# Board of Architectural Review - February 8, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 8, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2396 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2396?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-02-08 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 11,480 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review met on February 8, 2012, to review seven architectural proposals affecting various properties in the community. The board took two votes during the meeting and heard six public comments. Of the seven agenda items presented, five proposals were approved, one was denied, and one was presented for informational purposes only. The approved projects included the removal of a dying tree and replacement of sidewalks at 367 Transylvania Park; window renovations at 423 Fayette Park; roof renovation at 418 West Sixth Street; replacement of storm doors at 352 South Broadway; and construction of a deck and stair tower at 441 West Second Street. The board denied a proposal to change fencing height at 444 Fayette Park. An extension of a garage at 616 West Short Street was presented to the board on an informational basis. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on February 8, 2012: * Shalendra Chopra * Kathy Chopra * Pete Cassidy * Matthew Zook * Jill Gookin * Jerry Leslie * Mike Satterly No attendees were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The board took action on two motions during this meeting. **Fencing Height Addendum at 444 Fayette Park** [timestamp: 1:14:02] A motion to deny an addendum to increase fencing height at 444 Fayette Park from 4 feet to 5 feet was made by Mr. Chair. The motion passed by voice vote. **Deck and Stair Tower Construction at 441 West 2nd Street** [timestamp: 1:16:11] A motion to approve construction of a deck and stair tower at 441 West 2nd Street passed by voice vote. The approval includes the following conditions: - Railings must be metal for a contemporary, transparent appearance - Final details must be submitted to staff or BOAR - Any changes from other LFUCG divisions must be reviewed and returned to staff or BOAR ## Public Comment Six speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, presenting perspectives on a proposed fence project at 444 Fayette Park. **In Support of the Project** Shalendra Chopra spoke at [timestamp: 0:09:21] regarding security concerns and fence height. The applicants explained that an increased fence height is necessary for security due to recent incidents, including break-ins and people found passed out on their back porch. They requested a one-foot increase to deter intruders. **In Opposition to the Project** Matthew Zook addressed neighborhood visual integrity at [timestamp: 0:32:19]. The neighbor expressed concern that a five-foot fence would disrupt the open character of Fayette Park, citing Google Street View images and a ratio analysis to argue that the property's front yard is disproportionately small. Jill Gookin spoke at [timestamp: 0:42:05] about historic district character. The neighbor emphasized that the open front yard is a defining feature of Fayette Park's historic character and that the fence would impair the visual integrity of the district, referencing a Keeneland Magazine feature on the property. Jerry Leslie commented at [timestamp: 0:44:10] on flexibility in guidelines. The neighbor argued that the guidelines allow for flexibility and that a five-foot fence is permissible in side yards, and that the board should not override the guidelines based on subjective aesthetics. Pete Cassidy warned at [timestamp: 0:48:00] about historic district preservation. The neighbor cautioned that approving a five-foot fence at 444 Fayette Park could set a precedent that would alter the character of the entire Northside Historic District if replicated across the neighborhood. **Additional Comment** Mr. McGarrish spoke at [timestamp: 1:04:47] regarding precedent and board consistency. The speaker questioned whether a precedent from the opposite corner of the block could influence the decision but ultimately withdrew the request for further review. ## Contested Items **Fencing Height at 444 Fayette Park** A heated discussion arose regarding the proposed height of a fence at 444 Fayette Park. The disagreement centered on a five-foot fence and involved strong disagreement between applicants, neighbors, and board members. The core dispute reflected competing priorities: the applicants and some board members emphasized security needs, while neighbors and other board members raised concerns about visual impact and compatibility with the historic district character. The debate extended to questions of precedent and how existing guidelines should be interpreted in this context. The discussion was contentious, with participants holding firm positions on both sides of the fencing proposal. However, the provided materials do not indicate what outcome was reached or decided regarding the fence height. ## 367 Transylvania Park: Remove dying tree and replace sidewalks [timestamp: 00:01:34] Staff approved a request to remove a dying tree and replace sidewalks at 367 Transylvania Park, located in the Aylesford Historic District. The approval was granted without requiring board review. **Outcome:** The request was approved. ## 423 Fayette Park: Renovate Windows Staff approved the window renovation project at 423 Fayette Park, located in the Fayette Park Historic District, without requiring board review. [timestamp: 00:01:34] The project was approved by staff as part of the regular approval process for this property improvement. **Outcome:** Approved ## 418 West Sixth Street: Renovate Roof Staff approved the roof renovation project at 418 West Sixth Street, located in the Northside Historic District, without requiring board review [timestamp: 00:01:34]. The project proceeded through staff approval processes and was authorized to move forward based on staff recommendation. ## 352 South Broadway: Replace Storm Doors [timestamp: 00:01:34] Staff approved the replacement of storm doors at 352 South Broadway, located in the Northside Historic District. This approval was granted without requiring board review. The project was approved as a staff-level decision. ## 444 Fayette Park: Change fencing height [timestamp: 00:03:44] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness application to increase the front yard fence height at 444 Fayette Park from 4 feet to 5 feet. **Application and Arguments** The applicants cited security concerns as their reason for seeking the height increase. However, staff recommended denial of the application. **Board Discussion and Concerns** The board debated the proposal, with discussion centering on the visual impact of the taller fence and concerns about establishing precedent. Neighbors also participated in the discussion, raising objections to the proposed change. Key speakers in the discussion included Shalendra Chopra, Matthew Zook, Jill Gookin, Jerry Leslie, Pete Cassidy, and Mr. McGarrish. **Outcome** The board passed a voice vote to deny the addendum to increase the fencing height. ## 441 West Second Street: Construct deck and stair tower [timestamp: 1:15:03] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness application for the construction of a deck and stair tower at 441 West Second Street. **Presentation and Staff Recommendation** Mike Satterly presented plans for the proposed deck and stair tower. Staff recommended approval of the application, subject to specific conditions designed to ensure the project's compatibility with the surrounding area. **Conditions of Approval** The staff recommendation included the following requirements: - Metal railings must be used to maintain a transparent appearance - Final details of the project must be submitted for review **Board Action** The board approved the application by voice vote. ## 616 West Short Street: Extend garage The board conducted a conceptual review of a proposal to extend a garage at 616 West Short Street [timestamp: 1:17:17]. A presentation on the project was scheduled during this portion of the meeting. No vote or formal decision was recorded in the meeting transcript. The item was treated as informational in nature, with the conceptual review process allowing for initial discussion and feedback on the proposed garage extension before any further action. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Deny addendum to increase fencing height at 444 Fayette Park from 4 feet to 5 feet - **Motion** — passed: Approve construction of deck and stair tower at 441 West 2nd Street with conditions --- ## Full transcript Music The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park and we now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located in 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and will hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applications to appear before the board. There are a total of four approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the Aylesford Historic District, 367 Transylvania Park, remove dying tree and replace sidewalks. In Fayette Park, at 423 Fayette Park, renovate windows. and in the Northside Historic District of 418 West 6th Street, renovate roof, and 352 South Broadway, replace storm doors. Before we proceed to the certificates of appropriateness applications on the agenda tonight, I understand we have an applicant from last meeting that would like to address the board. You referring to me? Yes, sir. Come on down. I'm Pete Cassidy. I represent Harry W.J. and Kyle Roo Farmer, the owners of 462 West 3rd Street. Two weeks ago, is that right? Yes, sir. You all approved with conditions our application for appropriateness for renovations at 462 West 3rd. I'm happy to report to you that we have worked out our plans in accordance with your suggestions. Thank you for the suggestions. Thanks to the staff for their attentiveness to this. And we're happy that we received a certificate for appropriateness today. We'll start construction fairly soon. Not immediately, but fairly soon. And upon completion, I intend to invite all five of you, four plus Mr. Jackson, to come over for a glass of wine or a Coke and see what we did. We thank you very much, and I think it will be a big improvement to the Northside Historic Area. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Cassidy. Again, we appreciate that and appreciate just your use of the system and remind everybody that the staff is here to help people through the design process as well as the board of review. Thank you very much. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. The first application on the list this evening is for 444 Fayette Park change fencing height. If you folks would like to approach the microphone, that would be great. Shalendra Chopra from 444 Fayette Park. And Kathy Chopra from 444 Fayette Park. Very well, thank you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, Ms. Roswell. Great. Just to get everybody on the same page, again, the scope of work is to change fencing height, and the staff's recommendations are for denial of the addendum as submitted. Oh, we don't agree with that. And you disagree, of course. If you don't mind, I'd like for you to have a seat, and we'll have staff make a presentation of their findings, and we'll get right back with you. Thank you. This is property at 444 Fayette Park. The location of the fence is to the right of that historic structure, and it's connected to this historic structure. This is a view back into that yard or that space. This is looking at the porch, the side porch of the property, and this is looking back toward the street from within the property. This is the next door neighbor's home, the west wall. And this is the location of the fence. Six foot out, two foot back from the front face of the structure, six foot parallel from the house, and then the 45 degree over and the rest of the section comes over two feet back to the back edge, two feet back from the front edge of this structure. Each of the gates are three foot wide. To reference the fence in this property, the APKIN has received board-issued COAs to install open picket metal fences as follows along the north property line, five foot high, along the driveway, five foot high, and also in the front yard between the main structures, four foot high. The installation of the approved 5-foot-high fencing has already begun, however, the purchase of the approved 4-foot-high fencing has not yet occurred. At this time, the applicant is requesting that the Board grant an amendment to change the height of the previously approved front yard fencing from 4-foot to 5-foot. The gates should be the same height as the fencing and each of the three foot wide. The design of the fence approved by the Board is Avalon as manufactured by DelGuard. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. The findings, guidelines 3.7a and 3.7b respectfully state, Landscape elements and site elements should not be visibly intrusive or suggest a false sense of history. And landscape elements and site elements, open space, should only be developed in scale, use, and character with the site and the local historic district. Staff finds that the increase in the height of the front yard metal fence from four foot to five foot would become visually intrusive and would suggest a false sense of history and would be out of scale with the site in this circa 1912 arts and crafts colonial revival style structure. Staff recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the addendum as submitted. Deadline for board action is March 18, 2012. Thank you very much. You're welcome. If you folks would like to approach the microphone once again, we'll see if any board members have questions for you. Firstly, we would like to thank you all for being very patient with us. We keep on coming back. But I just want to explain to you the reasons why we have come back this time. Sure. If you remember our August discussion, the reason we are putting up the fence is really for the security of the thing, to create some kind of a barrier for people from just approaching the house and the area with impunity. And it has actually worsened over the last two, three months. And there have been a number of episodes in the area. In December, actually, somebody came to our backyard, our back porch, and picked up a present that somebody had left it. Between the hours of midnight and 5 o'clock in the morning. Right. And then somebody, about three or four houses from us, their front porch was vandalized, their car was vandalized, and then they came home to find two people passed out on their back porch. You know, front porches, we can understand. They are right there. If we put anything there, it is at our risk. But the back porch kind of gets a bit too much. So the idea is to reduce the access to the back porch or discourage the access to the back porch as much as possible. But on the other hand, we do understand and we are interested in keeping the look of the area. So we don't want to put up something that is ghastly or ugly to do that. But we feel that just increasing the height of the fence by one foot, it will probably add an additional deterrent to whoever wants to scale over that or climb over that. When you're drunk or stoned, I guess I've never tried it, but I guess it's easier to climb over a four-foot fence than a five-foot fence. We can understand what the staff is saying, but I think there is a slight error in that thinking. The question always has been, what is front yard, what is side yard? That has been always the issue, and we have been trying to define that. And the board, you all, yourself in September said that, and actually the words that I have is that due to the layout of the subject property and because of the front yard, because the front yard adjoins the side yard of 439 Fayette Park, a gray area is created. And we understand that. But at that time, it was determined that anything behind the front plane of the house on either property would be considered the side yard of 444 Fayette Park. on either property, which is consistent with the zoning ordinance providing the residents sits at or behind the required setback, which I believe we do. So can you now put up that, please? And may I have a pointer? Is it here? Is the pointer here? Oh, there it is. Thank you. So again, this is the fence. That is the fence and that is the canted area. If you look at it, these lines we have drawn from the front. So this part of the fence is clearly, according to that definition, is in the side yard. This part of the fence is in the side yard. Actually, two feet from this side and two feet from this side are also in that side yard by that definition. So the only part that is left is this area, and we can understand that, that that is the front, and you may not want to make an exception for that. So what we were feeling was that maybe we can, if we are allowed to increase the height of this to five feet, five feet, we can do a transition over here so that it comes down to four feet where the fence is in the front yard and leave it at that. So that is what our suggestion was. And again, like I said, we are very thankful we have learned a lot from this whole process. And we really do appreciate and respect the process. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from the board at this time? Well, just for clarification purposes, and the current application or addendum is to increase the height of the whole thing? We would prefer that. Okay. But since the staff, you know, has denied that or they want to disapprove that, that is a compromise we are... Okay. But if you want to give us the entire thing, that really would be the ideal. Just out of curiosity, you really think one foot is going to cure all the ills? Nothing is going to make it 100% secure. We understand that. Not knowing what's in a criminal's mind. Yeah, but any deterrent that we can add, we would like to be able to. And the four-foot fence you feel just isn't a deterrent at all? Actually, it isn't. If I can scale over it, I'm sure anybody else can. So, I mean, you could look at it, you know, if it's a five-foot fence, if you get a really tall guy or a woman that they could get over very easily. I mean, it depends on who's going over. I'd have some problems. Like I said. You never know. I'm just saying that this is, you know, I understand the issues. I'm a downtown resident myself. I certainly understand these things. and this was kind of going out on a bit of a limb to even allow this fence. I understand that. Because I know that I was not particularly in favor of at least the section there in the side yard, front yard section. I mean, those perimeter areas were fine. And I just think that this just doesn't really make any sense. I mean, why not request a 12-foot fence? I mean, you're not going to gain anything with one foot, but by keeping it at the four-foot height, you maintain some of the character of the neighborhood. It's less intrusive, and I really think that for that location right there, not the perimeter areas, that that really is pretty much the max that can be allowed. I mean, quite frankly, I'd rather see it at three or two or one or not at all, but I really think that you're kind of at a max. And I think that will create the same deterrent that the five-foot fence would. Well, we'll have to differ on that. I mean, I understand. I doubt that very much because, again, it's deterrent. You know, any deterrent that we can add will be better. That area is, for some reason, it has a magnitude. I totally understand that. I mean, just from personal experience, we found that the deterrent, the biggest deterrent, is lighting and actually the installation of video. Sure. And all that we have done and we are doing as we go along. But we do feel strongly that this will add to the deterrents. And not subtracting that much from the actual view. It is only a foot difference. We are not asking for any different material. We are not asking for any brick pillars or anything. All we are asking for is the one-foot increase in height. I understand. Well, thank you. Are there other comments at the moment? I do have a question or two for you, if you don't mind. It's okay. The system that you've chosen, the structural posts that are every so many feet, how close together are they? Are they six feet lengths? I see they come in six-foot panels. They come in six-foot panels, but we're having some sections specially cut for us. Those sections that can't are not going to be six feet. So those will be already worked into the price of custom. They just cut them. They cut where they need to. Okay. I have to echo some of what Rob has said as far as the height. And a foot between four feet and five feet, it's tough for me to judge. Five feet obviously is harder than four feet to scale, but four feet still. enough of an effort, how do we know if it will work until you put it in there and see? And that's kind of an expensive test and trial. So I understand your request, and I think it's legitimate. I mean, you made it clear before that people were cutting through your yard to get to the other side of the block. And that is, you know, the less traffic, the better. Nobody should be in your backyard. And I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt, but we are talking again, even if the section you don't want at five feet is the canted portion, because then we're still saying part of this is considered the side yard, and side yards do get fences that are higher. So we want you to kind of maybe take that into account, that you all made that decision, that part of this fence, like, is side yard. I understand that pretty well and do recall the ins and outs of that conversation of that just gray fuzziness of what's in front of the house and what's behind it and that sort of thing. I think part of the rub, if it's going to be taller, you could really do me a favor and help ease the heartburn. and I just wonder if it could be considered. I understand that where it strikes your house on the side is pretty close to the front. I see two feet back from the front, which is something we agreed upon. Correct. And that provides an appropriate distance to the porch that's behind it. So we're kind of set there. We really can't push that back any further. I do feel like, though, it could be less of a noticeable element. if the leg that approaches your neighbor's house could be pushed back further. And it's a minimal adjustment, I believe, but it would make a one-foot-taller fence a little more tolerable as far as I'm concerned. And I'm wondering if you'd consider, I've illustrated it briefly here. You see where the proposed one is. for it to be shifted back 10 feet or so towards the rear of your neighbor's house. That takes it a little farther out of view, removes it from the visual plane of your neighbor's house, the front plane of their house. And then if it's going to be taller by a foot, if that's something we agree to, that would lessen the blow, in my opinion. And I'm wondering if that's something, the fence hasn't been purchased yet, it hasn't been installed, I'm wondering if that's something you'd entertain. Mr. Hossfield, we looked at that issue before also, because that was one of the things, I mean, we all know this has been going on for quite some time, and that creates such a stark angle when we are in our side porch that, yeah, it may save the neighborhood that two minutes of or 30 seconds at the pass by seeing our fence. But when we sit on our side porch, that creates hours of just looking at it at a very stark angle. That was the reason why we had gone for the canted. No, the cant is still there, and I'm not proposing any change. I'm not proposing that much change. Yeah, the cant is there, but it was this part of the fence that was creating the problem at that time too for us. I'm sorry, it was this part of the fence that kind of projects there so that when you are in any part, and we do spend a lot of time in our side, that this then creates a problem for us. And that's why we had kind of... Okay. So what you're saying is no. Through that one, I'm afraid, yes. All right. I guess, Mr. Chopra, you've heard my comments before about this, and I think that this fence area is not addressed by the guidelines at all. It's clearly not set forth in the guidelines about how to address a corner lot that side yard extends over into the front of an area. But I guess what I will tell you is I guess I've got a problem saying that you don't want it to extend out another foot from your house into that side yard because it creates a barrier when you want another foot taller fence though it just as a it just as a principle of logic i guess i sort of have a problem with that inconsistency because if you want a taller fence but don't want it wider uh you got the same real issue in my mind i mean if you look at a linear square footage of the amount that the fence is covering you've got the same issue really it may not be extending as far out into the art but it's certainly going up in the visual plane i understand your point i understand your point. I'm just letting you know that I think there's a logical fallacy in saying we don't want this part. We don't want it to go farther out in the yard, but we want it to go taller. No, no, I'm sorry. I don't agree with that. You know, we actually put up those people with the fences standing there and sat there to see what it does. I understand, but I'm just saying from a logical conclusion, if you're saying you want a fence that's a foot taller, but you don't want it to be stepped out one foot wider, it just seems to me that it's an inconsistency. But it's not one foot. It's going on quite a bit if you look at that. I mean, it's... What is the total linear distance of the fence? I think it's like 35 feet, 35.23 or something, including the gatings. So another foot tall, it's 35 square linear feet, I mean, essentially. You're going to additionally... Okay. Okay. The math portion of it just says that sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. Right, right. Let me say this. I had actually got an email two weeks ago that I had no idea this was on the docket, but it's from a person in Fayette Park. And it's from the Lesleys who've been here before on other applications. And they sent it because they were distraught. And maybe this is the story you're relaying, And they came home one night with two people passed out on their back porch on their chaise lounges. They had to call the cops. The girl ran away. The guy was out. And they had to call the police to come and arrest him because he was so out of it, they couldn't even get him out of there. That two days ago, two days before that, two other guys in another family's house were trying to steal from their garage, which is in the back of their area. Their car was broken into. Their Christmas decorations were stolen. There was a Christmas gift issue, which I guess is with you all. And then all of that was in the last five weeks. Yeah, right up. And so that wasn't sent in support of this application. It's anecdotal evidence that I think supports your situation regarding the needs for fences out there. And I was very candid very early on about my belief that the back fence line shouldn't be an issue. And I thought we approved a six-foot fence, but maybe we didn't have a copy of the COA when it was in our packet. But I thought it was a six-foot. It was five-foot, I guess. I couldn't remember. I thought it was six-foot. You're thinking about the perimeter fence? The backyard. It's the north line fence. I call it the backyard. Yeah, it was five foot. I was thinking of a six. It was whatever the applicant requested height was what was approved. Maybe we said it could have been up to six because that's what the privacy fence guideline says. So I think that the problem here is that the guideline doesn't talk about, has any, and I just sat here and read every single word of it to try to figure out about fences. It doesn't say anything about a situation when you have a side yard that really morphs into somebody else's front yard, side yard, which is what we have here. There's not even an indication of what to do about that. What it says is privacy fences have to start in the middle of the structure and go back, and those can be no taller than six foot. Those are solid wood fences, privacy fences. But it also says that other fences in the front, wood picket fences or woven wire fences in front yards should be no more than three feet tall. The guidelines offer, in my mind, no clear resolution of this issue. I'm not disinclined to accept a taller fence because of some of the reasons that you have outlined that I know exist in the area. But I've got to think some give on the setback for what you're looking for would certainly be appropriate if you want. Based upon the guideline, it clearly says privacy fences should be six foot tall and start in the middle of the property, which would require that to be pushed back. I understand it's an obstruction from your porch, but those are my thoughts. Mr. Billings, the only thing I can say is that I don't think we should be asked to make a choice between feeling secure and feeling happy sitting in a side porch. I would kindly say if one or two feet of a fence is going to affect your happiness in your house, there's probably things here that I'm not going to be able to help with because I don't think it's going to ruin your house. You've got a beautiful home, beautiful yard. The fence is going to look great out there. It is the way it projects. And we have actually got it. We have put it there, seeing how it will look. And short of inviting you over, and you're most welcome to come over any time. I walked by it. And, you know, but that's what... How was it resolved? I know with the neighboring property we talked about tying it into the back of your neighbor's property. Was that resolved or is the fence going to come all the way down the line now? We don't have a copy of the COA in front of us. There's a gate between that property and the house. It just ends at the house. It ends at the house is what I thought we discussed. Right. There's no fence that's going to go along the line. I thought you were going to work with them on tying it into the corner of the house. Yeah. All right. That's what I thought. That's what I would call. No, we went ahead and made a compromise, and we installed a three-foot walkway that would take you so people aren't standing in the mud. Right. Because we are where our neighbor is going to have work people eventually over her house. You don't want these people stepping in mud. I made it nice. You know, again, put the gate at one end, and this one's got the gate planned at the other end because the electric company's still got to read the meter. There's a gate there. Oh, I see this last one. That's why there's two gates in that plant. Okay, let's get back to the issues at hand here without recreating the whole wheel of conversation and understanding your concern of your maintained visual line that's protected by the current proposed location for the canted section of the fence. I've drawn another drawing, and I've proposed another shift, but it maintains the cant that you are concerned with, and it steps it away from the front of the neighbor's house, and it makes me feel better about a taller fence if the board were to approve a taller fence. No, I pointed that far back. That's not the idea. No, that's not the idea. It's a great idea, though. It maintains what I thought was your priority of the canted area being out of your view. It doesn't change the lineal feet geometrically, I don't think. I don't think it changes the feet. It shouldn't at all. It does. Take one away from here and add a little bit there. But to me, it strengthens the separation of the fence from your neighbor's house, puts it in a stronger relationship in their rear yard, or what would be their rear yard the same way that we're considering that portion side yard, excuse me, without starting that whole problem over again. What I mean is, and I think you understand, it puts that fence as it approaches the side of their house further from the face and makes it more minor to the major issue, which is the front of the house. Is that something you'd entertain in consideration with us discussing the height of this fence? It does start deeply into that part of the yard. The front yards are really unusable if you think about it. Front yards are, to me, a waste of space. It's such an odd. But it does cut deeply into our side yard. And the landscaping pretty much has already been put in place with the sidewalk back there. Okay. Well, that's all I can think of, questions to ask and probing to do. Any other thoughts or comments from the board at this time? Let's just make sure we're clear that they're not. I think it was clear no alternative footprint is under consideration at this time. Hearing nothing from the board, anybody else in the audience this evening to speak to this case, please come forward and introduce yourself and microphone. Hi, my name is Matthew Zook. I'm the property owner at 442 Fayette Park, neighbors to the Chopras. We'll put a PowerPoint presentation together. I just wanted to do a few illustrations. Primarily around my concern about just how it affects a five-foot fence in the front of a house or front side yard of the house would affect the overall look of the neighborhood. It sounds like some of you are familiar with Fayette Park as well. Are we good? You want to put below the round thing? Okay, that one? Yeah. Just a second. Okay. anyway it's really in my mind I've spoken earlier not all that much in favor of the fence in the front I actually say the perimeter fence that's been put in the perimeter fence that's been put in actually looks quite nice but that's pretty typical with the neighborhood most of the properties at this point have put some sort of fencing privacy and otherwise in the back part of the house. But again, just to sort of walk through the neighborhood a bit, I grabbed these shots off of Google Street View. So they're a couple years old at this point, but nothing significant has really changed in terms of fencing and the front of the houses. Starting at one side of Fayette Park, just moving on down, you can see there is really not a whole lot no fencing except towards the back when you do see it the fronts of these properties are very open you have the driveways going back and this is really the sort of sensibility that I'm most concerned about with this particular fence this open sensibility that does exist and I fear that well, as I said earlier, any fence, but particularly a higher fence, would change this. This is actually the Chopra's house as they were actually in the midst of their renovation. So obviously not what's currently there. My particular house, again, you see there's not fencing in the front. The one exception being this property right here. I'm not sure if I have a pointer on this or not. this sort of little fence at the front, which my understanding was not put in according to code or before the historic districts went in. Again, just a little more walk down the property, around the park. We don't have a whole lot of visual barriers at the front of the properties. Landscaping, yes, but not any sort of real fencing as we move on down through the park, thanks to Google Street View. The other thing, so again, this is my main concern. I'm certainly sensitive to the fact of the idea for security concerns. I personally, I think my concerns are less than the ones the Chopras were voicing in terms of security in the neighborhood, not an issue that I've or my family really has had much to deal with. Actually, I just wanted to go a bit further. And then also just bring up this last point in terms of the relationship between this sort of odd-shaped parcel, this corner parcel, and sort of the front and side yard. We'll come back to that. And essentially just do sort of a quick sort of back-of-the-envelope comparison to what's the relative relationship to the front backyard in the properties in Fayette Park. and should be coming up. There we go. Oops, go back here. So this is, I just took it off the PVA website this morning. It shows the addresses. It shows the parcel boundaries for Fayette Park. The area in question for 444. Is that the big button? Oh, there we go. Perfect. That blue rectangle here. It represents essentially, as best I could figure out, given that I'm working with an image rather than a GIS layer, waiting for the city to start releasing those, what the area we're talking about. And building on that, I just did a little graphing out to get a sense of what that was relative to the rest of the property, including the building footprint as well. It would have been nice to take that out, but just didn't have the ability to do that. And so you have a ratio for 444 roughly of 1 to 10, 1 being sort of the front yard, 10 being the majority of the property, the building, the side yard, the backyard, however we're going to characterize it. You send this out to the other properties, taking sort of equivalent sort of front yard measurements as you would do it. Again, this is sort of by eye. It's not as exact as one would hope. You run the same sort of bump out the rectangles. You get sort of a relative measure of what the front side yard is for all the properties in Fayette Park. And then just to sort of graph it, because I'm kind of geeky this way, I wanted to look at just what is the median ratio in terms of this sort of front side yard measurement to the entire parcel. Again, this doesn't take in the structure. It doesn't take in the different sizes and things like that. So you sort of end up with a media ratio of about seven for all the properties. Some of the properties obviously have a lot more, and 440 is one of those above the media. My main point is that the definition, as it has been defined by the board, is actually a fairly restrictive definition of what could be in the front and side yard relative to the other properties in Fayette Park. So I don't necessarily want to call you to revisit this issue, but in my mind, since the definition of what the front and side yard is, is already fairly restrictive, that it's moved up quite a bit relative to what it could be, that making a fence popping up to five foot seems to be better to err on the side of a lower fence than a higher fence. And I'll just leave it at that. Sorry for all my graphics, but such is life. Thanks. Thank you for your comments. The organization of your information was impressive and very easy to understand your point. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Yes, please come forward and introduce yourself. Hello again. Hi, how are you? I am Jill Gookin. I am the property owner of 439 Fayette Park, which sits directly, if you're facing the Sherpa's house, to the right. But since when we began this process, if I remember correctly, that Historic Review had approved a design of a fence when we initially started that would be appropriate by the guidelines. Am I correct upon that? There is currently an approved fence in this location. Yeah, when we first started, but the Sherpas wanted to change the fence. and it had already the guidelines had already been approved and what i'm trying to get back to is visually coming down the street as the neighbor to the right i would have never wanted a fence in this area but because it had already been subject to it already been approved to be set back and to be here and then it was revisited and moved and moved again and now we're at a place where it is now and it was going to remain at a four-foot height, and now we're requesting a five-foot height, just backing up, not as organized as my good neighbor, two doors over. I think that visually coming into the street every day, as you can see that no one else has any barriers in their front or side property that are within view, I would not have been supportive of the fence, period, right from the get-go next to my historic property and next to theirs. And I do find it difficult in their thinking that their view, the two of them from the side yard, is more important than the historic neighborhood visual appearance as you're coming down the street that's been in place for more than 120 years. I do think they should consider being flexible, moving the fence back, period. But if that's not going to happen, and if they do want the five feet, it should be much further back. And the only thing that I want to bring to your attention tonight is when Keeneland Magazine chose to do their views on historic neighborhoods for their magazine, the Chopra's property was selected as one of the important homes within Fayette Park. And one of the reasonings it was selected is, I think, because of the open space that you'll see. If you could maybe pass it down to Randy. He can throw it up so the people at home can see, too. Excellent. Sorry. It's a good thing you're here. I saw you laying in. So my long-winded point is, when you see this, that it's not just myself or other neighbors that feel this area is of historic value. It was picked up by Keeneland Magazine as having relevance to that time period. And I just believe the fence in general should go back deeper into their side yard, whether it's four feet or five feet. But I do think both fences are a visual impairment. And as we all know, crime is all over this city. It is not just in Fayette Park. I don't know if you can see, but it does highlight, it does showcase that area and the open spaces off to the right. So that is just, that is my personal thought on this, being the neighbor who sits directly to the right. And I hope you'll take some of these things into consideration, as you've suggested, asking them to be flexible and moving the fence back even farther so it actually does sit in the side yard if they want the height. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments from the audience? Yes, sir. Come on down. My name is Jerry Leslie, and I'm at 431 Fayette Park. And I just came to speak a little bit about the fence issue and about the security issues of Fayette Park. I have lived in Lexington all my life, and I've lived in all different parts of Lexington, on the suburbs of the South End, downtown, going to school at Transie, going to school at UK. So I've lived everywhere, and I understand crime is part of our society these days. But I've never had a situation where I've come home and had two people passed out on my back porch on my furniture that were immovable with two two-year-old twins to try to figure out what you're going to do with this situation. At that point, I could say, well, I'd like to have a gun or I'd like to have an eight-foot privacy fence, whatever it would have taken so that no one would have harmed my children. So to sit there and say, well, I don't know that a five-foot or a four-foot fence is that much different, it really isn't up to us. It's up to the owners of that property. If the guidelines allow for a five-foot fence or six-foot fence for a side yard, that's what it is. It's a transparent fence, so the scale, the color is going to be transparent when you're driving there. I know it seems like, well, it's a five-foot fence, but if you look at it, it's a transparent fence. It's black. You will, unless you're really trying to look at it, you'll see it. What my good neighbors didn't show and what those photos don't show as you're going across Fayette Park, there are neighbors that have six-foot and even eight-foot privacy fence on their side yard coming into Fayette Park. There's privacy fences that are six-foot high. One is eight-foot brick, solid brick fence coming into Fayette Park. Also, there are several neighbors along Fayette Park that have six-foot privacy fences, one that was just recently redone. It's probably closer to seven foot. You can't see it from the front because the vegetation has grown up over the years, which I'm sure will happen here once they have had the ability to do the plantings that they want and everything. So for me, it's important, especially when you look at trying to save the integrity of Fayette Park, it's also important to realize that there is flexibility in the guidelines. And it's important because people, these professionals like me and our neighbors, who are going to stay there for a long time, we want other people to come in, and we want to make sure they understand that the board has the flexibility to allow them to do certain things. that, well, maybe I don't disagree that I want a pink fence instead of a black fence, but that's my neighbor's property, so he should be able to do what he wants. And for Fayette Park to remain viable, we're going to have to be a little more flexible in how we are going to allow people to do things to their buildings. That doesn't mean that you have to go against the guidelines, but to say, well, a five-foot fence, should I approve a five-foot fence instead of a four-foot fence? I say that the guidelines allow for a six-foot fence and probably an eight-foot fence in the back. And if it was me, I would be asking for an eight-foot fence. You've already approved fences, barriers, whatever you want to call a brick fence. Actually, on my property, a four-foot high brick fence. So I think there shouldn't be any problem with allowing them to have the five-foot fence as they've requested. because it's allowable by the design guidelines that you all are going by. So if you want to get into being subjective about, well, do I like the way it looks, well, that's a different deal. That's not really what we're here to do. We need to focus on what's allowable by the design guidelines. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else to speak? Yes, please come forward. I'm Pete Cassidy. Again, I live at 431 West 3rd and have lived in the Northside neighborhood area for 41 years. I'm concerned a couple things. I don't really know much about this fence at all. I'm very familiar with Fayette Park. But I'm concerned about some of the comments of the gentleman who just sat down. You know, it's his yard, his house. He should be able to do with it what he wants to do with it. He wants a pink fence or eight-foot fence or whatever. Once you put a historic overlay, you kind of lose some of that autonomy, and that is it really isn't your yard anymore. A lot of people that move into the north side since I've been here, I think they look at their home as their castle, and maybe they should, and that they can make it better and make it more private, and maybe that would be better. It would be really alarming if everyone on Fayette Park, everyone on 3rd Street, everyone on 2nd Street, everyone on Grads Park put a five-foot fence around the front of their house. it would totally change the whole character of the historic district. And I just ask you to keep in mind that we're talking about a historic district. We're not just talking about 444 Fayette Park or the 430, the one on either side of it. We're talking about a district that this government has decided was worthy of having the overlay because of its historic nature. and if you close your eyes and try to visualize what would happen to the Northside neighborhood, the Northside Historic District, if everyone put a five-foot fence in the front of their house or a four-foot fence in the front of their house, it would totally change the character of the entire district and it would be a character that would actually remove it from being a historic district. Just comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, sir, of course. Please come forward. The issue is, again, the front yard, side yard thing. And I'm not here trying to, you know, what do you say, be very tight about what is the front yard and what is the side yard. But I do believe that as a board, you do have the responsibility to stand by your own decisions. and on the 14th, one of the decisions was that that area is going to be considered a side yard. So now, again, if to that you're going to add subjectivity, fine, that is your prerogative to do as a board and that is fine, but to me then that becomes a somewhat arbitrary decision that, okay, yeah, we defined it as a side yard and we didn't ask for it to be defined. It was Ms. Gukin who said, define it now, and you guys did it. This is the side yard. This is what we will call a side yard. And now when we come back, for a very reasonable reason, with a very reasonable request to increase it just by one foot, if you make the decision not to allow us that, I do believe that that would be a somewhat arbitrary decision with all due respect to all of you. Thank you. I have a question either for the homeowner or any of the residents of Fayette Park. How tall is the fence between 440 and 438 Fayette Park on the opposite corner? Oh, it's 440 and 438. Who is 440? Opposite corner. I've got the addresses off your plan. It's the direct opposite corner end. The other corner? Yeah, 438 and 440. What's his name? I'm sorry, you're talking about the other corner opposite of ours. Not your corner, the other one. He works at the... Off-Broadway. Yes. More or less in the same configuration as what's being proposed. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, not at all. Quite honestly, I've never gone back in that particular spot. Okay, so there is no fence. There's some kind of fence, but it runs on the property lawn? I didn't say it. What I'm trying to get at here, you have a similar condition on the opposite corner. And, you know, what are they considering, front yard, side yard? What are they considering, the division points? Where are their current fence lines and things like that? That's a precedent. Has that issue even come up before? I don't know. No, I'm asking, historically, it's a precedent for your particular neighborhood. It's the exact same condition, but on the opposite side. And I'd like to know how that was handled in the past. Can we pull up Matt's, one of his little, his plats he had at that park? Do you have that? No. I think Randy may have a picture to put up on the screen tied to what you're seeking. I'm sorry. Ask me the question again. me the question again. Which address? Okay, we have 440, which is that house right at the end that is basically in the same alignment as yours. 440. 438, which is turning the corner. All right. Address 440 and 442 have a wooden fence in between each other. Okay, and then between 440 and 438. This is going to sound very odd because 440 is so overgrown in the backyard. If there's a fence, it may be laying down. Okay, is there a fence that basically runs from more or less the corner of 440, the structure, to 438, the structure? I've been in this woman's backyard. This would be in the front yard or side yard, not backyard. Separating 440 from 442, are we talking about that? Okay, what I'm getting at here, just to cut to the chase, is the fact that I... Can I just say, to the staff's memory, there is no fence in the place in which you're asking. Okay. That's what I was trying to find out. No, that's fine. And nobody may have asked for that fence at that time. So they may experience the same security problems that you experienced. No, they have not. I beg to differ from that. 440 and the two corner houses, one lot used to in the past belong to the other property. And it was so, I think it was, there was a problem, I was told years ago, that somebody wanted to build a house on that corner that had nothing to do with Fayette Park. So eventually Fayette Park, 20 or 50 years ago, this is again part of the Fayette Park history, that that little corner lot was purchased by one of the landowners in order for not to be developed away from Fayette Park because it is that little tip corner, and they have not developed it. They have it, you know, it's all totally enclosed. But, you know, again, there was more to that history on that piece of property. Well, of course, that is an important part of the development of the park and certainly probably was a good thing. Absolutely. But what I was trying to just illustrate was the fact that you have approval for a fence in an area that is historically inappropriate. It is a very generous approval at four feet with a similar condition on the other side that proves there is no historic fence in that location. So there is no precedent for this. And I think that by getting the four-foot fence that you have requested, it is extremely generous and it falls within all of the guidelines. Now the front yard, side yard issue is always going to be a gray area in that location, in your location and in the other one that I mentioned between 440 and 438 because it's totally unique. there are very few other places in Lexington in any of the historic districts that have that same condition so to say oh it's front yard, side yard yeah it's gray, who's to say but we have to look at it individually there's no subjectivity, it's what is appropriate to the spot and I think that in this case what's already been approved per your request is very generous and really very stretching on the guidelines. And I think that that is as far as it needs to go. I mean, you certainly have the right to disagree, but historically, that is what is going on in that area, and what you have is sufficient. Thank you. Any other comments from the Board at this time? I agree with Rob on that. Ms. Kerr, I owe you an apology. I didn't know that this was going to come up when I mentioned fences last week. You've heard my comments before regarding the fence and that this is a gray area both today and at the prior hearing. There is no question the guidelines do not address the situation. There is no question that the guidelines allow fences in the rear yard, which are not really at issue here, or that they allow fences in the side yard. The question in this case seems to be that because of the particular layout of the house with relation to the lot and its relation to the neighboring property where the front yard and the side yard begins, and that there probably is not a bright line that could be drawn on a piece of paper to say this is the front and this is the side yard, but rather it is probably a continuum. This is supported by illustration 19 on page 118 of the guidelines, which shows clearly fences in the backyard, a privacy fence that comes to the middle of the structure for side yards for privacy fences, and privacy fences are not allowed to come to the front of the structure. In this case, a fence has been approved coming from, I believe it was 12 inches off of the front of the structure that projects parallel to the front line of the property and at some point makes a turn in an angle at a 45-degree angle, and then it begins another 45-degree angle, approximately I think it's another foot or two feet, I can't quite tell, behind the front line of the neighboring property's house. Because of the location of those, I think that the slope is, well, I think clearly it has to be a side yard because a fence has been permitted in the area. That the slope here, the slippery slope of this position is that the further forward it is pushed, the smaller the fence needs to be under the guidelines. The farther back it is pushed, the taller the fence can be under the guidelines. There's certainly not a guideline that speaks to this, but I think that lacking clear evidence and clear guidelines, That is the fairest interpretation that I can take from what the Historic Preservation Commission did when they enacted this guideline and gave us a drawing to do that, which was one of my questions earlier directly concerned pushing the fence back some and allowing it to go taller versus where it remains today. Based upon that, I would find that with the applicant's desire to keep the fence in its current location, that the four-foot fence is okay, which also includes that. I'm of the opinion that the farther back the fence went, the taller it could be. In other words, no one's going to get a six-foot privacy fence two foot off their house. You're not asking for that. You're not asking for that. I acknowledge that. But no one's going to get a six-foot privacy fence two foot off the front of their house. But at some point, as the fence moves back, a six-foot privacy fence would be very appropriate. In fact, the guidelines especially provide that in the middle of the structure it would be permitted. But thank you. Sorry to move on, wasn't it? No, thank you. And to your point, I don't think there's really anything to add. I think that was pretty clear. Whether it's private fence, well, in this case, this very smaller scale black and less obtrusive fence, which was discussed earlier by one of the members in the audience. still the issue at hand is maintaining the front of the house and keeping the priorities or the hierarchy in the correct balance of house versus fence. With everything else that's been said, I think it's been covered pretty thoroughly. Any other comments at this time from staff? Staff, go ahead. I just have one for sort of clarification about, at least from the staff's perspective of this much discussed gray area, front yard and side yard, and I'm not suggesting we have the ultimate answer by any means, but just so everybody will be aware that where the staff has come from throughout this series of considerations on this property about this fence has been that this is a front yard. and we have based our determination, we had a lot of discussion internally about front yard, side yard on this property, just as you all have, and that is premised somewhat upon how building inspections process identifies it, they identify it as a front yard, so forth and so on. So while we may not have the ultimate answer, just so people will be aware, That has been through our research and thinkings on it where we have decided it needs to be weighed from the staff's charge in utilizing the guidelines and making recommendations. And that was certainly the beginning of the conversation several months ago. So, again, I think we've made some concessions. We've certainly worked with the shoppers on a few occasions here on this fence in particular. and I feel like we probably gave quite a bit to help meet their needs but also maintain our interpretation of the guideline and what's important to maintain as far as the historic district goes on the whole. With that being said and all comments being heard, the Chair would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Yet another comment. Please come forward. That's fine. Sorry. I'm sorry for a minute. This is to just address Mr. McGarrish's thing on, you know, if there is a historic precedent. So if there is a fence, would you be on that side? Would you be, would the board be able to support this? That's my question. It would depend on the fence. If there is a fence that exists, is it appropriate? was it installed after or before the guidelines went in place, what is its location, what is its height, it would need to be addressed, yes. Then could we move to the board to table this until we have actually had some time to look at that? Just your wish. That would be my recommendation. That is up to the other board members. The staff would have to advise us on that. Just for everyone's information, the deadline for board action on this issue is March 18th. How does that pan out as far as new information and application and information to us in a timely manner for review staff? Today being the 8th of February. If you all don't act on it today in a final action but continue the case, until another meeting, the staff would need whatever additional information was to be provided to the board about 10 days before that. And we're only about 14 days out from that now. So there'd be a pretty short window. If I'm understanding all of this correctly, though, they wouldn't be changing their application. You'd still be asking for what you're asking for. You would just have any additional assistance to enforce your request? Any additional information. I would say at the latest would be Monday coming up to have it to the staff so that we can get it into the packets that come to the board. I don't have my calendar right. It's coming Monday. It's the 13th. Yeah, the 13th. and that would enable us to get the material reviewed and put into the packets in the normal fashion for the board. I certainly want you to have a fair opportunity to enforce your... My question is Monday end of the day, is that... Yes, and then there would be another option, which would be to table it or to, excuse me, continue it to not the most immediately available meeting, but to the next one, which would be the 14th, March 14th. And that would give you a longer window of time to get any information. The other thing is, if we really find that there's really no precedent, we may choose to withdraw the application, too. It doesn't have to waste the time of the board if there is really nothing left. Without handing the whole thing over to staff, I would certainly encourage you to take any precedence that you think you find to the staff and get their opinion on it and find out, do you think that this is precedence? And they will probably be able to tell you within a reasonable amount if it's worth pursuing or if it is not. Again, I leave that up to you. Is there really a legitimate precedent for us considering precedence? I mean, it looks to me like we're interpreting guidelines and making decisions based on guidelines, and it looks to me like we've already gone through an enormous amount of consideration of the guidelines in this case. And I personally am not going to be influenced by any precedent. I don't care what it is, because the guidelines are the guidelines, the conditions are the conditions, and we need to make a decision. In my opinion, we've gone through a huge amount of work on this. We, as Mr. McGrish said, we were very generous in, to some extent, bending the guidelines to consider the area of the property in question a side yard so that we could, in fact, humor the owners and allow them to build a fence. But in that discussion, we said that fence needed to be moderate in its scale, and that's where the four feet came from. Now we're being asked to completely reconsider that whole discussion, and I think to extend this thing and ask the neighbors who are objecting to this and who live immediately adjacent to the property is unfair to the neighbors and frankly does not change how we're going to interpret the guidelines or this particular condition relative to the guidelines. If you all feel like looking at other precedents would in fact change our interpretation of the guidelines in this condition, make the argument for me because I'm not seeing it. Thank you. You bring up an excellent point over what our minds change even if we saw a precedent. The only precedent that I would look at that could change this on my view is finding a five foot tall wrought iron or metal fence that is in more or less the same configuration at the other property. End of story. Now, if there's a privacy fence, if there's a small wall, if there's something over there that's hidden by the vegetation, that might be fine, but that is not the same condition. That's not the precedent for the same condition. And that's what I'm looking at. So, I mean, that's what I'm looking at as far as when I'm discussing precedent. I'd like to also say that my feelings on this are not, I'm listening to the arguments, and I'm hearing the arguments, and I understand the arguments, and I understand the concerns. But my experience with security is that if you have bad intent, if you have someone who wants to do the wrong thing, an additional foot of height is not going to stop them. And so I'm very skeptical about the effectiveness of the effort, and I don't think it's an adequate argument to overturn what was a very serious discussion and a very serious set of, in my view, compromises in favor of the owners in a previous meeting. All right. With that in mind, I will withdraw my request for that opposite side precedent. And, you know, let the board decide what you want to. Thank you very much. All that being said. I would note, Mr. Chairman, that being an attorney of precedents is probably the most important thing that we could rely upon, which is that no two situations are ever the same. and that the guidelines, just like our laws, and that no cases, whether it's in a courtroom that we deal with or here before us on an application for certificate appropriateness or before the Planning Commission or before the Board of Adjustments or before building inspection or before code enforcement, is ever the exact same. There is always conditions or facts that are different. And except for the fair and even-handed and consistent application of rules of law to facts in different situations, we find ourselves in a terrible predicament. And without getting into a huge philosophical jurisprudential discussion about the importance of precedent, I would not disagree that there are times when what elements of precedents are important may differ. For example, what types of fence are the heights or things like that. But the concept of precedent is very important. and that without that, no owner knows how we're going to apply those rules from one to another. And frequently in our discussions here, we'll refer to other cases. And those cases don't control the decision, but I think that our previous or our predecessors' application of those, we would be doing a disservice to ourselves and to applicants to ignore the fact of how prior boards have interpreted that. Just like if we went to judges and the judge said, well, I don't really care what happened in prior cases. I'm going to figure out what the law is this time on my own. Same in architecture. I mean, it's what makes our society so much better than others. Thank you. And I'm not sure my impression of anything that's been said up to this point disagrees with anything you just said. But we can talk about that more later if you want to. So that's quite a discussion we've all had. And having heard all comments possible from the audience and the board and the staff, I'd certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 06900444-T at 444 Fayette Park, I move to deny the addendum as submitted. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Let the record show that the motion has passed. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda for this evening is at 441 West 2nd Street, and that application is to construct a deck and stair tower. Is that applicant here this evening? Yes. Thank you. Would you please come forward and introduce yourself? My name is Mike Satterly of 441 West 2nd Street. Good evening. Again, that's scope of work. It's Construct Act. Sarah Taller, have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes. Are you in agreement with the staff's recommendations and findings? Yes. How about that? Are there any comments, questions from the board at this time for the applicant? My only comment is that I, once again, want to commend you for doing a great job on this particular property. that was sorely in need of some work, and you're really doing a very nice job with it. And we're very pleased with what's going on. Thanks. Congratulations to the article, by the way. Thanks. All right. Well, having all that been said, is there anyone here in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, it's 441 West 2nd Street in the Northside Historic District. Hearing none, I would certainly entertain a motion. I'd like to move in case number of 16840441-H, 441 West 2nd Street, that we approve the application in agreement with the recommendation of the staff and that the approval is submitted with the following conditions. The railings be constructed in metal, give the stair system a more contemporary and transparent appearance, that final details be submitted to staff or BOAR, and finally that once reviewed by other LFUCG division, any changes come back to the staff or the BOAR. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Thank you very much. The motion has passed. Thank you. And let me just add, page for page, this application should have taken a lot longer than the previous application. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. That concludes our formal portion of the agenda this evening. We'll move on now to the conceptual review. The applicant this evening is at 616 West Short Street to Extended Garage, and we'll have a presentation on that. Thank you.