Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There we go. All right, let me welcome you to the September 20 meeting of the Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff, and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions 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 22 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are in the Ashland Park Historic District at 221 South Hanover, renovate structure. Median near 100 South Hanover Avenue replaced the National Register signage. And median near 314 South Hanover Avenue replaced the National Register signage. Utility strip near 346 Deshaies Road replaced National Register signage. Utility strip near 912 Richmond Road replaced the National Register signage. In the Ellsford Hissar District at 331 Ellsford Place replaced the signing. At 626 East High Street, replace the fence. At 340 Woodland Avenue, renovate the structure. 349 Woodland Avenue, renovate the structure. In the Belcourt Historic District at 509 East Main Street, renovate the structure. At Constitution Street Historic District at 230 North Limestone, renovate the structure. In the Fayette Park Historic District at 438 Fayette Park, remove deteriorated trees. In the Grants Park Historic District at 200 Market Street, renovate the structure. In the Mulberry Historic District at 425 North Limestone Street, remove deteriorated tree. In the Northside Historic District at 432 North Broadway, renovate the structure. 444 West 3rd Street, remove deteriorated trees and install aluminum fence and gates. At 461 West 3rd Street, remove trees and repair deck fence. At 465 West 3rd Street, replace the roof. At 470 West 3rd Street, renovate the structure. In the South Mill Street Historic District, at 340 South Mill Street, renovate the structure. And finally, in the Pensacola Park Historic District at 103 Wabash Drive, replace the fence. You tried. We will now turn to our first application. Chair. Yes. There's a backside to the flip over your. Are there more? I'm sorry, I thought we were ending at 25. Okay, there are two more, or three more. In the 7th Park historic district at 517 Arcadia Park, replace cutters. At 537 Arcadia Park, remove the pin oak tree. And finally, in the Woodworks Heights Historic District at 817 West Maxwell, replace the roof. Our first item is 451 East Maxwell Street, 453 East Maxwell Street. I suspect the applicant would like to have a hearing on that, so I'm going to move on to some others that we can approve. Let's turn now to 365 Transylvania Park, install a wooden garden shed. Is the applicant here? Mr. Dickinson, I wouldn't necessarily jump the gun on those first two cases. Okay. Because I'm not sure he. All right. We'll back up. At 451, the first two applicants, 451 East Maxwell Street and 453 East Maxwell Street. Applicant here? Yes. All right. Hello there. I'm Jimmy Hamilton, and I'm here to talk about two paving permit applications for 451 and 453 East Maxwell. Okay, 451, the staff has recommended approvals subject to conditions, one of which is substantive, that being the paving behind the middle historic structure not be continued to connect to the paving line to 453 East Maxwell, and final plan to be submitted prior to the COA being issued. Yes, I agree with that. All right, and the other two are, let me read them to you one time. Once reviewed by the other LFUCG divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. No. You in agreement with that? Yes. Finally, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Absolutely. Okay, now turning to the other application at 453 East Maxwell Street, the staff has recommended this approval of that plan. to pay the rear yard are you in agreement uh i'm in disagreement with that one all right okay all right sorry i would like to yes i would like to go ahead and sound the other cases before we get into it in formal hearings if that's all right with you sir sure yeah that's fine i mean i i didn't want to throw a wrench in the works i just i did want to at least go on record that i do disagree I agree with it. So that's, I mean, most all, nothing has changed in terms of the plans since the last time I spoke. Would you like the staff to make a presentation as to why they are recommending disapproval of the application? What was that, would I like for them to make a presentation? Yes. No, like I said, it's pretty consistent with the last time that I was here, so I think you all may be somewhat familiar with it. I don't think anything's changed. If you're not needing a hearing, then we'll just go ahead and take care of it. Okay. All right, okay, sorry. Okay, and I'll remind you, you're entitled to have a staff present and have the board review it. You have that right. You don't have to, but. Well, yeah, I mean, it was recommended to be disapproved last time, and it is this time as well. And I have been unable to come up with any more kind of creative ideas. I wanted to do grass pavers, add a lot of screening and greenery. Again, I discussed those things. I haven't been able to come up with any sort of other creative ideas in order to get paving on that second parcel there. Thank you for your candor and cooperation. Thank you. All right, then, this is an application that was to widen the driveway, create a parking area in the backyard. It has been disapproved by the staff. Any questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Chair is ready for a motion. Yes, Brad. So could we hear why the grass pavers were not acceptable? I think the decision would be, the commentary, as I remember at the last meeting, was the concern that they would not work and that it would basically turn into a mud pit. And that yard has never been paved before, it's always been a backyard. And so the concern was we have very few intact backyards left in that section of Maxwell anyway. And so the staff has recommended that paving not be permitted and grass pavers was not a workable solution. Is that acceptable? Okay. Yes, Ms. Kerr. the only additional thing the staff would note in their considerations about the recommendation on this is putting grassy pavers in some usages is a great solution but it is not resulting in a yard it is resulting in a paved area that can be softened by growth coming through it so that contradicts what the staff's intent and the guidelines intent the staff is reflecting which is that this needs to remain a true earthen yard not an area with paving with something crawling up between it so our recommendation reflects that this stay an undisturbed soiled in full yard space does that help Brett, does it help? Yes, thanks. Okay, all right, so I'm ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 12670451-C at 451 East Maxwell. I move that per the staff's recommendation, we approve this application, this certificate for appropriateness with the following three items. Number one, the paving behind the middle historic structure not be continued to connect to the property line to 453 East Maxwell. and a final plan be submitted prior to the coa being issued and the number two and three the standard two conditions okay and do we have a motion relative to 453 east maxwell excuse me if you wouldn't mind please go ahead and vote on your first motion okay thank you that address i'm sorry i'm getting ahead myself second all right there's a second I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. Any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, the chair calls the question. All those in favor of the motion to approve the COA as condition on 451 East Maxwell, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Now that I'll slow down a little bit, turning to 453 East Maxwell, do I have a motion with respect to the disapproval of that application? Chair, per case 1267-0453-E at 453 East Maxwell Street, I move to disapprove the proposed plan for a certificate of appropriateness. All right, do I have a second? Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion to disapprove the COA, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes, and the application is disapproved. All right, turning now to application number three, 365 Transylvania Park in the Ellsworth Historic District. The scope of work is construction. Is the applicant here? Mr. Chairman, the applicant is not here, but you have an email that he sent to me saying he agreed with the recommendations. I do, and also there was, okay, very good. We have his email, so I think we can just move forward with this one. This is basically to erect an approved prefab shed and is subject to the standard two conditions, which has been previously read into the record, but I'll read them for this one. Once reviewed by the other LFUCG divisions, resubmitting change to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of the issuance of the COA. if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work do i have any comments or questions about this application any comments or questions from the audience all right i'm ready for a motion chair in regards to case number 1913-0365-I at 365 Transylvania Park. I move that we approve the requested certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion to approve the coa say aye aye opposed nay the motion passes and then the application at one uh at 365 transomani park is approved please note my abstention from that vote all right okay on uh we now turn to attachments four and five these are heard in tandem because It's a fence dividing these two properties, the first being 176 North Broadway, the other being at 182 North Broadway. Correct. Thank you. Gary Wooten. I'm finally batting 1,000, I think. You state your name for the record, please. Gary Wooten. All right, Mr. Wooten. The application has been actually up. It's been recommended for approval by the staff, subject to the standard two conditions. I'm going to take them in order. This is 176 North Broadway. Are we in agreement with those recommendations? Absolutely. Okay. Any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, then I'm ready for a motion on 176 North Broadway. Chair, per case 02500176-D at 176 North Broadway, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA for 176 Broadway has been approved. Turning now to the sister application at 182 North Broadway, which is the same fence, and the same two standard conditions. I'm assuming you're in agreement? Yes. All right. Do I have a motion? Chair, per case 02-182-E at 182 North Broadway, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any nays? Nope. The motion passes and the COA as conditions approved. Mr. Wooten, thank you for your time and your presence here today. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, turning now to our next application, 429 North Broadway. In the north side historic district, the scope of work is replace signage. Is the applicant here? State your name for the record. I'm sorry? State your name for the record. Howard Stovall with Image 360. Been a long time since I've seen you, Mr. Stovall. It's been. All right. This is application that is to replace signage in front of the 429 North Broadway. The staff has recommended approval of the application subject to the standard two conditions which I have previously read. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Are you in agreement with those two conditions? Yes. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the Chair, I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 02500492D, I move that a certificate of appropriateness be granted for this application for 429 North Broadway. All right. I have a second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes and the COA condition is approved. Thank you, Mr. Sobo. Thank you. All right, good luck. Okay, turning to 332 Arcadia Park, seven parks district. Scope of work is construct a garage addition. Applicant here? Yes, Margaret Au. Again please, Au. Au. All right, Ms. Au. The staff has recommended approval except, and there is one substantive change. And that is they're recommending that you change the vinyl siding to a guideline compatible material such as wood or a cemented siding. Submit the siding selection to staff for review and approval prior to the issues of the COA. Are you in agreement with that? I disagree. You disagree. All right, if you don't mind, I want to sound the other cases, and once we get through the routine cases, we'll come back to you. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. All right, let's go on to our next case. Attachment number 8380 South Mill Street at the South Hill Historic District. Come on up. Barron Gibson. All right. And your last name again? Gibson. Gibson, okay. Barron, as you are aware, this is a complicated application. Yes. If you don't mind, let me sound the other two cases and then we'll come back to you on this one. I'm sure you won't be heard on it. Sounds good, thank you. All right, thank you. All right. Turning now to 582 West Short Street, scope of work is the construct a front yard fence. State your name for the record, please. Rebecca Kroll. Nice to meet you. The staff has recommended approval of your application, subject to what I've been referring to as the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions or comments from the board on this one? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 17170582-D at 582 West Short Street, I move for the approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries and the COA as a condition is approved. Thank you. Thank you so much for your time. All right, turning to our last case. That can be sounded. It's attachment number 10591 West Short Street in the Western Suburb Historic District. Instructor Patio, cover. So, Alma Katazovich. All right. you have sent in an email there were some questions about the your siding or your actually your design of the patio cover would you just go through that email briefly so I think one of the questions was what side the slope is going to be of the roof right yes it's not going to be facing Jefferson it's going to be facing that gray fence perpendicular to Jefferson. Oh there it is. Thank you very much. Is that does that answer the question? Okay so the slope is just going to be the standard slope I think in this case eight inches for how long it is. I think. So it's just going to be the the standard. Oh there it is yeah right there. So it's going to be sloping towards the gray fence. Right. And there will be a gutter and two down spots on each side, one kind of on the Jefferson and one over this way. So like that, just like this, as this picture looks. Okay. And then you note that the water will drain on Jefferson and the patio, which is already sloped, and the water drains down. It's already, like, yes, set up that way. All right. Any other questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the board? I will note that it's been subject to approval, subject to the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. Thank you. There are additional conditions. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. I can fold that in. I'm sorry. Yes, there's one substantive, and that is provide the lumber species and grade to staff for review and approval prior to the issues of the COA. In agreement with that? Yes, I am. Any questions or comments from the audience? The second substantive condition is to provide details and specifications for the metal roofing material to staff for approval. Do you agree with that? Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm rushed today. All right. And three and four are the standard conditions. All right. Thank you, Suzanne. Any questions about this application? All right, I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case 17170591-H at 591 West Short Street, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following recommendations. Number one, to provide the lumber species and grade to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Number two, to provide detailed specifications for the metal roofing material to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. And number three and four, the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. And the COA as condition is approved. Good luck with your project. It's a great location. I wish you the best as fucks. I appreciate all your work. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's turn now to 332 Arcadia Park. If the applicant will come back up. And whose case is this? Our normal procedure is, and in this particular case, it is recommended that you change your vinyl siding, which you won't be heard on. There are two standard conditions I've previously read. I'm assuming you're in agreement with those, aren't you? Yes. Okay. Our normal procedure is the staff member will do a presentation to us, and then you can make any comments you would like, and then we'll ask you questions. All right. Barry? Barry? This is 332 Arcadia Park. The scope of the work is to construct garage additions. The background is the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct two additions to the modern garage. These additions are proposed as follows. Number one, an eight-foot addition is proposed on the front or the northeast face of the detached garage and will extend the garage to 27 feet deep. That's total. The roof line will match the existing gable end and the roof will be covered in asphalt shingles. The new walls are proposed to be covered in vinyl siding to match the existing garage. Number two, on the northwest side of the detached garage, a greenhouse addition is proposed. The greenhouse is to be approximately 19 feet by 8 feet. The cedar and polycarbonate walls will be set on a CMU stem wall, and the roof is shaped polycarbonate. So this is looking to the rear at the garage in question. This is looking from the front of the garage back towards the house. This is a view from the west of the garage and another. and this is looking to show the separation of the garage currently from the existing primary structure. The guidelines are included for your use. So You have the elevations? I was trying. There we go. So you have the drawings in your packet. These are not showing up very well. No, they're not. So the findings, staff finds that the proposal to construct the additions meet guidelines 2A, 4B. The additions are secondary, smaller and simpler to the original building in scale, design and placement. The use of a small connector link, a small connector or link between the addition and the original building is encouraged where appropriate. Exterior walls should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the side of the existing building and roof line should be stepped down from the peak so that the existing roof line, so that the existing main roof remains evident. The additions are compatible in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, materials, color, locations of windows, doors, and corner sites. per guideline 2A4C. Other than the vinyl siding to match existing, the proposal also meets 2A4K. It follows the design guidelines established for new construction of primary buildings. Guideline 2B2D states accessory buildings should be preferably of brick or wood siding, however cementitious board or other contemporary sightings may be considered. Vinyl sighting is not allowed. The proposal to construct the garage additions meets the guidelines and will not have a negative impact on the historic structure or the Seven Parks Historic District. And as I mentioned, it is a modern garage, not a historic garage. recommendations change the final or the vinyl siding to a guideline compatible material such as wood or cementitious siding submit the siding selection for staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA and then the two standard conditions okay before we turn to the applicant I have a question Barry Do we have any guidelines that address specifically instructing an addition to an addition that has vinyl siding on it? We do not. Okay. And on that, the fact that there is a very clear statement in the guidelines that vinyl is not allowed, That was a long time coming to being formalized into the design guidelines. It's now been 12 or 13 years ago. But prior to that, the guidelines Lexington utilized used to say that it could be considered in new construction kind of thing. The problem is once the process came to the reality and the decision was made to make no vinyl be allowed, that prohibits utilizing vinyl in any situation. So there isn't a, except you can increase the footprint of a building and put vinyl on it when it's already got vinyl. Those things were all taken into consideration, and the statement of no vinyl being allowed isn't what's intended. No vinyl. The thought is that when it's time for additions to be made to existing situations, that either they can coexist, and as that vinyl wears out on the existing situation, then it can be reclad not in vinyl but in whatever the new edition got clad in so that you work toward a district with no vinyl. So there is a method to the madness. All right. Any questions of the Mr. Dennis's presentation? If not, I think we're ready for the applicant to make comments. Ma'am? Thank you. So our argument to use vinyl is that the existing structure is vinyl, and I hear that the goal is to not have vinyl in a historic district. If you walk around the street, about every fourth house has some element of vinyl siding. This is a very small addition. So we were thinking about the impact of having materials that were not matching and what that appearance would look like. This is an eight-foot extension on the front. So it seems that to unify the building itself, the structure, and the neighborhood, vinyl seemed to be the most reasonable option from our design and cost standpoint. And we have photos of other vinyl structures in the neighborhood that we've brought, if anyone would like to see them. I had a question about the garage door that will be placed in the new addition. Do you have a material? And there's no information in this on what the material for that is. So that will be an overhead door brand garage door. We haven't specifically selected a door, but I know they have steel and fiberglass options or aluminum and fiberglass options. And that can be presented before the COA is provided. Yeah, maybe. I think the, I think we'll address the question of the door later, but you will need to submit an application for it. Suzanne, anything else? I guess my comment would be we don't have really leeway on the vinyl siding on what we can approve given our guidelines. but in your plan you have one elevation where the eight the addition is going on to the front the side elevation that's 19 feet long and then the addition makes it 27 feet long I'm not sure even if you did because of that being a flush condition I don't know that it would be successful in cladding the additional part trying to meet what is existing I don't, you're never, it's always going to look very, very patched on So, I mean, I think that if that one elevation, the entirety of that one elevation can be clad in an appropriate siding or a siding that we can approve, then the other existing siding can remain as is and they'll be on opposite sides. They won't be right up next to each other. I will note for the record that we have three composite photographs that have been put up on the screen that I'm assuming shows other garages in vinyl clad. Yeah, this neighborhood just came into the historic preservation guidelines like less than what, three years ago? About three years ago? This would be 1997. Yes. It was pre-COVID. Late 90s, time flies. Yes, it does. Yeah. It's a great name. Oh, this is Seven Parkes. Yeah. Yeah, it's been a while, excuse me. I was actually thinking Pensacola, excuse me, my mistake. But at the time, any district at the time it's created, whatever is the existing condition, materials and so forth, are taken into account when it is being voted on. Does it meet the criteria to become a historic district? And so whatever is that situation, property to property to property, it does, once it successfully is designated to have met the criteria for historic district, then it's taken as a given that these vinyl situations exist. For example, there's other types of materials that exist that you wouldn't, things like asbestos siding, you know, other things. So you just have to draw a line in the sand and say this is when the district is created, what its character was, what the existing things are. And then the criteria is structured to, as time moves forward, enhance the existing situations and have people get their permits for totally new constructions for entire houses and all that kind of thing. And so if you let the vinyl just keep seeping in, and I don't mean that quite as literally as it sounds, you never accomplish getting better integrity in the area because you just continue repeating the past. and you can't just do it on an ad hoc basis. You've got to kind of draw a line in the sand and say, you know, this product is not going to be allowed. It is not a product to be desired. I don't think people would go out of their way to put vinyl on if they had financially and otherwise some better alternatives. And the vinyl salesman can just shoot me if necessary. But you can see that as time passes, the maintenance of it and so forth, it eventually has to be replaced. And when the time comes to replace it, everything will move forward in a methodical manner to balance up. So it's not an arbitrary decision to just say, hey, they decided no vinyl. But one of the realities was that because they were having to deny vinyl, because it wasn't the right use of it in the different applications they were getting, it was driving the applicants crazy to go through these hearings and just get told no every time. So the answer was, if we're going to have to say no every time, let's just tell people. No vinyl. And that's why the guidelines, it's the only prohibition in the design guidelines. It is a very flat prohibition. So I recognize and I appreciate you trying to make the argument. And I think there's a question coming from Matt here. Brad? Not a question, just an observation. I want you to know that I was part of a third-generation family on Cherokee Park. I was president of Cherokee Park in 97 when this was passed and we tried to get Cherokee Park also as part of the district this was similar in the kinds of discussions that our neighborhood had and it did not pass our neighbors unfortunately so I just want you to know that I was there early on when all this got done over there and was excited that some of the neighborhood was able to to put this in place. Does it limit your flexibility? Yes. But I admire that Acadia Park took the opportunity and appreciate your all's patience and cooperation with the resulting restrictions. And I do wanna say that our designer, I feel, did his due diligence and met with the, Historic Preservation Commission representative before this was submitted to the board. And understanding that vinyl was not the preferred material. So I wanted to have this conversation, and I appreciate it. As the daughter of a former Historic Preservation Officer, and as someone who grew up in a post-Civil War French Second Empire town, house. I do value the historic character of architecture. And that's why we're here. And also, I will just make an aesthetic observation. You may disagree with me. No matter how hard you try to match that vinyl, it's not going to match. It really won't. For one thing, the way vinyl deteriorates. Aging is not the proper word for vinyl. the way it deteriorates, quite frankly. It will not, it's going to be, when you try to match it, it's going to make it even more obvious than just using a different material altogether. That's my observation on that. Are there any other questions? Yes. More observations. I like the design. It's clean and simple, very straightforward. And I noticed that the interior, what was an exterior wall that will now be interior to the greenhouse, is going to be the cedar clad, which will be really nice and very visible with all the polycarbonate panels. So there's an opportunity here to kind of raise the level back to what the original stone structure of the house and the neighborhood was. And the most visible part of the existing garage is really what will be reclad. well, not reclad, but just clad because it's the extension. So I think the visibility along the, I'm not sure what direction it is, but the elevation away from your house, there should be a very clean architectural way to separate those and not make it visually painful. because I do agree that extending vinyl, I just, that could look really messy. So creating that new siding just in the part that is extended before the greenhouse and the front and the sides. So I think that's worth some discussion. Certainly there is a way to, in a very clean fashion, to create, like we do between a historic building and a new addition, we create a vertical designation, whether it's a space or a gap or whatever, the same kind of opportunity to create a very clear designation between what had been and what you're going to do. so maybe it's not even the same width as the vinyl. Perhaps it takes on a wider exposure, but that it's clearly of a 21st century material, but is consistent around the three sides of the extension and will then integrate with the greenhouse itself. So I appreciate your interest and concern about the design piece of it as well as the history. Thank you. All right, any other questions, comments? I'll make one last comment. I almost bought that house. It's a wonderful house. It's a great house. It has that very deep basement, doesn't it? It has a very deep basement, doesn't it? It does, yes, and a fairy cubby for my daughter on the second floor. Yeah, it's a great house. All right, so I think any questions or comments from the audience? I think we're ready for a motion then. Yes, ma'am. Could the staff suggest that you all give consideration in your motion to reflecting some of your discussion specific to particularly what Ms. Hill just noted about the need to do a proper definition break between what will be the existing and the new. and we just need to include in our conditions under the recommendations you could add it if you wanted to condition one or you could make it a second condition that that in addition to the materials that might be being proposed is alternate to the vinyl that the treatment of how to do the architectural separation also be submitted to the staff Could we do it this way? Could we say submit the siding selection to staff and additional design specifications? Additional architectural details as needed. Let's do that. That'd be easier. All right. I think we're ready for a motion. Subject to the staff's comments as well. Ms. Hill, you want to try to make that motion? Sure. Chair, per case 00510332-B at 332 Arcadia Park, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, to change the vinyl siding to a guideline compatible material such as wood or cementitious siding submit the siding selection to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the coa along with additional architectural details that designate the end of the existing vinyl in the beginning of the new materials and items two and three are the standard two conditions okay do i have a second um i would like to amend the motion procedure let's second it second it okay so i second all right then do you have an amendment to offer to that motion i do uh to add one more condition that the material and specifications of the garage door be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of coa all right second okay uh does the movement accept that motion that amendment into its motion i do all right now then we don't have the two votes all right any further discussion on the motion as amended All right, then I think we're ready for the vote. All those in favor of the motion as amended, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes as amended and the COA as conditioned is approved. Ms. Awe, thank you so much for your time and attention. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Okay. All right, turning now to our next and final application at 380 South Mill Street. This is going to be a lengthy one. I'm going to suggest we take a five-minute break. The application. Did I miss one? Have I missed one? Okay. No, you didn't. Sorry. I withdraw my comment. All right. Let's take a five-minute break. This is going to be, I think, a fairly lengthy conversation. Voted on that we did, didn't we? Yeah, we did. We got it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. South, is the applicant here? Is South Mill Street the applicant? If the applicant will step forward, please. My normal procedure is I go through the conditions and see which ones specifically want to be heard on to be honest with you I think it's gonna be easier if it's just here the entire case sure and and deal with each condition as we hit it and then the procedure will be Amelia will do her presentation and then we'll hear your comments sure that sounds good the staff may have the board may have some questions of you and you both but we'll do them in order sounds good and then we'll have questions of you as well once the question period is ended and comments have been made from the audience I will end that discussion and then we'll discuss the application among ourselves sounds good all right Ms. Armstrong all right so I'm going to go through photos and then talk through the background at the same time so of course we met on august 16th regarding this case in this it was open but then there was still some concern about the trees these specific trees here and as i walk around the side this is looking from south mill street towards the what was once dudley's patio which has the two significant historic tulip poplar trees and this is a view of those trees if i can point them out here and here and we've had a letter was sent to the architect and owner to provide a myriad of items regarding the condition of the trees and ways to protect the these significant trees you've in your packet you have a memo sent from staff and their response from the town branch tree service certified arborist eric sutherland staff has also brought out tim query the urban forester and heather wilson who is the program manager for the urban forestry division who was actually present today in case anybody has any questions about those trees she can over here in the green so um and regarding that the arborist Eric Sutherland had proposed and we'll see his plan that's reflective of Eric's suggestions regarding installing mulch around the 12 12 inches of critical root system of the zone of the two of the poplars and also the applicant's proposal to dedicate two staging areas for equipment and materials staging one will be in the parking lot of 373 South Mill Street which is parking lot across on South Mill Street, not on Maxwell. And also this area where this, on the other side where the light posts are, where you see the hydrangeas in that particular location. They've also, he's also made note, Mr. Sutherland, the arborist, made note about how to excavate any pier systems with either hand digging or air knives. and also properly pruning any uncovered root systems caused by any excavation. And he also remarked about the removal of any kind of sidewalks as would be appropriate because the sidewalks presently are pretty close to the critical root zone. And so we walk around on this site. This is, again, from South Mill Street. And then this is from south of Maxwell. and you can see the trees in question here in the sidewalk that's pretty close to these one of these trees is 47 inches in diameter the other is 42 and this is an image of the this is on west maxwell and this is actually indicating the existing brick patio with the metal on top of the wall system another view of the area between the two trees and looking at the patio system and a lot of these shrubs as far as the dogwood that's in the picture the shrubs and other items will be removed as part of their proposal of their project. Let me just sort of walk around the site a little bit more. There's an existing plinth from where there was one of the horses, the art horses located that were located in that area. All of this foliage would be proposed to be removed as well as this entrance to the basement as the this would be the connection the addition will be connected to the structure in this location it was set back from this pier and now i can't find out how to do that um and this wait i'm trying to find my red dot I found something. It's going too fast. Hold on. I'm trying to find my red dot. I'll just highlight this area. Hold on. There we go. I got my red dot. All of this area will be removed as the addition will be, start behind this pier. which is painted out blue and come out. I'm going to turn around here. So, there we go. So, the addition will start here and connect to the structure and then come out. behind these two interrupt just yeah that's why yeah yeah sorry it's okay um so all of this will be removed including the chimney this chimney was here then rebuilt probably within the last 10 years it actually took up for the board to get rebuilt and all of this will be removed the new addition will be put on top there will be no disturbance of this existing patio right now as proposed and the additional will be raised above it would be at the same finished floor level as the floor level of the main structure and again some more views of the existing patio and so this addition piece was rebuilt probably also within the last 10 years there was another sort of more glass enclosure and then it became more made more solid around there so the proposed addition will come out in the same finished floor level as this particular area here but it will be expanded to encompass this pier here as the proposed plan will indicate and again here is the existing patio sort of jog dog legs in and it comes out so this is the area between the 1944 structure and the old dudley's patio space again this is sort of another view shed the same you should we saw before and i'm going to include this image here this is from i think this is 2018 that shows the trees without their leaves on it so showing the limbs here the proposed addition will be 20 feet above so that will encompass these three windows and meet the building in this particular location and so we have and then this also this is actually another from last December from 2022 also indicating lower limbs that expand out over the proposed area that potentially have to be pruned to make room for the proposed addition addition of course this area has been a patio for the last 40 years and then it was as dudley's opened in 1981 then a patio did was went before the board in 1983 and a 10 enclosure stood in this location for many years as and of course there's many areas have been reworked over time here and of course plan calls for a one-story addition having approximately addition dimensions of 34 by 40 with the upper story wrapping around the proposed deck approximately 47 by 26 in the Mill Street side and 34 by 7 along this south middle West Maxwell elevation and I'm actually wanted to include this this is from this 1981 i believe that shows this corner you can see one of the trees in the background here and this the building got renovated in 1970 and late 70s and this is actually taken i believe we establishes from 1941 that also shows the same corner that i've indicated previously in images and these are the two trees that are there from 1980 1941 prior to the 1944 building being installed or constructed and i'm going to go and show you the elevations of the proposed plan this is of course the maxwell Street elevation and and then this is their proposed staging area with this Mill Street area in this particular area being indicated as staging area there's a note about safe work being able to be constructed here and you can see the trees in question and this is a proposal for future landscaping and then this is an existing plan that's there now that shows these are just sort of the existing rooms the ones was Dudley's restaurant and you can't see it very well but you do have these in your plans in front of you the outline of what the patio is now it has this jog that connects back to this foyer connection right here and then this line sort of indicates the location of the pier system of the existing patio in proximity to the trees and there are some elevations of the existing situation minus the trees which would be in this particular location they sort of meet up with the corner pilaster and then this is the other elevations on this is the parking lot elevation and then this the back area if you were saying here the 1944 edition this is the patio from that side existing these are all existing and then here's some renderings of the proposed i know this is existing sorry there we go and then here are the proposed deck system so as you can see it it expands from what was here to in this location and straightens out to get closer to the 1944 structure and then has a wrap around deck and these are indicating the trunks of the trees with the location of the deck in the night in the august 16th meeting we saw a two-tiered deck they now have had a one level deck one story level deck with the steps here with and this is slightly smaller than we saw in the previous plan while you're on that would you show them the three window openings windows so the three window openings so the pier system starts behind that corner pilaster and then the proposed addition will encompass the three windows on the side of that structure so as as we know that this is the restaurant of dudley's previous these two rooms plus this foyer says foyer now opens up into the same level finished floor level as these rooms here and these are the window openings per the discussion with the owner he could speak to this more the window the actual physical windows have been replaced already so they're not historic windows but the openings and the jack arches he verbally said that he does intend for them to remain but they will be encompassed in this edition. And they will in turn become an interior wall? They will become an interior wall. All right. And the reference to the windows having been replaced over the years is specific to their sashes. The physical sashes are not the same. The window frames I've not gotten to examine. I don't know if they are original but they probably are. The brick molds are the same. And the brick molds are certainly original and all the raised brick architectural features in the arches and so forth and so on but so the only thing that's changed over time with of any substance specific to the windows is new sashes have been put in. So how many windows and all together will be covered? Well, these three windows in this side window and then this addition now becomes pretty close to this particular window but this still window still reads as being open. Take us back to the original picture of the side elevation, actual side, and show us the windows that we covered, please. Excuse me as I click back here. Sorry about that. Okay. This is a pretty good image of those three windows. Good night. So which ones would be completely lost? Those three? These three windows. Okay. This banding and the jack arches. So can I follow up on that specific question of those three windows? Is the interior of the space going to cut off those jack arches? And maybe this is a question for when the, no, okay. You're thinking in terms of the ceiling heights? Yeah, from the interior, if we're keeping the windows in the interior and going to see them from the inside of this new space do you see the entire window okay do you need to see any other images mr dickinson i'm sorry what i didn't hear you if you will point out that that's the other affected window other oops sorry if you click that button it's hard to get back there we go there whoop you almost yeah but i was gonna go back i had a better image of those so if you think mr erwin those windows will be over these basically that entire society that entire side elevation is going to be obscured yeah right uh and and then when you go around the corner if you can get that picture back amelia with the masonry stairs there that window will become inside also the the window shown on the angle in this image uh in the similar fashion okay and this is technically the side elevation the front being facing out on middle street correct well actually you know it's a corner building so it has it has two front yards it has two front yards right all right all right and the front we should address that a little more please the front address the building is addressed on mill street you saw it has its historic school name and number three and so forth that is considered historically the front of the building however the south side of the building being on a prominent streetscape is a very significant elevation as well i don't think you would claim it as a front, but corner buildings, there's no question, have very significant two elevations. And from a planning and zoning perspective, the building, as Amelia has referenced, has two front yards, two front yards on Maxwell Street and on Mill Street. So you can also tell by the architectural articulation that's on this south elevation, if you'll go back to around to that, that it was very much acknowledged historically when the building was built and the additions made that this was a showplace elevation, not the back door. Okay, and this, the, let me go back to the plan, excuse me, for jumping around here. So, So this is the proposed edition and this actually reads much better in the images you have at your desk that show also the previous plans. didn't see the 1944 edition and now we do here in which these roof lines which can't see very well here actually become very close and this edition now is within four feet of the wall system of the 1944 edition with this element in the this element overlapping and then you can see these trees are not in view here but this sort of comes in pretty close on then this building of course is built in various different stages the first part being the nineteen 1881 then 1896 is the addition over here and then the 1944. And you can see these additions so the proposed addition will have this Chippendale railing be one story be approximately 20 feet high that would cover the jack arches of those three windows then have this deck there will be only a small deck onto Maxwell here, then a larger deck here. With stairs coming out between these two trees, which you're not able to see in this location, in this elevation. You can see the main historic structure in the background. Here's a section that Ms. Irwin was referring to. And then here's the rendering with the trees. indicating the location in this location where this pilaster is indicated in this, the overhang, the overhang comes out further. We'll have the transom with brackets in this deck system. between the proposed new build and the corner of the 1944 wing that I believe so So it will. Well, the reason I ask, it distracts the eye from the relationship of the proposed new from the 1944 edition. It is here in this image. It's a dogwood or something small. This is a planting plan that happened, I think, quite a few years ago. All right. Guidelines are included for your reference. Could you, before you move on, talk about the proposed window details in terms of design elements? So they are... the openings in general these will be accordion windows that have um will be mutton had buttons in them um which you know that are and then also transoms with the muttons in them and um is and that will be on the two sides where the back wall facing the 1944 structure will be a solid wall and we can see that in this rendering here where you'll have these two windows here that come down and this wall facing the 1944 structure will be solid and the roof has got a slight pitch it so i have a low pitch to it and there you could see that um better in that um in this section that shows the slight pitch yeah where will it drain pardon where will it drain it will have drain out to the eaves and it has a gutter on it okay and the gutters will be located where on the ends of the roof i'm sorry i have I have this feeling it's going to be. You can't see here. This little thing right there is indicating a gutter system. We have a half-round gutter system that's all the way around the structure. All right. But as noted before, in this particular plan, this system overhangs the 1944 structure. So this gutter in Eve, which is a four-feet overhang with the gutter system, will overlap this low pitch with gutter system here. And there are window wells here below. And then the upper story of the 1944 structure, of course, has the square windows where this bottom basement has the rounded jack arches with curved window openings. Do you have photographs of those? the basement window system on the 1944 yes and that elevation you can catch it as you're winding up if you prefer we don't have to go find it this minute you can sort of see that um this line with the arched openings you see it's a highly articulated foundation with these, they're not just serving as windows, they're really an architectural base to this building. The foundation work and their segmental arched opening tops and the raised brick patterning that you can see some of from there. giving that first that approach particularly along the Maxwell Street face as well you see it real well a much more formalized than just a cellar window kind of approach findings the historic Dudley school known as city school number one then later number three is a significant historic structure in the anchor of the historic south hill neighborhood the tiny style brick structure was built in 1881 as a four-room school building then expanded with another brick addition built in 1886. the third edition was added in 1896 and the last wing edition was constructed in 1944 and the historic school property was renovated in that late 1970s and became mixed use with offices and restaurants the main mass of the historic school building sits back from the corner of South Mill and West Maxwell and has a generous space along West Maxwell elevation. The north side of the building has a parking lot with a center driving aisle from South Mill to Max Alley. Any proposed construction in this historic green space area between the historic structure and West Maxwell requires careful consideration as the significant green space with historic tulip poplar trees are integral to the character and historic site. The proposal to remove the glass addition and brick stairs used to exit onto the brick patio and the brick chimney late 1916 and the street walls and removal of the metal railing around the brick patio is within the guidelines as that will not alter the streetscape or elements are not considered to be a building or site. referencing guidelines 5.1c1 that states the demolition request may be considered if this request is inappropriate addition or non-significant portion of building nor significant accessory structure provided that the demolition will not adversely affect those parts of the building or buildings that are significant as determined by the BOAR. staff recommends care be taken to assure historic structures in the site space during construction in addition is proposed to remove the sidewalks of the green space staff finds removal sidewalks appropriate the care be taken to removal existing paved surfaces given their proximity of significant trees the proposal to construct a brick masonry one story addition requires further discussion the proposed new building will largely occupy the footprint of the existing concrete brick pavers will meet the main mass of the historic school by enveloping the historic main masonry exterior wall with three historic window openings and their significant architectural design features. In order for this proposed addition to be considered, it is vital that integrity of the openings remain intact and be able to be experienced. To facilitate this, staff finds the proposed addition should have at least three-foot wide glass connector wall on both the west and east side of the proposed addition, allowing the historic masonry wall of the historic school to read. The applicant is committing in their design to hold the proposed new addition off the raised brick corner pilaster of the 1888 projecting school addition in the east projecting masonry pilaster near the 1896 addition is an important outcome to protect the highlight of the fine historic structure. The design principle for Wings states in planning additions, the best approach is to place the additions where they have the least impact of buildings over on form and plan. And exterior walls in the new additions should not be flush to those existing buildings, should be stepped in at a minimum of 12 inches of the edges of the existing building. Staff finds the proposed roof balustrade railing of three sides of the design needs to be removed. If any railing needs to be provided for mechanical systems situated on the particular part of this roof, those details should come back to staff. In addition, window transoms and door openings on the elevations need to be one light and have no muttons. Guidelines 3B6K state, details include but are not limited to corner boards, break boards, cornices, brackets, downspouts, railings, columns, steps, doors, and window moldings and decorative elements. Architectural styles may be appropriate when they are given the building on which they are placed a good sense of belonging on the street in their district. Details should be appropriately scaled for the proposed addition and proposed structure incompatible to adjacent buildings and districts. Elements of ornament or details that are given building imitation history and historic appearance are not allowed. The window treatment design for the proposed structure is too busy, and staff finds that design details of proposed addition need be simplified so as not to be imitative of an earlier style found in guideline 2A4D, which states, elements should not imitate earlier historic styles or architectural periods. After a complete review, staff is strongly concerned about the proposed addition's adverse impact on the 1944 historic structure, the main mass of the historic school and historic trees. Previously, this existing patio was at grade and had little visual impact on the main structure in the 1944 one-story addition. The proposed addition will be at the same finished floor level with the floors for the historic main structure. This results in a view of the 1944 historic wing being largely obscured from the South Mill Street Vista as well as West Maxwell Street. The proposed addition's east wall will be approximately four feet away from the handsome basement window arches in the main floor of the existing 1944 historic wing. The proposed new construction plans reflect an approximately four feet roof overhang that rises above the 1944 wing. Essentially, the proposed addition will overlap the eve of the 1944 addition. the proposed new addition and lack proper deference to the handsome craftsman inspired 80s 80 year old historic addition guidelines concerning addition and wing state 3b3 additions b and c state addition should be secondary or smaller or simpler to the original building in scale design and placement and should be compatible and design in keeping with original building's design roof shape materials color location of window door and corner sites staff recommends that the proposed edition footprint be revised to be reduced resulting in a minimum of eight feet from the opening space between the historic wing and the new as proposed as the design as designed the proposed edition turns its back on the 1944 historic wing and the space between the proposed structure and existing structure becomes a dead zone in this construction substantially negative effects of light available in the windows on that adjacent wing in addition any proposed new addition needs to be fully intact and fully visible the raised brick pilasters the stork building mass as previously stated in design principles for exterior walls a new addition shot be flush and should and those of the existing building but should be stepped in a middle of 12 inches from the edges existing building staff finds the east wall facing the 1944 structure should have more doors and windows and be more transparent so the view of mill and maxwell can be seen through those windows and doors of the rear wall of mission while the applicant has made efforts to accommodate and protect the hundred-year-old tulip poplar trees potential to harm these significant trees remains high in addition the proposed deck is very large for the side yard and of this historic structure historic preservation design guidelines are not in place not only to protect historic structures and the character of the properties and the tire structure as part of to protect the sites green space trunks greater than in diameter than 10 inches and natural landforms as noted in design principle for site and settings the design principle for sites and setting sites elements of the building the surrounding site and setting contribute to the character of the historic properties these elements should be both natural and man-made features such as trees fields gardens fences driveways retaining walls boundary definers and historic sites elements to help define a property's historic character and appearance historic sites and settings should be preserved and maintained staff finds that due to the proposed addition that a water irrigation system needs to be installed to help provide appropriate water for these large tulip poplarities and any pruning be done in care to ensure the fullness and shape of the character's beautiful canopy are left intact and allowed to thrive relative to the proposed deck on the west side the west elevation the guidelines for deck states 2a1g decks and patios should be appropriately scaled and not overwhelm the historic structure and site staff finds that proposed deck is too intrusive and overalls the green space of the site and the historic structure. In addition, the deck's construction would be potentially harmful to two very significant historic trula poplar trees. Staff located a historic photograph taken prior to the 1944 historic wing addition in which the trees are shown in the photo. These two poplar trees are already of the good size at the time this image was taken before and around World War II. staff finds the proposed design changes on any elevation the pros needs new addition needed to respond to not having a deck on the west elevation and those changes be submitted to staff or the board prior to the issuance of the coa each edition of the historic dudley school over time is reflective its tone time period when it was built this proposed new addition needs to be highly transparent to create its own identity and compatibility staff finds the addition should have a contemporary nature reflective of a good 21st century design while complementing the historic structure site in south hill district in some sam vines proposed addition needs to be reduced on the east side the deck on the west side of the addition be removed so as not to overwhelm the historic trees or site and the overall addition reflect a more contemporary design but losing innovative details such as roof failing buttons and providing glass connectors the a number in the recommendations i'm going to go to plans real quick sort of talk about that i think one thing that we're proposing that i just want to make sure everybody was heard that we were proposing to put a glass connector in this location in the other area as it touches the building so the glass connectors be able to see the actual historic structure yes so if you see this connection comes into this building right behind the pilaster that's along this corner. Staff suggests that this area be a glass connector to allow people to view the actual physical structure within that addition. And if I may on that, the staff recommendation reflects a minimum, recommending a minimum of three feet of glass in a width perspective three feet wide at a minimum but as the property owners and work with this we would encourage that that mechanism of putting a glass panel abutting the historic masonry wall be looked at with an eye to what would really make an effective connection into that so that you walking past it from the outside on either side can experience the historic wall of the school with its three dramatic windows right with that natural light coming in from those glass panels if you're inside and you're experiencing it from the outside so the three foot minimum seems a must on that concept but i suspect it could be much more successful with further study as to how wide those glass panels need to be i'd also like to point out this side where this is the that east wall that comes into the historic structure here that that area also have a glass connector as it meets this building? It's the idea of doing a hyphen without changing the roof line or the wall system as far as footprint. but there are other ways to address that if they wanted to step it in slightly so that it's more of a hyphen. There are just several options that certainly the staff would be glad to work with the applicants on and or bring back to the board when the applicants want to. I don't want to jump ahead of you, but if you're talking about that, I think as you're working through item 7 that's going to have to be reworded because it doesn't read properly okay well we'll get down there how's that when you get there out okay recommendation staff recommends approval with the following condition conditions the addition be shifted away from the 1944 addition by at least eight feet with the proposed building starting at the west side of the 1896 pilaster with the final drawings to be brought back to staff or board prior to the issuance of the coa the deck facing south mill street be completely eliminated so as to protect the historic trees on the west side and the property facing south mill street three proposed revised revision of the design of the south mill street elevation reflecting there will be no deck in addition proposed changes be brought back to staff or board prior to the issuance of coa The east, number four, the east wall of the proposed addition have transparency by adding doors and windows. The final design details of the elevation be submitted to staff or board prior to the issuance of COA. And number five, the roof be eliminated altogether for the final roof details be submitted to staff or board prior to the issuance of COA. Sixth, the transom and door buttons be removed to take a more contemporary approach, but the final details be submitted to staff or board prior to the issue of the COA. And at least three-foot glass connector be added to the addition's wall system, which would be the areas on either side as it touches the main structure, and the detail be brought back to staff or board prior to the issue of the COA. Eight, all door and window details be submitted to staff and board prior to the issue of the COA. And nine, if a deck system is approved by the BYR facing South Mill Street, recommendations submitted in a letter from the town branch tree experts dated August 30, 2023, as attached here to incorporate it herein, shall be used and carried out by the applicant to protect the historic tree greater than 10 inches in the caliper. And such measures shall include, but not limited to, installing mulching for the staging area, hand digging the pier system, and using air knives as needed. any improvements should be done with the ISA Arbor standards. Ten, any irrigation system should be installed to help protect the trees with design specifications for the system to be submitted to staff or board prior to the issuance of COA. 11, the removal of the walkway be taken up and care not to hurt the critical root system of the trees. 12, any changes come back to staff, and of course those are 12 and 13 are their standard two conditions. And I just would mention too that of course the owner and applicant are present, as well as our urban forester program manager, Heather Wilson, if you have any questions for her. Any further questions for Amelia? All right. I think I want to hear, let's go and hear from the applicant. Ms. Wilson, we may have some questions of you as well. Okay. Okay. I'll go ahead and first start just by saying that most of the recommendations that staff has made for this hearing, we're in agreement with, including moving the building wall further from the 1941 edition and tying that in. Let's do it this way. go through the number by number tell me which ones you're in agreement with and which ones you're not in agreement with okay can you do it that way sure it'd be cleaner uh the ones that we're in agreement with are line one three four seven eight slow down oh sorry say again one ones that we are in agreement with um are one three three four 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13. All right. 11 you're not in agreement with? The ones that we are not in agreement with are line 2, 5, 6, and 11. 11. And there's been several reports sent outside. The removal of the sidewalk be taken with care not to hurt the critical. Well, I have, we have notes on that. Not that we don't want to remove that. i just wanted to be clear yeah all right so going through start with number two then okay uh i uh i had just a i think i just wanted to revisit the history of where we left off briefly and and tie that into how we met with when we met with the art the arborist eric sutherland and how that uh how that transpired into the current design that we have and then tie that into you know the what we're seeing from the recommendations and how we how we feel about those i'm not sure which okay all right last me and i'll briefly go through the history uh you know last meeting we came before the board to review the design proposal the design featured a tiered deck system the deck has proposed would wrap the tulip poplars as we all know the i'm not sure how the it's a trick okay yeah here we go so lower lower tier upper tier this is all on the same level as amelia was saying we have no problem stepping this in that's something and in creating a glass seam that's something that we're more than happy to do and agree with our thought just in in the way we originally proposed it is that we could register the historic part of this corner inside the building and you would experience that as a uh as someone donning but i think that seeing it from the exterior is just as well too and creating more space between the 1941 edition those windows would get uh you know covered up and you but but obviously all the hood molds around those windows and all the decorative brickwork is definitely something that we would plan on maintaining and as a you know someone dining in the in the space you that you would get to see that from inside the space obviously you know it goes without saying the whole this this is a very unique space that we that Matt would like to have everyone be able to experience underneath these trees so That's the impetus behind the deck and this project is that there's a very underutilized area currently and that the ability to be able to adaptively reuse that space and allow the public to have access to it is really the ethos of this project. So I'm going to go to our next slide. Obviously, we've seen what the previous design had. The note from the staff's last meeting was the deck be reduced in size around the tree and that we would further research that with an arborist when we left. The memo, one thing I'll point out is what kind of spurred a lot of this on is we had discussed and we met with staff at one point and it was discussed that notching around the tree or going around the tree would uh might be a an adequate solution we felt that that would actually provide have more impact around the root system with the foundations so it's obviously our prerogative to protect the trees that's been our thought process from the beginning and you as you can see there are four corners that you know just a simple notch would would obviously create um i'm going to continue to the next slide this is the memo after last meeting just with the with following up with the arborist we contacted town branch town branch tree service eric sutherland came out and and looked at our looked at our project eric put together a full report as we discussed. We consulted with Eric Sutherland, licensed arborist for Town Branch Tree Service. Eric provided several guidelines in order for the construction of the deck to have no negative impact on the trees and was in full support of our plans. Eric wrote a report that we submitted to Amelia. The report summarizes several suggestions and adjustments to the plan. He recommended that we extend the pier past the critical root zone. Eric measured the diameter of the tree the diameter as milia said is 47 inches just under four feet multiply that times three and that gives us the critical root zone of about 12 feet the other tree is smaller in size so 12 feet was the measurement that that we went off of and that's where we've located that pier outside of since the deck was to be installed it was suggested by matt that to Eric that we could remove the concrete sidewalks since they would be under the proposed deck and this would remove more impermeable surfaces that would be better for the tree roots. Eric really liked that idea and obviously it makes sense there would be no pedestrians that would need to use that sidewalk given that it would be under the under the deck. So removal of that sidewalk for us would be contingent on being able to use the deck. Pedestrians would still need those sidewalks if there wasn't a deck there. So it was directed from Eric that digging from for the piers by hand or using an air knife would be important for the smaller pier foundations. Pier foundations would be 24 by 24 inches inside. They'd be located well outside the critical root zone for such a mature tree with established root base these ground penetrations would have little to no impact on the tree's health as discussed with eric as referenced in the highlighted section of eric's report you'll see here this is a quote from his report lastly the construction of the deck is not harmful to the trees as long as the pier foundations are kept outside of this protection zone. No impermeable surfaces would be added or proposed with this design. Eric was unable to attend this hearing. We also learned that he's recently been hired by LCG in the urban forestry department, which I believe further emphasizes his credentials. So go to the next slide. you'll see the attached the attached drawings is reflective of our modifications with Eric you'll see that the pier would we would have a series of peers all outside of the critical root zone this span would go to this corner outside of the 12-foot radius around the trunk of the tree you know The deck size, I wish that I had put round tables to show the actual scale of the deck. It really, by my assessment, would only hold six or seven comfortably with room to walk around tables. So it's not an incredibly large space once you have people sitting under that tree canopy. Tables of eight or tables of ten? I was thinking six-foot diameter tables that would hold six to eight people. Okay. But yes, to your point, I guess it depends on the size of the tables that we're referencing. So I'm going to go to the next slide. you'll see that we have we put together and discuss this with Eric as well a construction staging plan as Amelia mentioned materials could be staged at the parking lot across the street the hatched area represents area outside of the critical root zone the yellow hatch which isn't showing up very well is the mulch bed and then this existing impermeable surface is space that you would be okay to you know build over and that's really the proposed area that we would be building on okay obviously more perspectives that we've amelia has already shown us you know this space in here you know we have no problem moving that over and creating more space uh in this area that's that's a non-issue for us axons you know showing the space from the aerial okay the current staff report recommends the following that we find that we do not agree with line two the deck facing south mill street be completely eliminated to protect the trees Line 5, we'd like to discuss the roof balustrade, but in line 5 it says the balustrade should be eliminated altogether with final details to be submitted to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Line 6, the transoms and door muttons be removed to make more contemporary approach. Line 11, the removal of the sidewalk be taken up with care not to hurt the critical root system of the trees. I'll start with the deck. The whole idea of this project, as mentioned before, is to create a space that allows the public to come to a place to dine and enjoy the beautiful courtyard and tree canopy that has been underutilized for some time. Per our suggestions and staff's previous recommendations, we have taken measures to plan for the protection of the trees. It seemed agreeable that we could proceed with the design of a deck. To me, there's been no new evidence brought to life that, at least from our research and findings, that shows any harm to the trees. so it's it also seems unreasonable that we have followed the recommendations to and have supporting documents from an arborist and believe the trees will be fine if the aforementioned steps to sustain the trees are taken and there's also a precedent for a deck being built around a tree that we were able to find. This is at the Nest at the corner of 5th and Limestone. I believe this was approved by the BOAR years, decades ago. But this is in existence. Was this not? Let the record reflect. Ms. Curry is shaking her head. I can just tell you quickly. It is not in a H-1 overlay, so it's not been something would have been through this process. And where is this building? It's the National Register of Historic Places designated property. Okay. And it went through, that was building and project was done with federal funds. And it was reviewed by the Secretary of the Interior. It predates me, if you think that's possible. Is that possible? Barely, but not by much. but it predates my time so I can't testify to exactly what was put forward if the deck system was part of the original proposal I don't know and mr. Taylor I missed the address we used to restate the dress for this I think miss Hill has some additional information I thought that was an at-grade deck. Ms. Hill, use your microphone. Would you use your mic, please? Certainly. If it's an at-grade deck, then the structural support for it is completely different than the raised deck. I believe it's in top grade, but I can field confirm that obviously at a different time. Do you know off the top of your head? I don't know what level it is. I guess for us it would indicate that obviously there's a permeable surface around the deck and that the tree has been alive for quite some time as evidenced by the picture. I think you meant to say impermeable. No, permeable. Permeable? Permeable. Yeah, water goes through the deck. Oh, it does? Okay. Does it shed off? All right, I'll take it back. And one more time, where is this location? It is at the corner of 5th and Limestone. This is at Morton House, the historic Morton House at Duncan Park. Oh, okay, got you. All right, thank you. And it's a new construction, as you can see, to the rear of the historic house. And that's all I can really tell you at the moment. Thank you. Thank you. So, obviously, I can't speak to the structure of it, but I guess in our context, we saw this as the same situation that we would have a permeable deck, and the tree has done well, seemingly, in this application. and we have Eric Sutherland also believed that ours would do fine with the deck around it in our design proposal. The next topic was the roof balustrade. Chair, could we take these one at a time? I think that might be easier. Let's take, let's deal with questions for each item. No problem. Since we're still in item number two and with it item eight. Brad, do you have any questions? Yes. go ahead this may take a few minutes so i just warn you um what is the what are the dimensions of the deck all right i there was a thing that zoomed in on on steph i i don't it's 20 25 and it's no i've got a dimension on here amelia would you help him with the clicker to get so that we can get the magnifying glass in the meantime um miss wilson has some comments about the area around the deck around the trees for that deck could she has a time limitation could she speak to those now oh it's nine it's 10 feet wide and 25 feet long no 25 25 so you're gonna have to go how wide is it then the width and the x-axis left to right is i believe 25 feet to the edge of the deck from the face of that Which one is it? It's the top. Okay, I thought that was a laser. So it's 25 feet deep, and then the length is? The length is? Just approximately. I'd say that's 50. Not quite 50. No, I'd say that's probably 40 feet. Okay. Mr. Chair, we have a little additional timing factor here. All right. For a second. In a moment or so, if you could find a good spot to pause and get the testimony from Ms. Wilson, the arborist for the LFUCG. She has another commitment and can't stay. Okay, I apologize to you, Mr. Taylor. Before we start off with questions from the state, this would be a good place to break. Let's break and bring up Ms. Wilson's testimony. Sure. Come on up. No, that's not the way it works. You're going to have to come down here. I'll have there, yeah. You can't be seen from there is the problem. Okay. If you'll state your name and address for the record. Your business- I'm sorry, my name and what? And business address. Okay, I'm Heather Wilson. I'm the urban forestry program manager for LFUCG, business is 200 east main um 4507. i just had um some questions about the deck itself actually with the trees so this is the appropriate um time for that decks are built around trees often um and and oftentimes they are all right you're going to have to slow down okay and speak more directly into that very tricky microphone that's in front of you step in if you will closer to it i can't there well there you go and speak slowly okay and the sound system in this building is horrible So we'll just cope with it. If you have questions that you want answered, then I guess, is that what you're... Yes. All right. And your questions are for the applicant? Yes. Okay, we're going to need the applicant's attention. Mr. Taylor, she has the questions. She has the questions. I would suggest you use the handheld mic to respond. And come around, so you're within camera range. Yes. That's Gibson. Gibson, I'm sorry. Okay, but step back closer to that mic and then you're ready to go. All right, Mr. Gibson, or Ms. Wilson, go ahead. Okay, so decks are built around trees often. I think usually they are done well and they're effective as long as they're done smartly. My biggest concern with the deck is making sure that the diameter around the deck, around the tree itself is big enough because especially with trees of this age, they grow up a little bit but really all of their growth for the rest of their life is in width. And so even if right now that circle isn't, I just want to make sure that you're giving it enough room to grow so that it never impacts the deck itself. Like in the picture you showed from the nest area, that deck really needs to be expanded around that tree. And so just building it in a way that gives the diameter growth a chance, as well as taking into account that in 10, 15 years, it will likely have to be expanded. Sure. We'd be happy to... Is that... We're not hearing you. I don't think it's on. We'd be happy to accept any recommendations as far as what diameter would be appropriate for those trees to accommodate that. So that wouldn't be an issue for us in the construction of it. I guess the question more specifically to you, right now, what is the proposed diameter of those holes? Because that's going to affect how much deck you're going to have available for your tables. Sure. I, you know, I'll obviously we take these drawings to a level of schematic design to get buy-in before we go all the way through a completed level of construction plan. So right now they are just placeholder showing the diameter of the actual trunk. There is room for that hole to expand. obviously i don't know what size it needs to be to calculate if that you know is something that would interfere the other thing that we need to do is you know obviously finish the plans and have full construction plans made showing framing so there's there's work cut out for us to work through this but you know from my opinion there seems to be you know i don't know how large the hole needs to be but but i think we could find something that would work with that deck size okay miss wilson other questions or concerns my only other comment is concerning the pruning of the trees and so from what i remember and i can't picture it exactly but the limb of the tree closest to maxwell has a large limb heading toward what will be the proposed deck depending on the diameter of that limb, the ability to prune that limb is contingent upon the width or the diameter of that limb because to make a large cut on a limb is pretty hazardous to a tree. So just taking that into consideration and making sure that when you do make pruning cuts, you are working with a certified arborist. I would like to see the size of the limbs that be need to be addressed sure um yeah obviously pruning would take place with someone certified to do that um you know matt and i were posed with this question just briefly yesterday and had just a little bit of time to look at that matt you went out and took some pictures and took some preliminary measurements of that, the actual height of the roof from grade, obviously grade changes ever slightly, but is about 18 feet. The height of the limb, the lowest limb was approximately 24 feet. So from our rough calculations and math, there shouldn't have to be pruning going on. Luckily, most of the branches are going away. There are some that are, from what we saw one inch in diameter that are downward facing that would need to be cut that would interfere with the building but but we were looking at the larger branches yesterday and i don't believe there would be an issue there but you know obviously if if something did need to be printed we would obviously have to we would do that with someone certified to do it okay thank you i guess the only other comment to that is when equipment will be in there digging or whatever the equipment is making sure that those limbs are outside of the extent of that reach of the equipment so not even just the finished roof i'm just making sure that that's part of that consideration okay sure we can add any any of those notes to our construction staging plan that is something that we definitely implemented when took advice from Eric when he gave it to us and obviously any any feedback regarding that of where exactly to stay out of I'd be glad to modify and add to our plans. I think that's all I have. We're not quite done with you yet. Any questions starting with Ms. Hill do you have any questions? Yes, Ms. Wilson. So the pruning of the large limbs, I am deeply concerned about the size of the trees and the location, knowing despite how careful one can organize a set of drawings, the reality of what happens on a tight site in construction and its impact on trees. When you say the pruning of larger limbs can be hazardous to the overall health of the tree, is there kind of a range of limb size that you wouldn't want to see the tree have to deal with the loss of? In general, I would like to say that I would not like to see the removal of a limb that's greater than about six inches in diameter. I don't believe that the lowest limb... I'd have to go back and look. I cannot remember exactly. But I do imagine, I do remember feeling like the limb that is reaching toward what would be the new proposed deck is larger in diameter than the other one that is kind of closer between the trees. So I'd rather look at that. Older trees don't heal as well from those large cuts. large cuts and there can be different kinds of reduction pruning that would hit it at a different diameter but definitely considering the diameter of those limbs before approving. Having your eye on that would be extremely helpful. Obviously the design team would be helpful to know about that beforehand rather and certainly to the board as we're looking at that. The one One other clarification is about equipment, digging needs to stay outside of what zone? It's called the critical root zone. It's three times the diameter of the tree. It does show that they are outside of the critical root zone. With this drawing, with the four pylons around the tree, that would be something that I would be very concerned about. Using the air knife, which is Eric's recommendation, or hand digging, would both be appropriate. I guess I did have that other question. How deep are the pylons? How deep are the what? So standard depth on the, it would be two feet to the bottom of the foundation from undisturbed soil. So 24 inches from grade. Okay. I will mention that what I did not notice in that sidewalk was any sidewalk heaving. If I had noticed heaving sidewalk, it would make me think that there are roots close to the surface. These trees have been there a long time. They're on good old soil. I am inclined to believe that their roots are deeply rooted, but definitely taking all precautions to stay outside of that critical root zone and to layer those trees with, I can't remember what he mentioned, but 5 to 7 to 12 inches of mulch to help protect them are really important. and miss wilson uh miss cur is trying to get your attention okay you've gone off record on me yeah we we're having uh the opportunities to have miss wilson see these photographs that were provided to you board members uh per the questions from the board about what you're talking about right now there were which photographs are you looking at photographs sent by the applicants three or four and i have them up on my ipad as i can get them but they're available for ms wilson look at you all have these things in your emails we do and what we can do no it's not in their email with that so yes all right i didn't i just saw the pdf i didn't remember seeing did you all take these yesterday yes matt took those photos yesterday all right thank you i'll say that per matt's measurements yesterday no limbs would in would need to be pruned based on the limb height being 24 feet and our addition being at 18. I'm sorry, if you'll state that again more clearly into that silly microphone, it would help. The height of the limb approximately was measured to be 24 feet from grade to the bottom of the limb. Our addition height from grade is 18 feet from grade. So, and also that branch, it's hard to tell exactly where it's going in this picture, but it's going out towards Maxwell Street away from the addition. So there are no, in our opinion, there's no impact on that, on those limbs based on our height and the direction that the limbs are going. So in the construction of the roof of that deck area, you don't anticipate having to go higher than 18 feet for its construction? Well, obviously, when they're setting rafters, they're going to have to be careful. They're going to have to proceed with caution. But that goes without saying for this whole project. That's what this whole project will have to be. Okay, Ms. Wilson, is it your testimony that limbs should not be removed? It is my testimony that limbs at least six inches in diameter should not be removed. It's also my consideration that as rafters and other equipment are in there moving things around, no matter how careful you are, things go awry and limbs are often hit. And so there will have to be a lot of oversight. There is some minor pruning that can happen along the bottom of that major limb to limit impact on things that might rip out of the limb and injure the bark. so there might be some minor pruning that could happen to help limit that but but as you're raising rafters and you're working in tight spaces it is often forgotten that trees are living things and that they are injured and that damage causes decline and decay and then causes later problems and so they have to be considered. Okay one other question since we're on the topic if you were to make a recommendation as to the pruning of these trees what is the maximum width or diameter of a branch that can be safely pruned or to put another way can we say something limits greater than give me a number not be pruned six inches six inches in diameter yes thank you All right. And obviously this is another view which I would leave the applicants to explain, but it's apparent. It's the tree closer to the main mass. And if Ms. Wilson sees, if this helps you with your content of your comments. And there might be one more image. In general, I have to have my eyes. I have to have my eyes actually on the tree. Of course you do. Which is really hard to tell. The applicant sent this. What are you circling? Could you tell us? We were just circling small downward facing branches that would need to be pruned. These are all just minor, less than one inch diameter branches, but nothing major that we saw. And is this the tree further north, in other words, closer to the main building? Yes. Okay. So I think it's fair to everybody involved to say that these tree dialogues really have to happen on site about any of the specifications and study of could that be trimmed and not trimmed. And so one of the things this body may need to consider is, depending on your action on this meeting, whether it's today or at a different meeting, one of your conditions could be that before the final plans are drawn up, the construction drawings, that- Ms. Kerr, hang on for just a moment. I'm noticing audience members are, ma'am? Ma'am, are you needing to leave, if so, or do you have comments that you want to make? We wanted to, but we've got to leave. That's what I was afraid of. Okay. Well, one last sentence, and then maybe I don't know where Ms. Wilson is with this. But it's possible to, I think, have some really nuanced discussion happen on site and get formalized into agreement. Okay. We can deal with that in a moment. And I'm happy to meet on site if that's helpful. Perfect, all right, thank you. Was there anything else, Ms. Wilson? All right, now I'm going to shift away from you for a moment. I know we have some audience comments. If you all would step forward, please. All three of you, or one of you, or whatever it may be. I appreciate your patience and I'm sorry that it's sometimes inevitable that we go a while. If you'll state your name for the record please. Mary Campbell and I'm at 328 South Mill Street and I'm a 50 year resident of Mill Street. And state your name one more time. Mary Campbell. Ms. Campbell. Yes. All right. I have very brief remarks, and that is that we think that Matt's and company's ownership of this building has had an incredible positive effect on the neighborhood. And as I said, I've been around when there have been up and downs, plenty of those. And we are very pleased at the maintenance and the upkeep they have done with this building, and we're very excited about a potential restaurant going in there. to replace the old dudleys but looking new and and we also finally are very excited about he's our he's got a track record they've got a track record they have attracted so many young people from the colleges and so many business people from downtown who now walk up and down that street and look at the historic signs and notice the buildings and tell us how beautiful our historic buildings are and they read the adam rankenhouse note so it and they don't drive their cars so thank you all very much we've got tough jobs okay anyone else any other comments come on up for the record my name is jean scott i'm a resident of south hill and i live across the street from dudley square so i've gotten to observe all that mary so articulately talked about all the things that mr. Burton's done to enhance the building bring new life to bring life to the street in the neighborhood and we applaud what he's doing and we agree we've met with mr. Burton we've reviewed the plans and we think they will really are exciting and will enhance both this important building that's the anchor of our neighborhood and our neighborhood gathering place and it will enhance the lives for all of us so we fully support I mean I fully support what he's doing and echo Mary and her other comments. You all are saints to stay and listen to them. You're wonderful. Thank you. Well thank you. Any further comments? And I'm Joanne Hilliard at 352 South Mill. I don't think I could comment any better than my two previous neighbors had. So I just wanted to ditto everything they said. And Matt, with his ownership, has done a spectacular job of attracting new businesses and has a vision that I think is very important for this important building on an important block. So thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Did Ms. Wilson leave? Yes, she did. I thought I made it clear to her that she should not have left, but all right. I thought I had made it clear to Ms. Wilson that we weren't done with her and that she was not free to leave, but she's gone, so we'll just deal with it. I understand. I realize that. All right, so we were on item two. We're back to, I think, beginning with Brad's questions. You want to pick up your questioning now? Sure. All right, let me, since we have our break, does anyone need to take a break? Are we good for a little while longer? Okay, all right, let's continue then. Is it fair to say that there is no report that discourages use of the deck because of the trees? That's correct. Okay. I think it would be helpful if at some point we know the height between the deck floor and the limbs that are impacted both for construction of the deck and for the building. so that we can understand what kind of space is between the rooftop and the limb in question and those kinds of things. The pictures are, while helpful to some extent, it's the actual distance that matters and where the limbs are so that we don't get into a situation where there is an unknown that suddenly creeps up during construction that throws all of this into havoc. We know in advance where the heights are, what the clearance is, and what the protections need to be in place, what protections need to be in place. I'll make an observation about the size of the circumference of the hole. I have seen installations where there was a great type of mechanism that was used that could be replaced or adjusted. I've seen them that had two rings, an inner ring and an outer ring, so that would accommodate the growth of the tree without having to redo the deck. That's just an observation. Sure. Now, back to the deck size. 25 by 40, and so that means about 1,000 square feet. The seating area inside the building is probably, what, about 1,500 then? Off the top of my head, yes. I think so. So having been around restaurant businesses and doing helping food service places succeed, I assume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the DEC makes a major financial contribution to the success of the restaurant. That is correct, and Matt has more information on that part specifically as well. Right. Now, while I know those economic factors are not under this board's review, At the same time, we have control over the destiny of the success of a restaurant business by the design of the building and its limitations. So from my point of view, I'm interested in compromises that build a strong business situation for what you're trying to do here. And if that's not possible, then there are justifications, perhaps. But the deck appears to me, given the money that's going to be spent on this addition, to be essential in terms of the financial success of this particular business. So nothing worse than a new construction effort being sunk by restrictions that should have been recognized in the beginning would have a negative impact on the business. So I'm all about trying to arrive at conclusions that will, I've already said this and then I'll say it one more time, that will make this financially feasible. We agree. Have you looked at locating the deck elsewhere in that section, perhaps more up against the main building to avoid the trees altogether? So we have, if I could pull up the presentation, I can show you some things that we have discussed. So, I'm not sure. the so we you know obviously the trees are in a staying inside the coining there are several constraints that we've looked at that have kind of determined right where the location of this building can be obviously you know the two restaurant spaces is zoomed out if everyone's familiar with the old dudley's are in those two rooms there's that space in the middle that is the traffic flow that you would be able to get to these spaces well and my question is not about the building only about the deck the the alternative so the option that matt and i had discussed was was coming off this corner and we could still stay outside of the critical root zone and place the pier where that cursor is and come and span past that tree trunk leaving that cavity space open and these would be two unconnected decks so you have one deck here that is more bistro small table seating and then this option you know only one tree would to be encapsulated. And what about running the deck closer to the building at the top, along toward South Mill, running the deck that way instead of this way. Running the deck west, yes, right there. This way. Running the deck against the building up there, and avoiding the trees altogether. We have not looked at that option. And I'm not suggesting that. I'm just trying to find ways to get around the issues. Sure. And I wouldn't want the deck there if it were my building, but I'm just asking the question. Sure, I think part of maybe why we haven't looked at that is that the experience that you get under the canopy. Correct. is really essential to the experience. If you go stand under those trees, there's always a cool breeze blowing through there, even on a warm day. But also, it lines up with the building and creates a sense of symmetry. Obviously, the deck is longer than the building, but creating that kind of facade, if I can pull up the elevation, we're obviously pulling off regulating lines from the building and lining that stair up. So that's, from a design standpoint, really, a justification. And I agree. I don't think it would be a preferred option, but it was just a question. Sure, sure. Okay, and I will have to step in. We're going to let Ms. Kerr talk. We do need to limit our questions so that we can get done tonight. I know, but I need to clarify this. Let Ms. Kerr make her comment first, and then we'll. I was just going to, if we may put on the screen an image that shows what was just discussed. And that would be, where's the mic? Can you turn your mic? Thank you. That would be, if I'm understanding right, Mr. Marquette, that you're saying to, thank you, to consider putting the deck forward into here. Mill Street is over here. This is Mill going up and down the page there. This is the very front door of the schoolhouse, the historic schoolhouse. And then you've got historic windows and so forth and so on coming along here. And then this is the facade that they're going to be meeting the corner of with these three windows that we've already discussed. So to give you a frame of reference, he's suggesting looking at, for all the board's knowledge, putting the deck somewhere, having the deck extend in some manner perhaps into this space, thereby getting it away from, here's the tree's trunk, obviously. Correct. Is that what your question was tied to? Had it been considered, and even though from a design point of view, I wouldn't want it there, Okay, I just wanted to be sure that other board members, everybody knew the space in which you were referring. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Sherwin. So I needed to clarify if this, I think I misread it. The number two, this is actually saying that the entire deck be completely eliminated because South Mill is in not we're not saying that we need to is that what this is saying to eliminate the deck completely on the mill street side on the mill street elevation but only have it on the maxwell street like the porch like it would just be a porch yeah okay any other uh yes miss hill so my focus continues to be the trees i i feel some confidence that the architectural elements can be worked through um and part of it is um and i do understand this is that i didn't have a number of the drawings that are architectural drawings don't show the tree dashed in or shaded in and I and I do understand that then I would also question is that a is that a file drawing or is that really representative of the tree on site I think the thing that I am most concerned does have to do with limb overhangs on over the roof of the proposed building and and so I will I'll start by saying that your latest suggestion of removing that portion of the deck that's around the tree closest to Maxwell gets rid of a major concern for me. That's really helpful. And eliminates an area that I'm not quite sure, it's really not gonna add that much seating anyway. But so the remaining tree then, the 42 inch diameter tree, It's both about the limbs that are overhanging the roof of the proposed addition, and it's also about what that color system construction is. If I'm hearing you correct, the main framing for that deck will be perimeter to this deck, so it will go along the edge of where the piers are. and then be boxed out around the tree itself, but with no vertical supports boxing in that construction. That's correct. And that eliminates some concern for me. And so then that leaves both the limbs that overhang the roof and how many both branches that come off of that limb that, as you've noted, will need to be trimmed back, and whether that major limb that appears to be a good six-inch diameter, whether it's going to be impacted. I think we need to get that answered to understand how it impacts the health of the tree. So there was something else related to that. The other piece of it is I do appreciate the site drawing that shows this is the construction zone, but it's on the other side of the trees, and this is where the building construction's happening, and we know what's gonna happen in between those. Major foot traffic, equipment traffic, that type of thing, and that will have a very detrimental impact. So I think it's a challenge to you as the design team to think with more detail about how the work work from the staging materials and work from the staging get over to the actual construction and not go underneath the canopy of those two major trees because the compaction that would take place would be very difficult for those trees to breathe back from regardless of what limbs we cut or don't cuts so i think the staging area plan needs to be in this instance needs to be highly detailed and regulated sure and so it would be helpful for us to understand what that thinking is okay i have this one last picture that can we lay this beside your illustration just put it is there a way Is there a way to do a photograph and overlay it on these drawings? Well, I'm just going to pass this down while y'all are talking. It's a black and white image, obviously, of it. And the thing of it is the scale, what you see in this picture and what you see in these drawings relative to the tree itself and its volume relative to the building, it seems very different. I agree. And I bet the drawings don't represent the vastness of those trees. Sure, they're representative. So those aren't the actual trees that you've drawn to scale. We haven't modeled them. That's a big deal. And we do understand that. And Matt makes a good point. Matt has studied the height of the limbs and has measured the limb in its approximate height of 24 feet and our height of 18 feet. But what's different about the trees that you see in the pictures in these trees are the canopy of the substantial limbs is actually much higher than what we're showing in our illustration. So the picture actually works better than the illustration that we're just placeholding trees in. have the capacity to model that exact tree in this image. And I really appreciate that and understand it. I think it makes a discussion as specific as this very difficult, if not irrelevant, because you just cannot suggest that with something referenced but not literal that are able to assure people about this won't be impacted and that will. I don't know the exact answer other than I will, while we've got a member out for a minute, I will remind you this process is going to have to have your true construction drawings of your structural system of this. You know, schematics can only go so far, and this process does not grant permits based on schematics. It gives permits based on real drawings. Sure. Most of our processes have been to get the design approved at this level and have it confirmed by staff before completion. That's generally how we've operated. And I think that when whatever's decided, that certainly will still be the system. But in this discussion about how foundation systems for the deck standing with this intense need to learn about how it might impact the trees, it's a little different as far as it's not your typical just section for a building to be built. And the trees are certainly not typical to that. so i do think the board's intent in their questions that they circulated to us over the weekend and all were wanting to know specifically so what's going to rise up in the ground and where in the root system i mean they really want to know and i think they deserve to know sure and we're happy to provide you know whatever information we can to add clarity to uh our proposal um you know i would have probably updated more before this meeting a lot of this came in you know not too long ago but uh we from what we've seen and what we've measured uh the limbs generally go away from the the building and the clearances at our at our first pass there should not be an issue i think for us to make an intelligent decision we're going to have to have i think rat put his finger on the proper question we're going to need a little bit more detail as to the actual distance from grade to the limbs i think it would be helpful to know also which limbs are greater than six inches okay because i think uh miss wilson has made it pretty clear that you damage a tree too severely when you remove any limbs that are greater and that's a good size limb by the way if you take a six inch of them off. Sure. Have you really studied whether you can economically make a different deck configuration work other than the one that you're giving us today? We have spent a good amount of time studying how this can go together and there are multiple constraints outside of the trees that are driving the design but ultimately the design the intent behind this is to experience the trees so it's hard to design something away from them when we're trying to interact with it yeah but the problem is trying to enjoy the tree you might wind up killing it I I can recall seeing from time to time these wonderful tree wells where the tree used to be because the tree was not adequately protected. I'm delighted that you're in agreement with the irrigation system. I'm concerned, though. Let me just ask you a couple more questions. during the winter hours and winter time are you going to just be inside or are you going to try to enclose that deck so people can sit outside and enjoy the winter weather i think just inside is what i so functionally that deck would give you income what four or five months a year I'm sorry, what? April through November. April to October. Okay. All right. Okay. And, you know, obviously, you know, several other restaurants come to mind when outdoor patios. I mean, the Merrick patio is certainly one that's vibrant and lively. This is a unique space. So, yeah. All right. We're trying to make the most of it. We have focused most of our attention on two. You've also objected to the others. I think we need to hear your testimony about that. Sure. Wait a minute. I'm not sure we're done with two yet. Ms. Hill? So I just wanted to clarify and ask a question about the actual specifics of the tree on just one drawing that seemed to me to most clarify where I think my concerns are, and it's on the cross-section drawing on sheet A301 that shows the wonderful whale where the tree belongs but doesn't show the actual canopy. You're looking at 301? 301, yep. I don't think I put that in this presentation, but I know what you're... Here's the sheet. Do you need it? Sure. Thank you. Because I think if that drawing, then that that would be a way, that's where all of the kind of conflictual issues come together. Sure. With the roof overhang of the addition and the height of where the limb is and what the scale of the limb and any lower falling branches. it's that tree that's most surrounded by building and deck. If the other tree gets removed from the deck area, then it's just that one north tree that we're worried about. And if this drawing were able to have some more realistic showing of that tree, I think that would be hugely helpful. And I'm sure that we will all be out on site to take a look at that tree ourselves. But having that drawing better clarified would be really helpful. We'd be glad to draw that in that section and do our best to emulate that tree. Well, let me throw this out to you. Are you willing to come back one more time? Let's get better drawings. Let's get better data. we have to August we have to October 30 so we have time for one more meeting to get this right yes alright thank you I do appreciate your cooperation with this folks we've been at this almost two hours yeah yes ma'am I hear you and I understand that we need to draw this to a close today, but would it be of assistance to have just like maybe five sentences, and I'm being general, about what your concerns are about the other? I'm sorry, I wasn't going to jump to the motion first until we heard from them on that. Yes. I would like to hear from your comments on items 5, 6, and 11. Right. I was anticipating you weren't going to try for a motion today at all myself. Well. Because you need more information. I mean, you're asking for more information, so I can't imagine you're going to make a motion prior to getting that information. I'm going to motion to continue. We can allow you to do that. Thank you. I thought you'd think that generous. Okay. All right, I'm sorry. No, but seriously, I was just hoping, if it's okay with you, that we would get a little feel for his comments back about the things that he's picked out as he has problems with so that we can ask maybe for a little more information if I just want to be sure everybody's okay to put on the table what else is needed before the next meeting let me make sure I'm understanding what you're trying to get to shall we go ahead and take his testimony on 5 6 and 11 all right if you'll continue with that please sure So in reference to the roof balustrade, the previous recommendation for the roof balustrade at the last hearing from staff was the roof balustrade be changed to be contemporary or eliminated and would be approved at staff level. The new recommendation reads the roof balustrade be eliminated altogether. I don't know why that recommendation changed. We were planning to redesign the balustrade. that's something that we haven't done yet but that's something that we've done on other projects you know I it's it's placeholder right now but this is a project that was approved at BOAR and this is a more contemporized design at that balustrate you know it's it is a it is a flat roof with a slight crown to it and I think you know that's architecturally we're where is this where is this picture taken it's on south ashland it's a 285 south ashland okay so my concern would be its impact on the tree limb because it pushes another three or four feet up and and definitely will hit get sure will impact that limb absolutely and i think that obviously that needs to be illustrated and shown in our next round and i can just say quickly the staff's concern predominantly was trying to make the new addition less of a presence visually. So wanted to get it so that it didn't have this added, woo-hoo, look at me at the top. We're trying to quiet it down. Also, quiet down, that's tied to the muttons. Same thing, quiet it down. Sure. I understand that approach, we have often connected buildings with seamless glass and storefront glass that has no grills. Just going into the muttons, our current design features large elongated 2x2 mutton bar pattern in the doors and vertical muttons in the transom that are continuous regulating lines from the doors. You can see those lines carrying vertically. Our thought is that we can abstract the existing design of Dudley Square. The current windows used at Dudley Square are two over eight double hung sashes. The window mutton profile sample for a Sierra Pacific's aluminum cladboard has a contemporary section that we were planning to use. I do not believe that this proposed design creates a false sense of history. I believe this proposed design strikes a new line while drawing inspiration from the existing building. That's obviously our take on that. But the removal of, one thing I will mention in regards to the muttons, this addition is new. Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe this was BOAR approval. But this has grids in it, and that's where we're tying in from the entry to come into the addition. So my take on it is I believe that you can do a contemporary addition while still having grids that are abstracted and tying that into the existing building. I would just say we're looking for more transparency, as in disappear. Sure. Glass that really is just open. But that, again, enough of that. That's just to give you all sense of it. Could you please repeat that? That the staff's comment to get rid of the muntins was reflective of wanting to end up with the building being super transparent, almost like a glass greenhouse, but they're full of muntins too. But we're just looking for something simpler without fussiness in each opening. Is the intent also so that we can still see the windows? That are covered up by the. Well, hopefully you will see those in a big piece of glass. Okay, sorry. That's the size of a wall. But no, it just creates a lot of spots. And we were wanting this newest addition to be really clean cut and not have even the elements of referencing. you know you're absolutely right that piece was done to tie it to that building we're really not trying to tie it to the building we're trying to have it be like a garden house sure i i think that you know striking a new line is is obviously you know both of our goals i i think in in that connection uh... can certainly have that uh... you know clean uh... seamless glass connection i think that would in my mind that's how that would certainly go. Our thought is the grids tie into this moment here and it's a continuation of the language that was set at this point. But on the muttons, there are obviously different mutton sizes and different mutton grid styles. You can go with thick mutton bars or you can go with very small, more delicate contemporary mutton grids, and that was our intent and our thought. Yeah, I understand. In the last half a sentence, we just hoped that when the accordions are opened out, that you just don't notice them. And without muttons would help that. Sure. And so to that end, as you submit your new plans and drawings, if you could give us a better feel for the muttons that you have in mind, or the look that you have in mind keep it more transparent. Have you addressed item 11 yet? Is that the sidewalk? That's the sidewalk, yes. I won't belabor this one. Really, the sidewalk for us is contingent on the deck and it doesn't make sense to remove the sidewalk if there's not a deck there because that's what pedestrians use. So we're more than happy to remove the sidewalk but the deck would be covering the sidewalk and there would be no need for that and of course we're glad to put in the irrigation as well so for us it makes sense to if item two is we're allowed to have the deck that we would be glad to remove the sidewalk good point okay and and staff is fine with that too you know just to get that straightened out okay so to sum up this conversation and jump in betty anytime We need additional details as to the above grade location of these limbs. We need to have an assessment to the best that you can do it of how many limbs are up there that are greater than six inches that will not be disturbed. We need additional details as to the deck design itself. additional details as to how you're going what size hole you're going to use and maybe pick up brad's idea of the removable i know he's talking about it's a sleeve and basically as the tree starts growing that sleeve goes away yeah i've seen that collar yeah yeah all right uh anything else that we need actually probably what the staff needs to do is send you another memo okay okay and if you board members would please send us the staff each of you rough written is fine doesn't need to be fancy just whatever is in your needs of further questions we'll amass it all together and send it on to the applicant all right one more thing our next meeting is October 18 I am scheduled to be on vacation that out of town that week anyway we can shift it to the 25th? Do we have to come dress? There is time. Yeah, we're flexible. We travel. Yes, I'll be in DC hopefully if it's not shut down. Legal notice goes out Monday? No. Well, if this case is continued to October. No, but if we're changing the meeting date. Oh, changing the dee-date. Hold on. I realize there's a big combination, but if that's too much, you know, if we can shift it to 25th, I would love to be here. Well, I can't come. It's my birthday on the 25th. But other than that, you all have a good time. Oh, well, happy work. No, I will be here. We've got legal notice does not go out to the 2nd of October, so we've got one more week. Question is, will the space be available? So we have, yeah, we'd have to figure it. Well, let's put it this way. we will look into this and could tell you by early afternoon tomorrow are you all available on the 25th of october as far as i know i should be yeah okay um yeah we'll have to you know about the chamber and the different things but let us and board members okay we're getting a no no on the 25th you're not on the 25th you can't i'm out of town 25th well so we're not getting Well, then, no, I'm not going to pull a rank. I'd rather have the architect here than me, quite frankly. This needs an architect. I don't think I have a comment on that. All right, so we'll continue to the 18th then. Okay, so we're going to stick to the 18th. Okay, we can do that. All right. And you all are available the 18th. Thank you. Yes. I'll become available. welcome to our world yes sir i matt burton for the record um and i had five minutes prepared just to go over but given the time and the continuance i don't think that's necessary i did want to address the elevation pictures with the trees superimposed which i think are aesthetically pretty to look at for the elevations but they don't do the trees justice the trees are actually much higher the canopy and all of the major limbs so we have an abundance of clearance from any primary limb and it's not even a close call okay the only limbs that will need to be pruned are minor inch and a half straggler branches that are hanging down and so i welcome working with uh the lfgg arborist um as far as getting comfortable with these primary limb locations but i i'm very confident that there'll be no impact uh not even a close call on any limb above six inches probably even above two inches and miss wilson is usually pretty accommodating if she if you want to arrange another meeting with her on site that would be and get her and get it all written down and i think the elevation was a little deceiving because it shows the tree kind of you know right up against the structure but in reality all the limbs are well well above what we're proposing um so can i toward toward that if you'd like to let us know we'll get heather to you know get with her calendar and somebody from our office and heather will come meet with you all yeah that would be great i think that would give everyone a lot of comfort to hear that from her that she's evaluated it and that hey we have no concerns with the limbs given their location okay and matt i want to extend my thanks and compliment to you first of all that you've worked so nicely with the neighborhood uh normally my experience with south hill has been changed hell no so Okay. You've done a great job there. Second of all is that you have really worked with us, and I realize this has been trying at times, but I think all we're trying to do is end up the best result we can have. So I'm hoping by the time we meet on the 18th this will be resolved. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Do I have a motion for us? Can I just have one comment that affects the issues of the height of the roof and the height of the lowest limbs you know we do have several feet quite a few feet between the 18 foot height roof and the 24 foot lowest major limb is have you considered at any time lowering the overall elevation of the building i know you've always said it's on the same level as the interior i know that wouldn't introduce ramps or steps out into that space but is that an issue i mean has that been considered it has but one of the major constraints are the windows that we're tying in over and maintaining those head heights so those existing windows that you're trying to keep above that so that that's fully visible from the inside. There's a brick kind of hood mold around those windows. Yes. We want to fully register inside of the rest of the room. So you don't, that's, that is your deciding factor on your interior ceiling and then your structure above that. That's what's driving our entire height. But now that's on your ceiling height, right? But that's, but that drives the. Our roof system needs to go over that so the ceiling can go over the windows and you can see the windows. No, I understand that. But I'm just saying the floor could still become lower. But that's, no, I was saying lowering the floor elevation so that the entire ceiling roof and everything. I'm now with you. Leaving the tippy top, which is the big cheese. Right. Yes, doesn't help anything to. Okay, so that's a fine line to try. I'll get with Heather to clarify the limb clearance, but it could be even more than the six feet. I know, I just said that because I knew without a shadow of a doubt it was that at minimum, but it is substantial. So we'll get that data for you all to review. Okay, anything else? All right, we're ready for a motion then. I so move. Thank you. Set the date please. To adjourn. No, no, no, no, move to continue first. I'm sorry. I need a motion to continue. Yes. In relation to case number 13150380-BB at 380 South Mill Street, I move to continue this case to the October 18th meeting. I second. All right, no discussion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes and we'll continue to October 18. Again, gentlemen, thank you so much for your patience. Thank you, guys. Have a good night. Now we can adjourn. Any other items to be considered? Who makes a motion to adjourn, please? I move to adjourn. Second. We stand adjourned. Thank you so much. We'll be fighting in the streets With our children at our feet In the morrows the day worship will be gone And the men who spurred us on Sit in judgment of our wrong They decide and the shotgun sings the song I tip my hat to the new constitution