February 12, 2020 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants 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 the full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that the applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're received. In each case we'll have a presentation of the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. If you wish to, the board 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 by the door so that information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review process. The staff has the ability to approve certain applications eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 21 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In the Ellsworth Historic District, at 456 East Maxwell Street, extend fence, construct gate. At 463 East Maxwell Street, construct fence, install water heater. At 302 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure. At 136 Old Park Avenue, replace roof shingles and repair box gutters. In the Ashland Park Historic District, at 252 South Hanover, remove a dying tree. At 118 Deshaies Road, replace concrete walks. At 119 Deshaies Road, replace concrete curb. At 320 Deshaies Road, replace garage door. In the Belcourt Historic District, at 158 Forest Avenue, install chimney caps. In the local historic landmark, at 325 75 Bowman Mill Road, repair windows, shutters, gutters, trims, and tuck point masonry. At 411 North Lombstone in the Mulberry Historic District, replace fence. In the Pensacola Park Historic District, at 108 Lackawanna Road, replace fence. At 86 Pemokan Park, construct fence. At 90 Pemokan Park, construct fence. At 94 Pemokan Park, construct fence. At 98 Pemokan Park, construct fence. At 108 Shawnee Place in the Seven Parts Historic District, renovate roof. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, at 259 South Ashland, reissue the certificate appropriateness. At 232 South Ashland Avenues, replace the fence. In the Western Suburb Historic District, at 514 West Short Street, renovate chimney and flash roof. At 579 West Short Street, replace the gutters. Those are the approved applications. We will now turn to our first application for COA. At 253 Market Street, install signage and construct cover over basement access and rick pad. Is the applicant here? Come on up. I'll get my breath back eventually. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. State your name for the record, please. Van Meter Pettit. I live at 160 East Belcourt, 40508. All right. Mr. Pettit, the staff has recommended approval subject to what we call our standard conditions. They are as follows. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit any changes of staff or board for a review and approval prior to the start of work. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes of staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agree with those? Yes. Okay. Any comments or questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? I do have a question, Ms. Kerr. There's a recommendation or it indicates that the steel piping may be removed. I'm wondering if we could make that a condition since it doesn't seem to be historically compliant. Well, it's an existing condition. Okay. And there will no longer be a need for any rails because it's all gonna be covered over. Is it your intention to take those steel pipes out? Yes. Okay. Very good then. All right then. Any other comments? Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regard to case number 12-520253-1 at 253 Market Street, I recommend approval of this application with the two standard conditions. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All right then. 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 approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you. Let's turn now to our second application of 150 Forest Avenue. Construct dormers and exterior stair. I'm looking for the beginning of that packet. There we go. All right. State your name for the record, please. I'm Rebecca Burnworth. All right. Again? Burnworth. All right. This is 150 Forest Avenue. All right. The staff has recommended approval subject to one what I would call a substantive condition that is remove the muttons from the windows and submit window specifications to staff for review and approval. Any problem with that? And the other two are what I've been calling the standard conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Any comments or questions from the board members? Currently the access isn't from inside the garage. Yes. Anything else? Any comments or questions from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 0 7 2 8 0 1 5 0 dash in at 150 Forest Avenue. I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, remove the muttons from the windows and submit window specifications to staff for review and approval prior to this issuance of a COA. And numbers two and three are standard condition. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay. So your mic is on. Okay. 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 is passed and is approved. Your COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you so much. Turning now to our third case, which is 244 North Broadway. Scope of work is construct rear addition. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Please state your name for the record. Erin Stouffer. All right, Ms. Stouffer. Have you reviewed the approval from the staff? Yes. They have basically three conditions, two of which are the standard conditions. And because we don't like muttons, they also recommend removing the buttons from the windows and submit window specifications to staff for review and approval prior to work. Are you in agreement with that? No. You're not in agreement. All right. Then we what we normally do is we'll have the staff do a presentation and then you can state your objections. Okay. All right. Who's doing the presentation? Barry. Come up. 244 South Broadway. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct an L-shaped plan, one-story rear addition of approximately 29 by 17 feet. The addition is skinned with cementitious panels and has a low slope TPO roof. Fenestration of the east elevation consists of a 13 by 9 foot glass accordion door and a 6 foot by 7 foot window, both containing muttons. Additionally, previously infill two-story porch is proposed to be reclad with cementitious panels with the existing windows to remain. So this is 244 North Broadway, looking kind of from the southwest. South elevation and this is the rear elevation. As you can see, this is the two-story infilled portion discussed in the report. This deck and awning will be coming off and the new addition will set at this location and as the drawings indicate, it is set back a foot from each side. This is looking from that deck towards the rear yard or through the rear yard and this is kind of looking to the southeast, so it's fully enclosed by a wall. This is that building east elevation and this is the accordion door or the sliding doors and this is shown as a door on this rendering but it's been changed. So this is the operable door and then the window in this location. These are the window elevations and as you notice they all show the muttons. And if you could address specifically the guidelines that deal with the removal of the muttons. Thank you. Tried to do that. The guidelines are included for your use. So let me... So I'll just start in the middle of the findings. All right. I think I'm in the right place. The proposal complies with 11A.4.C. The addition is compatible in design and keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, materials, color, and location of window door and corner sites. The contemporary design does not fully imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period for guideline 2A.4.D. Although the muttons in the windows and doors should be removed to eliminate confusion and to meet the guidelines. Per 2A.4.E. the proposal reflects characteristics of the current period in design but is compatible with the existing or with the original building. So the staff recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Remove the muttons from the windows and submit window specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA and then the two standard conditions. All right. Thank you very much. Ma'am. So our original intention with the muttons of the windows is that the existing windows are single light double hung windows and the proposed windows and doors are much larger than the existing. So we were hoping to break up some of the light while contrasting the existing. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members regarding this issue? Ms. Hill. For me because in this instance it does not seem imitative of the current existence of the original existing house. The muttons I don't find to to be confusing in terms of their historic nature. So it was important to be able to hear the guidelines to be able to understand in this particular instance how that gets applied. Mr. Gilpin. Any comments? I'm inclined to agree with you in the sense that when I first saw the size of your windows in the back and it would be just pure single light glass would be a bit overwhelming and I was just trying to figure out how would that be broken up in such a way as not to have muttons but at the same time not be just you know one over one glass. And so I was... Ms. Hill do you have any thoughts on that? I'm not the architect I'm the I'm the lawyer here so I'm helpless. No I tend to be in agreement that it does not does not imitate the original historic building. Right. And so I'm more I'm more concerned about the fact that it faces southeast and you're gonna get a lot of heat on that. It's really more east kind of southeast right? Gonna get a lot of heat. And I will note that you know the guideline does not expressly say muttons are verboten. There is a inclination I mean muttons are usually disapproved because they are imitative but your house is somewhat different in that it is one over one which so that your back addition is not trying to copy the look of the house so it's a little different. Ms. Kerr do you have a comment? Is that a fancy way of saying muttons divided light? Right. Your house is different. I mean all the time most times when you see houses of this era they usually have the divided light and then we have the back addition trying to copy that and the the principle we try to always adhere to is new construction shouldn't imitate what's already there. You need to be able to identify it as new. Now I think in an interesting kind of way that because you're adding in divided light to a house that otherwise has one over one that it's going to be clearly a new addition. So it's not imitative and I think we can make a finding that sufficiently defined that so someone else won't come along saying aha you're now approving muttons because we've had this battle more than one time. So I think if we frame our findings correctly I think we'll be okay. Any further comments from the board members? Josh? Our guidelines do talk about plastic or snap-in muttons are not permitted. Yeah these will be high quality aluminum plywood windows so there won't be any vinyl or anything. All right. True divided light. And define that and can you offer a definition of true divided? Oh it's not a snap-in. It's going to be panes not glass that has the appearance of being divided. Do you understand what you're saying? Yes. Okay. So we'll be glad to get with you about it. I tell you what let's do this. Let's add a condition that we are going to allow divided light subject to a submission of plan and approval by the staff. We would need the details please before you order. Will that work? Is that a solution? Yes I believe so. Okay. You all are in agreement. Anything else? I agree with the other comments of the board members. All right any comments from the audience? Ms. Murphy did you have a comment? The never-ending microphone system. Okay is someone ready to make a motion? Chair related to case number zero two five zero zero two four four dash D at 244 North Broadway I move that we approve this application with one change in staff recommendations that being number one that we allow the use of muttons in the windows of this new addition and that the windows specifications are to be submitted to the staff prior to ordering for review and may I offer you have a second second hang on just a second sorry okay okay second okay I would like to make a slight alteration in your motion if you accepted that per the request of the staff that the light it'd be a true divided light so accepted okay all right and I have a second to the addition yes second all right any further 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 application has been approved as conditioned and please understand that you can't start putting in those windows until you get approval from the staff and as always if there happens to be a disagreement you can always come back to us okay thank you so much thank you all right turning now to case number four at 327 South Upper Street the scope of work is demolished addition is that come on up good afternoon state your name mr. elder the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to a one substantive condition which is that they be present when the interior demolition occurs and it's cmou cmu addition to determine if there's any evidence of historic there's a hanging word here that I think okay historic fabric fabric all right is present that may affect the construction of a new porch typically they like to be given at least 48 hours notice if you can give that to them okay and you're in green with that condition yes all right the other two are what's called the standard conditions and those are once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting and changes the staff or board for the route review and approvals prior to start of work and if any changes are made that alternate information submitted resubmit those changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work in agreement all right any questions or comments I would like to request a review by the staff and the reason being that I understand there is the intent to have some future submittals for new work to be done and and it's it's not easy given that there's not a site plan that shows exactly which little pieces and there are a lot of pieces going on I'd like to be able to kind of establish with this application exactly what those pieces are that are going to be removed okay miss Hill are you contemplating maybe just sketching out on the on the photograph where that removal would occur I think I think that Barry can explain that if he'll just do a brief staff okay sure staff review I don't have a problem with that okay Barry we're just going to work you today I'm sorry okay 327 South upper I'll just you know it's a certificate of appropriate to demolish a concrete masonry unit addition in the front and some frame additions and infills in the rear of the structure so if we just get right to it here this this project runs from this line to this corner this is the CMU addition in question and in the Sanborn maps that were included it shows that originally there was a space here with what appears to be a historic porch across that so that CMU addition runs about to that line so all of this front will come off and although we don't have drawings I've spent a lot of time with mr. Elder and he wants to do some open space there and possibly a new porch of some type that that's the easy piece to understand yes but I have to cover everything so this is where it gets complicated in the rear yeah let's go to here well that's not gonna help at all okay so so what the proposal is to take out is well I've got one straight from the back so again looking at the Sanborn maps there is a brick portion here so you don't have to say where here is what size of the photograph you're looking at so this is this is brick which is to remain towards the right-hand side of the photograph yes below that in front of that chimney and then as you work to the left of the left here this is a frame infill that was probably originally a porch of some type but now it is all modern construction and construction materials it's like it's falling apart and once we this is the area that we were just speaking about this is another rear protrusion that is brick below this chimney and then there is another frame addition to the back of that okay to the far left of the photo which is to be removed is that outbuilding supposed to be removed as well that has the red door and on the first level of this frame okay and the reason that in speaking with mr. elder that it's hard to come up with a design for that rear area without knowing what they're going to run into so staff felt like we could recommend the demolition of that and they do know that they have to come back to the board for review and approval of the COA before they start any new construction it's missile did I make that any more clear I think so um the Sanborn map that I'm looking at or it's part of the 1985 individual inventory form on second page the inventory you mean yes the second page of the individual inventory form under number 45 it's going to be the one that has 1890 on it yes it's under number 44 44 okay um I the corner at max alley and upper street that former porch that was in field that you spoke about at the front I can easily see that on the rear is it what's dashed in that's going to be removed or is it all the way back to the 1819 building we're getting it on the overhead thank you yep that's so it this is the portion that comes towards the alley again as you mentioned this is where the porch was this piece is that two-story that I mentioned had the there was masonry on the first floor and then infill of the probably a sleeping porch on the second floor so it's basically the dashed although there has been some more construction back there since this was done okay so that's that's why the drawing looks nothing looks nothing like this plan and that's that's that's why I'm asking yeah that might be good certainly okay if you're showing additional pictures they need to be put into the record okay okay okay the part that's not on the map this is that new structure that we feel is pretty old but it still doesn't show up on okay this is this behind that section in the rear is obviously an add-on it's mine the stairs were modern this is the other side of that right bump out and then this section here is also add-on and then this porch so it's like shit that's part of that original original yes yes so you can kind of see from here that all this and you can tell by the construction of it it's all just been stuck on the back here we couldn't find right on the maps or nor this section okay that I'm good with that yeah it is partly just the clarity of the colors I think Xerox and it makes it a little hard to see and miss Hill if you could express the concern that you're trying to make sure that a historic fabric is not inadvertently demolished is that what you're correct that's correct and that I understood which of those dilapidated more recent pieces were actually being taken off and I do understand now that that kind of historic brick early pieces are going to be left intact okay okay so I'll incorporate your comments I will incorporate your comments into the dialogue that we're having today that you're not going to take out any of the original brick area of the building you're just removing the modern what looks like a dilapidated sleeping porch and other addition go at it we would just note that they are of varying ages these right evolution over time additions and alterations to the house so that's particularly why the staff in conjunction with the property owner is needs to monitor right and see it as it's being taken apart it needs sort of a skeletal stripping because it is of course we all know possible that there could be some form of yet another version or era of the house swallowed up in all this it's convoluted enough that you can't just stand inside these additions and say oh there's nothing here good point so that's our intent by making this request within the emotion okay consideration for your motion and Dickinson you mentioned the sleeping porch that is not a part of it okay I'm misunderstood then the sleeping porch is on the right hand side of the photograph yes right hand and that's not part of the demo that's not part of the demolition that is correct I'm sorry I'm misunderstood and and there will be kind of clear documentation as this demolition takes place particularly if something is found unexpected it would be really helpful to the board to know what that was uncovered and you know if some significant piece or section that's intact were to be located which I do think is highly unlikely just given complexity of what all's happened here then there might even have to be a stop and figure out now what but we certainly don't anticipate that we're just looking for more of a sort of archaeological explanation but above grade that will help inform for future addition considerations which is where you're I believe reflecting right thank you okay any other questions or comments from the board members not here any questions or comments from the audience Josh do you have anything okay then I believe we're ready for a motion mr. chairman regarding case number one nine four five zero three two seven dash G at three twenty seven South Upper Street a move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions that staff shall be present number one that staff shall be present when the interior demolition occurs in the CMU addition to determine if any evidence of the historic fabric is present that may affect the construction of a new porch and that they receive a 48-hour notice as well as conditions two and three which are standard conditions okay do I have a second second all right any further discussion on the motion is this the appropriate place to ask for the documentation for the records yes it probably would be so is I guess what I'd like to do is be able to amend what Josh has proposed and just ask for another condition to be added that during the removal and demolition of these more recent additions that they be photographically documented I think that's standard procedure with them but we'll add it in thank you all right any do you agree to the addition I agree to that okay any further discussion on that now chair will call the question all those in favor of the four conditions of the COA's say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the COA is conditioned is approved okay thank you mr. Albert it's been a process all right turning now to our next case and this is at 132 East 3rd Street scope of work is refreshed gravel parking all right state your name for the record Wayne Ebersole mr. Ebersole there is the staff has recommended approval with four different conditions two of which are the standards there is however a letter of objection that I want to note for the record our email actually I'm sorry what are there other three letters that's right I only saw this first one I'm trying to find them okay all right we have there's one more okay we have an email from Lindy Brown dated Tuesday February 6 2020 a email from Janet Bolton dated also February 6 2020 and a letter from Linda Carol at 343 North Limestone dated February 4 and also a letter from Lorella Linder Linder is a email dated February 11 all of them have various objections to the application the one that struck me as being most relevant is the fact that two of them are calling for the fact that it doesn't appear to be any prior permitting for a parking lot at this location and that probably needs to be explored by you with the other divisions of the city I'm not sure which division miss Kerr would be in charge of that is that planning well the preservation staff has checked with the planning division staff to inquire if there's anything that we need to learn about the evolution of this and Barry is handing me something has the board got this this is from planning okay so you have a planning oh you're the Janet Bolton okay so you might want to read that one closely and miss Carol is also calling for a proper building permit application should be obtained and full requirements for parking design standards should be met that's on her the very first email from Janet Bolton yeah it's attached to it correct that that email is from the zoning enforcement officer who believes that these spaces in the rear of the lot are grandfathered in so there is no need to send him to another division for any permitting okay oh I'm sorry it's miss Bolton within the she's on staff okay I thought this was okay this generally if she says generally corresponds with the two spaces currently signed as number four and five so I'm assuming this space for two spaces yes in the last sentence it says grandfathered is our opinion that the area that's being mentioned would qualify for gravel refreshing all of it are just four and five I think that's what we're trying to get into and we also have a mud pit apparently from what from the looks of things the board would like to consider having a full hearing on this case I think so let's do that very sorry let's have a full it's a prop I've owned the property for one year okay and it's it's a the only reason why there's some pushback on this is because that whole area is so tight for parking and I'm okay with pushback I just want to eventually found to find a solution I want to make sure that my neighbors are happy that sure how many let I tell you what let me let Barry do his presentation then we can hear from you thank you 132 East 3rd Street the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to refresh the existing gravel to track parking and gravel apron of parking spaces number 4 numbers 4 through 7 the parking spaces are accessed from Huston alley and do not provide the ability to to pass through the property to 3rd Street the guidelines are included for your use so as just an overview this is this is 132 this is a view looking back towards the rear of the property there is on the front here a driveway with some parking so then as we move around to the rear this is Valley this is the area that is currently graveled so I went out to the site obviously to take the photographs and to look closely at where the gravel actually existed so it's very obvious at four and five that there is gravel there and the other spaces well as you move well that's what I was trying to get to it's not as obvious but there is gravel at number at number six although it is pushed into the ground quite a bit you have to actually really look for it but then at seven which is the far one that is where cars have been parking in the mud and so the recommendation was for the first three from staff I'm not sure if planning actually went out there or just looked at the aerials which I included in the way PVA works now it's hard to really see but while Barry's that's looking really the planning letter looking at it closely and I know you all have this but it says they are they consider two parking spaces at the rear of the lot as being grandfathered which is three and four I'm sorry four and five so see your picture again to get my number straight but so they're saying two of the four stretching across the back they do not see his grandfather right if you're looking at the photograph those that are denominated six and seven seven is clearly a mud pit six is close to being a mud pit which is why they're looking for refreshing but what I'm trying to get at is and I'm not quite sure should there have been some kind of application filed with Planning Commission to add additional parking spaces and get their approval yes okay some point and obviously has that been done apparently not they didn't provide that they have that on file okay we did request that that be looked at you may have inherited a mess because even though have been grandfathered in all the other according to miss Carroll's letter all the other properties have had properly designated parking areas I remember this one coming up I guess my first time I was on the board this was Fritz fence elements addition that he put on this property and I remember it just being two parking spaces may be wrong about that but this is back around the term 2001-2002 they've been that long the aerials the LFU CG aerial show parking there as far back it's 2003 which is far as far back as we can access those yeah but even though there when does Harry come into the historic district plan of the historic district was created in the 1970s or 80s well I thought this is no one is a very old district in terms of designated I think I think the point is though that even if he goes to apply the planning response it's going to be those two spaces qualify right they're not going to do anything further and that's what I want to make I just want to make sure that we're on the same page about that at least those two spaces and I guess what Barry is saying is it based on his actual physical his physical view of it it appears that that third one should also qualify but of course this well I'm just saying that that's what Barry believes when he went out to the site that that one was would meet the same criteria but of course it's up to you all to make that determination this has always been a problem with you know with graveling seemingly always growing if you will in a unbordered backyard this is a big problem with Ellsworth that we've been having for years now I'm personally of the opinion and I'm sorry mr. come on up sir I hadn't finished I'm sorry Barry excuse me I apologize okay go ahead just so we're legal all right go ahead okay the guidelines are included for your use the findings staff reviewed LF you CG GIS aerial photographs of the property and consulted with the division of planning regarding the area in question the aerial photographs dating back to 2003 showed that parking on gravel on a gravel two track system occurred as early as 2003 in the location of parking spaces four five and six but not at parking space seven staff's findings based on the aerial photographs are that refreshing the parking spaces number four five and six may be allowed if it is accomplished in accordance with the guidelines staff finds that the proposal meets three five a which states parking should be maintained and three 5h that requires parking of a refreshed gravel should have appropriate retention elements to contain the gravel and retard expansion recommendations the staff recommends approval of the appropriateness with the following conditions refreshed gravel for parking only at four at parking spaces four five and six and only in the pattern of the existing to track layout provide gravel retention elements such as concrete curbing or landscape timbers at all gravel edges the gravel edges would also be interpreted to keep the two track and not expand those to a full width driveway and then the two standard recommendations and deadline for board action is March 20th 2020 okay mr. episode how many tenants do you have three how many spaces do you really need well in the picture I think all of them and here's why in the picture there is a white can I click this Barry yes yes I don't know where I'm okay yeah very good okay see that white car uh-huh that's a very very very tight spot to get into because that person has to back in and hopefully they don't have a passenger in the car and they have to get right up against the neighbor's brick in order to allow enough room for the other two spots the other two cars to come and go so people typically do not park in that spot so I'd like to have two spots per tenant so six spots there are currently seven spots including the one where the white car is mm-hmm but if we that one's not hardly used so that's why people have been parking in seven I assume if I could suggest that it would be helpful to know what the required number of parking spaces are do you know that from planning I don't imagine it's as many as six it would be helpful to have a little more review with because you often get one and a half I always wonder what you're supposed to do with half a car but you get one and a half per unit kind of thing so that would really give you what are the white cars you're a half anyway I'm just thinking as if this had not had no existing parking is all I'm saying is in terms of the the zoning requirements it would be helpful to know very wait my turn in the infill district you're allowed to parking places maximum per unit and there are three units all right so may I ask a question sure go ahead there are we on the staff on the same page yes I was just asking if there was a minimum to that number but Barry's explaining the way they do it is a maximum of okay very you mentioned to have the recommendation would be to have barriers at all gravel edges yes and then I think you also said that that would mean essentially two barriers per track each spot correct and then maybe with it also include a barrier at at the at the entrance from the alley up to the he's asking if it would require I think and there should be well we don't want timbers that it will be so dominant that it's going to actually be we want to have an edge along the curb I think the edge where the cars actually we park would be sufficient I think edging where the car is actually going to be parked because here's the other problem you can have cars parked behind each other and then yeah exactly I'm with discussing along here whether there should be some type of curb into the alley which LFU CG is trying to eliminate gravel because of the you know damage that it causes to cars so although refreshing is allowed we try to contain it mr. Rizzo have you actually thought about paving that's kind of where I was going I'm wondering if that might make more sense to have some sort of pavement or may I suggest let me make a suggestion I think there seems to be a lot of confusion if I think maybe if you bring to us a new proposal or an amended proposal that would show perhaps how you're going to delineate the parking spaces and also get some clarity from the Planning Commission as to whether parking lot space six is allowed because the arguments being made by your neighbors is the rest of them have gone through the process of getting permitted parking areas and for whatever reason your prior owner didn't do that so you're inheriting his unfortunately his sin and so it would be helpful to us and frankly just for your aesthetic appearance if nothing else that we might get a better proposal and explore how you could perhaps do some pavement and curbing to keep the gravel from going out into the street and I think if you make a suggestion that you're gonna pay if your two neighbors might be willing to give you another space without objection well in the notion of landscaping some kind of an edge where you do have grass right now to make sure cars aren't pulling into that portion of it also but along that alley yours is really the kind of widest berth as you go through there and if there were some kind of landscaping edge where the cars are not pulling into their spaces I think that would also go a long way I would think that going back to zoning and planning would be really smart yeah I think so too so our normal our normal process is we since we open the case we will continue the case to our next hearing date or give you four weeks if you need that much time okay well the good news is you are in an area that's really becoming a hot place to be and the other good news is you have neighbors that care passionately about the appearance there is a couple people that have done a lot of work to bring that street back to from a slum to where it is today which is probably improving your rental price that's why you bought it so I think you just need some more time so if you don't mind and I I think that Barry could certainly help help you get in direct you about who to get in touch with and who has given a review so that you can kind of feed right into them to bring this together and our next four weeks out is when four weeks from now would be March the 11th okay set too far out for you sir okay then we have plenty of time okay all right let's continue let's continue it I agree a deadline for action you're with we're within it no actually you bring in your design plans before then and let the staff look at it and hopefully have some kind of blessing from from the Planning Commission and just give us a better looking design plan for how you gonna make that parking lot look all right okay we need motions any other comment from the one last person in the audience okay all right chair is ready for a motion to continue chair related to case number 1 8 7 9 0 1 3 2 dash 0 at 132 East 3rd Street I move that we continue continue the case to March which is a 14th or 12th March 11 all right March 11th right do I have a second second all right chair calls the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay we are continued to March 11th thank you for your patience mr. everyone all right I appreciate your cooperation anything else on our agenda if not then I believe we're ready for a motion to adjourn to move second we stand adjourned thank you so much you You My day We've only got each other to blame The same me Cuz I know But I feel to be right I You To turn your tears to laughter I will do what I feel I You're my guiding light Day or night, I'm always there I look behind me