By the mayor and confirmed by the urban county council as part of the division of historic preservation the historic preservation office maintains a full time staff to assist you with your project. 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 normal procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on your agenda. In each case we will 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 party. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board please come to the microphone, 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 that information can be recorded properly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our regular review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 33 applications noted on today's agenda. In Ashland Park Historic District at 293 South Ashland Avenue review COA to replace replacement windows. In Aylesford Historic District at 217 Arlington Avenue refurbish windows and add storms. At 230 Arlington Avenue renovate the front porch. At 530 East High Street renew the COA. At 622 East High Street renovate the structure. At 396 Linden Walk remove deteriorated trees. At 398 Linden Walk remove deteriorated trees. At 147 Kentucky Avenue relandscape the yard with new sidewalk. 372 Transylvania Park remove damaged trees. Belcourt Historic District at 211 East Belcourt renovate structure. At 509 Russell Avenue replace fencing. At 509 Russell Avenue replace deck having same size and materials. Constitution Historic District at 145 Constitution Street replace a 6 foot fence. On Fayette Park Historic District at 414 Fayette Park prep for painting. At 417 Fayette Park renovate structure. Gratz Historic District at 215 North Mill Street install iron railings. Mulberry Hill Historic District at 456 North Limestone install a storm door. In the Northside Historic District at 25 Hampton Court remove damaged tree. At 360 Hampton Court replace roof. At 340 New Street renovate structure and site. At 340 New Street fill in pool and replace patio. Pensacola Park Historic District at 121 Lackawanna remove deteriorated trees. At 121 Lackawanna renovate structure. At 127 Lackawanna renovate structure. At 115 Wabash Drive replace replacement windows. At 118 Wabash Drive renovate structure. In the Seven Parks Historic District at 134 Barbary Lane renovate front porch. In the South Hill Historic District at 210 West Maxwell install sign plaque. At 215 West Maxwell replace the steps and sidewalk. Replace fencing. At 371 South Upper Street install landscape plan. In the Woodward Heights Historic District at 336 Madison Place renovate structure. At 341 Merino Street remove damaged tree. At 852 West High Street remove deteriorated trees. At 852 West High Street renovate structure. And now we shall proceed with the review of our certificates of appropriateness. The first applicant to be reviewed is at 153 West Belcourt. Is the applicant present? Would you like to come to the mic? State your name and address please. Ethan Johnson 200 Southland Drive here in Lexington. I'm here on behalf of Ms. Johnson on 153 West Belcourt. Did you give these documents to the presenter? She has a series of pictures and photographs she'd like to walk through with you all to kind of explain the situation better and then make public comment from there. So I'll leave that to her. So you'd like for this case to be heard then? That's correct. We normally kind of move forward with those cases that are not going to be heard and then return. Perfect. Thank you. So the next case is at 608 Ellesmere Park to construct a new addition terrace and garage. Ms. Hill do you want to take action on the postponement at this time? Till the end of the meeting? Or do you want to postpone 509 East Main at this time? I'll be glad to. Under the Belcourt Historic District at 509 East Main Street, construct garage and screened in porch has been postponed until April 19th. So now to proceed with Ellesmere Park at 608 Darren Taylor 239 North Mill Street. So Darren there are a series of items on this project. Are you interested in having this project heard? I actually just got the staff recommendations today but I think we're in agreement with everything that's being proposed in there. I'm not seeing anything other than the standard. Now Amelia and I talked about the fence topper being something that we want to maybe clarify what we're asking for that may be unclear. But as far as the addition goes and the garage and the driveway I think and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you guys are recommending approval of both of those. We're fine with the conditions as offered. So if you wish to be heard on the one issue that you have questions about then we'll probably set this aside and move forward with the other cases in return to you. Thank you. So moving on to the next. At 417 Fayette Park is the applicant present? Again Darren Taylor 239 North Mill Street. And Mr. Taylor there are three substantive items under the recommendations. Is the owner in agreement with those three? Indeed. Yep. Are there any questions by the board? Are there any questions from the audience? If not do I hear a motion including all the recommendations to move forward? Chair in regards to case number 06900417-BB at 417 Fayette Park I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. One submit final exterior siting selection details and specifications to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Two submit final door and window details and specifications to these staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Three submit final patio flooring specifications to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Four once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions resubmit any changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of the COA. And five if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Do I hear a second? Second. Any further discussion? Otherwise, all those in favor say aye. Aye. The motion has passed and the COA will be issued. Thank you. Thank you. The next project is at 340 New Street. Is the owner present? The applicant has received a copy of their staff report but they are not present. Have they reviewed the recommendations and the requirements? We discussed their changes but I have not talked to them. Is it reasonable to assume that they are accepting these? I think we talked about the positive changes of the new changes and I think they are okay with the recommendations. With all three items listed? Correct. I will note before we go any further that the standard two conditions are one, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions to resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of a COA and number two, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit these changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Those can be referenced as the standard two conditions. Are there any questions from the board? Are there any questions from any audience? Then I will entertain a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 13890340-W at 340 New Street, I recommend the certificate of appropriateness be approved with the standard two conditions plus the condition to submit final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Do I hear a second? Second. Any further comments? All those in favor of the motion? Aye. The motion is passed and the COA will be issued. The next case is at 115 Penn Mochen Park. Is the applicant here? I'm assuming you wish to hear this case? Correct. Then we'll circle back to you in the order we've been proceeding. Thank you. Ms. Hill, we have one more case at 324 Arcadia Park. Thank you. Deep down in the packet, yes. Is the owner present? Yes. Mary Benson, 324 Arcadia Park. Thank you. Have you read the staff report and their recommendations? Yes. Are you in agreement with the requirements? Yes. Are there any questions from the board? No. Any questions from the audience? If not, I will entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 00510324-E at 324 Arcadia Park, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Do I hear a second? Second. Any further questions? If not, I call the motion for a vote. Those in favor? Aye. The motion passes and your COA will be issued. Good luck. Thank you. So now we will return to 153 West Belcourt. Do you mind restating your name for the record since we're starting this formally? Nancy Johnson, 153 West Belcourt. Thank you. So the normal process is that the staff will present their report and then we will ask you to follow up. Of course, this is a follow up from the January meeting date where we first heard this case and then we continued this case to hear, to think about more different ways to resolve this issue. Ms. Johnson and I had met a couple weeks ago and then new evidence has come to light about retaining the stained glass and I'll just re-familiarize you with her house. These, of course, were taken from the Zillow website and one image that she brought forth during our meeting was the fact that the lower first floor of her house also had stained with the 2 over 2 window on the first floor and the window, the door that was on the second floor was not a true sort of a top light bottom panel door but it was just a black hollow panel door and the stained glass door was sort of in this particular area. Again, here's another look at that scenario. You can sort of see this is where the stained glass piece was in here and she has also received a previous COA certificate of appropriateness applications to rebuild this deck due to the deterioration. And this is sort of from the Zillow picture showing the existing stained glass windows that are flanking the front door. Back sort of showing from the far of the existing screen porch and that's the hollow panel door that was there and the existing scenario had a screen door over top with the storm door over top of the stained glass. And this is the first floor. It shows that the stained glass piece is sort of over on this side. And this is the drawings that were put forward but it looked like there was a door in place here but that's not the case. And then the window and door scenario and the door here are not shown on this plan as well. Let me go back here for a second. Guidelines are included for reference. Staff finds the proposal to retain the stained glass window on the second floor requires further consideration. The rear openings of this addition are unique to this site and are not common in other rear additions. The addition was added some time ago and many changes have happened in this 1970s addition and the windows and doors were added some time ago. Due to further evidence of this existing window configuration below having a stained glass window plus a 2x2 window, the proposal to retain the stained glass is within guidelines. Staff does find the stained glass window needs to be shifted so it is centered above the window below. The proposal to change the openings is within the guidelines 2B1F which state entrances should be compatible in scale, size and proportion to establish patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings. Staff also suggests that the casing around the window be similar to the window on the opposite side of the house to increase the fullness of the stained glass opening. The enlargement and replacement of the screen patio is within the guidelines and the screen porch. The proposal to rebuild the deck without the upper story deck is within the guidelines. Guidelines 2A1A and 2B respectively state decks should be located in the rear of the building should be stained or pain to achieve a finished appearance. It just needs to stay off the edges of the rear addition by one foot. Recommendation staff recommends approval of the construction of the proposal as following. Staff finds the stained glass window needs to be shifted so it is centered above the lower window and casing should be similar to the other windows. And of course the standard two conditions. And of course the applicant is present. Any questions? Any questions from the board? Okay. Yes. Okay. So, you can see the whole back has disappeared. Can you show those photos? Okay, so this isn't turned right. But back in 1923 the house was put up for auction and it already had, part of it, there's an erroneous assumption here that that whole back part is an addition. If you look it has the hall, passageway, dining room and a kitchen and a bath on the first floor. So that stained glass on the lower level is our bath and that bath has always been there. The kitchen, I've got other pictures, but you can see the original kitchen was there too. So the first level structure is completely dated to the time I think that it was built. That it was always there. The stained glass in our, if you go to the next one, in our Blue Grass Trust application, if you go up, they're dating the stained glass. They said that the little rosettes in there are irreplaceable, haven't been made since the 20s. All four of the windows, there's two, three, four, we've got a fifth one and they all have the same design, the same rosettes. So I know at the time they did a lot of catalog. You could order that to go in and it was kind of a fancy house then. So the whole first floor and that second one you'll see, we'll go on, go to the next one please. So you can see it in place here on the front door. We've already, that was also a hollow core door and we've replaced it with a historically appropriate, had to enlarge the opening. It's still under construction. Go to the second one. These are the windows in place from the inside. You can see the design is very similar going through. Go to the next one. That's that bathroom. So it's there on the second floor or on the first floor. Go to the next. This is the window from the closet. It is in our garage. It's been rebuilt by Ziegler. It's got a mahogany framing. It's all set to go back in. We're just waiting to see where we can put it back in, into the site where it came from, we hope. Turn the next page. Oops, turn that sideways. So here this, Amelia had already showed you this. You can see where the stained glass window was to the center of the house, not near the edge. That hollow core door is also cut short. There's not enough room to put a code door back in there, so it has to go. And this is where the leak began. The leak that took out our entire back wall of that house, which is why we lost the balcony. And then the construction of that screen porch had a real funky gutter system that also rotted all the beams there, got into the inside of the kitchen. The beams had to be re-beamed underneath the sleeping porch. That's what this was. Go to the next one. We lost this entire thing. This and the neighbors in the picture to the right, they have the same exact construction. Someday they'll find out. But theirs looks just like ours on the back. Go to the next one. So this was the interior. It was nothing special, just basic, keep going. So this is our missing back wall. We had to rebuild the whole thing. They had to support the sleeping porch. Everything was redone. That's why we are where we are, and that's why those things came out. Go to the next one. We lost the original window, which we replaced with an exact duplicate, and a brand new door that is mahogany and period time. This is the space where it came out of, and this is where the problem is. To tell me to just move that stained glass from the right side over to the left is going to be a lot, because all that is rotted and had to be rebuilt in there. V-Mont is doing our work. They can construct pan flashing underneath the stained glass if it goes back in where it is. But if you move it all the way to the other side, we're getting really close to the edge of the roof. And he says, I can't guarantee it will be waterproof at that point, because we really can't build a big enough pan around it at that point. All we want to do for historic preservation is to put it back in that slot where it came from, and then I'm going to put in a faux door with a faux handle, and just make it look interior just like it did, but on the outside, just having that window available. This is our closet. There's my husband's closet on the left, the linen closet on the right, and my closet is behind, and it's kind of like a dressing room. There really isn't anywhere else we can move this, and moving it over is pointless, because if I have to take out and redo all the woodwork, pull out the wooded new grass cloth, by the time we get all of this redone, and he won't guarantee that it will be waterproof, we'll have spent nearly five figures anyway. And already, putting that porch on, I've already got a huge estimate on that. Anyway, go to the next one, please. This is what it would look like. And this is the porch. We're going to make the porch look more. We're putting trim around the bottom, the existing poles that are up there, cutting those down, adding in a membrane roof. If we move that way over, you're going to see that it will be right over the edge of that corner of the porch, and it's not necessary. Let me show you the next picture, too. See, it's already reflexive. The outside of the top sash window aligns with the inside of the bathroom stained glass, whereas on the outside of the stained glass aligns with the inside of that window. And while we've got... It's not as unsymmetrical. I think it would look worse if we actually moved that stained glass window over, but it's almost moved because the porch is going to cover all the lower level, so it's not like it's a glaring aesthetic issue. And for all of the cost that's concerned with that, it just seems silly to have to move it over two feet, lose my ability to have waterproofing, because if I get more water in that wall, I'm going to be really upset. It was bad enough as it was. It's not simple. You know, historic, if it's preservation, can it just go back where it was? And if it was done in the 70s, it still is starting to become almost historic as it was. That trim up there is appropriate. It matches the trim throughout the house. It was a sleeping porch. That roof over the top has always been there. As the ad says, I mean, it's been all completely roofed. It's not that this was an addition. It was a sleeping porch that was enclosed. And it's certainly possible that it was up there at some point, somewhere in that sleeping porch. But I would rather put it more central at that side where it was at before and close off the other side and then have to move it over and go through all of that expense on top of everything I have to do to put a porch back on, a covered porch. Any questions? Thank you. Board members, do you have any questions? Yes. So you're retaining the door but on the inside only? Yes. It'll look like it always did. It's just not on the outside. And that was a rickety. I mean, I've walked out there a couple of times and thought, I don't know. It's not homely. Yeah. Will the framing on the downstairs stained glass be visible on the outside of the edge of the porch or it will be totally covered by the porch? Totally covered and inside the porch. You can go back to that picture of the drawing there. Thank you. Okay. Do you have any questions? So there's two things. One is shifting the stained glass over and the other is making sure that the casing around the stained glass matches the other windows. You're good with the casing matching? Oh, yeah. I'm providing those details. Yeah. And, you know, I see the aesthetics. I saw the lineup. I think if you move it over, it loses it. But we've got to square them out and make them all match. I like it to look as historic as it can. We put a lot of money. What was supposed to be just a kitchen renovation has gotten out of control. And Beaumont says you're doing the absolute best. I mean, we're putting in – those were mahogany doors. They're good replacements. We painted them appropriately. We're putting in great hardware at the kitchen. If I could show you, it looks very appropriate. It's a good reno. I just don't want one more moving that thing over. They'll make a mess. Yes. Another question? Would you be agreeable to the casing on the second floor matching as long as the window was in its current location? Preserved where it came from. Thank you. Are there any more board questions or comments? This is probably actually a question for staff because I need a reminder on guidelines. I know in the past when we've been filling in doors and windows that we have allowed them on the back of the house. But we have said there has to be some kind of recognition that it was there once by indents or bricks. I'm not really sure we've done that on a cementious siding building. So that's not a part of this. So I'm just wondering. This has already been monkeyed. Okay. Existing condition, it's kind of a moving target. It's both a matter of how you infill what's no longer going to be a walk through space or even look like a walk through space and then you kind of pull back and look at the lines of the back openings and solids to voids and all the rhythms of those things. So it's something that the integrity of it has already been impacted. And so I don't know that the outcome has enough story to tell if you do the recess. I was an opening here. Because it's just been a fooled with over time. And it's short. The distance from where the porch roof would be to the header over there is too short for a code door. I'm sorry. Well, I wasn't necessarily thinking a code door. It was more about the recognition that the door was once there that we often would require. And so I was wondering why that wasn't here. This one, that part of the story is gone long ago. And has more typically been on the visible sides of our historic buildings, not necessarily. Well, it can be on any elevation as far as the philosophy of that criteria. But in this instance, I don't think that the integrity of the message is intact enough to try to deliver the message, if you get my point. Okay. Thank you. Another question? The staff recommendation says that the casing on the stained glass window above be similar to the other windows. So there are three other windows. And the casings are different between them. Which casings are being recommended? Amelia's got that. Right. So Ms. Johnson indicated, because the whole back end is actually going to be recited, but the bottom stained glass window has a beefier casing anyway. And I believe that maybe that casing could match, you know, or maybe. And we also discussed it being like a three-inch casing, you know, around the, you know. But I think they all just have to match. That window alone? No, all windows have to match. So all the windows would have a large, wide casing. Right. Or they're matching the same casing. Right. Matching the casing around the lower stained glass window. Right. Or just all matching the same casing, have the same casing. Well, to make them match the other two windows, you would have to remove the casing around the lower window. Well, the whole siding, the whole back end is going to be recited anyway. So then at that time they can all match. So I would observe that the item number, that's not item number one. Right. Well, I think we were thinking that the top window has a nice three-inch casing around it, that that window could match. So the other second floor window is what the new casing would match. That would be simpler. Is that also your understanding, Ms. Johnson? I think that's a standard. It looks like standard Hardy Boy. It doesn't look historic to me. It looks like. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So the two over under windows, the casing would match on those, and the casing would match on the two stained glass windows. So there would be two different types of casing on the back. I think that essentially you would have one casing that would match both the stained glass, all windows. Okay. So just to clarify. I would move the current casing on the lower stained glass window. No, we don't go back on any project and disturb an existing condition that's been there in order to get everything to be twins or triplets together. So you take whatever the best is of what your existing condition is, and then with your necessary new pieces, you tailor them to go with that. So why don't you leave that to staff? We will work with her to be sure that there is consistency in the surrounds on this rear elevation. That's what I would recommend. Is that acceptable to you? I did read it that the casing would be similar to what's visible on the second floor. Right. And that's what I'm hearing. And that was the intent. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Are there any other questions? So I will note that as chair, I always wait until my board has spoken. But I think this elevation brings clarity for me about the lining up of what's visible. And which is, for me, the architecture of it, not necessarily the complicating factor of water and the worries about how that may impact the building in the future. But that there is a symmetry that happens with the screened-in porch, which makes the actual first floor window almost invisible. That the screened-in porch itself is what forms the visible nature of this stained glass window. So that's my comment. So are there any questions from the audience? Is anyone ready for a motion? Since I can't make it. Chair, I move that case number 01540153-0 at 153 West Bell Court be approved for a certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and an additional condition that reads that the casing of the second floor windows must match. Do I hear a second? And that would delete the portion of the sentence that requires moving the window. It would simply say the casing of the second floor windows must match. I will second that. Is there any discussion? Further discussion? Any questions from the audience? Otherwise, I call the motion for a vote. Those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? The COA has been approved as noted. As always, I do want to comment my appreciation to the applicants. This is a process. So let's move on to 608 Ellesmere Park. Again, for the record, Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. Thank you. And as is normal with these cases that we're going to review in detail, we'll hear from the staff and then get your input. Amelia and I were talking just in the interim there. Actually, we don't have any problems with what's been written under item C for the fence, but I just want to make sure that they know that the topper is what we're asking for on that fence. That everything that is being asked is fine. We totally agree with that. That was previously approved. I just want to make sure they know that that's what we're asking for as an addition to that previous approval is more than anything. I just want to clarify that. So I'll let Amelia talk. I actually have a question for you about that. Please do. It's not my imagination that the drawing reflects adding another design on the top. To the top of the fence, that's right. Not to add the height to the fence and the topper. It's to add the topper to the top of the fence. So my question is, is that going to result in a six foot fence including the topper or are you going above six feet? I think the top of the fence would be the six feet. And the problem he has is he's got large dogs that can get over the four foot fence. So he's trying to create some transparency so they can't get over the top of that. So the last two feet being more open. Correct. Yeah. That's like a lattice that's more transparent. But it's still going to work for the dogs. It's what he thinks it will. Yeah. He's proposing that. Have the dogs agreed to that? I'm not sure. They're two giant wolfhounds about that big. So they can probably take over just about anything you want. It really doesn't matter. But that was my query. I mean, I saw design wise and I hadn't had time to make an inquiry but wanted to just be sure that we're in producting with solid fence below, somewhat transparent above with a total together of six feet. That is correct. Perfect. And we came before the board back in the summertime, I believe in June. It got approved. But the fence has been erected in air. The builder came from Texas, built it. It was pointed out that he was in air. And then the owner said, well, that's too tall for us anyway. But we need to think about this topper. So that's kind of why we're back. So we sort of halted him on that. And then this is an alteration. We've had several comments from some of the property owners in the neighborhood about it. Yeah. Rightly so. And understood that you all had come to talk about the fact that you got a little problem. That's correct. And I just wanted to be sure we were all truly on the same page. That's kind of why I wanted to make sure I pointed that out, that we're in agreement with that. But that's an additional piece to this that you're seeing. Right. It's a design change, but not a scale change. Correct. That's right. So if I'm hearing correctly, under recommendations, under A, constructing the rear addition, there is agreement with number one to provide the final door and window details and specifications prior to the issue. Correct. And under B, constructing the garage and the driveway, that the same requirement that the owner is in agreement with that. Correct. So the only conversation we're having here is about the fence. That's correct. That was erected. And the topper, really. And the topper. That's right. Was erected in conflict with the issuance of the COA for that fence. That's exactly right. Yeah, that's correct. So do we still move forward with a full review then? I mean, it seems like. You can certainly, if the board has got all the facts you need and so forth, still, I think, do just an abbreviated review like you're doing. And with your focus, as you've just done, on that the change that today's meeting brings is to have the transparent two feet at the top, but the whole fence construction, focused on the fence, that the fence will have the change of design, but that the end heights will be consistent with the limit of six feet. Correct. Is that, are the other board members, is that acceptable? Yes. However, I am going to make one note before we move away from the house and the garage, is that I know for a fact that there are treats on that site. And as an architect on numerous historic projects, you have heard me talk about historic trees over and over and over. And I've made the specific request to the staff now not to accept any site plans that do not show trees, because I just won't review them. Sure. It's part of the city's mandate and it needs to be an absolute consideration. It is not a blank, this is not a suburban site, which is its great gift that it's not. But, all right. Understood. And I think that we struggle with that a lot in existing condition neighborhoods, obviously within the historic districts of trees that are there, that are either deemed by arborists to be in bad shape, or something that the owner wants to try to retain. And we work around them, much like we did up at Dudley Square. So, we understand that completely and I think we try to get a proposal together for this and understand that we're working around those elements. And there are some trees along that side, but knowing that we would obviously assess the tree if it became an issue in the final design and come back. If the board can have a Google Earth view, if the board can have any kind of an overview of the site to be able to have an actual context, not just a line drawing, then we understand what we're dealing with. And all of us tend to go to the sites anyway, but that only reinvigorates the notion that we need that information. We'll make it a point from this point forward to include trees on the drawings and to include imagery within their actual photographs. So that you have a feel for the context of the house, context of the site, context of trees and things. I think that's a great request and something that I think is really doable. Thank you. Of course. So, if the staff want to focus on the fence, please. Of course, this is property. And staff did go out on site and look at site. Of course, we went out to take pictures because there's also a proposal to replace the front porch and we noticed that the fence was built too high and too close to the neighboring property, I believe. So you can see the fence is built too high here. And then this is sort of the backyard. And I think you recognize that gentleman there. And this is when we were looking on site about the fence there. And that's when we subsequently had a meeting with Mr. Taylor and the property owner afterwards regarding the fence. And that's when we found out about the builder from Texas that came up and built the fence that was not in compliance with how it was approved in the summer. And, of course, that's the location of the proposed addition. In addition, this has got to be a lot of plans. So bear with me. Blank. There we go. There we go. Is there a... Neil? Can you see if there's plans that just deal with fence on there? It's the same presentation but there's addition, garage, and then fence on there. It might be a different... Speaking of this sheet, we can just stick it on Elmo. Yeah, but there's plans here. Trying to avoid fanning through the whole thing for you all. Yeah. Okay. Same situation, a little bit different, but we'll have different plans. Yay! Same person. Can we go back? Do you mind going back just a couple of... I'd like the board to note this elevation, this image, the relationship of the top of the six... It is built at six feet, is that correct? Mm-hmm. And the sill level of the window, which shows up a little differently on the fence drawings itself. And I'm trying to get to... We might just have to go to Elmo because I don't know what Barry's done with this. Let's just do that. Sorry about this. Okay. If you guys can look on your plans, you can sort of see the... There was an existing curb cut there already, and then you can sort of see the... There we go. The fence would be dropped down, and then there will be two masonry piers flanked on either side and then a pier over towards the... On the other... This side. Come on. You can do it. This may not work now. And then the two feet of lattice across the front. It will pop back up to six feet. But Mr. Taylor, can I ask you a quick question? I know Amelia's in the middle of a presentation, but it's typically tied to that. So where it's meant to... Mm-hmm. Well, the front fence would be four feet plus the topper, and so the topper would be... I think we have it at 18 on this, but that's the idea is that the fence is four, and we're asking for the topper, and then it will meet the six foot on the side and just become six foot fence with no topper. No, the fence will be... That's right. The overall system will be six feet. The four will be the fence. ...four foot length, partway back. On the sides of the house, the initial approval was for the four feet to come from the front corner only to midway back... Correct. ...on either side elevation. Mm-hmm. So putting your two foot on top of that stretches four feet. It's not going to be... The dogs are going to have to stay further back. Okay. We can't keep them in on the four. Okay. But none of these houses do we, with our guidelines, recommend a staff approval or just pretty much sustain that. You have a six foot fence, whether it's a solid six feet or a four feet solid, two feet or... We do not do a six foot fence coming from the side elevation only. So the whole piece of that is being six feet? It's going to have to stay at four. Well, it's been built to sit at six feet. Yeah, and it's coming down anyway to four, regardless of what... But my point is, it cannot go back out above four in compliance with the board's decision previously of the foot-length fence from the front corner all the way to the midway section of the side elevation. So then the four foot front and side back to the six foot section, it sounds like then we'll only be able to do a four foot high section without the topper of any kind unless the topper was at or out of four feet. At four feet. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. You can't bring that beam of the fence as far forward as you are at six feet. So you're going to have to get four feet only and get away from the building at least. You know, the board can talk about how much all the way across this front elevation fence to where we get closer. But coming all the way to that front right corner at six feet is not going to... So then we'll have four feet all the way to the front, four feet all the way back to where it meets the six foot section, then that six foot section will raise up. And then if they want to come back later and maybe propose some kind of internal back at the garage or something that's taller to keep dogs in, then we can talk about that. Is that correct? Absolutely. But be aware that eight foot fences, which is kind of where you're headed, are taller than that or not. Yeah, I think six takes care of anything they're talking about trying to. If you really got an identity of what is the street scape of the front, experience is asked, both from the dead-on front and from the sides, and the sides both on the floor and the stock faces. And then your next door neighbor over, I mean, you end up with it looking prison-like if you get these heights. And you've got to watch where you sit. Yeah. If you're not where the fence is... Agreed, agreed. I'm sorry, Ward. I didn't mean to get all into the nitty-gritty. Part of the violation is that there's too much linear feet in the footprint of this fenced area we're talking about. It's built at a full 6 feet, and it should stay at 4 feet. So, given that, are we really reviewing a violation here and not an entire new application? It's a little bit of both. You have a violation on a portion of the pedestal where it's meant to have only been 4 feet tall, and it's a 6 foot uniform. And so the footprint that is above 4 feet in the area where you're going to get to 4 feet is in violation. The balance of it that is 6 feet is not in violation, but they're changing the design to have the upper 2 feet be more transparent. So, I'm not clear that that's actually what's being proposed. So, along the front would go down to 4 feet as a solid fence. I think what Ms. Kerr is saying is, regardless of what we're asking to do, that the front fence is going to be 4 feet. That's correct. If you want to put a topper in that 4 foot section, that's fine. We're not looking to do that. So, the front is going to be 4 feet solid across until it returns back and meets at the point that it's supposed to be. That will go up until 6, and then that's it. So, they're taking that fence down to 4 feet on the front and the side on the back. You have now reiterated exactly my understanding. That's right. That's why I wanted to talk about this, because I knew it was a little ambiguous. So, if I understand correctly, then the request on the fence is a mute point. That's correct, because it's not something that would be entertained. Okay. So, it simply needs to return to what was originally approved, and there's really no need to continue that part of it. Okay. I just want to be sure we have a little clarity of the footprint of what's happening where. You all may recall, I think it was Kentucky Avenue, it might have been Woodland Avenue, but there's issues of the fence coming all the way forward, what heights were important to keep track of, and all tied to each existing condition, what the sills heights are and all that good stuff. But this is the same philosophical guideline issue needing to be applied to this specific property. So, my follow-up question, then, is in looking at C-103, which is the site plan showing the fence that has both the parallel fence to the park and then a section that continues parallel to the side of the house. My question would be, is at what point can that fence go back up to six feet? What the previous meeting reflected was it said something, and Ms. Armstrong, correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm doing that from memory, I believe it said to midway of the side elevations. So, approximately midway, halfway, however we want to define that. And I'm sure we need to look just with an eye, does midway hit the middle of a window opening? I can't tell you. I think it hit about where that bay protrudes out, and we sort of struck on that side, on that far side, we kind of did that. That would make a simple outcome. The side that people are more cognizant of, having been done improperly, is this north side. And so the intent of the board previously was that this forefoot go from the front corner to the midway along that elevation on the north, and then at midway, and we can stand there and agree with you at the time, work it out, it would go up to six and continue on all the way further back. Yeah, that side's less occupied. It has some service elements in it, so it's not like bedrooms and things, and from the exterior it is more noticeable, but I think the midpoint of the house is clear volume rather than the protrusion on the right side. So, yeah, wherever that deems to return. I think your discussion and the previous board action and what you're asking to adjust is all on the page of what's intended to get us there. So, violation straightened out in addition to whatever adjustment in design outcome. So can, with this current application, we address both the violation and the clarification of where that fence steps back up to six feet? So we're really revising what we're reviewing under the fence portion of this. You're in good stead to do what you just said, which is address both. Board, other questions? So, do you both have a sense of what the revisions under the fence would be in terms of item one and two? I would understand it to be that the fence needs to go back to what we previously approved at a four-foot fence from the front to the midpoint of the property, not property, the house, the historic structure. Okay, I think it's, my understanding is it's that clear. Sounds right to me. All right, so the question is, given that both A and B, there's agreement from the applicant for the recommendations that have been so noted, is there any reason to continue with this more detailed review, or are we, do we... I need further addition on those A and B areas. Okay, so my question is, if there's anyone in the audience who has a question or comment. Otherwise, I think we're ready for a motion. All right, Chair, in regards to case number 06510608-F at 608 Ellesmere Park, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness for items A and B, and A is to construct the rear addition with the following requirements, and one is to provide final door and window details and specifications to the staff prior to issuance of the COA, and the other two conditions on item A are the standard two conditions. For B, the construction of the garage and driveway, we move that we approve that portion of the certificate of appropriateness with the condition, one, that they provide final door and window details and specifications to the staff prior to issuance of the COA, and then the items two and three are the standard two conditions, and then for item C, I don't think we need to take any additional action because it would stand that the motion we made to allow the four-foot fence at the front of the property and then running and going to six feet halfway down the historic property stands as we have previously approved it. Do I have a second? Go ahead. That's your second. Do I have a second? Second. I would suggest that you need to revise to allow the change in design for the two feet of lattice. You're not doing the two feet of lattice? We wouldn't do that because we would just keep the fence at four feet. So the lattice would be... What are you doing further back? Well, it'll be six feet, and it'll just go around, so it'll be just fine. You're going to stay solid. Yeah, because the six feet will be just... I thought you wanted the lattice all the way around. No, only from the four up to the six because the six is what they're trying to get. You're not going to have two more feet. You're not going to need any more lattice. Yeah, so we'll just keep that six and it'll return. Okay, I'm sorry. I thought you were desiring a unified lattice. No, no, because that would be... With the four foot being an exception. Okay. That's why it was a little bit more confusing than just looking at the drawing of what we're trying to do. Well, one problem is I've not personally been involved in it. We'll be fine. And with Barry out sick, we're kind of one-arming it here. So your motion sounds absolutely lovely. I would like to make one suggestion that your addition of the stepping up of the fence from four feet to six feet be midway, as you've noted, midway down the length of that side of the building and in review with the staff. I will happily add and in review with the staff. Thank you. So all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion's passed. And the COA will be issued. Good luck and thank you. All right. Now at 115 Pemmokin Park. Thank you. So this is the property at Pemmokin Park. This is a Gunnison structure, which is sort of a neat prefab structure. And the owner, the applicant actually called me out because the owner had an addition added on, but it was no permits were applied for. And then they tried to get permits and then realized they sort of got behind themselves for a little bit. So let's go and look at this. So this was the existing addition, and this was actually from the Zillow pictures. And note that there is a, this was taken I guess when the house was for sale. The lady who bought this property just bought it last fall. And there was an existing covered porch on this property. And this is the rear of the structure. So there is an existing 12 by 20 garage. And the physical structure is 24 feet deep. And so that's 24 plus the 20 feet deep. So the house itself is already on one side, 44 feet deep on one side with this open porch. And so there was an addition added on to the structure. And we went out sort of in January, met late January and February. And this contractor built this addition with no permits or anything. That was another 20 feet on to the structure. And then also closed in the open porch at the same time. If I could just jump in for a second. It looks like we've lost quorum. Oh, I should stop. We should probably stop until we get quorum back. Thank you. We'll take a short break. OK. OK. OK. OK. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have now re-established quorum. As I said earlier, I was contacted in January by the representative who is attempting to help this lady get out of a bit of a pickle. She has hired a contractor to build this addition. And this addition was built between Christmas and New Year's. And no building permit was applied for. And so the building specialist went out and they did find that this building was built. They did not know about the enclosed porch at that time as well. And we met on site and then he came back with some plans that you've got in front of you at this time. And like I said, we re-advertised this case to include the enclosure of the screen porch as well because as we went back and did research, we found that the screen porch was enclosed. The roof, of course, is intact, more enclosure. This is actually, you know, the roof is on with the shingles. It's got a concrete block foundation, the vinyl-sided windows, and the screen, the enclosed porch is vinyl-sided with vinyl-sided windows. The representative who's here did have a contractor or like a structural engineer come out and look at the structure. Also had the whole property surveyed to find out where the property line is. Also has been in contact with building inspection to try to get right with this process as well. And we have had extensive conversations about part of the process is the fact that this project is extensively why H1s are in place because we typically do not have additions sort of stuck on the back of additions where you have 64-foot long runs of structures. He did come back forth, and you'll see that he did come up with a plan to maybe put a dormer to break up the roof line, but that does not still help the wall line. And as you can see, here's the front-to-the-back wall system here, you know, the whole long run here. One of the things they will have to do that is on the plan that's not in the as-built is the fact that they will actually have to change this opening out and put in a stoop to come out because they will have to go for the Board of Adjustment because of the side yard setback. And then here are the, yeah. Yes. This is it. And it was, as she noted in the earlier pictures, this. The decking is open decking, but it does actually have a glass wall system, so it is included as enclosed space. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal of this already-constructed rear addition is to make the front-to-the-back wall system Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal of this already-constructed rear addition and enclosed porch requires further discussion. The circumstances are most unfortunate because this addition and porch enclosure are not within the guidelines. This rear addition is currently billed as not within compliance with the process, nor within the guidelines noted in the design principle for room and wing additions, which states in planning additions, the best approach is to place the additions where they have the least impact on the building's overall form and plan. Exterior walls and new additions should not be flush with those of the existing buildings, but should step in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building. Likewise, additional roof lines should be stepped in from the peak of the existing roof line, so the existing main roof remains evident. There is no break or change in the roof line to distinguish old or new. Equally, there is no break in the wall-roof alignment to provide a break in the 64-beat alignment. Guidelines 2A, 4B, and D state exterior walls and new additions should not be flush with those of the existing buildings, but should step in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building. A roof line should step down from the peak of the existing roof line so the existing main roof remains evident and should not imitate an earlier historic style architectural period. While the new proposal calls for a dormer, there is still no change in the roof nor the wall to step in or break up the long run of wall. The proposal to enclose the screen porch was in the guidelines, however, as conducted, it does not meet the guidelines to the use of vinyl, siding, windows, and doors. Also, the addition in the enclosed porch used the vinyl, siding, fascia, soffit, walls, and windows. Guidelines 2B, B, and J state frame structures, if the new construction is of a frame, the preferred exterior material is vinyl, wood, siding, which is a minimum of 4 inches and a maximum of 6 inches in line. Use of smooth, cemented-sided boarding siding is also acceptable as long as it meets the size and recommendations. Vinyl siding is not allowed and the use of wood and anodized or baked aluminum windows is appropriate. Vinyl windows is permitted and the use of plastic snap-in muttons and plastic dividers is not permitted. The applicant had talked to use the hardy plank siding on the rear of the structure, either vertical or horizontal, and staff talked to them about how to break up the wall alignment. Staff recommends disapproval as constructed and proposed. I would say, as the plans do show, that they did propose to change the siding on the back to a vertical hardy plank on the back, as you see in the plans. I just would note that, too. Any questions for staff? Does the Board have any questions? Not right yet. The existing building was vinyl, right? The existing building is vinyl, so is the windows are. The windows that were put in are vinyl snap-in muttons. I remember thinking I read something in the guidelines about exposed CMU as well. Well, exposed CMU can be parched or painted. Do I have any other questions? Thank you. Hello. I've been trying to figure this out. It's a tough one, especially her moving her husband past into a smaller house. She just wants things to go and go. The screen room is just a screen porch. I talked to Mila. She has cats, so she wanted to close that in so they can be outside, so they don't escape anywhere. That's one of the main things she told me. I wish she called me earlier about this whole situation. I could have tried to find a contractor that's licensed. I just followed the guidelines, called the structure near, got a survey. Everything seems to be fine. The only thing is we have the issue of how to break it up. I talked to the architect, put some dormers on top, trying to break it up. Put a hardy vertical. We could paint that pink to break it up or something. I just hate because she's devastated at this point, so I'm not sure if you guys can make some suggestions about how to proceed or what to do next. Obviously, we're really it's an unfortunate situation that the staff couldn't have been involved in sooner because I think it would have been really easy to have moved through the process and been able to have something that she would have been happy with and that would have had all the guidelines. It's a bit of a pickle to be where we are now. Do the board members have questions? Ms. Lowe is the owner? Yes, Diane Lowe. What year did she purchase the property? I think it was October of last year. A couple months ago, I would say. What discussion has taken place between staff and the owner with regard to what, if anything, can be done to retain what has been constructed and yet make it comply? Is there any ground there at all? The interior is not finished. It's insulated. The roof shingles are already on. That's how far they got to tear it down and all that. Is that what you're suggesting? That's what I'm asking. The options are very limited at this point. Have you talked with the staff about what can be done to bring it into compliance or does the staff find that there is no opportunity to bring it into compliance? That would be my question. Amelia has been working on this with this gentleman a bit. The first encounter she's had with it, the contractor previous, who I believe brought it to this point, would that be fair to say? The owner had disappeared so there was no discussion of any meaning because there was no one to discuss it with. I don't know. Amelia can report in a second what her discussions were specific to the owner herself. Why don't you respond to that? We've just met. Most of my conversations have been with Paul here. This is a really tough situation because quite honestly we've never allowed a situation like this to occur. Quite frankly this is why the H1 is in place is to never allow these things to occur like this. Unless there's some really major changes to that wall system on that side to break up that 64 foot long run I don't know how it can stay. When the guidelines are pretty severe about breaking up that wall and stepping in it's really hard to say that can be retained. It's not necessarily you could change the material you could maybe change out the windows or something like that but it's that wall run that long run is really difficult to make that change. Is there some room to continue some work with this to see if there are ways to remediate that great length? I think that would be up to seeing because Paul's got somebody he's working with to help this situation he does commercial work versus residential he did mention to me because I wondered if you couldn't change that roof line to drop it down but there's an access easement or access point in that middle addition that was done so you still have to have you can't just drastically drop that roof right after on the new part you have to have some kind of gradual easement because that's where all the HVAC systems are held in that middle part so it's not so let's just drop that down to a flat section or something like that so there's got to be some kind of push or pull in that middle section so there might be a way to raise a portion to close the dormer in that particular situation but that still would not resolve the wall that needs to have some kind of break up of some sort like we discussed maybe putting something where the dish starts a little bit further out and then put it in kind of like a mix up to break that up I mean and that's where you also have to work the fact that they'll still have to go before the board of adjustment because of the closeness of the property I spoke with Elizabeth, you know how we did the staircase well that's on the back as it is you'll still have to go before the board of adjustment if you put the staircase there but if you push and play with any kind of push or play that wall system if you say you pull that wall system towards the west that still means you still have to pull that you still have to go before the board of adjustment which is not the worst thing in the world so what I'm hearing in this conversation is that there are steps that can still be taken it's just that this application as proposed really doesn't meet all of the pieces but it's a step in the right direction let's not get too far down that path this is a property in violation so it means that our ability to just continue it for further investigation and so forth is somewhat limited because it's already built on paper and doesn't meet the guidelines then there's plenty of opportunity endless opportunity to go back and rethink it's all on paper, you all know that well but something that's built like this in violation that has had it really in order to get it to not be violating the regulations to not be this long the length of it is just it's like the poster boy of why people want to achieve historic districts to prohibit this sort of outcome what physically is in front of you because it is like a train that has become part of this property just way out of scale it's an endless long kind of piece so even the idea of doing some pop outs maybe they become closets I don't know I mean it's not like it's going to be structural pop ups they're kind of looking for distinguished addition in the house that's what I think Emil was discussing to distinguish both what's addition and what's the house I don't think there's any confusion about what's the addition what I'm trying to determine here is we have before us both a submittal and application and we have staff recommendations if in fact the move forward is to follow the staff recommendation and reject the application does the owner have the right to move forward with a future application the owner would have the right to an appeal of the denial of their existing proposal slash building and they could put forward a different proposal that you're well aware would have to differ enough from the existing built situation that's the in violation aspect for you all to determine that there's new evidence to call it a new application and that's my question excuse me but I did not catch your relationship to the owner the contractor if I was it wasn't me like this she's a family friend that moved from Tennessee and she just needed help around her previous house and my family friend does quilts she does quilts so then we just got associated she has nobody else here so you're just representing her as a friend here I don't know if you had a technical background with this or not it's just unfortunate to be honest so my question to you guys is the thing is architects are not cheap I'm paying this out of my own pocket to help her out if what's the next step do I have to keep contact and to brainstorm what kind of options we have to go because I mean how to get the structure engineer in there he said everything's fine it's just costing her money each step of the way I just want to know what can we do instead of me keep going and going and wasting more money more time and if the staff had had meaningful possible recommendations we would have long ago put those forward we do not well we have to be careful two things we can't design things for people and you know we're prohibited from that but we have talked about it in the office amongst the three of us Amelia Berry and myself and can't find any effective opportunities to bring this into compliance with the guidelines because it's biggest challenge is that it's this big form that is been it extends this house to the point of unless you chop off a good part of it it would just never think for a minute if this had not been carried out and what you're seeing this big rectangle added on the back came forward and it was recommended disapproval you know you might look at having done it with a hyphen something coming out that then might have two or three little modulated steps of things that end up with maybe fifty to sixty percent of this square footage in total in a more irregular volume that's not this train car look you know you just can't subtly modify something that's already formed and in this state well and the other thing is short of doing substantial alteration that I think the cost effectiveness goes right out the door but I haven't priced anything because it's not something that we have the business of knowing the owners investment and stuff in this but it's a terribly sad situation and the fact that the contractor who did bring it to the point that we're physically seeing you know literally if I am I correct that party skipped town is good luck no more and so she's had no recourse through that other than obviously to locate that person and sue that party or whatever and that's hers to determine it's just a pitiful situation where we're really saddened by it but when I keep saying this is the type of outcome this is not unlike when all the area around universities gets these big boxes out the back so that they can rent to lots more folks and so forth and so on you're looking at one I mean that's what this is and that's what people who have come requesting these overlays have wanted to be sure could not happen in their neighborhoods this is not for rental purposes she has a big quilt machine that she wants to put in there quilt machines that are like about 15 or 12 feet long one of those big ones I'm not sure is it currently in violation and then what is the calendar for that violation and an ultimate what is the ultimate demand well other pieces of the LFUCG would be involved in enforcement issues to do with this and they would each have to provide their information but code enforcement you know it's an unfinished situation sitting here building inspection built without any permits there are all sorts of different permitting pieces that are not able to successfully be acquired and hence it's sitting in violation so that would take some time so I mean sorry to interrupt I talked to Elizabeth I submitted all the paperwork she said everything looks good on her and the city portion the only thing that she stated that she would need is the approval of the historic but everything else I filled out which is a hurdle that they have to have accomplished because building inspection can't issue a permit on something not approved by us and so well that's good that you've talked I was on top of things I mean I try to solve it as quickly as possible during the winter for her and she has a gas bill and all that I try to figure out that's why I think everyone knows that it's a very nice thing you're trying to do for this person and you know if we could solve this at staff we'd be the first ones trying to solve this for her but it's we can't make something what it's not how much time does the owner have before any final action would be taken by whomever well historic is probably we've not had a situation that I can reference where oh and that was 90 days or something like that it's possible that she could end up being taken to court by the city being in violation that would take time to go through the courts there's a lot of pieces and doing enforcement when a person is not able or willing to make changes to come into compliance it's probably a pretty slow thing it's months it's not weeks or anything like that but without any other work commencing on that property there are parameters you know they have 30 days to appeal your current decision if they want to appeal that decision then the planning commission who of course is the appellant body to hear it has 90 days to get it on their docket so there are clocks that this goes through and there's not a the longer it stands the more citations she's going to get and then they start with financial penalties and you don't want that that's just going down the tubes I would just like to comment that for the record I was part of this connected to this very neighborhood that this street is part of for 30 years so I'm very familiar with it and the issues it is it is not my job to determine whether something or not was willful and I think that's why we have the recommendations this board looks at the guidelines and determines how it fits so I want to at least relay the message that you can take back that this is not in any way on our part personal it is regulatory no I understand I just want that communicated because this is an unfortunate situation and I don't know that we have any recourse at this point other to adopt what has been recommended to us and that's why I'm asking all these questions but I think we're at the point this has to be worked out in other places and that we do not have the power to correct the problem we only have the power to make sure that what is proposed and approved and built is within the guidelines and this is not how many feet you said that straight run how long that run needs to be right now it's 64 feet we can't give you if you make it 58 feet it will be within the guidelines or if you make it that the whole building's length is 48 feet it's within the guidelines this process is not in a position to give you the reason I just asked is because it needs to have 12 feet away from the building it needs some separation to get some air between what was the existing condition before any consideration of putting any kind of additional more square footage to it and there is a limit to how much length you can't just keep going on and on I understand I'm just trying to resolve this so I don't waste the architect's time I see the main reason it's not getting approved is because of the length so I want to see if there's any suggestions if I can make it smaller and cut the rest of it a foot in like Amelia mentioned it's kind of coming down to a discussion about paint by number you just can't give somebody a number and say if you do this I'm sorry Rob I just wanted to come and tell her this is what we need to do it's going to be ok not to the point you need to tear it down I just don't want to deal with that I would like to tell her it's going to be ok but this process is not empowered to say if you meet these things we would already have told you the building needs to separate itself out I think it's questionable if you can put any addition on the further more coming this way it's already a pretty good sized house these things have to be put in the context of the other buildings around them across the street that seems a little bit longer than that one some of that may need to be made known but we just can't out of the air redesign her project to the point and say if you'll do it this way we'll approve it I do understand that to try to understand what the specifics of those guidelines are that give the applicant some methodology to be able otherwise if we aren't able to provide that then how are we reviewing it if it's a certain length but he is asking a reasonable question about what is that even if it's within some range of length that he can then take to work within to try to address I don't disagree at all with what you're saying we have talked with them about I think Amelia has, I have not been party to it the problem is based on it's too much volume too long, etc. The thing we're careful of people so often want give me a finite number I'll make it that length that's getting into we're designing it for them this solution needs a drafts person at the very least someone who can examine the situation and come up with some sketches perhaps something that could be because our guidelines are philosophies you of course understand that fully so is it a need to go back to a conceptual design to be able to give the kind of informal input that the board would have in a conceptual design you could give that input now if you want you're weighing something and where it falls short if you want to talk about alternative that it did fall short in this specific manner but if X could be looked at you could do that now or in the future but it is in violation needs, it can't just be continued and it could be what's your deadline for action Amelia on this it appears that it was the 16th of March on the front of the application no because it got re-advertised you got the right ones Susan there's a sheet floating around because it got re-advertised it's actually May 3rd or something like that there would be room for it to be continued up until certainly the April BLAR meeting it could be continued, it's just that when things are in a built situation in violation it can't exceed the 60 days of course for sure the board must make a formal vote on it and you know that that next one could be it can't be labeled a conceptual and done with no vote you would need to vote at your next meeting I think the applicant is asking good questions and it is not really the condition of the board to go through this process I just don't want from what I'm hearing I don't want to do that to her I want to solve this issue for her if there's a distance then we can shorten it and do something with it that's where I get the architect involved I just want to see if there's any other possibility to still keep this structure but to redesign it to a point where we don't have to tear everything down so would you be comfortable with the continuance of this to be able to take what next steps you need to gather that information and bring forth I'm fine with that I just wanted to clarify it but I would recommend strongly that you get some design assistance to come back to help you get to the point of discussion points that's part of what's missing here I'm going to counter what Susan's saying a little bit because to me if we're so far out of compliance that anything they brought back to us after good discussion with the staff would I think be significant enough to reopen this case and hear some real suggestions what I'm afraid will happen is that we won't get real solutions or real suggestions that come into the guidelines and we're just kicking this can down the road and so why not just reject it now and force some real revisions and we would be able to reopen the case because if they bring real revisions they will be significant enough for us to review them so if I understand correctly it does not come back to us until it is until it's appealed to planning if they so chose to do so but can they initiate a new process through the historic preservation without going through planning or is there what is that kind of gap I had understood that until it was rejected by the next sequence that they couldn't come back which continues the process it's a good consideration about that when you have something it's an unusual situation to have it built like this to this point understood you have the right to appeal and while the appeal is pending it could be left sitting here in its current status from any kind of citations because other government process is pending so if they filed an appeal within the 30 day window that's set for appeals to be eligible to be filed and it went to the planning commission and the planning commission puts it on their docket after that they could still sit undisturbed I don't know if code enforcement could cite it I'm not a specialist in what they can and can't do have you had any experience with that normally government tries to if they know everybody knows who's doing what divisions if they know that there's effort being made in another piece of the government this person has the right to have that consideration made without having to do anything they just sit and wait understood so planning commission if they find a solution if they agree with the BOAR if it's a denial it is not generally a response on the planning commission's part to have an interactive dialogue for dealing with design issues that's not been shown yet that's correct so that seems like except for but it is where your appellant process if in fact we reject it my concern is that it puts the owner three months later right back that's only if they immediately appeal I guess I get what you're saying I didn't think about an immediate appeal going into this if the appeal is required before they can resubmit an application then that does push it out if we reject this and they can submit a new application immediately they could elect by not filing an appeal and not having an appeal pending in that window getting a new application that you all agree is enough evidence to have a new hearing then that could happen I'd have to get some research done with law about when something is built like this what else is happening I honestly can't advise on that from what I'm hearing if you deny this that should be pretty quick to talk to an architect at least a week to give them then the next meeting would be the following month is that what you're saying there is a tight window between this meeting and when the next submittal would be we would have to do legal notice I think we're realistically not looking at the April meeting we can't accomplish legal notice for April the only thing April could do is have this still legitimately on the docket if you continued it today I wanted to come back to that if we voted to continue this and if I remember correctly when that has been done in the past there have been situations where people have brought us that is when the plans are only on paper you can't pause a built building the violation is an existing violation you could withdraw say nothing had been built and this is what's on paper and they went back to the drawing board and came back with a revised proposal they would withdraw the plan that resulted in this with no harm, no foul but because it's built with no permits across the board in the government it is a reality that it's sitting there in violation but if in fact there's an appeal made to the planning commission it sits there in violation for the 60 or 90 days it takes for that appeal to due process is occurring so it does seem like in this discussion that the shortest path for having another opportunity to have solutions presented is through the board of architectural review to continue it in my experience and I'm not an attorney and we don't have a specialist attorney with us who has had his track record with this and that's not her fault I perceive that that is it's either you have two options to either vote in a final action today in some fashion or your vote to continue would be an action today or to vote to deny it today So do I have any more questions from the board? It does seem we know the parameters at this point Does the applicant have any further questions? I mean if postponed like I said I can talk with the architect and get it redrawn for it for the next meeting and I'm going to sit down with him and look at all the codes that it needs to meet and it would be meeting all the codes that it needs to meet and then we'll restructure it We'll restructure it to the plan that we have, the new design plan Well you wouldn't do anything on it until that plan is approved I just wanted to make sure about that I'm not touching, it's not even going to be me there Just touching the drawings It's not Legos over there it's structural there but it will be the same process the structural engineer has to come out and approve it and then everything all over I would as staff say one more thing about process that submittal of the revised and I think what you're suggesting would be a wonderful thing for you to try to accomplish but please know that it would have to have a very short turnaround to on paper be ready to give to the staff We would have to have it in no more than two weeks I mean super quick and that is tied to the fact you can't just bring new drawings and show the board at the meeting I'll email it to Emilio next week You're welcome to bring those drawings or sketches or napkins with drawings we can meet you on site with whoever is helping you and stand there and talk about it so they can draw more with some input from staff I know people think those mean people but we want you to I'm not thinking that way, I know rules are rules I'm just trying to see what we can do Emilio said he had some suggestions that's why I'm here to see what we can do what's our next step to proceed with this issue here The sad thing is it's probably going to need some professional assistance to help you get this solved which is going to take, unless you can find another good friend of hers that has some skills in design sometimes that investment is necessary to save your bigger investment So, board do we have a motion ready to be made? Chair, in regards to 14820115-A at 115 Penmoken Park I move that we continue this application due at the April 16th meeting Do I have a second? Second Any further questions or comments? I call this motion for a vote Those in favor? Aye Those opposed? The motion passes Thank you So that concludes our Certificate of Appropriateness applications and we have two conceptual reviews before us and the first one is at 320 Hampton Court Susan, can I ask you one question? Yes, please Susan just stated that there was just a postponement for Does she have to take action on that? Since that's at the applicant's request she can just announce I just wanted to make sure about that You're good I wanted to read, there was a letter from a neighbor regarding this last case that was heard that's in the docket, so I just wanted to make sure about that. Thank you. So 320 Hepton Court is the applicant here. And in much appreciation for your patience, this is a process. How did I get to the severed floor? John Cheatham, 403 Marquee, hi guys. So we will typically have the presentation by the staff and then have your input and then there will be lots of questions. I just wanted to run through a couple of pictures real quick. So this is actually 320 Hampton Court. This structure was built actually in the 1920s. It was built sort of actually post World War I. It sort of sets back further than any other structure on Hampton Court. It's sort of a funny little structure. There is, as you see, it goes down this sort of driveway that leads back to another structure you'll see in a second. There's another building here and we'll look, here's sort of the overview so you can see the setback of the neighboring structure here. And there is a significant tree here. There's a tree back here that may not be affected by the proposal. I think this tree is going to be concerned about that. This is sort of giving you an overview of Hampton Court that all the other buildings are set in the same situation. You can sort of see that there's another structure tucked there and then there's, the proposal does call for a two story structure and Mr. Cheatham will talk more about his design and give you a little bit more of a tour of the structure and this has sort of this one little bay that sort of, you have this drive that sort of scoots back in to this metal sided structure. So the proposal calls for a two story structure that has, will have a attached garage with a courtyard space and this structure here will essentially turn into an ADU so to speak. It's sort of quasi-connected with a breezeway and it's sort of got this little breezeway here. There we go. And then here's the plan of that, the tree that I think we're concerned with is here and then there's a tree back here but I think it's not going to be affected so much by the development. I did take the urban forester out to review these trees. We are a little bit more concerned about the development of the tree in this particular area and you can sort of see that the proposal here and this will be a two story structure with attached garage and sort of here's some schematics and I'm going to run through the questions. Guidelines are included for reference, is this a conceptual review, there's no fighting this time, however issues to be considered, is it appropriate to build a new structure in the lot in front of this little cottage, is the proposed structure too histrionic or should it be more contemporary in design, is it appropriate to demolish the one car garage, does the new structure block the view of the historic structure, does the new construction change the streetscape, does the new construction change the historic streetscape, is the setback consistent with the other structures on Hampton Court and the Northside District, does the new building have the same number of stories or is it 10% of the average height of the new buildings, does the architectural details, articulation, new construction relate in scale, rhythm, proportion of the texture to the adjacent surrounding historic buildings, is the complexity of the building form and shape compatible with adjacent buildings, does the roof of the new building relate in shape, pitch, materials to the roof of the adjacent surrounding buildings, do the proportional directional emphasis and rhythm of the new buildings reflect the predominant proportion, emphasis and rhythm of the adjacent surrounding buildings, is it appropriate to have an attached garage, are the openings compatible in scale, size and proportion to establish patterns to the openings in the adjacent surrounding buildings, are materials in scale of the building in which they are located, is the opening space adjoining the street developed in scale, character in the neighborhood, does the change in status of the existing structure alter the history. And of course there's no recommendations time and no deadline for board action. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Cheatham. Do you want to use this? I don't think I need to. If you want to pull up the video, you can, if you can. Just a little fly around to help everybody understand a little more. Hi. Sorry. Sorry. So, completely conceptual. Just really want to get the question answered of should we even apply for a COA on this. Because, you know, the answer to all the questions that Amelia just posed would be we want to follow the design guidelines and make it historically follow those guidelines. So, follow the setback of the adjacent structures, houses, apartments. The only real question is, which we don't have an answer to right now, is the shared driveway, which is an existing condition to get back to that existing little lean-to garage with the building to the right, which is right after you come through the archway there. So, we would want to make this, you know, match the surrounding urban fabric and the heights we think are appropriate. We want to keep the existing structure intact as much as possible and maybe even build a glass connector breezeway there, connecting it into the new main structure in front. I think speaking about the design details is kind of a moot point right now. Just being a preliminary review of should we apply for a COA on this or not. And that's, leave that in your guys' hands. So, can you speak a little more to the question of the shared driveway? We don't know the answer if they have a shared access easement or not. You can see where I have the garage set into the existing house would be the only location they would have to park their vehicles, which I'm sure they would go in there anyway. So, the answer to that question is just a work in progress? Work in progress on that, yep. Don't have an answer on whether there's an easement or an agreement on that, but there kind of has to be, I guess. It's an existing condition, right? If there wasn't one, they'll probably get it. One question is probably for staff. Was there ever a house on this, so it was an open property and then they built a little house in the 1920s, which in and of itself is historic at this point? Okay. In the survey form notes that, I guess, people thought there was going to be something built in front of it and it was never done. Okay. Yeah, the statement reads, the modest size and setback can be attributed to its construction during World War I with simple materials in anticipation of building onto the front of a house later. Okay, so I did not get that in my package along with the drawings, and so. Oh, you didn't get drawings? No, I didn't get the drawings, so I've been borrowing Susan's. Oh, sorry. It's all right. When I was looking, I was like, I think there's probably supposed to be drawings with this. So I haven't had a chance to really look at all of the questions and think about this, but one big concern I have is that we always like to think about proportion of a house on the property itself, and with that historic structure and then this large structure, you're not really leaving any actual land. It's all becoming one big structure, and I think that might be a little bit overwhelming for the entire block. Now, I know there's some really big houses on that block, but I don't know. Like, from just what you've shown, it's a lot bigger than what's next to it and going a lot further back on the property, leaving that existing cottage there. And if you say not to look at details, I mean, it looks like you really are mimicking kind of the historic structure, but maybe that's a conversation for another day. But I do worry that if it wasn't there and that it is historic now, what covering that whole little cottage up means for the neighborhood. May I just ask the question about why, and I know it's to be able to have a better view, but to show just the house to the north of it, rather than to show a few more houses in context? Or is that intentional? No, not intentional. Just to be able to see the details of the house when we're flying around. The basis of design of the wraparound porch and the step-back porch is the house to the north a little bit, which we would try to make it like a sister house to. It would be a brick structure with a wood front porch with matching proportional windows. Not the same pattern or anything. The third floor dormers are a little aggressive, I know, but they don't have to be there as well. That can be a comment that we could listen to. Really just trying to maximize the livable area of what would be, what would accommodate the client. Yes. The courtyard wall, is that? So it's on the video, but it's not in the older renderings. From the board's perspective, is that something outside what's permissible? Or is it permissible in that neighborhood? Not for this area, I don't believe. It's not permissible? No, not for this area. I think there's other masonry walls in this area. It's not unusual in the area. Is that what I'm saying? Sorry, yes. Right. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Okay, that's all. Are you willing for staff to participate along, or do you want us to wait? Sure. But I am going to kind of keep some time limits on it because we've got, it's been a long meeting. And we still have one more. Please let, why don't you have, I mean you handle it how you'd like, but be sure that the board's gotten in all theirs, and then we'll take the few moments you have left. Thank you. So, so while other consideration is coming, I think it's the height of the building, and there's no doubt that this view accentuates in many ways, since it's in front of the house, to the existing house, it accentuates that height, right? It does, yeah. So, and the other thing is the exterior north wall of your proposed structure is a similar distance off of the side lot line to the porch wall, but not to the built house wall itself. So that tends to put a little more pressure on that, off that side lot, in terms of the width of the proposed new structure. So that's about volume, both height and the width, those two observations. Board, any other questions? I think the size of it is just overwhelming on the site. Just, it really, that's my number one concern looking at this, if we're not really thinking about details, just how much, it's bigger than the adjacent house, and it just takes up all of that site, and it just seems like it's just too much. So, what about the appropriateness of an attached garage? I hadn't been able to think through that yet, seeing how this works. You know, I think this neighborhood probably doesn't have any attached garages, but of course, a modern house, and if we're looking at a more modern structure in an infill, that would be an expectation of a more modern house. And so, if it's smaller, and I would not be opposed to necessarily a garage in a house if it was a more modern structure that was dealing with that neighborhood context. But, what we have now is a house that looks like it's trying to match the other houses that then has this modern garage underneath it that, to me, doesn't make a lot of sense. So, how do you feel about the, building a new structure in front of the cottage, the historic cottage? Not good, but I don't know how to better say that. It is interesting when you drive through the neighborhood, then, this particular site is an anomaly. It really is. It's like a missing tooth in some ways. That's kind of why I struggled. There was always supposed to be a house here, and then there wasn't, but now we've lived with it for over a hundred years, and so that missing tooth is part of the neighborhood that it's there. Kenwick neighborhood has several of these parcels. Not, but maybe half a dozen or less. With something at the far back that you presume meant to have more, they're still the only thing there? Yeah. There's a scale of Hampton Court, though, that accentuates this space, and when the two islands really, it is just two islands, right, were really meant to provide that kind of green space in many ways, given the density of the housing lots. And that missing space, or that missing building, then kind of dilutes in some ways that green space that happens out in front. Would it be helpful to the board to have a, I can't think of the word right now, a topographical report where you have a height, in other words, a survey of the height plan for both sides of the street? So, actually, let me ask if this would meet what you're speaking of. If, in fact, your view came rotated so that you were coming front on to the buildings, then you'd be able to pop up the other buildings and still have the context of the proposed new one, and then, which would... Yeah, the first building is really tall. It is. It's quite a mass, isn't it? Yeah. And that's hard to perceive here, because it flattens out a little bit with this view. So, even though I appreciate what this does show, it also kind of begs wanting to see kind of the next view of it, to rotate it and see the next view. Sure. Are there two apartment buildings on the front of that block, or just one? Well... Across the street, you mean? Yeah. When you walk in, there's one on one side, one on the side, and there's another one on the west side. Across the street. That's what I was... You know, what's the height plan for the whole street? Yeah. It varies a lot. Is it, say, sort of higher, say the same distance on the west side, and then sort of on the east side? They step down to cottages, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it has a fair amount of variation. Sure. All right. I'll leave it in your hands to approve or, you know, deny. I can come back with a... I'm happy to work with staff on, you know, resizing it. There's probably a limit to where the client would be like, that's too small to build, so... Are you trying for a single family use? Yeah, it would be single family. So, my question to the board is, it seems like that a few more images would help to answer some of the questions that are quickly coming up that have to do with context. And then, given the few comments by the board about scale, and we're not talking about reducing the scale to a one-story building, we're just talking about... Right, probably the roofline and how far back it steps. The footprint on that site. Yeah. I mean, when you start looking at this, it's basically all building. Yeah, is what kind of small reduction... Because a small reduction in that particular on Hampton Court would be very quickly visible. So, my question to you is, is the client comfortable with this being a continuation of a conceptual design? Yes. And do you both, with having what input you've had... Yep. Yep, that sounds great. Do you have more questions for us? No, ma'am. Thank you. Are there any more questions here? All right. Thank you very much. And I would like to note, in terms of your telling your client that it's worthwhile to do the streetscape... Oh, sure. The scale. That is really going to be a requirement with the third one application, that you have the facade elevations, volumes on a linear, what you experience on the street, to drop something in the middle. Yeah. And I like the kind of Googler three-dimensionality of it. I think that's really helpful. Yeah, but I think it does need the remainder of at least that side of the street. Yeah. Perhaps more. Which... Because I'm pretty sure some of them are actually bigger than the house you modeled. So, it might be doing the little house you modeled next to the proposing in just... Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. That's the one that I'm comparing it most to. That's where the front door is going to be next to the front door of the next one. So that was my preliminary is like, honestly, to try to follow the design guidelines that staff proposes is to match the fabric of the neighborhood. So that is the direction I'm taking it. The garage, that's probably a big question for them because there's no other place to park on the lot. And I personally think that we should retain that structure and not even propose tearing it down because it's 100 years old. That might be a whole other issue. That's a whole other problem. Right? Sorry, it's been a long day. You really did. Yeah. No, we're not going to open that box of worms. We're not going to propose that, but that's what led us to this point. And I do appreciate the kind of mirror reflection of porch and such that you're proposing. In the end, we want it to look like it's always been there. Right? I mean, not really. Not really. Not necessarily. No, but that's what the guidelines are leaning towards. Not really. Not really. Okay. Change it up, John. You want the form, the volume, the setback, the spatial relationships to fit in, and you want it readily identifiable as not an old house. It's 21st century. It's a 2025 construction. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. So, our final conceptual design review. Hey, Neil. Hey. By the way, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, long before all the computer stuff, there were hand-drawn elevations of the Constitution District. Yeah. Yeah. Several of them. And they were required to put their new proposals in. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And they had to put their new proposals and everything vacant in that context of those drawings. And so, I feel strongly that for any infill of this, you know, taking a lot, anything far behind. Can we go to Willie Street 438? Yeah, that's okay. Yeah, it's okay. Yeah, it's okay. Yeah, it's okay. Application. So, this is our last conceptual review. I'm going to give you a little background on this guy. So this property is 438 Fayette Park and, but the property that we're really talking about is sort of behind their property. And this is, I'm sort of going between these two houses, which is to the right is 440 Fayette Park and then to the left is 438 and we're going to go behind this. And this is sort of the backyard of 438 and then sort of in this back area, way back here, is this parcel of this property that was the 493 West 5th Street. This actually was a separate lot for a long time and it had carriage houses historically on it and it was purchased by the Northside neighborhood many, many years ago and then it was resold to the 438 Fayette Park neighborhood folk and then recently it was divided but when it was sold to 438, it was put in their deed that it can never be separated, it's always going to be owned by the owners of 438. It can never be divided, it can never be actually sold away from them. So it's always going to be owned by these same people and so it's always got an existing curb cut. This is where existing carriage houses and little outbuildings sold. So this is actually, their proposal is to actually put a single family sort of structure in this location. So if you can see where these pieces of wood, if you can note that, this is where they're proposing to put a single family structure. Right now, it's proposing to be facing Willie Street but it could easily face 5th Street as well and as you can see these blocks of wood, these are opposing and I would tell you many years ago when the previous Urban First Tour was in place, we did go and there was a couple of ice storms that had gone through and some pretty scraggly pieces of trees and so there were some trees that were removed. There's still some in place too. So the piles of wood you see here now are from when there were some trees that were removed because of that reason and the tree, their garage got struck pretty heavily. This was like in the storm that happened in the 2023 ice storm, the March 3rd, two years ago ice storm that happened, or the one storm that happened and that you're seeing. So this is facing proper Willie Street and you can see the pieces of wood that are in place now. And that is their proposal and this is sort of facing back at the house and you can see also in the far distance the neighboring structure because this is sort of the corner lot here and again back at the Willie Street and it sort of shows the whole triangle or the square of the proposal of this site. And again another view of this lot because it's one of the largest lots in Fayette Park. Again looking from a different angle and this is from the corner looking at that and you can sort of see the trees in play and sort of see we've also in line with that there has been probably four garages that have been proposed and have been approved along that north side of that to this structure. And this is the proposal they were putting forward. This is the garage. This would be a two story garage with two cars on the first floor with a four year area storage and some other auxiliary areas using the curb cut that's already in place, a new parking pad and a walkway leading to Millie Street. Per single family residence they are required to have sort of a setback, they have to have a recessed area on the front of their structure and this is why that jog happens along the front and there's a parking plan and again some schematics and oh where's my plan? And you also have, I thought I put it in here, but you also have at your place, Ms. Hill asked for a plan of, she has the plan with the trees on it on the site, I thought I put that in the slide show and I don't know why it's not there, but it's at your site and also you can see the same board maps are also in your site plan showing the outbuildings that were there and to make this happen they had to put a little bit more extra land onto this to make this a conforming lot. So as this is a conceptual review, there are no findings at the time, but questions to be asked are, is it appropriate to create a single family structure in this location? Should the single family structure have a garage on the first floor and a living space above or should the single family structure have a separate garage? Should the fence along Williams Street be reduced to four feet as this is now a single family structure and has front yards along those two streets? Is the proposed building on the contemporary design compatible with the secondary adjacent and surrounding structures or does the roof structure of this proposed building relate in shape, pitch, materials to the roofs of the secondary adjacent and surrounding buildings? Does the proposed structure have the same number of stories and is in the height within the 10% of the advertised adjacent and surrounding buildings? Is the complexity of the building form and shape compatible with other adjacent buildings on the street? Does the proportional directional emphasis rhythm of the proposed building reflect the proportional emphasis rhythm of the adjacent and surrounding buildings? Are the openings compatible in scale, size, proportion of established patterns, openings in the secondary adjacent and surrounding buildings? Does the proposed building have the similar ratio of openings to other secondary adjacent and surrounding buildings? Do the architectural details and articulation of new construction relate in scale, rhythm, proportion, texture to secondary adjacent and surrounding historic buildings? Are the materials in scale of the building on which they were located incompatible with materials in other secondary adjacent and surrounding buildings? Is it appropriate in the scale and character of the site and historic district? And does it impact the green space and rhythm of the yard and site and historic district? And there is no recommendation and no deadline for board action. Any questions from staff? So in all of our process, is there any point at which the neighborhood has input outside of coming here? Two things. The conceptual reviews are not advertised in a legal sense, you know, the notice is not mailed, they're not put in the Herald-Leader because they are not a completed application and to which the board's outcome would be to take action. Since they are informal reviews meant to be what they sound like, a dialogue back and forth between the board and the applicant and design people and all that. They are purposely casual, but we do encourage people to let their neighbors know that they're going to have these informal discussions, but there isn't any stipulation that they must be informed. I am aware that in this specific instance that a neighbor next door has been in our office to see these conceptual materials and I think the word is a little bit around the park area since it's kind of a cluster, encapsulated space. Some people I know of know that this is being discussed. There's certainly, it's appropriate for the applicant and anybody who has an interest if they hear about it, you know, via the Vine or see it on computer and so forth, they can certainly call our office or check and we'd be glad to tell them when perhaps another conceptual review is going to occur or anything like that about this address or any address. So do we give, does the board, the staff, give the neighborhood notice like neighborhood associations get notices for zoning changes and whatnot? Do we provide the neighborhood with any prior notice before a COA hearing is held on this? Before the formal application? Now at the time of the formal application, in addition to notifying people that the ordinance requires about the 200 feet, as a courtesy, we send the neighborhood association president a copy of the notice as well. And that holds true, I don't think we have any of our historic districts that there is not on record a neighborhood association to whom we can send that additional courtesy letter. Right. Right. Most of the time I think the successful communication way is word of mouth amongst the neighborhood itself in terms of practicality. Thank you. So this is going to continue to be a part of the property of 438 because they're not allowed to separate that property? No, it's separated but they are never able to sell it. So 438 is building this house and renting it? Nope. They're going to just. They're giving the land to somebody? Nope. I guess I'm confused by that. Well, I may say the ownership issue, while it's an agreement in place with the current property owner and so forth, is really not an issue this board can address. However, the fact that it is legally a separate parcel of land and has a street address has been accomplished recently through the zoning, planning and zoning. And so it is legally has its own identity and has legal rights as an individual parcel to have something built on it. So it's an unusual bit about the intent. The neighborhood association years ago wanted to be sure that it would retain whatever in keeping with the neighborhood, I guess. I wasn't there, of course, at the time to know the details, but I suspect the envision was that it would just ride with the bigger, with the main house of the adjacent neighbor that it's abutting, but we really don't have the details about what that agreement reflected and it's not before you in the procedural sense. I guess I didn't really want to know the details of the agreement so much as I was trying to understand if this fell in the realm of that accessory dwelling zone about encouraging that kind of infill. The main detail of the agreement is what you're asking, which is, are the people who own the large house adjacent going to always hold this property? And that is exactly what the agreement calls for. I guess I don't remember the accessory dwelling law that allows and wants people to build these garages and houses in their backyard and how that played into it. I think this one's kind of a one-off. I think it's not really considered an ADU in some ways, but I did go and check with the property inspection and it's an allowed use. And I can clarify that a little bit. I'll kind of explain to you all sort of where my clients are coming from with this and so to Ms. Curd and Ms. Arden for a point, this is a little bit of a different situation because it is a legally separated parcel so we're treating it as a new residence. It's not being treated as an accessory structure, we're not looking at it in that way. We're looking at it as a new residence, but the owners obviously currently are going to be obviously retaining this property with their own property and not dividing it. They want to use this as their own guest house for family members and their garage. And so part of this is it's adjacent to their property, but they want to construct it as it would be a new house so that somebody in the future, if they were ever going to do that, could work through the legal proceedings to try and separate that property. They have no interest in doing that and that's not their point here. They want this to kind of serve their property as sort of a guest house and garage for them. They don't have a garage currently and they don't have any guest quarters that are accessory to the house. So that's really the spirit behind the building. Take the architecture out of it aside, I'll get to that in a minute, but what we're doing from, and I know these drawings are a little bit hard to see on here, but we are right now basically considering Willie Street, the frontage or the presenting front street, it could be a 5th Street address as well and that's a conversation. As Ms. Armstrong pointed out, it has an existing curb cut off of 5th Street, so we're bringing our driveway in there and we have parking underneath and within the volume. But you very easily could create a 5th Street address if that was something that was thought to be of a benefit. I think the Willie Street address sort of affords it the opportunity to be on a street that has houses on it, not so much on 5th Street which is backed up to accessory structures that serve Fayette Park. In that section of the street, of course across the street is Transylvania Soccer Field and so that's more of an open field, but as you go down 5th, Willie, and then Bourbon Avenue, those are all kind of much more subserviently scaled structures. They're single structures with no accessory buildings. This is obviously a much larger lot given its nature, but Willie Street and Bourbon Avenue are much more smaller shotgun houses, one story, single story, no accessory structures with those. So the idea was to sort of present there, but if it was thought that 5th Street had of a benefit on that, I think that certainly is something that easily looked at. So what we're sort of presuming right now in the way that we're laying this out is given this is R1C, we're using those setbacks for a basically single family new structure, of course within the infill and redevelopment zone per that we're using those guidelines. And so we're trying to just, much like the previous case, provide the design context that we're thinking, what the owner is desiring to do, the site scheme and situation. I know Ms. Hill, we're always concerned about trees. We've thought about that in this case where, as you saw the pictures that were shown before, this building is kind of sitting in sort of the middle of that open area with a site so that it's not jammed up on the property line where there is actually a small tree line of what's left of those trees. There's a small cluster off the rear part of the driveway. And so where we are kind of setting it out in the middle of the space as much as possible with those setbacks, we're kind of pushing ourselves out to the outer corner of that to meet it. But that's really kind of the site strategy right now. And as I go through this, thinking about the plan again, the concept of residence over garage is obviously kind of an urban thing. There's two properties that we've kind of referenced. One at 227 Miller and one at 724 High. Both are residences over garages on parcels and one serves as a single family residence. The other acts as an accessory structure, however, on its own parcel. But given that, in our opinion, Fayette Park is sort of this suburban urban condition almost, right? It has large lots with homes and there's accessory garages and things, we kind of are looking at this more of an urban condition. I think by today's standards it is. But the desire to have the garage with the residence above, get some height off of that, keep the first floor kind of a little bit more enclosed. We're again presenting our front door off of Willie Street and you kind of enter into a space there that is kind of an open sort of foyer mudroom. There's some service space, storage, mechanical, garage. And then there's a staircase that brings you up into kind of this more open space on the second floor that has some vaulted elements to it. And then two kind of bedroom en-suites with open living kitchen. And there's kind of a mix, I'll kind of scroll through these to get to the more sort of 3D elements. You know, we're trying to do kind of a mix of materials. We're using some masonry on the first floor to give it a little bit of a weight. We're using different variations of siding materials, both vertical and horizontal. And then obviously, you know, kind of ample glazing that are both window in wall and window as wall. So we're trying to give kind of a feel to this building as it almost kind of wraps around, gives some more private nature to the private spaces, some more open and transparent glazing to the public spaces. And then we have kind of a mono-pitch roof. Yeah, I think the owner first came to us with a hand sketch that was sort of almost like an industrial carriage house in a way. And I think, at least I personally think, I wanted to go a little bit more of a vision to really kind of erode that and not be as industrial with it. But I think the building, obviously with contemporary form, has kind of a clearly divergent appearance to anything else that is seen in at least that section of it. Now there are some accessory structures on the backsides of some of the houses on Fayette Park. There's a couple up at 424 that we did some years ago that are a sort of toned down language of this. I'd say they're much more muted. But that's really the design concept here is to sort of elevate the living space, craft the parking underneath so it's not super visible, allow the structure to sit kind of in the middle of the property and be a clear architectural divergence. It was mentioned that there are garages being built on the backside of these houses that have come up. How does this compare in scale to some of those garages and old historic structures that would have been the backside of these houses? I mean, certainly I would say that this is bigger than pretty much any accessory structure. Then maybe the building, the house that's adjacent to this that actually sits on the backside of Willie Street, that it serves that house. That's fairly tall. It has a small apartment above it. But I would say most of the other structures that go along 5th Street that are accessory structures are pretty much one story, I think. I don't know that there's anything two story. But again, we've been thinking about this as a new house in a way. Let's just dumb it down to that. So based on both the question and your response, if the site plan showed that house with that larger garage, which was approved by the BOAR some years ago, if that were shown, then the context of what you're speaking to would be clearly visible and I think make your statement even more strong. And you're talking about the garage that's on the back of Willie Street, or on Willie Street at the back of that? That's correct. Quite frankly, even having the context of the existing historic house that is related to this property would also be really helpful as part of the site plan. It's just such an odd context otherwise in this corner location. But it has a very specific kind of a context. The one other suggestion I would make is that for folks who aren't quite as familiar with Fayette Park, being able to have that kind of a very small scale, like on C100, context view of Fayette Park itself that would kind of show where this corner fits in. Since everything else on Fayette Park faces into the park, I think that would also help. I think that would help me a lot. I was actually kind of struck by the photo that showed the six-foot fence and how kind of the houses really were facing away and it really had that open corner and I was struggling to envision what really happens to that corner when you kind of take that fence down and get rid of kind of those, yeah, that really large, like putting a house in that corner is hard to envision just looking at that photo because you just see these kind of really big backyards and nothing really else dominating that corner. Yeah, I think it's interesting because what this picture doesn't show is that if you turn to the left, you have a series of shotgun houses, right, and that's context too that I think it's important. I really do. And I think, and then if you turn to the right, you have a giant open field and really a view of the skyline. So there's kind of three different sort of landscapes taking place here and that's of course downtown Lexington. You have Fayette Park, which has much larger homes, much larger lots and sort of it's back turned a little bit by the nature of its originality to those other kind of smaller streets and that's just okay. That's how urban conditions work and that's fine. But I think with this, to your point, is this is a little bit of an erosion of that enclosure and sort of opening that up a little bit more to the site. So some context of that may be helpful and you're always looking to learn from your colleagues. John and I went to school together and I was looking at his kind of 3D and I thought that was really nice and I really wanted to see that apartment building pop up because it would have bolstered his case because that thing is huge when you come in. And seeing that could be really nice over here to at least understand what these volumes are doing. I mean, we make existing conditions of a lot of houses. I don't think that we have these ones on the corner, but we could model them up and show volumes and get a feel for that, you know, but it would be helpful, I think. It would certainly be helpful. It would. And when you speak about the design and you talk about the historic carriage house as being a reference point, being able to have that view along 5th Street then also reinforces some of what you're saying and the view along Willie because those garages are much newer and they're much more in height scale or even taller than what you're proposing. So that context of scale would be really helpful. In this corner, talking about the context, wearing my historian hat for a second, the corner used to where Trancy's properties are all now opened, it used to be somewhat bigger than Willie Street Cottage's tea plants, that kind of thing, and so it had a whole neighborhood row that is now kind of looked at as a void on the south side of 5th and you see a little bit left of it as you go west on 5th, very little, and that's good, it's still there, but my point being it has unnaturally come to have one of its parameters of the bookends no more and you're left with a different perspective, your experience of it is very different. It is the existing condition today, I don't say that you need to replicate it, it's gone, but I don't mean about the design of this, but talking about the context, but it has altered your perimeter perceptions to feel much more isolated almost, and it's not really isolated. I would snide off. So a question about setbacks, because it appears that the front lot setback is 30 feet, is that the minimum requirement? So with the special provisions, what I've got here is the lot frontage 50 feet, max front yard setback 50 feet. Okay, you're speaking off of Willie Street. I am, I am speaking off of Willie Street, but it would pertain if we were off of 5th too, it would just, we would reorient the front door to 5th, but it's a corner lot corner condition, so we're assuming that front yard side yard setback is happening in both cases. So it's 5 feet, so the setback off of the adjacent Fayette Park property to the north is 5 feet. Well, it would be 8, but what I've got would be 8 feet side yard setback, and then the minimum rear yard would be 20% of the lot depth and 20.51 feet in our case. Okay, thank you. And you know, with such a big lot, of course, we do fall into FAR, which we're considering it would be .7, max we're at .29, the max building height is 35 feet, we are, I think we're at 27, something like that, I don't have that one written down here, but, but yeah. So has there been, if this is being thought of as the garage to 438, has there been discussion about kind of what that pathway in connection is like? Because in some ways that then supports the design concept that you're speaking about, but when we look at this, it's just a freestanding. Yeah, I think there's only been talk, like they're thinking it's going to be basically kind of guard, like pathway access, I don't think there's any, you know, architectural elements that do anything, it's more just, I think if you were to arrive at the structure was completed, you would show up and feel like, oh wow, that's a garage for this house, even though it's set so far away, but there's some kind of walking path that gets you over there and the understanding that you can still communicate, but it's not, you know, it's not going to feel like it's really any way architecturally connected to it, I think is probably the case, at least from what we've talked about. Pathways can be very architectural. They can be very architectural, I would agree, I would agree, and I think we also just haven't gotten there really, I think we're bringing this as a proof of concept, as a conceptual review to really, because this is such a unique condition, I think that it's, you know, they have a very specific architectural desire for this building, I think we've translated that to what we're sort of seeing and then bringing it to you guys and saying, what do you all think about it, from really both standpoints of, as an object, in its location, site condition, and then architecturally, what's it doing? We do agree that it's unique. It is, yeah. This would come as a proposal for the lot at 438 Fayette Park. It would come as a proposal for the lot at either 493 West 5th Street or 445 Willey Street, but I thought I just heard that those have sort of not been separated. They are separated. Legally, this lot that the building is proposed on, depending on which street they decide to address it to, the city has given them the option for 493 West 5th or 445 Willey, and they can choose that and then it would be assigned, but it is legally separated and deeded separately now. They've done that, it's recorded. I'm just trying to get, you know, for somebody at the main house then to assert that this was their garage, does that create a potential problem for us, is what I'm saying, that we have to consider it as a part of their property, if they're making that argument, versus a stand-alone piece of property by itself, I think that would, if I was going to come to this meeting, that is what I would nail to the wall, and I just think it's helpful if you all consider how that's going to be positioned. Yeah. I mean, I think the way that… I think the positioning of that is very different to the proposal. Anyway, just a thought. Yeah, no, I think that's valid. I've been around maybe politics too long. Yeah, and they all have their own unique version of it. I think in this case, the way that they were guided by planning and zoning to be thinking about this is that this is a new freestanding structure, a single family residence on either of those addresses that you're choosing. However they want to use it in relationship to 438 Fayette Park as their primary residence, or rent it out to somebody else and not sell it and keep it part of that parcel because they can't, is maybe just part of a used discussion. I'm not sure, but I think it needs to be considered, and the proposal would be, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this would be a new freestanding structure, a single family dwelling within the infill redevelopment zone, H1, at either of those 5th or Willey Street addresses, and that not to be crass, but Fayette Park necessarily doesn't have anything to do with it other than that people that own it are part of that. It doesn't mean it doesn't, but it's more just the use of it is, they're going to use it how they're going to use it, I think. And there was, in fact, 438 did have a garage that got wiped out in 2023, along with all of the trees that we've seen built up. So that was part of the history of instigating being able to rethink about how this both larger property that's been divided into two legal properties but are in perpetuity are linked together. But that original garage was directly behind the main structure. That's correct. This pointer I don't think is working, but it's back over here was that garage somewhere in here, I think. It's actually on the Sanborn maps that you have in front of you too. So we've given you lots of new items to bring to us. For sure, yeah. For talking about context, so does the board want to continue design discussions or do we want to understand more about context before we tackle design discussions? I think context because I think some of the design things I'm seeing would be affected by what that context is. I don't dislike this design one bit, but I do wonder if it's going to meet some of those context requirements that we need to look at when we're thinking about historic design. We've talked about scale, massing, heights of that stuff and how that's really going to fit in. I feel like if I'm just looking at this, I'm like, yeah, I want that house in a nice little wooded area and it's going to be gorgeous. Out in the country. Right. But that changes when I think about what it really is doing on that corner. And so I think, so I can gear my sort of efforts towards that. When we're talking about scale, we're talking about, I think there's also scale of accessory structures that's being discussed, but really what's most likely sounding pertinent here is scale of the main volumes on these parts, both on Willie and on Fayette Park, to understand what this as a freestanding structure, single family structure, would be in relationship to those. Not so much garage, garage, garage, house, garage. And does it meet that? Is that correct? I mean, is that kind of contextual? I think that's right. I mean, it's not a garage. It is a garage with an apartment above it. But there's also a lot of stuff going around here that may make it look tiny, that may make it look huge. And I'm just not sure. Yeah. That's fair. That's very fair. Okay. That brings up, you know, is it going to be the only proposed structure in that whole area that has both living and garage on the floor and then a second story that's entirely living? I would say for a primary structure, yes. For an accessory structure, no. Does that make a difference? Right. It doesn't. It does. I'm just saying, does that make a difference? This is a creature kind of plowing new ground here a little bit. It really is. Which is pertinent to all kinds of infill work that in other contexts will be part of a similar discussion. So you're giving us an opportunity to think more richly about this than we've been able to. I think my clients are giving you that opportunity, frankly. The vision with this. I mean, I think they've brought this idea to us and asked us to sort of bring that vision to life and bring it here. But I think them seeing this concept and bringing it to you all is, like you said, a little bit of a catalyst, I think, for some other options and things. So that's great feedback. So at 7 o'clock, are there any other discussion or questions? None for me. None for me. All right. We look forward to seeing you again. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. So the only other thing I have on our agenda, the other business, is the review of meeting minutes. And I'm not aware that we have them. I came out and didn't get to get a meeting. Okay. They exist without a meeting. And really, I fell asleep opening them. We'll put that on next month's agenda. So no problem. So do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second? Second. All right. Thank you all. Thank you.