Thank you. Good afternoon. Hello. Good afternoon. I would like to call the meeting to order. I would like to welcome you to the August 19, 2026 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate all of you for being in attendance today. The board was established by a 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 Council, is a 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 at 101 East Vine Street, Room 2020. At this time I'm going to take a diversion from the usual introduction to the meeting, which leads us right into the cases, for us to do some special recognition today. And first for that I will recognize Amelia. I just want you guys and everybody to know is today is our Director Betty Kerr's last Board of Architecture Review meeting. this is her 35th year of being with our office and she will be retiring to the end of this month and I just think that we all need to have a round of applause and stand up for her as this will be her last time here applause applause applause We have, as you all know, many historic districts, and she's been a tireless leader and fought for many of our historic structures and our historic buildings, and has fought very hard and led us to have a lot of our historic structures we have today, and saved us from many years. and this is very hard for all of us to lose our fearless leader and we are very happy to have our new director, Kristen. If you want to stand up and be recognized as our new director. And I just wanted to, today we had our Betty's Retirement Party and I just wanted to let everybody be recognized. Well, I appreciate that very much. Thank you, board, and also to you all who are here in the audience. And it has been an amazing run for 35 years. I really couldn't have told you until more recently. Has it really been 35 years? Wow, how did that happen? But anyway, I wish everybody well in moving forward and I did kind of get a grin. The flowers in the room are not because we're having a funeral. They are because I'm retiring. So, but we're glad you all are with us. I am to have you all here as part of my last meeting at BLAR. Yeah, I don't know what I'll do with myself on the third Wednesday of each month in the latter part of the afternoon. It's just going to be a shocking thing to experience not needing to be here in the chamber. But it's been my very, very pleasure to work with this program all these years. Thank you. And if you will allow me a personal note, and on behalf of the board members present and past, There's a little more I would like to say about Betty. We first met, I guess it was about 37 years ago. She was the executive director at the Henry Clay House, and I was put on that board and immediately grew to respect her depth. in thinking back about your 35 years Betty it occurred to me that in Lexington with its somewhat bruised history of taking care of buildings from the past you would be the last person I would want protecting those historic buildings and here's why Even though you have impressive credentials, reputation, and experience, you're from an old, connected, prominent family. That means a lot here. Your family was also highly politically active. That means a lot in this town. you were highly accessible and social and well known. And presumably, one would think, entirely beholden to the powers that be. Those reasons alone, I think as a historic preservation person, I would think not Betty Kerr. She already plays with that team. Nothing could be more than the truth. We're all fortunate and Lexington's historic fabric is important because you grew up here when bulldozers were cheaper than integration of historic fabric into the new Lexington. You grew up here and knew the political alliances and the hidden deals and the environment that could put historic preservation projects at risk. you knew the scene and I don't think we could have been more well served by anyone who was as informed knowledgeable and intuitive about the environment that historic properties play in Lexington. and the things that Betty had to add to this job are pretty exceptional I think for someone in this position who is typically under pressure or more the occasion under fire she is extraordinarily patient extraordinarily gracious she is diplomatic to the core and I in all these years if you ask Betty about a historic property or a historic preservation issue her opinion was the last thing she would give you she would give you the facts she would give you the law she would give you precedent She would give you examples from other communities. But it was never about what she thought. It was about what the community needed. And for that, I think that blended with her sense of humor, and certainly a strong asset for anyone in this job, and that overall graciousness has served us well and kept what could have been heated and unfortunate public arguments to a minimum, where reason, understanding, open communication, and a commitment to do the right thing for the general public and for the law was first and foremost. That has been your big gift, in my opinion, to Lexington. And we're going to miss that. But you're always welcome back. And in this particular situation now, you could give your opinion first. Thank you very much, Bonnie. Thank you so very much. I appreciate your kind words. It is our normal procedure. to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda for today. 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 any of the 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. State your name and make sure that you have signed your name in for the public record by the door so that information can be accurately recorded. I also want to say that as a board member for a while, and now as acting chair for the last meeting in this one, that I have been impressed by how this board operates. There is no rehearsal of these meetings. None. We do not discuss the cases as board members. We come to this meeting with a packet full of the required information. We hear from the staff and from you directly for the first time. And I think that is a point of integrity that is important to the work of this board and to historic preservation in Lexington. I would like to begin by following the staff approvals. Note the following staff approvals. There are certain items that the staff can approve and eliminate the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. It also saves hours in meeting time, and we appreciate their hard work. Staff has approved Ashland Park Historic District. 1018 Fontaine Road, remove deteriorated trees and replace fencing. Aylesford Historic District, 317 Aylesford Place, replace gutters. 622 East High Street, replace fencing. 236 Kentucky Avenue, renovate front entrance. 315 Oldham Avenue, renovate structure. 319 Oldham Avenue, renovate structure. 124 Ransom Avenue, replace roof. In the Bell Court Historic District, 222 East Bell Court renovate structure. 232 East Bell Court renew the Certificate of Appropriateness. 137 West Bell Court renovate chimney. 145 West Bell Court install storage shed. 149 West Bell Court renovate structure and replace windows. Replace the replacement windows. 601 Boonesboro Avenue, renew the Certificate of Appropriateness to Build the Front Forge. 125 Forest Avenue, renovate structure. Constitution Historical District, 110 Constitution Street, remove dying water maple. 343 North Limestone, replace the gate. in the Northside Historic District. 472 North Broadway Avenue. Renew the Certificate of Appropriateness to Construct a Single-Family Structure. 501 North Broadway Avenue. Replace fencing. 485 West 2nd Street. Replace roof. Pensacola Park Historic District. 108 Suburban Court. Install fencing. 149 Wabash Avenue. replace basement windows. And that concludes, though, 21 projects that have been pre-approved by the staff, and that number is typical for every month. So there are a lot of requests and a lot of work going on. So now let's move into those cases which need consideration by the board today. And the first case is in the Aylesford Historic District at 325 Linden Walk. Is the applicant here? Yes. Paul Lee with Studio A. And have you reviewed the staff's recommendations? We have. And the staff recommends approval for the construction of the addition and driveway that you have proposed with the following two standard conditions. Once reviewed by other necessary city divisions, you resubmit any changes to the staff or the board for review and prior approval before starting the issuance of the COA. 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. Do you accept those two standard conditions? Yes, we do. Alright. Are there any questions from the board? Are there any questions from the attendees and the audience? Then do I hear a motion for the approval of the certificate of appropriateness for case number 11720325-E with the two standard conditions. At 325 Linden Walk. Is there a motion for approval? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Seconded. Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor on the board say aye. Aye. All opposed? Certificate of appropriateness is granted. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Moving now to case number 371, Linden Walk. Is the owner applicant here, Mr. Radke? This is Steve, the architect. he can answer what we're doing. I'm sorry, sir. Could you speak into the microphone? That's Steve. He can come up and join me. He got the recommendations. All right. And would you introduce yourself, sir? My name's Steve Albert with Albert and Associates Architect. All right. And have you gentlemen read the recommendations from staff? Yes. There are four recommendations. including the two standard recommendations. And the first is to provide a site plan to staff or board for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA that includes the following. A tree plan showing all trees on the site that are 10 inches in diameter or greater. And two, to provide guideline compliant railing system details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Both of those reflect issues that we discussed at our last meeting when the proposal was first presented to us. Do you all accept all four of those recommendations? We do. All right, sir. Are there any questions from the board? I do have a couple of questions. Do you think you're going to be getting into any trees that are 10 inches or larger? No. Okay. Thank you. I just want to make sure, because if they're there, then it's a different discussion about the shape of the building. And the second question I had, and we didn't really talk about site parking when you were here before us last time, but I did notice in the site plan it looks like there's some pavement and about four or five parking spaces being added. Is that entire backyard currently parking in gravel? Okay, thank you. It is now. Any other questions from the board? I have a question. At our last meeting, there were concerns about the height of the first floor level. It's been raised. And has that been satisfied? Yes, it has. It's been raised to, I think, 18 inches, plus or minus. The building was raised 18 inches, but that necessitates ramps in the front and the back because the building has to be accessible. All right. And for the audiences, the original proposal was that the new structure be lower in height for the first floor than the structures on the rest of the street. So we're raising the building so that it will provide some consistency in the neighborhood. If there's any relief from that, I'd appreciate it. Just the ramps cause an issue. Then am I understanding that you all would like for us to open this case again later on the agenda? No. I thought maybe you could change your mind right now. Well, we have the four recommendations from the staff, and you have accepted those four recommendations, and if you're asking for a fifth recommendation, then we need to put you later on the agenda. No, we're good. We're good. Yes, we're fine. All right, thank you. Any questions from the audience? Do I hear a motion for this particular certificate of appropriateness? Chair, in regards to case number 11720371-E at 371 Linden Walk, I propose that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions as read into the record. And the additional two conditions that they provide a site plan to staff or board for review and approval prior to 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, and two, provide guideline-compliant railing system details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Is there a second? A second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the COA as the motion has stated, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the certificate of forgiveness is granted. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we turn our attention to 130 Ransom Avenue. Is the applicant or his representative here? Yes, sir. John Book. Yes, sir. And the staff has reviewed your request, and there is one condition in addition to the standard two conditions that we've already read several times. One is to resubmit to staff drawings that incorporate guideline-compliant materials to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance. of a COA. Are you in agreement with that and the standard two conditions? Yes sir. Are there any questions from the board for Mr. Book? Any questions, comments from the audience? Do I hear a motion with regard to 130 Ransom Avenue? In the case of 1574013-A at 130 Ransom Avenue, I move to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the recommendations of staff, including the two standard and one additional. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Mr. Book, you have a Certificate of Appropriateness. as provided by the recommendations. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move now to 335 Transylvania Park. Is the applicant here? Hello, I'm Craig Rasheen. I'm the applicant here on behalf of the owners. All right, and the staff has reviewed your request. The standard two conditions have been outlined, plus a third, and that is provide final deck skirting and railing details prior to the issuance of the COA. Are you in agreement with those three recommendations? Yes, sir. All right. Are there any questions from the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right. Do I have a motion for case number 191303335-G? Do I hear a motion for 335 Transylvania Park for case number 191-303-335-G with the standard two conditions plus the additional condition as read? I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness as outlined. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Certificate is granted. Thank you very much. I apologize to the audience. We have a lot of paper here. So I just want to make sure we have everything that we need. in order. Now, with regard to address 533 East Main Street in the Belcourt Historic District, Good Shepherd Episcopal Church, we've heard elements of this case twice now. This is the formal application. is their representative here. Yes, sir. This is Jackson Kane with Lord X Sergeant representing Episcopal Church of the Good Shepherd. And the staff has reviewed the finished proposal. And here are their four recommendations. One, The front hardscape and retaining wall paving needs to be reduced in volume. Resubmit a revised site plan for review and approval prior to the start of the work and prior to the COA being granted. Number two, the five trees be replaced with two large shade trees or more and submit prior to the start of any work those plans. So these are five trees that are being removed. Number three, 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. Number four, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Are you in agreement with all four of those conditions? We're not in disagreement, but we would like, if you wouldn't mind, we really appreciate the comments we've gotten from staff and from the board. Those first two, we'd like to talk to you all about just to get a little more clarity on them because we're worried about the technical feasibility of doing that. So if you wouldn't mind pushing us down the agenda, we just want to talk to those two issues just to set some parameters so we know we're moving in the right direction. And we'll call your case up again in just a few minutes. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Now turning to 600 Sayre Avenue in the Bell Court Historic District. Is the owner applicant attending? Thank you. Yes, sir, Phil Sayre. and the board has reviewed your request to change the garage opening and have recommended that that replacement of the garage door be approved according to the two standard conditions. again once reviewed by other city divisions resubmit any changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the COA 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 the work. Are you in agreement? Yes sir. Any questions by the board? Any comments or questions from the audience? Do I hear a motion to approve this case? Chair, I move to approve the COA for case number 16780600P at 600 East Belcourt, based on the two conditions approved by the staff. It's actually 600 Sayre Avenue. That address is misprinted. It is 600 Sayre Avenue. That's 600 Sayre Avenue. Do you amend the motion? I amend the motion to be for 600 Sayre Avenue. And is there a second? Second. All of those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And thank you, sir. Your COA is approved. Thank you. Next on the agenda is 674 Ellesmere Park, and there's been a request to postpone that until September 16th, meeting 2026. So we'll move then to consideration in the Fayette Park Historic District, the 417 Fayette Park. Excuse me, you would need a motion to postpone that case? I'm sorry. So I need, is there a motion to delay? Hang on just a second. Do I hear a motion? to delay until September 16, 2026, case number 606510674-E for 674 Ellesmere Park in the Ellesmere Park Historic District. So moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? so that particular request has been postponed. We now turn to 417 Fayette Park. Is the owner applicant here, Mr. Bunch? Good afternoon. I'm Gary Bunch, the owner of 417 Fayette Park, Daniel Swigert House. All right, sir. And I have with me David Cassidy, who is a landscaper and will be doing the work, I have him here for questions if you need any answers. Staff has reviewed your proposal to construct retaining walls, reconstruct brick with limestone border walkway, construct limestone plinths with lighting. They recommend four things. There are two standard conditions that we've mentioned in several cases, in every case. And the additional condition, reduce the height of the piers to a maximum of 12 inches above the top riser. and two, reduce the height of the retaining to a curb height of one stone course with a stone cap with the grade of the rolled lawn to remain evident. provide a two-scale sectioned view through the stone curb and rolled grade to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. For those four conditions, are you in agreement with all four of them? I don't understand them. Sounds like French to me. So I'm going to ask David about that. Well then, in that particular case, If you don't mind, we will move your application down and get back to it in just a few minutes. Thank you very much. Our next case is 405 and 407 West 3rd Street in the Northside Historic District to create parking, walkway, and a masonry wall. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Heidi, I'm the owner. I'm Jason Stainfield. All right, thank you. The staff has reviewed your application and all of the material in support. And besides the two standard conditions that every application must meet, The staff recommends the piers be reduced in height. Does the staff have a specific height recommendation? Staff just thinks they need to be the same height as the plinth. Alright. So there's no piers. Just height it, just be the plinth. Staff then recommends the brick piers be reduced in height to be no taller than the plinth. Correct? So are you in agreement with those three conditions? Yes, I am. All right, sir. Thank you very much. Any questions from the board? Any questions from the audience? With regard to case number 18800405-H at 405 West 3rd Street, do I hear a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the three conditions as read and documented? So moved. Do I hear a second? Seconded. All right. Excuse me. Just a moment. Did I ask for any questions from the board? I think so. Does the board have any questions? Okay. And the audience, do you have any questions? The motion has been made. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The COA is granted. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case is for 406 South Broadway to change the opening on the building and add signage. is the applicant here. Please come forward and state your name. I'm Brian Loveman. I'm the owner of the building at 406 South Broadway. So the staff has reviewed your application. Yeah, I would like to take this moment to apologize to the board for not submitting the COA before doing work on the building. and I just wanted to start the discussion off with that. I've done quite a few buildings in that block and it was completely lost on me that this one was also historic because it's a cement block building. It's not nearly as historic as the rest of the buildings I own on that block and it was a mistake on my part to just not assume that it was, I guess, pervy to the whatever you want to say. Appreciate that. Thank you. There are three recommendations that the staff has made, three considerations. The first one is that the front elevation should have a front door and revised plans be submitted and be received by the board. Number two, if any changes are made after the information is submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work. And number three, once reviewed by other city divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Do you agree with those three conditions? So, not necessarily, but I would just like to have a discussion about it. The work has been done, and I was hoping that the staff could understand that we have maintained, because what they're suggesting is a picture window, or sorry, a picture door to be installed onto the front of the building. and it's my assumption that a picture window accomplishes the same concept more or less for pedestrians walking by the building. Now it's not my decision, it's yours, but putting in a door that would not have any usefulness whatsoever onto that building would just be an additional cost. So I would like you to, and I also... Well, sir, with your permission, for this case to move forward, we need then to have a full discussion of it, and we'll put you now in third place. That's fine. In just a few minutes, we'll be back and talk. Understood. Thank you, sir. Okay, thank you. Our final case for the day is one that we will address after the regular cases have been discussed. And that is for 242 South Hanover. So you folks hang on and we'll go back and pick up where we left off on the cases that needed more discussion. So calling back to the podium, Representative for Good Shepherd Episcopal Church, case number 122-605-33-K for 533 East Main Street. Appreciate, sir. And we'll first have a presentation from staff on the details of the case. Given that we are, I think the only issue at this point is due to the landscaping. I think I'll focus that if that's okay with you. Okay. For the audience and for the public viewing, we have extensively discussed other aspects of this application. So it's been narrowed down to the matter of the front elevation and the sidewalks for discussion. So that's why we're not going through the entire application again. So Amelia, please. There are, right, we did hear this case. And at the June BOAR meeting, as far as the, is in a conceptual review form. And then at July 15th, as Brandy pulls this up, we'll need to be the 533 East Main Street, if you don't mind, please. And 533. Sorry. And we have met, of course, this is the proposal is to construct the parish hall. And we've gone through with a connector piece. And this is also with a rear kitchen. We've gone through various iterations of this. And one of the big proposals also is to get, and these are sort of images, and we'll walk through the little bit. I'm going to get to the plans. Of course, this is the Good Shepherd Church. And also, this is the land. So this is the proposal where that would be. There is a retention basin here, which is important, I think, as part of the discussion, which I'll point out in these photographs. and this is the walkway leading back to a previous connector that was done in the late 1990s and the proposal now is to install a new connector point in the buttresses there will be several different buttresses that will be proposed to be retained and then you'll see the proposed structure will be steps back and the final proposal puts the structure back four feet from the main structure and also the buttresses will be set back. The trees that you see that are on the left hand side of the screen will be proposed to be removed. There are some proposals to put some trees back. That will be part of the discussion. On the right-hand side in this picture, there's a white oak that is proposed to be retained. And this is the playground. None of those trees are proposed to be removed. These are the trees to be, which are hackberries and another species that escapes my mind at the moment. Mr. Kane will talk about this in a second. and we talked about that with the fencing these are the plans these are the same borns, these are all at your desk and these are the same borns and there's a bit of history talking about these plans and this brown area area here talks about the proposed structure. This is sort of the retaining wall, the retention basin. Building lines and the blue section shows the proposed location of the parish hall and and you can see where the landscape front area here. Now, this is the proposed parish hall. You can see the recess area before the connector. This is a low flat roof area here. This will be a deck raised terrace area here. Low flat roof here kitchen area. Proposed two trees. There was a discussion on site about these two trees being more substantial. One being a large medium shade tree. Also having another one here. that this is also an ADA accessible area to relocate into the connector in this location here. This is a streetscape. It shows this white oak in this location and some proposed new trees. And this is sort of very faint, but you have this at your desk. I'll reference that. There is, this is supposed to be a, maybe accessible area in this location. It's a roof plan. And this is sort of a raised area. This is sort of a section through some of these retaining wall areas. Another section area here. Going through some of these sections. Let's go to this particular rendering. So this is a retaining wall area. And we also, the architects and I had a long discussion about this particular area back here and this heavy retaining wall system here in this particular area here that uses this ADA accessible background and whether this part could be removed or relocated or softened in some fashion. This area will be green back here. And whether this section here behind this tree, this area does not show the white oak, but there's another plan here that does show the white oak. And there's just this. These are some more heavy, more of the landscaping parts. guidelines are included for your reference the overall proposal to construct the connector the parish hall, the kitchen, onto the historic Good Shepherd Church is within the design guidelines the proposal to construct the stone parish hall is within the guidelines the church architects have worked with the design and come into compliance by the setting of the proposed perishable behind the main historic sanctuary and also have worked to make it lower than the historic main structure. In addition, the connector that attaches the new proposed structure steps back further exposing more of the buttress forms and the connector is glass and has an open feel. Guidelines regarding this addition references being seen, stating that addition should be secondary smaller and simple to the original structure, building scale, design and placement should be incompatible in design and keep it the original building's design roof shape, materials, color, location, windows, door and cornice heights. The flat connector and kitchen portion of the new construction helps to soften the new construction. The proposal to use a slate roof also helps to provide detailing that supports the proposed new construction compatible on the street. Guidelines 2-3 G's for commercial structure states compatible with adjacent buildings and scale, height, materials, orientation, shape, placement, and rhythm proportion of openings and doors and windows. Staff binds the choice of materials and windows helps with the overall compatibility. Staff does find the overall proposal including the windows are exaggerated and do not mimic in history. Details need to simplify and not to over-imitive of early styles as found in Guidelines 2.4.A.D., which states it should not be admitted of earlier historic style or architectural periods. Guidelines 2.B.6.K. state details include, but are not limited to, corner boards, rake, cornice, brackets, downspouts, railings, columns, steps, doors, and window moldings, and decorative elements. Architectural details should be appropriate when they give the building on which they are placed a good sense of belonging on the street and within the district. Details should be appropriately scaled for the proposal and structure and compatible with adjacent buildings and district. Installation of ornament or building should be given a building in imitation of his direction appearance is not allowed. The proposal to construct retaining walls and landscaping ADA accessible ramps and buildings do need further discussion. As proposed, the design is too heavy, and staff encourages the applicants to reduce the stone elements and planting beds and or to reduce the heaviness of the retaining walls and stone landscape planters in order to have more compatible and inviting rolled earth frontage and the historic main sanctuary as their front yards. Design principles and decks, patios, verandas, and non-original additions to the historic buildings should be in design as they are compatible as possible. In addition, staff would suggest a grading plan be submitted to access how the retention basin would be handled. Staff finds the deck integrates along the rear of the proposed hall and playground and is compatible with the historic structure and proposed addition. Guidelines 2A1G. State's decks and patios should be appropriately scaled and not overwhelm the historic structure and site. Recommendation. Staff recommends approval with the following addition. Hardscape and retainable paving needs to be reduced and resubmit a revised site plan for review and approval prior to the start of any work prior to the COA. five trees be replaced with two large shade trees or more. Submit that prior to any sort of work in the standard two conditions. And of course the applicants are present. If you don't mind, let us have just a few minutes for questions. Are there any questions from board members to staff? Yeah, I have one question. I was just curious, is there a recommended percentage that this needs to come down? I think it just needs to have a lot more. So I think there was discussion about, let me go back to these plans real quick. So one of the things that you notice when you look at the church is the rolled earth and how inviting that is to the actual street. The rolled earth of the actual physical sanctuary is very nice and inviting. And one of the discussions we had with the architects is how inviting that is and whether the land or any of the new proposals could have a similar treatment to this and whether a lot of that could be reduced and how much. So there's no percentage, and our guidelines don't really reflect having a percentage of you must reduce this by 25% or anything like that. But I think one of the things that we were struck by in staying on site is how much more inviting that was when you had a lot less paving and whether you could have that. And noting that, and trying to go back to these images of the street, and sorry I'm not doing a very good job at this time. but a building to the west which is the 1970s apartment building that was sort of a later structure and you can see that in this location here that was done later and that has a heavier landscaping it has a heavier retaining wall and that was a later added element but the church itself has a rolled earth and whether you could have a similar treatment of that. They did talk about having some activities using this rolled earth area. I mean, using this platform, but we talked about maybe could you use put more green in this particular area? Or how can you make that happen? Yeah, so is it mostly just concerned with that first wall? I think it's also the first wall. It's also against the actual physical building because you have that heavy I'm trying to get to this. Sorry. So you have this heavy retaining wall system here, but you also have this heavy retaining wall system here. So we know you have to have a little bit here because of this ADA accessible here. This is your ramp area. But you have this piece here that's pretty heavy against this building. Is that really necessary? this part here is part of the ramp. And I think that was what Mr. Cain was going to respond to. This part is green, but how much does that really need to have? And could you comment on the tree? The tree that you're proposing be kept would be in the middle of the planter next to the... Right. That actually is part of their review by Environmental. This is when the tree arborist reviewed, and that was his request that that tree be retained. And I think what our response was is if this tree is going to retain, will it respond to a planter with a footing that's going to be in that? How is that going to respond if you put a footing that's going to hit that White Oaks tree root. And what was his reply? You know, there was no response at that time. I don't know. Our ask is, is that going to respond to a complete footing or is that going to have a spot footing? And that's going to be something they have to ask. They're going to have to respond to that. When I say they, that means when this is reviewed again through building inspection, they might have a different response. So this is a building inspection issue? Well, not necessarily that. So there's a whole bunch of sign-offs, and so environmental might have a different response when this is going to be looked at again, because I didn't get a very clear answer from Eric Sutherland, the tree arborist. So he might look at this and say, hey, this tree might respond when it's in this four-by-four planter bed. Has staff been privy to any calculations? Let me start by asking something different. Is staff recommending that the current design of the ramp be changed? It technically, if you're going to put an ADA ramp in, I don't think it can be changed. If you're going to put an ADA ramp in, the calculations of this ramp can't necessarily be changed. So is that saying that given the rendering that we have there in front of us, regardless of what goes on around it, the ramp would remain unchanged in location and all the other technical details? Correct. So the ramp for ADA compliance can't necessarily change. Correct. But the hardscape behind that ramp, that hardscape against the building where you have that masonry wall here, back here, that wall right there. So you have this physical building and then there's some plantings here and that wall right there. that stone wall right here that continues behind there, that might be able to be changed. So while it is not your role to redesign this for the client. I'm only responding to the planting bed. There's this weird planting bed. That's what we're responding to. Correct. hypothetically. Can we go back to that picture, please? Yeah, we're trying to. He's helping me out. So if you look at oops, there we go. If you look back at, and you can see this a little better on the site plan. If we could just keep it on the rendering for a moment. Yes. Thank you. So if the ramp as currently designed were worked in to the current lawn without any reshaping of the current lawn or any added embellishments in the current lawn, would that meet staff's approval? I think, yes. So I think what we're asking for is to see about the grading plan because they're going to have to grade this land up. They're going to have to build this land up because right now there's a retention basin. So they're going to have to build that land up to make this that high and they're going to have to then to create this rolled earth. But whatever they're going to do, they're going to have to build this land up to create that retention, to put that retaining wall system in any way. We'll hear from the architect on that. Any other questions? I do have one question. We had not really talked in the previous reviews of this about replacement of trees. Is that something that came from another division too? That was discussed. And so there was, this was sort of, this came up. And there was a discussion by the arborist and some other engineers. And it was sort of new to us. And then we met on site with the architects about this. And then we talked with the church, too. And the church is actually pro-trees. And they want to put trees back. so the trees along this are hackberries and locusts and haha I found out the two species and there's some other and there's really an all on this fence line one that's going to be most effective and the others are sort of along this fence line and so they were going to put a small tree in and a larger tree in. We asked to put two large trees in and then we met with the church too and we asked if the church could potentially plant them maybe not necessarily in this location but another place on our campus. They were agreeable to that because they also eventually might rework their playground that they might actually add some more trees to the playground area because we actually have sort of worked around the different parts of the campus. Mr. Hershey and I have been working with some of the properties on Sayre. So we've done some work on some of the smaller individual structures on Sayre's camp and on the other parts of Sayre. Of course, we've done the fence on the corner structure. And so there could be some potential room to plant some other trees within the playground area. And maybe even in some other trees. There has been some members of the church who have donated some trees and continually like to donate trees to campus, but I've gathered some conversations from the church members, and so there could be some wiggle room to do that. Any other questions from the board? Yeah, just one clarification. So the tree that's currently near the road that has a bench is coming down? No. Is that the one you're talking about, the planter? No, it's actually going to be there. They just took it out of the picture so you can see the building. But that tree is going to be there. What we're concerned about is not the tree itself. Well, we are concerned about the tree itself. But we're concerned about the planting behind it, that stone area behind it. And so part of what our concern is when we talk about in addressing the stone is whether that particular stone is going to affect how that tree grows. So the question is not whether or not the tree is there. The tree will stay. That's agreed between both parties. That's right. That's going to stay. Okay, thank you. That wasn't clear to us. That tree is going to stay. The confusion is the fact that they took a picture out where they just wanted to show you the building without the tree. So that's just sort of an architectural rendering type thing. It's whether how that tree is treated, given the fact that that stone planter box is coming so far out. So part of that planter box, and we had a large discussion about this, that part of that is the handrail of those steps coming down. Could that just be a handrail, and or does it have to be a planter box, and how that planter box is treated, and how it's going to affect, if it's a big, large planter box, that tree as it grows in that particular area, and could there be other landscaping that would treat that tree differently because if we're going all this effort to save this white oak, if we're putting so much paving around that, is that going to kill that tree? Thank you. Any other questions? One more. Where is the church's current ADA compliant ramp? Well, it is in the other side of the building. And in one of your documents, you'll see that. So you come into the other side of the building beside the colabarium and you go and you do this little maze coming all the way over and they'll show you that. But we do have a previous plan and one of the previous conceptual reviews showed you the sort of meandering scenario where you had that. So it's a bit longer. Okay, thanks. I think it's just a lot of concrete there by the street. Well, that's what we're trying to sort of... heavy and very I just think the whole thing dominates over the church. Right. And so we're looking at one of the questions is the role of earth and how can we also have more earth. Thank you. Any other questions? Not for staff. Alright, thank you. Appreciate your presentation. It's your turn. And may I ask just for because we're tightly focusing on this one issue. If you could first keep your comments to that recommendation, those two recommendations, the front landscaping design, hardscaping design, and the trees, that would be swell. And then we can move on from there if we need to. No, that's what we want to talk about. Thank you so much. If you could pull the microphone up a little bit. Certainly. Thank you very much. And one just before, one thing, Seth, we got a lot of ground on cover between the last meeting and this one. So thank you all for getting us down to brass tacks. And did just want to address those issues. And we've got a, I think we have a presentation just to illustrate a couple things that are not evident in these that kind of help explain where we are. And we felt like a lot of back and forth we've had has been really helpful. So we wanted to get some guidance from you all if we could. So if we skip, skip the words, go down to the picture just to get to the actual thing. I guess I've got a clicker, don't I? Thank you. So this is the render we were looking at. This is a not, this is just, we generate this quickly this afternoon, so we're not changing the design of the building. This is just rendered faster. But so, as Ms. Armstrong pointed out, so the ramp does what we need it to do to get up from Main Street. Oh, did I press the wrong button? There we go. That's bad. Thank you. So, to be sure, this is the most accurate depiction of what we're discussing right now. This is. I'm just saying the quality of this rendering graphically looks different than the other one, but we haven't changed the building. It's just how quickly the rendering machine generates the rendering. I didn't want to alarm anyone that anything was changing. One of the things we've talked about is... In terms of where the planters are, there's a couple things going on. And as Armstrong indicated, we've got the ramp that gets us up there, and that's a necessity to have an accessible route from Main Street, and the guidelines call for an accessible entry at the front. So that's in compliance with guidelines. And then we have the steps that go up on the other side, and it's true that the planter wall that supports the ramp wraps around the stair back behind that tree. In terms of the planting plan has all been approved by the arborist. That planter is actually eight feet back, so it won't affect the tree. The city arborist has already approved that, so there's not a concern from an arborist's point of view. There may be other concerns, but not from the tree's point of view. And in terms of whether it's rolling, the only reason we didn't, I mean, let me address the back wall. We could take that planter down, but you'll still be looking at the wall of the parish hall. There's inevitably a wall. The challenge is that the church, and you can see over on the right of the rendering there how high the church sits. The church actually sits five feet, four inches above the street. So we're getting a couple inches before we get to the ramp. We're getting 30 inches up to the grade, and then we're getting 30 more inches up, and then a couple more inches up to the door. So we're just hitting it. And so that's what's driving that. And in terms of it being level kind of with the ramp instead of rolling, that's really in response to that. There are a few times a year, I mean, Palm Sunday is one, the Great Vigil of Easter is another, where a service is supposed to start outside before you go into the church. So the notion is that flat surface, instead of being a rolling surface, is a place where you can gather for those services outside before going into the church. If you were someone who couldn't use the steps, you could still use the ramp to get in that way. Most folks would process in so they could come in from the back of the church, and that's part of how the liturgy works. So we want to give them that space to do that. So there's a programmatic reason for the level part of the lawn, and so that's why that was there. And so that's what's kind of driving the thing. Now, we did look at, because we appreciate the point about maybe can we get less stone, so we did just quickly look at, well, can we lower it a little bit? So we said if we got these, there's a minimum curb height we have to have next to that ramp. You can't just roll off of the ramp. So if we drop down to the bare minimum, it could look more like this. So it drops a few inches, so it's not quite as prominent. And then the other one is we do have plantings in front of the wall that supports the lawn. So I think that wall you're actually not going to really experience because we've got the planting plan calls for us to have kind of shrubs in that zone to screen it. So we think that kind of helps to break that down as well. So we know we can do that, but yes. So what you're saying is you've lowered the first wall how much? Between those two illustrations. That's probably, I don't know, six, four inches, something like, maybe eight inches. I'm not exactly sure. I'll back it up so you can sort of see it graphically. In this rendering, there's a course of stone below that cap. You see sort of the white cap on the wall. Here we said, well, we just got rid of that course of stone. We just had the curb. It comes down, I don't know if that's four inches or six inches, but a few inches. So these are all, the gray changes are about 30 inches. So it's between the lawn and the entrance to the church. So they're low walls. You can sort of see with the figures there, they're going to hit you below the waistline. They're going to hit you kind of mid-thigh, if you will. So we're trying to keep them as low as we can while still negotiating that grade. And then the related, and this will tie into this, where it relates to the trees is, so one, we have located lots of other trees on the site. And this is, again, in the plan that was approved from the arborist's office. what's driving the trees right now up there on the corner if we zoom in, so you can see on the left the trees that are coming out that are there along the edge of the site, and then the two on the right so part of the challenge is we've got this power pole that comes in there and so we're trying to not hit the power pole, and then the other challenge we've got is if you look here, and this sort of zooms in, it calls out the power pole there that's right, so we've got the smaller tree up near the power pole and the bigger tree back beyond it so we're not going to conflict with it. The big challenge is that you see those tanks, and this goes to the question about how we're dealing with the ditch. So the ditch goes away, and these big underground tanks come out to collect all the water, and they're what's sitting underneath that lawn. So I don't know if we don't mind, but I just don't know if we can, we're going to check with our civil engineer, if we could slide that south. I just don't know if they can get it under the ramp. That's going to be the tricky part. so I don't know if we've got the flexibility to move if we could move the trees further south then we could get away from the pole and we could do two big trees but we don't know that we can because we're going to start to get into our detention vault that's taking all the water that used to go in the ditch out in front of the church so that's the technical thing we're struggling with so we're not opposed it in principle we just can't promise that we can do it because we just don't know if it's technically feasible Thank you May I lead off with a question? So going back between that illustration and that one, does the board understand that basically you do agree with staff recommendation number one that the front landscape entertaining wall paving needs to be reduced and you would be willing to resubmit and work with the staff to review and approve changes to the original design that we saw. It seems to me that you're showing that you can make adjustments, and that's what the first consideration is asking for. Absolutely. And my only caveat is that we want to make sure that we can do a little, but we can't do a lot. I mean, if we tear down, we can get rid of that back wall, but you will be looking at the wall of the parish hall still. So there will always be a wall at the back of that site just because the building sits five feet above the street because it has to be level with the church. We just didn't want to leave here and then go, we agreed to do it, and then we don't have an agreement about how to get there. And then we're sort of back here trying to figure out how to square the circle. And that is my next question. So to Ms. Kerr and to the attorney, should they agree to go back and rework this as in consideration number one, but they cannot arrive at something that the staff finds that they can recommend, then what happens to the certificate of appropriateness process? Does it start over? Does it come back here? It comes back for more tweaking to the board were that to be the case, that the staff and the church couldn't come to agreement. I think from what I'm hearing, and Amelia and Barry have been more involved in this in the nitty-gritty certainly than I, but I think the philosophies are on the same page of the staff and the church. I think that the lower profile, if I may for just one short moment, the lower profile depicted in this is considerable assistance to being able to have people from the pulled back vista that this is depicting see something of the green that is where you want to be able to convene. Certainly more of it than you were seeing with the previous version of this. And it's not achieving the green that reflects what's in front of the historic sanctuary and is part of that ribbon that comes down Main Street experience from the corner looking toward downtown, which admittedly is interrupted by the 1970s apartment building. We're not suggesting that it's all green. But we're looking for kind of a transition as staff to honor the lawn characteristic but still get the handicap ramp. We're like everybody else. We just want it all. So I think hearing today that we're getting closer, both sides. We're not on opposite sides. We're on the same team. But the question I have before saying that the staff could work with exactly what's being talked about and be very optimistic we can get them there would be, is there the possibility, I hear you and understand about the wall needing to hold, you've got some bushes planted between the actual foundation of the new build, and the edge that frames the higher piece of the ramp. What about, and I don't know the proper term, but espaliered, whatever, something where you don't use much footprint of the land, but you get vertical green against the wall. I'm looking at from the pavement. See where you've got your people depicted? That whole stretch, Amelia's been referencing about, you know, could that become more green? Well, if it can't, and I understand it's holding five feet of vertical soils to make that floor elevation come out at the top. So my question is, could there be a commitment, and I'm not asking for it this minute, I'm just saying thought about, to make that wall become from the first person on the right with his back to us, you know, a little bit closer than he is to that. to start on the vertical wall element and go all the way to its end, to the left, with something that would most of the time a year read as greenery. And not a bush that's six feet wide, front to back, but something that would keep your walking space reasonably intact, maybe use 18 inches or something like that of your earthen area to come up out of. I don't have, I'm not a landscape designer. I don't have the expertise, but you all do have access, both yourselves and others, that can facilitate that. Because if so, my suggestion to the board to consider is that it would get the built environment part as is needed here, but also would provide that presence of nature's colors of green as the vista of this elevation of the site. not just of the buildings but of the site I don't know that buildings that elevations can and sites can have elevations but you get my point does that make sense to the board? it does make sense I personally the retaining wall that's near the sanctuary and the new build I understand, I think you even are creating some green kind of there and that's where the biggest retaining change is. But the one that's closest to the walk really bothers me. I really want to see that reduced, become more green, become that rolling. So maybe if there's an element there that makes it feel more like a landscape element than that retaining wall, I think that would be great. I think that even just showing this reduced, this six inches, I mean, really helped it right off the bat. So if you could do just a little bit more in the front, I think that would be great. The other thing that I'm thinking about is, and I would like to add this to something we say in our motion, is that we need to make sure the staff also reviews the detail of the handrails and guardrails that are going to go up here to make sure that they're compatible because those are not rendered anywhere. We want to make sure that they don't become also kind of really heavy landscape elements out in front of this thing once you work through some of these additional details with the staff. The staff actually did request that of us in the last round, actually. But we have not put them in the rendering. That's also true. So I think what I'm hearing from everybody is that there is strong sentiment to get us to yes today as long as we can feel confident that the two parties can work together. And I will say this, it doesn't seem to be that the number two, the trees, is the issue. Well, that's a good question because I'm not sure. What you've said today was helpful. We're not trying to get two trees there necessarily. Because that was my concern. I don't know if we can wedge them in. and with a retaining basin, you don't want tree roots encroaching on that. Correct. You can't. Right. And the intent about the, if I may, Amelia, follow up a second, the intent to get the second tree that would become, as time passes, more of a vertical presence, is that the streetscape is going to miss the vertical height of those locusts and the other one, I forget, the locust and the... Hackberry. Thank you, Hackberry. And that vertical presence in all of our historic neighborhoods is being challenged on a regular basis due to increasing limitations tied to utilities and all the things. Neighborhoods planned in 1900, people were not particularly worried if when you drove down the center of a smaller main street, large trees were hanging over your car as you went by. However, in today's time, obviously those are all issues. So we're trying to, throughout all of the historic areas, to protect, to result in taller canopy presence where possible. But I certainly know the board is hearing and the staff has already been hearing and hearing more of you today. about those issues. And I think, again, staff can work with you. I don't know, Mr. Chair, that I expressly answered your question about what do we do if we can't come to agreement, staff and the client, the church. Their certificate of appropriateness would continue to be actively viable for everything not associated with what we couldn't come to agreement on. And those, whatever element that might be, trees, level of the green visible, et cetera, would have a stop put on those specific elements until we could come back to you as a board. But all other aspects of the construction could continue. That's correct. All right. Thank you for that clarification. That's very helpful. Thank you for clarification. And if you all have any pool with the power company, we can get rid of that pool. We're with you. Well, we'll hope for maybe that'll be my next career. Any other questions from the board? Do we ask for questions from the audience in this particular situation? It certainly would be appropriate, yes. Are there any comments or questions from the audience about either of these presentations? And sir, is there anything additional that you would like to add to your presentation? No, except to say that I hope Ms. Kerr enjoys her third Wednesday, is sitting on a porch, starting doing something really relaxing somewhere. Thank you all. Thank you so much. I will raise a glass of something to all of you upon occasion on this. This is the city for that. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. So before we go further, do you agree to all four conditions as they are in the document? We do. And as clarified here, yes. We've clarified that. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do I hear a... Let me get back to the right page here. Do I hear a motion to approve a certificate of appropriateness for case 122-605-33-K for 533 East Main Street in the Belcourt Historic District? a motion including the four conditions recommended by staff. Number one, the front landscape and retaining wall paving needs to be reduced. Resubmit a revised site plan for review and approval prior to the start of the work of the COA on the front retaining wall portion of the application. I'm making that very specific. Number two, the five trees be replaced with two large shade trees or more and submit the plan of tree handling for approval prior to the start of any work involving the trees. Number three, provide for staff review specifications and plans for all ADA-related rails, guardrails, and hardware prior to the beginning of work on the front elevation portion of the COA. Number three, 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. And number four, once reviewed by other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Do I hear a motion to that effect? So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. We have a motion and a second on this particular request for a COA. We appreciate everyone's participation in this meeting and all of the details that were discussed. And the motion for the COA is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you, staff, for your willingness to continue to work with them. I would like to declare an eight-minute recess, and we'll come back and resume the following three items that we have. Chair, did you take a vote on that motion? All in favor, say aye. All opposed? Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you, sir. I think I have better understanding. If you could just repeat the conditions for me again. All right, we will do that. So the proposal for 417 Fayette Park, construct retaining walls, reconstruct brick with limestone border walkway, construct limestone plinths with lighting. Number one, condition. Reduce the height of the piers to a maximum of 12 inches above the top riser. Number two, reduce the height of the retaining at the curb height to be one stone course with a stone cap with a grade of the rolled lawn to remain evident. provide a to scale, and that should be hyphenated, section through the stone curb and rolled grade to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA and the two standard conditions. Have you had an opportunity to get clarification on that? Yes, sir, I did. Thank you. Yes, we discussed it, And I think everyone understands and we're going to meet on site and look at it. Okay. Establish elevations. And the standard two conditions have been referred to many times in this meeting. So do you agree with all four conditions to this COA application? Yes, sir. I do. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Any questions from the audience? Then do I hear a motion? Chair, in regards to case number 06900417-Z at 417 Fayette Park, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions as read into the record. Is there a second? Seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Your COA is granted. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Now with regard to case number 02510406-H at 406 South Broadway, Mr. Luftman, will you please come back to the podium? We were discussing the staff's recommendation that there be a front door as part of the front elevation of the building. You had expressed your regret for not knowing that this was a historic property. And so what we will do first is to hear from staff, and then we'll be glad to hear from you. And we'll have questions for both of you. Thank you. So this structure here is the historic structure. This structure was built later. It was built, and you have a, there's a survey form in front of you, and it was built in the 60s. It was built actually as it is. It was built for a woodworking studio. There was a woodworking studio in the front. in the woodworking studio in the back. It was built with this camelback approach. It did have a storefront with a commercial storefront and the applicant changed it to these two front commercial windows and elongated those windows. You can sort of see the front door here and there were two smaller windows in this location. We have dealt with Mr. Luffman first with the building to the north. I'm sorry it could be a streetscape. So we worked with him quite a bit on the restoration of this structure. He does not own the structure to the south. We were working with him on another project when all of the work on the structure occurred. And this was what the building looked like before. So it did have a front door with smaller windows before. I think everybody sort of remembered it was painted pink because it was sort of not a great color before. But of course we didn't review color. And they were also requesting the signage as well. guidelines are included for your reference this concrete block structure is now 65 years old and tells the story of a business industry in South Hill small buildings such as these 1960 buildings a brick concrete block and perma stone are speckled throughout South Hill historic district businesses such as radio, cigars, cars and tobacco industry occupied these structures These particular structures were built as a store with a woodworking shop in the rear. Since the work was done without a COA, staff had no opportunity to comment on the proposed changes prior to the work being done. Staff would recommend the door, which appears to be there and to be original to the structure, does not appear to be in the same configuration as before, but not to be fixed or be not removed, and to keep the changes reversible, and have reversible changes. Also, staff would have not been able to review the condition of the windows prior to being altered. The proposal to remove and enlarge the front windows and remove the door along the south hill requires further discussion. Typically, staff does not recommend approval of changes to the front of the structure. Guidelines 124F and 23D, respectively, state windows and their openings should not be enclosed or partially blocked and maintain the front plane of the building. Guidelines 2B1E, all buildings should have primary entrances on the front of the building. Staff recommends that the full glass door be reinstalled or a full light fixed pane be installed to indicate the previous door. The proposal to install already installed signage without the COA is within guidelines B.C., which states signage should be sized in proportion to the building and relate to and complement and not overwhelm the site, building, or street. and avoid oversized signage. Recommendation, staff recommends approval with the following condition. Staff minds of the front elevation should have a front door and revised plans should be submitted to be reviewed by the BOAR and with the following standard conditions. And I think staff was referring to either the front door needs to either be restored or an indication that the front door once there should be indicated. put back in place in some fashion, either with a vertical member indicating the front door was there in some fashion. A question? So to indicate the front door, would you also have to re-impose the block between the door and the window? In terms of establishing the door, is it just the door or is it the door and its surrounding? I don't think it necessarily needs to be the surround. I think it just needs to be the front door in that same location. So it could be a commercial storefront location. So it could be just a vertical member of a commercial storefront. Any other questions from the board? Yes. It looks to me like the window was actually lowered as well? The whole windows were lowered. So we've significantly actually changed the facade of this beyond just removing the door. That's correct. I think we have actually had windows of these kind of structures be altered before. But I think we have not made no window or no door has been taken out to the point where no door is missing. And I think the significance of doors being removed is more significant than the windows being lengthened, because we have had lengthened windows before on commercial storefronts. And I will give you evidence of the Shambhala Center. Those storefront windows have been altered greatly. So we have had those kinds of things happen before. We had that also occur on the building. There's an insurance company that's on Pine Street that also that's occurred before. But I think in both those instances the front doors are still in the same location. I think the difference is the fact that the store front, the front door has been eradicated. And so if the door could be restored in some fashion or the semblance of the door could be restored that would be the biggest issue to go back. Any other questions from the board? Yes, did another door get put in when that door was removed? How do you go into this structure? There's a door on the side that's where the plant is. Okay, just can't... Right here, there's a door on the side. I was just curious. So if you remember the most significant building, this actually used to have the Stuarto Olive Oil Company used to be located here, briefly. And you actually entered on the side. This was about 10 years ago before they had a location out in Hamburg. And that's where you entered to buy olive oil. Any other questions from the board? Can another member of the staff make one comment? Absolutely. It seems to me that if we're going to reference the door again, which I think is totally what the guidelines ask be, retain the concept of a primary entrance on the front elevation of this building and then glass windows to its side. if we're the possibility of removing the masonry divider between the window and the doors that is shown in the image we have is certainly could be considered but I think if that's to be the case then we would need to have basically a three-part storefront one of which is elongated to the door and the other two panels The other two-thirds of the opening are dedicated to a traditional glassed storefront. And, of course, the other alternative would be to retain the individual identity of the opening for the entrance door and put back the plinth of masonry and make the storefront. the board could consider lengthening the storefront to what's the current lengthening situation as it's depicted in your image on the right, but just have more of the vertical emphasis of a more narrow storefront. So I think it's a kind of three-part storefront or a door and two-part storefront outcome possible as alternate solutions to what's been done that's not within the guidelines. Any questions from the board members? Any questions from the audience on the presentation? Mr. Luffman, as you're coming forward, let me just observe. It may be something that you're not aware of, but I want you to know that this board is comprised of three active architects. So all of this is not lost on us, and an attorney, and myself. So the discussion is revolving around on page... Were you given the complete... Yes. docket for today. And on page 8 in the paragraph that Ms. Armstrong read, quite clearly the guidelines call for elements that were there to have remained. Your apology at the beginning is accepted. the board is not unfamiliar with folks who have accidentally worked on pieces of property that they didn't realize were in districts. So at the same time I say that, we have a history of trying to work as much as we can with those owners on any adjustments that need to be made to bring them into compliance. So with that said, how do you react to these comments, what you've heard so far today, and how would you recommend moving forward with this? And thank you for that. Yes, because you're more qualified to decide on the architectural features of these buildings than I am. I admit that. And in this case, this is more of an explanation than an excuse, that I allowed my wife to put her business there, and she worked with her contractor on it, and had never worked with the Board of Architecture Review before. And so as they were working to just replace those windows that were broken in the front, as he was popping them out, he said, why don't we, it was apparently his idea. I was working on my other projects and was not really even paying attention to this building. So forgive me for that. That doesn't really give you much to answer your question. Now, let's talk about the actual question at hand. So the last couple businesses that have been there, including Stuarto's Olive Oil and then Taco Place that was there, neither of which used that front door because it was boarded shut. It had a lot of theft attempts through it. And so it had been boarded shut for more than a decade. and so the primary entrance of the building was through the parking lot where everybody parks. So my assumption was that that was the primary entrance, and that's, again, that's just an explanation. As far as the work already being completed and whether or not it complies with the South Hill, I think, in my opinion, the guidelines say that there should be a front door, but it doesn't necessarily say that it must be a front door. I'm not certain that there's any precedent of that, but it doesn't say explicitly that there must or shall. And so I'm not saying that it's wrong. I mean, almost every building in this neighborhood and in most neighborhoods has a front door. For the spirit of what my wife was trying to accomplish with this was to create a pedestrian kind of drawing the eye to her storefront, really focusing on the actual business that's inside of it rather than an entrance to it because it's not it's not open store hours it is literally just a showcase um and that was her intention with it and just to store some store some furniture in there in a much prettier way than than it would have been had we kept the current status of what as you can see on the left what that would have looked like if she would just would have put furniture in there it would have taken much less uh given much drawn much less attention to her business i know that's that's her business as opposed to architecture so it's a totally different thing dynamic there but uh those are those are my points i uh she'll be pretty devastated if i tell her we have to pretend that there is a door there like if we were to cut that glass above that stoop and then pretty much assemble a glass type of door there I'm not sure that that would be I mean it would be more in compliant to what you're asking but it would also probably be a much more theft and vandalism risk at this location so that's just my opinion but what does the board have to say about those items? A question would be if a door were reinstituted into the front plane of the building and that door were kept locked and the entrance to the business continued to be on the side, my question to staff is would that comply? If a door of some kind were reinstituted to the front of the building, and even if that door were kept permanently locked, could be open, but were locked the whole time, and the main entrance to this business would still be on the side, would that be compliant? Yes. Well, let's not be hasty. Pardon me? Let's not be hasty. The manner in which you were to accomplish what you have verbalized on the applicant, what the applicant would provide to the process to demonstrate how they would put a door and window system in this front, is the only thing the staff really could respond to to say if that meets the guidelines or not. the verbiage of a system needs to go back with a door and window system philosophically is within accordance with what the guidelines ask for and that is to retain the identity of the front elevation of this building but it's all in the details of how this would be accomplished. So before the staff could, in my humble opinion, comfortably give you an opinion that the concept, yes, is within the guidelines, but it's all in the details. And we really couldn't advise on that until the applicant submits submittal to how they propose to make the adjustments. Correct. And I was not implying that this would be a decision made this evening. No, no, I understand that. I just wanted to be sure we've discussed the nuances. Right, thank you. Thank you. The second question is, even though it appears to be out of compliance, the staff is not making any recommendations based on the advertising signage on the front of the building. They have said it is in compliance. They said it isn't compliant, but there are no... It is compliant. Oh, it is compliant. Okay, I'm sorry. I misread that. Any other questions from the board? I have comments. I don't know if there are questions. That's fine. I understand, and I can look at this and say, like, I like the big front window, but I feel like the guidelines are pretty clear that even though this is a 60s building, it isn't one of our oldest buildings, it still contributes to the rhythm, even looking at the building right next to it with that front door and that street-facing presence that the building has. I think that's important, and I think we need to add that element back in here. Again, how the details and how that happens would be something you would have to submit to the staff in order for them to look and make a recommendation to us. But I do think the guidelines, yes, it should, but it's pretty clear that even it's distinctively the guidelines call out commercial buildings and say that those front entries should be maintained, including windows and doors. And that does contribute to the rhythm of the street and that neighborhood for these buildings. so I'm going to agree with the staff's recommendation, and I hope you can work with them to find a good solution to this. An additional technical question. So the staff recommendations, is the staff not recommending approval of the COA? Because if we vote to approve the COA with these three considerations, it seems like there's already an approval. It's just for the staff and the building owner to work out an option. But it says it has to come back to the board. And typically, how does that work? I can help you clear this up if you'd like. I think in this instance the applicant is not indicating thus far a desire to submit a proposal to result in a door and two windows or a window with two windows contextually within that. And if that's indeed the case, then I think the board might need to consider denying the application because we do not have anything from the applicant suggesting the manner in which they would come into compliance. And it is a situation built, constructed at the present time in violation with no permits. So short of a commitment that this is at least verbally an intent to go in that direction and work with the staff on it, I think the thing the board needs to substantially consider is denying the application for that and separate it out from the matter of the signage. And that could be a separate action on the board's part. And if the board denies the door window result, then the owner can come back for a second review of a COA to make changes in that? Well, they couldn't review the same proposal, which is to basically not have a door on the front and have what they've built left is my, I guess, interpretation of what I'm hearing. that could not be heard by the board because that would be hearing the same matter a second time. If the proposal to come back is to result in a different design outcome from what's presently in place, then the board could hear that matter as a new application to rectify something that continues to be in violation for failure to have a permit before work was carried out. Any other questions from the board? Then, in leading up to what I'm going to say in terms of a motion, it seems to me that it is technically and logistically more appropriate for you to come back and address the entire situation rather than the board trying to split pieces parts here. So that is going to be my motion that case number 02510406-H, with regard to that case at 406 South Broadway, do I hear a motion for a denial of a certificate of appropriateness? So moved. Have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Mr. Luffman, sorry, that's not the news you wanted to hear today. At what point, what is the most aggressive calendar that Mr. Luffman could be on to come back to gain compliance? He would have to get plans together. And at this point, he wouldn't be able to get on the agenda until the earliest. If you can get anything together, it would be October. So he would not have to wait a year. Some people have to wait. Well, he would have to get a new proposal together. An entirely new proposal together. He cannot come back with this one. Right. He would actually have to. He is denied this, so he would actually have to get a new proposal together. Yes, and refile. Refile. Start the process over again. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for you today. I keep harping on the fact that this is a situation that's in violation, not a hypothetical change in construction or change in the designs of the existing structure. So certainly there's not a year to sit around and have something be in violation. It needs solution as quickly as possible or the process will be left to be pursuing a violation situation. If I, sorry to interrupt. I'm sorry. No, that was about it. Oh, sorry. Thank you very much. If I may, may I ask one question of the board? Sure. If you have any advice for me on an economical way to remediate the situation. And that is the role of staff. Understood, okay. And your contractor and builder to determine what that might be. Thank you. Good luck with your retirement. And now, at long last, I think we're still in the same day, aren't we? We will hear the conceptual review for 242 South Hanover Avenue. And we heard the board, the new members are already familiar with the conceptual review process. We had one at the last meeting. and so Barron take it away. Sure. Barron Gibson, Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture. I'm here represent so some of what I'll say is might be repetitive from last meeting because we have new members of the board that are not familiar with with this case or haven't heard it before but I'll move through it. So since our previous conceptual review, we've carefully considered the comments we received regarding the perceived massing of the proposed addition. Rather than simply defending the previous design, we stepped back and looked for opportunities to refine the project while preserving our homeowners program and remaining consistent with the historic preservation guidelines. since we have members of the board that haven't heard this case before I'd like to reintroduce the project, explain our overall design philosophy and walk through the revisions that we've made and explain why we believe this proposal represents an appropriate design addition. And if you don't mind, since only two of us were here for that conceptual review If you could in your discussion highlight those issues that were discussed prior. So these folks will, the new folks will understand what's being pulled forward. Absolutely. Thank you. Will do. I usually have staff do a review with their questions and stuff. First. I'm sorry. Did I misappropriately, inappropriately do this? Should Barry go first? No, the archived video is available to the board members of any case, whether formal application or conceptual review. And so if anybody didn't yet have the opportunity to go back and see the previous conceptual, that is available to you in the archives, and we can certainly help steer you to that. But I think what you said is totally on target for him to, in his presentation, just highlight some of what prior, the previous incantation of this reflected X, and now we are proposing Y. As you go along in increments would help. Will do. Is that your intent, Mr. Chair? As in the church, every time they came back, we dealt with a narrowing group of issues. Right. In this instance, my perception is, without having heard what you're going to say, which is always a dangerous thing to comment on, that they've probably made some substantive changes that might not ring a bell expressly related to what you saw before, the two of you who did see that. It may not be quite as, it depends on the level of your illustrations. I vote we give you the floor. It's the chair's choice. But I would suggest to the chair to give this gentleman the floor and see where we go. Correct. Thank you. Sounds good. I appreciate that. And then we'll follow up with those specific points with Barry. Thank you. Thank you. So before discussing the addition, I think it's important to understand the existing home. This is a screenshot from Google Earth. this is prior to my clients obtaining the property. You can obviously see that it is in neglect. This is, well, I don't know why it's not changing slides. PDF. There we go. Okay. Okay. So this second slide shows how our clients have cleaned up the property and taken care of the home. The home, for the most part, stands in the original state that it was in. and they've done a great job of cleaning it up, and certainly their neighbors are happy at how they've taken care of the property. The current residence contains approximately 2,146 square feet of finished living space. I'm going to go to the floor plan so that we can look at that. That's this first floor, and that's this second floor. So, for a family intending to live here long term, that's a relatively modest size home. The owners love this neighborhood and have made significant investment in preserving this property. Their goal is not to create an oversized residence, but rather to thoughtfully adapt the home so that it continues to meet their family's needs for many years to come. One thing I'm going to point out while we're talking about existing conditions is there is one additional existing site condition that I'd like to briefly address. I'm going to get to it right here. I'm going to go back to my site plan. This hasn't blown up as large as I'd like for it to be. But the existing home is what I'm circling here with my cursor. There's an existing garage, which is this yellow box down here at the bottom. There's a red circle that you can very see faintly here at the bottom corner. There's a mature hackberry tree that's located in that location. Because of the size and location of the tree, we had it independently evaluated by a professional tree service. and to better understand its condition before moving forward with the project. The arborist has since come out to the site since our last hearing, and their inspection report is in this slide. We can go back to the PDF further, a few slides down. their inspection identified evidence of previous injury to the root system as well as significant decay at the base of the tree. Based on those conditions, if we continue just a few slides further. Yep, you're almost to it. Yep, here we go. Yes, so we've got pictures of the decay. Based on those conditions and the tree's proximity to the house and surrounding structures, the arborist has recommended that the trees be removed. We have included photographs documenting the existing conditions of the trunk and root flare, along with the arborist's written assessment. I think it's important to point out that we are not proposing to remove a healthy mature tree simply to make room for the addition. The tree has been professionally evaluated. Significant deterioration has been identified and removal has been recommended because the existing condition and proximity to the structures. The removal of the tree therefore addresses the existing property and safety concern while also allowing the proposed rear addition and associated site improvements to move forward. so I'll talk about that I just wanted to point out that this tree is not a healthy hackberry tree located at the back of the property and I'll speak more to how it impacts what we're proposing and why it needs to go relative to what we're the addition that we're proposing so if we can go forward a couple of slides. A few more slides. I want to get to the proposed. Right there. The proposed addition consists of 577 square feet on the first floor and 675 square feet on the second floor. What we're looking at in this slide is the first floor addition. This is simply an expansion allowing for a kitchen and mudroom on the first floor and giving the first floor a lot more breathing room. You'll see that the existing house now has plenty of living space. The first floor is roughly a thousand square feet, including the kitchen and the spaces are fairly tight. So the total square footage of our addition is 1,252 square feet. If we can go to the next slide, that will show our second floor. This is the second floor. This is 675 square feet. This is our master bedroom addition. So it's a two-story addition that has a kitchen on the first floor, master primary suite on the second floor. When complete, if this proposal was approved, the total square footage of the home would be approximately 3,398 square feet. While there has understandably been discussion regarding size of the addition, I believe it's important to place that number within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. A quick review of surrounding properties show that many, and in fact most of the homes along South Hanover exceed 3,000 square feet. For example, 244 South Hanover is 3,060 square feet. 247 South Hanover is 3,300 square feet. 250 South Hanover is 3,484 square feet. And I could keep going. These homes are immediately adjacent to or directly across the street from the May residence. Equally important, many of these homes have themselves evolved over time through additions. Those additions have become a part of the natural history of Ashland Park. This proposal is not to introduce a new pattern of development. It continues a long-established pattern of sensitive reinvestment that has allowed these historic homes to remain functional while preserving the streetscape that makes this neighborhood so special. So why this location? If we could go back just a few slides to get to the site plan, which is earlier in the presentation. So I think this is a good slide to look at. The historic preservation guidelines encourage additions to be located at the rear of the historic home where they have the least impact on the original building. This proposal follows that principle. You'll see that this is our roof plan showing the addition added on to the rear of this existing structure. The addition is tucked completely behind the primary volume of the house and remains largely concealed from the front facade of the home. Because of the existing home, the side yard setbacks, and lot configuration, there are no practical alternatives to locating an addition that accomplishes our homeowners' goals while remaining consistent with the guidelines. So we believe this is exactly where this type of addition should be located. I'm going to go to our elevations if we could forward several slides our proposed elevations are if we'll stop right there for just a moment these are the existing side elevations that you can see from the slashes street where you would see the proposed side elevation of our of our audition. One of the comments from last meeting was that the grade is working against us. And this section cut doesn't do the best job of showing how severe that grade is, but it's probably three, three and a half feet of grade change from where this stoop step is to that side porch down to this elevation level. And so GRADE is working against us from a massing standpoint. Whatever you put here on the addition is naturally going to look larger than it actually is because we're seeing three to four feet more of additional facade than you naturally would if the ground were perfectly level. So I just wanted to point that out while we're on that slide. If we could continue to the elevations. So we'll keep going. It's going to be a good bit down. Okay. This is a good elevation to look at. So what you'll see is our addition that matches the same pitch as the existing house with a seam that's a flat roof as a connection moment. And I'll go back to plan in just a little bit and show how that scene pinches in to demonstrate the corner of the existing house and make sure that that corner of that existing house stays recognized and distinguished and separated from our proposed addition. but from the beginning our design approach has been guided by one simple principle create an addition that is compatible with the historic home without imitating it our goal was never to create a replica of the original house likewise we did not want to create a contemporary addition that completely opposes it instead we wanted to the addition to feel like a respectful evolution of the property clearly identifiable as new construction while remaining harmonious with the original architecture. You'll notice throughout the design we intentionally reinterpret many of the architectural characteristics of the existing house rather than copying them directly. I want to move forward a few slides, if we could, please. I've put together some renderings that I think better illustrate what this edition will look like in real life. If you continue just a few more slides, please. So we can stop right here. This is a good page. So I think sometimes, obviously, plans and elevations are what we live by architecturally. but they don't always convey exactly how the context of how we'll see things in perspective and from ground level. So I put these renderings together for that added context. But you'll notice throughout the design we intentionally reinterpret many of the architectural characteristics of the existing house rather than copying them directly. The existing house utilizes double-hung windows, while the addition introduces casement windows with similar proportions and rhythm. The addition uses painted brick on the first floor to establish continuity with the masonry of the existing house, while the upper story transitions to wood shingles, creating a lighter material expression that visually reduces the scale of the second floor. The roof forms echo the character of the existing home while remaining clearly distinguishable as new construction. These decisions create a respectful dialogue between old and new rather than blurring the distinction between them. And obviously, as mentioned, one very important feature for us is the connector between the home and the addition. Rather than attaching a new volume directly to the historic structure, the connector creates a clear transition between the two. This allows the original house to remain virtually visually legible while allowing the addition to be read as secondary architectural volume. During our previous conceptual review, the primary concern centered around the perceived massing of the addition. We took those comments seriously. Instead of reducing the homeowners program, in square footage, which they need, we focused on reducing the perceived visual scale of the addition itself. So the first thing that we've done, and I've tried to illustrate that in this diagram, which I know is hard to read the text, but the first significant change was reducing the second floor wall height from 8 foot 6 to 7 foot 6. I'm not sure if we can. It's going to be further down. So, okay, great. So in the existing house, we have 8'6 ceilings. And the proposal that we looked at last time had 8'6 walls to match that ceiling height. Well, our goal was to bring this roofline lower than this roofline. And without lowering the pitch, the only way to do that was to lower the wall height. So what we've done is we've lowered that to 7'6", and this is the top of our ridge. this ridge height is two feet lower than this ridge height to keep this addition subservient. And that seven foot six allows us to get to that point. Inside the rooms, we can make up the ceiling height by vaulting or traying the ceilings so that our clients wouldn't be living in a compressed, abnormally low ceiling height condition. The other change that we've made was the perceived scale of the addition. And as mentioned before, because the rear yard slopes downward, a significant amount of the foundation was previously exposed. making the addition appear taller than it actually was. To address that condition, we introduced retaining walls and raised the finished grade adjacent to the addition. So if we go to the next slide, please. Just the next rendering down. Right here. You'll see that what we have proposed is to introduce a retaining wall with a step in between, which we can then backfill all of this space and essentially eliminate the added four feet of height that we were previously seeing in our previously proposed design, thus making the perceived massing reduce in overall scale. this substantially reduces the amount of exposed foundation visually lowering the building allowing it to sit more comfortably within the landscape we feel like this is a subtle modification that has a significant impact on how the addition is perceived as mentioned one thing we intentionally chose not to reduce was the homeowner's square footage their needs have not changed and rather than making the home less functional we focused on improving the architecture. We believe addressing the perceived massing through better design is a more thoughtful solution than simply eliminating usable living space. So that's the addition. There is one other component to this proposal that I want to touch on. But before I do, if we'll go to that next slide, please. One thing I do want to point out is there were questions last hearing about how the roof is going to engage with the existing roof line. This is a trickier roof line to work with, but we feel like we found a good solution that preserves everything that you would see from the street of this existing home. But this is essentially a flat roof that tucks right into right at this eave condition that allows enough headroom, basically seven foot six headroom of space to move from the old historic structure to the primary suite of our newly proposed addition. That's an overview of the addition. That is attached to the house. But what I'd like to do is go back to earlier in the presentation. There's, if we go actually down a few slides, a few more, maybe four or five slides. There is an outdoor living space that actually the previous slide is this one right here. Yes. you'll see that there's a proposed outdoor living space in this back area. Right now, all of what's behind this garage is nothing but a concrete slab. There's no yard back here that's usable. It's simply a concrete slab that has, I think, just equipment and overflow from the garage stored on it. What we're proposing is to build an outdoor pavilion living space in this back area so that our clients can come out of their addition and have an outdoor space to exist in their backyard. You'll notice that this gray circle, that's where the hackberry lives. That's where that hackberry would need to be removed for this outdoor living space. I have perspectives of this outdoor living space. If we'll go down just a few slides so you can visually see what we're proposing. down right here. This is a good one. So what we are proposing is an outdoor kitchen with brick columns and a low slope roof that matches the low slope roof of the garage. And that Hackberry lives right about where that cursor is currently. Is that that where it's struggling with the property line? I don't know exactly if it's I think it's all on your property from the survey actually. Yeah. But the trunk of it is totally within this property? I believe so. Yeah. And to that, the adjacent neighbors. Obviously, even though the tree is on 242 South Hanover, my clients have been proactive in speaking to the neighbors about this design proposal. Graham and Molly Bothman live at 246 South Hanover and live immediately next door to the May residence. And we have received a letter of support from them. We've also received a letter of support from Brian and Carrie Birch at 303 Deshay Road, whose property directly backs up to the May residents. Both neighboring households have reviewed the proposed project and have expressed their support for the addition. The 303 Deshay Road property would be a property that would be most impacted by the removal of the Hackberry tree, and they want the tree removed as well, especially after seeing the arborist report. Both have indicated that they'd be willing to attend and support the project, but because today's meeting is a conceptual review, we felt that submitting their written letters and just mentioning their support would be appropriate at this stage. We believe this proposal satisfies both the letter and the spirit of the historic preservation guidelines, and we welcome any feedback and questions and thoughts that anybody has. Thank you very much. At this point, Barry, do you have anything that you want to add with regard to updating since the last conceptual review? I believe he has pointed out the issues from the last time and how they've been massaged and corrected. and in the staff report there are some questions that are basically the same as the previous conceptual that the board might want to look at and see if there's anything based on those questions that concerns the board. Thank you. And to the board members, please turn to those conceptual questions to have those handy as this discussion goes forward. And those you'll find on page... Oops, I'm into the last case. Hang on just a second. 67. Page 67. If we could, let's first address the addition and then address the outdoor living space and the tree. Separate those in our questions, if you don't mind. So any questions from board members about the addition and the landscaping solutions they've proposed around it? Any questions about any part of that? Of that, yes, of the addition. I think my only question is about the top right window where you have your existing eave connecting to that. How do you propose to treat that area? So what we would do is hold that rafter off of the window. So from the inside of that connector, you would see the side of that eave coming down in front of it. So it would just display in front of the window. But we would hold that rafter off a distance that it could be worked on if it ever needed to, fascia board needed to be replaced or anything like that. And were they planning on the other one being operable? or is it... Windows would be fixed in that location. I'm curious how the hyphen roof drains. I didn't see any gutters or downspouts there, and so I didn't know if a gutter and downspout would be required because then you would be hiding all your architectural detailing there. I was just... Are you asking how our addition would drain? Yeah, like the little hyphen between the addition. You talk about the low slope, the flat roof. Yeah, so we would have some kind of scupper, and I'm not sure to what side yet. To be honest, I don't know if we're going to monoslope it to the other side of the property than what we're looking at in this elevation. But we'd have some kind of scupper. And the idea would be that we'd tuck the downspout as close to the building corner as we could to just make it as minimal impact as possible. But we'd have a scupper at the top of that parapet to go through and take that gutter down. A question about the square footage. And I appreciated that you listed surrounding properties and their square footage. Were those properties able to amass that much square footage through additions? or how many of those, you know, how many other properties on the street have done this, pretty much the same thing to add another 1,200 square feet? And I was going to, I had the same question. So I'm going to add to that question so we can answer it all at once because I did note that, yes, other houses on the street are 3,000 square feet. How much of that is original structure compared to additions put on the back? because I know all of these houses have probably had some kind of form of porch or something added to the back that adds to their square footage. Other things that could add to the square footage could be like a finished basement. So there wouldn't be a bigger mass there, but if you're looking at Zillow, it's going to say it has a larger square footage. So there's a lot of things there that affect that. Additionally, when you buy a 2,100 square foot house, that's a pretty large house to a lot of people. and it was a historic house so adding something and thinking about those proportions doesn't mean you get a house that's the same size as the houses in the rest of the neighborhood. So I'm not sure that by listing houses there that adds to the argument for the size of this addition. Sure, and I would be glad to bring additional information on that because it did look like most of the houses that I referenced had additions that were obviously added to them. At what time, I'm not sure, but just quickly panning Google, you could see kind of L's coming off where it looked like two-story additions had been added to the rear. In similar fashion to not too different than what we're proposing. Now, before BOAR or after BOAR, I don't know. I'll have to do some research on that, and I'll be glad to, but it did look like most of them had been added on, too. I think a little bit of, a little more context than just square footage would be helpful. Sure. Because we are trying to blend with the character of the neighborhood. Sure. And if this does blend with the character of the neighborhood, I'm going to be a little bit more forgiving on the fact that you did not reduce the square footage of the mass of it at all. Like, you added a retaining wall, which maybe just adds another question of, is a retaining wall even appropriate in this neighborhood? Right? And so I don't know that, yes, that does help because you were starting to get really high, but it doesn't really make it smaller. It didn't really reduce the mass. And I think visually it didn't reduce the mass to me either. And I thought maybe it would by what you've done, but I don't think it has done that. I think it's just added another element of what you're doing to the yard that might not fit into the neighborhood context. And I don't know about that because we haven't talked about that retaining wall. Maybe there's retaining walls all over this neighborhood. and that would be something that the staff could advise on. Sure. And I could do some research on that too. I can think of a few offhand that do, but I would bring that next time. I still feel like it's really close to that existing garage. Like there's just, it feels, I mean, you're basically increasing the size from 2,100 to 3,000. and that's 50% bigger, 21 to 1,200 square foot. I mean, that's a 50% increase on the size of this house. That's very, very large for the proportions of the house. And I know Brock wanted to separate the living quarter from this addition, the outside area. Sure. But I would just add that together it's even more of, like if you were just proposing that outside area and a much smaller addition, the two would work. But both of them together is really overwhelming the site. And so I can't quite just separate them out because of them together being so big. Any other questions? or comments? Mr. Chair, the staff will need to make comments, but it's possible you would prefer to go through all the different pieces of yours and come back at the end if you would prefer. If you don't mind. With regard bearing to the list of questions, Are there any of these questions that you would like to address at this point in terms of whether or not those should be a concern? Do you have them in front of you? I don't. Here you go. One thing that we I see item number six as a question does it reduce green space to an unacceptable amount. We did look at that and study that as well. We put together a diagram that effectively shows that the footprint of this addition the house as it sits takes up 20% of the total square footage of the entire lot. The addition adds 7% to that footprint that the house would take up in terms of green space of the yard. So 27%, going from 20% to 27% of footprint, non-permeable footprint of proposed space is very reasonable. We look at floor area ratio for zoning ordinances, and I think 40% is often the guidelines for zoning, and we're far under that with our proposal. So there's a lot of green space. It's all on the slashes and Hanover side, which is the yard that our clients use currently. They don't use the concrete pad behind the garage. So the way we look at it is we're infilling essentially unusable space for outdoor living and addition space that enhances the way our clients are going to use this property. I just saw that. And on that point, I would encourage you, as you're documenting square footages on that street, that you also look at how much the structures occupy of each lot. So a comparison can be made of that if that question comes up. Certainly. Be glad to. Now for the outdoor living area and the tree. Any questions from the board? All right. Do you have any more comments? No. Then we'll turn to Barry to sort of sum up the presentation. I think the presentation is pretty good, or it's very good, and don't really have a lot to add to it. I do agree that with the concrete being replaced by the outdoor living space, I think that's basically a wash and shouldn't create any problems. I had made a mistake the last time in saying that it was attached to the garage. It's not actually. So I feel like that the mass is substantially small enough. And with the narrowness, I'm not sure in which direction that is, and lowering the roof, I think all helped the previous design. Are there any concerns of staff or the board about the hyphen and the way it's articulated here? No, I think the hyphen works well. We actually encourage those. it's going to be with all of the glass. It's different enough from the existing structure that it sets it apart. And I think that's a great design element. So, Amelia? You. Barron, the one thing I think that the board really would be helpful for the board to really know is the topography of this side of the street. The one thing they really don't know is how steep the whole block is. and there is elements of retaining walls and systems in the backyards of a lot of these areas that you can get on a topo map or an aerial that would be helpful for the board members to see. They're not evident from the front, but there is a pretty much steep drop-off for a lot of these. And so retaining walls and systems are very evident, probably like five structures to the south of this property. So that would be very helpful to see. I think one thing that I always wondered about with the connection is if there was a way. I mean, I think you guys have sort of tightened up as much as possible. One thing I wondered, and I'm always trying to play with this, and so I'm going to sort of be devil's advocate this, and I know Betty's got some comments about this too, is whether I know that you're trying to be as tight as possible with this connection because you've got a program to be in there. Could the connection be less fussy? I know that's not a technical term. Sure. But could it be, could you cut a couple more inches and can it just be more simplified? Could. and not have the divided windows in there? And maybe could it be not a paired windows, but maybe just sort of maybe one window or something like that? Or maybe not even going to divide. I think you want to have the panels below, but could it not have the divide above or something like that? So it doesn't have, it has more of a simplified section and could it be brought in closer so it's not so close to the garage. I mean, I think this is a very tight, all these houses are so tight. So you're pretty much on top and there's a lot of tightness tightness in a lot of these areas just because of the nature of the lots. And you're using your existing conditions as much as possible, but I think trying to be off that garage as much as possible would be helpful. Sure. And then I think for the board, it'd be really helpful, like I said, to see the other existing conditions in the backyards because I think there's some really tightness back there that the board is not seeing when you're looking at this site compared to the others. Sure. Because this essentially has two front yards. And to be honest with what's going on in the backyards, they just don't see that. And, of course, I think Betty had some other comments that she wanted to say, too. Thank you. I'm afraid in my concerns, and they are, I think it's just too much volume on too small a footprint of a parcel. It is correct, you know, your measures talking about your 20% and your 7% addition and so forth. I understand that, but you've really got a sense of space, of openness in front of your house and on one side of your house. Your side toward Chevy Chase to the southeast is practically on top of the next door neighbor. Not literally, but it is tight. and the I agree with the comments about make an outdoor room on what's a concreted spot the problem is that when you put that outdoor room and the footprint of the garage and the footprint of this new addition to the existing house you get one big blob of footprint to your experience The retaining wall gives you buildable footage that if you live in the properties around this property, has never been an option and has been open space because of the drop of the land. So to them experiencing the back of this house from the road behind, and keep in mind it's not just what you see from the street. It's all four sides being evaluated within the guidelines criteria. So that sense of openness, even though it's got landfall at its bottom, is a very real sense of airspace, sunlight, daylight, et cetera, that will not exist once this addition is built because you have brought the landform up to allow there to be a volume that then rises on up. One thing I would caution you, please don't draw bushes in front of your elevations. No. We need to see the real construction elevations, not with the landscaping disguising it. I just think it is going to be detrimental to the integrity of this site. to put an addition of this mass and volumes, no matter how you finesse it. I just can't see it getting past the guidelines' intent to have this become what to the observer, anywhere on the two sides that you do see green space, from the other side you see nothing but structures. garage, whether it's a room with a roof over it or a flat floored room. You can't say it's green space. It isn't green space now. But this is not the character of this neighborhood to have this amount of tightness on a parcel of a lot. I surveyed this neighborhood in the 1980s. So I know this neighborhood for a pretty long time. And I suspect that some of the lots, you're almost on a pie shape. You're really not. I get it that the elevation toward Chevy Chase is obviously a straight line. The elevation at the rear toward the southeast is a straight line. But that front that has the circle reflecting the circle of the roadbed and all that, all your numbers aside, experiencing this property, it's a small property. It's probably one of the smaller, not when you get your tape line and do square footages, but your perception of size on these ones that do flank the, they call them roundabouts now, but they're not. I don't think that Olmstead's landscape plan would have told the new owner of this parcel that they're getting an equal lot to one in the middle of the block that is perfectly rectilinear and probably more side-to-side square footage. What's the front measure of this? Is this a 50-foot lot? It seems like it would be, but I don't know off the top of my head. Well, it's unfortunate that it hasn't got more wiggle room to its back and to its one side. Because I think it's just overscaled. And I think the addition architecturally, design-wise, looks like a crowded afterthought. I hate to say it. It just looks like a crowded on the lot afterthought. It's a good thing I'm retiring. But no, I'm serious. I was very concerned about this project when I saw it the first time. I don't believe it meets the guidelines in many ways, that it misses meeting the guidelines. And I think that continues to be the case with this version of it as well. And I wish I could say more pleasant things. That's okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any more comments or questions at this point? I have one. So I'm not an architect, but I've been in a lot of old houses because I love them and I've lived in a lot of them. And some additions, including one on my house right now, go like you step down two steps and then you're in the master bedroom. And I wondered if this does have to be level with the house because that's making it seem really tall to me, the back part. And I just wondered if there wouldn't be a way to design it to step it down. That's definitely something that we would consider. I think our first desire was to create a level second floor, but hearing comments, that's definitely something that is an option that we'll look at after this meeting with our clients to see if that's something that will work. But that would bring down the overall height. I think it would also, you wouldn't have to have the retaining wall and do all that and it would just be less overwhelming and no retaining wall? Sure. More green slope looking? Just my non-architectural. No, thank you very much for that. Well, at this point we have concluded the conceptual review and thank you for coming back. What is the calendar for this project moving forward? then after today? I'm sorry? What is the calendar? Are we on a calendar? We're not. Like me or not? It's conceptual. So your application date does not impact with this meeting or the prior one? Right. We'll assess. We're totally on our own schedule to whatever's going on. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, members of the board. Thank you, new members. Thank you. Certainly. Well, thank you, Betty, and congratulations again. We wish you well. I think that the... Were we approving board meetings or just doing that? We are just doing that. That's the one thing left. Are you good at the EJS? I don't know. I don't know if I'm not. If you're not. So we don't have board meetings? Oh, no, that's next. Never mind. I'm putting away the agenda already. So the next thing on our agenda will be to hear a report of the nominating committee. Review of past meeting minutes will be delayed until the next meeting, where I believe we will have a total of three, and perhaps this meeting would make four meetings of minutes to deal with. So that's why we're not doing that tonight because there has been some issue with them being. There have been some lengthy minutes to prepare for you all and lengthy for you to read. Yes. But at the end of the day, we don't believe in just truncating it to the point You don't have information of value. Right. Well, they have been reviewed. I gave some suggestions to the staff on a couple of changes, and we'll get to those next time. So now at the last meeting, there was appointed a nominating committee with regard to this board's chair and vice chair positions. and the chair of that group is going to make a report now to the board, thank you. All right, so Marcy and I met and discussed options for chair and vice chair, and did I just make the motion? I mean, what kind of report do you need? Yes, that's fine. And I would make the motion that we approve Brock as chair and Marcy as vice chair moving forward for the next year. We have a motion and is there a second to that motion? Seconded. And are there any other nominees? Anyone else wish to be nominated for the position? Then I'll declare the nominations closed. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. And thank you. The committee's work on that and the new officers are elected for the next year. Correctly? Is that correct? That is correct. Excuse me. You will elect officers annually. Okay. Yes. So thank you to the two individuals that were willing to serve as officers. We appreciate that very much. And I know you all will do a fabulous job. And I will be, before we conclude, just wanting to thank you all. I'm so delighted that we have new members joining previous members on the board. and want to wish you all well as you move forward, along with the staff, of course, but I will be chatting with them more before I depart. But you all on your board work are doing a wonderful service for our community, and it's very much appreciated. And at the end of the day, just know that it does matter, the decisions that you make and the role that plays in the character-defining areas of our community and how important that is. So thank you very much. There's nothing else for business. We will adjourn the meeting and meet again on September the 16th, 2026. Thank you very much. Thank you.