►
From YouTube: Historic Resources Commission
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Good
afternoon,
everyone
I
am
chair
kite,
and
I
would
like
to
welcome
you
to
the
august
11
2021
historic
resources.
Commission
meeting
the
hrc
is
a
quasi-judicial
body
that
is
governed
by
north
carolina
general
statute,
the
city
of
asheville's,
unified
development,
ordinance
and
bunken
county
ordinance.
B
And
entering
code
9384
for
those
wishing
to
give
public
comment
during
an
agenda
item,
please
call
in
and
press
star
3
to
enter
the
caller
queue.
I
will
now
introduce
all
of
our
commissioners
participating
today
virtually
and
I'd
like
to
give
a
special
introduction
to
our
newest
conventioner,
shannon
watkins.
This
is
first
meeting
today
for
shannon,
so
welcome,
shannon,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
to
just
turn
your
mic
off
on
and
say
a
quick
hello
and
then
I
will
introduce
the
rest
of
the
commissioner.
B
Welcome
it's
good
to
have
you,
commissioner,
hornaday.
D
C
C
B
We
can
hear
you
great.
We
can
hear
you,
commissioner,
vaughan
here,
commissioner
west.
D
B
Welcome
everyone
today,
we
will
next
up
we're
going
to
consider
the
minutes
from
the
july
meeting
of
the
hrc.
The
minutes
include
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
Does
anyone
have
any
corrections
to
note.
E
D
G
H
I
B
B
The
hrc
hears
and
considers
evidence
presented
and
applies
the
standards
set
forth
in
the
guidelines
and
standards
of
the
specific
historic
district
for
that
application.
The
hrc
must
make
its
decision
upon
competent
material
and
substantial
evidence
to
determine
the
facts
of
the
hearing.
The
hrc
will
use
judgment
discretion
to
apply
the
standards
contained
in
the
relevant
guidelines
to
the
facts.
The
commissioners
and
voting
for
an
item
will
not
have
a
fixed
opinion.
That's
not
susceptible
to
change
will
not
have
a
conflict
of
interest
and
will
not
have
engaged
in
ex-parte
communication
regarding
the
application.
B
B
This
time
I
will
administer
the
oath
for
all
individuals
to
intend
to
provide
witness
testimony,
understanding
that
we
may
follow
up
and
do
this
again
later
in
the
meeting.
If
we
don't
have
all
of
our
applicants
and
interested
parties
present
for
all
of
the
applications
at
this
time,
and
so
we'll
do
a
quick
fact
finding
to
see
who's
here
and
I'll
read
the
oath
and
then
ask
each
of
you
to
affirm
individually
by
name,
mark
and
jennifer
cliff.
I
think
you're
here
I
think
I
saw
you.
J
B
Earlier
yep,
let's
see
where's
my
agenda.
K
F
B
Okay,
so
we
may
circle
back
around
when
he
hops
back
in
before
we
talk
about
119
cumberland
looks
like
alicia.
Wilson
is
here.
F
M
C
B
B
Okay,
so
right
there
is
all
right,
so
I
will
I'm
going
to
read
the
then.
I
will
call
each
of
you
that
are
here
by
name
and
understand
that
we'll
circle
back
and
pick
up
the
rest
of
the
folks
if
they
join
later
in
the
meeting,
do
you
solemnly
swear
or
affirm
that
the
information
you
present
during
the
hearing
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
or
preliminary
subdivision
approval
before
the
historic
resources
commission
shall
be
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing,
but
the
truth
mark
cliff
jennifer
clay?
B
Ray
I'm
sorry
rains
robin
rain
you're
right,
suzanne,
garcia.
I
do
kevin
kerr.
J
B
Thank
you.
We
will
move
to
our
first
public
hearing
item,
which
is
240
pearson
drive
in
montford.
This
is
old
business
on
the
agenda,
the
first
item
and
I
will
turn
it
over
to
alex.
L
Thank
you
turkite.
Let
me
pull
up
my
presentation
screen,
so
I'm
gonna
give
a
a
pretty
detailed
recap,
since
we've
got
a
couple
of
new
folks
with
us
who
weren't
here
when
the
slide,
when
this
item
was
last
on
the
agenda,
so
some
of
you
will
recall
this
application
has
a
couple
of
different
pieces.
L
There
is
a
little
accessory
structure
on
the
site
that
they
were
proposing
to
make
some
modifications
to.
They
have
since
submitted
some
revised
plans
for
that.
So
that's
the
first
piece
I'll
go
over
and
then
there
is
sorry
if
it's
loud
behind
me.
My
office
is
near
the
copier
on
our
floor,
so
there
is
also
a
section
of
fencing
and
some
gates
that
we
spent
some
time
talking
about
last
last
time
around,
so
we'll
need
to
delve
back
into
that
a
little
bit.
L
So
as
far
as
the
accessory
structure
changes
go,
I've
put
together
the
slides
in
a
way
that,
hopefully
it's
helpful
for
everyone
in
terms
of
looking
at,
what's
being
proposed
now
versus
back
in
2018,
they
were
given
an
approval
for
for
a
similar
scope
of
work.
It
was
a
little
bit
different.
There.
Weren't,
quite
as
many
modifications
proposed
to
the
accessory
structure
at
that
time,
but
just
thought
it
would
be
helpful
to
bring
that
up
since
we
did
talk
about
it
at
the
last
meeting.
L
So
this
is
the
south
elevation
of
the
structure.
It's
a
it's
a
just
north
of
the
primary
structure
and
it's
a
little
bit
angled
on
the
lot
but
face
this
is
the
side
of
the
building
that
faces
the
primary
structure.
L
So
the
image
here
is
what
it
currently
looks
like.
I
think
probably
some
of
you
will
recall
that
there
was
a
shed
roof
here,
which
you
can
see
and
then
drawing
below
it
was
during
what
the
previous
review.
It
was
somehow
determined
that
that
had
not.
There
was
sorry
gotta
met,
someone
into
the
meeting
and
my
cursor
is
moving
around.
L
L
L
Since
the
last
hearing
the
applicant
has
elected
to,
we
can't
require
that
they
rebuild
it,
since
they
were
given
permission
to
remove
it
before,
but
they
are
proposing
to
rebuild
it.
So
my
first
concern
I've
noted
on
my
staff
report
is
that
I
think
in
my
opinion,
if
they're
going
to
rebuild
this
shad
roof,
it
should
be
in
the
same
configuration
as
the
as
it
was.
Historically,
since
we
know
we
can,
you
can
see
where
it
was
located.
I
think
this
you
know
they're.
L
What
they're
trying
to
accomplish
obviously
is
to
cover
the
pedestrian
door,
but
we
do
have
photographs
of
what
it
looked
like
before,
and
I
think
it
would
be
more
appropriate
for
it
to
match
the
original
appearance
if
they're
going
to
to
rebuild
it.
Another
thing
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
for
this
particular
elevation
were
the
garage
doors
on
this
side.
They
are
proposing
to
widen
them.
To.
Let's
see,
sorry.
L
I
think
it
was
12
feet
is
where
they
landed.
That
was
based
on
the
discussion
from
the
last
meeting.
Was
they
were
a
little
bit
wide?
The
opening
was
wider
than
that.
Based
on
the
discussion
from
the
meetings
several
years
ago.
The
commission
at
that
point
in
time,
said
they
were
not
comfortable
with
with
widening
the
opening
more
than
a
couple
of
feet
to
two
to
ten
inches
max.
So
that
was
something
that
we
talked
through.
L
I
still
think
this
is
a
character
defining
elevation
in
my
mind,
even
though
it
doesn't
face
the
street,
I
don't
think
that's
necessarily
what
always
makes
something
a
character
defining
elevation,
although
that
is
important
in
terms
of
what
people
see
from
the
street,
but
I
do
think
this
is.
It
clearly
reads
as
the
primary
elevation,
with
the
main
doors
being
on
this
side,
with
the
shed
roof
covering
so
so
those
are
the
concerns.
I've
noted
here.
L
And
then
so,
this
is
the
east
elevation.
This
is
the
elevation
that
faces
the
street
no
changes
here
from
the
previous
submittal.
They
did
get
approval
back
in
2018
to
replace
that
barn
door
with
with
a
window
so
that
that's
being
that's
proposed
as
being
the
same
in
this
in
the
recent
middle.
L
They
are
proposing
a
dormer
on
this
side
to
match
the
opposite
side.
I
think
in
the
meeting
last
time
I
didn't
hear
any
commissioners
really
take
an
issue
from
a
general
standpoint
of
the
dormer
just
to
go
back
to
this
slide,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
little
a
little
casement
window
being
proposed
on
the
side
of
it,
which,
in
my
opinion,
looks
pretty
unusual.
L
I
don't
think
I've
ever
seen
a
casement
window
on
the
side
of
a
dormer
like
that,
and-
and
I
would
suggest
that
that
just
be
revised
to
not
have
the
window
on
that
side,
because
it
will
have
two
new
windows
within
the
dormer,
and
so
there
also,
as
you
can
see
from
this
elevation
and
the
south
elevation
proposing
skylights
on
both
of
those
those
portions
of
roof.
L
I
do
have
some
concerns
about
the
ones
that
are
going
to
be.
You
can
kind
of
see
it
they're
hard
to
see,
but
the
black
lines
here
is
what
you'll
see
the
design
standards
require,
that
the
skylights
be.
L
Located
on
sections
of
roof
that
did
not
face
the
primary
right-of-way,
which
I
guess
one
could
argue
that
those
don't
face
the
primary
right-of-way
so
I'll,
let
I'll
let
you
all
discuss
that
and
share
your
opinions
on
whether
or
not
you
think
that's
an
issue:
the
rear
elevation.
The
last
iteration
showed
a
juliet
balcony
on
the
second
story,
where
the
little
barn
door
is,
and
conversion
of
that
into
a
door
with
side
side
lights
to
it.
L
They
revised
it
to
now
show
just
the
the
center
the
barn
door
being
replaced
with
a
single
light
window
with
with
windows
on
either
side.
So
that
is
a
change
from
the
last
iteration
as
well.
As
far
as
the
site
goes,
there
haven't
been
any
changes
to
the
proposed
fencing,
so
the
green
for
those
of
you
who
haven't
been
with
us
for
very
long,
the
green
along
the
the
front
south
and
west
boundaries,
the
fencing
along
there
was
previously
approved.
L
It's
a
four
foot
tall
metal
fence
in
this
proposal,
they're
asking
to
where
the
red,
where
the
red
x's
are
they
well
they're,
requesting
to
construct
two
stone,
pillows
pillows
pillars,
which
were
also
approved
back
in
2018,
but
that
they
just
haven't
were
never
constructed.
So
they
want
to
construct
those,
and
this
is
the
cross
section
of
of
the
pillar.
L
It
will
be
stoned
to
match
the
foundation
material
on
the
house
and
then
they
want
to
install
metal
gates
within
the
pillars
and
and
then
take
carry
the
fence
all
the
way
around
around
the
north
east
and
west
property
boundaries.
There
was
a
lot
of
discussion,
as
you
probably
some
of
you
remember
in
the
last
meeting
about
whether
or
not
gates
across
driveways
of
the
entrance
to
a
property
is
appropriate
to
the
district.
L
I
heard
in
that
meeting
a
lot
of
opinions
that,
perhaps
not
so
the
applicant
did
go
to
the
trouble
of
sourcing
congressional
examples
to
share
with
you
all.
If
you
want
to
look
at
them
a
little
bit
more
up
close
there.
Obviously,
in
your
packet,
the
image
on
the
top
left
is,
is
a
bed
and
breakfast
on
montford
avenue
below
is
this
is
the
riverside
cemetery?
This
is
an
apartment.
L
The
bottom
right
is
an
apartment
building
on
cumberland
avenue,
and
then
this
is
the
house
in
the
very
sharp
bend
at
the
very
beginning
of
pearson
drive.
I
don't
think
that
gate
is
there
anymore,
but
there
is
still
a
metal
fence
there.
So
I
I
still
have
some
concerns
about
the
fencing
idea.
I
I
don't
I,
although
the
precedent
photos,
I
think
help
support
this.
L
I
do
think
that,
if
it
you
know,
certainly
maybe
it
would
be
more
appropriate
for
a
more
prominent
historic
property
like
this
one
to
perhaps
have
gates,
but
it's
still
a
little
bit
of
a
gray
area.
In
my
opinion,
just
because
gates
are
fencing.
Generally
speaking
is
discouraged
in
the
district,
and
this
to
me
goes
like
kind
of
one
step
beyond,
I
think
just
a
typical
fence
application.
L
So
I
think
you
all
would
need
to
find
a
very
specific
reason
why
it
was
appropriate
to
this
type
of
property
and
perhaps
not
in
others,.
L
E
What
what
the
proposed
elevat
east
elevation
is
the
bottom
right
or
the
top
right.
These.
L
Are
the
old
ones?
I'm
sorry,
that's
confusing!
I
just
put
them
here
just
so
that
you
all
would
know
what
they
were.
What
was
previously
approved
back
then,
so
they
were
approved
to
have
that
window.
There.
The
only
difference
on
this
elevation,
as
you
would
be,
the
dormers.
You
see
it
from
this
side,
the
skylights
and
well.
There
was
a
skylight
approved
on
the
right
hand,
side
back
then,
and
then
the
dormer
and
then
the
little
with
the
little
casement
window
and
then
reconstructing
the
the
shed
roof.
B
Mark
or
jennifer
is
there
anything
else
you'd
like
to
add
before
we
follow
up
with
more
questions
and
discussions.
O
Yeah,
I
have
a
few
comments.
I
think
alex
did
a
good
job,
but
for
the
new
members
I
want
to
say
thanks
for
meeting
with
us
again
today.
I'm
hoping
this
meeting
is
a
lot
shorter
than
the
last
time.
On
this
topic,
I
want
to
say
again
that
you
know
we
respect
and
appreciate
the
efforts
of
historic
preservation.
O
We
have
a
history
and
a
track
record
with
the
hrc,
with
our
last
renovation,
we're
very
proud
of
the
griffin
award.
We
won
this
year
for
our
current
house
and
you
know
we
intend
to
use
that
same
attitude
and
diligence
going
forward
on
this
carriage
house
project.
O
F
B
I
think
that
would
be
appropriate
for
the
commission
and
you
know
any
other
reference
to
the
standards
that
you'd
like
us
to
consider
as
well,
and
then
we
can
follow
up
with
questions
that
we
might
have
cool.
O
So
if
we
start
with
the
front
elevation
of
the
carriage
house,
which
is
the
east
elevation,
I
know
there
was
some
discussion
last
time
about
that.
We
consider
this
is
the
front
elevation.
This
is
the
only
elevation
that
is
visible
from
the
street
and
it's
not
even
that
visible
in
this
summertime
with
the
leaves
barely
visible
in
the
winter
time.
I
believe
alex.
O
I
sent
some
pictures
of
the
view
from
the
street,
so
you
can
see
you
can
see
how
back
it
is
for
the
property
from
the
last
proposal.
Yes,
we
we
reduced
the
size
of
the
windows
on
the
the
dormer.
You
can't
see
my
fingers.
O
O
We
want
to
save
that
door,
mount
it
on
some
barn
type
hardware,
and
so,
when
it's
closed,
it
can
have
the
same
visual,
look
to
it
and
be
saved
for
future
use.
If
anybody
desires
that
in
a
long
time
when
we
ever
move
from
here,
if
we
go
to
the
south
elevation,
the
garage
door,
one.
O
We
have
taken
the
after
the
last
discussions.
We
have
taken
the
our
proposed
forefoot
door,
reduced
that
down
and
adjusted
the
panels
to
look
very
similar
to
the
way
it
looks
now
we
added
the
shed
room
back
over
the
doors,
because
I
don't
know
where
this
miscommunication
comes
came
from.
You
know
we're
allowed
to
remove
it
now.
There
seems
to
be
some
regret
over
that,
and
I
can
appreciate
that
we're
happy
to
put
it
back.
O
O
You
have
to
put
it
back
the
way
it
was.
I
I
think
it
would
look.
O
Yeah
we
talked
about
the
skylights,
we
added
those,
because
we
were
losing
some
light
around
the
new
gear,
we're
asking
for
on
the
north
elevation.
O
Yeah
we
are,
we
are
proposing
the
new
vienna,
which
is
not
any
different
from
from
our
may
proposal.
We
have
changed
with
the
inputs
from
the
commission's
last
meeting,
made
those
windows
smaller
and
that
window
matches
the
drama
on
the
front
side.
O
O
We've
also
reduced
the
size
of
the
windows
that
are
below
those
grates
that
seem
to
be
historic
and
we
would
like
to
keep
them
regarding
the
fence
and
the
gate.
We
understand
that
there's
been
much
discussion
about
gates
in
the
past
with
the
hrc,
when
we
bought
the
house
in
2018,
it
was
surrounded
by
a
fence
and
had
a
had
a
gate
to
it.
We've
done
a
lot
of
research.
O
We
went
to
the
pack
memorial
library
and
found
a
book
by
the
asphalt
preservation
society
that
shows
a
house
at
pearson
drive
with
old
iron
gates.
We
submitted
other
pictures
of
gates
that
I'm
sure
in
your
package.
Additionally,
there
are
two
other
structures
to
churches
in
montford
that
have
fences
and
gates.
I
sent
those
pictures
to
you
today,
alex
I'm
sorry
for
those
being
late.
O
Well,
well,
those
two
those
two:
I
know
these
buildings
are
non-contributing
to
the
to
the
district,
but
previously
the
hrc
decided
that
the
fence
and
gates
were
not
detrimental
to
the
community
and
they
approved
them.
So,
to
summarize,
my
points
on
this
gates,
both
historic
and
non-historic.
Our
previous
gate
was
a
rusty.
Channeling
fence
exist
in
montford,
and
the
hrc
has
approved
gates
in
the
past.
O
So
the
question
I
think
for
you
guys,
is
why
gates
for
our
property,
and
I
think,
though,
our
property
shares
a
lot
of
features
similar
to
other
houses
in
the
neighborhood.
It
has
a
few
that
make
it
uniquely
qualified
one
is
the
mass
of
the
house,
it's
a
big
house,
and
it's
it's
on
a
big,
it's
prominent
from
a
fiscal
perspective.
My
wife's
giving
me
good
notes.
O
A
prominent
historic
structure
in
the
neighborhood
and
it
also
sits
on
a
big
lot.
It's
a
it's
a
one-acre
lot
of
pro
parcel
alex.
You
probably
know
how
many
one-acre
lots
there
exist
in
the
district,
but
I
don't
think
there
are
or
many.
The
third
issue
is
that
it's
on
a
corner
location,
this
on
the
corner,
makes
our
house
more
exposed
and
vulnerable
to
pedestrian
car
traffic.
We
have
three
kids,
a
dog
and
we
have
very
serious
safety
and
security
concerns.
O
O
We
have
received
positive
feedback
from
certain
neighbors
on
the
work
we're
proposing,
and
those
are
my
comments
and
overall.
So
if
you
have
any
questions,
please
let
me
know.
B
Any
questions
for
the
applicant.
B
E
E
I,
the
standards
that
want
to
perform
preserve
the
roof
form
on
page
35
of
the
carriage
house.
I
think
the
added
dormer,
the
north
side,
dormer
doesn't
does
not
follow
the
ordinance
in
the
standards.
E
E
And
there's
a
lot
of
visibility
of
the
back
of
the
house
through
if
you
really
want
to
look,
but
like
staff
was
saying
about
the
the
relationship
of
the
this
side
facing
the
house,
I
I
think
the
skylights
would
is
a
real
question
for
me
as
to
why
to
do
that
and
I'm
more
inclined
to
approve
the
door
size
that
was
originally
approved
by
the
hrc.
H
H
P
B
I
am,
I
guess
I
might
be
in
the
middle
between
maybe
the
two
comments
that
we've
had
so
far,
I'm
probably
somewhere
in
the
middle
of
those.
I
have
less
concerns
about
the
size
of
the
carriage
doors.
B
I
think
that,
certainly
it's
a
the
change
that's
been
made
from
the
previous
metal
a
few
months
ago,
where
we're
back
to
sort
of
the
four
panels
that
are
shown
in
the
original
door,
and
the
width
is,
I
think,
far
more
in
better
proportion
to
the
overall
structure
than
the
previous
door,
which
was
about
four
feet.
I
guess
wider
than
this
one.
So
I
think
that
is
certainly
nice.
I
don't
have
real
concerns
about
the
shed
roof.
B
I
think
it
is
nice
to
add
it
back,
and
it
certainly
brings
back
in
my
mind
some
integrity
to
the
roof
form
that
was
originally
in
in
the
house.
I
think
it's
a
really.
I
guess
it's.
The
east
elevation,
I
think,
has
a
real,
strong
sort
of
elegance
to
it
with
just
a
dormer
on
one
side,
that's
probably
the
place
where
I
have
the
most
concerns
in
terms
of
the
addition,
I
can
completely
appreciate
what
it
does
for
the
inside
of
the
carriage
house,
and
I
think
it
does
maybe
the
opposite.
F
B
It
really
improves
and
enhances
what
is
happening
on
the
inside
of
the
carriage
house.
I
can
also
appreciate
that
for
me
it
it
there's
an
elegance
to
the
sort
of
one-sided
dormer
and
the
shed
extension
of
the
original
roof
form.
That's
really
quite
nice,
and
I
think
we
lose
a
little
bit
of
that
by
adding
that
second
dormer.
B
I
love
the
idea
of
using
that
sort
of
existing
sort
of
hay
loft
winging
door
as
kind
of
a
shutter
on
the
inside
of
the
housing.
That's
really
kind
of
a
neat
way
to
to
give
back
some
integrity
to
that
kind
of
uniqueness.
F
B
The
carriage
house,
I
think,
that's
great,
and
I
am
also
sensitive-
I
think,
as
a
commissioner-
and
I
certainly
was
on
the
commission
in
2018,
when
we,
when
we
looked
at
this
property,
initially
that
having
some
continuity,
certainly
for
all
applicants
and
what
was
previously
considered
and
approved
to
what,
in
terms
of
how
we
look
at
projects
that
submit
for
sort
of
a
reapplication
process.
I
think
that
it
feels
important
for
applicants
for
there
to
be
some
continuity
there
and
so
alex.
B
I
appreciate
you
pointing
out
those
things
that
are
consistent
with
or
things
that
were
proposed
back
in
2018,
for
us
to
consider.
B
I
sort
of
wish
that
was
staying
the
same
size
and
proportion
on
the
west
elevation
as
well,
so
I
think
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
landing.
I'm
not.
I
don't
really
have
a
strong
concern
about
the
skylights
necessarily
for
me.
That's
one
of
those
places
where
I
think
that
there's
minimal
impact
on
the
exterior
for
what
we
can
certainly
help
the
applicant
gain
on
the
interior
of
the
property
as
well.
I
I'm
on
the
fence
about
the
the
added
dormer,
but
I
I
agree
with
chair
kite
on
the
proportion
of
that
window.
I
And
to
add
to
other
folks,
I
don't
have
any
issue
with
or
any
concerns
with,
the
addition
of
the
shed
roof
or
the
size
of
the
those
garage
doors.
G
H
As
a
point
of
clarification,
since
I'm
still
fairly
new,
what
are
we
preserving
the
idea
that
it
is
and
would
be
used
as
a
a
feed
loft
or
the
idea
that
we
are
preserving
the
overall
integrity
of
the
building?
Again,
as
I
use
the
term
adaptive
reuse,
if
we're
keeping
no
windows
and
all
this
stuff,
obviously
it
keeps
it
more
in
line
with
the
intent
of
using
it
as
a
hay
loft,
which
is
obviously
not
going
to
be
used.
L
I
think
just
to
interject
here
what
we're
referencing
as
far
as
concerns
go
are
the
standards
that
say,
retain
and
preserve
all
architectural
features
that
are
character,
defining
elements
of
character,
houses,
garages
and
other
accessory
structures,
including
foundation,
steps,
roof
form,
windows,
doors,
architectural
trim
and
lattices,
original
style
and
character
of
carriage
houses
and
other
accessory
structures,
doors,
windows
and
openings
shall
be
maintained.
So
it's
not
just
the
the
barn
door,
it's
the
opening
itself
right.
So
it's
the
you
know
the
opening
of
the
garage
doors.
That's
that's
part
of
what
is
character.
L
Which
is
why
back
in
2018,
the
commission
said
you
know
the
max
they
were
comfortable
with
was
10
feet,
which
I
think
was
gosh
to
go
back
to
that
elevation.
The
previous
iteration
it
is.
It
is
a
fair
amount
wider
than
what
it
was.
I
think
they
also,
I
think
in
this
drawing
it
doesn't
look
like
it's
accurate
because
they
didn't.
L
I
don't
think
they
intended
to
move
it
all
the
way
over
to
to
the
side,
but
so
I'd
have
to
I'd
have
to
measure
it,
but
I
think
it
was
only
like
two
feet
wider.
Maybe
it
wasn't
very
much
wider
than
what,
as
far
as
what
they
approved
them
than
the
original
opening.
L
It
was
a
little
surprised
too
that
they
actually
approved
it
back
then
to
be
to
be
widened,
but
I
think
we're
obviously
in
a
you
know,
since
it
was
jennifer
and
mark,
it
was,
and
probably
anyone
else
who
had
the
same
request
for
the
same
reasons
to
use
it
for
contemporary
use
for
a
car,
but
I
think
a
standard
parking
space
is
in
chair
kite.
You
can
say
this
is:
it:
is
the
standard
width
for
a
parking
space
nine
feet
like
what
would
be
standard.
F
B
Tightly
in
a
garage
situation,
the
standard
parking
spots
nine
feet
wide
in
any
you
know
most
parking
parking
lots,
but.
P
B
B
But
not
but
you're,
not
what
you're
not
center
you're,
not
widening
the
opening
from
the
center
you're
holding
one
in
the
left
side
sort
of
fixed
in
its
position.
That's
the
way
it
looks
like
when
it's
drawn.
If
you
look
at
the
amount
of
space,
yes
on
the
right
side
of
the
garage
door
to
the
corner,.
P
I
think
yeah
I
yes,
it
does
appear
that
it
is.
It
does
appear
that
it's
it's
stretched
on
the
right.
But
honestly
I
I
don't
think
that
we,
I
think,
we're
just
trying
to
center
it
on
the
driveway,
because
the
driveway
is
already
there
now
and
then
make
it
symmetrical
with
the
left
side
and
then
symmetrical
with
the
roof,
because
it
does
seem
from
from
the
past.
The
the
roof
was
centered
on
the
carriage
house
right,
but
it
just
the
drive.
The
carriage
door
was
smaller,
so
roof.
B
You
know
the
standards
are
that
alex
read,
I
think,
feel
pretty
without
wiggle
room
in
a
lot
of
areas
that
we're
talking
about
reform
being
a
strong
one.
For
me,
openings
being
a
strong
one-
and
I
think
maybe
that's
where
the
addition
of
the
skylights
doesn't
feel
like
a
huge
concern.
P
B
P
Elevation
is
we
had
proposed
with
our
architect
to
try
and
make
that
a
much
larger
space,
because
you
cannot
see
it
from
either
front.
You
cannot
see
it
anywhere.
We
were
trying
to
maximize
the
light
and
then
that
seemed
to
not
go
well.
So
we
took
your
input
into
consideration
and
we
I'm
looking
right
now
at
our
kitchen
window.
That
was
is
a
new
window
on
the
same
elevation
in
the
back
of
our
house.
That
was
approved.
B
P
P
E
Yeah,
I
understand
that
as
well
and
but
we're
tasked
with
just
following
the
standards
of
the
that
are
set
by
the
by
the
neighborhood
and
the
in
the
city
in
the
county,
and
it's
pretty
specific
about
about
the
openings,
changing
them
too
much
and
to
be
as
flexible
as
we
can
to
get.
You
know
some.
E
E
E
Okay,
but
but
changing
the
roof
form
is
a
big
leap
and
I'm
a
little
stuck
on
the
the
skylights
on
this
elevation.
Okay,
where
I
could,
where
it's
not
directly
relating
to
the
main
house
and
on
the
back
side,
would
be
where.
F
K
E
P
Of
course,
and-
and
we
we
knew
the
impression
after
the
last
meeting
that
dormer
seemed
to
not
be
an
issue
because
it
was
going
to
match
the
front
dormer
and
many
people
were
positive
about
that.
So
we
kept
that
the
same
and
tried
to
change
just
so
we
could
still
get
light
over
there
and
have
a
staircase
that
makes
the
property
much
more
functional
in
the
back
and
light
so
that
that's
where
we're
coming
from
with
that
dormer.
H
Well,
before
we
move
on,
do
we
have
some
guidance
we
can
give
them
about
where
we
would
allow
opportunities
for
them
to
bring
in
light
up
upstairs.
That
would
meet
the
guidelines
rather
than
have
them
proposing
something
where,
like
they
did,
was
saying
the
dormer
which
they
seem
to
get
the
impression
we
were
okay
with
and
now
we're
saying
not.
Is
there
some
more
concrete
guidance
we
can
give
them
that
where
we
would
accept
opportunities
for
them
to
bring
in
more
light.
E
I
don't
think
we
have
to
find
a
solution
for
everything
here.
I
think
it's,
I
think
what
we're
saying
is
that
it's
tricky
but
having
a
carriage
house
isn't
a
burden.
I
think
there's
there's
plenty
of
ways
to
make
this
work,
whether
it's
interior
light.
It
may
not
be
natural
light.
It's
pretty
there's
it's
a
very
treat
lot.
You
know
as
well,
and
so
I
think
alex
has
maybe
pointed
them
as
well
to
some
things
that
are
gonna
be
problematic,
and
I
think
we
can
that's.
B
I
mean,
I
think
that
certainly
I
want
the
applicant
to
leave
the
meeting
with
a
sense
of
where
accommodations
can
be
made.
That
makes
the
commission
you
know
more
supportive
of
what
they're
of
the
proposed
solutions.
I
think
that.
B
You
know
hearing
from
commissioners
regarding
the
dormer
is
important
for
them
to
gauge
where
things
may
fall
in
a
in
a
vote
type
situation.
For
me,
I
think
I'm
changing
my
mind
on
the
west
elevation
windows.
I
think
that
there's
a
strong
there's,
a
strong
consistency
with
other
things
that
this
commission
has
done
and
considered
on
rear
elevations
of
properties
that
are
in
terms
of
more
flexibility,
to
make
more
drastic
modifications.
B
For
me,
that's
shifting
my
mindset
there,
the
dormer
is
a
struggle
for
me.
I
think
in
2018
that
elevation
there
was
proposed
just
more
skylights
on
that
side.
That
would
maybe
help
with
the
light
situation.
Do
you
have
a
a
clearance
problem
with
your
stair
in
that
location
without
the
dormer
there?
Yes,
yes,.
B
P
P
So,
by
moving
stairs
to
the
back
of
the
carriage
house,
we
really
gained
maximum
use
of
left
side
and
the
right
side
and
then
in
the.
B
You
want
to
talk
about
fences
and
come
back
to
this.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
that
you're,
giving
that
we've
got
enough
feedback,
certainly
mark
and
jennifer.
If
there's
questions
that
you
need
to
ask
of
us
as
well
so
that
there's,
I
know
this
you've
been
in
front
of
the
commission
more
than
once
and.
E
With
the
fence
only
because
it
was
already
approved-
and
I
don't
want
to
it's
already
going
around-
I
would
hesitate
to
approve
a
new
fence
like
this.
I
think
the
original
fence
was
because
it
was
a
girl's
home
and
it
was
also
outside
the
district.
I
think
that's
true,
isn't
it
alex?
This
was
brought
into
the
district
after
its
inception.
E
Yeah,
so
I'm
fine
with
the
letting
them
complete
their
fence
around,
but
it's
the
overall
in
the
guidelines
are
the
standards
sector.
K
E
That
the
overall
fences
were
not
intrinsic
elements
to
montford.
As
with
this
property,
it
didn't
come
in
to
montford
with
offense
and
it
does
have
one
now,
so
I'm
fine
with
them
completing
it.
I
don't
want.
I
it's
not
specific
in
the
guidelines
anywhere.
I
could
find
about
gates
and
a
lot
of
the
commercial
properties
you
were
showing
with
gates.
E
Some
of
them
are
cast
iron
and
old
and
original
and-
and
there
are
some
commercial
ones
with
gates,
but
I'm
leaning
to
I'm
saying
I'm
not
feeling
that
that
having
a
fenced
and
gated
houses
in
montford
is
something
that
I'd
like
to.
I.
E
The
the
standards
say
encourage
that,
and
so
I'm
willing
to
allow
the
fence
to
contribute
around
a
finish
around
and
go.
L
I
just
want
to
clarify
and
remind
those
that
the
two
examples
that
you
submitted
today
mark
those
were
examples
that
I
mentioned,
I
believe
during
the
last
meeting.
If
not
I
emailed
you
about
them.
Those
are
so
like
the
greek
orthodox
church
event
in
the
minutes
in
the
file
was
very
specific
that
the
commission
like
had
a
whole
lot
of
hesitancy
about
approving,
approving
that,
but
the
only
reason
they
really
eventually
allowed.
L
It
was
because
it's
because
it's
not
a
contributing
structure,
it
is
on
the
edge
of
the
district
and
they
felt
like
the
fence
actually
further
delineated
between
what
was
the
historic
character
of
the
district
and
what
was
clearly
with
outside
of
it
and
then
the
one
that's
at
the
the
church
that
has
the
entrance
on
off
of
courtland.
There
was
a
huge
stack
of
letters
in
there
about
you
know.
I
don't
know
like
I
remember
montford
from
the
90s.
L
There
was
a
lot
of
safety
issues
in
many
of
our
neighborhoods
in
nashville
back
then
it
was
not
the
same
as
it
is
now.
There's
a
fair
amount
of
crime
and
other
safety
issues,
and
that
was
like
that
was
part
of
the
reason
why
that
one
was
approved.
My
other
thought
on
that
one
is
that
it
is
kind
of
more
interior
to
that
site.
You
know
it's
not
right
out
on
the
street,
but
on
the
flip
side
of
that
I
have,
I
think
like.
Where
will
is
it's
like?
L
We,
the
commissioner,
approved
the
fencing
around
the
whole
rest
of
the
perimeter
of
the
property,
so
is
the
gate
or
the
gate?
It's
really
going
to
be
that
you
know
that
noticeable,
but
I
do
agree
that
this
situation
should
kind
of
be
determined
as
to
be
unique.
It
was
back,
then
you
know,
there's
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
around
the
fence.
Generally
speaking,
so
this
is
where
we
are
now
and
I
don't
necessarily
have
a
concern
about
continuing
it
around.
B
I
also
don't
have
a
real
concern,
obviously
about
continuing
the
fence
around
the
property
and
it's
for
the
gate.
I
am,
I
think,
there's
and
there's.
Obviously
it's
not
clear,
which
is
why
we
have
to
spend
so
much
time
talking.
B
It
feels
like
that's
part
of
why
you
know
you
can
always
tell
the
things
that
they're
going
to
take
a
long
time
to
talk
about,
but
for
me
it
doesn't
feel
sort
of
out
of
character
or
incongruous,
with
the
presence
of
the
house
on
that
particular
piece
of
property.
B
F
B
That
there's
certainly
plenty
of
strength
in
the
house
that
that
sort
of
makes
the
gate
for
me
feel
like
it's.
Not
it's
not
a
like
a
distraction
from
the
integrity
of
the
house
or
the
site.
B
It
feels
to
me
to
sort
of
fit
a
little
bit
with
that
house
in
that
spot
in
ways
that
plenty
of
examples
of
in
montfort,
of
more
modest
sizes
of
houses
or
more
modest
lot
sizes
would
feel
really
out
of
character
and
incongruous,
with
the
you
know,
entire
sort
of
street
frontage
of
an
area
of
the
of
the
district.
B
B
Certainly,
has
that
same
sort
of
presence
in
the
neighborhood
honest,
you
know
the
same
kind
of
prominence
and
presence
within
the
context
of
the
neighborhood,
and
it
doesn't
feel
to
me,
particularly
in
congruous
or
out
of
place
in
that
location,
either
it's
hard
for
me
to
draw
a
connection
with
some
of
the
more
commercial
properties
or
the
churches
or
things
to
other
houses.
But
you
know
the
black
walnut
certainly
hasn't
always
been
a
bed
and
breakfast
and
carry
the
same
sort
of
weight
in
the
district.
As
a
house
like
this
one
does.
E
B
P
I
mean
we,
we
can
figure
out
the
best
gate
that
it
that
matches
the
house
that
works
with
the
property
I
think
originally
alex
had
approved
it
and
that
it
was
just
you
know
it's.
It's
helped
me
here.
O
O
P
And
when
we
went
through
this
in
2018,
as
you
guys
know
that
we
have
a
pool
and
there
was
no
precedence
for
president
and
for
pool
and
then
there
was
no
precedent,
I
think
now
there
is,
you
know
it
has
to
be
only
in
the
backyard
not
visible
from
the
street.
So
there
we
have
a
pool.
Now
there
I
assume
now
they're
part
of
you
know
it
has
to
meet
certain
criteria
and
we
feel
like
with
this
house,
being
you
know
a
large
as
large
of
a
house.
P
P
L
I
did
mean
to
mention
that
when
I
was
giving
my
staff
report,
I
did
hear
from
from
a
neighbor
and
supporting
the
project,
and
I
I
heard
from
rob
mooney
too,
but
he
doesn't
live
near
you
guys.
Does
he
he's.
L
Two
people
emailed
to
voice
support
and
then
the
neighbor
immediately
to
the
north,
emailed
to
voice
concerns
about
the
changes
in
particular
to
the
accessory
structure
and
then
some
concerns
about
impacts
to
trees
along
the
north
property.
Boundary
related
to
the
fence.
But
I
talked
to
jennifer
and
mark
before
the
meeting
and
they
are
planning
to
have
an
arborist
out
to
help
them.
Try
to
figure
out
exactly
how
to
best
care
for
the
trees
on
that
side,
so
that
there's
no
impact
to
trees.
E
Just
to
kind
of
clarify
something:
there's
a
planting
schedule
in
front
of
the
current
fence.
That's
to
be
done
right
to
minimize
its
view
of
it.
E
So
when
that
gets
done,
it's
you're
not
gonna,
see
it's
gonna,
minimize,
the
existing
fence
and-
and
that's
where
I
feel
a
straight
aluminum
gate
is
going
to
stand
out
because
that's
not
going
to
be
covered.
It's
not
an
ornate
gate.
Like
these
four
of
these
five
examples
shown
it's
gonna
stand
out
as
a
as
an
anomaly
and
as
as
I
feel
like.
E
If
we
allow
the
planting
to
hide
the
reason,
a
fence
was
allowed
in
2018
that
a
gate
adds
a
little
bit
more
of
a
it's,
not
a
unique
architectural
element
that
matches
the
tone
of
the
house.
E
Where
it
kind
of
really
stands
out
a
lot,
the
plantings
haven't
really
hidden.
That
is
that
making
so
the
I
feel
that
the
plantings
are
in
your
benefit
for
the
fencing,
the
yeah,
the
fencing,
but
it
kind
of
works
against
my
five-year
from
now
view
of
the
house,
when
you
have
a
gate.
That
looks
like
one
of
the
previous
examples
you
said
today
in.
K
E
Of
your
entrance,
the
automatic
armature
pulling
it
open
versus
what
you
see
here
at
the.
O
O
F
B
Also
think
there's
an
expected
will
to
kind
of
pick
up
on
what
you're
talking
about,
but
maybe
looking
at
it
from
a
different
perspective,
there's
a
natural
rhythm
that
we
expect
at
a
driveway
where
there's
this
sort
of
void
right.
If
there
was
no
fence
and
there
was
planting
along
or
a
low
stone
wall
like
we
can
see
throughout
montford,
there's
a
cadence
to
that.
That
includes
the
sort
of
void
and
this
sort
of
stop
and
start
at
people's
driveways.
B
So
for
me
the
fence
feels
when
you
think
about
it.
Five
years
from
now
when
the
plantings
are
all
in
place
and
we've
got
this
sort
of
screen,
there's
still
this
sort
of
sort
of
missing
tooth
at
the
driveway,
where
you
would
naturally
see
it
anyways,
and
I
think
especially
the
the
sense
it's
already
in.
B
Is
that
sort
of
dark
the
you
know
the
dark
kind
of
wrought
iron,
looking
fences
always
kind
of
almost
a
little
bit
disappear
visually
for
me,
as
opposed
to
you,
know,
bright,
shiny
aluminum
fence
or
chain
link
fence,
or
something
like
that,
and
so
for
me.
I
guess
I
don't.
I
think
you
still
get
that
rhythm,
because
the
plantings
are
missing.
B
I
especially
like
it
being
a
sliding
gate
versus
sort
of
a
swinging
gate,
and-
and
you
know,
I
think
we
there's
certainly
precedent
to
that
rhythm
all
over
montford,
where
planting
stopped
and
started
driveways
and
and
the
low
walls
that
we
see
on
some
of
the
streets
at
the
front
sort
of
stop
and
start
at
driveways
or
at
the
steps
that
come
off
the
sidewalk
up
to
the
front
door.
B
You
know
that
sort
of
rhythm,
I
think,
is
still
consistent
in
my
mind
as
you
sort
of
walk
down
the
street
or
drive
down
the
street
there,
even
with
a
gate
in
this
case
in
this
lot
in
this
location
that
I
wouldn't
necessarily
put
everywhere
in
montford,
either
the
same
as
the
swimming
pool
conversation
that
we
had
in
2018..
B
Q
I
agree
with
chair
kite.
I
agreed
with
the
gate
from
last
time.
Y'all
were
here,
so
I
think
that
I'm
okay
with
the
gate
for
sure.
I
B
B
This
is
the
stage
I
think
where
we
talk
about
changes
or
modifications
that
you
might
want
to
make
to
your
application
based
on
feedback
or
giving
yourself
an
opportunity
to
think
on
it
and
and
and
follow
up
much
like
you
did
after
the
last
meeting
a
few
months
ago,
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you
have
as
much
clarity
as
the
commission
can
offer
you
with
regards
to
where
we
think
we're
at
with
the
carriage
house.
B
It
sounds
like
the
fence
in
the
gate
is
something
that
could
move
forward
today,
pretty
in
a
pretty
straightforward
way.
We
got
a
lot
of
consensus
from
the
commission.
That
was
that
that
was
pretty
straightforward.
O
Yeah
I
appreciate
moving
forward.
It's
I'm
sure
you
guys
have
been
us
through
this
in
the
last
year,
it's
very
hard
for
us
to
get
a
feeling
for
how
the
whole
commission
feels
you
know
there's
two
or
three
or
four
people
who
who
voice
large
opinions,
and
I
don't
you
know,
I
can't
see
all
of
you
and
I
don't
have
that
feeling.
As
do
is
this,
how
everybody
feels
yeah,
I
do
much
better
in
person
than
I'm
sure
all
you
do
as
well,
but
it's
it's
really
hard
to
get
a
feeling.
O
B
I
can
appreciate
the
questions
and
you
know
I
think,
that's
where
other
folks,
having
some
you
know
contributing
to
the
conversation
would
help
you
better
make
some
decision.
There's
a
couple
of
us
that
have
expressed
how
we
think
what
we
think
is
successful
about
the
carriage
house
and
also
parts
of
it
that
aren't
quite
as
successful
for
some
of
us.
But
we
don't
always
all
vote
the
same
way
so
and
recognizing
that
you
don't.
I
I've
already
sort
of,
I
think,
expressed
some
of
my
feedback
on
the
dormer,
but
sharokina
you
had
mentioned
before
that
without
the
addition
of
the
dormer,
it
just
makes
it
a
challenge
for
the
I
guess,
just
the
clearance
from
those
stairs
is
that,
due
to
the
stairs
being
relocated
or
that
wasn't
quite
clear
to
me,.
B
My
understanding,
I
think
I
can
answer
that
that
the
they're
proposing
to
relocate
the
stair
to
the
back
to
that
back,
elevation
sort
of
underneath
where
the
new
dormer
would
be
and
that
in
that
spot
folks
are
going
to
bump
their
head
on
the
way
up
on
the
existing
roof
framing
without
the
dormer
there
and
the
goal
for
moving
the
stair
is
to
make
the
ins
the
it
take
up
space
in
the
right
place
to
get
the
inside
spaces
to
work.
B
Out
correctly,
I
think
I
maybe
am
interpreting
what
you're
trying
to
do
there,
that
sort
of
in
the
middle
of
the
state
of
the
carriage
house
right
now
kind
of
in
the
way
of
making
them
the
best
use
of
the
upstairs
and
maybe
even
the
downstairs,
but
that
you
bump
your
head
on
the
roof
ramming
without
the
dormer.
There.
F
Q
I
actually
didn't
mine
the
dormer
at
first.
I
definitely
learned
a
lot
listening
to
my
fellow
commissioners
about
the
addition
of
the
dormer.
I
had
kind
of
a
question,
maybe
for
the
rest
of
the
commission,
so
I
recognize
that
it
says
you
know
preserving
and
retaining
structures,
but
does
that
mean
like
not
duplicating
or
are
we
taught
like?
Does
that
more
specifically
mean
like
don't
mess
with
the
first
one.
B
For
me,
it's
it.
I
interpret
it
in
a
way
that
the
sort
of
masking
of
the
overall
roof
form
is
the
integrity
of
that
is
protected.
B
Is
it
certainly
for
me
substantially
changes
the
overall
massing
of
the
roof,
which
is
where
I
think
my
initial
response
to
the
dormer
is,
and
I
think
especially
because
the
prominent
street
elevation
in
those
times
of
year,
where
it's
visible
or
as
you're
driving
down
the
driveway
and
approaching
the
property?
Is
you
see
that
side
elevation?
B
So
I
think
that's
the
orientation
of
it
is
kind
of
impacting
my
feelings
around
how
strong
that
elevation
is
without
that
second
dormer
on
it
and
that
elevation
being
what's
you
know,
certainly
highly
visible
or
not
as
you
drive
by
it,
and
because
it's
set
so
far
back
in
the
property
is
still
sort
of
a
main
approach.
B
Facade
of
the
of
the
building
next
to
the
carriage
door
side
that
faces
the
main
house.
B
So
that's
the
part
that
I
I
think
I
struggle
with
a
little
bit.
B
It's
the
and
I
I
certainly
can
appreciate
the
the
value
of
having
it
with
regards
to
how
the
stair
is
going
to
work
and
the
you
know
enhancement
that
it
makes
to
the
inside
and
if
we
could
pick
the
whole
thing
up
and
turn
it
face
on
with
the
stars
facing
the
street
be
perfect,
we
can
solve
all
the
problems,
but
that
is
that
is
not
a
thing
that
I
think
is
going
to
be
able
to
happen
on
this
one.
B
B
That
is
just
really
nice
and
and
pretty
strong
and
clear,
and
then
it
really
just
changes
it
a
lot
for
it
to
be
a
sort
of
symmetrical
dormer
kind
of
a
configuration,
even
though,
when
you
look
at
it
on
the
sort
of
face
on
the
north
elevation,
that's
not
a
highly
visible
side
of
the
of
the
house,
and
if
it
were
just
that
consideration,
my
view
would
probably
be
different.
H
B
E
I
think,
as
much
of
the
guidelines
for
carriage
house
number
two
in
the
standards
about
keeping
the
architectural
elements
that
you
know
are
there,
where.
K
E
Were
speaks
to
that
and
I
know
it
does
create
a
little
jank
there,
but
that's
that's
that's
not
in
our
purview.
So
I
think
that,
if
we're,
if
they're
putting
back
a
form
that
was
originally
there,
it
should
be
where
it
originally
was
to
the
standards
is
what
I
is,
how
I
read
the
standards
if
something
was
completely
missing,
replace
it
either
reconstruction
based
on
accurate
documentation
or
a
new
design
compatible
with
a
sort
of
character,
the
main
building.
O
O
E
Just
don't
put
it
back,
I'm
just
looking
at
what
you're
submitting
and
I'm
I'm
telling
you
that
the
the
standards
are
that
say
to
try
and
put
if
you
know
where
it
was,
is
number
seven.
E
I
know
just
so
that
you
know
and
and
go,
and
it
helps
if
you,
when
you're,
bringing
up
things,
it's
not
about
an
emotion
or
what
I
like
or
don't
like
I'm
just
trying
to
interpret
the
standards
so
that
so
that
it's
fair,
so
that
it's
fair
across
the
board
for
whoever
comes
in.
P
Understood-
and
I
understand
we
just
when
we
talked
about
putting
it
back
on,
you
know,
we
tried
to
make
it
match
with
a
wider
door
which
probably
what
it
would
have
looked
like
back
then
if
it
had
the
wider
door,
but
if
we
have
to
put
it
on
exactly
the
way
it
was,
we
probably
just
won't.
Do
it
because
it'll
look
it'll,
look
strange.
B
In
an
effort
to
help
sort
of
focus
the
conversation,
it
sounds
like
I'm
not
hearing
a
lot
of
additional
comments
about
the
size
of
the
door,
the
carriage
doors
that's
been
part
of
the
conversation,
certainly
the
configuration
of
the
shed
roof
overhang,
the
dormer
and
then
the
windows
on
the
west
elevation
are
really
the
significant
the
substantial
changes
from
the
2018
application
that
have
come
up
in
conversation.
B
You
know
if
there's
folks,
that
can
kind
of
walk
themselves
through
that
list
and
decide
if
there's
any
what
concerns
they
have.
With
regards
to
those
items,
my
personal
check
off
of
those
lists,
the
the
biggest
concern
for
me
is
the
dormer
given
the
placement
of
the
west
cella,
the
orientation
of
the
west
elevation
windows
and
the
sort
of
front
with
the
carriage
door
as
a
garage
door
and
the
shed
overhang,
I
think
the
highest
priority
concern
for
me
is
the
dormer.
E
The
skylights
on
this
elevation
is
there
any
discussion
on
that.
C
I'm
super
new
to
the
committee,
but
I
am
sort
of
in
favor
of
letting
them
have
a
wide
enough
door
so
that
they
can
use
it
as
a
garage,
because
I
don't
think
they're
not
asking
for
like
a
double
garage
door
here
or
anything
that
extreme.
Q
I
also
agree,
I
don't
mind,
opening
the
carriage
door
a
little
bit
more
just
so
that
they
can
use
it
more,
and
I
do
think
that
if
that
is
going
to
be
allowed,
then
as
much
as
I
would
love
to
have
this,
the
overhang
stay
where
it
originally
was.
If
we're
going
to
allow
the
carriage
door
to
open,
I
feel
like
it
should
at
least
follow
that
that
expansion.
B
That
also
feels
like
progress:
how
about
the
west
elevation,
where
we've
taken
the
juliet
balcony
away,
and
there
we
go?
Thank
you
alex.
I
I
would
I
would
prefer
to
to
keep
this
as
a
single
window.
I
was
pretty
adamantly
against
the
juliet
balcony
last
time
and
that
was
sort
of
my
hot
button,
and
so
I'm
I'm
happy
to
see,
see
that
revise
and
appreciate
that
for
sure,
but
I
and
my
preference
would
be
to
leave
it
as
it
is
today
to
be
quite
honest,
but
I
understand
wanting
to
have
additional
light
in
that
space
on
that
side
and
and
also
appreciate
repurposing
that
door
somewhere
else
in
the
the
space.
I
So
I
I
you
know,
I'm
more
inclined
to
to
really
sort
of.
This
is
a
little
bit
of
a
sticking
point
with
me
to
to
keep
this
as
a
single
single
window.
I
I
would
I
mean
I
think,
if
that,
especially
if
that's
garage
space
right,
there
is
my
understanding
is
you
know
if
if
they
were
left
the
way
they
were,
that
would
that
would
be
my
preference,
I'm
trying
to
be
not
too
uptight,
I
guess,
or
just
to
give
I'm
just
trying
to
be
flexible.
I
think
and
not
say
no
to
too
much
stuff,
but
I
would
be
yeah.
I
would
be
okay
with
the
addition
to
those
those
little
windows
beneath
the
vents.
H
Yeah,
I
I
I
did
I
I'm
I'm.
This
is
one
where
I'll
struggle
a
little
bit,
because
I'm
trying
to
find
where
it
makes
sense,
but
you
know
extra
natural
life
or
gardening
space
for
a
bathroom
harder
for
me
to
to
go
with
you
there.
If
I'm
trying
to
find
places
to
accommodate
and
say
yeah,
let's
stick
to
as
much
of
the
you
know,
integrity
of
the
space
as
possible.
So
this
might
be
one
where
we'll
disagree
a
little
bit,
but
I'm
open
to
you
know
some
thoughts
on
that.
P
I'm
sorry,
we
feel
strongly
about
keeping
the
original
grades,
because
I
think
that's
really
neat
to
think
about.
We
just
wanted
to
try
and
it's
it's
really.
In
a
I
mean
the
roof
is
covered
in
moss
is
really
dark
and
moldy,
and
I
just
feel
like
natural
light
anywhere
we
can
find
it
would
be
really
helpful.
P
L
Yeah
I
just
want
to
chime
in
and
say
you
know,
I'm
not
sure
that
the
way
it's
designed
is
entirely
cohesive
with
the
rest
of
the
structure.
But
I
can't
appreciate
that
it's
on
the
back
of
the
building
and
the
commission
has
made-
has
allowed
for
plenty
of
changes
to
be
made
on
rear
elevations.
I
mean
that's
just
that's,
obviously,
where
people
see
see
the
building
released,
and
so
I
think,
in
my
opinion,
if
you're
going
to
allow
changes,
the
rear
elevation
is
the
easiest
place
to
say
yes.
L
But
I
don't
know
that,
like
I
wonder
if
jennifer
and
mark,
if
the
the
way
that
you're
showing
the
the
windows
below
the
it
may
just
be
a
product
of
the
drawing
but
like
if
they
were
a
little
more
like
narrower
and
kind
of
just.
You
know
bumped
up
like
clearly,
because
I
think
it's
just
because
they're
they're
black
boxes
and
it
opens
like
there's
no
bottom
frame,
it
just
kind
of
looks
a
little
bit
funky
and
then.
L
So
I
wondered
if
like
if
the
commission
was
okay
with
leaving
the
opening
as
is
and
adding
just
the
you
know
two
over
one
like
you
did
on
the
other
side.
If
that
is,
would
be.
K
P
B
I
do
think
the
light
the
rhythm
of
the
lights
that
you
ever
won
feels
better
in
that
location.
There's
certainly
plenty
of
language
in
the
standards
about
rear
elevations
and
you
know
and
recommendations
and
the
and
the
standards
about
you
know
that's
where
we
put
additions.
B
We've
there's
lots
and
lots
of
examples
that
this
commission
and
previous
commissions
have
approved
more
significant
changes
on
rare
elevations,
and
I
think
that
there's
also
language
and
certainly
conversations
we've
had
around
the
sort
of
there's
a
hierarchy
on
the
site,
with
the
main
primary
structure
and
an
accessory
structure
that
I
think
warrants
the
conversation
around
the
sort
of
rhythm
of
the
the
lights
and
the
windows
going
from
you
know.
B
E
I
agree
with
you
chair
kite
that
this
is
the
back
facing
to
allow
more
light
in
the
house
if
that
other
more
more
of
what
was
approved
in
2018,
but
now
that
more
attention
is
focused
on
this,
to
allow
more
light
that
the
the
applicant
is
looking
for
and
and
what
might
be
lost
from
that
additional
north
side.
E
And
go
back
to
what
was
more
closely
approved
in
2018,
with
the
bank
of
skylights
on
the
north
side
and
if,
if
the
other
commissioners
all
are
fine
with
the
skylights
on
the
front,
I
think
and
the
east
elevation.
I
was
fine.
It
looks
great
as
shown.
E
So
it's
pretty
much
a
and
I
and
tell
me
if
I'm
off
on
this,
the
the
2018
approved
with
some
if
they
want
to
do
the
shed
roof
a
little
bit
larger
of
a
door
on
the
front,
a
garage
door
and
but
what
I'm
I'm
leaning
to
one
dormer,
because
there's
a
lot
of
visibility
of
that
it
from
the
street
to
see
that
north
side.
O
P
H
I'll
throw
myself
on
that
that
fire.
F
B
Yeah,
so
you
can,
if
you
feel
you
know,
feel
good
about
the
feedback
that
you've
gotten
and
have
some
clarity
around
the
modifications
that
you
think
the
commission
would
like
you
to
make.
B
You
can
make
those
changes
today,
unless
anybody
in
the
commission
feels
like
we
need
to
see
any
kind
of
updated
drawings
to
reconsider
or
alex.
If
you
think
that
you
need
to
see
anything,
I
think
we're
really
talking
about
removal
of
the
dormer
on
the
north
elevation
is
really
the
big
modification
that
I
think
is
on
the
table.
L
Yeah-
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
you
all
are
clear
with
the
drawing
from
whoever
made
these
drawings
for
you,
that
they're
100
right
in
terms
of
the
opening
like
chair
kite,
was
asking
you
about.
Is
it
just
widening
to
the
right,
which
is
that's
what
it
looks
like
from
the
drawing
and
if
we
just
we
need
the
drawing
to
be
exactly
right
and
then
the
other
thing
I
want
to
ask
is
if
the
dormer
is
not
going
to
be
included
in
the
approval.
Do
you
want
to
hold
on?
L
Do
you
want
to
revert
back
to
this
set
of
four
skylights
that
were
approved
on
that
side?
Would
that
help
you?
I
mean.
I
know
that
doesn't
help
you
with
the
stair,
but
just
from
the
light
perspective.
O
L
Okay,
then
I
I
mean
obviously
I'm
totally
fine
reviewing
that
stuff.
We
have
the
drawing
right
here.
So
it's
okay,
if
that's
what
they
want
to
do
and
just
eliminate
that
from
the
ca
request,
the
dormer
from
the
ca
request
today
and
then
sounds
like
we're.
We
can
move
forward
with
everything
else
right.
B
I
think
just
confirmation
from
you
regarding
the
direction
you'd
like
to
take
with
the
shed
extension
on
the
front
if
you're
gonna
remove
it
or
keep
it
the
way
you've
proposed.
B
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think
we
heard
pretty
a
lot
of
commissioners
chiming
in
that
it
was.
They
were
comfortable
with
how
it's
proposed.
K
B
All
right,
so
I
it's
been
a
minute
since
we've
amended
something,
so
I
think
you
guys
just
need
to
state
what
your
amendment
is.
The
changes
that
you'd
like
to
make
and
then
we
can
craft
our
motion
around.
O
O
B
Yes-
and
I
think
the
conditions
would
be
that
you
just
would
follow
up
with
revised
elevations
to
be
reviewed
at
staff
level
and
maybe
some
more
detail
on
exactly
what
the
gate's
going
to
look
like.
I
think
that
might
be
something
else
that
we
might
want
as
a
condition
alex
for
you
to
just
have
a
record
of
what
the
proposed
gate
will
be.
B
F
L
B
B
L
E
Madam
chair,
based
on
the
evidence
presented
to
this
commission,
including
exhibit
a
application
and
product
descript
project
description,
exhibit
b,
site
plan,
exhibit
c
photographs
of
subject:
property,
14
pages,
exhibit
d
fence
specifications,
two
pages
exhibit
e
column
section,
drawing
exhibit
f
carriage
house
drawings
and
renderings.
Seven
pages
exhibit
g
revised
drawings
and
plans.
17
pages
received
july
20th
2021
exhibit
h,
1917
sanborn
map
insurance
map
exhibit
I
fence
example
photographs
two
pages
received
august
11th
2021
and
the
commission's
action
was
there
jay.
We.
E
K
E
Existing
existing
accessory
structure
widen
existing
eight
foot,
wide
opening
on
the
south
elevation
to
12
wide
and
install
a
new
painted
wood
garage
doors,
install
new
marvin
custom,
six
light
wood
door
and
reconstruct
shed
roof
overhanging
on
the
south
elevation
replace
existing
wood
door
on
the
second
story
of
the
east
elevation
with
new
marvin
ultimate
s,
dl
two
over
two
double
hung:
wood
window
matching
existing
windows,
replace
existing
wood
door
on
the
west
elevation
with
new
wood
single
light
window
and
construct
two
new
openings
on
either
side
with
six
over
one
double
hung:
wood
windows
construct
three
new
openings
with
new
two
light:
wood
casement
windows
on
the
west;
elevation
install
six
v
lux
skylights
on
the
roof;
two
construct,
56
foot
tall,
a
inch
tall,
stone,
foot,
a
tall,
stone
pillar
on
the
north
side
of
the
driveway
to
the
northeast
property
corner,
then,
to
the
northwest
property
corner
and
115
feet
along
the
rear
property
boundary.
E
E
Two
that
the
standards
for
carriage
house
garage
and
accessory
structures
found
on
pages
34
through
35
windows
and
doors
on
page
84,
through
85
utilities
and
mechanical
systems,
on
pages
82-83,
landscaping
in
trees
on
pages
40-41
and
fences
and
waltz
on
pages,
36-37
of
the
modford
historic
design
review
standards
adopted
april
14,
2010
and
amended
december
9th
2019
were
used
to
evaluate
this
request.
E
Three,
this
application
does
meet
the
design
standards
for
the
following
reasons:
architecture
textual
features
that
are
character,
defining
elements
of
the
accessory
structure,
including
windows
and
doors,
are
being
retained
and
preserved.
New
and
modified
window
door
and
window
opening
are
non-character
window.
Openings
are
non-character.
Defining
facades
of
the
accessory
structure.
E
Skylights
will
be
located
on
sections
of
the
roof
that
do
not
face
the
primary
right-of-way
new
sections
of
metal
fence
d,
new
sections
of
metal
fence
will
be
sited
in
a
location
that
is
compatible
with
the
traditional
historic
relationship
of
fences
and
walls
to
historic
properties.
In
the
district
e
new
section,
offense
will
match
existing
fence
previously
approved
by
the
commission.
E
F,
stone
pillars
will
match
stone
material
on
the
primary
structure
and
are
compatible
with
historic
neighborhood
and
in
material
and
scale
number
four,
that
the
action
and
improvements
proposed
in
the
application
before
us
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
are
congruence
with
the
special
historic
character
of
modford
history.
District.
B
Yes
and
then
we'll
follow
up
with
the
second
part
of
that
we'll
vote
by
roll
call.
Commissioner
hornaday.
K
F
G
D
I
B
Commissioner
watkins,
I
myself
I
as
well
thought
motion
carry.
E
Based
upon
the
foregoing
findings
and
for
the
reasons
set
forth
they're
in
I
move
that
a
certificate
of
report
must
be
issued
with
the
following
conditions:
number
one
wood
door
and
skylight
specifications
will
be
submitted
for
staff
review.
E
O
F
B
C
P
Guys
for
everything,
I
think
your
job
is
really
hard
and
we
really
appreciate
you.
B
L
Thank
you,
chair
kite,
also
old
business,
for
those
who
were
not
here
back
in
june,
I
believe
was
the
last
time
we
looked
at
this
one,
so
I'll
kind
of
we'll
start
totally
from
the
beginning,
but
just
to
orient
everyone
to
where
we
are.
This
property
is
located
on
the
corner
of
cumberland
avenue
on
the
west
side
and
then
on.
The
adjacent
side
is
west
chestnut
street.
The
building
actually
faces
west
chestnut
street,
but
it's
addressed
as
cumberland
avenue.
L
This
is
a
street
view,
image
of
kind
of
looking
at
the
main
entrance.
It
is
not
contributing
building
that
was
built
in
the
1950s.
L
The
plans
have
changed
quite
a
bit
from
the
last
iteration
as
far
as
the
the
building
itself,
but
the
site
plan
has
really
not
changed
very
much
with
the
exception
of,
if
some
of
you
who
saw
this
before
might
recall,
there
was
a
retaining
wall,
a
concrete,
retaining
wall
being
proposed
along
this
southern
property
boundary
here
along
the
parking
area.
They
have
now
changed
that
to
be
a
naturalized
boulder
wall.
L
I
didn't
include
the
image,
but
there
is
a
an
image
in
the
plans
that
kind
of
gives
you
an
example
of
what
this
will
look
like.
It
will
be
interspersed
with
plantings
and
not
taller
than
nine
feet,
and
I
think
it
will
definitely
while
concrete
walls
are,
you
know,
certainly
allowed
in
the
district.
I
think
this
will
soften
it
a
bit
the
other
difference
with
the
site
plan
is
they
were
previously
proposing
that
the
parking
area
be
gravel
and
the
new
iteration
will
be
some
type
of
paper.
L
They
haven't
chosen
the
paper
yet
so
that
will
need
to
be
a
condition
when
we
get
that
far
so
the
as
you,
we
focused
most
of
our
conversation
last
time
around
whether
or
not
they
could
paint
the
building
and
whether
or
not
the
balconies
were
appropriate.
L
So
these
were
the
two
biggest
sticking
points
last
time
so,
based
on
your
feedback,
they
went
back
to
the
drawing
board
and
came
back
with
an
iteration.
That,
I
think,
is,
is
a
lot
more
successful.
They
drop.
They
drew
their
inspiration,
as
you
probably
saw
from
the
packet
from
some
buildings
that
were
designed
in
a
more
mid-century
contemporary
style,
using
these
kind
of
more
blocky
perpendicular
elements
that
I
really
think
are
are
like
actually
blend
well,
with
the
existing
building
really
nicely.
L
L
So
this
the
top
left,
is
the
back
just
orient
those
who
are
looking
at
this
for
the
first
time
this
this
the
image
below
is
looking
straight
on,
as
if
you
are
standing
in
the
parking
lot,
and
this
one
is
just
an
eight.
The
top
right
is
an
angular
view
of
that
looking
north
east,
and
then
this
is
looking
straight
on
from
from
cumberland
I
included.
L
I
didn't
include
that
these
are
just
the
kind
of
rendering
drawings
there
are
obviously
elevation
drawings,
so
I
can
pull
any
of
those
up
at
any
time
during
discussion.
You
all
just
tell
me
what's
helpful.
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
give
some
illustrate
illustrative
renderings
during
our
discussion
that
I
feel
like
are,
you
know
most
helpful,
so
they
do
need
to
add
a
elevator
and
a
stair,
an
elevator
shaft
and
a
stair
tower
to
the
top
of
the
building.
L
So
those
will
be,
I
think,
they'll
be
like
minimally
visible,
they're,
pretty
visible
if
you're
looking
at
this
just
because
you're,
obviously
looking
at
this
as
if
you
were
in
the
air,
the
roof
deck
has
not
changed
from
the
last
iteration.
So
it
will
be
the
same,
and
I
didn't
really
hear
any
concerns
from
you
guys
the
last
go
around
on
that,
but
this
is
sort
of
what,
if
you're
standing
in
the
street
towards
the
intersection,
what
you
would
what
it
would
look
like
from
there.
L
So
I
have
not
noted
any
concerns
really
except
for
that.
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
I
think
it's
important
that
we
know
how
much
granite
curbing
will
be
removed
to
for
the
new
driveway
entrance
into
the
site.
There
is
an
entrance
there
now,
so
it
probably
will
be
fairly
minimal,
but
if
there
is
any
any
section
of
granite
removed,
I
think
we
need
to
make
sure
that
that
ends
up
in
safekeeping
so
that
it
can
either
be
reused
here
or
used
in
a
different
site.
L
And
also
just
made
a
note
that
that,
if
level
one
review
requires
any
modifications
that
we
would
look
at
those
and
I'm
not
sure
let
robin
speak
to
this,
do
you
all
have
to
go
through
level
one
now,
since
it's
only
six
units
instead
of
12,
it's
a
change
in
use
required
or.
N
I
don't
I
don't,
I
don't
know,
suzanne
are.
K
N
L
That's
not
that's,
not
a
big
deal,
and
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
if,
if
when
development
services
is
reviewing
it,
if
they
require
any
changes,
which
would
most
likely
just
be
for
sight
that
we
would
have
an
opportunity
to
look
at
those
as
well
but
other
than
that,
I
just
have
asked
for
some
of
the
outstanding,
like
manufacturer
specs,
that
we
understand
that
they
probably
won't
have
for
a
little
while
now,
but
they're
all
things
that
we
are
standard
for
us
to
review
at
staff
levels,
so
no
problem
there.
B
Okay,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
the
applicant
to
add
any
additional
information.
I
think
we
missed
jay
on
the
swearing
in
the
first
round,
so
jay.
If
there's
stuff
that
you'd
like
to
talk
about
today,
we
can
swear
you
in
really
quickly
before
we
get
started
on
any
kind
of
comments
from
y'all.
F
N
I
guess
the
only
thing
that
I
will
highlight
is
that,
after
the
last
meeting,
we
were
trying
to
leave
the
original
the
brick
portion
of
the
building
as
close
to
the
original
as
possible,
so
we're
not
painting
it
and
we
lightened
up
the
balconies,
but
the
cmu
infill
portion,
which
was
added
later.
That
is
where
we
are,
are
using
using
that
area
to
modify
the
building
some.
N
So
we
are
covering
that
cmu
with
stucco
and
we
are
adding
the
entrance
piece
in
that
area,
because
that
piece
is
the
least
important
to
the
building
from
our
discussion
last
time.
The
way
I
saw
it
so
that
really
was
the
only
thing
I
wanted
to
highlight.
A
Oh
looks
like
we
have
somebody
entering
the
queue:
okay.
K
A
B
Jamie
we
got
before
we
get
to
your
comments.
We
need
to
swear
you
in.
S
B
So
I'm
gonna
read
the
oath
and
then
I'll
ask
you
to
affirm.
So
we
can
hear
you.
Do
you
solemnly
swear
or
affirm
that
the
information
you
present
during
the
hearing.
R
B
S
Well,
thank
you.
I
I
I
spoke
last
time
a
couple
months
ago
at
the
first
presentation
for
this,
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
overall,
I'm
super
happy
and
excited
about
the
project
and
and
are
in
support
of
it.
S
I
think
it's
way
better
than
the
last
one
simply
that
there
are
less
less
units
in
the
building,
but
I'm
the
guy
that
lives
in
the
back
back
side
of
the
building,
where
the
majority
of
my
house
and
backyard
are
kind
of
over
or
undershadowed
by
the
largeness
of
the
building,
and
it
doesn't
sound,
like
my
opinion
or
anything
like
that,
will
have
an
impact
on
whether
the
decks
are
in
the
back
of
the
building
there
but
they're.
S
You
know
not
desirable
for
me
and
I'd
rather
them
not
be
there,
but
at
the
same
time
it
sounds
like
you
know:
it
doesn't
really
matter
what
my
opinion
is
on
that
the
main
thing
I'd
like
to
say
is:
is
there
some
giant
green
arbor
vitas
planted
along
the
property
line
of
the
back
alleyway
where
those
decks
are,
and
I
have
contacted
the
buyer
and
he
has
assured
me
that
they
won't
be
disturbed
and
if
they
are
disturbed,
they'll
they'll
be
replanted
with
large
ones,
they're
currently
about
probably
10
or
12
feet
high,
and
my
hope
is
that
they'll
they'll
kind
of
create
a
privacy
hedge
eventually
for
for
the
just
the
largeness
and
of
the
structure,
overlooking
my
property
and
the
decks
of
the
people
that'll
be
in
the
back
of
them.
S
So
I
guess
my
main
kind
of
request
from
the
the
buyer
is
just
to
protect
those
arbor
vitas
back
there
and
let
them
grow
into
the
the
privacy
hedge.
But
I
do
I
do
like
the
the
less
number
of
balconies
back
there.
That
does
make
me
pretty
pretty
happy.
So
that's
that's
pretty
much
all.
I
have
to
say.
A
B
Will
close
the
floor
for
public
comment?
Commissioners
comments,
questions.
H
Is
the
last
caller's
concerns
addressed
in
this
in?
Is
that
a
requirement
that
we're
making
to
preserve
those.
L
Yeah,
I'm
not
entirely
clear
where
the
arborvitae
r
that
he's
describing
and
I
know,
suzanne
the
landscape
architect,
unfortunately
had
a
time
conflict
with.
We
thought
we
might
be
done
with
the
first
item
sooner,
but
she
had
to
leave
so
obviously
this
is
the
this
is
the
the
on.
The
right
side
is
the
is
where
we're
talking
about
along
the
alley
here,
and
there
is
a
substantial
amount
of
landscaping
there.
L
Do
you
have
any
idea
robin
where
the
arborvitae
are
that
he
was
talking
about.
I.
N
I
don't,
but
I
know
that
the
only
thing
we're
proposing
to
remove
from
the
site
is
that
tree
right.
So
if
it's,
if
it's
along
the
side
not
on
our
property,
then
we're
definitely
not
going
to
touch
it.
But
I
don't.
I
don't
know.
N
L
R
M
Yeah,
I
can
add
a
little
bit
to
it
and
we
can
have
the
surveyor
pick
up
the
exact
location,
but
do
I
think
they
are
off
the
property
in
their?
I
think
they're
in
the
20-foot
of
the
un,
on
whatever
the
alley
yeah.
But
I
did
you
know,
speak
with
jamie
and-
and
I
thought
it
I
couldn't
guarantee
that
they
wouldn't
get
damaged,
but
I
could
guarantee
that
they
did.
B
But
kevin
you
think,
they're
on
the
on
the
other
side
of
your
property
line.
F
M
Yes
and
then
you
know
his
concern
is
his
privacy
for
the
neighbors
obvious
melissa,
conspira
virus
too.
We
want
privacy
for
those
units,
so.
F
G
I
have
a
question.
Sorry,
no,
you
go
ahead
in
the
rendering
that
shows
the
elevator
shaft
as
being
white.
Is
that
right?
Is
it
white.
N
Yes,
it's
well,
it's
it's
called
drift
mist,
so
it's
kind
of
like
it's
that
color
yeah,
it's
the
color,
that's
shown
in
that
black
and
white
image.
That's
from
the
paint,
so
it's
kind
of
like
an
off-white
gray.
G
B
From
my
perspective,
I
certainly
appreciate
the
work
that
y'all
have
done
in
consideration
of
the
comments
from
the
last
go
around.
I
think
this
is
a
really
successful
solution.
I
I
think
that
you've
come
up
with
sort
of
an
elegant
way
to
navigate
around
the
kind
of
ugly
exposed
cmu
on
the
parking
lot
side
of
the
building.
I
think
that's.
That
is
really
the
changes
that
you've
made
are
really
successful.
I
E
Madam
chair,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
to
this
commission,
including
exhibit
a
project
description
and
photographs,
three
pages
exhibit
b
site
plan,
six
pages,
exhibit
c
demolition
plans.
Four
pages
exhibit
d
floor
plans,
elevation,
drawings
and
section
drawings,
15
pages
exhibit
e
renderings,
five
pages
exhibit
f
material
specifications,
16
pages
exhibit
g
window
specifications,
55
pages
received
6
8
21
exhibit
h
owners
affidavit
received
june
9th
2021
exhibit
I
photographs
taken
by
staff.
E
E
Except
I
move
that
the
follow
of
the
this
commission
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriations
based
on
the
following
one,
that
the
application
is
two
one
modify
existing
building,
including
replacement
of
all
non
original
vinyl.
One
over
one
double
hung
windows
with
colby
black
aluminum,
clad
one
over
one.
Double
hung
windows
replacement
of
existing
flat
roof
covering
over.
E
Stucco
faced
balcony
cantilevered
over
entry
on
first
floor
balcony
will
have
metal
sport,
columns
and
railings,
and
a
tpo
roof.
Stucco
existing
section
of
cmu
wall
on
west
elevation,
replace
six
windows
on
east
elevation,
with
new
single
light
metal
doors
and
construct
four
suspended
balconies
with
metal
railings,
remove
deteriorated
wood
platform
and
stair
from
rear
elevation,
convert
existing
door
openings
on
rear
elevation
to
new
window
opening.
E
Construct
new
elevator
and
stair
towers
on
roof
each
with
stucco
smooth
well
with
smooth
stucco,
siding
single
light
metal
doors
and
standing
seam
metal
roof
in
sherman
williams,
greenback
color,
resurface,
roof
with
tpo
in
white
color
and
construct
a
22
foot
one
and
a
half
inch
by
25
foot,
6.5
inch,
bison,
ipa,
tile
deck
on
roof,
surrounded
by
a
three
foot;
six
tall,
horizontal
black
metal
pipe
railing
and
I
pay
planners
covered
by
a
removable
light.
Colored
fabric
shade,
sail
paint
exterior
of
building
with
sherwin
williams,
roycroft
bronze.
E
Oh
from
the
last
one,
okay,
all
metal
roofing
will
be
sherwood
williams,
green
black
color,
two
site
work,
remove
existing
signage,
remove
existing
concrete
walkway.
E
And
wall
at
the
front,
entry
and
construct
a
new
3.5
inch,
wide,
concrete,
walkway,
three
and
a
half
foot
or
three
point:
five
inches.
E
10.5
so
3.5
feet
wide
concrete
walkway
from
sidewalk
to
front
entry
along
west
elevation,
construct
new,
concrete
ramp
and
concrete
stair
with
concrete,
cheek
walls
on
west
elevation
to
access
new
rectangularly
shaped
concrete
entry
patio
because
truck
2
stamped
concrete
patios
and
a
brick
seat.
E
Wall
adjacent
to
the
east
elevation
install
new
metal
bike,
rack
adjacent
to
west
elevation,
remove
existing
fencing
and
construct
a
forefoot
tall
wood
trash
enclosure
area
with
gravel
surface
adjacent
to
the
southwest
building
corner
install
six
new
mechanical
units
adjacent
to
rear
elevation,
install
four
foot
tall
metal
fence
guard
rail
adjacent
to
the
mechanical
unit
area.
Remove
existing
electric
pole
construct
the
new
14
space
to
be
determined,
paver
parking
lot
with
one
concrete
handicap:
space
in
location
of
existing
gravel
lot
adjacent
to
west
elevation.
E
Install
one
12
foot
tall
duke
mitchell,
light
fixture
at
the
southwest
corner
of
parking
lot
construct
a
tiered
naturalized
rock
wall
adjacent
to
the
south.
End
of
parking
lot
remove
three
mature
trees
that
just
adjacent
to
west
chestnut
street
that
have
outgrown
their
original
space
or
are
in
poor
health,
install
new
landscaping
throughout
the
site.
All
work
will
be
in
accordance
with
the
task,
drawings
and
plans.
All
work
will
be
in
accordance
with
attached
drawings
and
plans.
E
All
permits,
variances
and
approvals,
as
required
by
law,
must
be
attained
before
work
may
commence
that
this
number
two
now
that
that
the
standards
for
non-contributing
structures
founded
on
page
68-69,
fences
and
walls,
page
36-37,
landscaping,
entries
on
pages,
4041
lighting
on
pages,
4243,
sidewalks
streets
and
public
infrastructure
on
pages
4647,
walkways
driveways
and
all
street
parking
on
pages
50
to
51
and
painting
on
pages
70
painting
on
pages
in
all
in
the
historic
design
review
standards
adopted
april
14,
2010
and
amended
december
9th
2019
were
used
to
evaluate
this
request.
E
Number
three:
this
application
does
meet
the
design
standards
for
the
following
reasons:
hey
every
effort
has
been
made
to
maintain
the
architectural
integrity
of
non-contributing
structure
b.
Alterations
to
the
structure
are
compatible
with
the
size
scale
and
color
material
and
character
of
the
neighborhood.
The
building
and
its
environment
see
granite,
curving
is
being
retained
and
preserved
d.
New
sidewalk
and
walkways
will
be
concrete
and
consistent
with
the
existing
materials.
A
new
parking
lot
will
be
in
the
same
location
as
existing
will
be
constructed
of
pavers
and
concrete
will
be
screened
with
landscaping.
E
F,
new
retaining
wall
will
be
constructed
of
stone
and
screened
with
landscaping.
New
light
features,
fixtures
will
be
compatible
with
the
building
and
the
district
h.
Mechanical
units
will
be
located
as
inconspicuously
as
possible
and
will
be
screened
number
four,
that
the
action
and
improvements
proposed
in
the
application
before
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
are
congruence
with
the
special
historic
character
of
the
montford
historic
district.
F
B
We'll
vote
by
roll
call,
commissioner
hornaday.
E
C
E
Based
upon
the
foregoing
findings
and
for
the
reasons
set
forth
therein,
I
move
in
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
be
issued
with
the
following
conditions.
One
all
manufacturers
specifications,
including
doors,
roofing
lighting,
mechanical
unit,
patio,
material
and
paver
material-
will
be
submitted
to
staff
review
for
staff
review
and
approval.
E
F
F
K
F
B
F
F
B
L
Thank
you,
cheer
kite,
I'm
gonna
make
this
one
really
short
and
sweet.
It's
very
straightforward
request.
This
is
the
same
bed
and
breakfast
where
we're
looking
at
the
the
fence
actually
earlier
and
for
whatever
reason
the
name
of
it
is
escaping
my
brain,
but
in
any
case
it's
on
the
corner
of
watauga
and
montford
avenue.
It
has
this
lovely
little
porch
up
on
the
second
story
that
is
partially
uncovered
by
the
roof.
L
This
is
something
we've
come
across
in
montford
before
so
there's
water
intrusion
happening
and,
and
so
a
good
bit
of
damage
has
already
occurred.
So
this
is
the
image
on
the
left
is
just
showing
you
where
the
the
awning
is
proposed.
It's
pretty
small,
it's
only
10
and
a
half
feet
by
three
and
a
half
feet,
and
it
will
be
black
fabric
in
accordance
with
the
standards
on
the
right.
L
There
are
just
a
couple
of
other
examples:
awnings
were
were
found
throughout
the
district
and
the
one
on
the
top
right,
in
fact,
was
one
that
we,
the
commission,
approved
in
my
time
here
so
similar
circumstances
where
water
was
coming
into
the
balcony
and
causing
substantial
damage
to
the
building,
which
is
obviously
not
something
we
want.
So
I
think
it
will
not
be
highly
visible,
based
on
the
color
that
they're
proposing-
and
I
have
no
concerns
noted,
but
thank
you
shannon
black
walnut.
E
Madam
chair,
based
on
evidence
presented
to
this
commission,
including
exhibit
a
application
project,
description
and
photographs,
six
pages
exhibit
and
the
commission's
actual
inspection
and
review
of
the
subject
property
by
all
members,
except
I
move
that
this
commission
approved
the
certificate
of
appropriates
based
on
the
following
appropriateness.
E
One.
The
application
is
to
install
a
10
and
a
half
by
three
and
a
half
foot
black
fabric,
awning
supported
by
extruding
aluminum
tubing
over
an
open
balcony
on
the
front
elevation.
All
work
will
be
in
accordance
with
the
attached
drawings
and
plants.
All
permits,
variances
or
approvals,
as
required
by
law,
must
be
obtained
before
work
may
commence.
E
Two
that
the
standards
for
awnings
and
shutters
found
on
pages
56
and
57
of
the
monfort
historic
district
design
review
standards
adopted
april
10,
2010
and
amended
december
9th
2019
were
used
to
evaluate
this
request.
E
This
application
does
meet
the
design
standards
for
the
following
reasons:
a
awnings
will
be
constructed
of
canvas
b,
awning
color
will
be
compatible.
The
house
c
awning
is
appropriate
for
the
architectural
style
of
the
house.
Four,
the
actions
and
improvements
proposed
in
the
application
before
us
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
are
congruence
with
the
special
historic
character
of
the
modford
historic
district.
C
B
F
L
L
Okay,
thank
you
everybody.
So
this
application
is
for
the
free,
wolf
framer
building
on
cherry
street.
I
just
added
a
couple
of
google
street
view
images.
This
application
is
obviously
a
non-contributing
structure
to
the
district.
It
was
built
in
the
1980s
it's
a
little
bit
funky
and
that
when
it
was
constructed
that
they
created
the
the
floor
height
and
this
of
the
interior-
and
this
are
are
not
exactly
the
same
of
the
wooden
platform
on
the
exterior.
L
So
initially
when
I
talked
with
jane
matthews
architect
who
worked
on
this
and
shane
elliott
from
her
office
is
here
with
us
today
in
case
you
all
have
any
questions,
but
initially
what
jane
and
I
talked
about-
was
lowering
this
so
that
they
were
the
same
height
but
what
they
or
sorry
raising
it.
I
believe
saying
it
the
opposite
way,
but
in
any
case,
what
they've
decided
to
do
instead
is
just
to
add
some
small
metal
ramps
so
that
it's
the.
L
Floor
access
is
a
little
bit
easier
and
there
it's
not
currently
ada
compliant
so
there'll
be
a
ramp
at
each
one
of
those
front
entry
doors
to
access
the
interior
space
and
then
they're
also
proposing
to
add
handrails
on
either
side
of
the
ramp.
That's
on
the
front
of
the
building
and
the
other
part
of
the
application
is
the
the
two
doors
and
the
windows
are
not
in
great
shape,
so
they're
just
proposing
to
replace
those
with
new
wood
doors
and
windows.
So
very
simple
application,
and
I'm
not
noting
any
concerns
on
this
one.
L
B
You'd
like
to
let
the
commission
know.
F
E
11
pages
exhibit
b,
google
street
view
image
and
the
commission's
actual
inspection
and
review
of
subject
property
by
all
members,
except
I
move
that
this
commission
approve
the
certificate
of
appropriateness
based
on
the
following
one
that
the
application
is
to
replace
existing
front
entry,
doors
and
side
lights
with
new
wood,
single
light
doors
and
windows
install
two
new
34
inch
by
nine
and
a
half
inch
transitions,
extruded,
aluminum
entry
ramps
at
the
at
entry
doors
to
accommodate
floor
height
difference
between
existing
wood
entry,
decking
and
interior
floor
install
one
and
a
half
inch
diameter
painted
metal
pipe
railing
on
either
side
of
existing
ramp
adjacent
to
sidewalk.
E
E
Two
that
the
standards
for
non-contributing
structures
found
on
pages
68
and
69,
and
accessibility
and
life
safety
modifications
on
page
54,
55
on
of
the
montford
historic
district
design,
review
standards
adopted
april
14,
2010
and
amended
december
9th
2019
were
used
to
evaluate
this
request.
This
application
does
meet
the
design
standards
for
the
following
reasons.
A
every
effort's
been
made
to
made
to
maintain
the
architectural
integrity
of
the
structure
b.
Alterations
to
the
building
will
be
compatible
with
the.
Q
E
E
Four,
that
the
actions
and
improvements
proposed
in
the
application
before
us
for
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
are
congruence
with
the
special
historic
character
of
the
marford
historic
district.
E
F
R
G
E
C
F
About
two,
almost
three
hours,
it
is
6
40
right
now
is
6
45
enough
time.
F
E
C
N
D
N
F
F
F
F
B
Got
several
folks
to
swear
in
alex,
maybe
before
we
get
started
beginning
of
the
meeting,
we're
missing
a
few
folks
from
the
applicants
list.
Maybe
we
need
to
get
started
with
your
report.
R
Yeah,
I
didn't
see,
call
ralph's
on.
I
didn't
see
colin
on
the
list,
though,
unless
he's
one
of.
F
B
L
All
right,
thank
you,
churchite.
This
application
is
for
construction
of
a
new
3
500
square
foot
primary
structure
on
elizabeth
place,
so
I've
included
gis
map
just
to
help
you
get
oriented
to
where
we
are.
This
is
the
front
of
the
lot
here
fronting
on
elizabeth
place,
and
then
broadway
is
here.
L
So
it's
roughly
in
the
middle
of
this
block,
it's
pretty
typical
for
new
construction
projects
to
take
more
than
one
hearing.
So
I
have
quite
a
bit
of
notes
in
my
staff
report.
For
you
all
this
is.
These
are
the
perspective
renderings
of
the
structure,
I've
noted
in
my
staff
report.
I
did
give
some
feedback
to
the
design
team
when
we
first
met
to
look
at
it
and
they
did
take
some
of
my
comments
and
make
some
revisions,
but
I
still
have
concerns
about.
L
In
particular,
the
the
house,
I
think,
is
trying
to
read
as
a
as
a
craftsman,
style,
house
or
bungalow
from
the
front
elevation
which
is
top
right,
but
I
think
that
the
dormers
are
really
distracting
from
the
whole
overall
form
of
the
building.
I
tried
to
look
at
other
examples
of
bungalows
and
it
is
very
common
to
have
this
kind
of
double
double
front
facing
gable,
which
is
one
of
the
pieces
of
feedback
I
gave
them.
L
They
made
that
change
before
they
submitted
their
plans,
but
I
the
the
dormers
I
have
not
seen
I've
seen
dormers
on
bungalow
style
houses,
but
they're
more
like
there's
one.
I
keep
thinking
of
that.
You
all
just
approved
on
on
pearson,
where
it's,
where
the
it's
got
like
a
shed
a
side
facing
gable,
so
it
has
a
shed
dormer
on
the
front.
I
don't
know
if
you
all
recall
that
one,
but
there
was
a
similar
one
next
door
that
that
you
all
had
approved
to.
L
I
mean
not
this
particular
group
of
people,
but
the
commission
some
years
ago,
so
I'm
struggling
with
how
this
reads
from
the
street.
As
far
as
the
dormers
go,
I
think
they're
I
not
only
do
I
haven't
not
seen
dormers
really
at
all
on,
like
kind
of
in
this
and
configured
this
way
on
a
bungalow
style.
L
As
far
as
my
research,
I
I
feel
like
these
are
really
very
large
for
this.
For
the
front
elevation
of
this
house,
I
did
also
note
that
I
have
some
concerns
about
the
fenestration.
In
particular,
I
think
that
the
the
left
elevation,
which
is
your
top
left,
I
feel
like
that,
needs
some
additional
openings
and
I
feel
like
all
the
windows
being
kind
of
that
scrunched
up
small
size
and
they're.
It's
just
kind
of
odd
to
have
windows
of
all
that
tiny
size
on
one
elevation.
L
There
are
very
many
windows,
I
think
the
regular
placement
of
them
and
that
dormer,
if
even
if
you
all,
are
okay
with
the
dormer
at
all,
I
think
they're
a
little
bit
odd
as
far
as
how
they're
spaced
and
their
and
their
dimension,
because
typically
in
a
craftsman
style,
was
mirrored
a
lot
of
the
features
that
were
in
a
prairie
style.
L
So,
like
the
windows
were
oftentimes
very
elongated,
a
lot
of
times
in
a
craftsman
style,
not
super
elongated
like
you,
would
see
in
a
in
a
prairie
style,
but
but
definitely
not
not
small,
like
that.
L
So
noted
that
and
then
on.
The
the
bottom
left
is
the
other
side
elevation,
where
they've
got
that
little
tiny
dormer,
which
I
I
have
not
seen
that
in
my
years
with
looking
at
historic
architecture,
not
that
it
doesn't
exist
somewhere.
I
just
haven't
seen
that
and
in
particular
I
think
it
is
just
kind
of
getting
to
be
a
lot
with
all
the
dormers
and
plus
that
little
circular
window
is
a
little
bit
odd.
L
The
other
thing
that
is
not,
I
think,
I
believe,
according
to
my
communication
with
the
architect,
that
the
they're
they're,
showing
two
separate
roofing
materials,
which
I
told
them,
was
not
not
something
the
commission
had
approved
in
the
past,
but
they
said
that's,
I
think
that's
supposed
to
be
corrected
and
it's
supposed
to
be
all
metal
which,
in
my
then
feedback
to
them
about
that
was
that
it
should
be
probably
asphalt.
Shingle
would
be
the
more
consistent
roofing
type
for
this
style.
L
The
plans
also
note
a
metal
railing
on
the
front
and
rear
elevation,
porches,
which
I
have
never
seen
in
my
time
and
looking
at
this
type
of
historic
building
either.
So
I
think
that
those
need
to
be
changed
to
be
wood.
L
I
I
sort
of
feel
like
too
there's
a
little
bit
of
jekyll
and
hyde
happening
with
the
front
elevation
and
the
rear.
You
know
the
rear
massing
of
the
rear
is
so
large,
and
not
that
you
know
certainly
buildings,
especially
with
the
grade
changing
as
it
does
on
the
site.
You
know
there's
going
to
be
more
than
one
story.
It's
almost
like.
I
think,
because
it's
like
a
double
story:
balcony
or
a
porch.
It
just
kind
of
like
feels
very
heavy
on
the
back
of
this
house
for
a
smaller
bungalow
style.
L
So
I
think
those
were
all
my
parts
about
the
building.
I
also
noted
that
that
there
is-
and
I
want
to-
I
want
to
make
sure
you
all
understand
to
let
me
move
into
the
next
couple
of
slides-
here's,
the
color
rendering
from
the
street.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
you
all
were
clear
that
this
accessory
structure
in
the
back
is
just
shown
as
a
placeholder
that
is
not
included
in
the
current
ca
request,
so
just
it's
labeled
as
future.
So
just
bear
that
in
mind
as
you're.
L
Reviewing
this
also,
I
did
note
that
they
really
need
to
work
on
their
landscaping
plan,
it's
very
lacking
so
that
that's
all
of
this
information
has
been
shared
with
them.
There
were
also
some
inconsistencies
between
the
new
construction
worksheet
and
their
actual
plans
that
I
asked
to
be
corrected
and
also
some
additional
material
specifications,
as
we
do
with
with
a
new
construction
project
oftentimes.
They
haven't
gotten
that
far.
L
So
we
understand
that,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
I've
listed
all
of
the
things
that
we
still
need
in
the
staff
report
as
well,
and
at
this
point
I'm
really
my
recommend
recommendation
is
that
you
it's
kind
of
like
giving
preliminary
feedback.
I
feel
like
at
least
in
my
opinion,
this
one
needs
some
some
more
tweaking
to
to
get
to
a
place
where,
where
it's
more
final
product,
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions.
If
you
all
have
any.
B
L
Yeah,
I
believe
I
might
have
pulled
the
wrong
one,
but
yeah.
The
first
iteration
that
we
looked
at
did
have
the
two
different
types
of
dormers,
but
based
on
my
feedback,
they
revised
it
to
only
have
one,
the
one
shed,
the
shed
style
dormers
on
either
side.
E
Alex
what
did
you
think
about
the
what
the
parking,
what
is
staffs
to
follow
the
standards
for
parking,
not
in
the
front
or
side
yard?
If
it's
available,
and
I
guess,
there's
a
plan
for
it
to
be
available.
E
R
L
The
way
to
the
back
already,
I
think
what
he's
asking
is,
if
it's
going
to
continue
into
the
rear
yard,
because
we
would
consider
consider
this
to
be
the
side
yard,
but
I
I
think
I
don't
think
it's
an
issue.
Will
our
commissioner
hornaday
excuse
me
too
to
in
to
terminate
the
driveway
here
and
they
can
park
along
the
side?
There
would.
R
F
Okay,
emily
or
ralph.
R
Yes,
so
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
the
subjects
that
alex
already
had
on
the
left
elevation.
We
actually
it's
purposely
left
with
not
a
lot
of
administrations
just
due
to
the
proximity
of
the
neighbor
and
the
fact
that
it's
stairs
over
there
and
you're
only
six
feet
off
of
your
property
line.
So
there's
there's
no
view,
there's
there's
no
anything
over
there
as
to
larger
windows
and
the
cadence
of
them
across
the
dormer.
R
That's
definitely
something
that
could
easily
be
adjusted
putting
windows
in
the
stairs,
but
we
have
a
double
staircase
along
that
wall.
So
you
know
for
the
floor
plan
considerations.
The
other
item
is
that
double
stacked
deck
is
the
same
on
the
neighbor
to
the
left
and
the
right.
R
R
So
that's
that
is
where
that
came
from
the
the
little
dormer
and
I
thought
it
had
gotten
on
there
when
we
submitted
it.
We
actually
did
find
that
small
little
dormer
on
some
other
windows
and
we
took
pictures
we'll
make
sure
to
get.
R
R
While
she's
pulling
that
up
there
so
yeah
we
had,
and
it's
also
got
the
two
different
types
of
dormers-
we
discovered
you
know
where
you've
got
the
little
shed
and
the
the
gable
yeah
the
peekaboo.
I
called
it
a
peekaboo
gable.
Basically,
I
know
I've
seen
them
because
that's
the
whole
reason
I
knew
about
them,
because
I
always
thought
they
were
really
cute
and
intriguing
to
me.
So
they've
caught
my
eye
before.
Hence
me
knowing
they
existed
and
yeah.
R
We
were
trying
to
not
make
the
house
super
tall,
hence
having
the
dormers
with
the
space
upstairs.
You
know
we're
trying
to
actually
keep
a
smaller
presence.
You
know
the
way
to
shrink
the
dormers
would
be
to
make
that
roof
taller
and
get
like
a
two-story
like
the
neighbors
on
the
side,
where
it's
more
like
a
true
two-story,
then
it's
not
really
necessarily
a
craftsman.
At
that
point
I
don't
know
so
it
kind
of
goes
back
and
forth
with
the
you
know
not
having
a
huge
presence
on
elizabeth
street.
F
E
I
have
a
question
for
you
on
the
front
elevation
that
small
window
to
the
left
of
the
front
door
doesn't
seem
like
when
you
look
around
at
the
neighboring
houses,
all
the
windows
in
the
front
or
either
there's
a
stained
glass
or
a
decorative
window.
That's
not
full
size,
but
not
a
one.
I
can't
tell
in
the
floor
plan
if
there's
a
a
a
need
for
that,
but
it
it
looks
off
to
me
that.
Q
R
K
E
I
think
I'm
just
looking
at
the
standards
where
it
says
that
the
windows
should
follow
the
patterns
of
the
nearby
houses
and
all
the
there
there's
decorative
windows
that
are
sometimes
shorter
than
the
full
length
windows
like
on
the
right.
So
I
was
just
wondering:
is
there
a
reason?
Is
there
something
behind
there
that.
R
L
Wonder
if
it
would
look,
maybe
a
little
bit
more,
I
don't
know
that.
I
do
agree
that
it's,
I
think
it's
funky,
because
that,
because
of
the
like,
the
one
on
the
right
is
kind
of
obscured
by
the
column
in
front
of
it.
If
you,
maybe
you
did
a
single
window
there
that
were
maybe
the
same
size
as
the
other
ones
or
or
shorter.
I
don't
you
know
yes,
okay
or
a
casement
like
I
can
see.
R
E
And
I
think
the
other,
where
alex
was
the
guy.
The
standards
say
that
unless
there's
a
metal
roof
that
was
there
previously
that's
when
a
metal
roof
standing
seam
can
go
back.
Otherwise,
ash
asphalt,
shingle
just
to
be
clear
that
that's
pretty
specific.
P
L
So
in
this
case
you
all
basically
would
be
just
making
a
determination
of
whether
or
not
you
think
metal
is
an
appropriate
material
for
the
style
architecture
that
they're
proposing.
So
I've
seen
a
couple
that
have
metal
roofs
that
were
bungalows,
but
they
were,
they
were
installed
without
a
ca.
So
I
haven't
seen
any
it's.
L
It's
kind
of
unusual
for
people
to
come
to
us
to
to
to
get
approval
to
replace
an
asphalt,
shingle
roof
with
a
metal
roof,
because
once
they
learn
that
it
has
to
go
to
the
commission,
they
usually
decide
to
just
go
the
path
of
least
resistance,
but
so
I'm
not
saying
that
there
aren't
craftsman
style
houses
out
there
with
metal
roofs.
I
think
I've
seen
it
more
on
like
a
four
square
houses
like
that
style
versus
the
style,
though
so.
G
I
I
have
some
concerns
about
the
the
dormers
as
well.
Are
there
other
homes
in
the
area
that
are
arts
and
crafts
or
craftsmen
that
have
dormers
that
large
that
aren't
facing
the
front?
So
they.
P
P
P
G
L
Yeah
this
one
I
was
going
to
say,
is
an
example
of
a
newer
house
where
you're
kind
of
going
after
similar
goals,
I
think
from
the
front
elevation,
and
I
mean
this
may
change
your
whole
thing.
I'm
not
saying
you
should
go
this
route,
but
I
agree
with
commissioner
oliva
that
this
is
sort
of
more
typical
of
a
dormer
on
a
craftsman
style
where
yeah
it's.
R
R
Something
we
can
look
at
different
options
on
how
to
do
that.
E
This
is
a
good
example
of
the
brackets
too,
where
there's
just
three
of
them.
Instead
of
on
years,
there's
an
extra
one
and
a
long
that
I
think
dives,
I
guess
some
of
them
dive
into
the
the
porch
cable.
R
R
E
With
I
think
in
the
nearby
neighbors
and
montford,
I
didn't
see
any
that
had
that
middle
run,
I'm
using
my
cursor
bracket
in
the
upper
right.
E
H
R
We
yeah
we'll
have
to
do
some
monkeying
with
stuff
because
that's
our
egress
window.
So
if
I
don't
come
all
the
way
out
to
the
front,
I
don't
get
my
available
egress
window
size
for
because
those
are
two
bedrooms
up
there.
R
F
R
Well,
that's
what
I
was
saying
we
could
raise
that
main
roof
and
then
get
some
stuff
in.
We
were
trying
to
kind
of
keep
the
the
elevation
on
elizabeth
smaller.
So
it
didn't,
you
know,
just
become
the
super
giant
because
then
also
on
the
broadway
size,
it
gets
really
tall.
Because,
that's
you
know
the
lot
slopes
off.
R
B
F
B
And
I
think
the
feedback
that
we
are
that
some
of
the
things
that
we've
landed
on,
certainly
the
image
alex
that
you
showed
with
the
sort
of
front-facing
gable
kind
of
bungalow
style,
which
sort
of
turned
reorients
the
kind
of
massing
of
this
of
this
house
kind
of
90
degrees.
To
that.
But
you
know
I
think
it
certainly.
B
I
can
appreciate
the
challenges
that
you
are
facing
with
regards
to
egressed
windows
and
the
configuration
of
the
floor
plan
and
the
various
programmatic
layout
of
the
plans
in
relation
to
the
exterior
that
you're
posing-
and
I
think
that's
really.
One
of
the
bigger
challenges
with
new
construction
in
the
historic
district
is
making
the
right
decisions
on
the
exterior
that
can
be
sensitive
and
congruent
with
the
neighborhood
and
also
finding
the
elegant
solution
on
the
inside
with
the
floor
planning
and
the
programming.
B
So
that's,
obviously
a
back
and
forth
that
happens.
We
at
some
point
need
to
pause
for
public
comment,
which
we
we've
sort
of
launched
into
feedback,
which
I
think
is
fine,
and
we
can
continue
that.
I
think
it's
important
and
obviously
sort
of
the
point
of
today
is
to
provide
you
with
that
feedback
on
your
on
the
solution
that
you've
come
up
with,
but
I
would
like
to
just
do
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping
and
pause
for
public
comment.
If
there
is
any
conversation.
F
B
Right
we
will
close
for
public
comment
and
ralph
I'll
turn
the
floor
to
you
for
your
question.
J
Are
dormers
in
general
the
way
they
are
located,
problematic
or
if
they
were
set
back
some?
Would
they
be
more
acceptable
or
do
we
need
to
find
more
examples
in
the
neighborhood
that
have
dormers
like
we
have
them
there,
because,
like
the
example,
the
lady
showed
of
the
I
don't
know
which
commissioner
it
was
that
showed
up
the
house
on
the
the
right
of
that
across
the
street
had
a
dormer
on
the
side,
a
smaller
dormer.
B
My
perspective
and
I'll
ask
other
communities
to
weigh
in.
I
think
it
is
about
the
consistency
of
the
style
of
the
house
that
you're
representing,
and
so
when
we
look
to
a
craft,
a
craftsman,
style
house
or
a
bungalow
style
or
a
prairie
style.
What
are
those
consistent
elements
in
that
particular
style
of
house?
G
G
L
I
think,
just
to
reiterate,
like
I,
I've
spent
a
fair
amount
of
time
in
my
review
of
this,
just
to
make
sure
that
I
was
giving
my
best
feedback
to
you
guys
and
the
commission
on
this.
I
spent
a
fair
amount
of
time,
looking
at
google
street
view
and,
like
commissioner
oliva
just
said,
there
may
be
examples.
L
My
search
has
not
been
exhausted,
but
I've
spent
some
time
in
street
view
and
montford
and
the
only
ones
that
I
can
see
that
have
like
larger
gables
at
least
are
or
gables
at
all,
are
usually
the
ones
that
have
the
front-facing
shed
gable,
the
the
double
front-facing
gable
ones.
I
haven't
come
across
any
that
have
dormers,
but
that's.
L
Sorry,
I
would
encourage
you
to
do
your
due
diligence
and
do
some
more
research.
If
you,
you
know,
want
to
continue
with
the
dormer
concept
and
see
what
you
can
come
up
with.
That
might
support
that,
because
I
haven't
seen
anything
but
again
I
don't
want
to.
I
wouldn't
would
not
want
to,
like
you
know,
rule
anything
out
without
having
more
more
examples
to
kind
of
better
understand.
E
I
wanted
to
echo
alex's
north
facing
elevation
on
the
upper
left
that
the
a
mixture
of
windows
is
pretty
common,
whether
it's
up
against
the
house
or
not
just
to
have
something
visually
to
break
up
the
that
one
single
size
of
smaller
window.
B
I
think
I'm
obviously
moving
forward
paying
attention
to
some
of
the
material
selections.
You
know:
roof
materials,
the
railings
alex
mentioned
in
the
front.
B
B
I
know
there's
some
language
in
the
standards
about
sort
of
pulling
the
corners
of
porches
back.
It
might
be
just
for
additions
to
to
existing
structures.
L
It's
just
for
decks,
yeah,
not
porches,
so
I
think
they're
good.
In
that
way,
I
was
trying
to
pull
up
the
recent
new
construction
project
you
all
approved
on
pearson
as
an
example,
because
I
think
that's
a
pretty
good
one
as
far
as
what
you
were
describing
emily
about.
The
kind
of
you
know
issue
with
the
grade
in
terms
of
how
big
it
has
to
be
on
the
back
by
nature
of
that,
because
this
one
was
sort
of
similar.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
find
it.
L
I
think
it's
just
saying
generally
that
building
features
should
be
similar
to
other
historic
buildings,
but
I
the
other,
the
houses
on
either
side
of
this
are
also
two-story:
four
square
houses,
so
they're,
not
a
story
and
a
half
facing
the
street.
So
it's
a
little
different
to
me:
they're,
not
the
same
style
of
house,
but.
Q
I
don't
think
I
have
any
issue
with
the
two
porches
in
the
back
either.
I
think
that
we
I
mean
it's
in
the
back
so,
and
the
neighbors
it's
going
to
be
similar.
So
in
that
regard,
I'm
fine
with
the
two
porches.
L
This
was
the
house
that
was
approved
at
103
pearson
dry
recently.
L
R
That
I
can
tell
just
now
they
have
a
much
we
still
we
have
the
back.
Lower
level
is
almost
four
feet
off
of
the
grade
down.
There.
R
And
so,
without
doing
a
basement
that
you
know
was
reading,
you
know
either
we
kind
of
split
the
difference
by
putting
the
deck
in
and
not
having.
You
know,
14
and
a
half
foot
basement
front
retaining
wall,
so
we
brought
the
basement
up
a
little
bit
and
put
in
a
wood
deck
to
account
for
just
the
how
much
of
a
difference
we
have
in
elevation.
There.
L
G
The
on
the
rendering
that
you're
showing
the
bottom
one,
which
is
the
front
elevation
on
this
house
that
was
approved
alex,
can
you
bring
that
back
up?
Oh
this
is
the
front.
I'm
sorry
the
next
one
down.
Can
you
bring
so
I'm
fine
with
the
back
porch
I
like
in
this
rendering
that
the
supports
on
the
porch
are
the
same
size,
which
I
think
on
the
proposed
house.
They're
smaller
on
the
top.
Is
that
correct.
R
Well,
yes,
because
we
had
the
heavier
craftsman
columns
on
the
bottom,
so
we
didn't
want
to
go
heavy
craftsman
up
to
little
then
heavy
craftsman
up
to
it.
Look
you
know
if
you've
got
the
big
base,
it
looked
awkward
having
a
real
wide
base
again
once
the
craftsman
got
narrow
at
the
top
like
this
craftsman,
columns
did
not
look
correct
at
all.
G
G
F
B
Craftsmen,
if
that's
a
if
they
were
both
straight
cones
on
both
floors,
there's
a
sort
of
a
weight
and
a
massing
to
it.
That
feels
too
heavy.
B
G
L
Yeah,
it
sounds
like
commissioner
oliva
needs
to
leave
and
because
of
a
really
formal
process,
I
think
do
we
janice.
Do
we
have
to
have
emotion?
Can
they
just
vote
to
excuse
her
or
well.
D
We
still
have
a
well.
We
still
have
a
quorum
to
to
vote
even
to
continue.
Yes,
we'll
be
fine
with
that.
Yes,
you
just
want
to
formally
recuse
her
so
that
it's
the
record
shows
that
she's
no
longer
president
of
the
meeting.
So
if
somebody
wants
to
make
that
motion
to
literally
leave
the
meeting,
okay.
B
F
F
C
B
Myself
I
as
well,
commissioner
oliva.
You
are
excused
for
the
thing.
F
B
B
Okay,
I
think
in
general,
from
my
perspective,
the
feedback
that
I
would
offer
is.
You
know,
I
think,
echoes
what
other
commissioners
have
said
with
regards
to
the
dormers
and
just
some
cut
style
continuity.
I
think
throughout
the
the
mapping
and
the
the
roof
lines
for
sure.
B
I
think
the
windows
that's
an
easy
hurdle
to
overcome
with
some
additional
study
with
regards
to,
especially
on
the
left
elevation
having
more
variety
there
on
that
side,
I
think
that
it's
you
know
from
my
perspective,
it
feels
like
some
response
on
the
inside
of
the
house
might
be
necessary
to
try
to
overcome
some
of
the
challenges
that
the
masting
is
giving
you,
for.
B
You
know
evolving
the
design
into
the
next
kind
of
steps
for
a
follow-up
meeting.
You
know
I
appreciate
the
scale
of
the
building
from
the
front
street
elevation
on
elizabeth's
place.
It
feels
like
it
fits
well
in
terms
of
how
it's
positioned
on
the
site
and
how
it
relates
to
the
houses
adjacent
to
it.
B
It
is
you
know,
a
long,
skinny
site.
I
think
the
back
has
probably
limited
exposure
to
the
public.
There's,
I
think,
a
commercial
property
right
up
on
broadway.
That
is,
would
it
be
in
front
of
the
back
of
this
house
and
certainly
the
height
difference.
There
would
give
you
some
visibility
from
broadway,
but
I
don't
know
that
I'd
ever
really
consider
it
a
front
elevation
in
any
way.
R
B
Yeah,
I
don't
have
a
real
scale
problem
or
issue
with
how
tall
it
is
in
the
back
or
that
the
you
know
the
basement
level
is,
you
know
above
grade
there.
The
way
those
porsches
are
are
proposed.
B
I
think,
with
some
nuance
on
the
style
and
the
language
of
the
exterior
that
the
back
is
probably
not
a
real
concern.
From
my
perspective,
you
know
certainly
color
and
material
selections
on
the
the
siding
and
the
shakes,
I
think
are
you
know,
can
be
informed
by
the
style
decisions
that
you
make
with
regards
to
the
mapping
and
the
roof.
R
Ralph,
do
you
have
any
concerns
other
than
what
we'll
need
to
discuss,
because
I'm
fairly
clear
on
the
and
have
some
ideas
on
how
to
address
the
dormers
not
needed
to
be
discussed
here
obvious?
I
hit
the
drawing
boards
again,
but
everything
else
has
been
pretty
clear.
B
L
L
So
the
guidelines
really
are
kind
of
written
more
with
with
that
in
mind
that
you're
that
we're
talking
about
you
know
historic
structures
and
whether
or
not
it
would
be
appropriate
to
go
back
with
metal
and
they
they're
pretty
specific
and
say
that
you
can
only
go
back
with
metal
if
there's
evidence,
clear
evidence
that
it
was
metal
originally
and
so
and
so
for
new
construction.
L
I
guess
I
kind
of
look
at
it
just
in
basing
it
on
like
what's
typical
of
an
architectural
style
that's
being
proposed,
and
that
metal,
I
don't
think,
would
be
typical
of
a
bungalow
style
house,
but
you
all
again
that's
sort
of
like
another
thing
where
it's
like
the
the
dormers.
If
there's
evidence
to
the
contrary,
then
certainly
that
can
be
used
to
support
your
argument
for
a
metal
roof.
L
But
I
don't
can't
think
of
any
examples
that
I
have
seen,
except
for
the
one
or
two
that
I
know
were
put
on
without
a
ca.
Q
F
E
To
as
a
commission
the
the
small
I
know,
things
are
gonna
get
reoriented,
but
just
to
sort
of
help
them
long.
I
like
the
little
window,
but
if
it's
an.
E
A
round
window
is
that
sort
of
the
feeling,
or
is
it
more
of
a
just
the
anomaly
of
the
third
gable
break
in
the
roof
line.
E
B
You
know,
I
understand
the
sort
of
element
of
you
know,
whimsier,
surprise
in
the
things
that
we
design-
and
there
certainly
would
be
evidence
of
that
in
montford,
where
someone
got
kind
of
excited
about
doing
something
a
little
different.
You
know
I
it's
from
yeah.
You
know,
I
think
it's
just
one
of
those
things
where
you
you
look
at
it
and
decide
if
it's.
B
If
it
is
it
effective,
the
the
way
that
it's
done,
does
it
do
the
thing
that
you
wanted
it
to
do
in
terms
of
creating
that
sort
of
surprising
moment
or
in
a
way,
that's
still
consistent,
and
I
think
right
now
the
round
feels
like
a
real
intro
interruption
in
in
it,
maybe
more
so
than
the
little
dormer
does
to
start
with.
For
me,.
B
So
quiet,
I
think,
the
options
sort
of
at
this
point
when
you
feel
you
have
reached
the
sort
of
feedback
that
you
are
looking
for.
B
L
F
B
F
C
F
And
me
I
as
well
and
then
you
can
follow
up
alex.
I
guess.
E
I'd
like
to
make
a
motion
to
to
end
the
august
meeting
at
7,
40
p.m,.