# Board of Architectural Review - September 11, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · September 11, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4838 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4838?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-09-11 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 5, 2026 - **Length**: 16,672 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 September 11, 2019, with the Chair presiding over the session. The Board reviewed six agenda items, all involving properties within various historic districts throughout the city, including applications from the Bell Court Historic District, Aylesford Historic District, Woodward Heights Historic District, and Ashland Park Historic District. During the meeting, the Board took six votes on the applications before them. Four properties received approval for their proposed projects: 605 Boonesboro Avenue in the Bell Court Historic District, 317 Park Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District, 321 Madison Place in the Woodward Heights Historic District, and 247 North Mill Street. One application at 203 Arlington Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District was denied by the Board. The final item concerning 1012-1014 Fincastle Road in the Ashland Park Historic District was postponed for future consideration. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, allowing the Board to focus entirely on the technical review of the architectural applications. The session demonstrated the Board's ongoing role in preserving the historic character of the city's designated historic districts while evaluating contemporary development and renovation proposals. ## Attendance All board members were present for the September 11, 2019 meeting. **Present:** • Amelia • John Cox • Scott Book • Michelle Costello-Clark • Rob Deal • Chico Nichols • Brad Risco • Jill Farfan **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on six Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) applications during the September 11, 2019 meeting. All votes were conducted by voice vote with specific vote counts and individual member positions not recorded in the available data. **Approved Applications:** • **16-840-445-J (605 Boonesboro Avenue)**: The Chair motioned for approval with conditions, which passed. Standard conditions were applied requiring changes and review by LFUCG divisions. • **14600317 (317 Park Avenue)**: The Chairman motioned for approval with standard conditions, which passed. • **09300321 (321 Madison Place)**: The Chair motioned for approval without conditions, which passed. • **13140247-I (247 North Mill Street)**: The Chair motioned for approval with specific conditions, which passed. The conditions require the applicant to provide doors and windows without muntins and submit final details for staff review. **Denied Application:** • **00610203-6 (203 Arlington Avenue)**: The Chair motioned for disapproval of the COA application, which passed. **Postponed Application:** • **1012-1014 Fincastle Road**: The Chairman motioned to postpone this application, which passed. No application identifier was recorded for this item. All motions were made by either "Chair," "Mr. Chair," or "Mr. Chairman" with seconds from unidentified board members. The voice vote format used throughout the meeting means individual member voting positions were not recorded, though all motions carried successfully. Transcript timestamps were not available in the source materials for any of the voting actions. The Board's decisions reflect their authority to approve, deny, or postpone COA applications for properties within historic districts, with the ability to attach conditions to approvals as deemed necessary for historic preservation compliance. ## Contested Items The Board meeting on September 11, 2019, featured one contested item that generated heated discussion among participants. **203 Arlington Avenue Window Change** The primary point of contention involved a proposal to modify a window opening at 203 Arlington Avenue. The applicant had requested consideration for changes to the existing window configuration, but the proposal faced significant opposition during the review process. The disagreement centered on whether the proposed window modifications met the established guidelines for the property. Board members engaged in heated discussion regarding the merits of the application and the interpretation of relevant standards. Despite the applicant's efforts to present their case and request special consideration for the project, the Board ultimately determined that the proposal did not satisfy the required guidelines. The outcome was a denial of the window change request. The Board's decision was based on their assessment that the proposed modifications failed to meet the applicable standards, regardless of the applicant's arguments for approval. This contested item demonstrated the Board's commitment to maintaining established guidelines while also highlighting the challenges that can arise when property owners seek modifications that may not align with existing requirements. The heated nature of the discussion suggests there were differing viewpoints among participants about how strictly the guidelines should be applied in this particular case. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided data for this contested item.* ## 605 Boonesboro Avenue (Bell Court Historic District) The Board reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for 605 Boonesboro Avenue, located within the Bell Court Historic District. The proposal involved paving an existing gravel driveway at the property. Amelia presented the application to the Board, noting that while the applicant was not present at the meeting, they had agreed with the staff findings and recommendations regarding the proposed work. The application requested approval to pave the current gravel driveway, which would change the surface material from gravel to a paved surface. Staff had reviewed the proposal for compliance with the historic district guidelines and standards. The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness with standard conditions. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with paving the gravel driveway while ensuring the work meets the established preservation standards for the Bell Court Historic District. The straightforward nature of the application and the applicant's agreement with staff recommendations facilitated a smooth review process, with no significant concerns or debate raised during the discussion. ## 317 Park Avenue (Aylesford Historic District) The Board reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for 317 Park Avenue, located within the Aylesford Historic District. The request involved the construction of a shed on the property. The applicant was not present at the meeting to present the proposal or answer questions from Board members. Despite the applicant's absence, the Board proceeded with their review of the submitted materials. Mr. Chairman led the discussion of this agenda item. The Board determined that the proposed shed construction was appropriate for the historic district and would not negatively impact the historic character of the area. The Board voted to approve the certificate of appropriateness with standard conditions. These standard conditions typically include requirements for materials, construction methods, and other specifications that ensure compatibility with the historic district's character and guidelines. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with constructing the shed in accordance with the submitted plans and any applicable standard conditions established by the Board for projects within the Aylesford Historic District. ## 321 Madison Place (Woodward Heights Historic District) The Board reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for 321 Madison Place, located within the Woodward Heights Historic District. The proposal involved demolishing an addition to the existing structure. Applicant John Cox was present to represent the project during the Board's consideration of the application. The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness with no conditions attached to the approval. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item, as the approximate discussion time was not recorded in the meeting documentation.* ## 247 North Mill Street The Board reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for the construction of a garage at 247 North Mill Street. The applicant, Scott Book, was present to discuss the proposal. The application involved plans to construct a new garage on the property. During the review process, the Board evaluated the proposed design for its compatibility with the historic character of the area and adherence to preservation guidelines. Following discussion of the project details, the Board approved the certificate of appropriateness with specific conditions. The approval included requirements regarding the doors and windows to be used in the garage construction, ensuring they would be appropriate for the historic district. **Outcome:** Approved with conditions regarding doors and windows **Key Participants:** - Scott Book (applicant) The conditional approval allows the project to proceed while maintaining standards consistent with the historic preservation requirements for the district. ## 203 Arlington Avenue (Aylesford Historic District) The Board reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for 203 Arlington Avenue, located within the Aylesford Historic District. The application involved a proposed change to an opening on the property. Applicant Michelle Costello-Clark was present to discuss the proposal with the Board. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended disapproval, citing that the proposed changes did not meet the established historic district guidelines. The Board ultimately denied the certificate of appropriateness application, following the staff recommendation that the proposal was not in compliance with the historic district's preservation standards and guidelines. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 1012-1014 Fincastle Road (Ashland Park Historic District) The Board considered a certificate of appropriateness application for 1012-1014 Fincastle Road, located within the Ashland Park Historic District. The proposed project involved multiple exterior modifications including the construction of a rear deck, stairs, greenhouse, and patio. Additional changes included alterations to existing openings, modifications to a side canopy, and updates to porch steps. Amelia served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item, though the specific details of her presentation and any concerns raised during the deliberation were not captured in the available meeting materials. Following the Board's review and discussion, the application was postponed until the September 25th meeting. The decision to postpone suggests that additional information, revisions, or further consideration may have been needed before the Board could make a final determination on the certificate of appropriateness. The postponement allows the applicant additional time to address any issues that may have been identified during the initial review, or provides the Board with more time to thoroughly evaluate the proposed changes within the context of the Ashland Park Historic District's preservation guidelines and standards. --- ## Decisions - **16-840-445-J** — passed (0-0): Approval of the COA for 605 Boonesboro Avenue with conditions - **14600317** — passed (0-0): Approval of the COA for 317 Park Avenue - **09300321** — passed (0-0): Approval of the COA for 321 Madison Place - **13140247-I** — passed (0-0): Approval of the COA for 247 North Mill Street with conditions - **00610203-6** — passed (0-0): Disapproval of the COA for 203 Arlington Avenue - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of application for 1012-1014 Fincastle Road --- ## Full transcript ទឋ្បំទេые ំញ្រាលឲជ្៏ះព្រ្ល់អ្រ, កតឭំព្នាមហូចធរ់រភំងវោែមḥយនិ君េំងវីរ កឬេយ,។ភំព។ រ឵កីធកុំរុតជីស្រេដក្រក្រុតជីស្រុត្រក្រ្រូច្រូច្រោះចម្រោម្រកៅរ្រូច្រាលាតវាកើងដុំរេដ់ក្រិត្រុត្រាមហូ� The Board was established by Zoning Ordinance in 1958. Our first Historic District was Branch Park, and we now have a total of 15 Historic Districts. The Board, which is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and 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 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 14 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District, at 116 Deshaies Road, repair tile roof. At 206 Deshaies Road, renovate structure. At 208 Deshaies Road, renovate structure. At 339 Deshaies Road, renovate structure. In the Ellsworth Historic District, at 309 East Maxwell Street, repair the rear staircase system. At 146 Kentucky Avenue, install radon pipe. At 170 Old Park Avenue, reissue the COA. In the Belcourt Historic District, at 220 Belle Place, replace structure and site. In the South Hill Historic District, at 207 South Limestone, install pergola. At 312 South Upper Street, renovate structure. In the Northside Historic District, replace roof at 408 West 3rd Street. In the Woodford Heights Historic District, at 828 West High Street, restore the front porch railing. Also in the Woodford Heights Historic District, at 318 Madison Place, replace the deck. And finally, in the Woodford Heights Historic District, at 818 West Maxwell Street, repair replaced front steps. We'll turn now to our first application. At 605 Boonesboro Avenue, pave gravel driveway. Is the applicant here? Somebody? Somebody? Amelia? This is 605 Boonesboro. This is to replace the driveway apron. The applicant is not here at the moment. And today, he had a former commitment, but is agreeable with all the findings. Okay. I'll note that the staff has recommended approval without any significant changes. I suggest that we move forward with it. Any comments from the board members? Any comments or questions from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regard to case number 16-840-445-J, located at 605 Boonesboro Avenue, I recommend approval of the COA with the two requirements, typical requirements, that are listed. And if you wouldn't mind, read them into the record for the first time, please. I'd be glad to. These are the standard recommendations. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Number two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Okay. Thank you. And we'll refer to those as the standard conditions from here on out. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes, and the COA as conditioned is approved. Turning now to case number 14600317 at 317 Park Avenue. This scope of work is to install a storage building. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not here, but I have not heard if he's agreeable with the findings or not. Okay. Once again, I'll note this has also been recommended for approval with the standard conditions. Any questions or comments from the staff or from the board members? If not, any questions from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness on case number 14600317 at 317 Park Avenue. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair calls the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes, and the COA as conditioned is approved. Turning now to case number 09300321, 321 Madison Place. The scope of work is demolish rare edition. Is the applicant here? Yay. Hello. State your name for the record, please. John Cox. All right. Mr. Cox, thank you for coming. Oh, you're welcome. Actually, the staff has recommended approval as submitted with no conditions. Okay. Obviously, you're in agreement. I'm sorry? Obviously, you're in agreement with that. Yes, I'm in agreement with that. Any questions or comments from the board members? I have just two. Sure. And it's related to the staff report that the COA, at this point, is for removal of the existing two-story edition. Yes. Which we have plans to replace at some point, and I'm assuming then that that will be brought before the board for preliminary conceptual review. Yes. All right. Thank you. Just curious, do you have a time frame for that yet? On the demolition or the building back? Building back. Building back probably sometime next year, just because we're going to get into the winter months and everything else. And Haviland is finishing a project in Goshen, Kentucky, right now. So once he's wrapped up there, he plans to come back and focus more on the house. Okay. Since it's a non-conforming edition, irrespective of your plans, it needs to be, I think the demolition is approvable. Any other comments or questions? Any comments from the audience? If not, then the chair asks for a motion. Chair, in regard to case number 0900321 at 321 Madison Place, I recommend approval of the COA as noted by the staff. All right. A second? I second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, then the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and your demolition request has been approved. Thank you all. Thank you, sir. Hope to see you in about a year or sooner. All right. Turning now to case number 13140247-I, 247 North Mill Street, in the Grants Park Historic District, scope of work, demolished garage, construct garage. Is the applicant here? Scott Book, 1320 Bryan Avenue. Mr. Books, good to see you again. Good to see you. All right. The staff has recommended approval of your request. I think they had one, what I would call a substantive condition, that being to provide the doors and windows without mutton, submit the final door and window details and specifications of staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA, and the other two, of course, are the standard conditions. Are you in agreement with that condition? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions or comments from the Board members? Any comments from the audience? All right. The chair is ready for a motion. Your turn. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 13140247-I, at 247 North Mill Street, I move to approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, provide doors and windows without muttons, submit the final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, and number two and three are our standard conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes, and the COA is conditioned as approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. We're turning now to our next application at 203 Arlington Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District, Scope of Work Change Opening. Yes, hello. My name is Michelle Costello-Clark of 203 Arlington Avenue. Okay. The Board has actually recommended disapproval of the application. Would you like to be heard on that? I would, yes. All right. Let's have our presentation then by the staff. And if you'll take a seat and thank you. 203 Arlington Avenue. The scope of work is to change the opening. The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to raise the sill of a side window in the brick wall up 17 inches. The replacement window is proposed to be similar in style with brick and concrete or a stone sill to infill at the bottom of the window opening. This is front elevation at 203. This is looking from the rear. And this is the window in question. Dennis, is that the window that's in the kitchen? Yes, sir. Okay. This is a head-on shot. And these are some photos that the applicant had supplied, and she also has some more that she will be showing you. The guidelines are included for your use. Findings. Staff finds that the proposal to infill the bottom of the rear window does not meet the guidelines. The design principle states window openings should also not be partially enclosed for the installation of smaller windows. Guideline 124A states windows should be preserved and maintained in their original location, size, and design, and with their original materials and number of panes. Staff recommends denial of the proposal to reduce the height of the window, and the deadline for board action is October 10th. Ms. Clark? And I'll just remind you, you need to speak into the very sensitive microphones that are a little tricky at times. Okay, so these are existing drawings that I created of the kitchen. You can see the current layout with the window shown on the north there, the window in question on the north wall in the center of the room. I think there's a little pointer thing. Good word thing. There we go. Do you have it, Dennis? No. This one? I'm sorry, I don't know which button. That one? Okay, the red one? Is it working? Okay, yeah, here you go. Here's our window in question. We have existing openings here, here, and here. This is the main path from the back door through the house. You can see that currently the only countertops included are this small L shape, along with a large island. Here is an elevation view, an interior elevation view of that space with the island in the center, and the window extends significantly down, as we saw in the photo as well. Can I see the A101 drawing, please? Okay. Something happened to your – did you mean for it to go off? There we go. Yes, okay. So here is proposed renovation for the kitchen. I would say that this kitchen has not been touched since the 1990s and is in need of some repair soon. So in this proposed layout, the cabinetry extends along the wall. The existing openings remain with a small infill here, and we take up this room as part of the kitchen as well with a peninsula in this space. Here's the elevation view of that same wall with the window raised above the sink here. You can see from this view that we gain a lot more storage and a lot more functionality. I will say that I purchased this house in 2011, and since that time a dog and two children have come to live with me as well. So it's a heavy-use space, and we really love this house. I intend to stay there for a long time. I walk to work. I walk to daycare. I hope to walk to school and really just want to make this the best house it can be. Are there any questions? I'm wondering, is there a workaround inside that might make that window a half window for your purposes, such as putting a cabin in front of it and just block the window without changing the window itself? I'd have to be careful on water infiltration, I think, with the sink located there, and I don't know how operable the window would be at that point. Well, probably you'd lose the operation of the window. Yeah. But in today's, I assume your house is air-conditioned or not? It is, yes. Okay. Occasionally the smoke alarm goes off in there, and we have to help it up. Is that the only window in the kitchen? It is, yeah. Through this door opening here, there's a window in the back, which was a former porch, I think, that was enclosed, so you can get light from there as well. But that is the only natural light in that room. Okay. Any questions from the board members? I've seen this in so many houses of that generation, and I think those windows are so nice because in most more contemporary buildings, they make shorter windows over a sink, and they let the cabinet design come first. One thing I really love about the houses of this vintage are those big windows that go down. I know a number of the projects that I had seen left the window where it was and put a box cabinet underneath it and just put a pillow on the top, had one made, and it was a place to sit. And I think to keep, from my opinion, to keep that original window is more important than putting the sink there. In that whole room, there must be another way to just flip some of them and put a little bench underneath it, particularly now that you have two children living with you. You make them sit down over there and talk to you. Susan, anything? I love your old house. I did drive by in looking at the photographs before I went. Each window has its kind of special relationship to the outside of the house as well as the inside of the house, and to change one of them makes it stand out more as a window that was added as opposed to a window that was revised. And I agree with Sarah that, in this instance, it seems to me that the kind of integrity of the house can surely be celebrated by figuring out a way to create use within that kitchen and be able to hang on to that existing original window. Josh, anything? I have no comment. We have an obligation to adhere to the guidelines, and you're certainly not faulted for asking for some kind of a waiver or an exception to that. The difficulty here is that, given the uniformity of your windows, for us to approve this kind of a change would really quite – you may not be quite sympathetic to this yet – but would really mar the appearance of the outside of the house. It would really be – frankly, it would become somewhat jarring. I think you can probably find a creative solution to make your interior work without changing the window out, and I'm afraid we're just going to have to go ahead and disapprove this application. Okay. Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, I'm ready for a motion. Ms. Clark, I want to thank you for your time. I wish we could do more for you, but I'm very, very thankful you didn't do it before we had the application. Of course. So thank you for adhering to the process. All right. Do I have a motion? Mr. Chair, in regard to case 00610203-6 located at 203 Arlington Avenue, I recommend disapproval of this request per the staff's review and recommendation. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion to disapprove, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the application is disapproved. Thank you, Ms. Clark. All right. We don't have any minutes. I take it. And we have a ‑‑ I always lose my agenda. We have one item that has been postponed. Do I need to take a motion? Do I need a motion on that? On that, this has become your second conceptual review on this docket, this case. Okay. So the postponement will make it until September 25th, your next available meeting. So if you would, make a motion to that effect. Okay. I need a motion to that effect, please. Somebody. Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone case number, well, number six. Application for 1012 through 1014. Yes, thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. The application is postponed to September 25th, 2019. Thank you. There not being any minutes, correct? That's correct. All right. Then we're ready to move into the conceptual review portion of our presentation. All right. This is the conceptual review for 601 East High Street. I never realized it had an address at Woodland Park. And if the applicants, and this is an application proposed by the City Parks and Recreation as the owner, and who is present for the applicant? Good evening. I am Rob Deal with JRA Architects. I'm representing the Parks and Rec Department tonight for the property. All right. And with me is Chico Nichols with my office as well. All right, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Berry, you want to take us through a presentation? All right. And so you'll need to step out of the way. You have to come up and sit down. I have to get you introduced first. All right. As you know, this is a conceptual review, 601 East High Street in Woodland Park. The applicant, or the scope of work is to demolish the restroom building and construct a new restroom building. The applicant is requesting, well, it should be a conceptual review to demolish a concrete masonry unit restroom building that was originally a maintenance facility that's been turned into a restroom. And then they'll propose to construct a brick and cementitious clapboard-sided walls restroom building, which I'll let the architects talk more about that. But this is the existing restroom building that sits adjacent to the tennis courts and the skate park. So this is the parking lot off of Kentucky. And this is the location proposed for the new restroom facility. It's going to be quite a bit larger, opposing shed roofs on the two different wings. And then they have two different color proposals, which we'll let them talk about more. What are we doing? The guidelines are included for your use. Findings. The staff has no findings, as this is a conceptual review. But the following are a few issues that the board may want to consider. Is it appropriate to demolish the existing restroom building? Is the siting of the proposed building appropriate? Is the extent of the new concrete surfaces overwhelming? Are the exterior materials appropriate? In order to answer that, they will have to provide you a little more information. Is the fenestration appropriate? Is the height of the structure appropriate? There are no recommendations at this time and no deadline for board action. All right. Thank you very much. Now your turn. Thank you. It may be easier for me to use the microphone. It would be. Let me just ask one real quick. I guess it goes without. I'm assuming that the skate park is going to stay in place. Okay. All right. Yes. Okay. Just a few responses to some of the staff findings. I hope I get this right. The existing building, of course, is located here. And we are proposing to move it over by the parking lot. There's a number of reasons for that. You've seen the images of the existing building. It is in somewhat of disrepair. There's a sewer issue with it currently that the city is looking to avoid investing additional money into the building. It also has issues with its siting with vandalism and security, partially because of its plan where it's kind of a dog trot plan. It has an open breezeway through the middle of it. We've actually had conversations with the police department in order to find a position for the new building that enhances its visibility at night. There will be new sight lighting around the building to increase that as well that the current building does not provide. And ultimately, connecting it or at least making it adjacent to the parking lot is a security enhancement as well because the police department patrol the area frequently, gives them a place to actually come up fairly close in their vehicles and observe the building, make sure there's no vandalism or other activity at night. In terms of the siting, I think that addresses that. There was a question or comment about the extent of the new concrete surfaces. Again, we've been somewhat strategic in its placement. There's a couple of old trees that are actually stressed right now and have some issues maintaining those. So there are a couple of trees within the park that would otherwise come out. But otherwise, the healthy trees, we've positioned the building in a way that we think we can keep them active. The new paving around the building, on either side of it, the center space is reserved for a future potential cafe space. If you're familiar with the ginkgo tree that's in the Ashland area, the concept is very much the same, where there could be a cafe vendor on a nice summer day. The doors are open, be it barn doors or some other wide opening, where you kind of reestablish that breezeway through the building, but also providing some hardscape around the building with cafe tables and other features that patrons can enjoy around the building. Of course, having the restroom facilities there is advantageous as well. So that's the reason for the need of the additional paved area. In terms of exterior materials and the design, the double-shed roof, we've tried to sort of face it both to the street and to the park. That's sort of the reason with the double pitch. But it's also very consistent with the other restroom facilities and bathroom facilities that Parks and Rec has been building. So there's a palette of materials that they're comfortable with maintaining. The odds of this also having graffiti at some point is probably reasonable. So having surfaces that can be painted, like the siding that's being proposed, is advantageous to them, where instead of having the entire building be brick, that's a little harder for them to maintain. And then the height of the structure, it's a human-scale building. It's really just a little bit taller than the existing building because of the single-slope pitch tends to elevate that a little bit. But there will be some fans in that cafe area, so we need some height to have a little bit of air circulation in there. But otherwise, we've tried to keep it compact at a scale that's respectful of the park itself. About how tall is it? The top of the pitch right there is in the 16, 17-foot range, Chico, is that right? Yeah, at the tallest point. At the tallest point, it's about 16 to 17 feet tall. The fenestration is also helped by that because it lifts it off the ground a bit. I don't think it would be – it's nice to have those windows up high. Yeah. Questions or comments from the board members? You want to go? I think it's a nice project. I would point out one other little feature we've included is providing sort of poster areas, if you would, art areas, because this is where the art fair occurs. And they're seeking grant money to have artists come in and actually do something creative that can be changed out through the year on the building itself, just in support of that. If there is a cafe vendor that comes on board, we could do a menu board on one of the panels. So it gives them a lot of flexibility to really embrace what really is sort of the art park of Lexington and sort of reflect that in the building. So I have just a couple of questions. Absolutely. One has to do with the hard surface that you were just talking about, the exterior hard surface. Has there been any conversation about doing permeable papers or permeable concrete, some kind of material, so you don't end up with icy surfaces? There has been, actually. We're still early in the design, but we recognize that stormwater management is an issue. Element design will be doing the civil portion of it, and we've already had those early conversations. I'm not prepared tonight to talk about the true extent. It's possible the majority of these new areas, because if I get to be the architect, which we both are, I think there's a nice relationship, but maybe the walkways or the concrete, but yet the seating areas are distinguishable with a different paving or maybe the permeable pavers. It doesn't all have to be concrete to be successful. But yes, we are playing with that right now, yes. So I'm assuming, are you planning to have some kind of tables in front of the... I'm seeing the vending machines right now in your picture. Are you envisioning having tables or picnic tables there? Yeah, if I can go back. Oh, I can control it, great. Yeah, you can actually see the tables picked up in the plan here. There's not a multitude of them. There's three or four on either side. Again, if you're familiar with the GecoTree, I would encourage anybody to look at that, but it's a very compact, small-scale kind of environment, and that's really what they envision here. So just a few tables that can be... And there is storage for those in this area here so that they don't remain outside when the weather is inclement or the winter or whatever. So they come and go from the site. All right. Anything else? I have one more question. I'm sorry, Susan. It has to do with orientation of the building, and it's really a question about the drawings to help me understand. So the site plan on L1.1 shows north. It would indicate that the entrances into the restrooms are facing north. Yes, they are on this wall here. And the elevation drawing indicates it's a west elevation. And the reason I'm asking these questions has to do with the high windows and kind of where the light is going to be hitting that building. That's a plan north. So I've got plan north and true north marked on the floor plan. So I'm referring to the elevations in regards to plan north. Okay. But if I understand your question correctly, there's an opportunity to honor some daylight opportunity into the space if we get the orientation. But also to be careful about, obviously, due south with a high window, particularly if it's coming into just one side of those bathroom areas. It has some potential to be a real heat buildup. It's hard to read, and we haven't quite resolved it. But the intent is this overhang can be somewhat of an eyebrow and offer some of the shade. Obviously the angle in the summer is pretty high. This building won't have what I would call conventional HVAC because of its use. So actually in the winter we would like to get a little solar gain into the space. So I think there's a strategy there that we can play with the length of that eve and get it just right. Yeah, and the angle because it's steep enough that at the peak of the summer, it might keep some light out of there. But that would be my only concern is just overheating a fairly small space. But otherwise I like the buildings a lot. Thank you. Would polarized windows help any? Would polarized windows help any? I mean they would certainly be insulated with high efficiency low E glass. We could investigate some reflective character to the glass that would help additionally. It's an interesting building because you do want to know what's going on inside the building. But at the same time you have to respect people's privacy. So if we make it too solid, it will become sort of like the building they have now. And that's problematic. Right. I agree. It's a nice looking building. Thank you. Well done. In the rendering it looks like you've got a canopy coming out from the kitchen piece. The canopy is probably, this rendering preceded the idea of the cafe tables with umbrellas. So the intent going forward is that that pergola piece is not part of the project for clarity's sake. So the renderings take a little time. We did not have time to edit that prior to tonight's meeting. Well, the only other thought I've got, and this is where I get in trouble, because I don't necessarily disagree with what you have, but I think, according to our guidelines, but I think if the connector piece, the kitchen piece, if you could treat that in a way that would further make it look like two separate buildings. So it's a pair of buildings. Whereas right now it's still kind of looking like one building with just a roof change. Sure. But again, that's where I get in trouble because I'm beyond the guidelines at that point. Well, we'll certainly take it under advisement. That's the benefit of us having the conceptual review now is we haven't perfected the design quite yet. And the Parks and Rec folks have been very good to work with and very responsive to us. So I think anything that comes away tonight as a recommendation, they'll certainly look into it. Yes, absolutely. Okay, anything else? The staff has a few questions when you're ready. Just a few thoughts about additional information that will be needed for the full-blown application. We'll need the details of the proposed lighting, not only the units, but lumens and heights and all that good stuff. We will need trees, which Parks is very used to this, but we'll need written evaluation about the health of those two trees that you mentioned are perhaps not in the best of shape. The siding is cementious board, is that? Fiber cement siding, yes. Of that school. And you will need to have selected, since that's a color built within the product, you'll need to have selected that. Okay. And your masonry will need some spec on your brick sizes and so forth. And I assume, of course, as a veneer, but is it going to be a laid up brick, not a panel brick? Yes, it'll be a conventionally laid brick, yes. Okay. I know you've referenced it being influenced by the ginkgo tree at Ashland, and you're well aware that they don't have a kitchen at all, that that's a total carry it in, carry it out. That's correct, yes. So you're going to replicate that idea and not be installing a functional kitchen? That is correct. Right now there is no vendor for that. We are simply providing space right now, so on the plans it will say future cafe or something to that effect. Well, the only reason I bring it up, this process, as you're aware, does not review interior other than as it affects exterior. Right. But thinking about grease vents and the things that would come with an operational kitchen. We know enough at this point that the vendor would have to provide everything prepackaged and sort of point of sale, that there's no prep, there's no three compartment sink, there's no grease trap. From the architectural end, that's what I was trying to be sure we're all on the same page on. The discussion about reflective glass, I think, while I think the contemporary approach to the building is very successful, I think that this is a building that doesn't want to shout. And given when the light hits some of those reflective glass, that can be really quite a whoa. I think that is something that's within the guidelines to address because, of course, it's a, well, it can be tinted within the product. It also could be done by an applied film. But give some more thought to that. And I think from the intent of the guidelines, something that is subtle is where we need to head to be within that. And then one of the board members commented on the possibility of having it be looked at to see if the centerpiece would be more of a divide that kind of could let it read as two pods with that connector. I think it is within the guidelines to consider something of that concept. I don't think it has to be a one way is better than the other. But I think it needs to be something to be thought about because one of the things I think of for the Woodland Park area, of course, its first and highest signature is it is a lovely green open space. And within the guidelines, I think the intent would be for things to be, you know, not too short, not too squat, not too whatever, but also not too much of a footprint and too much of a visual dominance. And you'll see those words in our guidelines. So I would encourage you to give a little thought in talking to the parks folks to see if there's any design and or, I'm not suggesting it would change your programmatic or your footprint dimensions per se, but, you know, to give a little thought to having does that offer an opportunity that could be more of a couple of outbuildings that share a spot kind of approach. As we well know, this site long ago was a home place with a house and outbuildings and farm and all that good stuff. And nobody's suggesting we're here to replicate the past. We're certainly not. But I think some references in the architectural, both footprint and elevations, of the outbuilding slash secondary building concept, because no one is, your design is in no way trying to become a primary look at me, woohoo structure. I think as proposed, it's quite successful. I think the roof lines are very helpful. And I think they kind of save it, that having the rising up sort of saves it from that squat issue, which I think is a very real challenge in something like this. So that's just my quick punch list. And you'll want to give us a shout as you're getting closer to finalizing things. And if you'd like, send us, you're almost there. But do we see anything that's missing? Because I know you need to move somewhat quickly on this through the process. We're picking up speed, yes. Yeah. And it would help everybody's timing if you give us an opportunity to view it before you button it up for your formal application. Because what happens if we don't do that, then when the formal application all arrives, it slows it down again because we have to send you a punch list of what's missing or could be addressed. Okay. That was it. And I'll suggest if you find it necessary to come back and bring additional drawings to us for another conceptual review, we're always available to do that as well. They're on a pretty fast track. Okay. And I know that not because of these gentlemen tonight's comments, but tied to intergovernment meetings about what all this project's trying to accomplish. Where's the funding coming from? I thought we broke. It was funded last year, so that may be part of it. Build it real quick. And that may be part of the reason why you want to move it before it gets spent somewhere else? Okay. I would add one other comment I meant to point out. We have met, or at least Parks and Recs has met with the Neighborhood Association, and my understanding of that meeting was positive. So we are involving the neighborhood as well so that they're not going to be caught off guard. Well, this is a vast improvement of what currently is there. So it's a nice-looking building. It probably needs to be a little less obtrusive, but to replace that god-awful restroom building is a... And it will be raised, and it will be restored with green space and hardscape that's in context of the area around the tennis court and skate park. So that is the plan. Oh, back up one second on that. You said hardscape? It's not going to become earthen again? There are some sidewalks that we really need to connect points A to B. I don't know if that's because of where it sits, but tying it back, because where the breezeway kind of connects into the skate park, there needs to be some point of connection there, probably, that remains. Right. But I think we can improve it from how it is. Well, I suspect you certainly will, but we will need details of all that. Certainly. Yeah, that will be part of this next submission. And this will be just an observation. I know that there's the concern about the visibility of the building, but in some respects where you're locating it is not the most convenient place for it to be with respect to how the park's being used. I'm thinking you're a fair distance now from the playground area and from the skate... Yeah. It's been one of the greater challenges in the project to properly position the building. We've looked at multiple areas, and it really has been a balance between sort of the security needs of the building but also preserving the green space within the park. We had a couple of other sites that, frankly, the need to preserve the park trumped the security because we could get it a lot closer maybe to Woodland Avenue, kind of off the streetscape. But we collectively, between Parks and Rec and ourselves and our site designers and everybody involved, that did not seem to be the best choice. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? All right. I think we're through. I'll poke some pins at you. Thank you. I appreciate everybody's time and comments. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We have two conceptual reviews today, so I'm ready now to bring up to 10-12, 10-14. And I tell you what, just to save the era up and down, whose application is this? Yours? Go ahead, Amelia, and just do the presentation because I can see the applicants are here. Right. So this is 10-14, 10-12, Thin Castle. And, of course, as you all remember, we saw this back in January where the architect went before the board for a different owner. The owner was trying to convert this into a single family. The present applicants are actually wanting to keep it as a duplex. However, they do want to make changes to the structure that are similar to what we saw back in January, but just a little different. And we'll walk you through those. And we'll walk through the images right now. So right now we're seeing the actual structure. One of the proposals is to create steps leading from this door to the driveway. The steps will actually be cut into the porch and won't lead out into the driveway to get more of a direct access. One of the proposals will be to create a raised patio deck area, which we saw before, but this time the deck will actually wrap around into the driveway and utilize the door that we see in the foreground here. Part of the proposal would be to change the overhang to something more similar to this profile. In addition, there will be a proposed gate across the drive. Again, here's that overhang that's there now. And then, as we saw previously in January, part of the proposal would be to create a raised patio deck and also to include a greenhouse on top of that deck. The deck also would be raised a particular height as the sill of the existing door to create more storage underneath. In addition, there will be door and window changes to the rear. There will be a new window located here, a new window system located here, and the door will be changed slightly with this being part of the enclosed to the greenhouse. Just to give you an idea of the backyard. In addition, lastly, the applicants are proposing to install solar panels, and the solar panels will be, this is sort of a low hip roof, so the solar panels will be on the back, but they will come, we'll look at this on the plan a little further and stop around this particular area and be in this location here. To walk you through the plans, of course, here's the front, and then this is the proposed deck. And you have these actually in front of you as well. This is actually paving, hardscape. And then, again, this is sort of showing the profile of the greenhouse and sort of the flat area of the deck. And here is our elevations. As you can see on this back profile, the solar panels, the proposed window here, windows proposed here, the greenhouse will encapsulate the existing door that will be used as an entrance, and this is the raised deck area that will wrap around in this location with a new gate. Here are the steps, and this is the proposal to replace the existing overhang with the one proposed. Here are some renderings. And as this is a conceptual review, of course, there's no findings at this time. However, we have questions that would need to be put forward. First of all, on the front of the structure, does the proposal to create a new staircase system leading from the west porch to the driveway alter the character of the front mass? On the side of the structure, does the proposed removal or replacement of the side stoop create a false sense of history or change the character of the structure? Is it appropriate to remove the historic overhang canopy, and does it change the character of the structure? And then talking about sort of on the east side, are the solar panels appropriate on that side of the structure? East side, referring to that. Rear of the structure, is it appropriate to remove the existing overhang? Does that change the character of the structure? Is it appropriate to add new openings? Is the smaller window appropriately scaled? Is it appropriate to add new doors? Is it appropriate to remove the existing first floor windows and replace them with new bank of windows? That, I think, is maybe an overhang. Is it appropriate? That might not be applicable to this one. And secondly, or next, is it appropriate to install a new greenhouse? Does the roof of the new proposal relate in shape, pitch, materials of the roof existing adjacent surrounding buildings? Is it appropriate to create a new deck system with stairs? Does the architectural details articulation of the proposed plans relate in scale, rhythm, proportion, and texture to existing adjacent surrounding historic buildings? Do the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of the new proposal reflect the predominant proportion, emphasis, and rhythm of the existing adjacent surrounding buildings? Fifteen, are the materials in scale to the building in which they are located and compatible with the materials in the adjacent surrounding buildings? Sixteen, are the solar panels appropriate? Of course, the applicant and owner are both here. If you'll state your name for the record, please. My name is Brad Risco. All right. I'm the owner with my wife. Hello. And I assume your architect is with you as well. Yes. Hello. State your name for the record, please, Ms. Farfan. Sure. Jill Farfan. All right. Architect with PRP Architects. Okay. This is your opportunity to take us through your plan. I'll have to give you a heads up. I may have to leave at 630. Okay. No problem. That doesn't mean the meeting ends, but I have to leave at 630. I understand. Okay. Yes. So, as Amelia said, we are proposing very, very little, actually nothing on the front massing of the house. So, the architecture really from the front remains the same. The only thing that's close to the front is the porch. Are we able to zoom in on the image? No. Okay. Oh, that's perfect. Thank you. Great. Great. So, yeah, this, you know, Finn Castle is up here. And so, we're going to have to do a little bit of a The closest thing to the front that is being proposed are steps here. They are going to keep the house as a duplex. So, the idea is just to have access here. And so, it would be cutting into the existing porch and adding three risers. And so, we're going to have to do a little bit of work on the front. And so, we're going to have to do a little bit of work on the front. We are proposing to put in a new door at this area, really to match as closely as possible to what is existing. And then, we're putting in, there's an existing wooden fence here, or gate, I should say, to the backyard. And we're going to be putting a new one in and moving it toward the front. So, this piece is about the only thing that changes toward the front. And it provides operable doors here, as well as a man-operated door here that's pedestrian-sized. And then, the deck will wrap around the house in the back. And there's two sets of stairs here and here to access the yard back in here. And here, we're keeping the door on the side, again, replacing it with a new one. And then, we're going to have to do a little bit of work on the door on the side, again, replacing it with a new door. And then, there is an existing concrete stoop here that will be removed and replaced with the deck and steps down, and mainly to have access to taking the trash out from what will be a new kitchen, renovated kitchen inside. Then, we have two new windows in the back. And, of course, the new greenhouse, which is the primary change to the back. And it's actually going to become part of the house. So, the door into the kitchen and gathering space goes directly into the greenhouse. All the windows remain. The only windows on this back view are these, and they remain and they get a nice view into their greenhouse from the bedroom. And this is a raised counter here, and there will be storage below it. And there's also going to be storage under here for bicycles and storage under here for kayaks. So, we have three access points under the deck. I'd like to take you through to the elevations and the 3D massing and show you. Well, I'll just go through the next. Yeah, can we zoom in on this floor plan? This is the second floor. I just wanted to point out that there is going to be a new bathroom on the second floor. They're going to have two tenants in this duplex, so they want to have a master suite here and then another master suite here, and so that they each have their own bathrooms and a shared kitchen and a shared living space. And then the next slide, can I do that? Oh, yeah, there it is. Can we zoom in again? It's nice to see that a little closer. Great. This is the rear elevation, and you can see the proposed solar panels here. There's eight on this side and eight on this side. Due south is about on that diagonal, so it's the right placement for solar panels, and it's the right location for a greenhouse with glass. And you can see here the side entry. What we're proposing here is a new canopy here to match the existing architecture at the front rather than the existing architecture of the existing canopy that's here. And we're also removing the one in the rear, obviously, to put in the greenhouse. We're extending the length of the canopy about four feet because the landing is a four-foot extension, basically, to what's there. This is what is here, and we're just extending it out four feet and then stepping down here. And this is the access to the storage for the bicycles. This is access for storage for the kayaks, and then additional access here to get to mechanical equipment for the greenhouse, to get to the basement foundation if they need access to that as well. And can we pan down a little bit? Yeah, so you can see the front elevation remains the same. The store is to remain. You just see the wooden gate beyond. And then this is the east elevation, and I have a— yeah, this is just the east elevation of the greenhouse and the steps that would go to the backyard. And these are the solar panels. What I'm proposing on the next set of drawings that I've just brought today is a bit of a development of the solar panels. I know Amelia and I discussed that there might be some concern of seeing them from the front, so we'd like to get eight on each side of the roof. And if we can get—we can fit eight in a single line here so that you basically see half of it from the front instead of two panels, the width of two panels, if that makes sense. The next drawings will explain it a little better in 3D. Can we go to— Well, you're still on the drive side elevation, the middle? Yes. And, Board, do you mind if I ask a question before we move on? Yes. Is the black line, the vertical black line, where the fence— Yes. Okay, so that is indeed that. Yes. I just wanted to pinpoint where—how far forward that's coming. That is correct. And I know on the site plan it's available, but I wanted to see it against the structure. Yes, and that is the location. Thank you. Yeah. And that location essentially divides the architecture into thirds. You have the front third here where this is the only change, the middle third, which there are no changes, and then the back third. So it kind of divides it nicely into private versus public as well. While we're actually on this page, Randy, can you shoot back up to the top, please? I'd like you to address the canopy here. So what's confusing is whether you're proposing also, is that pillar that's below the canopy, if I can use this. Sure. Is this in the porch? And what's confusing is the fact that this looks like this is part of the porch on the front versus the side. So if you're extending this out four feet, how is this going to be supported? Oh, I see what you're saying. The four-feet extension I was referring to is not the depth of the canopy. The canopy depth is just maybe a few inches over three feet. So that column that you're seeing is in the background of the existing front porch. Yeah, so it's a three-foot cantilever, which can be done with a header back in here. Yeah, we don't need a column, basically. So there's no column being proposed. And you can see here there's no column being proposed. Can I forward? Yeah, I can. Okay, I'm going to jump to the updated set of slides. Can I do that? What is it? Okay, I'll let you know. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Let's see. If we could just – there's not much changes here. Oh, can you go back? There is one thing I'll mention. We are proposing – Brad is a very proactive client. He's talked to his neighbors already about the proposal, and there is some concern from this neighbor about privacy. And Brad has offered to plant, because we've proposed a row of planting here, because this is a very wet area and the drainage is an issue. So we're only putting new hardscape in here where you see the hatching. So he's proposed three sort of pine, cypress-type kind of pines to be all-year-round privacy screen between his neighbor and the new deck. So I thought that was a very thoughtful proposal. Board members, on that, that is your letter, obviously. That's right. Oh. Yes. They have an entire kit that has come with it. Oh, okay. So, yeah, they sent photographs and expressed their concerns. Oh, the neighbor did? If you've not seen it, welcome to that. No, I haven't. Okay. Well, we'll look at that in a little bit. Yeah, so that's really the main update on this plan that I wanted to point out. On the second floor, again, the main difference here is I wanted to point out that because of this bathroom, we decided to make these two windows of a clear story height. They don't need a view out or in. So these are clear story, and you'll see that in the massing and the elevations. And on those windows, can I ask, is your layout such, I can't quite see, that your shower is not under them or anything. It looks like everything is on the far wall. Well, the bathtub is right here. Is there a practical need for those windows to be as short as they are? Yes. Privacy. Because they are, at least from the staff's perspective, somewhat problematic from the exterior. Yeah, I mean, there's a real need because of privacy in the bathroom and not wanting to be on display. Well, there's all sorts of ways to have bigger windows that don't have. . . But why pay for it if you're going to put a film on it? I don't know. It's a big opening. But anyway, it's something to look forward to talk about. Well, yes. Okay. But there is a reason architecturally and programmatically from the client's point of view. And if we can go to the next. . . Okay, and here is the update with the solar panels. This is another concept. It's the same number of panels, a concept of putting eight this way instead of five here and three up in here. It really doesn't matter. I think we're just trying to be considerate of the view from the front. I don't think you're going to see them either way. But this is a thought. It could still be where we have five here and three up in here. But just a thought. And then if we could go to the next one. . . It's just harder to see. There's really no updates here. We can go to the 3D, I think, will help show the proposal in its entirety. I changed out the photographs and the modeling of this to show what's existing and what's proposed. And then you can see here the gate. So, again, this matches the architecture that is existing. And the door, you know, we're kind of drawing this line between what's new and a bit more modern architecture with a steel handrail and either wood or composite. A door that could semblance what is more of the existing and a canopy that is respecting a type of architecture that's existing. We've also discussed, since we're still in the schematic design phase or just at the end of the schematic design phase, that this canopy could even be of a more . . . If we could scroll down to . . . yeah, more in this language. That's another possibility. And at one point we had the canopy wrapping around, which is another thing we've discussed. So we're still open to possibilities there. Yeah, that's pretty much it. Who wants to start first? One thing that jumped out at me when I was looking at it, I think, is a nice project. It's getting better all the time. But . . . Can you lean into your mic, pull your mic towards you or something? Thank you. For the steps that go down the back by the greenhouse, the last . . . These steps? Yeah. Okay. Go down to the last slide. That one. I'm sorry. To the bottom. There you go. This one? Uh-huh. Yeah. It's . . . You're going to have to figure out a way for those bottom two steps to take that to the outside edge because you've got two risers that . . . Yeah, there you go. Yes. When you think about walking down there, you've got one foot on the low part and one foot up higher. Yeah. It needs to be resolved. Well, the concept with these steps is that as you can approach it this way, you're already one, two up and just turn around and continue. That's the concept. And or it can be a sitting pad, basically, just to sit. But it's resolved architecturally in my mind as far as how we're intending it to be used. So I'm not sure I understand what needs to be resolved. It looks like it's just waiting for somebody to fall, particularly children. Waiting for someone to fall, she said? Yeah. Okay. If you come from above . . . Ms. Tate, we can't hear you. If somebody comes from above and goes straight all the way down, no problem. But if they are trying to turn 90 degrees, that's the problem. Oh, as far as like a handrail extension, maybe? No. As far as how the two lower risers, which you're supposed to be walking on if you're going to take a 90 degree, don't allow both of your feet to be on the same level. Both? Steps and you turn to your right. Okay. You're on two separate treads. That's what you're saying. Yeah. Right. If you come down and you turn to the right, you've only got 11 inches. Right. Okay. Yes. Oh, if you turn 90 degrees while you're still on the steps. I see. So maybe this one could come out a little bit more. I see what you're saying. Okay. Yes. That makes sense. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, but whereas on this side, it's a little, yeah, but you still have the same issue there. If you turn 90 degrees this way, it's a little narrow. Yes. We will consider it. And you might ask yourself if it's even worth it. Yes. Yes. I understand. But you could just go straight down. Yeah. It's really, yeah, I understand. But we were looking at a stair coming out this way. We didn't, that wasn't programmatically a good way to face the stairs. So we thought, well, maybe if we approach it and do a circle around, it's a detail really. And we can either fine tune it or it could go away. But as far as, so you're mostly thinking about functionality and safety. Okay. Just as long as you're. Yeah. Anything else? Ms. Hill. So I'd like to hear some of the board's comments about the proposed new canopy at the side. And so here's what I'm struggling with. In some ways, if it's going to be replaced, it almost feels like maybe it should be something more contemporary, so that it's clear that it's a replacement. It feels kind of like it's almost original because the way it blends back in with the house. Yes. May I comment to that very quickly? Sure. We did have a more modern proposal before, and we were thinking this might be more acceptable historically. But I agree. I think that it's sort of battling between new and existing, and it's not the architecture that is existing. The other point I want to make is the canopy that is existing is structurally failing. It is not a safe. That was my next question. Yeah. It is falling off. When they put their hand up there, it moves. It's going to fall off if we don't do something. So it's not, it is a safety hazard at this point. But safety hazards can be fixed. They can be. I have to stand up for, per the guidelines, I think it's very important that we recognize that those overhangs are very significant on this house. Are they very significant? They are. They are rather a signature of this house. Not everything has to be a big showcase. Okay. They have a personality that this house has always had. Those, the brackets, as they come down, the only thing you have on the screen, there it is on the right. You know, they really are providing an architectural identity as an overhang to those secondary entrances. And I think they'll be missed from the reading of the building as architectural elements if they are taken off. And our process charges us first and foremost with preparing the historic fabric and the character of the structure. Sure, sure. And then after we accomplish that, it goes into how do you come to the new things that can be wonderful, too. I understand. I would suggest from the staff's perspective that we'll need to be recommending disapproval of removal. Okay. Now, that's from the staff's perspective. Staff's perspective. The board's here to give you their thoughts on the same. May I respond first? Certainly. I would, I respect the opinions, and with all due respect, the existing canopies, this one and this one, are identical. They're, architecturally speaking, there's a lack of architectural cohesion from this to, if we could scroll to the front of the house, to these lines and the very front elevation, if you remember, are very strong horizontals, almost prairie style. And so I would argue that this type of canopy lacks the architectural cohesion that is a signature of this building from the street view. I would suggest to you as an architectural historian that that is why they're signature elements. They are not a match to those, to the front porch design with the more colonial feel. They are expressly chosen to be different. Right. Yes. It's part of their value. They are different. And they are part of what has been the character of this house for many, many years. Right. Well, can we, I understand. We don't need to battle over it. No. Two different approaches, philosophically. But I'm pretty sure of what our guidelines intend. Yes. I understand that. I have one response, not to battle over it, but just a response. It is in the rear of the house and very not prominent to the other realities. I would agree with Betty on this particular canopy. Okay. Did you say you do not? I would agree with Betty. You would agree? Yes. Okay. The other thing to keep in mind, no matter what elements we're talking about, the process is charged with protecting the character and everything being appropriate equally on all four sides. Okay. So there's nothing in our process about, well, you can't see it from the front, you can't see it from the street, you can't see it from X. That's not a measure on any application. Okay. On the document that I was given, the design guidelines do talk about new openings and changing of openings are more acceptable or recommended on the rear. Because it's expected you need to accommodate changes over time. Right. And change of lifestyles over time. So it's not that saying, so make all your changes on the front and ignore everything else. It is prioritizing where perhaps the spots to accomplish that could happen. It doesn't, one doesn't switch out the other values. So because something is on a side or on the back, it can still be very important to the building. So there's not a, front elevation is most important, side elevations are next. Okay. It's all one big building envelope. Yes. That has to work together. Yes. Yes. One thing on that subject, it seemed to me that what you're doing at the rear of the house is easy to get away, a takeaway if somebody bought the house and wanted to see it the way it was. And I think it's important if you go through this and get the approval for the greenhouse, not to make it physically difficult to take it away. Because it comes as just kind of a separate unit. Okay. So can you describe the greenhouse just a little? I'm assuming this isn't a pre-manufactured or pre-engineered kit. It's not. It's a site-built item. Yeah. It's not a kit, no. But we are getting quotes right now from window manufacturers as well as greenhouse people who do do kits. Right. Where it would be an aluminum, oops, did I do that? Oh, there we go. This would be an aluminum frame window system. And either there would be structural aluminum and aluminum both outside and inside with the clear glass, or it could be an aluminum system on the outside with a, what is the name? I'm forgetting. So kind of a wood frame structure? Not wood. Yes. If it's not all structural aluminum, it would be a wood frame structure with aluminum windows, but the aluminum finish on the outside may not be the fiberglass. It could be a fiberglass window on the inside, but no wood window frames anywhere. It's not recommended for a greenhouse. So does that make sense? It does. Having dealt with a greenhouse in a commercial condition is the reason I'm kind of asking this. Okay. Because I didn't know whether you were talking about thermal pane glass or whether you were talking about a polycarbonate. There is one system that is fiberglass on both sides, and it is thermally charged, and the resident is interested in actually heating the space to count the square footage as part of the house because it is an interior door between the greenhouse and the house. And what's the material below, the cladding of below? Okay, that's a good question. This, we're proposing a fiber cement panel in the gray area, and the deck, and then this would be a quartz top that is both on the outside and on the inside that is actually applicable for the outside. And then the deck will either be a high-quality wood or a composite material. Composite like trex? Not trex. Please no. No trex. What we're looking at, and actually I have a sample of what the composite we're looking at. It's called New Tech Wood, and that one is made of more than 95% recycled material, which is one reason why we love it. And it also has, that particular line has a siding system that we could employ around both of these sides. That's a shiplap clip system that would match the top of the deck. These two new windows. Yeah, we'll need a good bit of information about those alternates of materials. Okay. Is there a composite that you prefer, recommend? Rarely get into composites. Okay. But rear deck floors, some few have been done. The big thing is to make sure to stay away from any PVC-based. Yes. We would agree with that. Well, and that's one reason, trex. Right. No, we can't. Our guidelines prohibit any vinyl or PVC-related product. Okay. And composites are never allowed on the historic porches or anything like that. But for a new construction, and this is just a protocols dialogue for a second, they can be considered, but we do need a lot of info about what they're really made of. Okay. What dimensional aspects they have. Okay. And bring a chunk of it. Sure. All that good stuff. Sure. I didn't mean to interrupt. Ms. Hill, do you have? There was only one other thing, and that was about these new windows on the backyard side. Okay. And I'm assuming that the reason the second floor windows are of the height that they are, the dimension is there to match the clear story windows that are new on the first floor that are adjacent to the new. Yes. Okay. Greenhouse. And actually, if we want to go to the elevation, can we scroll to the page prior, the top one? Yeah. Yep, you were almost there. Yeah. This size height matches these. I think you have a much better chance of getting it approved from me. Excuse me? I think you would have a much better chance of having it approved by me if you did not make any changes to the existing windows on the back. Well, there are no existing windows on this entire side. Yeah. Oh, that's all. There's a stair that runs right here that would go out to that door that we're removing because it's one hazard. It's falling apart. The risers are too high, and the tenant's not going to use it. So the second floor tenant will only use the one existing stair toward the front of the house. Okay. So, yeah, there it is. There's no windows here. The only thing that I was wondering about the windows, if I might, if we can go back to that plan, Randy. What I was wondering is if you would consider looking at the top portion of that over here so they're not so squat, because I know you're trying to mimic this, but then they have no relation over here. So I wondered if you were able to bring them down a bit further so it makes it a bit more of a relation, why they're so tight to the fascia under here so they would come down and only read sort of in this portion. But particularly because in that second floor bathroom, our windows is an original window. Well, there is no second floor bathroom currently. That's right, but the window does exist. No. Around the corner. Oh, on the driveway side. Yes. That is correct. In that new space. Yes. That is correct. And so precisely what was just suggested in terms of it matching the vertical lines, yes, exactly, matching the vertical lines of the new windows on the first floor on the south on the rear elevation, but if that second floor matches the upper lights of the window that's going to be in that space. Okay. I think I'm following. You're saying that the vertical lines of these two new windows? Which it already does. I mean, it already, you're matching them already. Yes. That is correct. I feel like the relationship has more to do with these windows because they are a different type of window and color also. Except when you're standing in that space on the second floor, it's the historic window that's part of that space. Yes. That new space. You mean here? Yes. When you're inside on the second floor. That is correct, yes. I'm not sure if I'm following. So what they're saying is that this window right there, which is now that pantry that goes nowhere, that that pantry window and that window, like that one's the historic one, these are the new ones, to make those ones sort of match that. It's the top portion. Yes, the top portion to make it bigger. The top sash. You know, I understand. Susan, are you agreeing with Amelia? We are. Okay. Okay. I didn't understand that you were. So you just want it to make it, yeah, this height. Can we look at the photo again? Because I'm not sure. Is it right in the middle of the sash line? I just want to make sure our drawing is correct so that we're all. There we go. Yep, it is. Okay. So they can be of different material and color, but the size would be more in this vein. So it would match more of the window on this side. Okay. Talk a second about the materials and color. What are you talking about? We're thinking aluminum clad windows. It actually is an improvement to what they have. Well. It is an improvement to what they have. But aluminum clad could be installed. Mm-hmm. Yeah, when you've got a historic wall mass like that, it's a little unusual to introduce a contemporary product window when everything in the house is wood. Well, actually, everything in the house is vinyl. Yeah. So they've thrown away all the. That was done many years ago. No, that opens the door or window. Yeah, they're all vinyl. Yeah, the previous tenant was wanting to replace all the windows to upgrade them, but. We didn't do that. Yeah, no. We're glad to hear that. Mind if I speak up a little bit? Sure. Or was there more there? Did I interrupt? Sorry. On the rear elevation, sorry about the ring, there's a lot more I think can be done proportionally. Okay. Back there. So with the mass of the greenhouse and the couple of different window sizes in there, some of them are like really cramped next to the greenhouse and up to the roof, and then one of them is original. I think there needs to be some more order happening on that façade, proportionally and in rhythm. On this façade? Yes. And I don't have a lot of good answers for you, but. Can you bring up the 3D drawings? Yeah. I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure I agree. I'm a mechanical guy, so. Can we look at the 3D drawings? Go to the next page of this file. There we go. So we're looking at, oops, did I do that? So you're wanting to see more order and rhythm? That's one way to say it, yeah. Right now everything is, it's like the little bathroom windows, squished up against the eave and real tight to the corner. I don't think that follows any of the rhythm of this house and the language on this house. We're not here to like duplicate details and such, but we are here to look at form and proportion and rhythm and things like that. So is that your only problem area, though, or do you have a problem with the whole proposals here? If these were gone, you know, this was just a sort of nice token to bring light into the bathroom. They could go away. There's no windows that exist there now. But I do feel strongly about these windows and bringing light into the kitchen that's going to become an open plan kitchen to accommodate modern living. And the idea here is that this just ribbons around. It wraps around. So these are new, and they relate to the new architecture. They are similar in that there are a double pair of windows, which is similar to this. So this is actually in respect to that, but it's a different language. And it's responding to the language of the greenhouse. And then we kept an open picture window here to mirror and duplicate, not duplicate, but to echo what is right behind it because that's their view. So I quite think the architectural rhythm, and we've used a module that is very similar to an individual window unit that exists. So it provides that same rhythm. It opens it up to allow view and then repeats. So I actually feel strongly about the rhythm and the proportions and the size of the windows. I think we could do away with these. I don't know if the client feels strongly about those. Because I don't think that making them the same size of this does much for the whole building as a whole. I think they're still different than everything else. So I would most likely rather recommend removing them completely. Okay. So we're all in agreement there. It will reduce the cost of the overall project too. But what if we think of it that way now that these are gone? Can you speak to the language that is being proposed on the first level? I have an idea that crossed my mind. Okay, great. If your framing for your greenhouse came further across, even if you didn't panelize all of it, would that be an option for you? Would what be an option? So the framing of your greenhouse. Yes. So if that system extended further to the left so that you have more of a symmetrical kit in your greenhouse. And even if you didn't even fill them all in, because it seems like you don't need all that enclosed space. So what you're thinking of is actually the actual physical frame come across, but there's actually no glass in that section above the windows going into the kitchen. Sure, yeah. So if you had a very wide greenhouse, the whole width of the house. But then you don't necessarily have to put. But will that help the window situation though, Josh? Well, I think what it does is it lets you start to punch holes in that brick wall behind what's essentially an addition. And then what happens is then it reads, even if the language of the windows reads is the same as the greenhouse. So then when you brought something across it. It almost becomes an open pergola. Exactly. In the first bay. And it's already 20 feet long. I think it's long enough for their use. I mean, if it's an open pergola. You could grow some great vines on it. We're trying to fight the vines now. No, I'm thinking of floral. I know what you're saying. So you're thinking, maybe I'm misunderstanding. I thought you were saying make the greenhouse. Two more glass frames over, that's empty. And then that ties it back so that the roof line goes all the way over. And then there's the empty line, like empty lines of. Okay, okay. The windows read the same. And it looks like just a. I see, but there's no glass. I see what you're saying. It balances is what I believe. Yeah, I'm very open to exploring that. I completely understand. And then there could be an open trellis type structure that ties back here. Sure. It's an interesting idea. Basically what I'm scratching my head about is how to make that elevation have a more proportional relationship to the elements that are on it. Well, proportionally they do relate to the elements on it, but you're just wanting to extend it out and make it more proportional. Because this is the same. It might not look like it in 3D, but we could go to the elevation and look at it. Can we go back to the elevation? There we go. Nope, that top one right here. Because it's not the format of that bottom window that's odd. It's just the fact that it's tight to the corner of the building and the inside corner of the greenhouse. And I'm trying to. These windows right here. I heard you earlier mention like a ribbon of glass. Yes. So I'm trying to imagine and follow along with you, but I'm not there yet. Okay, let's go back to the 3D. The ribbon does make a 90 degrees, so this line is at the same elevation. So it folds, right? And then these windows are the same proportion as these, and they wrap around. You see it, but you don't. I see it, but I'm not very convinced that that plays into the desire of our guidelines. The ribbon, a minute or whatever you want to call it, the quality of the ribbon or the aesthetic of the ribbon, I don't think it has anything to do with our guidelines. So I'm trying to get back to the proportion and the form arguments of the guidelines. I think it's a good idea. I wouldn't mind it in my house, but. I'm not sure how this is against the guidelines, because the guidelines say if they're going to put in a new opening, it could be different, and the greenhouse is definitely different. So I'm just not sure how it's against guidelines. Well, I wouldn't say it is either. Okay. As far as the window itself alone, my comment is in regards to the form and the mass of the greenhouse itself. And then as you stick a window next to that mass, and if you look at the way the rest of the house goes together and how they handle those different masses and the relationships of windows, that's where it gets a little muddy, in my opinion. I'm only one person on this board, but. I think tied to Mr. Gilpin's comment, if the greenhouse framework came on out, it would provide this unity across the back. Right. It would, because currently as depicted in this, the greenhouse is three-dimensional until all of a sudden you get to a flat plane. Right. That being the two windows. And it's sort of like the greenhouse got flattened down. Yeah, yeah. And joined the historic mass, and that's where your troubles come. Yeah. I understand your. I think Mr. Gilpin's explanation has opened my eyes to some of that for sure. Yeah. And responding to that, too, what's existing, you know, this is coming outside of the mass, you know, the front porch with open columns. Yes. We might want to consider, and we had something like this on the previous owner of the house, something that might, yeah, so I understand what you're saying. And I think, now let me ask a question. If we did that, there's a lot of deep eaves here, too, and this extends past the overall mass. I don't think you have to copy that. Can we extend past the overall mass? It would become in view from the street. I think that's a little problematic. Yeah. Okay. We've gone down that road in concept on two or three other projects. Okay. And all have resulted in staying within the confine of the width of the main mass. Okay. Yeah, I can see that. I would like to explore your suggestion with a rhythm coming out and echoing the proportions of the windows and serving as, because we would like a little shade here. We always like to, this is an external door now, and there's no protection from the elements here. So it would be nice to have something overhead. So I actually quite like your suggestion and would love to pursue the design exploration of that, if I'm understanding you correctly. I think so, yeah. I don't think the columns would be brick, but maybe we could introduce a column and a language here that could really work. That should match the greenhouse. Yeah, yeah. Another comment that was on my mind was just that the floor line on this deck would be at the same as the front. Oh. That's just one step, I believe. Yes, it is. It's the same, I think. Oh, no. That's the first floor level. But the front goes down a step. So you step out the door. The back currently does, but we would not do that anymore. You would be, this is a step up higher, technically, because you're flush. It's flush with the finished floor, whereas the front porch is not flush with the finished floor elevation. Right. Is that something you could work with? No, I mean, well, you want to have a step down. It's like a trip hazard in modern living. Do you think it's important, historically? I think it is. The way that the deck is enclosed, it's a very bulky looking mass. And we do want the storage. And I follow you on that. Yeah. Thank you for that. That's a good idea. So if you could even drop it one step, just to match the front, which is kind of what our guidelines talk about, about the height and scale and rhythm of different porches along the street, this is a little different because it's your porch in the back. Functionally, I would argue that it's really going to jeopardize their use of the space. Okay. Especially with trying to get bicycles in here, it could actually limit them from being able to put some bicycles in there if we go down another six to seven inches. And I'm not sure how it would really increase the architectural value of the home if it did that. I think it decreases the architectural value of the home if you step down. One thing to think about is the door on the side, on the driveway side, there could be just practical reasons not to have that deck at the same elevation as the kitchen floor, just from a weather point of view. Snow, ice, all the rain that we get these days, it certainly gives some protection to the inside of the house. And that traditionally, of course, is why we've lowered whatever those... That was before doors had better systems, though, and there are weatherproofing threshold designs in modern doors. Speaking of doors, we need to address the two historic doors you want to remove. Yes, yes. Those are original doors that are actually in good shape. Well, the front door has had issues in the past. It did with the previous tenant. Brad was able to fix a little bit on the front, but there are some functional issues. Brad, if you want to address that. Yeah, well, I got the front door working, but that back door that goes to the upper story, the whole bottom's rotten off of it, and then the sun's baked it down to where it started to shrink. And then the back door's got the same... Well, both back doors have the same problem. In fact, that door is actually... That door on the one side has been replaced at least once. There's another one in the basement that is in just as bad a shape. But the one... Yeah, the 1014 one. So there's some of the doors that are in the basement, but it looked like that one right there is the one that's rotting out at the bottom. I don't know if you saw that, but the whole bottom end of the door rots. It's rotting the same as the top because the water has been coming down over the gutter and then it's been coming behind the flashing. So that was why we were... This door has that new front screen door on it. We're talking about the back door as a screen door on the front, but the side door is the one that started to rot at the bottom. Where water is... Yeah, all the rain hits that side of the house, which is why we were trying to address... That's why we were trying to address that area because that's why that overhang is in such rough shape is just because that's where all the weather hits it. Right, right. And I think there's two different issues, two different kind of door scenarios, too, that I think we talked about on site, too, as far as the front actual doors are on the front porch, trying to look at getting those roof soared and then looking at the back doors a little differently because of the condition of those deterioration. Yeah, the front door we can leave as original. It's the back doors that are the main concern because they seem like they're just not lasting. The weather just nails that side. And it's actually gotten through the door. It's on the inside of where the... That's where all the rain... It's just where all the rain hits it. Yeah, so the front door, that's the one that's made of the mahogany, the thick mahogany door on the front. We're not going to... We're going to leave that as it is. We fixed it. So the door lock set got fixed on the inside. It took some work, but we got it going fine. So you're not proposing to remove the one that is where you're going to cut the steps in to the entrance off the driveway? The very front, correct, yeah. We also think that the front... I remember us talking about this before. Right, right. Some of this is very deja vu. I know. In the front of the house, we think that the front with the two porches and how it is, that we think that actually speaks the most of the house, that we want to leave as much of that as we can because that is really what everybody... I mean, everybody notices this house in the neighborhood because of that because we're the only one that really looks like this, I think, in all of the neighborhood. So we were trying to respect and keep that. Right. And we had talked about this side door below the existing because of the deterioration. The deterioration, yeah. I mean, it's just not been cared for, unfortunately. And the frames got... I mean, I don't know. It's wood. We're from South Carolina, too, and that's South Carolina right there. Do you all have other questions? I don't. I have a question. I really think you've been successful with this second step, and I hate to see it. I think the most important thing for me is I really like the way that the greenhouse sits on. It's just like a piece that you can take in and take out, and I hope you continue to keep it that way. And that's why I get a little bit nervous about trying on the other end to make it look like the greenhouse. And I don't have very many negative things to say at all about this, and I think the nice thing about it is we go through another hundred years, and they want to go back to just what was there originally. That's easy to take off. And I don't want to get too far away from that. It's really handsome. It's tucked back there so that it doesn't really present itself to the road. I do have concern about putting a column in a very—it's not a big space. So if I understand you correctly, this massing does relate directly. We want it to look more—it is a custom greenhouse. It's not a kit. So your concern is about the suggestion previously? She's saying to be able to remove it, the whole greenhouse, like we've been discussing in order to have the greenhouse be able to be removed and put back to its 1949 history, that would be the removal. I understand that, but you said you have concerns about messing with it too much. You mean regarding the proposal to put a type of pergola here? I'm just saying I don't want you to overwork this. Yeah. And I think—it looks like it would be easy to dismantle this whole thing if it was ever an issue. Sure. But if you did take the pergola approach for the corner, it also could be as easily dismantled as the rest of the greenhouse. If you just filled in the corner with the open framework. Oh. Yeah. So it's not really a different issue in that respect. And as far as being able to remove it, we are going to have to cut into and remove a couple rows, courses of brick, in order to put in a structural beam here to receive the weight. Save the brick, yes. Yeah. Well, that or we're going to—you can do an external header. You can't do that anymore per code. Am I right? We used to detail it that way, and they won't. The city doesn't allow it anymore for permitting. Really? Correct. Is it a veneer or a masonry? Boy, that is weird. Who's your structural engineer? Because that's really weird. I've got to talk to your permit amber about that. It's a new evolution of— I know the guy who wrote it. Is it a cavity wall or a— Excuse me? Is it a cavity wall or not? It's not a load-bearing masonry. It's not. It is load-bearing. Oh, yeah. It's a veneer. Oh, it is a veneer. No, it's got two sets of two-by-tens that are on either side, and then the whole thing is put together. It's true-cut two-by-tens, of course, so it's pretty well-built compared to the other houses in the neighborhood. Because this one was built in 49, so it's much newer. The one beside us is in 48. This one's 49. The one beside it on the other side, I believe, is in the 30s. I think it's earlier than that, but it's more— I mean, that's not what the permitting said or anything. Don't believe the permits. We're the source of the history of all these buildings on the National Register, the federal designations and stuff. We'll look it up for you. Yeah, yeah. That's when the neighborhood was designated. This is an easily resolved question. We can resolve that. Yeah, the house on the other side was 48, and they have the drawings, the original drawings of the house. It's kind of cool. So, yeah, if you guys find out something earlier— You're in, actually, one of the earlier-developed parts of this neighborhood, so we'll give you all that. Not to worry. That's fine. Well, are there any other major questions or concerns? I just have one question. I just was seeking some clarification on how to continue the design development, and my understanding is that that canopy is a no-touch thing, that it needs to be repaired and replaced as it exists currently, or duplicated. Like, if it's rotted once it's removed. It needs to be worked with. It needs to be worked with for any parts that are sound and repairable, and then to repair in kind anything that's not repairable with it. Repair in kind. Okay, so— Wood, same shapes, same methodology that you can, when it's completed, fill your seams and paint, and it'll look very nice like it's been intended. What about the size? If we keep the corbeling on the short ends here, could it get any larger? We're trying to accommodate modern living. They're going to be bringing trash up and down here and groceries in and out, and we wanted to give them more protection from the elements. If it's raining, can it be bigger than the door, basically? Right now it's the same as the door. Completely changing the original fabric, so no. Okay. Thank you. And then the other question related to that is the door. Am I clear that we can put a new door here? Because, yeah, is that— I think the staff ought to look at that door a little closer with you. I know Amelia's been out some on it already. And then when you're making your formal proposal, you know, you certainly are welcome to go ahead and request, as part of your application, to remove it. And in the meantime, we'll have gotten with you a little more about what are the options kind of thing, and then let the board act on that at the formal meeting. Okay, right. That sounds good. Because I think you're proposing a multi-light, and typically in rear doors you have a top light, bottom panel scenario versus that. Actually, the elevation shows it correctly. The rendering's wrong. We're not going to do full light. It would be half the way it looks now. If a door was to be proposed there, that would be more appropriate to have the top light, bottom panel versus the multi-pane. Yes, yes, we agree. Can we just look at the elevation real quick? Am I able to do that? Just really quick. There it is, right down here. Go up a little, Randy. There you go. That's the panel that we're proposing. The rendering is not correct. But we'll get there, right, in the next time? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate all your input. Thank you for working with us. Thank you. Thank you. Are they? Okay. These are mine. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Aye. So move. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you very much. I think these are all yours. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Please. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. She's through crying, she's not moving now. She walks by and every hair of hers you can see how hot her fire burns. He didn't know what a good thing he had, well it's too late that's too bad. She's not the cheating kind, she's been cheated one too many times. She's never fooled around, he's still lying, she's through crying, she's not moving now. She's not the cheating kind, she's been cheated one too many times. She's never fooled around, he's still lying, she's through crying, she's not moving now. Hello, I'm Bill Farmer, 5th District Council Member, welcoming you to another very special edition of Let's Explore. Today literally we are on top of locals here at Winchester and National Avenue. There's a lot of great things going on here, we're going to find out about them right now. Well we're doing something different today, we've actually sat down with a little something to drink, a little something to talk about. I'll be joined by Chad Walker. Chad, may I? How are we doing today? Really great. What would be your job title? I have no idea. It's take care of everything. I don't know if I've got a job title or not. I used to do the landscaping down here, we would broom sweep the sidewalks, whatever comes up. If a tenant has an issue, then we put out the fire. Maybe I'd say a professional fireman, that's what I am. See, I think of you as kind of the ambassador for National Avenue. Well I appreciate that, I'll take that. From now on I will be the ambassador. Well, please. We just had a little event downstairs.