Music Thank you. I would like to welcome you to the December 13 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicants. The Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approval. yes i would like to recommend the following staff approvals before we get a review of the applications there are certain items the staff can approve eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board there are a total of nine approved applications noted on today's agenda they are in the ashland park historic district at 236 to shea road replace the fence in the bell Oncourt Historic District at 611 East Main Street installed radon pipe. In the 630 in the Ellsmore Park Historic District at 638 Ellsmore Park, renovate structure. In the Northside Historic District at 472 Westside Street, restore structure. In the 7 Parks Historic District 236 Barbary Lane, renovate site. At 1605 Elizabeth Street, remove deteriorated trees. In the South Ashland historic district at 128 South Ashland, renovate structure in site. At 346 South Upper Street, renovate structure in site. And at 149 Jefferson Street, renovate structure in site. We'll now turn to the certificates of appropriateness applications beginning in the West Short Street area. 591 west short street install front fencing around seating area is the applicant here come on right over here if you'll speak directly into the microphone sure alma katazovich 591 west short street okay the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what we call our standard conditions okay i'm going to read them into the the record for your benefit. 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 start of work. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. Number two is once reviewed by the other city divisions any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Do you agree with that? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments about the application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Chairs, ready for the for a motion. Chair, per case number 17170591-F at 591 West Short Street, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions as just read into the record and as submitted. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes and your COA is approved as condition. Thank you so much. Good luck with your project. Alright, turning now to 128 South Ashland Avenue. Applicant is Christopher Nunn. The owner is my old Kentucky home. Is the applicant here? I'll make a comment. We have made considerable progress with this application. The staff has recommended approval subject to what I would call two substantive and then the two standards. The first one is that the paving on the side be reduced. They don't say how much, so I think that's going to be a discussion you'll have to have with the staff. But are you in agreement with reducing the payment on the side? I think we were looking for a little clarification there. All right. Do we need to open the case? If not, I want to sound the other cases first. I think this is just that pad that you walk out onto from the side door. Gotcha. Maybe reducing that a bit. That should be fine. Okay. so we're in agreement about that number two is the rear addition have a board and batten siding in lieu of horizontal horizontal lap siding we're okay with that that's an aesthetic thing in agreement yes sir thank you uh and the other the two standard conditions i previously read into the record uh any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments for the audience gentlemen i appreciate you working with us on this one thank you all yeah thank you for your time i think this is we're not quite done yet we have to do a motion i just wanted to thank you for this because it's taken some time but i think the process has worked so i'm ready for a motion i second that and i appreciate your patience and willingness thank you very much i'm ready for a motion chair as per case number 00710128-j at 128 south ashland avenue i move that we approve the application with the two standard conditions and condition number one the paving on the side be reduced and condition number two the rear addition have board and batten siding in lieu of horizontal lap siding okay do i have a second second and the reduction of the paving is in accordance for the conversation that we had between the applicant and the staff. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Thank you very much. Thank you. Turning now to 417 to 419 Arcadia Park. Scope of work is install openings and windows on rear wall. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present and has read their staff report and is agreeable with the findings. Okay, I will note into the record that the staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions. Any comments or questions about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Second. All right, hearing no discussion, is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. motion passes and subject to the uh two standard conditions and if you'll give me a moment so i'm fine number four i apologize normally i have my packet organized and that seemed to find four may i have your four please hey yes let me get all of it i found it i've got it okay Okay, nothing like informality. All right, so turning now to 110 Suburban Court. Scope of work is construct, addition, and garage. Is the applicant here? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. State your name for the record, please. Russell Brown. mr brown staff has recommended approval of your application with the two conditions and one substantive the staff finds that the retaining wall should stop before the corner of the yard are you in agreement with that or do you need clarification i am in agreement with that uh any questions or comments from the board members questions or comments from the audience Hearing none then, we're ready for a motion. Chair, as per case number 18130110 at 110 Suburban Court, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness as submitted with one substantive condition. The staff finds the retaining wall should stop before the corner of the yard and the two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Mr. Brown, thank you. Good luck. At 611 Ellesmere Park, Scope of Work has demolished concrete block garage, constructed pool house, and associated side work. Come on. State your name for the record. Nemeth Brown. All right. Are you the architect, the applicant? House owner. Okay, all right, because I have Charles Tuck on here, that's why I'm... All right, so the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions, along with a substantive condition that the north and south wall should have banding with final details to come back to staff for its review and approval prior to construction. mr dickinson that um can you strike that that particular number one that was um an error and there was a new sheet sent out with that well i'm sorry i didn't see the new sheet so do i have a new sheet it's it's on your desk but that's okay what now it's on your in front of you someplace but never mind here test this down to him Let's start over. All we had to say was just taking off. Okay, all right, so now just down to the standard two conditions. I have read them previously into the record. Are you in agreement with them? Yes, I am. All right, do I have any questions or comments about this application? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, as per case number 06510611-I at 611 Ellesmere Park, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness as submitted with the standard two 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 of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and your application has been approved. Thank you. Looks like a very nice backyard, by the way. Thank you. All right, turning now to 222 Arlington Avenue. Scope of work has changed the front porch design. Yes. I believe the staff has recommended disapproval of your application. I assume you'd like to be heard on that? Sure, I suppose so. I'm here. Well, actually, you're here. You can explain your reasoning and have the staff explain to them why they believe your application can't be approved. We could perhaps, you could always resubmit because you'll have a substantive change to your submittal. because obviously you can't do it the way you want to do it in this application. Okay. So you're not completely borrowed from having something done to your front porch. You just can't do it the way you're voicing to do. Okay. So I have confused you. I can tell. Well, I'll be honest. I'm just kind of standing in for Taryn. I really don't know what he wrote on the application. So I know that we were hoping to change the columns from round to square, but I'm not sure how he explained that or what else. Let's do this. Let's go ahead and let's open this case and then explain it to you. Yeah. If you just take a seat right there for a moment. Okay. All right. Just as a clarification before we get into it, staff has already issued a COA for them to do the repairs on the porch. This only concerns changing the columns and the balusters in the railing on the front porch. Okay. So 222 Arlington Avenue, the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to change the style of the front porch, columns, and guardrail balusters. The applicant currently holds a staff-issued COA to repair the front porch. The historic structure in question has round and half round Doric columns and pilasters. The guardrail has turned wood balusters, which are also shown in the survey photo, circa 1980. So this is 222. You can see the turned, or I'm sorry, not turned, the door columns and the railing. And then I have an enlarged photo that also shows the turned balusters and the round columns, the pilasters at each wall. The guidelines are included for your use. And so this is a modern photo. You can see that the columns are still existing as the round columns. Findings. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the guidelines. The architectural details and features design principle states, architectural detailing is a major component in defining a building's character and style. Historic architectural detailing should be preserved and maintained. Guidelines 11A and 11B state respectively, architectural details shall be maintained and retained and shall not be removed or changed if original to the building. and should be repaired rather than replaced. The porches design principle states in part, porches are one of the most important defining characteristics of a historic residence. Original porches should be repaired and maintained. Additionally, the proposal does not meet Guideline 113A and 113B. The porches should be maintained in their original configuration and with the original materials and detailing. Porches should not be removed if original. Porches and their details should be retained intact with repair work and replacement of missing parts such as columns, posts, railings, balusters, decorative moldings, trim work to match the original and design materials, scale, and placement. The porch columns and railings should be preserved and maintained. If repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimension and detailing per guideline 114A. Staff recommends denial of the proposal as submitted. And that's the conclusion of the staff report, unless the board has any questions for me. Any questions? I think she's wanting to shift out or switch out. Don't walk away yet. I've got a question to you. I'm sorry. Sorry. She just wanted to switch out from round to square. Could you articulate a little bit better why you think that's not appropriate? Well, because these columns are either original to the structure or a replacement in kind of the original columns on the porch. Okay, the guideline basically promotes the retention of original columns. Historic fabric, yes. And so in this proposal, are those columns capable of being repaired? There's one that's in fairly severely deteriorated condition. This one. But the guidelines do allow on porch columns when they're approved for replacement that fiberglass columns that match the historic columns are approvable. All right. Okay. All right. Ms. Strott? Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Ms. Strott? Why do you want to change them from round to square? Mainly for design purposes, especially with the trim it's more square we just think that would look nicer and then as well and then we have to replace that column regardless the porches being held up by those two beams the water was coming down significantly and basically just deteriorated that whole column Typically, the guidelines do call for retention and adherence to the original design. You just don't willy-nilly swap out designs. I know there are other houses that have the square columns. Your house, however, was blessed with a little bit more of an upscale design, which is the Doric columns. What is it? I'm sorry? They're called Doric columns. They are, there's different kinds of Greek terminology. The dork is a plain but nicely elegant round column. The Corinthians, the ones that you see with all the pediment at the top of the column are called Corinthian. Gotcha. Okay. And there's ionic, and I'm not sure exactly how to describe those. Any comments or questions from the board members? I think the findings are very straightforward in relationship to the guidelines. But there are the options with different materials. It is right in a location where water is going to kind of always be an issue. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, it'll be tough. There was a spigot coming down to prevent the water, but that was removed so they could put up the pulse. So I think basically, any other comments or questions? Ma'am, when you're in a historic neighborhood, you sort of have to accept that your house, which you may think is kind of quirky with the round columns, would look better with the square, your house is round and it should remain round. Now, there is options on the materials, which will be a little less expensive. So if that's a concern. Not so much. But I think ultimately if you get it repaired and repainted, I think you'll actually be more pleased with the results, hopefully. Hopefully. You had a proposal that you wanted to put some lighting in your soffit. Barry, did you have a problem with that? With the lighting? The lighting, placing the new lighting would be perfectly fine and within the guidelines be done under the current coa okay all right all right then any comments or questions from the audience anything else miss uh all right i think we're ready for a motion all right chair in regards to case number zero zero six one zero two two two dash g at 222 arlington avenue i move that we reject the certificate of appropriateness or do not approve the certificate of appropriateness. Either term works. Okay. All right. So do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Chair will call the question that to disapprove this application. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The application is disapproved. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so turning to our next application at 530 East I Street, Woodland Christian Church. Jay Copley. Jay Copley with Necto Architecture. Mr. Copley. I'll be honest with you, this is a little odd in terms of the staff recommendation to I think part of the problem is there is a lot of details that the staff needs to have. In some respects, this application may not have been as complete as it could have been. We have an option of having a very open case and we can have a discussion about it. or we can simply acknowledge that we need an extension for time from you to take it out to the next meeting and have go through this punch list and provide additional detail. I've read through the report and I'd like to respond to the comments in the report. Let's do this then. Let's go ahead and open the case and have the presentation made by staff and then you can respond. 530 East High Street is on the same property or is the property of Woodland Christian Church. The project is a renovation of the existing church, construction of a three-story apartment building. adjacent to that church. The applicant had a conceptual review from the BOAR during the August 17, 2022 board meeting and has now submitted a proposal for a certificate of appropriateness. The proposal includes the renovation of the Woodland Christian Church and the construction of a three-story senior living apartment building that will be connected to the church by a three-story connector. The exterior repairs proposed for the historic church is the repair of the historic wood windows and doors. The proposed three-story building is to be constructed in the green space area to the east of the church. The interior of the church, specifically the rear mass that contains classrooms and meeting rooms, is to be renovated. Basically a door will, from that area, will connect to the connector in the new construction. The proposed addition is constructed and sets in an angle and connects to the side of the rear mass of the church. And when I say rear mass, I'm speaking of this section. Is that the south side? Okay, where was I? And this connector, the connector as I mentioned will connect about in this area. The connector is set back from the north or the front elevation of the structure approximately 71 feet. The highest street or north elevation of the front mass of the new structure runs parallel to the east-west axis of the church, set back about 40 feet from the church's north elevation and approximately 17 feet off the east elevation. The new structure, the front mass, measures approximately 81 and a half feet long and is parallel to the front of the church. Located behind the front mass is a wing skewed from the front axis to run parallel to the east property line. This mass is approximately 47 feet by 148 feet. The exterior materials that are proposed for the construction of the apartment building include exterior insulated finish system, EFIS, is indicated on all four elevations of the new construction. Details in the EFIS are window seals and expansion joints as required by the manufacturer's minimum recommendations. Brick is indicated on the west elevation in combination with the EFIS as noted above. stone is shown on the north elevation from the grade up to the head of the windows on the north elevation with a stone steel sill abutting the brick the brick occurs to the parapet where it's capped by a metal parapet cap vinyl windows are shown in the drawings for all windows in the new construction excluding the curtain wall the curtain wall material was not specified in the drawings, but we assumed that it would be anodized aluminum and insulated glass panels. The curtain wall is shown to occur at the intersection of the historic church and the new construction. The existing on-site parking lot is proposed to be redesigned and reconstructed to change the traffic pattern. The redesign is shown with a relocated curb cut that is located between the two curb cuts, two existing curb cuts, what I'll point out in the drawings and the photos. It appears to require the removal of two trees with trunks greater than 10 inches in diameter. A trash dumpster is also shown on the south side of the parking lot. The trash enclosure is not detailed. The parking lot that exists on the west side of Kentucky Avenue is also proposed to be redesigned and reconstruction. This redesign also appears to require the removal of trees with trunk diameters greater than 10 inches. The guidelines are included for your use. And before I get into our findings, I'll take you more through the photographs and the drawings. There's a big time. Never mind. So this is the west side of the church that faces Kentucky Avenue. This is the front of the church parallel to, at least in this location, to High Street. This is looking to the east at the adjacent property. The front's high, but Oldham Avenue is just beyond that. This is a shot from the corner looking to see how the front of the church and the front of that house are fairly aligned as far as the scent back goes. This is the west side of the church. And then some enlarged photos. This is the south, which is the rear Kentucky off to the left and Oldham to the right. This is the parking lot to the rear of the church, which is proposed to be redesigned and reconstructed. And these are some photos of the vacant portion of the lot. Again, this is the house that faces High at the corner of Oldham and High. And we'll follow that property line back, looking at the adjacent structures that all of these are on Oldham. This is looking to the south, Euclid in the distance. This is looking across Kentucky at the existing parking behind the church. And you can see a couple of the trees here that are larger than 10 inches. The new curb cut appears to be about the center of this existing planter area. So this is the site plan that was submitted showing the church and the new addition, new construction. This is the connector and then that front mass that parallels the front of the church and then the rear wing that runs more or less parallel to the eastern property line i think it averages 17 feet or so off of the property line again this is the location of those trees also on this parking lot which is across uh kentucky there are a couple of trees that appear like they will be or will need to be removed and this is a more detailed plan of the existing church and the connector and then the new addition and new or new construction uh it's three floors uh large plans and i'll leave these elevations up while i go on through the the findings the proposed three-story structure is located approximately 17 feet from one and a half and two two and a half story historic residential structures not from the actual structures but from the property line that separates it from them and this three stories may overwhelm those structures as and as the design does not meet guideline 2b1b which states scale height and width new construction should be in keeping with adjacent properties in height and in width. In general, new construction should not vary in height more than 10% from the average along the block and within the historic district. Width should also be consistent with the surrounding buildings and buildings throughout the district. The proposed flat walls along with no change in height or rhythm created by a divisional bays or other breaks in the plan does not meet guideline 2B1F, which states location and proportion of entrances, windows, divisional bays and porches, openings such as entrances and windows, and architectural features such as divisional bays and porches are design components that help establish balance, rhythm, scale and proportion and emphasis in a structure. patterns of these components on buildings along the block and within the district create a characteristic rhythm for the streetscape and the neighborhood. It is very important that new construction respect the balance, proportion, and scale of the existing buildings along the block and within the district in regards to those components. Guideline 2B1F also continues. use. Entrances and divisional bays shall be compatible in scale, size, and proportion to established rhythms of openings in adjacent and surrounding buildings. Divisional bays are where the facade of the building is divided into a series of vertical bays or section used in designs such as pilasters and columns and projections and inset sections. Divisional bays in new construction should be compatible with the balance and proportion of divisional bays in existing buildings on the block and within the district. The proposed vinyl windows do not meet guideline 2B1J windows. The use of wood or anodized or baked aluminum windows is appropriate. Vinyl windows are not allowed. The minimum detailing on the ethos and similarity of the proposed stone to the historic structures stone creates a false sense of history and does not meet guideline 2B1K, which notes, details. Architectural details help give a building character and scale. Details include, but are not limited to corner boards, rake boards, cornices, brackets, downspouts, railings, columns, steps, doors, and window moldings, and decorative elements. Architectural details may be appropriate when they give the building on which they are placed a good sense of belonging on the street and within a district. These details should be appropriately scaled for the proposed structure and compatible with other adjacent buildings in the historic district. Installation of ornaments or details that give a building an imitation historic appearance are not allowed. The location and screening of the mechanical units are not shown or detailed, so it cannot be determined if the design meets guidelines. 3, A, B, and C. mechanical units which state should be located where they are least visible and intrusive. If visible on the sides of buildings should be screened with shrubbery and fencing and such electrical and gas meters and other mechanical equipment should be located on the rear or side of the building. The submitted proposal of the new construction does not include the complete required information for the staff and the BOAR members to determine if the proposal meets the design guidelines. The following required information noted as missing in the findings and recommendations are the minimum required information for the revised documents to be included and resubmitted. It appears from a staff visit to the site that multiple trees in the two parking lots will need to be removed which does not meet guideline 36G and 36H which state trees with trunks greater than 10 inches in diameter should not be removed unless diseased or unsafe and new construction or rehabilitation activities should work around trees with trunks greater than 10 inches. Per guideline 3-5-D the parking lots should have their parking areas located in the rear yards and be screened with hedges, shrubs, fences, or fences as appropriate. And parking on vacant lots between buildings should align edge screening with the front elevations, facades of adjacent buildings on corner lots, and buildings on corner lot should have edge screening on both primary and secondary streets. The study, these are not recommendations, but things that are needed in order to have a complete application and to meet the guidelines. Study the redesign of the proposed parking lots to avoid the removal of trees greater than 10 inches in diameter. Provide screening of parking lots from adjacent properties using plantings or fences as required. Provide details for the dumpster screening. Study the location of the dumpster and remove it from the front yard of Kentucky Avenue. Consider locating the dumpster in the developed area on the west side of Kentucky Avenue. And I should stop there i did not indicate where street where the dumpster is located it uh comes off of kentucky and it sits right about there indicate locations of ground or roof mounted mechanical units and detail screening for those units. Provide location and details of property, perimeter fencing, and landscaping for the required separation of the R4 zone from the R1 and R2 zones. R4 is the developed, the new construction area and one and two are the surrounding residential areas. Provide a landscaping plan showing trees new and and existing, provide details and specifications for windows, provide curtain wall details and specifications, provide any signage location and details, provide any post office box location and details, and provide a document showing the setbacks, height, and average heights of adjacent structures on High, Kentucky, and Oldham Avenue. The staff's recommendation is that the case be continued to allow the applicant time to correct the submittal and submit the required information to the BOAR. That is the end of the staff report. Any questions? When is the next meeting in January? I'm sorry, I cannot hear you. When is the next meeting in January? The 8th, January 18th. Third Wednesday? Yes, sir. Okay. all right as let's do this any questions of mr dentis all right so mr kopley i would like to point out that i just received this report this morning so i've done my best to to make notes quickly today to be prepared for today's meeting all right i have brought some additional information renderings and some photographs to go over to kind of talk about some of this stuff so i may refer to some of those once we get there so i guess i'd like to start with first thing is about the scale of the building and about responding to the context of the one and a half to two and a half stories buildings that are in on Kentucky and on Oldham. Our intent was only to do an addition to the church. So we're in addition to a three-story commercial construction. It's a church. We're not doing a three-story addition to a story and a half or two-story residential building. So we're responding to the exact, to the building itself, to the church. And if we're talking about scale and how that church relates to the adjacent structures, then it seems that the church would be out of proportion. So we actually reduced the scale of our addition. The church is 40 feet tall. Our addition is 32 feet. And we're actually submerging the building into the ground just as the church is. It sits about 30 inches below grade. So we're responding to that in respect to the church by diminishing the scale of the building. and the ornateness and the detail of the buildings about variation about the sides of the church being or the sides of the addition being smooth and not a lot of detail or undulations that in my opinion as the architect belonged to the church we don't want to do those things to try to compete with it so we came with a more contemporary and more streamlined design to try to keep in the cornice that wraps around the front of the church was our datum line to not be above that elevation to let the scale and proportions and the detail of the church kind of stand and be the main element so that was always the intent of of that scale of why it is as big as it is and why it's a diminished in scale next to the church only talking about the church not talking about the apartment buildings that are adjacent or the single family residential that in that neighborhood. I will say that the proportion of the front of our building relates to the proportion of the front of the church. So that front bar that's right there relates to the front bar of the church. There's actually a cover over top of this piece. So the circulation, the front bar that sits in front of the church, we are actually relating to that and then pulling the rest the building back behind it so the front of the church has a recess in it to create a porch we did a recess in our building to create a porch too the the stairs go up to the front of the front of the church we actually have stairs that go down to create more of that that scale and reducing it below the scale of the church in response to the ethos and the stone and the materials that we used Our ideas were to respond to the stone that was the belt line that was around the bottom of the church in that stone. And we were replicating that only on the front part of our addition. So it was only on this front bar right here. The back part of it was going to be a combination of ethos and brick. If the ethos is viewed as being inappropriate, we can change that to hardy lap siding, to something that maybe relates to the other residential buildings in the neighborhood. It was just changing in material because of the cost of the stone and the cost of the masonry. We were trying to save some money and come up with a different material that we felt would be respectful to the church. There's no ephus on the church, but there's also no lap siding either, so we didn't feel the lap siding was appropriate, so that's why we chose ephus as a more affordable product to move to. and as far as the stone goes we would consider doing cut stone which is more contemporary look than the rumbled stone that's around the basement around the bottom part the belt line of the existing church regarding the mechanical systems and this actually goes into the list of all the drawings that were requested this is a schematic design level and we've submitted this for approval and to get funding and the project has not been approved for funding yet so we're sitting at a schematic level of design and hopes that when they do when we do get funding when we do they tell us we have 90 days to finish the construction documents so we wanted to design as much of the building as we could to be able to get enough information in front of you to convey the intent without actually having to proceed forward with construction documents because at that point can't really back up and change the design we've spent all that time money with an entire team of designing all the construction documents so as far as the mechanical system goes all the hvac units and all that we don't have that yet because we don't have a mechanical engineer that's designed the hvac system i can say the intent is all the hvac units would go up on the roof if there are any on the ground we would meet the guidelines and we would screen those units so i have no problem with any of that of what was said and the intent is always to meet the guidelines and to keep them out of view as much as possible regarding the trees that have to be removed the existing parking lots do not meet lfucg regulations for their parking and we went through this with planning and we got i will say we got a unanimous post to change the zoning of the property and they approved the project from their point of view when we reviewed the parking lots with them the existing parking lots did did not meet their standards so we revised the parking lots to be able to meet their current standards unfortunately there were some trees that were in the way and so we did have to remove those i will say i have an image of those trees those trees have been they've been so severely compromised by KU's pruning because of the power lines and the LFUCG sanitary sewer line that just went through there. And we're pretty sure that a lot of the root systems of those three trees that are in the front behind the church, so it's that right there. So you can see that everywhere along these power lines, that whole side of the tree, which used to come out to here, is now gone. And so it's unbalanced now. And speaking to our landscape architect, He said when you have unbalanced trees like that and the unbalanced canopy, you are susceptible to wind damage, storm damage, and even disease. So we felt that those trees, because of that and because of the utility line that went through here, we think that those trees have already been compromised. And there's also some belief that urban street trees do have a shorter lifeline. And given the age of these trees, we feel that those trees have reached that timeline. So we have plans to replace the trees and plant new trees on the site as a part of the design. But again, we don't have all the full documents done because we haven't done our full construction documents yet. But that landscaping plan and those new trees will be a part of that. And we would have every intention of meeting the BOAR guidelines. Regarding the dumpster, the LFUCG, because of what we're trying to do with the property and do 38 residential units, LFUCG requirements were to have an eight-yard dumpster. And after reviewing this with planning, that was the only location that we could come up with. We looked at all the other locations, and to be able to move it, we're on a corner lot. So we've got High Street on one side, we've got Kentucky on the other. Definitely not moving it to High Street. So it's got to come off of Kentucky. and then the idea of moving it across to the west side which puts it in the adjacent parking lot we can't do that because now the the dumpster is not on an accessible route so the people that live on the property have to have access to those dumpsters so we have to be on an accessible route which puts us in the parking lot behind the church so we cannot relocate the dumpster and we can't move it across to an adjacent lot if the adjacent parking lot ever got sold or went to another now we no longer have a dumpster not that that would ever happen but the fact that it is a corner lot we are very limited in what we could do and again this was reviewed and approved by planning staff so that's that's kind of everything that i've got in response to the notes and the comments that you had i would like to bring up i did have some new renderings they're in a folder called i believe there's three different renderings in there i would like to bring i think it's in that top go back one top folder thing if you can just open up all three of those so i think you may have already seen this one this is the one that has the stone on the front of it and this is where we were saying we could do the cut stone here which would be different than the rumbled stone that wraps around the bottom of the church if you go to the next image please so this image shows the rear the dumpster would be in this location here we would have screening around it it's required as a part of our our requirements that we have to do and those details would be a part of the construction documents and we have every intent of meeting the guidelines of what you guys want us to do for the detail to screen it away from the neighbors and then this area here this shows the ethos area and the rest of it is all brick which responds to playing off of we're trying to create something if you go to the third image please this is the idea of that's the connector piece with the glass bridge here what we're trying to create was something that looks like it fits in with the church i understand the discussion about scale and understand the discussion about the neighborhood but in no way shape or form could we have something that was in addition to a three-story church and it not be the same size or the same scale as the church so i understand the discussion about the neighbors but that context is not it doesn't apply to the church and i also have another document that i have the heights of all the surrounding buildings that are around us so if you could pull up a it's called context and no actually go back i'm sorry it's the woodland it says um woodland context heights that pdf right there thank you so here i'm indicating the church is 38 to 40 feet our addition is 32 to 34 feet it's a sloping site so that's why it's variation in height here you've got a front building here it's at 22 feet you've got 28 feet 25 feet 25 over here you've got a 35 foot building you've got 30 there 30 there 28 foot so we're we are there is scale and and I know that this commercial area here is not in the h1 but these are context and it is adjacent to our site so we always felt like we were responding more to these commercial buildings over here in this area and not necessarily to the single family and apartment buildings that were in the adjacent streets and neighborhood we're more of a diagonal reference than it was a ones that were exactly right next to us. And again, responding to this scale of the church, not necessarily to the houses. I think that's everything that I've got from my point. Do you have anything? My name is John Woodall, ladies and gentlemen. I've had the pleasure of representing the applicant, Winterwood, at the Planning Commission level. I'm not going to take up a lot of your time with this. I just want you to know that this is a project that the design team I know has worked extremely hard on. It's very unique. Christy Jo back here with the church would tell you that their church is facing what a lot of older churches of this size and scale are facing, which is declining membership and a lot of deferred maintenance, which is leading to projects like this, you know, not just in Lexington. This is unique because this structure is going to remain a church. The sanctuary is going to remain. We had to get a conditional use permit to allow that once we did the zone change. A religious gathering is a permitted use or conditional use in the R4 zone, so we had to do that. But, you know, as Graham Pohl said when he made the motion to approve our zone change, I mean, this is a very creative way and approach to save a fabulous historic property. And, you know, that led to the unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. We had a lot of engagement with the neighborhood before this. You know, we came to the Planning Commission and received a letter of endorsement from the Ailsford Place Neighborhood Association. So we've done a lot of work on this, and obviously there were some questions you still have. This is a really, to me, important project for our community, and we all need to be on the same page about it, and that's where we want to get with you all on this thing to make sure that we're doing everything right. I have the pleasure of representing Winterwood and other things, so I know how they do business. um but this is going to be a first class project and it's going to be there for a long time so it needs to be done right and that's what we want to do so thank you for hearing us today zach you want to say anything uh this is zach worship he's president of winterwood i'm sorry i didn't hear your name or what title yes sir it's zach worship i'm the vice president with winterwood incorporate incorporated the applicant for the project okay just want to thank uh the board here for your time and the staff for their thoroughness through this process i'll say that we're very proud of the design that our team has put together and again just to speak to i think the largest issue that we've seen in the staff report we do believe that contextually this project does speak to the historic nature of the church building while it is different from the neighborhood and the single-family homes around it the church is different from the neighborhood the single-family homes around it and i think what has been striking to us through this process is in a building like this it's so important as a historical landmark historic preservation is a challenging and complicated process and so we appreciate your staff's thoughts and comments on our design and we're hopeful that we can move forward to get this board's approval so we can see this project come to fruition we're open and willing to to all the recommendations and discussion that comes with it but just thank you all for your time thank you all right so one more element i would like to sure the windows i didn't address the windows we are showing vinyl windows and one of the things that the reason why i'm staying with the vinyl windows is a base bid for the project is because of cost i'm sorry speak up it's the the vinyl windows are in there because of cost because of our construction costs these days have gone to we've all seen it ridiculous levels that we want to have some amount of cost control so as a middle road i would like to suggest that we do an ad alternate in the project to do aluminum clad wood windows in the addition that we will get the pricing for that we review it and if it's possible and if it will fit within the budget of the project we will accept that and i so the intent is to me it's not a matter of you accepting it it's a matter of our deciding whether we can put vinyl windows in i can tell you right now that's a no-go flat out i mean that's just not going to happen i'm sorry then would you consider reduction in in some of the materials on the building itself on the addition reduction of brick reduction of the stone to be able to get the building into a more affordable model to where we could afford better windows and i don't want to get ahead of ourselves i think we need to have a more full conversation about the completeness of the application first of all so i think i'm going to sound the other board members i didn't mean to sound as emphatic as i do but i I am because vinyl windows is something, the guidelines, there are very few absolute in our guidelines. That's one of them. Obviously, if there's a cost issue that's bothering you, and it should, then we can probably work through your plan to figure out other alternatives other than vinyl windows. So that you go to aluminum clad and other materials that may be not quite as expensive. But there are, in my opinion, substantive problems with this application, which is why I think that's why the Savage recommended that we continue this to our next session to give you more time to provide all those details to them rather than trying to do it with us. One of my pet peeves is I don't really want to see the board try to do design work on the fly. That this is an important project is going to be an enduring project. We need to make sure it's done correctly So I won't start with sounding the board Miss Linder, okay All right, I have a few questions Well in one statement is I I do agree that vinyl windows are going to be a no-go So if you have to find a way to reduce other things to get aluminum wood clad windows or wood windows in there, that's going to have to happen. I misunderstood when I was looking at this that the front of this is a brick veneer with stone underneath. Is that? That's correct. All right. I missed that. I thought it was all EFES. So I like the brick. I think your use of a stone cut, a smoother stone, is appropriate for the base of this. So I would prefer to see that over kind of that ashlar, what I'm seeing kind of in this image. And I like how you've broken out the sides. So, you know, you have the brick kind of wrapping and then you're changing that material. The question I had is probably more of a question for historic preservation. Is EPIS allowed? Yes. EPIS would be allowed. The comments were more on just the flush plain that it's applied in, not that it cannot be on the building. Okay. And since you asked that, I had a couple of things that might help the board in response. But, you know, the main thing is that we didn't have enough info, and I will take some of the responsibility for that because it took us a while to get it all reviewed with our other projects. The second point is that the H1 guidelines, whether planning has approved a concept or not, are more restrictive or may be more restrictive. The other point with the guidelines is that it states that we look at the street and and the historic district, not just a building that's on the property. Also, when we're reviewing projects, we look at all four sides of those projects for detailing. The trees, we would be glad to have the arborist come and look at that. Our city arborist is who we rely on. I would be a little concerned, having been in construction for a while, that owners almost never will approve an ad alternate for a material unless it's very beneficial to them. So I would say that the base bid would need, and I can't direct you that way, but the base bid should be what you think would be the more restrictive and then a reduction, a deductive alternate. So that's all I had, I'm sorry to interrupt. I think you did actually answer some of my questions, cuz I was gonna go to the parking next and trying to save those trees. I think we need an actual evaluation of where those trees are and whether they can come down. In terms of the dumpsters, is there a way to even maybe rotate them 90 degrees so you're coming off of the parking lot and getting to those dumpsters and so you're, you know, blocking the view of them from Kentucky? We can't get the truck, can't get into the parking lot and do the maneuvering with the cars in the parking lot. We looked at that as an option. I mean, I don't know in terms of the number of parking spaces you've been told you need to have, but it seems like there should be a way to get all of that in there, but I'm sure you have explored that, but you know, trucks turn into parking lots all the time. They do it in apartment complexes. They get really tight radiuses, so it seems like there should be a way you can begin to shade those dumpsters or cover those dumpsters from the street view without having to look straight into that. We're actually under parked. We had to get variance for parking so we're under the number that we're required to have by the sizable amount well perhaps they require too much parking but that's another topic probably no comment this is this is going to be a senior citizen apartment as opposed to it is it's going to be senior living so they don't have quite as many cars they're not like kids that's that was one of our one of our skills i know i know So I guess to my point, I'd just really like you to work with the staff to see if we can save those trees and not assume that we're just going to cut them all down. The arborist, the city arborist has been out to look at the site and he has talked to our landscape architects so we'd be happy to have a further discussion with him about those specific trees. Okay. Can you go back to the rendering that showed kind of the back side of the building? That side. That would be number two. Yeah, that side. So that EFIS is inset from the brick some to give you some variation in that face. Okay. Yep. Ms. Lemur, you're using a terminology, a term I'm not familiar with. EFIS? Yes. Exterior Insulated Finish System. Thank you. Stucco. It's also called stucco. I love acronyms. Okay. Is that the column that looks like a line? That would be the gray. It's going to be the e-bus. Oh, the gray. Got you. The columns are collection boxes and. Thank you. All right. Yeah, scuppers and downspouts. All right. So that's how you're breaking up the overall mass by alternating the materials? Change the materials. And we do have on the backs on the other side of the building, there are a couple of movements in the floor plan. just a couple of like two feet where we had to do an adjustment on one side of the building so there is some undulations and material changes on the other side of the building too. I'll be honest with you what I'd like to see also is a perspective from the Oldham Avenue side. Okay. You know just how how does the building relate to the buildings that are facing out on Oldham? Sure. Okay. I'll shut up for the moment. I guess I don't know. I mean, I think I agree with the staff that it's kind of like we need just a little bit more information than what we have. So we don't really have a recommendation from the staff at this point. I will say in order to respond to some of those things, we're talking about further design and further development of the design. things like the mechanical equipment which you said you know you just don't have that I think I'm okay with a commitment that you're going to block those from view and try to figure out I mean I think someone that's okay I don't know there's a lot here to to think about okay anything else no I don't think so Ms. Irwin? So I understand that you have some timelines that you're trying to work with and trying to get exterior external funding for this. Can you explain that to us just a little bit so that we understand that better? So ultimately this project, outside of the preservation of the existing church and their continued operation, the housing component of this project is planned to be an affordable housing project funded by the Kentucky Housing Corporation. We are waiting on a decision from the Kentucky Housing Corporation as it relates to a funding application we made in the late summer, early fall. We expect that decision to come sometime around, unfortunately the next meeting of this board that was referenced January 18th. And what will happen at that point is we will have a 90-day clock to complete our design in its entirety. Some of the components of the design that really can't be changed to make sure this deal remains affordable housing are the unit density because our application did reference a specific amount of apartments. So, you know, I think that's why I've focused on and Jay's focused on the scale of the project and how it relates to other buildings. We were very thoughtful about that because that's one of those things we don't have the ability to do a lot of movement on the windows. We can certainly move to the aluminum wood clad or some alternate that's acceptable to this governing body and the HVAC systems. And we can talk about trees and dumpster surrounds and those things. unit density is important but for us to have approval from this board when we have that award would be extremely helpful so what we were hopeful for tonight and it seems like we may have a little bit to go and if that's the case we'll accept that and we'll work with staff but you know this seems like a lot of things in this application on the comments to me that could be approved with conditions you know hvac is a main point the windows i don't know about the scale of the project i don't understand if there's a recommendation for us to reduce that which would be near impossible for us at this point but i've gone on a little bit of a rant but just to say we do start a clock if the project's funded and it's important that we meet that or the project itself may not go forward and certainly it would be less likely to go forward as an affordable housing community okay your clock may start but can you get extensions on the clock They're expensive. That wasn't my question. No, sir, it wasn't. Yes, you can get extensions. Yes, sir. All right. How, why do you say they're expensive? They are. We have to pay for them. Extensions on deadlines with the Kentucky Housing Corporation do cost money. We have to pay for them. Okay. Are we talking thousands of dollars or? Yes. Okay. All right. Anything else, Ms. Everett? And so that timeline is a, is my understanding is the approval of that coincides with our next meeting. The approval date of our funding is not a hard date. It is typically given, we're not told when it's going to be given, but it's typically given in mid to late January. Okay. And then so having. Essentially they can't wait for another month. They can't use 30 days of those 90 days to wait for. Okay. Well, that was going to be, are you actively working on this between now and that date or are you kind of at a holding pattern until that, you get approval anyway? From a design standpoint, yes, we're at a holding pattern other than what we need to do to work with staff as part of walking out of this meeting. So potentially if you work with staff over the next 30 days and this comes up in front of us with these questions addressed, you get the approval at the same time. It looks like it's kind of the same time frame. You just don't want to be cutting it that close. Yes, ma'am. Which I understand. If we're lucky, it's the same time frame. So I have some other comments to make on that. I just wanted to be a little more clear and for us all to understand what type of time frame that you're working with to try to achieve this. Sure, sure. So one thing that I just wanted to make a comment on is based on or addressing the scale and the density of this project. You know, it is in an ideal situation, what the guidelines are wanting us to look at is when you have a larger scale building like the church as it stands now, and we have open space that buffers that larger scale, that buffers it from the smaller scale housing adjacent to it. that's kind of the ideal scenario that's the historic scenario however it is you know i think it is really important that we consider that this density for this project is required for the the financial ability for this to go forward. And secondarily, it's also really important that our historic neighborhoods have the ability to have affordable housing and that this is a project that will enable the survival of the original historic structure. So although I am uncomfortable with the proximity of that mass next to the smaller houses that face Oldham Avenue, I think we need to consider as a board that there are a lot of other things that this is achieving that may be more important for the overall community and for the preservation of the individual architectural church, the importance of that. So that's my comment on that. I do agree with everything you just said, and those are things I wish I would have said. they're rumbling around in my head sometimes you get called on to do these things and sometimes you get lucky enough to be asked to do something like this it is significant it means something to a lot of people and those people are sitting right back there and that gets in your in your system it becomes a challenge of like how do we get this done and i can say that so far through shippo through planning zoning we've had a great deal of good momentum and positive energy behind this thing and we really are trying to capitalize on that and keep going because we do want this to stay in the hands of the people that are already in this church and we want to take that to the next level and beyond and i think it is very important um and back to your idea of scale i say just on the other side of that rendering right there those are apartment buildings they're not story story and a half single family residential they're two-story apartment buildings and the height of them are close to 30 feet both of them are on the other side of that so i'll just say i think it would you know we have this question come up a lot and it would really be wonderful if we had on this site plan the the masses of those i mean you know probably we should know that but we it would be great to have the the footprint mass of the adjacent properties um you know and the if you could call up actually the the google map where you one with the heights with the heights on it i just wanted to make another observation it's the one that says context heights that's it so if we look at at this there are a lot of you know very small scale residential masses but if we also look to the top left up where the maxwell street school is that obviously does not fit with the pattern of the surrounding. However, it's a very contributory and important item and function for the neighborhood. so there does need to be a consideration for masses and patterns that break you know the overall pattern if they are contributing to the community in other ways. I don't know how to exactly make that align with our guidelines, but I think that is something that our board needs to consider for this project. One thing that I've thought about when going through the guidelines is it does seem, please don't take this as any kind of, it's just an observation it does seem to be geared more towards the houses in the area and not towards commercial construction within the h1 there's yeah we are always looking at that balance partly because the guidelines were set up that way yeah i mean the point of a historic district is to keep it the integrity and the overall pattern and rhythm of that historic district consistent with the way it was originally conceived. Now, there are exceptions, and we can work around that. And I don't want to jumpstart the conversation too soon, because I want to hear if there's anything else from Ms. Hill. Yes, please. Thank you for being here again. So we last talked about this project in August. I'm sorry we haven't had a chance to talk about it since because I think we'd be at a much easier spot right now. I don't think we ever expressed strong discomfort with the density back in August. I think the density is not, I don't think that's in play here. It's an important project. It is a large project, but it also has the potential to be such a contributor to the neighborhood and hold on to that wonderful historic church. We are in the 21st century. A lot of these historic buildings were from the 19th and early 20th century. So bridging that, it's important that we do so. A lot of what I'm hearing does have to do with that kind of landscape and kind of canopy part of it. I mean, even a simple site plan showing tree locations, even with the dumpster and looking at that, kind of the landscaping screening I think would have alleviated some of the express concerns. i'll alike uh... that color change between the ephus and the brick uh... i don't have a strong sense uh... manstone on uh... matching the front elevation i'm all right if just uh... can't scale line uh... coloration and texture of the material be different for that base uh... the banding doesn't have as much to mention but it's very clear and it does give recognition to the historic building the the final windows are there there is very little in our guidelines that we don't have some flexibility that one is like a big explanation mark um and and that is part of our industry that's changing a lot and i understand that but if there is some way to address those So it doesn't trip us up. Yes. I have a couple comments of my own. In a way, the staff saved to the last the most important recommendation, which is we've got to have documentation. And it needs to be submitted to the staff, not to us tonight, providing the setback height and average heights of the adjacent structures. so that we can actually make a determination in terms of whether this building can be approved. I don't think you can get a whole lot of pushback, but we need the data. We need to have that data in our findings so that some other less scrupulous applicant doesn't come bouncing in here saying, oh, well, you approved this without getting all your ducks in a row first. Unfortunately, I think we got ahead of ourselves. Most of those applications should probably not have been advertised yet because I think there's too many missing details. Typically the staff is uncomfortable giving you a punch list of a whole bunch of items that need to be done. Because it turns into a contentious mess. So I think we can be committed to, if you can get the details back to staff and have it ready for our review in January. That we can probably come up with a plan that will allow you to move forward roughly at the same time that you're going to be getting your approval. That's not a commitment that we're going to approve. But I'm saying, I'm not seeing anything so far that's giving me heartburn. But we don't have the data. That's our problem. There, my, given the list that we have under the findings, I do understand that the design team, that some of these simply, they're not available yet. Right. So if those can be part of a list for submittal and final approval for the staff at the time this is reviewed. Right. I'm totally comfortable with that. And that's my expectation. it's an appropriate sequence. I think the biggest problem is we just don't have the data yet. So let's get our ducks in a row in terms of how we can improve this application. There will be probably some additional items that you're going to have to come back to staff with later. But I think the more appropriate route to take, and we need your cooperation in this respect, is to continue this hearing to January 18. We will need a waiver of the time deadline to do that, and we'll pick this up in good faith and hopefully get something approved, hopefully, at the January 18 meeting. I think we had basically a good, robust conceptual review tonight, but I think the trees have to be looked at in some more detail. I think the massing, we just need to have the site plans to make sure that we're not completely overwhelming those structures on Oldham. Would a document like this be appropriate in response to that? I think a document like that with the adjacent properties, you know, like a Noli map, where you've got, like, the ground plane is clear and the buildings are darkened in, and we have kind of views from the different faraway views from the different sides, like from Olden Avenue. I do have some of those pictures with me today, but I see where this is going, so I'm not going to bring that up right now. But, yeah, I see what you're saying. I mean, that's my comment, if others have additional. I agree. I mean, Google Earth with volumes so that we're seeing kind of some 3D view of it and then a notion of landscaping just diagrammatically. And we need you to have a conversation with the arborist and make sure he's on the same page with you as your arborist. I have discovered there are varying opinions among arborists. Surprise, surprise, surprise. So we do need your consent to extend and we will continue this to our meeting in January 18. Yes, you have a. All right, thank you so much. We do appreciate the cooperation. I will note for the record we did have an objection filed with us from Ben Kaufman. He is the owner of the properties on Oldham, I believe. The letter dated back in October, October 14. And he is the owner of 315 and 319 Oldham. Mr. Kaufman has a number of properties in that area. might behoove you to have a conversation with them. So anything else? Any comments from, I think there's a person back here that would like to comment. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Richard Day. I live at 357 Cochrane Road. I am former principal at Cassidy Elementary, currently a professor at Eastern Kentucky university and an education historian. I'm also serving as the church historian and I'm on the board. Thank you for your acknowledgement of the importance of this project and we are really anxious to get this resolved. I think you might be able to imagine sitting on a board and seeing with a congregation of about 40 active members at the time a list of short and long-term maintenance goals that totaled a million dollars. Now I'm pleased to say that our attendance at church is up by about 50% since then, but we still have some issues to work out. What I wanted to address with you is scale and history. The land that the new structure would go on is what was known as the Prather property back in the 80s. And had we been successful in saving the Prather property, the scale would look very different from what you are seeing today. In December of 87, we had a very difficult reality because we had purchased that lot where the 1870s, I can't tell you how tall it was, but I think it was a three-story structure. You probably know better than I do what some of those buildings were like, sat on that property. The church, but the house had been unoccupied for years to the point where it had run down, as we see historic properties do from time to time, became known as a haunted house to the kids in the neighborhood and became a hazard for kids who want to run through the building. We tried to restore the building. I say we, I wasn't a member of the congregation at the time, but the church made efforts to save the property, met with the neighborhood association, met with historic groups, and ultimately was unable to do so, and this historic property was raised. Had it still been sitting there, we'd be having a different conversation. But because that historic property was lost, now we've got things bumping into each other that we would probably not prefer. So I would just hate to see one of three colonial revival churches that we have in that area of town go the way of the Prather property. Instead, what we're actively trying to do is keep it active. And we think it is a unique property. We see a lot of churches converted into things, but rarely do we see the congregation stay and keep that vital. And we think this would be a big benefit to the community. But thank you very much for your efforts. I have a couple questions. Are you saying there was a building on the vacant lot that is next door? Yes, sir. would you mind some uh because i was under the impression it's always been a vacant lot since it's uh conception no it actually did have structures um mr day is mentioning the property was there was 1887 in the sandbar maps for this particular area don't pick anything up to like 1907 1934, so when you're looking back historically in this neighborhood, the structure we see at the time that it was later raised, was practically about the same size as the structure on the corner. And it actually sat right beside that, sort of not necessarily right in the middle, but sort of to the side. And it was probably the same age as the structure, which is mentioned on the site plan as the Bauer property. That was there. So we don't have, we have evidence because of the city directories that indicate what structures were on East High Street. But, you know, sandboard maps we use a lot as far as sort of telling the history of what's going on in the neighborhood. I would like to have those sandboard maps put into the record. And if you have any documentation for your statement, please submit that to us. I have very poor documentation, but I have what I have. I've got a plat that shows the property, and then we've got some historic records that our church has kept of our board's action at the time. That would be appreciated only because that may mitigate why. you know i was curious as to why that vacant lot was there and i had frankly forgotten or not realized that there was a building there so that would be helpful to us at one time the church owned that story and a half on the corner of oldham as well yes okay all right thank you uh let me know who i can provide i'll get with you here in a second okay all right thank you anything any Any other comments from the audience? That was very interesting, thank you. I just wanted to say, if I didn't say it clearly enough to begin with, that the affordable housing aspect of this is really contributory to our community as a whole. You already have that sentiment expressed to us indirectly because we are well aware of the fact the Planning Commission approved this unanimously. The zoning change went through without a public hearing, which is very unusual. So we are fully aware, and we too are sympathetic. We just have to figure out ways to square it with the guidelines. And to be honest with you, sometimes the guidelines are myopic when it comes to these issues. And so we have to make sure that we're doing proper justice to the guidelines, but at the same time recognizing that there has to be a certain degree of flexibility. But that's why we're here, that's our function. And furthermore, what we're specifically asking for is the documentation on which we can make those findings clear and concise. All right, so any further observations? If not, I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, as per case number 09290530-G at 530 East High Street. I move that we continue the case to allow the applicant time to present the information requested and to the, and that we continue it to the next meeting date, which is January 18th. contingent upon their execution of a waiver contingent upon their execution of a waiver do you have a second second all right all those in favor is this the appropriate time to make a minor modification if you're amending the motion yes it is appropriate i apologize i just needed some legal guidance i always ask is there any discussion of the motion please uh make your change um is that the list of items that were in the findings uh is more extensive than i think we're actually asking for and so it's very specific to the context the uh of the adjacent So we have that as part of the submittal and that we understand a little more the findings from the arborist, the city arborist, and understand the kind of landscape intent just even as a diagram. As trees are removed, I know the arborist is very supportive of new trees being planted, and I think that balance would be very helpful. Well, those are the things I'm most interested in, that long list. I don't think we're asking them. I guess I'm asking for clarification from the motion made, what list they're supposed to respond to. And then I would also say that we most likely, we will need information about the windows. So is it those three specific things? I want to get some clarification here because now I'm confused. Right now all we're doing is voting to continue this case. I think the staff can take into account our statements about what we think need to be specifically addressed as opposed to this entire laundry list. I am completely comfortable with that. I just felt like that the motion was talking about the list as in the findings. I agree. I'm saying that the list in the findings is modified per the discussion of the board at this meeting. Okay, that's sort of an amendment. Do you agree with that, Ms. Irwin? I do. Okay, the motion is amended. Any further discussion on the motion? We can parse it through and we can turn on the tape recorder and listen to this. All right, I'm going to call for the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Yes, nay. The motion passes. We are continued, subject to your all's waiver, January 18. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your cooperation. This is a good project. Thank you. We all have great compliments. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, so do we have a conceptual review coming up? We do? We do. I didn't see. We do? Okay. All right, let's take a 10-minute break. Okay. All right. So we're breaking for about 10 minutes. We'll resume at 5 o'clock. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End so agenda one is the conceptual review at 291 south ashland avenue so this is the main structure at 291 south ashland avenue and the conceptual review that is to construct two new additions and a second floor on the historic garage materials have not been worked out at this point so we will get those in the final or in the formal request for a coa the main things that i think that we want to talk about we can probably skip a lot of the questions and go straight to what the board thinks about a couple of issues. So the main house, and we could not get in the day that we went to take photos, but you can kind of see a garage in the back, which kind of matches as far as the stonework, the primary structure. So these are the drawings of the existing structures and these are the proposed. The thing that we are mainly interested in would be adding a second floor to the historic stone garage. and then whether or not the side addition would be appropriate. The guidelines do state that side additions may be appropriate, so we wanted to get a reading from the board on those two issues, and I'll let Mr. Stewart, the architect, maybe describe a little better what he's proposing. I will say that the owner's information that was submitted showing the two-story garages in the historic district, those are new construction that were approved by the board to be two stories. They are not second floors on top of an existing structure. Okay. Okay, Mr. Stewart. Good evening, Jack Stewart, School of Architecture, 120 Kentucky Avenue. Appreciate your time and thanks for this concept because we do want to develop the drawings and be appropriate, but until we have a little bit of a clue that we'd like to hedge on this. So the principal thing is a little addition to the left. We do have room to do it. It's nicely generous over there. and it allows us to create a first floor master to the rear right and then a porch off the rear left and which would be the other addition. I understand now completely much better that the garage is not appropriate to add a second floor on an existing building in a historic neighborhood. I understand that now. So, and looking at some other samples but things that are already newly built, we might, if the owner wants us, we might try to go to more of a story and a half, not just a two-story, but a story and a half on the existing garage that would let us, the existing pitch is not good for that. We'd have to change the pitch and then maybe keep our Eve line there, but bring the story and a half to something that would let us occupy part of the second floor. It wouldn't be all of it. So that's the only alternative I can think of now for that. But the other additions left and rear would be a low-profile hipped roof, much like the port couchere and the front porch. I think they would blend in appropriately. And the idea is that we would carry our stone base along the bottom of all of that and then have a siding above in the rear addition and the left-hand addition. and that's the concept it's pretty large building got the full attic first and second floor and a full basement and but these are the only new square feet we want to have let's start with I just had a question. What is the existing garage constructed? It's stone. It's stone like the house. It's stone. Okay. Besides the front and rear doors, there is a back door to this thing. And our survey hasn't been completed, but the house to the right on South Ashland and this house have an access off of High Street that brings them to the rear of that. and the garage is so overgrown now you can hardly see that it is stone. There's vegetation all over it. So I think as you stated, the guidelines are very clear about not adding a second story onto a structure. An existing garage in this case. Yeah. So I do see that that could be, would be a problem to meet the guidelines. But the, I don't really have many other comments on the other additions, the two additions to the main house as far as being, I guess one thing would be the guidelines are pretty clear about trying to step in any additions. Yes, that rear addition would need to be stepped in on either side, yes. And I don't know that we have quite that in this case right now. It does, but not as much as 12 inches, but we would do that. Okay. I think that's all the comments that I have. So the additions on the main house, what's the, I'm sorry if you said my apologies, the material on the wall finish. On the additions? Yes. We would be the same, we're going to be removing some stone to make that kitchen on the left. We reuse that at the bottom to make a little bit of a wainscote, pretty much at foundation first floor level, and then do the siding above it. Okay, thank you. And the same in the rear. The garage is a tricky one, isn't it? Yeah, it is. The owner is interested in getting on top of it. Let me ask this idea, if indeed we're frowning on that, in addition to the side, if we have a little more of an occupied space might be more appropriate and keep the pitch the same and take that direction versus trying to discover something up above. Yeah, it does seem like any removal or major modification of the existing roof on the historic garage. Not so good. Not so good. Really, really difficult to figure out how you do that one. So I agree if something could be adjacent to it, even if it were attached or connected in some way, it makes a lot more sense. I understand. Thank you. And also, I'm not sure how well it shows there, but there is an idea of a pool being back between the garage and the house there on the left. I'm not pretty sure that's kind of the size they want, but it might be a little bit different than that. All right, I think we've covered the garage. I am actually more concerned about the addition on the side of the house. I don't think there's a lot of details. You've kind of just drawn it as this little box on the side, and I don't really see how it relates in scale or proportion to the existing structure and how it really is not going to impact kind of that front visual view of this house and maybe if there's a little bit more detail i would understand that more but right now what i'm seeing i just i think it does impact the look and the feel of the house from the street and i'm not sure it's an appropriate addition there on the side um the back edition i think it's fine it steps in it's it feels like the right size but with what i'm seeing here on on that side edition i wouldn't support it Well, to help the idea of what that is, it is recessed from the front, so it's a little bit remote, and there is enough room to do it appropriately for construction. And again, the roof line, E lines would match what's above and what pretty much is on the front porch. and on the other side where the pork couchere is it's almost sitting back about the same relatively the same left to right the kitchen on the left and the pork chair on the right but again with a wainscot or a solid stone base like the house is and then some siding above it I feel like if we try to put stone all above it that might be a little bit heavier than We would want as far as it being addition and having a more one-story flavor about it where it's a two-story house. Then the pitch of the roof would be consistent with the other low aspects. The pitch of the roof for that side addition, Are you talking, saying that it's more like the pitch of the roof for the proposed rear addition? Well, they would, rear and side would all be hipped, very shallow pitch, hit like the front porch and like the porch chair to stay below the windows above. I think even, you know, considering how you're looking at that roof and looking at the pitch of that roof, you know, I look at that proposed front elevation, and it really just feels like a stuck-on piece. I think maybe with more detail I could understand it better, but I think it really detracts from, you know, the carport on the right side of the property and how you kind of look and approach that house. So I'm not sure, like, you can develop it further, but even as drawn, I'm just right now, I'm not there on it. I don't think it meets the intent of the guidelines. It's really, it's there because it helps the functionality of the plan and what we intended to do. So that's the only reason it's there. But really, unless you really got across the street, you would never see those two at the same time, I don't believe. Actually, that is not a factor in our consideration as to whether it can be seen. And that's, we have a 360 philosophy. And regardless of whether it can be seen by the neighbors, that's the way it is. I want to ask Sarah this. Are you saying that you're not flatly opposed to a side edition based on the renderings? You know, we don't usually accept side editions. So I am, you know, I would find it really difficult to approve a side addition. I just wanted to flesh that out. Okay. All right. I would say that this board has approved two side additions within the last five years. In, like, if it was just a straight on, you know, forward-facing street as opposed to, like, a corner addition or anything we have? Okay. I wasn't on the board. So I might have been on the board. I don't think I was on the board. The guidelines do say that a side addition may be appropriate. All right. Front additions, definitely not, but sides may. So maybe if I understood it more, I would not be opposed to it. But right now, I understand what you're saying verbally to me, but I'm not seeing it in the sketches you provided. Okay. I would comment that that side addition might need to be a bit more transparent or have more, it's a little heavy and if it were, I mean I know it's in a kitchen and there's cabinets below it but if it were a little more openings. More glass. Yeah. So that it didn't look quite so much like the existing historic building, but looked a little more 21st century. I would encourage that. I'm excited about that. The other thing, I guess, too, is that lots of times you don't have rooms to do side additions because older neighborhoods are packed in a little bit, and so there is the opportunity here. And it just seems to help the functionality of what we're trying to achieve. And certainly I want it to look as handsome as it could look and as appropriate as it can and i don't know the owners do as well so we'll follow up with more clarity and detail thank you all very much yeah appreciate it thank you thank you uh the last item on our agenda i believe are do we have one or two sets of minutes to approve two okay uh we got september and october is that right do i have a motion to approve the september 21 2022 minutes so moved you have a second second stand approved do i have a motion to accept the minutes for october 2022 so moved do i have a second second all right the minutes stand approved thank you very much you don't vote on minutes it's either up or down got it all right thank you so do we need a motion to adjourn of course we don't yes please let me have a motion to adjourn all right second second stand adjourned I don't want to push too much Just a shot in the dark that you just might be the one I've been waiting for my whole life.