Thank you. We can't get him in. We can't get him in. Oh, because I'm not. Tim's going to have to bring him in because he's the host. Okay. Go right ahead, Mr. Dickinson. All right. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I apologize for the delay. But as all of you know, Zoom has a mind of its own sometimes about whether meetings can start on time or not. That said, I'd like to welcome you to the February 16, 2022 meeting of the Board of Architects Review. Due to the COVID-19 state of emergency, this meeting is being held via live video teleconference presented to 2020 Senate Bill 150 in accordance with KRS 61826. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Brantz Park. We now have a total of 16 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the district historic preservation. Recording in progress. The Stark Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. Just for the record, this is our meeting on February 16, 2022. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicants. I will ask parties that wish to be heard regarding an application to raise their digital blue hand in order to be allowed to comment as an applicant or a citizen making a public comment. Please keep your microphone muted until you recognize to speak. As you start your comments, state your name and address for the public record. Upon conclusion of the specific application you're addressing, you'll be returned to the regular attendee status. And you're, of course, welcome to continue with the meeting. the board will ask questions or make comments regarding the application hear comments from other interested parties the chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion and to take a final action 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 thereby eliminating the necessity for our applicants to appear before the board there are 14 staff approvals recommended by the staff. They are as follows in the order of the historic districts. In the Ellsford Historic District, at 276 Clay Avenue, reissue the COA. At 433 East Maxwell, repair chimneys. At 316 East High Street, install handrails. And at 360 Oldham Avenue, repair the driveway. In the Belcourt Historic District, at 149 West Belcourt, repair chimneys. At 625 Sarah Avenue, reissue COA. In the Northside Historic District at 420 North Broadway, renovate structure. At 474 West 6th Street, remove dangling tree, damaging tree, excuse me. In the Pensacola Park Historic District at 98 Goodrich Avenue, replace roof. At 122 Goodrich Avenue, replace front door. In the Seven Parks Historic District at 518 Arcadia Park, replace fencing. In the South Hill Historic District at 337 South Mill Street, install handrails. At 381 South Upper Street, replace replacement doors and windows. And finally, in the Woodward Historic District at 349 Madison Place, renovate structure. Those are the staff approvals. We'll now turn to our regular agenda of applications for certificate of appropriateness. beginning first with the Ellsford Histoire District and 148 Woodland Avenue. The application is to demolish a garage and construct an outbuilding. Is the applicant here? I have. There it is. All right. Is the applicant here? No one has raised their hand, sir. Okay, this is an application that has a recommendation of approval by the staff. I would be a substantive comment. So is the applicant here or not? The applicant is working to get online right now. All right. and I have misplaced the first part of this application what is the applicant saying I'm sorry excuse me I have misplaced the first part of this okay thank you oh Darren all right And I've got to mention the scope of work also includes a demolition of a garage that the staff has recommended approval. The applicant has informed me they are agreeable with findings. All of them? All of them. Okay, very good. I'll read them into the record just to make a note of them. The three recommendations are, first of all, the north and south wall should have banding with final details to come back to the staff for review and approval prior to issuance. Secondly, once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff aboard for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of the COA. And finally, if any changes are made that alternate information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. It's been noted by Ms. Armstrong on behalf of Mr. Taylor that those are acceptable to him. In light of that fact, I think we move forward. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? No. Questions or comments from the audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none and I saw no digital hands come up. I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 21030148 at 148 Woodland Avenue, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness application with the three conditions that have been read into the record. Ms. Hill, I'm sorry you were interrupted. You froze temporarily. If you don't mind repeating the motion, I'm sorry. I do not. Chair, per case number 21030148 at 148 Woodland Avenue, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness application with the three conditions that have been written to the record. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Turning now to our next application is 602 North Broadway. In the Northside Historic District, the scope of work is construct exterior fire sheet. The applicant is Lethem Properties. Is that applicant here? I see a yellow hand coming up. Ms. Schroeder, applicant? Yes. You're still, according to my camera, you're still muted, are you? There you are. Okay, the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to three conditions. The first one that I would view as being somewhat substantive is you submit the final guard rail details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. And the other two are the standard conditions that I previously read into the record. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. You can have to do it from that computer. You can have to do it from the computer down there, the on-air computers. All right. Do I have any questions or comments from the audience? I'll give it a count of 10. I have a question. Sure, go ahead, Suzanne. On the drawings or the sketches, it does show that, or what it appears to show, that the top dormer will be altered into an exit door. Am I reading that correctly? Yes. Did you say yes ma'am? Yes. Okay. That's correct. And that results in a breaking of the cornice line of the roof and essentially an extension of that dormer onto the face of the siding. Is that what I'm understanding is happening? There's already a knee wall on the inside there. It kind of extends down. But yes, those windows will be open to a door. And so does that, are those windows to be removed? Yes. Okay. And the soffit and the fascia of the roof line is to be broken at that point? Stopped, basically? Yes, I think so. Ms. Armstrong, did you handle this particular application or is this very? This is Mr. Dennis' application. Oh, here he is. He is now in the meeting. I don't know if you respond to that or not. There he is. Yes, I'm here now. Sorry about that. Could you repeat your question again? So my question, okay, my question is concerning the top dormer and that the sketch, the elevation sketch appears to indicate that that top dormer will be, the windows there will be replaced with a door, that that dormer will be extending, the face of that dormer will extend onto the siding of the the body of the house, roof line, the fascia of the roof line will be broken at that point. Sorry. Yeah, that's my question. I just want to be clarification. Is that what's happening? Yes. Yes. As Ms. Schroeder mentioned, that window is being replaced with a door to provide the required exit from the third floor apartment that's there. Since they're remodeling, they have to meet the current code and it's the commercial code because there's more than two units. And so the head height will remain and the door will drop lower. Okay. And I mean, that indicates then the site, you know, what is happening with the siding on the, you know, that side? And how is that being finished with siding up through the dormer? I mean, there'll be... Yeah, I think the applicant could answer better, but yes, the siding and those materials are to remain the same. They'll just be adjusted around the new door. Okay. Mr. Irwin, if you want to suggest a condition to that effect, that might not be a bad idea. I'm just not real clear. I mean, are we certain that the face of that dormer is in the same plane as the site, the house below it? I mean, that's what the sketch is indicating, that that's going to extend down? Yes. So will they put shingle siding on the dormer area? Or is that a different, like what's the material going to be on that? Right now it looks like painted trim. How does it all get put back together? I think the sketch, the drawing that we have is just very uninformative about what really needs to happen here. yeah so i'm sorry i needed to pull up the photo um i guess what we need to do since we have so many questions from the board members i think we're going to have to do a presentation barry um if you can or we can put this off till the next meeting it it might be better to get a drawn elevation that would make it more clear to satisfy the board um me being out there and looking at it i know what's happening but it's a little difficult i understand for the board i mean i i just if you can tell me what the siding situation is going to be on that new dormer that, you know, I just didn't know if the siding from below will extend up onto the dormer if or if the dormer that is extending downwards onto the siding area is going to be handled with trim or with, you know, what is the finished material. The door up above would have the trim around it. The dormer is not going to change above the roof. The soffit will need, or not the soffit, the fascia and the soffit both will need to be cut back. So it will be to the right. It will end to the right of the dormer, and that will be a vertical face up. So where the door cuts into the siding or into the shingles, that siding will remain, and it'll be wood trim otherwise around the door, including up into the dormer. there may be a small amount of siding up in the dormer, but. Because this, the sketch that we have this sketch here, It indicates that the door is going to be placed between the two windows. Are the windows completely removed or is the door actually taking up the space of one of those windows? The question is then what's happening with the other window. Can you clarify that? The windows will be removed so that there's room for the door. Okay. So in the place that the door is the door then taking up the entire width of the windows, current windows? It'll be fairly close. There will be wood trim around it. And like Barry said, we'll have to match the siding a little bit on the side of the dormer. But the top of the roof line for the dormer isn't changing. and it's just having the flat face down for the door straight from where the windows are now currently. Okay. I think we should require that Barry review these details before full approval because I think there's a lot in there between cutting that gutter and that soffit and exactly how that siding is going to line up with that door to just approve it as is without additional review on those details. I agree. So what is the pleasure of the board? Do you want to have new drawings submitted or do you want to have put in a condition that additional details as to the siding and the installation of the door be submitted to vary for review and approval prioritations, which is your preference? I think I'm okay with just additional details going to the staff for review prior to, you know, completed approval. I'm not sure I need to see additional details on that, but I do think those details need to be worked out before they have full approval. All right, Ms. Hill, what do you think? I'm in agreement with that. Okay, Mr. Gilpin? yeah i can agree with the conditional approach um they he'll need a wall section detailed and elevation not this drawing okay barry i think the consensus that we're going to have a motion to effect that in addition to the condition that's already in there that additional details pertaining to the installation of the door and the siding i need to be submitted to you before uh the coa is issue? Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, Susan. I do have one more very small question, and it's the last drawing that's a floor plan sketch of the stairs. There is a note that says the deck rail is not to exceed 39 inches, which I think the owner will find doesn't meet building code. And my question is is that because of a conflict that's occurring on the historic building or is is that just to be resolved with uh submittal for a building permit i i we have not submitted for a building permit but we would uh whatever we would need to do to make that work with them obviously we would work with both them and you. Okay that's typically going to be 42 inches. Okay. So that's going to be picked up through condition number three. All right so do we have any additional comments from the board members? Any comments or questions from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of ten. Hearing none, are we ready to make a motion? And Ms. Irwin, I would like for you to take the lead if you can. Okay, I'll give it a try. Chair, in the case number 02500602-J at 602 North Broadway, I move that we approve the application for Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions. 1. Submit final guardrail details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. 2. That details and sections be submitted for the handling of the siding at the dormer at the top level. and three, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work, and four, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. All right, do I have a second? Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? All right, Ms. Schroeder, I think the expectation is that you'll have to submit additional details to Mr. To Barry and just have it work out with him. Okay. Yes, that's fine. Or to staff, actually. He's not the only person on the staff. Okay, so if there's not any further discussion on the motion, I'll follow the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriate as condition is approved. Miss Schroeder, good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Take care. All right. Turning to application number three. This is at 122 Goodridge Avenue. The scope of work is demolish garage and construct garage. Charles Penn Distinctive Design Associates is the applicant and Kevin Silva is the owner. Is the applicant or the owner present? Should be killing it now, sir. Thank you. we're here all right do you want to be in avatar what I call avatar status or would you like to share a video oh that's fine sorry that's all right here we go thank you the two of you together on the same camera all right I'm so standing over. We're learning here. Okay. The staff has recommended approval of your application with what we've been calling the standard conditions. I'm not sure if you heard them or not, so I'm just going to read them quickly into the record. And the first condition being once reviewed by the other divisions, city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of a COA. prior to the start of the project are the issuance of the CLA. And number two, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with those? Sure. All right. I would just make a comment. I'm assuming this garage has deteriorated, and that's why the staff obviously is recommending disapproval. Yeah. And so I'm assuming that you're going to be demolishing that garage. Is that correct? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Okay. Any questions or comments from my virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 08150122-B122 Goodrich Avenue, I move that we approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you so much. And good luck with your project. All right. We just seconded the motion. We did not take a... You know, I realized something just didn't happen. All right. Sorry. I'm zooming out. Question of the motion. I'll follow the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved. I apologize for the glitch there. Actually, what happened was I froze. You just didn't hear me. Okay. Thank you all very much. Alright. We have an application at 641 West Short Street. I believe we have a request to postpone this particular application during the next meeting of March 15, 2022. Do I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Close your hands. The motion passes and this application is postponed to March 15, 2022. Turning now to our last application at 320 Marino Street in the Woodward Heights Historic District. Scope of work is reconstruct front porch and change openings. The applicant is Laura Wallace. Is Ms. Wallace present? Coming now. All right, thank you. Yes. Well, this is Betty, and we're sharing screen and having all sorts of technical fun. But Chris has been fabulous getting us all straightened out. on the one who just did the motion to postpone the deadline for action for that is march 9th i'm sorry i didn't notice that okay and so um we will of course ask the property owner who requested the postponement if she's willing to sign a waiver and but i just wanted to enter into the discussion that that would be a necessary piece of this yeah you know as a matter procedure. We really should have that agreement done before we actually consider the motion to postpone. This is sort of doing it backwards. Yes, and in this instance, since it is for recommendation of disapproval, it becomes a little more vital to have that agreed. We don't have access to the applicant at the moment. the applicant was wanting the staff recommendation to be different than it is. She was hoping for a recommendation for approval but had been informed that that was not going to be possible within the guidelines and had requested that she wanted to postpone it so that perhaps the staff could rethink that and see if we would have a different recommendation. I must tell you the recommendation and we've told her the recommendation can't change it has to be what it is relative to this application's i take it the applicant is not here is that correct that's certain that's correct all right she's uh chris's world we don't have a ms doll hair in the room do we but i was asking if ms doll hair was on the in the room on the digital. The chairman asked for Laura Wallace. She's in the room. No, that's not the is that the applicant? Yes, is Ms. Wallace here? No, I'm sorry. Chris, we are backing up the one. We're going back to the Short Street application. Kimberly Dahlberry is the applicant. The comments that I just made relative to the short street application for parking in front of the house. And because I had assumed that the postponement was in everyone's agreement that we're fine. So do we have Michelle here or not? No, gentlemen, I've got a problem going on with my, this has just been a wonderful day. Hang on. I don't know what's going on. All right, I hope I still have a pad. Let me see if it's charging. Yeah, it's charging. okay i'm back my pad is charging okay so did we ever figure out mr there is nobody by that name in the wedding room sir all right we're going to have to more or less take a leap of faith and go ahead and move forward with a postponement since that is the postponement that's been requested by the applicant and presumably the applicant's going to sign the waiver well and i will say it is the applicant's specific request for the postponement and that's why i'm taking a leap of faith saying since she made the request that's implied with that that she's agreed to a continuance i would like to think that is the case but i just didn't want to have you all move on without raising the issue well and first of all I do want to remind you, Betty, there is too much case law out there now that says these application deadlines are aspirational. It does not void our decision if they're not met. Say that again. There is, I think, law, legal has misunderstood the legal effect of these deadlines. and i know there's a i know there's a fad county case that's come out but there's court of appeals decisions that says that if you miss a deadline for completing an application that does not mean the application has to be approved is this during covid are you specific no this is here hmm well i will leave that to the world of law but our ordinance is pretty clear i know the ordinance is pretty clear but i also know the law is pretty clear too on this okay well we may be kidding uh amelia's showing me uh an email on her device from the applicant that may i read it it's three sentences from Kimberly Doghair to Amelia, February 14th, and I was looking for the time, 2.40 p.m. As an update, I've consulted with an attorney, which she's an attorney, but anyway, and advised based upon my concerns and other factors, it would be best to postpone until the March hearing. Please let me know today if there is a form or any other information. that your office requires to postpone and whether my case can be postponed until March. Well, that suggests that she is then willing to sign. Right. I agree with you. We will, having now learned that, we will pursue that in the morning and get this resolved. And I'm sorry for the interruption, but didn't want this to not be part of the considerations. All right. That's fine. Thank you. All right. In recognition of the fact there's been implied consent to sign off on the form in that email, I think we can move forward. So I need a motion to that. I think I had a motion and we've already dealt with the issue. Okay. So we're not going to revote this matter. All right. Now turning to attachment number five, back to 320 Marino Street. Ms. Wallace, I know that you left. Can you come back in? Ms. Chairman, I don't need to see her in the wedding room anymore. All right. I've been on the telephone with her. She said she was knocked off and she can't get back into the Zoom meeting. All right. and the problem is you've got a couple of did you discuss with her Barry the set the new door infill back from exterior siding two inches and retain the wood's rim that seemed to be fairly innocuous but yes sir I discussed both the column and the door set back and she was agreeable to both of those alright I hate to postpone this project because she got knocked off due to a technological issue. Is there a way that she can phone in? That I do not know. I can call her. Let's do that and we can listen to her on your phone. Okay. Okay. zoom has made us all very very creative get your answer hi laura um what i'm going to do is put you on speaker phone and you're going to talk through my computer to the board okay hold on Ms. Wallace, I hope you can hear us. Laura, can you hear them? No. Mr. Chairman, could you go ahead and try again? Let's try again. Ms. Wallace, we're calling out for approval of your application. There were a couple of substantive conditions. The first one being set the new door infill back from the exterior siding two inches and retain the wood trim. The other one being use a fiberglass porch column that matches the profile of the historic column. Are you in agreement with those two conditions? Yes. Very good. then the others are basically submit the final door and window specifications and details to staff for review and approval prior to the issues of the cla and the final two conditions are if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work and finally once reviewed by the other city divisions any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work Are you in agreement with those? I only see that one, submit the final door and window specifications. What were the other two? Because I don't see them at all anywhere. They go on to the next page, perhaps. I don't have it. Okay. The others are, I'm going to read them again one by one and see if we have your approval. The first one is set the new door infill back from the exterior siding two inches and retain the wood trim. Do you have an agreement? No. I agree. You do agree? Yes. All right. Number two, submit the final door and window specifications and details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Agree. All right. Number three, use a fiberglass porch column that matches the profile of the historic column. I agree. All right. And the last two are what we've been referring to as our standard conditions. That one being if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff or review and approval prior to the start of work. Do you agree? Agree. All right. And last, once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work or any agreement. Yes. We don't know. It's whatever they come up with. It may not be anything at all. but that's a state what we call it a standard condition because there are other city divisions that may have been other than what i've written down bring it back to you guys and you have to send it to somebody else you do all right that's why um what that means is when you submit for a building permit. If that's required and they make changes, you need to send those changes to us for review and approval prior to starting that work. Okay. Do you think what I'm doing requires a building permit? I do not know. I can't speak for building inspection. Okay. I will check with them. That's best to do. Based on personal experience, I don't think you'll need one, but it's best just to check. Okay. I'll check with them. All right. All right. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members regarding this application? All right. Do I have any questions or comments from my virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 13020320-I at 320 Marino Street, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, set the new door and fill back from the exterior siding two inches and retain the wood trim. number two submit the final door and window specifications and details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a cla number three use a fiberglass porch column that matches the profile of the historic column and conditions four and five are our standard conditions all right second from anyone do you have a second second from miss erwin uh any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay? The motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Ms. Wallace, thank you so much for your patience and doing a workaround so that we get your application approved. Thank you. And good luck with your project, ma'am. Thank you. All right. All right. The next item that we have coming up is a conceptual review at 418 West 6th Street. Is the applicant here? I thought we were going to do conceptual reviews in person and not on screen. That applicant is Darren Taylor also. He's been having trouble, hasn't he? no he's um he's here okay all right at this point uh folks i've got another meeting coming up i'm gonna have to step away for this one and i'm gonna turn the floor over to josh and i'm assuming if i disconnect i'm not going to mess things up you'll be fine i am a co-host no that's fine sir okay all right folks thank you very much i look forward to seeing you in March, hopefully in person, and enjoy the conceptual review. Thank you all very much. Bye-bye. Mr. Taylor, how are you today? Pretty well. How are you all? Doing well, thanks. Good. Well, Barry or Amelia, have you been taking care of this one? Barry and I are going to tag team this one. Okay. And so I'm going to start by reading the staff report, and then Barry's going to take over with some of the images with my assistants. So, and I'm going to pull up pictures first, actually, and sort of have Barry walk through those real quick so you can sort of see the house first as I read the staff report. Hold on one second. Hold on one second. Excuse me one second. this is the structure of 418 West 6th Street the applicant is requesting a conceptual review determine the appropriateness of the modification not a kind the roof of the circa 1900 East Lake style tea plane cottage the The proposed modification to the roof is to increase head height in the attic to allow for additional area to be used in the floor area calculations. Many teen plan cottages in Lexington have a pyramidal-shaped central roof section with a lower ridge gables cut into the central pyramid-shaped roof. The property in question differs than the other teen planning structures in Lexington in that it is truncated pyramidal section, central section which creates a flat roof and follows the pattern of the low lower ridge gables at first look at this it appears that the roof of the structure has been altered at some point in the past because of proliferation of tea plant cottages with full pyramidal roofs based on the theory that the roof has been altered staff reviewed other historic structures in the immediate area to try to determine that the truncated roof was a historic pattern in the neighborhood. Staff found several examples of truncated pyramidal roofs in more site historic district. Staff also made a site visit with the applicant to investigate the roof framing from the interior, from inside the attic of the roof framing members, and the sloped roof in the flat area appears to be from the same time period on the surface, finishing the oxidation that occurs in wood over time. Can you call us a little short? Yes, I was going to right now. Okay. So here is the structure. And here is, you could sort of see the roof form. Barry, do you have anything to add on this? No. More details of the actual roof. And this is from the rear. Of course, a historic image from our files. and this is sort of the interior roof Amelia I will go on from here at least as far as the photos as you can see all of the members that all of the roof structural members seem to be from the same time period So upon closer investigation, I measured the different members and they were all actual size, meaning if it was a two by four, it was two inches by four inches as opposed to being a nominal size. So I looked closely at the detailing within the roof and could find no difference in either the structural members or the sheathing. So it does not appear that any of that has been altered to this point, other than some additional structural supports, which you will see in the photos that have been put in to help support that center flat section. Okay, go on, Amelia. So this is looking into one of the gables, actually the front gable that you saw in the first photos of the exterior of the structure. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. so this is kind of a close-up you can see how everything's tied together you know with no obvious changes okay and a lot of these are amelia just go on through these these are just general views of the interior of the structure go ahead just scroll through these unless the board wants to see something So, everything that you're celebrating is, you have to strip all the possibilities. It is, especially something about the area that you're doing. So, it will be a stockpile account. Then we'll have to go to the top. And, what you'll do is, Okay, now this is going into other structures within a block of West 6th Street. This structure is actually directly across the street from 418, and you can see between the two chimneys, the flat roof section, and then also to either side, the lower gable. Okay. And this is a close-up of that. This is at the opposite end of the street on the north side of 6th Street. Again, a cottage with a flat central section, although the front dormer is different. now this is on a side street um and you can see what appears to have been a flat roof central section go to the next photo please and then it's had a little party hat put on top Okay, go ahead. Again, this is another cottage in the area with the truncated pyramidal roof and the low gables intersecting it. Okay, go ahead. And let me go on real quick and read the rest of the beginning here. So staff measured framing members throughout the roof and determined the framing members were actually actual size opposed to nominal size, which the industry standard has changed over time. Staff researched lumber sizing in late 19th and early 20th century determined if the two time period to the milling of the roof framing members could be determined. By 1900, two inches had become most common thickness for joist, rafters, studs, and one-inch boards. During its time, the board was sized, scant sizing, which was used to allow for lumber to be the actual size, such as boards, to be finished at 1316. As lumber came to be shipped by rail of the region, which it produced, the cost of the shipping was greater, and the cost of lumber, so a million prior to shipping, became... economically expedient. In 1906 and 1902, respectively, North Carolina Pine Association, Pacific Coast Lumber Manufacturing Association, as well as the Lumber Associate IONS members, standard that allowed 1-8 inch to be milled from each surface of sawed lumber. In 1923, publication of standard grading, specification of yard lumber from the Department of Agriculture, the nominal size of dressed two-inch lumber was one fifteen one five-eighths inch in the side the history of the size of lumber became standardized and those standards changed rapidly to smaller sizes during the early 1900s to reduce the volume of shipped materials along with shipping expense based on the research staff did that there's no evidence the triccated roof is not original to the structure of course guidelines are clearly referenced and findings, as this is conceptual view, staff has no findings at this time, but the following questions the board may consider. And we'll go through the images. Mary, do you want to? Okay. Good. I'm just going to get a jacket. I'm cold. I think it might be better to go on to the questions and maybe then allow Mr. Taylor to take them through the drawings? Sure. Number one, is it the truncated roof original to the historic structure? Two, should the original roof forms, including dormers, be preserved and maintained? Should the truncated roof be preserved in the original size, shape, and pitch? It's proposed roof modifications and keeping the character and scale of the building. Five, does the roof modifications impact the front elevation? Six, is the roof modification compatible? the building design and seven is a proposed roof line step down for the ridge or the existing roof line so the existing main roof remains evident of course there's no recommendations at this time and no board no deadline for board action and napkin of course is present um and if you would like to mr taylor i can um go through the drawings as you note yeah no i think that's great i think um you know all the kind of questions that you just posed and the points that have been made are all super valid. And I think that's why we wanted to have a conceptual review rather than obviously just a sort of blind submission. We're looking for a little bit of guidance from you all to understand possibly a way forward. The applicant's real desire, obviously I'm the applicant, but the owner's real desire is simply to try to gain some more usable space in that attic. The house was renovated by the previous owner, which was fine, but there's sort of a lack of more usable bedrooms in the first floor. There's only two, and there is a good bit of space up here. So his desire is to try to figure out a way to occupy a little bit more of that second floor or attic space, as it were, now. So that was the real driver here. And then, you know, once we sort of got into this and had discussions with Amelia and with Barry, you know, it became evident that there was definitely some obviously differing information as to what was original on the house or what we maybe understood or thought that we were proposing as to its appropriateness for this specific structure. And obviously, there are plenty of examples shown of this sort of truncated roof. And then there's other examples, one being next door, which was sort of our driver in our thinking originally. But then again, maybe after investigation, that's not as true per se for that interior, for the member sizing, as was said. So we just kind of wanted to come and see what is a potential path forward to achieve what they're wanting to achieve and not drastically alter this. And, you know, one of the things, obviously, we've got a clearance on the inside at that flat section that was shown where Barry was talking about the framing of the flat section. Right now, that's at about six foot seven or six foot six. So we're under that clearance that we would need for habitable space. And we're, you know, if we could get the minimum or right at above the minimum for that habitable space, that would probably achieve what we need to achieve. So that's, I think, something that would be considered. the desire is not to really drastically alter the structure for any aesthetic reasons exterior simply just try to gain space on the inside so that's really kind of the driver for this for this proposal and then up on the screen you see the existing conditions and then if you scroll through to the a 100 sheets you'll see the sort of internal point for how we potentially circulate there with a new stair and the sort of center core to allow us to arrive in that center space with the appropriate headroom that's right and then on the on the attic space to be able to have a little bit of room in that center core to occupy obviously employing some knee walls to get us where we would need to be um and and currently there is a bedroom uh space as we can at least surmise it to be uh at the rear of the house over the kitchen that does have a window um however you step down into that space from the attic. So the ceiling of the kitchen is lower than the ceiling and structure of the rest of the house. So coming up, being able to have some usable space up there, and then treat that as a bedroom with an added bath is the design. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Let's hear if the board has any comments at this point. perhaps we could start with miss hill would you have any thoughts on in mind at the moment so i did walk the neighborhood um and uh as darren has mentioned the house next door to this property is probably, from my point of view, the most relevant. It appears to me that it has a very similar kind of roof form for the second floor, whether it's original or not, I have no idea. But it does seem a potential model for what has been submitted for our review. Mr. Mayor, what do you think? I think that given that we are supposed to follow the guidelines and thinking about historic structures, and it really does look like the roof was truncated originally, that by making this change, we are clearly affecting that front elevation, which a roof line is not supposed to change from the front. And we also have guidelines that say that when we do additions and things from the back that, you know, that roof line doesn't align perfectly with the existing roof structure. So while I think that in some ways this does match and look appropriate for the house in some ways, I don't think that approving this meets the guidelines of maintaining that front elevation. Thank you. Ms. Erwin, what do you think? I'm looking at the guidelines. I-A or I.15.A, that roofs should be preserved in their original size, shape, and pitch shape and pitch with original features. And it just seems that this type of a change would blend in so much that it would really confuse what was added to the structure. I do feel like the raised pitch is a bit high. I feel like these types of houses and this style, I think there was a valid reason why they truncated those roofs to keep them lower. And extending those slopes completely up really, I think, is out of proportion to the overall house. And I'm looking specifically at the proposed north elevation that it seems like much more of a modern silhouette and not appropriate for this particular style of home. So that would be my concern is that altering an existing roof line in this way does not meet the guideline in preserving original size, shape, and pitch. and that there's just no way to determine then afterwards that that was an added feature, which we try to encourage that additions to homes are designed in such a way that it is clearly not of that same era. Yeah. So I think there's some confusion, you know, that would produce kind of a confusing read on that home. Yeah. Yeah, I think the guidelines as far as changes to this roof are pretty straightforward. It is a very interesting case, though, in that it seems to be a bit of an anomaly for that style, I guess, is what I'm hearing from the staff. But there are more examples around the neighborhood. But just for the sake of what is original and keeping that intact, my opinion would be that the renovation would not meet the guidelines. But I think, you know, some of the question is, Mr. Taylor has very clearly asked, you know, what would be a way forward with this? And, you know, I think that it would be worthwhile to try to speak to that. you know if it didn't follow all the way to the top if it was not as tall I'm not sure if that would assist in in making it meet the guidelines but you know he's he just needs a few feet yeah we really need a few inches honestly and that was my going to be my next sort of posing a question i've got two questions per that and one i think when barry and i went on site looked at the conditions and you know we're looking at it you know we really and i have to i'd have to pull the model up and really look at it but i believe we're from six foot seven to seven feet so we're of a game of about five to six inches of what we would need to get our clearance obviously we would need to really look at that in detail with material you know clearances and so forth but we're a game of of of inches really to get what's desired so i'm one thing i might pose and i'm wondering is is if the flat section just gets raised up at that same pitch that it's at and remains flat but it's slightly elevated so that really from the street you probably wouldn't even know the difference um that that that may be an option obviously just that achieves what's desired and that could really work uh potentially and then the other piece which i'm not so sure in this application given uh what's been said here uh to to date in our discussion today that this doesn't alter some things and we've done this in some other scenarios um we had an italianate house on a farm that they wanted to complete the gable to get some headroom up there but also bring some light and so we we added a cow wall pyramid to the top to form that so it wasn't actually a roof section it was all translucent um and it it obviously got the light in that we were talking about and it made the form of the roof come together but um you know that that would that would probably you know in a way satisfy the idea that this is an addition and it's something contemporary however it would probably alter in a way maybe the sale that we're talking about being something that we're concerned with so i only bring that up as something that we've done and i actually sent amelia a picture of that um just email it to her a minute ago um that that may be an option but i think that the real probably the piece that may and again i'm bringing this up as a point of a conversation the piece that may achieve what the owner is trying to do and getting that habitable space up there that raising it up in the flat section only and just keeping that continuous flat maybe you know something to look at and we we can show that we can model that and send that back again either for another conceptual review or if you feel that's an option to the staff however but that's something we could look at that we haven't done that to date what did any other board members want to comment on that so um i appreciate uh daring the additional options uh and ideas um if i'm hearing there are kind of two options that have been thrown out. One is not to take the roof quite, the continuation of it quite as high, but to maintain some flat portion of it, which I think would bring it down enough that the kind of visual impact of it might be much less severe. raising the second option that you posed if i heard correctly was raising that whole flat section up which seems to me much more intrusive um though i agree that a model's image would probably show us that but that that substantially changes um the roofline forms from my point of view to to have sidewalls that lift that up if I'm understanding your suggestion. Actually what I'm what I'm proposing in that Susan is instead of doing the shingled continuation of the roof that it's a cow wall continuation of the roof so it's the same proposal architecturally it's just instead of having shingles and framing it's cow wall that form. Okay. Yeah and Amelia if you're on and you can hear I emailed you a picture I don't know if you have access to that but this was an internal photo and that just might help explain it and again I don't know that that's much more than even a point of discussion here today but that was just an idea that we that I've had that we've done before. So that would address the the issue that materiality wise that indicates that it's it's truly an addition and a modern addition and it indicates that it's not part of the original home. That's right. That's exactly right. But the form would still be the same. The form would be the same. That's exactly right. I think that in a way it falls short if we're really looking at scale of that, that maybe that's the piece where that particular proposal may not be, may not check all the boxes. It may just check the, we're trying to discern what's new and what's right look just fine but it may be something where the scale of that building gets changed which i do hear is a concern right well and it's tricky because as we architects know elevations have a tendency to feel very flat and more exaggerated than the three-dimensional reality of being on a street edge and along its home. Right. And I think the, I mean, I think the rendering on the front page, on the cover page, indicates more in more realistic way what that would actually feel like from the front. I still, you know, go ahead, Josh. No, please go ahead. I still feel like the, you know, I just keep going back to that one guideline that says, you know, the original size, shape, and pitch of the roof needs to be maintained. and that definitely this does not meet that guideline. I agree that it doesn't meet that guideline, and I think that raising it at all is going to mean we don't meet that guideline and change the appearance from the front. and I'm just I understand wanting to get a couple more inches and I'm trying to think if there's a creative way to do that but it's not coming to me off the top of my head on how to do that unless you can get a really thin structure yeah I think a better option for expanding the house would be in the rear, just on the first floor. There's a crawl space. Is that just a couple of feet or is there, is it more like a unconditioned basement? What's going on for that? It's only under a section of the house. It's a mechanical unit. Okay. I can, I can get down. It's probably, I'm 6'3". It's probably 5'8", something like that. and it's only under the section closest to the driveway from the rear back about 15 feet and then the whole rest of the house is about 18 inches down to just rubble. All right that's not really I mean I know people have dug out their basements a little bit deeper to get space but it doesn't sound like that's really an option here. I don't think so just given if it was more of a basement basement that could work right that rear section which is odd that they just did that but it's it's only about a 15 by 20 foot section I was just trying to find Darren's example he sent to my email. So, while Amelia is potentially looking for that, my question, so back to Sarah, you brought this up a minute ago, talking about, you know, just really not maybe seeing even the slight raise of the flat portion be an option. And obviously, just wanting to be responsible with my clients' resources. Is that something that you guys would want to see? Or is it something where you feel like probably not something that's going to be? And I don't know if that's more of an inherent, you know, as far as it being fundamental, but is that something that you all would want to have a look at? So you're saying that if you were to, not the cow wall option, but the option of simply raising the flat portion up a certain amount. you know in some way that could be considered in a similar way as the addition of a dormer or an addition you know it definitely would be less visual from anybody else have a comment on that I'm not yeah I'm I'm not entirely convinced it would be less visual. Darren, I appreciate the kind of clean way that you've taken the intersection of those existing roofs and pulled them up to give a little height. I think the concern being expressed here is A, that it's creating quite a bit of height, then it's just not original, which kind of puts you in between a rock and a hard place. Because if there is no way to deal with raising that, given the maintaining of the original roof, then it just seems like that option disappears. I'm not, I do hear the guideline, but I also, in having walked that area, very clear. I mean, there's a very large two and a half story brick building house on one side. It's it's quite a collection along that area in the house that's on the corner next to the alley is has a very similar kind of front porch and roof line area, except that that center section is a little larger, clearly original. um so it kind of gives a you know it's a little unfortunate that the one that you're dealing with is uh that much lower and not giving that option has there been any investigation about what creating more space on the first floor by expanding uh out uh would give you that would give you obviously more flexibility because then you're not dealing with raising height and you're not dealing with the visibility off of 6th Street. Yeah, there's definitely been, we've actually looked at a scheme, but it wasn't to add a bedroom. It was to add a living. There's kind of an addition that someone put on, which you'll see in the drawings. It's kind of a single shed roof, kind of, I'll call it a better term, but it was put on and the owner was talking about in original meetings about maybe eroding that with some more glass and kind of opening it up. And so there's discussion to that, but I think there could be a creative way. And one of the other things that was also talked about was making sort of a garage outbuilding that might have another bedroom in it or a space to live that might be part of that. There's a lot of land towards the back. So there's discussions about a concept like that. And that may be what we come back with at the eventual piece of this. The story is a young man moved here from New York City, had a one-bedroom apartment, got relocated here, single guy, wants to have a family, bought this house, wanted to live in a historic district, and kind of thought, oh, I've got this whole attic space that's doing. So, whoa, whoa, whoa, you know, there's a lot of things to this. So, he's kind of new to this sort of environment, and also having more space than he's ever had in his life. So, So we're slowly educating him on how to do this. But he's been very nimble and very trusting and saying, okay, if that's the process, that's the process. So that will be the discussion with him is how do you want to proceed with this? Because obviously some dollars are going to be spent to make this proposal, even if you all said, yeah, it's fine, go for it. Elevating that roof, even if it's to take a flat section or to continue to make the pyramid, adding the stair in, incising, all of it. There's quite a lot of work. By the time you end up doing all that, you might as well have just made a new first floor somewhere or an accessory structure or whatever out there. So that's definitely something that's up for discussion and I think we can have. But at present, he was trying to see if, you know, just within the existing footprint, he could utilize that space. So that's kind of, again, why we wanted to have a review discussion is to talk about it, because I was concerned a little bit at first, outset not knowing whether this was an original piece of the house and obviously looking next door as you did Susan and then I've worked on several houses on limestone that are similar to this that have the room we've done we've done attic finish fit fit ups inside of those so you know it was sort of like it's out there but it may not be the case for this house so that's kind of why we're here so I think um you know that that may be where we head with it if that's if that's what I'm what I'm hearing, which sounds like I am. Would you all like to see what Darren shared with, sent to me an email? Sure. This is the interior. That was a flat roof all the way across there. And we continued the slope up to create that. And that's a cow wall system. Now it's not thermally broken just by the nature of it being cowl, but it functions as it should in that space. And volumetrically, at night, basically, it looks like there's a lantern on top of the roof, but the shape of the roof is continuous. Sorry about this. There we go. You know, I don't dislike that as a concept, but I don't think it meets the guidelines, even though it does change it from a historic match trying to match the historical look of that roof line, it still is very much changing that roof line. So I don't think I would see that that would fall into the guidelines of changing that roof. I tend to agree. I think it would be hard to do a finding to go against the statement. It should be preserved in their original size and shape and pitch. Yep. In many ways, the cow wall almost accentuates that it makes it much more dramatic. I mean, which is very appealing visually. Yes. It doesn't solve the problem of the additional volume that you're adding to extending the original roof. So it sounds like so. So sort of what I'm hearing and just trying to make sure I'm clear on the direction is it sounds like we may need to go back to the drawing board and try to see what other creative way there is to add the desired program to the house in the consideration of an addition or accessory structure in looking at that. Yeah, I think so. I feel that is a good interpretation. And and really appreciate your bringing these questions and issues for this conversation. Well, no, I think I mean, I think this is a valuable process. And I, you know, sometimes I want to be doing this more. It's hard. You know, you don't have every not every client is willing to say, OK, let's take the time to do that. Right. Try to get it. So I appreciate the dialogue and the conversation with you all. And thank you for your time on it. And yeah, I think we'll go back to the drawing board and see kind of where we head with it. Thank you. Thank you. Look forward to seeing what you come up with. OK. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. All right. I believe that takes care of all of our cases, and I don't recall any minutes that need to be approved. They are not ready yet, so there are no minutes. Are there any other items we should discuss? Hearing none, I think we're ready for a motion to adjourn. I still moved. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. I saw the ocean's daughter Walking all the way she came Staring as she called my name And I can't get it out of my head No, I can't get it out of my head Now my old world is gone all day Cause I can't get it out of my head Right now On the shoreline And blue It's a leaptide Morning, don't get here tonight Searching for her silver fly And I can't get it out of my head