Music Thank you. The Board is appointed by the Mayor. The Historic Preservation Office contains the full-time staff to assist you with projects. The Board encourages and recommends that the applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Mine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in order in which they are listed on the 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 this information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 23 applications that have been approved by the staff. They are as follows. In the Ashland Historic District at 212 Deshaies Road, remove deteriorated trees. In the Ellsworth Historic District at 332 Ellsworth Place, renovate structure. At 702 Central Avenue, replace fencing and gates. At 146 Kentucky Avenue, replace fencing. At 344 Lafayette, replace the front door. At 334 Oldham Avenue, renovate the structure. At 335 Transylvania Park, replace fence and gate. At 337 Transylvania Park, replace the fence and gate. At 148 Woodland Avenue, relandscape rear yard. At 144 Woodland Avenue, relandscape the rear yard. and at 320 Woodland Avenue, renovate structure. In the Belcourt Historic District at 149 Forest Avenue, removed damaged locustry. At 625 Sarah Avenue, replaced the fencing and also at 629 Sarah Avenue, replaced fencing. In Ellsworth Park Historic District at 638 Ellsworth, remove dormers or renovate dormers. In the Fayette Park Historic District at 442 Fayette Park, replaced fencing. In the Grands Park Historic District at 201 North Mill Street, replace repair front sidewalk. In the Northside Historic District at 331 West 2nd Street, replace tree repair sidewalks. At 427 West 3rd Street, replace the fencing. In the Seven Parks Historic District at 120 Arcadia Park, replace tree. In the South Hill Historic District at 355 South Upper Street, install fencing, gravel parking area. In the western suburbs, Historic District at 149 Old Georgetown Road, refurbish the windows, and at 715 West Main Street, replace front door. And finally, in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 349 Madison Place, renovate the front flexing. That concludes staff approvals. We'll now turn our attention to the applications for our consideration. The first one being at 141 South Hanover Avenue, construct cardboard addition. Is the applicant here? Come on up. My name's Tom Wilms, Wilms Architects. All right. And my office is 512 East Main Street. All right, thank you. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to a condition, what I would call a substantive condition, and that being the carport roof be lowered to a 3 by 12 and final details come back to staff. We're in agreement with that. All right, the other two are what we refer to as our standard conditions. The first one being once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of the issuance of the COA. And the other is, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement? We're in agreement, yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 08760141-I at 141 South Hanover Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the condition that the carport roof be lowered to a 3 to 12. And final details come back to staff for review and approval. the other two typical standard conditions. Yes. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you all very much for your time. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Turning now to the next application is 601 East Main Street. Scope of work is install fencing, patios, and landscaping. Is the applicant here? Hello, I'm David Atchison with Atchison Construction. Our office is at 3349 Tates Creek Road, Suite 209. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of the application subject to one substantive change number one being the wrought iron fence have a simpler appearance by removing the stone pillars are in agreement with that yes all right and also that the rear yard piers be reduced to a 20 by 20. yes in agreement all right and the other two are the standard conditions that i've previously read into the record did you hear those i'm sorry i did not okay i'll read i'll read them to you again sorry uh they are once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of the AOA. And finally, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, please resubmit those changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Understood. All right, and you're in agreement? Yes. Okay, any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. chair with regard to case number one two two zero six excuse me one two two six zero six zero one dash k at 601 east main street i recommend that i move thank you that the application be approved with the two conditions the one concerning the wrought iron fence having a simpler appearance and number two the rear yard peers be reduced in size plus the two standard conditions all right do i have a second second any discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye aye aye motion passes and the coa as a condition is approved thank you thank you so much and good luck with your project thank you All right, turning now to 444 West 3rd Street in the Northside Historic District. Scope of work is demolish portion of garage, construct new addition to garage and driveway. Applicant here. Mr. Dickinson, did you want to do 427 first? Did I skip that one? West 3rd. Sorry, got ahead of myself. Thank you. I apologize. Our next application is 427 West 3rd Street. Scope of work is construct a freestanding structure. Is the applicant here? Mr. Taylor, how could I jump over you? Sorry about that. How are you all doing? Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. All right. Mr. Taylor, the staff has recommended approval of your application for your client subject to these two standard conditions I have previously read. Are you in agreement with those? I am. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in reference to case number 18800427-H at 427 West 3rd Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. the motion passes and the applications approved is conditioned thank you all have a great day thank you so much good luck with the project now we'll come back to 444 uh west third street scope of work is demolish portion of the garage construct new addition to garage and driveway please come up good afternoon i'm carol martin and i'm the owner of 444 west third street all All right, Ms. Martin. I believe, yes, the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions. Did you hear me read those? No, I read them, thank you. Are you in agreement with them? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions or comments about the application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness for case 188-00444-I at 444 West Third Street with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as a condition is approved. Thank you so much, ma'am. Thank you. And good luck with your project. Thank you so much. All right. All right, turning to our next application at 1533 Nicholasville Road in the Seven Parks Historic District. Scope of work is construct a metal fence and gate. Stage your name for the record, please. Bobby Morris. All right. And your address? I'm at 4404 Simpson Lane in Richmond, Kentucky. Okay. The staff has recommended approval of your applications subject to what I've been calling the standard two conditions. I'll recite them just briefly. If any changes made are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the affected work. Are we in agreement with that? Yes. The other being, once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit the changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work or any agreement. Yes. All right. Any questions or comments about this application? I have very little audience left. Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 13971533-I at 1533 Nicholasville Road, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion about the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. That brings us to the end of our normal applications under review. I can't ever remember, do we do the minutes first or the conceptual review first? Let me do the minutes. We have a set of minutes. I've lost the date of them. It would be March 20th. March 20th. All right, March 20, 24 minutes. Have you had a chance to look them over? Okay, I believe some changes were made, have those changes been incorporated? Those changes have been made, do you have further? The copy I got does not indicate that. Those, I'm sorry, the minutes that were handed to you do not have the corrections in them. Do we not have? they don't have the corrections in them, that they are going to be made. Then I think what we need to do is wait for the corrections to be made and we'll take them up at the next meeting. And I, yes, Chair, I could offer to, my two corrections were very straightforward and I'm fine with putting them in the record as placeholders and the staff making those corrections. All right, is this pertaining to Arcadia Park application? It is. My concern is it doesn't reflect who made the motion or the second. And those corrections were sent to the lady who's doing our minutes now, and she's actually sent them back. But I didn't get to print them out because we can't. Okay, as a technical matter, we need to have the corrected copy before us so that we can approve it with something in front of us. I'm sorry. We'll defer consideration of the minutes until the next meeting. All right. Turning now then to the conceptual review at the 226, 228, and 232 West Maxfield Street in the South Hill Historic District. We're in a more informal phase of our meeting. The staff will do initially a presentation of the conceptual review concept, if you will, And then we'll hear comments and remarks from the applicant. And then we'll have a board review of it. Okay. And as they're gathering, I wanted just to introduce our new staff member, Jennifer Howell, here. Jennifer, welcome. And Jennifer will be primarily working on the Section 106 and research end arm. But I just wanted to introduce her before the conceptual review, while we're all gathered. All right. Glad to see you. Your last name again? Howell. Howell. All right. Like on Gilligan's Island. Right. Got you. Okay. Oh, my goodness. I would have given a different example from Atlanta, and you'd have to be from Atlanta. Okay. And have you dated me because I remember Gilligan's Island? No. Watching it as a boy? No, that's the other thing. I would say it too. A lot of people know that. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you so much. All right. So, Barry? Yes, sir. I didn't get to speak to everyone, but Mr. Carver had brought some additional information for you. It's mainly background, so if you had a chance to look at that. So conceptual review for 226, 228, and 232 West Maxwell Street. Street. So I think I'll kind of go through the photos and skip around with the presentation at the same time. So this is looking southwest from the north side of West Maxwell towards Lawrence Street. The property is located between Lawrence Street and South Mill Street. So these are some of the smaller cottages that have been converted to businesses. And this is the corner of Lawrence. And this is looking at the property, which if you weren't aware, was the Dudley's parking lot. And this looking directly south from Dudley's. And then some photos of Lawrence Street. Just looking back to the west at the site. more looking southeast on Lawrence. And then this is directly across the street, Dudley's. And this is looking northeast. Got back to Lawrence here. Some more detail of the site as it currently exists. And then this is South Mill Street. This site looking north again you can see Dudley's there and then northwest towards South Mill. As you can see, there's quite a range of structures within the adjacent properties. So the applicant is requesting, well, that's not right, a conceptual review for a certificate of appropriateness to construct three single family residences with detached garages. The site of the proposal is the parking lot across from West Maxwell Street that has been used by the Old Dudley's restaurant. The proposed facade of the residence is oriented to South Main Street with the side elevation oriented to West Maxwell Street. The lots are proposed to be 30 feet wide by 150 feet deep. The structures are proposed to be three stories with four bedrooms, four and a half baths, and full basements. The footprint of each garage is proposed to be 24 feet wide by, should be 24 feet deep. The freestanding garages are approximately 24 feet square and will be accessed from Lawrence Street. The applicant has been in conversations with the LFUCG planning department to apply for a down zone from C commercial to single family R1. The properties will also have to be readdressed from West Maxwell to South Mill Street. The architectural description of the proposed residences is as follows. The West Maxwell North elevation will present a three-story brick wall with a false front above the roof line as the primary mass with single impaired windows. Towards the front wall, there is a large rectangular bay with multiple windows. The bay is sided with paneled cementitious board material and details such as band boards and crowned facials. The rear two-story elevation is sided in cementitious board with the second floor open porch with a hip roof. The south mill west facade has a masonry veneer that rises to the top of the second floor, the ceiling line to be more descriptive, where the Mancer-type battered wall of the third floor is covered with slate-look shingles and paired and single windows. Toward the south side of the facade, a recessed door, which is surrounded by a stone veneer, is located at the first floor level. The Maxwell Elevation has a similar bay to the one I mentioned before, and the third floor battered masonry wall is topped with a low slope gable roof that is roofed with a membrane roofing material. The rear elevation, which is east, as described before in the north facade description, is a two-story mass with hip roof. The fenestration of the two-story rear elevations has two pairs of windows and glass doors at each floor. The glass door is located on the first floor. The mansard battered wall is described for the front facade as visible above the two-story mass and includes a single window and a set of paired windows. The south elevation is again masonry veneer similar to the north elevation, but without the details and fenestration because of its requirement to be a firewall. The proposed garages have a similar but less detailed design as the proposed residences. In findings, as this is a conceptual review, the staff does not have any findings at this time. Although the staff has created a series of questions that the board may be interested in discussing. I'll read those questions. Number one, is it appropriate to construct three new single-family structures that would have the facade front wall on South Mill Street and present the side elevation to West Maxwell Street? Would the construction of three new residences and garages have a negative impact to the historic character of the property that is in question or the South Hill Historic District? Number three is the scale, mass, and form in keeping with the scale, mass, and form of the historic structures located within the South Hill Historic District. Four, would the construction of three new residences and garages have a negative impact to the historic density of the property that is in question or the South Hill Historic District? Five, does the third floor with its battered walls and roof design mimic a historic mansion roof and speak to the current design trend for new construction? Six, would the design of the elevations at the third floor level be better served if the exterior material was a type of siding currently used in modern construction and not a reproduction synthetic slate. Should the main gable roof have a steeper pitch to allow for the use of composite singles instead of the membrane roof? Recommendations. As this is a conceptual review, the staff does not have any recommendations currently. Deadline for board action, none currently. and we can look at I'll just kind of quickly run through through the drawings and let our architecture friend give you more detail so this is the site plan you can see in the center between South Mill and the Lawrence Street notes the location of the three new residences plus the three new garages which will have automobile access off of lawrence street and these are the floor plans which we'll skip a little bit it. So this north elevation is the one that I mentioned that will be facing Mill Street, and then the west elevation will be, I'm sorry, Maxwell Street, and then the west elevation will be facing Mill Street. Both of those B&Ms, I get confused constantly. All right. And as I mentioned, the south elevation does not have the fenestration and details that because of code reasons. And you can see the east elevation with the addition, not addition, or the garage, and And then the north elevation again. And here are some views of the three structures as they would be seen from the street. And then the sections we won't need to get into. These are some renderings that were sent after the package went out to the board. So I guess that's the end of my presentation. I'll ask Mr. Carbon to come up and... Before you step down, any questions? I have a question about Lawrence Street. Yes. It looks like there are there other garages that kind of face Lawrence Street? Or are those just empty lots? I guess they're belonging to the houses. Can I speak to that for a second? I'm just trying to understand the character. Historically, there were garages along that stretch, but there was a proposal in 2007 to put some structures along that section. In those structures, all the garages went down. It's part for one that's still associated with the property next door. And we've had two or three other proposals for the property where those garages went down that have gone nowhere in the meantime. So it's basically empty land at this time. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Yes, Ms. Hill. In regard to Dudley's across Maxwell, given that there has been approval for a new addition on that corner, which will kind of change the visual and architectural experience at that intersection, intersection, is it appropriate that this design incorporate that? Is that a possibility just in terms of kind of scale? Well, I don't know that there's anything in the guidelines that would speak to that. That addition, as you remember, is a large portion glass, which could be but would be difficult to incorporate into residential, I feel. It is one, the addition is also one story, but immediately behind it you have the large Dudley's Mass. Anything else? All right. Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Is this an appropriate venue to talk about the zoning and the permitting for this? Let's do that later. Okay. And actually, no, that's something they're going to have to address with the other commissions. Right now, we have the application before us, and it will always be conditioned upon getting the appropriate zoning and conditional use applications approved. State your name, please. My name is Bob Carbon. All right. I'm with New Republic Architecture, and we are located at 1936 Ray Street. If you wouldn't mind bringing that microphone just a hair closer to you, Should I start again? I'll speak a little louder, one or the other. Should I start again? Yes, you're good. Thank you. My name is Bob Carbon. I'm with New Republic Architecture. We're located at 1936 Ray Street in the Findlay Market area of Cincinnati, Ohio. If you'd be comfortable, more comfortable. No, I'd rather know what. If you start to move around, I'll use this so they can hear you. Thank you. I just wanted to touch on some of the booklet that we brought down today because it kind of shows where our investigation of the site led us to kind of orienting the houses in this manner as we're proposing. Our client, our past and future property owners in this area, they live just a little bit. to the north of Dudley Square and one of the residents on South Mill Street and they plan to live in one of these proposed residences and the other two as speculative for sale. We looked at a couple of different orientations on the site including having the residences face Maxwell Street, but we looked into the history, and that's kind of shown in some of these historical maps that on, I think, the fourth page there. There's the 1871 bird's eye map of the South Hill area, which you can identify clearly the city school or Dudley Square building, and directly across Maxwell Street, you can see the houses that were there and corresponding on the Sanborn maps that also fronted Mill Street, which is kind of keeping with all of the houses that do currently face Mill Street. The other idea in orientation is just the logistics of having houses and the lot subdivision to have the frontages on Maxwell would have meant kind of a motor court drive behind kind of along the southern edge where and you would end up with very little green space for those individual residences. So we went back to the history looking at fronting on Mill Street, having these lots subdivided as 30 by 50 roughly, so that they would be through streets with frontage on Lawrence Street that would allow for garage access. If we can, do I have control of the elevations? What we've tried to show here is, and we're at a very preliminary stage coming before you. We're not ready to talk about materials, but we do envision these being brick facades. with, as Barry was stating, some kind of siding, painted siding, as other features. So the renderings aren't necessarily trying to say that they would be three different colors. It may be up to buyers of the individual properties if they would come along before these were constructed or if the neighborhood or historic preservation views a certain direction to take. But what we were trying to show is that we're really trying to bridge a gap between the massive size of Dudley Square and the houses to the north and south of Dudley Square. By doing that and in providing a residence that has two bedrooms on the third floor, we started with a kind of a sheer three-story wall at the front of the building, and we felt that it was really too large for the houses to the south. and that's why we kind of have introduced this mansard roof to kind of bring the height visually by breaking that up. In the booklet as well, we kind of looked at some precedents both around the city, where you find some mansard roofs like on the old Gratzpark Inn, which is I understand now called the Sire, and another one at 200 West Short Street. So there's Mansard history in Lexington downtown. And then the other architectural element is kind of that facade wall that kind of frames the roof on the north and south edge. Kind of found precedence of that on South Mill Street at 358. It is a lower building, but the idea of kind of having that element on the Maxwell face specifically to kind of allow volume in that third floor. If we were to do kind of a gable front to back pitch of that roof, then we would be really eating into the area allowable in the third floor. And then the page after that, there are many kind of inspiration images that we were showing our clients to look at a three-story residence with a mansard roof with gables to kind of give them an idea of what we were thinking and also hopefully fitting into the historic South Hill neighborhood. We have engaged with that neighborhood association and met with them last week. And we've also engaged with, as Barry was saying, with city planning and have plans to go before them. That's why we're seeking a certificate of appropriateness, hopefully next month with you. And that's why we're here today. All right, any questions? Go ahead. And let me know if this isn't appropriate at this time. Can we talk about a question about design of the buildings? I can't hear you. Turn your microphone on if it's not on. Can we talk about a question about design element of the building? Absolutely. So the third building, the one closest to the alley. Yes, sir. that that south facade is solid yes no windows correct and my question is given that there is more open space on that side and given that there is exposure of that side to the street, was there thought given to flip that unit? You're smiling as if perhaps that was. And what was the decision? I know from the front, they match. To flip one of them would throw off that match. So if you could comment on that, please. The reason for the rhythm and holding them all to, if we subdivide the property into roughly 30-foot wide frontages, holding each one to the zero lot line to the south allows us to have a lot of windows and openness because of fire rating needed on the zero lot line. So we did opt to have them not joined, none of the buildings joined to one another, and be separate freestanding residences with that roughly five foot plus, five foot six, to get more light into the residences. Which I think is excellent. that third unit was explained to me why the decision was made to keep that south facade solid and not flip the unit so even more light and view could be had at that third unit. I think I understand your question, but had we flipped it, we would then need to shift it to the north to get away from the lot line at that south edge to have openings in that facade. So then it would be, you know, it's just kind of a. So those openings would overlook the alley. Correct. But that alley has been, I think it is now part of the property of the house to the south. It is not technically an alley any longer. I think you're trying to say there's code implications and fire ratings required when you don't have lot lines that prevent openings in the facade. Thank you. It's really just the Olmsted is just a driveway, sort of, so to speak. And I think we found out from the planning and zoning department that that is actually part of that property currently. So that property owns half that alley? Is that what you just said? Stay on the whole alley. Stay on the whole alley. On the full alley, okay. Okay, other questions, comments? I do, and this is a small thing, it's about materiality and it's mostly because the elevations do show the kind of difference in the upper part of the mansard roof. Yes, ma'am. using metal versus just a membrane kind of roofing, which has a much slicker kind of appearance. The slope on it looks like it could handle a variation on a metal roofing, and it appears that two of the three suggest that. So what's your kind of variation in thinking on that? Well, I did want to address that because we as an architecture firm, as well as our clients, are not wanting to bait and switch either historic preservation or the South Hill Neighborhood Association. So there is, if you can maybe look a little bit closer at the three front elevations, One of them kind of looks like it has a shingle look or a slate look shingle on the mansard portion with membrane on top. Right. Where the others are looking at the possibility of metal all along. My concern personally is that if the match of these roofs at the carriage house or the garage as you're coming down Maxwell, that you would maybe see that low slope portion. So in my opinion, the metal roof might work better. So there's a consistency. You wouldn't see the membrane and then a different material at the mansard. So it's still open for consideration. And like I said, we're just trying not to say we're doing one thing and then pull a surprise. Fair enough. And I do understand it's early. And I do understand that elevations, when you're a human being walking along or driving along the street, probably will never look up and really look at the membrane. But in these drawings, that kind of flat, deceptive view that we never have makes it very clear. And, you know, there's real intention about the garages having kind of a similar architecture and a presence at that Lawrence Street corner so it's both transitioning from the larger residence down to those shotguns that are along Maxwell, but still holding the corner in some way by having that kind of bonus room above. Other questions? Comments? Do I note that the perimeter wall, some parts of it are being retained, some parts of it are being replaced? That is the intent of our clients and the developer of the property, that they would like to maintain that historic brick wall with wrought iron. some of it would probably have to be replaced, some of it would have to be modified. Specifically, we're kind of showing maybe a larger, taller brick wall, kind of what defines the backyard of these between the residence and the carriage house. So we're kind of showing the brick kind of pop up there along Maxwell. The brick wall shown in this photo that borders the alley, that will be replaced? Yes, that would have to be removed for construction along that southern property edge. Thank you. But if I'm understanding it correctly, you are going to try to preserve what brick wall there is that you can? Yes, sir. Cool. And I would note that that brick wall is not original. It's probably about 40 years old. But there was a church on this location and not necessarily a building with a wall around it. Okay, I thought it was older than that, but thank you. I would like for you to address a little bit more specifically a couple of the staff questions that were directed at you. That being primarily is the design look to, is it mimicking the historic mansard roof, And does it speak to the current design trend for new construction? That's item number five, I believe. Yes, sir. I think that we're trying to kind of strike the right balance to build in a historic neighborhood, which is part of our whole reason for being as an architecture firm. So in engaging with the historic South Hill neighborhood, we want to build something that they feel is right in scale, in rhythm, in proportion to the rest of the neighborhood. As Barry mentioned, the zone for that parking lot currently is B, which could allow for something much larger to be built on that property. we are asking the city to down zone to an R4, which would allow these as single family residences, but would allow some further, you know, future development at a different scale. It's like down zoning just enough to build as single family. What is the current zoning? B. Okay. Have you had conversations with the South Hill Historic District? The Neighborhood Association? Yes. Yes, sir. The clients have met with them and then we met with them last week to present this to them. I'm sorry, again please? We met with them last week to present the elevations and the design as you see tonight. Have they had a chance to react to it yet? Only verbally that evening. They have not given us a letter of support yet, but they were receptive. Saying they're supportive? They were receptive to the design and the effort to build something at this scale. How many people do you anticipate being in these three townhouses, roughly? How many people to live there? Yeah. Are there going to be family? Is it, is the design principally the single family residences? Yes, sir. Okay, all right. Go ahead. Well, first of all, I really appreciate the community outreach. It's historic neighborhoods downtown feel a little under pressure. And the movement toward more density is not an easy one. But it's a conversation we've got to have. It's the 21st century. So a couple of observations. in looking at the elevation at the what we're calling the north elevation, but really looking southwest along Maxwell. I really appreciate the kind of step down of the scale from the larger main component of the residence down to the garage that has a scale more in keeping with those smaller historic businesses now. But one question, and it's not architecture, but it has an impact on it all, and that's about the treescape. And I know you have an existing tree that you're going to be working to maintain that's clearly an older tree. Don't really know its age, but is there some intention about the smaller scale new trees? What's the conversation on that, given that it's the northeast-facing elevation of these buildings? There is a commitment from the clients to have street trees along Maxwell to soften that experience as you maybe walk down Maxwell Street along that historic fence line with trees. The front yards are, we're asking for a variance on the front yards to keep them at 15 feet, which we think is in keeping with the adjacent properties to the south. and if you can look on the the second sheet kind of shows roughly the color site plan kind of shows that the extent front to back of these main proposed residences are approximately the same as the houses to the south in those front yards the clients are envisioning those as kind of like a little garden front yard protected by that historic fence line so you know there's more opportunities for trees there um clients want to live there so their effort will be there to you know kind of carry that through the other two properties for sale units i don't know what the the landscaping plan will be for the entire their proposed build out yet. So I wasn't quite clear, and I appreciate your description. But is there some conversation about having trees that will age into a slightly larger scale, a little more, and not stay quite as small as these? That's really about the species of trees and what their ultimate mature size is going I don't know what species of trees would be appropriate and what the city likes for the street trees, but there's opportunities also along Lawrence Street where we have a, because it's a through lot in the proposed subdivision of this entire site, Lawrence Street would have 20-foot setbacks for the garage that would allow a driveway cut and a little bit of a driveway apron. And I think that there's room there for some trees within the properties that could be allowed to grow a little bit bigger and kind of flush out Lawrence Street a little bit. Yeah, we're just working really hard to increase our tree canopy, particularly in historic areas downtown. And so thinking about the Maxwell Street in particular, I was just interested in if that had been a touched upon conversation at all. Suzanne, any comments, questions? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I want to make sure everyone's had an opportunity to be heard. Sure. I just wanted to address a few of the comments or questions by the staff. And I feel like the first question about three new single family structures, I think that it is appropriate for them to face South Mill, given the Sanborn maps and specifically the 1901 Sanborn map clearly shows the pattern of development being the facing of the primary building on those lots facing South Mill and the secondary structures facing Lawrence Street. Plunkett and Lawrence were clearly used as secondary access streets. So I think that constructing this density is actually rebuilding the historic pattern that exists there that has been eroded by parking and other structure, you know, the absence of structures. So I think it's totally appropriate for this area to have that density and that they would be single-family residences is always beneficial to a neighborhood. Absolutely. I do think that the forms provide an appropriate transition of scale between the smaller structures that face West Maxwell, the small shotgun structures and transitioning between the large structure of Dudley Square the other homes i i think that it's an appropriate scale transition um i do have some concerns about uh the the some of the the forms that mimic uh historical forms uh the uh parapet wall that mimics a chimney or two chimneys. I have some concerns about that and but those are my only comments. All right. Sarah, any comments? I think Suzanne summarized my comments very well. I think the scale is appropriate. I think them facing Mill Street is appropriate and with the garages in the back. I think some of the mimicking of the historic nature was my concern too, both with the mansard and with the roof. I feel like if done well with the detailing, I might be able to see past that. And I know we just haven't gotten to that level of detailing. But I do want them to look like structures of our time without, you know, that are appropriate for the neighborhood without necessarily copying details that are not real. You know, like a fake chimney to just have it there. I'll have to amplify that this is where the art comes into architecture. It's a balance to figure out how to maintain your rhythm and scale and appearance at the same time recognizing that you do not want to make it look like someone trying to be something else. And I think you're getting there. And to be honest with you, this is precisely, I think, the kind of projects that we need to be supportive, filling in these ancient parking lots that have lost their use and using a small density, relatively speaking, townhouses as opposed to apartment buildings. I was doing a happy dance when I saw this because this is exactly a type of property that's just begging for an oversized apartment building, and then we're fighting with the developers saying, no, that's too large for a historic district. At least we don't have that battle. So I thank you for that. I do think you have to focus on making sure it doesn't look too imitative. I'll give you an example of that straight across the street on Mill Street, I believe, is a new townhouse that was built that tried to be imitative. And as it's aging, it's failing disastrously. So just keep that in mind if you don't mind. Any other comments or questions? I would like to say that I do feel the use of a mansard type form is a good solution to minimizing the height of it so that it does read more appropriately scaled. so i don't think the use i'm not questioning the use of the mansard form as a mimicry it's the details of the of the the details of that the false parapet chimneys and then probably the detailing of how the roof material forms that change switch between the 3 to 12 and the and the steep slope of the mansard that that could be realized in a more modern way and not be imitative so i don't think it's the form that's the issue it's the detailing of it absolutely And thank you for addressing the homework in terms of the orientation. My initial concern was, given the length of that lot, that we would have a wall facing out on the Maxwell, which would destroy that rhythm. But I think we have solved that problem very nicely. Any questions or comments from the staff members at this time? I think our biggest issue is just the mimicking of history and how to streamline some of those details. And how the panels blow the windows, some of the detailing of the windows themselves, and a lot of the other issues that are addressed by the board as far as the mimicking of history. I think that's your biggest obstacle. All right. The board should remember that there was a church there in the past, and Mr. Dickinson said exactly what I was thinking. If this is not built there, we could get a five, ten-story concrete apartment complex, which we do not want to support. Well, I hope it never would be that big, but yes, we could have an apartment building instead. That's prime development for UK and I'm glad it's not UK property. I graduated from UK in 97 and coming down and lived in this neighborhood. It is amazing how much it's transformed. We were happy to do a project like this in this site. Yeah, I had a couple more things too. It wasn't when the staff wrote, when we write these questions, it's not that we're against something necessarily. It's that we think that it should be thought out a little bit more. So it's not that the mansard roof is bad, but the materials and how it's detailed. One other thing that's not preservation, but your floor area ratios, Have you looked at those? Are you okay with this? I have to re-look at those because of the, we thought that we would be rezoning or asking to down zone to R3. It was suggested to down zone to R4, and that does change all those ratios. So we're re-looking at those. Okay. If there's nothing else, thank you for an excellent presentation. Can I just ask a point of question? Are floor area ratios in our guidelines? No, they're not. Okay. I just was pointing out that he should be aware of it. So we don't approve something that then building inspections says, no, you can't do that. Okay. Thank you all. It's a dance we have to do with the different divisions. All right. So is there any other business we need to take up? Then the chair is ready for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Motions to adjourn are non-debatable. Any objection? Hearing none, we stand adjourned. If he loved you