# Board of Architectural Review - May 9, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 9, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4759 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4759?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-05-09 - **Last revised**: May 9, 2019 - **Length**: 7,412 words > ⚠️ **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 convened on May 22, 2019, with Mr. Chairman presiding over the session. The board reviewed five agenda items, all involving architectural review applications for various properties throughout the city. During the meeting, the board took five votes on the applications presented, with four projects receiving approval and one being deferred for further consideration. No public comments were recorded during this session. The approved projects included applications for 607 Boonesboro Avenue, 135 Old Lafayette Avenue, 1014 Fontaine Road, and 438 Fayette Park, while the application for 222 Clay Avenue was deferred to a future meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board took action on five items during the May 9, 2019 meeting, approving four certificates of appropriateness and continuing one item for future consideration. **Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals:** • **02140607-g (607 Boonesboro Avenue)** [timestamp: 00:00] - The Chairman motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions requiring the applicant to place cushioning along the driveway to retain gravel and submit final details to staff. The motion passed by voice vote. • **32190135-g (135 Old Lafayette Avenue)** [timestamp: 00:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the condition that final details of the skirt board be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of the certificate. The motion passed by voice vote. • **07201014-c (1014 Fontaine Road)** [timestamp: 00:00] - The Chairman motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions specifying that the deck should have a skirt board and provide a bottom rail to the railing. The motion passed by voice vote. • **06900443-I (438 Fayette Park)** [timestamp: 00:00] - The Chairman motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. **Continued Item:** • **222 Clay Avenue** [timestamp: 00:00] - The board voted to continue discussion of this item to June 26th. The motion passed by voice vote. All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call, with no recorded individual vote tallies or opposition noted. Each approved certificate of appropriateness included specific conditions that must be met by the respective applicants before final approval or construction can proceed. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary contested item that generated significant debate among participants. **222 Clay Avenue Addition** A heated discussion emerged regarding a proposed addition to the property at 222 Clay Avenue. The disagreement centered on multiple aspects of the project, including concerns about the proportion and design of the proposed addition. Participants raised questions about how the addition would fit with the existing structure and whether it would be appropriate for the surrounding area. Key points of contention included: • The scale and proportion of the addition relative to the existing building • Design elements and their compatibility with the neighborhood character • Potential impacts the addition might have on neighboring properties • Questions regarding zoning compliance and whether the proposal met all applicable requirements The discussion was characterized as heated, indicating strong opinions on multiple sides of the issue. Participants appeared to have differing views on whether the proposed addition was appropriate for the location and met the necessary standards for approval. The extracted data does not specify the particular individuals involved in the debate or provide details about the final outcome of the discussion regarding the 222 Clay Avenue addition. Without access to specific transcript timestamps or additional meeting materials, the resolution of this contested item and any votes taken remain unclear. ## 607 Boonesboro Avenue [timestamp: 00:00] The board discussed a proposal for 607 Boonesboro Avenue regarding refreshing the gravel driveway at the property. Mr. Chairman led the discussion of this agenda item. The proposal centered on maintenance work to refresh the existing gravel driveway surface. The discussion included consideration of conditions that would need to be met for approval of the work. The board approved the gravel driveway refresh project with conditions. The specific conditions for approval were established during the discussion, though the exact details of these conditions are not specified in the available materials. This item was resolved with approval, allowing the property owner to proceed with the driveway maintenance work under the agreed-upon conditions. ## 135 Old Lafayette Avenue [timestamp: 00:00] The board discussed a proposal for 135 Old Lafayette Avenue involving the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing deck. The Chair led the discussion of this agenda item. The application centered on plans to reconstruct and enlarge a deck at the property. While specific details of the proposed dimensions or materials were not detailed in the available information, the discussion focused on establishing appropriate conditions for approval. The board ultimately approved the project with conditions, though the specific conditions imposed were not outlined in the available materials. The approval suggests the board found the proposal acceptable for the property while requiring certain modifications or restrictions to ensure compliance with local regulations or design standards. The item was resolved efficiently as agenda item 2, indicating it may have been a relatively straightforward application that met the board's requirements with the addition of appropriate conditions. ## 1014 Fontaine Road [timestamp: 00:00] The board discussed agenda item 3 regarding 1014 Fontaine Road, which involved a proposal for constructing a deck and changing openings at the property. Mr. Chairman led the discussion of this matter. The application centered on modifications to the existing structure, specifically the construction of a new deck and alterations to building openings. The proposal was presented with recommended conditions for approval to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and standards. Following the presentation and discussion, the board approved the project with the specified conditions. The conditional approval allows the property owner to proceed with the deck construction and opening modifications while adhering to the requirements established by the board. The item was resolved efficiently as part of the meeting's agenda, with Mr. Chairman facilitating the discussion and the board reaching a consensus on the approval with conditions. ## 438 Fayette Park [timestamp: 00:00] The board discussed a proposal for 438 Fayette Park involving the construction of a porch addition. Mr. Chairman led the discussion of this agenda item. The proposal centered on adding a porch to the existing structure at 438 Fayette Park. The discussion focused on the construction details and requirements for the proposed addition. The board determined that the porch addition could proceed with standard conditions for approval. These standard conditions typically include compliance with local building codes, proper permitting, and adherence to design guidelines, though the specific conditions were not detailed in the available materials. The agenda item was approved, allowing the property owner to move forward with the porch construction project subject to meeting the established standard conditions. ## 222 Clay Avenue [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed agenda item 5 concerning a proposal for 222 Clay Avenue involving the construction of a rear addition, driveway, and parking facilities. Ms. Teller served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the project details to the board for consideration. The discussion focused on the proposed modifications to the property, which included: • Construction of a rear addition to the existing structure • Installation of a new driveway • Development of parking facilities Following the presentation and board discussion, the item was not resolved during this meeting. The board determined that additional review time was necessary to properly evaluate the proposal and its various components. The agenda item was continued to the next scheduled meeting to allow for further examination of the construction plans, driveway specifications, and parking arrangements. This deferral will provide the board with additional time to review any technical details, assess potential impacts, and consider any regulatory requirements associated with the proposed rear addition and site improvements. The continuation ensures that all aspects of the 222 Clay Avenue project receive thorough consideration before a final determination is made by the board. --- ## Decisions - **02140607-g** — passed (0-0): Approve certificate of appropriateness for 607 Boonesboro Avenue with conditions - **32190135-g** — passed (0-0): Approve certificate of appropriateness for 135 Old Lafayette Avenue with conditions - **07201014-c** — passed (0-0): Approve certificate of appropriateness for 1014 Fontaine Road with conditions - **06900443-I** — passed (0-0): Approve certificate of appropriateness for 438 Fayette Park with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Continue discussion for 222 Clay Avenue to June 26th --- ## Full transcript and 2019 meeting of the board of architectural review we appreciate those of you or your attendance today and we have almost too much reverb randy the board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958 our first historic district was grand spark and we now have a total of 15 historic districts the board which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the urban county council is a part of the division of historic preservation the historic preservation office maintains a full time staff to assist you with your projects the board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as resource and the office is located at 101 east vine street room 220. it is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda in each case we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant the board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties the chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of 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 16 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 252 South Hanover Avenue, replace fence. In the Ellsford Historic District at 305 East Maxwell Street, renovate deck systems. 39311 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure. 453 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure. And at 136 Woodland Avenue, replace roof. In the Bell Court Historic District at 605 Russell Avenue, remove damaging tree. At 210 Bell Place Court, remove damaging tree. At 260 Bell Place, renovate structure. At 230 East Bell, renovate front porch. In the Constitution Historic District, at 132 East 3rd Street, install parking signs. In the North-South Historic District, at 441 West 2nd Street, renovate driveway and sidewalk. In the South Hill Historic District, at 410 South Broadway, replace awnings, tuck point as needed. At 317 South Mill Street, replace wooden fence. At 321 South Mill Street, replace wood fence. In the western suburbs historic district at 735 West Main Street, renovate structure. And finally, in the Woodridge Heights historic district at 368 Marino Street, replace fencing and gates. We are now ready for our first application at 607 Boonesboro Avenue, Refresh Gravel Driveway. Is the applicant here? The applicant was unable to attend, but we did discuss her boundary definers and we were going to meet on, and she's agreeable with all the findings and we're going to meet when she has a clear boundary that she's put in to contain the gravel. As noted in your recommendation, she needs to place curbing along the driveway to retain the gravel and final details of which to come back to staff. There's two other conditions once reviewed by the other divisions resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. I'll note that it's now our custom referred to those conditions as being the so-called standard conditions. Is there any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Then the Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness at 607 Boonesboro Avenue, case number 02140607-G with the condition that the applicant place curbing along the driveway to retain the gravel and the final details come back to staff along with our two standard conditions. All right. Is there a second? I second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair calls to questions. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. All right, turning to attachment number two at 135 Old Lafayette Avenue. Scope of work is the Mauler Stoop and Construct Deck. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present. However, we did discuss the final details for number one, and so he's going to get those back to us as far as the final skirting. Okay. With that understanding, then, just a note for the record, the staff has recommended approval, subject to the condition and final details of the skirt board, be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of a CLA, and then the other two standard conditions are included. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, then, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, I move that we approve the COA for case number 32190135-G at 135 Old Lafayette Avenue with the conditions as just noted, including both the staff recommendation and and the two standard conditions. All right. Including the final details of the skirt board be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a COA. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. All right. Returning to attachment number three at 1014 Fontaine Road, Scouple of Work, Construct Deck, Change of Openings. Come with it. State your name for the record, please. Joseph Clifton-Metakovich. All right. Clifton, the staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what I would call two more substantive conditions. The first being the deck should have a skirt board and final details be given to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. The other being provide a bottom rail to the railing in lieu of being fastened to the deck. And then there are the two standard conditions. Are you in agreement with these conditions? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Do I have any comments from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve case number 07201014-C at 1014 Fontaine Road, with conditions that number one, the deck should have skirt board and final details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Number two, provide bottom rail to the railing in lieu of the being fastened to the deck, as well as our two standard conditions. All right. Do you have a second? Yes. Okay, second. Any discussion on the motion? Now if the chair calls to question, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Your motion passes and your COA is approved. Thank you. Turning to attachment number four at 348 Fayette Park, Northside District, Scope of Work, Construct Side Porch. Come on up. Mr. Chair, I will recluse myself on this discussion and vote. All right. Thank you very much. If you want to take a break, you can. All right. All right, staff has recommended approval of your application, ma'am, and it's subject to what I've been referring to as the standard conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, I am. All right. All right, any comments or questions from the board members? I have no audience left to speak of. Any questions or comments from the, yes ma'am. Okay, all right. Okay, then I think the chair is ready for a motion. are you ready yes mr. chairman relative to case number 0 6 9 0 0 4 3 8 I at 438 Fayette Park I move that we I move that we approve this project with the standard the two standard conditions okay do I have a second all right the second the The motion is that we approve the recommendation of acceptance by the staff of the COA. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right, the motion passes. And the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay. I lost my paperwork, I think. Hang on. Hang on. I'm getting there. All right, turning to attachment number five, and I'll note for the record there was a typo, at least on my application, that said attachment number four. This is 222 Clay Avenue. The scope of work is construct the rear addition driveway and parking and rebuild the front shed dormer. And the applicant is standing before me. Please state your name for the record. Melanie Terrell. Ms. Terrell. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to two what I would call substantive conditions. They are provide the final door and window details and specifications to the staff for a board for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. The other being provide final railing details to the staff or board for review and approval prior to issuance of a COA. And then the other two are the standard conditions. Are we in agreement with those? on the what's that all the window details on the plan that that was just the size it wasn't the uh let's hear the question on the record what's your what is your question ma'am i i thought we had provided we haven't okay then yes they may want some additional detail or the agreement with that condition all right uh at both as to the final door window details and the reading details yes okay all right uh any questions from the staff or from the board members i have a lot of questions oh sure all right this is a single has been a single family house for i think it was built right um i think that they were renting it as a duplex even though it was a single family home i feel like i my understanding was they were renting it as a duplex even though it was a single-family home but technically yes um i do have a problem with it because i think it's out of proportion the addition is out of proportion to the main building and um okay sarah i think what we need then if you have some questions about the proposal we probably need to have a presentation from the staff Mr. I apologize we're going to have a presentation from the staff member. Who's project is this? Yours? Yes, sir. All right. Should I do the complete staff report at this point? Well, let's see. Specifically, Sarah, where are your concerns? On the dormant or on the whole thing? the addition. Okay let's have a presentation. Okay. 222 Clay Avenue the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the following work. The shed roof dormer located in the front plate of the roof was added to the roof of the historic after the historic structure was constructed the dormer was poorly constructed and is in a deteriorated condition and is causing damage to the main roof structure the rebuilt dormer is to have one over one windows skinned with wood shingles and and the roof of the dormer and the balance of the historic structure is to be re-roofed with dimensional shingles. Number two, construct a rear two-story addition, which will require the removal of the later two-story addition. The proposed addition is approximately 17 feet by 16 feet. 17 by 16 feet at the first floor and sets towards the northeast corner of the historic structure. Walls are proposed to be covered in cementitious clapboard siding with corner boards and a horizontal band at the second floor elevation. this is the addition that is proposed to be removed looking from the southeast approximately it's two stories with a stair inside that goes up all of this is to be removed as you can see here the it runs back to where it meets the metal roof it's looking from the from the east and the second floor is also kind of an odd shape which you may have noticed from the earlier This is the location of the existing driveway, and it runs back to where this, there was a garage here at some point in the past, and there's a prefab shed that's 10 by 16, I believe, setting on that shed or on that slab at this time this is where the the paver parking would be located and so these are the the drawings as you can see this is the location of the new first floor addition which was the approximately 17 by 17 and it starts as the other addition to be removed to the right of the bulkhead that you may have noticed in the photos so from the 17 by 17 first floor plant foundation it comes into the roof at the rear roof is held down from the main ridge and the walls are both the north and south walls are both held in from the corners of the historic structure and these are the plans this is a small second floor deck with stairs down to allow access to the second floor unit this is the south elevation and the north elevation and that would be the east and then this is a section through so this is the new first floor addition I should turn it off first. The driveway is proposed to be reconstructed from Clay Avenue to the rear of the site to allow access to four parking spaces that are required by the LFUCG zoning regulations. The parking area is to be constructed using grassy pavers, and the existing concrete garage pad is proposed to be removed. The guidelines are included for your use. Findings. The proposal to reconstruct the dormer meets guidelines 115A, which states in part, roofs should be preserved in their original shape, size, and pitch with original features. Even though it's an addition to the historic structure, it is old enough that we looked at it as if it was part of the original roof. The proposal to construct the rear addition and deck with stairs meets the guidelines. The deck and stairs are located at the rear of the building per 2A1A, and the proposed deck also meets 2A1C at a simple in design rather than ornate in design. And the construction of the addition meets guidelines 2A4A and 2A4B as it is appropriately located at the rear of the building and is secondary and smaller and simpler to the original building in scale, design, and placement. The proposal also complies with 2A4C. The addition is compatible in design in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, and materials, color, location of window and door, and cornice heights. It does not imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period per 2A4D and 2A4E. The proposal reflects characteristics of the current period in design, but is compatible with the original building. The proposal also complies with guidelines 2A4I and 2A4K, which state respectively, additions should be of materials compatible with the historic fabric of the house. The use of wood is most appropriate. However, cementitious board may be considered for additions and follow the design guidelines established for construction of primary buildings. the proposal to reconstruct the driveway meets two five B driveways that are new should be located at the rear side of the house and not be visually dominant the proposal also meets three five C and three five D which state respectively driveway should be of concrete asphalt pavers or grassy pavers and should have their parking located in rear yards. Recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Provide final door and window details and specifications to staff for the BOAR for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. Provide final railing details to staff or BOAR for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness and then number three 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 work and once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work the deadline for board action is June 24th 2019. Okay, that's the completion of the staff report. Thank you. What this really is doing is making a two-family building. You've got everything upstairs that you need to rent it out, except you don't have a second means of egress. Clay Avenue is really vulnerable to having this approach, if this were to pass. doing it yes ma'am what in review on-site visits to the pro to the property it was already being rented as to property or as two units previously and previously you came through the front door and there were stairs that went up to the second floor that allowed that to be you know rented as two units and it has been historically this is just bringing it into compliance with zoning regulations and the use does it have two is it set up for two um electrical units or is it still just one single utility service that i cannot answer you should know that okay thank you ma'am so basically what is happening is we're converting it into a duplex essentially bringing it into compliance with regulation the code and zoning yes by constructing that exterior steller yes well no it was already it could it could already be rented as two separate units that's not why i'm asking we're now constructing an exterior stairway right yes we are the applicant is yes miss harrow So at some point when the owners added the rear addition, that basically only houses a rear staircase and a second HVAC unit upstairs. so the the way it was used previously is that there's the front staircase that went to the attic has a locked door and people that were running upstairs would come in through the back door and use the rear staircase to go upstairs although it wasn't it was more of an efficiency where it had a separate living space its own air conditioning unit and bedroom and bathroom it was that's how but that when whenever they built the addition that's there that we're proposing to take off it was I mean that entire space just holds a staircase that that whole addition serves no purpose right now except for access to the second floor and so how long has this property been used in this manner? I don't have a full history of it. I just purchased the property. The woman who owned it previously has owned it since 1973 and she has done everything in the world not to take care of this property and this is a huge undertaking to bring this property back to life. Trying to remove vinyl siding, you know, we have to you know fix the the foundation is in disrepair bricks and disrepair the chimneys are in disrepair so anyway do you have other questions I'm still really not in favor of this this approach just because it has been done before isn't anything we need to hear I think the form of the addition is inappropriate for the style of the house and I think that if we if we allow this to go forward, we're going to see many more in that area come behind you. And I don't want to see that. Those are bungalows on Clay Avenue. It faces the park. And, you know, you could drive around the neighborhoods off line of stone across from the university and see what this approach has done to the staff. And I don't think I don't think it's appropriate and I just can't support it. Okay. Any other comments or questions from the board members my my questions have to do with a few drawing inconsistencies that i just i can't hear you a few drawing inconsistencies that i want to kind of have clarified a little bit the stairway exterior stairway the floor plans show so let's see side plan shows it one way and the floor plans show it another Yes, so on A0 it shows access, the stairway access to the deck from one direction, and then on A2 it shows it in a reverse direction. So which is it? The reverse direction is the final, and I guess it's a possible action. Is that Barry the wrong final file? Could you step up to the mic? Sorry. I'm sorry. So, yeah, the deck comes up or the stairway comes up to the back from the reverse of what you see is actually the correct version of it. And I do have that on my laptop. yeah the other thing to just note and this would be a small thing to correct but on the first floor plan which is a2 that's showing on the first floor on the upper left hand it shows that closet coming into the window which clearly won't be constructed in that manner i don't have a pointer i mean that's currently um part of the that are you talking about the dormer no i'm talking about uh in the new edition on the first floor on the closet that's in bedroom number two um the wall of the closet on that back side shows the wall of that closet coming into the window i see yeah yeah in other words the window is going to be in your closet if you build it in that manner right well both yeah that looks like that needs adjusting i mean is are you not allowed to have a window in a closet no it's just that you don't really want a wall coming in to exactly yeah that's into your window oversight on her part ability yes i think my question has to do with um with what the um and you may have already addressed this and i missed it so my apologies on this but has to do with um what the zoning regulations are on this piece of property about being able to have it officially be uh have two apartments in it it's zoned r3 and it's already been assigned a separate address through my permitting process with the city so it's in full compliance with the properties located in the infill so we are under the regulations as far as the how many square feet we can have in relation to the size of the lot it complies with zoning it complies with the historic guidelines as far as you know lowering the roof and and tucking back um and i um you know my intention is not to rent to college students i'm trying to bring this property back to life and make it beautiful and get rid of the metal roof that was snuck in under the cover of darkness and and make the dormer proportionate which was snuck in under the cover of darkness and i've removed all the vinyl siding and so it's it takes a lot of love to to bring these properties back to life and it's i mean that's what i'm trying to do that's what i did previously with the house over on oldham avenue that is in a you know primarily a college rental area and i you know embraced the fact that it was in a historical district and tried to you know really bring that back to life and it's you know it turned out to be a beautiful house on the street and that's 100 my intentions with this house just trying to as far as the size to make it to where you know you know people these days they want their own bathroom they want you know and and you know so this was you know when we When I sat down with my architect, we were designing something that was in compliance with all the historical regulations, within compliance with the zoning, and what the potential is for this property as far as what the city has laid out for it. The staff would just note, to be sure everybody's on the same page, and Ms. Murphy has been talking with me briefly about this while this is being discussed, Of course, as everybody is aware, but just so we're sure it's in the record that way, that the underlying land use zoning is not in the purview of this board. However, certainly the manner in which you accomplish constructing to utilize what that underlying land use allows is within the purview of this board. so and I would note for you as the owner you know the square footage is allowed within the various zoning regulatory pieces and the fact that you're within the intercore area about additions and such this process can be more restrictive than those and I think you're aware of that so I just wanted generally. Ms. Murphy is that? My concern is I just didn't want us to that we stayed within the guidelines which are concerning the aesthetics and whether it conforms to the guidelines for the architecture of it not the use of the space. If it's already been used as two units it can be used as two units regardless and even if it even if that's not what people would like to have in historic but that's they can use their property however they choose it just has the architecture has to fit within the guidelines I think that distinction is worth noting for the record that we are this is an R3 zoning area and consequently you can have multiple households living in the same building I think what Sarah's trying to get at is that there perhaps might be a better way to put this addition on to your house it may simply be the way this drawing is done but the perspective of the drawing on the first page it just makes it look like a big square box shoved up against the house that is the way it looks and then and that seems to be is what doesn't appear to be a conformity with the guidelines because I think the rhythm and proportion and I'm not the architect here I'm the lawyer here but the rhythm and proportion of what appears to be essentially a square box doesn't seem to fit nicely into a bungalow style house and i think that's what's we're we're wrestling with here so inadvertently this may have turned into a conceptual review on you yeah well i'm not an architect either i just uh well i'm wondering and josh i haven't heard from you yet one one particular thing that's I'm noticing is just the way the porch or this deck is adjacent to the rear gutter and the roof slope back there. Formally, I don't think that follows with what we're looking for on this board or in these guidelines. If you go to the axon image at the first page of the drawing, the easiest. Yes. And that back stairwell just gives me shutters. yeah and then from what standpoint it's too steep you're gonna have weather issues is it's it's really on site I didn't mean to interrupt Josh I mean it's just it really draws out to it and that's not that that's not the purpose of a rear stairwell Josh I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you yeah this one's hard for me to articulate but the best I can I can refer to is just in the guidelines with oh I had it where'd it go guideline 3.i porch height and depth porch heights should be consistent with those of adjacent buildings along the street and in the historic district porch depth should be a minimum of six feet. So that begins to speak to kind of the location and the proportion of porches. Up above that, under just three with the third bullet, talks about compatible and scale. So I think this one's not proportional to the original struck. Well, proportion may not be the right word, but it's located wrong. Having it just adjacent to that roof slope next to you is not right. I'm also noticing on your floor plan, on the second floor, you have a note for chimney to be removed. it's in bedroom number one and all your other drawings you've got them chimney to remain what's the story there the chimneys remaining okay I think your designer can come up with a more proportional solution and when you say proportional do you just mean smaller or a different shape or I mean yeah if I follow the above actually well I mean I look at I look at what's there and what an improvement it would be based on what you're looking at currently and I guess that's where I went from here yeah so as far as but I I don't know how else to improve the functionality of the house in a different shape. Am I asking that question correctly? So there's more than one option available there, and that'll be up to your designer. Do you have some insight into that to give us a place to start, I guess? I guess I'm trying to understand. I mean, I would love to give you guys what you're looking for. I think for me, problem number one is the porch and how it's located to the. You're talking about the front porch now? The back porch. Back porch, okay. Is it the scale of it? Just the way you. You're talking about that back deck? Yeah, the back deck on the second level. Right. With the stairs going up to it. You never see those adjacent a roof slope like that. or if they do, it's a mess. And that's what this board is trying to avoid. So if you wanted a second story outdoor space, would you put it behind and not on the side of the building? That would be an option. You can change the proportions of your bedroom. take that and roll it 90 degrees I don't know which one to look at I can't see this one very well it would be an entire redesign of your addition which bedroom are you talking about the one in the addition on the first floor oh okay so say again what you're suggesting so one option could be and I'm thinking out loud I have not fully redrawn your building yet is to take that bedroom. Don't make it as deep as it is, but make it more shallow and more wide. Where your crawl space and your air conditioner sits would be a decent spot for a bathroom. So you could get your second bathroom in there, leave a hallway between your bedroom and your bathroom, and exit out the back of the building. Well, there's actually, to get into the basement, It's actually like a big storm cellar, so I can't really move that. You know, it's like a metal lid and steps. There's ways to handle that, too. Just relocate the entrance? Relocate it. Okay. I'm wondering if you've actually explored whether there's a way to get rid of that back egress and maybe try to incorporate it into the building itself. That would be great. as opposed to having it on the outside. You've got liability issues with bad weather and people going up and down steps that aren't properly cleaned off. Yeah, and I had that raised. Well, one thing that we considered was, I mean, there's that when you go in the front door, there's a pretty good-sized foyer where you could try to construct an interior space and then kind of have that as a common entrance and then have when you go into the to the living room on the left you know make that maybe french doors glass doors that have the ability to lock and then go upstairs um so i mean that was an option that we considered um might be do we have any idea of what the the rear of the house looked like before and i think you'll agree with me that the atrocious addition was put on it do you have any pictures of what the house looked like before i don't okay i mean it looks like it's been there a long time it's a rather interesting addition i mean the windows the windows in there are um this house is a hundred years old and so all the windows on the first floor are um the wooden windows and they're on the pulley system right and so the um My only point of reference is the windows that are in the addition are on the same pulley system. And then they look like they went to the junkyard and grabbed a few odds and end windows to put on the first. Because they're all different, they don't make any sense, but they're all old and wood. I was actually going to try to reuse one of the picture windows upstairs because it's actually really pretty, but it's just really odd where it's located now. so that made me think that I mean I don't how do you think that might be buried I mean I don't know how long they've had stucco but that's real Miss Curry if memory serves me correctly there are a couple of bungalows over on ransom that have been renovated with an addition put on to the rear of them that was more proportional you might want to look at those they're all over on ransom the addresses escape me but they're down towards central. And there was a fairly significant addition. We had to fight through it a little bit, but there was a fairly significant addition added to it that gave that person who redeveloped that property basically another living unit. And when we finally got done with it, it looked proportional to a bungalow-style house. So that might be a design you want to look at and see if that might not work better for you. What I would like to suggest we do is continue this hearing, let you see if you can come up with a different plan and submit it to the staff for review. Also, one quick question. Is your kitchen new? Are you getting a brand new kitchen out of this, or you're trying to reuse stuff? On the first floor, the kitchen would be brand new. Okay. yeah all right so the floors we have we're able to save all the existing floors on the first floor so it's a really beautiful pine that's currently painted black so but yeah the the kitchen was in Habitat for Humanity wouldn't take this kitchen just saying there so they said thank you for the The only reason I'm asking, and actually I don't have any business inside of your house anyways from being on this board, but that could be a strategy in your pocket if you wanted to relocate that over where you've got on the other side of the house. And I'm not saying do that. I'm just saying you've got a ton of options available to you. It's not hopeless here. There are definitely a lot of different ways that this could be laid out, but trying to stay within, trying to not have additional plumbing costs, moving plumbing, where the proposed exit door is, is basically going back to the original back entrance. You know, so a lot of these things are kind of going back to originally kind of how the house was laid out so that there's already a door there. There's already, you know, as far as like the access to the crawl space, I mean, it's, you know, there's concrete steps that go down into it. It's kind of a full height crawl space for part of it that accommodates the HVAC and hot water heaters. you know so I'm so confused about your chimneys how many are in the house? three okay thank you that clears it up okay okay what's the consensus of the board members I think we should continue this and let Ms. Terrell have another look at it because I don't think it's going to pass right now is why I'm suggesting that oh I understand that yeah and if there's anything miss tate wants to add that would help give me some direction as to i think it would be a good thing to run it past the fire marshal because you only have one way of egressing that second floor and it's an outside entrance and i don't think that that's gonna fly Does building inspection have, when they go through the permitting process, do they? They will. They have an every Tuesday meeting where fire comes and sits at the table. And so things like that are reviewed. But I think at the stage you're at, it would benefit everybody, yourself particularly as the owner, to get some feedback on that sooner. than later which is why the building inspection asked is that we um that we add a um a one hour fire rated drywall ceiling um over top of the existing plaster um and that was the only um that was the only thing that they um had offered as something that they you know felt like was necessary so i didn't i didn't have any more feedback on that other than the other than the addition of the kind of dropping the ceiling down and a special drywall that if staff might suggest to i think we've to my knowledge never had an opportunity to meet with you and your architect you've we've they've met with you but not with your architect with you is that correct yes okay i think it'd be beneficial to meet bring your architect to a meeting with the staff and you know let's talk through some of these issues with your person actually doing the design because it's challenging to kind of relay all these issues back particularly when there are several options about how to try to resolve this in a way that will work for you and for the historic district as well so if you would like to consider that we would be delighted to work with you all toward that end. Okay. This is part of the process sometimes, and I thank you for your patience and accommodation on that. Sure, thank you. Appreciate your attention. Do I have a motion to continue this to what's the close off date? I think you're going to need a while. You're going to need to June. And what's the our next meeting is when in June? June. June is the last one. June 24th, right? And that's too soon. Nobody can do anything productive in that amount of time. June is the 26th. Okay, then we're going to have to. So the 24th is your deadline for action, but you as the property owner can agree to extend along with the board, so that's not a problem in order to get there. I'm confused. Your deadline for action is tied to the date that you submitted your materials, and it is just a parameter of time that this process is to vote it up or vote it down or vote it with conditions or anything, but to take action. So in light of where this has evolved to, June 24th. Okay, that's right. But our meeting dates are in June. The next meeting is June 12th, which is too soon, because we'd have to have your revised drawings, like, in two days. Okay. That won't work. So the 26th of June is two days after that date. But if you are in agreement, all you have to do is sign a waiver, you know, that gives more time. And then the chair of the board signs the waiver. So the June 26th meeting date is a possibility as long as you're amenable to just extending the time period for this to get worked out. And we normally would put like a 30-day extension. So we would extend 30 days from June 24th or something like that. I'm sorry, I don't understand what the extension's for. The extension is to allow you all to work on this to get some time to get it resolved. I don't understand how that's tied to any, I mean, I'm just not. It's a procedural, yeah, it's an internal procedural mechanism. Then I don't need to know. You don't need to get bogged down. I'm sorry, I was just like, I'm trying to. Internally, you have to have, the board has to take action by certain conditions on all applications. And unfortunately, if it's not a way found to keep working on it, you can end up, and I'm not saying this in any kind of a woo-hoo, but trying to get this voted on before it's really gotten worked on would not be necessarily to the best outcome. Sure. Absolutely. Sounds like there's more questions than answers at this point. Right. Okay, so do I have a motion and an agreement by you that we'll continue this to June 26th? Yes. All right. Do I have a second to that fact? Second. All right. I should have asked the question first. Go ahead, ma'am. If I had something in two days, is it an option to come to the June 12th meeting? If you have something ready in two days and you want to get it scheduled for the June 12th meeting, you can do that. But the practical reality, we've got a lot of other deadlines, and I'm not sure we can even get with you in two days to sit and have what should be a pretty lengthy meeting, quite frankly. to be of any benefit. So I don't want to discourage you, but I don't... Well, I just wanted to make sure I understood all the options. Yeah, I understand that, and I get it. This isn't a board that people come before on a regular basis, so... I understand. Well, and actually sometimes this process really begins with the filing of a conceptual review before you even start the application process and that clock ticking. So what has happened to you, unfortunately, is we've turned this into a conceptual review, but we're under the clock. So with your consent and agreement, we can schedule this, let you come up with some good plans and good designs, and hopefully we'll have something we can approve on June 26th. Okay. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, Chair calls the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. We're continued to June 26th. Thank you. Thank you so much, ma'am. Okay, I don't believe... May I have a napkin or a tissue, please? I'll scratch myself. I think I'll do some time to time. So what I'm doing is putting July 26th. Do we have any other business reports? It doesn't mean it'll be July 26th. I don't believe we do. Window of time. Let me look at the agenda. You'll be on the docket for the 26th if you get your... All right, then I'm ready for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Second. We stand adjourned. Thank you so much. I don't know how I did that, but I was questioning myself. I love filling these out on the fly. All right. Fourth. I've got other sheets. Oh, you will.