# Board of Architectural Review - April 16, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · April 16, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6405 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6405?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-04-16 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 27, 2026 - **Length**: 24,404 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review convened on April 16, 2025, with Mr. Dickinson presiding over the meeting. The board addressed three agenda items during the session, covering a range of architectural review applications. Of the three items heard, two — the 232 East Belcourt Project and the 509 East Main Street Application — were continued, while the 115 Penmoken Park Addition was approved with conditions. Over the course of the meeting, the board took 3 votes and heard 2 public comments. ## Attendance All board members were present at the April 16, 2025 meeting. No members were absent or late. **Present:** - Mr. Dickinson - Ms. Hill - Mr. Marquette - Ms. LaMoure - Mr. Taylor - Ms. Armstrong - Mr. Morris - Mr. Gibson - Mr. Berry ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on three matters during the April 16, 2025 meeting. - **Postponement of 407 East High Street** [timestamp: 2:54:16]: The Board voted by voice to postpone the hearing for the property at 407 East High Street until May 21st. The motion passed without recorded individual vote counts. - **Continuation of 509 East Main Street** [timestamp: 1:52:58]: The Board voted by voice to continue the hearing for the property at 509 East Main Street to May 21st. The motion passed without recorded individual vote counts. - **Approval of Addition at 115 Penmoken Park** [timestamp: 2:42:37]: The Board voted to approve the proposed addition at 115 Penmoken Park, with the motion made by Ms. LaMoure. The motion passed with Mr. Dickinson, Ms. Hill, and Mr. Marquette voting in favor and one abstention recorded. No votes were cast against. Approval was granted subject to the following conditions: - Submit final door and window specifications - Construct according to the new drawings - Submit details for the screened porch ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the Board during the public comment portions of the April 16, 2025 meeting. - **Marcy Deaton** [timestamp: 1:43:28] raised concerns about bamboo planting that had been done without a root barrier. Deaton expressed worry that the bamboo could spread and negatively affect her property. - **John Rockaway** [timestamp: 2:30:50] spoke in objection to a proposed addition at **115 Penmoken Park**. Rockaway argued that the addition would change the character and feel of the neighborhood, and he noted that the project would specifically impact his daughter's property. ## Contested Items Two items on the April 16, 2025 Board meeting agenda drew notable opposition from community members. **Addition at 115 Penmoken Park** This item centered on a building addition that was constructed without the required permits. The unpermitted construction drew objections from neighboring residents, and the Board engaged in a complex discussion about how to proceed given the after-the-fact nature of the work. The absence of permits prior to construction was the core of the dispute, raising questions about compliance and the appropriate path forward. The structured data does not indicate a final resolution was reached at this meeting. **Vent System at 509 East Main Street** The second contested item involved a vent system installation at 509 East Main Street. Neighbors raised objections on the grounds that the installed vent system was larger than what had been approved. Because the completed work exceeded the scope of the original approval, the Board determined that further review would be necessary before the matter could be resolved. Both items share a common thread: work that was completed in a manner inconsistent with what was permitted or approved, prompting community pushback and leaving both matters unresolved pending additional action. ## 232 East Belcourt Project [timestamp: 29:33] The Board took up a discussion item concerning the proposed construction of a second floor atop an existing one-story addition at 232 East Belcourt, along with other modifications to the property. Key speakers on this item included Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Taylor. Staff presented a recommendation of disapproval for the proposed project. The discussion centered on the merits and concerns associated with adding a second floor to the existing one-story addition, though the specific details of the objections and any counterarguments raised by the applicant or Board members were addressed during the course of the debate. The item was ultimately continued, meaning the Board did not reach a final decision at this meeting and the matter will be taken up again at a future session. ## 509 East Main Street Application [timestamp: 1:00:42] The Board took up the application for 509 East Main Street, which involved proposed changes to the property including a vent system and stucco-related issues. Key speakers during this discussion were Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Morris. Staff presented a recommendation that included approval with conditions for certain aspects of the application while recommending disapproval for others. The discussion addressed the specifics of the vent system and stucco work proposed for the property, with the split staff recommendation indicating that at least some elements of the application raised concerns under the applicable review standards. The item was ultimately continued by the Board, meaning no final decision was reached at this meeting and the matter will return for further consideration at a future session. ## 115 Penmoken Park Addition [timestamp: 2:03:38] The Board took up a discussion regarding an addition at 115 Penmoken Park that had been constructed without permits. Key speakers on this item were Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Berry. The discussion centered on new drawings that had been submitted in connection with the unpermitted addition, as well as the conditions under which the Board might grant approval. The Board considered what requirements would need to be met to bring the addition into compliance. The item was ultimately **approved with conditions**. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postpone the hearing for 407 East High Street until May 21st - **Motion** — continued (0-0): Continue the hearing for 509 East Main Street to May 21 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the addition at 115 Penmoken Park with conditions --- ## Full transcript ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Now our board chair can return. Mr. Dickinson, can you speak into your microphone a little bit more? I'm sorry, let me turn on the microphone. The staff has recommended disapproval of the application. I assume that you would like to be heard on that? Correct. All right, we've had a previous hearing, but I was not there for that one. Right. We're going to have another hearing. So if you'll take your step back, and I'll call you in just a moment. Sounds good. Thank you, sir, for your patience. All right, going back to the top of the list again. Turning now to 232 East Belcourt is the applicant here. And we're going to do a staff presentation. Have we ever had one? Okay. All right, so in that case, then, Amelia, if you'll start moving forward, please. This is the project at 232 East Belcourt. This is on the corner of East Belcourt and Boonesboro. And just sort of walk you through some images on this property. And this is sort of coming in from Belcourt from Walton Avenue. And I wanted sort of to, sorry, show you some pictures over here. So we have a modern garage. It was built probably in the 70s, 80s era. We have a one-story, one-and-a-half-story bungalow with a one-story addition on the back. And two dormers in the front and back in this particular location. Proposal would be to construct a second floor atop of the existing one-story addition and or rebuild the garage to have a two-story, to be a two-story. And construct another two-story, another story on top of the existing one-story on the back. With a connector connecting these two and also a tower. And we're going to get a little closer along the streetscape. And again, this has obviously got a gate in front of it. And you can see the garage. This is a concrete block garage that has stucco over top of it to match the existing stuccoed structure. With a brick on the bottom and stucco atop. Here's inside. These are taken from the Zillow. The one-story addition on the back has been reworked many times. So the window configurations have been changed over time. Since this became an H1 overlay in 91-ish. And then you can see the proximity between the existing steps that you just saw and the existing garage. This tree that you see is no longer. It got hit by a storm a couple, I guess, last year during the March storm damage. So it's no longer there. And then there's this void in this particular area that will be enclosed. And there would be a new addition that would step off the corners here. And we'll look at the plan that shows that of each piece that would come up. And again, you can sort of see the neighboring property line. Neighbors, property line here. And then this is on the other side of the garage. There's a bit of space here. And again, this is the garage sort of in the snow earlier from the conceptual view. And from 2025 that took place here. And then I want to sort of walk you through some of the other corner properties in Belcourt. This particular structure is the corner of Forest and Sayre. This proposal is modeling this particular structure here. There was sort of an octagon shaped outbuilding that stood in this location. And this went before the board under many iterations in, I believe, in 2012, 2014 time period. This is a substantially larger structure with a two story deck. This building acts as a duplex. And the only way that the upper story structure could get down was throughout the front door. One of the things that occurred here was to create an exterior stairs going down as well. Again, some of the corner properties. This is on the corner that's under construction that went before the board for approval at the corner of Forest and Russell. Again, this is in the backyards of Delmar and Russell. Sort of to show you the sites and the corners of the structures and how additions and garages meet. This is actually going down the alley from Walton. And you can sort of see this is a newly approved garage that's on the backside of Sayre, the corner property. And going back to this proposal again. And then, of course, this is the proposed structure where it added and it changed material from being stucco to sort of a more wood material. There would be a top of the one story addition. And it would be against the back dormer windows, the back dormer here in this rendering with a walkway. There's a tower that's sort of be cut in the corner with this new flat roof, second floor addition, and new stairs leaning out into the yard. And here's an existing site plan that shows the roof plan. Again, this is the proposal. I think before the proposed addition had an addition that was sort of monolithic and did not have a change in plane. And the new proposal has a little bit of a different plane with a tower, has a little bit more of a different approach than the one story addition, second floor addition. And Mr. Taylor can talk to that a bit more. So I'm going to walk through some of the floor plans. You can see, you have all that information in your packet too there. A little bit better renderings in front of you. This, for some reason, got super light. And here's the garage. I think he was still trying to establish, and Mr. Taylor could speak to this, whether the footing is appropriate to be constructed upon or if it needed to completely be rebuilt. He can respond to that a bit better. But the location will be exactly the same as it is now. Here's some more renderings of the existing situation. And sorry, this is so faint. I think you could respond here now. You can sort of see this a little bit better. This is the proposed second floor coming up here. This is sort of interior plan. Sorry, this is so super faint. But you could sort of see this is the second floor addition on top of that proposal. And it will abut the back of those dormer windows. But the tower, if you could see in the plan, will set off from both the front edge of the second floor that comes straight up. And it will come off the end of the edge of the house in that voided area. And then there's a connector here with the second floor of the garage will be wood and glass with large glass windows with the stairs leaning down. Here's a better rendering of that. And I think here is this roof situation that sort of shows that there's a break in that rear roof line, the back wall here and against the back wall in this voided tower, creating this sort of tower area that breaks that up. Guidelines are included for your reference. This overall proposal requires further discussion. This is a one and one half story bungalow with later built one story garage on a highly visible corner in historic Belcourt. In the proposed project, it does not take up very much screen space. It does seem to increase the density with height and massing. The proposal to construct the second floor addition onto the existing one story rear addition is not within the guidelines. The design principle for addition states enlarging a property through adding stories is not appropriate. And the guidelines 2A4H state that addition should not be made by adding new stories. In addition, the dormer should be changed by the construction of the new addition in front of its existing dormer. And the guidelines 2A4A state that addition should not be built in the manner that avoid substantially removal or loss of historic materials, which does not damage or destroy the main architectural features of the building. Staff does find the proposal to demolish the garage is within the design guideline if deemed necessary to do so. The garage is a non-significant accessory structure and the demolition of the existing structure would not be detrimental to the site or in the neighborhood as noted in the guidelines. 6D, since the structure is a non-significant accessory structure. The construction of a new garage with an ADU is within the design guidelines. Guidelines 2BA2C and 2B1K respectively state accessory structure should be compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape with other accessory buildings in the historic district. And details architectural details should help give a building character and scale and details including but are not limited to corner boards, break boards, corners, brackets, downspouts, railings, columns, steps, floors, window moldings, and decorative elements and architectural details may be appropriate when they give the building in which they are placed a good sense of belonging on the street and within the guidelines. Details should be appropriate scale for the proposed structure and compatible with adjacent buildings and district. Installation of the ornament and details should be given building and imitation. Historic appearance is not allowed and new construction should be, may incorporate in contemporary materials. Hold on. However, the construction of the connector requires further discussion. Staff finds the connecting the house to the accessory building inconsistent with the pattern of development along the East Belcourt and Belcourt Historic District. The guidelines 2B1C setbacks of the new construction should be consistent with setbacks or distance of the building from the street and adjacent buildings. It helps to convey the pattern and sense of rhythm along a block or within the district, which add to the character of the streetscape and overall district. Placements of the lot in the new construction should be consistent with that of adjacent surrounding buildings along the block and within historic district. This includes both the front and side setback yards. While the proposed garage will be nearly in the same location existing, there's only one other garage that's connected and staff found that was not appropriate to connect that structure. And staff finds the proposed attachment is not within the guidelines. And at this time, staff recommends disproval of this overall proposal at this time. And Mr. Taylor is here, of course. All right, thank you. Mr. Taylor? Thank you. Before we get started, if memory serves me correctly, we did go through a conceptual review. That is correct, sir. I'm wondering, have your plans changed any? They have, and I'll be happy to walk you through that. What I'm trying to get to is, walk us through the changes that you've made from your conceptual review plan. That's what I thought would be a good idea. I know, and I'll start by saying Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. Good afternoon. I know that we obviously came before, as Mr. Dickinson's pointing out, and did a conceptual review last month. Ms. Lemire, I know you weren't here, so this will be kind of a first time for you seeing this. But I know that we went through that, and as is typical of some conceptual reviews, it was at the end of a long meeting. So sometimes those become abbreviated. So I want to walk you guys through this a little bit. Number one, the concept, just very briefly, a couple sentences about that. And then kind of the changes that we made per the suggestions that were made in our conceptual review. Obviously, as Ms. Armstrong stated, we have an existing garage that we think right now can stay, but if it needs to go, it can go. We're hoping to keep it, but if it needs to go, it can go. And then, obviously, with the existing structure, we have some slightly complicated roof lines. Obviously, the nature of the bungalow, we've got large kind of roof sheds with kind of two matching dormers on the front and the back. We have an existing addition that's been pretty drastically altered over time, and a dormer that we think may have been altered over time on the rear as well. So it presents some challenges with us engaging with that volume a little bit. And that was pointed out, I think, in our conceptual review, which was really we walked away with the sticking points or the issues where how do we engage with potentially adding that addition roof onto, what does that look like? And we tested three or four options internally and with our client to kind of understand maybe what that might look like from not only a connection standpoint. Obviously, we have connections to consider, water to consider, but how it appears and how it maybe matches up with the garage concept. So the big changes that I'm going to talk about really come from that discussion on the addition. The garage addition, if you will, other than some window alterations that sort of match what we did on the addition window changes, remains largely the same. We tested a little bit more material changes, which we did with the addition as well, but on the second floor of the house. But the big change that we have here from what you saw at the conceptual review, which was born out of the comments that came from that review, which was really focus on the roof of that second floor addition as it engages with the existing house. We had a little bit more of a roof that was punched up above almost a parapet wall that that roof died into, the dormer died into. We've now lowered that down, picked up that line, given ourselves a little bit of an eave, which we feel like is a little bit more commensurate with the house language, it's not so much a tower or a box. It has more of a language that speaks a little bit more to the house. And then the other piece that we've done is we have changed, let me go back here. Sorry, I'm going to, yeah, if you could put me back on that. Just the slide show, I think I may have hit the wrong button there. Sorry, there we go. It was sticking. So I want to go back to the, and I know that as Ms. Armstrong pointed out, the plans in the elevations are quite faint here on the screen. I think our best avenue for understanding what we're talking about is here. So you can see, as I was pointing out, that eave that kind of comes and wraps around and sort of meets up with the single pitch shed dormer here. That eave allows us to sort of, again, speak a little bit of the language that the house is speaking and sort of set us up with a line that then comes and sort of picks up on the garage line, even though the garage is a parapet wall. That eave condition, we feel like, is more in speaking with the house. The other move that we did was we changed materiality here in this vertical section. So we have horizontal wood of a differing color that goes then to a vertical wood here to just break up some of that massing a little bit. You'll see that here on this other elevation, that box sort of turns the corner, infills that niche. And the materiality change, we felt like, broke that volume up a little bit and helped it maybe scale down a little bit so much as being more of a tower, as has been described. We carried that language over here under this section. That same sort of vertical wood darker material then becomes an element underneath of here, which then, again, we felt like maybe breaks up this massing and connects this garage addition back to the house addition with a little bit of kind of a language to it. Aside from the design aesthetics that you're seeing and able to respond to, the program requirements, this is a family of four growing children. They have parents that are more increasingly staying and living with them. And so the desire is, this is an urban suburban condition, clearly. And the desire for them is to be able to have the space on their property without having to leave. They love the neighborhood. They come from Los Angeles, which is a much larger city. They're coming here. This is very much a neighborhood that they love. They love their neighbors. They love the feel of the community. And so they don't want to leave, and they're trying as best they feel they can to really enhance the property so that they can stay there. They can continue to have sort of engagement with multi-generational use on the property with parents staying there and so forth. And that's the driver for the apartment above the garage, or the space above the garage. And then also the connector, so that they can have access not only on the second floor over to that suite of the children's room. And that element here on the second floor is a small playroom for the children, so they can have connection over to that. But also so that under the first floor, there's a covering to get over here. So it's sort of, in a way, kills two birds with one stone from that standpoint. But that's the overall kind of changes that we have in the driver for the project. So I'll let you all have questions for me. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Ms. Hill? So my very first question has to do with the garage. I'll speak into your microphone. A little bit better, there we go. Has to do with the stairway from the second floor of the garage. When you say the footprint of the garage is the same size as the current one, that does not include the structure and the form that encloses the stairway. That would be an additional dock to the side in that side yard kind of garden, that's correct, yes ma'am. Which certainly adds to the volume of what we're, kind of the mass of what we're looking at. So the other observation is, without addressing the roof lines of the revised edition, are the kind of scale of the windows seem much more related to the ADU, to the garage, than they do to the house itself? And I'm assuming that's intentional. It is. I mean, I think with the existing house, we just have multiple scales of windows that are happening. So if you look here, we have under this eave, there's this kind of smaller window, still a double hung. Then here we have a larger double hung. These are varying heights and still. So there's a mix. These windows are here on the first floor. And so, we tried to sort of pick a scale in the shape of the window. Obviously, this is a double mulled unit, and that could break up with input from you all. But the idea is that we're sort of trying to feel like there's a little bit of a scale to this that then translates over to this. Which is a little bit more ample glazing in its width and height, so forth. So for me, it's trying to kind of find that balance with scale, massing, and site coverage. And I know that during the conceptual review, it was mentioned that probably would need to go for a variance on site coverage. Likely, we don't, and we do a lot of projects. So I was thinking about this this morning, and I didn't look before I came. If our FAR requirements are exceeded, I think the big issue with going, taking this before planning and zoning will be, if we do have a connector in play, they will likely look at this as being connected to the main residence. And will likely look at that additional square footage as part of the main residence, which would then probably put us into an FAR discussion. I would say currently, as an ADU, it would probably function okay if it's being separate. So that question for me is not to be answered yet. So that would be something we would certainly look at. All right, thank you. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Marquette, any questions, comments? Okay. My questions are more for the, our advisors, than for the architect. I'm sorry. Mr. Gibson. Okay, Sarah? I have questions for both. I wish I had been here for the conceptual review. I do too. I'm looking at this, and I'm really having trouble seeing how this really relates to the original structure. And plays off the original structure, and even looks like it belongs. It feels really foreign to what the original house is doing, and how the house just has some really simple, nice roof lines that are symmetrical. And this really, to me, doesn't work. Not that I, I just, I'm just not sure that it's really giving the house, you know, making the original structure feel like the original structure. It's just too big, it's too high, it's, it just doesn't work for me. And I'm trying to figure out how to. Sure. You know, and I don't know what it looked like before, and I love a modern addition, so it's not like I don't want a modern addition on the back of a house. I think that's okay when you do it. But the way that roof is still working, to me, is not saying that it's trying to work with the house. It feels like it's trying to beat the house up. So I'd like, I don't know if there's like a way to like, even like separate it, bring it down below that existing kind of nice sloped dormer line to just make it feel, I know there's probably no room there. We tested, no joke, probably six options to try to, and everything kept, you know, not working. Let her finish her comments. Please, yeah, please. And so that's what I'm really struggling with, is it just feels too massive and it doesn't really feel like it's responding to the original structure appropriately. It feels more related to the garage than the main house. And like maybe if there was like this low area, and then it was this addition, and then there was a relationship to the garage where you were just really separating it from the house, rather than it still kind of being smashed into the house some, you know, like a differentiation of that roof line or something. I would like it more, but that's, and again, I didn't see the conceptual review, so I'm not sure where it changed. But that's the immediate thing that I'm feeling is not representing the house well. Okay, Mr. Taylor. Frankly, I didn't see that big a change from what you had originally proposed, but then I'm not the architect here, so maybe subtleties is not my strong point. I went out there and made a point of walking the property and just trying to put this addition on the property, which is a rather small piece of property. And it's made smaller by that big barricade fence they've got, which I think, which is not really showing up in your drawings. And that's sort of really puffs everything up, if you like. And I have to agree with Sarah, it's, well, first of all, I saw how funky that dormer is, and it is, it's a big shed dormer on the back. And you're probably right, it got added sometime later, and that changed the overall, what you can do additionally, as an addition to the back of that property. And I'm, you may be just stuck with it, because you're working around it in such a way that anything that you put in your violating guideline H by putting a second story, you are creating way too much mass for that house. And that's my problem with it, it's just, it's incongruous, it reads better with the garage than it does with the house, and I just don't see how we can move forward with it. Now, even if you took away the connector, which would help, but that destroys the whole point of trying to do this connecting that you're trying. The concept is beautiful. Have an ADU, have a way that people. get two from the main house to the ADU without getting wet, et cetera, is a great idea. This is not the property for it, sure. And that's my thought. So hearing these comments, because I think there was sort of a spirit maybe prior to maybe considering this, almost as if it's a conceptual review a little bit, I might move that we request a postponement until next month to where we can circle the wagons again and get back in touch, my clients and staff, and work through some ideas here and come back next month and let's revisit this. So I'd like to request postponement if I might. Absolutely. My only comment is you're going to have to make that addition read more like an addition and not as a part of the garage. Yeah. OK. Do I have, first of all, I need a waiver for you. I have that. We'll be past our deadline. Yeah. I have a waiver. Ms. Armstrong's given me that, so I have that. OK, all right. So why don't we go ahead. Would you like me to deliver that now or hold that until? Will someone tell me the date for our next meeting? And this is not a postponement. This is a continuation of the hearing. Could staff suggest a couple of administrative thoughts here? Sure. Since you do need to do a waiver already, I would suggest that you do a 60-day waiver, giving you the opportunity for not one more meeting, but two. Very well. Not because we're trying to take everybody's time, but the turnaround to get substantial revision drawings from you would be less than two weeks in order to make the May meeting. And you may be able to meet that, in which case. But we need you all to have time to meet with you all and review it, so I want to make sure. So I would suggest a 60-day waiver. And the next two meetings. We're looking at May 21, I believe. I'm sorry? May 21 for the next meeting? I was just looking for that to remind me. Did you check that? I did. Thank you. So you would continue it, please? Not postpone? I've already noticed that. I knew you would. And so the choice would really be to the applicant, if you want to continue to the next meeting, or if you want to just go ahead and continue it now to the June meeting. Can I continue it to the next meeting and then make that decision in the interim whether we go to June or not? You can. Would that be reposted to the June meeting? Yeah, I would just want to confer with my client if that's good. We can work in that amount of time, but I want to make sure staff has time. I want to make sure we can meet with them prior. And so I don't want to short that, but also if we can meet it, that they're, I think, eager to understand where this is headed. And I hope spring's eternal, that you can get everything resolved before our meeting. That's right. And the reason, of course, for trying to be as accurate as possible on the date is it will not be being re-advertised. And the more things have to get postponed, like say you don't want to come to the next meeting, the next meeting we announce it will be at the next meeting. It starts to get into territory that's getting a little, has anybody been able to keep track of this who's interested in it to know when it's going to be heard? And we might end up having to re-advertise. I would probably be able to know by tomorrow if I can talk to my clients and then say, we're willing to do this work. What time can they dedicate? And then I can talk to staff and see if they're available. I understand. It's the board's choice as far as which date. Let's see if we can, why don't we continue this to June but give Mr. Gibson the option of requesting an earlier meet, if need be. You don't like that? It doesn't satisfy the legal notice issue. All right, let's just continue in May and we'll just have to deal with it. Yeah. And Mr. Chair, could you lean into your mic a bit? I'll try to. There we go. All right. These chairs don't cooperate with short little bodies like mine. You're going to have to train your chair better. No, I just need my two inches back that I lost somewhere. All right, so do I have a motion to continue the proceedings to May 21? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Without objection, this matter stands continued to May 21. Mr. Taylor, as always, thank you for being able to work with us and making your client understand that this is a process. Of course. Thank you all. Thank you so much. All right. All right, turning now to 509 East Main Street in the Belcourt Historic District is the applicant here. Come on up. And I'll just ask right now, are there people in the audience who would like to make a comment about this process or about this application? OK, I see one. All right. Not yet, but I'm going to get your name in the record first. Hank Morris. All right. The staff has recommended approval subject to some conditions. And if I'll take you through them on page 17 or the last page. OK, I'm there. OK, the first one is replacement of the Lugo wall with masonry. Are we in agreement with that? Yes. Number two, the green screen replacement of bamboo with a sweet gum column or trees along the southeast parking lot wall. Are we in agreement with that? Yes. And number three and four are the standard conditions. Are we in agreement with those? Yes, we are. All right. Do I have any comments from the board? Do I have any comments from the audience? No. OK. All right, then the chair's ready for a motion. But you are noting that there's more to the application. Yeah. All right. Sorry. Yeah. I'm going to ask for future reference because apparently I can't read anymore. If you both face disapprovals. Because they have to be. Both, but I'll work on it. Seriously, because it boils into it. I'm so sorry for missing that. I'm assuming you would like to be heard on the disapproval of your extension of the vent system and to drive it on the garage kitchen wall? Yes, I would. Just procedurally, does Ms. Armstrong start with kind of a background on the group? All right, let's go ahead and have Ms. Armstrong start that. I will apologize. I have been not with it the past day or two. All right. So this house, of course, was designed by Vertner Dandy and built in 1907 by the Combs Lumber Company and built in the classical style. And several changes have occurred over years. And its last use was the Crossgate Gallery is now with a head of residence above. And now it's being renovated for a private club. And October 16, 2024, excuse me. And you'll note there's a COA in your spot that talked about the different items that they got approval for. That would be because they requested things like putting the brick pavers on the front porch, closing up the windows on the side, on the back addition, and then to install openings on the hood vents on the back of the addition, installing a new HVAC system in the parking lot, replacing an older staircase system on the third floor, going down the second floor in the rear addition, and a new planter box, or new wood planter box and all that kind of stuff. And the owners decided not to proceed with items number one and item number two, but to change that to bamboo plants. And that was also part of what the council had approved was to put any kind of greenery that would need to be so many feet high. I think it was 12 to 13 feet high from grade. And so one of the things they were trying to do was trying to get that height. So the decision was made to put the bamboo in at that time. And so as work started and the project evolved, kitchen addition accommodations became a driving force in many of these decisions being made. And at the time, the applicants were requesting further vents for the kitchen, and the initial proposal was for only a small vent. And then it became quite large, and so we're going to walk around the property a little bit. Of course, this is the Forest Street side. Which also has a service area already. This was the addition where many of the changes had occurred. And this is prior to, this is taken as of October in 2024. And of course, here's the parking lot. And the perimeter is where the bamboo would go. And in the far corner, I'll just point out, that's where they're requesting also the trees to go from being the bamboo to the common or sweet gum trees. And as we can see in these two images, this is the location of where the vent was proposed to be, and it was approved to be going in this location. And you can sort of see there's an offset here, and it would be in this location. Again, this is just sort of pictures taking of where that bamboo would go. And as you can see in the far area, this is a larger area, green space, where they're proposing for the sweet gums. And again, I would like to point out this picture. This is where the proposal of the vent was supposed to go. And then this turned into this, where the mushroom piece, which is this piece right here, was initially on the plan. But due to other issues, it had to gain this big tuba-like piece. So part of the proposal is to request to keep this, and also to put a new opening that would go down to the makeup air handler unit that was already been approved that's in the parking lot area, and then the wall that's here that was initially supposed to be louvered then got changed to the masonry due to fire issues that will be stuccoed. Excuse me, would you repeat that again? So the initial proposal, and we'll look at the plan here in a second, was just for what we call the mushroom, which is just this diagonal piece here. And due to other issues that Mr. Morris can explain, they had to have this apparatus be put on top of the mushroom. And the proposal is to- The piece going vertically down is also- And also the vertical down part, right. And so what they're asking for now is to retain this system, because the only thing that was on the proposal, the plan of October 16, 2024 that was approved, was the small opening that would be for this little mushroom piece. And so what is the issue driving this additional extension, if you will? Pardon, excuse me? What is the issue that's driving the cost and to add that extension? Well, Mr. Morris can speak to it more about that. And then, of course, the wall that had to also be changed due to some fire rating issues. And then also, on top of that, is they had some issues with the stucco in the back. And so all these things, though, none of these items were able, they didn't come back to us except for the wall to ask about getting certificates of appropriateness for all these changes. So we were also playing catch up and asking them to get seal ways for these additional items. So all these items that seem to be a bit more incongruent are all these items that did not get permits and were changes from the approvals from the October 16, 2024 meeting, approvals. Well, and I do think we need to note that they haven't been honoring stop work orders. They've just kept going. And there has been several stop work orders sent with the various things happening that you're seeing. All right, thank you. And then this is the image from Forest Avenue showing the taking of today. OK. And so here is the site plan that was approved by the Planning Commission. And then another site plan approved that showed, I think I wanted to show you, the location of the air makeup handler in this location. And sorry, these pictures are so faint. But you do see these in there. And I think the important piece to see is if you can look in this particular location on your physical plan, that there is a notation talking about the vent system, which just shows a circular vent in this particular location here. And then also in the back, you could sort of see in this particular area where you have the doors, that there is a little bit of a mushroom that shows what was originally approved. And you'll see that on your plans in front of you versus what you see here, because it's so faint. We could be glad to put this sheet on Elmo or whatever we've named it now, because that's really not working out about those pale drawings. OK, yeah, let's do that, please. OK. The screen, by the way, is supposed to be 15 feet high of the trees, by the way. The screening is supposed to be 15 feet high. And they do actually have the bamboos in place to be put in. OK, can we get focused? We're changing out. I see that. So as you can see, the proposal was just for this exhaust fan in this location. If you can move that up, Haley, a little bit, please. Which page is this? So this, and I can't use that right there. But you can see where it says exhaust fan and the makeup handler. So what they've also put in is that, but then there's another ductwork going down to the makeup handler. So what is 15 feet high? Well, the bamboo was supposed to be 15 feet high. Landscaping. The landscaping around the perimeter of the back. And how does that relate to the thing? It's not. I was just clarifying that. Sorry. You were implying almost that it was going to screen the fan, but it doesn't, does it? If I may, just because there's, this one's a little circuitous. Because the initial application for the fence to screen out the mechanical unit at grade, the horizontal fence at grade, was to be made of a bamboo wood product. She's using the term bamboo about a fencing material tied to that, where they've now put the concrete block fence that's parged. So the bamboo was a fencing material that they have gone away from and are not doing. The other use of the term bamboo is bamboo plants that were to go, they proposed to go, but then changed their mind in one portion of the site plan to not use bamboo and put sweet gum trees in lieu of. So their earlier October permit authorizes, through the BOAR's vote, the bamboo planting material to go in that wall area. And some is still going to go in other segments of that wall area. But they have changed their mind about that, and they're now applying for those sweet gums. So it's not an either or deal, and I hope that helps. Thank you. And it's just swapping out in that far area of the parking lot. Yes, Mr. Marquette. What is the use of the area above the garage? That is a deck area that's like an entertainment deck area. And Mr. Morris can speak to that a bit more. And why would venting vertically into that space not be possible? Mr. Morris can speak to that as well. Has that been analyzed at all, or was it not part of the plan? That has been analyzed a lot. That's a public space, so it can't be vented. A public space. Brack, we're leaving to building inspection the specifications of the technical end of this vent and keeping on the track of the H1 overlay being in the position to review what its appearance is versus its functionality per mechanical standards. So considerations of is that a good idea to have a vent coming out on a deck area, while it's certainly in the purview of this board's authority to review the architectural design of that and impact of that on the integrity of the structure and the site. We're not getting in as a process to is that a functional, smart idea. And I understand that. I just note that there are other chimneys on the property, and perhaps that would be an option. And I didn't know if that had been explored or not. That has been discussed with Mr. Morris. All right, so are we ready for Mr. Morrison? Well, no, I'm not quite done. So if I can continue. Sorry. Finding staff finds the proposal to change the louver screen, install the masonry walls within guidelines, the design principle for the mechanical systems, and screening of the units through the shrubbery, fencing, and lattice panels is highly recommended. Staff finds the proposal inappropriate. This circumstance is due to the fire and rain issues, and the stucco wall blends in with the wall and the kitchen elements. And hold on. Misplaced my stuff. Here we go. Staff finds a proposal to install the ductwork going down towards the makeup handler is within the guidelines because it is hidden behind the newly built masonry wall. However, the ductwork, as installed leading up and away from the opening, does not meet the guidelines, nor is it appropriate. And this element is large and highly visible. Guidelines 3A, which states mechanical systems should be located where they are least visible and intrusive, or visible on the sides of the buildings where they should be screened. This element, as constructed, is not within the guidelines. And staff finds a proposal to change the bamboo to culinary trees around the southeast parking lot. It's within the guidelines. Guidelines 6B, C, which states landscape elements and alternate should be compatible to the site and surrounding property should be visible and dominant and intrusive, suggesting a false sense of history. Staff finds it appropriate to add more substantial trees where there are more green spaces to plantings. And the proposal to install Drive-It over the stucco is not within keeping the guidelines. And typically, staff would like to see whether they would have a re-stuccoed rather than an imitation material placed over the existing material. And let me go back to that image so that makes a bit more content because we didn't really talk about that as much. But there was confusion whether, so this was a stuccoed building. And it looks like they were putting Drive-It over this versus re-stuccoing it. And so staff is disapproving the idea of putting Drive-It on the back. And typically, staff would like to have it re-stuccoed rather than have an imitation placed over the existing material. Guidelines 2B, 2J say imitation materials that give building imitation history. Historic appearance are not allowed. And then staff recommends disapproval of the extended vent system and the Drive-It on the garage and kitchen wall. And I'll let Mr. Morris answer any of those questions you might have. So on the masonry wall, that is Drive-It as well, or EFES, not stucco? It's stucco on the masonry wall. And we were understanding that this was a Drive-It. Mr. Morris can answer those questions for you. OK, before we go. So we were understanding, so the wall itself, the back of this is a concrete block addition that's been stuccoed. So they had some water issues. And Mr. Morris, it looks like they were applying Drive-It to it. And what exactly is Drive-It? It's a synthetic stucco. And so as we don't necessarily approve synthetic materials, we, like the real thing, that's why we're disproving the synthetic drive-it, stucco drive-it form versus that. Mr. Morris has some other information that he can speak to about that. Mr. Chair, Drive-It comes in sheets. OK, got it. And Drive-It is actually a name brand. We should be saying, it's like E, EFES, E, exterior insulated finish. Which means it should have been in all caps. Indicate it's a EIFS. OK, all right, I will note for the record before we move much further, there is an email from a Daniel Elkinson that is expressing his strong objections to this kitchen hood. I won't read the objections into the record, except to note that he's been trying to follow this issue. He can't be here today, and he's strongly objecting to that kitchen hood idea. All right, so Mr. Morris. Thank you. And first of all, I think you need to discuss why you were not complying with the staff stop orders. Sure. If I may, I'd like to just clarify the two specific, what I'd like to do is address the two specific items that staff is disapproving. And what I believe that to be, correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Armstrong, is specifically the extension of the, sorry, I don't quite know how to use it. Excuse me, could you pull the microphone? Of course. Let me see. Oh, go back. And then the little pointers at the top. OK. So just to clarify, I think the two items that the staff is specifically recommending approval against is the extension ductwork piece here that comes off the previously approved venting system. That being number one. And then the second being the stucco repair work that was done on the back elevation of the building. Those are the two items we're talking about. OK. I'd like to, if it's OK, I'd love to just kind of go back here and provide a little bit of background on this property and our history in getting this permitted and approved. I think it'll provide some helpful context. This has been, forgive me, I'm looking at my iPhone notes here, it's been a rather long project. But we started design for the renovations here back at the end of 2023. We obviously knew that we fell well within an H1 overlay zone and that any exterior work was subject to approval in this forum or otherwise approved through the staff. So we worked very closely with Gibson Taylor Thompson, the architect of record, as well as Miss Armstrong and the staff at planning, as we were designing the kitchen exhaust system, and knowing that the issue and the specific location of where we were exhausting was going to be an item that there would be some opinion on. So we worked very closely with Miss Armstrong's staff to land on a location for the vent system. As you can see, it's sort of in that niche where there's a natural setback in the building, so it's partially obstructed from the street. I will say we went through a good deal of effort to engineer the kitchen and the design of the interior to make that happen. We had to rework the location of the hot cooking line. We had to run a substantially longer interior ductwork run than we would have had to do had we just run out onto Forest Ave. But we perfectly understood the parameters. We were happy to do it. We submitted the building permit for this project in November 2023. And that building permit specifically showed the exhaust system as was ultimately approved in the BOAR hearing in September. That building permit was approved in January 2024. Fast forward several months, we could not be heard by the BOAR until September of last year. That related to a zoning use objection on the redevelopment of the property that took several months at the city planning level. So once that was resolved, we went in and we were heard before the board in October of last year. Ahead of that hearing, we submitted for our mechanical permit and all of the associated drawings, which showed just that mushroom vent coming out of the building, none of this additional ductwork. That was approved by the mechanical department at LFUCG. That permit was issued in September. It was the exact same thing that we came back in front of the board with in October. We received the COA in October. At the end of October, we started the installation of the captive air hood system, and the exhaust system, and the make-a-bear unit. We completed all of the work with the exception of that additional exhaust penetration. But we completed the kitchen exhaust itself was constructed exactly to the specification of what was approved in both the mechanical permit, the base building permit, and the certificate of appropriateness. And then as we got to the back end of construction, we're now fast forwarding four or five more months. We're in February of this year. We had the HVAC mechanical inspector from LFUCG out to sign off on the building and issue their final sign off for our occupancy. And when they came out, they had a concern about the proposed location of that mushroom vent, and that because we have a recess in the building there, the concern was that we would have grease-laden vapors that would build up in this corner here, and they could potentially become a fire hazard over time. So what they requested is that we added that four to five foot boot onto the existing exhaust system, and that we redirect the exhaust away from the building back towards our parking lot. At this time, we were several weeks away from opening our property. So we proceeded with adding that ductwork per the LFUCG inspector's direct request. They came out the following week. They approved the system. They issued our final permit. I speak for all of my partners on this project that there's no part of us that desired to install that extension of ductwork. We agree it's unsightly, and we would happily remove it if that could be resolved within the various departments, with the mechanical department at LFUCG. Just before I arrived here, I spoke with Dennis Taylor, who is the supervisor at the mechanical department, LFUCG. He expressed to me, he relayed once again why that was initially requested. He now understands that this is an item that we're having trouble with on the historic side. So he's proposed that we, with Ms. Armstrong, her staff, and the mechanical department, we go out to the site. We figure out some sort of alternate solution that doesn't result in having this large piece of ductwork. So we're very happy to work with Ms. Armstrong's team, with the mechanical department, to figure out some kind of solution here. I think if on the mechanical side they're OK with removing it, we'd happily do that. I think alternatively, we could look at reworking the ductwork to kick out, to potentially be a shorter run. We could paint it. We could look at some screening options, perhaps some mounted metal screening options. We're very open to working with the staff on this. So I hope that explains that. And in answer to your question, Mr. Marquette, about the proposed chimney solution, we did look into that several months ago as we were working through this. The issue with that, and forgive me, I don't recall the exact regulation, but there is a minimum distance requirement from where the hood exhausts to any occupiable area if it's on the same grade. If we were to look at a chimney solution that would go up on the outside of that parapet wall or within it, it would end up being a rather large 10, 12, 15 foot chimney. So that's why we moved away from that. But we're happy to paint it. We're happy to rework it. We're happy to find a reasonable way of screening it. This was not done with malintent. And I hope that's clear. Thank you. So I think, Boa Downe, you're saying the exigencies of your opening trumped everything else, quite frankly. I'm not here to fuss at you over this. This is unfortunately not that uncommon a situation where we get caught between conflicting demands that are not necessarily historically sensitive, but are more fire oriented and fire safety oriented. And so they've proposed solutions that can be aesthetically displeasing. My question to you initially is, how much noise is going to come out of that vent? How noisy is that vent going to be when it's actually venting? I wish I could give you a specific decibel, but it sounds like a traditional kitchen exhaust. I think I'm hearing people behind you shaking their head. Some of our neighbors may have differing opinions, but it's of the motor runs at an RPM that's equivalent to a traditional commercial kitchen exhaust system. Well, it's amplified by the size of that exhaust, though, is the problem. That's very possible, and we'd be happy to look at it. Are we still actively trying to explore an alternative to what you actually installed? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Our preference would be to simply remove it. Remove it. Yeah, we'd be very happy to remove it. I think your problem is right now, you're caught with us. We're not going to approve this, I can tell you that. At least I'm not going to. And I'm wondering, you're just going to have to go back to the people that installed it and say, we've got to have a work around and be sympathetic to the fact we're a historic district and come up with some alternative design. Am I missing something here? And not to interrupt, but I propose, from our side, the frustration was that we went through, not with the historic side, but with the building side. We submitted our drawings more than a year ago. Those drawings were approved. We then specifically submitted a set of mechanical drawings. If that was an issue, in our minds, that's why we submit permit drawings. Mr. Morris, I can fully understand your frustration. We would have got ahead of it and addressed it with Ms. Armstrong months ago. This is why people love the hate government at times. Precisely, they get focused on one issue and do not pay attention to the other issues, and then you've got a problem. I know that. Also, Mr. Chair, if the staff could note, it's important for everybody to realize that any permit that is issued by the historic process and approved by the board and issued accordingly carries on at two standard conditions. I know. And neither one of those standard conditions were honored at your end, Mr. Morris, in that it says very specifically, if there are any other changes, any changes that are necessary to be made due to other reviews within the LFUCG, that those will be brought back to Historic Preservation and made aware of and so forth. And everything that's necessary to happen to that worked out prior to the commencement of any additional work. And to just explain the practical issue with that, we were two weeks away from opening a business for which we had 40 full-time staff already employed. This was a request made at the last minute by the mechanical inspector. We had no choice but to comply with it. And always phone Preservation and let us know your situation. You've had a choice. You decided not to shut down your business. I understand that. Sure. I have a question. I think since I have been on the board, this is the first notice of violation that has been part of the process for me. It may be the first one that's caught your eye. OK. So what are the consequences of that, whether it be a fine or a cessation of work? Or just educate me on that. It is a stop work immediately cessation notice. And if that continues to be ignored, then we send you another one. And it ratchets up from there. We have not had a situation yet where we've had to try to get into financial penalty for it. Because the whole intent is to get people's attention to stop, come into the process, and get right with the process, put the changes in drawings so that they can come to you all if needed, or to the staff, and to get it resolved and the project move on. So knock on wood, we haven't had one that has come to the point of starting to look for financial penalties and so forth. But they are very seriously intended to be paid attention to and honored. So if I'm looking at this picture, and I am familiar with the little mushroom button hoods, even if you take this extender off of this, it's still going to be considerably larger than what I think we understood or thought that this mushroom was going to be, looking at the drawings that were submitted versus where that thing ends, in the corner. It's so much bigger, even if you take that extender off, than what I think we would have wanted to approve coming out of the side of this. So I'm not sure that there's a good solution here, even if the HVAC inspector says, well, okay, you can take that extender off. It's still bigger than what I'm looking at in the drawings. So it does seem like some kind of screening is going to be necessary. And I don't know whether there are examples of such screening that have been done in other historic projects that could be a point of reference, but because the screening will do two things. It will visually help shield it, but it also should help dampen some of the noise that's back behind that screening. The staff will research that in terms of any other one within the H1 overlays, but given that this is at the scale of a commercial kitchen, I don't know that we have another like-kind situation. Are we talking about green plant screening or construction screening? I don't myself have the answer to that, but I've nothing. Plant screening would have to be evergreen. Right, but there's also nowhere to plant or... This needs to be constructed. We've been struggling to get them plants on the other side of the property. I think it'd have to be constructed. I think so too. This is an example I will note where historic preservation could have been a real positive partner for you, that when you have a city inspector say that this change has to be made and you have a requirement to come back to historic preservation, they know how to help interface with those conflicting requirements. So this was a missed opportunity that could have really worked to your benefit to have reached out and said, I have this problem. Can you help me kind of work my way through it? Just as a future reference. No, no, no, we acknowledge that. We acknowledge that. And I would just say before I move on to the stucco issue, we're more than willing to work on a screening solution if it sounds like that's the way this is going. I think our request would be to have the condition, have this conditionally approved subject to us meeting with the planning staff and aligning on a screening solution that's suitable to them and not having to come back before the board for another hearing. But we're open to an array of options, whether that be a metal mounted screen or a stucco screen. The equivalent of what you're asking for, and I'll give you a different comparison, in the world of environmental law and strip mining, what you're basically asking for is, allow us to keep strip mining and we'll work out some other way to avoid strip mining. That's just not an option. And I know your business may be in danger because of this, but we just cannot move forward and let you ignore us like this. We really can't. That's not the intent. The intent is to come up with a solution. Well, the intent is, we can't conditionally approve is what I'm trying to tell you. That's just not gonna happen. Well, we'd be happy to, as I proposed earlier, to have a coordination meeting with Ms. Armstrong's team, the planning staff, the mechanical department, come back with a proposed solution that works for everybody. Well, hopefully you can find one. That's my concern. Good. Mr. Chair, there was some discussion this morning, internally at the administrative end, about that meeting being that there could be an onsite meeting at the building inspection folks and preservation folks, myself included, and all to meet on it. But I said it needs to come back to you all with whatever the outcome of that meeting is and so forth. So it would be up to the board, of course, if you want to take final action on this matter of the vent today or for the stucco piece as well, whatever is your inclination, or if you wanted to continue any part of it to come back to your next month's meeting. If the staff's recommending continuation, we could do that. Well, I'm saying it's certainly an option as a way to move this forward so that the process is more accurately involved and that the concerned citizens around it, which everybody's aware there's a lot of concern about this, would still have an opportunity to come and hear what was the outcome of this meeting that's being talked about and what is their application for their next solution to this. Okay, let's move on now to the stucco issue, though. We'll come back to that in just a moment. I just want to get the other part. Sure. Go ahead. My notes on here are much shorter. We had some spalling stucco on two of the rear facades of the building, small sections of the rear facade of the building. This was in mid-March, ahead of the opening of the facility in early April. We also had some water intrusion on the first floor and noticed that there might be some waterproofing failure. The area of the building that we're looking at here, this was an addition that was done to the original house in the early 90s, 1992, I think the addition was completed. And then peeling back a couple layers of the existing textured material on the side of the building, what we learned was that on certain sections of the rear of the building, the CMU had not been properly waterproofed. So when we peeled back a couple sections of paint, all we found was just CMU block, no waterproofing, no rigid insulation, no traditional assembly that you'd expect to see with a stucco or even an EFA system. So what we did is we came back here with the white panels that you see. Those essentially serve as a vapor barrier to waterproof the existing CMU block. And then we came back on top of that with an EFAS single layer stucco system. It's a true stucco final finish. It matches the exact texture and the exact paint color of the rest of the building. And we'd be happy to, I don't have photographs today to exemplify that, but what we reinstalled as a final texture matches the exact system that was historically there. Well, I say historic, but 1992. Well, perhaps that's another issue you can continue reviewing with the staff about and see if what you say is acceptable to the staff for recommendation to us or not. The staff, since we're going to be there to meet on the other, we'll be glad to look at it further. But keep in mind that applying synthetics to our historic properties, whether from 20 years ago or 30 years ago or further back- Well, I think that is the Polestar. The Polestar is you should be replacing stucco with stucco, not stucco with a stucco substitute. And the finish code on there is absolutely a stucco. What you're seeing behind is the waterproofing, essentially the waterproofing buildup and architectural detail behind that stucco. It's not a communication issue and I hope that you all can work it out. Now, I believe we have, and I'm not trying to move it too quickly, but I have another long hearing coming up, I know. No, that's okay. Do I have any comments from the audience? Marcy? If you'll state your name for the record, please. Yeah, I'm Marcy Deaton. I live next door to them at 116 Forest. I had a very lengthy presentation to give you and lots of photos, but I think 99% of what I was going to show you has already been discussed and covered. But I did want to bring something up that has come up in the last two or three days. It's spring and they brought all the bamboo because the plan, the final development plan from October, I think, says plant the bamboo in the spring with some kind of root barrier to keep it from taking over the rest of the neighborhood. It's on the plan. There's a diagram of it. So they brought all their bamboo and they were not putting anything to do the roots. And I'm on the other side of that wall. My sewer and water go right down that wall. The bamboo cannot escape. It's a great idea because it's tall and I like that. But what I'm worried about now is one of the owners told our president of our neighborhood association that they don't want to put the barrier in now. Now they want to put in faux bamboo. So I'm worried now that they're not even going to put the bamboo. And since we're all here, I would like somebody to discuss the bamboo. Mr. Morris? Someone. Hello, my name is William Ryan. I'm one of the owners of the property here and I can probably say. You're going to have to speak up a little bit better than that. Sure, sure. I can probably speak better to the bamboo here. So we're not putting up any faux bamboo. That's not anything that we're planning to do. I know on this as well, we talked about putting the slender silhouette sweet gum trees on the back because they're going to have a more full barrier for everybody. But as far as the barrier on the ground, what was specified is just a sheet. But on either side we have concrete and then we have asphalt. That concrete goes down 36 inches and we also have non-invasive bamboo. That is kind of our thought there and we had spoke about that with staff about the barrier that is already built in with the footer of the building on the one side and then the asphalt on the other. It's not going to go anywhere. Let me suggest that you all schedule a meeting with the Neighborhood Association and I think Morrissey can facilitate that for you if need be, since you're all here. Sure, yeah, I mean we're happy to talk to them about that, of course. Communications with the Neighborhood Associations can head off a whole bunch of headaches and so if you could. Oh yeah, absolutely. I know you've been working with them but unfortunately you're showing a tendency of acting first and asking for permission afterwards and it just doesn't work that way. Yeah, so we've met with the neighbors for countless hours at the beginning of this process and throughout this process and we've been in contact with them throughout all of construction so we're glad to meet with them again. Please, because this whole business of, we're now addressing this concern about faux bamboo, probably shouldn't have ever come up in the first place. Yeah, that's a misunderstanding. We have the bamboo on property right now, ready to plant it tomorrow. All right, well hopefully you can have a good conversation about this. Sure. All right, thank you, sir. Yeah, thank you all. Okay, do we have any further questions or board comments? Brett. I'm concerned about the last statement. So the bamboo is on property, ready to be planted but without the barrier? Come on up. I'm sorry, I've let you go too soon. I'm well acquainted with bamboo and how it. Aren't we all? Sure, yeah, no. Bamboo was not our initial suggestion. We are just complying. But yeah, we have the bamboo on site. It's in planters, the plastic planters, and it's ready to be planted. Again, the barrier that is indicated is a, you know, it's just a sheet. The barrier that exists there currently due to the six foot wall on either side of the property and the asphalt on the other side will act as a barrier. And our landscape architect can speak more to that. But I'm happy to discuss that with the neighbors Well, I guess this begs the question, are you actually planning it in the ground? Yes, sir. And what's going to keep it from spreading out across underneath the wall? There's a 36 foot footer underneath there. I mean, 36 inch footer underneath there. And then there's asphalt on the other side. How far down can bamboo grow? I mean, I'm sure bamboo can grow down pretty far, but this is non-invasive bamboo, which we specifically picked because, again, bamboo was not our first choice here. And we're happy to switch to something else if that's what you all would like. But, you know, we have the bamboo. That's where it is. That's why also we would like to switch to the sweetgums on the back. They provide a better screening. We don't have the ground cover, as you saw from some of those pictures. We have about 18 inches. So bamboo has a very small footprint. So if, you know, that's the reason why the bamboo is there. I believe that the, you know, the neighbors and the council all, you know, asked for the bamboo. Again, we're just trying to comply here. And again, that wall should serve as a large enough barrier there with the footer. Nothing we're going to put in the ground is going to go any deeper than that. If we were to put some kind of, you know, concrete underneath that, it would not allow the bamboo to grow at all. So. I would like to request that some verification of the type of bamboo be submitted. We can do that. So we can be sure it is of the variety. A specification sheet of what the actual plant material is. I can show you a receipt of what was purchased and that it is the non-invasive species of bamboo. That's fine, but we're going to go ahead and add the condition to our approval. That can be a condition number five. Sure. I feel like if we had a rhizome barrier in the drawings, I would like clarification that what is being proposed from a landscape architect is actually adequate for the barrier of this bamboo. Sure, yeah. And also, please, board members consider, I think we need documentation of how deep the footer, the concrete footer under that brick wall is. You architects, wouldn't 36 inches of concrete be a bit unusual? Yes. So we need that, please. Because our process, in a way, is having to double check what the urban county councils and the planning commissions and the urban county councils site plan that was adopted for this is to encompass. And I feel like this information also needs to be shared simultaneously by you as the property owners with the division of planning. And because they too are overseeing the aspects of this site plan. So don't have what happened to us happen to planning, us being the H1 process. By your not providing to planning how you're satisfying the conditions on that site plan. Just with what they're asking for today. Any additional materials you as the owner feel they should receive. Okay, would you like us to send the proof of purchase of the non-invasive to you at staff level? We'll take all the information you feel that you need to provide us in light of this discussion and what the site plan requirements are approved by the council and the planning commission. Sounds good. That's what we will expect to see, please. Yes, ma'am. And that's gonna be actually formally added, I think, in just a moment. All right, any other questions about the bamboo? All right, I think we're done with you, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. All right, coming back now to the mechanical extension, I think I'm hearing a request that we continue this hearing, pending further negotiations and conversation, but that we go ahead and approve what the staff has recommended approval. We're breaking this out into two pieces. And I would note your deadline for action on this is May 31. And our next meeting is May 20, so we've got time. So there is time for the one. I know we don't normally do things piecemeal, but should we go ahead and just do the four conditions that we're going to. I think it's your all's choice, and I think it probably would behoove it to stay together, both the approval and everything that goes. All being postponed, or excuse me, get my tongue together, continued. I think my recommendation as staff to you all would be that it be the most appropriate to continue everything about this application. And we do have a waiver that takes us through the end of May. To the May 31 date. All right, then after this very long conversation, an interesting conversation, I might add, do I have a motion that we continue this proceeding to May 21? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. No discussion. Chair calls the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes, and we're continued to May 21. Thank you so much. Now that Brett's back, all right. I'd like to request for a break. We're going to take a 10 minute break. Will there be no break to the conceptual review? So in the future, there is never an exhaust fan that is. OK. So we're going to take a 10 minute break. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. I was not at the last meeting. Had we opened this one and continued it? Is that where we were? Or is this a new proposal that we're looking at? We're continuing it, I believe so. The staff has recommended disapproval of the application, so I think what I'd like for us to do, they have, however, recognized that there are some concerns that we thought maybe we could approve it with conditions. And those three conditions are, submit the final door and window details and specifications staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. And second are the two standard conditions I have been discussing off and on. If we decide to move forward with this, will you agree with those three conditions? Of course. There's also, I think, vinyl windows in the new addition. I'm sorry, what was that? Are vinyl windows already installed? Would your client be willing to take those windows out and substitute wood? Yeah, we can do that. Something that would meet the guidelines. I think, Mr. Berry, I sent you a specification of the windows, the new windows on there. I think there, was there aluminum ones? Yeah. So I did find some aluminum windows. All right, well, Berry, come on up here and let's go through the staff presentation and then we'll try to figure out where we'll go from there. I appreciate your patience. I know this has been a process. All right, Berry. Okay, 115 Pinnmoken Park, and it's actually retaining an addition, but we're looking at it as new. In January, the staff was contacted by a representative of the owner. He explained that the owner recently bought this house and hired a contractor to build an addition. The contractor did not get a building permit nor a certificate of appropriateness. Staff met with the representative and homeowner and found that the foundation was constructed, as were the walls and the roof. The 12 foot by 20 foot addition is attached to a Gunnison structure that has an existing 12 by 20 addition. According to the KHA, Kentucky Heritage Council form and PVA record, the structure was built in 1947 with the rear addition in the mid-70s. Representatives stepped in to attempt to help the property owner obtain the proper permits. He proposed plans, obtained a survey of the property, and a structural engineer assessment of the work. Staff explained that the concerns for this project is the one long run. The requested rear addition has been erected with a 612 shingle covered roof and a concrete block foundation. The recently erected addition has no siding at this time, but does have 6 over 6 snap-in vinyl windows that have been installed. The 612 roof meets the existing 612 new addition and is now one long 64 foot run, including the existing addition and the historic main structure. The proposal calls for a change of one rear window to a door and a wood stoop. The proposal calls for a hardy plank siding to be vertical as it abuts the horizontal vinyl of the previous addition. The main structure and the addition are clad with vinyl clad snap-in windows, which was obviously built before the Pensacola Historic District. After the March BOAR meeting, staff met with the designer and contractor to discuss changes that could be made to the constructed addition to possibly bring the structure into compliance with the guidelines. After the meeting, new drawings were submitted to staff for review and hearing by the BOAR. The new drawings include the siding on the addition will be changed to a vertical cementitious board. The vinyl windows that have already been installed will remain the same size, but be changed to guideline compliant windows. And I actually have received the submittal for clad wood windows. A break in the roof between the house and the addition is proposed. This will be accomplished by reducing the roof slope for a section from 6-12 to 3-12. Cementitious pilasters will be added to the four corners of the addition. A bay window is proposed to be added to the west elevation. The addition will also have a rear stoop for exiting. Guidelines are included for your use. The proposal of this already constructed new addition requires further discussion. The rear addition that is currently built is not in compliance with the process or the design review guidelines. While the applicant has submitted changed drawings in an attempt to bring the already constructed addition in compliance with the guidelines, staff finds that the current submittal does not go far enough. As noted, the design guideline principle for room and wing additions, which states, in planning additions, the best approach is to place the addition where it will have the least impact on the building's overall form and plan. Exterior walls of the new addition should not be flush with those of existing buildings, but should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building. Likewise, additional roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof lines so that the existing main roof remains evident. There is no break or change in the roof line to distinguish the existing main roof remains evident. There is no break or change in the roof line to distinguish the old from the new. Equally, there is no break in the wall alignment to provide a break to the 64-foot alignment. Guideline 2A, 4B, and D states, exterior walls of a new addition should not be flush with those of the existing building, but should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building, and roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident, and should not imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period. So let me now run through, so this is the front of the Gunnison House. This is the side along with the garage. This is the view between the two adjacent structures. And this is the other side, close up. Then the rear, and you can see when we talk about the snap in, we're talking about the grid that just pops in. It's not a simulated divided light or a true divided light. And this is the long 64-foot run that goes from the front of the Gunnison to the rear of the most recent addition. Now what has been proposed is to place a pile aster at all four corners of the building along with a bay window. I'll break it up. So the purpose of that bay window is just to break up that wall? Yes sir. So in this shot, you can see where the roof is partially reduced to 3 over 12, and then the rear roof would be changed to a hip roof. Staff recommendations. Staff recommends the denial of the submission, however if the BOAR does approve a COA based on the current proposal, staff recommends the following conditions. We can delete number one, and well not delete the whole thing, yes we can delete the whole thing because we have received approvable windows be submitted. And then the two standard conditions. Barry, let me ask you this. Since they have submitted to us drawings, can we add into that the building be constructed in accordance with the drawings that have been submitted? I'm sorry, I could not hear you. Can we add to it that the building be constructed in accordance with the proposal that has just been received by you all, plus submit the final door and window specifications? It would be apparent that they have to build by. Yes, in your motion though, to do that, I'm sorry Barry, I didn't mean to hop in. I think we just need to make that abundantly clear. Obviously that your motion should be that specific and more, and if you are inclined to approve it. I think the wording should include something at the front end of it that notes that the recently constructed 64 foot long section will be revised or will be further repaired. Something to let it be known that this list of things depicted in these now drawings will be accomplished on something that they have already built part of, the core of. Well do we want to do it this way? Do we want to continue this matter again? No because they need a valid permit from us in order to carry out this and get us out of the it's an item in violation and more an item in progress with a valid permit. And the deadline is May 3rd. So it's not a constructed addition that's 64 feet long, it's a constructed addition that's 20 feet long that's added on to the existing house that's 44 feet. Right I misspoke about the math, that's right. And also it's not that we review use, but the first sheet of the site plan says new addition gym and I am wondering if what they built was meant to be a gym or whatever. I'm not getting as a say into people's use of their homes but nor do we build gyms in residential neighborhoods on attached people's homes. So can we have a little clarification that this is indeed someone's home that is going to be lived in as a residence? Sir? Yeah, I'll tell you it's definitely not going to be a gym, I mean I don't think, she's using that room for a quilt machine like I said, it's like 15 foot wide, she does quilts and like before. She does what now? What's that? A quilt machine. It's like one of those. Quilting? Yeah. Oh okay. Yeah. So and she moved from a 2,000 some square foot to a 12,000 square foot so she needed that room to put all her quilts and all the machinery in there. I don't know why it states gym, I mean. So is this a workshop kind of thing? It's just additional space for her to work with. I didn't get the drawings. So it said GYM on there? Yeah. I mean maybe. If that is not correct, would you revise the drawings for the files? Yeah, definitely. I don't know why. Because I think we just don't want to. The next page says hobby room. Yeah, the floor plan, the specific floor plan does say hobby room. Yes, I saw that later on, further on in the drawings. So just please edit out. We'll do. White it out. The staff's not empowered to alter anything on your drawings or we would, you know, park it out. I'll let them know. We just don't want to have something that throws up unexpected questions on something that's already got enough challenges. All right, so any further questions from the board members? I think, if I remember correctly, this was a miserable mess that she got herself into. And other than just saying we can't approve this matter at all and forcing a deconstruct of the already built addition, I think we were trying to find a way that we can still move forward. And that's why we have the new drawings. Correct. And I think those drawings actually, they're not perfect, but they're not awful either. So we may let, I love the phrase, we won't let perfect get in the way of good. Appreciate it. Thank you. But I think we're going to have to spell out some conditions. I'm going to turn that part over to Ms. LaMoure if she doesn't mind making the motion and trying to add in the conditions. All right. So I want to say I appreciate you continuing to work and trying to, and this is probably more of a comment to my fellow board members, trying to make some adjustments that do help what this is doing on this site, given where you are right now. My fear is by approving this, we are going to allow other people to do projects that maybe are not appropriate for the size of the site and the length of that. And so I wonder if there's a way we can add an exception to the motion that would make sure that we're clear that this is, breaking these guideline rules is not acceptable in some way. And I don't know how to do that. Because I have a really big problem with the fact that it isn't meeting several pretty key guidelines. Well, if you're not comfortable making the motion, then perhaps. So I think I have to ask somebody else to make the motion. All right. Which I wrote down. I think there will be a notation on this one that we recognize the extraordinary conditions that led to this woman actually erecting this building in good faith due to misrepresentations by her contractor. Am I remembering that correctly? I would caution against something either comes into range of being within the guidelines or not. And despite whatever conditions led up to it, if it really doesn't meet the guidelines, as you see reflected in the staff's recommendation, which we don't believe it does, we felt we needed to, as staff, consistently interpret the guidelines and recommend disapproval. But the board is absolutely, rightly empowered to take what appropriate action you all feel is the way to take this, any application, including this one. So does that mean that the staff does not approve of these proposed drawings? As drawn and what it includes with that information, it misses meeting the guidelines. It does not meet the guidelines. It's coming toward trying to meet the guidelines, but it's still got some key factors that do not meet the guidelines. And so staff, unlike the board, is not empowered to say, but in this instance, kind of thing. Now you all are empowered to do whatever is your choice, utilizing the design guidelines to the best of your thoughts, and you do an excellent job of doing that. So it's in your purview to approve this application. I would just caution that the language that goes with the rationale for the action not say there's a reason we didn't honor our guidelines. And that's what I'm struggling with. I think that the rationale, if you want to approve it with conditions that might further help it meet the guidelines, some additional things like getting rid of the vinyl windows and different things that will help, but it's still not going to necessarily cross the Rubicon in the staff's role. But again, keep in mind, you as board are empowered to take this action if you choose to. Let me ask you this then. Do the bay window help break up that mass? The three-part window? Yeah. It is a way to interrupt that mass. Is it really within the guidelines, the manner in which it's being accomplished? The staff's interpretation would be no. Are there other ways other than a complete teardown that this building could be modified so it would be in conformity with the guidelines? I'll put it out there bluntly. Well, I think your core issue is how big can anything be added to what is a modest-sized house and how much land coverage the existing situation already uses. Now the lot's pretty deep in this parcel, so I don't think that that is enough to say it can't be done. I think there's room for a volume of this to come on. It all comes down to the details in which it's been done, and the things they're proposing to date come closer. I think you could, instead of that three-part window, put more traditional windows that give you breakage periodically instead of one in the middle, because you're kind of addressing up something that, at the core, still doesn't meet the guidelines. From the staff, we've had quite the talk about this project, obviously, internally, trying to think what could be done to help it, and Barry did a good meeting. I thought you all had a good meeting about how to try to move this forward. I think I saw flashed up there a site plan. Could that come back? What we're looking at makes it look like it's taking up the whole yard, and I don't think it does, after I saw the image. See where it does have the break line on that site plan? Yeah, but it doesn't help understand visually how much of the yard you're actually taking up. I know I saw it up there for one second. Barry, do we have photographs that show more how people could understand the site? There. There. Come back to that one. There you go. See, that helps. You can see that. I mean, that helps to understand that there is substantial green space behind here, and you're not... Right. So all I'm saying is, in summary, that the staff, in its interpretation of the review of this, studied it hard, and don't think it, as proposed in the new materials, crosses the threshold for meeting the guidelines enough. However, it is within your purview, and I think if you want to craft your motion with the basics that will support your motion, have at it. But don't call it due to the unusual circumstances. I know. That's... There's also a letter at your desk regarding this project. Right. I'm happy to mention that. Thank you. We do have a letter. If I might, I think so that nobody's so curious in the record about, well, what was the problem that was, quote, so unusual. I don't think it's out of order to say that the situation turned into a less than honest contractor being involved on the front end of this project, that this property owner came into a difficult situation. I think that might be preferable. We're not... I've now said it. It's in the record. Because people will assign things to it that have nothing to do with reality if you don't. I will note for the record that we do have a letter from a Libby Rockaway at 117 Pinnmulken expressing her objections primarily to the vinyl windows and soffits and to the length of the building. I'm not going to read the letter into the record because it's already there, but she's noting that she was told that she could not have vinyl and she went to the expense of changing them out. And that's acknowledged in her letter. And we're acknowledging that new drawings are also doing that similar change as well. It's not a legal term, but it's a term I sometimes go to. This is a one-off in that we do not normally approve these kind of constructs. The reality, though, is the construct is there. It went up between Christmas Day and New Year's Day during a break when we could not catch it in time to stop it. I think it has been expressed to us reliably that this woman found a contractor and she built this addition in good faith, thinking that all she needed was a planning permit. Or did she even have that? No, there were zero permits. And she also wasn't advised by a realtor. This was a historic community as well, too. So she's working with that as well. That one's a little more difficult to test here. Mr. Chair, our attorney has noted that there are some people in the audience that would like to comment evidently. All right. Thank you so much. Who is in the audience that would like to comment? Come on up. And thank you. Yes, sir. John Rockaway, 1100 Spurlock Lane, Nicholasville. And I am Libby's father. And I've been involved in the project since Libby acquired the property five years ago. She recognized that there was an opportunity there and had a garage in the backyard that she could use as kind of a study or an office kind of thing. And I'd like to show you the... So this is the garage just before the flipper bought it, who Libby bought it from. It was a little bit better than that when she got it. Just the roof had been done and the front overhang had been torn off. We originally acquired the property, or she acquired the property, with the intent of doing a very inexpensive renovation, putting some vinyl siding on it, putting some windows in there, kind of just making it usable. Went through the process, found out about the historic commission, met with them, and created a plan that was significantly more expensive than her original plan. And we recognized that that was part of our responsibility to do that. So we ended up with this project, which I think is a significant improvement. But it took a lot of expense, a lot of working with the city on various things. But we feel like we did our job. We reached out to you guys, we made the changes, we stepped up when it got significantly more expensive, it was during COVID, you couldn't get windows, we ended up having to go to Michigan to pick up the windows, and really feel like it added to the neighborhood, and she's very proud of that. So then we come along and all of a sudden we see some construction in the next door neighbor's kind of between the holidays, which to be honest I'm a little suspect of, kind of sneaking in there in that dead time, everybody knows that's a dead time, and trying to pop something in there. It doesn't feel good to me. Irrespective of that, it does significantly change the way her backyard feels now. So we now have this little backyard area that has this big wall lording over her property. And then if we're talking about adding bay windows there, it's going to be staring right at her. It just is really changing the feel of what has been a very expensive product or project to give a good feel, a good historic feel. So I guess we would say that 64 feet is too long. It's definitely an issue being that close to her property line, six feet away. I do not see any way to fix it, and I would encourage deconstruction. Thank you, sir. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you, sir. I think you need to take us through, how did this come about? Seriously. She came. And why are you here for that matter? I'm her friend. Well, we got acquainted maybe 78 years ago through another friend. She has nobody here. She's very gullible. I mean, if you get to meet her, she's a very nice human being. She's been through a lot, I would say, during this experience and financially as well. So she spent a lot of money. From the start, I've been trying to help her. So I've been trying to work with you guys from the beginning. I got a survey done. I got a structure engineer done. Everything that you guys requested, I've been doing just so she can have that. Because to tear it off, it's going to hit her in the pocket financially as well, even more. I guess my question to you is, why is she not here today? Her hip. I just told her she's already a mess, but she's just not. Words. The staff would need to note for the record that the historic overlay program did not request the survey or the structural engineer. You might have had that request from building inspection, who I believe you testified here at the last meeting. Right, yes. Just to clarify, yeah. So it was the building. I've been on the phone calling everybody, trying to figure the situation, because I never had this situation happen, even to me or to anybody. This is a first for me. So I'm calling everybody, calling favors from architect. I'm trying to, even last meeting, set up the architect, the new contractor, and Mr. Berry and Ms. Amelia, just so we can figure this out of how to proceed. From last meeting, I asked a simple question, was can this be resolved and fixed? And he postponed it, so I thought there is still hope to solve this issue. So that's why I'm here, to see if there's any recommendation. I don't know where to go about this. To just tear it up is just... To be perfectly honest with you, that would be the best solution to this mess that we got. But I understand... Can staff complete the thought I was saying about... I'm sorry, yes, go ahead. Well, no, I don't want to interrupt anybody. But the reason I was asking and pointing out about the H1 overlay process did not request the survey and the engineer's report, was that you testified before at the last meeting that you had talked to building inspection, and they would have requested those from you. But they evidently, you testified last time, indicated that they could give you a building permit for this project. The thing that is missing in what you said was you can't get a building permit without having accomplished getting a permit from historic. Right, and that's... I'm sorry, Rob, but that's what I said last meeting as well. And you did say that at the time. And so my reason to raise it today is I don't want people to come away with thinking that the H1 process asked for additional materials to be generated that would not normally be requested in this process for something that we had grave concerns about ever meeting our guidelines or what might be possible. And so it was... I don't think when you said it today, you know, it sounds like, well, I've done everything you all asked, meaning historic. I just wanted to be sure you understand we've indicated from the start this is a serious problem. No, I understand. And we're trying to... So I wasn't even aware of historic. I was just complying with the city because that's who gave the notice for. So then they notified me about this is a historic area. So now I was called to figure out what to do next. So it's not like I just said I don't want to do anything. I was trying to solve the situation that's escalated this far. I mean, she gave me a call. She said, who is she going to, you know... She doesn't know any architect, doesn't know who to call, engineer, or survey. I was just trying to solve all the problems that she was having and just taking it on me in a way. Because I feel for her, it's... Is this her home currently? Correct. That's her residence. Okay. So she moved from a larger home to this home to be closer to her friend that does quilting. And they're a little, I would say, 70-plus years old. You know, they've been friends for a long, long time. And that's how I got introduced to her is through that friend. And she doesn't know anybody else here. So I take it she has significant mobility issues. Yeah, she needs to have... Well, she had a lot of knee replacements, hip, now her other hip. So she just... So that's why she's not here. Correct. All right. Chair, the efforts that have been made that are noted in the staff report about the new drawings, changing the vinyl windows out to meet the guidelines, using the siding, you know, taking the steps. The one issue, you know, for me, the bay window, I do understand the neighbor's notation about the view out the window. But it also does break up that mass more so in some ways than just flush windows along that elevation would. Right. Creates a little bit of movement in that. But the only other suggestion that we've not talked about at all that would give potentially some relief to the scale and visibility to the neighbor would be some kind of landscaping that would give some relief along that edge. There is really not that much room between the two buildings for landscaping, I don't think. Is there? It appears to be about three feet, three, four feet wide as the gate. Well, it says six feet, three inches is what it has on the site. It shows on the site plan. Well, let's test the waters. Do I have a motion to disapprove this application in its entirety? I move that we disapprove this application in its entirety. Do I have a second? All right. The motion fails for a second. Do I have a motion then? And I think what we'll have to do is read into whatever conditions we add. The conditions are on page 23 and 24. And just read them into the record along with any other conditions we want to add. Do I have a motion along those lines? Yes. And will someone make that motion, please? And before we get into the full scale, go ahead and do your motion, please. Chair, with regard to case number 14820115-A, I move that a certificate of appropriateness be approved for 115 Pembroke and Park addition based on the specifications contained in drawings submitted to the board tonight. I would like for you to look to 23 and 24 and read them into the record, please. Where the new drawings include the following. One, the siding of the addition will be changed to vertical cementious board. Two, the vinyl windows that have already been installed in the structure will remain the same size but be changed to guideline compliant wooden windows. Three, a break in the roof between the house and the additions as proposed will be accomplished by reducing the roof slope from 612 to 312. Four, cementious pilasters will be added to the four corners of the addition. Five, a bay window is proposed to be added to the west elevation. Six, construct a new rear addition with a rear stoop. That's not accurate. Construct a new rear exit and stoop with a rear stoop. There you go. Period. And we need to address the front elevation as well. Ms. Kerr? The filled in porch needs to be included because that is part of this application. They filled in an open porch with no permit. So do we need to have details? Submit specifications and details for the filled in porch on the front elevation? Barry, do we have what we need about that? Or were they proposing no changes as they've done it? It would have to be changed to non-vinyl because I have a vinyl, too. Right. Exactly, yes. There is nothing noted in the drawings about filling in the porch. Okay. So we would then need the similar rhythm of things to submit what all changes you're going to do to bring that rear porch closure into compliance with the design guidelines. Excuse me. Design guidelines. Number seven, submit for review and approval by staff the specifications and details for bringing the existing screened in deck into compliance with the guidelines. Existing closed in porch. They've just closed it in. That's fine with me, that wording. Okay. And you want that to be handled by staff? Pardon me? You want the details to be reviewed and the outcome handled by staff? Correct. And then the standard two conditions. I have some findings, as well, that might help you all. Ma'am, I cannot hear you. I'm sorry. I have some findings, as well, that might help you all fit this if you're going to approve it into the guidelines, if you would like me to bring those up. Can you move a little further to your right so we can see you? There we go. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm not hearing you. I had some findings drafted that may help this approval fit into the guidelines, if you would like those. Okay. Yes, we do need the findings. All right. So bring them to us. Okay, I'll bring those up to you. Take them to BRAC, please. Do you have such details? I do, that's what I'm looking for, I'm pretty sure he sent it to me, I'm just looking through the emails. Depending on what the board decides, you can get with us about that. And I will, well, we'll do it while the board's listening. Can you use your mic or something? Hello? No, no, she's briefing him. Let me look at it real quick. Since we have the discretion to approve it, we don't want to approve it. Well, I think that's why we're still talking about this, because we have the discretion. Yeah, we don't want to approve it. I'm not following your specifications. I don't know. I think this is, I think that this is a summary comment. There are notations already written to the record. That would be my reading. All right, okay, gotcha. Okay, thank you. I'm going to note for the record. Which allows us to not break the rules of the guidelines, which is what I was trying to get to before. We will note for the record, and as a finding in BRAC, I'm going to read it, then I'm going to have you agree with it, if you will. So incorporate it into the record. This is a bit odd. Guideline 2A.4 states that exterior walls should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building, and roof lines should be stepped down to the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident. The use of should in the guideline instead of shall implies that there is a level of discretion. It is not necessarily absolutely mandatory. As has been pointed out to us by the staff, we are here to exercise our discretion as to how those guidelines are to be implemented. In this particular case, the situation involves an applicant who apparently was intentionally manipulated by a contractor into making a decision to bill the sedition thinking she was in compliance, not realizing she needed permits. The record also discloses that this woman is elderly and perhaps not terribly sophisticated. After the situation came to her attention, through her representative, she has made efforts to work with the staff to make adjustments to the drawings as has been reflected by the motion. These are the findings that I believe would warrant a deviation from strict adherence to the guidelines themselves. That's a lot of verbiage, and if you want to just incorporate what I just said into the record, perhaps that's fine with me. I would like to amend my motion to incorporate the description that has been provided by Mr. Dickinson. Okay. The motion has been made. One last thing. Would you be willing to consider putting at the end of that additional information for the property at 115? I thought he did that. Penmoken Park. It honestly might be lurking in there, but I want to be sure it's somewhere in your motion. I mean, I know we have an address, but we need it in your language of your conditions. Okay. Then the motion should be revised to be 115 Penmoken Park. To note at the end of it that this is applicable to the property at 115 Penmoken Park. Okay. And the motion should be finished with all of the above is applicable exclusively to 115 Penmoken Park. Good point. Do I have, after all that, do I have a second? Second. We have a second. I don't believe we need to pound this horse any further. The chair will call the question. The chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Do I have a second? Aye. I'm going to abstain. Opposed? Nay. So I'll step out there with you all. And I'll say aye as well. The motion passes. This is perhaps one of the hardest cases we have dealt with. But it needs to be reiterated for any record to be reviewed that this is definitely an extraordinarily unusual situation. If anyone ever dare try to cite this case as precedence, they will be reminded as to why we made the decision that we made. Thank you. This is not to in any way encourage people to build these kind of additions without the prior approval from the city. Period. Thank you. Appreciate it. I always leave them on. Let's turn now to number one on the agenda. At 407 East High Street demolished addition and constructed addition, the applicant has asked for a postponement until May 21st. Do I have a motion to postpone this proceeding until May 21st? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. I'm going to take a five-minute break. We'll start in five minutes. I promise you. It's been a long day. I'm sorry, what now? It's really just a courtesy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you again. Thank you. We will be back shortly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the comments? Ms. Hill. So it's to be a duplex. It is. Top and bottom. So basically three bedrooms on the first floor and three bedrooms up on the second floor. So it's not a small change on the second floor to be able to get those extra spaces in there. And that's interior a lot of it. It is. To get that volume up there, yes. We're expanding a lot of the we found a lot of space in the existing attic that we can expand. That helped us a lot. Makes sense. To use that extra space that we found to make it useful as a bedroom, of course we need egress. Right. So we had to create our dormers for those. Right. So the rear stairway is not considered egress? Or is that an egress requirement from the second floor? It is. Right. Well, I do like that the very front of the house isn't changing. Yes, yes. I tried my best to make sure that any addition could not be seen from the front. Yeah. Even the dormers that are put on both the west and east side are behind existing dormers. And behind an existing gable on the west side. But it is. I did drive through the neighborhood. It is still the length of it with the additional roof volume area still is very visible from the street looking back through the driveway. It's quite an eclectic street. Yes, it is. So it's not like we have a pure context that we're talking about. I don't know that I have any questions now. Although I have marked up drawings, I did go to the site to kind of try to understand context as our city densifies in its urban core and particularly near the university. I know we're going to be seeing more and more conceptual reviews for doing what you're proposing. Okay. Sarah, do you have any questions, comments? I don't have any questions. I have comments. It's just a lot going on in this addition that to me don't relate to the house that we're adding on to. The way the roof lines are working just don't respect any of the existing structure. Could you get closer to your mic? And it's even off too. So sorry about that. Well, that adds to your challenge. There we go. I hit it, you know, with the paper and stuff. And so I turn it off and I'm not talking and sometimes I forget. Sorry. So I don't really have any questions. I just have a lot of concerns about the way you've added these roof lines and the extension to the back of the house. It really just covers up the existing historic structure. It doesn't, you know, there's no relief. There's no offsets. It just seems to kind of be in line with that existing roof line and extend it. You know, we always ask for it, you know, to be offset a foot, something to recognize that it's not a part of the historic structure. And I don't see any of that happening here. It looks like you're just kind of continuing the existing roof on in the same plane that it currently exists. We did that on the east side with the extra dormer where that used to be a hip. And that's the only section that we continued the roof line. The rest of the roof lines in the back in the west do not reflect any of the existing at all. So it's just the one roof line on the east to create that space, that volume for that back bedroom. Yeah, well, and then on the other side you have like three new dormers, cross-section roof. I mean, there's just so much going on. And I know you're trying to get a full apartment up on that second floor. But it just feels like it's trying to add all these dormers and kind of match the existing structure, but it just doesn't. It could be cleaned up, simplified. And I know this is all about money and getting three bedrooms up there is important. You know, but maybe somebody wants to rent a two-bedroom or a one-bedroom. And, you know, not necessarily expanding it that much on the second floor would really help how you do an addition to this building. Thank you. I'm curious, what is the current zoning for this house? What is the current zoning? R3. It's an R3? Is that whole street now R3? R3? Yeah, it's R3. Yeah, there's quite a few. Actually, there's even, I think, six or eight plex on that street. Okay. Yeah. I don't doubt that there are. I'm just responding to this particular little house. But is the entire street R3 or is that it? Okay, fine. And Aylford. I know that. Aylford and Tulsa. Right. My biggest problem is you're creating, I'll let you talk to you. So, yes, a few years back, and it's quite a few years back, the Hardins owned 354 and 352 that we did a very similar addition to. If you maybe get a chance again, look at those additions. And what we did, we took pretty much the same premise, is adding volume to the upstairs but also condensing that roof line behind the existing roof line. But we may have to have the staff pull those plans and see what we did. My biggest concern is I'm just not crazy about that stairwell system at all. It's very dominant. It's awkwardly, it works well. I know it's a stairwell system. It just is not terribly attractive. And I have the same impression that Sarah has, that that addition right now sort of overwhelms the, this is a very small house and you're trying to do a great big addition on the back of it. I'm just not sure it's going to fly. That's all I'm going to say at this point. Right now, there's three units in it now, and trying to downsize it just to a top and bottom. How are they getting in and out of the house right now with three units in there? With the steps inside, right? There's steps inside. So you're trying to wall it off and make a separate apartment upstairs that is independent of the downstairs living space, right? That's correct, yes. That's your problem. To do that sort of thing, you have to do a lot of different code implications to that existing stair, which basically, and of course it doesn't meet the code itself. So it has to be torn out and rebuilt anyway if we decided to keep it and keep the two levels separate. Well, you could always take it back to the single family. Can staff ask at some point a couple of questions? Sure. Yeah, I'm trying to move this along a little bit, and I appreciate you taking the time, or staying to do this. We thank you, too. Okay. I'm just concerned about the size of that addition. I know what you're trying to do, and it's within your purview as an apartment, but it's just too big. Okay, yes, Ms. Kerr. You're going to end up with six bedrooms in the duplex configuration, three and three, right? How many bedrooms are in it now in three units? Oh, gosh. That's cutting my head. There's probably eight at least, eight bedrooms. Not that big. Yeah. I'm just curious about the practicalities. It's a classic Combs Lumber Company cottage, you know, probably circa 1906 or 8, 10, something like that, and is nicely intact in terms of its form and identifying all of the signature features of these T-Plan cottages. And so staff is considerably concerned about putting this much on top, as you've been hearing from the board members, because one of the signatures of them are these hipped roofs. I mean, you can pick them out driving down the street because they just have these signature roof systems, and I think it would, I mean, ironically, and Craig, you're going to kill me, but this results in the kind of thing people pursued getting a historic district to stop, to be honest. And you know me, I speak plainly. But this is the kind of thing, although finessed perhaps a bit more, but this getting those brought up heights on the volumes and changing those shapes up there is really the antithesis of the intent of the design guidelines. So with that happy news, that's about all I have to say today. Okay. But we'll be glad to look at it more when you're coming along, if you have other ideas and all that kind of thing. And nothing to stop you coming back, of course, with having furthered this one. But you did ask for feedback, and I have to give it. We're trying to get that laundry up out of the basement, which, you know, has laundry. If you do a duplex, you've got two laundries. So that adds, you know, that's where the volume is coming from, stuff like that. Another kitchen, or well, a good kitchen, a reasonable kitchen. Oh, I don't doubt at all that you're trying to improve what would be some of the situations of what students are living in and all, but the old saying about putting five pounds or ten pounds of flour in a five-pound sack, this is what that phrase, I think, was invented for, is that kind of challenge of trying to do something that would probably bring some improvements internally from living with it, but would really pop that sack open all wrong. And, of course, you're not the first issue. You're not the first person to come with that issue to us, that they're trying to do more than they can with what they've got. Fortunately, we've had to use that phrase occasionally. Anyway, I'm sorry to deliver what you don't want to hear. That's all right. We knew this would be a challenge. I knew Mr. Long next door for many, many years, because we own 398, and, of course, skip one, and then we have the other two, which I hope you will look at that 354, because that is the precedent for this, and that's one of the reasons that we frankly thought this house, we didn't know who was going to challenge it. We've been doing these renovations for many years now, as certainly Mr. Dickinson knows, and so we didn't know who might challenge this. This property is in bad need of something. Something's got to happen now. It's done. It's unsafe. So we just tried to figure out. We did not buy it on purpose for a couple of times, and the guy came back and said, hey, would you? We should see if there's anybody else that would take on the challenge. So we'll try to come back, and I hope you have some ideas, because I don't. All right. Well, thank you very much. Jim? Yes, ma'am. Could I make just a few very specific comments? Please, yes. We need help. I did spend some time on it, but is part of that extra volume is on the, so I guess it's on what I'm going to call the back side of into the property where on the ground floor there's a new bedroom space, I would assume that is. And then up on the second floor, I'm not quite sure. But whether if those, if the kind of addition that's occurring, so the ground floor has the footprint of the original existing building. If the kind of scale of that deck and the spaces both on first and second floor that are being added to back in that back section, if the shapes of those or the scale of those changed a little bit, it might really help to then have in the way that the footprint of the first floor really reads. It's very clear that's not as true on the second floor. So that might be one thing you could look at. The other thing, and it has to do with the new rear elevation, and part of it is trying to use a roof form that already existed that is kind of a slope roof, but it creates a little bit of an odd roof line in trying to reuse that existing edge of the roof line. You might look at that. That's not necessarily stylistically related to the other roof lines that are occurring around the building. So that might be another place. It's knowing what the future of these neighborhoods will be, and I do agree the condition of the house certainly is in need of some tender, loving care for the future of it. I think that being able to continue this conversation a bit further to see if there's not a way to be able to pull in that back part of the addition and that one unusual roof line that was definitely a response to an existing edge, and then how do you frame the rest of it to meet it, I think would be worth looking at. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. I think we'll have to move on. It's 7 o'clock already. Thank you so much. Thank you all for coming. We'll check the other addresses. I made note about the two. Yeah. I think that's a pretty good address. We'll look at them and get some info available to the board members. Okay. We'll do our homework. A lot of hips. Let's go to conceptual review on four. Thank you. Let's go to the conceptual review for 493 West 5th Street. Mr. Taylor, I want to point out to you, I'm not sure how active a participant Miss Hill would be because she is in the Fayette District. Unless you have an objection to her participating. I would enjoy her participation and welcome it. I just have questions. Okay. I've walked the neighborhood thoroughly. No doubt. Okay. So I'll be brief because I know some of you folks have some other commitments as do I. But I wanted to follow up on our last sort of review that we had with you all. And the big takeaway was that you all wanted some more context of the neighborhood, context of existing conditions. We have gone over there. We have mapped the trees. We have modeled the trees. We have looked at all of the surrounding buildings with what we feel is a radius of inclusion for a view shed. And we have made some graphical representations and assertions as to what they're doing to better clarify what we're trying to do here. And I'll step away from the mic in a minute and move the model around. But I also have a PDF that I will pull up that shows that you may have actually provided to you, or you may not, but you may, that actually shows still shots of these things. So you can see street level eye view. This is the bird's eye view, which none of us see. But I start there because it gives you the way that we decided to look at this, which is kind of from the top down and the outside in and really understand what are the other structures around. And looking at this, we have, there are, I'm not on the screen with that. But yeah, I'll bring this a little bit closer here. So as I move this around, you can see in 3D how we have included the trees, modeled the adjacent buildings. I'm going to try to do that. Thank you very much. We'll put a little microphone up there so we can be heard a little bit better. Perfect. And so you can see the way that this is looking from this. We've really tried to understand the houses that are here down Willey, the houses that are here down Bourbon. All of these are single family structures. Some face 5th. These ones here face Willey. These face Bourbon. All single family dwellings with individual lots, no accessory or outbuildings to those, which is in obviously clear opposition to the sort of enclave and enclosure of Fayette Park. Single family structures, two and a half stories of different architectural styles. Some of them, especially these two here with large outbuildings at the rear, larger than you would typically see, but larger. The buildings that run up 5th behind the Fayette Park and the 400s there are much smaller kind of subservient structures. So our proposal, again, we feel we're trying to sort of bridge the gap between these smaller single family structures, which are outside of this, and the larger, much more sort of stately homes that are within the Fayette Park district. So, again, our charge in coming back we felt was to give you all that context to look at and to understand that we've looked at it and we want to provide it to you for that kind of comment. So from an architectural standpoint, the building is as you saw it before. This is now much more a delivery of the site in a context. And the trees are actual trees? The trees are actual trees. We went over there and measured their location to the property line and their circumference. Really the ones right around where the house is, the other ones we sort of just kind of figured out where they were. We didn't go anybody else's property, but we try to use Google Earth and kind of walk in the site. And to ask the obvious question, they won't be impacted by the construction? They will not be, no sir. So the one tree, many of the trees there are either not large scale or are damaged from various things, but the one tree that shows more accurately on this site plan at the edge of the driveway, interior to the lot, so on the east side, yes, that's a much bigger tree than you're showing. Well, they're kind of two trees actually that come out of one sort of central stock. They may, but they have a much larger canopy than what you're showing. Now, I think the site plan may be more accurate than Revit model is. Sure, yeah, those trees. And so just the placement of that driveway is going to be a little bit tricky as we know as it gets way in underneath that canopy. And that's really the only tree, healthy trees of any scale that are going on there. But what other question has to do with what appears to be a garage behind the historic building? Is that a future notion? No, it's in error, and actually Barbara called me today when she saw it, and I just haven't had time to edit it. It was, I guess, knocked down in a windstorm some years, a couple years, blew down or something. Yeah, it blew down. It was on their site plan. And so when we did it in the office, I just didn't tell the guys working on it that it wasn't there. So my kind of follow-up to that question is if there's discussion with the owner about whether they are thinking of this garage more for their use, even though these are two parcels, they can never be sold separately or owned separately, which needs to change actually on the staff report where it says it will be perpetually owned by the current owners. And that's not accurate. It will be perpetually owned by whoever owns the historic 438. So that needs to be revised and updated. But kind of whether there's an intent to think about a garage related just to historic house in the future, or whether the kind of lower level garage of this unit would be more their primary garage. That's what they're intending it to be. This garage will serve as their garage and guest suites for their family or whoever would come to visit. And a reminder about why planning assigned the Willie Street address as opposed since the driveway comes off 5th, as opposed to is that just an arbitrary decision? As I understand it, and I wasn't in on those conversations when they went to zoning and worked on the plat development stuff, that planning has given them a 5th Street or a Willie Street option. They felt like a Willie Street option might be better because there were single family homes that faced that and Howard 5th didn't have any going up that block of Fayette Park. So they felt like it was a starting contiguation of houses on Willie, even though 5th has houses that face it, but down towards Jefferson was the thought. Except on this side of Willie, there is no property that will ever be available to allow it. And there are lots of properties down 5th Street that face directly on 5th Street. Towards Jefferson, not towards Broadway. That's correct. Yeah, that's right. That's correct. Yes. And not that that, I don't know that that matters all that much in that discussion, but I think that was the thinking was that it just was an easier, and I think probably also it's a little bit of an easier lot configuration given it's long and skinny as it approaches Willie versus 5th is long in its 5th Street, broad and shallow in that. And that's how it was brought to me was that was the idea, so. Okay, thank you. Okay. Sarah, do you have any questions? I don't have any questions. I appreciate the additional context and seeing how it fits with the size of the houses that are really on Fayette Park, which are really large. And I appreciate the additional context and seeing how large those adjacent houses are to it and how it does start to create kind of a step down to the houses that are along 5th Street there. So, you know, I, it's, you know, it's not trying to be anything but a little house, a modern house on that corner with a garage and I like it. I think it meets the intent of what we would like a new structure to be when it's not trying to be butted up to one of the existing old buildings. I know this is an odd site condition, one that you probably haven't ever seen before or have rarely seen as far as its inclusion to Fayette Park and the streets, but I think, at least I feel like this as an infill house may be a good catalyst for future work. Your drawing may not be actually giving justice to the, this building looks entirely different than it did in your architectural drawings, which to me just look like a big old box. This has a little bit more character to it than... Well, it's... The color works. Yeah, the color works and the real perspective, but I think... And I'm assuming it is rectangle in shape? Correct, yes, sir. As opposed to being block in shape? Mm-hmm. Okay. And you still have the garage downstairs and that garage is going to be used by whom? The owners of 438. Okay. This is not to be an Airbnb. This is not to be a rental for someone to come in and live long term. This will be kept for their private use, so the garage will serve as their garage for their house. They will walk through the yard to get there, and the living quarters above will be there. So it's a garage with living quarters above it, basically. Yeah, and so they get suites and things like that. That sort of changes it a little bit. But that's the original... Does planning consider this a house or a garage? Well, I would think since it's on its own parcel individually, it will be a residence. It can't be a garage by itself on a parcel. It's primary use. It's primary use and it has a residence. It's got to be a house. It's a primary residence. From a land use definition. Yeah, which is how we're looking at it. Now, I know it says in Aaron here, it says construct a new garage structure. And I've told Barry this morning that's not accurate, so I just want to make sure that's understood. So I guess my other question slash comment, if I may quickly, is we saw just last meeting at the Hampton Court property, that they were talking about putting a garage in basically the first floor of that main mass. And, you know, we've not really addressed as a body of staff and board where neighborhoods development pattern is that the garages are freestanding outbuildings at a separate location, usually in the backyard and further back and that kind of stuff. If this is a house, by definition, which we just went through, then are we going to, in our historic areas, consider putting in a house that the first floor may include within the body of the house a garage? Think about that. We don't have an answer either. We just have talked about it. For contemporary construction, that may be a trend that we're going into. I don't know. Well, it's more a question about I don't think the contemporary rules it out at all. I mean, it actually leans toward it. It's more of a characteristic of a neighborhood and context issues versus the actual structure. A better way to make sure it's the new kid on the block. I'm just saying we just need to think that through. I think there's precedent to Ben Gallagher's house on Miller Street that I think is a very urban condition that's in an H1. I don't know if his is anything we want to. I'm not saying that, but I'm saying the idea of it being an urban condition of this kind of a little bit more building up, not so much out. His was done at a time that it's got too much of a fortress effect. I can agree with that. Times are changing, and thankfully the neighborhoods are more inclusive. But I think it's one of those things that done well and right by your all's review that it can happen. It just has to be something that's considered in an architectural way. I think it can architecturally look really good. I just don't know how it fits into the context. Let's bring this back. I think that is the question. I think it's a charming little house. Yeah, I think if we pick it up and put it somewhere that doesn't have any freestanding outbuildings is the historic development pattern. I'm just being the devil's advocate. I don't have an answer. I'm just throwing it out. So our next step, just so you guys are aware, will probably be to bring this formally for you all back. Because this is our second review, and not that we can't have another. And Mr. Taylor, I'm wondering, have you talked to the Neighborhood Association yet? It is my understanding that the clients have done that, but I will check with them and make sure that they have. Because I'm hearing that they may not have been contacted yet. Okay. I'll check with them on that. They've led the charge, so I have not. And note, as insular as Fayette Park is and as protective as they are of Fayette Park, they may want some input on what you're doing. Sure. Yeah. I'll mention that to them as well and make sure that they do that. Yeah, for sure. Is that, let me just ask you this, is that, if we have a problem with the garage, is that going to kill the steel for them? I think for them the idea is that they get this sort of garage for their house that they can use and have this space above it, and that it's a freestanding structure. So I can't answer that for them, but in my communications and conversations with them, I would say that it would probably hinder them from really making a move. Going back to Betty's question, then, would it be better to look at this as being a garage with an apartment on top? No, they've made it a separate parcel. They can't do that. Yeah, it's a separate, that happened. That's what it is. Yeah. That's what it is, but that's not what it can be called. Yeah. If you cut it off from a separate parcel, you will have to have a residence. You can't just put a garage. So, but anyway. Good point. Okay. Last thing, you have one more piece of business to back up to. Could you just, for the record, note about the postponement? We've already done that. But you didn't. Yeah. Did you act on it? Uh-huh. The attorney told me you didn't. Never mind. I did. Absolutely I did. Yes. I'm just recording what the attorney told me because I was otherwise in traffic. We did not do it right then, no. You came back, talking about 407, you came back to that because that's my case. Yeah, we came to it last. Gotcha. So, they did come back to it. Yeah. I don't know if this man tells me they did. I don't believe him. No, because we just plunged, I plunged right in. Maybe she missed that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. We're fine. We're good. And we're going to do minutes next cycle, I think. Yes, because none of us had a chance to read. For bedtime reading. Yes. All right. So, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Thank you all. A second? Second. We stand adjourned. I have not forgotten, to say the least, about the, so, things are so beautiful. It still lasts whatever day we talk Friday because it feels like that to me. Golly, Dave. She's crazy. So, optimistically, by the end of the day tomorrow, I'll take an email forward on to Elvis. Bye.