უიეიეიტა ფეიეიეი მაეი შა ხანეიის ფეისა მაეიეის ბი რეიეირე შა შევანეიარეირ ტივიტინ ხვ შა სეი� ნეისი ყეგყდილბ ტისეის რევეინნმევეის ხაეიეიცფ ყეიებეინბილილ შევეინეით؇ინთ that is ოევეირ ძადშაქრ ბევეულალ ხაეინმეიცქ თაირ პევეირ ხევეულარ ობენიერ ევეინბილლირ ხევეირ ხევ� All right, good afternoon. I'd like to welcome you to the December 17, I cannot believe we're almost at the end of this year, board meeting. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grant's Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The HPO office maintains the full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions and comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items the staff can approve. Thereby eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 13 approved staff applications. They are in the Aylesbury Historic District at 519 Central Avenue, Restore Windows, Replace Storm Doors, Restore Windows, rather, 316 East High Street Re-Roof with New Dimensional Shingles at 138 Ransom Avenue, Replace Storm Windows, and at 163 Ransom Avenue, Renovate Structure. In the Belcourt Historic District at 170 Forest Avenue, Re-Roof the Structure. In the Northside Historic District at 334 Hampton Court, Install New Fences and Gates. At 426 West 6th Street, Repave Sidewalks and Driveways. At 427 West 3rd Street, Install Fencing. And also at 431 West 3rd Street, Install Fencing. In the Pensacola Park Historic District at 108 Lackawanna, Renovate Rear Addition. At 7 Parks Historic District at 332 Arcadia Park, Install Fencing. In the South Hill Historic District at 388 South Broadway, Replace Steps. And finally, in the Western Suburbs Historic District at 500 West Short Street, Install Small Vent. We will call our first application, which is in the Historic St. Paul AME Church at 251 North Upper Street. The scope of work is Construct an Elevator Addition. And I may need that back. Good evening. State your name for the record, please. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. Alright, Mr. Chair. I think staff has recommended, yes, recommended approval of the application subject to what we have referred to in past meetings, but I'm going to read them into the record anyway. As our standard, two conditions. Yes, sir. The first one is if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement? Yes, sir. Secondly, once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit the changes if any to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. We are in agreement as well. Do I have any questions or observations from the board members? Questions or observations from the audience? If not, then I'm ready for a motion. Case 19440251-D at 251 North Upper Street. I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted accordingly with the two standard conditions as read into the record. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you all. I want to back up and pick up an item that I just skipped right on over. The Catontown Historic District of 2930 Catontown Road are proposing a construction of a single family structure. They have requested that that matter be continued until I can never remember the difference between postponement and continued. We didn't open it. So we continue it until January 21st, 2026. Do I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any objections? Without objections, this matter is continued until January 21st, 2026. Turning now to the Northside Historic District, a 334 Hampton Court construct deck and railing is the applicant here. Good afternoon. State your name for the record, please. My name is Shane Lyle, architect. I live at 345 Henry Clay Boulevard, representing the owner. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what I've been calling the standard two conditions. Did you hear those? Yes. Are you in agreement with them? Yes. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 08730334-D at 334 Hampton Court, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you very much. Turning now to 247 North Broadway, 202 Morrows Plate. The scope of work is restore the western we've seen this one several times. Restore the western wall of the carriage house to the garage door opening. Please state your name for the record. Mike Tuttle, 247 North Broadway. Mr. Tuttle, good to see you again. Staff has recommended approval subject to one what I call substantive condition and that being that the door be reduced to a width that will retain the existing architectural buttress element. Are we in agreement with that? No, because I think there's some confusion. I brought some photographs. Okay, in that case just hold just a second. You're the last one. Let's just go ahead and have a hearing on this. Ms. Armstrong? Mr. Tuttle, I'm not sure we've actually gone through the hearing. Mr. Tuttle, I'm not sure we've explained to our hearing process. Ms. Armstrong will initially do the staff's findings and then you will have an opportunity to then present your rebuttal and hear questions from us. Of course, we saw this case back in January of this year and this specifically is for this carriage house and so I'm going to be sort of brief and abbreviated on this particular case that this is the carriage house back here that now has a the whole property is 247 North Broadway. The particular garage is specifically 202 Morrow. It's been given an address and so what specifically as you can see, this is the part facing the back of the house and the proposal, this is the and this is Morrow Alley and what we're looking at is the area here between these two areas here so I'm sorry, you went too quick on that. I'm going to be specific here for a second. Hold on. I'm going to try to, I don't know why it just keeps blanking out when I keep doing this but here we go. So this particular element is the one element that we're discussing this buttress here and I'm going to go back and there's another buttress here so this is the back wall on Morrow, if you remember and where are they wanting to put the door? It would be in this particular area and I'll show you on this plan this sort of shows you the the the orange brick is sort of where the opening was bricked in so to speak so here's the site plan to give you an idea this is coming in Morrow and then this is sort of where the bay window was going to be last time now it's going to be an opening and here is so here's this still is going to be retained and so we're wondering if we would like this one to be retained too and here is an existing wall and the proposal is to be an 18 foot wide garage door so guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal requires discussion. While the proposal to restore the opening is appropriate staff finds the door should be smaller in width as to retain the character defining feature of the brick buttress and the outer wall of the structure. It is evident that the disturbance of the brick from that opening here, unfortunately there is no photographic evidence that has been found to determine the type of door that has been here. However, based on the age of the structure and the framing inside there was an opening. Guidelines 1.1.10 state 8. Outbuildings that require a replacement door should be similar to those that are traditionally used for the style of architecture and design of the building staff does find the opening can be restored and the buttress should be retained at the same time staff finds the proposal to restore the opening is within the guidelines 1.1.b 1.f and k location and proportion entrances, windows divisional bays, openings such as entrances and windows and architectural features such as divisional bays and porches are designed components that help establish balance, rhythm scale, proportion, and emphasis in structures. Patterns of these components are in buildings along the blocks and within the districts and create characteristics for the streetscape and neighborhoods and recommendations staff recommends approval of the proposal project with the following conditions staff would reduce, retain that existing architectural buttress element in the regular two conditions and of course Mr. Tuttle is here and he has some images Any questions of Ms. Armstrong? Walk me through this application one more time Is the buttress to the south going to be eliminated? Is that the problem? Correct And you want it smaller so that buttress will still show? Correct Will it accommodate cars if the garage doors are reconfigured? What I think Mr. Tuttle needs to show from the inside is whether that shifts over because there is some wall issues that could be addressed I'm sorry, you're going to have to really speak clearly to that microphone What Mr. Tuttle needs to show at the inside if that bay if that door shifts over to the north if it can still be accommodated Okay, we'll discuss it with Mr. Tuttle Any questions? There is no dimension on the door and I know you said so what was the dimension of the proposed door up here? Single door Single door Was it going to be a garage door? Standard? Is that width typical? Typical Anything else? Going back there was an opening there at one time that was probably a church house door about the same width So that pilaster is existing and has been existing on this structure and the previous opening was between those two Yes, and if we do go back, I'm going to go back and address this one more time to look a little closer. So this is that south opening in the south pilaster. It does here that orange brick goes right up to that pilaster as you can see so it does look like it's been woven in with that pilaster And staff has already determined that the materials that will comprise the door are not vinyl, etc. Are not vinyl, etc.? Correct And as you can see and this is the other so the same treatment occurred on the north pilaster as far as the woven treatment of that as well So it's your interpretation those pilasters were original with the building Correct Unless Mr. Tuttle has other evidence inside because there is I mean the framing he and I both looked at that framing inside together so we do know that opening has been altered so we both agree upon that It's just whether that can be shifted over between those two pilasters or buttresses as we're calling them versus eliminating the one bus The windows themselves are new relatively speaking That's correct. Those are not necessarily part of the discussion And I'm not quite following when you say they shifted So the question is whether that opening can be shifted between those two openings between those two openings versus taking out the south one Can that opening be shifted between those pilasters versus obliterate the south pilaster So basically you're asking for a repositioning of the door proposed door Correct Any other questions? Mr. Gentleman Nothing about this project has been fun exciting or thrilling I'm so sorry I'm sorry too because my patience is Here's the existing I don't know what that drawing showed eliminating a pilaster that's from the original that big project we decided not to do because it took so dang long to get approval The original opening is between the two existing pilasters We have 19 feet and 8 inches We want to put an 18 foot door It is larger than a 16 foot which is on a subdivision house out in Hanover or wherever So we need the larger opening 18 feet we can get It will fit between the two pilasters The hardware is still there The beam is still there Everything exists beyond that brick That's just a brick single brick layer that's been infilled There's a 2x4 stud wall on the other side of that clay colored brick We're not touching the pilasters We're putting an 18 foot door within 19 feet 8 inches Within the pilasters That's all that we're asking for The drawing we have shows the pilaster being deleted I think we're all good This is what's called communicating Sometimes you think you're communicating and it turns out we weren't quite saying the same thing but I think we're now in agreement that so long as the door is located between the two existing pilasters and it doesn't envelop them or take them out, we're good Honestly, the pilasters were a big issue on the original development of this carriage house So I was well aware that we didn't want to touch the pilasters And I want to commend you for your patience with this process It can sometimes be frustrating but you're doing great things with a great building and I want to thank you for that You're welcome It is appreciated We're excited to have a garage After all this snow, it will be nice to have a garage When it's cold, like it's been cold and you can actually go into your garage and get out of the car without freezing to death That's a nice thing to do I don't think we need anything further Comments from the audience? Are we ready for a motion? Just go ahead and specify that the door fit between the two pilasters Chair, in regards to case number 02500247-S at 247 North Broadway slash 202 Morrow Place I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and a third condition that the new garage door fit within the existing architectural buttress elements and those are to be retained I could not have said that better May I have a second, please? Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question All those in favor say aye Aye The motion passes as conditioned and your COA is finally approved Thank you very much Have a very merry, merry, merry holiday Thank you, sir Okay, we are now at the end of the formal meeting itself We're now moving into what we call the conceptual reviews These reviews are a little bit more informal in nature and it's our effort to allow architects to explain the directions they want to head in on a proposed project before it becomes finalized We have three of them today The first one being at 265 South Ashland and it's a construct. I can never say that word properly Portiers? Yes, that is correct All right, so Ms. Armstrong do you want to do the presentation first? Or does he? You're going to allow Barry to finally comment? Mr. Dennis, is Ashley going to be able to say something? I'm sorry, I mean I'm suffering from Christmas whatever Okay, Barry Go ahead Okay, at 265 South Ashland Avenue is the conceptual review for a to construct a portico share on the north side of the house The applicant is requesting a conceptual review for the portico share The portico share is proposed to be located on the west side elevation of the historic structure The portico share is approximately 18 feet 4 inches by 18 feet 4 inches single story with a low slope BPDM membrane roof with half round copper gutters The roof has a box beam that bears on the exterior brick wall of the historic structure and four round columns on brick bases The portico share in this location was denied as part of another project by the BOAR during the October 20 2021 board meeting The staff report and drawings were included in the staff report previous staff report and previous drawings were included The guidelines were included for your use Findings This is the conceptual review The staff currently have no findings. The board may want to consider and comment on the following questions Let me So this is the location of the portico share where the stone stairs are That's a closer view of the location of it and that's looking from the opposite direction So this rendering shows the portico share in this location Oh And on the site plan that is the portico share with the V shape in the top So as far as the questions staff looked at in connection with the guidelines Is the portico share appropriately located at the rear of the building? Should the portico share be constructed on the side of the historic structure? Is the design a compatible design in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, materials, color, and location of window, floor, and cornice heights? Which none of that would be applicable Does the proposal reflect the characteristics of the current period in design and is it compatible with the original building? Are the materials compatible with the historic fabric of the house? Does the proposal follow design guidelines established for new construction of primary buildings? Recommendations? This is a conceptual review that staff currently have no recommendations Mr. Dennis, I have one question Maybe I'm just confused When you're saying item number one are you trying to say, can a portico share be appropriately located at the rear? Is that what you're asking? Because they're not proposing to put it at the rear, are they? No, they're not. Guidelines say that additions should be at the rear. Then the question should be reframed, can it be appropriately located? Okay. Seriously. Okay. Alright. Sarah, anything? So this is the same exact design as we've reviewed and rejected before no changes? Basically, yes. That was what, two years ago? I believe it was four years ago. Time flies. So they're not barred from bringing it back. And this is conceptual also. We will probably, I'm sure you've shared those findings by the previous board in 2021. All of that's in your package. Okay. Alright. Okay. Have at it. Come on up. Say your name for the record, please. Baron Gibson. So I do want to just clarify one thing that was just mentioned. This was heard four years ago. From my recollection, the portico chair was not rejected, but it was continued. There were two facets to that hearing. One was a back covered patio and porch, and the other was a side portico. What the board at that time was ready to approve was the back porch. I got feedback on the side portico, and I did make some modifications that I'll I'm prepared to go over with you. So just I have the slides up. Just an introduction and a little background on this property as it's been four years. Now the property, 265 South Ashland, as Barry mentioned, four years ago, our office appeared before the board to review the proposed exterior improvements on October 20, 2021. Those two improvements were a rear covered porch, raised porch addition, and a side portico chair located along the existing side entry and driveway. At that time, the board approved the rear covered portico and voted to continue the discussion on the side portico and requesting additional context and information. In that discussion, it mentioned that the design we should plan to work around the existing awning that is currently over the existing side entry door. Due to life and scheduling constraints, the owners did not proceed immediately with construction of the rear covered porch and are now revisiting the project in its entirety. The owners are returning with the intent to move forward thoughtfully and consistently, building upon the work previously reviewed by the board. So, existing conditions, the property includes, as you can see in this picture in the back, a 100 plus year old detached garage that was originally constructed as an original part of the construction of the home. The garage is currently undersized for modern vehicles and is functionally unusable for daily parking. As a result, the owners park along the side of the house and enter in the existing side door. There is currently no covered parking on the property despite daily use of the side entry. The lack of covered parking is not a convenience issue alone, but a functional limitation tied directly to the historic garage's size and configuration. The owners need an intent. Thomas and Kim, my clients, have a strong and practical desire to provide covered parking at the side of their house. It is their primary daily point of entry and it is the only logical location for covered parking given the constraints on the lot, and the existing garage cannot reasonably be adapted without losing its historic integrity. The intent is not to introduce a new architectural expression, but to resolve a long standing functional issue in a way that is architecturally consistent, restrained, and historically appropriate. The rear covered portico, so I want to talk about that for a moment, that was previously approved. These are the renderings, let me get back to it, sorry. These are renderings of the rear covered portico that was approved by the board and remains unchanged in its design intent. The reason I bring this up is because there is a direct relationship between our side portico that we were proposing in design and the design that was originally approved four years ago. The gains intend to build all as one composition when they construct potentially this side portico and this rear addition. The side portico now being proposed uses the same architectural language as the proposed rear covered portico ports that were approved. The design is meant to feel continuous and harmonious and it is supposed to match the proportions detailing and roof pitch, etc. that is shown in the renderings here on the screen. Also, it's obviously important to understand the context of South Ashland when looking at this, and I'll go to the actual portico designs here in just a moment, but there are many examples of porticos on South Ashland as I'm sure you all have seen. There's multiple examples of covered spaces notably at 270 South Ashland, 262 South Ashland, 225 South Ashland. This is probably the one that is most similar to just the minimalistic design. Our design is similar in a way that it is sitting on piers, but ours is a flat roof instead of showing any pitch at all. This is one that the house is blurred out from Google Earth, but that's 241 South Ashland, but there is a portico. You can see the pediment over here. There's kind of a dog trot connection that you can see on Google Earth. I'm not sure if this is an original structure or an addition. 291 South Ashland, still similar characteristics. This one and the one I showed two previous are similar setups with columns, piers, and a minimal roof. Our design that we've put there, I'm going to go to just our drawings, is meant to work around several architectural conditions. Most notably, the one that we discussed four years ago at our hearing is the existing pediment, sorry, the existing awning that is constructed and built over the stoop stairway of the side entry. The portico as it sits keeps that feature and then fits in a minimal way that allows the gains to have parking for one car underneath that side of the yard. It is shaded towards the rear. It is not something that's up towards the front of the building. It's towards the rear quarter of the building. We feel like it's something that would not be something that presents significantly from the street as it would sit further back and would be a more minimal approach to putting the portico on the side of this house. Were you done? I'm ready. I was off thinking. A couple of questions. One is going to be for the staff. That is, have we ever approved on Ashland? I know there's a lot of examples of portico chairs on Ashland Avenue that are historic as a part of the original houses. Are there any that are additions that were approved by the board? We're not aware of any. I think we're kind of getting to the point of the project or the issue is that putting a portico chair on the side that looks like other original portico chairs is kind of the epitome of false history. My next question and this may be staff also, I'm not sure. You mentioned a historic garage and its incapability or being incapable of being modified to a working structure as a garage. Has the staff looked at that? Do we know that those restraints are really there in that garage that you can't make any changes to that garage that would make it a functioning garage today? Staff has not visited the garage in at least 10 years? 15? No. Not that I know of. I think Ms. LaMera may have picked up on a proof issue that if you want to establish that you actually need this portico chair or whatever, you're going to have to bring in some evidence as to why you can't use the existing coverage structure. Your biggest obstacle unfortunately is and I'm not necessarily opposed in principle to portichairs. I think they're handsome. The problem is your neighbors beat you to the punch and now you'll be imitating them. So it looks imitative. This is just off the top of my head and don't take it any further than that. If there's a way that you could come up with a design that does not imitate historically portichairs of the 1920s that looks really different and obviously is the new boy on the street that might work. I have no idea what that might be. It might simply be a big old awning sticking out with no support. I don't know. I'm not an architect. But the only way I think you can work around it is to come up with something that really doesn't make it look like all the others. Because you're running into that design element. We don't want people imitating what has already been done and saying I want my house to look just like that. You hear that all the time saying that's what historic preservation is. It's not. It's the opposite. I understand that we don't want to create a false sense of history. I guess from the design standpoint, it is a minimalistic structure inherently in what it is. It's a flat roof with four columns. There are several things that we could do just off the top of my head that might be less significant than a cantilevered awning. One of those may be square columns instead of round columns. There is some detailing that matches the rear porch addition that's yet to come that we could strip down and maybe just make more minimal. But I guess my question would be is that enough to move the meter? My client would certainly want to know that before we went too far down a rabbit hole. You're always welcome to bring another set of plans. I can tell you right now this one's not going to make it because it's too imitative. Can staff make a comment? Yeah, of course. Glancing quickly at the minutes and discussion that happened last time, there was a discussion I think Ms. Hill mentioned about perhaps if the idea of the portico chair was moved back a little bit. Do you remember that discussion? And I think there was a discussion or a question that was posed to you, but could your clients walk a bit more towards the entrance or something like that to either the back door, which is sort of towards the kitchen. Did you look at that idea of maybe thinking about if you had that entrance that's off the back where you have the raised deck and then what perhaps would happen if you created a situation where you had something sort of pushed back further? Sure. I'm happy to present that and mention that. That was a discussion at the last meeting. I remember that. Sarah might remember that. I was thinking I remembered something like that. My initial reaction to this is can't we just push this back and make it in line with this other addition that you've done back there and not try to have it competing with the house. Really frankly it kind of hides a really nice special element of this house that is on the side. If you could flip it to the rear and that's why I was not fussing while I was trying to make sure that that conceptual question was asked properly it would be appropriate to put it in the rear because it gets away from the especially if you make it read with the new addition that you put in just recently. I think that would be a long way towards... Whether your client will be happy with that is a whole different issue because I know what they want to do. They want to make perfectly good use of that door and why can't in the hell it be covered? That is definitely the I think that would be the question that I get. As I look at neighbors of mine on Transylvania Park that for whatever reason their house does not have a side door and I have mulled over my head could they put in one? Probably not. Because it's never had a side door and that's a new opening in a historic fabric. That's the peculiarities of historic preservation. Help me understand what has been added already to the rear of the house. Nothing has been added right now. What we're seeing in this document is the back of the house as it was. What you're seeing right now is how it sits with the proposal for the portico. I just have not combined the two files to show the portico with the rear addition that would be added that you can see in these renderings here. Four years ago I mocked up that side portico that you can see kind of here. This is the rear addition. Have you not constructed that work yet? They have not constructed that yet. Have you renewed your COA? It expires after two years. I did not know that. Am I wrong on that? A COA expires after a year. We can renew after particular times. Sometimes after so many years you have to go back before the board. I'm not trying to scare you since it's been approved. Thank you for letting me know. That's another... That will make your job a little easier if you need to tweak the portico to actually read better with your addition. Since there's nothing there yet to fool with. Where does the door on the rear of the house lead to? In plan this is the side door and it leads to a mudroom that then leads to the kitchen. That rear door that you can see here leads directly into the kitchen. The side door also leads directly to the staircase. The stair core is in between the stair and the kitchen. This is kind of a drop zone type space. Because I'm very familiar with that. The addition that was planned for the back. Did any of that addition extend over the driveway? In the prior... In any of the work or the prior work that was presented did the rear addition extend over the driveway? I don't believe so. So the canopy on the side was entirely always a separate item? That's correct. Unlike my colleagues, I have absolutely no problem with this. None. Whatsoever. I think that it is complimentary. I think it is functional in a way that something on the rear cannot be. Because the objective here is to be able to pull the car under it, not beside it. Pulling beside something for example that's on the rear doesn't accomplish anything for the owners. It... The only thing in the drawings that we have here that concerns me a little bit. It looks like the edges of the planned side cover and the front porch, the side is slightly higher. The gutter edge. Yes. And it appears that there's plenty of room underneath that if it were lowered to match the elevation of the front one. You've matched the elevation of the pillars but the top of it appears to be a little higher. I see. And the front porch trim is extremely plain. In other words, in that elevation there, the top of the portico is in a line basically with the top of the roof, the hip roof, not the gutter line. That was the only thing that I noticed. But I appreciated everything else about it that even makes it appear in concert with this. I think tacking on something that is anything less than complimentary like this would be unfortunate. If someone could propose something that was entirely different and did not intimate in any way, I would be more than glad to see it. But I'm not sure that's possible. Those are my thoughts. I'll do an asso because I don't think our intent was that they wouldn't still be able to park under it further back. It would still be a canopy that a car parked under to give some protection further back down the driveway, just not on the side of the driveway. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. I understand. You're saying a covered porch just behind the house or a covered portico behind the house. I think the challenge and I think the question that my client will ask me how we achieve if we were to entertain that is he's still going to walk out to the elements to get into the house. In this application, that's their primary entry where they enter. I just have a lot of empathy with that because I've used exactly the same configuration in exactly the same way. That was the main entrance to the house. We have two more conceptual reviews to run through. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. If you want to do another conceptual review, why don't you think about that. Thank you very much. Let's move on to 342 Elstree Place. Mr. Dennis, you're up again. Hello. Paul Lee with Studio A. As I said earlier, this is not a formal meeting as such. Barry is going to take you through. We're going to go through the conceptual review. I'll let Barry start off first and then we'll hear from you. Thank you. Conceptual review 342 Elstree Place. The background is that the applicant is requesting a conceptual review to demolish the rear decks and fire escapes and to construct a rear addition. This is the front of the structure going down the driveway looking back. These are the fire escapes that are in question. Then the proposed two-story addition that would replace those is on a brick veneer basement that covers approximately the same square footage of all of that existing fire escape and deck. The overall dimensions of the addition are approximately 20 feet 3 inches by 19 feet 6 inches. The roof is to be low slope with single ply roofing membrane. Other materials are proposed to be brick veneer at the basement level, cementitious board siding, corner boards, and window trim. At the upper levels Anderson architectural series windows. The soffits and fascias are painted wood with aluminum OG gutters. The fire escape stairs and decks are proposed to be treated wood with metal tube balusters. The guidelines are included for your use. I'll take you through a little bit of the drawings. So the drawing on the left is existing. On the right is with the addition. The paving shown in the back is actually gravel and not paving at this point. So is the paving part of the proposal or is it just a kind of existing gravel parking? It's just an existing gravel parking. It's just an existing gravel parking at this point. So here's the drawn elevations of the rear. And the sides. So this shows the rear addition right here to the left and then to the right of that where there's the existing stair, there's going to be some other stairs down. So there will be a new more integral fire escape on the rear. This is a conceptual review. The staff currently have no findings. The board may want to consider and comment on the following questions. Is it appropriate to demolish the fire escapes? That's kind of a throwaway. Is the deck design simple rather than ornate in design? Is the addition appropriately located at the rear of the building? Is the addition designed to be secondary, smaller, and simpler to the original building in scale, design, and placement? Does the proposed addition overwhelm the historic structure? Is the design a compatible design in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, materials, color, location of window, door, and cornice heights? Are the materials compatible with the historic fabric of the house? Does the proposal reflect characteristics of the current period in design, and is it compatible with the original building? Are the materials compatible with the historic fabric of the house? Should there be a detail to somehow break up the vertical mass of the addition? Does the proposal follow the design guidelines established for the construction of primary buildings? Recommendations? Again, as this is a conceptual review, the staff currently have no recommendations. Any questions? Not for staff. Mr. Leek. Thank you for your time. As you can see, we'd like to get rid of the labyrinth in the back and the spiderweb back there. I guess my first question to you is has the fire marshal laws changed that you can do a way with the stairway? Outside stairway, or are you? No, we're putting in a new one as well. The new one will be a back access for the first and second level, and it will be the primary access for the third unit on the top. The very top unit, we're not doing any work to it at all other than we have to provide access to it. That access will actually be on top of the roof of the structure that we're creating. I hate to tell you this, this structure regretfully has a bit of a reputation. Oh, does it? For noise. Well, we are minimizing the deck. If there's anything you can do to minimize the deck and cut down on the noise, the neighbors on Transylvania Park, my neighbors, would be infinitely grateful to. That was the biggest concern. They were concerned that there would be more people on those decks. Yes, as you can see, the existing deck can hold quite a few people on it. I can see where you're coming. Not sure it can. All joking aside, and then I'm going to shut up, Mr. Lee, I'll give you information. You may want to reach out to some people and just talk to them individually, one-on-one. Okay. There are a couple that have been evidencing that they're just concerned and they want to make sure it's done properly and that there's not an additional problem created. Sure. So I'll give you that contact information. Okay. I appreciate that. You're welcome. I can't finish this presentation. As you can see, we have minimized the deck as basically just the landing that we need for our switchback stair. There's a little bit of extra deck that's tucked back in here at both levels. And part of the reason to do this is I like to, when I do these type of structures to the existing historic structure, I like to try to minimize what is actually attached to it. So even though we have a 23 feet wide structure, we're really only attaching 15 feet to the house itself. It really kind of restores those corners around there as well. And then going let's see here to our elevations, this is the basement level here, which will be unfinished. And I put some windows in there just to break up that mass of brick. This section here is actually cantilevered. So it's over top. And then this piece steps back. So there is some back and forth and in and outs in these structures. And then it's the primary roof of the new structure is right at or below the existing gutter line. And then we really need to put in the top access deck up there to access this unit. Let's see here. I wanted to show you when you come to the very top to this unit that's existing. We're not doing any work to it. But we just have just enough deck to approach. And this is really only like a seven foot by seven foot landing here in front of the front door. And it will be there will be handrail across it so that we're not encouraging any outdoor lifestyle happening at this level as well. If you think that we need to break up this mass vertically, you know, we can easily put in some band board and maybe even do some vertical siding if you thought that we need to break up this height. And we're totally open to any suggestions like that as well. Yeah, it's rather stark looking. Go ahead. Are you done? Have you finished your... And then just from this side you can see this is the new stair that connects all three levels. And I welcome any... So just to be clear, you're adding in two new bedrooms? Well, actually we're getting a total net of two bedrooms to the whole structure. There's three bedrooms on each level, the two main levels. And we're getting rid of one of those because the plans as you can imagine the interior plans existing are terrible. So we're making the rooms bigger, larger, and nicer and adding that other bedroom as well. So you're having a net increase of one? We have a net gain of two. A net gain of two, yes. I think in a lot of ways it meets our requirements. I think I don't have a problem getting rid of the emergency stair, cleaning it up. When you look at it in plan, that plan is really the same size as those stairs going down so you're not increasing the footprint a whole lot. It looks a little bit more massive when you just look at it elevation wise. But it does seem to really kind of fall behind the house. I like the cantilever. I think there's details to work out on how you deal with exactly what those windows are because obviously they're going to have to be operational. They're not going to be one big window. But I think the use of cementous siding and brick all fits with kind of what we would expect. Maybe it's a little big, but not overwhelmingly too big for the size of the structure. You're keeping it below that third story structure. I thought a little bit about that gutter line, but that's already a deck level and you're just coming back up to that same level. I don't think I have any real advice. I think it will work. My only concern is I think is if you just bring up that massing on the back, just give it some either different materials or band boards or whatever. I am still bothered by how, and I guess that's just the way the structure is, how we have this stair step down of stairs on the back. I don't think you can get rid of them, so you've got to have them. The only way you could enclose them would be the only thing you could do, but you have to have them down. And that would create a whole different issue. So it makes it more open. Oh, it looks like a pretty good plan. May I ask what year was the current work done, the existing work? Oh gosh. Can I answer that? 1960s probably. Mr. Brackett, the actually existing work that was done, I think that was permitted I think in 2010 when we redid that deck. That deck was existing, but it was really unsafe. I've been up there twice. We worked in my 21 years being in the office. It was really scary before. So this structure has received COAs in the past? Oh yes, very much so. Okay. And that upper third floor unit or the upper upper unit had already been in place prior to it being an H1 overlay. Okay. And the interior staircases had been removed as well? No, there actually is. It's a weird floor plan as Mr. Lee has indicated. It's very cut up inside and very compartmentalized and not very open. It's very small little spaces because they sort of cut out the staircase and putting sort of closet type spaces to fill in where the staircase was. But this body would not have had anything to say about removing staircases and putting a staircase on the exterior instead? All of that work happened prior to the H1 overlay. Okay. Thank you. Everyone's been referring to these as fire escapes, but they're not. They are the practical staircase for the structure. Now the third floor unit, yes, has a dual purpose. Well the second floor has no other exit except that staircase. I believe there is a second floor. The second floor does have an interior staircase that reaches... No it doesn't. No it doesn't. I may have misspoke. Both the second and third floor are the primary access. So this is the primary and only staircase for the building. For it to be exposed in the way that it is I think is an imposition on the district. And I think while this work is underway, because there's nothing architecturally inviting about it at all. And my only observation would be while you're adding bedrooms and income it might be appropriate to enclose the staircase. I think that would be an overall enhancement to the building. And as the chair said, find some way of breaking up the back side once it was all enclosed. That would be my recommendation. And that would solve also the congregating problem. Because it is a staircase. It's not a deck. It's not an outdoor attachment. It is serving as what would basically be an internal staircase for all the units. Those are just some of my observations. What if it was a little bit of both? What if the side was closed but the back side was open? And we also covered it as well. I think it needs some opening. Of course, when we cover the side of the stair we'll introduce some openings as well. Because I don't want a big 3.5 story mass on that side either. But I would love for it to be enclosed. I think this would be the great thing to do for the tenants. But I just don't think that it would be pleasing to the eye. I think it would be a big giant tall wall on that side. But if we kept some openings in it and kept the openings on the back side, where it's an open air yet kind of secluded, if you will, on the side, could that be... Well, you're the architect. If you can come up with... Right now, it's a pretty ugly structure and anything that you do to the back of it's going to be an improvement. But if you can figure out a way to enclose without making it look too massive, my only suggestion is go for it. Because I would think, unless I'm saying something that's making the architects die... I think it would be a challenge to enclose the stair because then you would have to actually add a third floor to make it an enclosed stair. But I think doing something to make it look a little bit nicer from the side would be great. Same with the whole... Like I said, I think you just need some details still. Like a hybrid system of some sort. That would be fine. I would also say I am not that familiar with residential code. In terms of covering of stairs and stuff, I know there's some stuff there that... Well, this would actually have to meet commercial code. Oh, okay. There's three units. It'll have to have the 42-inch high... All of that. Got to meet code on that stair. And it's already the stair and an ugly stair that the neighbors use and access that way. So cleaning it up is only making it better for the neighbors while some kind of maintaining the same existing condition, which is what's there right now. And certainly, if you do that, that will cut down on the noise factor tremendously. So that would be a real win for the neighborhood. And understand that your client is good at trying to accommodate with neighbors. Yes. I'm not going to say it that way, but he just has a reputation of being flexible and wanting to work with neighbors. Yes. Anything else? I'm going to call a five-minute recess and then we'll convene. Bear with us. We'll convene in about five minutes. Thank you for your comments. All right. Thank you, sir. Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .