Thank you. my name is James Dickinson I'm the chair of the BOAR I would like to welcome you to the July 19 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review we appreciate those of you who are in attendance today let me see if I can get this mic working properly the board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958 our first historic district was France 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 the 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 that are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll then ask hearing any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or 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 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 approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 23 applications that have been approved by the staff. They are as follows. in the Ashland Historic District at South Hanover Avenue medians removed oak tree at the 236 South Hanover Avenue renovate the structure and replace the deck boards in the Ellsford Historic District at 317 Ellsford replace the gutters and downsides at 317 Ellsford also replace roof at 598 East High Street renovate the structure 702 East High Street renovate the structure, 710 East High Street renovate the structure, and 720 East High Street renovate the structure. At 145 Kentucky Avenue, demolish and sin struck deck. At 302 East Maxwell Street, tuck point structure as needed. At 345 Oldham Avenue, refurbish the chimney, and at 309 Transylvania Park, reinforce the porch foundation. In the Belcourt Historic District, at 597 Boonesboro Avenue, replace the roof. At 622 Sayre Avenue, replace deteriorated attic windows. In the Constitution Historic District at 151 East 3rd Street, replace the roof. In Fayette Park Historic District at 438 Fayette Park, renovate the structure. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District, 400 North Limestone Street, renovate the structure. And at 425 North Limestone, renovate the foundation. In the Northside Historic District, at 444 West 2nd Street, renovate the structure. At 462 West 2nd Street, renovate the rear stair system. At the Pensacola Park Historic District, at 111 Goodridge Avenue, renovate the structure. At 1847 Pensacola Park, replace siding as needed. At 151 Suburban Court, replace the garage roof. in the 7 Parks Historic District at 206 Barber East Lane renovate the structure and finally in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 712 West Maxwell Street renovate the structure we will then turn to our presentations I would like to note before we begin those presentations that we have a recommendation by the staff there was an application pending at 451 East Maxwell Street and 453 East Maxwell Street. That was on the agenda for today. They have now asked to do a conceptual review, which will necessitate a motion to continue these two cases or postpone them. And our next meeting will be August 16, 2023. Do I have a motion to postpone? And we'll have to do a vote on each one of them at 451 East Maxwell Street. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Any discussion? If not, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. Do I have a motion to postpone the application pending at 453 East Maxwell Street? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Chair, call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion passes. all right we'll turn now to our first application at 977 Fincastle Road scope of work is construct dormer and install a man door to existing garage is the applicant here think we have to go back up there if you'll state your name for the record please All right, you're not turned on yet. How's that? Great. And you probably know this group. Okay, so the staff has recommended approval of your application with two recommendations. I refer to them frequently as being the standard conditions. I'll read them to you and see if you're in agreement. 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 work. Are we in agreement? Yep. Number two, once reviewed by other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Are we in agreement? Yes, I am. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, I think the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 07040977-H at 977 Fincastle Road, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. All right. Do I have a second? With the standard two conditions. Thank you. Thank you. You almost got there. 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. The motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Polk. May I express an opinion? Sure. I'd like to encourage you to consider making projects like this one approvable by staff because it's a, I mean, I think any of you would agree it's a no-brainer project. so inconspicuous. The garage was built 11 years ago. I just think that the staff is very able to discern a situation where there's a need for board approval. I just would encourage you to consider more discretion available to the staff for staff approvals. It's probably a conversation that may have to occur between staff and legal to see what the scope of our discretion would be I think technically speaking we're required to sign off on these kind of changes a Graham I fully agree with you. It's a no-brainer project should be readily approvable and that may be a conversation that can occur as to how we can facilitate those conversations without holding them up for a full month Thank you for listening. And thank you for your comment. I appreciate it. Okay, turning to our second application at 614 Central Avenue, Ellsworth Historic District, the scope of work is construct a shade structure. Is the applicant here? The applicant received the staff report and was not able to make it due to a broken foot. Oh, all right. All right, so I think in this particular case, the staff had recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions. I don't see any reason why we can't move forward with it. All right. So any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 03630614-C at 614 Central Avenue, I move to approve this application subject to 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. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. And the COA is approved as conditioned. Turning now to attachment three at 602 East High Street. The scope of work is paint brick structure. My name's Rebecca Child. I live at 602 East High Street. We want to paint. Let me slow it. Just a moment. Sure. We have a process here, and I think I need to review that process with you. Sure. I suspect you'd like to be heard on this because the staff has recommended disapproval. My process normally is to go through all the routine applications that have no controversy and will not need to be heard in detail, and then come back to you. Okay. So I apologize for making you walk across this long room, but if you'll take your seat, we'll come back to you in a few minutes. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, turning now to our next application at 292 Cadentown Road. Scope work is construct railing across the front porch. Is the applicant here? Chairman. Chairman, the applicant is not present. He's not able to be here. But he is agreeable to changing the railing system and working with staff for that. This application involved a railing system that was made of vinyl and composite materials. He apparently has now agreed to change that per the staff's recommendation. That's the only substantive recommendation made by the staff. The staff has also made what I call the standard two conditions. So are there any questions about this application? And I think we've seen a redesigned railing system submitted to us. All right. With the understanding that the rating system will be changed to a non-composite, will not have non-composite vinyl material, do I have a motion to approve this app? Or do I have any comments from the audience? All right. Do I have a motion to move forward? Chair, in regards to case number 4373-2922-C at 2922 Cadentown, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the one substantial condition of final details of the railing be submitted prior to the issuance of the COA and the two standard conditions. Thank you. I had this case a little bit confused with another case, and I apologize for the confusion. All right, so do I have a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes, and the COA as conditioned is approved. Turning now to 165 Constitution Street in the Constitution Historic District. Scope of work is constructs a larium deck and stairs and an infill porch paved parking lot. Is the applicant here? All right. I think, yes, go ahead. Yes, Ms. Guy, if you could come to the podium, please. Okay. I believe this is the one that had the uh, the balustrades and spare signals that are of a composite material. Correct. And we're going to change that to wood. Okay. I saw that on the staff report and it hit me that they were supposed to have been wood and we're going to change that. Alright, so you don't have a disagreement with the recommendations? Absolutely not. No. Alright. And are you also in agreement with the recommendation to replace any damage missing or dead visitive screening to comply with the guidelines, parking screening requirements? requirements? Yes. Now, I will say I'm not the owner, but yes, I believe she will do that, yes. All right. And finally, the standard two conditions that I have read previously, let me read them to you again. Okay. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work or in agreement? Correct, yes. And once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work? Yes, I'm agreement. Okay, very good. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? I think we're ready for a motion then. Chair, in regards to case number 04600165-8 at 165 Constitution Street, I move that we approve the standard, approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and the additional conditions that revised, the drawings are revised to show appropriate bolster, guardrail, and handrail material and to show detail of the guardrail and handrails and replace any damage, missing, or dead vegetative screening to comply with the guidelines parking screening requirements. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair is ready to call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right, the motion passes, and the COA, as conditioned, is approved. Thank you so much. All right, turning to our next application, 631. And these two are together. basically 631 Ellesmere Park along with I thought we had a second one. 685 Ellesmere Park. 685 Ellesmere. And it's the replace expand driveway, replace sidewalk. Is the applicant here? If you're stepping up. I realize these two will be heard together, but we need to do them separately. With respect to 631 Ellesmere Park, the staff has recommended, I believe, approval of your application, subject to why I've been calling the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. All right. With respect to 835 Ellesmere Park? 685. 685, yes. Are you in agreement? Yes. All right. Okay, so any comments or discussion for the board members? Questions from the audience? If not, I think we're ready to take a motion on each application individually. Chair, per case number 06510631-R at 631 Ellesmere Park, I move to approve the application for the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two 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 say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries and the application is approved subject to the standard two conditions. Turning now to 685 Ellesmere Park. Do I have a motion? Chair, per case 06510685 at 685 Ellesmere Park, I move to approve the application for the certificate of appropriateness 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 say aye aye opposed the motion carries and the coas the coa has approved or as conditioned is approved thank you so much all right turning now to our next case 559 North Broadway in the north side historic district scope work is tomorrow's garage and construct garage and driveway is the applicant here come on I believe it is the applicant. If you'll state your name for the record, please. John Book. Mr. Book, good to see you again. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to one substantive condition, that being that you ensure that you revise the drawings to ensure that the siding have a six-inch reveal? Correct. Are you in agreement with that? Yes, sir. All right. And the other two standard conditions, once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approvals prior to the start of the issuance of a COA. Are we in agreement? Yes, sir. And finally, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff or review and approval prior to start of work. Perfect. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none. I think the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 02500559-H at 559 North Broadway, I move that the COA be awarded along with the assurance, number one, that the siding have a six-inch reveal as well as the two standard conditions conditions thank you all right do I have a second second any discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the motion all those in favor say aye opposed nay motion carries and the CLA as can condition is approved thank you so much thank you thank you mr. book okay Turning now to 427 West 3rd Street in the Northside Historic District. Scope of work is to demolish an outbuilding. African. I'm Richard Comley, and I own the property at 427 West 3rd. Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval of your applications subject to the standard two conditions. Are we in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 18800427-D at 427 West 3rd Street, I move that the Certificate of Appropriateness is approved 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 motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Turning now to our next application at 138 Goodrich Avenue. Scuffle work is constructed in addition. Is the applicant here? Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. Mr. Taylor, all I can say is you've been a busy man lately. Thank you. I think you have missed the meeting in several months now. Well, I enjoy being here. Great. All right, so, Mr. Taylor, the staff has recommended approval of your application on behalf of your client subject to one substantive condition, that being provide the final window and door details and specifications of staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. I'm in agreement with that. Okay, and the standard two conditions as well? Yes, sir. All right, any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 08150138 at 138 Goodrich Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and an additional condition that they provide final window and door details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of the COA. Okay. 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. Opposed, nay. The motion is approved and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, turning now to our next application at 207 Lackawanna Road in the Pensacola Park and Start District. Scope of workers to construct a fence. Hi, I'm Caitlin Hood at 207 Lackawanna. Okay, Ms. Hood, I think the staff has recommended disapproval of your application. I think there's a need for a conversation about that and a hearing. As per my procedure that I discussed earlier, we will pick up your case in a few minutes. Sure. Okay, thank you. Turning now to our next application at 702 Central Avenue in the South Ashland Central Avenue of the Historic District. It's the applicant here. In this case, the scope of work is construct a garage and parking, and the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to a couple of substantive conditions. The first one is provide the door and window details and specifications for review by staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Are there any agreement? I am. The other one is reduce the width of the driveway to 10 feet and submit the revised drawings to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the CLA. I'm in agreement with that as well. All right. That's per the recommendation or the infill plans. Yes. And the three and four of course the standard conditions. I'm in agreement with those as well. All right. Any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Here per case number 03630702-J at 702 Central Avenue, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two nonstandard conditions as read and number three and four, the standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair calls the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, many? Motion is approved and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you so much. Thank you all. All right. The last one is a disapproval of the application, I believe. Are you Mr. Donnelly? No. Oh, is the applicant here? I'm sorry I just assumed nevermind is the applicant here did they voice any objection to the staff or you've got a phone okay I think our procedure then is we need to postpone Have I called it? I need... Do I need a continuance or a postponement? Brittany? You would need to postpone it, and the deadline for approval is August 25th. When is the next BOAR meeting? 19th. Okay, so you can postpone it to the next August. Yay, for once. We don't have... Okay. All right, so since we have not opened the case as a postponement, Do I have a motion to postpone this one? Okay. I'm sorry. Let's refer to the case number. I move to postpone case number 19450419-I at 419 South Upper Street. To August 19th. To August 19th. August 16th. All right. 2023. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Chair recall the question all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed name the motion passes and we will postpone this application to our next meeting all right now turning back to the contested cases picking up 602 East High Street scope of work is paint brick structure and ma'am you can what we'll do is we'll have a presentation by the staff first and then we'll hear from you and then I'll ask you questions. So give us a moment as Mr. Edwards brings up the images for this case. Of course, this is 602 East High Street. It's located at the corner of East High Street, and I believe that's Oldham Park. I said that in my mind earlier. And this was originally a church. It started out that way in 1907, and then it was bought out in the 90s by some other people that started to flip it. And then the current owners purchased it in about 2006, and they've lived there ever since. Mr. Edwards, where do I put this to? Anywhere. Oh. Got it. There we go. There we go. Okay. So here is the structure from the street. And walking around the structure to give you some more images. Some more images. Like I said, this building is a residence now and has been so for the last 20 odd years. And it did have and receive a masonry addition on the rear probably in the 90s if not earlier. And this is the front entryway and this is the only location that actually has paint around the perimeter. But nowhere else does there seem to be paint. You can see a better image of what it looks like at this point that it was painted. And then this is the later edition that has a different masonry color. And this is the same masonry rear edition. And sort of from street view. And then this is what it looks like now. And I would say, oops, the applicant did submit some photographs that she can refer to later if you'd like, and talks about areas that she's concerned with on the structure. some repairs that have been done because of ice issues. And here she's indicating the brick stain and the paint. And you can see that she's pointing out the difference between the chimney and the masonry walls. I'm going to go back to this image. And at one time there could have been a stain. it was of that time to do that, but there's not enough stain on there to say it has been a painted structure, different than a stained structure at one time, but the stain is worn off quite a bit, and this building is sort of identified more as just an unpainted masonry structure. So our guidelines are included for the reference. the findings a proposal to paint this 1907 colonial revival brick structure is not within the guidelines this building has never been painted apart from just the front entryway and this structure has remained unpainted for over 115 years may have had a wash or stain at one point but does not have identified as a painted structure staff finds a proposal to paint the structure does not meet the guidelines this building is never intended to be painted Guidelines 13A requires that brick materials original to the building should be preserved and maintained. Additionally, guidelines 13H and 13I state, respectively, brick that has never been painted should not be painted, and historically painted should remain unpainted, or historically painted should remain painted. Paint that should not be applied to structures that have never been painted, and painted on historic unpainted structures could cause more mystery problems that could trap moisture and change how the building breeds. And recommendation staff recommends denial of the proposal. And, of course, Ms. Child is here to speak to that. I have one question. Yes. Is the application or is the denial to the entire structure, including that addition that was built later in the 1990s? I mean, I think at this point I'm not sure if she's really just wanting to paint just that structure without painting the main structure. But I think that's a little different question. And I thought about that, but I haven't really pursued that as much because of that. It may not even be a hypothetical, may even just be a hypothetical question, but I just wanted to get that out there. No, I recognize that might come up in a fleeting thought, but we'll see what Ms. Chowd's like to do. All right, any other questions from the board members? All right, ma'am, you're ready. Did you leave that picture up there? Yeah. And if you wanted to go back to somewhere in the back of it. Okay. And Ms. Child, if you'll state your name again for the record, and thank you for your patience as we work through a number of cases. But thank you. Yeah. Rebecca Child, 602 East High Street. I brought a picture from when we had ice damage. So that's my concern. And, of course, this happened a few years ago, but it's expensive to make repairs and paint the house. But those lines... These. You'll need a microphone. Sorry. It's not easy working in this room. Yeah, and actually, yeah, that's fine. You passed it out. That's great. So what I want to do is make repairs to that. And so I appreciate and I respect the preservation of the historic aesthetics. I get that. I respect that. But my concern is I want to protect my property at this point. So we would like to have those stains probably cleaned and then any repairs made to the mortar. I just, it needs to be repaired. So, and you guys said about maybe painting part of it. The idea is I just want to paint that structure because I want to do the repairs first. And I want to make sure before we do the repairs that we can paint the whole thing. I wouldn't, the back end of the house, that's the garage. I don't really necessarily think there's any ice damage there. It's mostly down between the windows, and it's on both sides. And I just want to protect the integrity of my home. All right. Let's see what, go ahead. I was going to add that a lot of that, besides what you see in the damage there, it looks like what she's perceiving is effervescence, salts leaching out, versus actually complete damage. So those salts are in that masonry, and they just come out when they're trying to. So water comes in in the brick, and it comes out as a vapor form, and sometimes those vapors have salts, their natural salts are leaching out in the brick. So it could be that a proper cleaning might help get that resolved. Go ahead. A proper cleaning is probably going to destroy some of the mortar. So is your concern that if you do the repairs that you envision will be required, is that you will have tuck pointing being done and have an alternate color of mortar, and that's why you want to paint it? Yeah. I mean, we've lived there, I think, 16 years, and I never really had any thoughts to paint it. I think it's a pretty structure, but now I just want it to have, I don't want the value of my property to go down because I just want to. So, I mean, it is possible to tuck point and have a mortar match. It's difficult, but it can be done. I've done it at my home. I have a dark red mortar, which is not a standard at all. And I was able to find someone actually was recommended by this office that is used to working on historic structures. And they were able to match it, match the color. But then you look at the back end of that house, you know, that it doesn't match anyway. And there is a stain on it. So my understanding was if there had been paint or stain, then you guys would consider it previously altered, and then I could have it painted. Which, if you look at the picture of where the chimney is, then you can definitely see the difference between before the stain and after. And I don't know when that was done or when the paint on the front porch was put on there. It was previous to me. Any other comments or questions? Ms. Hill? So I guess my question would be one that the Chair has already raised, and that's is there an interest in painting the non-historic addition on the building? Yeah, I would want it. If the rest is not. No, I would want the whole thing to be uniform. Okay. I would have a cohesive look to it. So if one can't be painted, then the rest of it can't be either. Right. Okay. I want it to look good as well. Thank you. Yeah. My experience with living in a brick house that had, frankly, bad brick was that painting is not a good solution. Unfortunately, the paint will first of all start bleaching out and the brick itself will start bleaching into your paint and it's actually going to look worse than it did. I also have to agree with the staff's concerns that you can actually be inadvertently sealing up the house and creating even more of a problem. I think, basically, if you explore with someone who is used to restoring historic brick houses, that I think you can find a good solution simply through a wash, washing it and matching the mortar. Respectfully, I disagree. I think painting it would preserve the brick. All right. That's what we're here for, to have a conversation. Anyone else? Any other comments? Don't run your mic. Or do you? I don't really have any comments. I kind of feel like it isn't painted and we shouldn't paint it, and that's kind of what the guidelines say, and that's kind of what we need to follow. I understand your concerns, but I don't. To the staff, is there also, I don't know what they're called, but a publication by the National Historic Preservation about the preservation of brick or their scientific information about it. There's a preservation brief is what you're referring to, the preservation brief about painting non-painted masonry structures. There's a specific one about masonry and one specifically about painting non-painted structures. So, and there's some guidelines in there and there's some discussion. But does it not refer to kind of the scientific aspect of the building science? It totally does. It totally does. Of why that does not actually preserve the brick. That's right. It actually sort of breaks it down because it sort of breaks down the salts that are leaching out and cause more problems. And it really does sort of completely affect how the breathability of the brick is. It doesn't seem intuitive that painting it would not preserve that, but I think that that brief explains it pretty well, and that's kind of the information and the scientific information that is based on creating these guidelines, and that's what we rely on. And then your thoughts on the stain that's on there. Well, I think we have to go with the recommendation of the staff is that the stain is not predominant or it hasn't been prevalent for many, many years. Can I restain it? If you don't want to let me paint it, can it be restained so it will have a uniform appearance? Well, I think we would need, I'll defer to the staff on that as far as, I think we would need specifications on what that stain is. If it actually seals up the surface of the brick, then it would act as a paint. And that's, but that's what's on there now. Do you, is that, how long ago was it stained? Do you have any idea? No, I can only tell from the pictures where it differs from the chimney because they didn't do the chimney. Because the chimney has white mortar. So is the mortar, the mortar is, has like a surface color on it? Like if you were to. It's red. If, but would, if you were to flick off a piece of mortar underneath, is it a different color than the surface mortar? Has that ever been? Only where you see where the ice was, where you, do you see a difference in the color. Yeah, I don't think that that's absence of stain. I think that's... Yeah, I just want a uniform look. Yeah. Can I ask a question? I have a question for staff. Yes, sir. A question for staff. So once an application has been submitted, as this one is, and given the comments about looking into other options or researching whether or not staining is appropriate, does the owner have to come back to have another application to clean them to clean if cleaning is appropriate does the owner have to come back to get approval to do that and and the part B of that is, do we have any way of continuing consideration of this request until we have more information on some of these options? Certainly. So to answer your question, sort of in reverse, if you would like her to have a Mason consult or look into the structure in general, then, you know, certainly she could, you could postpone that. I'm not sure how much she would get done within a month. It might be better for her withdrawal and to make application again. If she was going to take the steps to sort of, if you wanted her to look further at getting some information about repairing the structure as cleaning and or tuck pointing. and then I think to answer your other question, Suzanne, which is tied to yours, Mr. Marquette, is the fact that the way the paint or the mortar of the structure is red all the way through without actually having just a surface coat as far as a stain that you would see. Like many times we have structures downtown or around the area where you have the stain that's over top the white mortar. In this case, it's actually a red mortar all the way through. Oh, okay. And so there's no way to chip off the mortar that would expose any kind of white. So what I would say in reverse is what's happened is maybe later on they tuck-pointed the chimney and using white mortar versus using a red, which would be more often probably would have happened before. And then there is a bit of stain on this, but it's consistently not the same. I think there's some images that I showed in the staff report that has, there's more stain on the opposite side where it hasn't had as much weather. You get a lot of weather on this side, so there's less stains on. Oops. Going around. Doop, doop. So here, this is a lot more stains, But when I go up to structures and you rub your finger across to see if any of the red comes off, it's not strong on any other place except like right here where you have a bit more where you have less weather. But it's not consistently all the way through the structure either. So if I wiped my finger across on the Park Avenue side, it doesn't come off red. And, you know, just on various spots. That helps you. If I may, there are... Turning the mic. Barely. There we go. There are currently manufactured brick stains based on historic chemistry that can be used that doesn't seal moisture into the brick the way that paint does. So it is more permeable than a paint is, but it could match the historic stain's colors. So is that stain considered in our guidelines equal to paint? since it actually does not do damage to the structure. We have not had anyone do that that I'm aware of, but to kind of go out on a limb, I would think if it had been stained previously and the applicant wanted to stain it again, that the board should consider that or could consider it. Well, I would just say, for instance, So there's a house on the corridor of South Ashland and East High, and that was a stained property we were able to restain. And we could do that at staff level because there was already enough evidence of it being stained. And this property has some evidence that it has been stained at some point in the past. Now we'd say probably early days, but it wasn't prominent enough to stick everywhere. Okay. And the front entryway is just a totally different animal. And could someone discuss, should the owner want to stain the new addition and the chimney, is the stain capable of uniformity here, or is it not, given the difference in the brick and the mortar? That's a good question. I hadn't really thought about that. I don't know. I think I've not seen a lot of stains on structures that are sort of within the last 30 or 40 years because mostly people just want to paint versus, you know, stain. But it, I mean, you could always try a test patch and see. if what you're looking for is uniformity of color and i think that's what you're trying to get to it sounds like a stain may be the solution i think probably what you need to do is work with the staff i think this application is going to have to be disapproved that doesn't mean you can't submit another application that suggests a stain instead of painting that's different well i was told i couldn't submit for a year is that no that's what i was trying to get to Paint versus stain. It will be so different that we can consider it as a new application. In other words, we're denying your paint. If you want to come back and say, I want to stain, that's a whole new critter. And I think we can move forward with that one. Okay. I will do that. I appreciate it. Thank you for all the input. And thank you for your patience and for working with us. Sure. All right. Okay. Any further discussion on this motion or proposal? If not, is there any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, are we ready for a motion? Chair, with regard to case number 09290600-F, 602 East 5th Street. Mr. Marquette, if you go further, can you put your microphone on? There you go. Would you like for me to start over? Yeah. Okay. Chair, with regard to case number 0929-0600-F, 602 East High Street, I move that the certificate of appropriateness application be denied as recommended by staff. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA is disapproved. Thank you so much. Can I make another comment? I think what information that we will need upon reapplication is specifications of the stain to make sure that it is a permeable stain and not something that says it's a stain but acts as an opaque and solid surface, basically, so that it doesn't encapsulate the brick. And would it be inappropriate to also request some verification that the salts would be eliminated, the salt stains would be eliminated by the stain, or would the stain still be susceptible to those? Brick is always going to be susceptible to that leaching and that effervescence. for the life of that brick. So I'm not sure that even applying a stain necessarily changes the fact that those salts will start coming out. I think what has to also occur is there does need to be cleaning of the surface of that brick. It's coming out in the areas where there's been excessive amount of moisture that's basically gotten behind the brick or embedded into the brick. Ms. Childs, I'm sorry, could you speak? I'm going to have to step in here. We have already had our motion, and I don't mean to be a process guy here, but I tell you what, this is a conversation that you can take up with the staff and explore your options. What I am comfortable with is that you can bring something back to us and you're not going to be borrowed for a year. So if you want to come back with a different application that discusses staining, then we can get into the ins and outs of that as well. All right. Thank you so much. Do you want your photos back? I've got to keep them for years. They're part of our record. Thank you. We had the black and white one. Sure. Color is better. All right. Thank you so much. Turning to our last application and hearing, This is 207 Lackawanna Road, case number 109-502-07-A. Is the applicant here? Ms. Wood? What? And whose application is this? I'm going to step away for a minute or two. May I do that? I'm not going to upset the quorum, I don't think. Okay, I need to step away for a minute or two, but I'll let Mr. Dennis do his presentation. Do I need to introduce myself? I'm Caitlin Hood at 207 Lackawanna. Okay, 207 Lackawanna. The scope of work is to construct a fence. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a six-foot privacy fence with a 17-foot long section of fence having a two-foot high lattice at the top. The applicant wishes to construct the fence with the lattice to provide privacy from the adjacent property. Currently, the property has fences of 8 foot plus or minus on the west and north property lines. So this is 207 Lackawanna. This is looking from the west to the east, and the fence would run along the property line where that driveway is. And the driveway continues back, and then there's a garage adjacent to the property line. This is a section of the fence on the west property line that varies in height, but it is about 8 feet at the top and around 7'6 or so at the bottom of the radius. and the... Well, you can't really see it, but along the back property line, there is also a taller than six-foot fence. The guidelines are included for your use. So this is the site plan that was submitted. And as you can see, this is the section of fence in question. And then there's the small, the 17-foot section that is proposed to have the two-feet lattice on the top. The proposal to construct the six-foot fence with two-foot high lattice panels on top does not meet guideline 3-1-D, which states fences of wood boards for privacy should be located in rear yards and generally be no taller than six feet. Most prefabricated wood fences have sections that are eight feet wide by six foot high. Privacy fences of this height should be set back at least, or set at least halfway back from the front of the building to the back wall on the side of the house. Privacy fences of flat boards in a single row are more historically correct than shadow box, which are alternating boards designs, but both designs are acceptable. Fences with flat-top, dog-ear, or gothic pointed-top designs are all acceptable. Stockade fences are discouraged. Fences of PVC, vinyl, or synthetic materials are not permitted. The board has had findings in the past that allowed for fences with lattice on top of a six-foot fence, the reasoning being that the top would be transparent. The Board has approved similar fence proposals in at least two locations that I'm aware of. Staff recommends approval of the six-foot high wood privacy fence and the denial of the proposed lattice top. Okay, applicant? Are there any questions of Mr. Jensen? Okay. Hi, everyone. I wanted to, let's see. So this is what we're proposing in terms of the lattice topper. And I wanted to show this image. This is my husband here who is 6'6". And he's holding up a tape measure. And his pinky finger is at 8 feet. And this is the view from our sunroom. So I'm standing on our porch taking a picture through the doors of the sunroom, and we can see directly into our neighbor's back patio area and into their back door. And so any time they get out of their car and go into their back door, which is their primary entrance, we can make eye contact. And so that is why we are proposing to have a transparent lattice topper on top of the six-foot privacy fence. All right. Any questions or comments? I will start this conversation off because I was on the board that approved a couple proposals that allowed for the two-foot additional lattice stop. Personally, I have the personal opinion that the guidelines are flexible enough to allow for that kind of compromise. very often houses can be on a slope and I think that's what your house is doing that actually a six foot fence is not sufficient to give you the privacy that you need in today's world we are more closed off than we used to be a hundred years ago I think a good compromise has been this so called ladder stop I personally am in favor of it the other board members may disagree with me but I don't see why we can't move forward, especially since there is precedent for at least two, and I think more than that, occasions where we have allowed a two-foot topper that's a latticework that gives you the protection you needed, but it's not like a blockade. It's not like a barrier fence that I think is the real purpose of this guideline. Any additional comments or questions? I would ask the question then, And when this two-foot topper was approved, was it simply a case of privacy between two residential neighbors like this? Or were there other reasons why a taller fence made sense? I don't recall the specifications. I think it's because there was just simply not enough privacy being afforded by the six-foot, again, because of the slope of the property. I can't recall directly. And you can't, Barry? Yes, sir. one that I'm thinking of was on Deshaies it was a backyard fence between two properties at the same level and the board approved defense there another was on Hanover and I mentioned those two because I was involved with them the The board has also approved on Central Avenue a, what would you call that, almost like a gatepost with a top across at the corner of, what is that, Clay? Is it Clay? Kentucky. It's Kentucky and Central. Okay. So there have been some varying issues. And the one on Hanover was again a short piece that was for privacy from a backyard deck to the adjacent property. Again, they were on the same level. To be honest with you, I'm recalling this lattice topper being approved years ago on several properties. were a few. Well, Hanover was not that far back in time. Seven. Six or seven years ago. Has it been that long? Okay. Ms. Armstrong? I mean, I will defer to Barry, but I think what you're referring to is when we did a couple that were on Hampton Court when they backed up to boundaries, Boundaries, different boundaries. That's what I'm remembering. Can I clarify, is the other existing privacy fence a six-foot-tall fence? No. Those are eight-foot-tall? Yes. To the top of the point is eight feet, and then it's a little lower at the bottom of the radius. And this fence doesn't belong to us, I don't believe. I think it belongs to our neighbors next door. Does the rear fence belong to you and what height is it? I'm sorry, I don't know who asked that question. I'm not sure if it belongs to us. We purchased the property last summer and one of our neighbors said that the previous owners of our home put in that back fence. However, the fence post, I don't know if you can see it in this image here. It's a little dark. The fence post face the back neighbor's property. So we get the pretty view of the fence. So that's what is a little confusing to me as to who is the owner of that side. Either is their fence or they're being very nice to you, one or the other. That's right, yeah. It's hard to say. And the height of that fence is? I'm not sure, Barry. Did you get a height of that back one? I didn't measure it, but it is substantially higher than the 6 feet. I don't think that my husband can see over it, and like I said, he's 6'6", so. I would just say this is a comment that could be answered with a comment from staff. So we have two existing fences, which are over 6 feet. Is the owner's request for a six-foot fence with lattice added because the guidelines, as it says here, quote, generally require a six-foot high fence? or was the owner only wanting a six-foot fence with the lattice or would they have been asking for an eight-foot fence to match the others if it weren't for this particular option generally provided in the guidelines? Well, Ms. Hood and I have not had that discussion, so I would defer to her. I'm not sure I'm fully understanding the question, but it's my understanding that for the city, those fence heights can go up to eight feet. And our neighborhood was approved for the historic district back in 2020 or so. This was obviously before we purchased the home. And so we would take the six-foot fence if that is what is approved, but we want the lattice topper for a little bit more privacy in between this part of our yard and our neighbor's yard. So it's not necessarily to match the other fences. So if you had the opportunity to put in a solid eight-foot fence, you would not do that? I don't think that we could, per the recommendations of the historic board. Well, I'm just trying to determine what your, since the privacy is the issue, if the lattice addition was a concession on your part or not. I would prefer the lattice because I think that it would allow more sunlight to come through, and that is something that we would like to keep. But we would also like a little more privacy, so I think it's a nice balance. Thank you. Sure, no problem. I don't have any problem with this because I feel like it's far enough in the back where it's not an issue and it's a very, very small section. But it's the front section. It's the front section. I know it is. Yeah. I don't have a problem with it having the lattice top because of the privacy. Ms. Hill? Given that it's from the back edge of the house, even though I understand the sunroom is beyond that, it's still not prominent in the public right-of-way. So I'm fine with that lattice top taking it to eight feet. All right, so I think I'm hearing consensus that we're going to approve your application as submitted. May I ask one question? Yes, ma'am. So we had originally proposed the lattice topper along this 17-foot stretch, basically where the sunroom is and where their back patio is. And when we submitted this application last month, that's what we had decided. But upon talking it over with my husband a little bit further, we were actually wondering if the board might possibly consider allowing that lattice topper to extend the length of the neighbor's driveway. And in part, we're requesting this because from where they stand, as you may have seen in the pictures, their house sits maybe two feet above our house. And so when they come out of their back door, they can still see into our backyard, I think probably even with the six-foot fence. So we were wondering if you might consider extending the lattice approval to the edge of their garage, which is great. That is not what you submitted, right? That is not what we submitted. We just said the 17-foot. At this stage, we really can't alter your proposal. If you want to withdraw it and resubmit and add that in, we can have that conversation at another meeting. Okay. I would have to go through the same process as what we did today? Okay. Would it be possible to go ahead with the approval of what was proposed today and then potentially come back for the additional section? If that additional section was not in this proposal, then I don't see a problem with that. I think we've had changes to previously awarded. Not of that type. Not when we're adding a new. There can't be a change made such as you've described for this application. The staff agrees with the change. She's not saying for this application. She's saying if she were to come back next month to submit a new application to, this has been approved now, I would like to alter and add this to be approved. If I'm hearing you correctly, you've been tied in another meeting. Although I've been seeing you on television a little bit, which is an interesting experience for staff to get to watch the meeting on television. We are usually all right here. Oh, sure. But I think I'm caught up with where you are. And certainly the board could elect to act on the application as it's been proposed. And then if there is an additional request, that could come back, is I believe what you're referencing. Is that my, did I state that correctly? Your application. So we could get the application as it is approved today and then potentially submit another application to come back to the board for that additional section of the lattice topper. Yes, process-wise you could if that's the board's choice in terms of their today actions. I just have a practical question, and that is, is the additional area in which you'd be asking for, would you be requesting the same design outcome as what you're getting acted on today? That's right. So it would be an additional area but the same design. I just wanted to be sure we're all on the same page. But I think it marches further up the driveway, correct? Further back towards the end of the property. Okay. The distinction would be that the neighbor, it sounds in some ways like you think, well, a fence is what got the legal notice and it's still a fence and all that. But the problem is, from the intent of the legal notice and the intent of the processes, philosophies of having everybody aware, your neighbors, who will be impacted by this since it's, you know, a shared property line, could have gotten the information from our office as to what you're proposing that you've already been discussing. But they've had no opportunity to know that you're wanting to do an additional section. or more sections. That's why it needs to be two separate actions. And I agree with that. That makes sense to me. All right. Okay, so, yes, Ms. Armstrong? I was going to say, did you say it was going to be atop your neighbor's fence? No, no. This is going to be our fence that we're putting in. We're replacing a fence that you saw in one of the early pictures that was very old and not a privacy fence at all. So right now let's just focus on what you have submitted to us And if you want to submit an additional proposal you can do that and we'll take it up at that time I Think I'm hearing a consensus though that the lattice is not giving us heartburn If we decide to go forward and approve this application will need a finding As part of the motion And the finding simply be that this has been previously this type of design has been previously approved and frankly is a more consistent design with the rest of the existing fence chair it could be as simple as you think it's consistent with the guidelines because the surrounding fences as you mentioned are already in excess of six feet but also the standard conditions I assume would want to be incorporated oh yeah that as well I'll defer to staff on what the language of that should be I do tend to sometimes shortcut things yes I recognize that that we have the standard two conditions as well which were not because it was disapproved they weren't they weren't set out in the approval so okay I can take a stab at it Betty did you have a question well no other than I agree with what our council has put forward to you and the only thing that needs to perhaps be clarified when you include in your motion that it's been approved at other times in the past, the problem is you haven't during this meeting heard in what instances have been the situations tied to that. And they are very different from this situation. So I would not... I have asked that question before you came in, and I would love some additional clarity there if you have it. Well, I don't know where we are with this. but they tend to be, and I don't think we need to rehear other people's cases at the moment, but your question, I think, is very legitimate. They tend to be where their rear property line fences, where the use of the property behind them is industrial, or that there's some existing condition that an alley, like in Ellesmere Park, for example. You all are pretty familiar with Ellesmere Park. Ellesmere Park's rear, the alley that runs along the rear property lines between Ellesmere and North Broadway, has come to have over the years a predominance of eight-foot fences. And so it has not only become kind of the character of those rear property lines along the alley with multiple properties, It is also responding to the fact that on the opposite side is a vehicular and use changes and things that have a very different identity. So this situation doesn't reflect that same sort of contextual differences, and that's why I wanted to kind of not suggest that you include in your motion just a blanket because it's been approved in the past. The approves in the past each have their own different contextual reasons that there was evidence that would suggest it would still be appropriate and within the guidelines to take that action. In this instance, the staff would suggest, and our council has set the framework for, that you make it expressly tied to this property already having the eight-foot fence on two sides and that this is congruous with what is their own property's existing condition. Because this is not the character of the rest of the block in this neighborhood. They have six-foot fences. and because you can, we didn't do a survey of every fence. I think some homes have six-foot fences, but again, I use my husband as a metric, and there are eight-foot fences in our neighborhood that I think were approved prior to us becoming part of the historic district. And that's a different animal. And we're just going to borrow your husband as a measure, by the way. I saw that part while I was over in the building, and I thought the idea of saying, my spouse has got, that was pretty good. Oh, thank you. So, but in the residential areas within the historic districts, great effort is made to not go to the eight-foot side yard fences. because of the idea that they, in their scale, become more dominant and all the different things that come into play here. The thing that opens the door, in my perception, to this process, to your all's considerations to being able to legitimately weigh and see what your take is on this, is their own parcel's identity. and that to me it needs to be held to that for your rationale for your considerations for your findings and I think all I was trying to do is make sure that we had a finding I think the council was correct we can condition a finding on the explicit current condition of the properties and be consistent with what we need to do so Suzanne you want to take a stab at it Chair, in regards to case number 109-50207-A at 207 Lackawanna Road, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the finding that the area of six-foot solid fence with a two-foot lattice topper responds to the existing eight-foot fences also on the property on the other two property lines and that there is a need for improved privacy at this location and that the two standard conditions, one being if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. And two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Well stated. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? I would just like to say that I don't think we should say that it is being allowed for additional privacy. A six-foot fence gives privacy, and that shouldn't be a part of the motion, that it is just that it matches the adjacent fences. Because if we start saying it's for privacy, everybody's going to want an eight-foot privacy fence. Well, and staff would support that suggestion in that... Okay, I think there's a friendly amendment then. Yeah, you could do a motion to amend, which would need to be seconded and voted on like any other motion, and that would amend the motion that Ms. O'Connor made. We normally aren't quite that formal in the process. Let me explore for just a moment. Okay. Suzanne, will you withdraw the comments you made about additional privacy? I will withdraw from my motion the need for improved privacy. Okay, do I have a second now to that motion? Second. All right. As adjusted by the proponent. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. Motion passes with one objection. And the COA is approved subject to the two standard conditions as set forth by Ms. Irvin. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. That concludes the regular business of the day. We now have two conceptual reviews to go through. Well, actually, they're adjacent properties. Mr. Dickinson, the election of officers has to be part of the full meeting. I'm sorry, I skipped that. Okay. Do we have proper notice for the election of officers? I've never been clear on this process. I think I would suggest, as we have done in the past, that you make a committee. Okay. And that you today set a committee who could, at the next meeting, report back and make nominations. All right. Let me suggest a committee of three, then. You want me on that committee, I assume? Yeah. Or three others? I think you would, I would suggest you would do better to leave yourself off the committee. That's what I was thinking, okay. Let me go ahead and, see, we don't really have formal bylaws as part of the problem, but let me suggest we do or do not. We do. Okay, what do the bylaws state then? Sorry. We've been fairly informal in this process, but I think with a full board like this, we need to be a little bit more. Sometimes we had no choice. I mean, there were only three of us. Well, we've taken action as a process, not we, the staff, you all, the board. And I think during COVID, the only thing I would suggest is that it wasn't in as timely a fashion as is traditional. But process-wise, it has always been a part of our public process. Okay. All right. So do we have the vials? Okay. Have you looked at that at all? What's the specific question? Talking about the process by which to elect officers. Yes, it's happening annually. Yes, but do we have a committee to do nominations, or do we simply take nominations today and move forward? You can make nominations from the floor if you would like to. You can also do a committee. I don't believe the bylaws are that specific, but that's not uncommon. Let's do a committee to make recommendations to us, and I'll appoint Brack Marquette, Susan Hill, and Suzanne Irvin to the committee, assuming they will serve. Okay. All right, thank you for your service. The three of you will get together and submit to us, prior to our next board meeting, a slate of officers. And the officers are simply a chair and a vice chair, if memory serves. Correct? We don't have any other officers. All right. Chair? I have a question about that. Do we have information on the tenure of the different members? Which ones of all of you when your term's expired? No, not readily in my hand, but we can provide that to you. We can provide that to the committee, please. Yes. Yes. Because you have one member, you should have really two, who should be coming up for renewal and or term limited next summer. But your term for your officers is one year. So they're not synchronized to the length of a person's serving term, which is four years. And I'll also note that the chair serves by virtue of being chair on the Historic Preservation Commission as well. Good point. Okay. The chair, by virtue of that position, serves on the Historic Preservation Commission as well. All right. Okay. So a motion. we will postpone the elections to our next meeting subject to a committee report based on the committee that I have created consisting of Suzanne Irvin, Brack Marquette, and Susan Hill. Alright, thank you. Alright, so let's move to our next item, which is the conceptual review. And I misread the agenda, so I didn't bring my packet on those. The addresses are on 435, 453, Maxwell? Okay. At 451 and 453, East Maxwell. And Ms. Armstrong, are you making the presentation? Correct. And I'm assuming we're doing these together, correct? Yes. All right. so the new owner of these structures is doing considerable amount of work and part of this is trying to also he's trying to consider parking options and so his proposal would be to do various things and I'll walk through these and talk about what he's interested in doing so part of this would be first of all 451, 453 and then widening, taking out the retaining wall that was put in in 2021 here and you would like to widen the driveway and widen the curb cut area along there and also sort of walking you through the area here, there is paving and there has been gravel surfaces over the years. This is the current condition where there's broken up paving plus gravel. This was taken actually in 2015. Prior to the previous owner purchasing it, I met with a previous owner, Mr. Dennis and I did. So this sort of shows the condition of 2015, showing the paving and the gravel at that time and what it was the current state. Again, this is also an image of 2015 that shows the amount of gravel. And I note the tight conditions between 453 here and this middle structure. The Spindle Structure was actually built in 1865 and is the oldest of all three structures on this site. And predates, of course, the 451, 453 structures. And it was always sort of a half building, so it was noted as 453 and a half, most of its existence. but it is considerably older and has been modified over the years too by just adding a garage at one point and then closing it in so again this sort of shows the tightness of that in the sense there's no way to sort of do a complete turnaround around this whole building the center building and then more gravel. This is taken from the neighboring parcel sort of showing the gravel in the driveway and this is its current state. This was actually taken in 2015 showing more of the gravel and there's a spot between where previous people were sort of cutting in and out of using the neighboring property. and you can see the amount of gravel that has been spread over this time. And then this is still more existing gravel, and this is behind the structures where there was a property line divide between these two structures where they did not put any kind of paving on 453 behind that structure. and this was taken in 2015 meeting on site with a property manager and this is taken more currently and then this is actually the rear yard of 453 where there was this very large retaining wall that was slowly been removed by the previous owner but it's a pretty sizable raise like a four foot difference between the structure and the structure. And then you can sort of see it here wrapping around and you can sort of slowly see it being removed and this would be the area where the applicant would like to put in the paving in grasscrete in this location for four spaces and a turnaround. You can sort of see the turnaround that the retaining wall that has been slowly removed plus the tree. And again, this is the rear yard's current state. Current state. So this is the existing condition, oops, sorry, where they would like showing the driveway and the gravel that's been here and the fact this is a retaining wall And there's been no paving, and this has all been green. And this is the proposal to install, to widen the drive and install paving here, and then to return this into grasscrete for four spaces in this particular area. So both of these structures have multiple units in them. Actually, all three of them have multiple units in them. And at this point, also, I should note that at one point there was a parking requirement that must have been met in some fashion, but that is no longer the case. That's been removed. And so, at this point, there's no findings at this time, but questions to ask within the conceptual review. would be, is the new proposal characteristic of the Ellsford Historic District? Is it appropriate to install a paving per the plan? Does the proposed paving cover too much of the site? Does the proposed landscape help buffer the parking area? And should the Herbie space be in a different paved surface to help distinguish the area? And then I would also say for 453, does this result in the loss of green space? Is it appropriate to install a paving per the plan? Does the new proposed paving cover too much of the site? Does the proposed landscaping help buffer the parking area? Is this new proposal characteristic of the Ellsford Historic District? And the applicant is present. Is there any questions from staff at this point? Yes, Mr. O'Kett. Just a curiosity. How is this property deeded? Is it? Very, very funny. So Mr. Hamilton is actually going to be putting into effect a shared easement. But currently, as you see this line, this is technically speaking the middle structure goes with 453. So this structure here is tied with this structure, and then the property line is right down the center. Well, that's kind of remarkable. It is. Can staff ask its own staff a question during this? Yes. In the interest of all of our group effort of educating ourselves, wouldn't you have to merge this lot these two lots into one lot to carry out anything such as this have you talked to planning staff about planning is signed off on it oops um it's two separate parcels but they will have to get an easement to be able to share this but because i think there's a grandfathered situation of being where all these parcels have been working together. Yeah. Well, the one that straddles the property line may be a first and hopefully a last in terms of that issue. I mean, wow. But I understand a shared easement agreement, but I don't know about the only part of this that doesn't have gravel on it and is still a grass yard is on one parcel, the neck of which is not on that parcel. That is correct. Anyway, I think you all are understanding my confusion. Well, it is a confusing property, and I've lived across from this property for a number of years, it has primarily not had much parking on it in that most of the people living there were just walk-ins. It was, I didn't realize the property line divided smack dab up the middle, though. I had assumed it dog-tailed, but apparently not. and I was confused by your statement that the parking requirements have gone away. Just how did that happen? That is, if you want, Amelia, I'll mention that. It's not about just this property. They changed due to the whole study of parking requirements throughout the downtown. Is this part of the infill change? Okay. It's part of the big picture changes that they have reduced and or removed the requirements for parking in certain areas. And this is one of the ones that, in this stretch of Maxwell, on-street parking is the only thing going to be available. Okay, because that's primarily consistent with the desire to encourage infill development to get rid of the parking restrictions. I'll leave that editorial comment to you Thank you That's my comment and I'll state it for the record You just did Alright The applicant is here If you'll introduce yourself And walk us through your ideas for this property If you point anywhere with this And you can point this screen And if you wouldn't mind I must have missed some of the conversation But if you wouldn't walk us through your legend, if you will, as to where parking is going to be and where green space is going to be. Yes, sir, I will. My name is Jimmy Hamilton. Hello, everyone. My address is 343 Cassidy Avenue. I think that microphone will raise up. Oh, is it? Okay, yeah. Or will it? Maybe I lied. I don't want to break anything. Okay. We need you as a metric as well. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Is that a little better? Yeah, and better for you, too. Yes, definitely. All right. Okay, so, yeah, this is a unique situation. You know, the rear building that I guess the way it got divided, that rear building is much older and more historic than the two front ones. I think they're 1920s, you said, the two front ones. So, yeah, it's weird how it's laid out. I did, I wanted to mention, too, Amelia, I got an easement recorded yesterday. I was trying to get it done before this meeting. I got it done in the nick of time. I went downtown and recorded it. I did get it, it was kind of reciprocal, so there's an easement going both ways. I figured that was the safest way to play it. And, yeah, so right now there's an existing curb cut, and which one of these is the laser? I don't want to turn it off. Okay, so you can see the laser a little bit. So there's an existing curb cut right here, and then there's concrete about to right here-ish. and then from there back all the way around here there's existing gravel and so I was wanting to number one widen the curb cut just to make it a little safer just for ingress and egress off of Maxwell it's a very busy street as you all know so I was wanting to just widen the curb cut just so it's easier to get in and out of there right now someone on the 453 parcel right on this corner here. Someone had built like a little fountain with a little retaining wall and it's, I was wanting to get rid of that as part of this as well and make it look a lot more uniform. Um, so anyways, and then coming around here. So we were wanting to make a little space here because technically that could fit a compact car. Uh, according to my engineer, I had an EA partners draw this up. Um, it, it's not denoted in here with parking lines. Um, and then off to the left here, I've got a area for the trash cans. Uh, this is, so this building on the left, 451 has five units in it. This one here on the right has six units in it. And then the rear, rear, uh, building is a duplex. So there's a total of 13, one bedroom, one bath existing, already existing units in these structures. And I'm working to make this place a lot nicer. Um, it was condemned in very bad shape. It's been in disrepair for a long time, it appears. I'm doing a lot of structural work, doing the windows, doing basically everything to bring this property back to life. I'm actually fortunate to get it because one gentleman who was about to purchase it before me was going to make it some sort of a halfway house or drug rehab type of a place. And for the sake of the whole neighborhood, I'm glad that it didn't go that route. I do have a parcel, a property as well, just on Transylvania. There are a few, probably two stones throws away or so. And I just think it's better for the whole area to renovate and bring these structures back to life. So anyways, in addition to this spot here, I've got the area for the gravel, or excuse me, the area for putting your Herbies, because there are going to be 13 of them. Like I was saying, there's so many of them. I had looked into getting like an apartment-style dumpster there, but with, like Amelia mentioned, it's kind of a tight little turn in there, and it was determined that a trash truck would not be able to get in to do that. So I am going to have to have 13 Herbys for each individual unit, and therefore I kind of designated a little side space there for that purpose. So to be clear, you're not going to try to consolidate these properties into something less than 13 units? No, I'm not. Okay. No, and actually the building permits have already been approved for all these. I had sectioned out the paving plan because it was such an odd situation. I wanted to separate those out in my application process. So a lot of this stuff in terms of the tuck pointing, replacing all the windows and upgrading all them, which is a lot. I mean, Lord, I think it was like 70 windows. All that stuff is actually I've already got a Certificate of Appropriateness 4 that was done at the staff level, and I also have the building plans approved for each of the three buildings. I pulled them separately for each three, and then I pulled the paving plans separately as well. Right up here, there's a large tree that we were able to keep. I don't know how old, but it's very sizable. We were able to keep that. Unfortunately, a lot of the trees down this line here and down this property line here were all overgrown with vines and suffocated and dead and suffering from different kind of funguses and stuff that had killed them off. So Amelia, again, and her staff at the staff level was able to approve me removing those trees. So as we come around the corner here, we did keep this tree because it was the one that was the most salvageable. I'm glad that we were able to keep that one. And then you can see my screening I've added per the vehicle use area requirements. Again, EA drew this up. This meets the VUA requirements as far as I know. But I wanted to point out the fact that we had to lose all these trees because I understand that one of the big concerns is the loss of green space. And in addition to adding this VUA, which is adding kind of some greenery, so to speak, I would be willing to do some more landscaping if that would help as well. I mean, right now, on this side, it appears that the gravel stops are about right here. So my proposal originally was to pave this entire thing with asphalt. After speaking with Amelia, she recommended she thought it was probably better because the concern with you guys is going to be the loss of green space. She recommended going with the grass pavers to kind of help incorporate that. And I think, you know, like you were saying, they changed the rules where it's kind of a double-edged sword for me. They changed the rules where I don't have to have 13 parking spaces. But it's also, on the flip side of that, it's made it to where you guys aren't required to pass it. Whereas if this was a residential building, you know, it would be a little bit of a different story. I did want to point out that even though these are three commercial parcels, or two parcels, three commercial buildings, I just did want to point out that obviously these will be the home and the residence for 13 people so I think a lot of them probably will bike they'll probably be kids on campus walk-ins as you call them but I mean even gaining the few spaces that I am I think that would be very much appreciated at least by some of the tenants and the way I viewed it again with Maxwell being being very crowded I was you know to avoid on you know the on-street parking and the traffic it causes and safety issues and things like that I just thought it was best to at least provide a few spaces, even if I couldn't provide 13 of them. So, again, I'm adding as much of the required UA screening. Also, I wanted to note that I guess I was reading through here, and I think one of the things they highlighted here was that the asphalt, it shouldn't be visually dominant, that section of it. I think that's one of the large concerns. in addition to the screening the way the area where this parking is going to be located is behind the buildings and then on the right hand side there so the neighboring property to the right is actually the child care we care i think it's called daycare center they have a privacy fence right here that is a chain link fence but it has the privacy lattice stuff inside of it so in addition to that and you essentially cannot see it from the street there also there's an apartment building back here, or I think it's an office, maybe on one side of an apartment building, but there is a fence here, so you wouldn't be seeing it at all. Again, you're obviously not going to see it from this parcel. I guess my point is that only people living in the building would probably be seeing it, the way the property is laid out and all the different perimeters. It's really not visually dominant whatsoever from Maxwell. So I just wanted to point that out as well. I just want to point out as well that I'm willing to work with you guys in any way, shape, or form. Like I said, maybe if I could add, like try to offset maybe the loss of green space to some degree by adding some other landscaping and greenery, I would be open to that. I would be open to doing more of it. Right now the proposal is to asphalt up to this line, so where the existing gravel is, just to asphalt there. The property line in the rear, where it is split, that is about where from here all the way back to about here where the concrete stops, That is where the existing gravel is. So the plan right now is to asphalt that and then do the grass pavers on the other side. I would even be able to open, be open to going so far as doing more grass pavers if you all prefer that. I mean, I'm trying to find a workable solution and, you know, make, you know, improve this property and make it a good spot for tenants, a safe place for tenants. I think that, do you all have any questions about, You were wanting me to kind of walk through the site plan layout. Did you have any particular questions other than that? No, I just wanted to declare it as to exactly what your plan is. What the overall plan is, yes, sir. So I think at this stage, do you have additional information you want to provide? Well, you know, I guess I wanted a question. When I initially talked to Amelia, it seemed like them changing the requirements for the parking and it not being required anymore and the using of green space was the primary concern. But then when I read this here about it being prominent or visually dominant, I didn't know what aspect is more of the holdup or more of the issue for you guys. Well, don't confuse the two standards. What we have to deal with is from a historic reservation perspective or historic considerations with our guidelines, regardless of what the city may have done in terms of the parking issue. So we're still going to be interested in maintaining some semblance of these were at one time residences, as I understand them, and they still are. You keep referring to them as commercial properties, but they're not. They're residences. They're apartment buildings, basically. Sure. No, I just meant from a zoning standpoint. Okay. All right. That's all I meant, yeah. What is the zoning on this? They're both commercial, I believe, instead of multifamily, aren't they? Yeah, which also makes it an odd situation. The two facing Maxwell are historically apartment buildings. Right. They were never, of course, and you're not, I don't believe, suggesting they were single-family homes. I mean, they look like apartment buildings. But they were built as apartment buildings. I don't think with the level of density in them that they have had forced upon them over the years. The smaller, older 19th century building, we're not quite sure exactly. It probably was, of course, residential at some point and or an outbuilding to another residential piece in the tracks. But either way, I think a single family in the earlier than the last, we haven't done any city directory work on this. or anything and don't need that, but it probably was only occupied as not a duplex at some point in its history. But so commercial, you know, they are investment properties. There's no question historically for a very long time, with the exception of the one in the back. And it'd be, maybe when I retire, I'll have time to do the research on a building, a little building like that, that's become sort of in the midst of other things. So we just have documented it per its architectural evolution at this point. Yeah, and I agree. I mean, when I would call it commercial, I was purely just referring to the zoning and the way I had to pull the permits and things like that. And that's kind of what I was saying. From that point of view, they may be commercial and multifamily, but for the people who live there, they are going to be their residents. And that's why I think that they would appreciate probably having at least a little bit of off-street parking. So is it zoned R4 or R3? I can look it up real quick. One of the two, but it is a residential zone but for multiple units. It's not a B zone is what I'm saying. No, it is not. It is no. Yeah. It's probably going to be R4, I would think. I think so, too. Or a grandfathered in R3. Anyway, so the word commercial in a zoning land has a very distinct zone affiliation, which might be a bit of the, I don't know if confusion is the right word, but the dialogue about this, it is a R zone, a residential zone, but for multiple apartments. It is R3. R3, yeah. So what they're referring to is one and two family structures have a separate building code for residential. They're still residential, but they fall under the Kentucky building code if there are three or more units. So they're residential, but it's a separate building code also. Yeah, that's a good distinction. And, yeah, so there's existing on the left. Obviously, they're two different parcels, so we're considering them separately. I did get the easement in place to kind of help clarify that portion of things. But so I guess they should be viewed separately where one is paving the existing and kind of rebuilding the existing, and then one is the addition, which is in the 453 parcel on the right-hand side. And while I know they both are separate, but I think they should be considered as a whole as well just because, well, you know, if it may be easier for you all to approve, you know, paving all the way just to the property line in the rear, I think what would happen is functionally a lot of the tenants might just park on the grass anyways, and it lead to like a mud pit back there. So that's why I was hoping that putting the grass pavers in there was a good middle ground. Could staff just reference to, I think on your 453 list, you might want to add paving what's currently an earthen strip, the one where you're saying you could put like a compact car. That would need to be in your 453 considerations because that strip is technically on that side. Right. So you've actually got two spots that you're suggesting paving, one with multiples and one with spot for one vehicle. Correct. And I don't think there's anything additional on 453, is there? No, there's four lots. So one thing that's worth mentioning, too, is you can't see it in this one as well, but the parking space is the way they laid them out. There's four spots right here, and these are the parking lines. My understanding is from talking to EA partners is that I had preferred them putting the lines along this perimeter on the right-hand side, and that way you could get more spaces in there. And I think my understanding is it was about, like, two foot short of meeting the standard. I wanted to mention that because I think at one point Amelia was a little concerned, like, you know, we're taking up a lot of green space just to gain only four parking spots. And I was going to say, again, functionally, if I grasp Havered back here, I think being that there wouldn't be lines drawn on it with grass pavers I think a lot of tenants would tend to park horizontally if you will across the right parking side there you know the right hand perimeter and you probably could fit a few more in there but because of that two foot being two foot short of meeting the standard my engineer had said that he can't lay it out that way or propose it that way so I do think that again either way probably that 453 that back lot is going to end up getting used most likely as parking. Even if I didn't put any asphalt or anything there, just because of the existing curb cut and the existing gravel, naturally it kind of leads you around to the right-hand parcel. I was actually, Amelia, I had never seen those 2015 pictures where that retaining wall was a lot bigger and stuff like that. It had like the little, was there gravel in that picture next to the retaining wall or was there grass in front of it? It was just grass. Okay. It was grass. And, you know, of course, this property was owned by the We Care, so that retaining wall supported their property. Their property, yeah, right. And it's worth noting, too, that you couldn't see it very well in the current pictures because it's also overgrown, but compared to 2015, like right now, that retaining wall is probably only a couple blocks high. I don't know what they did or what. Well, the retaining wall was the front wall that you're taking out now on the front. Oh, they moved it. I got you. Okay. So I guess she's saying they built the little fountain thing in the front with it, the water birdbath. So, yeah, like I said, I'm open to suggestions, too, because I'd like to find a happy medium. Because, like I said, if you have 13 apartments, that's a lot of on-street parking to take up. And, like I said, I think it would be beneficial to everybody to have a little bit of off-street parking for safety and for tenants who prefer it. And I think, you know, was part of the concern just is it like about the heat island and water runoff and stuff like that? I mean, is that like taking up the aspect of taking up the green space, is that the bigger concern? Well, when you go from green space to parking, that's always a concern. Right. Because we're trying to always retain as much green space as possible. And it's important to note that just open space, earthen open space, a certain array of that is a very significant part of the makeup of the rhythm of these properties. And so water issues aside, drainage, you know, all the things that you might think about, those two come into it. But part of it's visual, just a visual existence of open space in a context that then allows there to be these properties all along Maxwell, all along Transfania Park, all these streets. They have front yards. They have residence, no matter whether duplex, single family, multiple plex. Next. And then they have traditionally open space, yard, greenery, whatever, earth. it can have nothing but weeds it doesn't matter it's still open space and then some of them many of them and certainly have come to have but some started out with garages set pretty far back on their toward their rear of their lot that is the character the historic evolution and character of this neighborhood and you have a miss you have sort of a misformed rhythm because of the fact that these two apartment buildings have been put in the front yard of the older historic building that obviously related to a bigger tract of land than just these two parcels. So nobody's suggesting it's not an unusual situation, but maybe that will help you some with the philosophies about what we're charged with protecting and then, of course, get the board to get all their input about their considerations. Right. Okay. I think we need to move the process along in terms of, are there any specific questions from the board members starting with Susan? Just a quick question, and it is related to parking on some. has traffic engineering taken a look at this? Because you're absolutely right. Maxwell is a difficult street to access. Sight lines are terrible. Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Right now the paving plan stands. It's been approved by everybody, traffic engineering, planning. I forget the department, environmental, I think, that does the VUA stuff. The only thing it's waiting on is historical and the building inspection. And when I talked to building inspection, they said that they basically aren't going to even look at it until it passes H-1. So basically it's down to those two at this point. And, Ms. Hill, I did talk to traffic engineering last week about this plan, and I've been talking on and off with traffic engineering since 2015 about this plan. You know, not this plan specifically, but this parcel and stuff like that. And I think they were much more comfortable knowing it had this easement that has now just come about because they were less likely to approve a plan that sort of made one parcel an island, so to speak. I think they always have concerns about any kind of ingress, egress, leading on to Maxwell. is a big concern now that it's merged together that has eased their concerns? Well, the question that I have is can we really widen that driveway to the length that you want to widen it and be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood? To be honest, part of it was just to take out that area there and to improve safety just because I feel like it's a tight turn in there, and especially where it has that currently, that little birdbath, little retaining wall, it would catch a tire on a lot of people, like a longer truck or something like that. So really that was my primary motive there, and it's really not, I would say it's not imperative to my plan overall. Okay. So I would be happy to change that aspect. Well, the birdbath obviously is not historic. That was just added like two years ago. I've watched it go up over the time and saying what was he trying to do, I think he was really trying to beautify his property. I do have a couple more questions, and I will probably not participate in the voting of this, mainly because I live on Transylvania Park. My concern is the rear of the property is substantially deteriorated. are you going to be coming to us with a proposal to change the add-ons, if you will? The footprints or the addition of the buildings or anything? No, sir. No, I plan to fix them. I have a lot of experience. I've worked with Amelia, believe it or not, quite a long time, and I have a lot of experience fixing pretty dilapidated old vacant structures. It's falling down. Right. Yeah, no, I will be doing structural work, and all those additions will be hardy boarded. They'll have all brand-new windows. I'm actually rewiring all three buildings. I'm replumbing all three buildings. I mean, pretty much I'm going to the fullest extent of the renovation as you can. Okay, all right. And like I said, I know this is a very unique situation, the way the buildings are laid out, the parcels, the parking, everything, and I'm trying to find a creative solution to go along with all the improvements that I'm making in other aspects of improving the properties. So that's kind of why I feel like the parking's important because I just – You're not going to be tearing off any of the existing additions? You're just going to repair them? Yeah, I'm going to fix everything up, basically. Okay. And like I said, that's why I'm... The question I have is, replace the wood with hardy wood? That actually is something we can do, replace it with hardy wood. And we've actually, Barry and I both have been on site to these structures and looked at them. And there's quite a bit of some of the 453 has started to have replacement of siding already. Okay. And then the 451 is the one that had little work done on it. But he's received a staff-issued COA to repair this from roof all the way down to foundation already. Okay. Both, all three structures. I had not realized that. And masonry is actually wrapping up, I guess, but there's some structural work that he mentioned that will happen on the front porches of 451 where it needs to be reinforced, those structural brick piers. All right. Okay. Questions? He is current with all those permits, and it's all been by its nature under the umbrella of what can be done by staff, which is perhaps the key takeaway on that. Okay, thank you. Other questions? So just a comment, and it does have to do with your question about the concerns with so much asphalt. And part of it is, given the rain events, we increasingly are having the more asphalt solid surface you create. you're putting a lot of pressure on the buildings and the foundations on those buildings. If, in fact, I believe I heard you say that you would be willing to consider or entertain extending the grass papers around that most historic building so that that part of the landscape would have the ability to absorb so much of these big rain events that we're getting. Yes, the weather has been crazy this spring and summer, and I think it's probably telling of things to come. It's probably not going to change. So I'm definitely open to that. But one thing I wanted to mention, and you reminded me, that one of my motives in widening the driveway was also that, was just to make it wider to where it's closer to the foundation of both buildings, and it can shed water like a chute. I'm wanting to have it built up a little bit on the side so that when rain comes from the back, it shoots it away from the foundation of those buildings. I mean, obviously, I'm spending a lot of time and money tuck pointing at it. We have to go, no, no, no. We'll have to talk about that. This process has been burned on that. So you want them to be further away from your foundations, not snugging up to them. But excuse me, I'm sorry, but this is one topic that we have had well-intentioned things go on that have shown exactly why they were a bad idea. I'm sorry. Okay, yeah, I'm not sure about the history of all that. But, you know, like I said, I am open to recommendations and hearing what, you know, So, I mean, kind of like you were talking about earlier with painting the brick being, you know, something that people don't realize is actually detrimental to the brick. Yeah, my idea was to try to funnel the water away from the foundations. So going with that point, the point I was going to make is if I could pave it back to a certain point and then switch over to grass pavers sooner so that that way it's absorbing more, you know, water, because obviously when you put the grass pavers in, you've got to do the base levels that provide a lot of drainage and absorptive quality. So I would be happy to do that. Do you all have an idea, or even you, you know, if you're concerned about it being the paved aspects being too close to the building, do you all have a preference or an idea of where the ideal line to draw between either the concrete or the asphalt and switching over to those grass pavers? Like, where would be the ideal line? Can I ask another question? Yes, ma'am. I'm going to try to answer that. Obviously, we're, you know, looking at the four that are being added kind of between that house and how much space is that that is taking up. Are you also trying to get some parallel parking in along there? Yes, that was part of the purpose of making it a little wider as well, because the distance between the from the left-hand perimeter there to the side, I think you could probably sneak in some cars. When you saw those 2015 pictures, you could see people were kind of parking to the side and letting access through or egress through still. That would kind of be my hope. So that's why I was, you know, I think technically you could fit a spot right here, a compact spot, like I was saying. I also saw, Amelia, in those 2015 pictures, they had lined up the Herbies right along here, along this building it appeared. I mean, I could potentially try to sneak a spot here and move the Herbie spot there to add those two spaces. Additionally, one of the planes that I submitted had a spot kind of right here, a little more space, but Amelia had suggested that I put more of a radius in there, so we made that change to stay further away from that tree, I think. So you're not trying to put parallel parking along that side? This side right here, yes. That's going to be parallel parking. Yes, I think you could sneak some compact vehicles in there as well. And, again, in the old photos, it seems like that's what they were doing, but EA Partners, when they drew this up, you know, has certain regs of what they want to put down. Okay. My opinion is you're putting in, even if it's grass pavers, a lot of paving system in here for four cars. when you could save a lot of green space and just put two cars back there. And my other thought is in terms of where you start bringing more grass pavers into it is potentially you make what you pave narrower and those parallel spots could even become grass pavers along the side. Right. I would be open to that. And what kind of grass pavers are you thinking? Because I know there's a couple of different kinds. So there's just like the plastic ones that you kind of put under the earth, the grass, or you're thinking about like a concrete one? The concrete ones seem preferable to me. Okay. But I actually have not used those on a project, either type yet, but as I was researching them, the concrete seemed preferable to me rather than the plastic ones. The concrete grass creed is installed over at Ashland, the Henry Clay House. You might want to go and see how it's handled itself for nearly 20 years. Right. Right. And then in responding to your first part of your comment, And I did want to say that, you know, I think I can go back here. Let's see. Can I go to the one that shows the existing? We do have one that shows where the existing gravel is. And it's kind of hard to tell because it's so overgrown and this place has been condemned and in disrepair for so long. Those, what is it? I was trying to click at it. I'm not sure where to aim it. What's that? Oh, okay. Okay. Well, if you look at the one that shows, again, that was drawn by EA Partners. I would probably dispute it a little bit. I think he kind of went back there and did a cursory glance as to what was there. Is it working now? If you go back a few where it shows the two people in the backyard there. Right there, yeah, there's Amelia. Okay, so you can see we're on that perimeter there where you were talking about putting the parallel parking. You can see there's actually a truck parked parallel right there, but still space to kind of come around. Just past the corner of that building, again, that's where the property line is, and that's where the existing gravel went to. So if I can't pave it, then my plan was just to put down a little bit of fresh gravel so it didn't turn into a mud pit. And then it's really, again, another odd thing about this property is it's odd to me that they even had it paved to that point or graveled to that point, excuse me, without having anything further to the back there. Because, like I said, if I do go put gravel down just in the places where it was existing to make it a little nicer, I have a strong feeling that any tenant that wants to is going to go park in the mud back there. And I'm just thinking that a grass pavers is going to be a preferable. And then also, right now, we've cleared all these trees out because, unfortunately, a lot of those trees have died. And so there is no greenery back there. There's no shrubs. There's no bushes. So I would posit that the screening and the additional stuff I'm willing to do would be adding shade and adding greenery and green space and all the things that I agree with you guys I would like to have. I'm just, again, trying to find a creative solution because my fear is just that I'm going to have three rebuilt nice historical properties and then just a really odd driveway situation with a little bit of gravel that just randomly stops. And so I'm looking for an alternative to that. One of the things you should be reminded of is that you're going to have to, whatever the footprint of your gravel is and or approved to be paved you're going to have to put stops so that vehicles cannot drive and just play around in whatever green is left so it's a little of a misnomer to suggest that whatever is left to be open space and green will automatically be turned into a parking lot by whoever lives there because you're going to be charged with putting barriers real enough that they can't do that. And you're going to have the responsibility of keeping them off that, or else the police can cite you for parking where they don't belong. So it is a very real possibility and plan that this process is charged with seeing to it that some legitimate amounts of green space survive on this property, and part of your job is going to be left to assure that happens through what's determined to be the mechanism physically to protect those green spaces. I got you. And so I think you've looked at paving every inch of it to be quite blunt. And so staff would just have to come right out and say that's not possible within this process. Now, board, you all are charged with figuring out what could be possible, and staff's glad to work with the property owner and with you all. But I think, you know, there's one quick solution to how to keep the back of the 453 address. It is four, isn't it? Yeah, 453. And that's to build a fence between the two properties. and you would not have any trouble with people parking in the backyard of 453. So I'm concerned because I'm just myself as staff sitting here hearing all sorts of discussion of how to accomplish paving, but I haven't heard a whole lot of discussion about how to accomplish keeping the green space. Well, I mean, I respectfully disagree because, like I said, the way I view it, I think the green space will be improved. if all these trees and stuff had remained, like I said, there's really nothing but grass back there. And that is green space, don't get me wrong. But I think adding the grass pavers will still have a nice appeal, a nice look, a nice aesthetic to it. I think it will actually drain water better because of those base layers that are put in there. You're still going to have a lot of grass, but also with the added screening, I will be actually adding more greenery or plantings or, you know, vegetation, whatever you want to call it, than is otherwise going to be there. You do realize grass really will not grow with any substantial outcome through your pavers because it will get too much traffic on it. It's just the one at Ashland, I used to be the director at Ashland back in the dark ages, and it predates, my time out there predates when those pavers were put in. But I've sort of observed it in comings and goings, and it sometimes has a decent amount of grass in the crevices intended for that. But by and large, it reads as a paved surface, and you're going to be faced with the same challenge, particularly given that your only path for them to travel is constantly on the same path. Yeah, I'm not sure how well the grass will grow. Oh, the permeable part's great, And that part, it's not going to change the visual experience too much. There is great value to the permeable part about the water to the ground. No question of that. And then, yeah, and then what will improve the green space, though, like I said, is the screening. So I think that's an important part. And that's also what I wanted to offer, doing further landscaping. If, I mean, the front, around, I mean, even in addition to the – oh, it's working now, apparently. So even in addition to the – so in addition to the – you can see there's, I think, four trees and, like, 30-some bushes or something like that I'd be adding. In addition to that, which is – that is just purely the VUA requirement right there, I would be glad to add kind of, you know, to further beautify things. I mean, add some sort of garden or landscaping around in that open area, add a number of other trees or other screening, potentially even in the front doing something creative to kind of offset or mitigate the impact? Well, the only way you're really going to make your green space work and your landscaping work is probably reduce to a reasonable amount the number of people that can actually park on your property. and you may have to do that through some kind of permitting system and simply say, you know, with this apartment I'll give you, let's just say that you can put maybe eight or nine cars back there at the most. You've got 13 tenants, you know, four of them are not going to be able to have cars. Right. And they're just going to have to be on and recognize that they cannot park in that back air because otherwise you will have a mud pit on your hands. I agree, yeah. So you're going to have to limit it. Some sort of a pass system to police it, yeah. We've had some luck, finally, with campus properties across the street, that they finally came up with, finally, a decent parking situation. But it took some money to do it. You may have to do something similar that you're going to have to enforce rigorously the number of cars that can be in that back area, period. Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, at the end of the day, there's more housing units than there are parking spaces. So it's always going to be a shortage. I mean, even if some of these kids are biking or walking to school or don't even have a vehicle, it still is going to be a concern and certainly something I will be policing. Right. And I don't, like she was saying, I don't want them running amok and making a mess back there. So I will find some sort of a solution. I mean, at the end of the day, if all I do is just let the gravel, existing gravel area be gravel, put some new gravel down and roll on, I mean, you know, I guess in a worst-case scenario, that's what I'm stuck with. I mean, I guess it will save me a lot of money, you know. So, but I just, like I said, my biggest concern, or one of them, is just that these properties are going to be completely redone and then the parking is going to be not adequate and not on that same kind of, not adding to the aesthetic of the property. Well, if you're suggesting putting it all back to gravel, that may be a different issue for us to deal with because you're going to have to show how much of that yard was actually graveled Oh, sure. At the time that it came into the district. For sure, yeah. That would be a separate process, and I understand that. Yeah, totally. All right. But I was trying to find a creative solution that would look really good, and I just thought the grass pavers and the added screening and landscaping would be a good option. Mr. Hamilton, have you pursued, over here, staff, contacting any of the commercial properties alongside HI to see about getting any kind of shared agreement or purchasing any property or parcels over there or parking spaces? I talked to Sonny in the rear, and then I talked to Burton on the side of me. Obviously, the We Care is not going to allow it, but neither one of them were interested in it. What about Mickler's? Yeah, Mickler's wasn't interested either, unfortunately. What about across the street at the property on high across the street there? that's the, I guess it's engineering. You're talking about that office building? Correct. Yeah. That's a thought. Also, I'm surprised that Robin wouldn't talk to you with respect to renting space that's accessed by High Street, not at Mickler's itself, but he owns that property behind Mickler's all the way up to High Street. And does it border with Sonny's place? No, there's an intermediate interior design firm between those two parcels. I think the reason I didn't is because Sonny had indicated to me that he had had disagreements with her about parking and that she was quite territorial about her parking. Well, I was talking about, well, that's a different, so there's between Sonny, the interior design firm, and another. Another one. I got you. I'd have to familiarize myself. I mean, I'm open to that, yeah. Right. It's behind, it would be behind Mickler's. I got you, okay. I got you, okay. I think I know what you're talking about, yeah. But, no, I mean, I guess, you know, if I can't do something similar to this, I was just going to kind of leave it, I guess, and just let them park in the gravel spot like they used to. That's kind of my backup plan. All right, anything else? All right, I think we're – thank you. Yeah, thank you all. We'll continue working with you on this and see what you bring to us as a final proposal. Any other questions or comments? I think we're done then with the conceptual review. Okay. Thank you. All right. There's no other items on our agenda. Are we ready to adjourn? If so, may I have a motion, please? So moved. Second? Second. All right. We stand adjourned. I'm feeling blue Oh, it is a man I'm sure missing you Oh, Elizabeth I long to see your pretty face I long to touch your lips I long to feel your warm embrace Don't know if I can ever live my life Without you, oh it is a past, I'm sure missing you. Well it's been said before, that I've caused many heartaches. And I wonder if that was really true. Being right or wrong, fears my heart will surely break. Oh, Elizabeth, I hope you understand. Oh, Elizabeth, I long to see your pretty face. I long to touch your hands I long to feel your warm embrace Don't know if I can ever live my life without you Oh, it is a prayer I'm sure missing you Don't know if I can ever live my life without you Oh, Elizabeth, I'm sure missing you Oh, Elizabeth Sitting in the morning sun I'll be sitting when the evening comes Watching the ships roll in And then I'll watch them roll away again Yeah, I'm sitting on the dock of the bay, watching the tide roll away. Ooh, I'm sitting on the dock of the bay, wasting time. I left my home in Georgia, headed for the Frisco Bay. I've had nothing to live for It looks like nothing's gonna come my way So I'm just gonna sit on the dock of the bay Watching the tide roll away I'm sitting on the dock of the bay Wasting time Look like nothing's gonna change Everything still remains the same I can't do what ten people tell me to do So I guess I'll remain the same Sitting here resting my bones And this loneliness won't leave me alone Listen, 2,000 miles I roam Just to make this a... Wasting time Thank you. It's another tequila sunrise Staring slowly across the sky Said goodbye He was just a hired hand Working on the dreams he planned to try The days go by Every night when the sun goes down Just another lonely boy in town She's out running round She wasn't just another one And I couldn't keep on coming on Been so long Oh, and it's a hollow feeling When it comes down to dealing friends It never ends Take another shot of courage Wonder why the right world's never come You just get numb It's another tequila sunrise This old world still looks the same Another frame Thank you. Well, our hearts be like thunder I don't know why they don't explode You've got your hands in my back pocket And Sam Cooke singing on the radio You say that I'm the boy Who can make it all come true Well, I'm telling you that I don't know If I know what to do You say it's alright Hold tight Well, I don't even know If I'm doing this right Well, alright Hold tight We could stay out all day We could run around all night Well, all night, all night Well, it's time to go home And I ain't even done with the night Well, I don't know, no good comings And I don't know no cool lines I feel the heat of your frustration I know it's burning you up deep down inside You say that I'm the boy Who could make it all come true Well, I'm telling you that I don't know If I know what to do Say that's all right, hold tight Well, I don't even know if I'm doing this right Well, all right, hold tight We could stay out of date We could run around all night Well, all night, all night Well, it's time to go home And I ain't even done with the night I'm out.