Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff, and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions and make comments regarding the application, and hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that this information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 22 applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In Ashland Park, attend 12 Fincastle Road, reissue the COA. In the Ellsworth Historic District, at 251 Kentucky Avenue, replace roof and gutters. At 282 Rose Street, renovate structure. At 347 Transylvania Park, install storm windows and install pavers. At 368 Transylvania Park, repair, replace front and side steps. And at 355 Woodland Avenue, renovate structure. In the Belcourt Historic District at 220 Bell Place, remove Magnolia Tree. At 132 East Bell Street, renovate structure. And at 621 Boonesboro, install storm window system in rear porch. In the Ellesmere Park Historic District at 673 Ellesmere, renovate site and structure. In Fayette Park Historic District at 424 Fayette Park, reissue the CLA. at 442 failed fayette park reissue the coa in the pensacola park is start district at 158 goodrich avenue install new handrail at 218 lackawanna road install handrails at 165 rosemont garden remove damaging tree at 169 rosemont garden remove damaging tree and at 145 walrus drive replace sidewalk our driveway in the seven parts to start district at 236 barbary lane remove dangerous In the South Hill Historic District at 352 South Broadway, replace roof, 416 Pluckett Street, re-roof roof. And at 281 South Ashland Avenue, repair patio and fire bed. And finally, at 293 South Ashland Avenue, renovate structure. I'm sorry, we will now turn to the applications. The first one. Mr. Chair. Yes. I realize there's something wrong with my agenda here. Well, could we, before you even have that challenge, note that we have another challenge, which is our other board member who had the challenge of thinking we were on Zoom, it turns out is physically not well and is hesitant to join all of us, and I think we're all appreciative of that in the time in which we exist. Oh, we have a problem, don't we? And so he is not going to physically come. He was planning to participate by Zoom, but he wasn't ever thinking he would circulate. Okay. So it leaves us with a dilemma in that I know that you, Mr. Chair, were planning to recuse on one of the applications. and that is important to do but it would result in for that one application we wouldn't have a quorum. Well let me suggest a solution. I don't have to vote in this proceeding and I don't participate in the proceeding but I can still remain present to maintain the quorum. Let me defer to law on this. There's a real necessity if you will. And would you pull your mic closer to you please? I was reverberating like crazy earlier. So there's also a rule of necessity when we have this situation. So long as I don't participate nor vote, but I am present for purposes of establishing the quorum, I think that would be appropriate. Were you going to abstain? Because normally a recusal requires that you- I tell you what, in this instance I'll just abstain the voting. That's what I normally do. I just abstain. I mean, the decision to either recuse or abstain is up to the member themselves. Okay. And so if you choose to do that, then the vote on the abstention goes with the majority. If you recuse, though, it normally requires a leaving from the premises, and that would defeat the quorum. I think we may have to inquire of the applicant whether she wants me to be completely recused or if she wants to proceed forward with her application. This was in reference to the case at 363 Transylvania Park. That's correct. Is Ms. Joseph here? Let's go ahead and see if you have an objective. Let's work this issue out first. Not yet, not yet. Ms. Joseph, good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm not sure you've heard the conversation, but the problem we have is we need at least three people here to constitute a forum so action can be taken on the application. I have a choice of either, typically I do not participate in proceedings that involve Transylvania Park at all. And what I'm trying to say is I won't do that and I'll simply abstain. But that will maintain the quorum so the other two members can hear this application of yours. Okay. Is that agreeable with you? Yes. All right then. We'll get to your case in due time. Okay. Thank you. Okay, well, I wanted to be sure we got that resolved just in case it wasn't going to be be able to be heard because i know we have people in attendance who might have other things to do if indeed it couldn't be heard today and that's i appreciate your concern for that well and thank you for getting that resolved and let me shall i hand you a fresh copy of the agenda yes because i seem to have the wrong or do i Thank you, I appreciate it. Okay, all right, let's turn to our first application. At 373 Linden Walk in the Ellsworth Historic District, the scope of work is constructs side stairs and landing. Is the applicant here? Mr. Cottle, how are you today? I'm doing fine, sir, how are you? I'm well, if you state your name and address for the record. Benjamin Cottle, 1644 Richmond Road. All right, Mr. Cottle. The scope of work is constructs side stairs and landing. The staff has reviewed your application. I believe they have recommended approval subject to one, what I would call a substantive condition, that being the railing, the either metal and or wood with metal spindles and final details of the stair and railing details to be submitted to staff approval prior to issuance of COA. Are you in agreement with that? I'm in agreement, yes. Okay, the other two are what we call our standard conditions. The second one being, 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 we in agreement? I'm in agreement. And the last one is, once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement with that? I'm in agreement, sir. All right, then. In light of your agreement, I'm wondering, are there any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, then the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, as per case number 11720373 at 373 Linden Wall, I knew that... Can you share the microphone on? There it is, okay. Do I need to repeat that? Thank you. Now you can be heard. Do I need to repeat? Please. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chair, as per case number 11720373 at 373 Linden Walk, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness. with the recommendation that the railing be either metal and or wood with metal spindles and final details of the stair and railings be submitted to staff approval prior to the issuance of the COA and the two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the motion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Mr. Caldwell, thank you. Thank you. Have a blessed day. Okay. We're a little bit out of practice being in person. All right, so turning now to application number two. The address is 453 East Maxwell Street in the Ellsworth Historic District. The scope of work is construct a retaining wall, close rear opening, and remove rear stairs. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. If you'll state your name for the record please. Kevin Gordon. All right. And you are at 453 East Massimo Street? Yes. All right. I believe the staff has reviewed your application and they have recommended approval, subject to what we call the standard two conditions. I've previously read, I'll read them to you to make sure you understand them. The first one is that once the application is reviewed by the other city divisions, that you'll resubmit any changes they may suggest to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start of the work. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. The other one being is, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work, or in agreement. Yes. All right then. Are there any questions or comments from the board members? Any comments or questions from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, in regard to case number 12670453-C at 453 East Maxwell Street, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions as noted. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right, there being a second, any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the application at 453 East Maxwell Street is approved as conditioned. Thank you, sir, and good luck with your project. All right, we're now getting at 363 Transylvania Park. As previously discussed, I am abstaining from these proceedings. I'm turning the floor over to Ms. Hill to preside. In this application, the staff's review has recommended denial of the proposal. proposal have you read through the report staff report i have but um on the drawing i put added grass between the driveway and the and i'm not sure that was noted so would you like your case to be fully here heard then yes then the process is the staff will give their presentation and then you'll have an opportunity to give your presentation okay very nice of step up just sitting out somewhere. Yeah. As noted, the case is 363 Transylvania Park. Microphone. so this is the area in question staff has met with the applicant miss Joseph a few times about different issues at the property and they're currently requesting a certificate of appropriateness to install a paver sidewalk along the driveway staff was notified that work was in progress in the front yard without a coa having been issued and contact the owner who met with staff and submitted a coa application and sketch of the proposal The owner explained that the pavers were to balance the green space lawn on each side of the walkway to the front door and was not to be used for parking. The sketch provided by the owner showed the proposed pavers to be installed from Transylvania Park public sidewalk to the front porch with a tree cut out around an existing tree. during a site visit staff noted that the utility space between the street and the sidewalk had been prepped for pavers in the same manner as the area west of the public sidewalk so this is you know I'm sorry this is the area in particular here you can see the tree back beyond where the cutout is located the guidelines are included for your use the findings staff finds that the proposal to enlarge the pavement area does not meet the guidelines or comply with the LFU CG zoning ordinance though the overview of the guidelines for site and setting states in addition to buildings elements of the surrounding site thank you elements of the surrounding site and setting contribute to the character of historic property these elements include both natural and man-made features such as trees fields gardens fences driveways retaining walls and boundary definers historic site elements help to define a property's historic character and appearance historic site and setting features should be preserved and maintained guideline 2 4b and 2 4c state respectively sidewalks walkways and curbs that are added or altered should be compatible with the principal and accessory structures on the property and surrounding properties and the and those Those that are added should not be visually dominant, intrusive, or suggest a false sense of history. Guideline 3.5B states, driveways and parking lots that are new should be located at the side or rear of the building and not be visually dominant. Additionally, 3.5D, driveways and parking lots should have their parking areas located in rear yards. It appears that the prep work between the sidewalk and the street was intended to widen the driveway apron to allow vehicular access to the pavers inside the public sidewalk and the pavers could be used for parking. The addition of such a large expanse of pavers in the front yard of the property would be visually dominant, not in character with the pattern of development of the Ellsford Historic District. Pennsylvania Park is in the infill and development area for LFUCG zoning ordinance. The ordinance limits parking in the infill area to siding rear yards and to a maximum of two spaces per unit. Those two places on this property are in the existing carport. The ordinance also limits driveways to a maximum of 10 feet in the infill area. staff finds that the addition of pavers around the existing tree is appropriate within the guidelines staff recommends denial to install the pavers but the pavers around the tree be approved along with the two standard recommendations and i can show you a little more grab the mic please out of practice I think we're all out of practice so this is the area that was proposed and prepped within the public sidewalk and the driveway and the rear walk or the walk adjacent to the porch This is looking towards the south. And you can see the main entry axis to the house runs from basically this ridge line out along the sidewalk into Transylvania Park or along the sidewalk. and this is the drawing that was originally brought into us for review we did have discussions about whether some amount of paving could or I'm sorry landscape could be along this area but after looking at the guidelines more extensively the amount of paving would not be in character with the historic district and that's the end of the staff report any questions for me does the staff have any does the board have any questions So I just wanted to clarify, I understood that you said that even if there was more landscape, greenscape between the driveway and the proposed pavers, that this amount of paving added to a front lawn would be outside of the guidelines. um there is nothing like that in transylvania right and it would be bringing a new pattern of development into the historic district and it's you know a fairly large area for a front yard and does this drawing is indicating to want to have green space greenery between the driveway in the papers that's what this drawing indicates what was discussed with staff and but I believe miss Joseph would have to speak to that okay just clarifying the drawing okay so the applicant please please state your name and your address for the record Raquel Joseph three six three Transylvania Park so I would like to add a foot of grass and then there's already grass if we could can we go back to the picture yeah that's good so beyond the sidewalk is grass that's already been thick. And then that last piece. Barry, would you please give her the mic and the pointer? I have no practice so. Okay so it where the sidewalk meets the yard the drawing has like a it rounds so that would all be grass as well so I think the drawings it's just hard to read but so there'd be a foot of grass on the drive so there'd be no connection between the pavers and the driveway and then it'd come down and it would be grass and it would just loop so where you see the tree that's surrounded in pavers it would just come down and then make a pretty pretty arch and then turn into all grass so all that's grass the edge of a foot's grass so basically I'm just bringing the pavers out just enough I want to put a round black bench around the tree and then just add enough paver so that you know when I'm sitting there I have extra pavers at my feet and a a walk around because where it stopped right now if I put the bench I you know my feet it just it's a bad ending I guess it just doesn't look good the way it's where where it stopped right now so I'm open to suggestions I just need to put some more in but not I mean I'm open to suggestion and it matches if you see the rest of the house it matches the side and then it goes around and matches the hardscape the rest of it so the intention is not parking it's merely garden ground deck somewhere to sit okay are there any questions from board members. So the bench that you're talking about would be an outward facing bench. The back of the bench would be towards the tree. Correct. Sitting facing outward. Yes, and it would circle the tree. And so that would be about a 18 inch seat. And your proposal would be to want to... Well, I would like to bring the pavers out, and I won't touch the driveway. I'll make that green space, and then about, I don't know, I guess somehow bring it out to where I have just a little more paver come out, and then curve. Okay. so I I done so I think my question has to do with on looking but that the sketch and at the photograph it and hearing your description of an 18-inch d bench it does same the proportion of papers to the grass area along that edge of the driveway seems excessive for just location of a bench. Well, so if you look at the front of the house, and I have some pictures I can show you on my phone, the yard, because the door is off center, the yard now becomes equal on both sides and it just kind of finishes it. So you have the tree with the bench and then the pavers just come and they can just come wrap around they don't have to go all the way to the bottom and they don't I just wanted to put in it has like a black paver edge and so the edging would come down along the grass and finish it from the porch so it starts at the porch and it has like a black paver and it's just decorative and it comes around and I would like to finish it somehow so that doesn't look like that so just out of curiosity have you ever used the front porch for sitting on I haven't lived there yet because I'm still under construction okay you know I'm trying to get there but I not there yet keep ending up in front of some sort of board somehow so here I am again okay do you have any more. Okay. Then I think the next step is for us to see if there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak to the issue. Okay. And would staff, I do need to ask, would people have signed up ahead of time or is this just identifying people as they raise their hands? There is, of course, a sign-in sheet at the door, but it's not meant to be a speaking order sheet. It's just a sheet that you're here. And so you as chair can just open it to people and invite the next person available as one is finishing start the next comments. All right. Thank you. Yes. And for whomever comes up, be sure and state your name and your address for the record. yes my name is Kathy Stein I live at 364 Transylvania Park which is directly across the street from this address I've lived there for 31 years and I walk my dog around that block two or three times a day and of course I've noticed the the lovely work that the Josephs have been doing on this home. But when they began to dig the pit that is underneath the graveled area where it is proposed to be tiled over, there is no space there that there was any dirt left for any grass. So it appears that the original design design and purpose for this was for parking. I would also point out that the triangle and the grass that abuts Transylvania Park Street next to that large tree is also graveled. And I wonder why there would be the need for that if you're going to just have a seating area there. It looks like that triangle is there to support a car driving in and parking on that spot. When I was walking, when the times that I've been walking by, at first I thought it was a fountain perhaps that was going to be in there because it was the depth of the hole that was dug there was, I think, at least three feet, maybe four feet. So I thought, why would you dig that deep for something unless it's for a pond? But when I saw that it was filled back in and those tiles were placed there, I became very concerned that it was going to be parking. And, of course, no parking is allowed in streets in Lexington. So I admire the work that this family has done, but I was glad to see that someone had mentioned to the board that this appeared to be something that had not been submitted to you previously. Do you have any questions of me? Thank you. Yes, you may. Thank you. so no it's not intended for parking I find it that someone would just make that assumption without just asking me since I'm right across the street so like I said that is grass now and all that is going to be grass anything touching the drive will be grass so no one can park because you can't drive over the grass not going to let somebody pull over my grass. I just put in irrigation and brand new sod just went in. I don't know if you're noticing today. Have you been there today? There's brand new sod going in the entire yard, so no one's going to park on my grass or get close to it. There's irrigation that has been put in because I want to keep my grass green. So I have done a whole lot of work to my and my backyard because I want it to be beautiful. And I hope everybody thinks it's beautiful and enjoys it. I've tried to make the house an asset to the street rather than bring it down, which, you know, there are a lot of houses down the street that need a whole lot of work. Two to my right need a ton. Not this one next to me, but the apartment complex next door. I mean, there's just a lot of things that need to be worked on around there, and I hope that everybody enjoys the work that I'm doing and that it looks good. It's clean, it's tidy, it's brand-new painted, and I've spent a lot of time and money trying to make it look beautiful so that I can enjoy it, so that when I walk my dogs, I can enjoy it as well. Joseph, perhaps since you did respond to a specific question, and perhaps we could go on with the rest of the... I just want to... You know, I feel like everybody's out to get me when I'm just trying to do good things, and I just want that to look pretty, and I want a bench around my tree and a few more pavers added. I don't want parking. I don't want to park in my grass. I don't want all these assumptions made, so I'm trying to overcome the assumptions. So I'm open to suggestions. If we want to alter it a little bit, just so that I can finish it, that would be great. Thank you. Because right now it looks terrible. Thank you. Madam Chair, the staff might suggest that you might want to get the comments from everyone who wants to comment and then at the end of that offer the applicant one more opportunity to come up and address anything additional that arose during those comments. All right. so let's proceed forward with additional audience comments. Are there any more that would like to be addressed? I saw basically four hands, I believe, so you're the next in line. My name's Tim Combs. I live at 368 Transvenue Park. While Ms. Joseph says it's not meant for parking, I grew up with uncles who operated a construction company based on the depth and the amount of gravel and sand compacted. It would support the weight of a vehicle. The triangle at the end of the driveway is also intended to allow a vehicle to pull onto this space. But I do agree with her. It needs to be finished in a way for her to have the seating area. and but the rest of that space does need to be covered over and converted back to grass or some other landscaping if she chooses to do so but anything that's going to eliminate the possibility that people think that that is a parking space because right now she may not intend it for it to be that way but that's the first thing that the landlords in that area do in the college neighborhoods they put stuff up in the front yard and students immediately start parking there regardless of whether that's what they intended or not and that's the first sign that a landlord is converting the property into some kind of slum rental in that neighborhood and I don't want that but again I agree with miss Joseph we need to do something to finish off the front edge of that seating area so that it does have a finished look and then get the green space back in place there along the edge of the driveway. Thank you. Anyone else? I just wanted to comment. Just a moment until we have the public comments completed. Anyone else? Yes. Jim Thomerson my wife and I own 372 Transylvania Park which is across the street two doors down from the house in question prior to being coming a lawyer I was trained and practiced as a engineer it is constructed in the form of of a new driveway. If you put six inches, 12 inches, whatever of grass between that existing driveway and the new parking space, it doesn't change the nature of it that it's a new parking space. Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has if you count the tail as a leg. And after some people said five, he said no, a dog still has four legs because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg it it looks like a parking space it is designed and constructed like a parking space and having a parking space in the front yard on Transylvania Park is just out of character for the neighborhood and this historic district and it also is not consistent with the stated desire of having a little space for pavers or Creekstone or whatever wants to go in at the far right hand side of that near that tree for a sitting sitting area that is that just doesn't make sense and so I think it's beyond even discussion that it is like what has been expressed is desired and it's simply out of character for the neighborhood and once it's there it's there and that's all we have to say. Thank you for your comments. Are there any further comments? Yes, I see one more hand. Okay. Let's try to keep the comments very specific to the issue at hand. Okay. I was about to take a little diversion, but my name is Karen Patrone. I am at 361 Transylvania Park, which is right next door. And I agree with Raquel that perhaps communication should have been more direct when it looked to practiced eyes in construction that this looked like it was about to be a driveway spot. I also, you know, I support the idea of working with the staff to develop a design to finish off the paving in some way while maintaining as much green space as possible. And I think, you know, Reckalab, we want to work with you as much as we can, and I don't want to, I know this has been kind of a difficult, situation, but I wanted to just, I'm an historian, and I'm going to divert very quickly to say that the reason why the people on this block are so vigilant are those two houses to the right, you know, that you talked about, because what happened 30 years ago is people were coming in, tearing down the historic houses, and putting up those ticky-tacky horrible apartments, and so the existence of the Neighborhood Association and the H-1 overlay was to stop those kinds of problems. And that's why the neighborhood is so vigilant about things that seem like they might look like either student housing, look like student housing, because of course those houses are student housing. And if there have been communication mistakes, I'm very sorry. And if the, but the goal of the neighborhood association and your goals are the same, which is to keep the neighborhood beautiful, to make sure that the historic structure is intact. and for that reason, so many pavers is not consistent with the historic fabric of the neighborhood, but of course the landscaping you're doing and the tiling around the tree and all of that, we recognize and appreciate the work that you're doing to make the house beautiful and improve the house. It's just that we've kind of gotten it cross purposes and I'm sorry about that. Thank you. One last hand I see. Let's try to keep comments as short as possible. Also suggest, Madam Chair, to remind people that they're making their comments to the board. The board? Yes. And do I need to hold that? We're... Okay. It would be easier to hear you, yes. If I do. Yes, please. Oh. So name and address, please. My name is Donna Maupin, and I live at 333 Transylvania Park. And I purchased my home in 1986 and have seen the development of the neighborhood to return to single-family homes. And what has been done to this house is just beautiful. I haven't seen the inside, but if the inside looks anything like the outside, it is lovely. But as soon as I saw the space, I knew what the intent was. and the two gentlemen have spoken and explained it in words that I wouldn't have been able to, so I agree with them. But today when I drove by, I noticed that the sod was down, and I saw the sprinkler system in and working, and it is unproportional. The green space, if you're looking at the house on the left side, is much wider than the grass on the right-hand side. So I think that if that were returned, if that pavers were finished in a way that looked completed, and then the grass on down by the sidewalk and driveway, then it would be proportional. Thank you. Thank you. So, Ms. Joseph, would you like to make any final comments? Yes. So I heard the word slumlord, which I kind of take offense to since my house. If my house looks like it's a slumlord house, I'm offended. Honestly, I put a lot of time and effort into this home. So I don't know where anybody would get that idea. And the pavers, everything they did around the back and the front, they did consistent. I'm not a builder, nor am I an engineer, so I don't know how much fill and doesn't, but I can assure you anything that went under the tree, in the back, it all got done the same way, to the same quality, I should say. So that's not the intention. Like I said, and I'll say it again, I'm willing to design it however you see best. I just want to finish it because it needs to be finished in some fashion that doesn't look like that and so I'm happy to finish it I'm happy to work with ideas and I'm open to suggestion I you know I just don't want a hard no I need guidance tell me what you want to see and I'll make it happen just don't leave me like that thank you appreciate your willingness to work on resolving this. Well I want it beautiful it's my house so thank you. Do you have any further questions? Excuse me. Yes. You might want to note the letters that were received. Deborah Hensley, Stephen Strask, John Law, and Alice Christ. I think all of those were emailed to you. They were emailed. I don't have copies of them with me. Could you? The staff has those for the record. Okay, excellent. And so they can be considered entered into the record via the staff's printing them out. All right. I know that you all have received them and read them. We have. Yes, I have received and read them. Okay, do the staff have any further comments they wish to make before the board continues? So what I'm hearing is the interest of the neighborhood in having the project completed without intended parking, but also understanding the applicant's intent to have a really finished, nice, front place where she can sit on a bench and be part of the neighborhood. So it does seem to me that the drawing that we have and the photograph that we have don't necessarily fully represent what the intent is. and that I think the project would benefit from a revised drawing that show what the final intent is because the photograph does look worrisome and the drawing actually does not address the triangular issue between the sidewalk and the street in any kind of fashion, and the paver area does look quite a bit larger than what I hear you describing verbally. So is this a condition where the applicant could work with the staff for revisions? Certainly, if that is what the board determines, they would like to be the process outcome. you could make your motion to reflect that just as you've indicated that you would like the applicant to work with the staff to resolve this in accordance with what the board's comments reflect in your decision and in accordance with the design guidelines and to demonstrate that by submitting another drawing to the staff that could be reviewed and any nuancing worked out with the applicant prior to issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. And of course work would need to stop until that certificate is able to be issued. Right. Any further comments on your part? So the only comment that I have, which I feel probably will have to be part of the motion, is that our guidelines are very clear that additional pavement and parking areas are not to be in the front of historic houses. So the guidelines are very clear on the purpose of that. So would you like to make a motion? I will give it a go. So. Chair, as per case number 1913-0363-Q, at 363 Transylvania Park, I move that the COA be approved for the pavers directly around the tree, but that the COA be denied to install pavers immediately beside the driveway with the condition that the applicant return with the staff, consult with the staff on the exact dimensions of the pavers that do go around the tree that meet the driveway and that that dimension be clarified and that no pavers be placed in the area on the street side of the public sidewalk and the two standard conditions. I don't know how this works with someone seconding this. Can I make a request for, this is kind of a legal thing, a request for an addition to the motion that Ms. Irwin has proposed. Just as a clarification, that on neither side of the sidewalk there be pavers, either the street side or the house side, so that it clearly separates the pavers as related to the tree for a sitting area with no intent to be an expansion of the driveway. I agree with that. So do I just second it? Okay. Okay. All right. So there's been a motion made and seconded. So all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And we will be cast. so chair i turn it back over to you mr dickinson all right thank you moving now to attachment number four at 258 bell place in the bell court historic district the scope of work is to refresh gravel parking is the applicant here The applicant has received his staff report, but he's not present at the moment. I'm sorry? The applicant is not present. We have fairly substantive conditions being suggested. Have they been reviewed with the applicant? We talked last, we've been playing phone tag this week. We talked last week, and we did talk about the fact that he can't gravel within the urban service boundary where there wasn't gravel. And he said that he was going to try to rake it back into the area that had been graveled. However, I think he is concerned still about a turnaround area for his tenants or potential tenants. So I would think that you might, maybe we could revisit this at the end of the day. I think so. If he does show up. Why don't we go ahead and continue this case to, what's our next date? Postpone or continue, I can never remember your distinction. You would be to the August 18th meeting date. This is postponing, correct? Right. Right. You would be postponing this case. And what, I'm sorry. In lieu of continuing. And I got up here without a pen, so what's the next date? And the next date is August 18th. 18th? All right, do I have a motion to postpone this proceeding to August 18th? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. May I ask what the deadline for action is on that case? It's September 1. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, turning to our next case, which is at 727 Caden Lane in the Caden Town Historic District. Are the applicants here? Scope of work here is Constructor Garage. Good afternoon. Hi. It's Rick and Sheila Nicely. Okay, I appreciate your patience. this sometimes is a public proceeding it takes time to get to to the cases uh i'm sorry i've talked over you state your name again please rick and sheila nicely at 727 caden lane all right the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what i would call a substantive condition of provide the door and window details and specifications to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work or the issuance of a coa are you in agreement with that yes all All right, the other two conditions are what we've been calling the standard conditions. And I'll just, I'm speaking as, I feel like I'm shouting. Can you all not hear me? You're fine. I got ringing right here. Okay, well, Barry is acting like- I'm trying to hear you. I'm sorry. All right, so once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. And the other is, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff or review an approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement with those? Yes, sir. All right. Do we have any questions or comments from the audience? Any questions or comments from the board members? No. If not, then I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, related to case number 02960727-E at 727 Caden Lane. I move to approve the certificate for appropriateness with the following condition. Number one being to provide door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. And number two and three are the standard conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? No. Hearing none, the chair will call the motion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And good luck with your project. Thank you. All right, turning now to our next application at 757 Cane Lane in the Cadentown Historic District. The scope of work is replace front and back porch, construct a garbage bin slab, and replace and widen concrete driveway and apron. Is the applicant here? No, sir. I spoke with Ms. Wagner this morning. She's had a surgery and could not make it, but she's obviously in agreement with the Okay. Recommendations. The staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions. I don't see any need to hold this one up. All right, then any questions or comment from the board members? No. Any questions or comments from the audience? I believe then we're ready for a motion. Chair, as per case number 02960757-I at 75- We were just doing a little housekeeping. I thought that the owner had sent an email reflecting that she was unable to come, but that she agreed with the conditions, and she did indeed. That's a different property? Yes. Never mind. We are so out of practice. Very true. All right, let's start over again. I'm sorry for the interruption. Let's start the motion. No problem. Sorry. Chair, as per case number 02960757-I at 757 Caden Lane, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. All right, turning now to. We're at 181 Rosemont Garden, I'm not going to call that case quite. I'm sorry. Where am I? The Northside neighborhoods, 462 West 3rd Street. May I have that, please? Amelia, you want to? Well, I didn't see this one at all. Thank you. I apologize, this was not my packet. Actually it is. You raised up what you had in your hand, it's on the backside. I don't like that. Well, I've got it right here, so it doesn't matter. All right. This is 462 West Third Street in the Northside Historic District. Scope of work is installed front yard fencing and gate. Is the applicant here? Butler? That's right, okay. I remember the drawing. All right, so will you state your name for the record please? My name is Jennifer Braddock and I'm with Environmental Landscape, the contractor for this job. Additionally, I live at 424 West Third. Amen. And your name? And my name is Marcella Butler. I'm the homeowner at 462 West Third. All right, Ms. Butler. The staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what we've been calling the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Is there any questions or comments from the board members? No. Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 18800462-D at 462 West 3rd Street, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions as noted. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. No. The motion passes and the COA is approved. Thank you so much. We're all in agreement. I am going to take an item out of order because I believe there will be no objection to the conditions and I thought we would do that one first. This is going to be 281 South Ashland Avenue. Scope of work is demolish rear stairs and patio, construct new stairs. This is attachment 10, pergola and landscaping. Is the applicant here? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. State's ending for the record, please. I'm Thomas Neiman. I'm the landscape architect who drew the plans and representing Mr. Jackson. All right, Mr. Neiman, I went ahead and took this one out of order because I know the other two are going to be lengthy, so I was trying to keep you from having to stay here all afternoon. We appreciate that. The staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what I've been calling the standard conditions. Yes, sir. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. All right. Do I have a motion? Any questions or comments from the board members? No. Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, then I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, as per case number 00710281-EE at 281 South Ashland Avenue, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the Standard 2 conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Very good. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. And good luck with your project. I just wanted to say that the staff, Barry and Ms. Kerr, phenomenal. Thank you for the compliment. They are phenomenal. Sometimes in more ways than one. All right. We are now at, I believe, I hope, at 181 Rosemont Garden. And this is in the Pensacola Park Historic District. The scope of work is demolished rear addition and deck, construct addition and deck is the applicant here. One up, and is that your architect with you? Yes. Have him come up too. Hello. State your name for the record please. I'm here and I live at 1424 Audubon Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky 40503. All right, and here's the name, sir. My name is Mike Robbins. I've been in this business since 1972. You need to speak up. What's wrong with this? These microphones are kind of weird. It may not be on. I've never had one that may have this much problem. I mean, I've been here before for zoning hearings and planning commission meetings. I've been doing this kind of thing since 1972. I'm not quite ready to hear your presentation so much as I'm just getting you to identify yourself. And I'm assuming that you would like for the staff to update the board as to their findings with respect to this application? Yeah, I think the groundwork should be lain by Amir. Sir, you're not listening to me. I'm listening. Do you want to be heard with respect, please? I'll allow Ms. Armstrong to make her presentation first, and then Amir can make his presentation. Yeah. Okay, thank you, sir. Let me make her case first. All right, thank you. And if you'll take a seat, please. and of course we've heard this many times we first heard this case in February and then also in March and then April in the case at that point was postponed to this meeting date continued sorry to this meeting date and And we, the applicant and I and the designer met with also staff, both staff members met in early July regarding this case. And then he has submitted plans and just sort of to re-familiarize yourself with the property. This, of course, is a one-story bungalow. and to give you this of course got chick siding and this sort of has if you remember a rear addition that filled in it went quite large and we established that probably was done probably in the 60s or the 70s sort of to give you a little bit more plans here here's the second entrance as you remember that's off the driveway side This is sort of towards under construction. This case came about. Staff saw the work was being done in January of this year, and staff stopped and talked to the property owner, and then he did make application. COA was issued just to re-roof the original structure, but the actual roof of what he had done as far as repairing and sort of building on new walls and and building up the roof was all done without a building permit but he had discussions with the building inspector and along this side as you could see there would be one of these windows will be actually made a door into a door in that the new proposal does call for it to be to jut out 10 inches from that wall plane as we look at this now of course this is sort of under construction and then of course he ended up finishing it out and re-roofing and putting new shingle roof on it this is sort of that the back corner staining sort of in the west side of the yard looking south and sort of give you no idea the back the proposal does call for two sets of double doors on the back and also a rear gable porch with a new concrete slab with columns supporting the rear this is actually the looking standing in the east side of the yard looking at west southwest or and as you can see the where the original structure was in this particular location and then the applicant is proposing a break in this particular area. And the footing will be continuous, but the wall system set in 10 inches for a double door system. And this, of course, is the original floor plan in siding of the wall. And the proposal for the new siding will be clapboard siding. This is sort of looking in the inside. This course had multiple additions over its life, and so you could see the new pitched roof system and what was the old siding. And this had two different roofs on it, so it had a pitched roof, and then it had a low corrugated metal plastic roof on it and also a rubber membrane. And you can see the new vaulted section that has been installed. And you can see the foreground here is the old roof system. And this is where it had a small gable on that east side of the structure. Give you some more pictures. And, of course, the interior walls have been taken out to have the new floor plan reconfigured. My images have stopped progressing. My images have stopped progressing. There we go. Thank you. There we go. And this, I'll go back to this. This also shows sort of a close-up that there was a built-up roof system when sort of the L was filled in and expanded. This is the corner that shows, and you can sort of see the original clapboard back here, and this shows sort of the corner of that looking west, sort of southwest. and then again this sort of shows this is showing the back side of this wall system and again this shows sort of the built system and these pictures of course were taken earlier this year there we go. I can give you some more images here a little bit under construction so now you can see that before we saw it being framed up now it's under construction. It has a new roof system on it with new clapboard. And of course we saw this. This was an image submitted to us by the applicant early days when he was trying to say he was rebuilding and this is the corner of that one section so you could see sort of what was the original roof and then this built-up roof that was filled in and then the back wall and there was another piece that was taken off and then you had these floating decks and this is sort of the corner of that back wall that had been filled in and the wall sort of had collapsed but it was sort of a porch that was filled in at one point. And again, this is interior images of the previous wall system or foreplan being removed and the new foreplan being installed. And these images are also included in your staff report. and to give you some sort of some aerials that we're discussing um of course this is the site and we talked about this house started off like this and so this ridge is back here and then this whole area had been filled in by a new addition but that rear gable and then there was a new flat section that was filled in here in this area. But the house started off in the same similar floor plan and configuration as this. And of course you can see now a little clearer the evolution of the structure with the membrane and the roof system extended this way. again another image another image showing that and you can sort of show clearly sort of the add-on of the different roof systems on this one section and so we've met with the applicants and they have resubmitted a plan so the roof system is proposed to drop down 18 inches here, and then this section would be a foot below this roof line. So we're calling this as you... Ms. Armstrong, would you, with your pointer, outline what is the historic bungalow on the plans? And I will give you that. So the historic bungalow is, this is the, let's see, I'm going to start over here. So here's, of course, the front elevation. And then this is the proposed roof. So here, this is the right side or also the east side of the structure. And so the roof line was lower here. and this is that rear gable like we saw for the neighboring structure and this is sort of that add-on roof that was added on later on this section so this being the roof and this being the lowered this is the the previous roof line and so when of course if you saw the previous plans remember those and there's blue plans in your documents that sort of show what the proposal was back in april oh sorry and then so he's proposing to drop this roof 18 inches and drop this section a foot below this roof and then of course this would be inset here and then and there's floating decks in the The siding, of course, was Picardy Plank, and the windows are proposed to be aluminum clad. There is a question about the doors. He's requested them first to be vinyl, then to be steel. And then this is the section that has not been constructed yet, which is the new gable roof over an existing rear deck. this is the existing the pre-existing floor plan and so this is actual the original part of the structure and so this outline here i'll show you another image of that this was the original structure and then this section was added on to later on. And this is his floor plan proposal where this opening, the whole wall within the opening and it projects out and this one steps in. And then I'm going to go back to this graphic for a second but I'm going to show you the, this is sort of the section we saw this segment that last time in April where we outlined what the original roof line would be and then how this was added later and this also sort of talks about outlining the original footprint and this being the infield section. And of course, as we talked about, the applicant is asking to demolish some of the walls of the existing one-story frame addition, construct new foundation wall systems, construct a new roof over the existing additions, change a rear addition window to a door on the west-facing addition, and add a covered porch on the rear. and replace and construct new pressure-treated ducts. The changes from the previous plan to the current plan include the peak of the rear addition that meets the roof of the historic structure is proposed to be lowered by 1'6 or 18 inches. The next section of the rear roof, as recently built, is proposed to step down 1 foot from the added roof, C number 1, as we've indicated in the plans earlier. the number three double multi-pane doors on the left side east side proposed to be to be recessed tangent inches and to be vinyl and or steel in the proposed wall with door on the west side will project out 10 inches to be vinyl and other work continues to be requested as noted immediately above which is in the one through six and of course the applicant still has not obtained a building permit as building permits can be issued prior to the issuance of COA. Guidelines are included for your reference. Staff has met with the applicant multiple times trying to encourage the applicant to reduce the as-built roof system and the proposed and already work into compliance with the design guidelines. The applicant has proposed to slightly lower the ridge of the roof, however the proposed changes are not substantive enough to come into compliance with the H1 overlay guidelines. Staff finds the rear roof as built and proposed to be changed to be too high and the height and the volume overwhelmed the historic main mass of the structure. The property owner without a COA building permit has constructed this addition with a concrete block foundation, wall systems, and roof around what was an existing rear portions of the structure. The rear portion seems to consist of two additions made sometimes after 1972. None of these additions now appeared on the 1972 St. Borne 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 have the required review by the BOAR. When the HP staff encountered the work going on, the previous existing rear additions were largely still within the confines of being built new construction, including the walls and the roof system. The owner continued work despite the stop work order and tore down these additions that had come to be within the confines of just constructed envelope built as new construction retaining some small portion of previous exterior walls in either side. No demolition permit was applied for nor, of course, issued. A second stop work order was issued and staff has visited the site over seven times, talked to the property owner multiple times and in person. Staff has discussed the problems with the work that has been done and the owner's proposal, how he intends to bring the project in compliance with the overlay process. Roof. The proposed roof is still not in design guidelines as the large gable roof still overwhelms this historic bungalow. The applicant's proposed modification is limited to small changes in the recent constructed roof. By lowering a section where it connects the main roof of the one story historic bungalow this is proposed to be accomplished by lowering the new and or middle section of the roof 18 inches to get the new roof connection below the ridge in the main historic roof as it's currently constructed the same elevation as the main ridge line the second portion of this applicant's revised changes the roof proposes lowering the roof 12 inches below the main historic roof ridge as constructed the roof is too massive and along with the scale of the new addition dominates the historic house violating the design guidelines noted in this report after reviewing the latest proposed plans received july 15th staff finds the new roof line that connects to the rear roof line of the historic structure should be no higher than the previous rear l as noted in the drawing noted previous right side elevation The second part of the new roof, which proposes to rise one foot above the middle connecting roof, needs to drop to below that roof once it is realigned, resulting in a step down lower than the roof that it butts. You can see the graphic drawing. And, of course, I put this graphic drawing on to show you that, as you note, this is the historic roof. That is the historic roof here. So what we're suggesting is that the roof line needs to be dropped to in the same location as the historic roof. And then that new section be dropped one foot below this, the historic roof location. lowering the new roof constructed constructed roof that overwhelms in height and volume the historic volume will reduce the adverse effect of the recent construction and facilitate compliance the design guidelines note in this report per the roofing details as recently built and was constructed without open valleys using California weave method which is not within the design guidelines guidelines 115B and 2A4B and D states open valleys should be retained and covered valleys California are not allowed on existing structures exterior exterior walls of the new addition should not be flush with those of existing building that should step in a minimum of 12 inches from the edge of the existing building and roof line should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line as existing main roof line remains evident and should not imitate early historic styles or architectural periods. Exterior walls, the previous post-1972 rear additions were demolished without the COA or building permit and do establish a footprint of a lot coverage that the current owner has the right to continue the amount of square footage at the rear of the house as his grandfather did. However, once the previous additions were demolished, the property owners must comply in full with the H1 overlay process. This includes the design guidelines and the scope of work as required in COA permits. The H1 overlay process, which while having to allow a properly documented amount of same square footage of ground utilization, which has been demonstrated by the applicant, that the previous additions covered on the slot and the footprint design details of the construction may be adjusted to meet and be in compliance with the design guidelines allowing variety of form and footprint to facilitate appropriate scale of any proposed new construction. The approach of this project relative to the new addition, replacing existing additions through demolition and new construction is counterintuitive to in violation of the guidelines and H1 overlay process. The design guidelines are in place to assure through the H1 overlay process that all proposed demolition is reviewed and any approved, all construction is appropriately scaled, massed, situated, detailed, and utilized appropriate materials, etc. As built, addition connects as the west elevation to the now sawn-off mid-length length of the remaining exterior walls covered in a butt-cut shingle, and the east side meets exact same plane of the corner of the previous existing addition. The app is proposed to undulate in the sidewall of the wall system. On the west side, the proposed plane calls for the wall system, which includes a door jot out from the wall plane, and on the east side, the wall system is recessed 10 inches to include a multi-pane double door system. The new concrete block foundation is continuous and it abuts the Storkhouse Foundation in the same plane as the East Elevation and what was existing concrete block foundation on the west side. The design guidelines principles for roof and wing addition states, in planning additions, the best overall approach is to place the additions where they have the least impact on the building's overall roof form. In exterior walls, the new additions should be flushed with those of existing buildings, but should be stepped down in the minimum of 12 inches from the edge of the existing building. Likewise, additions and roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof so that the existing main roof remains evident. Guidelines 2, 1, 4, C, F, and G, state room and wing additions should be compatible in design and keeping with original buildings, design, roof shape, materials, colors, location, window, doors, and corners, heights, and should be built in the manner that avoids substantive loss of the historic materials and should not damage or destroy any of the main architectural features of the building and keep the walls of the terrace original buildings intact as possible use existing door and window openings for the connecting addition to the building and the proposed plan for the recessed and jutted undulated wall planes are within the guidelines door and window changes other elements of the request involve proposal to change a window in the existing addition to a door within the guidelines as the area is not a historic part of the house but a later addition. Guidelines 1.7E said should be located the side and rear elevations rather than the main facade. The proposal to replace the deck along the east side of the design principle which states new decks and patios should be in place with the rear and side elevations and there's an existing floating deck and the applicant is proposing to replace that deck. materials the proposed hardy plank cardboard siding material is a newly constructed elevation is appropriate it does help distinguish the change in the wall system the windows in the new construction are proposed to be aluminum clad guidelines 2b 2j state the roof of the smooth cementitious board siding is acceptable as long as it meets the size recommendations and the use of wood or ionized baked enamel window is inappropriate and vinyl windows are not allowed and the use of plastic snap-in muttons and window pane dividers are not permitted. However, the plans call for vinyl and steel doors on the side and fiberglass on the rear. The design guide principle for the new construction says new construction may incorporate contemporary materials such as cementitious board, fiberglass, and aluminum. Staff recommend the use of another material in lieu of steel and vinyl on the sides of the structure as vinyl is not permitted. Summary. The new addition as constructed along with the proposed adjustment to the new roof line as received by the staff on July 15th is not in accordance with the design guidelines as noted in this report. The new construction is a massive gable roof and it has an adverse effect on the integrity of the main mass and the character of the small-scale historic bungalow. It is out of character for the site and the neighboring historic properties in the Pensacola Historic District. To recap, the July 15th proposal is not in compliance with the H-1 overlay guidelines. The roofline is still too massive and overwhelming to the historic structure. In addition to the H-1 overlay district, this property is in the infill and redevelopment district, and the infill ordinance is in place to prohibit big additions added to the rear of the structure in the downtown core and university areas. The infill ordinance prevents overbuilding of the properties and helps ensure additions do not overwhelm the main structure, sites, and neighborhoods. If the applicant had built this property in addition to what would now exist and had contacted HP and applied for necessary COA and building permits prior to commencing construction, the staff and the board could have worked with the applicant to create a lower roofline that would be more in keeping with the design guidelines. and staff of course recommends disapproval is constructed and proposed there any questions I have a question but it's not exactly pertaining to the back roof line which is the main crux of But the front elevation is showing that the historic bungalow roof is extending beyond that back door. And I think the, in what, if we can go back to a previous plan. Which, if, that's not what the pictures show. and that's i mean the photographs of the site um it doesn't show that and so that means that the left side elevation is not reading correctly on the plans on but i may be mistaken about this i think i'm going to have mr robbins speak to that who did do the drawings and we'll note what you were talking about real quick on the plan sorry this is going through. So are you saying, and I think Yes. I think what you're noting is in fact there's no break here between this recessed door and this roof. Right. That roof does not extend that far out according to the photographs, which means your left side elevation is not reading correctly. So it's showing that that side gable is going over that back door, that back side door, whatever you want to call it. Right. I see what you're saying. I don't think that is the... I'm confused as to if that is truly the situation in place because the photographs don't seem to show that. So if this is the small main mass, this juts out here. Right, and it used to have a flat roof on it, built-up flat roof on it, so it wasn't. Well, and I think you still wouldn't have seen that because it was flat. So you're saying that that roof is just over too far. That roof wouldn't extend that far out, would it? Does it? And I think Mr. Robbins can speak to that. There's one photograph that shows that side that has a bunch of cars in it that is from the front. So here's that roof you were talking about, and I'm going to go back to this. That's the photograph. So in this, this still sticks out further than that roof, and it had. Yes. And I see what Betty was talking about. This is this built-up roof that you saw from the front. But we don't have any visual of what that side elevation now looks like. Well, yes, we do. So here's the front to go back, which was hard because there was so much foliage here. And then this had this sort of almost like mansard roof here. Right. That was the fill-in that was built up. But what does it look like now? This is a gable above that. Right. The gable is going in the opposite way of what is shown in the drawings. And this is a corner. So there is a little bit, and you could see sort of this part where he still needs to fix that. That is sort of a bracket almost. Let's see if I... Right, that's not right. So that's not right. Well, that's the other. This would come back here, and then this would come out. you know that would be here. Oh that's hard to see but it comes out. So this part right here is the corner of the framing. Right. of in the in the wall and the plate here so I think you can see it a little bit but it's this it's going to come out probably Mr. Robbins and Amir can speak to this a bit more about how that projects out because it will be I would say probably a foot or 18 inches past that over that door. Would that be about right? In the previous reports in February, March, and April, there was discussion of the extended rapture tails. It was actually, it's because he didn't finish it off because there was no, he's going to put a gutter on the back of it. So that's part of the proposal. So that's been amended in the proposal? That's correct. We need to be sure to have that commitment. Right, and it's reflected in the drawings that it's going to be a fascia with a soffit. And I'm going to say, let's see. Barry, do you have anything to add? I think if you go back to that, it shows what the original. Oh, on the proposed one. Yeah, the proposed one. I don't know. It shows the loose. Right here. Oh. which substantially changes the work of that so suzanne does this help you too this roof plan right here that showed what the previous uh roof plan was with the fill-in that this came out a little bit and that is one thing that Yes, I understand the floor plan, and I understand what the roof is supposed to look like. Okay. But it's not drawn that way, which substantially alters the appearance of the left side. I do think that Mr. Gilpin had an issue with that, too. If you're raising an issue with the accuracy of the drawings, do we need to have these drawings redone before we go forward? I think we need to talk about the rest of it before we make that decision. But it is very important to note what you're noting about the information in the drawings not matching reality. And so please, as a board, keep that in your list of things when it's time, if you do decide today to make a motion, because that does need to be addressed. We have gone, as we all know, we've gone through multiple iterations of this building. All right, so the drawings aside, are there other questions that need to be addressed to Ms. Armstrong before Amir speaks? Anything else? Ms. Hill, do you have anything? You don't have to, I'm just asking. I know. I struggle with the addition put onto the original bungalow because the footprint of that hasn't really changed, correct? And that's not a new addition. It's grandfathered in under historic conditions. So I don't know for sure what the age of it is. The footprint is the only part that is grandfathered in. The fact that all the different roof lines that existed before and so forth, this owner built a new roof over them and then tore them out. And so the grandfather in of anything is not applicable to anything about the height, about the volume. It is only the footprint that is grandfathered in and hence allowed. If that were not the case, the staff would certainly be recommending that that rear addition not be as large a footprint by considerable means. So that kind of brings us back to the focus on the roof line. It's really about the roof. And the volume and the scale. Because the roof line affects the volume and the scale because the footprint is not really up for discussion. It's really the three-dimensional. You're correct in where you have arrived at procedurally, what's what? So I believe we're ready for a mirror then, come on up. All right, thank you for letting me speak. And I just want, I don't want to take your time. As you just mentioned, you've already heard this case a couple times before. But I do want to refresh your memory because last time we met over Zoom, Mr. Gilpin, if I pronounce his last name, Josh, he suggested that, and I'm paraphrasing, he said, maybe it's unfair to Amir that he doesn't have the exact guideline, like what is it that you guys need him to do in regard to the roofline. So he suggested for the staff to provide me with the bullet points, if you guys recall that. I was never provided by that. So when I got in touch with Ms. Armstrong, I asked her to please meet me at the site. And Ms. Armstrong and Mr. Dennis, they kindly said, sure, let's meet up. So we met on July 7th. We met on July 7th. Can I have a second? Actually, Amelia initiated that connection together. We had not heard from anyone prior to that. Because I was waiting to get those bullet points, which I never received. And when we met on July 7th, I asked for those bullet points. And to this date, I have not received those bullet points. I think we need to clear up a misconception here. Mr. Gilpin can make recommendations. We do not direct the staff, per se, in terms of, Nor do we have the staff do design work for you. And I think that was the issue that may have come up with not getting the bullet points, if you will. No, but what I'm trying to say is that I need to know what is it exactly that we need to do in regard to this roof line. Okay? The guideline, if you let me speak and then you can. Can I? Okay. Because I'm an engineer, okay? have a bachelor, master, and a PhD in three different disciplines of engineering. Okay? I work with numbers all the time. Okay? So when I ask the staff, what percentage do you want me to bring the roof down? What's the number? What's the scale? When you talk about massive, define that. Put it in numbers. We don't have that. So what Mr. Gilpin said, he said, let's just have a couple bullet points from the staff that mentions what is it that you need this person to follow. Okay? So I never received those bullet points, and that's fine, because they kindly met up with me at the site. Okay? So when we met up at the site on July 7th, okay, just want to show this. Do you mind if I approach you and, you know, hand you... Actually, can I do this? That's your... Yes. Oh, wait a minute. That may not be... There's... Yes. Yes, almost. Yes. Yes. No, this plan is actually... his plan that was submitted after our july 7th meeting that you did not receive because it was not his final plan the one you're seeing right now the one on your desk is the one received july 15th if yes i'm trying to show you something different so if you allow me to approach you To be clear for the record, this is not what was actually submitted to us for review today, correct? This is the one that was submitted. Answer my question first. This is the one that was submitted in the previous meeting. All right. In the previous board meeting that we had. So on July 7th, when I met up with Ms. Armstrong and Mrs. Dennis, we had this plan that we were working on. All right. So when I met with them, I said, what is the objective? What is it that we are trying to achieve here? She mentioned that you need to have the new roof line lower than the apex of the old portion. So where is the pointer? Is this a pointer? Okay. So that's the apex, right? That portion. So she said, you need to have the roof, the new addition right here, lower than the apex. So I said, is that the objective? Yes, that's the objective. By how much? Give me a percentage, give me a number. She said, by two foot. I said, can we do one and a half? Because from the roofers, they said, it's better if we don't really go that much down because it costs a lot of money. That right there is a $10,000 price tag. So she said, why keep good? I said, can I do one and half? She said, that's fine. Okay? So what we agreed on that day, and she said, we are in agreement in principle. Right? That's the word we use. We are in agreement in principle. She said, drop this down by one foot and half, and what you are saying, she said, it's not going far enough because what you are seeing, what you are holding in your hand right now, it comes to this line right here. Okay? But what you see here is what she wanted to do. She wanted it to go further. So she was okay with the height, the reduction of the room, but she wanted to go further. So what you're holding is not the same as that. You see it's that it doesn't go as far. It's the same height, but it doesn't go as far. So I'm sorry, I have to have... I'm sorry. Okay. Alright. I mean, you know, you really have to excuse me. I'm speechless. I'm super frustrated frustrated with this because this shouldn't have taken this long. It should have not taken this long. I feel like I've been singled out. But I just want to go through this. I want to make sure that everybody's on the same page. So what you're holding in your hand is what I presented to her and Mr. Dennis on July 7th. She said, I don't have a problem with the height anymore, but I want you to go a little further. I said, are we in an agreement? She said, yes, we are in an agreement in principle. Okay? She said, do the drawing and submit it. So we did the drawing and I submitted the new drawing that I'm going to hand you on the same date. Okay. For the record, he's actually labeled these, I believe, I believe exhibit, for lack of a better word, exhibit three. Yes. All right. Okay. The previous one was exhibit two. So the drawing that I just handed out is the drawing that she said we are in agreement in principle. Have it drawn, have Mike Robbins draw it and send it to my office. We are in agreement in principle, okay? So that's what I did. I sent it over on July 7th. On July 9th, I get an email from her. She said, and I have the email, I can show it. She said, we are okay with this, but we need you to have the doors to step in. And they said, we need to have the two doors step in. One step out, one step in. So basically, as Mr. Dennis pointed out, he said, you have a 2x4, just add a 2x6 behind it, so you have a step in, just to show the break in. That has nothing to do with the roof line. So she was still okay with the one that I just handed out. The next day, the following day, and I have the date, she sends an email and it says that the staff has reviewed this and they would like this to be more closer to the guidelines. So basically we are not okay with this. With what we had agreed on at the site, they are not okay with it anymore at this point. So I asked her, could we please meet up again and come to an agreement before the board meeting? So we did that. We did that on July 12th. So we met up. But this time, I asked Mike Robbins to come. I asked him to come. I said, please listen to what these people have to say. Please listen carefully. and draw what makes her to put the, you know, not on it. Like, we are good to go. Okay? So all four of us met on July 12th. Myself, Mike Robbins, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Dennis. Okay? And what they said is that not only we want you to go down and, you know, like go to the half, you know, like the one that I showed you, We also want the last portion of the roof. So there are three portions, right? You have the old portion of the house that you see with the different siding, and then you have the middle one that you have a break in. She said, we want the rest of it to be lower than the main apex of the house. I said, okay, how can we achieve that? She said, go two foot down and then go one foot down. In the report that she just read, she said, I propose that. That's not true. That's what she proposed. Mr. Dennis was there. Mr. Robbins was there as well. I said, could we please, we had the same conversation, do one and a half and then one food. So this is in reference to the APEX right there, the highest APEX. She said, okay. I said, are we in an agreement? Because I am not, I am, and you are here, you are here, everybody was there, right? I said, I am not going to pay Mike Robbins once again because I've been paying a lot of money. Every drawing costs me $300, $400, $500. Okay? Are we in an agreement? If we are not in an agreement, don't have it rush. She said, you are in an agreement. So what I did, and she said, Mike, can you send this to me tonight? And he said, I have other obligations, but I'll send it to you tonight. Okay, and this is what we did. And this is exhibit four. Yes. I'm not sure, is exhibit one the original? What was exhibit one, sir? Exhibit 1 is the one that I presented in the second meeting we had. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. So before we left the site on July 12th, we shook hands, and I said, are we in an agreement? Not in principle. Are we in an agreement? She said, yes, we are in an agreement. She said, yes, we are in an agreement. I said, could you please sign it? Could you please sign it and say that we are in an agreement? She said, oh, I can do that. What else am I supposed to do? I've gone above and beyond to make her happen, to make this department happen. So I leave, and I'm thinking, okay, everything is good. You're in aggregate, you shoot hands. Mr. Dennis was there, Mr. Robbins, and they could speak. So we leave. last night I sent Ms. Armstrong and text. Okay. And this is what it reads. Amelia, what is the vibe that you are getting from the other members of the board? Do you feel confident that the new modifications, comma, that we all agreed upon, comma, will satisfy the board? Thank you, Amelia, for your time and assistance in this matter. I shall be anxiously awaiting your response. With kindest personal regards, Amelia. I sent this at 6.14 p.m. last night. Yesterday, right? She did not reply to that. But an hour after this, at 7.11 p.m., she sent an email with the staff report saying that she's going to do this after all this. Okay? To my shock, to my shock that she is going to disapprove this. I'm sorry, let me just make one last comment. The same thing happened when we had the second meeting. The very first document that I handed out, we met at the site. Mr. Robbins was there soon, and I have the date. We met at the site, all four of us again. We met at the site on April 8th. Okay? and we shook hands, we are in an agreement. So I thought, this is just, you know, we just meet up and everything's good, you know, my case is going to be approved. Problem solved. So when we met up for the second meeting, I found out on that day that my case was, that she's going to disable my case. To my shock, I was appalled because we shook hands, we said we are in agreement. Same thing happened last night. And I had a feeling that it would happen again. Is this the norm? What else am I supposed to do? I mean, I met up with them, I listened to them, they don't have any specific numbers. The language is big. It's too massive. It's too big. Define that. Define it. What if I came to you today and said, you know what, I'm in cross-country purchasing this house. I'm going to ask Mr. Rollins to draw the roof for me. What are the guidelines it has to follow? What percentage have you gone down or up? What if we suppose to do? We don't have numbers. We don't have numbers. And when I say it, I feel like I've been singled out because I've sat here. This is the third time I've come to this meeting, right? I've seen what other cases are getting approved and it just shocks me because I have not added one inch to the square footage of this house. not one inch. We had a flat roof in the back and we just turned it into, you know, we had to put it, give it some slope for the water, right? That's what we did. And it's not like I just decided wanted to go ahead and do all this. I applied for a remodeling permit. When the inspector picked me and decided to give it an answer, he said, well, this roof, I mean, it was like, partly, you know, like, demolished. Okay? He said, you need to ask for an additional permit. Because you need to take this down. That's what I did. That's the process I started. All right, you're repeating yourself. I don't mean to be redundant, but I think you understand how frustrated I am. That's coming across very clearly. Because I did exactly what you instructed me. And you know what I told Ms. Armstrong and Mr. Dennis? When we met on July 12th, I said, I kind of feel embarrassed to go for the third meeting, And these people, they would look at us like, why would you guys be so incapable of coming up with a solution? We have a problem with the roof, the height of the back portion of the roof, right? Why can't we come to an agreement? I said, please, let's come to an agreement. Let's make these people proud. And we came to an agreement. Did we not shake hands? Sir, sir, you are now ranting and you're repeating yourself. Do you have anything else to add other than your disagreement with Amelia? Ms. Armstrong. Can I just add one last comment? It's just a question. One last comment. One last comment. Thank you. I would sincerely ask you, because I would sincerely ask you to please ask Ms. Armstrong and Mr. Dennis, who were present on July 12th when we met, when we should have said you're in agreement. okay please ask him did we deviate anything from what we should hands-on and what you said you know we are in agreement and I just want to show you this right here this is what we had at the side okay this is her handwriting she draw it and you could compare it to what we had submitted she draw it with a pen drop it by one foot and a half and then drop it by one foot here This is exactly what we submitted. Okay, you understand that we have problems with the drawings anyway. No. But go ahead. But you- Okay, we see that. Right? I see that. All right. So- Okay. All right, I think- I'm speechless. A couple observations and we'll bring up Ms. Armstrong and talk about this further. One of which is the staff can try to work with you and try to come up with a solution and bring it to the board for review, but at the same time, if it's still not in compliance with the guidelines, they have no choice but to say that. Now, I don't know what's happened between the conversation between you and Ms. Armstrong, but if I'm reading the guidelines correctly, we still have substantive issues with the size of your roof and the height of it. And I'll let the architect members address those issues. I will note, you seem to be making progress in terms of, you've gotten miss armstrong several approvals of other issues that we're we're dealing with i think the principal issue is the height of the roof in the size is that correct miss hill okay so let's try to see if we can figure out a way to get this to a stage where we can approve if not then we'll have to take a vote on the on the matter one way or the other i miss hill Ms. Hill. So there has been the drawing that is on the screen at this point. Could I ask Amelia if she could please review this for me so that I understand what is being represented? Thank you. So what you're seeing, of course, is this is the latest proposal from Amir at this point where this has dropped down 18 inches and this is the other part that's dropped down only a foot. And so what this is reflecting, this red line here, the staff graphic is what we're suggesting is the fact that this is what was the rear gable of the original floor plan. or the original roof line when it was still built. And so this section here is reflective of the roof dropping enough to be in the same location as it originally was. Because before this roof was rebuilt as to what you see now, the roof, this was the highest part of that rear roof. before the rubber membrane went over the whole section. And the rubber membrane did start at a peak, so it sloped up in this overbuilt system at that, and we can look at this rear roof. And this. So this is the rear roof before it was rebuilt. And this section here is the highest section before it sloped down. And I would only also probably guess from the, not really guess, but actually determine from the aerials we've seen, that a lot of this rubber membrane went above this area and out. But this section was still at its peak, and that is the original section that was still in place. and then this section became flat so the gable flat and it abutted this gable so you could still see the gable and the roof was flat so what we're reflecting here and after many many discussion and you know on site when we're talking about this i think many of all the meetings that we've had with amir and mr robbins have always trying to lower this roof there's never been a moment that we haven't tried to lower this roof and of course on site we can never totally agree till we actually review the plans that have been submitted to us you know which we can't on site say oh yeah you do this will be fine because we actually have to have plans to review and what we said was the fact that we were trying to get this lower roof as much as possible and then you're always better to see please take your seat you're standing directly behind So our whole goal has always been to lower the roof. And yes, we're sort of saying, hey, can you bring this down, bring this down, bring this down as much as possible. But no, and then of course when we first met on site on July 7th, that's when we talked about the undulation in the wall system that seemed to work to help break up that mass. but the whole goal of all our discussions have always been to lower the roof system as much as possible. Well, not as much as possible, as much as will meet the guidelines. Exactly. Well, which based on as much as... When you had the conversation about the foot and a half being dropped, was that going to bring it within the guidelines, you think? Well, I think what we were suggesting is just trying, because right now at that point he had only dropped it so minimal, that it wasn't really we wanted to have much more substantive substantial look at dropping that roof as much as possible and and we turned out those figures based on not necessarily you know sort of based on the fact how can we bring this down as much as possible and not necessarily and I think you know there is a guideline that talks about bringing things down 12 inches and you know below the roof line so that sort of but we were trying to get more substantial drop in the roof and even towards the end of our conversation on that last week we were really still trying to say hey let's bring it down more you bring it down more you know we sort of you know had jokes or hey can you do any more you know and things like that so there was never been a a sort of handshake that said yes if you do this this will be fine because that's not how we operate we are still trying to bring that back in in in principal bringing the roof down is what we wanted to see uh... in going back to you and your did that answer question she's and about that and our species and about that that we are reflying that you're talking in and seeing that and that's where that is stemmed from in this is based also mister gill pens uh... earlier conversation that uh... mister mere mentioned that he that mister gilbert noted that he thought that they need to be closer to the original floor plan the virtual roofline and that's what mister gill that at mister mere mentioned to you so it said this is based on trying to do set mass you know in in noting that if this plan had come to us before this is what we would probably looking at is a lower pitched roof not such a massive pitch roof and mr. Dennis do you have anything to add I did want to reiterate mr. Gilpin in our previous meeting before the project was continued to the day, mentioned specifically that he had misgivings about the rear L roof being totally engulfed. And that is what this drawing is based on. We don't actually know what the height is. We're going by the drawing, the previous right side elevation. You know, that's the only information that we have. All right. I've never quite had a case quite like this one. One thing I would note that, you know, the staff is never empowered to cut a deal. I know that. And it is very erroneous to suggest that that would ever be the discussion to any project, to have, oh, the staff will tell you a number and we'll cut a deal. That is not the role of the staff and it's not how this program works. So we stand by the staff report and all of its content and think that what the staff's recommendation reflects responds to the fact that the applicant's proposal in no way meets the design guidelines. All right. Let me make a couple observations, and we can have observations from the other two, from the board members as well. We're obligated to give a certain degree of deference and respect to the recommendations made by the experts in this matter, which is our staff. We're also obligated to make sure that we don't establish a precedent in a new historic district that inappropriately sized additions can be added, especially with roof lines that are too high and especially with too much of a mass. we do have an obligation, and I speak now more from experience as an administrative law judge, that we have to give a certain degree of deference to the staff and also keep in mind the importance of what we're doing with each individual case because we do not want to create inadvertently a slippery slope, if you will, by which other applicants can build on perhaps a decision that was made somewhat in frustration just to get the case over. This case started out being a mess primarily because, Amir, you didn't apply at the beginning for a COA, nor did you talk to the building staff about your plans. So let me finish. if i understand the testimony correctly uh planning commission told you or the building permits told you you had to get your coa first but it's my understanding that you had already started construction when i purchased the house i had no idea this house is in historic zoning okay when i purchased the house i had no idea this house was in historic zoning well regardless you started Did you not, without getting a COA, correct? From the city? From us? No. All right, thank you. That's right. All right, and that's where the problems began. Yes. I honestly don't know what to do with this case, other than I think we just need to disapprove this application. That's my opinion. And I would suggest getting yourself a competent architect, architect not a land plan user to give to help you with your plans there are numbers and there are numbers within the guidelines that heat that an architect that works in historic districts know that can probably help you get this plan back on track again but I think we just need to stop this one and disapprove and have you resubmit that's my opinion Suzanne? Would you like me to make a comment before you, to that regard? I think we're at the decision process. I just want to make some comments. So this case is very complicated, and it's been complicated over time. And whatever communications have happened, it has complicated the case further. The reality is that we have a footprint. From the standpoint of space planning, we have a footprint. The footprint was existing, but it was too big for an addition. The addition that was there was not a good addition to that small bungalow. Small bungalows have a certain volume and shape, and around the back, what has been tried to be communicated is the main gable of the bungalow is always primary. Everything else around that is smaller and secondary. You have added to the back something even larger than the primary gable that is running side to side on your bungalow. you're going back and it's very large it's very wide and so it becomes very tall i know it's the same height but it's a huge volume that has been created and you understand the difference between volume and height you're an engineer it's creating a huge volume and that's swallowing up the original bungalow so numbers have not been given to you but the guidelines state that a historic structure needs to be the primary thing that you read that you understand when you look at the site and you look at the building. That's not happening here. Do you see what we're saying? Is what has been added is now much larger in volume. Even if you lower that roof, it is so much bigger in volume. And that is what we're having a hard time making what is there because you have invested a lot. How do you make what is there in that footprint read volumetrically as smaller and secondary to the historic bungalow house? So part of the complications with this are that there are certain aspects of this drawing that are not drawn correctly. So when we read an elevation and we have a roof line that comes towards us, slopes down towards us, and one that steps back, it reads a certain way in two dimensions. And so then it makes it harder for us to understand what's really happening and what's primary and what's secondary visually. so that's complicated it as well but the bottom line is you have a footprint and in order for that roof on the back not to be flat there has to be a certain height to it and so So that's, in essence, very complicated to try to make something that is bigger in plan than it should be read smaller volumetrically. And without a flat roof on it. So I don't have an answer, but that's what I'm concerned about. So we're all frustrated. It's not an easy puzzle. It's really not. And the roof that you had inherited that over the years had been cobbled together had created water problems. What we don't want to do is to create any more water problems. I struggle with taking it back to the ridgeline it had been, because if we take it to that ridgeline but spread it over the width of it, it gets to be a really flat-looking volume that the proportions are very awkward. So interestingly, when you look at the side view of the building, the bungalow reads pretty clearly. In fact, it has more length than the addition does. It's the roof volume. It all comes back to the roof. So I just don't think we've gotten there. I think the recommendation, the suggestion to take the ridgeline back to what that small area had been flattens it out in such a way that the proportions are really awkward. I think you need a design professional involved. I just do. and getting cleaned up the roof issues that are going on what I would call the west side, where that doorway steps out, getting that cleaned up so that we've got that accurately on the drawing and how that impacts the roof I think is really important. But to look at this, the guidelines don't say you need a certain percentage. And I do appreciate that as an engineer, it would be really nice to have a formula we could plug in and make it happen. That would really be clean. but it's much more about the proportions of it and getting that volume so that it's not too flat and not so the roof's so tall that it kind of swallows up that original bungalow. I also really appreciate that you're willing to continue to address this because I think in the end you're going to have something really, really nice. I think there may be an inherent tension between the fact that you have a certain amount of ground space, if you will, that was part of the additions that were added to your bungalow before the historic overlay came in place. and you're wanting to have that kind of a dimension and yet now have to have and when those additions were demolished that took away your ability to have as much height as you had originally had with the house that you bought and i think that's what we're struggling with because we now have to figure out how to make this footprint work volumetrically with the guidelines in terms of the height of the roof and the massiveness of the of the bungalow and i think suzanne put her hand fingers directly on the problem it's just it overwhelms the historic structure now the way you want to do it and that's that's our biggest problem it's not a matter of feet. It's a matter of with all respect to the other houses that are in your district that have not been altered too much, how do they look in comparison to yours? Could I make a comment on that? Sure, you can go ahead and comment. The house right in front of it, the height is almost... I said that had not been altered. There are a lot of houses in your district that have not been substantially changed the one across the street has been has been substantially changed it's you know like at least eight feet taller than what we have but you have a bungalow structure sir the house right next door I think it's 179 that that had the same height as we have and I'll talk to all those neighbors that's not a criteria for the guideline I'm just saying because you're talking about you know like high looks you know with a change the neighborhood the neighborhood has houses right next to me that are even taller you know higher. Okay. And as far as you know, I, I thought my understanding is, and you know, well, we're when they said the, the back portion, it needs to you for the roof. Okay. It needs to be distinct to show that, you know, this is an addition and it also needs to be lower than the eight days. Okay. There you go. And she just mentioned it's like 12 inches. That's what it calls for. Where are we going to food and half? That's 18 inches. And that's what she, Amir, you're repeating yourself and we've been down that road. My problem is we've got other applicants that we need to get to. So I'm at the point of asking for a motion one way or the other. If you want to come up with a plan right here, we can, but I prefer that we not do that. Yes, Ms. McKirt. Well, staff would note that I think we would ask of the board to consider voting up or down on this case. The staff has put a great deal of time into trying to work with the applicant and is never going to be in a position to design this for the applicant and give exact figures and stand in the field and say, if you do this for 12 inches, if you do that for 24 inches or anything like that. Because we are not empowered to design anything for applications and we never will. So we're as frustrated as the applicant in trying to work through this and we're glad to work with everybody and we will continue to do so. but we're never going to be in a position to provide the kind of steerage that this applicant has indicated he expects from the staff because we're not empowered to do that. And it is this board's decision, not the staff's, of what will be approved. We make a recommendation, but it is the board's call, and we're asking you to make that call tonight. And I would just say our whole goal in every time we've met with, and we've explained very clearly to Amir that, you know, we wear different hats when we are on site. We talk, we try to help them make application to suggest the materials that are needed for, to make an application. We wear a different hat to sort of help walk through what are the issues. the issues are always lowering this roof line and then we also have to review it and at the every meeting we've had we've never stated you must do this and we would have a compliance we've suggested we've we've offered suggestions but never has been clear and I do feel I would just say to miss Irwin's situation about that that side piece and I think which you're struggling with is what kind of roof you would be able to put on as far as the pitch that would be able to go over that side element on that on that driveway side because that is always the crux of an issue because even with the roof that we're suggesting to be lowered you know to what its original floor plan that would be a different roof completely from what it was originally just because of the fact that a lot of the roof that had already been engulfed on that one section had been so built up over that. It was not the purest form of that roof. But I think the other section is really hard to figure out how to get that out, and I think that's why the strange built-up roof system did occur, because they were quite trying to figure out what to do. Can I ask that, I know that this has been covered, I'm sure it has, but in the layout, or in the floor plan, that side door with the elevation that I've been talking about, that side door was part of the original historic bungalow. No, it was not. It was added. So what happened was. Okay, you showed me that. That's the outline. Okay, so the roof line of that, which was a built-up roof line, was never part of the original bungalow roof line. No, it was the strangest, weird mansard piece. Yeah, I remember seeing the pictures. And so it was very, it had this weird vertical board sticking above that entryway and wrapping around. Right. and you could see it in that one picture, but it was very tall, so you had the bungalow roof and then that very tall piece that abutted the side. In fact, it sort of cut into the corners of that back piece. So your explanation is correct. Okay. It's not correct. But the result of that footprint becomes the back elevation, the rear yard elevation, is wider than the front elevation. Correct. So the slope of the roof is basically the roof plan is not drawn correctly for what they're proposing. This is a- Yes, that's correct. Correct. Right. That's not correct. Thanks, Amelia. And that front dormer is not in the right place because it's centered on that, what is supposed to be the original bungalow. it's centered on that that would not be centered because the front what was used to be the original bungalow is i don't know three four feet in on the west side the reason i'm bringing this up it is very hard to even suggest alternatives if you don't have a roof line a floor plan a roof plan that shows where all the exact slopes and everything are. And the elevation. And then the resulting elevations are not showing the roof slopes correctly. I know that. I know that. But what I'm saying is the original one is you've got this shape on that plan. and your roof is straight across there it looks like the original roof is has a five foot overhang over there which is not the case that changes how the back roof comes into the original structure so we have a process as an engineer i think sometimes you just have to recognize that you know what you're proposing is not working. We have a process called a conceptual review, where you bring in plans to us that are done by a proper architect that will show how the space can work for you within the guidelines. We can have a conversation about that. No one's under pressure to get anything done. And we can tweak it, and you take it back. Your architect resubmits to us. And then hopefully we can approve something that's going to be within the guidelines. But what you're trying to do is you're trying to continue the house that Jack built. And that means simply it's been an ad hoc addition that's been added to your house by other people years ago. And rather than just getting a permit to demolish the entire new stuff and bring in something appropriate for your house, you've been trying to build off of that. So I think at this juncture, we just need to fish and cut bait. Go ahead and have this plan be disapproved, I hope, and then have you come back with a conceptual review. By doing that, normally the year prohibition on coming back with new plans, but with these plans would be substantively different enough that I don't think we have to wait a year. Nor do I want the neighbors to put up with us for another year. No, I think that coming back with accurate plans with a whole more in-depth approach with a design professional are bound to end up being different enough to probably constitute a new direction. And it would be the board's decision, of course, to make if indeed that's the case, but I would anticipate it would be very likely to be the case. do have other cases i would like to i like to move this forward do i have a motion up or down okay Chair, as per case number 16370181-B181, Rosemont Garden, I move that we deny the certificate of appropriateness with the plans and submitted information that we have. with the recommendation that the owner please work with a design professional to resubmit a set of drawings that are substantially different, that will show the back edition with substantially less volume. Do I have a second? Yes, a second. People can comment on the motion. Additional comments on the motion, Ms. Hill? Yes. I would like to have as part of that motion that the original bungalow roof line be revisited and corrected to accurately show what that roof line is doing because that impacts the rear addition options for the roof line. So noted. Do you agree, Ms. Ellen? I do. Fair one. All right, then. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The COA is disapproved. We're done for the moment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I was wondering, actually, you might get a pass. I don't know, actually, yeah, we used to walk through it. So... You have a great memory, I guess. Um, yeah, I was wondering whether extended date was supposed to be... Well, like, two, but probably... And I don't know what... Barry's been talking about that case. Uh, let's see... So, they need to finish that. Why are they not finishing that? Thank you. Thank you. So Whitney done. Whitney done. Whitney done. It was written in the wrong place. This is the name of the whole shining place. And, yeah. And, yeah. We have the regular map. The map. That's all that. thank you so Let me go ahead and call 108 Shawnee Place. This is attachment number nine. The applicant is Whitney Connor and Matthew Taylor. The scope of work is extend paving. Am I correct on that? Yes, that's correct. And you also have an email agreeing with the recommendations. I'm sorry. You have an email that I left on at your location agreeing to our recommendations. Okay, so he's. From the applicant. All right. Ah, got it. Thank you. Okay. The email I have indicated he wanted to call in. I cannot attend in person, but can call into the meeting? Well, that's not possible. Alternatively, that's the email I've got. Well, my agent eyes. Okay, got you. Let me read into the record the email from Mr. Ms. Ms. Whitney. Hang on. I'm tired. From Ms. Whitney Connor, states, thank you for your call this afternoon. As discussed, we meet sometime next week on site to discuss the layout for one parking additional space. understanding that our original request was too large. Are we then postponing this? Or going ahead and approving? Approving because that's what the- I was not party to this. Barry, is her request for us to hold off or does she- My discussion with her, I explained to her that we were recommending reduction of the amount of paving- To allow for one additional parking space, right? Correct, they're only allowed one additional. Gotcha. And she was in agreement with that, and so the rest of the email talks about, I had mentioned we could get together if the board went that direction, and she said she could do that next week. Okay, I understand. I'm sorry, I'm being a little slow today. All right, so we have a applicant, the staff has recommended substantively reduce the paved area to allow for one additional parking space and submit the revised plan to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of COA. The other two are the standard conditions. We have an email indicating that she's in agreement with that. So I am ready for, I'm assuming we don't have any comment from the audience. I am ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 1702-0108-C at 108 Shawnee Place, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following condition. reduce the paved area to allow for one additional parking space, and submit the revised plan to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. And then the remaining two conditions are the standard two conditions. All right, thank you. Do I have a second? I second that. All right. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair calls a question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. COA is approved as conditioned. Turning now to our last case at 107 South Ashland. Scope of work is demolish dormer, construct new larger dormer. Applicant, I'm assuming that you have been very patient. You may come up. No. Well, actually, I assume you want to be heard on this? Yes. All right. Why don't we go ahead and have Barry give his presentation? And just sit. Barry, go first. Yeah. Typically, yeah, he'll do it. Because I believe the staff has recommended a denial of the COA. So we're going to be, we're now having our hearing on this. Yes. All right. We're all tired. No wonder I couldn't find it. It's right here. Okay. You're wearing it off on us. Again, I want to apologize for getting the, somehow the cases got mixed up in the package. I hope you all received the one by email plus the one that was left on your desk. This is basically the same staff report from the previous board meeting when it was continued until today. So I'll just kind of briefly run through what we're talking about. This is a continuation of that hearing, yes. Yes, this is 107 South Ashland, and it's to enlarge the dormer. If you remember, the original submittal increased the width of that dormer by two to two and a half times. The applicant has come back with a dormer of the same width but extends farther down the roof. Okay. Does that job with your... Okay. All right. Okay. So this is the dormer in question. As another shot of that. Let me go back a little bit. So this is obviously South Ashland, Donato's, and then Main Street runs perpendicular to South Ashland. Previously, the board has approved a COA to remove this stair structure and to do an addition in the rear. The new drawings that were submitted by the applicant did away with all of those previous drawings, so a little less confusing that way. So this would be the view from the sidewalk adjacent to Donato's parking lot and again that's the dormer and all four of the dormers on this structure match. They have the same details, same windows, same size. Thank you. So Barry, to be clear, it's not expanding in length, it is simply archer going down towards the wall, correct? Getting longer parallel with the ridge of the dormer. Okay. Correct. I got you. Okay. All right. So the guidelines are included for your use, and the staff finds that the proposal to demolish the historic gabled roof dormer and replace it with a new longer dormer does not meet the design guidelines. The design principle states architectural detailing is a major component in defining the building's character and style. Historic architectural detailing should be preserved and maintained. Guideline 1, 1A 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 longer dormer in place of the existing dormer of the same gable roof design reusing the historic windows does not meet guideline 11D, which states architectural details, including the installation of additional ornament, which gives a building an imitation historic appearance is not allowed. Per the window design guideline, window openings, windows, window details, and the size and shape of these elements help establish rhythm, scale, and proportion of the building and reflect architectural style and character. Windows should be maintained. Guideline 124A states, windows should be preserved and maintained in their original locations, size, design, with their original materials and number of panes. original framing of the opening should be retained and maintained. Dormers, per guidelines 2A, 5A, and 2A, 5B, 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 ability with the building design the proposed dormer is to be located on a highly visible prominent elevation which which along with the other elevations is is historically significant the proposed dormer is not in character or skill with a historic structure which has a small significant character defining dormers on each of the main roofs and roof planes The existing dormers create a symmetry and design language that the proposed longer dormer is not compatible with, and that's 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 roof line, meeting the other dormers especially. in scale design and placement per guideline 2a 5d the volume of the proposed dormer is out of scale of the four existing dormers and will directly rise of the from the exterior of the north wall along this location. And it'll be longer than the four matching historic dormers on the pyramidal roof, one of which is proposed to be demolished. And it's overscaled and appropriate to the character and design of the American four-square-style historic structure, the replacing of the historic dorm with the new longer dormer of the same design that reuses the historic windows, if allowed, will confuse the eye and create a false sense of history. Staff recommends denial of the certificate of appropriateness. And that is the end of the staff report. All right. Go ahead. and please state your name for the record my name is ralph whitley all right mr whitley uh did the staff have i'm sorry did the board members have any questions of mr bear and mr dennis okay all right uh we've been through this two or three times now but this is a new proposal by you in terms of trying to make it longer as opposed to wider so why don't you discuss that with us sure um some pdfs that yeah that would like to bring up the option one okay um So I guess I wanted to kind of make sure it was understood what this big picture was. This house was, you know, is surrounded on two sides by Donato's, McGee's, and then a commercial property here on the left, which is actually a rental property. Code violations exist all the way up and down both of these property lines. there's equipment that's right on the building edges. It was, at some point, it was gutted quite substantially and turned from a single-family home into apartments. And it also was not a very good renovation in that they cut out some of the main components, which what they cut out was the stairs to make the first four two apartments and the second four two apartments. And when they did that, they had a stairway that was about, it was approximately 12 inches to 24 inches shorter. It had a much higher run. So we bought the property as a rental property, and we intended to turn it into a single-family home. A little did we know what we were actually getting into. Can you, for some reason it's not showing the, thank you. So this right here is just another demolition plan. So it shows what we're taking out, but essentially we're gutting the whole building. The whole thing is essentially being reworked. Phase one's the inside, phase two is the outside. So we're kind of going backwards. I think initially I would have preferred to stabilize the outside. and we're going to do that quickly but I have historic tax credits in place and I need to implement them strategically to take advantage and bridge the budget gaps you guys are obviously familiar but the way it has to work I have to start and get stuff done this year and next year to be able to claim those over two years in the third year I can do the outside and gain those credits to bridge the budget cap to make the property work another component that makes it work is if i can turn the third floor attic into some sort of reclaimable bonus space from the perspective of square footage so um we've been working with different stair configurations but no matter how i look at it when you add the correct rise and run it creates an issue with this the head clearance that you have to have for modern codes if you're going to go through building permits which we we are um so that's just no that one was just a bad print uh this is a future conceptual model of what the attic space would potentially look like the stairs are very complex and i plan to hire a crown stair to basically do nothing but the stairs because the elevations and the way the floor plans are, it's very difficult. This is the first proposal that we had. So this kind of illustrates right here this idea I had of a larger dormer that basically says I'm not historical and I'm not reflective of what was there. It was probably ambitious. The architect I was working with told me that there's no way that's going to go through, but I thought, well, you know, It's the start of a conversation. So I think we first talked about that. And I remember, Suzanne, you mentioned the idea of could you step the wall in. There were two ideas I remember you saying. One was can you move the stairway? And we already had tax credits in place. And honestly, you're exhausted with the whole process of the design as well as the tax credits. So the other option was can you fur the wall out? and I didn't think it would work, but we went and tried it. And so if you could bring up the second set of PDFs option too. I hope it happens differently. So, let's see here. So you can see this is actually the dormer right here that we're extending. And the extension we're proposing, it doesn't perfectly line up with the extension of this. It's actually, I think, a total of a foot and a half to two feet out. But what we also did, if you could go to the next PDF. Yep. I think this shows it. The next one please. Sorry. Yep, 4.1. Yes, that's it. So it's hard to see in this view, but right here we're fern this wall out to try to make and the dormer is extending out to here as opposed to here. So there's a two foot extension, I think, from here to here, and then we're referring this wall out. And then it's also gonna, there's this kind of grand entry space in the front of the four square that it's gonna push the stairs out, and it's gonna occupy that space. So it doesn't create that nice line through the middle of it, but it still seems like a good compromise. So if you could close the PDS and bring the photos up. okay so a reminder of why i'm trying to do the dormer at all because actually truthfully i'm a big fan of historic buildings i actually love them so this this stair this is the stairway to the third floor right now right there is the head clearance issue from the dormer and that's probably three to four feet out so um that's me showing you i was measuring with tape measure so it's 53 inches so almost probably about right here maybe something like that uh that's the left side of the dormer and of course what we'd do is probably try to pull to stare back, which is going to mess with head clearances even more. But the idea was if we can push that out, perhaps we can make that work. So it's just trying to find a way to creatively get to that third floor. So the way I read these guidelines is that they're open for interpretation. I read them that you can do stuff on the side of the building. I read that you can add dormers, but they need to be on the side or the back. So I interpret this differently than I think what Barry does, but I think that's okay because that's probably why they're written the way they're written. So anyways, so the dormer we're talking about right now modifying is this one right here, and you can see it in fall. it's barely visible from the front street. Notice my neighbor's house too. They have kind of a four square foot dormers as well. So this is that same front elevation when you're on my side of the street. You can't see the dormer at all. This is from Main Street when you're looking across to Nottos and you can see the dormer. This is from across the street and you can kind of see an HVAC unit right in front of it. It's kind of blocking the view there. And that's what I bring out two feet further, that dormer only. This is my neighbor's house across the street where it's my belief that they already did this because if you look right here, there is the intermediate window for a stairway. does that have a front dormer and did you take a picture of it it does not have a front dormer they have a gable end right there so it's just going to construct a little bit different all right but this may have been done before the boar sure i i don't know probably was yeah um this is not a four square but this house is located on the corner of I think Central and South South Ashland but you can see the dormer is brought all the way out to the edge right there and it's because of right there an intermediate landing for a stairway and where is this? That right there is on South Ashland this is the back of South Ashland, back of the house but if you were standing on Central Avenue you would see this dormer this is woodland avenue right two houses behind me where this house is almost exactly like our house it's a four square I don't think it even has a dormer though on the side as peculiar as that is but you can see this more pulled up dormer they've obviously replaced those windows and out this double pane but this dormer has been extended and there's the intermediate glass for the stairway. That's my neighbor's house. That's their front dormer, and that's their side dormer. And there is the intermediate glass for the stairway. The stairs start, I don't know if it shows it, but they start right here, and they go up and come back across, and that's essentially what that is. So, you know, it seems like it's been done before. I'm really just trying to find a way to kind of make the whole renovation make sense, and there's a substantial investment involved in it. So I guess it's, you know, ideally I would prefer not to modify the dormant. I would. I'm just trying to find a way to make it work. And it seems to me, given all the constraints, that it's reasonable to consider. So, thanks. Thank you. Mr. Dennis, am I correct in thinking that probably all those changes were made prior to, this is a relatively young district. So I'm thinking, actually in Central Avenue is a relatively young district, comparatively speaking to the others. Oh, no. It's a relatively new Ellsberg, which Woodland is in, is in is 99 it is I thought Ashland came much later well I got it mixed up with in you're talking about Ashland Park oh okay all right okay this is yeah yeah and we love with Lundson Woodland is in Ellsworth. And that's 1909. South Ashland doesn't fall in Woodland. And then Ashland Park is actually. Okay. South Ashland is South Ashland and Central Avenue. We're separate. I'm just, what I was trying to get at, I was wondering have we actually approved the dormers that he was pointing out to us, or the original with the houses that he showed us as far as mr. Armstrong and I know we have never approved on a primary res primary elevation a change to a dormer okay and why do you and why do you argue that or we we haven't approved any the board okay board has approved numerous dormers on secondary elevations rear elevations, new dormers. And why do you think this is, and why do you think this dormer that's on the side of the house is a primary, not a secondary elevation? That is the key to this whole case. I know it is. Is because if you're walking down South Ashland on the west side of the street along Donato's, It's still the side of the house, isn't it, though? The guideline doesn't say side. It says secondary and primary. Okay. That's a stretch, but okay. So questions. That's what the guideline says. Primary, secondary, not front, back, side. And understand, I mean, typically, you know, a lot of houses have a main gable or a main dormer, and then the other dormers are smaller and placed usually in the back or on the sides. This house is unique. I mean, it has got four identical dormers on each of quadrant. It only has three identical dormers. I know that's been said several times, but the back one is actually much, much smaller. it doesn't even have a substantial window in it. All right, I stand corrected. I thought they were placed uniformly around on each quadrant of the house. There is four. I know that just because of the details of the lattice on the windows, I would think that one's not substantial as well. Don't feel me. So I would also point out that, you know, according to the design principles quoted in this document it says architectural details and features when it lists what those include nowhere does it say dormers but if you were to say it does say dormers include dormers it says replacement details should be based on historic inter-fiscal evidence or on the availability of architectural elements from other buildings of the same era and style so we've got buildings nearby that have already had those modifications as far as roofs if additions to roofs are desired they should be added at the rear or side of roof lines they'd be compatible with the building's architectural style i would argue that extending that dormer two feet is still compatible with architectural style especially given that several of the other houses in the neighborhood have have that style whether it's original or secondary I do not know for sure the the only other thing I would say that if if I was forced to not be able to reuse those lattice windows and and for some reason was allowed to extend the dormer it does say that new window openings can be put at the side of the house so if it were a situation where well but what about the windows it does say you can't put new windows at the side of the house it says new dormers with respect to roofs should be constructed in keeping with the character and scale of the structure I would argue that character is a subjective term and that scale is subjective when what I'm talking about is two feet and I would think that when we looked at the you know representation on with an avenue that that dormer was not so large as to say perhaps what i would argue is that if you were not looking for that dormer to be different from the front dormer no one would have ever seen it i i found it because i was looking for photos as we discussed last time okay go ahead and it further says if roofline additions or dormers they should be on the side I think what my whole point is, the language, in my opinion, is here for an exception. Obviously, in the context of I'm not trying to build a dormer so I can get more square footage, given the whole scale of what we're trying to accomplish. All right, thank you, sir. Ms. Connelly? Ms. Erwin? So I have some comments about this that I would argue that the elevation that we're discussing is a secondary elevation. It is a side elevation. and the fact that it has become very visible is only because of the circumstance of being at the edge of a zoning change from a residential to a commercial zoning, and that the one-story commercial building, which I would guess but do not know, was much, much later. and that I think that was always a service station area. It may have always been, but it's the change that my argument is that that house was not designed to be on a corner lot, whereas a corner lot would have two primary front elevations. It is stuck in there so that my argument is that that is a side elevation even though it is very visible. And that being said that a dormer, some of the guidelines comment that the dormer, that architectural ornamentation should not be, should not imitate history. However, the volume and the shape and the placement does maintain the rhythm, scale, and proportion of the building, even if it is slightly detailed differently than the original and other dormers. I do, I don't think that we should, how should I say that? I feel that it is most important to respect the larger perspective of the overall rhythm, scale, and proportion. I think that is more important than to consider that dormer being a different shape in order for it not to imitate history. And then I would also say that in this case, the dormer is creating an interior space that is being governed by other codes for safety, namely the required head height of the stair leading to the attic space. Most often there is the argument that it cannot be used as livable space unless it meets this head height, required head height. However, even if it's just used as storage and if it has a stairway present, it should have the required head height. These are codes that have been put in place much later than this building was built. And I think it is important that those safety requirements be highly respected and not be subservient to the exterior visual guidelines. All right, Ms. Hill? I'm ready to make a motion. I figured you might be. Sorry? I figured you might be. Go ahead and make your motion. Chair, per case number 00710107-J at 107 South Ashland, given that the goal of historic preservation is to preserve our individual historic buildings and related neighborhoods, given that a community goal is to preserve our farmland and green space through encouraging increasing density in our urban service boundaries, Given that historic neighborhoods represent a large portion of our urban downtown residential developments to be protected, given that historic houses often have usable third floor spaces that need modifications to bring the stair access into current 21st century code requirements, I move to approve this modest change to an existing dormer alongside elevation of this historic house. My findings per the design guidelines include, one, this existing dormer occurs on a side elevation, not on a primary street facade. Number two, the proposed dormer revision will only change the depth from the roof edge, leaving the dormer ridge line and width per the original construction and match the primary front facade dormer. This will give the owner the opportunity to fully occupy all three levels of this historic house and will not impact the original front of the house design. Do I have a second? I second. Ms. Hill, I think maybe you would like to incorporate the comments that have been made by Ms. Irwin into your motion? So moved. All right. Accepted. Do you accept that? I do. Okay. My only concern with the motion as you have phrased it, Ms. Hill, is that we may be opening up a Pandora's box with respect to modifying dormers to accommodate head height. And I'm not sure, I'm not sure how I feel about that, truth be known. On the other hand, when you look at the wide variety of dormers that we have in that neighborhood, this one is not going to be so horribly inconsistent with the dormers that are elsewhere at similar height and scale that it's going to stick out and be visually obtrusive or obnoxious to the eye, if you will. That said, I'm still going, I think I'm just going to abstain on this one. I need to think about this issue more. We have not, Ms. Lillia did not address the issue of the windows. they disapproved using the original windows because of zimitism i understood and it probably needs clarification i understood that the imit the disapproval for being imitating history was that the dormer would be the same shape and size except for the moving it out with the same gabled roof. I understood that to be what was imitating. Well, the last sentence of the recommended order or the recommendation was the replacement of the historic dormer. Using similar windows to historic dormers, if allowed, will confuse the eye and create a false sense of history. I'm reading into that. Mr. Dennis, I'm not trying to read this for you. Did you mean to disapprove of using the windows from the original dormers if we make this one longer? That would be entirely up to the board, but it would seem as if using those windows in those locations, say, that dormer has been here like this since the beginning. Well, yeah, the question is, and that's the issue, given how these dormers are placed. If we adhere to not letting it be imitative, then we're going to have a totally different looking dormer on the side elevation. Go ahead. Is the intention to reuse the existing windows? Or does that impact? The tax credits? I'm not sure they should get it. They would make, I don't know if they would make me review them or not. They viewed that as completely secondary and already gave me the approval to change it to make it the big version. Okay, so that doesn't impact the tax credits? No, as far as I know it doesn't. But they do have strict guidelines on windows, so the specifics of whether or not I was going to not be able to use it in Lexington, but maybe they were going to make me, I didn't ask, because I just assumed that I would be able to reuse them. I know, and I don't know if this is appropriate or not, I thought there was a mention about changing the color somehow to reflect that this is the original height or something. I thought that someone mentioned that. Maybe that was only me. We would not. The color would have no impact because that could be changed at any time. Well, I have a question of you, sir. And I would also say, Mr. Whitley, after reviewing the minutes that you all have not been able to see yet, but me having seen, that wasn't furthered in any discussion. Have you had your plans reviewed by Historic Preservation in Frankfort for a tax credit? Yes. And did they approve this dormer? Yes. Well, they approved my plans without the dormer. They told me I had to change my stairs. I went through variations of changing the stairs, and I recognized the dormer issue. and then they said well you can make the dormer bigger and then I submitted the larger dormer to them and I got a verbal email an email back to them that said you can make the dormer bigger okay would you mind if you have any kind of written correspondence putting that into the record please I can find it sure I mean I would like to have that put into the record yeah I don't know exactly you know I'm paraphrasing but that's but if they had suggested that a larger dormer would be compatible because it was a secondary normer, then that settles the issue for me. I will note on the drawings, I did assume you were using new windows because the drawings you submitted, even though it didn't note, it didn't show those historic windows. Oh, did it show them as squares? Yeah, it's showing, but without the grid, the lattice in it. Yeah, I did. I mean, obviously my preference is to restore them, and that's more costly to me. But that's back to me loving historical homes. But I also understand the need not to make it look like it was already that size. I would only add that the conversation that occurred in the minutes you all have not received, there was a question about that and he knowing the dormer on the back wasn't as significant and needed to have windows there was a discussion about moving those windows to the back window okay oh reusing them in another place yeah the only thing with that is I would point out that dormer so small it only has one window well I'm just yeah yeah I would try to reuse some different I mean I mean I'm not saying that I just want to point out what the discussion I've lost track of our motion is at this point we're just in conversation the motion still stands but right i don't know that the motion is staying there read read to me one more time the portion of your motion that was dealing with accommodating headroom um so it's just a moment sir um it was My finding number two, the proposed dormer revision will only change the depth from the roof edge, leaving the dormer ridgeline in width per the original construction. No, actually what I'm getting at is your whereas. You read several whereas clauses. The givens? Yes. Whereas. That historic houses often have usable third floor spaces that need modification. Would you mind striking that from your motion? Okay. Okay. So done. Thank you. All right. Now, you had a comment, sir. Still haven't decided about the windows, have we? So with the windows, we're going to put it on the back. Is that what we're going to do with the motion? I guess the question is, if I replace the windows, do I have to make them match what they were historically is the question. I would prefer to, even though that's more costly to me. That's going to be an issue, I'm afraid. I tell you what, why don't we do this? Why don't we approve your dormer and let's argue about the windows later? Okay, fair enough. Why don't you give us a proposal on the windows? How does that sound? That would be fabulous. Or you might suggest having him come back to staff with that. To add a condition. Indirectly, I think that's what I've been trying to say. I'll confess with you all, I have a killer headache right now. So I'm not thinking well. Yes, if you'll bring back specifications about the windows. Staff. We'll go ahead and vote on your motion and just bring back to the staff for review your specification for the windows. Absolutely. Prior to the issuance of the COA. Prior to the issuance of the COA. And the standard two conditions. do apply also. I did not get that in the original motion. Okay. All right. Through this amendment process, I think we have a motion now to approve the dormer subject to the standard two conditions as designed by the applicant. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Chair calls the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Your COA as condition is approved. Thank you guys very much. And thank you very much for working with us through the process. Yes. All right. Thank you. Oh, that's awful. Do we want to just? Yeah, there is something that's filtering through. We're thinking of the age of the world. Yeah, and I noticed in Oregon that like Eugene, which is just north, the air is crystal beautiful quality, and it's awful here, and it's all because this month. So can we defer? Can we delay the... And I would just note that we only have one set of minutes and that's from the June meeting date. So moved. Second. Second. minutes 10 approved do i have a motion for us to adjourn so moved am i am i ready to adjourn pardon for the two systems no unfortunately i just said that the the main didn't get edited by others but i think we are ready to adjourn motion to adjourn second