All right, so last item, I'll sound and see whether we need to have a hearing on it. 606 West Short Street, the scope of work is Construct Garage, is the applicant here? Yes. Come on up. It's probably that you're going to want to be heard on this one. The staff has recommended approval, but they had added two substantive conditions. The first being the front dormer step down and step in front of sides A1 and submit it back to staff. And the other is the final garage door details with a simpler design. Come back to staff. Are you agreeing with those? Yes, sir. Both of them? Very good. Along with the standard two conditions that I previously read in the record. Yes, I will meet with the staff and discuss those changes and we'll get them a revised version. Perfect, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, we're not quite done. Any questions or comments from the board members? Mm-mm. Questions or comments from the audience? All right, then I'm ready for a motion. Chair, per case 17170606-K at 606 West Short Street, I move that we approve the application of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and the following additional two conditions. One, the front dormer step down and step in front. the sides a one foot and submit it back to the staff. And the final garage door details with a simpler design come back to the staff. Do I have a second? Second. Ms. Armisoring, assist your application? Could I have an explanation as to what you meant by that first condition? Sorry. It is worded. It's worded a little. So the whole idea is to have that back dormer that comes out to be framed around the roof. So in a sense, as we typically say, we have dormer step in and step down from the edges of the roof. Well, it's the A1 foot. By one foot, is that what you mean? By one foot. There was a guideline that got taken into that. That was the clarification I was looking for. Okay. And I apologize, this was not in my package, so I missed it completely. All right, so with that clarification, are we ready for, the chair is ready to call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Did I get a second on that motion? Yes, I did. Opposed, no? The motion passes, and the COA as conditioned is approved, and thank you very much for your time. Thank you. All right. Okay. Okay. Returning now to 222 and 224 Arlington Avenue. And I need to have these, Amelia, is this your case? Barry? Okay. State your name for the record. Taryn Trott. Okay. explain to you briefly our procedure. Barry is going to go through the application and the findings that he has made. So I'd like for you to sit right there next to him. And then as soon as he finishes and he has questions from us then we'd like to hear from you as well. Mr. Chair, I do have a question since both of these applications are very similar. Should I present just one? Is the language identical with respect to both of them? Yes. In which case, yes. Basically, we're consolidating these into one hearing. Correct. And it is 222 and 226 Arlington Avenue. Thank you. for the fence. The fences are 32 inches high, constructed of pressure-treated four-by-four posts, and four four-quarter by five-and-a-half-inch horizontal boards that mimic a traditional horse farm fences that are constructed in rural areas of Fayette County. The guidelines are included for your use. Findings. Staff does not condone construction without a COA, And in this instance, the constructed fence does not comply with the guidelines. Staff finds that the use of a horizontal plank fence does not comply with three guidelines for site and setting, which states, site and setting contribute to the character of historic properties and help define the property's historic character and appearance. Guideline 3.1c, fences of wood pickets are appropriate for front yards. Wood fences in front yards should be no taller than four feet and have pickets no wider than four inches and set no further apart than three inches. Woven wire fences in front yards should also not be more than four feet tall. Additionally, guideline 360, development of open space should only or should only be developed in scale character with the neighborhood or designated historic landmark. The use of four pressure-treated four-quarter by five-and-a-half-inch horizontal boards creates an almost wall-like effect with a very low proportion of open-to-solid space, which does not meet guideline 36F, which states landscape elements and site elements should not be visibly intrusive or suggest a false sense of history. Additionally, the two proposed fences are the first front yard fences to be constructed on Arlington Avenue, although front yard picket fences do occur on East High and Maxwell Street. Staff recommends denial, and the deadline for board action is August 24, 2022. All right, thank you. Any questions for Barry? All right, Mr. Trott. I want to start off the discussion initially with how is it that you built the fence before getting a COA approved? I find my free time limited and I get very ambitious with my projects around the house. Well, unfortunately, this ambition may cost you a little bit. So, I mean, this is why we have the approval process, because the fence itself is not an appropriate design. I realize that you're trying to do an imitif of the Kentucky horse farms, but you don't live on a horse farm. Fair enough. And it's also, there's also another question. The order of the disapproval is sort of reversed. We need to first make a determination whether a fence on this street is even appropriate. because I happened to go up Arlington today, mainly because I was diverted by all the construction happening on High Street, and just realized that there are no fences whatsoever on the Arlington Street whatsoever. There are in other neighborhoods. Correct. But you have kind of an intact neighborhood that none of the front yards have been buffered off. Yeah. That said, I would like for you to go through your explanations why you would like to have a fence. Sure. and what kind of fence would be appropriate. The impetus for a fence was a lot of the foot traffic. And you need to speak more into the microphone. The impetus for the fence and both our fences was the degree of foot traffic, largely that we experienced across our yards. The vast majority of the street is actually rental properties. Myself and Mrs. Blake are probably one of four home owners on the street. We've seen development of some small apartment complexes, quadruplexes, etc. So there's a lot of turnover on the street. And inevitably, the residents of the street are probably not as conscientious of their properties as we are. And we see a lot of foot traffic. And that's to the point that we see a lot of debris and trash end up on our yards. We actually were developing, I guess, like pathways where people would cut through our yard to take shortcuts. So it was really to keep people out of our yard. In addition to that, we thought that a little bit of a fence there would prevent the inevitable, you know, people to actually go into our backyards, which actually only occurred about three weeks ago. I found someone in my backyard. So we thought the addition of a front fence may deter a little bit of that foot traffic. You know, there's a decent amount of foot traffic on the street that's not even residential. It's coming from downtown, et cetera. That was the idea behind the fence. Okay. And I noticed that you said in your application you are willing to switch it to a horizontal orientation as opposed to vertical. Yeah, I'm open to options. I'm backwards. I'm sorry. Vertical. Yes, vertical as opposed to horizontal. Yeah, and the comment of it being wall-like, I had considered dropping off a top rail if it would make it less imposing. That would be my preference, but I would also be willing to convert to a vertical fashion as well. So long as it's transparent, there's a good example of a fence that we just got through approving over on Ashland, which is also a corner lot, and that's why we went ahead and approved it. That's a picket fence design, and it's very transparent. it doesn't block it doesn't block the view i've taken photos of that house i mean i maybe to mimic it going forward so let's see what other questions we may have from the other board members uh sarah I'm not sure I have any questions. I think I'm more... Our comments. Our comments. I think I'm more wondering if it is appropriate to put fences on this street at all. I definitely think that if we decide that it is, that it needs to be a vertical picket fence, I think that the horizontal is very disruptive. But I didn't have a chance to walk down that street and really understand the feel of the street. So I think I'd like to understand that a little bit better. May I comment to that? Yeah. Unfortunately, the street is in pretty bad disarray. I mean, the vast majority of the homes are under-repaired. I know myself and Mrs. Blake are probably the only people actively putting any investment into the homes or maintenance of the homes. I have a lot of work. I still have a lot of work to do. My front porch is in decay, as many of the nearby houses are. So doing these projects and trying to, you know, invest in the home that I've had for seven years has been a large determining factor of even staying in the neighborhood versus avoiding the hassle of the work and the traffic in the neighborhood. So I guess then my question would be for staff. You said there's nothing on the street that has these fences in the yard, but the neighborhood does have, like the overall neighborhood does allow and have these fences in the yard. The guidelines do allow fences in front yards. the reason not would be the pattern of development, have fences existed there. If you do go down to the corner of Arlington and High Street, you will see fences that are pickets that have been approved by this board in the last five years. On Maxwell, there are, within the same historic district, there are picket fences more to the east. Some of those are visible from my front porch. Okay, Ms. Hill? So I'm comfortable with the construction of a fence on this property. I'm in agreement with the staff's review that the fence that has been installed is just not appropriate in an urban area. Though I do laud you for trying to upkeep your property and taking pride in it and strengthening the neighborhood as a consequence. That's all to be commended. but I'm not comfortable with leaving the horizontal fence as it is. I'm wondering, have you considered perhaps a more natural look in terms of maybe just hedges in front? That would do that buffer that you want that looks more natural as opposed to a fence that will be more visually dominant? Have you thought about that? There are some hedges. I should have bought larger ones because they're growing slowly. But there are some shrubs across the front to help soften that edge. Taxes bushes tend to tolerate very well. You can look over on Transfaney Park and see how several homes have given themselves that buffer by having a taxes hedge as opposed to a fence. Have you thought about that at all? Considering it and also kind of in accordance, I wouldn't mind, I'd be open to dropping the height of it as well. You know, it's that 34 inches or about and dropping it another 80 inches or something might make it less imposing. Actually, it looked odd to be that low. Or too low. Yeah. I mean, it has to have some definition to it. So just procedurally, if the board accepts the staff recommendations, what the process is for the applicant then to reinitiate a new application? I think that would be the process we would need. Is there a way to continue this one with a revised submittal? If we're okay with a picket fence going back and doing a vertical, would it not be approval pending final details going back to the staff on that fence? I think we do that. Barry? Yes, I believe that would be appropriate. I think you could take two of the horizontal boards off and use those for the stringers for the pickets. and the height to the top rail is 32, so with a little 32 inches. So with the pickets extending above that, it could be 36 to 48, which is allowed by the guidelines. I mean, no more than four foot, but you have playroom with that. You don't have to take it all the way up to four. I think if you try to take eight inches off the current look, it's too low. Okay. I think what we can do is not accept the staff's recommendation of disapproval, but instead write conditions into our COA requesting you to convert it from a vertical to a horizontal appearance. And also it would be no more than four feet and have a picket design and style. Okay. That's reasonable to me. Thank you. All right. Any questions or comments from the audience about this? My only concern is you're going to be the first fences on that street, but I recognize it's rental, and I understand your need to have some. Other people have put some temporary fencing up, but no one's actually installed anything. Just to be clear, do I need to submit a new visual design or something, and then it goes back? Okay, thank you. That's going to be specified in our motion, which I'm going to let Ms. Hill try. Thank you. You're welcome. Chair, are we ready? Yes. Chair, per case number 0061-0222-E at 222 Arlington Avenue, I move acceptance of denial of the proposal as submitted and add the following recommendations, that a revised proposal of this fence as a vertical picket be submitted as a drawing to be reviewed with the staff for acceptance and approval, plus the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second to that? Second. Is that clear enough to the staff? You could note to comply with Guideline 3-1-C. We need a finding as to why we're not accepting the disapproval. So I will amend my motion to add Guidelines 3-1-C. 3-1-C. Thank you. Along with the finding that we have determined that because there are fences in other neighboring neighborhoods, that this is appropriate for this neighborhood as well? Accepted. Okay. Do I have a second to that? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. So my follow-up question is that I only referenced the one case. Do I need to make a separate motion for the other case? Yes, you do. Yes. Can the motion be to copy the initial motion? It can be. Yes. Okay. All right. We're flexible on that. Chair, per case number 00610226-A at 226 Arlington Avenue, I move that we amend this application to match the motion for the previous case at 222 Arlington Avenue. All right. The provisions of our first finding being incorporated into this application as well. Accepted. Okay. All right. Second? Second. Okay. All right. I'll call. I'll do a separate. Do I have a second? I do have a second. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and that's the second COA is approved as well. Okay. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chair, if you could indulge me with respect to 326 South Broadway, we certainly would love to give a conceptual review if that would be helpful. Question is, did you want it today or next meeting or what's the preference of the board? Given how heavy our docket is today, if you wouldn't mind putting it off until the next meeting, that would be helpful. We can do that. Okay. Thank you. All right. So I need a couple of things. The application is due to be approved by, what's the date? September 13th. Our next board meeting is when? September 12th is the deadline. And that's a conceptual review. The 21st, I believe, is the next board meeting. Okay. What I'm going to do, I didn't open this case, So I think what we're going to do is postpone this one to our next meeting. You may need to sign a waiver. Sure. Be happy to. All right. Okay, so do I have a motion? And our next meeting is September 21? Okay, do I have a motion to that effect? So my only question is we're postponing this until next time, but we're postponing it for conceptual review, not for final approval. Actually, good point. Would you consider withdrawing this application and resubmitting it as a conceptual review? Or is that taking you one step too far? I think we can accomplish the same objective if I waive the time limit, Mr. Chair. I think what we're recognizing is this is a complicated application, and I'm not expecting us to be able to approve it at our next meeting, but you'll get good ideas from us as to how to move forward. Okay, that's fine. All right. We want to cooperate in every manner possible. Very good. Okay, so I have a motion to continue to postpone this proceeding to September 21st. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. And this will be for a conceptual review just so I'm clear. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. So where are we? We are now at 461 North Limestone. Is the applicant here yet? All right. Good afternoon. How are you? Good to see you all again. Good seeing you. This is 461 North Limestone, Mulberry Hill, Historic District. Scope of work is Construct New Garage. I will note your name is, for the record? Joey Nolasco with Integrity Architecture. Right, and I know that Mr. Costa is here as well. Correct. All right, so what we need to do is have a presentation from, whose is this? Amelia. Amelia? I will note that we've looked at the recommendations from staff and made a couple modifications to the design just out ahead of this meeting. We didn't get them in time to have them part, but it'll be at the end. and we're willing to... Well, I tell you what, let's narrow it down then. What exactly do we need to... Is it moving the garage forward? Yeah. So, yeah, there was a hackberry that was... Do you want to... I don't want to... Do you prefer a full hearing or... Well, that's what I'm trying to figure out. Okay. So, of course, based on the staff report, we've asked for them to move the garage forward and to off that hackberry tree and also to create some kind of visual break on the front mass and change the material of the garage. Okay, Joey, are you in agreement with respect to the materials itself and the additional details on the garage, are you in agreement with those? Yeah, we've already began that process. All right, so let's just talk about moving it away from the hackberry. Correct. All right. Okay, Mel, you have your marching orders now. In terms of your making your presentation with regard to why you think it needs to be moved 12 feet. Yeah, we're in agreement with moving. Oh, are you? Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We're fine. We're fine with everything that's been recommended here, and we've already began the process of looking at it. So we've got a revised site plan that we submitted, but we just didn't get it in time to be part of this hearing. Well, here I was expecting a fight. You don't want to fight. Well, it's kind of putting the garage back in the original location where we had it. I think we've done some things architecturally and worked with planning, and we've got some relief between the garage and the existing structure. The tree was significant. You know, Mr. Costa, he wants to save the tree if he can, and where we originally had it was some slight modifications. Like I said, a little more breathing room that planning allowed us. I think we can make it all work. Okay, so just to be clear, the staff has recommended, number one, the material should have a more residential appearance, but yet contemporary with, I can never say this word. Cementation. Materials with final details submitted prior to issue of COA. Are you in agreement? We're in agreement. Number two, the garage moved forward 12 feet so the tree is protected. We're in agreement. Number three, there should be an eyebrow or overhang between the top of the garage and the gable to break up the mass. Also over the main door, each of those to be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to construction. Agreement? Yes, sir. And then the standard two conditions, which I've read previously into the record. If any changes are made, that alternate information. Submit it. Resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. and 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. We have begun that process. All right. Very good. Any comments or questions from the board members? Sounds good. Any questions or comments from the staff or from the audience? Okay, I think we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 11660461-N at 461 North Limestone, I move we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the five conditions you already read into the record. Okay. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. The COA is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so now turning to 354 South Upper Street. And I'll stop assuming. I assume that you proposed a total concrete driveway, and the staff is recommending a two-track system. You want to be heard on that? So I was wanting to pave the entire driveway, and there currently is a two-track system. But I was wanting to see... Pick up the mic so we can hear you. Sorry about that. So I was wanting to pave it. There's currently a two-track system, but I was wanting to see if I could possibly find a compromise with the two-track system has deteriorated significantly. So I was wondering if I could possibly, because it has grass in the center and grass on both sides, if we could still pave it but have two brick lines to show a two-track system. So it would still be a paved driveway, but it will show bricks instead of concrete. I was wondering if that's possible. I think what we probably need to do is let's let's say Mr. Let's let's say Barry go ahead and do his presentation or is this Amelia's? Amelia is this your case? Let's go ahead and do the findings first. Oops. So, of course, this is the structure, and there's a car right there that's indicating the driveway. So the driveway is here, and so the applicant wants to change this to solid concrete, and we've asked that he change only a car length to be solid, and the rest be the two-track system back there. And what he's suggesting is to give the illusion of the two-track system is to pave his desired width, which is nine feet, and then have two tracks that would be in brick to go back. And that's what his request is, his most recent request. His previous request was to pave the whole of the drive. And, of course, guidelines are included for reference. The driveway proposed to be paved is 9 by 65 feet. Staff finds the proposal to pave a solid drive and eradicate the two-track system needs to be further discussed. Guidelines 3, 5D, State Driveways should include concrete tracks where characteristics of the property of the historic district staff suggests that the two-track system be retained, but we do recommend that at least a 10-foot section of solid drive pass the sideway B included as far as the turn-in and out of that property. Guidelines, or the recommendations, our staff recommends approval of paving the parking area with the two-track system being retained in the standard two conditions. So to ask a question real quick, But in terms of upper street, are the driveways such as most of these houses don't have driveways, do they? Correct. There's the majority of the driveways lead into larger structures, such as going into the South Limestone with the Kimball House Square. You have the one across the street that has leading into a larger apartment building in the backside. So there are some more two-track systems on South Hill Street, mostly in the 400 block, but there are some in the 300 block, which is the area between Maxwell and Pine Street. But the majority do not have driveways. But the ones that do, there are a couple of two-track systems. Okay. So the first 10 feet leading from the front sidewalk would be solid. And then you want to retain the two-track system. Mr. Kibbutt wants to have a solid mass but flank it with brick, correct? That's his latest proposal is his compromise. But I think what he'd be saying now is that the brick would be all the way brought to the sidewalk. and it would be concrete and then the two-track system would be in brick all the way from the sidewalk to the back of that rear window you see. And if there's a little plan, hold on to see. There. So that's what it would look like? My previous proposal. Right. That's his previous proposal, and it's scale-wise, that's not necessarily exactly nine feet. But he's only allowed within the infill area to pave less than, like, only 10 feet in width. And how do you all feel? And how does the staff feel about that? Staff still would want to be consistent with the retaining of any kind of two-track system historically, and also, you know, we're very conscious of too much paving in areas where there hasn't been paving before. I'll note for the record, we do have a letter from 356 South Upper that's concerned about the runoff and stormwater drainage if you have that much mass. I've been working with Boer for a number of years. Typically, if you start off with a two-track system, we tend to stay with a two-track system. We don't allow it to change out. It's frankly more visually appealing than a solid mass of concrete. But that's just my personal comment. Comments from him? Yeah, so my only question is that the area in which you're talking about putting brick to kind of visually break it up, whether the use of the suggested turf or pavers that would both visually break it up and provide for better drainage than a solid brick, whether that would be of interest to you to consider. I'm sorry. So are you saying for like instead of having the grass have pavers in between? Yeah, I think that. So I don't. Okay. So I guess your alternate proposal is still to pave the driveway in concrete but put bricks where to imitate the two paving system. So you're still paving the whole thing? Yeah. Okay. I could put a French drain in on her side to prevent any water from going into her basement. I understand that's a concern. And have that go to the street. Hopefully that will be able to mitigate that issue. Okay. Now I'm puzzled. Why do you want to go to all that expense? I mean, why not just do the... Because it's been, usually when it rains, it's just muddy and pretty bad. And it just, it doesn't look good. It's pretty broken up. I know there's a car park there, but it doesn't look good at all at this moment. Well, once you redo it and bring in some good sod and get that interior strip grassed up, then that should go, the mud issue should go away. Sorry. Is this single family or rental? Single family. Single family. So I'm going to ask Susan a question then, because I think what you were trying to imagine was that he would still do concrete tracks and then put permeable pavers that allow the grass to grow to help stabilize the grass on each side of the track is what you were trying to express. But allow drainage to occur also. So it still looks like a two-track system, but you have some stabilization of the grass in between. So it's not being worn down and turned into a mud hole, right? Similar to what the letter, pictures of what the letter kind of showed with. That's right. So that you'd still have that grass infill, but you would have a structure that would allow water runoff and help protect the grass from just being torn up. Yeah. Okay. The other point we were thinking of here is the fact that the back part of that driveway actually has no paving. And I wondered if you, per our suggestion, that you have solid in the front, then the two-track, and then maybe perhaps have solid in the back where you park a car. Would you consider that? Yeah. I'll be okay with the recommendations that you've given. Is there any possibility instead of 10 feet have 20 feet? Because it's a 40-foot track, the two-track system is 40 feet. Would that be possible? I'm sorry. I'm getting lost. So we're saying there would be a solid section of concrete at the front of the drive, or is that at the back of the drive where you park? Well, I was proposing the front so you won't run out your tires. So you pull in and you have solid and then it goes to the two track system. Correct. And then perhaps where there's no paving in the back where the two track system's lost, there's probably about, what, 10 feet or something like that? Yeah. That perhaps if you were going to park there. You could put solid there too. Okay, got it. And what was your recommendation for how long that two solid pavement at the beginning would be, 10 feet? It would probably be to, because there's a strange sidewalk that comes down onto this area. So it would be pretty much to, we sort of suggest like half car length or car length. Okay, that makes more sense than 10 feet to me. Thank you. So am I hearing any kind of consensus? So it seems like to me that this discussion could still fall completely under item number one and to review the neighbor's concerns so that that's tied in with what the final solution is. I think what you're trying to say is that the condition that says retain the two-track system, we're not defining what that means exactly with the final details coming back to staff for review I think you've gotten some suggestions as to how to do that but still retain a two track system and submit those details to staff for review and if there's still disagreement come back to us with the consideration of these turf pavers exactly if someone wants to add that into the condition that's fine But I think it's Sarah's turn now. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 19450354-C at 354 South Upper Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with final details of the two-track system going back to the staff for review and approval, and that may include some permeable turf lock, I was going to say turf stabilization details, and the two standard conditions. Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? I think I jumped over the audience. Any questions or comments about this application? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes and the COA is conditioned is approved. Good discussion. Thank you. Okay. This is sort of an off record. Is Suzanne going to be able to make it? Have you heard from her? She said 5 or 5.30. It's 5.04, so. Can you text her, see where she's at? I can team her. Yeah. Do what now? All right, we could, well, hmm. We still have 128 South. I know, that's the, who is here for 128 South? over there. We would like to have the other board member. This is a fairly significant application. I see where you're going. And so if you wouldn't mind, there is a conceptual review we could do first. I mean, technically, we could bring this up now. It's up to you guys. Whichever is easier for you guys. Do we know for a fact that Sarah is coming? Suzanne, rather. We know for a fact that Suzanne's coming. Okay. Ah, she's on the road. Speak of the devil. You could not have cued that better. All right. Okay. All right. Suzanne, we are at 128 South Ashland Avenue. I'll give you a moment to settle in. Thank you. I think what we'll need to do is just go ahead for the staff presentation first. I'm assuming that you won't be heard on the entire application. Yes. All right and let me just read into the record the suggested conditions that the existing hemlocks be retained are in agreement with that although I saw rather severe pruning of the hemlocks in the front yard and rather it's one section might well just be taken out because you've stripped off all the branches. The other is the addition be reduced in size and width to move away from the tree and resubmit it to the review. And that's been clarified. There is a tree that they're trying to protect as well in the back. And then the standard two conditions. So I'm assuming that the focus of our findings is going to be on the addition to be reduced in size and width, correct? Yes, sir. All right, and state your name for the record, please. Peter Carew with My Old Kentucky Home Repair. All right, and you, ma'am? Sarah Price with My Old Kentucky Home. All right. Okay, Suzanne, are you ready? I am. Very good. Let's have the staff presentation then. You'll take a seat. So, wait for Chris here to bring up the images. So, Chair, I will note that our site plan does not show the trees. There actually is a site plan. It's very tiny that does show the trees. But it's tiny. Point me in the right direction if it's that tiny. I will tell you so you can look at this. All right. I think I saw it on A01. It is on A01.1. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And there's trees that are noticed, but they only say they're deciduous trees. But then if you look at the site plan at the bottom, number one, it shows the location of the trees. Amelia, if you could, I don't know why I have problems hearing you, if you could use the handheld mic, if that's possible. Yes. Is it on? It is. Can you hear me? Yes, much better. Thank you. Okay, very good. All right, I'm going to walk through some images real quick and discuss a couple of things specifically with the trees. and if you know I'm going to point up here just so you know. So this is taken from the real estate photograph of the trees and the structure of last fall. And you can see and I would just want to point out that one of these hemlocks has been truncated at this particular point on the right side or the southeast side. and then sort of walking you through. And then, of course, this is the spring of the shear. Oops, sorry. And you can see the trunk had been taken down to this level, and these two trees that had been, there's a rod between these trees holding them together. and you can see again the location of the trees and the porch again on the east side sorry this is sort of wonky everybody go to the side and then walking down the driveway there is there are two additions on the structure i want to point out The fact that there's a masonry addition here that was added in probably late 1920s that is proposed to be removed. And the one from the 1980s, which is also proposed to be removed. If you look at the site, this tree here is a walnut tree. There's a little small little sprout that's less than 10 inches in diameter, which our program does not look at trees less than 10 inches in diameter for review. And then this is a mulberry tree, and then this is the white oak in question. This existing paving was already here. And there are two trees back here, but those are not part of the discussion today. and then this is taken from the zelo photographs showing it before they did some trimming of some um um overgrown bushes back here and this is sort of taking from the site looking forward um the new owners of this turn the century cottage are planning to rehab the existing structure and construct a new addition. The owners first began by trimming and removing trees. Unfortunately, they did not obtain a certificate of appropriateness permit to remove some of the trees, to stop the work, and they were hemlocks, as we discussed, flanking the front porch. Some of these trees were in the process of being removed. At this time, the owner applicant are requesting to conduct the following work, remove two additions, construct connector with rear elevation and construct a new addition in decks. The proposal calls to remove the two additions, and as we just pointed out, the 1981 addition that does have a chimney, which is part of that construction in that time period. The others are 1920s porch that were replacing an addition that was replacing a porch, and then changing an existing door that's on the side back into a window. The proposal calls and next calls for the construction of one and a half story structure. This addition will be connected by a two story connector. The plans call for removal of the pair of windows and dormers and to construct a new opening on the new connector. The connector will have a low slope with a vertical fiber siding cladding system and double doors leading to connect to the northeast side and out on the deck and the connector will be approximately 11 by 19. and i'll show you what we're proposing here so as you can see that there's a door we're here on the existing and that's proposed to be removed with this connector that approximately be 11 by 19 with two double doors leading out into a deck system in this location The addition will consist of one and a half story addition that rises higher than the connector but is lower than the main roof. It is a gable roof addition with shed roof dormers on either side of the gable. The dormer will be a dimensional shingle with hardy lap siding. It will have a six inch reveal and the windows will be one over one with the foundation being blocked. The addition is approximately 30 by 31 and there are three paired doors leading out into a rear deck that spans the length of the house. and and of course you have these plans at your desk but just so you can see these are the schematics talking about connector in the roofs and there's that one plan that shows the proposal with this roof being lower than the main roof and the two double doors leading here and then the three door systems leading out onto the rear deck. And of course, part of this proposal is to remove those three trees in the back as well, which are the walnut, white oak, and mulberry tree. Guidelines are included for your reference. this structure and site has been in the same family for most of its existence the house and site are pretty pristine as far as very little changes have been made and the structure is a very good example of a combs lumber company house with very few changes that have been made to alter the identity of the site and the structure in discussion with the trees the removal of the trees is not within the guidelines healthy trees larger than 10 inches in diameter should be retained. Oh, sorry. I meant to start off with a different phrasing here. Tim Query, the tree harvest, has reviewed the condition of all these trees on site. We actually went out this morning to have conversations just sort of to relate to you what he was discussing, and we found that the removals of the hemlock trees specifically should be looked at closely because the healthy trees larger than 10 inches in diameter should be retained while the trees are close to the front porch. The trees are healthy and show no signs of decline. Guidelines 3, 6, G, state trees with trunks greater than 10 inches in diameter should not be removed unless diseased or unsafe. According to this discussion with arborists, hemlocks of this age and size are rare. and unique. Typically, hemlocks do not do well with too much earth movement. These hemlocks of this size and healthy condition are big indicators of the original form and historic nature of the structure and site. In addition, the three trees impacted by the proposed addition should be looked at. Staff is concerned with the removal of the white ash tree. The walnut tree will be affected by demolition or any kind of earth movement anyway given the nature of a hem of the walnut tree and finally the the mulberry tree is not in very good condition and it is deteriorating but staff finds the it should this should be a white oak not a white ash should be retained but the walnut in the mulberry tree could be removed based on the guidelines 3 6g as stated above demolition while this structure has very little change to the front mass, there are two additions on the rear with structural problems. The proposal to demolish the two additions are within the guidelines. Both additions are in poor condition. The 1980s additions in severely deteriorated condition, its removal will not be detrimental to the structure of the streetscape. In the 1920s addition, while earlier it does have major foundation problems and is pulling away from the structure, its removal will not be detrimental to the overall character of the property and streetscape. The structural engineer's report is included in this plan and guidelines 6 A and D say demolition should only occur at slash resort after avenues to protect historic buildings and structures have been exhausted and demolition of structure and buildings should not be detrimental to the character scale, rhythm, design, and importance of the group of buildings and streetscape district. Connector, while staff does find the addition is appropriate for the structure because it does leave the original structure in place and calls for only a small connector to connect the new addition. Staff does find that the proposed addition does meet the guidelines of 2A4, which states addition should be built in the manner to avoid substantive removal and loss of historic materials, which should be proposed to be damaged or destroy the main architectural features. the proposal to construct the new two-story connectors within the guidelines however as proposed staff finds the addition should be reduced in depth and width to reduce the mass in the overall scale this is one of the few structures in the street that is only really one and a half story structure and any addition needs to be respectable the size and the existing structure in the lot while working for months with the applicant accepted work with months with this applicant while the approach has been more respectful and less intrusive to the main mass the house staff finds the concern about the footprint of the addition design principle for room and wing addition states in planning additions overall approach to the place the addition where they have the least impact of the building's overall form and plan and the rear building is the best location for additions of room and wings and as well and as i stated before staff has worked with the applicant to reduce the overall size and addition and has lowered the main mass of the house and the pyramidal roof. It's still sizable addition. Because it's using connector, it means it elongates the footprint for the proposed construction. Staff suggests that addition be reduced in length and width to meet the guidelines regarding the use of site coverage, referring to 360, which states open space should be developed in scale and character with the neighborhood and designated historic district. The hardy plank siding and columnar cloud windows are appropriate. Staff suggests that this hardy plank be smooth and not replicate the idea of wood. Guidelines 2B1K states that architectural details include corner boards, rake boards, corners, brackets, downspouts, railings, columns, steps, dormers, moldings, decorative elements, and installation of ornament details should not provide an invitation history. historic appearance. The proposed porches and decks are appropriate at 3A1A and 3A13B and state that located the rear buildings and being compatible with the building's structure, architectural style, and not being of an earlier time period. Recommendations. staff recommends to dial the removal of the hemlocks and staff recommends approval of the post construction of the following condition the existing hemlocks be retained the addition be reduced in size and move away from the white oak and resmit for review to the BOAR for final details prior to the of COA and the standard due conditions once reviewed by the other LPC divisions submit any changes in staff prior to approval of the work and the standard number four. Do the board members have any further questions? Any questions? And I'll just go through just so we can see some more elevations here. As you can see this is the main structure up to this particular window and then this is the connector and then the proposed addition with the deck and there's a ramp system within that deck system and here are some sections through that to show the connector of the stairs in the proposed addition and then some schematics showing from the street And here is some schematics. And of course the applicants are present. Thanks. Of course, the recommendation to you is to try to reduce the size of this addition. I saw your letter, and I understand there's some issues with the headroom on the second floor. Is there a way to reduce the size of this? So it really starts to impact the living spaces and the upstairs, the proposed upstairs addition, when we're shrinking it by two or four feet, the way that that configuration works really kind of messes with the program that we've developed. Because the goal was not to disturb the historic structure in any way as to add dormers or anything like that to make the bedrooms that are upstairs and really don't have the proper head height. So the goal was to get some of that living space with the addition since we were going to be adding the addition on anyway to get the first floor space. All right. Any questions? I'm sure there are. They're just studying. I'm not the architect here. I'm the lawyer. While you guys are looking over that, if you don't mind, we had a couple of comments. The whole argument, we just found out about the trees this morning. As Amelia just said, they just met with the arborist today. So that piece of information in regards to shrinking the structure is new to us, so I don't have a great response to that other than, similar to our request with the hemlocks, is that we could find a way to get some larger caliper trees in there and help regrow that canopy after these additions and modifications are made. But basically, to summarize before you, we've developed numerous, with the historic preservation folks, we've worked for a few months to come up with this proposed design. And really that connector gives it the breathing room from the original historic structure. But the proposed addition is 550 square feet smaller than the existing house, which meets design guidelines 100 item B. The proposed addition is set back from the existing footprint on both sides by two feet, which exceeds the guidelines in page 100 item B. The proposed addition is 2 foot 6 inches shorter in height than the main ridge of the existing structure and 4 foot 6 inches shorter than the highest peak of the existing, which again makes it subservient. The connector and the addition will be clad in material, a cementitious material, which defines those from the new construction to the existing. and then we don't create any new openings within the existing structure and reuses the existing openings as indicated on the plan and that meets the design guidelines on page 100 items F and G. So we feel like we've made it smaller and subservient and we understand where the staff's coming from of still trying to make it smaller. We're just running into issues with all of the things that we're trying to accomplish as well as meeting all of the guidelines in place. Okay. Ms. Hill? So in reviewing the challenges of reducing the size, and I do commend the months of work that you all have been doing with the staff. Thank you. The place that I would kind of focus my questions has to do with that connector piece. The stairways are quite wide stairways. Whether that is a place that some compression could take place without the second floor spaces are challenging to reduce them by very much. and be able to have a bed in there. But that circulation connection piece seems to be the one place there is some potential to be able to, which would move it away from that white oak, basically, would give you a little more distance from that tree. Understood. And part of the reason for the larger set of stairs in the rear was the original set of stairs are very steep and narrow. So this was really kind of a more functional, usable access to the entire second story. Just as a, I'm not saying that we couldn't find room in there, but we kind of made them extra big so that, you know, furniture and access from the second story to the first story was much easier. So it's not really about kind of tread depth. It's really about the width of it. Yes, yes. But that is an area where we could explore trying to squeeze as much as we can. Get off that white oak. Yes, ma'am. Do we know what dimension you would have to make it shorter in order not to get into the tree line and get into that tree and save it? Again, since that just came up this morning, I haven't been out there with a tape measure to kind of mark off exactly where that would be. Is the white oak, how much bigger than 10 inches is the white oak? Do we know? Your architect has made the dimensions very tiny, but I believe the tree is 18 inches. in diameter. There is dimensions on this? Yes. I had to use a magnifying glass. I want to say it is the Walnut 24 and then the, I believe it's 18 inches. And then the Mulberry is 30. Any further comments or questions? It does seem like that it would be helpful to have the scale of that, since that white oak is now in contention, to be able to have it accurately on a floor plan in conjunction with looking at reducing that connector and see how those pieces all fit together. Okay. And I think we would be very open, too, because I know we had shown some decks on the back, and that was just kind of where those doors kind of flow into the backyard. So I think modifying some of that as well to accommodate for saving that, we would absolutely be open to that. Because to be honest with you, as the layperson just looking at it, it reads like a duplex, that separate addition with the connector. And there's a similar construction that was done on Transamante Park, which led to an uproar by the neighbors when we realized we were R2, and suddenly this enormous, it was smaller than the main mass, but not much. And it read, and in some ways this property is reading the same way. It reads like a duplex to me. It doesn't read like an addition. Do you follow what I'm saying? I do, and the only reason that we have the connector and pushed it farther back is because we're trying to maintain the original historic structure and not tie in roof lines there. So balancing those two things is part of the reason why it feels like it pushes farther back. And that's appreciated. I think Susan may have given you some suggestions. I think you can make that a little narrower. And still not tie into the historic roof, which I appreciate. It's such a wonderful little historic building that it would be so fabulous to be able to bring it back to life. We agree. And to have it right there in that prominent location on South Ashland. Sure. So at my hearing, do you want to take these? We sort of did a conceptual review with you for lack of a better word. Do you want to take these suggestions back and study them? and we'll just continue this proceeding to the next month? I think that makes sense. So with an updated site plan that shows. That would help too. I think we need to have a better idea. Yeah. And also. Scale. The trees. The trees. Yeah, particularly the white oak. Sure. Its actual size so that we can understand, excuse me, how it works. And I'm not sure who's controlling. I saw a workman today. I do have another question. I'm sorry, Susan. Excuse me. Go ahead. With the hemlocks being so close to that front porch, I mean, I'm just looking at them from photographs. It's been butchered. Pardon? It's been butchered as of today. I'm not concerned about the butchering of it as much as I am trying to retain that being that close to the front porch. Are you saying it's inappropriately cited or the other way around? I think I'm not sure. I don't know how we. Well, let me ask you this. I don't know that that should be a condition to keep the two. Okay. Now I understand where you're coming from. I would see that being more of a potential damaging factor to the historic structure than a contributing factor to it. Okay. That would be my concern. That's my question, concern, comment. I think we need updated photographs of how the trees have been already pruned. Amelia showed the pictures of what had been done. As of today? And I will say that that was our concern, is that they are touching the corners of that house. Sarah, can you speak a little closer to the microphone? I'm sorry. I was going to say that was our concern, is that they are touching the corners, the edges of the house, and were on the building. Yes. And the hemlock to the right was the main service, electric service for the house running right through the middle. So it had been pruned over the years to wrap around that service line. So the argument of we should have been here to get a certificate of appropriateness to remove those is moot because we should have done that. But we're here now, and I would agree with you, Ms. Irwin, about the trees. But our main argument or concern today was more about the, you know, if the trees have to stay, the trees have to stay. But it was more about the addition in the back. Well, and I think what's being suggested is perhaps we won't insist that the trees be retained. If there's a proof that the trees are actually causing damage to the house, I will note that I think the concern about one of the hemlocks touching has already been taken care of because it's been pruned. to the point where it just needs to be, that bowl just needs to be taken out. If we have these pictures. I believe there are still areas where the hemlocks are still touching the eve line. Can we not get the pictures up? Excuse me. Okay. This is today. Yeah, I wish you had taken a picture from this front sidewalk because it would show better to the left, the other set of him. Yeah, there we go. As you can see, the one furthest to the left is gone. I mean, it's dead. The other one I don't think is damaging and may be actually now appropriately pruned and can be retained. One that's closest to the house on that side? Right, but it leans away from the house. But we can take that up at the next meeting. Okay. Probably fresh photographs would help. and? Well, these are today. Okay, all right. So what is, I mean, the root system of those trees, how close is the base of that trunk to the foundation of the porch? It looks like it's less than 18 inches. For sure less than two feet. So the porch is wood and it's actually quite a bit of ways from the foundation, the masonry foundation. The foundation of the front, the footing for that front porch column is 18 inches. There's a footing there for that column? Under that column there is kind of a post there. Kind of a kind of a footing. You know what I mean? Yes, I have one. Well they didn't really have footers back then. I think what I like what I suggest you do is bring an argument to us as to whether this tree is causing damage to the house and let's consider it. Because here's the crux of it. These trees were originally meant to be decorative shrubs and they grew up and were never touched again after they were planted by the original landscaper and we've had this problem all over town. I have seen my neighbors next door have large hemlocks that they did a very nice job pruning and they're real close to the house but they're not causing any problems for the house. And they retain the character because a hemlock can really change the character of a property over years. So we can make that up at the next meeting. So our next meeting is September 21st. Since we have started this hearing, we're continuing this hearing. So can I have a motion to the effect that we continue to September 21st? Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. Ms. Ealing, you're absolutely right, and I apologize. I got ahead of myself. Let's hear the comments from the neighbors. I apologize. I got ahead of myself. To be honest with you, I thought you were here for the Woodford conceptual review. It's okay. All right. I'm Barbara Edelman. I live at 125 South Hanover Avenue. I'm the backyard of that. Oh, okay. If you look out my backyard, you get to see the two gigantic white trailers that have been there for months. They are used as a staging area. for the My Old Kentucky Home Remodeling Shop. Every morning, their trucks come in, they load, they unload equipment, and they go to other jobs. That's what my backyard looks at. That's been going on for quite some time. Now, My Old Kentucky Home apparently is allegedly the applicant here. I don't know. They don't own the property anymore. It's been transferred two times since January. Apparently, a Derek Darlington owns the property. I notice he's not here. We've had trouble with this property for years. I know that some of you are familiar with it, and you may think, well, what difference does it make? These people have come along, and they're ready to do something. We should all give them a round of applause. It's kind of hard to feel that way. When I went through this process six and a half years ago, as Mr. Dickinson knows, I came down here four or five different times, submitting and resubmitting, trying diligently to meet the guidelines, to do what was expected, to try and follow the guidelines and do the right thing. I asked at one point to demolish a garage. I was told absolutely not. And to the credit of this committee, I finally just swallowed and said, okay, I'm going to spend $20,000 to repair it structurally. because it does have historical significance and it should remain. I've stood here or sat out here today and listened to, there's a 100-year-old addition on the back of this house, and because it has fallen into disrepair, it needs to go. Really? That's it? There's no consideration over maybe somebody needs to fix that, Maybe it should be salvaged. But because the property was allowed to fall into disrepair, and everybody is very familiar with the saga of Betty Kerr and what's gone on as the executive director owning the house next door in this house, both of those homes have fallen into disaster bill. So, yes, the back of this house is now in disrepair. The addition would be extremely expensive for somebody to salvage, save, and repair. So because it's been allowed to deteriorate and because it's been allowed to turn into literally an infested mess, it becomes very easy to come to this committee and say, let's lop off the back and just disregard the 100-year-old addition. it got no consideration as anything that should be salvaged. So what's getting ready to happen? You nailed it. This is a duplex. They're taking the front of the house and they're building a big box on the back. And that's my backyard. Now I know for years, because I have good friends over in the Mount Vernon area, and they tried to get their H1 years ago and they weren't successful over in the Tremont area. The problem is the landlords that were coming in and building the big boxes on the back, and then they were renting them out to the U.K. students. And everybody said, we need to stop that. And one of my good friends led the charge to try and stop it and get the H-1 designation, and she was unsuccessful. But nonetheless, the landlords were coming in and building the big box on the back, and they then had a great rental unit, and away we go. Now I'm standing here in an H-1 district, and that's happening. Now this is zoned R-2. I looked it up, and I was a little surprised. So apparently there is an ability to have a duplex. But let's talk about what is really being proposed here. Is this a duplex? Then what is the need for a connector? What is the need to have an independent box on the back and have a house in the front? Why wouldn't we have an addition that actually is encompassed with the house in some sort of meaningful way that adds to the grace and beauty of that home and the neighborhood? Instead, we're going to have house in front, some sort of weird connector, and box in back. And we don't want to reduce the box because we need more space, because we need this, because we need that. And oh, by the way, let's take the trees out. There have been the trees have already been taken out. I had one of those wonderful days where you look up and somebody is chainsawing in the back. And you run out back and you're like, guys, what are you doing? We're taking down these trees. It's what they did. They didn't come down here first. They just stripped out the trees. Well, as the person who lives behind them, that gives me the straight shot to the back of that house, which has been a boarded up disaster with giant no trespassing signs. And now we've added the trailers. And it's been like that for a very, very long time. I know the current, well, I don't know. who the current owner is, but the people that purchased this from Ms. Kerr, they cleared the lot, that's to their credit, they removed a ton of garbage, that's to their credit. There's at least been some cleaning up of something, but the bottom line is, what is really being proposed and how does that aid this neighborhood? Now I'm not the only one. We have others here that may speak, may not speak. There's a lot a buzz in the neighborhood over how unfortunate this is and what a mess this is and is this really an improvement. I submit to you that what's going on prior is a good suggestion of what will be happening after if this is approved. It's nice that somebody wants to do something but they're proposing excessively large addition. They've had the opportunity to work with the staff and downsize. They haven't. They haven't been willing to. They really have started activity without a permit. All of that business with the trailers being parked there, what's that all about? Why is that going on? Why do they behave that way? Why do they go in and cut trees down without approval? If this is a professional outfit, and I did notice that they've got six or eight different other properties that they own that are no doubt rental properties around town, they would know to come down here and get these approvals. And when Mr. Carew stood here and said, well, yeah, we didn't get the COA and that's behind us and whatever, what a great way to operate. Just plow ahead, do whatever, and then afterwards just sort of say, well, I guess that happened. It's being used as a staging area. There have been code violations. The trees have been butchered. Things have been done without approval. I now have a view of basically a truck parking zone. I have a daughter getting married in three weeks in my backyard. Come on, people. This is not a good faith effort to come in and do what needs to be done in this neighborhood. The rest of us did it. And we did it diligently, and it cost a lot of money, and the do-overs cost me a lot of money. I had to change architects to get in compliance. And this is being done in a haphazard way that isn't fair. They're taking down a hundred-year-old structure. My understanding is they're taking down two chimneys, and I don't believe that that was pointed out in the report. I might be wrong about that. But one of the reviews from one of our other neighbors said two of the chimneys are being removed. I distinctly remember asking to remove a chimney and being told absolutely not. And if I'm wrong about that, then shame on me. but my understanding is they are asking to take down two chimneys. That directly goes to the integrity of the historical development of this building. And maybe I should just ask, is that correct, sir? I believe it's just more on the floor of the issue. I'll tell you what, I'll let you address those comments in just a moment. Okay. So I just don't know why we would do that, and now we're going to extend with this connector to get this box further back. And when you move the box further back, then lo and behold, you have to take all the trees out. Well, you know, we're just multiplying the problems. That box doesn't need to be extended out into the yard where it's going to impact more trees. It doesn't need to be extended because of a so-called connector. It doesn't need to be as large as they're proposing for it to be. Because where is this headed at the end of the day? I don't know that anybody believes this is going to be a single-family residence. I mean, maybe I'm going to get an Airbnb in my backyard. Maybe I'm just going to get rental property. I don't know what I'm going to get. But I'm not too happy about it. And I do think this does all go to the integrity of what is the H-1 supposed to be all about. And I realize a lot of the past problems, maybe you say, well, that shouldn't be the fault of new purchasers. But I guess I'm repeating, they're not exactly off to a very good start. So I kind of regret that you're going to extend this until the next meeting. I know that means we need to come again. But at the very least, I thought, maybe somebody really needs to hear, this really shouldn't just be okay, make it a little bit smaller and let's roll. Maybe somebody needs to say, go fix that 100-year-old addition, because we really shouldn't treat things like that so lightly so that he can build a big box. You wouldn't want it in your backyard. I sure don't want it in mine. Thank you very much. Other comments? Yes, ma'am. And I'll allow the applicant to reply after all the comments have been made, and we've had, I think, maybe some additional information from the staff. Go ahead, ma'am. And state your name for the record, please. Jane Childs, and I live in the property directly south of the 128. I live at 132 South Ashland. It is a four condominium building. And we have had such great hopes. Our hopes were really just about as high as they could possibly be when Ms. Kerr sold this property. It's really been tragic living next door to it and watching just over the last seven years that I've been there, watching things deteriorate. And then the rat infestation, which has cost us thousands of dollars the day that we brought the company out to... If we could stay focused on the application as opposed to the deteriorated condition, please. Okay, I'll do that. Thank you. We do support the staff recommendation with regard to the smaller footprint for the addition. And we are, in addition to that, we are very concerned that with the types of disregard that has already happened since the property was sold in January and then sold two more times since then, the disregard to cutting down the trees, and then also just the whole business of the staging area for construction. So for us, we want your scrutiny of this to be absolutely as strong as you can possibly make it, because there is an expectation that something will happen here, And we really want you all to assure us that the people who are doing this will abide by what it is that this commission approves. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other comments? If you'll state your name for the record, please. Dina Archie, I live at 118 South Ashland next to 124 South Ashland. My question is, which you said, like with the hemlocks, if they had been taken care of, if the house had been taken care of, if 124 had been taken care of, and why hasn't this been taken care of in the first place? Why has it been let into such a pithole? I think there may be some confusion. With code enforcement, that's a different agency. We do not do code enforcement issues per se. We have always had difficulties with properties that have not received the proper attention. But we are not really empowered to do anything about that. the issue about whether it's being used inappropriately as a staging area for my old Kentucky home is an issue that probably needs to be taken up with code enforcement? And I do call code enforcement on a regular basis. And I am told by cash that there's only so much he can do. He finds some of them are paid, some are not paid, but that is all he can do. So I just wonder with, you know, I moved from New York, Connecticut to a historical area thinking this was beautiful and that the two homes were going to be repaired. And it's not been in the seven years that I've lived there. Thank you for your comments. And we are in the process of trying to figure out how this property can be rehabilitated. And the property next. Okay, thank you. All right, so Mr. Conley, do you have, and then I think we'll hear additional comments from the staff, if they have any. I was just going to, there hasn't been any work done on the house, I just wanted to make that clear. We've, you know, we've made a mistake with the knowing what size tree we could take down prior to, you know, with needing a certificate of appropriateness. I was admitting to that. I wasn't trying to make light of that. You know, we made a mistake there. All the trees that we removed in the back, most of it was honeysuckle. None of them had larger than 10 inches in diameter. So that's why the only application that we filed for was for the two hemlocks in the front, because they were larger in size than that. You know, the reason for the connector is actually to help maintain the historic integrity of the home. So that's not to tie into the roof line. Our first iteration of this actually had the house tying in at the roof line and didn't have a connector. So the connector was there to preserve that historic integrity, just to give some background information there. And the issue about the chimneys and the 1920s addition, any comment on that? There is an addition that the entire roof has fallen apart and has been raining inside that. And I agree that the home is in disrepair. I can't, you know, but it was that way when we purchased it, and the whole point of this process is to rehabilitate that home. So I can't really speak to the condition. Does the addition have a chimney? Yes. So that one is coming out, I assume? That would be the 1980s addition has a chimney to it. Okay. Does staff care to address the comments from the audience? I'm sorry, were you done? Resent. Okay. So this piece here if you want to come around here Ms. Edelman is the 1920 section everything else and there was a chimney that was here but actually it was taken off and kept over already but this is the 1980 section so this section And we looked at this based on the structural engineer's plan, that it would actually have to be rebuilt to be salvaged, which is similar to what you were talking about with your garage. And then tied into this house. And you can see on the... So there's that piece. and this is the that 1920 that's the side of it and so we looked at this very closely as far as retaining it and then the question is if it was to be rebuilt and built in the same footprint would it be mimicking history and recreating something that's there versus just a simple repair. And then would the idea be its removal because it was a porch at one time and then it was replaced with this addition in the 1920s. How much of the mass would be lost if they tried to actually rehabilitate that section? Let's see. So you can see this is the existing, so it would be this portion right there. Actually where this line is, bringing across this datum line here. All right. All right. And given the fact that it was a porch and then later on an addition, bricked in later, we felt given the fact that it... So the staff made a finding that it was a non-contributing... I would say that based on the guidelines, the guidelines talk about would removal be detrimental to the overall structure of the site, and we felt that that addition removal would not be detrimental to the site or the overall character of the house. Given the fact it was an original begin with and it was a porch. So any other comments from the board members? So where we're at at this point is we're going to pick this back up again. The hearing is continued. Additional comments can be taken at the next proceeding, so long as they're not duplicate of today's. The applicants are going to bring to us better site drawings with respect to how this house is going to be impacting or not impacting the white oak tree. I just wanted to make one additional sporting comment. Mr. Darlington is a partner of the business, so that's why it's been, Mr. Darlington is a partner of the business, so that's why it's in his name. Just a clarification. So there's nothing, we're not trying to hide anything there. That's just full disclosure. Okay, so I'm not going to get into that issue. All right. Okay, so anything else? And we also will take into consideration whether the hemlock should be taken out or not. So do I have a motion at the next meeting? So do I have a motion to continue this proceeding to September 21? So moved. Second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes and will continue to September 21 at 4 o'clock, please. Thank you all for your attendance. We always need citizens' input. And I didn't realize that you were directly behind it. It never occurred to me that Hanover backs up on Ashland. Okay. All right. All right, thank you. All right, so we're done with this proceeding. You can talk to staff at this point. I just wanted to ask you a question. Where do I go to then? If I go to the town for the disarray, why? Come on. What are you asking exactly? Okay, because you asked me, this isn't your response. Yes. And you talk to Barry about that and he'll help you. I can help you out. We're done with this. We're done. We take our motion. We're finished. All right, so we're ready now for the conceptual review. view? I tell you what, let's take a five-minute break, ten-minute break, a break. I need a break. The End Thank you. And I'll be brief on my beginning part. This is discussing 530 East High Street, which is the Woodland Christian Church. And then there's a proposal to construct a three-story senior living center beside the structure in the green space area. And I'll walk you through some of the plans. And then Mr. Copley will be stepping in and taking over questions. So, of course, this is the church itself. and I'm showing this image because I'm also showing in the foreground there's a parking lot that is adjacent to the structure that they use. It's part of their land they hold. This particular entrance I'm showing you is because they're historic double doors that we've been sort of really trying to help along. They've had some issues with these doors over the years and these is sort of what we've come up with as far as trying to retain them. There is a vestibule inside to sort of help protect these particular doors. But part of the Senior Leibniz Center, Mr. Copley will talk to this more and he doesn't have all the details to this, will be talking about the fact that they have to be modified for breakaway systems for the facility. But we sort of have done a lot to sort of preserve their original qualities for many years. This is the back of the structure. As you remember, there's a parking lot back here, and you can see this little walkway that leads down to the sidewalk. Then this is on the Kentucky Avenue side. And this is coming, this sort of is the shot of the parking lot. It's sort of a U-shaped in the back. And you can see the green space in the foreground here. And just sort of walk the neighborhood a little bit with these images. You can see there's a T-Plane Cottage. Here it's sort of showing you the inventory of the structures where you have the large three-story church and then some smaller structures on the Kentucky Avenue side. And this is going back around to the front on the East High Street. You can see the surveyor. He was working, Jay. In the foreground here, and you can see the green space to the east of this structure and the site. This and based on all the other structures, there's no trees really to be impacted at this point on this site. The site is actually a clean site, so to speak. of trees. It just has the green space. There has been a little nursery school over here for probably about 10 years that will be not part of this project. And here is the site where the three-story structure will be installed or constructed here. And note some openings over here that will be the connector point from here here on this site. And just walking through, so this structure is at the corner of Oldham and East High Street. And then you can see again the connector piece. So the main sanctuary is taller than this rear kitchen and office and classroom space above. And then our first encounter, here's some this is sort of practically the location or where the proposed senior living space will be coming on the site and this is sort of looking on the backside of that old structure looking back and these are sort of the structures along oldham there's a couple of two twin two and a half story buildings and then coming back to the site and I will go ahead and give you the site plan of what they're proposing so here's the main sanctuary and utilizing a connector piece to install a new structure on this site and there's just the three levels and some renderings. And Mr. Copley has some more renderings he'll include. So as this is a conceptual review, there's no findings at this time. We just have questions to be answered and posed at this time. Is it appropriate to construct a new three-story structure on the screen space beside the church? Is the proposed building compatible with the characteristics of Alesford Historic district? Are the setbacks in open space developed in scale and character with the other structures in this historic district? Does the proposed plan have the appropriate number of stories height? It was 10% of the average height of adjacent buildings. Is the building volume and height appropriate for Ailsford historic district? Is the roof form compatible with adjacent properties in the historic district? Is exterior well, we knocked that one out. So, and then the articulation of the proposed plans related in scale, rhythm, proportion, and texture to adjacent and surrounding historic buildings? Do the roof forms of the proposed addition relate in form, pitch, and materials of the roof in adjacent surrounding buildings? Are openings proposed compatible in size, scale, and proportion to establish patterns of openings in the adjacent surrounding buildings? And are the proposed materials, color, and details compatible with the existing church and the adjacent structures? And of course, the applicant is present, and I'll turn that over to him. All right. Jay, state your name, please. Jay Copley with Necto Architecture. All right. Walk us through your proposal. Okay. Can we pull up the drawings that I gave you? Not the existing ones, the newer ones. Great. And we can start with the site plan on the very top. All right. You're going to have to pick up the microphone or speak directly into the one that's on the podium. Okay. We'll start with the site plan right here. so you can see that the way I've been framing this is we've met with Shippo in Frankfurt to talk about this project as well. One of the things that I've been discussing about this is in some ways it can be looked at as four different structures. You've got the existing church, you've got a new building that will be the new residence, and then there's a connector between the two buildings. The idea there is to touch the surface of the exterior of the church as little as possible. The connector is about seven feet wide and lines up with each floor. So it's three stories tall. So inside that connector, one of the things that we want to do was bring in a brand new elevator and a rated stair, which the church currently does not have. There is no accessible means to be able to get to all three floors inside the existing church. So if somebody comes in there with accessible needs, the only thing they can't even get into the sanctuary because it's on the second floor. So we feel that that connector, that's a part of the reason why I'm calling it three different buildings because we feel the connector is viable for the future existence of the church for its use. It also helps that we're also proposing building a three-story senior living facility next to it. But as a part of historic preservation, we're actually presenting to do eight units inside the back part of the church. The sanctuary itself would be rehabilitated. There's some plaster cracking, some HVAC issues, trying to get the organ rehabilitated. But there's some old classrooms. The population of the church is reduced so greatly that there's vacant spaces in all the classrooms. A lot of that stuff is going unused, and it's now starting to fall into disrepair. So they approached one of our clients about the possibility of what scenario that could be come up with to try to save the church. And the developer, the client that we work with, does housing like this. So we've also done, and in my firm, we've worked with other firms, other developers to do historic preservation. So we teamed up together, and we've decided to go for historic preservation tax credits and then work with Kentucky Housing Corporation to do senior living. And we would be a total of 38 units, 30 in the second building, in the new building, eight within the old existing, the back of the existing building, and then rehabbing, rehabilitating the existing sanctuary. So if you want to move to the next sheet. Thank you. So you can start to see the layout of what we're proposing. To not compete with the existing church in the scale of it, we wanted to set the addition, the second building, back away from the existing sidewalk so the church would have more of a prominence up front. And then there's a cornice that wraps around. We'll get to the elevations in a second. You can see the scale of how we tried to pull over the lines, the existing architecture of the elevations, the size of the windows, all that stuff. But as far as this layout goes, I wanted to show you how we were trying to push the second building over to the property line as far as possible. The R4 zone change that we're going for will allow us to do this kind of density on this site, and I have a dashed line to show the setback of what we'd be proposing up against the existing property line. the pushing that building over to that property line in some ways when i've got a rendering that will show this when you're standing on the front sidewalk or even across the street at woodland and you look back towards it the two bars that are in the front of the existing church and what we're proposing in the second building start to relate to each other from materials from elevations from drawing lines of how the materials stop and start the sizes of the windows and because the property line skews back then it actually hides the large the large back portion of the new building so you can't really see it from certain angles and with that fence line overgrown with the trees that are back there we think that that helps provide some separation and also helps hide that larger building in the back. The other thing we're doing is the rear of the church has an existing parking lot that is seeing its serviceable life. We're planning on redoing the parking lot back there and creating accessible parking. And then the main entry now for the residential part would be through the connector. And right next to that rated stair is going to be a set of double doors and that will give an accessible path out to accessible parking and then into the building and then they would be able to use the elevator and the rated stairs and come into the residential part on that first floor. The other great thing about that is Amelia was pointing out the existing doors that are over on the Kentucky Avenue side of the building. That's going to be the main entry for all the patrons for the church. They're going to use the parking lot that's across the street. We're proposing that the rear parking lot is going to be for the residents mainly and then the adjacent parking lot is going to be for the church so we would create an accessible route to come from the adjacent parking lot and then the accessible route to get into the church would still be through those doors they're there now but now we have a pathway all the way through the existing building into the connector which is where the elevator is so they have accessible means to be able to get to the different parts of church and actually get to the sanctuary now. So that explains the entry. So if we'll move forward, go to this next plans, go ahead and go to the elevations. Keep scrolling, that one right there. So the very top is the front elevation of the church, and you can see the stone base that's along the bottom of the church. We're going to create that stone base on our, on the front part of our building as well and you can start to see how the size of the windows and the lineage of how it all starts out together the front elevation is a bit tricky because on the front elevation those are stairs flanking either side so they're at a different elevation than the rest of the building so when you go to the next elevation down you can start to see how the the windows start to change because what's in the sanctuary is different than what's on the back of the building so what we're relating to is going to be the residential part that's on the back side of the existing church so you can start to see how the elevation of kentucky avenue there how all those lines and all the elevations of the windows start to tie together so if you'll keep scrolling there's a the last sheet one more these are the 3d renderings that we've proposed so far So this kind of gives you that view of when you're standing basically at the corner or maybe in the middle of High Street, you're looking at the new building that's next to the church. You can see how far it's set back. You can start to see we're going to be creating a courtyard that still allows them to do the Woodland Arts Fair, to still have some booths, to have some different congregations and meetings and places for the residents to go to and also for the church to go as well. But pushing it back away from the street, letting the church be the prominent piece, keeping the elevation of the second building below that cornice so it's subservient, pushed back, and shorter than the existing church. and in the rendering at the very bottom, there's a glass connector that goes in to the existing, which is that seven-foot-wide, three-story-tall piece that connects into the existing church. And we're creating that out of glass and out of a different material so you can start to see the separation and the pull away from the existing church. I think that's all I've got at this point. Oh, I would like to address some of your questions. So I had a chance to read through what you guys were kind of asking about and start the first one. Is it appropriate to construct a three story structure on the green space beside the church? One of the things that I wanted to point out, and I wish I would have brought these images with me and put them in here, is I don't feel that this church relates to the single family homes that are in the adjacency to it. Oldham Avenue and then down Kentucky. I think that church speaks to the older commercial properties that are in that triangle lot that go back over to Woodland. They all have flat roofs. They all have masonry. There's a three-story building that is that shop local. It's there on the corner that's across from next to Missy's Pies and right next to the fire station. The scale of those buildings to me speaks to the church and that lot that vacant the vacant piece that's been next to the church for years i think that that that that and as long as we're within the boundaries of that property i feel that we're talking to the diagonal across into that triangle piece where those commercial properties are so when i started to look at this and i walk around there the appropriateness of it does not necessarily relate to any of the duplexes or any of the apartments and any of the single family residences that are in the adjacent neighborhoods because the church overpowers all those things already so we're trying to diminish scale next to the church but still speak to some of the architecture that's just kind of diagonal to it so that kind of in my mind addresses some of the things about the appropriateness and about the roofs and some of those things there was a question here about the stair i think you all already realized that that stair is enclosed it's a raid it's not an exterior stair um roof form building volume height appropriate i i do feel and there's that one um very contemporary four-story residential the condos that are down on woodland. That's far away from us. But when I see something like that, I feel that we're being more appropriate to the history of that kind of diamond triangular shape that's catty-cornered to us, and then also paying respect to the church as well. I will say that we're not going to mimic the materials. That rumbled stone that's on the base of that church and that old red brick masonry, We will find modern, more contemporary elements that make relationships to it, probably a cut stone and probably a brick that is of a similar color, but not try to mimic it. Just pay respect to what it's sitting next to. But the cost of those materials being what they are, the backside of the building, we are proposing not doing stone on the back portion, but a combination of brick and drive it or stucco. whatever people want to call it but i felt that those materials were more appropriate than say lap siding or smooth hardy panel or something like that so i wanted to be contemporary and of today's time but also be respectful of what you're sitting right next to and one other thing i'd like like to point out is the recess in the front bar that's on our building. The idea there was to kind of play off of the recess of where the front stair goes up to the front porch of the church. Because of the elevation changes, we're going to be sinking our building because actually the grade, those renderings don't show the grade, but the grade is at the lower window on the very front the church grade is about six inches below that window so when we drop back our building is going to be sunk into the ground very similar to how the church is and we're going to be creating a little plaza that goes into a glass entry that is in the lower on the first floor that's actually two stories tall so that sunken depression that's in there is actually a two-story volume of glass that looks out to that plaza that we're going to be creating and then there's like a bridge element that's recessed a little bit, that's going to be a library for the residents. And they can sit there and read their books and look out to Woodland Park, trying to create something that the residents and even members of the church, one of the great things that the church has agreed to is we see this being shared space. And they'd like to believe that the people are going to be living here. You've got 38 one-bedroom senior living housing. They want these people to be a part of their congregation. So I see this as being the uses of things like the kitchen and the group meeting rooms that are in the basement of the church where they have everything from AA meetings to youth group meetings to their functioning daycare center that they've got. All those things, we see those being cohabitated between and shared between both buildings. So I'd like to believe that what life exists inside the church, that they move back and forth and can relate to each other and cohabitate. It's not a typical thing that usually gets proposed as residential inside of a church, but it's been done, and we'd like to try to do something to save the church. their population has gotten so bad that we're they're at a point where they're going to be selling the church if we don't figure something out and none of us want to see that questions Sarah let's start with you all right so my initial thoughts about this is I am I understand what you're saying about that relationship to that really that kind of business There's a church there on High Street in the relationship that the church has to that street and High Street and that kind of corridor there. I'm worried about how far back this really goes into the property and what it's going to feel like in those houses that are really facing local. Because this is going to kind of back up right to it. And they're going to get a political problem. So that is a concern. I'm not saying it does or doesn't get. but I am concerned about that and taking up that big area of green space to it. The other thing, and I don't want to articulate this, but the best probably is just a little tighter today, but while I appreciate what you're trying to do and the rhythm of the windows and the inner spectrum of those kind of lines in the church, it's looking on those thick plates in like motel rooms especially when you make those with those small but obviously the bathrooms and you're like articulating the bathrooms on the outside of this building. Actually they're in the kitchens they're in the kitchens. They're above the sink. Yeah so they've got some it just feels like that's really out of rhythm there and I'm not saying you can't do that that you understand first. But it feels like if that's your language, then you should be consistent with language, or you should think about ways that would complement that language without trying to make it. I think, you know, it just has a really, maybe overly clean reply. Now, I don't want to do what this group is doing, but, you know, in those divider, I think that moment where you have the glass connection into the church. That works. And then maybe you start to do that in the face, but if the roofline stays consistent, then it just starts looking over flat. I think that's all detailed. I think my bigger worry is whether or not it really should fit on that site. I don't have an answer to that. I did walk Oldham, and adjacent to it, there's a fourplex that's two stories tall. right next to that fourplex, there's a two-story, and it's got a very steep-pitched roof on it. So from a scale standpoint, that adjacent building would actually be taller than ours. I know. I wish I'd have brought some pictures with me. It may help the next time you come, or when we actually look at the application, to bring a site plan and show the dimensions of the buildings around it. We'll do, yep. So that we have a feel for how overwhelming or non-overwhelming it might be. You know, we see the property boundary and how we're kind of tying to that, but in relation to kind of looking at the site, I'm not exactly sure how much the site is actually taking off. Yes. It looks like quite a bit of it. Yes, it is. If I just eyeball it, but I think a little bit clearer understanding that that would be great. No problem. Has that property always been vacant, or was it vacant? were the houses there that we pulled a uh one of the old sanborn maps and there was a single family residence that was on that property at one point in time 1908 or something like that so the church has been no wait a minute i might get that wrong the church has been on that site since 1908 and the original church was taken down this church was constructed in the 20s You were worrying me for a moment because it looks like a 1920s church. Yeah, I was saying it wrong, but at some point in time, I can't remember. I'll bring the Sanborn map next time as well so you can see the history of what was there years ago. That would be helpful. And then I believe they took that residence down when the church acquired the adjacent property, and nothing's been there since then. Is there anything else? I don't think so. Suzanne? I think it's really exciting to have this type of housing proposed for this kind of cooperation of uses. I think we need more housing like this, so I'm happy to see that. But from the guidelines that we are tasked with following, I do feel that the biggest concern in meeting the guidelines is this, the housing portion of this needing to be some kind of transition from the scale of the church and the adjacent commercial transitioning back to the scale of the residential. And I don't know if that's a height issue, if that's a need for the facade that is along that side, the side boundary, needing that to be articulated a bit more broken up a little bit more so that you know the scale can somehow trend transition sure you know volumetrically I I don't know that you can do what you need to do volumetric rate and it be smaller? I think it might be able to be accomplished with color and material changes that you could try to break up scale that way. And with the use of, we are wrapping masonry around that backside where the residents will be. And if we use the rest of that as the drive-it material, then we can start to put lines in the drive-it. and at that point we could break up color and possibly introduce two colors in the drive it, and that could start to differentiate and break up some scale a little bit. You're right. I mean, with the architecture of it and what we're trying to do and stack one-bedroom senior house, I mean, it's difficult. There's a lot of blank walls and a lot of very similar windows. So trying to use the architecture in a way that's, one, cost-effective, to that actually gets away, that actually starts to break up that monotony. I agree with that. Because I think that it's starting, you know, the area where you are stepping back, that entry in the central part on these elevations that we're looking at, begins to have a better transition to kind of scale. It helps with that scale. But that's not going to be the case along that long side. And that is going to be very visible to the residents adjacent. And I feel that it would be important to try to address that. All of my notes are transition between this and the surrounding residential. I also have very similar feelings, as Ms. Lemire commented, that I think that there does need to be a bit more articulation to tie it back to the church. it's an incredibly wonderful piece of architecture and we want to be subservient to it but it needs a bit more it's it's a little flat at the moment kind of irrigation on that flat side and articulation. And I like some of the crisp simplicity of the new edition. Because it does, since it's scaled, it's horizontal lines, really honor the original church. So in some ways I really like the simplicity of it. And so from the high street side, It really works. It says it moves around on the wrong side. I also think your drawings probably don't have a great deal. I don't know if the downfall is actually very black, and I thought, oh. But the house on the corner, it actually faces, I think it faces onto High Street, and then you go down, there's another single family, and then you get to the of waterfledged, but it's not volatile to it. And by the time you get down later, I am that growth of trees that you spoke about that can't involve being your grower and really impact. So that probably is something you want to be careful of is to maintain that kind of green edge and something that does really help articulate that celebration. I just, with the enormous great space over the world and part of the world, people that hear something like this that honors that old church and brings very kind of residency into language. You can walk to Proverbs go to the grid space and I think it's exactly what it would be. So it's these kind of subtle nuances. I think they're all going to be a wonderful start. So one other question would be, I understand that you've met with the association. Since I don't see anybody here, I assume that was a fruitful conversation. I did I actually had a couple of them call me and just relate the text to me and just say, Brother Susan, do you know what's going on? And I said, well, I'm going to get out from here and make it a little so sick. Yeah. I'm sure that you're a kid and you're a student. And you're a student. So the story goes, we're at the church with Amelia, and a car pulls up, and she's like, ask who you all are and she was there to meet somebody else and we told her who we were and she's like oh my gosh thank you all so much i'm a member here at the church we love what you're all trying to do this is great we were just talking about the other night and when the neighborhood association meets here at our church we were like what was that and so i asked i was can i please ask the church i was like can i have contact information i'd like to meet with them knowing that our zone change when we go to R4 is going to require public meeting and all that. So I wanted to get in front of them, and that happened last night. So we were able to sit down with them, and I think about 10, 12 people showed up. And some of them were pretty vocal and concerned. But then once we walked through it and answered their questions, by the time we left, they actually offered to write a letter of recommendation and support. and that's the best you could ever hope for. I know that probably not everybody was there. Maybe they couldn't show up, but it was an honest effort to help get some movement and some ideas and some people talking. Then we wanted to be able to go into that public meeting and have people not bombarded in a Zoom meeting seeing things come up on a screen and they can't react to it or don't have any time. So now they've got some time and i gave them drawings and i was like take a look at this and please pass it around and show it to your your neighbors and please come give us your input and your support and and we'll see how it goes but yeah they went well okay um final comments a staff has some comments too that's true uh i think i think the way that you have actually used the site was it was an imaginative way to to avoid too much massing by angling it off the two square buildings. That makes the site more interesting and less dominant. But I had the same reaction. It looks like a motel. In fact, I was thinking I'm underwhelmed with the overwhelmingness of the... It's just a little too plain. I think it needs... I'm just a layperson here. to my eye that the sanctuary building is so interestingly ornate and you don't want to duplicate it obviously but you need to be more respectful and what susan is calling simplistic i'm calling brutal it just reads a little too square to me a little too blocky if you will So it needs softening. And that's about all I can say at this point. Now staff comments? I think you will find that we are still going to be really concerned about the loss of green space and the size of the structure within this neighborhood in this particular area. While there is quite a few large structures, and that apartment building is quite true, that that is quite large. we're going to be concerned about how it impacts the neighboring structures. So when you do come back, and besides sort of scaling that, I think we would like to know about the schematics from the Oldham Street side, the Kentucky Street side, and how this is going to be impacting this. I know that you are looking at that corridor, sort of the triangle corridor as we call it. Part of these neighborhoods, they're sort of like punctuation points. And this was a series of probably three of them. One went down for that massive modern thing you're talking about that's not within the H1 overlay. That was one of them, this one in Park Methodist is the other one that's on the other opposite end of clay and high. And you'll notice you have the low structures and popping up with the high churches. And these are punctuation points of neighborhoods. And I think when you're starting to think about developing green space or developing sites like this, I think it needs to be cognizant that while you do have two large structures on Oldham, the majority of these structures are one and a half story structures, little tea plant cottages. And we've got to be really mindful about development that overwhelms this. And so the big question is, does this development overwhelm that site? And I'm fully aware of all the issues with the church and the concerns they have about their viability. But I think we need to think about what happens with this particular site. And if this place leaves and no longer becomes a senior living and we have this situation, the structure, how is that going to be impacting the site? I can address the length of time that it did come up yesterday in our neighborhood meeting is their first question was when do the students move in and we're like no no no that's not that's not it they're like that's fine you say that right now that it's senior living so what happens after that the church spoke up and they said the lease that we're working out with the developers is 75 year lease so it's not only a Kentucky Housing Corporation that we're getting this funding from that falls underneath their purvey, but it's also a long-term lease that the church is working out to make sure that this stays exactly what we said it's going to be. So I don't know if that's kind of what you were asking, but it felt like you were, like, what happens eventually? Is there a student, is this, could this ever become student housing? And the intent is no, it would not be that. But of course, we don't look at use in general, but we just want to make sure for long term development, how the site is going to be used if this does meet to board. Knowing that our big concern to the fact that this is a pretty large structure on a site that hasn't had that many development. And the development that was there were two plant cottages, so yeah. Okay, anything else? I would just note also just for the board to know that any new plan that needs to come back needs to actually have that zone change completed because we can't hear an application that can't be approved by another division. I can tell you that the duration of time to submit this to Kentucky Housing Corporation, that timeline, if they select us, we will not find out until probably January, February of next year. So when we submit this, we're submitting it in mid-September. And so there's going to be a long duration of us trying to wait to figure out if we get funded or not. I think we've gotten good feedback from SHPO that they feel that state and federal are going to be on our side. And we've met with Mike Radke at SHPO, and he was giving us, like, you're on the right path. You're going the right direction. We think we're going to do that. I mean, he's not talking about the addition. He's talking about the church. Of course. Yeah. So he's like, I think what you're doing is fine. I actually meet with him at 1.30 tomorrow to do a follow-up meeting with him. but um i forgot why i was going with that but um yeah i i will start to address these things the concerns and the scale and all that stuff in my head i'm starting to think about what if we locked off the the top floor on the adjacent side what if we lost a couple of those units on that side and we just did a corridor that was on the you know it stepped from the three story down to the two-story that was on the adjacent side of Oldham. But the developer may say, well, we've lost too much funding. Like, I can't cut out the money. And the other part about this is I understand the detailing. I do. From an architecture standpoint, I agree that I wish we could do more with it. But this type of construction and type of financing that we're going to get is constrained, to say the least. And with what construction costs are doing these days, it's one of our many hurdles that we've got to overcome. But, yes, I take it into consideration. It occurred to me, and maybe I forgot to ask the question. To me, is there another set of doorways at the parking lot end and the elevator? because that looks like a bit of a hike for senior citizens to be making from the front entrance all the way to the back of that building. There is, so there's several entries to get into it. There's a stair on the very rear of the building that they could walk into and come in that back corridor. There's a stair that goes in the connector, and then there's a set of doors that's right here in that recess, that two-story glass piece. So obviously you have an elevator in that addition as well, aren't you? uh the only the only elevator is in the connector that's my concern then that seems to be a bit of a hike i mean if you think about it especially if you're trying to carry groceries and stuff that uh um true yes especially when some of your senior citizens may be on walkers and you know they're the accessible units were required to have i think four, three or four accessible units, those would all be in the front right next to the elevator. So in all the other units, because we have an elevator in the building, all 38 units will be adaptable, which means they can be converted over easily to be accessible. So we would be, if that ever happened, the priority would go to the ones that are closest to the elevator. But, yeah, I understand what you're saying about the length of it. But when they came to us, it was like, so we want this many units. And it's like you're trying to make it work. And, yeah, it became long. And make it affordable at the same time. Make it affordable. And we can't, you know, you could reduce the footprint and make it taller, but no one's going to want that. No one's going to want a four- or five-story building. And yet you get back green space, but you have a massive scale that is, there's no precedence for doing that in that neighborhood. So I can't, it was like one of those things of like wrestling around with, we went through several different iterations and then slamming it to the property line and getting it away from the building and then using that angle to kind of reduce, that seemed to be the thing that everybody reacted to. Don't forget with your height, your 10% limit. Yes. All right, is it good for a start? Yeah. Anything else? I think, oh yes, what date are the minutes? I'm sorry. January 16. All right, has anyone actually had a chance to review and correct them? Did you? I think we'll postpone consideration of the minutes to the next meeting. All right. Thank you. Because Susan usually does a really good job correcting. Oh, and I was in the middle. I just came out of a two-day hearing, so I'm fried. Anyway. All right. Thank you so much, Jay. Thank you all. Bye-bye. Thank you. Thank you. I need more of you. Thank you.