Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[music] [music] Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the January 20 the historic zoning commission and it's designed  to be informal and to guide applicants through   the process of obtaining a certificate of  appropriateness or COA for projects within   the city's historic districts in light of the  historic district design guidelines. Applicant   participation in this meeting is voluntary but  highly recommended and any changes or suggestions   taken by applicants based on the discussions with  this committee are the applicant's choice but the   DRC makes no representation as to whether any  changes or suggestions made during the meeting   will be approved by the voting body the historic  zoning commission. We [snorts] have seven items   on this afternoon's agenda. When your item is  called, please introduce yourself here. Don't   forget to hit the button until it's green. Um,  and describe your item in two to three minutes. Item number one, discussion of  building alterations windows   at 3053rd Avenue South. Kevin  Coffee, if you'll join us, sir. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good to see you.  Kevin Coffee if you missed that. Um so um you're   all familiar with this house. Um it's been here in  different capacities over the last couple of years   um a lot and I wasn't involved in any of that. Um  so I'm working on a as a separate uh design for u   an interior reconfiguration remodel. Um, and the  only place it really shows itself on the exterior  

is at the existing kitchen. So, you have three  photos there. Obviously, the top left is the front   of the house. Uh, the wing that we're talking  about is to the back right of that picture. Uh,   that picture just below is looking through  that sideyard. And you can just, sorry, a   summer picture was the only one I had, but you can  just pick out that pair of windows right there in   that photo. And then the photo on the right shows  that pair of windows. Um, they're not particularly   old. They're old, but not super old. Um, and you  can tell it's been modified at some point. You   can see the brick underneath the windows that at  one time the sill was much lower than it is now. Assume there's another window to the left of  those that's about six feet tall. And um if   there was probably a pair of those in this spot or  maybe even just a single. Um, so these elevations   kind of show what we're talking about. The top is  the existing condition and the the windows there   with the convoluted note under them. That's  the original configuration of the window. And   I I can tell, you know, that it's been modified.  The sill is different. U the header detail. They   they shimmed the window down and they mimicked  it looks like they mimicked one of the cornice   details at the top of the window to sit under the  lentil. So, you can tell it's been messed with. Um  

that addition uh appears first in I believe 1908  on the Sanborn map and then um the 1913 Sanborn   map is a little more accurate. So I I don't know  if the 1908 just didn't have as good a draftsman   doing that. The 1913 shows that bay where a dining  room is in a little bit different configuration   and that's closer to what it is today. So we're  talking about a window uh approximately where   that little yellow box is. Um that's obviously  no longer there. None of those out buildings   are there anymore, but you probably know that  because I think you've been through that process.   So, what we're proposing, you know, I never come  with just one option, but um we're proposing a   taller window there that goes all the way up to  the lentil like the original window, but then   basically sits counter height, the kitchen. Um,  it's I presume the kitchen in this house used to   be back left of the house and at some point it got  relocated to the back right and that's probably   when that window was modified to put it above a  kitchen counter. Uh, obviously wasn't an issue   in 1908. Um, but became an issue. And we're just  proposing either doing a double that's basically   the same width and bringing it down to the counter  height as shown in the second drawing and we would   really love to do a triple there and bring it  to the counter height. We're remodeling that  

kitchen behind that space. Um, and that's really  all we got. Okay, let's hear from staff, please.   Thank you, Mr. Chair. The property at 3053rd  Avenue South is the Miller Beasley House and   it was built in 1866 and is a one-story  brick Greek Revival influence residence   that is considered contributing within the  National Register. The proposal appears to   alter the building by removing a window in the  1908 edition and expanding the window area to   accommodate a larger window. The guidelines  recommend preserving and maintaining historic   windows and historic window openings. So,  the proposal does not meet the guidelines.   Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anybody want  to kick us off here with any thoughts? What a question. So, you said the window head now  has some type of like filler piece above it before   it hits the masonry open. Yeah, you can see it in  that photo. Okay. I just don't think they would   have done that. How far is it? So you see how it  drops like six inches below the header. Has kind   of like a stepped Yeah. It's just like the freeze  above it. Like they took the bottom edge of the   freeze and Okay. put it in there. And I I think  those windows are probably 70s or 80s vintage that   were put in there, but they could have been  replaced at some point. I just have no idea.   And the the brick work that's done below it, you  think there was something longer there at some   point? I do. I think they were the six foot tall  windows that matched the others and matched the   others all the way around the house. That that  skinnier the 1908 edition long skinny window is   what you think was there. Okay. And I don't know  if there was initially a pair of them there. I  

think there probably was because of the lentil.  Um, but you know, obviously no photographic   evidence of that. Um, okay. Anybody have thoughts  on his uh design ideas here? One of my thoughts is   that I think I agree with you that they're those  windows are not original. I mean to that addition   I mean you you wouldn't have seen have seen those  very slender rectangular panes of 8 over8 in a   window that small. I think it would have been  something different. Uh I am interested to know   to know more about you know the the the repair or  that we're seeing at the brick at the very bottom.   Mhm. I mean, what what is so the the seal or that  window ledge on the exterior, what material is   that? Is that concrete or limestone? It looks like  a like a cast concrete, but it's it's deeper than   the typical detail on the house. The typical  stone sill, limestone sill that's on the rest   of the house is probably three and a half inches  tall. And this is like five and a half or six. Um,   it just doesn't match the others. Um, I feel like  maybe they had an opening and they were trying to   fill the whole thing up kind of at some point.  So, and the 8 over8 thing is the entire house.   It's just like every window, no matter what size  it is, is 8 over eight. It's an odd configuration.   It is odd, especially all around the house. Yeah.  uh if if it could be established that that that   was and and we and kind of learn exactly when  that happened that that was infilled and the  

original windows were were larger. Mhm. Uh I I  could I think I could support option A but not   option B rather than making the opening larger  from the from the [snorts] opening the original   opening that was there keeping that same size.  But if you if you can make it longer and match   maybe what was originally there I would be I'd be  more a able to support that. I think where we are   is on the in between side of it is we've got the  function of the kitchen behind it. So the sill of   the window has to be 3 ft and change. Um we'd  like for it to be 31 and a half actually that   sits basically on top of the counter. Uh which  means it's going to be the window's going to be   a little bit shorter like in the second drawing  than what I presume to be the original window.   But you know it is in a spot as well where changes  like that over the years would have been likely to   have been made. So um I feel like conceptually  anyway it's a you know a correct move to I'd say   it's in the spirit. I mean I'm not saying that  I would support only making it the exact size of   all the others. Mhm. It is It is in an area I'm  assuming that cannot be seen from the street or   Not at all. I mean, not really. Um there's kind  of a wall and gate um toward the street that   I'm sure you're very familiar with. And in the  summer, obviously, you can't see anything back   there. Um but even once you're through the gate,  you can just see it on the periphery. Definitely  

from the road. It's not it's not visible at all.  Not without having a wreck. You know, if you're   looking at it that closely, I would encourage,  you know, to when you come before the commission,   you know, to document as much as you can with some  other photographs, you know, show what's there,   show the profile of the windows that are  currently there, you know, and really, you know,   present to the board, you know, a a case with  with good documentation. Do you have something,   Mary? Yeah. I I would say that the triple window  just to me doesn't fit with this house at all. So,   I I could totally support your second the proposal  A. Okay. But I think getting to the triple window I adds a little bit of I don't  know suburbia to the house. I agree with the fellow commissioners what  they've said. I think um of any of it the   a plan would fit better with the profile of  the side of the home. Okay. Angela, anything? Um, what you are what's happening inside? I'm just  curious. That's That's a kitchen, but is it It's   above the sink. Is that what you're saying? Yeah,  that window is above the sink. There's the plan.   So, there's a counter there that exists that  we're going to be replacing. Um, so presumably,   I mean, right now there's a sink right there  and presumably that will still be the case.  

It would just be whether it's centered on two or  centered on three, which uh probably the two. Um,   okay. What's that sill height now? It's like  48. So it's up there almost like when you're   looking out the window, you're like this.  Okay. And you would be dropping it. Yeah. To   36. Okay. Yeah. 36 and change. Okay. Well,  I do agree with the documentation and um it I don't know from a functional standpoint  and even from an aesthetic standpoint   um I do think the um I mean I you I think you  could make a case for the triple window. Just   saying. Yeah. I I would also say and um I and  it I know which house it was, I just won't say,   but there there was a situation where they had  this period house and had the long window and   they handled it by putting the countertop and the  sink straight across and that created a cavity   and they did that with copper and it it was really  school and they used that area to set some plants   in by the window. So, I've been there. You wanted  to [laughter] do the same, you know, the original   configuration. I've been there. I think in this  situation, we are so cramped for storage that the   uh, you know, having the under cabinets  is really kind of important. Um, you know,  

that's one of the offshoots of historic houses is  your kitchen is always undersized for, you know,   what people expect for the size of the house. So,  that's kind of what we're up against there. Yeah.   Well, three windows ain't going to help your  storage. Yeah. Some uppers. Yeah. Not uppers,   but yeah, the counter still stays. I think, you  know, we're looking at light there. It's a nice   morning light coming into your kitchen. And you  know, that was the hope, but I think I think   everybody would live with the double. Yeah. So,  yeah. What I'd say is I I easier. Yeah. I'd love   to see I mean, we have this drawing, but I'd love  to see a picture. I don't know if there's It looks   like there might be a holly or something between  the two windows. Maybe not. But to see that long   skinny window next to this one. And uh what I'm  looking for is lining up bricks maybe and going,   okay, cuz there's some disturbance under  this window. I can tell in that picture,   but I don't know if it aligns with the other  one. But that would help me rationalize like,   okay, there was maybe something longer. Um,  you know, when I look at this masonry opening,   it's a historic masonry opening. It's not the  original OG house, but it's still old. Um, I think   it's important to hold that masonry opening,  that historic lentil, all that is important,   but what happens under it, you know, being able to  keep that lentil and those edges to that masonry   opening, if it could be extended and we can see  that something's been done. I don't know if it's a   repair or replacement, but if it lines up with the  long skinny window, odds are there was maybe two   more of these there. Um, but it's kind of I don't  know that it's visible from really anywhere. So,  

I I could I could entertain the idea of the  two. the the threes I I think it'd be pretty,   but it's not our guidelines don't describe  any path forward with that except that we're   supposed to try and keep some original and  especially original openings maintaining that   that architectural detailing, lentil, mo, all  that stuff is is probably important. And this   to me is a premier home. It's Yeah. of our  historic resources. It would make that top   Yeah. Yeah. You're going to get a little height  at least by replacing it. Um if if you replace   it. Um so that'll give you a little more glass  area and then, you know, we're talking another   a foot longer and four inches taller. So that's  16 inches of glass will make a difference. But   uh like Brian said, document everything. And then  I'd love to see a picture of that with a line   through the the you know brick just showing hey if  you lined those sills up it would be here. I know   you're not trying to go that low but we could see  the disturbance in the brick and what's been tuck   pointed or replaced. I'm not sure the bricks even  match that well through there. Um no they don't.   And you know, it it wouldn't have been unheard  of in the utilitarian part of the house for the   windows to be a different size than that other one  also. So, yeah, who knows? I doubt we're going to   find a picture of that. I doubt it exists, but um  you know, we'll we'll check and see if we can find   some documentation or maybe from the inside see if  there's an old sill or something down there. But,   uh um yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If the wall was opened  up behind the cabinet, you might be able to  

see where they've infilled some framing, too,  [laughter] which could be helpful. Okay. Yep.   Thank you. All right. Appreciate it. Thanks.  Have a good one. All right. Let's go to item   number two here. Discussion of fencing at  1354th Avenue South. James Denny Jr. Hello. Y'all doing okay today? Um if you want to  give us uh just a brief overview. Make sure   your green light's on your microphone there.  Green lights on. Green light. That means go.   Sounds good. So um yeah, at the Williamson County  Courthouse, we're proposing installing a security   um enclosure around the parking area. Uh  we've held it off of the 4th Avenue side   and we've highlighted some pilasters uh and  peers that are made of brick with a a multi-   height wall. Uh the lower level would be  a a brick [snorts] and let's see. Yeah,   you have the entrance on the right hand side  of that image which would be the pedestrian   image from 4th Avenue. And then we have a an  automobile entrance on the upper side there. Um,   both would be secure openings and we've held  that opening there off Church Avenue to allow any   queuing that might make might need to take place  as they're trying to enter uh that parking area. Um, skip ahead. Okay. And so, um,  we've reached out and found the,   um, exact brick, uh, match,  which would be the Glen Gary,   and that would be a portion of the the brick  wall below. And then the the pilaster caps on   top of the columns would be above color  to match the existing building as well.

And then this are general details  showing the appearance of it with   the lower wall. Uh we've highlighted a a  western red seed or something that would   age properly without needing a whole lot of  maintenance. And then shown the pedestrian   access for people coming and going from that  parking area uh towards the 4th Avenue side. Yeah. And then just highlighting uh a  general view of what we're proposing for   the vehicular entrance side. Rather than  having a a sheer flat panel on that side,   we tried to put some type of vertical uh  panels in there just to keep the weight   down so those gates operate properly. Are  those those metal there? Yeah. The whole   gates metal. Okay. And it's totally opaque.  Totally opaque. Yes. Okay. Understood. And that's really the gist of it. Okay. Let's  let's hear staff's comments. Thank you. So,   a new privacy and security funds um vehicular and  pedestrian gates are proposed around the perimeter   of the parking lot around the courthouse at  the rear of the courthouse on the corner of   4th Avenue South and Church Street. Um the fencing  is proposed to utilize a brick base, brick posts,   and wood privacy fencing in between the posts as  well as um metal for the gates. The height of the   fencing is proposed to be six foot tall with 8ft  tall brick posts. Uh, the pedestrian gate that   will front Fourth Avenue South appears to use  a diagonally patterned metal design. Additional   information and/or clarification about the design  and materials for the gate are appreciated. Um,   as this does appear to be a less traditional  design for a gate, but is differentiated from the  

fencing, which is appropriate. Uh the ve vehicular  gate utilizes a vertical board design and appears   uh more traditional and is remains differentiated  from the fencing and is appropriate. While not   a traditionally seen fence style within the  downtown district, um similar fencing is seen   at the brownstones both with iron fencing on top  of a brick base and wood privacy fencing on top of   a wood base and similar styles have been approved  for new residential buildings at Magnolia Hall.   Uh the materials relate to the existing building  materials as well. The location of the fencing   is more than 20 ft behind the front facade of  the building along 4th Avenue South and could   qualify for an administrative COA. We would like  feedback from the commission this evening on the   design of the fencing and appropriateness of  it to better understand if if it should return   to the historic zoning commission or if you all  would be comfortable with the application being   administratively reviewed and approved. Thank  you. Okay. Thank you. If I w if I could, I'd also   like to interject that [clears throat] diagonal  patterning uh pattern on that fence is not it's   just a pattern for graphic representation. It's  actually proposed to be a smooth surface. Okay. So   those whole panels that have the diagonal hatching  are just solid flat panels. They are. Okay. And our initial design tries to pick up some  of the elements on the windows. That way it   ties back a little bit. And we've um done a custom  design metal panel with some uh reveals around it   just to give it a little additional uh elements.  Okay. All right. Who's got uh some comments here?   Brian Elizabeth, could you show me is Am I  looking at the pedestrian gate? Is that what   we're seeing? Yes. This would be fronting Fourth  Avenue South in between the courthouse and the  

Dan German building. So, it has two gates. It's  not just like a door, a pedestrian door. Yes,   it appears like two gates. It is actually one  door, but we've emulated the other door so that   it appears um uh what am I trying to say? Like a  double door. Like a double door. Yeah. Okay. So   it [snorts] it does function like a door. It  does. Yeah. And what I'm seeing to the left,   those are cedar vertical panels. They are.  Yeah. On top of the brick. It is. Yeah. And   do you need do you need that privacy or could  you use an open more of an open design like with   uh iron like you're doing the gate? Yeah. The  intent behind it is to provide security for   um the um law enforcement, the judges as  they're coming out, preferably in the evenings,   especially with their backs turned towards the  street sometimes. And so the intent is to have   the security of it. So So you you're looking for  something that's solid then? Yeah, that's right.   Okay. The only reason I brought that up, I know  at the brownstones we said there are some cedar   but it is residential in nature while this is  more commercial in nature. So that's the only   thing and I know that our guidelines we usually  ask for more of a metal in this case. Yeah. But   it sounds like it might be a special case. I'd  like to hear more from the board. Okay. Thank you. Any thoughts? anybody Angela? Well, it it does  make sense that you wouldn't want to see inside   there. I mean, it is a security fence and that of  utmost importance would be not being able to be  

seen. Yeah, seems logical. Yeah, Bob, it it does  seem logical. Um, with current events and other   things regarding judges, I think you do need  the security for them to enter and exit. Mary,   any thoughts? Well, I don't My thought may be a uh  investment issue. Is it possible just to do brick   as far as all and and not have the wood panels?  Um it does get a little heavy and it gets a   um the intent was to break it up because it does  face residential areas and it it's still an open   park to the sides of it. So we're trying to  keep the human scale and not seem like such   an overbearing wall and it's six feet tall.  Right. It is. There is a brick wall across the   I don't know. Do we want to call it the back  of this property by the Sallyport? Yeah,   there is. And I actually believe that wall  is much taller than six feet. And it's   much taller than 6 feet. Yes, ma'am.  Right. Well, if it's po possible, um to me, a brick would look fa fantastic. And  um the metal I think that is just a deal where   the devil's in the details on you know how  you make that read. Mhm. I I can understand   totally why you want it, why the county would  want it. Yeah, I had the [clears throat] same   thought about [snorts] you have a civic building  that's just we usually consider those a little  

differently even in terms of materials. So, um,  that was one of my initial thoughts was this   really ought to be just brick, brick or stone  or something that's more monumental because   of the the function of the building. Um, so I I I  think brick would be more appropriate than wood. I   think the wood is more residential. I get why you  were going there because it's facing residential,   but it's downtown. It's on a civic monumental  building. I think it's um and then we're we're   city hall is not directly adjacent, but it's going  to have some brick walls around it in certain   portions, too. So, I think it's the threshold for  where we become kind of our civic downtown area.   Um, the other thing I I wanted to comment on was  um it looks like you've got existing This picture   says existing cast stone. Um, is that cast stone  or is it it I mean we've got some split face kind   of Indiana limestone, but all the the cut stone  there. Is that actually It is cast or is it real?   It's all cast. It's real. It's real limestone. It  is. at the real limestone as I remember working on   that building. Yeah, I could I'm not saying I'm  wrong, but I remember that that was a big budget   consideration. And that's I was going to say about  the cast stone is there have been some push back   from the commission on cast stone that's supposed  to represent cut like Indiana limestone. Um,   you know, and so I would encourage you to bring  back a real Indiana limestone or if it goes to   an all brick wall, maybe it's just brick caps.  I think the limestone complements the building,  

but I don't think the wall has to be as ornamented  and detailed as the building, but I think it has   to go together. So, it's my couple comments and  I I would say that the that to agree with my   fellow commissioners, brick would better meet the  guidelines. And you think about the cedar panels.   So, either they're going to gray if they're if  they're not finished or painted, which is kind of   be a mismatch with the brick or you've got to to  stain or paint it. And I would like to for this to   come back to the historic zoning commission rather  than being administratively approved. Yeah. for   this particular project. Again, it's a monumental  civic building. So, right. And Mr. Chair, I have   one more question. Do you need the big opening  of the two of the gate? Is that a function thing um for the pedestrian entrance? There's  really only one panel that opens. Well,   I think if it read like, you know, one gate  that um that would also be something that would   um to me fit into the downtown area.  This is getting close, if it's metal,   uh, to looking like it could be a waste enclosure.  We've done them similar with metal. Mhm. So, yeah,   if that if that pier there moved over, not to  say you don't have these little sidelight panels,   but if it got narrow enough that it didn't look  like a Yeah. two a dumpster enclosure and one   pedestrian door. So it looked just like what  it gate. Yeah. Yeah. And it brings it down to a  

human scale. Yeah. So there is a existing sidewalk  there that comes off of 4th Avenue and we've tried   to space it um on both sides of that existing  sidewalk so that you still have that overall   width coming in. And that's that's the reason  we've t taken that path is so that we don't have   to basically alter any sidewalk. Yeah. You know,  I really don't think you would have to. I mean,   looks wise, you wouldn't have to. If you  could just cut a piece and maybe negotiate   it with Yeah. They'll have to They'll tear that  sidewalk up with footings. Mhm. for the footings,   right? And so they'd have to cut back. They'd  cut a section out and redo a section. But you   may have to do No, actually, we've spaced  it to where we wouldn't affect that sidewalk   foundations. She would and yeah, prefer [clears  throat] that a section be cut out and it be   skinnied up just in that it doesn't matter if  the sidewalk runs into the brick wall part of it,   but you need to get the footings. I appreciate  that. have to do the footings. Oh, I don't have   I could hear you. I appreciate that you don't  have to do the footing. I understand that. Is the the vehicular gate It does look like  it's two-lane traffic. It's big enough for   Yeah. in and out at the same time. Okay. It  is 27 and 1/2 ft from the curb cut. Okay.   Any other comments? Anybody? Okay. I think  we've given you some feedback. Thank you so   much. We appreciate you coming. Well, I while  you're here, compliment the county on Dan  

German. Looks great. They've done a great job.  Yeah. Thank you. All right. Item number three,   discussion of building alterations and armor  construction at 1010 Fair Street. Amanda McCreary. Good afternoon. Sorry guys, I had to bring all my stuff with me.  It's Hi, I'm Amanda McCreary, Chisel Workshop. Uh   we are looking at the project on 1010 Fair Street.  It's uh towards the end of 11th. It's a few houses   over from 11th. Uh this particular house does have  an addition that was put on around 2005 is what we   understand from the previous owners. We are not  looking to change the uh shape or the uh size   of the existing roof. So the existing house has a  roof that is over the side porch that you can see   on the back left of these existing drawings. And  so on that area in particularly, we are looking   to enclose portions of that uh roof in order to  gain us um a mud room, a laundry room space on the   first floor that we can get also through the house  and to the rear of the property through the house.   Currently, in order to get to the rear of the  property, we have to go out the side through the   driveway and on a gate to get to the rear. Um and  because of this uh using the space under the roof,   it does not change any of the existing building  footprint as calculated from the roof lines. Um   from that instance, we are looking um to put on  that left side of the house a new dormer on the   second floor in order to gain a little bit more  space for a bathroom. There's an existing dormer  

on the right side. We're looking to add one to  the left side. Um these elevations here show   enclosing that area to the left and um putting the  dormer on the top portion where the new bathroom   would go. And there is an existing um uh rear  edition off the back uh that we are looking to   change the current roof lines on just to gain  us a little bit more head space in that area.   Uh the rear portion of the house, it does have  uh three windows in the back and we would like   to propose putting those in as double doors.  Uh we're showing panels below with glass above,   third panels, 2/3 light. Uh none of the windows on  the house uh are divided. So, we are not showing   any divided light in these doors uh to open up  the space to the backyard. Um that existing shed   that's off the back, the portion that's off the  back has a six panel door. We would like to get   rid of the six panel door and put a window in its  place. the windows that are shown in that location   um and on the side elevation where we're  enclosing under the porch are the same size   as some existing windows that are in the um  project that's on the right side towards the   rear. Um so those windows are of the same size  that you can see that are on that side elevation,   the smaller size windows there. So, it  just kind of keeps that pattern going and that's really where we're at.  Okay, let's hear from staff, please. So, the property at 1010 Fair Street is considered  to be a contributing uh building that is a circa   1920s one and a half story bungalow within the  national register listing. The proposal involves  

infilling the side porch on the left elevation.  A new shed dormer is proposed on the roof. Um   on the rear of the non-historic part of the  building, the existing windows are proposed   to be removed and the French doors are proposed to  be installed. One new man door is proposed on the   corner of the infield portion and a window on the  2010 garden shed edition. The garden shed portion   is also proposed to alter the existing roof shape  which will blend with the roof form seen on the   building. The guidelines recommend designing doors  and doorways to in addition to be compatible with   the historic district to read as secondary in  appearance and detail in the historic building   and design new windows and new window openings to  be compatible with surrounding historic buildings.   Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Let's  hear from uh someone with some comments, please. Well, I'll start with the dormer. Okay. Um I  think the dormer is hidden from the street and   it seems to be in keeping with the style of the  house. So, I don't I I think the dormer fits with   our guidelines. I remember being in this house  probably about 2005. They were trying to sell it   because it had just been remodeled and I think  it was on the the Heritage Foundation Tour of   Homes. Uh the the part I'd like to discuss  though, so the infill area of that porch,   is that porch original or is that part of the  addition? That was part of the addition. When   we looked on the Sandborn maps, that was  never part of it. So from the back corner,   uh, we've labeled kind of the edge showing some  dimension lines. That is the rear of the addition  

part. So that entire large gable off the back  was part of the 2005 edition. And even that side   porch, even the side porch edition. So the windows  that are there, they're not original. No, they're   not. None of the original the original windows in  the front are actually in really great shape, but   nothing that's there on that sort. It's they're  all typical double hung insulated glass windows.   So, talk to me about the very rear where I'm  seeing the two are those two double doors.   It is. Yes. Two French doors opening up um to the  backyard. Part of the addition, too. Yes. Yes. All   of that is part of the in the big gable with this  casement window above. That's all existing. So,   that was all part of the 2005. So, we're proposing  taking out those three windows that are in the   back and doing French doors instead to open up  the space. and then um changing the roof lines   over the shed portion there to give us more head  heights. Uh I'm interesting to hear interested   to hear more comments from the board members,  but the two double French doors don't seem to   be compatible with what you normally see in  the neighborhood. It is on the rear of the   building. It is. So, so that's why I'd like to  hear more more comments. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. look like you can can you show  us the elevation where you're closing   it in on that longer exterior  wall if we could pull that up to me um if I'm looking at it Right. The part of the the original part of the house  that has the bay window currently it sits back  

I think about 12 to 14 in from that corner is  where the um you can see it on the pictures. So   the addition that was built in 2005 already  sits back from the trim standpoint. Um and   then the sophet overhangs it as well. So we're  back we're not building out any further than   that. So the existing roof line, the existing  rafter tails that are there on the addition   stays is that we're you can see a little bit  of the siding above that beam right there.   We actually have kept a little bit of a recess at  that door location to allow movement into the side   door. So that beam would stay, but everything on  that left portion is the part that gets infilled.   And so that wall already sits back and we are not  changing. We'll be able to build underneath the   existing roof line. Um, if there were a way to  consider that not being quite as heavy-handed,   I mean, that's a place I think maybe more glass  would be your friend. So that um it's not quite   as heavy and it you know look to the addition  which is already fairly good size and I think uh   figuring out the doors on the back of the house, I  think you can probably achieve the same thing with   just a little bit different configuration that  goes with more with the style of the house. Okay, Bob or [snorts] Angela, any anything? Well, I  was looking at these double doors on the back.   Those those are being requested because there's  going to be some future work done there. There  

is there's a currently a pullback there. Um,  and so part of it was just an opportunity to   be able to open up and be a little bit um  have let some of the air in and be able to   move back and forth between the pool um  and the space that's in there. Yes. And   plus because the windows that are there and all  of that is not original. It was all part of the   addition. It was just an opportunity to lot a  lot more light in and get some openness. Okay. Anything else, Bob? Nope. Angela, anything? I I  guess the um the double French doors don't bother   me so much, but that's more from an aesthetic  standpoint or the impact of the building because   I [clears throat] do understand they're wanting  more flow back and forth from the outdoors in and   um there's a large tree back there. So, it seems  like the extra light is a positive thing for this   family, but in terms of the neighborhood,  I don't I can't speak to that. Okay. Yeah. I I don't I don't have a call out. Um the the I did look at the double  doors and I thought, well, it's all the way on the   back. assuming they even had some more capacity to  add on, we'd let them cut a big hole and put more   house there. Um, so I I don't have a problem with  that um necessarily. Is there, and this is just   a question I'm seeing kind of graphically. So,  we've got this new window in the potting shed.  

[snorts] It's got some head height, um, but the  doors are a shorter head height. Is there is the   potting shed going to be vaulted or what what's or  we the doors are shorter because the eve hanging   down or what what's the part of it is the any of  the doors that have been put on the existing are   6'8. Okay. So you're just matching and we're  just matching and then that window head height   is matching the window head heights that are in  the rest of the building. We can move that window   down especially for that elevation if we feel  we want to get that window to It doesn't bother   me. I just thought maybe you'd want taller doors.  Well, yes. It just makes it a little tricky trying   to get a nice gable roof on that potting shed  with the I don't want to get the overhangs and   the rafter tails all messed up with the door. But  yeah, the existing rear is 6'8 on all the doors,   whereas the historic is 7 foot2. Okay. Yeah.  And you know, I think and and Mary can jump in misunderstood, but that side elevation, the infill  part of the porch, it [snorts] doesn't bother me   much to infill it. It's all under roof footprint  that's already there. It's just that the detailing   on that side. you usually on our garage, you know,  the driveway side, there's just a little more   visibility from the public and to have um these  two kind of window. They they look small in this   drawing, but they're probably not small windows,  but there's a lot of siding and and I think to   her point, it was like, you know, that's kind of  prime real estate for bigger windows and like a   not just utility space. You know, we're not here  to criticize floor planning. I haven't even looked   at the floor plan, but but I think that's what  she was hinting at is like this went from being   see-through and having porch look to now it's  solid building and there's a lot of solid. Um,  

so it's it's a big change. I think if this showed  up and you were just adding this on this 2010   edition, if you were doing it now, we'd go, you  know, it's it's it probably meets the guidelines   pretty well. But we might have the same comment  that, you know, maybe shuffle the plan in a way   that this has a little more windows, but it's got  it's got two. Well, and I think the reality, too,   is like we're we're trying to not disturb it  as much as possible that's there. And so we're   we're using that infill as an opportunity. And  there is a powder room there and there is a very   small laundry room and we got to stack washer  and dryers. So, can we put more windows in?   Yes. But then you're not we're going to have to  board them off from the inside just because the   functionality of it. Uh we did look at several  floor plan options and this was the cleanest that   we didn't come to you asking for more space.  Uh that allowed us to kind of stay under the   existing roof line and gain the laundry room down  um and gain us access from inside the house to the   backyard without going around the house. Um, it  was tricky. I I hear you because it would be nice   if that was one big giant mudroom and we could get  three windows in or something like that. But it   was difficult to do. I do know that the clients  um we've already started engaging a landscape   architect involved in the project too. So I know  you don't you can't review landscaping as part   of the design, but the reality is something will  be there. Um, and I know you guys can't regulate   that because what if it dies and all of that, but  I I hear you and I've looked at it. It's just a   challenge given the amount of space that we have.  I don't think what you've shown's inappropriate. I   think I think it was just a comment that that's  a lot. We're going from transparent to opaque   there. And well, other things I wrote down too  was um have you run the numbers for like your   addition percentage stuff? I know you're not  adding anything, but I'm always considerate of  

this kind of even if you're 60% of the original  house footprint now we're we can make an argument   for increasing the level of nonconformity by  conditioning more of it, if that makes sense. So,   I' I'd love to just see the numbers when you Yeah,  we can run that. It was below It was above 50,   but not much. I can't remember if we were in the  52 range. Um, and that was considering the roof   footprint, not necessarily that. So, I was trying  to be cognizant of that, but we can put that on   there. And the other thing, big lot, too, isn't  it? It is a huge lot. We're like at 10% of the   lot size. I mean, and that was even considering  that if they want to put a garage or something on   later, we've got a ton of space for the lot. And  the other thing with that elevation too that might   help is we were maintaining that head height, that  higher 7 foot2 um head height of the windows that   were elsewhere. But we can also look at lowering  those heads to 68 where the door is now and see   just getting a little bit more forehead above  those windows that the proportions will probably   look better. And because you really can't see  the left side and the right side together,   you'll really never correlate that those are off  a little bit. Um, so that might be the solution   to get the proportions right for that elevation  is let's just look at lowering the head heights   in this area to be more consistent with that  6'8 datam line. Okay. Yeah, cuz the the bay is   a little lower than the the others. It is. And we  weren't really changing the that beam height that   was there. So that's where some of that started.  That's a great suggestion. And and I think another   thing that maybe not is not seen because these  are these are two-dimensional drawings, but I'm   assuming where the door is that remains where it  was before. So it's recessed back. It's like a   little stoop area. Porch you walk in on which is  going to break that. It will break. We pulled it   out a little bit so we can get into the mudroom  area, but it's still recessed back a significant  

amount. So you have a little Yeah. And you do  miss that a little bit with some shading would   help with that. And and had this been an original  porch and not an addition, I would I would be I   would be more inclined to go with Mary's idea in  order to try to preserve those original elements,   right? But in this case, it really doesn't matter,  right? And we have the pictures from where it was   built. And I think what is getting my eye, if  you pull those down, it will help. Okay. And   one other thing, generally as you move toward  the rear of the house, especially on additions,   you usually see windows get a little smaller. So I  think it's very appropriate, you know, in the size   that you've chosen. Good. Anything else? Anybody?  Angela? I would just say I think it's a sensitive   um adaptation to this original building. It looks  to me like uh and I love the fact that you kept   that door recessed on the back. And um it may  just be in this drawing, but that the heights of   those windows back there on that infill part, it  doesn't that it's not as jarring I think to me as   it may be for others. So, but your recommendation  was Thank you. was very interesting. Okay. Okay.   Thank you all. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.  All right, let's go to item number four here.   Discussion of demolition and accessory structure,  building alterations, ramp construction, rear   dormer construction, site alterations at 234th  Avenue North, Harpath Architects, Daniel Kadis,   Kadis, Kadis, I was close. Good to meet you.  Thanks for taking the time. All right, green green   light. Um, so I'll just give a little context  before I pass it off to Sam here and their team   at Harper's been doing a great job. Um, this is  adaptive reuse modest expansion um of a property  

that staff's been incredibly helpful in bringing  us to speed up to speed on some of the history   of this. This is new to us. We just purchased it  in uh November, but it's familiar to you all no   doubt um from what we've seen in some of the past  permits. Uh so we're trying to be very considerate   in um some of the history and and what's kind of  already been discussed. Couple things to keep in   mind um that may be helpful. This is uh uh  being transitioned from a residential to a   commercial property. So we're looking for a change  of occupancy and planning to go through the full   process for COA. And um this is going to be owner  occupied by our company. Um company's been in   Franklin as a Franklin run business for the last  decade. Uh we're an Emmy award-winning production   company in studio. um deep ties to this area and  really really excited to be moving our office   kind of from uh outer outer skirts of Franklin  back into the into the downtown area. Um we have   a lot of things on the list. Want to be mindful  of timing. Uh I think the biggest thing that we   wanted to call out there's some aspects that are  probably more of a priority to us in this moment,   the dormer being probably the the largest one and  then a number of other considerations that we have   where we would love to get your opinions as we're  in more of an exploration phase and want to take   the opportunity to get your thoughts while we're  here. Um, anything else you want to add to that?   Um, yeah, I just wanted to add that uh most of  the uh alterations we're proposing are driven by   code necessity due to the change of occupancy.  The main voluntary one that is um applicable   to the current plan reviews and process for the  project is the dormer. Um uh in order to create   a little bit more space up in the attic area,  we're adding some upper office space. And then   the other voluntary one is the uh we wanted to um  get everyone's insight on proposing demolishing   the ADU. Um that is not part of the current  plan reviews and process but um while we're here  

wanted to include that just to get your insight on  that. Um mainly because it it's very utilitarian,   doesn't match the architectural style of the  house. um it appears to be added later. And so um   our thoughts were that it would benefit the site  and the historical character of it if it um was no   longer um on the property um just since it is does  definitely isn't at the same level as the house.   So Okay. Thank you. Let's hear from staff, please.  Thank you. So there are a few requests to discuss   within this DRC application. Um the site features  a circa 1935 minimal traditional style tutor   influenced building. Um we'll start with the site  alteration. A new ramp and walkway are proposed   at the from the rear entrance of the building um  up by the parking area that is existing and to   the sidewalk. The the path and the ramp appear  to be appropriately located and of appropriate   materials. Um we'll move to the principal building  alterations. Um a dormer is proposed a shed dormer   is proposed at the rear of the building. A COA  was issued within the last year for a similar   dormer construction on the building and the  guidelines would recommend that the dormer   be removed from the main ridge. However, this  may create a roof slope less than 3 over2. Um,   so that would be a consideration. Sidewall siding  materials, the reveal should be closer to 4 and   1/2 um to 5 in or consistent with the adjacent  historic buildings rather than 6 in as shown.   Other alterations proposed on the rear entrance  um in order to accommodate an accessible entrance.   The entrance is proposed to be widened to 36 in  and a new 16 light rear door is proposed. The   guidelines would recommend to preserve original  or historic doors and entrances. However, because   this is located on the rear of the building, it  may be more appropriate. Um however, it would be  

recommended to preserve that door for future reuse  if possible. Specifications for the new light   fixtures on the building are needed for the COA  submittal for review. Um the new mechanical and   exhaust fence on the sides of the building appear  to be on less visible facads and are appropriate.   And the new mechanical units on the side of  the building where there is an existing unit   um is screened by decorative wall from street  view. But additional information is needed to   confirm that all three units will continue to  be screened. um if not, additional structural   or landscape screening may be required to fully  screen the units. And third, um we'll touch on   the discussion of the demolition of the accessory  structure. Um the 1972 multiple property listing   shows the structure present on the site on maps  and would make the structure historic by age. The   National Register lists the structure as a 1970  CMU block building and the um but it is listed as   a non-contributing structure in the 2018 listing.  Feedback and discussion about the proposed   demolition of the structure is appreciated. One  of the three criteria for demolition would need   to be submitted for review and would only be  approved if the historic zoning commission deems   the conditions met. Additional guidelines for  consideration include determining the significance   of the structure and whether the structure retains  its historic integrity, the impact the removal of   the structure would have on the surrounding  context, and understanding the proposed   redevelopment, which is all within the flood  plane, and any new future development will still   require a COA in this location. Thank you. Okay.  Thank you. All right. Anyone have any comments, Mary? Well, thi this has been com um used as a  business, bookkeeping business for years. So,   uh they're having to

um change it to what it already was. I I'm Yeah,  I don't know the answer to that. Do you know the   answer to that? No. Is it? So it was a business  before but it was operating just out of a house.   It was never It came as a surprise to all of  us when we cuz it did appear to be a business   for. It was a business. Yeah. And even has the  parking lot existed. Bookkeeper was there for   and [laughter] CPA for I went there for you know  30 years. So yeah. And so the change of occupancy   was a surprise for everybody, including the  owners, cuz we didn't find out after they   even purchased the property that it had been filed  as residential. Um, which was surprising. That's   that's surprising to me because no one, I promise,  uh, lived there. It was uh, Mr. Dan Parsons and   his daughter Patty who ran um, a CPA firm there.  So, I'd just make that comment. um don't know what   that's kicking in for these new owners, but I  I have a pretty good idea. Uh and then as far   as the demolition of the building, I'm sort of  like, are you sure you want to do that? Because   what's going to happen is it's going to have to be  lifted so much that coming back if you ever wanted   to add something is going to be complicated. So  I would just say that yeah definitely appreciate   that and we've been weighing that. I think  the challenge is if we want to do anything   to it my understanding is we would still have to  do that to still have to do it. Okay. So, if if   that is going to be the case, as we understand  it, unless we're wrong, uh we would have more   we would have more problems bringing the existing  building up to code than creating a new building  

uh that's more aesthetically pleasing. I mean, I I  think that the fact that it's non-contributing um puts makes a case for tearing it down,  but I don't know how long it's been since   we updated that survey and it may be considered  contributing at this point. So, we were curious,   too, and and uh feel free to weigh in on this, but  I know at this point, you know, there used to be a   garage door there at some point. The the track  system is still present. It was and it it Yes,   there was. So, it's been changed to a degree and  I don't know to what extent that was and that's   fairly recent, has it been? Okay. And then, uh  from the inside, we're we're definitely going to   need to assess it structurally. There's, you  know, in terms of the framing of it and the   interior is definitely not sound at the moment.  So there' be other considerations as well,   just just to put that out there. But I appreciate  that. Yeah, I think to Mary's point, you know,   we haven't seen a proposal for what might happen  one day, but if you ever tried to design something   to go back there and it had to meet the flood rigs  and codes, it may be something that the historic   zoning commission would never approve because it  may be not meet the guidelines. it'll have to be   taller than this little tutor house that will now  be your offices. Like you run a real risk of never   getting something approved because it just would  be almost an impossibility if that makes sense.   So that's you know I think to Mary's point if you  just go we just don't want anything back there and   we don't want to have to fool with when it floods  redoing it 9,000 times then I'd go okay. Um it's   a block building. It's not, you know, I wouldn't  say it's architecturally remarkable, but it is,  

you know, contextual for its age and the kind  of stuff we see around the neighborhood. Um,   especially that side of town, there's some block  buildings and yurts and all kinds of oddities over   there that live. Uh, so it's not its weirdness  is kind of seen in that side of town. Um, so, um,   I don't feel strongly one way or the other  about saving it or not because, you know,   architecturally it's like, well, it's just a a  block building. It was never built to be that   remarkable. It was a utility building. Um, so I I  don't know how everybody else feels about it. Do   you know currently is it is it zoned for a living  space? You called it an accessory dwelling unit,   or is it been used for a garage? I mean, if it  was used for a garage, they wouldn't have been   able to fit the car in there. So, I I'm I'm really  not sure. It would have been probably some sort   of a storage building. I' I'd imagine. Um, and  the interior is is unfinished at the moment with   drywall or anything else. There's not a restroom  in there, so I'm not exactly sure. And I'm not   an expert on on the the zoning regulations for  flood planes, but I have some experience. Sure.   And [laughter] and I would say that anything  you tear down because it's not attached to the   building, you can't finish it or use it for any  kind of space living or or business that I know   of unless there's some something different on  on commercial. And you said this is residential   and you're going to have to have it reszoneed  to commercial. That's what our understanding   is. I mean, so you know, there's a there are a  lot of there are a lot of issues here to work   through. Yeah. and and generally with with the  with the flood plan regulations 50% if you do   more than 50% you have to lift the building.  So I don't know how they calculate that value   on this. Is it part of the house or part of this  structure? So I mean you you have a lot of things   to find out and I would say that you're probably  better off keeping what you have and trying to  

see what you can do with it than demolishing  it. But that's a decision, you know, yeah,   we'll have to make. Well, and and all that to  say, I'm looking at your survey here and behind   the house has some buildable area. Um, having the  building as it sits today would preclude you from   building a separate one behind the house in the  spot that it could be built. Um, so, you know,   that might be an argument. Yeah, you you like I  said, if if that building's required to be kept,   you can never build another separate building.  Um, but if it goes, you could build something that   could be usable and wouldn't have to be lifted,  right, on that buildable area that's behind. So,   that makes sense. I don't know that makes me feel  any different. It's just a fact of the matter.   So the so the the rear of the property is out of  the flood plane. Just that area behind the house.   Oh, that area right there. Okay. Yeah. Which  is behind the green sidewalk there until you   hit the the hatched is the flood plane. Gotcha.  So actually the house isn't in the flood plane.   Looks like it's just like its own little Yeah,  it's on an island. Island. Yeah. It's a sweet   island. You're fortunate. Fortunate. Yes. And we  haven't had a we haven't engaged a civil engineer,   but as they've let us know, I mean, there's a cut  fill, I guess, process that we could go through   to maybe extend that back portion a little bit  further. But again, all exploration at this point.   Um, I think your comments are incredibly helpful  and there's a lot to consider. Sure, for sure.   Anybody else have comments on Brian? I think just  to provide some clarification, it is zoned O, so   it's office residential. Um, while we don't review  use here with the Historic Zoning Commission, um,   Jared has provided some insight that when building  permits were most recently submitted, they were   submitted for residential uses. So, going in for  commercial, you'd have to update that. Okay. So,  

past building permits, so the previous approvals  that they've gotten were residential and those   are fairly recent. Last year, last year. Okay.  The the stuff we reviewed came in and got a   residential permit. So the assumption there was  maybe somebody was going to live in this and so   if somebody just brings a plan in for residential  then the use is changed since it's o one use has   to be established when you're going in it's either  office or residential does the permit have to be   completed before it's the construction was never  completed the construction was never completed   I know that's not this meeting I'm just yeah it's  just I I can imagine and Jared could talk to this   is that I I don't understand. Yeah. You you get a  a residential building permit's reviewed under a   different code. Okay. Correct. Which is a a lesser  requirement usually. Right. But if you're office   residential, it seems the name seems to me it  leaves both. That's just zoning. That's not code.   Code zoning. Okay. That's right. So zoning just  means it could be either one, but you have to pick   which one. So like when they go for a building  permit, they will have to apply under commercial   codes which has all kinds of implications from  different floor loading requirements to all   kinds of things um that are are different that  they'll review. And Jared's kind of nodding like   yeah. [laughter] And it's worth noting a lot of  the some of the changes we're proposing including   adding the accessible route and the accessible  from the accessible parking and adding in the   um landing in the back to maintain an accessible  slope up to the entrance. All of that is triggered   by the change of occupancy, right? Um by code  um um which if it hadn't been, you know, Yeah.  

If it hadn't been filed previously as residential  that some things wouldn't not all the things that   are being triggered now would have been triggered.  Yes. Yeah. And we'll let you you obviously the the   codes folks you'll have to work some of that stuff  out with them if the permit was never executed but   issued. Who knows how that works. That's that's  not our our purview. So I won't even try to talk   to that. Yeah. Since we we're discussing things  out of our purview, we should talk about something   in it which is which is dormers. So the the rear  dormer, I think we should we should address that.   It was brought up by staff. This hides it up  on the ridge. You know, I think our guidelines   should come off the ridge some. So I think  we should discuss maybe some of that. Yeah. Yeah. The anybody comments on that aside from   what staff recommended which is just I  mean it's listed out in our guidelines have to be taken off the ridge line. Yeah.  But that drops their their slope below the   312. Now that could be handled with a with  a metal roof if it's below 312. Is that   what I understood? I'm not sure the guidelines  accommodate anything below 312. Is that true?   Um, you all have perview to approve  something a little bit less than 3 over2,   right? I know we've approved that before  and generally it has a metal roof, you know, and and for me too on this situation,  you know, I'm I'm really concerned if I were   standing on the street, what can you see this  from the rear and any other public views? What   do you see? And you know, if it's not something  that's that's highly visible from any view,   I mean, to have it at that 312 where it is, I  don't know that that's that's a huge issue. Um,  

it's worthy for some discussion. Yeah. My I guess  my concern would be kind of the constructibility.   Usually, if it reaches up to the ridge, there's  some type of detail there where they've got a   lap things where you can kind of see it from the  front. And sometimes it's just a flashing line,   especially if it's going to a metal roof. But, you  know, I think the guidelines were written for for   for that reason and others uh so that you kind of  always know where the existing is, the existing   historic house was and what's added on. So, from  margin and fourth, it's fairly visible. Okay. Then   it I would say it needs to meet the guidelines.  It does have a wing of the house that extends out   on the left side that does screen would screen  a majority of the dormer from from that angle.   Yeah. I don't think I I'm not hearing that we have  an issue with the dormer specifically. It's just   where that tie-in point is. Guidelines just say  it should not be up at the tip top of the ridge.   It just has to be pulled down a little. And  usually when it gets, you know, that's going   to change your slope or your bearing height, one  or the other. Um, and the idea would be if it's   less than a 312 slope. We typically like to see it  in metal, and most folks like to do it in metal,   too, cuz shingles don't like 212 or whatever it's  going to be. Um, so that's I think that's staff's   kind of recommendation there as well. Um, any  thoughts on the widening of the rear entrance?   I think it sounds like a code requirement as  well. Any any thoughts on that? Is that a code  

requirement? I think it's your accessible  entrance. Jared's nodding. Yes. Yes, sir. resp. Uh, yeah, sure. Um, yeah, it' be great to  have your insight on that, too. Um, yeah, the code   because it's going through a change of occupancy,  code requires that at least one entrance be made   accessible with an accessible route. And so,  the existing door is not um it's not the correct   width for accessible. So, what how wide is the  front door? Um, I would have to double check.   U Okay. I'm just oftenimes the front door might  be inaccessible width, but there's no accessible   route to it. So, it's like, well, you don't you  have the ramp and everything. Yeah. And then the   ramp we deal with it being near the front, which  doesn't meet our guidelines. Discussions. It was   easier to go through the back portion of it.  Yeah. It would be much less intrusive on the   understood. And I I agree with that. Um, so it's  uh how wide is it now? 34 I believe somewhere   there. Yeah. And then code requires that from  frame to door when it's at a 90 degree angles is   um 30 no less than 32. So um usually go with a  36 wide door. Understood. Any reaction to that?   It would be great if when you get the new  door if you could find something that looks   appropriate to the age of the house. But  and I'm assuming all this is a stone veneer,   correct? It's frame construction stone veneer  and and how how would you propose handling it to,   you know, as you chip away that stone or cut it  away, you know, to to make it look like nothing  

ever happened. That would be interesting to know.  Yeah, just trying to minimize as as much of the   impact as possible. There is some room uh based  on where the masonry comes together where we'll   have a little bit of leniency, but we've got to  look at it specifically to to know, you know,   the right application. We're looking at a couple  different doors that might allow us a tighter   um jam as well that could be potentially helpful  to minimizing that, but that's part of what we're   trying to figure out. Yeah, definitely don't don't  relish the idea of breaking into that too much.   So, we've talked about new ramp and walkway a  little bit. Well, the the ramp and walkway, we   talked about its location, its necessity based on  that accessible route. Dormer, um staff hit on the   reveals, more of a 4 and 1 half to 5 in reveal,  which seems fairly easy to accomplish. Wider rear   entrance. And then the demo of this block building  we talked about [snorts] plenty. any anything else   or any other specific feedback you're looking for?  Um yeah, uh we were just curious to get your guys'   take on um if we need additional screening for  the two additional condensers we're adding and   then also um um the new landing we're adding um  to provide an accessible um route up to that back   entry as well. That that'll be new. So the I saw  those mechanical units somewhere here. Yes. Yeah,   that's where they are. There's currently one and  there's one in that same location now. And you're   putting another one next to it. There's a little  fin wall that comes off. Yeah. And how tall is   that wall now? I don't know the exact height. It's  the height of the the AC. It's a slightly taller   than the AC unit, I believe. Yeah, there you go.  That picture is helpful. And uh zoning requires   that mechanical units be fully screened. So, and  our guidelines would recommend either structural  

or landscaping to screen it more if it needs it.  Yeah, I think if you come in with a some plan to   screen the other two sides, I I probably wouldn't  be in favor of manipulating that wall to make it   taller or anything. I think it just is what it  is and is doing a great job for a hundred years   or however old it is. But if you wanted to come  off of that pier and do a low fence or a wall or   landscaping, work with staff on that uh just to  meet the requirement there. And the requirements   are different for commercial than residential  or is it the same screening requirements? I   know zoning for commercial buildings has a some  screening rules. Maybe I'm thinking a rooftop.   Um, I know for sure just for from experiences  with commercial use buildings, it needs to be   fully screened from offsite. Um, for residential,  I'm not I would have to double check with our   zoning administrator. Okay. Any feedback  on the landing in the back or the walkway? Looks good. [laughter] It's a It's a sidewalk  and a landing. And I just wanted to note as well,   we are propo proposing some regrading  up from the where the parking is to that   um just to minimize the extent that that landing  and um slope needs to be. Um but it's all the the   grading looks like it's from close to the maybe  six or seven feet in front of the back corner of   the house and then just a bit in the backyard. Is  that true? And I don't know if you all see those   solid lines there where the grading is. It's kind  of right next to that 5% slope sign closest to the  

uh accessible parking place. So there's one  line that moves back back to the 5% line on   the green right there. Yep. And you see the line  right on the right of the 5%. That's the flood   plane line. I need a pointer. [clears throat]  It's the grade line below it that says 637. Yep. Right there. That's a new grade line. And  then the next layer up is 638. That's a new   grade line. Is that correct? Correct. I will.  So, the grading only changes up to that point,   but doesn't go more than six or seven feet beyond  the back corner of the house. I think uh when   it comes to historic zoning, maybe a little  more perspective on does it require railing,   you know, those kinds of how tall is  it? What does that look like? Yeah,   the stoop 18 in above grade it looks like based on  639.6 6396 63810. It's not even that tall. Yeah,   it's pretty 8 in. Yeah, it's pretty low. Um so  no rails around the landing only on one side.   Um there would probably there would need to be  guard rails because of the drop on the grade   being over 30 being more 638 6396. Okay. And um  by keeping the grading at a 5% or less slope that   uh then we don't have to have the guard rails  that are required for accessible ramps since   it's technically not a ramp. Tyler, may I ask  a question? Sure. Did you have the material  

specified on there for what your sidewalks were  or what your um going to be? I don't believe uh   that is specified yet. Um the intent was that  it was going to be just concrete. Okay. Cuz   both of us would like to know that as well.  Sure. So I figured Yeah, good question. Yeah. So it's going to go and it does come up and tie  into the existing kind of T-shaped sidewalk.   Okay. Yeah. Any other comments on that?  All right. Thank you'all. Appreciate it. Thank you, Jerry. [clears throat] Item number  five, discussion of demolition accessory   structure in a principal building alterations  and an addition at 210 3rd Avenue North. This says brain and pretty, but yes, you're  much better looking. Thank you. I appreciate   it. [clears throat and laughter] My name is  Aaron Rogers with 906 Studio and this is our   client Sha Aello. What's your name? Sean iell. How  do you spell your last name? [clears throat] Very   Italian. A I E L L. A I E L L O. Yes, sir. Well,  mine's La Meridel. So, I didn't learn that till   about sixth grade. [clears throat] All right.  If y'all want to give us a brief overview here   and then we'll hear from staff, please. Sure. We  brought this project to you at the last DRC. This   is um a structure located at 210 3rd Avenue North  uh what was formerly a dental office. Uh Sean is   an attorney here uh deep roots in the community  and he is proposing uh renovating the structure   the home um to be a law office. Um so we have a  description of some of the work here. We're going  

to uh propose a full renovation um removing  the exterior as bestas containing sighting,   uncovering the lap siding that exists. Um Sean has  areas of the home where you can see that there is   some lap siding that currently exists. So we  would propose um replacing that in kind. Um,   we also propose removing the existing  front porch and modifying the roof   uh to expose some of the historic detailing that  currently is hidden by the roof uh that exists   at the porch currently. There's some coral and  and freeze trim detailing that we believe uh is   hidden behind that. Um or we would replace it to  match the other gable uh portions of the home. Um,   we also intend to add a low slope uh ramp that  wouldn't require handrails uh for ADA access to   that front porch because it is raised roughly six  six plus inches uh from grade. And then there's   an existing accessory structure at the rear of  the property that Sean has done some extensive   research on that. We have a sandborn map that  doesn't show it existing in the 70s. And so   we're proposing demoing that accessory structure  and rebuilding a new accessory structure that   would be more in fitting with the ar more  fitting with the architecture of the home.   Um, we also are proposing infilling uh the side  porch that exists and uh adding a small addition   adjacent to that for some additional office  space. And as far as the windows, um some of   those are in in um disrepair, but we propose  renovating uh restoring those windows to to um  

uh just bring them up to more current um look from  where they're where they've been deteriorated. So,   um repairing is necessary and installing  new windows that would match elsewhere. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The property at 210 3rd  Avenue North is considered to be a contributing   building um that was built circa 1890 within the  National Register uh district. It is proposed to   replace the roof in kind, remove the asbestous  siding, and assess the lap siding underneath and   if it can be preserved and it will be kept, but  if repair is needed, it should be be replaced   in kind. These alterations meet the intent of  the guidelines, but material samples should be   included within the COA application. It is  also proposed to revert the existing porch   roof to what it was previously. An example is  in the proposal. Let me get to the page. And   uh provided theam provided in the application of  a local example is supported by the guidelines.   It is also proposed to demolish the circa 1970s  accessory structure. The age of the structure is   unknown and it was not shown on the 1950s Sandborn  map, but a 1970s map from the National Register   listing does not show the structure on the map  in 1970. The demolition of the structure appears   appropriate per the guidelines. The addition on  the south elevation slight elevation appears to   utilize insets and offsets for the building  additions and alterations. The proposed new  

accessory structure is placed appropriately and  sized appropriately per the guidelines. It is   connected by a breezeway that is partially clad  in a stone material. The guidelines recommends   designing breezeways to be simple in detailing  and subordinate to an accessory structure. Since   the access the accessory structure and the  principal building are both uh clad and wood,   the guidelines would support utilizing a lap  material or simple detailing or railing that   a railing design that would connect the two. At  the front of the building, I'll zoom in to this   wonderful rendering. Um, a ramp is proposed  and the ramp will utilize concrete and stone.   The ramp appears to take up the entirety of  the front yard. The guidelines recommends for   residential buildings provide a landscaped front  yard and minimize paved or hardscape areas. Uh,   do not fully remove and replace traditional  lawn areas with hardscape. Additionally,   it is recommended to position ramps and lists  lifts on rear or side facades were readily not   readily visible. And there were several project  considerations um that were made uh by building   and neighborhood services staff and that we will  send to the applicant with the DRC recap. And we   also want to commend the applicant on um wanting  to put some much needed uh TLC into this building.   And so we really appreciate that. Thank you. Okay.  Thank you. All right. Who wants to start us off? Okay, Mary, go ahead. Um, I I feel like what's  submitted the is appropriate. Uh, I would have my  

only thing that I think needs thought through  some more is how to address a rant. Okay, Brian, you know, I I I agree. I think  you've done a great job and formulating   a plan for this house that definitely needs  it. you know, the windows and I' I've been   around the house when it was kind of on on the  market and the windows are in some poor shape,   but they are salvageable and I believe most most  all of them are original. So, as many of those   as you can say would be great. The the thing I I  find that's charming about the historic structure,   another charming, a lot of it's charming, is the  side porch. And I know you're you're you want to   enclose this area for for use in space, but I'd  like to see if you could think about a way maybe   to make it look like it's a porch that had been  enclosed, you know, rather than than another solid   that you see like what we're seeing here. And I do  agree with staff on the covered breezeway. And I'm   I am I'm assuming this is an enclosed breezeway  and then at the top of what you show of a stone   wall are is glass or is it just open? It's we're  showing it as open just a connector piece to get   to the storage. The storage will primarily be used  for for file storage. So um doesn't directly need   to be connected to the house but we wanted to  provide some protection for weather so it can   stand. I've seen historic properties where they've  used lattice as a great screening for something   like that. That'd be great. And so lattice might  actually fit better with that with the style of   the house than than that stone wall that we're  seeing. But uh we'd be willing to reconsider  

windows as well if if it would be allowed to  connect directly to that accessory structure. Sir. So, so you're what you're saying is you would  like you would like to think about enclosing this   space. There's potential to it'd be worth a  conversation with Sean to to determine that,   but um right now we're showing it as open. But  I think if it's open, Lattice might be a good   option for that. Thank you. Thank you. Um well,  I would um really work on the front. I think   um you need [snorts] to keep some of the  lawn um even though it's going to be a   commercial structure, it still I think  needs to read as residential. Uh because   it did start out residential and uh I think  what you're proposing fits the neighborhood,   fits the house. Uh just keep a little land in  the front. And I think that that will change   more uh once we really dial in that ramp design.  Um it's uh based on code to have landings at the   top and the the connection to the porch and then  at the bottom keeping that low slope so we don't   have handrails which I think would kind of deter  from the the look of the house from the street.   There's a neighboring property to the right  that has a ramp system with with handrails   and so a lot of that is is concrete. Um if we  can incorporate more landscape to soften that   design that that would be I think that in our  interest to do that. I know the coffee shop had   to deal with the ramp and did it successfully.  That might be something to look at. Okay. And it's a little more difficult to add  that ramp to the rear of the house because  

the grade differential is is I think  closer to 30 in potentially. So then   you're looking at 30T a switch back of 30 ft  of ramp at the back of the house. So yeah,   would would it be possible to switch the  ramp entrance to the to the side of the   porch rather than coming in right at the very  front? So, are you talking to the right side   of the house? To the right side of the house.  So, that was my idea as well. There is a water   um I don't know if you can pull up one of the  pictures of the side of the house. Uh the city   put a metal box right there right on the side of  the porch. Um so, I don't know. Hot box. Yeah,   hot box. Backflow pre. So, remove that.  I'd be happy [laughter] to do that. Is that an option? I mean, it might be something  worth worth asking. We could look into it. See,   definitely. I prefer it on the right side  anyway. I'm sure they'll let you do it if   you pay for it. I'm [laughter] sure they will.  It's it's I mean, again, not not our purview,   but the backflow pre belongs to you. Uh  because it's on your side of the meter. So,   you can put it wherever you it  has to follow their rigs. But,   um, they're located all over the place. And the  building you referenced next to you with the ramp,   I mean, I I I don't think that would meet  our guidelines today. It's not something we   would we would want to see. Yeah. I'd hate to see  that again replicated on this historic property.   We were trying to avoid that and have some kind  of landscape wall, but we could always remove that   that stone landscape wall that we show in that  3D image and just have more softscape landscaping   instead if u I think it's I think partly the issue  is that it's just paving the whole front yard.  

Yeah. in it in its to Bob's point there's always  a house and generally speaking most of them had   this little flight of steps you know centered up  on the door and the sidewalk is an important part   of that kind of neighborhood aesthetic. So now all  of a sudden that stair has to shift railings with   it. So that's kind of an oddity. There's there  are some, but it usually is a house that has   side slope a lot of sides slope grade that they'd  had to contend with originally. But all the walls   and structure and then paving from, you know, one  side of the sidewalk all the way to the house is   is not something our guideline I mean that's why  the guidelines are written to put ramps on the   sides or rear is so that we don't have this. Uh  so I I'd revisit that whole area again. Angela,   I I just I I want to agree with that that uh  there's so much sensitivity shown to, you know,   restoring the porch and the siding and the  windows and and that's all wonderful, but   um doing that with the ramp in the front is  really unfortunate. So if there is any way   to accommodate that ramp in a different location  that I mean the front of the house is obviously   really important to how you experience the the  history of it. So um that that would just be my   comment to take a hard look at that. Thank you.  Um my other comment would be on that connect that it, you know, is set in and looks separate  and all of that. Um, I would if the I think  

the lattice was a great suggestion, historic  lattice, um, which would be a heavier lattice,   not what you go by the sheet of, but I I think I  would even prefer if you if you did it that it be   brick instead of the stone. And I think it'd be  a little quieter if if it came to closing it in.   I agree with that. And having the stone on the  front and there seems to me that that could be   addressed in a uh more sensitive to the wood  vernacular of this building. I guess I'm I'm   still confused at this breezeway because it's so  you've got walls on both sides of the breezeway.   Um those are so it's the house the floor level  of the home is roughly 30 in above the grade.   So it's it's kind of an elevated basically an  elevated connector that will take you over to   the structure. So we don't have stairs taking  you down to it. Um so that will be at guardrail   height. The wall will come up and it'll be open  from there. Okay. Yeah. It's and then it's I just   keep thinking about these stone walls and whatever  gets in there like you have to get like a shovel   and scoop it out or something. I have no idea  how it's even going to function. It's it's an   odd archetype. Usually a breezeway is just I mean  it's just open and sometimes they had lattice for   privacy but they were just open. If there's a  grade issue, then you know, often times they'd   have steps and breezeways. I mean, there's lots of  It's It's an odd thing. And to have a house that  

was all siding, and I'm forgetting about this  rock sign in the front, cuz that's not part of   the historic discussion. Uh, but now we're adding  rock andor brick to a house that it's it's just a   siding house. I mean, it has foundation, but it's  mostly block. Is Is that correct? It's blocked.   There's It looks to be a like a some kind of stone  rubble foundation on the front street facing side,   but the sides are CMU. So to have like a four  or five foot tall rock wall seems very random   or brick wall. I mean, I'm just like, what is what  is this? So, you don't that's not to do with the   found it being a foundation problem. That's just  a feature. It was just a connector. Yeah. To to   infill and and give it So, [snorts] I'll I'll step  on Aaron's toes. Yeah. No, do it, please. As I   said, walking in here, I I could care less what  it looks like. So, you tell us what you want to   see on it, but I'm happy to do it. And same with  honestly, I prefer it to be enclosed, but I didn't   know if city would permit that as a breezeway  for connected from accessory structure. Um,   I think it's at that point it's an it's attached.  It's part of the addition and you could build a   different accessory later depending on setbacks  and all kinds of weird other rules you have to   meet. But we just received clarification um that  if it becomes fully enclosed then there will be   um extra parking that will be required. Ah that's  yeah it's another room. So I'm going to go back   to the to the stone wall that are in the front.  So, if you can reconfigure where the ramp is,   you don't need that that stone wall at the  front, which is kind of inappropriate really   for the district. And and even this this breezeway  connector, I mean, you may have some porch parts   left over, especially from this addition you're  doing. Why not just make it look like a porch   with railings? I mean, there's so many things  that could be done that would that would look,  

you know, like it was part of the house. Yeah,  we'll we'll definitely revisit for it to be   railed on both sides is You have to think it's  like a walk the plank kind of thing. It's like   often times there'll be one on one side and maybe  there's steps off the other or something, but to   have kind of a a bridge, you know, is is it's kind  of Isn't that kind of weird? I keep thinking of   like like a porch mauy caulking or something.  He's going to his fort. And while this loads,   um, if it were to be all enclosed, there is  the setback requirement that, um, if it were   to be an addition, as it is detailed now, it is an  accessory structure attached by breezeway. And so   the rear setback is uh, 30 ft and it is measuring  29.9 ft, which can stay since it is existing. all   that jazz. So with it being an accessory structure  in the rear connected needs to be detached. It   needs to be detached. [laughter] So yeah, just  look at how that it doesn't need to be that heavy   and introduce some material that really is I know  we have some of that material on the site, but it   it ought not be there. [laughter] Yeah, we could  we could definitely light. So So look at that. um ramp we talked about. I I I liked Brian's idea  of this side porch, right? It kind of looking   like a porch enclosed. I'm I'm having a hard time  finding exactly what that side porch looks like   today. But, you know, the the front columns are  nicer than the others. It's Yeah, right there.   That's that's that's what it currently Okay.  Yeah. Like the front, the columns probably need  

to be detailed like the front a little bit.  Maybe not the little brackets and corbals,   but the columns themselves, but make it look like  porch. I'd like to see a little bit of relief off   the corner of this side facing gable cuz it looks  like in the renderings it's just there's a lot of   roof stuff happening, but the the siding is just  We did pull it a foot a foot back. Okay. So,   it's set back a foot from the that side. That's  perfect. Um, I'm gonna have to back off my comment   because when when I I saw this perspective, I was  thinking that might be the side porch, but it's   right this part right here, isn't it? Yeah. Forget  what I said. [laughter] Is it not that sacred? No.   No. That that I thought that was more I thought it  was much like the porch on the front, but that's   not I think this is somebody added a little  shed at some Exactly. They a hobble attached   to the side of the [laughter] house. There you  go. Sorry about that. That was my I think it   could still look like if you want it to look like  a sideboard, but what I was getting at is it may   be that and and I don't know how this works with  your plan, but could the ramp run back to there   and you have a new side entrance back there? I  have no idea. That may just throw a a total bomb   in the plan. But it's those type of things that  our guidelines do suggest. side ramps with side or   rear entrances. I don't mind you using the front  entrance if you can do it in a way that you know,   but starting up here at the front yard, you're  losing grade, but if the ramp is going up,   you know, you probably would have rails because  you'll get over that 30 inch mark. Maybe I think   if we can if we can place it on the right hand  side of the house and have enough distance   um to connect to the front entrance, I think  that'd be ideal just because all the more private   office space um that you don't really want public  going through is from there back. So, right, I  

think we'll we'll really try to we'll try to look  at that and if we can relocate that hot box, that   would be helpful. Okay. Yeah, I like that because  I agree with you. We were just struggling to find   a location that would give us the ramp length that  we needed. Um, and unfortunately it was either the   front of the house or contending with the box on  the side. So, and I did I wanted to mention too,   um, I know there's a picture of the original  siding under the asbestous, which is great.   Um, our guidelines recommend when you unpeel  all that to reuse it if it's even remotely   possible. And usually that looks like a pretty  extensive survey of what's there, what's damaged,   can we get profiles made, and there's inevitably  some patching, but we we like to reuse the   historic material if it's possible. Is that  is that true, staff? That's how it reads. Um,   so I did want to sort of set that expectation. I  think that was in your staff report. It was. Yeah.   Okay. Anything else? Just one one question. Yes,  sir. Just to give you guys an update as well. I   know it's a little bit beyond your purview. Uh,  but we are also going through the National Park   Service with the Federal Preservation Tax Credit  and we are through the first phase of approval.   Um, they approved us uh to start the project. So,  we're also handcuffing ourselves so the interior   modifications also match that historical standards  and try to bring some more real character back to   the building. Good. Wonderful. Glad you're doing  that. This is just such a gift. It really is to   the historic district. Yeah. And I don't know  when the last time a tax credit was done here.   Well, according to the state, um, their historical  commission, it's been long enough that none of   those files are digitized. [laughter] You'd  have to go back to his paper files to find  

one in Franklin. Wow. Um, which I thought was  very odd, but I guess people don't want to do it   or I'm aware of it. I'm not sure. Um, I plan on  writing an article about it once I get all done   and hopefully inspire somebody else to do it.  That's great. Good. I thought the old city hall   had tax credits on it. I know the Tennessee  Historical Commission was involved in that.   may have the where Alabaster and Onyx is today.  That could be. I know that the factory I think   the factory was a tax credit and at one time  there were lots of them done on Main Street.   Interesting. And are you able to use that new  market tax credit combined with it or not? Not   that I'm aware of. Right now they're focusing  just on what is contributing to the restoration   um not necessarily any of this expanded square  footage carve out um restoration versus additional   statue. So understood. All right. Thank you all.  I appreciate it. Thanks so much. Okay. Item six,   discussion or demolition of an accessory  structure, new construction of an accessory   structure inside alterations at 217 Fifth Avenue  South. Ben McCreary, good afternoon. Traded one   mccreary for another. That's right. Did you guys  high five on the way in and out? We did. Yeah,   that's right. Tagged her in. Mhm. Cast  off the baton. Yeah. All right. So,   Ben McCra Chisel workshop. Um, this project is at  217 Fifth Avenue South. We're looking at um there   is a 1990s era little random shed in the back that  has no relevance to the existing structure. Um,   so the proposal is to remove that shed and then  to build a new garage that is more consistent   with the house that's existing on the property.  Um, as you can see in the images, it's a two-car  

garage. It is smaller than the main house. It  will be also be shorter than the main house um   as far as height and things like that. Um it sits  back towards the back of the property and it'll be   you know one story with dormers on top. So it'll  kind of look like a one and a half story. Um the   intention is for there's no access up there other  than a kind of an access ladder drop down attic   access. So it's not a a living space or anything  like that at this point but we're talking about   um there's no preparation for that. Um, so  really it's just storage. And then, um, we did   include an egress window just for safety up there  because if you're up there and something happens,   who knows? Um, so that's part of that which is  on the side gable that's kind of looking towards   the neighbor's house. And then beyond that,  uh, that's kind of really we got some paper   space. We're we're keeping the existing drive the  way it is until you kind of get within 20 ft of   the garage. And at that point, we're talking about  changing the pearavevel drive surface to something   more hard, potentially um stone that matches  some of the other stone patio on the site or   um concrete or something. It will be an approved  material that we'll be looking at with that. Um we   kind of given oursel just some flexibility because  we don't know yet. Um, and then beyond that,   we're not really touching anything on the main  house or any of the other site other than adding   the walkway path and the new parking area. Okay.  And do you want me to give you sizes or anything   like that? So, you know, the coverages and all  that good stuff or uh staff will probably cover   some of that. Is that true? Some Yes, some  of it. Yeah, we may have questions for you   after. Let's hear from Elizabeth. Okay. So, the  application includes two requests. one for the   demolition of the accessory structure and the  request for new construction of a new accessory  

structure and some site alterations. The existing  structure is a circa 1990 structure and is not   historic or contributing to the district. Its  removal would not adversely impact the site or   surrounding context and is appropriate for the  new construction of the accessory structure.   The proposed placement, orientation, and size  appear appropriate. However, the height of the   principal building is needed for review in light  of the guidelines to ensure the new structure is   subordinate to the building. In this sense,  the new structure iso proposed to be 21 ft   tall. The side and rear facads feature mostly  blank walls and the guidelines would recommend   avoiding the use of blank walls. However,  since the facade will have limited visibility,   feedback about the walls and any detailing would  be appreciated. The proposed structure relates to   but is subordinate to the principal building in  terms of detailing and ornamentation. The roof   form incorporates a flare and dormers relate to  the principal building dormer shape. The materials   appear appropriate. However, additional details to  confirm the reveal matches the principal building   and information about the finishes will be needed.  The siding detail on the dormer sidewalls does not   appear to relate to the existing dormers and it  would be recommended to relate this detail to   the principal building details and siding as it's  diagonal on the accessory structure. Additional   feedback about the size, proportion, and placement  of the dormers is appreciated. There is additional   flexibility for size and scale dormers on less  visible facads and the dormers appear to meet   the guidelines. Thank you. All right. Thank you.  All right. Let's um any [clears throat] feedback   on the demo. Pretty pretty straightforward.  I appreciate I mean if it's new, appreciate   that it's going. Yeah. Very good. All right. All  right. And then comments on the garage itself.

The only comment I would make is that  I do agree with staff's comments,   especially on the dormers for the siding. Rather  than being diagonal, it match the house. It looks   to me like it's a very appropriate style for  for the house that it is. And I'm sure when   you come back before us there'll be some details  about the garage doors. Sure. And as far as the,   you know, the uh more blank spaces of walls and  less penetrations. I would say for a garage that   that's appropriate. I mean, you know, it's not a  living space. Sure. It's a garage. Generally, this   may have a living space, but I'm assuming it's  also used for a garage. That is the intention. So, this um there there's a two dormers front and  back that have this witch's hat roof, hip roof.   And then the dormer on the side does not because  it's wider than it is deep. Correct. Um, I would   love to even if you want an egress size window  there, I'd love to see that dormer sized for   that egress window if you need it. And cuz it's  it's got a funny roof profile in comparison with   itself, the garage, and the existing building that  all have this double slope bonnet roof thing. And   this is the only one that's going to look like a  shed. I mean, it's got a 312 on one side and a 912   on the other pieces. So, it's a it's definitely an  oddball roof. See, it's 912 on the sides of that   dormer and three on the long. So, it's going to be  sharp and then really long and flat. So, I'd love   to see that just rethought um to to just a simple  simple even if it's just a single window because  

you've got light on three sides now. Um, and if  that's your egress one, then simplify it so that   the roof isn't such an oddity. I would want to see  the rear dormer in the context of the neighbor. What's it looking at? Yeah. to make sure there it  this to me uh looks like living space or going to   be living space someday. It it doesn't um look  to me like a simple garage. That doesn't mean we   don't approve it. But to your argument of calming  down, I mean, three dormers is quite a lot.   This is a little bit of an oddball lot  because at some point in the past the   owner of this property sold off I think about  20 ft of the rear of the lot to the adjacent   neighbor. So the adjacent neighbor kind  of has an L around behind this where they   put a garden or something like that. Yeah. If  you'll just show that situation. Yeah. But I the dormer somehow uh to what Tyler said needs.  Yeah. I don't I don't mind the dormers. It's just   that one which faces your own backyard is [snorts]  it has a funny roof shape in comparison with all   the other. I mean it has a funny roof shape in  comparison to any dorm room. It's unusual. But   the great thing is you can't see it from the  front. Yeah. Well, neighbors in the back will   see it. And I don't want to get in a habit of of  considering or approving things that are Would it   help if I show you the neighbors properties that  they've all got massive additions that would never  

be approved today? But um yeah, that would help.  Yeah. Okay. I just uh don't like when we create   a situation where all of a sudden you're just  lording down over a neighbor's backyard. Do you do   you know how much lower this is going to be than  the main house? I do not off the top of my head,   but it's several feet. Good. Just based on kind  of the pro how the property slopes back as it goes   down. [clears throat] Yeah. I not that I disagree  with you on looking into people's backyards, but   I'm like, everybody that has a second floor can  see into other people's property. This is unless   you have a big property. We [laughter] have done  some situations where people where it's pretty   profound. So, I just like Yeah. Especially because  outuildings have reduced setbacks, which means   you're even closer to the edges. So little more  sensitive but this kind of I think it's a false   sense of privacy that people have like oh nobody  can see me in my backyard really want to of course   they can I'll show you a situation but can I draw  your attention this top right image and even the   top left one you can kind of see what is around um  on the adjacent properties they are all twostory   blank facades on there. So, that's part of the  reason why we're not really concerned about what   we're looking at, you know, and we've got some  space, but we'll be happy to add some more. Yeah.   So, you're looking the [clears throat] rear dormer  is looking at another garage. Yeah. That big   yellow garage. There's not one on the left looking  at correct the the big green garage. And then   you're looking at your backyard and your driveway,  right? Yeah. And then if you go to the bottom um   bottom right or that one right there actually is  perfect. That's what you see um to the neighbor to  

the right. So there's no structure. Gotcha. There.  Yeah. Okay. Any other comments on the garage?   I think Brian hit on garage doors. Is that you  hit on garage doors or Mary? Yeah. Yeah. [clears   throat] We'll we'll see those and we like to have  those picked out so that we know exactly what's   um what's happening there. Um there's we have  approved some driveways in stone recently, but   they've been debated. I'll say that. In the terms  of this apron in front of the garage, I think it's   probably unlikely that it would be stone. Concrete  is is kind of everybody's comfortable with   concrete. I think I think stone is even though  we love it and think it's a beautiful material,   it's just not as common for driveway materials  in almost any Franklin historic districts.   We've approved some, but concrete's usually  a a pretty sure thing. Is that fair to say? Um trying to think if there's anything  else. And what about stamp concrete? Well,   yeah. I mean, just in case they ask for it,   that's kind of what they've been that's  the look they're going for. Sure. Well, concrete would be better. Yeah. I I think,  like I said, that's the sure thing. Yeah. If   you get to the apron and wanted to do stamp  concrete due to the because of the visibility,   I'd probably be okay with that. But coming all  the way down, I think they're keeping the gravel   to the sidewalk of a historic district. That would  be not be appropriate. No. Yeah. And I think you  

all are keeping gravel. Yes. Back to the apron.  That is correct. Yeah. All right. Or you could put   concrete back to the apron. Yeah. If they wanted  to pave it. We've done asphalt back to the apron.   Okay. Anything else on this one? Okay. Thank you.  Appreciate it. Should I walk away? Come back. An addition and alterations 1309 Adam Street. Ben  McCra. There it is. Ben McCra chisel workshop. Um   we have presented this one last time last month,  but I'll give you a kind of a recap on it. Right.   a small structure at 1309 Adams Street. It is  within the historic district of the Adam Street   district. Um it has not been a well-loved property  through the years. It is in pretty poor shape and   there have been some modifications to it that are  not consistent what it historically would have   been. So part of the intention with this one is to  um restore it at least from the front facade back   to its original historic character which is more  helping with the context of the neighborhood and   then adding additions to the back that um create  more living space for the property owners. Um it   is a very large lot with a very small house on  it currently. Um in relation to its neighbors,   it is smaller than all of its neighbors even with  their additions. Um, one thing that I do want to   update with you all from our last time is that  we did some more exploratory demolition along the   front of the house and unfortunately discovered as  you can see on page um, five, six, page six that   there is we pulled off the front um, sighting  on the gable and all the original sighting and  

structure has been removed. It's just plywood  behind the vinyl sighting on the front. Um,   it's hard to tell what's on the sides. I would  imagine there's more of the same. There may be   some wood sighting under there. And so that's we  have produced a methodology that we submitted to   staff as well for how we would evaluate kind of  the walls and the conditions of the property,   what we can salvage and what we think we need to  probably reconstruct and things like that. So,   I'm happy to get into that a little bit more  later as well. But um really at this point   we have looked we've had people look at the  property engineers and the contractor based   on the conditions that we can see it's unlikely  that there's a lot of the walls that we can just   keep. So like we talked about before we'll we're  planning to put in new foundation um new crawl   space area. We'll try to kind of shore up what we  can based on following methodology what we think   is able to be securely and safely kind of shored  up while it's worked on. If not, the intent would   be to build back with similar materials, wood  siding, you know, wood studs, things like that,   but um maintain the historic form of the existing  house, especially from the street. But really all   proportions maintained, roof lines maintained,  any historic detailing that we can salvage,   we will salvage and we will remake um detailing  that is consistent with that for the areas we   kind of feel like we can um recreate. So you  can see in the front um we've added some more   detailing on the front elevation for the porch.  There's some I'll call it gingerbread for lack of   a better term on the front porch right now that  we would we imagine it was probably similar to   that. we can tell kind of other houses around the  area have something similar to that as well. So,   we would be recreating what we can on that,  reusing what we've got and then um replicating   that with the other things. And then as well as  the kind of detailing in the front gable that  

is something I would love to have you all kind  of input on as far as it's a very simple kind   of design in the front gable that we're adding and  really we've kind of pulled that from the adjacent   property across the street and simplified it a  little bit because that property does have more   ornate detailing than we can kind of surmise from  this one. Um at this point we are asking for 59 59.76% for the property of uh footprint. Say that again.   We're asking for an addition that's  59.76% of the existing structure. So the existing footprint is 2234 ft and we're  asking to add 1335. It's a total of 3569. The lot size is 40,000 square feet. Okay, let's  hear from staff here, please. Thank you. Uh we   appreciate the applicant returning to another  DRC meeting to discuss the proposal for the   principal building at 13909 Adam Street and the  care for detail and attention that's going to   be given to this uh building and site. Um this  building is a circa 1900 gabled L dwell dwelling   and is contributing to the national register  historic district as an extensive amount of   demolition of the building is proposed in order  to reconstruct the building. One of the criteria   for demolition must be submitted for and reviewed  by staff and the commission to be considered. The   documentation must show the deterioration of the  building and why elements of it must be must all   be demolished with the intent to preserve the  existing form massing and character defining   features. The project will be reviewed as a  historic residential building with alterations   and an and addition proposed to it so as to  preserve and maintain an appropriate standard  

for reconstruction and likeness to the existing  building. However, we would like your feedback and   direction as to which section of the guidelines  should apply as a historic residential building   or as new construction due to the high degree  of demolition and reconstruction proposed. At   the time of building permit submitt, this will be  reviewed as new construction as a new construction   project by building and neighborhood services  department for code requirements due to the   extensive demolition. The existing specifications  of the building need to be carefully recorded   to fully document the structure and enables  careful review and reconstruction. Sidebyside   elevations of the existing building and what  is proposed should be included in the submittal   for review. The 1930 porch details are unknown.  The new porch deal detailing should be designed   simply to reflect the styles of the surrounding  build buildings of similar age and style. It does   appear that some of the proposed specifications  for reconstruction do not entirely align with the   existing building such as on the left elevation.  There is an existing change in roof form around   the point of the third window from the left. These  alterations to the existing building should be   noted in any plans moving forward. Additionally,  new windows and openings are proposed on the   reconstructed historic portions. The size of  the addition exceeds the recommended size for   an addition as it is 59% of the historic footprint  as provided by the applicant and should be reduced   to be no more than 50% of the historic footprint  per the guidelines. The addition on the rear of   the building does you does utilize some insets  and offsets to show change over time. However,   a more complex roof forum is proposed and lows  slope roofs are proposed over the addition that   are not seen on the historic building. However,  the existing roof pitches have not been provided   to staff at this time for review. A pop-up like  dormer is proposed on the right elevation. The   proposed item does not meet the requirements  of a dormer. Um, it should be removed from the   sidewall by at least 30 in, have a slope of 3  over2, and be removed off of the main ridge.  

An additional perspective should be provided to  better understand the visibility of this proposed   element. The proposed covered entrance on the left  elevation protrudes past the existing building and   the guidelines would recommend locating new  porches or stoops with limited visibility.   The proposed window patterns and placement on  the addition do not align with the guidelines,   primarily those on the rear and sunroom. The  windows should be compatible with size, detailing,   placement, and rhythm as to those on the historic  building. The windows should be double hung or   have the appearance of being double hung and  match the material of the historic windows on   the building which are wood. The use of transoms  is not seen on the existing historic windows and   would not be appropriate over the proposed new  windows. The solid to void ratios on the rear   of the building do not align with that of the  historic building. However, the exact size of   the historic windows is not known for comparison,  but the placement where it is nearly abuing the   floor is not traditional or seen on the building  um as it is proposed at the rear. Details on where   and how the historic windows will be stored in  order to preserve and be reused will need to   be provided to staff. Additional information is  needed for the proposed new gable details based   on historic precedent note within the plans. Um  and as mentioned, staff would appreciate feedback   and direction on the guidelines that should be  applied to the proposal due to the high degree of   demolition and reconstruction proposed. Additional  feedback on the proposed form of the addition,   dormer, window patterns, materials, and  placement are appreciated. Um, additional   material specifications, elevations, and  documentation of the existing building are needed   for reconstruction and the request for alterations  and an addition to the building. Thank you. Okay, a lot to tackle here. Um, let's let's talk first  about this new guidelines, historic guidelines.   Um, I think I heard you say that BNS will consider  this new construction because of the amount of  

demo regardless of what how we decide to review  it. Okay, understood. Any any thoughts on that?   Yeah, I just would like more clarification on  that. What does that actually mean? What is   the difference? I think and and Jared, you may  want to come up here and talk for just a second.   But I mean what is the difference as as to  our guidelines? I realize that yeah it has   to do with like windows and things like that. We  materiality can be different like we can use hardy   on a new house hardy siding and with a historic we  would not right there's just some differences in   guidelines as it applies to form massing materials  all those things and then and Jared codewise I   think I thought that's what Mr. last was asking,  but it'll have to be completely to current IRC   code. That's correct. There's a lot of things that  will apply with that as far as zoning wise and   codewise. Um, all the new codes will apply to that  um for all the new portion. That's correct. Okay.   Do you have more specific questions? No. So, I I  take it that nothing will really be saved. None of   the really stud walls or the trusses. Everything  has to be redone and brought up to code as far   as I understand correction. Yeah. Well, I I would  argue that the old part of the house in my mind,   even with as much as being um replaced, it's still  a preservation project. Sure. Yeah. My thought is I don't really know which way we ought to review  it, new or old, but I suspect that even if we  

said, "Okay, it's a brand new house. Codes is  going to review it as a new house. It is a new   house." We would still condition it and approve it  in a way that says it better look like that when   it's done. That's right. Right. So to me it really  doesn't matter. I would say we will be the the   commission and feel free everybody jump in would  probably be like I said conditioning or expect   conditions of approval to include things like real  wood siding on the historic replica or whatever   we're going to call it. Um all wood windows and  appropriate roof style. So it's basically all   the historic guidelines that apply to a historic  structure, but it's going to be a new building,   right? And it has to meet all the code  requirements that that BNS is going to set forth   like stud spacing and foundations and footings  and rebar and rough ends. All these things have to   meet current code. And I think that's really the  rub for me is I think your drawing set's got to   be so extensive to kind of cover those things.  Like, you know, is it going to go from a 2x4   rafter to a 2x10? Where's that six, seven inches  going to appear? Is it coming out of the ceiling,   the attic? Is it um and and those are things we  want to consider if it changes an eve or a roof   pitch a little. We want to know and understand  all those things from the approval standpoint.   Yeah. Well, it [clears throat] my the reason that  I feel it's a preservation project. I'm sure it   would have been a lot simpler just to tear it down  and rebuild it. And that is not being done. great  

care is being taken right to um preserve what  they can and keep the form exactly by not just   tearing it down and rebuilding. So the the idea  just um really doesn't go over with me that this   is not a preservation project with the amount of  work that is being done. There is some precedent   with Miles Manor project over um where the garage  was um restored, but they did we've laid down a   facade wall and then put it back up and that's  really what was saved. The the um street facing   facade and the rest was new construction that  was rebuilt. I don't I'm not sure that one   was classified as new construction when it was I  think with this in the sense that only one gable   front-facing wall is being potentially preserved  um and foundation work needs to be taken care of   underneath the building if that wall moves it is  considered a full demolition even if it's stored   off site building and neighborhood services would  classify this as a fully new construction per our   um code official. Yeah, I think one thing that  I would be concerned about from a architectural   standpoint is the windows for egress in bedrooms  and things like that. I'm not confident that some   of these side windows right now would meet egress  with the double hung at the size they are. So,   we would most likely need to make larger  double hung windows in those spaces to   accommodate egressor bedrooms. And these are on  the side. They're on the side. Yeah. And these   are things that we may have to consider and and  I don't know other jurisdictions have committees   called all different things. I think metros is  a rehab committee. You can go in and it's BNS  

and historic and they can all come to an agreement  like all right what's more important? Can we make   a concession one way or the other on something?  I don't know that we have a mechanism like that,   but we would hear those arguments, especially  on windows that are on the side, but you know,   I think our expectation is if there's windows that  can be saved, the we would try to reuse them. Um,   and we just have to hear a compelling argument  not to. And it may be that code is the argument.   I don't know. That's what I was going to mention.  From the building officials standpoint, it would   be completely new. So, it would have to meet  the required egress standpoint. So, right. Um,   those may not meet that. So, if one wall was  to remain standing, does that still I would   recommend speaking with Mr. Tosh about that. Okay.  And just speak further about it and see. Yeah.   Okay. And I would say that I do agree with Mary.  I mean, if our board had So, we're talking about   a codes issue and historic guidelines issue. So,  codes has to be met. So with historic guidelines,   if we had voted to demolish this house, then we  would consider yes, this is new construction. But   we did not vote that and this is a a preservation  as much as possible of historic structure. And I   would say that our guidelines, we we should  do the historic as though it's historic in   our guidelines. Yeah. I don't see how this house  can be occupied without doing this. Right. Well,   in light of how it's how current conditions.  Yeah. And and I think from staff standpoint,   you all are considering this. When it comes to  the commission, a voting meeting, you will be   asking us for an approval of demolition and then  a permit for reconstruction. Is that correct? Yes.   one of the demolition criterion should be met  or addressed with a structural engineers report  

because it's noting only one wall rem will remain  of the building and that may not remain with   extensive work that may need to be done on it as  well. So we will have to vote on demolition. Yes,   which we've done before this project, but I think  at that point it was we're going to tear it down   and maybe do something totally different. So this  is different and like I said I think we could   condition a demolition approval for demolition  based on yes you're approved for demolition with   all these conditions that we're headed back to  whatever we are going to approve if that makes   sense. We did this we did this on Morningside  Drive and it turned out fantastic. Yeah, we did.   We did on Morningside Drive. And in fact, when  they did a historic survey of that property and   I was out there with them, they thought that was  the historic original structure and I said that's   great. That's great. Yeah. So, yeah, I would  I would Yes, we did that at the Morning Side.   It went back exactly like it was before. They  did and it was a fabulous job. That happened at   uh is it? Help me, Brian. is that the old ticket  office of the railroad that was that happened   there. But the thing that I guess bothers me about  this is it was bought and told it couldn't be   demolished. And now we're going to go here. And I  just hope one wall can remain standing. I'll just   say that. Or be, you know, done a piece at a time.  So, it is standing. I've seen this in Nashville,  

three houses down from me in Nashville. Uh had  extensive the most extensive termite damage I've   ever seen. And the family had to move out. And I  came home one day from work and about six inches   of a sidewall to the left and then the other side  of it and it was completely taken down but it was   completely rebuilt in the same style, same square  footage. It can be Yeah. And I would say to you   that point, Mary, that that is a sticking point to  me too about the demolition part of it. But we've   gotten new information. I mean, we've had more  extensive information about what was in the walls.   I mean, they've torn off this. We tell there's no  siding. It's plywood. So, you know, we're basing   this now on new information. Well, do you as the  architect and representing the property owner? Is   there a preference? My concern would be there's  really not much left. Okay. That's historically   significant to save. I looking at those photos,  I I don't see you don't have an option. It seems   um the um it's already they did lipstick it the  exterior. I'm like that don't look too bad. Right.   Right. They painted. That's right. Now, we still  have the opportunity to We don't know what's on   the other elevations. And part of our methodology  is that if we can save some of the historic   sighting and things like that if it's viable, our  preference would be to keep it at least for parts   of the front elevation. I just don't know what's  there right now. So, I think we're asking for the   flexibility to say if we can, let's do it. But  if not, we would like to replace it with similar   wood. And we be happy with, you know, the kind of  um different bullet points you need to add that   kind of say no Hardy, let's use wood because that  would be our preference as well. And it might it  

might be helpful for staff. This again I think  this is going to be or has the potential to be   a very complicated approval just from a a making  a motion standpoint. So if you're able to kind of   bullet point things like literally bullet point  it and staff has that as well then it might make   it easier for us to say you know that we may  be moving for like an approval of demolition   with a condition that um the this set of plans is  approved. Um, in that set of plans includes things   like reuse of rafter tails and corables and things  and recreation of those that can't be reused. I   mean that much detail that we can go it feels like  all the detailing and things that are important to   getting it back to looking like it does today are  met. Um, it might simplify things for us instead   of us making a motion with 5,000 conditions and  trying to remember them all. it because it's going   to be a it should be a boatload, I would guess.  And all the measurements. Yes. Yeah. Anybody else   have any feedback on this one? There's a lot to  it. Yeah. Yeah. I think we should discuss the the   pop-up dormer. I mean, this is a singlestory  house. To see that popup dormer, it really it   really does not look like you would see on this  structure. So, if I can draw your attention to   the um 3D perspectives that we've got on the last  couple pages. So, the first that one the go back   one page that is based on the way the building  sits on the site. This would be a view from the   street looking down the left side of the building.  Right? So, in that before you would ever get past,   you know, the next building will start to obscure  it at some point. You will never it will never be  

visible from any street perspective ever. The only  time you would ever be able to see that elevation   is if you were kind of in the sideyard. If you go,  you can kind of stroll around to the other ones.   We tried to take these perspectives like that's  from the street on the right side of the building,   right? And that dorma will be completely obscured  from the roof line on this side. And then I guess   the next one, you know, that's the back really  the back gable will obscure it. Um the only and   you see it in the full flat 2D, but really that  perspective is never achievable with the way the   site is and just sight lines around and it's a  very large gable. I mean, I know we've had many   of these discussions like on Lewisburg with the  cabin and the type dormers that they want to put   on the side. I mean, it just seems to be it seems  to be large, you know, on that side of the house.   But I'm I'm open to uh for discussion. I mean,  I agree. It's [clears throat] it's big. um if   there's a way to minimize it. It's just I always  have this kind of unwritten rule in my head about   like 50% of a roof mass, you know, it starts  to look like a second story, you know, and if   you take a that's actually a written rule in other  jurisdictions where it's 50% of the roof mass can   be covered in dormer because it still looks like a  dormer then as opposed to say like an out building   and they dormer the whole length of the garage.  Well, now it just looks like a second story. Um,   so you might reconsider the the length of that.  Um, anything else you wanted to hit on? Yeah. So,   I I notice I don't see really a um an indication  of a foundation. What What type of foundation are   you proposing? So, we would be proposing a  CMU foundation for the new part, especially   for meeting building codes. what we talked about  previously. It is a stone rubble foundation that   is currently there. And our hope would be to  save that stone rubble foundation, split the  

block or split the stone, reapply that to the  1900 and 1930s edition or original portions of   the house or where they would have been if we do a  demolition and um and then the rest of it would be   probably CMU with a pge code or something that  is clearly differentiated between old and new. Yeah, I wanted to talk to this right side porch  thing. Um, typically we don't allow things to poke   out the side like that. Um, so that's a little  bit different. I'm wondering if you might be able   to achieve something similar by just letting the  bridging roof go across and recess your entrance   there back a little bit more. I think before  we were trying to maintain that's the historic   wall of the building. So that where that kind  of doorway is right now. Yeah, that little jog   in was kind of that's the historic footprint.  So we were trying to keep that but provide some   sort of a cover and a moment that differentiated  new and old. I would I would be more in favor of   just a simple extension of the roof above with  no columns, you know, just the same slope that's   there keeps instead of kind of a separate peeled  off metal roof. I think I mean the guidelines   don't recommend coming out the side and that comes  out. I can't think of the right word right now,   but if it were held by brackets maybe instead of  columns. I don't know if you call them brackets.   Yeah, that was my thought too, Mary, on that.  I think I think what Tyler said was is a good   solution to that. But what you said too is also,  you know, an awning with brackets. Mhm. Mhm. Well, they would come out of the out of the  side. You had corbals. Yeah. Some brackets that  

go back to the wall. Take take the load back  to the wall, right? But you're still the roof   extending beyond the sidewall is still something  you're not considering. Is that correct? Well,   I I think it'd be less impactful then. And I  think it's a little more obvious now because   it's a different roof slope. I think if it were  a little more subtle, just carry the slope of   the connector piece between gables. Sure. Um,  might be a little softer. And Mary was saying   maybe it's maybe it is a little metal roof and  maybe it sits down a little lower cuz it's it's   up in the air. Usually little side porches like  that, the porch rack and the roof, the porch rack   actually conceals a little bit part of the window  and doorheads. Um, so yeah, and the porch would   nest up under the roof. downplay that a little bit  more than it is, I think, is the point. And off of   Cumins Street here in Franklin, there's it's the  old Cumins house. Uh there is a a little storack   on a on a side wall. I think I've got one on my  phone, too, but I turned my phone off and it's   taking a minute. Any um any thoughts on these  transom windows? I agree with staff. I do too. this this furthest back piece here that's  completely glassed in. It's kind of a salarium   conservatory kind of thing. Um I've seen some  original historic ones. I guess return it back.   Yeah, I think [laughter] Mary's boyfriend's  texting her. Um, I've seen some historic ones   where it's panled at the bottom and there's  a window sitting up at a certain sill height,  

but it's a single window. Um, and then I've seen  some that are original that actually have a window   at the bottom. So, it's like a lower transom, but  you have a solid window from kind of a chair rail   height up. This seems like a more contemporary  interpretation in that particular box as well as   this kind of door with casements. Um, so I think  our guidelines recommend double hungs or double   hung appearance. So see if you can reconfigure  that I would say. And there are very few occasions   where we've approved transoms and it's usually  when there's one above a front door on a Victorian   or something where we've let them put it back  or something. But and this boxarium sent there   one over the front. It there is a transom over  the front door. Just at the front door. Yeah,   but the box car salarium reminds me more of, you  know, a modern fourseason sun room than it does,   you know, historic what you would put on an  addition on the back of a historic home. We   would design it better than a modern fourseason  [laughter] sun room. And I trust. Yes, I would   hope so. But I think, you know, some more thought  could be put into that, too. But the trans,   it sounds like the transoms are a sticking point  on the back. Taller windows would be okay. Hey,   are you still door window heads consistent across  the facade is what you're looking for or that   I assume this is a kitchen or something with the  triple it is. Yeah, if those were just full height   including the transom and all three of them or  even better if it was just a pair of double hungs   like because we have pairs on the house. I'd go  perfect. You got tall glass, but it meets our   guidelines. Double hung and pairs were more common  than triples, especially on side elevations. And   and I I bet I bet your front windows that are  double hung on this house are probably like 86  

in already. There's some big windows. It's tall.  They're tall. Mhm. Um Okay. You know, and try to   look at that. See what they don't I think the  head heights though on the on the rear. I mean,   I I would I would I'd like to see those come  down. Maybe maybe where the not go all the   way up to where the transits are. That would be a  very large window. Yeah. Part of it's the the eve   of this the conservatory piece there is taller  than the eaves on the rest of the house. So,   here's a scale thing. You're probably wanting a  little extra volume in that room. And but I don't   think the ceilings in this house are short to  start, are they? Only in the front. They're tall,   but in the additions they're 8 ft. Well, we're  starting over. [laughter] Mhm. Yeah. The addition   can be taller. Yes. I I was I mean, give me the  flexibility and all. Yeah. I was going to have a   lot of sympathy on, you know, when everything was  being done as it stands, but uh I do think pulling   that down a bit. Yeah. Or the other up. I don't  know which now. Yeah. Well, why not reimagine   it as a as a rear porch that's been enclosed? I  mean, there's all kinds of ways to look at it.   That's kind of where we were headed. We just  had more more glass in the top of it. Well,   this is kind of this boxy look with that  almost it almost looks from this vantage   point I'm looking at like a pyramid roof. I  know that's not what it is, right? But I mean,   that's a totally different roof form, right?  Yeah. I think it's a I mean, you're not there yet,   but once you get pilasters and trim and the what  trim would be a porch rack, things like that,  

it'll start looking more porchy. Mhm. Uh but yeah.  So just more detail and taking some of this into   account. Yeah. And that eve thing, you might look  at that. Yeah. The transoms again. I mean the the   whole back of this house is glass and casements,  which our guidelines don't recommend, and transoms   there. There is a um well, I guess it's like a  there's an oddity window on the right side. So,   we were kind of pulling some of that concept from  Let me go to the page. Let's see if I've got it   in here on the addition back there that the long  windows. So, on um kind of this first well the   third page on the bottom left, it's still a double  hung though, so I'm not It doesn't you know,   it has mountains whereas all the others are  one over ones. Mhm. There is one that's got   mutton. So we were kind of pulling some, you  know, inspiration from that only in the back,   right? Where it's not really the main front, but  we were kind of, you know, having a bunch of one   over ones in the back does to me if we're doing  big windows, it feels more modern than something   that has actual muttons to kind of I would agree  break down the side the light sizes. Yeah. Well,   I do know for a fact on these these vernacular  Victorians, the front you usually had the one over   one because that's the front. You put on a front.  It's your best windows. And as you move to the   rear, you have these four over4s. It's very common  in Franklin. That was a common window. Okay. Um,   but the thing in the very back was not the mutton  pattern is that it looked like a like a true  

double hung and that the the head heights come  down or the I mean it's not all glass. All right. Seeing if there's anything else that we've  talked at Nauseium about the uh demo part chimneys or new chimney looks like it's detailed  very similarly to the original or will be. Yes.   So the the intent was to basically keep the  little front chimney. We're not going to be   using that anymore. So, we'd like to keep that  smaller profile of it because you can't build   modern chimneys that small really anymore. Um,  so we would like to keep that one even if we're   reconstructing it. Same brick, things like that.  The one in the rear would be a larger chimney   because it just has to be to be a good bit shorter  though. It is a good bit shorter. Okay. So,   you're saying you just build around the original  chimney with its foundation or you want to put   a faux chimney at the top? We'd probably just put  that original chimney back up at the top just from   the roof line up. I got you. Floating. Yeah. Okay.  And the front porch. Um I think we talked about   the front porch last time. You walked us through  how it got to where it is and why we want to go   back. I I think you got good feedback on that  [clears throat] from from the uh commission. So,   anything else we need to cover? staff, anything  you want us to speak to specifically or Ben,   anything? I do have a question on the rear the  door. So, looking at the one where it's got the   double door and then all the windows beside it. If  we follow down the path of doing double hungs with   potentially even a higher head height, would  you want to see a tall like an 8ft door there  

instead of a 68 with a transom or kind of what  what would the commission be more amunable to?   because I kind of I don't want to have it go like  high windows down to a door kind of thing. Sure.   Yeah. Well, I was I was thinking you bring that  head height down, not up. Shorter windows and   everything. I mean, you know, I don't know if I  conveyed that or not. Instead of those transoms,   not bringing that window up to where the transoms  are, bringing all that down. Sure. But I feel Yes,   I hear what you're saying. So, so we would love  to have more glass in the back. We'd love to have   more light in the back than like a 68 window head  would be able to allow. Um, so that's kind of why   we're asking for more glazing back here because  these are have a great backyard. Kind of looks   out towards, you know, the park and things  like that. I don't know if it not this park,   but you know, there's a grassy area behind it. I  think part of what's messing with our eye, too,   is they're they're all sitting on the floor. In  most historic houses, it's like you don't ever   see any windows sitting on the floor. Yeah, we  would be happy to raise them up to kind of create   a more historic looking proportional balance.  Continuing to squish them down is one where   we would love to have some feedback on whether  you would consider letting us have higher glass   than what we would have seen along the front or  something like that just because it's different   back there. I'd like to see it at a little bit,  you know, somewhere in between. I I'd entertain   looking at a drawing that's 8 feet head, but it  needs to all look like it's proportionate. Like   the existing house has some pretty tall head  heights and tall windows, [clears throat] but   the door is probably not that tall. It's not.  That's why it has that transom. So, it's like,   you know, and that's the thing about these. If  we're looking at from the historic perspective,   everything is going to be in the front and it's  going to start to come down at the back. Yeah. So,   I mean, that's the only thing that I see on  historic. It starts to come down in the back and  

this goes up again, but I guess we're not trying  to mimic historic at this point in the trying to   mimic and I know I know you can come up with a  good solution. I appreciate that. Is that room   vaulted in there? The intention was for it to be  higher. Yeah. I mean, because all the eaves down   low to kind of be lower in the back, but that if  we were to kind of make the ceiling like an eve,   it'd be an eight foot ceiling back there. But we  since it's a new addition, we have the flexibility   to to raise the ceiling heights in there while we  keep the eaves down, which forces us into kind of,   you know, vault or cathedral type of thing. So,  that's kind of where we were hoping for this is   this is the new living space in the back of the  house, right? This is where the light would be   and all of those things. I'm just wondering if if  in that gable there's a smaller accent window and   you do lose the transoms and it it starts to fill  and give you a little light there. But you're not   you're not lacking for glass. I don't you're the  whole the whole back of the house is you know I   just want to make sure there for putting myself in  a bind here. There are no story and a half windows   on the front gables. So if I put it in the back I  just don't want to run the risk of being like well   now you put this window in the back. Story and  half windows. You just added a dormer on the top,   but that's different. [laughter] It's hidden in  the roof line, not in the gable. Well, this what   I would say is on the front of this house today,  there's a vent. It's not uncommon that historic   homes had a vent in the gable. And they are often  those little accent windows can be sized in a way   that oh, it's it is a small accent window. It's  not like a big 3050 double hung. They're like,   you know, 14 in wide and 20 in tall. They're just  little accent windows that would have been what   was in a gable vent. So, do with that what you  will, but it's it's an opportunity. You've got a  

vaulted space and it is new. It's just this amount  of kind of it feels modern to have the entire wall   covered in glass and transoms. So, just look at  trying to do something more kind of historically   appropriate just out of honor for the neighborhood  neighbors and the house itself is what I'd say.   And 202 Gallery, the addition on 202 Gallery  might be a good because they they do have a little   accent window and they have vated ceilings, but  they don't have windows that go floor to ceiling   almost. I think that the fact that the windows  go all the way down to the ground is what is   um snagging our eye. I mean, it's beautiful, but  not appropriate possibly for this. Yeah, that's   it. Just doesn't feel like it's um respectful  to the style of the rest of the hats would be, but can still have a lot of glass. I I get  that. Yep. I appreciate the feedback. Mhm.   Okay. Anything else? All right. Thank you. Be easy  next time. This will be the the longest motion   in the history of the Franklin Historic Comm or  any historic commission of all time. And we will   check with I don't I don't know if it helps to at  this point. Is it help to check with staff or the   um BNS to see about the possibility of how much  we would have to save to stay a renovation or is   there that's all your all's department that's but  I say it doesn't change your try to the feedback   doesn't change it doesn't us but try to understand  it sure I would say sure all right what you're  

doing yeah any I [clears throat] mean does it m  I guess if we're doing that then there's no point   for the preservation methodology summary that  is no longer still that's probably your starting   place for that bullet point list. Sorry. Y thank  you Siri. Siri thinks so too. Uhhuh. Mhm. Um yeah,   I I think the preservation methodology is still  valid because it talks about as we uncover things,   what happens to those things? And it's like,  well, we want you to save and reuse some of that   stuff. Just like if we were not tearing the walls  down, but we were taking the skin off and we were   pulling windows out to have them repaired. All  of those things are still valid, I think. Am I is   that fair? So even though the that document might  change now because of where the project's headed,   I still think a lot of what you wrote in there  are valid processes for getting us from where we   are today to where we're hopefully headed. Okay,  great. Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate it. Sure. All   right. Staff announcements before we adjourn.  Um, the deadline to apply for the February 9th   Historic Zoning Commission meeting is this Friday  by midnight. That's it. Okay. Before we know it,   it is. It is. All right, everybody. Thank you  so much for your time. Until we meet again.