[I. Call to order]
[00:00:06]
GOOD EVENING. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2025. CHRISTINA, COULD WE PLEASE HAVE A ROLL CALL? MR. STROLLER, COUNCIL MEMBER BRISK HERE FOR FIVE VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE A
[III. Action on minutes: January 13, 2025 ]
QUORUM. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY ACTION ON THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 13TH, 2025 MEETING? I HAVE A FEW REVISIONS, MR. HANSON, PLEASE. PAGE SIX. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER TUCKER.UNDER TO TOPOLOGY. I MIGHT CHANGE THE FIRST SENTENCE TO SAY BOARD MEMBER. RIGHT. AND SAID THAT HE HAD A FEW ISSUES WITH THIS TOPOLOGY. FURTHER DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THE PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE LAST PARAGRAPH. I THINK THAT SHOULD SAY BOARD MEMBER MALLETT'S CLARIFIED THE HEIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE EAVE FOR BE IS 45FT SIX INCHES, NOT 145FT, BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT THAT'S TALLER THAN WE HAVE EVER HAVE HAD. CORRECT. PAGE SEVEN.
THE THIRD PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM. BOARD MEMBER WRIGHT QUERIED THE ARCHITECT. BOARD MEMBERS, PERIOD. HE NOTED THAT THE DJR CHARGED THE BOARD. SO JUST ADD AN E TO THE WORD CHARGE. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST. ON THE POLL MEMBERS WERE COMMENT PAGE TEN. AGAIN, EDITING WHAT I SAID. I PROBABLY DID SAY WHAT YOU WROTE, BUT IT SOUNDS BETTER FOR ME TO SAY WHAT I PROPOSED.
IN THE THIRD SENTENCE, HE ADVOCATES THAT THE BOARD ONLY PROCEEDS TO ELECT ELECTRONIC IF THEY ARE PROVIDED THE TOOLS TO REVIEW IT. AND THAT'S ALL I HAD. AND I CAN MOVE IF NO ONE ELSE HAS REVISIONS. SO WITH THOSE REVISIONS, I MOVE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BOARD OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JANUARY 13TH, 2025. I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU, MR. EATON. YES, MR. BROWN? YES. MR. DAVIES? YES. MR. HENSON. YES. MR. MALLETT'S. YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE
[IV. Additions or corrections to the agenda]
THE MINUTES AS REVISED. THANK YOU. STAFF. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO OUR.PAPERWORK? NO. THANK YOU. SO AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ADMINISTER AN OATH TO ALL WITNESSES OR APPLICANTS WHO ARE GOING TO PLAN TO ADDRESS THE BOARD THIS EVENING. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY VISITORS FOR ITEMS HERE PRESENT? NOT FOR. FOR ITEMS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FIRST CASE OF ARB 80
[VI. Cases]
2024 FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALLOW MULTIPLE EXTERIOR CHANGES AT 20 SOUTH HIGH STREET. IT INCLUDES SIDING, WINDOWS, AND GARAGE DOOR MODIFICATIONS. THE APPLICANT IS BUSH REAL ESTATE LLC. WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT. YES. THANK YOU. SO AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS APPLICATION IS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ALLOW SOME EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS AT 20 SOUTH HIGH STREET. THIS BUILDING IS GENERALLY OR THIS PARCEL IS GENERALLY OUTLINED IN RED HERE ON YOUR MAP. AND JUST TO HELP ORIENT SOME PEOPLE, THIS IS MAIN STREET HERE. THIS IS HIGH STREET. GOH YOGA IS LOCATED RIGHT HERE. SO THIS IS GENERALLY KIND OF CATTY CORNER ACROSS HIGH STREET. THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS YOU CAN SEE. THIS IS FALLING INTO A LITTLE BIT OF A DISREPAIR. IT'S NOT REALLY KEPT UP WITH. THIS IS A STUCCO MATERIAL ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. AND THEN THE REAR STRUCTURE IS A DETACHED GARAGE. SO THE APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVERAL EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS TO HELP BRING THIS BUILDING. A LITTLE UP INTO TO MATCH SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE DONE ON ADJACENT STRUCTURES. SO THIS WOULD THESE ELEVATIONS ARE GOING TO FLIP THROUGH. HERE ARE EXISTING ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING. SO AGAIN THIS IS IT'S NOT EVIDENT IN THIS IMAGE HERE. BUT THIS IS A STUCCO STRUCTURE.SO ANOTHER SNAPSHOT OF IT THERE. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE HERE.
THIS APPEARS TO BE A VINYL SIDING. AND THEN THE APPLICANT AGAIN IT'S NOT SUPER EVIDENT IN THIS IMAGE HERE, BUT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RESIDE THE ENTIRE BUILDING USING A HARDIE BOARD MATERIAL, VERY CONSISTENT WITH HOW OTHER STRUCTURES IN THE VILLAGE CENTER HAVE BEEN RECITED IN THE PAST. THE CITY ARCHITECT DID REVIEW THE APPLICATION AND IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS
[00:05:05]
SIDING CHANGE. OBVIOUSLY IS MORE IN LINE WITH OUR DGRS AND OUR DIFFERENT CODE STANDARDS FOR STRUCTURES IN THE VILLAGE CENTER. THE RESIDING WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE GARAGE. I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT AS WELL. AGAIN, THE CITY ARCHITECT IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THESE CHANGES.HOWEVER, THEY DID RECOMMEND THAT WE ADD A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. THAT JUST THE FINE DETAILS OF YOU KNOW HOW THAT MATERIAL IS EXECUTED ON ALL THE ELEVATIONS AND FROM WHERE IT TRANSITIONS FROM ONE ELEVATION TO ANOTHER. JUST MAKING SURE ALL THOSE DETAILS ARE DONE CORRECTLY. THEY RECOMMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THOSE DETAILS ARE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING, AND SUBJECT TO THE CITY ARCHITECT'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AND THAT'S A PRETTY STANDARD, STRAIGHTFORWARD CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WE PLACE ON THESE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS IN THE VILLAGE CENTER. SO THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REPLACING IT APPEARS ALL LIKE ALL THE WINDOWS ON THE MAIN STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING. AND THEY ARE ALSO ADDING WINDOWS ON THE ACCESSORY BUILDING. SO CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO WINDOWS ON THIS SOUTHERN ELEVATION. I THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATELY LABELED AS THE WESTERN ELEVATION IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. SO APOLOGIES FOR THAT. THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING WILL GET THREE NEW DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS. AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER WINDOW ON THE NORTHERN ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THERE'S ONE ON THE INTERIOR ELEVATION FACING FACING THE HOUSE. THEY ARE ALSO REPLACING THE GARAGE DOORS. CURRENTLY, THEY'RE A SOLID PANEL. TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL GARAGE DOOR. AND THEY'RE REPLACING THOSE WITH WHAT'S SHOWN HERE. AND ON YOUR PACKET THERE IS A WINDOWS ADDED TO THE TOP WITH SOME GLAZING, WHICH THE CITY ARCHITECT BELIEVES IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE. I THINK I COVERED ALL OF THE CHANGES AND THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I DON'T SEE THE APPLICANT HERE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO HELP OUT IN ANY WAY I CAN. I I'M DELIGHTED THAT THE OLDER STRUCTURE IS BEING UPDATED. ARE THE ARE THE WINDOW? I MEAN THEY'RE NEW WINDOWS. ARE THEY THE SAME IN TERMS OF THE EXISTING WINDOWS OR DON'T AREN'T DIVIDED LIGHT AND THE NEW ONES AREN'T DIVIDED LIGHT IF I CAN. THAT'S WHAT IT APPEARS. YES.
YEP. SO WE'RE GOING LIKE FOR LIKE CORRECT. YEAH. SO THEN THE QUESTION IS I GO TO THE, THE ADDITIONS ON THE GARAGE STRUCTURE. AND I THINK THE BEST PAGE TO LOOK AT THIS IS, IS A 4.0 OF THE OF THE OF THE DOCUMENT. IT'S THE DIMENSIONS ON THE OVERHEAD. LET ME SEE. I MIGHT NOT HAVE THAT ONE. ALL RIGHT. SO A 4.0. AND YOU CAN YOU CAN SEE IT. WELL YOU COULD EVEN SEE IT IF THE BOARD LOOKS AT A 4.0. I LOOK DOWN HERE AND LIKE THE DOOR BACKING INTO THE HOUSE ISN'T CENTERED. WHY WOULDN'T THAT DOOR BE CENTERED? THE SAME. THE SAME THING? YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S OBVIOUSLY. WELL, THIS ISN'T. THERE WE ARE. YOU KNOW WHY? WHY WOULDN'T YOU CENTER IT? AND THEN WHY WOULDN'T YOU? WHY WOULDN'T YOU HAVE YOUR YOUR YOUR WINDOW BEING EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE QUARTER OF THE HALF OF THE BUILDING? YOU GO TO THE, THE SOUTHERN AN ELEVATION.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU CAN SEE IT MORE CLEARLY IN 8.8, 4.0. BUT THAT'S NOT CENTERED EITHER.
WELL, THERE WE ARE. I MEAN, AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE A4 WILL MAKE IT CLEAR THIS IS A DIFFERENT DISTANCE FROM THE FROM THE WALL THAN THAT DISTANCE. IT JUST STRIKES ME THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME WHY YOU WOULDN'T CENTER THEM. SAME THING THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE. AGAIN, THE DOOR ISN'T CENTERED EXACTLY FROM THE PLANS. AND AGAIN, WHY WOULDN'T WHY WOULDN'T ALL THIS BE SYMMETRICAL? YEAH, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IF YOU REFERENCE SHEET A THREE POINT ZERO THAT THE DOOR THAT IS FACING WEST. WEST ELEVATION APPEARS TO BE EXISTING, AND THE DOOR THAT FACES OR THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING TO THE NORTH APPEARS TO BE AN INFILL REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING OPENING, WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY IT'S NOT MOVING. THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION, BUT I DID WANT TO PIGGYBACK A FEW COMMENTS IS THAT ALTHOUGH PLANS AND ELEVATIONS WERE SUBMITTED, THE LACK OF NOTATION RELATED TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT STILL APPEARS TO BE STUCCO VERSUS SIDING IS A BIT CONFUSING WITHOUT ANY ANNOTATION. SO IF STAFF CAN JUST ASK THE APPLICANTS TO NOTE THAT STUFF MOVING FORWARD, IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR US TO EVALUATE, BECAUSE OUR CHARGE IS TO PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, AND THESE ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE NOTES. I ALSO WANTED TO ASK A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. I KNOW THIS COMES UP OFTEN. IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD IS THE USE OF HARDY. WHICH I KNOW WE'VE ALWAYS DISCUSSED AS AN APPROPRIATE MATERIAL AS A BOARD. AND IN FACT, IT'S BEEN USED OFTEN. BUT THE DJR STILL
[00:10:02]
SPEAK TO WOOD. SO DOES STAFF HAVE ANY UPDATE ON HOW WE'RE TO CONSIDER THAT REQUEST? I KNOW THAT THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ADMINISTRATIVELY. YEAH, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULD EVALUATE AT THIS POINT. I WAS ALSO APPROACHED BY SOMEONE FOR A DIFFERENT PROJECT THAT INTRODUCED SOME ALTERNATE MATERIALS AS WELL. THAT'S NOT HARDY BOARD. YOU'RE PROBABLY MORE FAMILIAR. I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHAT THEY WERE CALLED, BUT IT WAS A VERY SIMILAR MATERIAL. BUT IT WASN'T HARDY BOARD. AND THEN WE'VE HEARD SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE PAST YEAR THAT WOULD REALLY ISN'T A DURABLE MATERIAL COMPARED TO SOME OF THESE NEWER MATERIALS. SO IT PROBABLY IS TIME TO AT LEAST EVALUATE THE DJR TO SEE IF WE CAN DO SOME UPDATING. BUT MAYBE WE WANT TO TAKE SOME TIME TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER MATERIALS LIKE THE ONE I'M NOT REMEMBERING RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE SEVERAL TRADE NAMES BEYOND HARDY, CORRECT? YES, YES. YEAH. BUT YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOU. YEAH. SO, SORRY. JUST JUST BACK TO THE. SO IF FROM AGAIN LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT. SO ON THE NORTH ELEVATION THERE IS AN EXISTING DOOR AND SO WE'RE STUCK WITH IT. BUT WHAT STAFF IS TELLING ME IS THAT THE WINDOWS ON THE WEST. ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION ARE NEW. WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO BE EQUALLY EQUALLY? WHY WHY WHY WOULDN'T THEY LINE UP? WHY WOULDN'T THE DISTANCE HERE BE THE SAME AS THE DISTANCE THERE? I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT WE'RE SETTING UP SOMETHING THAT ISN'T SYMMETRICAL. AND IT DOES SEEM THAT ON THE WEST ELEVATION, IT DOES SAY A NEW WINDOW AND A NEW DOOR. SO IT'S NOT AN EXISTING OPENING. SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE EXISTING WESTERN ELEVATION. THAT'S THE EXISTING WEST. OKAY. SO THEN THEN WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS ON THE NORTH, YOU SAY ONE NEW WINDOW IN THE NORTH. I MIGHT HAVE MISTYPED THAT. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY I'M, I'M, I'M, I'M PUZZLED BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IF THAT'S EXISTING. YEAH, I GOT YOU. I THINK I MISSED I MISS I GOT THE DIRECTIONS WRONG ON THE STAFF REPORT. SO YEAH. THIS IS THE ONE WHERE THEY WOULD GET A NEW WINDOW AND A NEW DOOR ON THIS ELEVATION. OKAY. SO AGAIN, THAT SHOULD BUT THE DOOR OUGHT TO BE CENTERED. UNLESS NOBODY ELSE FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT THIS.BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME. WHY WHY WOULD YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T PROPORTIONAL? I GUESS THERE'S ALSO THE QUESTION. SHOULDN'T THERE BE TWO WINDOWS AND A DOOR? IF THERE'S THREE WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH SIDE, IS IT IS THERE? ARE THEY DOING ANYTHING INSIDE? IS THEY BUILDING ANYTHING INSIDE IT, OR IS IT JUST NOT THE WINDOWS ON A GARAGE? YEAH, NOT I KNOW THAT THEY PLAN ON USING THE SPACE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE USING IT FOR. EXACTLY. IT LOOKS LIKE OFFICE SPACE. IT COULD BE OFFICE SPACE. TWO DOORS, TINY SPACE LIKE THAT. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE FOR ANYTHING THAT IS BEING ADDED. IT OUGHT TO BE SYMMETRICAL. GOTCHA. AND IF AND IF THE DOOR. IF THE DOOR ON THE SIDE OF THE WEST SIDE, THE TRUE WEST SIDE IS ALREADY THERE.
RIGHT THEN. ALL RIGHT. I'LL LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE. BUT AT LEAST ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH, I'D LIKE THAT TO BE SYMMETRICAL. AND THAT WINDOW ON THE WEST? THIS WINDOW. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE LOCATION OF THIS ONE? IDEALLY. WELL, I MEAN, GIVEN THAT THE DOOR IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE, MAYBE I'M JUST GOING TO LIVE WITH IT. GOTCHA. OKAY. YOU. YOU'D LIKE TO THINK IT WOULD BE EQUIDISTANT BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE DOOR? I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'D SAY. AT LEAST. AT LEAST MAKE THAT SYMMETRICAL. IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE IF ALL OF THIS IS SLIGHTLY SKEWED TO THE LEFT, I MEAN, MR. MALLETT. MR. DAVE. NO, I, I DON'T DISAGREE. OKAY. I THINK I WOULD ADD TO YOUR COMMENTS THAT THAT REGARDING THIS, THE STAFF APPROVAL OF THE DETAILS, THIS IS CONCEPTUALLY WHAT I'M, WHAT I HEAR IN THE STAFF REPORT AND WHAT I SEE, IT ALL MAKES SENSE. AND IT APPEARS TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO IN THAT REGARD I'M SUPPORTIVE. I DON'T MIND SAYING THAT OUT LOUD. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DRAWINGS ARE ARE HIGHLY CONCEPTUAL. I MEAN, IF YOU COULD JUST PLEASE GO TO SHEET 10.4, WHICH IS THE REAR ELEVATION OF THE GARAGE. I'LL TRY TO MAKE MY POINT. THERE YOU GO. BACK UP ONE, PLEASE. SO I ALREADY REMARKED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. YOU SEEM TO BE ALWAYS CHALLENGING FOR ME. THERE WE GO. THE LACK OF DETAIL ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. NO CORNERBOARDS OR TRIM AROUND THE GARAGE DOOR OPENINGS. NO CORNER BOARDS AT THE OUTSIDE CORNERS OF THE GARAGE. NO ARTICULATION OF A FRIEZE BOARD. NO BASE WHERE THE FOUNDATION MEETS. NO INDICATION AS TO WHETHER GUTTERS WILL BE INSTALLED OR REMOVED OR REPLACED. THERE'S JUST NO DETAIL HERE, AND IT'S LEFT TO THE BOARD TO MAKE THAT INTERPRETATION. AND I WOULD JUST ARGUE THAT IT HAS. IT'S PROBABLY TIPPING SLIGHTLY BEYOND MY COMFORT ZONE IN TERMS OF JUST TOTAL LACK OF CLARITY OF WHAT'S GOING ON. SO I AM SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. BUT THE DRAWINGS CERTAINLY DON'T SEEM TO ALIGN WITH WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF, AND I'LL DEFER TO THE REST OF THE BOARD ON HOW
[00:15:04]
THAT TRANSLATES TO TAKING ACTION. THIS ELEVATION DOESN&-PI THINK, IS THAT THE EXISTING? YEAH, THAT'S THE EXISTING. I MY COMMENTS WERE SIMILAR. THERE'S JUST VERY LIMITED DETAIL THERE WEAVING HARDIE BOARD ON COLUMNS IN THE FRONT. OR ARE THEY ADDING TRIM TO THE CORNERS. RIGHT.THERE'S NO DETAIL. WE'RE JUST GOING TO DUMP THIS ONTO THE CITY ARCHITECT TO, YOU KNOW, WORK IT OUT WITH THE WITH THE WITH THE APPLICANT. EXISTING CONDITION ALSO SHOWS BALUSTRADE ON THE PORCH THAT DOESN'T EXIST RIGHT NOW. IT'S ALL STUCCO, SO THERE'S NO DETAILS ON THE PORCH BALUSTRADE AT ALL, EVEN THOUGH IT SHOWS IT AS AN EXISTING CONDITION. SO AGAIN, SOMETHING TO WORK OUT WITH THE CITY ARCHITECT. OR IS HE GOING TO PRESENT A PORCH DETAIL FOR US TO. YEAH. AND I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO ASK TO BRING UP THE IMAGE OF THE EXISTING. YEAH. SO I THINK HERE THEY'RE JUST SHOWING AS DRESSING THIS PORCH IN HARDIE AS WELL. AND I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FOR THE HOUSE. BUT I REALLY AM CONCERNED ABOUT THESE ARCHWAYS. AND I MEAN THAT'S JUST THERE'S JUST NO WAY THAT'S GOING TO LOOK CORRECT. YEAH. AND I THINK SERIOUS CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN FOR HOW THAT'S TREATED. AND WHETHER THAT STILL MAKES SENSE TO MAINTAIN THAT TYPE OF TREATMENT OR JUST GET RID OF THE ARCHES. YEAH. THAT'S WHERE I WOULD START. WHAT WAS THE MAKE IT WHITE. JUST GET RID OF THE ARCH. YEAH. JUST TREES, BUT IT MAY MAKE TO MR. DAVIES POINT. IT MAY MAKE MORE SENSE. OR WHETHER THOSE WHETHER THOSE COLUMNS ARE WRAPPED IN SIDING VERSUS TRIMMED LIKE ACTUAL LIKE MADE THE SAME REMARK. SO THAT'S THE KIND OF EXAMPLES THAT I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN WITH, JUST LACK OF CLARITY. I THINK THIS NEEDS THIS CONDITION NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED. AND WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO MAINTAIN AND JUST SLAP SOMETHING ON TOP OF IT VERSUS ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE CONDITION OF THE ARCHWAYS, THEIR SEGMENTED ARCHWAYS, SOMEWHAT POINTED. I'M JUST LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL PICTURE AND IT JUST LOOKS WATER DAMAGED AND, YOU KNOW, SLAPPING SOMETHING ON THERE MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST SOLUTION. THEY SHOW A DIFFERENT RAIL, WHICH I THINK MAKES SENSE ON THE FRONT. SO IF THEY'RE TREATING PART OF THE PORCH DIFFERENTLY FROM THIS, MAYBE IT'S TIME TO LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE PORCH AS WELL. YEAH. DID YOU TABLE THIS AND HAVE THEM COME BACK WITH SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN APPROVE? I THINK THAT WE TABLE THIS, GIVEN THEIR LACK OF DETAIL AND PRESENCE. THEIR PRESENCE. DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO TELL THEM WHAT? YEAH. YEAH. WE'LL SHARE THIS RECORDING WITH THEM. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANYTHING INSTEAD OF BEING HERE, BUT, YEAH, WE'LL SHARE IT WITH THEM. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. 80 2024 UNTIL NEXT MONTH. I'D SECOND IT. WOULD YOU GUYS.
SORRY. JUST ONE. WOULD YOU MIND MAKING IT EITHER NEXT MONTH OR THE MONTH AFTER? I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THESE CHANGES WILL TAKE FOR THEM TO MAKE. IF WE DON'T FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION, BUT DON'T. ISN'T THE TABLING ONLY VALID FOR 30 DAYS BY THE TABLE? IT AGAIN, HOWEVER LONG YOU GUYS.
BUT I THINK I THINK THE SOMEWHERE I READ IN IN IN IN THE ORGANIZATION ORGANIZING STATUTES THAT WE CAN TABLE IT BUT WE CAN'T TABLE IT FOR MORE THAN A MONTH. THEY COULD TURN IT DOWN.
WE'VE TABLED THINGS FOR MORE THAN A MONTH IN THE PAST, BUT IT'S USUALLY DRIVEN BY WHAT YOU GUYS THINK IS APPROPRIATE. I'M HAPPY TO TABLE IT FOR AS LONG AS NECESSARY, AS LONG AS THAT, AS LONG AS THAT IS, AS LONG AS THAT IS WITHIN OUR OUR OUR POWER. WHAT ARE YOU RECOMMENDING, CHRIS? I WOULD SAY MAYBE 60 DAYS. NO MORE THAN 60 DAYS. THAT SAID, TWO MONTHS. RIGHT. JUST IN CASE THEY NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THESE DETAILS, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD I WOULD ACCEPT A REVISION TO MR. I WOULD MOVE TO TABLE THIS FOR UP TO 60 DAYS. OKAY. MR. HENSON. YES. MR. ITEM? YES. MR. DAVEY? YES. MR. MALIK? YES. MR. BROWN? YES. MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR OF TABLING THE APPLICATION FOR UP TO 60 DAYS. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT CASE THIS EVENING IS A OR B 97 2024 FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO ADD HYBRID COURTYARD AND TUCK UNDER TOWNHOME BUILDING TYPOLOGIES TO THE URBAN CENTER. CODE FOR DEVELOPMENT SITE LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH AND WEST AND EAST OF MAIN STREETS. THE APPLICANT IS NEW ALBANY TOWN CENTER, LLC. THREE MEMBERS. DO YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT? YES. THANK YOU. AND I AM GOING TO PRESENT BOTH OF THESE APPLICATIONS TOGETHER. JUST A REMINDER, THIS PROJECT WAS TABLED AT THE JANUARY 13TH MEETING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO REVISE ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS. ANDREW PROVIDED THE APPLICANT DETAILED RED LINES THAT I WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE TO THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT HAS
[00:20:04]
REVISED ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS IN RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS. I JUST WANT TO LEAVE THIS UP FOR ANYONE THAT MAY BE WATCHING AT HOME OR IN THE AUDIENCE IF THEY WANT, YOU KNOW, FULL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROJECT. THERE IS A QR CODE TO OUR WEBSITE AS WELL AS CASE MATERIALS. SO JUST A REMINDER, THIS IS WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED. IT INCLUDES THREE PARCELS. THE FIRST APPLICATION WAS FOR BUILDING TYPOLOGIES THE APPLICANT HAS REMOVED, PREFERABLY ALONG AN ALLEY TO ALONG AN ALLEY IN THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BOTH OF THE PROPOSED TYPOLOGIES FOR THE TUCK UNDER TOWNHOMES, THE APPLICANT HAS DECREASED THE MAX HEIGHT FROM 55FT TO 45FT, AND FOR HYBRID COURTYARD, THE APPLICANT HAS DECREASED THE HEIGHT FROM 55FT TO 50FT. WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES, THE BUILDING TYPOLOGIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES. THE DESIGN, MASSING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING BUILDING TYPOLOGIES AND THESE SUB AREAS, AND THESE WILL PROMOTE DIVERSE HOUSING, INCREASE DENSITY IN A WALKABLE URBAN FORM WITHIN THE VILLAGE CENTER. THE NEXT APPLICATION IS FOR THE PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. SO I WILL GO THROUGH SOME OF THE REVISIONS. ALL UNIT COUNTS HAVE REMAINED THE SAME, BUT SOME BEDROOM COUNTS HAVE BEEN REVISED. ADDITIONALLY, THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE HAS BEEN DECREASED SLIGHTLY FROM 4276FT■S TO 4208. AGAIN, JUST A REMINDER THAT SUB PARCEL A IS A TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL IS TRADITIONAL. COMMERCIAL TYPOLOGY INCLUDES A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND MIXED AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE SOME ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES TO SUB PARCEL A, INCLUDING ELIMINATING THE CENTRALLY LOCATED BALCONIES ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THE SLOPE OF THE GABLE ROOF AND END WALLS HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO A STEEPER SLOPE. CORNICE AND TRIM DETAILING HAS BEEN REFINED ACROSS THE ENTIRE BUILDING. THIS IS THE CASE ALSO FOR BUILDING B AND C. HALF ROUND ARCHES HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH SEGMENTED ARCHES. TRADITIONAL BALUSTRADE RAILINGS ON THE THIRD FLOOR HAVE BEEN ADDED, AND ALL WINDOWS HAVE BEEN UPDATED TO PROVIDE SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHT, AND THIS IS ALSO TRUE FOR SUB PARCEL B AND C. ANDREW MADE A COMMENT FOR THE APPLICANT TO REVISE THE SECOND STORY WINDOWS TO BE MORE CENTERED. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS ELECTED NOT TO MAKE THIS CHANGE. THE CITY ARCHITECT HAS EVALUATED THIS AND SUPPORTS THE CURRENT DESIGN, AS THE CHOSEN ORDERING SYSTEM RESULTS IN A BALANCED ELEVATION. AND HERE'S THE PROPOSED ELEVATION ON THE TOP AND THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL ON THE BOTTOM. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE END FACADES OF THIS BUILDING. ON THE LEFT IS THE PREVIOUS ELEVATION OF THE NORTH END FACADE AND THE PROPOSED ELEVATION, WHICH NOW INCLUDES GARAGE DOORS, COLUMNS AND ADDITIONAL WINDOWS. TO THE RIGHT IS THE SOUTH END FACADE, WHICH THE PREVIOUS ELEVATION INCLUDED BALCONIES, GARAGE DOORS AND COLUMNS, AND IS NOW HAS A STOREFRONT WINDOW AND BRICK ACCENT. THE CITY ARCHITECT HAS REVIEWED REVIEWED THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE SOUTH END FACADE AND CONCLUDED THAT IT NEEDED TO BE STUDIED FURTHER, AS IT'S HIGHLY VISIBLE HERE ON THE SIDE IS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE APPLICANT ENHANCE THE SOUTH FACADE TO ADHERE TO A STRICT CENTER LINE.AND HERE IS JUST SOME UPDATED ELEVATIONS. SO HERE'S A VIEW FROM FOUNDERS AVENUE AND HIGH STREET. SO SHOWING THAT NEW NORTHERN FACADE WITH THE GARAGE DOORS AND THE PATIO. HERE'S A VIEW FROM HIGH STREET LOOKING NORTH. AND THEN HERE IS A VIEW FROM HIGH STREET LOOKING SOUTH.
THE SECOND SUB PARCEL IS SUB PARCEL B WHICH INCLUDED THE TUCK UNDER TOWNHOMES. THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE TOWNHOMES TO INCLUDE A CONSISTENT, CONSISTENT RUSTICATED BASE, BRICK BRICK BASE, REDUCED PARAPET HEIGHTS, REDESIGNED RESIDENTIAL ENTRIES AND REMOVAL OF THIRD FLOOR TRELLIS STRUCTURES. ADDITIONALLY, THE INTERIOR FACADES OF THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN REVISED HAVE CONSISTENT WINDOW PLACEMENT ON THE SECOND STORY, REMOVAL OF THE JULIET BALCONIES AND A BRICK WALL WITH AN OPERABLE VEHICULAR GATE HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE OPEN END OF THE DRIVE PARK. AND HERE ARE SOME UPDATED ELEVATIONS OF THIS BUILDING. SO HERE'S A VIEW FROM FOUNDERS AVENUE AND CHERRY ALLEY. HERE IS THE VIEW FROM SECOND STREET. AND HERE IS THE VIEW FROM HAWTHORNE ALLEY AND SECOND STREET. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE IS THAT BRICK GATE THAT HAS BEEN ADDED. LASTLY IS SUB PARCEL C WHICH IS HYBRID COURTYARD. SOME OF THE REVISIONS INCLUDE INCREASED USABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE AT THE SOUTH END CORNER, ADDITIONAL WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH FACADE, CORNICE AND DETAILING LIKE BUILDINGS A AND B HAVE BEEN REFINED, AND THIRD STORY BALCONIES HAVE BEEN REDESIGNED WITH TRADITIONAL BALUSTRADE
[00:25:01]
RAILINGS. AND HERE IS THE EAST ELEVATION ON THE TOP AND THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL. AND THEN HERE IS THE PROPOSED ELEVATION OF THE NORTH ELEVATION AND THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL. AND THEN HERE ARE SOME UPDATED RENDERINGS. HERE'S THE VIEW FROM THIRD STREET AND FOUNDERS AVENUE. THE VIEW FROM SECOND STREET. AND FOR OVERALL PARKING. MINOR REVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PARKING COUNTS, INCLUDING A FEW ADDITIONAL SPOTS AND SUB PARCEL A AND C AS SHOWN HERE.AND AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THREE WAIVERS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE, AND THESE HAVE NOT CHANGED WITH THE PROPOSED PROPOSED REVISIONS. THE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES TO ACHIEVE SEVERAL STRATEGIC PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING PROMOTING MIXED USE AND RETAIL INFILL DEVELOPMENT. THE DESIGNS OF THE BUILDING ARE HIGH QUALITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT CREATES A DYNAMIC URBAN ENVIRONMENT THAT MEETS PARKING STANDARDS. AND I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
ONE ONE QUESTION, AND MAYBE THIS MIGHT END UP BEING ONE OF THE APPLICANTS IN LOOKING AT THE HYBRID COURTYARD RESIDENTIAL TYPOLOGY IN THE IN THE NEW ONE, WE SEE THAT THE PROPOSED IS 49 FOOT SEVEN INCHES, WHEREAS THE OLD ONE WAS 46. SO THE QUESTION WAS HOW DID HOW DID THE BUILDING GROW BETWEEN THE OLD ONE AND NOW? YEAH, I CAN LEAVE THAT UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER. BUT I DID EXPLAIN TO THEM HOW TO MEASURE FROM THE FOUR CORNERS. SO THEY THEY'VE TAKEN THE AVERAGE OF THE FOUR CORNER HEIGHTS. OKAY. SO IT SIMPLY IS A MATTER OF WHERE YOU MEASURE FROM. YES. SO IT'S KIND OF MORE OF A CORRECTION. IT'S LIKE WHETHER I WAS STANDING UP STRAIGHT. YEAH. THE DOCTOR MEASURED ME OR WHETHER I WAS SLOUCHING A BIT. EXACTLY. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. YEAH. THAT'S THAT'S HELPFUL. I, I DON'T I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE NEED AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. AND THE APPLICANT IS DYING TO GIVE ONE. BUT I WOULD PROPOSE JUST TO GO INTO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. I, I CONCUR. SO ON THE ON THE TOPOLOGIES. THANK YOU AGAIN. YOU'VE GOT THERE'S ONLY ONE THING I'D LIKE ON THE TUCK UNDER TOWNHOME TOPOLOGY, WHICH IS I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE IN THE TOPOLOGY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE TUCK UNDER PARKING BE SCREENED. I MEAN BASICALLY WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THE ACTUAL PLANS THEMSELVES THAT THAT BE SCREENED AT GROUND LEVEL. IN SOME FASHION SO THAT IT IS NOT VISIBLE AT FROM FROM GROUND LEVEL. AND I THINK THAT'S NOT NOT AN ASK BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY DOING THAT. I JUST LIKE THE TOPOLOGY. I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT WHERE A TOPOLOGY WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE SEEN. AND I THINK IF WE DO THAT, THEN THAT'S THE ONLY THING I HAD ON THE TUCK UNDER TOPOLOGY THAT YOU MET MY CONCERNS. THANK YOU. AND I HAD NO COMMENTS ON THE HYBRID COURTYARD. AFTER CLARIFYING HOW THE BUILDING GREW. SO IF WE WANT TO IF WE WANTED TO DEAL WITH THE TOPOLOGIES, I'M CERTAINLY HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT WE WANTED TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE TOPOLOGIES. MR. MR. CHAIR, I WOULD JUST ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE ON THE TOPOLOGIES. SURE. I SWORE IN PEOPLE EARLIER. I THINK YOU CAME IN LATER. ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? NO. OKAY. WELL, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP AND ASK A TH.
OKAY, WELL, SOMETHING COMES TO MIND. PLEASE DON'T HESITATE. WHICH CASE? I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THE TUCK UNDER TOWNHOME TOPOLOGY. REVISED PER MY STATEMENT EARLIER TODAY, THAT THE TUCK UNDER PARKING SCREENED WITH SOLID SCREENING, WHICH COULD INCLUDE A SOLID GATE AND APPROVE THE HYBRID COURTYARD RESIDENTIAL TOPOLOGY AS SUBMITTED. I'LL SECOND. WHAT KIND OF GATE WAS THAT, MR. ITEM? IT'S A SOLID ONE YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH. GOTCHA. BUT OPAQUE.
THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT TERM HERE. I THINK SOLID IS A GREAT ARCHITECT. IS THAT A BETTER TERM THAN OPAQUE? I'M SURE, MR. ITEM. YES. MR. HINSON? YES, MR. BROWN? YES. MR. DAVIE.
YES. MR. MALIK. YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE TWO BUILDING TYPOLOGIES, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. THAT THE TUCK UNDER TYPOLOGY, THE PARKING IS SCREENED WITH THE SOLID SCREEN SCREENED WITH A
[00:30:03]
SOLID SCREEN AND WITH A SOLID GATE. SORRY. OUR SECOND CASE ON THIS SITE IS FOR ARB 98 2024 FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF THREE BUILDINGS, INCLUDING 3000FT■!S F COMMERCIAL USE, 104 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND ASSOCIATED PARKING.GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND WEST OF EAST MAIN STREET AND EAST OF 605. THE APPLICANT IS NEW ALBANY TOWN CENTER, LLC. STAFF HAS ALREADY GIVEN OUR COMMENTS ON THIS. I'M NOT SURE IF WE WANT TO GO RIGHT TO COMMENTS ON THIS AS WELL AS WE DID. SURE. I THINK IT'S PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY.
THANK YOU FOR THE REVISION, BUT I'LL LET MR. NEW SUBJECT TO MR. MALITZ AND OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHO CERTAINLY SATISFIED ME. YEAH, THAT WAS A LOT OF WORK. A LOT OF GOOD WORK. YEAH. TO THE ARCHITECTS WHO PROBABLY DID THREE MONTHS WORK IN IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. WELL DONE. I HAD ONE QUESTION OR COMMENT. IT'S WITH REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED. I GUESS IT WOULD BE. IT WAS A REVISED FACADE ON MAIN STREET FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT THE CITY ARCHITECT HAD A RECOMMENDED SOLUTION FOR THAT ONE. IT APPEARS ON ONE OF THE RENDERINGS THAT THE BLANK FACADE WOULD BE HOME TO LARGE SIGNAGE. IT SHOWS ON THE. ONE OF THE RENDERS PROPOSED VIEW FROM HIGH STREET, LOOKING NORTH. AND ON THAT RENDER THERE SHOWS KIND OF LIKE A. WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, FOR LEASE FOR RENTAL. I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S THE INTENT FOR THAT SPACE AND IF, IF THAT'S ALLOWABLE BY CITY CODE OR. YEAH. I THINK AT THIS TIME SIGNAGE IS NOT UNDER THIS CASE BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR SIGNAGE. YEAH. I'LL JUST BRIEFLY CLARIFY. AND AGAIN, MY NAME IS KARIM AMER WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US. THE INTENT IS NOT FOR THAT TO BE THE PRIMARY FUNCTION OF THAT. I THINK IT WAS JUST SORT OF A MEASURE TO SHOW WHAT COULD BE DONE. I WILL MAKE ONE COMMENT ABOUT THE CITY ARCHITECT SOLUTION, WHICH WE'RE HAPPY TO EXPLORE THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT ONE OF THE KEY CHANGES WE MADE ON THIS BUILDING. THERE WAS A BIT OF A SORT OF AN APPENDAGE. THE STAIRS WERE SORT OF STICKING OUT FROM THIS CONDITION HERE.
AND WHAT WE'VE DONE ON A PREVIOUS RENDITION IS KIND OF STICKING OUT IN THE PARKING LOT.
WE'VE TUCKED THAT INTO THE BUILDING AS TO HAVE SORT OF A STREAMLINED BUILDING LINE THERE ON THE PARKING LOT. SO WHILE WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY LOVE TO EXPLORE THIS AND WE WILL, WE NOW HAVE STAIRS SORT OF INSTALLED IN THE INTERIOR PART OF THIS, WHICH MIGHT MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CENTER THAT STOREFRONT. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO EXPLORE IT. BUT THAT IS SORT OF THE REASONING BEHIND WHY THIS IS ON THE SITE. WHILE WE'RE ON THIS ELEVATION, THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. AND I SAW THE STAIR BEING TUCKED INTO YOU A 1.7 WHICH IS ADJACENT. IS THERE A REASON THAT YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER MORE WINDOWS ON THAT SOUTH FACADE? IT JUST I APPRECIATE YOU REVISITING THAT ELEVATION. IT WAS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE HAD ALL COMMENTED ON, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY A HIGHLY VISIBLE CORNER OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHY YOU ELECTED TO MINIMALIZE IT. EVEN ON THE UPPER LEVELS, IT DOES APPEAR AS THOUGH THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR NATURAL LIGHT TO THE NORTH OR EXCUSE ME, TO THE SOUTH OF THAT UNIT ON THE SECOND FLOOR. SO IF YOU COULD ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON YOUR DECISION TO GO THIS DIRECTION, I'D APPRECIATE IT. SURE. I THINK MY QUESTION IS EXCITED TO EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHY.
SO. ARCHITECTS APPRECIATE THE COMMENT. I THINK FOR US, SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS FROM LAST MONTH, WAS THIS REALLY THE ARCHITECTURE IS SAYING AND SCREAMING AT THE WALL, AND THAT WE HAVE THIS BALCONY CONDITION IN FRONT OF IT. SO THE MASSING, THIS TRULY IS A WALL ON SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. SO WE DO HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF FIRE SEPARATION AND THE AMOUNT OF WINDOWS WE CAN PUT INTO IT. NOT TRADITIONALLY A WALL CONDITION WHEN IT HAD THAT MANY WINDOWS IN IT. I THINK WE CAN BE STRATEGIC AS FAR AS IF WE WANT TO ADD WINDOWS. I WOULD ARGUE, EVEN WITH THE CITY'S CITY ARCHITECT'S COMMENTS, THERE IS A EXISTING HOUSE ADJACENT TO US, BUT WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND. SO THE THAT'S WHY WE WERE KIND OF PRIORITIZING THE CORNER ALONG HIGH STREET TO HAVE THE
[00:35:06]
STOREFRONT SO THAT AS YOU'RE WALKING DOWN HIGH STREET, YOU WOULD VISIBILITY TO THOSE STOREFRONT WINDOWS VERSUS CENTERING, CENTERING ON WHERE THE STRUCTURE WILL KIND OF HIDE THOSE WINDOWS. AND, AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SUGGEST THAT YOU NEED TO INTRODUCE STOREFRONT, BUT IT DOES IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING THESE REVISIONS, WHICH I AM SUPPORTIVE OF, AND IT DOES APPEAR AS THOUGH YOU MIGHT JUST GET THAT STAIR TO TUCK IN THERE WITH THE DOUBLE VERSUS THE TRIPLE, JUST FROM WHAT I CAN SEE ON THE PLAN. BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOU GUYS TO EVALUATE. I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT EVEN MINIMAL PUNCHED OPENINGS, NOTHING MORE. AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT. AS A SUGGESTION, NOT A REQUIREMENT. I DO UNDERSTAND THE END WALL ESTHETIC. IT JUST SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE SKEWED TOWARD. LESS VERSUS. SO THAT'S MY REMARK ON THAT AS WELL. THANK YOU. I THINK WE'D BE HAPPY TO EXPLORE THAT.IF IT'S OKAY TO WORK WITH THE CITY ARCHITECT AND STAFF TO ADDRESS THAT. SORRY, MR. DALY, GO AHEAD. NO. THAT WAS GOOD. OH, SORRY. I'M BLIND MYSELF OR SOMEBODY ELSE BLINDING ME OVER FIRST AID HERE. MR. MOUTH. I DID HAVE I'M SORRY. I DID HAVE ANOTHER. IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS, I HAVE A COUPLE MORE SMALL DETAILS AGAIN. I DO APPRECIATE YOU PICKING UP THE COMMENTS. AS A GENERAL STATEMENT, I WOULD SAY THERE ARE SOME ELEVATIONS THAT ARE SHOWING KEYSTONES ON THE SEGMENTED ARCHES, BUT NOT ON THE JACK ARCHES. I WOULD JUST MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY THERE. I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY A, IN MY OPINION, PICK A LANE AND STAY WITH IT ON THAT. AND THEN ALSO AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO FIND MY MARK UP HERE. IT'S JUST A I HAVE A THING ABOUT ARCHES I'M SORRY. AMONG OTHER THINGS. I'M SURE AS MY WIFE WOULD TELL ME. BUT ON THE ON THE ARCHES, AS A GENERAL RULE, IF, IF AND I AM IN FAVOR OF A SEGMENTED ARCH AND IT LOOKS AS THOUGH YOU'VE DONE THAT CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT ON PAGE, AND I'M IN THE ELEVATIONS ON THE, ON THE BACK. SO THIS WOULD BE PAGE B9 IF WE HAVE THAT IN THE PACKET. AND IF WE DON'T, I'M HAPPY JUST TO ENLARGE MY SCREEN AND SHOW YOU WHAT I WAS. YEAH WE CAN PULL THAT UP. I HAVE THE ELEVATIONS BUT. B9 EVERYONE BRACE YOURSELF. I'M PUTTING MY LASER BEAM BACK OUT INTO THE UNIVERSE. THERE YOU GO. IF YOU COULD JUST ZOOM IN ON THE DOOR HERE, I CAN PROBABLY. AGAIN, THESE ARE GENERAL COMMENTS, BUT THIS WAS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION. SO THERE'S REALLY THREE THINGS HERE THAT I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY ON THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ALL SUB PARCELS WHERE APPLICABLE, WOULD BE AGAIN MY COMMENT ABOUT THE KEYSTONE.
EITHER KEEP IT CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT OR DELETE IT. SECOND, I THINK THE SPRING POINT OF YOUR EITHER SOLDIER COURSE, I'D PREFER IF YOU'RE DOING JACK ARCHES TO DO JACK ARCHES EVERYWHERE, EVEN ON A SEGMENTED ARCH, RATHER THAN INTRODUCING SOLDIER COURSING IN ONE LOCATION AND A FOUR COURSE JACK ARCH IN ANOTHER LOCATION. AND THEN FINALLY, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER KEEPING ALL OF YOUR RADII FOR DOORS AND ARCHES SPRINGING FROM THE SAME CENTER POINT. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE COMING FROM TWO DIFFERENT CENTER POINTS, AND IT'S JUST THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. I'VE SEEN SO MANY DIFFERENT ATTEMPTS AT ARCHES AND MANY FALL SHORT. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE IN A GOOD SPOT TO JUST INCLUDE THOSE IN THE IN THE FINAL DESIGN AND CAN BE THE REFERENCE POINT FOR WHICH ALL FUTURE BOARD BOARD DECISIONS ARE MADE. SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING ALL OF THE RED LINES INTO CONSIDERATION. AND THE CORNICE LINES LOOK MORE IN SCALE. THERE'S A LOT MORE RESTRAINT ON THE OVERALL DESIGN AND A LOT MORE CONSISTENCY. SO I APPRECIATE YOU ABSORBING ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS, FOR BETTER OR WORSE. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE SLOPPY HANDWRITING. I WAS UNDER THE GUN FROM STAFF TO GET HIM IN QUICKLY, SO THANKS FOR CONSIDERING THAT. I THINK THE LAST COMMENT I HAVE IS REALLY FOR THE REST OF THE BOARD IS THE TUCK UNDER ESTHETIC. IT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOU'VE YOU'VE TRIED TO DEAL WITH IT AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I, I THINK IT'S BETTER THAN IT WAS. I KNOW IT'S NOT PERFECT. I JUST WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THAT LAST MONTH. AND SO DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY REMARKS OR COMMENTS ON ON WHERE WE STAND WITH THAT? I THINK WE'VE SETTLED ON THE
[00:40:04]
TOPOLOGY QUESTION, BUT I, I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE PARKING CONSIDERATION AS FAR AS WHAT THAT MEANS TO THE COLUMNS, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR OTHERS OPINIONS ON THAT. I THINK BEEFING UP THOSE COLUMNS WAS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, MUCH MORE SUBSTANTIAL WITH THAT MASSING ABOVE IT. AND I THINK WE'RE WE'VE IMPROVED ON THAT CONSIDERABLY. THERE. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT ON THAT THE PARKING SPACES, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DO OR IN SOME CASES DON'T ALIGN FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER, JUST LIKE THE COLUMNS WILL BE SHIFTED ONE SPACE. IT'S MORE SO ON THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE IT. AND THIS IS SORRY B1 B1. I GUESS JUST A COMMENT ON THAT WHILE IT'S BEEN PULLED UP THE WEST, THE WEST ELEVATION, THE EAST ELEVATION. DON'T REALLY UP ACROSS. SO THOSE COLUMNS ARE BASED ON THE TOWNHOME UNIT. SO IT'S EVERY THREE SPACES. AND SO YOU'LL SEE THAT ON THE SOUTH WEST CORNER WE HAVE A UNIT AT THAT CORNER. WHEREAS IF YOU LOOK AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER WE HAVE THE TRASH UTILITY KIND OF TRANSFORMER. SO THAT AUTOMATICALLY SHIFTS THAT. DOWN PRETTY MUCH PARKING SPACE. SO THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T LINE UP ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER. AND I'M SORRY, WHILE WE'RE ON THE ELEVATIONS I DO HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT ON B8. IT'S REALLY MORE OF A QUESTION THAN A COMMENT. IT APPEARS AS THOUGH YOUR ENTRY DOORS ARE A2, BUT THE DOUBLE HUNGS HAVE A TRANSOM ABOVE. IF THE DOORS ARE AT EIGHT ZERO, IT'S GOING TO PUSH THOSE TRANSOMS PRETTY CLOSE TO LOOKS LIKE TO ME TO TEN FEET. SO MY QUESTION IS WITH THE FLOOR TO FLOORS AND THE CEILING HEIGHT, DOES THAT IN FACT WORK? AND IF IT DOESN'T, I'M TOTALLY FINE AND SUPPORTIVE OF ELIMINATING THE TRANSOMS ABOVE THE DOUBLE HUNGS.I JUST HATE TO HAVE YOU HAVE TO COME BACK AND REVISE IF IN FACT YOU KNOW THAT ISN'T THAT IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE CEILING HEIGHT. IF IT'S NOT, AND I'M AND I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THE SECTION, THAT'S FINE TOO. BUT IT DOES LOOK DISPROPORTIONATELY TALL COMPARED TO THE DOOR. WE'RE CLOSE. OKAY, WE FIT UNDER THE CURRENT STRUCTURAL. SPACING AND HEIGHT. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. IT IS.
WE GOT A MATTER OF INCHES. NOT LIKE A TRUE 6 INCH OR 8 INCH HEADER. I JUST WONDER WHAT THAT.
I MEAN, THAT'S YOUR CALL ON THE INSIDE, BUT IT'S GOING TO PUSH THOSE WINDOW HEADS WITHOUT REALLY A CASING RIGHT UP TO THE CEILING LINE. OR THE CASING IS GOING TO HIT THE CEILING LINE.
SO I'LL, I'LL GIVE YOU LATITUDE ON THAT. BUT I DID WANT TO CALL IT OUT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. I'LL LET YOU I HAVE YEAH I'M WELL SATISFIED. YEAH. I THINK JUST THE GENERAL COMMENT WE'D MAKE IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A PROFOUND MOMENT WHERE WE WERE RESUBMITTING BASED ON ALL THESE SUGGESTIONS, AND I THINK WE LOOKED AROUND AT EACH OTHER AND THOUGHT ALL THESE COMMENTS REALLY IMPROVED THE PROJECT. SO WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THE DIRECTION AND THE SPECIFICITY OF THE DIRECTION, SPECIFICALLY FROM BOARD MEMBER MALIK. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I'M GOING TO LET MR. MALIK DO A MOTION BECAUSE HE PROBABLY CAN WORK IN HIS HIS. BUT BUT SHOULD WE HANDLE THE WAIVERS SEPARATELY. AND WE DO. SHOULD WE DO THE WAIVERS BEFORE OR AFTER WE I THINK YOU CAN DO THEM SEPARATELY AND IT'S FINE TO DO THEM AFTER. OKAY. HOLD ON. I'LL LET MR. I'LL LET MR. MALIK DO HIS. FIGURE OUT WHAT HE'S GOING TO GIVE ME A MOMENT. I'M TYPING IT UP. THAT'S FINE. IN THE MEANTIME, MR. HINTON CAN GIVE US ANY. EXCUSE ME. HE'S NOT GOING TO SING AGAIN. I WILL NOT BE SINGING THIS EVENING. ALTHOUGH MY. WITH MY COLD. I HAVE QUITE THE BARITONE VOICE FOR RADIO ANNOUNCER. I DO THANK THE APPLICANTS FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU DID. IT WAS. AND IT'S A MUCH IMPROVED PROJECT. I THINK THAT SOUTHERN ELEVATION OF BUILDING A IS ONE ONE, WHICH WAS ON. BUILDING A CAN BE IS IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S MUCH IMPROVED FROM WHAT IT WAS. AND THAT SOMEWHAT AWKWARD. STAIRCASE BALCONY BALCONETTE, BUT MUCH IMPROVED THE WAY IT LOOKS. THE WHOLE PROJECT. EXCITED FOR YOU GUYS. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT BASED ON POTENTIAL ARB APPROVAL TONIGHT, DO YOU HAVE WHAT'S YOUR TIMELINE LOOK LIKE YESTERDAY? REALLY? YOU KNOW, WE'RE COORDINATING WITH THE
[00:45:04]
STAFF AND THEIR CITIES CONSTRUCTION TEAM ON THE SEQUENCE BETWEEN THE PUBLIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND OURS. I THINK TENTATIVELY, WE'RE LOOKING AT BREAKING GROUND ON THE PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR. OKAY. AND HAVE WE CHANGED ANY OF THE NAMES OF THE STREETS NOW THAT MR. MEYER HAS BEEN PROMOTED? IS THERE A MAJOR AVENUE GOING IN THERE? THERE.THERE IS NONE. ALL RIGHT. SADLY, THERE'S NO CONDITION. YEAH. AND THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THIS ONE MORE TIME OPENING IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE YOU GUYS VOTE ON CASE, PLEASE. YEAH. ANY OTHER COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC? OKAY. LET'S TALK. I'M GOING TO TRY THIS. WHERE'S THE ACTUAL MOTION? ALL RIGHT, MR. ADEN, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF THREE OR EXCUSE ME FOR ARB 98 DASH 2024. I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF THREE BUILDINGS, INCLUDING 3000FT■!S OF COMMERCIALSE, U 104 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND WEST OF EAST MAIN STREET AND EAST OF 605. I'LL REFRAIN FROM READING ALL THE PIDS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THESE CONDITIONS APPLY TO ALL SUB AREAS. NUMBER ONE ALL WINDOWS AND OPENINGS BE TREATED WITH CONSISTENCY, FAVORING A FOUR COURSE JACK ARCH IN LIEU OF SOLDIER COURSE OR OTHER BRICK TREATMENTS. TWO ALL WINDOWS AND OPENINGS BE TREATED EITHER WITH A KEYSTONE OR A MITT THROUGHOUT. THREE MAINTAIN A COMMON RADII AND RATIO FOR ALL SEGMENTED ARCHES USED THROUGHOUT, AND FOUR CONSIDER ADDED FENESTRATION ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF SUB AREA A, IN STEP WITH THE CITY'S ARCHITECTS RECOMMENDATIONS. DID I MISS ANYTHING? SO WE DO. WE HAVE THEN THE FEW THINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT. YEAH. THERE ARE CONDITIONS AT THE END OF THE STAFF REPORT. AND SO YOU CAN READ ALL THOSE AS WELL. YEAH. BACK TO THEM. I HAVE THEM UP HERE. YOU ALREADY READ NUMBER ONE. SO YEAH. SO I THINK THIS. THANK YOU. STAFF HERE. HERE WE GO. AND IN ADDITION SO WE'VE ALREADY COVERED ITEM ONE ITEM TWO OR FOLLOWING ON IN MY IN MY NUMBERING THAT THE USE OF HARDY BOARD SIDING DESIGN DETAILS BE SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL FOR SUB PARCELS A, B AND C THAT THE PROPOSED WINDOWS ARE MADE OF WOOD AND HAVE VINYL OR ALUMINUM CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR. IS THAT STILL CONSISTENT WITH THE WOOD? I DON'T THINK YOU'RE PLANNING ON USING WOOD. IS THAT RIGHT? OR IS THAT STILL A CONSIDERATION ON THE EXTERIOR? I KNOW THERE WE HAVE VINYL SAMPLE THAT WE USED DOWNSTAIRS, MADE A MARKET THAT WAS APPROVED. OKAY.
WE HAVE A FULL SIZE SAMPLE HERE. OKAY. IF YOU WANT TO I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT SEPARATELY AND THEN EXTEND THE USE OF PLANT MATERIALS TO MITIGATE STRETCHES OF EXPOSED FACADES ALONG BUILDING C, PROPOSED TREATMENTS ARE TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING PLANT MATERIALS AND OVERALL ESTHETICS FOUND WITHIN NEW ALBANY, AND THE HISTORIC VILLAGE CENTER UTILIZE THE PROPOSED BIG BLUE LILY TURF TO REPLACE THE USE OF ELEGANT BOX HONEYSUCKLE. LOCATED ALONG THE FACADE OF BUILDING C AT THIRD STREET, AND FINALLY REVISE THE PROPOSED EVERGREEN PLANT MATERIAL ALONG THE SOUTH FACADE OF BUILDING C TO PROVIDE INCREASED SCREENING OF THE EXPOSED FACADE AND RAMP, AND THEN, NUMBER FIVE THAT A PLAN TO ENSURE LIGHTING USES CUT OFF FIXTURES AND DOWNCAST DESIGN IS SUBMITTED, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. I WILL SECOND WITH ENTHUSIASM. THANK YOU. MR. MALIK. YES, MR. ITEMS? YES. MR. HINSON. YES. MR. BROWN. YES. MR. DAVIS YES, THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, SUBJECT TO THE FOUR CONDITIONS AS STATED BY MR. MALIK AND THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL OF THE OF THE THREE REQUESTED WAIVER TO UCC SECTION 2.87 A TO ALLOW THE STREET YARD SETBACK TO BE 2.8 PLUS OR MINUS FEET, WHERE CODE REQUIREMENT OR CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM FIVE FOOT SETBACK. A WAIVER OF THE UCC SECTION 2.87 A TO ALLOW THE STREET YARD SETBACK TO BE 2.5 PLUS OR MINUS FEET, WHERE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF FIVE FOOT SETBACK ALONG FOUNDERS AVENUE, AND C WAIVER TO UCC SECTION 2.87 C TO ALLOW THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO BE 2.6 PLUS OR
[00:50:03]
MINUS FEET, WHERE THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 15 FOOT SETBACK. SECOND. MR. ITEM YES, MR. HENSON, YES. MR. MALIK. YES. MR. BROWN. YES. MR. DAVEY, YES, THE MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES TO APPROVE THE WAIVERS. CONGRATULATIONS. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU FOLKS. CONGRATS. THANK YOU. STAFF, IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD THIS EVENING? ANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY OTHER? ALWAYS. ABSOLUTELY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I'LL SECOND MR. HENSON. YES, MR. BROWN? YES. MR. ITEM. YES. MR. MALLETS. YES.MR. DAVEY? YES. MOTION PASSES WITH ALL VOTES IN FAVOR. GOOD NIGHT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.