Music Thank you. I would like to welcome you. Am I on? Is this mic on? Yeah. I would like to welcome you to the September 21st, 2022 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. If I may have your all's attention, please. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. Sir. Thank you. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first to start district was Grants Park. We now have a total of 15 to start districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages you and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The HPO Office is located at 101 East Fine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions and make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We'll also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. there are certain items that we can approve or that the staff can approve eliminating a necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 10 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. I'm sorry, I was mistaken. There's 19. In the Ashland Park, historic district at 1003 Fontaine Road, removed deteriorated trees, replaced trees. At 285 South Ashland, removed tree. In the Ellsford historic district at 327 Clay Avenue, removed tree. At 333 Transylvania Park, replaced roof and reissued the COA for fencing. And at 326 Woodland Park, Woodland Avenue, rebuilt the deck and chairs. In the Belcourt, his start district at 125 Forest Avenue, rework steps as needed at 170 Forest Avenue, replace the rear deck and stairs, repair chimneys. In Fayette Park, his start district at 417 Fayette Park, restore the front porch. In the north side, his start district at 602 North Broadway, replace roof shingles at 360 Hampton Court, renovate front stoop and stairs. At the Pensacola Park Historic District at 106 Suburban Court, remove deteriorated trees. At 107 Suburban Court, remove tree. At 122 Goodrich Avenue, install door canopy. In the seven parts Historic District at 110 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. At 214 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. At 109 Dantzler Drive, replace the front door. In the western suburbs, Historic District at 609 West Main Street, install fence. at 592 West Short Street, Ritimate Structure. We will now turn to our regular agenda. I would like to note there are a couple of changes in the agenda today. We will not be hearing the applications today on the application pending that was continued in the matter of 326 South Broadway, and the application concerning 128 South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District has been withdrawn. They have been converted to conceptual reviews which we'll conduct at the end of the meeting. We'll now begin with our first application at 1016 Fenton Castle Road, Instruct Porch. Is the applicant here? Yes, my name is Scott Dreyer and I'm the contractor. Good to see you again, how are you? Good, how are you doing? Doing well. So staff has recommended approval of your application, subject to what I've been calling the standard conditions. They are the first one is, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Are you in agreement with that one? Yes, sir. And number two is, once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes to be returned to staff or boards for review and approval prior to the start of work? Are we in agreement? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? No. Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 07041016-A, I make a motion that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. All right. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. The COA has conditions approved. Thank you, Mr. Duran. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. The next application is at 137 South Hanover Avenue. I'm assuming you would like to be heard on this one. The application has been disapproved. I had not been aware of that, but I would like a minute or two to talk about it if we could. Well, I'll tell you what my practice is. I sound the cases that I think we can go ahead and take care of first, and then we pick up what I call the contested cases at the end. Okay. So you may have a few minutes to wait. No problem. All right, thank you, sir. Turning to our next application, 731 Caden Lane in the Caden Town, Historic District. Is the applicant here? Hello. Jimmy Sharp. Hi. monarchy chart okay good to see you again uh the staff has reviewed your application they recommend approval subject to what i call the standard conditions which i just previously read into the record and we'll read them again for you uh if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes the staff for review and approval prior to start of work agreement yes second one is what's reviewed by the other city divisions submit all changes the the staff will review an approval prior to start of any work or any agreement. All right, is there any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 02960731, at 731 Caden Lane, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All right, any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion carries and the application as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, turning now to 418 West 6th Street. Scope of work is install, opening, and window. Is the applicant here? I'm Peter Carew. I'm the contractor. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. And you heard me read them, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair will call the question then or ask for a motion. Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 17310418-T, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. 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. Opposed nay. Motion carries and your COA as conditions approved. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Turning now to 120 Goodbridge Avenue in the Pensacola Park District, construct screen porch. And you're here. I am. All right, say your name for the record, please. Yep, Brandy Smith with Distinctive Design Remodeling. All right. Staff has recommended approval of your application subject to one, what I would call a substantive condition, but it's compliance, it's a guideline issue. They have recommended that you move the left wall of the porch a minimum of one feet from the corner of the historic district. Yes, sir. We've already adjusted the plans. It'll be 12 inches off of that side, and then I submitted them online as well. Perfect. Thank you. And the other two are the standard conditions, which I previously read. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair will ask for a motion. Chair, per case number 08150120 at 120 Goodrich Avenue, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, move the left wall of the porch a minimum of one foot from the corner of the historic structure. Number two and three being the standard two conditions. All right. Do you have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and your certificate appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Take care. Thank you. Turning now to 1835 Nicholasville Road in the Pensacola Park District. The scope of work is installed storage shed. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present, but has received their staff report. All right. I believe this is just a routine, yes. The staff has recommended approval subject to the standard conditions. I don't believe we need to defer consideration. Any questions or comments from the board members about it? No. Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 13971835-B, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. All right. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Turning now to 1061 and 1065 Elizabeth Street. I think we'll hear these in tandem. They deal with the same issue. The scope of work is to Marge's Garage. Is the applicant here? Mr. Chairman, 1601, I sent the staff report to the applicant who received it, and sent an email saying he could not be here tonight but would but agreed with the fine the recommendations okay we're for schedule for a conceptual review in that one weren't we no 1601 is okay two different owners okay all right 1601 is not here 1605 is here or 16 yeah yes sir okay we'll come to that one just a moment uh let's approve these separately then any questions or comments about 1601 application has been approved subject to the standard two conditions any uh any questions about that any questions from the audience i think we're ready for a motion chair per case number 06381 601-f at 1601 Elizabeth Street. I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing that on the chair we'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed me. All right, the motion passes at 1601 Elizabeth Street. Turning now to 1605 Elizabeth Street, Silver Work is also the model crutch and construct fence. And Mr. Morton? Yes, sir. Take your name for the record, please. Charles Morton. Okay, the staff has recommended approval of the application. However, they will like for you to reduce the fence heights from eight to six feet. Any objection? No objection, sir. All right, and you agree with the standard two conditions? Yes, sir. all right do i have any questions comments from the board members i did have a really quick question on this one um there's a picture of the fence someplace in this and it kind of looked like a vinyl fence so i just wanted to confirm that you're looking at a wood fence either wooden fence to imitate a recent one that was placed nearby okay thank you but it is made out wood not vinyl okay all right any other questions okay i believe we're ready for a motion then Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 06381605-E, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions, and a third condition to reduce the fence height from eight feet to six feet. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair recall the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the significant appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Thank you. All right, thank you. All right, now turning to 114, 116, and 120 West High, 308 and 320 South Upper. This is in the South Hill Historic District, constructed additions, parking lot, and associated sidewalk. The applicant here. No applicant? applicant hello I have that same problem okay I'm just getting used to my name is Steve graves all right the staff has recommended approval of the application but for they want you to resubmit the signage application part of it and reduce its size. Are you in agreement with that? Yes, sir. You are? We agree. The other two are what I call the standard two conditions, which are once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start at work. There may be a few. We agree. All right. And finally, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Agreed. All right. This brings to an end a very long process. It's been quite a journey. It has been. Any questions or comments from the board members? We're good. This has been an unusual case for us. I'm simply observing that because it's either going to be the best thing we've ever approved or the worst thing. I'm waiting to see how it turns out, but it's been an exciting different application. I think it'll be fine it'll be appropriate okay well I have any questions or comments from the audience about this application all right then I think they're ready for a motion chair per case number zero nine three zero zero one two zero dash d at 114 116 and 120 West High Street 308 and 320 South Upper I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following number one condition to resubmit the signage to the BOAR for approval of signage size and type plus the standard two conditions. All right do I have a second? Second. I'll simply observe Morgan and Morgan will not need a large sign they will know exactly who you are because of the uniqueness of the architectural design and style. You can forever say, go to the glass building. I understand. Okay. All right. That's my only comment about the matter. We're ready, I guess, then for a, let me call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries and the application is approved. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. All right. Turning to our last application, and then we'll go back to the contested one and then to the conceptual reviews. For 642 West Main Street, March Edition, Construct Edition, Add Openings and New Stoop, is the applicant here? The applicant isn't here, but has received a copy of their staff report. All right. And I assume he's in agreement with that? Yes. Okay. All right. This is another application that's been approved, subject to the standard two conditions. For the record, I will read them into the record. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Secondly, once reviewed by the other divisions, resubmit changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Any questions or comments from the board members? All right. I think we're ready for a motion. All right, Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 12270642-E, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes, and the COA as condition is approved. All right, coming back to our contested case at 137 South Hanover Avenue. Is the applicant here? And you don't look like Bart Francis. I don't look like Bart Francis. I'm much better looking than Bart Francis. Unfortunately, he couldn't be here today, so I'm representing him. You're also a braver man than Mr. Francis. What's that? You're also a braver man than he. Oh, yeah. I will start this off with the observation. There was absolutely no reason for these solar panels to have been installed without a prior CLA being applied for. Yes, and, of course, you know I've been here several times applying for that. Mr. Francis had previously engaged another solar company, and we took over mid-flight because they were getting in trouble with the Attorney General's office here in Kentucky. At the point that my company got involved, we were under the understanding it had already been done, that it had already been approved because they were ready to install, and they just weren't going to get approval. It's a big yellow certificate. Right. Well, again, that's not how we typically do business, and we have a new process to do better due diligence moving forward. Well, this should not have happened. All right. And, okay. All right, so I think what we need to do at this juncture is go ahead and have the staff report presentation first. Yes. And then you can make any comments that you'd like to make, and then we'll discuss it. Okay. Okay. So this is the property at 137 South Hanover. And as you can see, these are the solar panels in the front. Staff did see that the solar panels installed and contacted the property owner. He made application right away and explained that he thought that was taken care of or didn't need it. And so he's been straightened out on that point. And so he's requesting that there will be 14 across the front. And then there will be 20 on the east side of the structure. Of course, these are flat-mounted, and they're six inches above the roof line. They're Hyundai black solar-melted panels. The guidelines are included for your reference. Staff finds a proposal to install the solar panels on the southeast side of the roof is within the guidelines. However, staff finds the panels mounted on the front roof need further discussion. The design guidelines 1.16B and 1.16D state satellite solar panels should not be mounted on primary elevations of the building. It should be located on the rear of the principal building or attached to the rear of the principal, either the walls or the rear slopes of the roof. And then solar panels that are attached to the building should lay flush with the roof line. The installed solar panels on the front roof do not meet the guidelines because they are in the primary elevation and are visible from the street. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the placement of the solar panels on the front porch, and then staff recommends approval of the solar panels on the southeast elevation. Here's some more pictures. Then going back to the front. Yes, we have sort of, this has been an evolving standard in that because of the way solar panels work, even if they're visible on the side of the house, we go ahead and approve those. But the front boards, and I grant you, it's flushed in. But we've taken great care to, and we do this on every job, not just in a historic district. We take great care to make sure they're very attractive. And, you know, I've been advocating for an industry for more than a decade that we're just now taking root. And I would ask that you guys, as a body, would recognize that you have a large voice with a lot of influence. Solar is finally taking hold in Kentucky. And we've been getting some aggressive pushback from homeowners associations that are not allowing it anywhere, you know. So, in my opinion, that is invisible to anybody who doesn't actually know that's a solar panel. If you're standing there on the street, you see two inches of black metal along the roof line that could easily be a copper roof. The intent was to make it invisible, and we try very hard. And I've been here numerous times representing numerous clients, and we very much advocate for doing it the right way. And I recognize this is a unique situation. we got in a pickle that was not our intent. But the homeowners spent a lot of money and a lot of time, and it's going to be very expensive for him to remove those, and there's not another good place to put them. How moped up does it do the energy calculation if they're not there? It's a third of his output, and he has two electric cars, so it's also his transportation. You would be in so much better position to make this argument. I'm sorry? You'd be in a better place to frankly be asking for leniency from us if you had not gone. And I'm not blaming you personally. But Mr. Francis knew. I was going to say, you and I have talked numerous times, and Mr. Francis had engaged another company that had told him everything was taken care of, and when my team got on board, we assumed that it was or that was our understanding. And that's our fault, right? We should have done the due diligence to double check that it was. Well, more importantly, given the fiasco that Dr. Francis had with his fence. Now, that I don't have any knowledge of. This is not the first time he's been here asking for leniency. But my position, aside from Dr. Francis, is I'm asking you as an advocate for my industry, what you guys do sets a precedent not just for the historical districts but for the HOAs. And some of those are not playing very nice, to be frank. And, you know, I know you don't know me personally, but I've spent more than a decade trying to promote solar in the state of Kentucky and thousands of hours with our state legislature and other things. We don't need any pushbacks that we can avoid if there's any way we can work through it. I understand. And the dilemma that we have, and I'm going to let the rest of the staff comment in just a moment, more comment, is it's not our purview to change the guidelines. That has to be done through the Historic Preservation Commission of the city. They do have meetings. They need to start meeting again, and this is an issue they need to consider. And the way that you have installed them, you're right. I went by and looked at it. And if I hadn't known there were solar panels. Anyway. The definition of code is visible from the street, and I think the panels themselves are invisible from the street. You know, there is a line of black this high running the length of his porch that could easily be a drip edge off of the gutter line. So if you don't know, actually, I don't think the board knew the panels were there until I told them, even after they'd taken pictures of the roof. All right. All right. So let's have comments. Sarah? So I want to encourage solar panels every place somebody wants to put them up. But I feel like the guidelines are clear that they can't go in the front. And I also look at the plan, and there are other places on the roof that I think you would have gotten more sunlight to put some of those other panels. There's a whole flat area on the top of the roof. The roof is seriously chopped up. It is a very difficult roof. Well, there's a whole flat area that it seems like would have been appropriate for at least some of those panels. Yeah. And then on the other side as well, so I think there could have been additional study about where those panels really could have gone without putting them on the porch. And I agree that you really can't see them much because the porch is pretty flat. But as soon as we say, well, they're on the front of the house, you can do them there, it won't be long before they're on steep roofs of parts of houses. And again, it's not that I'm necessarily opposed to that, but the guidelines are pretty clear they can't go in the front. So that's kind of how I'm feeling. If the guidelines change and we see solar panels on all roofs, all sides, I won't object to it at all. Michelle? So, noting observations that have already been made is that it is always difficult to talk about these issues once they're in place. And I'm in complete concurrence that we are in the 21st century. And we want very much to keep our historic neighborhoods vibrant and appropriate to the changes of the 21st century. And so in reviewing the guidelines, I'll note several observations. That it's very clear that they should never be installed in front yards. That's got some interpretation. Or mounted on the primary elevations of the building. I think one could make an argument that a flat porch roof has some leeway. And number D under the guidelines is solar panels that are small and whoops, solar panels that are attached to the building shall lay flush with the roof line. And I'm in concurrence that unless one knew they were there or knew what solar panels look like when they're installed, I think you'd be hard pressed to know that they were even there. In looking at the roof view of the house and knowing how many panels you have on that front porch, and this is a side note. This, for me, is not the driving issue. You'd be very challenged to put 14 more panels anywhere else on that roof that would have the ability to generate solar energy in the way that this front porch is. And I understand the orientation. I'm not going to interrupt, but our design software uses 10 years of satellite data to show us where the sun is and isn't, and there's a lot of tree cover on that other side. So putting them on the backside was not a good option. It's a challenge in our historic neighborhoods, A, because of tree canopy, which we wish to encourage, and orientation of our streets and thus our houses, that not all houses fit comfortably into some of these guidelines. So I feel that there, I understand that this is stretching the guidelines, but I'm comfortable that there is that stretch within these guidelines for that flat front porch. So how will you deal with if it comes in and somebody's now put them across the front roof? That's clearly... It's the primary structure, and it's a very visible roof. I'm also in agreement that I think there needs to be a review of these at some point, But I also understand that the primary elevations of the building on a steep roof create another challenge for us as a board. We're perilously close to rewriting the guideline. And as you know, I tend to be very flexible in issues like this one. But in this particular case, I'm just not comfortable doing basically wholesale saying, okay, if we have any further applications of this sort and the roof is flat in the front on the porch, then we'll approve them. I just can't see us doing that. Well, I would challenge that D says solar panels that are attached to the building shall lay flush with the roof line and we have a flat roof. And that's where I feel that they are not in any fashion a visible distraction to the primary facade of this historic building. Point made. Any further discussion? Any rebuttal from the staff? I would only say, and I think Mr. Clark will say this too, if you all are leaning towards a disapproval, that I think the owner would like to have this case postponed to the next meeting date for him to be here. We've gone through all this and now we're asking for a continuance? No, I'm just saying that he said that that was the situation that I think he wanted to be there at the meeting. I'm just conveying this. It's up to you all. Well, I think Susan has made a good argument that with it being flat, it is not a primary facade and they are not that visible. And I really want to see the solar panels become a part of the historic district. And when you can't see them, I think it kind of makes sense. I'm torn, but I am being fortunate. Let's do this. Let's do a little bit of research. Amelia, and I think there's a comment coming, and I'll let you step in just a moment. Amelia, could you research other cities, historic districts, and see if they accommodate solar panels on the front flat porch, if there might be some exception? I'd be curious to see. Certainly, I will see what I can find and report back to the next meeting. I appreciate that. And in light of that fact, before we take a motion, Barbara, do you have a comment? Come on up. Barbara Edelman, 125 South Hanover. It's a good concept. We all love solar panels. That's great. That's wonderful. You may have installed my son's. I'm not sure. He has them on his house. He lives out of the H1 district where it's more appropriate. You may say they can't be seen. What do you mean they can't be seen? And what is it that can't be seen? This particular nice solar panel that he's suggesting can't be seen? Or anybody's solar panels that are going to go in on the front? One issue is this house already had a lot of solar panels that can be seen, that can be seen from the sidewalk. As you walk down the street, you look up and you see lots of solar panels. They were installed, I'm not sure when, but I believe at a time before permission was needed, before the H1. It seems doubtful to me that they were approved when they're very visible solar panels. Now, maybe this commission has decided that's modern, that's with it, that makes us look like we're in the 21st century. But we're either protecting these facades or we aren't. And choosing to be in H1 means some sacrifices. And I think that means if you don't have enough places for all of the solar panels that you might want, then maybe you just don't get to have solar panels. just like I don't get to have all the parking that I want or all, because let's face it, we're in the 21st century and we all have tons of cars. There just has to be restrictions. There are guidelines. And with all due respect, I think your very broad interpretation of they're flush, they're kind of okay, they won't be noticed, you may as well throw it all out the window and say, bring them on, put them on the front of houses, let's go, because we all love green energy. I just don't think that's really the right approach for these houses and protecting what they are. And that's not meant to be disrespectful to you or to a neighbor, but I just think you just don't get to have everything you want, and you sure don't get to have it because you went ahead and did it, And now you're asking for permission after the fact, and that makes all of us want to be lenient or be generous or to be understanding, but that's just not how it works. And I think folks across the street from us did the geothermal thing. Can't be seen, put it in the ground, figure out other ways to do it. But to take those houses and start putting solar panels that may not be of the quality that this gentleman says his are, I just think it doesn't take long before anything goes. And I'm afraid that's where we are. And while it's unfortunate, I certainly don't think trying to reinterpret guidelines just to make it work out for what is a bad situation is the way to go. All right, thank you. Point of clarification, did you install the solar panels on the other part of the roof? He didn't have any pre-existing. This was all one project. We have moved into, and to be honest with you, I'm not really sure. Oh, Barbara? You all right? Okay. I'm so flexible. I was just going to comment. But when we approved the one on Transylvania Park, we went ahead and sort of allowed one more panel to be put in between the chimney. And I'm sorry, it catches my eye every time I walk up that street. But the truth is that based on the guidelines as they're currently written, the 20 panels that face southeast, is that correct, on the site elevations are approvable. Well, they were supposed to be actually in the rear of the elevation, and we have sort of morphed that into the side, and I'm not quite sure where that alteration came from. But at this point, I think what we need to do, I would like to have a little bit additional research from the staff, and also we'll accommodate Dr. Francis' request and continue this matter to our October meeting. I'm assuming. I can't do it, but I'm assuming a motion will be made and we'll vote on it. So, do I have a motion to continue the proceeding? So moved. Do we have a second? Chair calls the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Without objection, then, the motion is carried and we're set for October 26th. I made a point of bringing my calendar and then probably lost it. By the way, apropos of nothing, the little location numbers are on the poll. I'm sorry? The location numbers for the parking spots? Oh, they're down on the poll. They're on the poll. I walked down there to the pay thing and I saw it while I was standing there. It was a little frustrating. I was running late for the meeting. He was having trouble getting parked and getting the Lex Park to take his tag. May I make one other observation? Sure, go ahead. I do not feel that any of us on this board are inclined in any way to approve this installation strictly based on the fact that it's already in place. Oh, I agree. I agree. I think that we're very clear that we're looking at the guidelines and not dismissing them entirely based on the fact that they were installed without approval. Absolutely. Do we have a date? October 19th. I'm sorry, Mr. Clark. When? October 19th. Okay, 19th. And to add to the conversation on that, I'm the largest solar contractor in the state of Kentucky. We've been in front of this board many times. It is our standard operating procedure to get permission first. This is a unique situation that we got kind of caught in the middle. You'll have my word that we'll never be here after the fact ever again. It's definitely asking for permission. All right. Since you mentioned that and since you have that expertise, you may want to investigate this issue as well. Yes. In terms of how are they doing things in Louisville, the other major cities that have historic districts? We all adopt the Secretary of Interior's guidelines, but they have been interpreted in different ways by different cities, And that's all I'm suggesting. And the challenge is we are evolving as a species, really, right? And my intent as a contractor that is respectful of the rules and the guidelines is for us to work together in a way that we can evolve these technologies in a respectful way. And I think we tried really hard on this project, albeit we didn't realize that it wasn't already approved. But this job looks really good. And unfortunately, there are a lot of other contractors out there that aren't as respectable. I installed the geothermal system that she mentioned that her neighbors installed. And we did that in a really, really tactful way to make sure that when we were done, everything looked great. So working together as the public and the private, I think we can evolve our guidelines as needed working within them. But that's precisely the point that Ms. Edlin is making, is that unless we're careful, what is done by a reputable and well-established company can be an entirely different product from a company that's live at night and just trying to make money. All right, so I think we've beaten this poor horse to death. Thank you. We're continuing to October 19th. Call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, we are continued. Thank you, sir. All right, unless we need a break, do we need a break? We'll move to conceptual reviews, starting with 128 South on Ashland Avenue. Who is the presenter in this one? All right. This is in lieu of the fact that we have continued. No, this one was drawn. No, the applicants have withdrawn their previous application and requested a conceptual review. I want to make a couple observations. This is a conceptual review about the architectural plans. This is not a forum to talk about the appropriateness of whatever else is going on in that property. We don't have that power. So you're welcome to make comments, but please confine them to the architectural plans. Go for it. Just waiting for Ms. Edwards. Okay. So, of course, I'm going to just walk you through the structure right now. And I'm going to really only deal with the architecture of the demo and the proposed design. I'm going to sort of walk you through the back side of the structure. Of course, at the last meeting, it was open and it was continued, but then they withdrew it. There was discussion about the three trees in the back. There was a walnut, a mulberry, and a white oak. And so the discussion centered around pulling the addition off the white oak. This is the mulberry. And the walnut is not in the picture at the moment. There's the walnut tree. And sort of looking at the back, you could see the white oak, mulberry, and the walnut. Mulberry is, we've already stated, per discussion with Tim Creary, the tree arborist is in decline as well as the mulberry, as the walnut. And so the white oak is actually in good shape. And so the discussion was sort of trying to retain that one. It said they've made an application to, they've resubmitted plans that were to move the addition, the proposed addition off that white oak. And also would include moving that deck so that, and we'll see the plans here in a second. So here's the proposal, which reduces the previous addition by about nine feet. And you can see the trees in that bottom. So in the proposed addition. So that actually reduced the connector. Here's the previous plans. And this also discusses demolishing both the two, the additions, the 1980s addition, in the 1930s edition, which actually only includes two walls. And then the proposal to construct the new edition. And what you find now is the fact. Wait a minute. This is not the right plan. Sorry, for some reason. I wonder if I swapped them. So you had the plan for me that includes only a two-foot connector, and I can put these up on the overhead for some reason that their plans got taken away. And so there's only a two-foot connector versus what you have now, and with no porch, and this shrinks everything back. Let me shake sure for some reason. For some reason, those plans did not get put in there. I'm going to put these plans on the overhead. So anyway, the addition actually stays in the same mess and form, but the connectors removed to only two feet past this roof, and I'll put that on the overhead. So at this point, since there's no findings at this time and these are just questions to be asked, I think we'll go through the questions. Is it appropriate to remove the frame addition? Is it appropriate to demolish the two walls of the brick addition? Three, is it appropriate to construct an addition to this structure? Does the addition create too much mass? Does the addition cover too much original fabric? Does the box style of this proposed addition work with the angular style of the historic structure? Does the roof form adhere to the existing structure? Does architectural details, articulation of the proposed plans relate in scale, rhythm, proportion, and texture to adjacent surrounding properties? Does the complexity of the building form of the new plans relate to the adjacent buildings? Do the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of the new proposal reflect the predominant proportion, emphasis, and rhythm of the adjacent surrounding buildings? Does the roof of the new proposal relate in shape, pitch, materials of the roof of the adjacent structure? And the applicants are here, and I'm going to put the correct plans on the overhead projector. For some reason, this didn't get included. All right. Peter Carew again. I'm the contractor. Okay, Mr. Carew. I was puzzled for a moment. I was thinking we were here in Catantown, but you're here for this one as well. Double dipped. All right. Explain to us your concept. So we heard the feedback about the White Oak, so we pulled that whole addition forward, which still allowed us to keep the same program of number of bedrooms and bathrooms, yet protecting that historic White Oak. So we really, you know, worked hard with the architect to, you know, follow the guidelines and work with the staff to, you know, develop these plans and heard some feedback. And that's really what we'd love to hear from you guys is, you know, some, you know, we've really worked hard to put this together. So if there are different ways that you have or thoughts that you have for, you know, changing the design or the facade, we're certainly open to hearing that. But that's what we're here for this evening is to try and get some feedback. Okay, so have we got the new ones up? Mr. Dickinson, yes, here's the proposed new floor plan, which shrinks that connector piece. Can you hear me? Is that the only real change? Just shrunk it? Any other changes? They kept actually the main part of the addition is the same dimensions. It's the connector piece that has been shrunk because they are proposing to reuse the existing staircase in the main structure. All right. Let's start off with the silver. And here is the floor plan or the roof plan. Can't really see it. And this is, and of course you have the proper plans at your desk. And this is the elevations. I'm assuming these plans are available for inspection at the office? Correct. Okay, all right. This actually shows up. Not too much. This is really hard to see. We're trying to work on reducing the brightness to sort of help out this. You guys lose and go, it looks like. but you can sort of see the outline of the roof of the main additions right here. And then the big takeaway to that is the fact that the connector has been reduced by, I think, nine feet. It was 11. Now it's down to two. It pulled off to retain that white oak. The staircase inside is being reused. to access the upper stores in the main structure, the existing historical structure and the new structure, and the fact there's no side deck leading on to the roof line, I mean to the garage, I mean to the driveway, sorry. All right, Ms. Hill. So given the relief to try to save that white oak, can you talk to me a little about how the foundation, I'm given that a drip line is generally the defining edge of not building underneath that drip line or there's trauma created to the tree. Can you talk about what the structure is for that deck that would ensure continued health for that white oak? So I think the final design of the deck is kind of to be determined there, maybe to incorporate the tree as kind of a feature of that deck, but the spot footings would be placed as far away. They're much less invasive and hand-dug oftentimes. And ideally, the structure of the deck would be in a case so that maybe a load-bearing beam would be close to the drip line, but not any sort of foundation or concrete footing. So that appears possible to me, except related to the ramp. And quite frankly, given that the ramp starts right next to the tree trunk, it seems that that's a difficult point, not to have some kind of structure to support that change in elevation. Sure. And I do understand that the ramp is in that location because you can't put it up against the doors. but it does create a conflict for that tree. Sure, absolutely. I see what you're saying. And what you're describing seems challenging, if not impossible, given the location of that ramp. So it may be that a redesign of that deck would give some actual chance of relief to that oak tree. My only other question right now has to do with by shortening that center connection point by nine feet, and perhaps looking at the roof plan, you can also see it right in the elevations, is that there is, with that roof connection between the new and the historic, there is a concentration of water that's going to occur at that location. So if you could speak to, and historic buildings hate water, all buildings hate water, but if you could speak to the challenges of ice and snow in that concentrated narrow zone, it would be helpful. Sure. You know, as a builder, I never like to create those areas where we could potentially have issues. So the idea would be to try and alleviate that within the design. But, you know, because of some of the other challenges, we've moved that forward. And so, you know, we can take lots of special care and flashing that and triple flashing that. You know, copper, there are copper membranes that you can put in that portion of the roof to protect that. But it's certainly a portion, you know, that's something that I look at and I don't particularly love because of everything that you just mentioned, Mrs. Hill. the goal would be to flash that and flash it and then flash it again. But again, that's where we'd certainly be open to some suggestions about how to continue to meet the guidelines and the program that we've established. And resolve that connection. Because the original suggestion, or not suggestion, the original was to bring the roof line all the way in, but that totally disregards the guidelines. And so we don't want to, we didn't even want to present that as an option because that is dismissive of the guidelines themselves. Anything else? Okay, Sarah? Going back to the questions, I think there is a question if that brick addition is from the 1930s. I mean, there are houses in this historic district that are built more recently than the 1930s. And so I would like to think about how we could save that structure rather than just tear it down even though it's been deteriorated. And I don't know what that does. And I'm not even trying to think about what that does to the side. I mean, I know that is a complication. And the other comment I have is I still think the building is just too wide. The guidelines say to step in one foot. So you've stepped in to create a little bit of a bridge, but then you step right back out to that same plane of the existing structure. And it really is supposed to be a little bit smaller, and this really feels like it's really trying to take up that whole back. I think we actually, the main structure does step in from the house. I think if you're looking at the roof line, it looks as if the. I'm looking at the first floor plan. I think, so the. Okay, I see what your comment on the, if you're looking at the house on the right hand side, we just, we go right back out to that. I think overall you've reduced it quite a bit, but I still think it's still a little bit big, and I think some relief on that side of the building. And then hopefully, I mean, I think Susan already covered the white oak and trying to give that a little bit of relief there. As far as the deck and the ramp go, we're open to completely redesigning that to make sure that we can protect that. I don't think we addressed that properly in this set of plans. I think we were really trying to look at the addition itself for this particular portion of the conceptual review. All good comments about the deck. Anything else? I'm not the architect, but I will express the concerns I had before, and maybe the two of you can help me work my way through this. It looks like a big old box. When I'm looking at questions 7, 8, 9, 10, I'm saying no. It looks like a totally alien structure attached to a historic house. It reads like a box. It looks like a box. And I'm wondering, is there any way that those features could be softened? I don't want an impotent, obviously, but I think I would like something that blends a little bit better with the overall look of that neighborhood. And this house, as conceived in my eyes, just doesn't do it. Now, I just may be shouting into the wind here, but that's my thought. That's why you're here. I respect your opinion. The whole goal of this is to breathe life back into this building and make it beautiful. We're not trying to force an agenda or anything. That's why we're here. we want to discuss some ideas. So if this misses the mark again strictly on the aesthetics of it, you know... Part of the problem may be it's a T-shaped cottage, which makes it a little different. And the operative word here is cottage. And I think there's only so much you can add on to that kind of configuration without distorting the overall look of the original historic house. But I'm not the architect here, and maybe this is the way it has to be. So can I just make one comment? I mean, I think, too, you know, there's a little bit of conflicting in the guidelines as far as, you know, we don't want it to look similar, but we don't want it to look too dissimilar or display. So I understand 100% with what you're saying and trying to achieve all those while keeping. Well, that's why the word art appears in architecture. So in looking at the proposed north and south elevation, I'm wondering whether Jim's concerns in the roof forms and the concerns of water, if there isn't some kind of an opportunity to address all of those concerns with some adjustments. And I'm not here to propose exactly what that is. Certainly doing some kind of a, on that long single slope, doing a dormer of some sort would soften that up. And so that would tie back in with some of the rhythm of the historic house without just imitating it. By doing a different slope and such. but still paying homage to it. Can I make one comment? Sure. Just about, you know, part of the reason why we've gotten to this point with the addition is that, so the main house, you know, the roof lines are very steep. So the second floor doesn't have that much usable square footage. So without adding dormers and messing with the original historic facade, you know, you can't gain those bedrooms and, you know, spaces in the front. So that was, again, I'm just providing a little bit of context there. Well, and the dormer that I'm speaking of on the new proposed addition would not, I'm not talking about complete removal of that single slope. I'm just talking about the addition of a dormer that would certainly not change the headroom clearance inside that second floor space, but would offer, quite truthfully, a little relief, both visually and in terms of space inside. And so are you saying bringing the roof line of the addition all the way into the main roof? Just so I make sure I understand, Susan, what your comment was. No, I don't know that it, we certainly do not wish to have the new addition overtake the roof line of the historic house. We want it to have a presence of its own. I'm not quite sure where this. The dormer part, I just got lost there, that's all I will say. So, such as, if you looked at the south elevation and the addition of the south elevation, and between those two second floor windows, there was a dormer. Okay. An additional one? I see it on the original house. No, no, I'm not changing the original house. Okay, I'm sorry. talking about the addition. Are you following me, Sarah? You want to do something like yes. I am. So just add Sarah, show it to him. Well, it's a terrible sketch, but I think just adding some profile to to that side. I sparked a conversation. She was doing a very similar thing. Yeah. So there's the dormer that's here. We did. Yeah. Yeah. So we did have some dormers on one of our renditions for that that came out towards the sides or towards the side yards. Right. Like a gable that come towards the side yards. We did have a rendition that we kind of ended up getting. We steered away from that in some of our discussions. So I think your challenge still is that the outside edges of the tall roof that is creating a particular challenge with the water issue we've talked about toward the historic house. how there could be some relief to that very tall plain and be able to address some of those water concerns we're talking about. I think that that would reduce that sense of it just being a large box. I think the roof lines are the key on this one because against the historic house, they do have such a square kind of a box volume as opposed to the footprint of the historic building and then these really sculpted kind of roof lines that go with the upper part of the historic house. I think that's where we kind of, we were trying not to mimic the house. And so by not mimicking the house and trying to, you know, follow those guidelines, we inadvertently create a box. A box, yeah. No, and we love the architectural details. That's why we love this house. Well, and I think, you know, another reason, part of making the additional light was so that it kind of disappears behind the beautiful historic structure. But obviously we're not achieving that. So. Sarah, any other comments? Because I want to get some audience input. Good. Anything from the audience? Ms. Edelman? I understand this is the conceptual review, and it's a little difficult when you're the objector to weigh in to, let me start planning where things should go or this or that. It's pretty apparent I am not an architect. I'm not here to tell people where a dormer should be or what it should be or shouldn't be. But having said that, I always have opinions, which, and maybe I even skipped past that I'm Barbara Edelman and I'm at 125 South Hanover Avenue, just for the record. This is an important, this is really an important case. in terms of H1 and what does H1 mean in Ashland Park and what is it that we would allow as part of an addition. And we all do love additions and everybody loves additions on all those big beautiful homes in Ashland Park to make them more modern as we discussed before, more livable, more accessible because the things that were designed 100 years ago are tiny rooms and they're chopped up and they really weren't suited for our giant TV sets and our lounge couches and the way that we all happen to live. But we are taking a charming small home, a cottage, and we are turning it through these plans into some entirely different creature. And while I do note and appreciate that the new plans do save a tree, which is important, because the canopy is important to me. I am the neighbor that backs up to the backyard. You might remember my comments from the last time. I do appreciate that the connector has been reduced, which does move this box closer to the main house, which gives a little more space in the backyard. I do recognize that some of that has occurred, and that's good. But my problem with this process, I think one of my issues with the process is if you come in and you propose huge and grand and large and mega and big, then it looks like you're really cooperating and being helpful and compromising when you trim a little here and you trim a little there and you take a little bit off and you make some accommodations. But at the end of the day, the problem with this project is scale. and its size. That's still the problem. I can't address water issues. All I know is I live with some, but I certainly don't know what all that means. I generally have understood your comments about the ramp, and I can see where some of that could be a future issue. But the problem with this project is scale. Taking a bungalow that is what it is. It's charming. It's lovely. It's seen better days, it will see better days again, but adding a box, what are we talking about? And I don't know how to run a laser pointer, so I'm going to experiment. Tell me, Ms. Armstrong, how to do this. Okay, and hopefully I don't put anyone's eye out. All right, let's look at what they have currently in this house. No, it's not working. And you're going to have to help with the laser too. There you go. This one here? Here we go. All right. There we go. Currently, there is a room here. I'll call it a sitting room, for lack of a better word. Maybe it's a living room. Who knows? It doesn't matter. Here's a second one. Maybe that's a dining room. Who knows? But these are just common rooms. And then there is a bedroom, bedroom, bedroom, bedroom. That's small. Maybe that just becomes an office. I don't know. But it's basically what could be four bedrooms. And then we're going to also upstairs, maybe this is the bedroom, maybe it's not, don't know. Bedroom, I don't know. It has accessibility. That's what we have in the current house. And then they come along and say, well, in the addition, we need another bedroom and another bedroom. So by my count, this proposal is now up to eight bedrooms. Wow, that's a lot. That is a lot of bedroom for one house that was a bungalow. Now, again, I'm not trying to argue. I don't know if all of these will be used, but as proposed, they do look. This certainly is a non-suite. That's a non-suite. That's a non-suite. This is not. But it's a lot of bedrooms, and it makes me question, why is this needed? Why is this second floor of this box needed? Just to make the house livable, just to make it nice, or just to make it gigantic? How many bathrooms are there? Well, in this first floor, there's a bathroom here, there's a bathroom here, there's a bathroom here, and I've missed one because I have four in the original that I'm having trouble reading this upside down. But here's one, two, three, four. And when I say original, I don't mean they're there now, but that's what they're planning is four bathrooms in the front. So then we go over here and we add two bathrooms in this second floor, which they think they need so that this little cottage can now have eight bedrooms and six baths. What are we building? Who is this for? What is the concept? And I know it's nice to say, well, that's just what we'd like to have because we'd like to have it. I would say as the person that lives near this or backs up to it, that's not all needed. That big box on the back at that scale is not needed for a bungalow in Ashland Park. I mean, I have a pretty substantial house with 3,300 square feet. I have three bedrooms, and I do have four baths. But I don't have eight bedrooms. In addition to these front rooms that are sitting areas, look at this room that's going on the back. 30 by 30. Why? How much family room do they need? How much family room do they get? How many sitting areas are really needed? And I know this, I'm probably not using the right terms. I don't think you all evaluate in terms of need. It's not like you sit and say, well, I'd like to vote that this person needs another bathroom or doesn't need one. But I do think you vote in terms of what is the concept. Is this a boarding house? Is this just intended to be the largest house on the block when we're finished? Or is this taking a charming house and making it better than it was before by allowing improvements? And at what point does the scale go out of whack? So the original part of this house. I tried to calculate the square footage. Fortunately, Amelia helped me out a little bit. At the end of the day, there's 1,150 square feet in this original part. They are only using about 640 feet upstairs, and that's even counting these areas, which I don't really even know what they are. So for the original house, the total square footage is 1,793 feet of original house to be used. What's happening with the addition? 1,800 square feet, doubling, doubling the size of a house. Something is wrong. Something is really wrong with that. I mean, at the end of the day, I guess we can say, well, yeah, but they wanted a 3,600-square-foot house. They just wanted lots of rooms, lots of bedrooms, lots of bathrooms, lots of stuff, lots of sitting areas. And, of course, I'm not counting the deck. I'm not even sure I'm on the right place, which, you know, a deck is a deck. Well, I don't know that that would ever be included in square footage, but it's certainly more livable space. So I am concerned that what has happened is, again, as I said before, if you propose a gigantic box and then you make some accommodations, people start to think that what you're proposing is reasonable. I submit it never should have been a double-decker, two-story box stuck on the back of this small historic home. And that's where this has gone adrift. Now, I have some experience with that, and I have talked before about my own experience of coming in front of the commission when I remodeled my house. We proposed a two-story structure on the back, and for reasons that I won't get into, and there was various reasons, but one of the comments that was made by one of the committee members at the time was, I just don't like it. I feel like it's Downton Abbey. I was a little caught off guard and kind of looked at my architect like, what have you done here? But I got it, and I understood it. And as I mentioned before, I went back, I changed architects, and I said, get this proportional. Make this right. I'm not trying to build a megastructure. This is a historic neighborhood. I don't have a second story on my addition because of that. I reduced the scale. We tucked it in. We lowered it. We got rid of bedrooms across the back. That's why I still have, I only have three bedrooms. But I kept the heart of what that house was about. I really did. I'm very proud of that house. And it's livable, it's lovable, it's wonderful, because we really were protecting what that house was about. This, this does not. This has lost its way. It has just lost its way. And they can come back next month and take a foot off here or add a dormer there or lop off something. but they've started out with a concept that, as I think we could all agree, was even worse. And it has gotten smaller somewhat, but they didn't change. They didn't change the square footage of this, and they didn't change the square footage of that. The box is still there. The big, ugly box is still there, tacked on to the back of a small cottage. So I think in my mind, it's time to start over, folks. You don't need eight bedrooms. Now, I know that Mr. Carew said... I'm going to ask you to wrap up. Pardon me? I'm going to ask you to wrap up in a couple of minutes. Okay. Okay. I know Mr. Carew said something about up here, this isn't really usable space. Again, I'm not an architect, but I'll tell you, I disagree. plenty of people all throughout Ashland Park and all throughout Chevy Chase, including my family members, they have little funky bedrooms up there with slants and with curves and with cubby holes, and they take advantage of what's up here. Instead, there's two rooms. They didn't have a bathroom up here. They could have. They didn't make these into good bedrooms that really are usable. They could have. What they do instead, let's go back up here and just build a giant structure. So I think you get my point. It's scale, it's size, it's inappropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from other members from the neighborhood? Any other comments? All right. I think then are we at an end for this one? We're not sure. You can address the room. Okay. I just wanted to, there's a lot of information sometimes that's being looked at and then just thrown out as if it's the truth. And the goal is to be a six bedroom, five bathroom. So you can count the bedrooms however you want. We're not, I'm not trying to deceive you or anything. I'm just letting you know what size is. We were planning to make this. And it's set up as a duplex right now. So the large family room in the back is for a kitchen area. Because there's no kitchen. There's two small kitchens set up as a duplex. So in trying to turn this back to a single-family home, it was trying to get that large sitting area combined with the kitchen. So that was the first story. And then because we had the first story, we wanted to try and utilize that, the cost going into that to add those bedrooms. and preserve the existing upstairs without adding egress dormers, which is what it would require to turn the main house second story into usable bedrooms. Whether we can say that they're bedrooms without egress, that's a different conversation, but we're interested in making sure that there's egress from those bedrooms. Okay. I think if I'm hearing everyone on the commission correctly or on the board, it's probably too large a structure for this bungalow. And I think the most telling comment has been made that when you have a 1,700-square-foot house and you're adding on an 1,800-foot addition, that may be out of proportion to the house itself. And which, just so that I want to understand the guidelines, which one of the guidelines determines how many bedrooms? We don't look at intent and we don't look at the bedrooms. What we look at is rhythm and scale and proportion. And when you build a volume the equivalent of the original volume, we tend to find that to be too overwhelming. Does that 1,793 square feet include the square footage that's being proposed to be demolished? I don't know. I didn't come up with those numbers. Eve Space also, my question. Okay. All right. Amelia, can you answer the question? It might be helpful to have those figures that are next review. And I think we were just... It doesn't include the square footage that's already there. Correct. It just... Actually, it... I think we were looking at the figures of the floor plan back to... Oops. I think she was looking at from figures from here to here. And breaking it off like this is one section, this is one section. We did not have to make what's gone. We just looked at this proposed. All right. So the original starts out being larger. The usable square footage is closer to 2,400 square feet. Okay. But it's going to go away. I mean, you're tearing off the addition, correct? No. I mean, I think what he's referring to is not including the additions that are there now. Okay. Well, we'd be curious to see what you come up with as a redesign. So is it a second story that's inappropriate for this addition? So do we need to look at more towards a single story or eliminating the boxy look and still maybe trying to achieve a single bedroom? Or no bedrooms at all and just a single story that gets us the kitchen? Because, again, it's set up as a duplex right now, so there's no space to make a – as the walls are currently laid out, that is. So, program is not part of how interior spaces are used are not part of our preview. But I think that what we've been talking about since the kind of initial conversation has been that second floor roof line. And I think that's where your real challenge is. And I think as the proportions and scale of that roof line are more reflective of the cottage scale of the historic house, I think you'll find what those spaces are that fit inside of that. I think that's your challenge. Okay. I appreciate your all's time and thoughts. And we appreciate your working with us. And this is not the first difficult conceptual review. been through and we have come out after four or five iterations we've usually arrived at a good compromise all right i'm gonna bring in this section we we've got two more conceptual reviews thank you thank you i'm calling a five-minute break okay i'll take advantage of a small break Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ . And Barry, this is yours? Okay. I have become aware of some time constraints, so we need to march quickly. I won't give you as much time as you need, but we're running into a, I didn't know this when we started, but I've got a time issue. So if we can, why don't you come up to the podium and introduce yourself for the record? Hi, Paul Lee. Mr. Lee. And we're going to have Mr. Dennis do a presentation, and then we'll have your comments and then the commission comments. Fortunately, we don't have interested observers this time. So 326 South Broadway, the conceptual review. This is for a two-story addition on steel columns over the existing at-grade parking lot. And that was done on the piers to not eliminate parking in the rear of the structure. The board has seen a project on the rear of this structure in the past. on May 24, 2017. It was approved and has been construction, or I'm sorry, has been constructed. And I'm gonna let Mr. Lee talk more about the architecture, so I'll just kind of hit the site. And the questions that the staff thinks that the board might want to consider. So is it appropriate to construct an addition with open parking at grade? Does the historic structure in the two additions cover too much of the lot? Is the design compatible in shape, massing, and materials with the historic structure? Are the windows and doors compatible with the existing structure? Is the three-story structure appropriate for the site? Is the three-story structure compatible with the historic structure? Does the mass of the proposed addition overwhelm the historic structure? Is the volume, mass, and form of the addition consistent with the streetscape? And is the design and lot coverage of the proposal in keeping with the pattern of development of the South Hill Historic District? So, obviously, this is the front elevation of the historic structure, and this is the entry off of Broadway that takes you to the rear where the parking is located. This is the vertical circulation addition that was done about five years ago. This is heading back into the parking so you can see the parking, the surface parking. and this is looking from the southeast corner of the property back at the historic structure and the addition and this is looking more towards the north again from that same corner and looking straight parallel with Broadway along the property line fence and then this is looking from the north back to the south. And this is the exit lane onto South Broadway, and again, the front elevation of the historic structure. So that's the conclusion of the staff report, unless the board has questions for me. Any questions at this point? All right, Mr. Lee. Thank you. In the interest of saving time, should we just maybe address the questions or would you have any first any questions to ask? Could you reduce the size of this since last time we did the conceptual review? Because it looks maybe like you made it a little bit shorter, but you haven't addressed any of the height issues that we had concerns about last time. We did lower it. We only got to lower it 18 inches is all we lowered from our last conceptual review. And the other change is we took the stair shaft in the back that wasn't closed and now it's screened. But it's in the same location? It's in the same location, yes. That's correct. It's roughly still 4,000 square feet, right? That's correct, yes. A 6,000 square foot mass, original mass, is that right? That's correct, yes. If you look at the sheet C1 that I had, you'll see that it's 6860 is the existing square feet. We are adding 4,000 square feet, which is a 36% increase, a 37% increase. And you're actually proposing building over top of the parking lot? That's correct. It's an elevated two-story. Have we lost all the green space in this lot altogether now because of the existing parking lot? We're actually preserving green space and preserving parking. We have 24 parking spaces existing, and at the end we're creating 24 parking spaces. I think I'm one conceptual review behind. I think I missed the first one. So, Sarah, any further comments? I don't remember exactly what I said last time. Could you use your microphone, please? Turn your microphone. Could you use your microphone, please? Thank you. Sorry, sorry. I don't remember exactly what I said last time, but I remember I made the comment that I really did think it was too big for the site, so that hasn't changed. And I thought it was too tall. And you've done some stuff to decrease that, but I still feel like that roof line, even with this 18 inches lower, is still higher than kind of that EVE line of the existing building. And I just don't think that works. I think it's just too tall and really doesn't relate to that existing structure and is not subservient to that structure. It really isn't. And I'm okay with it being modern. I like that. I just still think it's too big. How I sum it up. Okay, Ms. Hill? So I wasn't here for the conceptual review. I missed it entirely. So this is my first opportunity to make observations. And I must say I'm struck in looking, some of my observations, some of the notes that I made in looking at the photographs that elevator edition, previous edition seems rendered a bit different in your all's drawings than what I'm seeing in the photographs. And I think that may be a core of where my comments come from. It feels very much like that elevator piece has been used to kind of separate the new proposed addition from needing to address both scale and relationships of facade. And I have no interest in it being an imitative building. It needs to be a contemporary 21st century building. But I don't find where any of the horizontal lines make reference to tying in to what's already existing. And that's what I'm struggling with. So maybe that's about scale of the overall volume, but it feels like to me it's more fundamental than that. That if there were maybe more complexities, the wrong word, but certainly more reference to even the elevator, even that circulation piece of it. I think it would help to tie the proposed new addition in a more as if it were intended for this particular site as opposed to any other kind of site. It feels much more neutral as an addition and not part of historic property. Does that make sense? Yes. Yes, we are definitely using the elevator addition as part of this new addition. Okay, well, I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you, but if you look on the A3 that I'm looking at that's dated 7-11-22, 2022, I don't see the scale or horizontal tie-in as a reference to that circulation addition. And if you can help me see that, I'm open to it. I'm just missing it. Okay. And I may be able to do that with horizontal window lines. Part of the problem is that old stair shaft, existing stair shaft, those lines were created, of course, with the stair within. And so now we have an addition whose lines are based on floor levels and the stair shaft is not. And so tying those in is more than challenging. I'm sure it's challenging. I wouldn't disagree that you have a challenge. You have a challenge here because the historic building is such a strong presence on its own. Right. And the elevator shaft that way before I was on the board was approved sets then kind of that next step. And so you have two elements to respond to. And I'm just not seeing the tie-in between those two histories and the new history future that you're proposing. Well, I can do what I can with horizontal lines matching the horizontal lines of the stair shaft. The floor levels, they're just not going to be able to match. We're trying our best to keep the height of the second floor to where a box truck could, drive through and keep that circulation which is a very important not only for our for the owners and their business but just for the circulation of the property just did not want to have to have a one-way in one way out where you have to go all the way around the building and there's no parking and then we have to create off-street parking I understand that as a challenge. Yeah. It's a very urban context that you're dealing with. Sure. So I could work on those horizontal lines and have it tie in more with the stair, but the floor levels are going to be the part that basically aren't going to tie in. So I'm going to have to try to create ways for it to tie in with the windows. I think there's an opportunity there for that change in scale with your windows and with the articulation of the materials on the outside. To help bring that scale down a little bit and to make it more in keeping with what's already going on on site. That's what I'm struggling with is that I'm just not seeing that it's being responsive to what already exists there. Okay. Okay, I have to think about this one. I got focused on other issues. I didn't really pay a whole lot of attention to this conceptual review and I need to think about it a little bit. This originally started out as a home, which has now been converted into office. We authorized a pretty nice addition to it. And now suddenly we're morphing what started out being a home into an office building. And we're attaching it to a home. And conceptually, I'm just having a little problem wrapping my head around that. Well, yes, it originally was a home probably 50 plus years ago. Oh, I know it's been used for offices for years now. Yeah, so now as a place of business, we have to look at the users and the potential users of a business for this home. And we talked about this earlier today. If you think about it, the two best owners of this type of property are the two owners that were here before, architects and attorneys. I mean, those are the two type of businesses that are really going to take care of this type of property. And then you have to factor in also that, you know, for business to thrive, it has to grow. And so the previous business that was in here, they decided to leave. And these guys, they want to stay. And how can they grow and stay and also preserve? And so that's why we've created this design so that they can grow and we can preserve exactly what's there. And still meet, we are meeting all the guidelines. We can go through those, but we are meeting all the guidelines. well this is i'm going to have to work with this in my head uh i just think does the mass overwhelm the historic structure initially in terms of looking at the square footage i think it does i don't think it's consistent with the streets and a streetscape at all in terms of the back of the house and i'm not sure that this is in keeping with the pattern new development in I don't know. It just strikes me as being I thought we were done with this when we authorized the first edition and I'm a little concerned that we're seeing another edition being added on to that edition. I mean where does this stop? Yeah I do think that you have the added challenge is that once that circulation edition was done to the historic to expand it now puts extra pressure on the architectural response in a way that without that interim addition would have been much different. So I think it puts you in the spot of having to really raise the bar on what goes on here. And that's what I think we're asking for. is it does not have the articulation that responds to the context that it's within. It feels very much like it's a program response and not an architectural response to me right now. And that's conceptual design. Right. But it needs to now really be taken a very, now that the program is in there, to be really taken a careful, clear look at what the architectural implications are of it. So those comments I take as design comments, not necessarily mass and scale comments. Well, but design is mass and scale, right? Sure. It's integral to what design and architecture are. Sure. It is, you know, and I'll recognize it. I see the look on your face that you're a little perplexed. South Hill is an evolving neighborhood on the fringes, and that's why it's one of the more challenging historic districts we are dealing with right now. And so when we start taking what started out being mansions, which were converted, understandably, offices. Lawyers love mansions. I mean, I've worked with several of them. And I thought a really good job on the first edition when the architects were there. and now I think you're just asking too much of this building. I'm not saying that no addition, I'm not saying that you can't have any kind of an addition, but this one is just too large. I mean, it overwhelms the whole, you might as well be building a separate building and just not even bother to attach it. We can compare this to other South Hill projects And it's within the lot coverage percentages of other South Hill projects. Quite a few. I agree. Technically, you're right. There's quite a few. That may be your same. Yes, ma'am. Did you have a comment? Okay. And I've done some studies of neighboring properties, and I brought that if we wanted to go over it. but even the properties on the street, they're neighboring properties. If we do a lot coverage ratio, they average 26% lot coverage ratio. Ours is 28% lot coverage ratio. So we're only 2% more. Only because you have finessed it by having this overbuild, Rob? No. No, actually, this is the total lot coverage from an aerial view. Actually, and then if you think about it, at the human scale, it's open because we have the elevated two stories above it. So when you're there, you'll be able to see right through left and right, all the way through the next property and downtown. down. So we're really only adding like at the floor level, we're really only adding like 300 square feet. It's very minimal at the floor level. And so we're taking that up and elevating it so that we can keep that circulation, keep that openness. Well, let me think about it. And remember that this property, I know maybe it looks small, but this property is almost than half an acre. It's 18,000 square feet, more than 18,000 square feet. So it's a big piece of property downtown. Okay. Alright, that's a good point. I hadn't realized it was that large. And I'm not objecting as much to the scale. It's the architectural, it's the lack of response to what already exists on that site that concerns me. And that's the burden that you as the designer has is how to do a 21st century building that has clean simple lines but is very responsive to what's already there on site. Okay, I want to thank you for your time. I don't mean I think if you I think Susan's giving you some good suggestions. Maybe you can incorporate them into a new plan to tweak this one a bit? It has the potential to be a real showcase. So it's a real opportunity, but it's an enormous challenge. And I would, when I look at the photographs and I look at the elevations of that circulation tower that was added previously, What I'm seeing in the drawings is not exactly what I'm seeing on the elevation, so make sure that you've gotten that kind of context. I'm just seeing more lines. Maybe I'm just not seeing the photograph, and I appreciate the photograph. The rendering, the 3D rendering. That's correct. Yes, okay. That's correct. Make sure that those work. And elevations, I understand, are the most deceptive of architectural drawings. We do not see elevations flat like that. That's right. It's not how the human eye sees it. So it adds that extra challenge. But it's a great opportunity. Thank you. Barry, did you have anything that you want to add in? No, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. We have another conceptual to go to. I may call 1605 Elizabeth Street. All right. This is 1605 Elizabeth, seven parks to start district, construct garage. this yours as well yes earlier okay mister does have at it So this is basically an aerial. This is 1601 and then 1605. and so the garage that was taken down is, or that was approved to be taken down, is in this location. And it is that one. So this conceptual would be to consider the size of the garage that's proposed, which is 24 feet by 41 feet in roughly the same location. The paving will remain as was. So then this would be the question. This is, at this point, shown as basically a pre-engineered metal building with metal siding and a metal roof. Industrial type garage doors in the front and then pedestrian or man door and some windows. So So for the findings, this is a conceptual review, so the staff does not have any findings, but we did prepare these questions that you might want to consider. Is the design compatible in shape, massing, and materials with a historic structure? Are the windows, doors, design, number, and location appropriate? Is the use of metal siding and roofing appropriate? Is the size of the structure appropriate for the site? And does the mass of the proposed garage overwhelm the site? Is the volume, mass, and form of the garage consistent with the streetscape? And is the design and lot coverage of the proposal in keeping with the design of the historic structures and pattern of development of the seven parks historic district? Okay, Sarah? I'm sorry. I'm getting ahead of myself. That's okay. Again, my name is Charles Morton. Thank you again for having me. Just in lieu of time, is there any way that you would particularly like me to address the questions and or comments? That may be more efficient. Of course, this is going to be a six-foot fence as well. Yes, sir. So that was discussed earlier on the approved. And I can see why they were asking it. That does look like a vinyl fence. That is a close picture. I didn't want to use the one that they were installing because they didn't paint it. And so I wanted to reflect a white coat of paint as well, just to more so reflect that. My neighbors are a renting property, and so that's why I felt more inclined to ask for an 8-foot, possibly, privacy fence, just because around UK's victories. although it is a blessing it is also a curse of where I live so that is in blue the fence but in terms of the garage itself just proposing to kind of match the standard face of the garage currently is a single enclosed garage space which I will refer to possibly this no the initial photos taken it is an enclosed garage as you can see directly over this man's shoulder with a overhang and that is the space I'm looking to take up once more. This garage is currently falling down, which is in lieu of the other request that I made to tear it down. And I'm looking to kind of replace the exact footing of this garage with an enclosed garage of two doors, just to kind of exactly match what we have here. The height of the garage being the exact same as this one, at least at peak, just more centered, just so it doesn't look offset. and proposing to kind of make it deeper just so I can actually use for lawn equipment as well instead of having to carry it up and down the basement stairs, which is terrible. However, is there any other direct questions or just going through the findings? Go ahead. It would be helpful to me to see a floor plan to understand the relationship of windows and doors to the space. currently on this sheet you can see the current garage heard there was a later pointer on this is that the red button should be okay so there your current garage setting is currently right here the proposed is just going out extending that exact structural location apparently I'm proposing to remove this tree as well just because it is called it has fairly deep roots and it's calling to go into the pavement, tearing up this pavement directly, and so I do kind of want to repay this as well as part of that garage addition, either switching to asphalt or concrete, which I'm pretty flexible on. So I'm not hard set on either. For a general floor plan, I'm not an architect. I'm an engineer. Mr. Morton, when you turn your back, could you take the microphone and speak into the microphone, hold that microphone? This one? Nope, the one, the handheld one. That one. Pick it up. That one right there. No, no, no. The handheld is right there. When you're turning, because you have a tendency to speak softly. My apologies. If you could speak that, when you turn your face that way, speak into the microphone. Okay. Thank you. I'm not accustomed to the microphone too much. My apologies. Well, here's your foray. So, where was that? But yes, just proposing an expansion onto the garage. I do apologize for a non-architectural style of drawing. I am an engineer by trait, and so pretty simplistic with a site design and then working with a third-party company to actually get the designs for the garage itself. This was originally going to be in a proposed application for approval. However, moved to conceptual after talking to them and not getting the shop drawings so I can get you window dimensions, things such of that nature. So looking for other companies to work with to also do a similar design. For the material, I'm not hard set. I would prefer the current metal design just to keep with the white face and everything, just due in lieu of general cost. The cost of wooden structures right now are extremely high. I'm a single man, and this is my first home, and I'm trying to make a good impact just to improve it. I've actually lived in the house as a renter during my college days and actually bought the house from the owners. I really enjoy the house and I've been trying to make a lot of improvements to it just because I believe it is a really nice foundation for a family home. I think our problem is you haven't given us a whole lot to conceptualize review with. So context, you know, we don't have any images of the house, so we don't really even have a context. And we don't have dimensions. on the building. So my apologies. I did not realize the dimensions were not on there. That was my mistake. For the general house, I have an orange brick house. It doesn't help in this case. However, looking from the street, this is currently what you do see. However, this is a much older photo as it does not actually show my wooden fence that I currently have there. And And, yes, for the next conceptual review, I will add much more details. This is my first time here, so I do apologize. That would be helpful. That would be helpful. Has the staff looked at that tree that's being proposed to be removed? I have an appointment tomorrow at Tim Query, the tree harvest, to look at that tree. Perfect. Healthy. Okay. Well, it sounds like we just have a couple more steps in terms of information. So in terms of the general size and design, would that be acceptable in proportion? I'm trying to keep the same street facing size so it looks the same from the street, at least in terms of context. Keeping the same color configuration, because I do want to preserve the historic figure of this, but also make it into a family style setting. The roof line of the proposed garage appears to be quite different from what the existing house and what the existing garage is. So those proportions have changed quite a bit, are changing quite a bit being proposed. It will be shifted over roughly six feet from the current location, from the peak anyway. How deep a lot do you have? in the back. My apologies, sir. How deep a lot is this lot? For general depth, I do not know off the top of my head. I do apologize. Are you going all the way to the back of your lot with this proposal? I'm not, so I'm looking to keep a few feet in the back just to keep trimming. We need more details. I mean we can't even again. This is my first time. And I'm looking to take any proposals to give general details and more information. So I do apologize for the lack of general clarity. However, I do look to propose again and provide more details as instructed by the board. Okay, very good. It would probably be helpful when you get with your builder to give him a copy of the guidelines that we're looking at, and he'll know how to interpret them, hopefully. especially if he's used to working in historic areas and so he can give you we need to make sure the garage is not too large proportionately speaking you've heard a lot about that tonight and so we want to make sure but we have to have the dimensions of your lot we have to have a better dimension of your building how far if it's going to be off the lot line and just more details and I really didn't understand And like when the question came up about is it appropriate for this to be metal, I didn't even know why that question was there. So I think just a little more information exactly what this proposal, pre-engineered metal building proposal is, because that can be a lot of different things. Yeah, and I'm pretty flexible on materials and the general substance that's being used to create it, which is why I wanted to talk to you guys a little bit about it. If you had objections to metal buildings, then I would obviously move toward wood, although that would be much more expensive. However, that's something I would like to consider and talk to you all about. Mr. Morton, I think, if you don't mind, staff having some comments real quick. I think typically you're trying to break this up into two different things. Part of this is a vehicular section, part of it is a workshop. And many times when people do that, they have a break in the roof line. And maybe they have some outdoor space that sort of creates, because you sort of essentially have a small garage with a carport on it right now. And that's historically how it was constructed with the carport being added. And I think typically instead of creating such a large mass, I think breaking that building up a little bit and maybe creating an inset in the back where you're having a workshop space might be something a bit more palatable. Because essentially, a car, a vehicular car is usually a 9 by 18 spot. And typically, a typical garage in a historic district is a 20 by 24 or something like that with a little extra space. So by doubling that size, that creates a really big mass in the back. So I think the suggestion or thought would be, could you break up that roof line in the back not to have such a massive amount of space? And it also will help you building inspection wise because I think one of the things that Barry was trying to get to you is the fact that typically per building inspection, you're not able to add something that's more than half the square footage of your structure. And I think you're getting into a very close situation that way. And we do feel like staff wise metal would not be appropriate. Okay. So do you think it would be more acceptable if I went with the original dimensions of the current garage and just replaced the current structure with a two-door garage? That's a start. And that's, you know, something to think about. But I think it's going to be, you know, we're never going to be able to recommend approval of a 41-foot garage. Okay. Thank you. All right, thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you all for your time. And hopefully we won't be pushed for time next time. All right, thank you so much. All right, we're good? Okay, we have minutes to approve. Ms. Hill has submitted some corrections already. Okay, as corrected to- I have one correction that I didn't, but I'm still not listed as a board member. Well, it would be nice to know for the rest of the world. With those corrections, do you have a motion to accept the minutes? Yes, with those corrections, I move that the February 16, 2022 meeting minutes be approved. We do have a second. All right, the minutes is corrected. It stands approved. Thank you very much. I move to adjourn. Second. We stand adjourned. Thank you. All right. All right. We'll be right back. That's when I knew he wanted me to, but I had to do some breaking through. He's gonna shine. He's gonna shine. That's when you're in a boy who caught my eye. He's gonna shine. He's so shy And he's much too good to let get by Oh, yes he is Now holding him gently through the night Nothing has ever felt so right And I'm so glad I took the time that I had to take to make him mine. He can still do things to my heart, just like he did right from the start. Each time I see that quality that never stops attracting me. He's so shy.