three feet. Three feet. And I don't think it has to be any more than two feet, but I just wanted to make sure that I can always reduce it. But I'd like to keep it as high as it can go because I'd hate to build a chimney and have it not draw. And that's just been my experience with numerous chimneys and masons throughout my career. I just know that it's hard for an outdoor fireplace to draw. Ours even has gas in it, and we warm up the flue with gas. You know, light the gas to get the flue warmed up, so it's not like the chimney's not warm. It's just hard. I'm just wondering how much that chimney actually will be used as a chimney. it's it's a neat concept but they tend to be nuisances after a while some people use them more than others but i don't really know how much they'll use it okay i know we use ours a lot but well this is not an easy case reese on that lower slope roof are you proposing to hip that yes it's a it's a it's got a hip so the corner stays the same height all the way around, similar to the way the upper roof is. Well, coming back to that roof, I guess the effect of the roof is we're creating an outdoor room. Presumably that's going to control some of the noise, hopefully. It won't be, the noise will be confined more to the room space than just broadcasting throughout the entire neighborhood. Well, the chimney, the fireplace actually is where it is because it does help control the noise. Because I know in our house, we did the exact same thing. We have a neighbor who has a patio 15 feet away from our porch on their side of the fence. And it just gives us a little bit of privacy. And it does. And I did that on purpose to give Lynn privacy. I didn't realize that she would have the concern of it blocking her view. I was really trying to give her privacy, both of them privacy, because I know that's important. It's important at our house, and I know it's important here. And that was the reason it was there, and it will do that. Plus, we have about, I think, 24 feet between the houses, 13 on Lynn's side and 11 on ours for planning. when you're sitting on your patio and your neighbors are sitting on their deck with the tv blurring away can be a bit of a nuisance which is where noise ordinances come in from time to time i don't think there's a tv playing for you if you can hear noise across your property line oh yeah and i'm always having to talk to my partner saying you need to turn down our outdoor stereo system because it's too loud so you know that's something you know that's something we can't handle or control through the guidelines but the roof line the roof is problematic and the chimney is definitely problematic so I don't know where we're gonna go do i have a motion at all from anybody um i agree that i think this chimney is too high i can't really speak to you know what kind of height it needs to draw air so I don't really have a comment on that because I don't have a chimney, I've never tried to build a chimney. I don't really know if lowering it works or doesn't work. So that's kind of how I'm feeling right now. I don't know what to do with that statement because I don't know. I would like to see it lower overall I think. And this is where arguably we should defer to the expertise of our staff. Mr. Poe, can you approve or make a recommendation that the slope roof, which has now been drawn, is acceptable, or do we need to revisit that issue as well? I think I'm okay with the roof. Ms. Poe? it's it's a difficult situation because we and we have to go back to the guidelines and the guidelines are pretty clear about additions deferring to the main volume by stepping back up foot however I know that in the case of open porches that we do allow this kind of this kind situation and I guess I'd like the staff to confirm that is that not correct that when we have open porches or decks that the one-foot setback is not adhered to not that one that was scary okay well we did sometimes you know when you build a porch when you build a deck obviously that's different when you put a roof on it sometimes you know because you can later enclose that we do sometimes look at that setback of coming in afoot if that was your question so um for open porches it seems to my memory that we have approved open porches that do not correct comply with the one foot setback correct so if it's not totally enclosed if it's you know an open area that has a roof over it i'm wondering if we can finesse the guidelines that way and so long as it's not closed in as if it were a completely four season room that that might be a way to finesse the guidelines and go ahead and approve this roof structure it's frankly i want to see a roof on it simply because it'll contain sound better than an open porch would I'm sorry, Mr. Dickinson, I'm having a hard time. Well, we're all having a hard time hearing each other. I guess what I'm trying to say is I think I can approve it as well on the theory that we're not completely enclosing it as if it were a full-scale addition that is going to be used as a three-season or a two-season porch. It just happens to be covered. And that doesn't make it an addition that requires the setback is the way I'm interpreting the guidelines. if you could hear a word i said i did i'm trying to think results i think um i think you could interpret that that way many times though when you do put a roof on it you know it's easy to you know because you will they'll have to come back with a proper foundation and stuff like that there might be some issues later um but you know as far as a having to have it completely enclosed as far as being an addition well if they ever make a move to make this a fully enclosed addition then we're gonna have to look at that issue and simply say given how this roof line is not properly aligned that we probably can't approve that correct does that help yeah I'm comfortable that that that we can improve the roof given precedent with regard to open porches so that leaves the question of the fireplace let me suggest with the chimney I think it needs to come down I think there needs to be a discussion between the applicant and the staff with a little bit more evidence being presented one way the other as to the amount of height needed for the draw and I don't think we're in a position to make that determination. Obviously, I think it's too tall. I don't think he needs that much chimney to make it draw properly, and it looks, frankly, it looks out proportioned to the new porch and to the rest of the house as well. I don't think we have to say minimum height required by the KBC. I simply think we need to say reduce the height of the chimney and bring back final details to the staff for review and approval. And if they can't reach an agreement, come back. And let us have more evidence as to the amount of footage needed for the draw. Yes, Barry. As I see the layout, there is no way to reduce the height of the chimney in that location. You have to move it south. yeah yeah yeah we're gonna move it i mean i don't think we're in disagreeing about that so are we ready for a motion i have a question if i can um who's the question directed to for uh sorry i'm losing your name mrs lane is that right eight sorry um do you have if if you were asked to choose between two locations for the chimney do you have a preference you just don't the third choice not one the third choice being not being there um it's anathema for me to be here uh it's very difficult for me to go against a neighbor especially one that i haven't met i've met mrs but not mr i want you all to decide that that's what you do well you had you had expressed concern about view and i didn't know if there was a specific in in the corner it would be a little more hidden by i those are my hollies and redbuds and so and reese and i've talked about them putting in other plants. But yes, the corner would be a little less obtrusive to me. Well, I didn't want to be pushing hard to move it if you were sitting there thinking, I really like it better in the middle. Well, symmetry-wise, it is. It's more pleasing to the eye. But from my view, and I don't think we have one because it's from the second floor, but Reese saw it, because we went through my house and talked all about this because he's been my friend for 25 years. So you look out, you're going to see this very large chimney. I mean, it's going to dominate my view from my sitting room and from my den. Since Reese designed it, it's going to be beautiful. Well, I know that. I know that. I just wish I'd spoken up at first. um anyway thank you i can't make it i don't think okay i think we're staying with the staffs All right. I will, Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 00710227-G, I move that we make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness pending the following staff recommendations. 1, change the roof proposed 312 roof to a low slope roof. 2, move the fireplace to the southwest corner of the deck and reduce the height of the chimney and work with staff to determine that height of the chimney as it's reduced. 3, if any changes need to be made after work is started that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of the affected work. and four, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start work. Okay, do I have a second? Second. All right, any further discussion of the motion? The chair will make the observation that we have been wrestling with, you know, the issue of neighbors as well, and the guidelines, we are required to adhere to the guidelines, and sometimes the guidelines do not take into account the visual effects of a new addition. Hopefully the reduced size of the chimney may make that a little less problematic for the next door neighbor. That said, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion has been approved. Thank you very much for your time. All right, moving to our next case. Are we at 403 North Limestone? Okay. 403 North Limestone. The scope of work is replace windows. Is the applicant here? Come on up. If you'll state your name for the record, please. Matthew White. Mr. White, how are you today? I'm Dupont. How are you? Very well. I'm sure we're going to have it do a presentation. The staff has recommended disapproval of your proposal to replace these windows with vinyl. And, of course, I'll note before we get into it too much that, you know, this is one of the few areas where the guidelines are absolutely emphatic. And I recognize that there have been issues with the Planning Commission as to previous cases involving vinyl replacement. and I would like to go ahead and have a staff presentation on this issue okay Ms. Armstrong you really can't get good a.b people okay i'm going to ask you to speak you're going to have to speak right into the microphone i'm also going to have to use the mic over here so excuse me i apologize for this the clicker is not working so we saw this case last year and these are the properties in 401 to 413 north limestone the unit we're dealing with is right here this is 403 north limestone so staff received a call with one of the property owners stating that they were interested in replacing the windows staff explained the type of windows that would be available to be replaced however when the spec sheets were sent They first were wood, and then later on they changed to a vinyl product. Staff called the applicant and explained to them that that was not permitted, and they chose to want to go before the board. But then when staff recently went to site, the windows had already been replaced. So this is that picture was taken last year at this time. and this sort of gives you an idea of the window that was there and then this is the rear of the structure and of course the whole as you remember this building was built or designed went before the board in 89 and then it actually had masonite on the back and it went before the board later in 1998 and they replaced all the back with vinyl and so the vinyl is existing but the windows according to the plans and for all the minutes were always wood this is the property at this time this is taken last as of last week These are the windows. They also replaced the doors, but because the doors were already metal doors, that the replacement of another metal door would be within the guidelines, because it's existing scenario. And here's the rear side with the windows. More of a detail of the window. The door. Excuse me. And the site. And I guess the rest of the story is that the adjacent units also now have vinyl windows. Is that correct? That is actually. Of course, we heard three cases last year that went before the board and then also were appealed their case to the Planning Commission and were granted vinyl windows. And according to the other property owner, Mr. Tipton, he and Mr. White both had a contractor working on the site who talked to all the previous neighbors who said, well, we were able to put vinyl windows in, and that's according to them why they chose to do the vinyl windows. Did the Planning Commission favor us with a rationale for why they went ahead and disapproved our disapproval? Use a double negative. The Planning Commission elected to overturn the board and grant vinyl. Did they offer a reason for it? I reported what I know. Okay. I mean, I was in the room. There were no findings why vinyl was allowed. it was just approved and my other question is is there an appeal mechanism for the Board of Architects review from an adverse decision by the Planning Commission to the council potentially I'd say but I'm looking to law no but that doesn't mean it can't be done Certainly, a neighborhood association, for example, could file an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, and so I don't believe the process is any different. Do you want to get your mic? I didn't hear any of that. I was saying I couldn't use that mic. Any person or entity claiming to be injured or aggrieved by any order of the Planning Commission to confirm, modify, or set aside the Certificate of Appropriateness may appeal its action to the Fayette Circuit Court within 30 days of that order. So the appeal goes directly from the Planning Commission to the Circuit Court? It doesn't go back to the Council? No. Okay. Appeals do not go to our city council in any level of this process. Okay. Here's, and I'm going to allow you to get to your findings in just a moment, Amelia. Here's the dilemma that we're wrestling with. This is all effectively one unit. I mean, it's a series of, this is what, were they built as a whole at one time? It's certainly a row house, I believe. Yeah, it's a row house. Might be the term. Okay. But they are individual pieces of real estate. I'm sorry to have interrupted. Amir, you can finish your presentation. Of course, the guidelines are included for reference. Findings. This proposal requires careful consideration. Prior to the replacement, staff requires a review of the windows determined if they are candidates for replacement. However, staff was not able to review the windows because they were already replaced without a COA. last year during the similar case staff did take photographs and windows of this unit and from the photograph staff was able to access the windows are original from construction and could be considered for replacement staff researched the historic preservation files of this address and look closely at the meeting minutes and ritual plans determined the windows were proposed to be vinyl at the time or construction staff determined that the the vinyl sign was allowed on the rear addition in the soffits however the plans called for wood windows staff conducted a surveyed the existing units and found that for the most recent units that they had replaced with vinyls the windows were all wood at one time. Design guidelines for design principles for window states window openings and windows and window details and size and shape of the elements help establish rhythm, scale, proportion, and building reflect architectural style and character and windows should be maintained or repaired to match the original design. If windows are determined beyond repair the installation of new windows to match the original design is recommended and what is a baked enamel or ionized aluminum clad may be considered only if original windows cannot be repaired or vinyl clad windows are not allowed staff finds replacement to match in material size and design if a building had windows they should be replaced with wood windows or aluminum clad wood windows the replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows is not within the guidelines and the existing doors are metal in the proposal to replace the doors with similar is within the guidelines 1 7b which states replacement of doors should match the historic door and material size and should be inappropriate for the style and period of the building they should have the same series of panels and have the frame the same dimensions recommendations staff recommends disapproval of the application to replace the windows with vinyl and staff recommends approval of the doors with falling condition any if any Any changes are made to the alter the information submitted, resumit the changes to staff review prior to approval of the start of the affected work. And once reviewed by other LFUC divisions, any changes should be returned to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start of the affected work. Of course the applicant is present. Okay, Mr. White, why don't you come back up. I do apologize for David and I's haste and miscommunication with what we've got. Well, I can't blame you entirely. I mean, your contractor probably gave you bum advice, but at the same time, he was being told and correctly told that vinyl windows have been installed. So my frustration that I'm showing to you right now is more with what the Planning Commission has done than with you. I'm also having a little bit of a frustration that I wish we had known. I did not realize that our decision had been overruled earlier because there might have been some lobbying effort done to get one of the neighborhood associations to take the appeal up. because this is there's absolutely no basis for the planning commission to have reversed our prior decision and that's where I'm as a lawyer I'm extremely frustrated with this I'm probably going to suggest or I'm going to move that we accept the staff recommendation of disapproval and have you take it to the planning commission I realize you'll probably win but I don't think we can go on record accepting this decision as being a valid one when it is so clearly but now they have sort of bound even if they wanted to agree with us now I don't think they could define the Commission without you know having but I'll give you a great opportunity to take it up on the field Any other comments or any comments? Now that I've vented my spleen. Okay. Aye. Any comments from what's left of my audience? If not, I'm ready for a motion. Would you consider woodwind this? what I could do to... You've already installed them, haven't you? What's that? The windows have already been installed. They have. I didn't know if there's some... In terms of the aluminum clad, we did try to wrap as much as we could in metal there and make them look as nice as we could. Well, on the other hand, I'm glad that this one had become a bit of an eyesore is actually being worked on and restored, so there's there's some good coming out of this we would we didn't go back with the exact same doors that were there all right do I have a motion mr. chair I would say I do have one other recollection sitting here spinning this that part of what the Planning Commission talked about when they were hearing this was the fact that the woodwinders in their eyes were not significant as in they aren't old you know they aren't 1890 or 1920 I wonder if that was going to be the rationale that since and while they didn't frame it in their motion to my recollection I am playing it back in my head that that was part of what went around the discussion because I remember they asked for more information about when these were built and so forth so I think that it my my translation would be I perceived it affected the outcome but to make the record perfectly clear when this building was originally erected it was woodwinders correct that's correct and it was built 80 something or other I remember yeah right the one of my notes was not to interrupt, but when going through, reading their guidelines and really trying to understand them, was that on page 91, preserving original windows is recommended, it makes economic sense, they state that old growth lumber used in historic window frames can last indefinitely. These were not old growth lumber windows. The era of construction does have some legitimate problems in terms of the quality of the window sash that was put in in that time period. We're, of course, seeing that all over the place. So this is a little different from something with truly vintage windows that have old growth wood, that have architectural features. and that sort of thing. In a strange way, the Planning Commission's decisions, and I'm not lobbying pro or con, I'm just reporting the news, but they have resulted in the character, and you referenced this about one building, multiple units. The reality is that it has come to be a series of townhouses that the tide has been turned by the Planning Commission, ignoring, or not ignoring, but not concurring with these guidelines, leaving this one, and I believe, Amelia, am I correct? This is the only one left. Okay. Was? Mr. White, you may be seeing a ray of daylight beginning to appear. I was reading through those guidelines again, but I would consider it a non-contributing structure. Is this the last unit? No, there is another one that has its original window. There's still the one. Okay. And it's… So we're going to have this issue one more time as far as at some point. My concern is I don't want us to get into the business of some kind of a precedent being said that if the building is of a modern construction and does not have so-called old growth wood, whatever that may be, for its windows, that we're just going to create an exception here allowing vinyl windows. That's my concern. No, no, and I obviously you see reflected in the staff's recommendation that we still fully believe that we need to honor the intent of the guidelines, leaving it to just go be handled by the planning commission i'm not sure is the answer either i mean you'd be voting i understand that you'd be taking an action that then the door would be open for an appeal as it is on any project this one's a little a little different and that's why you're having the discussion you're having and i'm sympathetic i hate making people go through procedural bureaucratic hoops. I mean, we perhaps could craft a motion that would say something along the lines that recognizing that the Planning Commission, with respect to this set of row houses, has already established a precedent for us, and that it is only applicable to whatever the range of numbers is for this row house, that we'll make this exception only for this particular building in light of the Planning Commission's prior decision. I think maybe that might work. I don't know why we should make an exception and we shouldn't just reject the vinyl windows like we always do. Because I'm being a nice guy. I think it's wise to do that. Rejected or what? No, to make an exception here and to make a statement like the one that you just made, Jim, And the reason is that I don't think the Planning Commission needs to get in the habit of overturning our decisions. And, you know, I concur with Mr. Dickinson that I feel like we should be notified, board members should be notified, if there is an appeal to the Planning Commission. I won't second that. I think that's critical. Do let you all know when we have one coming up. Because they're, I mean, to me it's. We've invited you. Certainly worth attending and defending the guidelines. The staff would be most appreciative. Uninformed decision making. I believe very strongly that that would be important, and the staff, I believe, would have a stronger presence if some of you all would like to participate. I think there's a difference between participation and notification. I remember you telling me this issue was coming up. and I forgot that it was going to probably be an immediate decision done that day when do they actually do a recommended I guess what I'm trying to get at is the 30 days runs from when they actually make their decision at the Planning Commission meeting just like we do okay the property owner has 30 days to determine whether they'd like to appeal or when to file that or whether a person adversely affected by their determination would like to take it to court. I think that's the step that we're missing here, that we need to be told that 30 days is running. So if one of us wants to talk to some of our brethren about issues of concern, I'm going to be giving it to all. Well, we'd certainly be glad to let you know when our staff is informed that an appeal has been filed at planning. when the when if we've been reversed that's when we need to be told I'm sorry when we have been reversed oh you just would like to know the outcome yes well both I mean we'd like to help you out at the Planning Commission meeting as well but definitely we need to know if we've been overturned we need to know that right okay all right mr. Paul would you like to try to craft a motion well let me ask a a question of mr kerr if do you concur with mr white's do you concur with mr white's comment that he thinks that these are non-contributing structures no we do not have that measure in historic local historic districts you have that measure on a federal level, about 50 years old or older and contributing versus non-contributing. But that language for local historic districts, there are various ranges of vintages of structures, but gas stations are in the H-1 and the rules apply to gas stations. Don't we talk about that when we're talking about, say, a garage behind a house? Isn't that part of the discussion, whether it's contributing? No. It's not the word contributing. It's a trigger word that has a meaning from the federal end that does not apply on the local end. We talk about if something has integrity as an original or a historic with long vintage of time on those garages, you know, versus one that's been there for 30 years. But the process doesn't say, oh, well, it's more recent and therefore it's exempt from the process. So, but I guess when you gather the information to support an application for a district, when a new district is being formed, that's when that language is relevant. Is that right? For a national register. For example, you would look at. A national register for the contributing words. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, but everybody is equal once it's become a local historic district. Okay. equal in the sense of do the regulations apply? Now, having just said that, the one sentence I would say, those regulations obviously are meant to be utilized based on what the existing situation is. And I don't think, like on those garages, you know, there's a reason some of these garages that are only 30 years old, there can be movement to allow those to be torn down versus one that's been there for 70 years or 80 years or 100 years. that it takes on more meaning to the character of the district I'm gonna take a stab at it I will help if need be regarding case number 11660403-B at 403 north limestone i move to approve the application for certificate appropriateness with the following conditions that if any changes are made that alter your information submitted resubmit the changes to staff review and approval prior to start of affected work and two that once reviewed by other lfucg divisions any changes shall return to the staff for or the board for review and approval prior to start of effective work and uh i would add the following uh i guess this would be a condition that um acknowledgement that this is an exceptional approval stemming from the fact that the property in question is a row house of relatively recent construction vintage and that the dominant condition in that row house now is that vinyl windows have replaced most of the windows in those in in the row houses and So it's a unique situation. Let me add that the final details and specifications of the Windows B, no, they're already installed, aren't they? Oh, they're already installed, right. I'll add to that, let me suggest just a friendly amendment, that because the Planning Commission has previously reviewed other applications of the same, what is the range of addresses for this? 401 through 413. That, since the Planning Commission has already overruled us on a couple of other applications, that it should be applicable to just 401 through 413 only. And may I suggest that that be a finding, not a condition. Your language is about why this is an exception situation, that that's your finding. Right. Okay. That was my, I was looking for that word. Based on that finding, we are overruling the staff recommendation of disapproval. I don't think you said that. Have we muddied the waters enough? Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All right. There's a second grudgingly. Any further discussion? You lucked out. The chair will call for it. We'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. It's noted for the record. The application as modified by the board has been approved. Thank you very much. I know that we're down to three, so I need to step away for about five minutes. Can we take a five-minute break? All right, let's do that. And that way you can get all your stuff organized and ready. and is that gentleman behind you is that your architect or your designer all right I think what we need to do is just go all straight into the presentation because obviously we had you know a LinkedIn meeting a couple weeks ago and obviously the staff is still convinced there are several problems they're saying that you know the following issues need further addressing the mass of the main roof the bonus room dictating the roof of the main structure the connector dictating the roof of the main structure the dormers compatibility to the main structure the windows being multi-plane in lieu of 101 over one possible use of siding in lieu of brick they're also needing further details as the wind and door details site plan reflective of present plan plans with wall section reflect the final roof pitch section articulating the dormers and details of brick and so i guess miss armstrong why don't you just go forward with your presentation i will notice for note for the record that we have a number of montages of photographs of cadentown correct correct and i'll just um walk you through if you think about here cadentown in this triangular shape here the leg that we're talking about is this location right here and let me get my pointer excuse me that's marking blue I take it these structures all are on this side right here apart from this one which is across the street which is the church but all of these structures so you have empty lot empty lot well now empty lot and then you have a structure here and then a and then the church here and then there is this structure that's owned by the church that fronts on cadentown in this vicinity right here and that's what that reflects and this this um which is the northwest quadrant here this is all the structures on this side now that's around the bend isn't it this is around the bend so i don't know mr dickinson if you can see that as well this map do you all want as the board members amelia could still use her mic and you all could walk around the dais and walk with her down the row perhaps if you would stand back five or six feet from them so that the camera can still sure go with her but i i fully realized that the angle is very helpful to you so again to repeat so this is our diamond pattern of canetown these are our structures and you'll notice there's actually i put a lot of the empty lots in here because there's actually a lot more land so to speak than building in some ways and so you're starting here this is your streetscape looking at this way and you have the church the church parking lot and the retention base in here and then you have most of all this land which is right here all non-buildable and it has no structures on right now they're for sale the structure and the structure is for sale and this is the property in question right now and this is this drive that leads which is right here down to this structure which is right in this corner this is the church building which is right here and you'll have their parking lot and then there's a retention basin back here and then this is the neighboring property this property has many shrubs and long big trees in front of it so there's no good front view of this house and then this is an another empty lot and which is right beside the structure which is right there and this is the corner property and the corner property actually has a cadentown address even if it fronts on to old todd's road and so this parcel here for moving on to the next is actually where we've actually had most building that we've seen and so starting from this corner right here this property and this property 791 are for sale and then we have these two structures next door right here right here and then we have the most the latest build that was approved earlier this late spring this is another newer structure this is our oldest structure that was built on the newer structures this is if we've seen this is the prime structure that are building this structure right next door and then another new one and there's an empty lot beside it we did have a conceptual review of the previous plan a couple of years ago those people have not come forward yet and this is our second oldest structure that has sort of a bungalow it does have a garage in the back and then this the oldest of the of new era construction right so this was this is our first second third fourth and then fifth and this here empty lot and then here the structure here and then we have um the church with the rosenwald school behind it and that's right in this area right here okay so this is the other leg of cane town on this side and so we have several structures here this was all one big land owned by the same family and the daughter split it up and most recently they've to the parcels have been bought but these parcels are all for sale And so these two particular structures, we saw a house proposed to be built on this one last year, last fall at this time. That is not going to be happening, but for those particular owners, somebody else might be purchasing that structure, that land. And then this land goes all the way back. And there was a house here that was allowed to be torn down, but all this land was farmland. And so only one structure for our knowledge was actually on this. And so this is the neighboring structure right beside that. And then we have another empty lot land. And then another newer structure on this side. This land here actually happens to be the leg of our property owners. So it goes like this. It has an L shape and this is their other land. And so the frontage on this is smaller and there's the easement that we see on that previous plan still ties to this easement as well. And then this is standing at this corner looking back at this land and this is the other parcel that's for sale which is also this parcel here. which has even more restrictions as far as development and building line than the others. And then this is standing actually at the church parking lot looking back towards that land and you can see sort of the corner of this building right here. So going on to Old Tards Road starting at, and this is not highlighted because it didn't need to be split up, but this is the land here. And so we have this parcel which is right beside link belt and it's really pretty much a drive right here. And then this is our perma stone structure. This is one of the only perma stone structures we have which is located right here. And then there's an L-shape empty lot right beside that. And I've only captured a little bit of it right here. But it really, these should be reversed. So that goes here all the way back to this part. And so this is one of our structures too that's located on this lot. And then a ranch style house located here. And then another ranch style house. This actually has T111 siding on it. And it is located here. This is a little land for sale. And then this is the church that's at the corner. And so we're skipping ahead over to here. So we saw this church, which is this church right there that's at this corner. And then the next, we've got two parcels back to back, 3065 and 3069. They're both for sale, still having the easement issues. And then our other parcel, the next parcel is a brick structure. And then we have another brick structure with a breezeway and a garage. And then this culminates on this side with 3081, which is a frame structure that's located right here. And so we've seen this next one. This is Catantown Road. And so at this corner, we've seen this because we did have the second permanent structure that was in cadentown and it actually was a promoted and permitted to be removed with a new construction that new construction obviously is not had not been built yet and so that's right there on the corner so the next structure in is this one which is so this is the corner this is this parcel right here the church which is the next parcel has a huge amount of land and that is part of their land and this is the edge of their parking lot so they They have an old barn, and there's a parking lot right beside that. And this is the Canetown Church here. The next parcel is here, which is right here. And this is 2930. And this house is actually stuccoed now. The fellow that owned it for many years was a concrete guy. He had a concrete business, and he pretty much stuccoed the house. and many previous years, yeah, much much longer and then this is sort of an empty lot that the church has bought and it's sort of this leg right here now we have, this is an old Masonic Lodge 29-22, which is our two story structure, which is a very very small parcel there pretty much goes lot line to lot line. So it pretty much, the walls are pretty much right there. And then we have two parcels here and here which are actually the same parcel that belongs to these structures here that was part of the bigger farm. And then going on the other leg of, on the other side of Canetown, which you can't see. Oh no, it's up here, sorry. We have these parcels here and so we've got this one which we actually did see is a conceptual view for some dormers. And then this one, which is the very end of that street. And then two parcels that are sort of, have Liberty Road addresses, which are right here. And then these are just some street views of Cane Town in general. all the new structures have gone through board approval I believe starting in I would say 2007 I'm going to help you with the AV for a second. I will note for the record that Ms. Green has presented us a packet of pictures, which are close-ups, of many of the houses that have been depicted on these photo boards. Ms. Armstrong, do you want to go ahead and do your presentation of the findings? Certainly. Well, and, Barry, could you go through the slides for a second, please? And just to sort of give you an idea, remember this structure was here, and this structure was demolished last year. And part of that archaeology also had occurred. And so we have that report on file in the office. And if you could go for more, please. And this is just another street view. street view we've seen this before and this gives you some more street views this is actually the back of the church that's across the street and then for some of these you've seen in those pictures here's our empty lot And of course we have many easement issues with this site as far as you have the 30 foot building line. If you can go forward please to the plan. So to reiterate about the plan here and some of the issues, so we have the floodplain in the shaded area here that goes all the way to this Lego Canentown. And we have the utility line. And we have that easement and the sanitary easement as well. so those are the parameters that the house was situated using those those issues the of course we saw this structure the last time and we've the issues were about the garage they've taken the plan and they've modified a little bit and the changes between the present plan and the conceptual review include the following the main mass roof is a 1012 hip roof with a smaller gable over the front door in the chimney Barry can you advance that please to that front elevation thank you so you'll see the main mass is now a 1012 roof with a smaller pediment over the front door and the dormers were introduced into the roof to break up the mass the windows are multi-pane in the garage has been shifted back okay guidelines are included for your reference The proposal to construct a single-family home when this parcel requires further discussion. Staff and board have seen many ranches in Canetown and found they're appropriate due to several ranch-like structures that have already exist. Several existing ranch-like or other new constructions have attached garages. Guidelines for new primary structures state design principle building should be compatible with adjacent historic buildings and those along the block. However, this particular plan has many issues. The main roof of the house, as proposed, is too massive for this house and for the street scrape. This is a one-story house that has a nine-foot ceiling on the first floor, and the proposed roof is approximately 15 feet higher than the roof plate, creating more roof volume than there is actually first floor. The 1012th roof should be reduced to create a better balance between the first floor and the roof. As proposed, it is too top-heavy. The design principle for new construction states the new primary building should be designed and compatible with the adjacent historic buildings and those on the block and compatible and is demonstrated by similar orientation, roof forms, materials, windows, door sizes, placement, porch size, location, foundation heights as adjacent buildings. Still driving the height of this main house is the connector in the garage. The connector in the garage appear to be appropriately scaled compared to the conceptual view plan. However, that is an illusion because there's no change to the roof pitch. The only difference is the roof has changed in the main house from a 612 to a 212 and the designer did shift the garage back from the main mass. Guidelines 2BABC for the garages are all the following. Garages should be simple in design and considerably small in scale than the primary building and garages should be located in character with other secondary buildings for the street near an alley or at or the rear of the property and not close to or attached to the primary structure. Carriages should be compatible in design, shape, material, roof shape with other secondary buildings in the historic district. And the roof of the garage and the connector seem to still be problematic. Dormers. Dormers should be, have been proposed in the roof line or installed to break up the mast. However, as they are, have little compatibility with the windows and the floor floor, they should not have the same size or do not have a proper alignment. The dormer guidelines state 2A5B dormers should be introduced in front elevations but may be added to the rear and secondary elevations if incompatible with the building design. In addition, there is no section that provides details of the dormers. Windows, the proposed multi-pane windows are not within the guidelines, which state 2B1F states opening some windows and architectural help establish balance, rhythm scale and proportion emphasis and structure patterns of components on the buildings along the block and within the districts along create characteristic rhythm for streetscape and neighborhoods is important to the new construction respect the balance proportion scale of existing buildings along the block with the districts in the building in regards to the components guidelines 2b1 case it states architectural details may be appropriate they give building on which they are placed good sense of belonging on the street or within the district details should be appropriately scaled for the proposed structure incompatible with adjacent buildings in the district and the portion of trim will help complement the overall scale of the building stand fights and windows need be 1 over 1 in lieu of multi-pane in addition the dormer of the windows and the first first floor windows need to have better relationship to each other referencing guidelines 2a5b or 2b1f doors the proposed doors meet the guidelines of TV 1f 1k location and proportion emphasis into visual base our design components that help establish balance rhythm scale proportion to business and structure and it's very important the new construction respect balance proportions scale of existing buildings along the block and within districts in regards to these components material color texture pattern construction techniques help define the character scale and materials should they be scaled to the building in which they are located to compatible with materials on the adjacent surrounding buildings in areas with strong continuity of materials textures material color is a factor in continuing use of the materials that strongly recommended material the proposal to use brick on the main house requires further discussion staff acknowledges that there are approximately six houses that use either brick or as a primary cladding or use accents either on the water table or on the wall in addition there are two houses are clad in permastone one was demolished there even one with stucco house however staff finds that the brick veneer cladding may be considered in order to reduce its mass and make this house more compatible with the rule nature of the historic hamlet guidelines 2b1j materials and material color material color texture patterns and construction techniques help define building character and scale the proposal constructed chimney as part of the plan of the house is appropriate and 2b1l states chimneys and other roof features should be incorporated into designs for new construction provided they do not dominate the building streetscape or appropriate to the new construction paving since shifting to the garage a new plan indicating the paving plan has not been provided guidelines three five state driveways and parking lots that are new should be located on either side or rear of the building and not visually dominant summary staff finds the following issues still need to be addressed the mass of the main roof the boat the bonus room dictating the roof of the main structure the connector dictating the roof of the main structure the dormer's compatibility to the main structure the The windows being multi-pane in lieu of 1 over 1 and the possible use of siding in lieu of brick. Staff also finds the following information needs to be presented regarding the current plan. Window and door details, site plans reflect of the present plan, whatever that might be. Plans with wall sections reflect the final roof pitch. Sections are articulating the dormers and the details of the brick. Recommendation, staff recommends disapproval of this plan as submitted. Of course, the applicant and the designer are present. Okay, thank you very much. How do you want to begin? I guess I will, the question I think that we were asking ourselves informally just as to start off rather than jump to the mass of the main route is, you know, a lot of this is being driven by that bonus room and I initially had thought that was going to be Mrs. Green's study or office but now I see from the House plans that's not so. so what is the purpose of the bonus room I'm sorry what man for our son who's a who's at college right now and you're wrong you gonna put him over the garage yeah this is gonna be cold no no we'll make sure we instillate it properly so you're trying to give him basically kind of an apartment to himself since we couldn't have a basement we needed to go up a little bit to separate him from no being in the family all right okay i would say separated from being in the family yeah if not he'll be beside his six seven year old sister so even well it's a big house i mean you can probably find enough privacy for everybody it's but that's your problem and i want to let the architects here discuss more by having that large bonus room above your garage And I guess the designer should mr. Tipton is that it Jim turpin turpin. I'm sorry If you was first state your name for the record please sir Jim Turpin mr. Turpin. Thank you If you can just some of the issues that we're concerned with what I did is I this is the original concept that we worked with the greens and when we proposed that The staff saw some things, the masks that they were talking about, and the issue is when we lost the basement. Right, this is where we're at. This is a very original one that we presented. And what the issue become was the transition where the stairs well is, it's on the outside wall. So to get the head room for the stairs to get into the bonus room, this has to be lifted up. And that becomes part of an issue. With this roof being taller, and that was just from the original design, the style had a steep pitch roof on it. It does balance a little better, but I can see, and you can see the stair system going up into it. So recommendations from the staff said, let's lower this roof. They even recommended, let's get rid of one of the offsets to eliminate another gable in, and we did that. But what happened is when this came down, this became even more dominant. And now what do we do? So another suggestion was to work on this area. And what I discovered is it just became the elephant in the room to try to get that headroom up there. They suggested that maybe we could lower the room above the garage, which we could since we have nine-foot ceilings. I lowered that a foot, but I don't want to see it on the garage to hit into the door going into the main structure. But still I had an issue with the transition, and that allowed me to take a couple more risers off the stairs. I reconfigured the stairs so it wasn't an L-shape on the outside wall, but I turned it inside. And if you could look at the floor plan, we created a service entrance there. So when we walk in, we can go underneath the stairs. That allowed me to take the stairs back more towards the house to get, hopefully, to remedy some way to deal with this issue we had with this transition, the stairs going up into the bonus room. So what I did is looked at it from another angle. I went back to the 10-12 pitch roof. I pushed the stairs back, lessened the risers. I might be able to get that stair system underneath this roof. Unfortunately, I tried some different pitches, but I went back to the 1012. If you look at the floor plan, you can see some dotted lines in there where we would have some clip sealing to where we got up over the stairs. So it seemed like I was trying to eliminate that issue. I hope I achieve that. So it cleaned up this roof from a lot of different reasons, too. in the back just dealing with this this transition caused some roof different roof designs and saddles and crickets and so forth so i went back to the 10 12th i was able to move the stairs got the stairs underneath that main roof this odd now one plane coming into this roof we lowered the garage roof. We took off the bay, off it, to try it again, take away from all the drama. And just dealing with the massive roof, I thought for a conceptual idea we could put maybe some dormers on there just to break that roof up. And using those dormers, they are lighting up the areas in the in the his office the dining room and that foyer so those would be an actual architectural element in those ceilings and so now we are where we are we need some more clarification from you all and maybe where to go with this and and you're right the bonus room is to get to it we we have to have a certain amount of headroom and uh this is the last option i came to okay i was you're the first one up miss lenore since you didn't see the plan two weeks ago do you have any comments or observations I'm still... I'm doing it, Michael. Oh, sorry. I do. I'm not exactly sure what they are. I still feel like the roof is just so giant on it. it just makes kind of this little row of kind of where you're actually living just completely overwhelmed it looks like it's two-story house well it does look like a two-story house especially now that you've added the dormers in there and it even feels tall like even adding those dormers and making it feel like a two look like like a two-story house, it still looks too tall, like even if it were actually a two-story house. I was not here at the conceptual review, so I'm still thinking about this a little bit. maybe Graham might talk about what he's seeing improvement-wise and from before or last time, because I'm not sure I think this is an improvement from just what I saw the last version. Sarah, yeah, you saw the plans. That's, yeah. Yeah. Mr. Cole? Well, one of the improvements is that the massive gable that was shown on the previous scheme is now a hip group. So that's helpful because that will definitely reduce the mass of the frontal condition. I have a question for you, and that is, what is the headroom from the garage floor to the underside of the floor structure above? It'll still be about 14 inches. I'm sorry? About 14 and quarter inches. No, the headroom, how much room is from the concrete up to the underside of the floor structure? That would be your floor system to, say, 12 inches to your floor, concrete. It looks to me like... About nine feet, yeah. It would be the main structure is at nine, the wall heights, and then you have your floor system. So that would make it about ten. 10 feet. Typically we pour that concrete at the front of the foundation, right at the foundation to slope down so it drains out. We'll just use that as a typical way to approach it. The concrete floor is 12 inches below the floor level and then we have nine foot walls. Now we'll lower that wall right here in the house to eight foot so we're lowering that floor in in the garage a foot. Does that answer your question? So it's not that high. We're at minimum height. It just looked to me like, looking at the drawings, that you could reduce the headroom in the garage by at least a foot and thereby improve your requirements for your headroom on the stair going up to the bonus room. Here's your floor level. but that's not the garage floor no and here's the top of the garage floor level is 12 inches below that right right and then we have 12 inches below this line so we've got from here to there and i can't lower the garage anymore because your your door going into the house from the garage is setting on the floor. I come down any lower that puts the bottom of my floor joists to the garage right at the door and I'd like to have that's why I mentioned that 14 inches I'm trying to stay that's usually typical with your header so I'm trying to at least maintain that. I'm just looking for ways to... I'm with you. when i agree with the staff that 10 12 pitches creates an overbearing condition and i i wonder you know i mean sometimes i've seen a condition like that mitigated by putting a flat roof section where you you don't bring the you don't bring the roof all the way up to a ridge you know you drop it down and there's a there's a membrane roof on the top that when you're when you're looking at the house from any angle you you can't tell it looks like there's a ridge but it really reduces the scale of the house by you know what i'm saying i see um i mean you could explore something like that and the other thing that really hasn't happened that i was hoping you'd be able to accomplish i know you pushed the garage back a little bit but um you know here let me let me put in a nutshell what i see i'm looking at the neighborhood i'm looking at the houses on the uh you know in the neighborhood and i look at this house and this house looks so grossly out of proportion it's not even remotely in the same family it's really huge and it's all brick i mean it's making this massive statement it's like building a church and it's not like building a home it's it's to me it's just grossly over scaled so we have to find ways to to to improve that and And I mean, I think we're closer. I do think this is closer than the previous scheme, mainly because we've gotten rid of that huge gable. But now we have this sort of overbearing roof volume. And I don't think that your efforts to push the garage back visually, I don't think it's enough. it still reads as a main part of the house in fact in my view it's more prominent than the section of the house that has the entry door in it because that portion of the house at least has a clabbered siding above the above the eve line and the garage is just one big massive brick So it's almost like, it's almost hierarchically a more significant volume than the volume that has the front door and the chimney in it, the way I see it. So I think you need to look for ways to mitigate that. The other comment I would have is that I'm not averse to putting dormers on the front of the house. I agree with you. i think dormers the dormers i mean you i think that you're right that there are plenty of dormers in the neighborhood um and i i think that the guidelines really speak to adding dormers to existing buildings more than they do to new construction and i don't think that the dormers are inappropriate for your for your home i would say however that the way the dormers are indicated right now there's an equivalency between those three dormers are identical to one another and there's a rhythm across those dormers and yet the right dormer is the rightmost dormer is over the connector piece with the garage which really should be the most diminutive the most the tiniest least articulated element in the whole thing and I think it's inappropriate to put an equivalent normer on that I think I think what you really need to be doing is finding a way to to to make that thing as tiny as you can as transparent or as as as low as possible and so on so I mean I would encourage you to look again at different siding I would encourage you to look at using the brick to articulate the most hierarchically important parts of the house and give them the mass and the gravity that would be suggested by a living room a dining room an entry foyer those kinds of things and and and look for a way to to eliminate as much of it as you can on the garage for example as a way of diminishing the importance of the garage on the facade I agree, and I think the Greens wouldn't have any problem with that. We could easily turn this to siding. And you're right, it's competing with the entry. The garage has been ever since we had this scenario. And to try to take away or bring this down so it doesn't compete as much with the entry. I like your idea of going with siding. It was just I had to rush to try to get this resubmitted. only had a couple days then we could easily turn it to siding it would look much better i agree with that that was one of the things we talked about in our last in the conceptual and he's right we just didn't have time to get everything done to put it back in for this but you know when we first started talking about that connector we were talking about going with a cement board siding in that connector and the garage maybe having a knee wall and then siding up it's not going to be completely brick so that I mean that something that we will eliminate it's not an issue for us changing subjects for a moment are you completely wedded to the notion of your multi-fane windows or can you do a one oh one over one those windows look awfully busy that is another and actually I want to that elevation that's up there we do have the one over one windows and that was another thing that we had discussed with Jim we would change all those windows to the one over one all right so that was not an issue for us either we're making progress okay can i just make one more observation this is a little tiny thing but it's consistent with what i'm saying about the articulation of the garage the windows in the garage are the same size as the windows in the most important part of the house and um you know i i in my opinion they should probably be more like the size of the windows on the far left of the house the master of the uh uh the owner suite windows um yeah exactly i i think because and you know to me they're they're adding to that sort of reading of that volume being really important so that's a minor thing but it's just But again, that helps. It is bringing the focal back on this entry and taking less off that. So that is a very good suggestion. Well, the big issue, if you could figure out a way to, now that I understand that basically this garage is also going to serve as an apartment, if you can drop the height, overall I think that will make the rest of the house look more proportional to the neighborhood and frankly to itself I know we've had you've had a conversation with mr. Cole about your the one foot and it may not be the way you want to use this room possible but that's where you really need to focus your creativity and talent in terms of figuring out a way to drop the height of that overall structure so that your roof system is just not so gigantic. And if you look at the plan, I do have the drawing of the room above the garage on there. You can see what's five foot level, and then it goes up to eight foot. So it would just make that room smaller, yes. And I think I have, at the moment, my knee wall is a 30-inch knee wall. So you're suggesting maybe go down to a foot knee wall. That would help, right? I mean, that would lower this another six inches, or were you thinking more, 18 inches? Let me ask a question procedurally, Ms. Kerr. Right now, you're recommending disapproval of this entire plan. If that happens, then they would have to bring in a substantially different submission? Yes, they do, however, have— I'm looking for the deadline for action. Amelia, do you know it off the top of it? November 2? So they have one more meeting, that being October 25, before your deadline for action. And so if the board is interested in further working to tweak this, which is a good idea, one option would be for you all to consider continuing this case one more time rather than do a disapproval. Postponement is a different issue. We've opened the case, so now the case is going basically into a recess for two more weeks, and we're continuing it to the next date to give you further opportunity to tweak this plan because this may have come news to you. If we took this plan and just did a flat-out disapproval, then you can't bring this plan back to us again. You would have to come up for a year. You'd have to wait a year. And the reason it's a recommendation for denial is that the magnitude of what needs to be resolved is too great for it to be an approval with conditions. There's just too much out there that has to be reconfigured or the design features changed with some substance to have it be able to be conditional. Now, I have never been in favor of trying to draft a plan by committee. Right. So if I have your agreement, why don't we agree to continue this case to our next meeting, which is? 25th. The 25th of October? Okay. Two weeks from today. All right. Do I have a motion to that effect then? Or is there anything else we need to do? The only thing, at some point, the staff wanted to put forward one more suggestion since they are going to be working toward further solutions, which may be something you all thought about. Would you like to hear that now? Sure. Okay. We'll be real brief, but Barry and I were back talking about this while you all were communing about reducing that height of the roof, the main mass. And so the question is, had you looked at flipping the staircase system with your office? In other words, put your office in the front corner and your staircase in the general, in the vicinity of where it's currently proposed as your office. Because what that would enable you to do is pull that garage footprint way further back and get it out of the front plane of the structure. Because you could use the middle stair travel area, both the verticality of it and the horizontal cross connector, to get to essentially the front edge of that garage if it's pushed back. You follow that, Mr. Turbin? One issue with it, this is a cricket in the same plane of the main roof. When I go back further, this is a hip. I like to keep that roof as soft as I can, like you suggested. It would look even more massive as a big gable. That puts me into the hip. Now I have my hip problem again because I'm hitting up the hip going up and doesn't allow my stairs to, again, get into the garage area. But that is something to look at again. I would encourage you to look at that opportunity. And the other thing I'd suggest is considering eliminating the gable on the front of the garage and put it on the side of the garage so that that roof plane is continuous on the front of the garage instead of turning. I think that that gable facing the front over the garage is competing and is making a statement that makes the whole thing look too big. I think that if you had a hip, if that main roof hipped and then went back and then met a gable that came out and faced the side, are you following me? Yeah, we consider that. It changes the configuration of the room. Plus, if I'm not careful, this is almost a square garage. If I hip it, then I come up with a pyramid roof. well I'm talking about putting the gable on the other hand on the end instead of on the front it yeah it forces me to line up a little bit more with the garage I have to move the garage to to line up with the stair systems coming into the end of it correct and if you pushed it back then that then that Ridge would meet the side of the hip on the main route so that would set back from the from the hip rafter you know what I'm saying okay the front plane of that main hip would would not be the front plane of that garage roof that garage roof would be behind that front plane to the main hip right what you're suggesting is this hip going back I think I think it's exploring because I think I think that is the kind of move that's going to give the house to sort presence on the street that would be much more in keeping with with the with the neighborhood and what the guidelines are telling us we're supposed to be doing okay I'm not saying it's a solution I'm throwing it out as a something to explore right yes we want to look at it again we're trying to save this project so yes and I'm assuming that the next set of plans will show the proper windows and the proper details as well yes that's not an issue it's just with a Tom issue hopefully you're gonna lose the all the brick you're gonna have a more composite mixture a brick and composite siding yes okay I'll repeat something that I said in the last in our conceptual review in case in case you hadn't heard it. In my opinion, having the garage door facing the side would be acceptable if the garage were pushed back adequately. I know that in a previous… I like that picture right there. I'm trying to remember if I had a turning radius to get in the garage and back out. You don't have an adequate turning radius? I'd have to look at the plat again. I think that might have been a slight issue. I'd to try at least have 21 feet i think we might it was close if that would help you to uh to get the thing to work the way you wanted to work i mean if if in fact the gable were to face the side and the garage door under that gable okay it i think and if you know but i think that's contingent on the garage being pushed back far enough that it's really legitimately not part of that primary elevation it really is subordinate you know all right yeah we got a little issue with that we're starting to cover up the whole office and we wouldn't have a window into the office if the garage goes too much further back going about five more feet unless the office were in the front and the stair were in the back I mean there's an opportunity there if you think about it because you've got the raised billiard room where you have to have some stair going to the raised billiard room and that maybe that stair could be coordinated with the stair that goes up to the bonus from it's possibility possibility yeah all right anything else messing with your design aren't we anything else all right then i think we're ready for a motion to continue this case to october 25. so moved do you have a second second any further discussion of the motion chair calls the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay we are continued to october 25. thank you very much thank you appreciate your patience in working with us all right a couple other items that we need to work through one is the approval of the minutes i sent some corrections to miss o'neil that she will be making later on. They're mainly typos and just some sentence clarifications. Do I have a motion to accept the minutes? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, the minutes stand approved. And also, Mr. Chair, your other entry on your agenda you've already taken care of last week, the election of officers. I thought we had done the election of officers. Yes, that only happened because Kathy was unable. They railroad me back into being chair again. Kathy wasn't able to be at that meeting and so she didn't know off the top of her head to know that. You all very efficiently took care of that at the last meeting. Then I guess we're ready for an adjournment. I move. Second. We stand adjourned. Thank you. Until the next time. Thank you. Thank you. So we cheated and we tried and we tested And we never failed or failed That was the easiest thing to do You will survive being bested Somebody strong comes along Make me forget Forget about loving you And the southern crowd