Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. While we're waiting to find out, I will share with you all a quick item which will set the context for today. As a board member, I have been asked to act as chair today. At our last meeting, the chair and vice chair, who had served many years on this board, both reached the end of their term. And they both are gone and not here. So I'm acting today until this board meets and elects new officers. so for your benefit I have a quick personal story that will tell you where I am at this point one of my great grandfathers and one of his sons got in the horse and buggy in Pendleton County back maybe around 1908 and headed into Falmouth and he bought his first car it's about eight miles back to the farm and the sun was in the buggy behind the new car and most of that road is pretty curvy but pretty level the largest hill is the one approaching the old home place and things were going fine until they got to that hill and for some reason the car as it was beginning to roll faster and faster and faster down the hill, he couldn't remember what the brake thing was since he'd never driven a car before. And the family story was his hollering out loud, pulling back on the steering wheel, whoa, whoa, whoa. So today, I feel that story came to me when I was thinking about this, and I thought, well, you know, I've been on this bus before, but nobody's asked me to drive it. and your patience may be required at times if I can't find all the buttons and whistles, but the staff, our knowledgeable staff, our knowledgeable director, our legal counsel will keep everything in line because there are a lot of legal requirements in the way that we do our work here. So with that personal story in mind that I hope makes you all feel a little more comfortable if I hiccup, we will call the meeting to order. At each meeting, we read this statement. I would like to welcome you to the July 22nd, 2026 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate all of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and we now have a total of 16 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 Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located nearby at 101 East Fine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in order in which they are listed on our agenda for the day. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and will hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from 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 that is important because it has to be recorded. Come to the microphone at the podium. State your name and your address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of actual applications here. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before this board. There are a total of 37 approved applications. And before I start reading them, I just want to take this occasion with me being in this role to note that our staff, who you see here, address upwards of 20 to 30 applications and prepare them each month for this board. Applications which have been reviewed and approved without having to come to this body. Their workload is significant, and I want to recognize them and thank them for that. Staff approvals include Ashland Park Historic District, 231 Deshay Road, install front walkway, 981 Fincastle, replace deck systems, 101 South Hanover, renovate carports. In the Aylesford Historic District, 323 Lafayette Avenue, renovate site and structure. 328 Lafayette Avenue, repair windows and install new storm windows. 354 Linden Walk, install radon pipes. 394 Linden Walk, renovate driveway. 458 East Maxwell Street, construct shed and remove paving. 520 East Maxwell replace damaged windows 179 Old Park Avenue reissue a certificate of a certificate of appropriateness 362 Transylvania Park renovate structure in the Bell Court Historic District 624 Boonesboro Avenue renovate structure 138 Forest Avenue reroof the structure. 125 Forest Avenue, renovate structure. 160 East Belcourt, replace Dying Tree. 149 West Belcourt, renovate structure. 603 East Main Street, renovate structure. 509 Russell Avenue, renovate structure. 609 Russell Avenue, renovate the deck. 637 Sayre Avenue, renovate structure and site Ellsmore Park, historic district 640 Ellsmore Park, renovate structure Northside, historic district 472 North Broadway, reissue certificate of appropriateness 340 New Street, replace and install new fencing 340 New Street, replace vinyl siding and install mini split 427 West 6th Street, install radon pipe 453 West 6th, replace wood fencing and replace roof 415 West 3rd, remove dead tree and the Pensacola Park Historic District 158 Goodrich, reissue the certificate of appropriateness 117 Lackawanna Road, renovate structure 118 Suburban Court, replace bulkhead 167 Suburban Court, renovate structure. 149 Wabash Drive, replace deteriorated windows. In the Seven Parks Historic District, 533 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. South Hill Historic District, 362 South Broadway, renovate structure. 432 South Mill Avenue, renovate structure. 408 South Mill Street, prep for painting and renovating the structure. And in the western suburbs, historic district, 735 West Main Street, re-roof the structure as needed. And that concludes the staff approvals for this past month. We will now take each of the live applications that we have today in order, and let me explain that should the applicant wish to decline the recommendations that the staff has made, of which you are already informed, if you wish to decline those, then we will move to the next applicant and will take all the applications that need to be heard will then be moved in order to the end. So that way applications that have applicants that are agreeing to the staff's findings can go on and dismiss themselves and not have to stay for the entire proceeding. So today let's start with the Ashland Park Historic District and that is 215 to Shea Road, construct a fireplace. In this particular application, the staff's recommendations are to approve the proposal. Once reviewed by other city divisions, resubmit any changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Yes, sir. Could you identify yourself? My name is Peter Kirk. I'm with 10 Talents Construction. I'm representing Mr. Kenton Ball. I'm the general contractor. All right. And could you pull the microphone up? There you go. Thank you very much. You are familiar with the staff's findings and the recommendations? Yes. Do you accept those? Yes. Thank you. Are there any comments from board members on this application? Any comments from the audience from this application? Then do I hear a motion that this application be approved? Chair. I could jump in just real quick. In any motion that you make, I would just recommend stating your reasoning for making the motion. So for example, if you're adopting the findings that the staff has made in the staff report, I would just reference that in the motion that you make. Okay. Chair, in regards to case number 0555021-D at 215 Deshay Road, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the recommendations made by the staff as read into the record already. I have a motion to approve the application with the two standard conditions. Is there a second? I second that motion. Motion is seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? And the motion passes. The application is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move now to the application for 371 Linden Walk. Application to demolish the structure due to fire loss and construct a two-story structure that has eight one-bedroom living units in it. Yes, sir, and you are? I'm Bob Radke. I own the piece of property we're talking about. All right. Thank you for coming today. No problem. The staff has reviewed the application and has the following recommendations. One, raise the finish floor level on the first floor to a height that is compatible with the other structures in the district. Number two, provide a site plan to the staff or board for review and approval before the issuance of the COA that includes the following. A tree plan showing all trees on the site that are 10 inches in diameter or greater, location, size, and materials of all sites improvements such as walkways, driveways, and parking. And three, provide guideline-compliant railing system details and specifications to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. And then the two standard conditions as they have already been read in the prior document. Are you aware of these five recommendation requirements? I wasn't, but I don't see a problem with them other than unless the height of that floor is out of whack for the height of the building. That would be the only thing I would need to do the research on. Okay. So let me then ask a question of clarification. If the owner and the builder's specifications come back and the height of the first floor is still not consistent with those in the neighborhood, what would be the next step after we have approved this application? Mr. Chair, the guidelines call for the finished floor of the first floor to be compatible with adjacent first floors within the neighborhood. We would review that. It doesn't have to be exact. We would work with the applicant and come up with any changes that we need to happen. If we cannot come to an agreement with the applicant, which we usually do, we would bring it back to the board for final review and approval. And sir, is that process acceptable to you? It is. All right. No problem. I want to work with whoever we need to work with to get it where you all want it. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair, may I point out the staff is not empowered to act on new construction at the staff level. Now, I understand that the board is making a directive in your action that would make this a condition of the approval. It's a little unusual to not have the public have, with new construction, knowledge of it before this board, before a final approval is given to something like that that does affect the exterior envelopes of the envelope of the building's architectural identity and presence on the streetscape. So I think that I do as staff have some reservations about delegating that aspect of this to the staff and therefore removing the public's ability to be aware of what is being put forward by the applicant as a solution to this. But at the end of the day, it is the board's decision how you would like it handled. So am I understanding correctly that should the applicant commit to this first recommendation? and by committing, accepting this recommendation, understanding that if the applicant is not able to meet the requirements of the recommendation, then the certificate of appropriateness would not be granted. Well, your action is going to, you could make two things. You could make a condition, certainly, and I would strongly recommend this be the case, that a certificate of appropriateness not be issued until that condition is met successfully. That's pretty standard for all of it. But the piece that we're missing is the ability of people in the proximity of the property to have any opportunity to be aware of the situation and what the changes will result in the building's architectural presence on their streetscape and their neighbor. And you were making that statement because the neighboring residents who received notification of this application, this particular item was not specifically part of that? No, it's been thoroughly advertised as far as the fact that this building is going, the existing situation has to be removed due to the unfortunate fire, and that a new building is being proposed. They have more than received due notice. It's the fact that it's a new construction from the ground up and not a remodeling or a renovation of something that already exists, and we're not empowered. The board hands us the mandates of categorically what we can review as staff, and we don't traditionally tread into reviewing new construction. We certainly, if somebody didn't come to the board and wanted a new addition, you're well aware that the whole thing would come to the board, which is what's happening today. The whole thing is before you today. So I think, again, it's the board's decision, and the staff will be glad to carry out whatever your decision reflects. If this board deferred making a decision, is there another entity in the city that would be the appropriate one for this application? Oh, no. Okay. It's just that dealing with a new construction item is extraordinarily unique. It's something going from non-existing to going to come to be in full existence. And it is a process meant for people to have the opportunity to see it through the process to what would be the outcome before a permit is issued. And what would be the staff's recommendation on how to make that? Well, that's the thing. We can't just on the fly design somebody's result of this, and it's not appropriate for the staff to offer that method by which you resolve something. That needs to come from the applicant, the property owner and the applicant, and the staff's role and the board's role is to review that proposal. then would it be appropriate for us to request that the applicant return at a future meeting with specifications delineated in the packet that prove? That's the traditional way the process works. That's correct. To if there's something that is not meeting the guidelines and not in a position for the board to take final action on a new construction, that details of that be designed and brought forward for the board to review and include in their action. So you can continue the application if that is your desire. and the applicant could come to, depending on how quickly they could provide this material back to the staff, they could come to the next meeting or the following meeting, but it's driven by how quickly they're able and choose to put together the revisions to their proposal. So for the other board members, the question here is that the staff's responsibility is to make sure that the application adheres to the guidelines. And the floor level consistency in the neighborhood is the issue here. And we have then the opportunity to either grant approval without the defined floor level height and consistent issue being proven, or we have the opportunity to delay and continue this until the applicant has provided the necessary architectural details that prove that the floor level is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Is that a fair? That is. It's not only consistent, but in the manner in which meets the guidelines in terms of the outcome. Also, I would note the deadline for action on this case is August the 16th, and so the board would also need to take action to have there be an extension, either a 30-day extension or a 60-day extension, whichever will be successful. a 30-day extension from the 16th. I'll have to look at my calendar real quick. Would probably include the September meeting, but we want to be sure the time allowed is enough for a September meeting if it came to that. Hopefully it'd be able to come back to the August meeting and be resolved then. But still we'll need, August meeting is the 19th of September, not the 16th. It's post the 16th. Any questions or clarification from the board? Sorry, I just have a question for the owner. I was looking at the first floor plan. Is this meant to be senior living or ADA? It's AD. ADA? Yes. So we need some kind of regulations around a ramp then if we're going to be adding? Is that right? For raising that height up one foot, six inches? I would think that would be appropriate, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yes. No problem with that whatsoever. However, I would like to go back to the other subject because I'm a little confused about where I get the information based on the streetscapes that's there already because there are some at ground floor and then there's some that's four feet off the sidewalk pavement. So where do I get the information to make it appropriate for that because it's so varied and how does that fit into what the building inspectors are going to want for their codes? That is a question for staff and staff leadership. Do you have an architect? Yeah. You would work with your architect. Your architect can provide all the answers to much of that. but there's no one answer to this as far as, oh, it needs to be 14 inches or it needs to be 10 inches or whatever. That's what I was thinking. That's why it has to also come back for a decision because it's not a formulatic, if you make it this size. So we work off of our first best guess? Well, we know it's a more educated than just a guess, so we're good. But your architect will – The variance in the street is incredible. That's why I asked this question. I don't care what it is. I just want it to work out. Your architect will also professionally be aware of the standards to meet the ADA requirements and be sure to be able to check with building code, with our building inspection. So it is a connectivity sort of outcome, but it's done on all projects. And so we're glad to help you. I'm looking across at Barry, and Barry, I know, has been working with you on this, and he can work with you and your architect very succinctly to help you move forward. I'm willing to do whatever makes it work for everybody. I had a couple of questions, too. I actually had questions because there is really no site plan that shows what the trees are doing. Do you know if you would be cutting down any large trees to expand and make this building? To the best of my knowledge, no. So I would like to see that site plan before I have approved anything anyway to make sure that footprint is not impacting trees. The chair would... Guideline, or not guideline, recommendation number two. Yeah, exactly. I want to see that. Yes, so we will need all of that information before we can review and approve the final submittal. And then I had one other question. This is for the demolition of the structure and construction of the structure. I'm guessing you want to get the structure at least down pretty quickly. Could we do a partial approval of getting the structure down in order to allow? I see it as a liability leaving it there. I'm the one with the liability, and it's already been decided that it needs to come down. So, yeah, that would be great. I appreciate you bringing it up. I legally wouldn't really recommend splitting it up just because procedurally it makes it, I think, overly complicated. So that would be my recommendation on that. Does the chair hear a motion to continue this case for 60 days to provide an opportunity for the applicant to address the issues that have been expressed here and any that may further be discovered or raised by staff? Chair, the board action is August 16th. And the... We're on it, Barry. They're already aware. Thank you. I'm sorry. I thought that there was an opportunity to either delay it until the next meeting or to continue it for a longer period of time. Well, your motion today should reflect, please, continuing the application to a date specific. That being, you could make it to the next meeting, which is August the 19th, but you also want to note that an extension is being agreed upon for a 60-day window of time, and you'll sign it as the acting chair, and the property owner will sign it. And that leaves it so that it's ready. If they can make it work for the August 19th, that will be good. But it might take a little longer than that to get. We have to have the material for it like 10 days from now. It's not very long. And so the material being the drawings and such. And so the point is that you do, though, pick a date specific for your motion. We don't just extend it. open-ended with continuance. So I would recommend you put the August meeting date with a 60-day extension to ride with it. Then if he cannot be ready for August, he'll be able to be on the September docket. I rephrase my motion. Does the chair hear a motion that this case, case number 11720371-E at 371 Linden Walk be delayed until the August 19, 2026 meeting with the addition of a 60-day cushion of continuance should that, should the materials not be ready by that date. That works for me. So moved. Seconded. I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. And that passes, sir. And I apologize to you for having to unhook all of this at the hearing, but hopefully the next one will be much better. and thank you for your patience. Yeah, well, I appreciate your all's efforts. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And I will just make a note. I don't have a waiver on me, but I will be sending one to both of those parties if waiver is needed, so. Correct. Okay, and we'll cycle it electronically for signatures with all parties. That's fine. Thank you. Okay, thank you, everyone. And usually that kind of occurrence we would move to later in the meeting, but I'm sorry it kept going. So appreciate your patience. Next we'll discuss 497 East Main Street, case number 122-604-97-H. This is for a change in the opening in the rear addition. The staff recommends approval with the standard two conditions. And you are, sir. Hi, I am Mike Tuttle, and I reside at 247 North Broadway currently. And are you aware of these two standard conditions and the recommendations? I am, yes. And you support those? I do. All right. Are there any comments by board members? Any comments or questions from the audience? Do I hear a motion? with regard to case 122-60497-H at 497 East Main Street for the change in an opening in the rear addition recommending approval to the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two condition Number one, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or the board for review and approval prior to the start of work. And number two, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. So moved. We have a motion. Is there a second? Seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. And the COA is approved. Great, thank you. Thank you very much. The next case is case number 122-605-33-J at 533 East Main Street. Would the applicant please come forward? Good evening, or afternoon, whatever time it is. I'm Elizabeth Hunt with Lord X Sargent. We're representing the owner of the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd. All right. and the application is to construct fencing in front of your, is it a daycare or childhood? Correct, it's the day school. Yes, a facility which fronts Belcourt. Belcourt and Sierra Avenue, yes, sir. Yes. The staff has approved approval with this with the standard two conditions. Are you in support of that? Yes, sir. All right. Are there any questions from the board? Are there any questions from the audience? Do I hear a motion? Chair, in regards to case number 12260533-J at 533 East Main Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions as recommended by the staff. Is there a second? Second. We have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Hearing none, your application has been approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Turning now to the application at 3011 Todd's Road to install a paved entrance and fencing. Is the applicant here? My name is Charles Howard. I'm a civil engineer with MSC of Kentucky and representing Link Belt. And on this particular application, the staff has five recommendations. Are you familiar with those? Yes, sir. and they are, one, submit a site plan clearly delineating the location and transition points from the six-foot high fence to the four-foot high fencing to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Number two, submit a site plan showing all trees greater than 10 inches that may be affected and the required driveway and parking screening to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Parentheses, information for recommendations one and two may be on the same site plan. Three, the fence should have a top rail and final details of this design change should be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Four, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of the COA. And number five, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Are you in agreement with these? Yes, sir. Are there any questions from the staff to the applicant? Are there any questions from the board? Thank you. I do have a question. Just about the location of the fence. That's just because I'm not sure about the staff. Do they take it back to you all and figure out where that change needs to be? Sorry. The height change? Yes. We have in the recommendations, the guidelines call for no higher than a four-foot fence in a front yard. In discussions with building inspection, we've determined that that front yard would be based on the adjacent property's front wall. So the four-foot fence would need to run along the Todd's Road property line at the no further in front of the property than the adjacent properties setback. A six-foot-high fence is allowed from that front property line to the rear. So it would only be along Todd's Road that four-foot fence would be required, if that answers your question. So if they were to put a house on the property, they have to abide by the setbacks. Is that right? If they were to put a house, they would abide by the setbacks? Well, yes, that's correct. Now, in the guidelines, do they still have to push that fence back to half of the house? Well, typically that's what the guidelines require. But in this case, since there's not a house, we assume that the front face of the adjacent properties would be the front yard. And so that a six foot high fence could happen behind those front elevations. And any fence in front of the elevations would have to be four foot high or no higher than four foot high. And is that going to be the same for the other piece of the house in the corner? Yes, that will be required for both pieces of property, yes, along Todd's Road. All right, that's my question. Any other questions from the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? I'm prepared. I didn't know if you wanted to move me to the end. No, this would be the appropriate time. Sorry, there's another representative here, Justin Chandler from Winkbelt. I think... Mr. Chair, may the staff suggest... In this particular case, I would like for us to pull this off the agenda right now and move it to the first item that we take up once we're through with the standard approvals. Is that okay? Yes, sir. We'll get back to this, put this one aside, and we'll move on to the next case is 3019 Todd's Road. It is a similar case. Is there any objection to moving that one as well on the agenda? We'll do that. So let's bypass that one. And we will move now to the Northside Historic District, the case number 18800452-B for 452 West 3rd Street. is the owner or the applicant here. Yes, sir. Please come forward. This is an application to construct an addition to demolish a raised wood patio. Hello. I'm Vince Thompson, Gibson Taylor Thompson Architects. I'm the applicant representing Amy and Mike Dunn, who are also present here at the meeting. Sir, the staff has recommended one final material of the rear deck replacement should be submitted to staff before the COA is granted. Number two and three are the standard two conditions. Are you familiar with these three conditions? Yes, sir. And are you in agreement with them? Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? Do I hear a motion? For case number 188-004-52-B at 452 West 3rd Street, do I hear a motion to approve The certificate of appropriateness, including the three conditions that the staff has recommended which have been acknowledged and read to this body. Is there a motion? So moved. I have a motion, is there a second? Second. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Your certificate of appropriateness with the qualifications has been approved. Thank you very much. I ran out of time to say comments, but thank you for working and listening. I think the solution is nicer than last time. Absolutely. I appreciate your feedback, and also welcome to the new board members. Thank you. All right. We are ready for number 8 at 166 Wabash Drive. We have quite a bit of paper up here today, so let us find it, and then we'll get on with it. Hang on. Would the owner of or the applicant for 166 Wabash Drive please come forward. This is case number 197-50166, and it is to construct a garage. Yes, sir. Scott Book, Economy Home Improvement, 1320 Bryan Avenue, agent for Mr. Lawrence of 166 Wabash, who is also present. The staff recommends approval of this certificate of appropriateness with two standard conditions. Are you familiar with those? Yes, sir. Do you accept those? Yes, sir. All right. Do I hear a motion? Oh, excuse me. Are there any questions or comments from the board members? Are there any questions or comments from the audience? Do I hear a motion? Chair, in regards to case number 19750166 at 166 Wabash Drive, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions as recommended by the staff. Do I hear a second? Second. We have a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. And your certificate of appropriateness is approved. Thank you very much. There we go. The next case is 533 East Main Street. Excuse me, that is a conceptual review item. We will take that at the end of the agenda. We will now go back and pick up the Todd's Road cases, both of them. And, sir, if you will step back to the podium for case number 19013011 at 311 Old Todd's Road. Yes, sir. And we'll try to take up from where we left off. There was a discussion with staff about the height of the fence. We were ready for comments from the audience. Do you have anything to add before we do that? No, sir. All right. Are there any comments or questions from the audience? Yes, sir. If you'll step forward over here. identify yourself and my name is Brandon server and I live at 3017 old Todd Road all right sir guys going to my presentation sure what would you like to comment on this case okay and I prepared just a kind of a little slideshow to give you a more context behind like what's actually going on here this is me at 3017 old Todd Road I've lived here 13 years I love it here I I don't really plan on moving or anything. You can go ahead to the next slide. This is my view of Link Belt from the side of my house. In between us is 3011 Old Todd's Road. You go to the next slide. This is actually 3011 Old Todd's Road. This property I've taken care of for 13 years. For five years, no one owned it. I took care of it just because it was filled with trees. Five years later, Mike Potter bought it. He was very good to us. He cleared out all these trees. I continue to take care of it for the next six years. It's probably about a football field and a half, it looks like, from here. You can't really tell. You can go to the next slide. But through that time, I mean, we have wildlife there. There's families of deer, groundhog, foxes, and stuff like that. You can go to the next slide. We enjoy that kind of thing. It's nice. During that time, he allowed us to have total use of the property. At that time, he also allowed us to, the back of my backyard, the side of it, you can't reach my backyard until this moment in time. He allowed us to build a fence or like a gateway into our fence to our backyard. You can go again. These pictures just kind of show that we did have the property to our use, that we respected it. We've had no incident in 13 years of all this time. You can go to the next slide. This is the side of my house where you see the facing front, and this comes down the side. About a foot from this fence out is where my property ends, but Mike was good enough to us to allow us to be able to get into my backyard. And you can go to the next slide. From here, that's the gate. And we had no problem with it. He allowed us to do that, so we're musicians, me and my roommate who was here with me today. We decided to build a studio behind our house because our house wouldn't allow for the amount of equipment we needed. We built the gate. We spent $500. The trailer, $3,000. We're up to an estimate of $35,000 on the, yeah, but as far as like what it's worth to like, we worked through all of you all through this whole process with Barry and everything, and we got it done. And through that whole process, we invested, we allocated all this on word of mouth. But since we allocated all this property and cost, we felt like it was a little bit more than that. And I just wanted to, when Link Belt bought it, it was pretty much a straight cutoff. We didn't want that to happen, and we wanted it to be like an applicable thing on each side, and it just be an easy process. And it hasn't quite been that. the best thing we could we've talked about this for three years back and forth and not really been able to come up with anything like for them to build that fence it would where that tree is it would cut straight across that tree one foot from that property and completely close us off and there is no other way into that property you can go to the next slide that's what it looks like on the inside this is just one corner of how much money we spent to have all this equipment in there And it's half of our livelihood. Like it pays a lot of our bills and things. Having many musicians come through there, it requires multiple cars parked. So getting into that backyard was really important to us. And you can go ahead and go to the next slide. This is the last slide. This is how far away. They're still probably 20 feet behind me of how far this fence, their fence is currently at Linkbilt to my property. And the best thing that they would even offer an olive branch at us was, I think it's crass to say a number in here in front of all these people, but it's as much as a year of my mortgage. And that just, I'm a restaurant manager. There's no possible way I could make that happen. As for this part, I know that this doesn't really have to do with the fencing and things, but as for this part, I would like to just ask that they allocate just even enough room for us to get into our backyard. And with all the money spent, it would be a great appreciation on our part. That would be great. Like, this will be a life-changing thing for us if we're just fenced in. And I don't know if you have a map in front of you of what's about to happen to us, but whatever fence you decide on is going straight. Like, there's a straight cutoff across the entire street behind everybody else's property. Nobody loses a driveway. Nobody loses any land. But I've become a hamster just in a box that will forever change this property for me and how much I love it. So I would just ask that you allocate somewhere in the plans, like with you guys, that somehow you allow me into that backyard. It would mean the world to me. And I've taken care of the property for so long, I would just really appreciate it. And as for how the fence goes, I understand that it's your property and it's a security fence and things like that. and I'm all for it. I hope you get it the way you want to have it. I just ask that it is a historical property, that it look good. Although I am getting completely boxed in, I'm sure I would like for it not to just totally bring my land value down or make my house just look at a place that couldn't be bought or couldn't be lived in. I just would really appreciate it. It's a historical place that you buy that you would assume would retain its value, and this is just really hard on my property alone as compared to the entire rest of the street. And I'm sorry I don't have like a lot more, but I really didn't have a lot. I've only had three days to prepare this, like three years to talk to them, but I didn't know about this meeting until three days ago. So I've tried to do the best I can and I want to be as respectful to them and the properties around me as possible. It's just being allowed into that backyard, if that's not possible, So it would require thousands more dollars than me coming and seeing you find people again to alter my property again and again, to even be able to park cars, let alone get into my backyard. So I would just like for them to take that into consideration, and I appreciate you all listening to me. And I believe that's right. Thank you very much. May I ask, start, like the board, other members may have questions. What is your understanding of the location? Where is the location of their fence with regard to your property lines? They have red poles installed, and we've had these for about a year. Up until now, they've not really bothered me, which I really appreciate as far as me still getting in my backyard. But it's about a foot out on every direction or every side of my house. So if we go back to the photograph of the side of your house, there's the wooden picket fence and the metal gate, the metal fence gate. So the proposed fence would be, you said it was about a foot between that fence and your property line. And then their fence would be a foot further on the other side. Like I said, I've never seen any type of schematics or plot other than a very vague drawing. About a year ago, we had a meeting with the entire street, and they got to see how everybody else's property is not really affected, but mine is just a square. It literally draws a line a foot out from my house. And I'm not sure how close a construction company is allowed to build a fence to a residential house, but they technically are building a fence on residential area. So I guess a foot out from them would not be impossible. So it would drastically affect how I use my house and the quality of life that I have. Can we go back to the first picture, which I believe is a front view of your property? And is that a driveway to the... Yes. That driveway goes to the front of your house? Yeah, that driveway, like there's, I wish the truck was in it. There's a truck parked right to the left of that, and that truck is still barely on their property. That's how cut off it is. If I pull up, it's a roundabout driveway. Someone applied to get a property next to mine to build a daycare, and the 3019, the other side that we're about to talk about, is so dangerous to pull out of, they could not get a permit to build anything there. So when I pull out of my driveway and I look left to go north, it's so dangerous that you can hardly pull out. We have to tell people about it all the time. So we usually pull out on the link belt side, which is much safer. So that will be totally cut off for me. If I pull up in this driveway, my truck right there is almost hanging into their property. I would not even be able to back up to get back out. I would almost have to pull in and back out into one of the most dangerous roads in Lexington. And it really is not too well defined. Yeah, there's a lot of trees. Let me ask you one more specific question. From the edge of your structure, your house, to the picket fence that we saw, what is the distance? Probably 30 feet. 30 feet. You mean like the edge of my house to the edge of the fence? Yes. 15, probably. 12 to 15. So would you admit that at that side of your house, an extension of this driveway to the rear would be possible? Oh, yes. I mean, well, not like I would have to significantly, I mean, I would maybe even have to cut down that large tree. To bring a, that trailer is the size of probably bigger than a Chevy Tahoe. It would be very destructive to my house to have to do that. I'm just trying to address specifics that address your concern about accessibility to the rear. So are there any questions from board members? If you want to speak, you can come up to the podium. Thank you. I would like to address just a couple small details of these production. My name is Benjamin O'Hearn. I live at 3017 Old Todd's Road with my best friend here. It is my musical facility in the back. The house schematics, it's not just the house to the fence. There's a deck there. There's a concrete pad, like patio. So it's for you to ask the question, is it possible to extend that driveway? that means taking down the stairway on the side of the house. You know what I mean? Like there's a six-foot deck that leads to the side door. Now you won't be able to walk up the side step to the side of the house if I built a driveway. It would literally just, you would walk out of the side of our house to nothing. That would be the only way. Since we don't have any plat of your property, we're just trying to get clarification on what structures are where as it relates to the fence and accessibility to the rear. Very concrete answers of distance, and that's where my questions were oriented. Please go ahead. My problem here is I feel really sorry for you, but they own the property and they're meeting the guidelines for the fence and where that fence can go around their property and we can't say to Link Belt you can't fence in your property. Like I don't think that's in our jurisdiction or in our purview to be able to say that because it's up to Link Belt to even allow you to drive over that property, right, and use it. So it feels to me like it's really something you need to take up with them and try to continue to work with them to see if there's a way that they can work with you and be neighborly to your needs for your property. And that's kind of what they said to me is that they just wanted to do the neighborly thing. And I feel like if I didn't get up here and say these things, I can at least sleep at night now that I've spoken this out loud and it'd be an issue. And I wanted to speak with them because I've only ever had contact with like one guy. Like, and I, I, that's a huge corporation. Yeah. That's why I knew some engineers would be here. So I was like, I just extend just anything to you guys. If you could like, just look at it again and just any possible way that you all could work with me, I would be great in any way. Just, but other than that, like the fence, as far as it goes. I just would like for it to look nice. As far as I know, it could just be like a chain link fence that's 10 feet tall and goes around my house. I haven't seen any of this stuff. I briefly talked to the guy that I speak to two days ago, and he said that it was a six foot mesh fence, and that's all I know. So I came here today to kind of see stuff like this more, and it was just real fast, so none of this kind of stuff came up. So I just figured I'd speak my mind and at least to get out in front of you all and let you know. But as far as the fence goes, I hope you all come up with a way that makes it look professional and nice and permanent final and things like that. Are there any other questions or comments from the board? I guess I just have one question. There's a resident access easement noted on the plan. I was just curious what the dimension of that was because there's no, I can't really, I mean, I see the scale is one to 40, but I don't have a scale up here with me. It's very small, but it's a lot of money. Sorry, Charles Howard. Thank you for coming with the microphone. If you kind of look at the top dotted line of the gravel, there's that 10 foot right there. That's what the dimension is. Lengthwise, I think it's 149.49. Excuse me. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the board? Thank you very much. Any other audience member like to? Yes, sir. Thank you all. I'm Justin Chandler. I'm the maintenance and facilities manager at Link Belt Cranes. I just wanted to, there was a question earlier about the small triangle. part down on the southeast corner we don't plan to fence that in um at all so we don't have to worry about that it's not you're not fencing it no okay no i'm sorry where are you not fencing in on the far on the southeast corner there's a dotted triangle there we don't plan on fencing that in um as far as maintaining the property and keeping it looking nice um if you drive by our front lawn You can tell that we take very, very care of our property. When we first acquired this property, there were makeshift homeless shelters. There was vehicles. There was all kinds of stuff that we had to haul off just to get it cleaned up. You know, we plan on having it mowed, maintained. The intentions for this property is nothing more than just a buffer. It does not plan on being developed. There will be no equipment there. There will be nothing. We just plan on. Our intention is to start to build a fence when, you know, to keep people out of it, to keep, you know, trespassing off of it. When it goes from being a residential owner to a corporate owner, there's a liability, you know, protection that you have to, you know, provide for yourself to keep people out of there. As far as, as far as Brandon and as far as his situation, you know, we hate that we would be cutting off the backside of his property, but how his house is positioned on that lot, you know, we really can't do much about that. Rand is a good neighbor, and, you know, if we were to give him easement or a right away to the backside of his property in 10 or 15 years when he decides to move or go or, you know, whatever, and I'm no longer there, he's no longer there, and it would be like, well, this is my property. No, this is your property. Well, I'm using it, and, you know, there would just be a lot of gray area that we're leaving here at that. I just want to repeat that. That's true. Sir, you're out of order, please. And that's it. We just want to make sure what our intentions are. We feel for a situation, we really do, but we're also trying to protect our liability as far as a corporation in the middle of a historic neighborhood. The situation, the property, when we were inquiring, we felt like we needed to put a fence around it. The renderings of the fence is we try to keep it looking as natural as possible. It's a graduated metal fence. The one is not in color, but we also plan on getting a black fence to make it more transparent in the neighborhood. Black, those metal fences, you can hardly see it from a naked eye. So we don't want to be an intrusion on the people of Cadentown, the historic neighborhood. We have a lot of respect for that. And while meeting our guidelines, while protecting our property as well. That's it. Do any other board members have any other questions? May I ask either of you from Link Belt this question? So we're provided with a sample of the fencing and a photograph. I also note that in the recommendations from the staff, there is a request for a site plan showing all trees greater than 10 inches. So you do understand that clear cutting may not be permitted once that site plan is prepared and submitted for your certificate of appropriateness. We can survey that fence line identifying trees over 10 inches that may be in the way. It's not a problem. All right. Any questions about that or anything else? While they're looking, thank you, sir. And the gentleman who wanted to speak, has he left? Okay. I want you all to have an opportunity. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Oh, yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. My name is Kimberly Robinson. Excuse me, can you pull the... Thank you. I know I'm a shorty, but my name is Kimberly Robinson, and I'm a longtime resident and church member of Catantown Missionary Baptist Church. We met with Link Belt over a year ago, and my concern is I'm opposed to the six-foot woven wire fence Link Belt wishes to install. The gates and the entrance on Todd's Roads are pretty, the ones they showed us at the meeting. But I worked with the Federal Medical Center for over 20 years, and the fence reminds me of those fences and how they were there to keep inmates from the community. Keep them safe from the community. We are not. We are a community of historical background. And the woodlands and the fence with the fence six foot tall would trap the live animals and everything. He showed you pictures of deers that we have in our community. I wish to see a fence in line with what is already present. and each neighbor that has wanted a fence in their yard, it had to be wooden fence. It could not be what they're asking for. They're coming in on historical property. I don't know if they knew that before they purchased it, but we want something attractive, not something that looks institutionalized. We want something to look beautiful to complement us. There are several fences that they could try to install that are more attractive than a six-foot fence. The only difference from the fence at the prison, and this fence to me, is the bob ward on top of it. You can easily see through wooden fences. We have a neighbor who has a black fence, and he has pictures of it. On that black fence, it has wire going around it where things can't get out. but it's attractive. Even on Mickey Lane, the city installed a black wooden fence for us. It's in keeping with what we were told, and I don't know why they're not required to do what we have to do. We went to the meeting and they said they wanted to be neighborly. Okay, that's fine. Neighborly is fine, But when you put a fence that tall in a community that when you drive down the street, you're going to see that. Even if it's black, you're going to see it. I'm opposed to it. I don't understand why they can't do a fence that's like a steel fence or a decorative fence that will communicate to us that they're trying to be neighborly. I understand Brandon. I've lived in Caden Town for 62 years and the property that's next to him belonged to the Hayes family members. Yes, it does line up beside his house, but when you say you want to be neighborly, how come you can't be neighborly and allow access to his backyard? So I know it is their property. They've spent over $950,000 on two properties. So they well enough have money to allow him to have a little easement to get to his backyard. Mr. Marquette asked, could you just go straight back, I guess, in your yard to get to the back? There is a concrete porch deck right there. So that would take him spending more money knocking that down to get to his backyard. I'm just concerned that the fence will be tacky. And I think if we residents have to always come before the board and abide by rules to do wood fencing, why aren't they held accountable to that as well? And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. I have one question for staff, please. At the rear of 3017, at the rear, what kind of fence is between that property and the property in question? The fence? The existing fence. The existing fence along link belt is a chain link fence with barbed wire on top. All right. And that's at the back. That is on what would be the northwest side. Let me. The rear of 3011. I mean 3017. To summarize the proposal, this is the fence that is proposed to be used. So it's a woven wire fence with a knot to hold the horizontal and vertical pieces together. So that will be six feet high, not eight feet, along. So the existing link belt property is this property that I'm highlighting where the notes are. There is an existing fence along that property line. which is not within the H1. Okay. The proposal then is to fence this property, this little piano key piece, and then this piece which is T-shaped. So with the recommendations of the staff, The six-foot-high fence could run along this back property line to this point, turn and come to this point, and then turn again and come to here. Now, the discussion was about where four-foot fence could be. The guidelines require no higher than a four-foot fence and a front yard. In addition to that, there are required setbacks for fences that are not historic. They are zoning and building codes. So again, this being a back fence could be the six foot high. It could come to approximately this point where it would have to then be four foot high. And then that four foot high fence could meet the setbacks that are required. So what we're discussing is, it's kind of hard to get this. So from this, you see this property, which the gentlemen were discussing, and that's the house. So from that point to the front and that point to the front on all of these properties could be no higher than four feet. The fences that would run towards the rear and then along the rear property lines can be six foot per the guidelines. So I hope that cleared it a little bit. So where are existing fences on 3017 and the other two properties? Are those denoted on that anywhere? The only fences that have been noted are along link belt's property, which is the chain link with the razor wire on top of it. The other areas, there are not consistent fences. So if they are fenced, there would be whatever is existing, and then the link belt fence would be positioned behind whatever is existing. Link belt can build their fence on their property line. Right. Right. So there is a possibility on some of these lots that there will be two fences, one owned by link belt and then a foot two feet away could be a fence owned by the other property owner. In theory, yes. Yes, so... All we're considering today is the property line fence for link belt. Right. In the findings, finding number one on fences says that fences of cast iron, stone, metal, wire, or brick that are original to the property should be preserved and maintained or if missing, may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. So that permits a wire, the law, permits a wire fence to be placed where there may not have been fences before. That is correct. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. The button for my mic is back there. It's very challenging. I know you always wonder why I'm flailing my arms. But the staff has looked very closely, of course, at this application like we do at every application. And the fencing material that is proposed is, for the most part, where you most frequently see it is on farms. And I was driving out sort of side roads for sales road area. And since this application's been in and calling attention to what fencing products are out there, I've become so aware of how frequently found this specific wire fence type with the horizontal board across its top and wood posts and so forth is found in the more country areas. And the Cadentown Historic District is protecting an African-American hamlet, which was at the time it was created and for many, many years until Hamburg and all the development started up, quite out in the country. So the properties on this historically, from half-acre to five-acre tracks, would have had any number of country fences. And this product reflects country fences. It doesn't mean you can't use it in town, too. I see it in people's backyards and so forth. So it is compatible with the character of the evolution of this historic area, and it complies with the design guidelines in terms of that heritage and compatibility. and alternative solutions do not seem anywhere near as successful to meeting the guidelines as this one is. And so the chain link that runs the big long line that you're seeing has been mentioned is on Link Belt's property. I believe, am I right, Barry, that that's an eight-foot fence? No, ma'am. Six? It was originally proposed to be eight, but they had agreed to go with six to meet the guidelines. No, I'm talking about the existing. Oh, the existing. I'm sorry. Yes. The existing is quite large. I'd say eight foot is a minimum on that, and it has the, there's a word for that barbed wire overhang. It's about eight with Constantine wire or barbed wire on it. Thank you. Constantine wire. Okay. So that's an existing condition that was in place before the H-1 overlay and not in the footprint of the H-1 overlay designated area regardless. And so it is an existing condition that does affect your perception of the proximity. And so as you come into the immediate of the H1 overlay and you really absorb the character of the whole 40 acres, again, I think this wire is certainly within the design guidelines. guidelines. It's been a discussion of expecting this application to have to meet the guidelines like anybody else. It has been weighed just like anybody else's application, and it's the staff's opinion that it does meet the guidelines. Thank you, Director. Any other questions from the Board? I do have one question. I just have a question about, I think it's a recommendation for a top rail to be added to the fence. Is there a requirement on what that's made out of? Or do we know what that's going to look like? Traditionally, it's a horse fence plank. Just a horizontal laid band finishing out and providing that top rail. To expound on that, a horizontal board that would, if it's climbed on, would keep it from sagging and help stiffen it up. So basically a one by eight. I'm sorry, could you say what you just said? We would just need a note from them saying what it would be. One by six, oak board, one by eight, whatever. I think they need a drawing. I don't. Yeah, it needs to be applied to their drawing to scale and demonstrated before the permit will be issued. But it's a very traditional and normal way of building a fence of this nature. And without it, it is prone, as Barry just said, to be open to sagging. When a tree limb hits it, even if it's not particularly large, it creates the beginning of dips, and then you go from there to more wear and tear, lessening the integrity of the structure of the fence. So it's a practical thing. Sorry, do we need to see that in a drawing, or is that handled at the staff? That can be handled at staff, that detail. Staff, for you new members, is empowered to handle fencing in rear yards, not front yard fences. Front yard fences all come to the board, and that's why this application is before you all. if an application includes a front yard fence, we don't treat it as two different animals and do a permit at staff for two-thirds or three-quarters of an application and then have the other fourth of it come to you as a board. We send it in toto as the whole application. But it's because of the presence of front yard fencing. Otherwise, per the process, the staff would have been empowered to, as long as the proposal met the guidelines, put this fence in. The other reason it's important for it to be before the board is, again, we know this is an application that the public has interest in, and any time that is strongly known, we're always sure to be sure to put it forward so that everybody has the process to be informed. So I guess my question is, since this does involve a front yard fence, and there is no drawing of the fence, does that need to come back to us again? No, the drawing we have is adequate to show us. It's like it will be a cut sheet kind of idea. They could provide a cut sheet. And it's a four-foot version of what we have depicted as six-foot material. But it's not showing the top railing, though? No, and we will be requiring that detail before the permit will be issued, and that does not need to come back to the board. That is a detail that is empowered to staff. And if the board has any reflection or decision that affects what you're approving, that top rail would be in some way different, or you want to provide some steerage to any detail about that top rail. But it is not an articulated shape or anything like that. It is a very basic farm fence, one by six or seven, as it's said. So it's not like needing to see a profile of a window mold or a cornice mold or something like that. But we are certainly at your all's directive as far as your decision of any details about this proposal like any other. I have a question. If you go by the recommendation number three, it sends it back to the staff for review and approval, although the board can change that, obviously. I have a question. I think it's for staff. Just for clarification, we have the picture, and it shows a double row of trees, actually, right by the fence. Is that part of the proposal, or is that just part of the drawing? It's just part of the depiction for the fence, for the materials of the fence. Although we are asking for a plan that would show any trees over 10 inches, which are covered by the guidelines that would be affected by the construction of the fence. In a fence line, obviously, you have trees a lot of times, so they can't just cut down all of those trees to put that fence up. If they want to cut trees down, that would have to come back to staff or the board. Okay, thank you. And that's true for every fencing project in all the H1s. I have another question, and this is for staff as well. I am concerned about the community member who feels like we have rejected fences of this type in the neighborhood before, and we're holding link belt to a different standard than we are the neighbors, which I do not believe is the case. But have we not allowed welded wire fences on other applications before? No, we've never had, to my knowledge, an application for a welded wire fence in Cadentown area in the last 10 or 12 years. And to that point, we have actually approved fences like this within the city, within other historic areas. other historic districts. As woven wire fences. Thank you. Those are important clarifications. What is never approved within the H1 overlay is a chain link fence. They are prohibited in a chain, in a chain links are not allowed. Thank you for that clarification because this is not a chain link fence. That is correct and would not ever be approved. Are we ready for a motion? I think the community member wants it. So with regard to case 1901-3011 at 30110 Todd's Road, do we have a motion for a certificate of appropriateness to be granted based on the five staff recommendations that have been reviewed previously in this meeting and accepted by the applicant? So moved. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the certificate of appropriateness for 3011 Todd's Road, Old Todd's Road is approved. We'll now turn to 3019 Todd's Road. This case is essentially the same case, but for the other piece of property. Is that correct? Charles Howard. Yes, sir. Except there's not going to be any access. So no driveway, just fencing? Yes, sir. Are there any questions from the board? No. And this fencing that's requested for 3019 is also on the plat that we've been discussing? Yes, sir. Both properties. I just want to clarify again, just so I understand, this triangle is not going to be fenced in? Yes, sir. I currently show it on the plants, but as Justin said, that will not be fenced in that area. Is there going to be anything else done to that property then? Because there was concern about liability. Well, it's just they'll maintain it as far as like Boeing and such, but no, there's no fence. There won't be a fence. So that triangle will not be quote enclosed. It'll just be. But it will still be maintained by link belt. Right. As far as mowing, yes, sir. This application also includes the same five recommendations from staff. You agree to all of those? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Any questions? Any more questions from the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? Mr. Chair, the staff, I would just like to recommend that perhaps because of If the in-depth discussion has gone on about the property at 3017, Todd's Road, that you might just in your motion make reference to the fact that the weighing of the matter was carefully examined with 3017. And also those same discussion is appropriate and goes with the decision of 3019. It is important legally to have it. Actually, 3011. Am I saying wrong things? I'm sorry. 3011. Yes. Oh, heaven forbid, I do not mean to refer to the one with the house on it that is this gentleman's, these two gentlemen's property. Apologies for that. Yes, 3011 and 3019. I think I've looked at plans too long today. But that way, so we do legally need to have two, since they are separate parcels legally, we do need to have the two actions. But I want the record, when none of us are around, to give people clarity to reflect all the things that went into this. With regard to case number 1901-3019 at 3019 Old Todd's Road, do I hear a motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness to construct a fence with the recommendations being five? and I shall repeat them. Number one, the fence should have a top rail and final details of this design change should be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Two, submit a site plan clearly delineating the location and transition points from the six-foot fence high fencing to the four-foot high fencing to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Submit a site plan showing all trees greater than 10 inches in diameter that may be affected by the fence construction. Quotation or parentheses, information for recommendations one and two may be on the same site plan, end of parentheses. And number four, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of a CLA. And number five, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. and that this motion shall also note that the same discussion points and information was shared with regard to the approval of case 1901-3011, which included extensive discussion on properties at 3011 Old Todd's Road, 3017 Old Todd's Road, as well as 3019 Old Todd's Road. Is there a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Having a motion and a second, All those for approval of this case 3019 say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Statement of approval for case ending in 3019 is approved. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. All right, folks. Before we get into the conceptual review, let's take an eight-minute break and then we will reason. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I love you. In the recess, we're right on eight minutes, and we will call the meeting back to order. And the one item of business remaining on our agenda today is a conceptual review. This is the second time that we've reviewed this particular proposal, and this is for 533 East Main Street, constructing an addition and doing site work at a property owned by Good Shepherd Episcopal Church. The procedure here for our new board members is that staff will go through a presentation, and then the applicant will make response or comments from that, and then we'll open it up for questions and discussion. Please. Also, Mr. Chair, as she's getting just ready to start, We would just make everybody aware that our new members who have joined us, for which we're very appreciative, thank you, have had made available to them the archived tape of the previous conceptual review. And I'm sure that they hopefully had a snack and watched that meeting and have been able to catch up to where we are for their informational process. Thank you. And also, just to run a little bit by you guys the last sort of summary of the last meeting that was discussed. Of course, this is the 533 East Main Street about the construction of the new parish hall, the proposal. Of course, that also included a connection with an elevator, which included also the new ramp, stairs, and front entry into the connector of the new church. And architects did appear for the board. There was a lot of discussion with the last board and some of the existing board members and the discussing of the objectives of the church. and sort of summarize some of the four main things that were discussed. There were many things discussed, but more things that were hit on during that last conceptual review were covering up the west elevation of that historic church sanctuary, the mimicking of the historic church windows, and then, of course, the location of the building being in the same plane of the historic church sanctuary and also the materials. Of course, as this is a conceptual view, I will actually walk through some pictures to orient the new board members on this. Of course, this is located at the corner of East Main Street and Bell Court. And then you'll, walking down this, this is sort of a larger campus now with the main sanctuary and then their parish structures. And then we just saw this with the proposed building, the proposal of the fence going in front of the Episcopal Day School. And along Sayre, there's three other structures. And, oh, wait a minute. This is actually, can we go back to 533? This is the fence. this is we need to do the conceptual review, which is the last case. Let's see. Can we go to where it says B? Let's see. No. Let's see. Let me, hold on. Looks like it's going to require a lot of blasting. I think he has finished it. Can you give me a second? Oh, can I have the sun drive? Sure. Oh, you sure can. Okay. All right. So, you've erased the other case, too. Excuse us for a second as I have to download the staff report that got taken off. And unlike at the movies, we have no entertainment for the intervals. It's time for prayer, perhaps. It is Wednesday night. Is there other activities? We are in good stead having you with us. We always can appreciate, such as yourself, being present. I think there is a time limit, though, on comments, so. We'll make it silent. The President. Thank you. That's it. That's it. Sorry about that. So we do have the talk about the whole campus, and then we'd also, of course, we have the buildings on Sayre, and then across the way we have the main sanctuary. And then there we have the proposal is to install a new parish hall in this empty area, in this particular area here. There was a structure in this location, and it was removed. There is a depression here of some retention basin area in this location now. and the architects will speak to that a little bit later about that. Walk you through some more of the images about that. For you new board members, the structure was removed quite some time ago, well before the historic district. And we'll walk you through. It was a historic house. Right. It was a four-square structure similar to the structures on Sayre, similar to that. This is the location of the walkway where the new entrance would be to, or the proposed entrance into the new parish hall would be located. And also this is the west elevation that will be affected most by the proposal of the new construction. Some more details of that location. This is the playground for the Episcopal Day School, Good Shepherd Day School, and a tree line that borders between the playground area and the neighboring apartment building. to sort of walk you through some of the other structures that we've seen before. And then this is part of the presentation, which you see in a very small print, because you do actually have the PowerPoint from last time, but to sort of show you big in a big format. This is the same board maps that actually the architects pulled, that I put in here and left in here in the presentation. And you can see the church itself, which is in blue, which is stone, and the structure next door. And, of course, the neighboring structure, which this was the part of the building was taken down. This is the proposal location that was removed. And this structure still is the day school, and then this new structure combines these together of the whole campus church. And you can see that in number five. And you can see the numbering of all the new campus areas. And sort of more of the stormwater retention area and their whole site plan. I'll give you a little walk through here. And then this is sort of from the guidelines and this is also in your packet. And in this, and they showed you where the location, the previous packet, the previous location was. This is sort of, again, from their previous slideshow, but also from their previous information. And I hope this didn't mess up. and not get my whole packet. Does it stop? There it is. It's responding to the idea of prayer. I know. And this is sort of, they talk about circulation space, and I think they'll go through this a little bit more, and I'm just going to walk through these a little bit and let her and Ms. Hunt go through this a little bit more in detail. And this was the previous plan, and you can see the changes from what their response was and how we talked about that the windows sort of mimicked too much history of the actual physical structure. These were the previous plans of the physical connector that was built in earlier days, I think in the late 90s, early 2000s. This was the previous rendering in the rear side of that showing the parking lot. You can see the previous location. At this time, there were no materials shown. And so this is their new proposal. Again, sort of showing the floor plan. As you can see the difference here, sort of showing the difference is they have recessed the connector back. in this location, so it's not in the same plane. All the structure is in the same plane. The proposed structure is in the same plane, but the connectors has been recessed and not that. So it shows a bit more of the structure of the main historic sanctuary. and then the window ministration is different than their previous plan. It also shows much more the stone their proposed stone being a little bit different and a little bit more articulated than what we saw previously. it will have sort of either sort of more of an iron sort of a storefront or some kind of curtain wall they haven't made that decision yet but those are the decisions they're still making working on and remember to let the new board members know this sort of smaller structure out to the side here. So while this is the main sanctuary, this will be the kitchen area that would back up to that tree line. This is sort of the backside looking out where the playground is. So these three doors will lead out into that playground area. and this is if we were looking west looking at that area. So there's some more sections looking through that space and there's sort of more of a schematic looking at this. I think there was a question previously by one of the board members about fleshing out more of the details of the ramps and the ADA compliance of getting ADA compliant people into the entrance. And I think this sort of fleshed out some of those details. This also is schematic showing the difference of the openings and sort of more articulation of the windows. And so there are some more details of the flat roof and, I mean the flat seam roof and the Ashlar pattern window details, and there's still going to be some retaining walls to help with getting into the entrance here. Oops, let me go back here. So, of course, there's a bit more history in the entrance here, talking about the Good Shepherd Church moved here for its location of Woodland and High after a fire in 1918. And Mr. Keller, who was a prominent developer of Bell Court, provided this land, And this structure was built by Brinkle and Curtis in conjunction with Boston architects Graham and Ferguson. And the Good Shepherd Church in this campus is located in the corner of East Main and Belcourt in the throat in the partial Sager Avenue. The historic sanctuary is located at this entrance. And right now the parish hall is located in the basement. And their proposal is trying to get the parish hall out of the basement. And the proposal is to put in this particular location. and there's no work intended. They wanted to really retain the playground and not interfere with that or the circular drive behind. Guidelines are included for the reference, and as this is a conceptual view, there are no findings at this time. However, there are issues to be considered. Does this proposed hall still obscure the historic west side of this church? Could the addition be shifted away from the west side of the church more, not to obscure the historic west side elevation? Is the connector still taking up too much of the west side of this historic sanctuary? Could the proposed elevation be connected to the previous addition? Could the proposed addition change orientation? Are the significant green space or trees lost due to the proposed addition? Does the proposed addition mimic history or create an imitation sense of history versus contemporary design compatible with adjacent surrounding structures? Do the proposed additions appropriately reflect the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of the predominant proportion, emphasis, and rhythm of the structure as well as adjacent surrounding buildings? Are the proposed additions roof shapes pitch materials consistent and compatible with the roof of existing buildings? Are the proposed door, windows, openings compatible in design, scale, size, and proportion to established patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings? Are any new landscape features compatible surrounding historic properties? Are proposed materials, siding, trim, and keeping with design, style, and materials of existing structure? Will the new additions require some type of detention or water retention? recommendations and at its time and deadline and at this time board action and at this time. Of course the architects are here and I'll provide this to Mr. Jackson. He's walking up here now. Thank you very much and Mr. Chairman I just want to thank and commend you for the eight minute break. I was much in need of that so thank you. We have actually continued. Do you have our presentation? As you might imagine, we've continued to work. My name is Jackson Kane. I'm with Lord X Sargent of the Architects, who are representing the Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd. We've continued to work with the church even since submitting that. So we've got more things to show you today. And just to contextualize this, we would love to be able to submit for approval for the August meeting, and that means turning drawings in tomorrow. So feedback from you all. We're showing you a range of things to try to get some feedback so we can stay on track if possible. So Amelia hit on this. You've seen this slide already, just the sort of context of the historic church there, number two, the addition that's number five, and the other three structures the church acquired. Number four was acquired in the 90s and torn down to make way for the church to build something on it. That was the church's reason for acquiring it. So that building is not there now. It's been down since probably the late 90s, early 2000s. And currently there is a detention stormwater area in its place. The playground is there in the kind of gold color in the center of the site, along with four major specimen trees, which I should note were included in our approval for the tree canopy right now. And so that's sort of our current layout. And as we said, the proposed location is here on the former side of that house, adjacent to the church for a new parish hall, which is something the church has wanted to build for about 100 years now, since the church's inception. So I thought it would be good to organize this just in response to the questions that we were asked to address. And so the first is, does the parish hall still obscure the historic west side of the church? And the answer is partially yes. That if we're sitting back, if we're observing the design guideline requirement to hold the historic setback, which is one of the explicit guidelines, then any building that does that intrinsically will partially obscure that side. That side is visible right now only because that building was torn down. But for most of the church's history, it's been partially obscured. But the primary facade on Main Street and the secondary facade on Belcourt remain unobstructed. It's the tertiary facade, which is still visible. You'll see in a minute on the rendering, but it is not entirely visible. That would be a change. Could the addition be shifted to the west so as not to obscure it? Unfortunately not. We are right up against the property, the setback line with the apartment building. So we've got no room to move further west. So we're as far away. We'd love to widen the gap if we could. But the building is this. We can't get the building to fit otherwise. So it is as far to the west as we can physically put it. Is the connector, does it still connect, does it still cover up too much of the sanctuary? As Milly indicated, we previously had this layout. And so you can see there was an elevator that went up to the attic. That was so the church could use that for storage. There was also a convenience stair that was going to connect down to the undercroft below the church. And so that was driving kind of the position of that glazing line. In response to the comments from the board last time, the church has eliminated the elevator. That also helps us to lower the roof because that was a concern last time. And the elevator override was one of the things that was driving the height of that roof. And it also then eliminated that stair, which allowed us to put the glazing line back. And then sort of where we've set it is really we looked at even pushing it further. But as the aspect ratio of that space goes from being sort of squarish to a deep rectangle, that starts to feel like maybe a kind of frightening place, an unsafe place at night where someone could kind of be back there. So we want to be close enough to the street. And there's also the guideline. You want the entrance to be on Main Street. We want it to read from Main Street. So we're letting it sit back so these two buildings can read clearly and more of the historic church is exposed. That is, you'll see in a minute, they're rendering all glass. You'll still see the facade beyond it through the glass. We felt like that's a good spot to both address accessibility, safety, a Main Street elevation entry, but also letting more of the church breathe than was previously the case. And as also noted, we reworked the entry sequence with the stairs and the ramp, which I can show you in a rendering a little more clearly. Could the proposed elevation be connected to the previous addition? And by this, could it be pushed back to where the current addition is next to the church? And so this diagram shows you what that would look like if we push back to where the yellow is. And so there are several issues there. One, obviously, we're now violating the guideline by not observing a setback. But you also see we don't leave ourselves a lot of room for the playground. We can't really get rid of the parking. There's only 16 spaces. As you can imagine, a church has quite a few people who need to be able to park close to a church, particularly in inclement weather. The neighborhood would not thank you, I don't think, if we put more cars on the street. And then the space gets bifurcated. There's really not much usable. You've sort of cut the space in half with half behind, half in front. Neither the church nor the day school really wants to put a playground out on Main Street. I'm not sure the guidelines would want a playground on Main Street. The other one is you would take out those four specimen trees, which, again, we just got approval for our tree canopy. The church doesn't quite hit the 30% threshold. We're adding trees to get closer to it, and we did get approved at 27%. There's just not a lot of green space on the campus, so we would be taking down specimen trees if we pushed it back. Could we change orientation? We did look at this to see, well, what if you rotate it at 90 degrees? And so that would look something like this. You take the building, you turn on its side. Obviously, it encroaches, again, a little more deeply in that same root zone into the playground. So that's not ideal. But also, just from an elevation point of view, I mean, the gable end of this building is much more, you know, to me, it's much more of a face. It's much more of a front. and we just really felt like letting the sort of long side face Main Street was a way to defer really to the church and not compete with the gable facade of the historic church. So we landed with sort of keeping it still oriented in the way that it was and in the same position for those reasons. Are there significant green space and trees lost due to the proposed additions? No, actually where we are minimizes that. As I said, those four specimen trees are protected because we are where we are and we actually have room to plant there in the front yard, so that's part of where we're adding some trees. So no, we're actually preserving. This is the optimal way to preserve green space on the campus is with this location. Do the proposed additions mimic the history or create a sense of history versus contemporary design compatible with adjacent surrounding structures? And we would argue no, and I think that's a really important discussion point from you all because it's sort of where do you draw that line. That's where we could really use some guidance today. I will say the church's preferred solution would still be to do an arched window, like you're seeing in this rendering. In this case, these windows are smaller. They'd also prefer to go with a slate roof, and we can get into these things sort of one by one as we go through the other steps. But we have some other versions of this we want to show you and get some feedback from you on. So do the proposed additions appropriately reflect the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of the predominant proportion, emphasis and rhythm of this structure, as well as the adjacent surrounding buildings? The answer is yes, we actually, the rhythm of this building is following the same structural bay rhythm, the church just rotated. So we're very much trying to work off of the rhythm of the original building to compliment it. Are the roof pitches and shapes, material, consistent and compatible with the existing building? As we talked about last time, we do have a, this was the white box version of this we had last time, and we talked a lot about the roof. And the board's opinion, and I share it, was that a steep pitch was appropriate to respond to the church, but the concern was it was too high and that these windows were also too large. And so a few things that we've – if that version of the building just rendered with materials, the church's disposition would have been to try to copy the stone precisely on the parish hall, that more rusticated stone. And so that white box rendered with materials would look like this. What we've done is we've lowered the roof, and we've brought the roof down but kept the steep pitch. And what we're proposing is that the stone is a cut stone. It still wants to have, I think it wants to be a smooth stone. It wants a little texture. I think you need some. But it's not the kind of rubble stone of the church. We're thinking that it could be a limestone. We're not going to try and match it perfectly. So we're still working in masonry, but we're working in masonry a little bit differently. And again, the church's preference would be for that to be a slate roof if it can be with the copper detailing, which is like what they have. These two were simply to show, can I go back? You can see overlaid there. So from last time, the larger version with the larger windows, higher roof. And then you can see ghosted behind that, bringing the roof down and bringing those windows in in response to the concerns raised by the board. And then this was just, we talked about this last time. This is what the historic house, this is pulling the actual, one of the houses that's on Sayre and pulling it up here. But this is typical of the houses in the neighborhood. And you can see the ridgeline of this roof is consistent with the ridgeline of other buildings in the historic district. The other thing is, as I mentioned, the church got rid of the elevator that helped to get us the roof down so we could get rid of the override. That meant they gave up the use of the attic as storage space. They'll just find other places to do that in the basement. Just mechanical equipment will be stored up there. But that was a concession the church wanted to make to get that ridge down in response to comments from the board. We did look for what it's worth, and this was in the package, at doing a kind of copper roof because that's the other material that you see there. And so we have sort of explored that. But again, the church's preference, if the board will allow it, would be to do slate with copper detailing to better complement the historic building. Are the proposed door and window openings compatible in design scale, size, and proportion to the established patterns of openings in adjacent and surrounding buildings? And we would say yes. The intention in the preferred scheme with the arch is that we sort of looked at the stone arch that you see over there at the entry to the church there with the rosette window and the wood door inserted there as a kind of form. But then we're really materially, so we've got, but then materially we're really working off of the connector. and we're seeing the connector as kind of a bronze storefront system. And so it's the idea of taking that shape as a reference back to the original, but using contemporary material. So we're not putting in stone tracery and leaded windows. So we're not trying to pretend that this is the historic perishable. It's a sort of contemporary iteration that's still respecting the kind of original windows and apertures of the historic building as we try to thread that needle between being distinct from responsive to an historic building. We did look at a couple of our options. We did have a rectangular option, and the more the church looked at it, for them this felt much more like a lodge. That was sort of there, and they said this just doesn't feel like us. This doesn't feel like our place. And so we did explore that option, looking at that as an option. We also looked at kind of a flatter curved arch. There's a couple examples of that on the campus. and so we've explored those but I will say that the church's strong preference would be if they could do the pointed arch but articulate it in a contemporary way Are there any new landscape features compatible with surrounding historic properties? Yes and as Amelia mentioned we came back and revisited that a little bit so previously the folks who heard before that it was just one run of steps that went up that felt kind of steep and imposing so we've divided that So you can right here. So we have a lower run of stairs there and a higher run there, which is really what's going on with the entry to the sanctuary. So that kind of mirrors that. This is our accessibility ramp. All of that is rendered in stone. We would propose that would probably be more like the stone that was used for the columbarium, which was approved not terribly long ago. And that's also consistent with our site walls in the neighborhood, including the property immediately across the street on Belcourt. And so the idea is you would sort of ground that site work with that stone that's a little more rusticated, and then you would have the more refined stone for the new building. Are the proposed materials keeping with the design, style, and materials of the existing structure? Again, yes. If we can, we would like to do that. So we've got, as I said, masonry, but different masonry, different cut, different material. We'd love to keep the slate roof, if we can, with a copper detailing. Again, they have that correspondence between the new building and the historic building. Will the new additions require some kind of detention? Yes. So currently there is just a ditch where the house used to be, and that's where all the water collects. The new building will actually block water from flowing there, so we'll actually have to pipe to an underground detention pond or detention vault. So instead of a detention ditch on Main Street, we'll have that nice landscape, and then the vault will be buried beneath that. So again, instead of the ditch, you'll have that kind of a front yard condition, which we think is an amenity to the neighborhood, and consistent with the way front yards work with a kind of low retaining wall to get to a lawn. And then just for another perspective, so this is the kind of what a lot of us think of as kind of the principal view of the church, in the sense that you're getting both that historic facade on Main and on Bell Court with the parish hall added. And I think in that kind of context, there's a really nice sort of assemblage here, right? We have the original church building. We have the parish house, which was built shortly after. It's on that Sanborn map. It actually was built a few years after the original church was and then the parish hall. And so we think these each read individually as buildings, but they also read as an assemblage together. And I think in context, as you look at this building kind of holding the line as the guidelines call for, and then also sort of this line of sort of site walls along the edge there, it feels to us like this is working very much in the context of both the immediate vicinity of the church, but also the larger context of the historic neighborhood. And with that, we'd love to have feedback from the board. Board members. Are there any questions or comments from board members? Yes. I think we're supposed to make comments, right? I appreciate how you've taken it down. I think even just that couple of feet feels more appropriate next to the existing church. I don't think you should rotate it because I think that peak is competing with what the church is doing. I think your use of stone, if you use a smooth stone, can look very modern in how you detail it. And with where you're kind of putting that entry piece, making a lot of glass, making that feel really thin, I think looks very nice. I would like to see it moved back even just two feet, just so it wasn't right in line with the facade of the church. but I don't think it would be appropriate to move it all the way back. I think just a little bit of relief at the corner would be nice. I don't mind the arches, I think, if you do them in a modern way. I actually more have problems with the fake pilasters that you're putting between the arches. and I'm wondering if there would be another, because I understand that you want some kind of detail there, right? I get that. But I don't think that feels right. That feels like I'm okay with the shape of the windows and you're acknowledging the church and the neo-Gothic church that is there. But the pilasters just go a step too far. No, I hear you. And you're spot on. That's exactly what we're trying to do. We're trying to not have a long, blank facade, and that was a way to break it up. We did look, I kind of passed over this, we did look at one where we said, well, could we do that with sort of, and these may not be the right sconces, but if we introduce lighting, could that be a way to start to just, because the facade gets kind of relentless if it's just the stone and the glass. And it could be that. It could be that it's a different kind of stone detail that's not the buttress. And maybe here you can start to see that you've done some kind of detailing around to create the casing around that arch, which I don't think really shows up in the other one. So maybe there's just a simple detail that begins to not mimic what else is going on other places, but is a modern interpretation of that kind of gothic arch. That's almost like if we try to reveal there, maybe that might be interesting. I think there's some interesting things you could do with that. There's some interesting things you can do with the lighting there, too, that might help. The other thing I was going to say is I'm open to the roof if it meets the guidelines, the metal, or I don't know if you'd do actual slate. It'd probably be an imitation. The site, to me, has gone the wrong direction, though. Say it again. The site. I was the one who wanted to break up that stair to kind of look like the church, but there's rolling green hills kind of leading up to the church. And so putting those giant planters on each side of that stair, It just makes it way more obtrusive to kind of what that facade can be. And I know that you have a ton of, we like to think that, you know, it's only a couple of steps. And I know how hard it is to actually make those couple of steps. But I'm just wondering if you could get rid of those planters and introduce more of a softer feature. Because that, to me, blocks the corner of the church more than anything. I see what you're saying. No, it's interesting. One of the things that this one's, let me point this to you, and I think it gives us an opportunity. There's actually a tree. We took it out of the rendering so it wouldn't obscure because it would obscure so much what we're talking about. But right where that little kind of metal planter is, that's where a tree is. And so it could be, if we look at this differently, that might be the break point between that kind of a landscape. We've got to preserve a landing to get to the ADA ramp. But we might be able to kind of address that kind of retaining condition here and pull more of the grass over. That could be something we could do. I just think that just became a lot more prominent, not less prominent from the last time we looked at it. I think I've kind of covered what my thoughts were last time. And I will turn it over to my fellow board members to add on what they're thinking. Hi, sorry. I have just a couple questions. The slate roof, is that what already exists on the main church? Correct. In fact, they're replacing it. It's a 100-year roof and it's 100 years old, so they're actually in a process of replacing the slate with copper on the existing church. So it'll be all new copper on the existing church as well? Correct. Okay. And it'll be replaced with slate? Correct. Okay. Yeah, I think I kind of second what Sarah was saying. I do like the arch windows. I think that it's a nice detail to add there. I think my concern still is with the heaviness of the roof itself. What decided that height of that roof? Is there any other feature on the church that that came from? Well, actually, it's a great question. So we're trying to get a steep pitch on the roof. We rented it once with a shallower pitch, and it started to look like a barn. It felt like a commercial building. But we didn't go to full the kind of 12-12 pitch because at that point, then the ridge line went way, way up. So I think we're, I don't know, eight or nine right now. So we're trying to get enough of a steep pitched roof that it's feeling like it's talking to the church. And the last time the concern was there was too much roof. And so we've been trying to pull that down without losing the steepness of still having a steep pitch. Yes. Okay. And does it, the existing addition that's on the other side, it looked like from your corner view, maybe your new roof is still, is a little bit taller than that. Let me go, let me go over there real quick. If you go to that corner view. Yeah, right there. We're close. So if you look, the peak of this roof is pretty, and this one might be, I don't know, this one is, they're close. I can't tell you. Sure. I think actually this looks, we're eyeballing right at an angle, but this is coming below the eave line. That's probably at the eave line. And if we go back here, we're coming across and there's the eave line. So I think we're close if we're not identical. We may be a couple feet higher. I wonder if it's worth just looking at that, just bringing that down just a little bit more. We can look at that. Maybe that's a... There's an elevation that kind of does show that relationship. Great. So you can see it a little bit better when it's straight on. Straight on. Sorry. Oh, yeah, okay. Yeah, I mean, I think as far as, you know, the material of the roof, I think I would opt more for the slate. I think it's, I don't know, I was looking at the render of the metal roof, and it did feel too imposing, and it felt a little bit too prominent for me. But I think the slate maybe, if it's going to match the existing, I think it might feel a little bit better. That was kind of our feeling, too, that it's the best chance of it going away, in a way. I mean, a copper roof when it patinas would be lovely, but it also would kind of catch your eye. I mean, it would draw attention to itself. And then there's a little parapet sort of at the end of that roof. Is that right? Is that how it's working? So there's a parapet condition along the edge of the roof. And so we actually, there's a little flat zone between the parapet and the roof. That's part of the trick of getting the roof down without losing our pitch. So if we bring it down, that zone will push back and we'll need to work out that detail. So there's a little parapet back there at the edge. and this is just me getting picky but i i wonder if it's just worth like looking at the um the line of the stone i don't what is that part of the hall of the other church maybe um it's just above the tree there you're saying right there yeah right there maybe take if if you take that parapet up a little bit and that might help to to eliminate sort of the size of Oh, you're saying if we brought the parapet higher to kind of match that. Possibly, yeah. And maybe bring this down, you just might have less surface area proof, you're thinking? Yeah, maybe so it's just a little less prominent. I mean, it might also help. I don't know where this render is kind of. It looks like it's sort of from mid-level. It is. It is. You know, because we didn't want you to be looking up at it like it was towering, and we also didn't want a bird's eye. So we're trying to get, yeah, you're exactly right, sort of level, you know, as you're looking through the glass connector to see that. And that's one of the things we wanted to highlight, too, is just that that will all be glass. So that facade will be visible through the glass. And so we were trying to get that view where you could kind of get that view into the connector as well. It might be great to just have, if you can create another rendering more at street-level view. Because I know when you're looking at something in elevation, everything looks equal. But if you're looking at it from below, you can start to understand the real perspective. And that might just help to visualize. That's a really good point. Any other questions? Comments? I want to thank you all for the tweaking that you did. I think the outcome is much less jarring. Good. Yeah, and very appropriate. I'm always concerned, this is a personal preference, but it becomes a maintenance issue in some cases. The front-facing downspouts. When you introduce water coming into that front facade, I've seen so many examples where staining, overrunning mold starts happening around those. And I don't know what the technical options are, but I guess my comment is any way to direct water and moisture away from the front facade, I think would be a plus because of all those built-in things. And I'm not technically adept at why. It's just that from experience, it concerns me. Oh, absolutely. And there's some folks right over here who will be very upset with me if we don't accomplish that. I do personally, even if you wanted to, can you flip to a rough textured front? The very early rough one? One of those that... This was the very rough version. You know, I'm not an architect. I think the sensitivity to the original building is important. This obviously is new construction, even with that treatment of the stone. The other flatter surface stone is fine. I just want you to know that for my part, that kind of heavily textured exterior doesn't bug me. Thank you. No, and I think we're trying, we did a version, in fact, I think the version of the packet was a super smooth stone, and it just lost kind of all depth. And so we were trying to find a kind of intermediate spot where we've got some, it's got some texture to it but isn't quite as rusticated as the original, just so we can read them as related to each other but not identical. The other comment I was making, I alluded to it at your other session with us, is this is, am I correct, the first full-blown commercial kitchen you have on site? No, so there's a kitchen right now at the church, and it's in the basement of the church. This kitchen will replace it, and it's primarily a catering kitchen, So the church doesn't have a full-time cook on staff. Occasionally there will be an event, and they will likely bring in caterers from outside to do it. There may be kids warming up pizza if there's a youth group meeting, but it's not a heavy-use kitchen. But its use case will be the same as the kitchen the church currently has in its basement. So in the same neighborhood, in the same block, we have an issue with the venting of the commercial kitchen. And you aren't that far along in terms of your specific drawings. But just be aware that the sight of it, the sound of it, would be an issue in the neighborhood. The sensitivity has been raised because of this other property that has intruded those things. And so that's just a comment. No, thank you. This one will be obscured by the parapet wall on the kitchen, so you won't see it. And it shouldn't be running very often because it's not a regular feature of what the church does programmatically. And it is up against commercial property. Correct. Whereas the other one is up against residential property, historic properties. Thank you. Certainly. Thank you. Will the copper be allowed to patina over time? or is the copper, will you let that be allowed to patine over time? It will. That's what's currently true with the church. If you go over there right now, you can see it's got parts of it have gotten really dark, and there's still parts that have the kind of traces of green, and so over time it'll do that. And what is the material of the window frames themselves? It looks like it's kind of similar to the copper right now. That's a great question. I think we're thinking probably more like a bronze kind of storefront. I don't think we're going to try and match the copper, but that's actually a nuance. We'll want the connector piece and the windows to be in that same language so that they're talking to each other. Okay. Any other comments or notes? The next step will be for you all to present a full-blown proposal to us. Is that correct? Yes. And Mr. Chair, the staff has about five things very hastily to mention tonight as well on this. Points to make about this application. May I do that? Sure. Absolutely. I'll be very fast. In terms of information needed, we need a streetscape that, And while I think your trees on the west side in your schematics are beautiful, the reality is you're going to have buildings real close over there going west. So we need a schematic that includes more of the block to the west. Not all the details of the buildings, but this bright scale, bright setbacks, you know, just more of a block streetscape than you're depicting. But I did think the trees were beautiful, and the green lawn was beautiful going west toward downtown. So I appreciate the art. I was curious the image you did of inserting the old house adjacent showing about roof heights and so on. Could you revisit the accuracy of how high? It had a really high up off the grade. I think we modeled it right after the Bishop House was the basis for that one. So just to double check, since it's being used as a ratio to the roof lines and massing of the church itself and the proposed new build, just double check if you would because I don't think there's anything in the Belcorp vicinity that sits quite that high off. But just something to double check. You mentioned about that this is up against commercial property. It's not. It's up against residential apartments. I'm sorry. Apartments. Who will feel strongly about vents and so forth just like anybody else. I thought that Sarah's comments about the plaza part, if it's fair to call it a plaza, I don't know if that's really the right word for it, but where you're accomplishing your accesses and stairs and so on. That all the different types of stone, the historic sanctuary, the stone on the new build, the stone on that. In addition to a lot of stone, it was just a lot of, you mentioned it goes, that stone for the, if it's fair, a plaza is part of the columbarium. it just all of a sudden seems to be a salesman's sample of stones. So it's what just amused by my immediate... I think the columbarium pretty closely matches the church. And so the idea was that the retaining walls would kind of ground the site that way, but the new building would be... So it's really just the building that gets as a second kind of stone to the pallet. I can only express what my gut reaction was, which is usually what everyone's reaction is. First expression of how do you take that the moment you see it. I'm a great believer in that. So it still just struck me as fussy or busy. So the discussions about the actual texture of the stone for the new build, I thought have been really good discussions. and as has, I think, all the discussion today. And I think not necessarily have to be the very smooth, and I think that sort of mid-range is quite successful. I think you could probably make a case that either are within the guidelines, the super smooth or, you know, not cut, but, you know, super smooth, or the slightly textured, but it would not be within the guidelines to have it be, and that's why you know you're pursuing it. in the one that you started out with and that's so close to the church. I got a bit of a grin about the idea about the downspouts and the possibility of marring the front elevations and stuff. And this, I just had to say, is somewhat an entertainment, but please don't do what A.J. Davis, the architect, did in the mid-19th century and put the downspouts on the interior walls. We've got that at the Loudoun House, the historic Gothic Loudoun House. and bad, bad, bad, bad plan. I know you'd never do it, but I just submitted it. We do like to keep the water on the outside of the building. I thought we do want the – I'd liken that water outside no matter what you have to see. Anyway, no, I'm being a bit facetious. But I also thought the suggestion about two feet back would be on the front elevation, well, the footprint of the building, but resulting in that front elevation being two feet back would really bring it closer to within the intent of the design guidelines. And it hopefully is not enough to jeopardize your trees and your footprint back there and all. But I think it'd make a world of difference. And I think that's it for my suggestions. Amelia, do you have anything shockingly new to add? The only thing I was going to say about the windows, the funny thing about the windows is I thought you were actually trying to be more compatible with the parish house. And my response was like, oh, that's interesting. They tried to pull the parish house in and have sort of, I had no idea about the lodge. I was thinking, oh, they're trying to pull the parish house in. Oh, no, you're not wrong. But just the church's response when they actually had some time to sit with it was it just felt more that way. And I think it's because the parish house does have those, but they're kind of around the side. And I think they felt like that kind of front facade of the church, the stronger reference to the sanctuary building was something they'd prefer to do. Right. So I thought it actually was a bit more successful because they were sort of extenuating the windows of the parish house. So I thought that was an interesting take on that. So not exactly mimicking, but sort of extenuating those. And I thought that was an interesting way to look at those. Thanks. Barry, do you have anything additional? Nothing that I can think of right now. Okay. Well, thank you. staff thanks you as well as the board has in your effort to do this we may have I'm not closing us out I'm just closing me out I really don't have anything new to add it was going to be a second I guess now a third I think stepping two feet back would really work well with your proposal especially if you're wanting the more gothic looking arch the rougher cut stone I think that does look much nicer than the more large, just rectangular windows that fits the church very well. But to Betty's point, it more fits in the guidelines of just acknowledging this is, you know, in addition, non-existing. So we stepped it back a hair. I just wanted to third that. I'm a fan of that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Any other questions? We're back to you, Mr. Chair. And my next move is to request that they file an application. Is that correct? A formal application with all the necessary goodies, please. Go get busy on it. Thank you very much. And is there time for that to be done by August 19th? Our deadline for submittals is indeed tomorrow. You won't have any problem meeting that, will you? We will be burning midnight oil. Look at Sarah's like, yep, we got it. There's at least 12 to 15 hours available before mid-morning tomorrow. We're architects. You know how it goes. Now I think the time is the time for prayer. Well, thank you all very much for accommodating us again. And good luck with your project. We look forward to seeing it. Thank you so much. Appreciate the comments. Thank you. As far as this meeting's additional needs, there was to be review of minutes, but those have been not reviewed by some of us. So we will do that, pull them on to the agenda for next time. And is there anything else, staff, that we need to do before adjournment? Do you need to please suggest, if a couple of you would mind not forming a couple of people committee, to make nominations for election of officers. At the next meeting, we need a nomination for a chair and a vice chair. and it's the term, it's one year term they're to be nominated annually and doesn't have to be the same person every year or anything like that but we do need just a couple of you to with a group of five we don't need three because then you end up with a quorum and that adds its own complications so just a couple of you if you're willing I think you could be a committee that talks on the phone or does a zoom or whatever you would like to do And staff has had some input about people who might be willing of the five of you to be put forward but are open to more input on that topic as well as a clearinghouse. And then you all can make your recommendations as board members to board members at your front end of your meeting in August. It would be, if all things are possible, good to go ahead and elect those two seats at the start so that we can get going with a regular chair and vice chair. Do we have any volunteers for those committee, those two committee positions? I would volunteer. Sarah has agreed to volunteer for one. Thank you. Does anyone else want to volunteer? My house? We're too new. Well, I think one of the new board members would be very appropriate. It would be nice to have one of the new people to make it balance up. So we're putting you all on the spot. You can draw straws if you'd like. What are the responsibilities of the vice chair? No, no, to be on the committee. You don't have to. Oh, I'll be on the nominating. Okay. Yeah, you don't have to be willing to accept. You don't have to be willing to accept either of the positions. You just have to be willing to talk about who might be asked or weighed, and then the board elects, the five of you elect the chair and the vice chair. Sarah and Marcy will be our committee. It would be good to just know what some of the responsibilities of vice chair and chair are. I'm so new to this, I don't know. Well, the chair traditionally runs the, as you saw today with an acting chair, runs the meetings. And one thing the chair does do by our larger Article 13 enabling legislation is sit on the Historic Preservation Commission as the BOAR's representative. That only meets about two times a year, maybe three. And so it's not got a homework kind of group or anything like that. Reviews National Register nominations. And also, quite importantly, in addition to important for National Register, the Preservation Commission occasionally, like every four to five years, reviews any updates that are thought might be helpful to the design review guidelines that you all use every meeting and in all the applications that are reviewed. So that aspect, it's very important to have when that review process is happening, a representative of the BOAR, since you all are the ones interpreting those guidelines and using them on a regular basis, as well as your staff. That's essentially the staff of the preservation office does the legwork of the meetings and so forth. Legwork being to receive the applications, do the preliminary reviews, generate all the water, get the minutes done, etc. So I would not suggest it's extremely more onerous time-wise to be a chair or vice chair. Vice chair serves when the chair is not available and runs the meetings and so on. So maybe allow 5% more of the time for the person or 10% more, would you say? I'm looking at you, Mr. Acting Chair, today. Because you and Sarah have been, and Sarah, is your opinion, if I said 10% more of your time as chair, I wouldn't be too far off, maybe? I don't think so. Yeah. So it's not much more burdensome than being a regular, non-designated member. And the other thing to keep in mind, now your terms are four-year terms as board members, but your chair is elected annually. So you can share the pain by somebody serving for two or one year, two years, three years, whatever you want, and then switch around and have it not always be the responsibility. I think there's some pros and cons to that, mostly pros. I think it relieves the one person from never-ending duties of that. The process has reflected both. In times past, it's had chairs that have stayed on for a number of cycles of years, and not as much, perhaps, of the lessers. That's up to you all. You can work that along. And I don't think we have to plan for the next 20 years with the first meeting of electing for this time around year. You can get one on board, get the two seats on board for the upcoming year. You can have all sorts of great ideas in the meantime. Did that help? It did help. Thank you. Staff doesn't have anything else unless you all have something. I hear a motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn. We adjourn at 6.56. Thank you very much for your... Thank you all, and welcome to new members, and thank you to continuing members. Thank you. Either sooner or later I'll keep Holding on I'll keep Holding on Holding my fear Chance for me escape from all I've known holding back the tears cause nothing here has grown I've wasted all my tears wasted all those years Nothing had the chance to be good Nothing ever could, yeah I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on I'll keep holding on So tight All right. All right. All right. Thank you.