Mayor Gorton gave her annual budget address to Council. Here are some highlights from her speech. In proposing a budget that will guide us through the remainder of this global pandemic, I am determined to look to the future. I'm proposing a budget that is as bold and courageous as our citizens. A budget that invests in the basics while also reaching for a bright future for our city as we approach it. And then you can help us follow along. There you go. Okay. Let me check. Thank you. Thank you. You are on the air. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. I welcome you to the April 21st meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150 is signed by the governor on March 30, 2020, and the Attorney General's opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 61826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. We are hopeful that that is maybe coming to an end at some point. The board was established by a zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 16 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 it is our procedure to consider applications in the order which they're listed on their agenda in each case we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant i'll ask parties that wish to be heard regarding an applicant to raise their digital blue hand in order to be allowed to be caught to comment as an applicant or as a citizen making public comment. Please keep your microphone muted until you're recognized to speak and as you start your comment, state your name and address for the public record. Upon conclusion of a specific application you're addressing, you will be returned to regular attendee status, but you of course welcome to continue observing the meeting. The board will ask questions or make comments regarding the application and hear comments from any other interested parties. They share with them and ask the board members to enter a motion and take final action. I would like to take note of 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 today a bunch of them, totaling 40 staff approval applications. I will now read them into the record. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 230 DeShay Road, repair rear entryway at 1005 Fontaine re-roof structure at 1014 Fontaine install fencing. In the Ellsworth Historic District, 288 Clay Avenue, repair driveway. 316 East High Street, renovate structure and replace chain fence. At 466 High Street, remove deteriorated tree. At 413 East Maxwell Street, install wood fence. At 417 East Maxwell, renovate greenhouse. At 347 Oldham Avenue, renovate structure. At 344 Transimating Park, renovate structure. 365 Transylvania Park renovate site and at 368 Transylvania Park replace fencing. In the Belcourt historic district at 210 Bell Place install radon pipe. At 621 Boonesboro Avenue install storm windows. At 255 DeMar Avenue replace rear door. At 505 East Main Street install copper chimney caps and 620 Sarah Avenue replace fence. In the Fayette Park historic district at 444 Fayette Park renovate structure. In the north side historic district at 468 West 2nd Street replace roof 472 West 2nd Street construct fence and at 316 West 6th Street install storm windows. In the Pensacola Park historic district at 99 Goodbridge Avenue renovate structure At 1859 Nicholasville Road, renovate structure and garage. At 177 Penn Moken Park, replaced roof. And at 124 Rosemont Garden, removed pine tree. In the seven parks historic district at 134 Barbary Lane, renovate site. At 317 Dantzler Court, re-roof the asphalt shingles. In the South Ashland and Central Avenue Historic District at 237 South Ashland, installed gas meter 241 and 254 installed gas meters at 273 south ashland installed gas meter at 273 south ashland removed damaged tree and at 276 south ashland installed gas meter in the south hill historic district at 289 south limestone reissued the coa for fencing In the Woodward Heights Historic District, at 628 West High Street, replaced and installed new fencing. At 324 Madison Place, renovate structure. At 706 West Maxville, replaced roof. At 377 Merino Street, replaced roof. And finally, at 351 Merino Street, removed deteriorated tree. Those are all the applications that have been approved without the necessity for board review by us. We will now turn to our first application, which is at 715 West Short Street. Install solar panels on rear addition. Is the applicant here? Are you in trouble unmuting yourself, Ms. Armstrong, or do we have an applicant? I'm putting the attendees into the meeting. Are you doing it? Correct. Okay. All right. Mr. Bellow, is that your name? Yes. Hi. Okay. Welcome to our meeting. We're having some technical issues as usual, but it is the world of Zoom. This application was filed by you with regard to installing solar panels. The staff has recommended approval subject to what we have been referring to at past meetings as our standard conditions. they are one if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work and secondly once reviewed by the other city divisions any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start the work. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes. All right thank you. Any questions or comments from the board members? any questions or comments from the audience and I am seeing a person on my screen who's named Ben are you part of the of this application sir you need to unmute yourself unmute okay he should not be a part of my application okay and I just lost Ryan there you are people we're having this is not a normal way of handling the audience and so there may be arrows bringing people in and out but anyway I'm ready is there any comment from the audience the virtual audience I'll give it a count of ten Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion then. Someone? Ms. Hill? Yes, Mr. Chair, per case number 17170715-C at 415 West Short Street, I move that we approve this certificate of appropriateness per the staff recommendations. All right. Do I have a second? I have Josh raising his hand. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. the motion passes and the application is approved thank you Mr. Bellone good luck with your project all right you're welcome sir our next applicant is Jill Hall Rose and Austin Muir are they in there in our audience I thought I'd bring them in first before I called it I don't see their names or people associated with them. Okay, well, let me call for the record then. We have a... There's somebody. Here we go. There we go. I'm Ben Perry, and I'm involved with that project. I'm not sure if Austin, I thought he planned to make it, but he's not here. But anyway, I'm involved in that project. Okay, thank you, sir. I appreciate you being here. And you were just Johnny on the spot, so let's speak. This is 609 West Short Street. It's in the western suburb of Historic District. Scope of work, again, is the installation of solar panels on the garage roof. I believe the staff has recommended approval along the same and using the same conditions that I had previously read into the record. Ben, did you hear those recommendations? Yeah, I did. Basically, any changes that occur, you all need to be notified. and I think there was, I forget what was the... Well, I'll just read them again. Repeat if you would, yeah. I'll read them in the record of any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. And the other one is once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. And you are authorized to speak on behalf of the applicant, correct? Yes. All right. Any questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the virtual audience? Amelia, I have a question. How do we know if we have someone wanting to talk? Well, they would have their blue hand up, right? Okay. And who sees the blue hand? Me? Both of us and the fellow from the... Neil. I wasn't sure whether you had to be up here to see it or can you see it back where you're sitting. He'll see it at his desk. Okay, very good. All right, so I'm counting on somebody from LexTV Air to let me know, I guess, or the Blue Horse. There does not appear to be anyone. Okay, may the force be with you. All right. Okay, then. Do I have any questions or comments from the audience? I doubt that I will, but let me give it a count of 10. Hearing none, do I have a motion? Mr. Chair, in case number 17170609-R at 609 West Short Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Mr. Gilpin. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. All right. The motion passes and the application for COA is proved as conditioned. Ben, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. Is that it for me at this point? so that's it first time on this so uh you you are free to go appreciate y'all being kind and thank you sir bye-bye all right um that's three turning to our next applicant uh gary waz or dmcgl are either of those persons present or individuals or entities i think you've skipped a case mr dickinson Did I? I may have. I did. I'm sorry. Next one is Mark Ingram, 148 Rosemont Garden. Okay. Mr. Ingram is in the waiting room. Okay. All right, Mr. Ingram, if you like, you can turn off your mic or turn on your mic. There you go. You can continue in Avatar status or we can see you. It's your option. Are you assuming? We can see you. This is an application for 148 Rose Mark Garden in the historic district. In the Pensacola. I'm sorry. Yeah, in the Pensacola district. This is an application for a ramp. You have received recommendation of approval by staff. They had one, what I would call a substantive condition, which is basically that the ramp have a more finished rail system with final details being returned to staff for review and approval prior to the issues of COA? Yes. The vertical struts that were given a more substantial appearance were recommended, which seems like a good idea. Okay. I'm assuming you're in agreement then with that recommendation Yes. And that you'll submit plans or more detailed specifications prior to the start of work. Yes. Any details or plans we can get to make sure we do it right would be appreciated. Okay. So we try to do the right thing. Very good. I'm not sure if you heard me read into the record the other two conditions, which we refer to as our standard conditions. Did you hear those from me? I heard that there were standard conditions. I'm not sure what they are. Okay. Let me read them into the record for you then, sir, to make sure you're in agreement. The first one is, any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit those changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work? Are you in agreement with that? Yes. And the other one is, once reviewed by other city divisions, any changes that they may recommend, shall we return to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work? Are you in agreement with that? That's fine. Ms. Dickinson, I would add on the first one, instead of start before starting work, actually prior to issuance of the COA. You're right, I misread. Let me read that again. They're recommending the ramp have a more finished rail system with final details being returned to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. So there's one last final little detail that you need to work out before they'll actually issue the COA. Okay? Yes. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Do I have any comments or questions from the board members? All right. Do I have any questions or comments from my virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 1630. Sorry. 16370148 at 148 Rosemont Garden. I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, that the ramp have a more finished rail system with final details returned to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Conditions two and three are our standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Do I have any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed aye. Motion carries and the application as condition is approved. Mr. Ingram, thank you so much for your time and good luck with your project. Thank you all so very much. Okay, thank you. Bye-bye. All right. I think now we're on application number four with Mr. Gary Wines. Is he here? i have a ethan skeeters is that from dmcgl uh yes i'm the designer oh you're the designer okay yeah mr skeeters i'm doing a couple of older gentlemen not up to snuff on some things they wanted me to do this for them. So I drew the plan and stuff for the application. Okay, this is for the, this is for the Herrick House, I'm assuming, right? Yes, it is. Okay, this is 312 North Limestone. Scope of work is construct signage. Staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions I've been reading into the record. Did you hear me read those into the record and do you agree with them? Yes. Okay. If that being the case, are there any questions or comments from the board members? All right. And do I have any questions or comments from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion to approve the application with the standard two conditions. Mr. Chair, in regard to case number 11660312-Q at 312 North Limestone, I move that we recommend the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions as noted. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Second from Ms. Irwin. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries and the COA as conditioned is approved. Mr. Skeeter, thank you so much for your time. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I heard you read out the two condition things, but is it, so whenever I go to pull the actual permit, because I've been talking to the reviewer, and so I'm good to go, or I need, what is the standard two condition again? I wondered if I was going a little too quickly. Sorry. And we'll let Barry answer that question. Yes. Once the board has approved it, we will issue and mail the COA out to you. And unless there are changes made, you do not need to come back to us. Okay, great. Well, thank you. So the Planning Commission says your application is approved as is. You're fine. Yeah. They make some alterations of changes you need to give the board notice of that. Thank you. all right thank you very much okay are we good yeah we're good can you hear me okay all right thank you so much all right take care all right next one is attachment five at 600 sayer avenue in the bell court historic district phil and kim czar as owner and tim dole as the applicant I see Mrs. R coming in. All right. You need to unmute yourself, sir. And I have Mr. Doe. All right. Okay. Mr. Doe, do you want to remain in avatar status or do you want to have your camera on? I'm going to turn my camera on here. There we go. There we go. Mr. Doe, how are you today? I'm well, thank you. All right. This is an application at 600 Sayre Avenue in the Belfort Histoire District. Scope of work is construct a rear addition. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard conditions. I'm going to read them into the record so that you hear them. The first one is, 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. Do you agree with that? Yes. All right. The other one is once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you agreeing with that? Yes. All right. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? All right. Hearing none, do I have any questions or comments from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. All right, hearing none. I'm ready for a motion. The chair's ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, per case number 16780600-M at 600 Sayre Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate for appropriateness with the two standard conditions noted. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Mr. Gilpin. Any further comments or questions about the motion itself? I will abstain from the vote because I live in the Belcourt neighborhood. All right, Ms. Irvin. That's an awfully big district to abstain from. We'll let it go. All right. So all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion carries and the certificate of appropriateness is approved disconditioned. Mr. Dole, thank you for your time. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. Moving on to our next application, attachment six. This is in the Mulberry Hill historic district. Scope of work is extend and screen in porch. Is the applicant here? Do I have an applicant yet? It doesn't look like he's in the waiting room at the moment. Okay, there was one substantive condition that I'm not sure was clear on its face, and I'm not sure if you want to ask some questions about it. That being if more members need to be placed in the screen system, those details need to be come back to the staff. For the record, would you explain what is meant by members? So he's going to screen the big spans, and if he needs to have vertical members to help with the spans. Additional support? Right. Okay. I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to make sure. Yes. I think it's routine enough that we probably can go ahead and approve this one. Any objections to that process by the other board members? Okay. If not, then I'll read them into the record just to make sure they're properly recorded. As I said, if more members, meaning support, needed to be placed in the screen system, these details need to come back to the staff. I assume for review and approval prior to the start of work, Ms. Armstrong? Obviously. It would be prior to the issuance of the COA. Prior to the issuance of COA, thank you. The other two are final details shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA, and once reviewed by the other divisions, all changes shall come back to staff for review and approval prior to start of any work. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Hearing none, are there any questions or comments from my virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. All right. I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, as per case number 11660355 at 355 North Limestone, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following recommendations. one if more support members are needed to be placed in the screen system those details need to come back to staff prior to issuance of the coa and the two standard conditions all right do i have a second second all right second and any further discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye aye aye opposed nay all right the application is approved and the coa as conditioned is uh shall be issued all right that concludes the discussion on number uh attachment seven Turning to attachment eight. I'm sorry, I'm ahead of myself. Going to number seven. Attachment seven, 181 Rosemont Garden in the Pensacola Park is start district. Amir Najadine, are you here? Yes. All right. The scope of work for this application is demolish rear addition and deck, construct addition and deck. We've had several hearings on this. The staff is still recommending disapproval. I guess we need to have one more walkthrough of the application and the reasons for the disapproval, Ms. Armstrong. You need to turn on your mic. Sorry, let me pull up the case, please. All right. okay to walk you through this case again because it is a quite a complicated case so of course this is 181 where's my garden and just to walk you familiarize yourself again with the site this is the existing addition that was there before had a flat roof that was a filled in area then and then of course the applicant pitched the roof over an existing addition in in the flat roof addition making it a larger bigger box on the back as you can see here's sort of the tie-in this area being this is the west facing side of the existing house this is from this point on a later edition that was built and now that in this did actually have a flat roof to it and now it's got a roof again on the west side this particular opening here will become a window a door excuse me and you can see where the siding the later edition siding was added and then as you will see in the plans that the applicant proposes to install a horizontal siding on the rear and you could see that staff to force stop this work twice this project twice um and i'll read some of this and um staff reports in april the historic preservation staff met with the property owner and the designer to discuss the issues of the proposal first conversation he stated that it will be two units with the family member moving in the front of the building and he and his family live in the second unit in the back he also stated he was going to vault the ceiling in the second unit he also made alterations by installing openings and and this is reflective of the new plans on the sides of the buildings and he spitted new plans indicating the old edition the new as the built construction and of course the following is noted from the staff report of um and from the march 21st meeting date um and at that meeting it was determined that covered um multiple editions with the new monolithic the previous wall sections systems have been in the same location as the rear of the historic house similar location the new owners has indicated uh they're constructed a new building envelope over and around the existing edition it should be noted the applicant had provided an attached interior plan and as you can see and the applicant asked for postponement of the work to deal out to work out the roof details and subsequently staff met with the owner and designer to determine ways in making the roof line come into compliance with guidelines the applicant has submitted new revised plan that proposed to drop down the previous constructed roof line in order to meet the guidelines regarding stepping off the main roof and that was from the march meeting date but that information did not change he has submitted that you can see that in his new plans new plans submitted by the applicant proposed a telescope effect with proposed roof line that covers the new addition reconfiguring to step down from the main roof then rising back and up in order to create a distinct break from the main ridge line of the historic house to the new roof the other part of the proposal is to construct a covered rear porch over a concrete deck and that has not been constructed yet and would be in this location as you see in the back and the plans call for the porch to have a gable roof that would step down from the main roof and is supported by wood six by six post and part of the proposal also calls for the west facing windows with the new door and stoop in addition to the side and that would be on that east that door that i mentioned earlier and then there'll be a door and a deck on the on the I'm going to go through some images, more images. And this was as completion in the, which covered both. And as you remember, there was a smaller roof. This was the original configuration of the structure. and then there was sort of more of a flat roof on the backside here. We can see those aerials and the roof now covers both of those sort of eradicating that existing configuration. And you can see here in this is the ridge over that, those, the flat roof and the covered section. And this rake detail is the original configuration of the roof that would be on that east side with this wall section built in. And this eventually became covered. And this is sort of this wall faces east, as is this window. But it was sort of became all enclosed. and again here's that rake detail that we saw before with now the roof rising up over both of what the original ridge line of that at the back edition would be or that back main structure and then the flat roof and this is that break board coming in from the flat roof and this main roof covers all of it now all of this detail has been removed so essentially an inside is brand new now again that's the flat roof and you can see the built up over that flat roof and this is the corner of the that side of what was there And this is the rear wall. So now as this gets built over, it's now all new configuration size, as you can see in the floor plan. Just again, some more images. And then this is this image that we saw before that shows, we saw the details of this being ripped off. But you could see this was the rakeboard before in that rear corner we saw. And this is the corner now that had this enclosed section. And part of the enclosed section, of course, had this corrugated plastic wall over it in this wall system. It was a new wall that was closed in. And now this is sort of inside where they eradicated all those parts. And it's a new configuration inside. you can see again this was this corner here is what was originally the corner of the original footprint of the structure and all this being built over and the new roof going over the existing that was original and the new section that was filled in later on Then sort of screen back and then of course this is what we were talking about as far as the flat roof section here and this having been in a different plane this section this is the original configuration and noting that this was the original configuration of the structure as it is here but now this new roof goes over both sections. And to sort of go back through the aerials that we we only go back to 1998 on the aerials. And this being the flat buildup section here's this with this being the main configuration and of course here are the the new plans that the applicant has submitted that he has actually sort of helped his uh by bacheting and sort of showing what was original on the sides and showing what he's proposing as far as the new orzona siding he did put some new windows in that were not discussed before. And then we did talk to him again about trying to drop down this roof again to create more of a break. But his argument is, which he'll talk about later, is the fact that he's vaulting the ceiling now and it will not be a drop ceiling. and then of course here is if you can see um the existing roof floor plan so as we look from this being the front going back to the slipping room this configuration i've got a a plan that shows that was the original floor plan and this was added and then we had some additional added pieces later onto this section. And again, this is his proposed. So the first plan we saw back in February showed one single family. Now he's proposing, as we saw in the last March meeting plan, have two units. And so this is the line of that one unit, and then this would be the second unit in this area, with a door leading out in this way, and then the two doors leading out onto the porch. We've got a door here, and then the door here. But this configuration is still the same. And of course, here again is the roof plan. This is his proposed roof that shows that he will stuff this down and then bring this back up as he's proposing to do. And then this was the previous roof plan that showed this being the main ridge. and then this section here and then the built up flat section roof and then another flat section roof here and then here it's um he's put in a ceiling height detail to show his proposal for the ceiling this is a little we have not seen this plan before and then I will this is one that we've sort of altered to help you figure out the configuration of the structure with this is the main structure and then this sort of back to this point and then this part was added and this is sort of a second unit and here's the root plan that shows this And I will just continue, still in the background, the new owner of the bungalow is still requesting the board to grant, of course, what we just talked about, demolishing some of the walls of the existing one-story frame, constructing new foundation wall systems, which have already all been done, constructing a new roof over all the additions, and changing the rear addition windows to doors in the west-facing addition we just saw, and adding a covered porch, and replacing the existing decks. And of course, as we saw this, oops, sorry about that. I'm going to go back to this plan. You know, in January, staff noticed this work being stopped investigating. Staff found the more work was ongoing and in addition was being constructed at the new walls and foundation. Of course, work has been stopped twice. Staff didn't visit the site earlier this past summer and summer 2020 when it was for sale and did notice the different array of materials and construction and built up the roof guidelines are included included for your reference findings while the plans have had slight changes as such as and a better distinction between the old new and windows have been installed on sides the overall changes have still not addressed the issue with the roof being too overwhelming to the historic structure and the site and the proposal still does not meet the intent of the guidelines and of course these comments are from the march 21st meeting but they are still the same the property owners applicants without a certificate property permits constructed this new addition with a concrete block foundation wall systems and roof around what were the existing portions of the structure at 181 rosemont garden and the real portion seeming to be consistent of the at least two additions made sometimes after 1972 none of the additions now removed appeared in the 1972 sanborn map since the owner did not contact the historic preservation office to apply for the necessary permits the preservation staff had no opportunity to view or discuss with the owner the concept of the same much less than the required review for the boar when the hp staff encountered the work ongoing previously previous existing previous officials were largely with within the confines of being built new construction including the walls and the roof system the under continued work despite the stop work order and and to tore down these additions had to come to be within confines of the constructed envelope built as a new addition retaining some of the portion of the previous exterior walls on either side no delimitation permit was applied for more of course issued the second stopper portrait was issued instead of visited the site over a number of times and talked to the property owner on the phone several times discussing the problems with the work that had been done in the proposal as he intends to bring the project in compliance with the age one overlay following the previous boar meetings in february where the this case was continued the project is built and proposed to have very slightly adjustment made adjustments to the roof line still overwhelm the historic bungalow the applicant's suggestion modified a limited to small change in the recent constructed roof by lowering a section that is connected to the main roof of the one-story historic house this is proposed to be accomplished by lowering the new roof a few feet to get the same get a new connection below the ridge the main roof as it's currently constructed in the same plane as the main ridge line the revised design would then come in the new roof rise back up and the same plane is already constructed resulting in a short section that steps down as built the roof is massive and along with the scale of the new additions dominates historic house violating the design guidelines noted in the report in this in the details the roof system is built with without open valleys and using the california weave method which is not the intent of the design guidelines it also has lengthy exposed raptor tails running along the sides of the addition which results in mimicking the identical archiprotectual identical of the historic house further violating the design guidelines by attempting to make the addition appear to be more part of the original part of the house. Guidelines 115B, 2A for B, and D, Oakland Valley should be retained and covered valleys, California weave, are not allowed in existing structures. Exterior walls of addition should not be clutched with those of existing building, and she stepped down a minimum of 12 inches in the edges of the existing building, and roof lines should step down to the peak of the existing roof lines with existing main roof remains evident. It should not imitate an earlier style architectural period. The approach of the project to a new addition, replacing existing addition through demolition and new construction is counterintuitive to and in violation of the guidelines and overlay process. the design guidelines are in place and assure those through h1 overlay process that all the proposed demolition is reviewed and if approved all constructions appropriately scaled mass and situated details and utilized in appraisal of materials additions that result in large rectangular boxes attached to the historic structure are not within the guidelines or and not allowed additions should be subservient in their mass and design to the main structure and not overwhelm the structure and in this rear addition is currently built in the non-compliance with the process of the north design guidelines as noted in design guidelines principles for room and wing additions with states in planning additions the best approach is to place the additions where there are least impact on the building's overall form and plan and exterior walls and the new additions shall be flush with those of existing buildings which step in a minimum of 12 inches edges of the existing building likewise addition roof line should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so the existing main roof line is evident this addition is built connects on the west side elevation to a sawn off mid wall linked running the remaining exterior wall in a butt cut wood shingle and the east side it meets exact same plane of what was on the corner of the previous existing addition there's no setback from the sides of the existing on either elevation and the new concrete block foundation also but the historic house foundation in the same plane on the east elevation and what was the existing concrete block on the west elevation with no step in no room to veneer and a large concrete block projecting forward of the previous existing additions the design principle for room and wean additions states as stated before in planning roof additions the best approach is to place additions where they they have the least impact on the building's overall form and plan. Exterior walls of new additions should be flush with those of existing buildings, but should not be stepped, it should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building. Likewise, addition roof lines should be stepped in down from the peak of the existing roof line to remain existing roof remain evident. As guidelines stated 2, 1, 4, C, F, and G, roof and weaning additions should be compatible in design and keeping with original buildings design shape materials color location of window and door and corners details it's not being maintained maintained and avoids sensitive substantive removal loss of historic materials which have not damaged or destroyed the main architectural features of the building and should keep the exterior walls of the original building as intact as possible and use the existing door and window opening for connecting the addition to the building The previous post-1972 rear addition was demolished without a permit to establish a footprint of blood coverage that the current owner has a right to continue the small square footage of the rear house as it is grandfathered in. However, once the previous additions were demolished, the property must comply in full with the H-1 overlay process. In this building, this includes the following design guidelines and scope work on the required COA permits. Obtaining the COH1 process includes having to, oops, properly documented amount of same square footage as ground utilization, which has been demonstrated by the applicant in previous editions covered in the slot, footprint, and design details. the new variation may be adjusted to meet and be in compliance with the design guidelines, allowing a varied of form of footprints to facilitate appropriate scale of any proposed new construction. The new addition as built and taking in consideration the proposed adjustment to the portion of the roof line is not in accordance with design guidelines as noted in the report. The new construction has created a large monolithic rectangle with no undulation of the roof, wall, and foundation systems and having no difference the integrity the main mass character of the small scale historic bungalow in addition is out of character for the site and neighboring historic properties in the pensacola local historic district the other elements of course windows are would be in the guideline within the guidelines as well as the replacement of the decks but the overall project is not in keeping with the guidelines and staff recommends this approval was constructed and proposed. And of course, the applicant is present. All right, Amir. I don't see much progress being made in terms of trying to get this roof in anywhere near proximity with the guidelines, but you're entitled to be heard at this point. Sure, could I share my screen? Okay, can you guys see my screen? We can see it, yes. Okay. We do have these plans, unless you've changed them again. Okay, you've got new pictures coming up. Okay. Okay. So as you guys probably recall from last time we met, this is the roof we had. And I just want to go through some pictures. So this is the underneath of those. And that's the second unit. So it was a duplex. It's been a duplex for years. That's how I purchased it. and this is the side door that you could see from the plant. And if you could see the ceiling, how the ceiling was coming off, coming down, you see the rotted studs, and that's actually the roof, the black rubber that you see. So having that, what we did was, you know, we were going to repair the roof, but you know when when they got into it they saw there is more to it and like i explained last time i had no idea that this how you just froze up came to me as a surprise and so basically you know we replaced say what now uh you are free your link is freezing periodically i'm not sure whether Are we hearing everything you're saying? Okay. Are you, can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you now. Okay. So we have, so this is, this is, you know, the roof that we had. And as you can see from inside of the house, you know, like everything was rotted once we took, you know, some of the ceiling off. So we decided to, instead of repairing the deficient rotted roof to actually replace it. And this is how we started replacing it. Like I said, had I known this house was in historic zoning, I would have done everything that I was supposed to. It came to me as a surprise. If I knew it was in historic zoning, I wouldn't have purchased it, frankly. So they started replacing the roof, and at the end, this is what we have. And this is towards the back of the house. I just like to emphasize that the footprint of the house did not move one inch. Okay. And that's noted by the inspector, the city inspector, Kevin Ezel, you know, the planning, you know, they've already approved this, you know, they're just waiting for the historic folks to, you know, to actually move forward. So I just wanted to, you know, also show this picture, you know, some of the inside walls. if you could see right like to the left some of the studs you could put your finger and poke right through it so we had to replace some of those studs but we didn't replace everything as you see the window right in the in between so that wall stays the same i'm just trying to give you some oversight uh you know insight of you know what we had to deal with and this you know again this is in the back. So only people in the backyard could see that. But again, you know, this is, we try to, you know, go from the original roof all the way back, you know, replacing that flat roof, that two-level flat roof that we had that was a combination of asphalt, you know, like rubber and plastic. So basically, let me go to this picture first because I just put this together. This is all the way to the left. That's the previous left side elevation. That's how it was when I purchased it. And, you know, when we replace the roof, you see the picture in the middle. That's what we have right now. And, you know, when I start talking to the historic folks, especially with the last meeting we had, they said you need to have a step down from the original roof to the new roof. And so the picture to the right, the sketch to the right, it shows the proposed left side elevation. So we are proposing to break the new roof and go 24 inches down. So it shows a clear step down. And that's a $7,500 cost, but we're trying to get in compliance with the guidelines, which clearly states you need to have a step down going from the original to the new roof. Okay, so we have a step down. And the picture to the bottom, it shows the ceiling height. The reason that we are having that step down going from the original to the new, the reason that we have that length because the back end has a vaulted ceiling. Okay, so you can't really have that. And that's beside the point that it's a $30,000 roof that we have put together. We could do the step down to come to the compliance with this historic guidelines to show the old and the new. Um, but, um, you know, that's, that's where we are. And, uh, like I said, um, the, not the last meeting, but the meeting before that we had with the historic folks that there, my understanding was that they, they were in, you know, they were leaning towards, you know, agreeing that, okay, that step down, we'll do just fine. Um, so I'm at your mercy. Well, take down your elevation so that I can see the other board members. At least? Actually, if you'll take down all your pictures and stop sharing your screen. Okay. Because it blocks me from seeing the other board members. Okay. So stop sharing? Yes, please. Okay. There we go. All right. I'm not the architect here. I'm the attorney. So I'm going to let the architects discuss this with you. I'm not sure we're so far along as to what can be done to get this project within guidelines. And I'm not sure we can. So I'll start with Mr. Gelton. If he has any thoughts or suggestions. You hear me? Yes. You know, I think the crux of the problem here is the L on the back of the house that used to be there has been totally consumed with the new addition. And I understand that the footprint has not changed, but that the volume of that roof that used to be there on the smaller L shape in the original structure is now gone. So that's kind of like one sticking point for this is just the fact that that whole thing has been swallowed up. Now, to address your roof approach more precisely, if you read through the design principle on room and wing additions, it talks about when you build your new addition to step the wall over 12 inches. I think 12 inches is a minimum suggestion. And then it immediately talks about stepping down the roof ridge as well. And so just to kind of walk through these principles more, if those types of volumetric moves are made, the whole back addition has a sort of 12 inch smaller presence on each wall on each side. And then even at the roof as well, because if it's the same slope and everything, it's going to step in or down rather. So, as much as I'd like to be sympathetic for what you're having to go through here, I don't think your roof step down is still getting at what these principals are getting at. All right. Ms. Hill, anything? it's unfortunate that the staff couldn't have been involved a little sooner um as the stop work orders were issued um just to keep you from being at such a point in the process um the step in that Josh noted I'm probably less concerned about given that that footprint already existed but the roof the height of the roof even with that small break between the original house and the new roof still really does overwhelm and and given that the back porch isn't on there you at least that kind of stepping from the new roof to the potential porch roof, that could still take place in a similar relationship, but it's that large volume of that new roof. And if I'm looking at the drawings and understanding your desire for a vaulted ceiling, which seems spatially interior really nice. Even if you step down and hit that new ridge line at a slightly lower so that it doesn't meet back up with the original house, you still have a lot of vaulted space inside that. But I think it's that ridge line and that large mass of the new roof that is tripping you up here. Okay. All right, Ms. Irwin, anything? I don't have anything else to add. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments that Ms. Hill and Mr. Gilpin have stated. Okay. So the question that I have of you all, as we continue what I'm sort of viewing as a conceptual review process, how do we start over? How do we fix this? Is there a way to fix it other than just tear it off and start over? I'm asking methodically. I'm not sure. Because if we deny the application, then he's going to have to come and to have any application approved is going to be, it'll have to be substantively different from what you're currently proposing. You can't get a denial and then come back with the same plans a month from now. Any thoughts on that at all? Or am I stepping out of your all's comfort zone? So I'll just note that if the direction is disapproval, then I think we need to be very clear about exactly what the requirement is on the part of the board that our expectation. And is it the lowering of that roof of the new addition? Does it involve the stepping into the walls, which didn't exist on the original footprint that was being utilized? What are the specific elements? Are the windows a sticking point? That's also noted in the staff's report. What is the critical issue here? And for me, it's really that volume of the roof. and I got the impression from hearing Ms. Armstrong that was the real issue with her the problem we had with the demolition of the existing addition which gave you a footprint and by the way that existing addition would not have been approved by us if it had been within the historic district because it's too large but you sort of lost your advantage of being grandfathered in when you took out that addition and so that's part of the difficulty can you guys hear me yes okay and that was not the plan uh so when when i uh you know submitted my application to the city it was for renovation but when the uh when the city inspector came he said you know some of these concrete blocks they're bad you probably need to just you know replace this and he asked me to call the city asked them to withdraw the renovation application and ask for an addition application. And so I thought, you know, I was doing everything right. I listened to the city inspector. He had me to call an engineer to, you know, do the footing. And I did all that. I called an engineer. He wrote the letter, you know, like they came and do everything professionally. And, you know, like I have to make a couple if I could, because this is the third time, been on meeting with you guys and, you know, like upset through some of the other cases you guys had. And, you know, I have to make an emotional plea here because, you know, I just want you guys to know that it's not like I tried to cut corners or that, you know, like I was doing something that I knew was wrong and I was doing it anyway. That was not the case. I'm a recent graduate student from UK. So I just got a job, you know, at Catalan working as a development scientist. And we purchased this house so we could, me and my wife, I just got married last year, so we could live in the back. And then her aunt, who's, you know, who's older, she could live up front. She needs assistance. And I did, I thought I was doing everything by the book. I asked for the, you know, for the permit, the renovation permit. And, you know, I was told I need to get that withdrawn and you know get that addition when we started doing this um i thought it's just a roof repair you know i'm not i'm not really involved in you know like these sorts of things you know i'm in a whole different field and so when the roof first came they said well look at the ceiling i mean everything has like the pictures i show you uh the stars were rotted so they said you need to you need to put a new roof here and you cannot have a flat roof because flat you know as probably the architect or the engineers it's it's a source of you know for water to accommodate and, you know, like ruin the roof as we saw in the pictures. So, you know, they said you need to have a vaulted, you need to have a gable roof. And that's, they started and nobody told me that, you know, like I didn't know it was in historic zoning. I was just told, you know, like Rosemont just became, you know, went to historic as of two years ago. You know, I've been here ever since I was 15 years old. I had no idea. I thought downtown county's history. So, you know, I had every penny that I had, every dollar that I have, you know, I was spending on this house. You know, I've only hired professionals, you know, the engineer, you know, like the folks who did the roofing, everything, you know, I was going by the book. And, you know, the guideline says, you know, you need to have a step down from the original to the new roof. And with what we propose, you know, we do have that step down. And you know, I would really ask you guys, you know, to, if you could, you know, because, you know, like I said, you know, I don't want to, you know, like compare cases, but like, you know, I've sat here and I've seen you know, like cases that, for example, you know, like 150, I don't know if it was 157 Rosemont Garden, that it was on the same street. You know, like, they built something from scratch. I mean, it wasn't even there. They didn't do a step down. And, you know, like, you know, I'm not trying to, you know, like, go that road, you know, down that road, you know, or the case you guys had on Short Street, it was one unit, and then they wanted to have the second unit. You know, like, they made the emotional plea that, hey, we probably have to move from here if we don't get this done. but I don't want to compare you know I'm not the kind of person I'd like to compare myself if if they got their case approved good for them you know I wish all everybody the best but I just want you to know that I I thought I was doing everything by the book and I think you know even that step down for the roof it's still going to cost cost me you know like seven thousand five hundred dollars and it's a good portion um you know that it it it clearly shows the original house and the the so-called addition that you know this is the step down going to the other roof the roof i mean the neighbors are happy everybody come and thank you they're like they're just asking me when do you finish with this project you know this this this was a sore eye in that neighborhood all the neighbors are happy with this i mean i have names you know um I'm just I'm just All right, well, thank you, sir. So, Jim. Any I'm sorry? Yes. So this is, I guess the funny thing here is the footprint never stepped at all. So, in the original house, before our overlay, had a very poorly designed roof to start with. So, you know, had they, I don't know, that's what's weird to me, is the footprint is fine because it's pretty much no bigger than it ever was. I take it the real problem is the size of that roof. But the roof, without the steps in the wall, if you're using your same roof slopes, it's going to be what it is. So that's where it gets hung up on me. That's why I initially, last time, didn't have a problem with the height of the roof. Does it meet our guideline ideally? Ideally, not at all, but how can it if it uses the same footprint? I guess they could change the slopes of the roofs, but, you know, I don't think that's... We're going to be running into this issue with this relatively new addition to the family of historic districts. We're going to be running into this issue. We have to be careful how we decide how we want to move forward with previously non-approvable additions being renovated on or changed. Ms. Kerr? Perhaps it would be helpful to think for a minute about the footprint issue in that the reason that amount of footprint is able to be grandfathered in is that it is reflective of what was there. But what the grandfathered-in clause doesn't promise is that within an area where there's regulation that's more restrictive, that there is procedurally, as long as the process facilitates a way for the now owner to be able to have a similar amount of square footage in that rear footprint coverage. It doesn't say that it assures that they can build it back in the exact shape that it is. So the amount of ground coverage, square footage, is what's grandfathered in. the manner in which you accomplish it is got to meet the H1 overlay guidelines. And that includes, had this been able to be discussed on paper before construction done, it includes talking about ways to have that amount of space be the result of new building, new construction, but to accomplish it within the criteria of design guidelines. So stepping in, having step ins and outs perhaps that help provide some relief from this volume of this big rectangle on the back of the house. So what's grandfathered in is the square footage, but what's not just automatically granted is a big rectangle. And the key here is, and we have to come back to the key of this, is that property owners have an obligation to understand what their zoning is and what obligations they have when they move into a new district. This mess developed, quite frankly, because you did not check out and make sure the status of your house. And I am sorry that you're in the mess that you're in, but it is a mess. And we, frankly, it's not our purview or ability to fix. I don't obviously we cannot approve this application that it would defeat the whole point of why Pensacola became a historic district in the first place. They did not want these kind of additions being built under the new design guidelines. And if we allow this one to go through, then we're going to have a precedent issue that we will forever root. So I am strongly advocating that we disapprove this application. And I believe, I don't think I've asked for comments from the audience. So let me see if there are any. I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, I will, wait a minute. Do we have someone? Oh, yeah. Hold on. I didn't see anyone come up, so. There it is. somebody is in the waiting room or been put in a Barbara Bush is she to speak on this application I I'm not quite sure Miss Bush I believe she was here last time I don't see her she her avatar is there she's muted oh okay uh Miss Bush yes Ms. Bush, I believe you were with us last time on this application. I was. This is becoming a habit. Would you like to make some comments? Yeah, I think that this H1 overlay has become very difficult. When you drive through these three or four blocks that constitute this Penn Moken Park area, you will see many, many homes that are in terrible disrepair. They're not in disrepair because people don't like their homes. They're in disrepair because people can't afford to improve them. Both this case, Amir, and the case at 157, I think it was, these are people who didn't quite know what they were getting into. But lo and behold, they're willing to spend their money to improve the look of the neighborhood. And yes, Amir made a mistake. But you're going to bankrupt him if you don't approve this. He just told you. He's newly graduated. He doesn't have a pocket full of money. he's trying to do something for his family i think if you disapprove this i said i just don't think it's the right thing to do i understand what h1 is all about i understand that we don't want to rebuild and make our make our neighborhoods look less historic than they were historic with but i think you have to find a place where you can stop following the rules and give somebody what he needs that's all i'll say all right thank you miss bush really i appreciate you miss bush if I have to just make one last comment we are back into graduate housing we spent every money we had in this house and I don't know well Mary you're making a compelling case for maybe there needs to be Jim you're muted not sure how i got muted uh miss bush thank you so much and uh there is a regulatory process unfortunately and i realized there is a long social debate to be had about how do we handle historic districting gentrification and people who are trying to do the right thing with limited means. But in our process right now, there is no exception that I'm aware of that we can say that because the person who is applying has limited means that we can make an exception. So I understand what you're trying to say, Ms. Bush. Ms. Armstrong, are there any other comments coming in? Josh, did you have a comment that you want to make? Yeah, I wanted to, I was going to ask Ms. Kerr about the grandfathering stuff again. So, would it be that if a structure is so far gone and disrepair that it needed to be reconstructed? that it just gets treated like a whole brand new edition? Is that the case? I think you're still on mute. I'm sorry. Ms. Curry, you're still muted. There you go. Nope. You're flipping it on and flipping it off. Toggle once. I think you'll have to hold the space bar down. I can do that. There we go. I'll hold it down. That's interesting. Yeah, this is a new one to me, but that's okay. This is good. So what would happen is an application that comes in that has things that are, you know, a later addition that has come to be in very poor condition. the board would first make a decision as you're used to and know on whether the teardown is appropriate and within the guidelines and would as part of their action include approval to tear down that existing condition and then tied to that at simultaneously the board would be reviewing the newly submitted drawings of what's being proposed to build in the similar vicinity and add to the house as a new addition. And the new addition guidelines would be the main thread of the design guidelines utilized. Once the decision is that it's appropriate to tear down the existing situation portion, then you would review the application as drawn for the new edition, utilizing the design guidelines. And of course, it's at that stage that there's the opportunity to facilitate accomplishing a similar amount of square footage per this grandfathered situation using this concept as an example, but you would not be bound by what's already gotten built. You would be looking at the proposed drawings and if they're able to meet the guidelines and be approved as submitted, you'd probably be doing that. And if there were parts of those drawings that reflected contradictions or things that do meet not meet the design guidelines you would be as you do every meeting discussing that with the applicant and with ways to work things through and another plan would probably come back with those tweakings so the real problem is when When things are not being viewed and reviewed, when they're not yet existing, or I've realized part of my example is an existing situation, the teardown part. But the new build part, that's the whole methodology by which the process works best is to have the opportunity before anybody's expended resources on building something to get it such that it's able to be approved working with the property owner and within the design guidelines. Is that what you needed to know? Yes, thank you. That was very clear. And I'm as chair, I'm going to have to move this process along. We have several more applications we're going to have to look at. I am ready for a motion to accept the disapproval of this application. I have one last question. Say what? I have one last question. Sure. Is it for Ms. Kerr or for us? For all of us. All right. For the board members. And Amir, you may not like this idea, but maybe there's hope to it. If the slope of the roof on the addition were lowered, would that have an impact on our ability to approve this? And I know that's way more money than you want to spend, Amir, but perhaps that gives some hope to this. Yeah. I think what I would like to suggest is that we go ahead and disapprove this application, acknowledge that if he submits a new application with a substantially redesigned roof, that's going to be a new application and we can move forward. Okay. Is that a 12-month lag time between those or can he do that? No, no. If he brings in a new design plan that is substantially different from what he's proposing right now, and a new roof line would do that, I believe. Am I correct, Ms. Kerr? You're muted again. Hold your space bar down. There you go. I've got it. I'm clutching it. That concept would be within the intent of the process as far as it would be considered, certainly in the staff's understanding. And we would be suggesting to the board that would be a new application to be put on your dock. In which case, then we could move forward in the next couple of months after a new design is submitted to us. But I think we're going to have to, frankly, take this plan out of its misery. Uh-oh, if he will. So, again, I believe I'm ready for a motion. I believe it. Please, someone make a motion. One way or the other. If there is no motion, we cannot approve either. do we want to postpone and have him resubmit complete new plans yes is that is that a possibility can we do that amir can you come up with a realistic plan that we can prove i don't want to spend another hour uh a month now okay yes all right uh yes miss uh We'll probably need another waiver from you. I think our current waiver goes to May 18th. But I think it would be realistically important to do an additional waiver. And, you know, if it can be taken care of sooner, that's fine. But there's no penalty about extending the time out as long as we have the waivers in place. So I would suggest a two months additional waiver to the one that's in place. This leads to May 18. And then hopefully this could all be positively resolved, you know, before the end of that time period. But it just makes it all within the parameters of what's needed. So we're looking at our next meeting being June 16. Yes, Ms. Hill. So I want to make sure what the thinking is by the board members is that this is specific to the roof issue so that our applicant knows where to focus. I don't think it's fair to just continue this thing, dragging it out. I think we need to be very clear about what we're asking to be accomplished here with strategic focus. Okay, I have a couple of suggestions along those lines. Amelia, it would be helpful, I think, if you gave him a set of bullet points of saying, these are the things that need to be fixed in this application. The roof. Before we can move forward with it, roof being one of them and the other lesser concerns being part of it, so that we basically don't have a new application from you. We've had what amounts to conceptual reviews in here with you, and we're trying to work with you, believe me. But it has to be clear to you that we cannot move forward with the plan as you've got it and it's probably going to involve you doing some substantial reconstruction of that addition. Otherwise, you're just going to be stuck with a non-approved project that you can't move into. So if I have a commitment from you that we can have a substantively redesigned plan given to us in two months, then we can work with you and hopefully approve it. Okay. All right. You understand? Yes. Okay. The staff will prepare the extension and looking at the calendar dates of the BOER meetings in order to encompass the July meeting. We're going to extend it for 70 days, not 60. Okay. And I was serious about the bullet points. I think he needs, Amir needs to see. I know that we don't like doing design work, but in this particular case, if you can just say item one, boom, item two, boom, item three, I think that would help. Well, what the staff can do is take the staff report and create a shopping list. Thank you. That's exactly what I'm looking for. In the form of bullets. Right. I'm just curious, could I ask a question? Does the staff have an hour to take with them because I just want to make sure you know. You have met on site with our architect Barry Dennis. He's an architect. Correct but he is not carrying his license and he doesn't do any design and that's on purpose. We are not a staff empowered to design things for applicants and And so we can counsel you as to what the guidelines, the parameters of the guidelines, kind of what your options are. But we have to be very careful to have you be the initiator of the design you want reviewed. Exactly. All right. But we'll do the shopping list to go with. And so you'll know to expect that you'll receive the extension. you're now coming used to that and you'll also probably shortly after that get the list. Okay, so do I have a motion then to postpone no, to continue excuse me, to continue these proceedings to July 14th July or June actually she suggested 70 days to give you ample time to get the plans in if you can get it to us sooner than that, that's fine. Okay. We're going to carry it out so that we're not constantly signing waivers. Okay. Okay. July 14 is our next meeting. No, I'm sorry. July 21 is the next meeting, correct? That's correct. July 21. And so the extension will run slightly past that. Okay. But if you're going to postpone it to date specific, you'd be saying July 21. Okay, we're not postponing, we're continuing, correct? Thank you, yes. You're welcome. All right. Do I have a motion to continue to our July 21 meeting? I'm willing, but to clarify real quick, these bullet points, so the priority one would be the roof ridge and its height. are there further ones that the board is highly concerned with there were other concerns being raised by the staff and I think Ms. Hill was trying to get to those that they also be addressed so that we don't suddenly have I'm hoping that with the redesigned roofline all the other elements will probably fall into place especially if we have to step in if we have the non-immigrant look if we get rid of the weave the california weave proposal all of those elements probably should make that an improvable project okay okay so so number one priority is the roof line right yes okay but but there are other elements and that's why i'm saying i'm trying to get the staff to clean out all the verbiage and tell you in very short explicit sentencing what has to be done. And I would just in one sentence say that I think it's important that that list include the various topics that are problematic because they are of course all together part of what you're going to be voting on. And I would like for us to be able to move on. Do I have a motion to continue? it chairman i move to continue this case to june to july 21st july 21st thank you do i have a second somebody second thank you all right uh no further discussion on the motion all those in favor uh yes miss hill is is july 21st a hard date or if in fact uh the applicant is ready prior to that Is there a reason? Right now we're continuing to the 21st, but yes, you can bring it to the center if he's ready. He doesn't have to wait to the 21st. Thank you. Good. Thank you. But there is, there are, depending on how substantive it changes, there may be a need to republish or re-notice. I'm not sure. All right. I'm following the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Aye. All right. The motion passes and we are continued to July 21st. Amir, thank you. This has been a process, but we'll work with you. Thank you, guys. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you. Do we need a five minute break? okay all right uh going to our next case uh 466 west 3rd street north side historic district uh ben crowley is the owner and ben gallagher is the applicant i will give you a heads up i will not be voting i'll be abstaining in this one Mr. Crowley are you here Mr. Crowley yes sorry yes I'm here did you hear the I'm going to be abstaining from voting yes I did hear that all right Mr. Crowley is current I have different lives and right now Mr. Crowley is before me on a case that's I'm litigating right now with him Mr. Crowley your application has actually been recommended for approval subject to the standard two conditions that I've been talking about. I'll read them into the record we're clicking. One is once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or boards for review and approval prior to the start of work. And if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit those changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with those? I am, yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. Any questions or comments from the board members? And I see Mr. Gallagher, too. Let me just reflect for the record that your architect's presence as well. Looks like a nice plan, by the way, Paul. Thank you. We're really excited about it. Great. Any staff, any comments from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none then I believe we're ready for a motion. Ms. Hill you need to unmute. Mr. Chair. For case number 11660355 at 355 North Limestone I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Excuse me. I wish I had. I gave the wrong case number and address. And you know what? I wasn't paying attention to you and I should have. I knew it was West 3rd, so I caught my own mistake. Scratch that. I wish I had. and would like to start again. Thank you. Mr. Chair, per case number 18800466-0 at 466 West 3rd Street, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second from Mr. Gilpin. do I have any further comment on the motion itself if not then I'll call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye anyone opposed hearing none the motion is approved and the COA is conditioned is approved Mr. Crowley good luck with your project thank you all very much for your consideration have a good night all right thank you thank you all right and I abstain from that vote turning to our next application at 163 Penn Moken Park the scope of work is to Marge Garage and Outbuilding Sarah Williamson is the applicant is she here I have a Joshua Branham yeah this is Joshua Williamson Branham 163 Penn Moken Park Sarah's my wife Okay. All right. Welcome aboard. The staff has recommended approval of your application with what I call one substantive condition that the area where the garage is located be seated or sodded. Are you in agreement with that? Absolutely. And then the other two conditions are, as noted before, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with that? Absolutely. All right. And the other is once reviewed by the other divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with that? Absolutely. All right. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments by the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? I will give it a count of 10. All right. Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 14820163 at 163 Pemmican Park, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with two standard conditions, as well as number one, the area where the garage is located, be seated or sided. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion carries and the certificate of appropriateness as condition is approved. Thank you, Mr. Branham. Thank you. All right. Okay, turning now to our next application, which is at 233 Kentucky Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District. Scope of work is to monitor garage. The applicant is Kevin Massey. Do I have Mr. Massey here? Hi, I'm Kevin's wife. How are you today? I'm good. How are you? Very good. The staff has recommended approval of your application to take out this garage. However, they are asking as a substantive condition that the gravel be contained by some method. they're leaving the that manner of method up to you but your design needs to be returned to the set prior to the issuance of the cla are you in agreement with that yeah we don't plan to change any gravel we just plan to fill the holes there's a lot of dips where water fills up we don't plan to change anything just add and i did talk to mr massey about that that he actually is not intend to do a whole swap but just to repair the holes itself. Okay did I misunderstand the scope of work? No you were correct at first because I guess what I thought was but after talking to him after. All right let me let me. But I think you can leave it still as a case in case they that you know if they need to come back for you know larger amount of gravel you know so if they needed to. Okay, the scope of work as set forth in the narrative is to regravel the parking area. And then demolish the garage. It says nothing about the approval of the garage being demolished. Are we approving that? At J3 Kentucky Avenue, it says scope of work is to demolish the garage on the staff report. All right, okay. So, and then also we're getting the gravel. Okay. All right. So we have actually a proposal to take out a deteriorated garage and to re-gravel. And that gravel is to be contained by some method that you're going to bring back to the staff for review and approval. Right. Before the issue of COA. Are you in agreement with that, Ms. Manson? Yes. Right. Thank you. All right. We're going to set down the garage. to what ma'am did you say we're good to tear down the garage as well if you want to you can you have approval to take it out if you like you don't have to you do have one year if after a year that garage is still there you'll have to resubmit okay and then as far as the gravel we do need to get approval for that you have you're going to get approval for the gravel as well in this application okay perfect i was a little confused by how the application was set out but that's that's me all right so do i have any questions from the board members any okay i'm going to ask for questions or comments from the virtual audience i'll give it a count of 10 i think there is somebody there is i see a telephone i see a telephone number hello we can hear you do you want to be seen I guess you can't be you're just outing in ma'am it was me asking if that person was there he had wanted to I guess he trying to speak he wanted to call him one phone in listener I think he was trying to phone in well he's with us if he'll unmute himself well he did I don't think he wants to be seen I think he just wants to be heard well he can't be seen actually he's calling as opposed to being but he needs to unmute himself if he wants to make a comment Neil Neil, can you help us with the phone, fella? Nope. Neil's the computer. I'm trying to see what I can do here. Hold on. Okay, thanks. I would say I'm going to sort of take this out of order. He has submitted some photographs that he wanted me to share with you all, so I'm going to pull those up on his behalf. Short answer, is he objecting? He is objecting. All right. Can you hear me now? There he is. Yes, sir, we can. Okay. As he talks, I'm going to put those images up for him. So if we have objections, do we need to do a review, Ms. Armstrong? if we have an objection that would be up to you all I tell you what let's do it this way sir would you state your name for the record please yeah my name is Melvin Cosby I live at 334 Woodland all right and state the nature of your objection if you have one I have got a couple. I live directly behind the garage at 233 Kentucky Avenue. I've lived here since 1983. I have in these 38 years watched this garage slowly inch its way into my backyard like a leaning tower pizza and have brought it to the city's attention several times. The two neighboring garages are uniquely different and interesting. I've also complied with H1 regulations, as have my neighbors on both sides of my house. Prior to H1, I watched the house next to 233 Kentucky Avenue replace their roof with a modern A-frame roof, and numerous garages around me demolished. Also, this garage partially blocks my viewscape of the A-frame house on Kentucky Avenue. When I moved here, my garage was as bad as 233, and we shored it up with a jack, a few 4x4 posts, and cabling. It can be done fairly inexpensively. When I was a kid, we hung too much tobacco on one side of a barn, and it healed over towards a holler. The farmer pulled it back up with an old John Deere tractor, and we rehung the tobacco. So this tiny garage can be shored up as well, I think. What about this door fabric of this H1 neighborhood? And how can H1 not apply when a property changes hands? The backyard is already half covered with concrete. What's next? I voted for H1 and believe it's a good thing. I hope you don't tear down this old garage. Thank you. Thank you so much, sir. The finding that has been made, whose pictures are these? Mine. These are Mr. Kelvin's. All right. did you get the snow one i did we have uh and this is a picture of the garage from the driveway perspective no i mean from my perspective did you get the snow pictures today i sent you we did oh yes okay yes the different shapes the different roof the different roof shapes and you know they're all different and everything and you can see that a-frame up to the right-hand corner staff has made a determination that the that the garage is subject to demolition because the demolition would not be detrimental to the character scale rhythm design importance of the group of the building I think probably in light of your objection sir we might need additional commentary from the staff if you don't mind let's do a brief Ms. Armstrong if you'll do a brief presentation as to your evaluation of the structure of course the applicant is requesting to demolish the garage garage seems to be built at the same time as the house however you know is according to the sandboard maps of it being 16 by 18. however it has lost its original that boardman siding and and and it has replacement windows and of course we we've also seen it decline over the years as you can see now um and of course they're also requesting to refresh the gravel then um shaft findings the proposal to demolish the garage is in accordance with um 6c1 6cd respectively that says demolition is not um is a for non-stifficant accessory structure a demolition of structure a building is not detrimental to the character of the street shape street escape of the district and this garage was originally a board and bad structure but it is um in this very similar scale to a lot of the earlier garages in the ailsford area however changes over time have caused it to lose its historic integrity with the replacement siding and the replacement windows and in that many of the members have inside have been replaced and failed and the garage has declined is now in the structural system has failed um and of course also um the um of course the parking is approved so you know it's just going to be filled in versus a whole swath as we talked about before recommendation staff recommends that the gravel be contained by some method and that the and that it return to that method be returned to staff and with the two standard conditions as well and i think also besides mrs massey mr massey is also on the call now too okay so any further comments from either of the messies um i went over this with amelia but the i mean my original plan was to get someone to you know shore up or support because we we like it i mean we would prefer to have a carport or covered parking for our tenants but every contractor that we had come out said that the wood and the structure was too far gone and that it would cost more for them to try to salvage it than just tearing it down and building over. That's what they told me. Obviously, they could just be selling me on building a new one, but I did originally want to just support it to keep it there, but they said it would be wasted cause and cost too much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Massey. I mean, from the pictures, it's clear that there's an obvious deterioration of this, of the garage. There have been concerns expressed, including me, that I hate to lose all our garages. I mean, they are a unique part of the neighborhood. Is my understanding from your wife that you're not having any immediate plans to take out the garage? I mean, my concern is, you know, my tenants, you know, as much as we tell them not to park under there, they do. They do, and I don't want, you know, it's a liability. I feel like if it was to fall down or a storm, take it down, then it would be, you know, on me. And we got quotes for replacing it, and it was close to $30,000, you know. Especially with labor now, it's probably even more. I mean, the quotes I got was last year before everything went way expensive. Have you thought about using some kind of yellow police tape to get the point across to your tenants? I can, but then that eliminates space and people, you know, we have not enough parking as it is, so they'll have to find parking elsewhere and it would just be off limits and I'm not sure what we would do with it at that point. All right. And the applicant has, Mr. Massey has expressed the fact, of course, there's no fencing on the backside because this does back up to Mr. Cosby's property, that he would continue that fence to close in that gap. All right. Correct. Okay. So check the picture down, please, so we can share the screen. Let me see the other board members. Hold on. Thank you. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members regarding this application? does uh do we need to add a um uh recommendation or part of the recommendation to be that the uh fencing be continued across the gap that results from the demolition of the garage not sure we have that authorization or authority to do this or mr massey would get um have a separate certificate appropriateness submitted to us to continue that fencing. I'm not sure we require Mr. Massey to fence it in. There's not necessarily a requirement to be fenced. I think that's what he's going to do, but we can't make him do it. Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments from the board members? any other questions or comments from the virtual audience other than what has already been stated landline has one i think uh thirty thousand dollars is a crazy quote you can get the amish to do it cheaper than that and also um is he going to put a fence back up there and if so can he put an eight foot fence in there he can't put an h no i've got boards laying around i've I've got a stack of boards. I was going to repair my fence, but I was going to wait for them to pull that garage back together before I put my fence back up. I've got a little, you know, six foot one, but it's, it's, you know, it's just going to be a big vista there. And it's just, it's just, you know, you talk about the fabric of the neighborhood and that's totally going to cut into it. All right. Thank you. Any other comments? No. Any other comments from anyone else? give the count in all right hearing none the chair is ready for a motion I hope not sure Mr. Chair as per case number 10620233-F at 233 Kentucky Avenue I move that we approve the application for the certificate of appropriateness with the condition that the gravel be contained by some method and the two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. To the person on the landline, I understand your objection, sir, but this, yes, Ms. Kerr, what did we forget? Hit the space bar. Go ahead. Ed, please consider adding to your motion that the manner in which the gravel is be contained, be that information provided to the staff prior to issuance of the COS. I thought we had said that. Was that not in there? I don't think I heard it, but at this point I can't promise you what I've heard. So I will amend my motion in that the first condition be that the gravel be contained by some method and that method be returned to staff prior to the issuance of the COA and the two standard conditions. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Any further comment on the motion? Question. Yes, Mr. Vanessing. I don't I talked to Amelia about it if I don't add gravel I think it's just shifted or moved like further under the garage like if I were to pull it back and just fill the there's like one hole do I still need to go about lining all the gravel even if I'm not adding to. Ms. Armstrong. Yes, I think that we can work some of those details out, but I think we'd still would want to make sure that it doesn't expand further than in that grassy area, but we can work those out, those details out if you're agreeable with that. Okay, agreed. All right. Okay. Are there any further comments? If not, then the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes as conditioned. Your COA is approved. Mr. and Mrs. Messon. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. I was sort of lost track of where I was. I'm at attachment number 11 at 117 Goodrich Avenue. This seems to be our day for. Oh, I'm sorry. May I have a moment, please? I just received some news that's upsetting. I need to take about a three or four minute break. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm going to just turn off my camera. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ...that Foster Ockerman Sr. has passed away. Some of you may know who he is. And his son is a very good friend of mine, so it's just a bit upsetting. But he lived a great life. He was 100 years old. So, I believe we were at, and we seem to be on this binge of taking out garages. We're at 117 Goodbridge Avenue. Scope of work is to demolish garage and construct garage. Kristen Kruiser is the owner. John Book is the applicant. Are they here? and mr book welcome it's been a while since we've seen you yes yes sir and we're not trying to uh keep something going that's making people upset we're just trying to fix them some garages that need some assistance no and to be fair i shouldn't have made that kind of comment we just seem to have three or four of them in a row so i understand totally and that's the problem the garages are sometimes the red-headed stepchildren of of the property uh this application the staff has again found a that the demolition is appropriate and they have made you know there's two standard conditions and i'll just read them into the record briefly the first one being once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work and then secondly if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff or review and approval prior to start of work are you in agreement with those yes sir all right uh i have another person is that the owner miss kathleen perry there's someone else on my screen and hello cat is there someone want to make a comment Amelia or do you know or it's Kimberly I'm sorry I can't read and she's left any questions or comment from the board members about this application? He was for another case, Mr. Dickinson, and I put her back in a waiting room. All right, thank you. Any questions or comments about this application? All right, any questions or comment from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of ten. All right, hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, per case number 08-150317 at 117 Goodrich Avenue, I recommend approval of the application for the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? second. Okay. I have a second from Mr. Gilpin. Any further comment or discussion of the motion? If not, then the chair will call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. I say aye as well. There being no nays, the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you, Mr. Book. Thank you very much. All right. You take care. Yes, sir. All right. We're coming up now on 107 South Ashland. The scope of work is demolish a dormer and construct a new larger dormer. The applicants are Ralph and Emily Whitley. Are they present? Yes. If you will turn off or turn on your mic. Mr. Whitley, how are you today? Good. How are you? I'm doing well. Mr. Whitley, the staff has reviewed your application. They have made a recommendation that it be denied. I'm assuming you would like to be heard on that? Yes. I just wanted to kind of maybe give more context of what we're trying to accomplish and why. Okay, our normal process is we allow Mr. The staff to make its presentation first. And then we can hear your comments afterwards. Sounds good. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Mr. Dennis? Sir. Okay. Okay. All the way to the bottom. I need to get rid of that. Drunk for a second. Oh, okay. Yeah, I've got it from here. Okay. Okay. 107 South Ashland Avenue. And I wanted to just make sure, reiterate again, that the board did approve a lot of the work that is in the drawings. We're only looking at the demolition and replacement of one dormer. All right. Just so that's perfectly clear. Thank you. So the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to remove an existing dormer and to construct a new larger dormer in its place. At the June 26, 2019 BOAR meeting, the board approved the COA to renovate the rear addition, remove the exterior fire escape, construct a deck, garage, driveway, and site wall. The proposal to remove one of four matching historic dormers, and this is the dormer in question on the side above the fire escape. That dormer would be demolished and reconstructed. There are actually four dormers of the exact size and design on the four different roof plates of the main roof structure. And this is a 19, circa 1918 American four square style historic structure. The existing dormers are nicely intact, gable roofed with two windows that have a diamond-shaped tracery pattern. The proposed dormer is to be located on the north-facing roof plate, removing the historic dormer and constructing a large-scale new gable roof dormer that will rise from the existing north wall. I want to point out that these dormers set back from the exterior face of the structure some number of feet, and the new dormer will be moved down the roof to be directly above the exterior brick wall. and they'll be considerably taller and wider resulting in a much more massive addition of the dormer than the scale of the existing historic dormers the west wall of the dormer takes it very close to the existing roof valley which staff was concerned about water and snow issues. The increase in width requires the ridge of the proposed dormer to be substantially higher than the existing historic dormer. Again, it will run up higher towards the roof ridge than the four similar dormers. um here's a a view from it uh on the parking lot just to the north so again most of these drawings are from the previous submittal okay so So you can see on this roof plan the size of the proposed dormer and how close it gets to that gable roof that intersects with the main roof valley. This is an elevation of the dormer. It's about two to two and a half times wider than the existing dormers and uses, at least the windows are proposed to be very similar and the design similar to the existing dormer, although much larger. So here's a better elevation view to the lower left. So the guidelines are included for your use. Findings. Staff finds that the proposal to demolish the historic gable roof dormer and replace it with a new larger dormer does not meet the design guidelines. The design principle states, architectural detailing is a major component in defining a building's character and style. Historic architectural detailing should be preserved and maintained. guideline 11a requires that architectural details shall be maintained retained and shall not be removed or changed if original to the building the construction of a new much larger dormer in the place of an existing dormer of the same gable roof design with the same pattern of windows does not meet guideline 11d which states architectural details including the installation of additional ornament, which gives a building an imitation of historic appearance is not allowed. Per the window design principle, window openings, windows, window details, and the size and shape of these elements help to establish rhythm, scale, and proportion of buildings and reflect architectural style and character. Windows should be maintained. 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. Original framing of the opening should be retained and maintained. Dormers, per guideline 2A5A and 2A5B, should be in keeping with the character and scale of the building and should not be introduced on front elevations, but may be added to rear or secondary elevations if compatible with the building design. The proposed dormer to be located on a highly visible, prominent elevation, which along with the other elevations, is historically significant. The proposed dormer is not in character or scale with a historic structure, which has small significant character defining dormers on each of the main roof's roof plates. The existing dormers create symmetry and design language. The proposed much larger dormer is not at all compatible with that symmetry and language. The location of the proposed dormer is on a primary, not rear, or secondary elevation of the historic structure. The proposed dormer is not secondary, smaller and simpler to the original building and roofline in scale, design, and placement per guideline 2A5D. The volume of the proposed new dormer is too massive and will directly rise from the exterior of the historic north wall of this historic structure, reading more as a room addition than a dormer. The proposed height and width, which is two to two and one half times wider than the four matching historic dormers on the pyramidal roof, one of which is proposed to be demolished, is overscaled and inappropriate to the character and design of this American four square historic structure. the replacing of the historic dormer with a new much larger dormer of the same design using similar windows to the historic dormer if allowed will confuse the eye and create a false sense of history recommendations the staff recommend recommends denial of the certificate of appropriateness and the deadline for board action is may 20th 2021 and that is the end of the staff report. Okay, Mr. Dennis, if you'll take the picture down. Yes. And so I can see the other board members. There we go. Mr. Whitney. Or, excuse me, I'm sorry. Yes. If you're for the record, if you'll state your name for the record and your association with the property. My name is Ralph Whitley and me and my wife are the owners. All right. Thank you. It's your turn to explain to us why you need such a large dormer on this side of the building. Okay. Well, I would say it does not need to necessarily be that large. The goal was to, I had some conversations with the state historical board for tax credits. And one of the things that they were adamant about is that we not take a dormer that's two foot wide and then make it five foot long for the purpose of trying to maintain some sort of, I think they were referring to a symmetry, like two foot to three foot symmetry or something with height, depth. I don't know exactly, but it was the proposed solution to satisfy trying to develop three flights of code compliance stairs. If I could show you some of the photos, also wanted to make sure, because I don't think it's apparent in the, necessarily apparent anyways, in the elevations. We don't intend to raise the ridgeline of the dormer, but Barry's completely correct in that we are trying to extend it towards the box gutter and widen it to some degree. The other thing I would say is I just want to clarify, too, if it needed to have two windows instead of three, if you guys were to let us do it, or if they need to not be the diamond shape so it didn't try to call back to the historical nature that it isn't. That's fine as well. So essentially, I'm just saying a lot of it's conceptual, but let me kind of demonstrate real quickly while we're proposing it. So if I could share my screen here. Mr. Whitley, I do have those photos that you sent me. Do you have the ones I sent tonight as well? No, just the ones. I hadn't received the others before I had to leave the office. Let me see if I can. Give me one second. So there will be. You haven't started sharing yet. Right. Okay. So here's to give you some, can you see a door with part of the trim missing? We have it. Okay, so this is standing, so part of the project involves recreating stairs to the basement that have been demolished, then creating stairs from the first to the second floor, and then from the third, or from the second to the attic. And so this is standing at the existing second floor door into the attic access. And so let's see if I could. So this is when you open the door. This is the stair that's currently there to go to the third floor. And so part of the. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Is this going to be a rental property? No, no. me and my wife are renovating this this is currently or is zoned rental it was a four it was originally a single family home and it was chopped up and to make a fourplex right and then we've been trying to make it um a single family home from living in it and we're just you know functioning in it and now we're looking at updating it okay so this is the stairway into the attic right now. And so what the reason this is all coming up is to make the substantial investment make some sort of palatable sense. We need to be able to claim that attic as a future square footage somehow. So this is the current stair. So when you walk into the stairway, you can see this angled area right here, straight in front, is where the dormer stops on the left. and this height to the right side of that is 53 inches. So as you're coming up that stair, you've got to bend down as it is, and it's not code compliant. Then if you come to the top of the stairs and you face back towards the dormer, you can see how those stairs didn't take advantage of that dormer width to try to even make this component of it code compliant. So, and this is the full view of it. Half of the dormer is kind of taken up by the way the stairs work. So, really this all came about, we're just trying to find a way to get a code compliant set of stairs and do whatever minimal would maybe need to be done to the dormer to, you know, allow it to be able to be put in. Before I finish, I had a couple more photos I just wanted to show you real quick, and this will only take a second. So I know that... One second. So to give you a little more context, I mean, Barry's that photo that Barry showed is some of the photos we submitted to him in the past, which shows the view of that dormer when you're standing to the left of Donato's. But this is the view that you see from Main Street. And you can see that dormer right there. So, you know, that's blocked by that HVAC unit. this is kind of a closer look at it to kind of give you some perspective of what we're trying to accomplish and what we're really asking. This is a dormer across the street, the first house on the other side of the street. And I don't know for sure, but I think that they may have at some point in the past found a similar solution. And I'm not really saying that because someone else did it, we can do it. I'm more just trying to demonstrate that I think that this intermediate mirror or a window you see here, this window is kind of in the middle of the wall. I think it's reflecting the same problem, that they had an intermediate landing. And then they had to try to figure out a height solution. So my reason for saying this is this is how I came up with, or me and John Cheatham, our architect, came up with the idea to look at this kind of small minor dormer expansion. So that's kind of the full context of it. It's the last piece that we need to figure out before we can take it to bid and get final bids in and see if it can be done. So there's my there's the last stuff I want to share with you. All right. Thank you. Mr. Dennis, do you have any additional comments on this? No. OK. All right. Then I'll start with a review of the impressions by the board members, starting with Miss Hildestown. so kind of two quick observations um the applicant certainly has a challenge with being able to get the needed headroom so that's kind of um that's the problem and so the question is to get to a solution uh that's acceptable uh i do agree that the wider dormer uh up against the valley of the existing house looks like a looks like a water problem the minute we get an ice storm um but i i haven't quite figured out what to suggest at this point but but i do understand the challenge you're under okay miss erwin um this is not an uncommon problem in these these houses to try to get a real stare with head height to the to the attic so i've seen it firsthand before um and it is a problem um i'm looking at your floor plans also and um just cursory uh but Have you explored any options of, you know, moving those stairs at all as far as like if there wasn't a need to put the dormer closer to the outside wall? was that looked at at all if the stairs were to shift towards the hallway side at all no that specifically was not looked at what we did look at was stair routing and this is actually the first evolution of why the dormer idea came about was the state historic board that was affording us tax credits specifically said that they wanted us to do the stairs in a certain fashion. They wanted it to have, when you walk in the door, to have two steps up and then have it kind of go up towards the back of the house and then cut back over. And of course, their solution and guidance was, you know, when I brought up the dormer problem, because it was getting the way the stairs were laying out, trying to make a co-compliance set, you know, because the rise and run and all that stuff. It was causing everything to manifest itself in really bad ways. And so the dormer idea popped up as the first iteration to solve that. since then we looked at it and it really doesn't seem to matter how you do the stairs somehow you're going to have a unless you do what you're saying which is bring it like a foot in you're going to have a situation where if you don't at least find a way to bring that dormer forward you can't even get a reasonably wide pattern or walkway up you know for me it doesn't have to be a 42 inch wide stair whatever the standard is I don't necessarily know that but it could be 36 if the standard was 42 or 30 if it's 36 but I feel like it's so small as it is now it's just not really there's no way for even um you know I'm 6'2 but there's no way for my wife who's about 5'8 to even go up there without hitting her head. What you can't see on the back side too is that the edge of the dormer is actually where it's cut in the floor. It's not even tall enough. And I think it's the head height that is the code issue. The head height tied with the complexity of how the stairs have to wind and make modern tread rise to runs well well and because the the length that you have to do it in in the heights they're not the same on both floors you have a situation where the the first floor the the basement stairs the first floor stairs and the third floor stairs cannot have the same pattern they all have to be custom because it's the only way you can make it work and make a modern rise and run work in the limitations that are there. So it's causing some, we've looked at it multiple times. I'm just, yeah. So the use of the, having the attic space accessible with code accessible, is that because that square footage, you're wanting to use that for a certain use that requires? code access stairs like not just storage you want it something other than just storage up there correct correct phase one of the renovation is to um so it's that attic is a major uh heat and energy loss for us so we want to get it kind of phoned in and get the you know so it's holding in heat and such and then kind of have it somewhat be a bonus room and then the ultimate goal is to turn that into a another bedroom but phase one is just to kind of get well fix this problem with this fix all the stuff inside but kind of get the building stable because right now it's not stable um well it's stable but to get the building you know more habitable i guess i would Right. Okay, Mr. Gilpin. Okay. Any comments? I think just looking through our guidelines, this would be a long shot. Just as far as our principles on roofs and trying to retain dormers, or if you add new ones, put them on the back. That's my quick thought for now. Okay. I'll keep listening. My concern is I understand how you're trying to work the inside. I'm looking at it now from a layperson's perspective. I sure hate to lose the symmetry of the dormers on that house. Because that seems to be a defining feature of the house, that you have these particular size dormers on each corner of the house. That sort of makes a distinctive appearance. And the guidelines are designed not to let us play havoc with what was the historic look of a property, unless there's a compelling reason to do so. And normally, I'm not sure giving you access to a room that originally was not intended to be used as a bedroom is compelling enough. I'm just looking at it from a layperson's perspective. Mr. Dennis, if he used, instead of having the three window configuration, if he actually made it slightly larger and kept the two window configuration, would that make it work better? Well, I'm afraid that any change on that prominent elevation is going to have an adverse effect on the symmetry and the historic disaster. if there was something to look at, I would think that looking at redesigning the back where the addition is located and trying to put a dormer there and reworking the second floor somewhat would be more acceptable based on the guidelines. Mr. Whitley, has that occurred to you or is that a possibility? I would say at this time that's not a possibility. If it were to come to a complete floor plan rework, I think we would abandon the project. To be truthful with you, it's been a long process. I've already got historic tax credits in place through multiple submittals with the state. So I think that's probably where we're at with it. When you talk to state reservation, did they take into account at all the limitations of H-1O? Yes. And they thought this was approvable? I think they weren't concerned about this portion of it. I think they were just I mean I think basically what I'm saying is that we probably if we would not rework we would not probably redo the floor plans to just make it to put it in the addition we are all about finding a way to certainly do whatever would be recommended to make the stairs work where they're at whatever that is if someone has an idea I want to caution you that you need probably make double sure given the limitations of h1 overlay that they're going to be able to give you tax credits for this major change okay i can certainly double check that okay yeah what an alternating tread device are you familiar with those at all would that work in this case uh i'm not familiar with them but i would certainly be open to looking at whatever that is all means can that be used as a means v-crest with a bedroom on that third level Josh I'm scratching my head about that too but I'm just you just went tech talk on me we did they're often used for mezzanines at least I don't know if this would be an entire another story yeah and the bedroom piece of it gets to be a little more restrictive also. So I have one question and I'm not looking at it sexually. The photographs were helpful, but if in looking at your proposed attic floor plan that shows the kind of roof overlay on it, if the dormer stayed the same width, but just pulled out was longer, So nothing changed about the width of it. It just pulled out so that it encompassed that, came further out to the edge of the wall to address that headroom. Does that, and I'm not saying that that would be approvable, but would that solve the problem? It seems intuitively that it might. I think it would solve the problem. I think the reason why it got wider was honestly because in dealing with the state historic tax credit gentleman, his rec, he was honing in on a lot of houses where you'll see to increase square footage, they'll make the dormers really weird looking. And so he was focusing on making them scale proportionately. And so we sent this to him to kind of show him what we were thinking. But I think he's easy to work with and he's reasonable. I think he would, he could get along with that. And I think it's true that there is a way that those stairs could work and make them wider to only the one side and use more of that dormer space. and that would work. I think it probably would work. Okay, Mr. Dennis, is this a... I'm sorry. Go ahead, Suzanne. Yeah, I just wanted to also add that, so I'm looking at the proposed attic floor plan, and what I'm wondering is also if the stairs started... I know you'd have to watch what your head height did on the hallway below, but if your stairs started in the attic space further into the bedroom side so that that landing that is below the dormer was several steps lower, if that would help anything. That may hurt your headspace underneath. You may have no leeway with your headspace for the other stairs. I don't know. But what I'm saying is like if you could get that landing that's under the dormer higher by starting your steps sooner in your attic space. um i think you can do it it's uh it's part of that it'll force the if i'm not thinking if i'm thinking about this correctly because we have looked at this a lot i swear um yeah i think what'll happen is it'll push the stair landing on the first floor forward the stairs to the basement won't be affected because the distance is shorter so it would still work you just won't have a situation where all the slopes you know are magically on top of each other it's going to be you know this landing will have to have two steps up and then slope this one will have one step up and slope or something of that nature i think that can be done for sure yes the the the real i guess the main problem issue is more focused on can it be brought forward to the edge of the roof or the edge of the box cutter. Yeah, that's the crux of it. That's really the biggest problem. The rest of it, I feel like, is designable. I really do. Okay, so Mr. Dennis, what are your thoughts at this point? One thing I would recommend looking at is make sure he's using the maximum rise for your stairs. to the attic and hasn't cut that down, that might save some length. As far as the guidelines, staff would have to still, our interpretation from my gut feeling is that it's still a change to the architecture and the character and staff would still have to recommend denial but the board can if the board could find have findings that would be entirely up to the board i think what we probably need to do at this stage I hate designing on the fly. If, Mr. Whitley, I think we're looking at possible solutions. If you could perhaps resubmit drawings that may at least show on paper what it would look like if we took it out to the edge of the roof. Okay. Okay. Same width. Yeah. Two windows. The same. along with Ms. Hill's suggestion I think that's going to be a workable to a purist yeah it's not going to be identical but to the ordinary layperson just looking up there it's not going to look I'm more concerned about making it longer as opposed to making it further out because at least still keep the two window configuration and look right respectively yes i think if if you're if you're willing to take a look at that i can get that designed up and see what that looks like absolutely and if you're willing to work with us we're willing to i think this has turned into a conceptual review i don't think the the staff is 100 happy but i think at the same time this is the different it'll be a better solution if we can prove it and miss hill do you have any since i'm playing around with your idea and i'm not the architect I just continuing the conversation and Mr. one and Mr. Gilpin mentioned is to look at that pulling out kind of changing where the landing hits. So you gain a little bit of headroom height inside the stairway, particularly going from the second to the third floor, the combination of the two may get you where you want to be. What was that tech solution you were saying that might work internally? Alternating. It's probably not going to work. It's all about egress. I mean, that's an easy one to ask your architect about. I wouldn't dare step into that one right now. But the other thing that's not really our preview, but is how the pulling that dormer out where it hits that valley, not creating a really bad just an ice damn spot for you um okay yeah i think we i think some of the dimensions on there too are more indicated probably set up to allow uh i won't say a design build approach but more allow for the fact that when you open up the walls of a building this old and framing is not going to be at on center and things are going to be a little weird so a little versatility, but we can tighten those dimensions up and see how it actually lays out. Let me suggest this then. Why don't we go ahead and suggest a continuation of this hearing? Why don't you come up with some new drawings and let's look at them in a month? Can you do it within a month? Yeah. Do you need more time than that? No, I can get... I was hoping to do it even sooner than that. Well, we're meeting just once a month, unfortunately. Okay. Okay. So our next meeting will be May 19th. May 19th. The board action is the 20th, so he's fine. All right. I didn't hear that. Oh. The board action is the 20th, so he's good till the 19th. Okay. All right. Then we don't even need a waiver from you. Can I ask a question? Is there Barry, I feel like you might have a better understanding of what you've seen done before and so once we have the drawings ready, are we allowed to come meet with you? I would recommend that maybe we meet on site and try to discuss it and look at it with John even before he gets the drawings. Okay, that would be great. I mean, we just want to try to find a way to make it work. How it's done is not, I want to, you know, how it's done is not, it doesn't have to be done a certain way is what I'm trying to say. And I guess our issue, Barry, that we're going to have to address is whether or not because of the way that this building was designed, whether it's absolutely sacrosanct that none of the dormers can be adjusted. So, you know, I think that's the issue we're going to have to be wrestling with. That, I believe, would be entirely. I'm curious, just to be a little facetious, what if they widen all of the YOL? dormers. Just to keep it proportional. I don't think that. I hope that's a rhetorical question. I actually wanted to and John told me no. Oh, okay. But I am really a little concerned with this advice that you're getting from the state office. I'm having issues with the fact that they would approve something they knew we should have a problem with. I would just say we've worked with the State of Stoke Preservation Office and the Tax Credit pretty closely in the past. Okay. Well, there may be a need to have a conversation about that. I think there might have been misunderstanding about that. Yeah, and Ms. Whitley, what I'm trying to get at is I want to make sure that we don't go through this exercise and then you find out, oops, you misunderstood what the State Office was saying. That's all I'm trying to do. They are also using the Secretary of the Interior Standards, which does not have the detail that the H-1 guidelines. Yeah, their book is extensive and detailed about small restoration. What I think is probably true is what Barry just said in that they're enforcing a different set of guidelines. and that well and i guess it's true that you know they they were they were okay with what i was proposing but you know this is why i was coming to amelia and various because i wasn't sure if you guys would be able i assume that local would have jurisdiction over state and then over federal so that's kind of why and and what you're saying music to my ears thank god that you you came to us as opposed to going off and doing it yeah yeah yeah issues lately gotcha all right so i'm ready i think we're uh i think we're ready for a motion to continue to may 19th to have a motion to effect mr chairman as per case number 14300347-d at wait i'm on the wrong one i've got the wrong i keep here yeah i'm going to start reading along with you all just to make sure that you're this is case number zero zero zero zero seven south ashland right yes yes okay sorry i just moved it to the wrong pile case number zero zero seven one 0107-J at 107 South Ashland. I move that we continue the hearing to May 19th. Do you have a second? Actually, before that second, can I make a comment? We've got many, many of these cases to review in every hearing so does the board have an inclination to agree with staff regarding the stacking the dormer above the exterior wall below like is that going to be a problem with anybody on the board i hate to continue a case just to it fall again? Well, if I read between the lines with Barry, at least I think this might be more acceptable than what we have right now, and we can make a finding, if need be. Okay. But I'm wanting to cross that valley after we see what the plans look like. Okay. And who knows, Barry, they may be, Barry and Whitley may be able to work something out, or Ralph. All right. I have a motion and a second. Do I have a motion and a second? I have a motion. Second. All right. The chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. The motion passes and will continue to May 19th. Mr. Whitley, thank you for working with us on this, and hopefully we can get to a solution. Thank you. Appreciate it, guys. Very well. Be in touch. Thanks. All right. Thank you very much. All right. We are now at our last application. It is 347 Oldham Avenue. The scope of work is installation of vinyl siding. If you have not read this particular one, there are some environmental issues that are lurking in this one. Is the applicant here? Ms. Perry, you have been very patient. Thank you. All right. So they have recommended disapproval of your application. I'm assuming you would like to be heard on this, Ms. Perry. Yes, sir. Can you hear me? We can. And for the record, if you just state your name and your association with the property. Yes, I'm Kimberly Perry and my husband and I own this property at 347 Oldham Avenue. All right. Is this a residence or rental? um this is a residence that my husband and i purchased um in november uh for my son he is attending uk and we purchased it for him to live in while he continues his education he's a freshman and we closed on that property November the 24th. And were you advised by your realtor or anyone else that this was an H1 overlay property? Right. That's the whole problem. We live in Franklin County. We live in Frankfurt and we were not advised. I didn't even know what an H1 overlay was until now. This has been a very educational process for us. I'm sure you would like to have a nickel for every time you hear this. Oh, I think a penny would do it. Would it? For your budget? Yeah, right. I've had conversations with Barry as well as Amelia, and I don't envy their job. They do a great job. they have a hard job to do and I understand that. I have filed a complaint with my real estate agent and he is in violation of KRS 324.160. So that's another issue that I have going on. And may I suggest, have you actually reached out to the real estate commission itself, the licensing board yes sir i have and um according to their general counsel um what my complaint is all i've heard so far is that it is actionable um i'm still in the uh litigation process um and there's 20 days in between now and from my last response. So I'm in that phase right now. Okay, Ms. Perry, I just asked you these questions just to set some background. What we need to do procedurally is allow Mr. Dennis to make his presentation. Okay. And then we can hear further statements from you, and then we can take this under consideration. I am aware, I think the other board members are as well, that there have been letters sent to us from OSHA. regarding the environmental issues with asbestos siding that you're trying to cover? Yes, sir. Yeah. I mean, when we purchased the home, I was well aware that it was asbestos siding and that it was deteriorating. And we had a home inspection and it was crumbling. And we were advised to encase that. even the insurance company said that we should probably do that. Mr. When Barry came out and met with us yeah I mean go ahead make your presentation. Yeah Dennis, Mr. Dennis if you'll go ahead make your presentation please. All right. You did it fine last time. Yes, I have. there you go are you trying to share your screen i was trying to get miss barry if you could change the angle of your camera just a hair or of your computer yeah now we can see your full face where we're sort of seeing half there we go perfect thank you Okay. Chair just said. Okay. Any progress, Mr. Dennis? Oh, yes. There we go. Very good. 347 Oldham Avenue, install vinyl siding. The applicants are requesting a certificate of appropriateness to retain or to install vinyl siding that was or to retain vinyl siding that was installed without a COA and in violation of the guidelines. While in the neighborhood, staff noticed that work was proceeding at the property and visited the site. No one was at the site at the time of the visit and the violation notice was mailed to the owner on February 26, 2021. Staff met with the applicant on site to discuss the property, discuss that the property was in an H1 district, the guidelines and the process to bring the property into compliance. The applicant informed staff that they were not aware that the property was in an H1 and that vinyl siding was not a material approved for use in an H1 district. district during the site meeting staff was hand delivered a letter addressed to betty kerr director from lynn whitehouse assistant director of the department of workplace standards stating that they had recommended that the owners cover the existing cement asbestos siding with vinyl siding prior to the vinyl siding being installed the letter further recommend recommended that the the vinyl siding be allowed to be retained for environmental reasons. After the site meeting, the applicant submitted a COA application along with a timeline that includes additional comments that the owner was not aware that the property was in an H-1 district and their reasoning and why the vinyl siding should be allowed to be retained, a copy of which is included in their submittal and with a report. The guidelines are included for your use. Findings. Staff finds the proposal to have installed and to retain the vinyl siding does not meet the guidelines for rehabilitation and renovation. Guideline 11F states architectural details should not be covered with vinyl or aluminum or other artificial siding. Guidelines 119D and 119E state respectively, siding of aluminum, asbestos, and vinyl are not compatible materials to historic buildings. Their removal and the rehabilitation of the original wood siding is highly recommended and is highly encouraged. And a synthetic or substitute material such as vinyl or aluminum over original wood siding is not appropriate for buildings and is not allowed. Additionally, the installation of vinyl siding does not meet the guidelines for construction of new buildings. The design principle states the use of vinyl is not permitted. Guideline 2B1J states frame structures, if the new construction is a frame, the preferred exterior material is horizontal wood siding, which is a minimum of four inches and a maximum of six inches in width. The use of smooth cementitious board siding is also acceptable as long as it meets those size recommendations. Vinyl siding is not allowed. guideline 2b 2d states siding should preferably be a brick or wood siding however some cementitious board and other contemporary sightings may be considered vinyl siding is not allowed the guidelines for all types of construction be it renovation additions or entirely new structures when within the h1 districts are extremely clear vinyl siding as well as other vinyl products are not appropriate or allowed to be used recommendations staff recommends the denial of the proposal to have installed and to retain the vinyl siding and the deadline for the board action is may 8 2021 now let me this is a photograph from pva i'm not sure of the date but obviously before the vinyl was installed these photographs were taken on the day that visit uh staff visited the site you can see the vinyl siding has been completely installed and this is the rear of the house and this would be the north wall and in addition obviously staff did not get to review the the condition of the cement asbestos siding prior to that and that would be the end of the staff report If I may, as soon as we had ordered the asbestos siding and we had ordered vinyl replacement windows and we had ordered the vinyl railing for the front porch. And as soon as we had learned that this was not allowed, our contractor returned the vinyl replacement windows and returned all the material for the vinyl porch. And I've got the receipts here where we paid an additional $2,400 for the windows that you all did approve. And then I paid an additional $902 for the front porch materials that you all approved. So this isn't something that I take lightly. And this isn't something that we intentionally did. We did not know what an H1 overlay was. I didn't even know this was Aylesford area. I thought this was Woodland Park neighborhood, to be honest with you. The home next door had vinyl siding on it, which, again, led us to believe that it would be okay to put vinyl siding on on this home um so we have spent i've got the receipt here um well eight thousand eighty five dollars to put the vinyl on this home so it would be a it's a financial stress for us to have to remove that with the labor and the materials and i don't even know what the hardy board would cost to have to for labor and materials to put that on um but you know we certainly want to comply it it's not that we did this intentionally. We're not those people. I want you to know that. The Ellsford neighborhood is problematic. We do have signs posted, I believe, on every street. Is that correct? That denotes it being a historic district? Yes. But it is a problematic street because it is primarily student residence and it is a mix of vinyl and one of the reasons why, and I live in the Ellsford District myself, I'm about three, four streets over from you. I'm over on Transylvania Park. And yes, I've had my missteps with the historic properties as well. I have a question. I wasn't sure from the letter that had been sent in whether there was going to be issue of trying to take the current vinyl siding off and putting on hardy blank well because was there going to be an environmental concern raised that we may be creating a issue if we try to remove the vinyl now and put on hardy blank there's always an issue when you're disturbing the acm i mean because you're you're making it more friable every time you're pulling those screws back out yeah Right. Yeah. Our dilemma is there's no exceptions that I'm aware of in the guidelines, and then I'm going to have some comments from the board. I'll just point out there are no exceptions in the guidelines with vinyl as opposed to being appropriate material, even with a asbestos siding. And so I appreciate your candor and I appreciate your being willing to cooperate with us. and I'm the lawyer on this panel. I'm not the architect. I'm very familiar with the Public Protection Cabinet, though. I worked in state government myself for almost 35 years. All right, so I'm going to start off with this Irwin for any comments, if there are any. Yeah, so my comment would be that I think that this is a case that is not really well handled by our guidelines because we have, I think that they're, you know, the letter that talks about leaving, trying to leave the, you know, we have a situation where the sighting is now in place the removal of the siding will cause a health issue and you know that I don't think that our guidelines address this issue very well so there are mitigation techniques that can be used if the siding is removed and then replaced yeah Yeah. Before, Ms. Kerr, let me hear from the other board members before we get into comments from you. Mr. Gilpin? Anything? No, I think as far as my role to interpret guidelines, our guidelines do not allow vinyl siding. All right. Ms. Hill? So this one's complex, and I agree that our guidelines are very clear. On the other hand, I think that the Kentucky Department of Workplace Standards being involved in this and their suggestions, for me, really muddies the water on this one. If I were a homeowner and didn't know I was in an H-1 overlay, I think that complicates it. I'm going to point out, Ms. Perry, you're probably aware of this, there is in the field process. Sir, I am not aware. I've never been through anything like this. and honestly had we known that this was a historic property we never bought it right we were just looking for a place to put our son to live while he goes to school because economically it makes sense to have your son and a couple of roommates and they right that's for itself yeah right that that's all we were looking for and we were trying to make it look nice and and this is what we've walked into and um you know um that that's all i can say well i want to remind you or point out to you we're not the last stop on this railroad there is an appeal mechanism from our decisions to what's called the planning board and that you can have your case reviewed and it's reviewed de novo by the planning commission and they have a little bit more leeway than we do I'm not saying that they're going to reverse us but they do have some leeway with us Ms. Curry did you have anything that you wanted to add at this point? I think that Mr. Dennis, he and I, I think I've been wearing this mask too long today. He and I were just talking about it. I would say that there are a couple of issues that, one, it is on an H-1. The environmental issue was made worse by adding vinyl onto it. There are acceptable methods to remove asbestos, contain it, and properly dispose of it. That could have been done prior to putting more screws and nails through the asbestos site. I respectfully have to disagree with you. To remove the material that was on the home, is that what you're saying? To remove it all? That would have been extremely expensive. You have to encase the entire home. I'm aware of the mitigation procedures and how it's accomplished. Right. So am I. Okay. I take it we're within your area of specialty, I take it. Yes, sir. Okay. I have been on a soapbox for quite some time about realtors not advising properly their clients about the zoning of the properties. I've also been advocating for some time that the real estate commission change its regs to mandate that the disclosure be made affirmatively on the disclosure statement made to buyers that you're in a nation one overlay. I do know and I've noted for the record that the real estate commission is administratively attached or used to be to the public protection cabinet. It is. Yes. And this may be a mechanism by which people in your cabinet perhaps could have a conversation. To keep this from happening to anyone else. Absolutely. I'm not in the public protection cabinet. I know. OK. But I believe is your husband associated? Yes, sir. He is associated with the public protection cabinet, but he has removed himself from that complaint. complaint because I understand fully yes but I thought I recognized the name to be honest with you yes yeah he's not involved in the complaint at all just so that we can keep it but I'm hoping that out of this complaint perhaps can come a dialogue about how we can prevent this from happening? I would, I've been giving that thought because I'd had conversation with Amelia about, you know, is there a way that you all can get your message out to these brokers or to real estate agents about where are your H1 overlays or, you know, do you all have a tight budget? And then she said, yes, we do. Non-existent budget. Yeah, that's what she explained to me. And I would like to, you know, assist or help or some way work with you. Or I could, I would love to get you hooked up with the right people in the Real Estate Commission to assist with that. I would be glad to do that. And Ms. Kerr, could the, you know, we have this oversight committee, the Preservation Committee. commission mission could this could this be an issue that we could put on their agenda to perhaps we have there's there's lots of history and all this which i will not take the time tonight to go into but we speak occasionally to the payout county board of realtors and remind them of the fact about h1 overlays and so forth and refer them to all the publicly accessible resources that every citizen, every professional can tap into, including the LFUCB's website. There are maps on the website of all the H-1 overlays. There are maps of the National Register Districts, which is an aside. But the PVA has in their records for every piece of real estate in Lexington County, the land piece of zoning, and the H-1 designation is in a parenthesis right beside that. so there you know there's i think where you're so many things i think where they're missing the good opportunity is these young real estate agents where they're getting their continuing education right is where that needs to be and that's that's where we speak when we do go to speak, they're getting their education credits. But you know, you can only hand feed information to people one-on-one a limited number of times. And then there is a burden on property owners, on professionals, on everybody to use these resources to inform themselves. And we practically preach from the treetops about it whenever there's a forum but at the end of the day it comes down to it as a responsibility of each individual property owner and I will add that the remedy may be, this is why I've been preaching it and you may be in a position to discuss it it's the disclosure form that I think may at least we would be in a position saying you're required to read your disclosure form if you don't read it then that's your problem i never got one no you should have i mean whenever you bought the property there should have been a i asked for one but my agent never gave me one and so that is why i have filed that's why you got yes and so that is why he is in direct violation and so that's why i have the complaint going on yes yes so that i do have an actionable account because the very last question on the seller's disclosure is, is this property in a historic district? And I had asked for the seller's disclosure a couple of times and I never got it. And we closed on November the 24th. My mother passed away on November 20th. I don't even remember the closing and so I never got one and I never thought that this was a problem until February the 26th when you all showed up and said uh this is a problem so here I am yeah well my condolences to you about your mother passing yeah thank you and I'm glad you have the resources to follow up with your real estate agent and perhaps maybe get a monetary remedy for this? I don't know. You know, certainly he was a young agent that was, you know, just Well, this will be a lesson he'll learn. I hope so. Okay. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? I mean, any further discussion on the application. I have not asked for any comments from the virtual audience. I'll give it a count of 10. Is there someone, Amelia? No, I just double check. Okay, thank you. All right, so do I have a motion? This has been a rough night for us. And a rough night for you too, Ms. Perry. Believe me, I'm truly sympathetic with you, truly. somebody that's what we're here for mr chair i'm trying to find the case number all right i got it okay Mr. Chair regarding case number 00710107-J at 107 South Ashland. I move to. No, I'm sorry. You're on the wrong one. I was afraid of that. Sorry. We're looking at 347 Oldham Avenue. The case number is 14300347-D. Got it. Okay. Regarding that case number as stated, 347 Oldham Avenue, I move to deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness. All right. Do I have a second? Do I have a second? To move this, Ms. Hill has seconded. obviously Ms. Perry you can tell that we're not keen to do this it's a process and I do want to compliment you and thank you for your professionalism and for trying to work within the process as I have pointed out there is an appeal process that you can avail yourself of Ms. Kerr can give you the details of how that's done All right. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? The chair will call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Nays, any? Nay. Nay. All right. Ms. Perry, thank you. Your application has been disapproved. okay thank you all right uh i think we can let you go okay okay thank you i believe our next order of business is the approval of the minutes uh normally i try to look at them unfortunately i have not had a chance i know miss erwin did Take it upon yourself and thank you for sharing with us the edits that you had. It's only January 20th and February 17th in the works, but not there yet. Okay. January 20 minutes. Are the edits approvable by us? All right. So do I have a motion to accept the January minutes? So moved. so move from miss hill do i have a second second from everyone all right then the minutes will stand approved thank you so much thank you any other business this has been another long meeting all right i want to take a moment Can I make something very quick? Sure, Ms. Irwin. Yeah. So I'm still very relatively new to the board, and we've been doing this in this Zoom way, so sometimes I don't really know what I'm doing here. I mean, sometimes I have questions about what's normal and what's not normal and all of these sorts of things. Not that I don't know what I'm doing. but I just was wondering if there was a way that we could and maybe it's just another conversation with the staff for me but so many of these is this abnormal the number of people that come and say they have have no idea they're in the h1 district I would say it is a little higher but it is I'm perceiving it's a little higher in the last year, year and a half but one thing to keep in mind COVID has brought people who have been in their homes for a while or just out buying and whatever who have time on their hands and they're getting into projects and stuff that I'm just saying that the proportion of people coming forward are greener, if you will, to the concept of renovation sometimes. And I think a little more vulnerable to, oh, I didn't know, and a lot of things. So there's no one simple explanation of people's sense that saying they don't know. So having said that, the age old, I didn't know I was in a historic district, is terribly common. Yeah, I realize that, but it does seem to, it produces abnormally complicated problems. There's no question. And it's nationwide. I mean, in the business of administering these processes across the country, much has been talked about for decades about that, where, you know, it's the processes always can be really rather clean in how they work, as long as you haven't put hammer to nail. but when you have then you have invested your money and your time and your emotions into something that you're pretty determined to have when when you reached out to some design professionals on more complicated applications and gotten advice from them they and or the the property owner both have worked with staff. There's no question. It's just, that's the way it's intended to work and it's a lot smoother. And there's room for give and take with no foul, you know, no harm, no foul. And it's innate in the process. So I think it's like anything else. There's a range when people say they had no idea they were in a historic district. some of them might not be being totally honest some of them are being totally honest and there's everything in between but it is always the fallback position when something has been created that they don't want to change most frequently and I want to add because I realize we've had two or three difficult sessions, and I know all of us find it very frustrating. I want to thank you so much. It is volunteers like ourselves that are willing to enforce this process and to make it work the way it should. We have had times when we've seen how the process worked, and it worked beautifully. For example, the dialogue that we're having with Mr. Whitley about the dormer. That's what we're here for. That's the whole point of having an enforcement mechanism for the design guidelines. So I want to thank you for your expertise and for your intelligence and for your, frankly, your empathy. That's part of it. And it's rough. I know it is. and I hope that we will we do seem to be having a little bit of a surge and hopefully it will sort of summer back down and be back more into just having routine approvals and not having these awful wretched situations and may I say one last thing I think one of the things that facilitates the whole process is to have continuity in how the guidelines are interpreted because nothing seems to frustrate applicants more than to feel like somebody else got favorite treatment. And so it comes back to really being sure both the staff and the board in both their comments and their actions make a real distinction if you're going to deviate from what has been the pattern of the utilization of the design guidelines. And that's something that builds in your memory bank of cases and examples that are kin or not so kin and all that. And I think, Suzanne, you particularly, if I may say, are a bit hampered, I'm guessing, because we normally can do a training session to talk about broad philosophical, what the guidelines and hints to focus on and that kind of thing are. And we do those periodically. And since you've been appointed, we haven't had the possibility of doing that. So you've had to come into it without that background of what's been going on with this for say the last 10 years on average in terms of issues. What have you done about vinyl? What have you done about this? And it's not to say it's to suggest how you vote on any, and I'm not talking just to you, Suzanne, I'm talking about everybody, not how any board members vote. That is certainly not the intent, but to just give you some base to kind of then build your evaluations in your head of how does this respond? How do the guidelines fit to this? How does this application fit to the guidelines? so we probably all would benefit from trying to have some more cross communication about things like that having said that keep in mind that if all of you gather together at one time it's a quorum and we have to advertise it so i'm laughing if i may make one more suggestion and it's probably not a practical one. If we could somehow limit the number of cases we hear in a given session, and we may have to go back to the two weeks or the two times. The staff sometimes, I mean, wow, I got to tell you, the endless cycle of the every two weeks on average, there are times we just think about, you know, that's it. Cut it off. We can't take anymore. But it snowballs, and of course everybody is and to use the construction season if indeed it's that weather and so forth and so we don't take every application that comes in but some of them are not totally complete and it takes time to work through with them what they're lacking and all that and but we do finally get to a point where we do put some for the next office even if they're complete because it's just too much okay I was just wondering. No, there's a method to the madness. The good news is for you all, the staff reviewed and issued permits, you know, it tends to ride between 63% and 65% on an annual basis. I never have understood how it is that happens on such a rhythmic each year given that it's driven by the nature and scope of the work and what you all have mandated to us as staff. But we're able, so that 65% is taken care of short of you all having to take your time. And it does mean, however, it's not your imagination, that the balance of the cases that are in the other 30% you ever take are more complicated. And also by nature, they're coming to you because there's challenges, problems, or so forth, and or their demolition and or new construction, which by ordinance must be so the public has the opportunity to know what's happening, and that's part of your all's process too, but it's not your imagination at all that, you know, back 20 years ago, and I hate to admit I've been doing this long enough to remember that and more, but the board used to hear almost, well they did until probably 15 years ago, hear 100% of the cases. And so, yeah, there were less historic districts and, um, but my point is about the ratios and such, it leaves you with troubles and not the easier things. The easier things, if they fall under those certain labels, the staff goes ahead and takes care of it. So it leaves you beating your head on the wall, I suspect. In one of these days when we get done, I'm just going to say I won't be at a particular watering hole if you have to come by and let's talk about it. Sometimes we just, we do it and we're doing it And Suzanne, thank you for bringing this up because I think we all need some unwinding time. Right. And some more just relief. I think we're ready for the evening to end, so I'm going to ask for a motion to adjourn. And Susan, I want to thank you so much for working with us. Truly. I'm happy to do it. And I, it's just that I just, there seems to be a pattern that is problematic. And I didn't know like how new this was or anyway. Well, part of it is. We'll talk about it some other time. And the real issue, there is a lack of funding problem that we have. Oh, I know. I know. We need to have an issue. That's creating much more of an issue. I know that there's issues in budgeting and time and everything to try to address that, you know, the not knowing. But it just seems like that would alleviate some of it, not all of it. There might be somebody who says they don't know. So, I mean, you get that. There might be some mitigation monies coming to us, I hope, Ms. Curl. No. mitigation money from VA oh no that turned out to be staying totally at VA no money is coming to the community in general I'll explain that later ready to go just waving thank you thank you thank you all of you for everything you do and just take heart that it does matter and then go have a large glass of wine. Okay. Or bourbon. Whatever. Thank you. Motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Second, yeah. All right, we stand adjourned. Again, thank you so much. And hopefully we won't have a session that takes us to 8 o'clock again. Whatever time it is. See you guys. Thank you. 7.30. All right, thank you. Take care. Bye-bye. Thank you. Thank you. I can feel it burning inside of me To know you