# Board of Architectural Review - March 14, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 14, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2435 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2435?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-03-14 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 4,855 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 March 14, 2012, under the direction of the Chair. During the meeting, the board considered 22 agenda items, taking 9 motions and votes. The board heard 2 public comments during the session. Of the 22 items on the agenda, 21 were approved, including projects ranging from roof repairs and window replacements to structural renovations and new construction. Approved projects included re-roofing and railing repair at 270 South Ashland Avenue, front path and walk repairs at seven consecutive Kentucky Avenue properties (169, 167, 165, 163, 161, and 159), and various renovation and replacement projects throughout the community. One agenda item—the installation of signage and a barber pole at 275 South Limestone #110—was postponed. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 14, 2012: * Goheri Kamdar * Joe Turley * Ken Owen * Michael Edwards * Reynolds Hart * Ms. Pettigall * Raisa Timaji No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included nine motions, all of which passed or were postponed as follows: **Installation of arbor at 455 West Third Street** [timestamp: 00:04:19] Motion by Mr. Chair. Passed by voice vote. **Veneer foundation wall at 622 Sayre Avenue** [timestamp: 00:09:14] Motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Mr. Chair. Passed by voice vote. **Canopy at side door of 535 Russell Avenue** [timestamp: 00:10:46] Motion by Mr. Alternate Chair, seconded by Mr. Alternate Chair. Passed by voice vote with the condition that all exposed wood be painted. **Deck roof at 1610 Elizabeth Street** [timestamp: 00:13:27] Motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Mr. Chair. Passed by voice vote. Conditions include: both posts engaged into existing deck; no gable roof end projects past window jam line; all exposed wood painted; final drawings including typical sections submitted to staff before Certificate of Appropriateness issuance; any changes from other LFUCG divisions submitted to staff for review. **Basement access at 838 West Maxwell Street** [timestamp: 00:15:05] Motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Mr. Chair. Passed by voice vote. Conditions include: final anchorage details of wood railing to concrete submitted to staff before concrete placement; all exposed wood painted or opaque stained. **Enclosure of portion of side porch at 344 South Upper Street** [timestamp: 00:17:09] Motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Mr. Chair. Passed by voice vote. Conditions include: final door details submitted to staff for review; any changes from other LFUCG divisions returned to staff or board. **Garage addition at 616 West Short Street** [timestamp: 00:20:46] Motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Mr. Chair. Passed by voice vote. **Replacement of yard sign at 462 East High Street** [timestamp: 00:36:18] Motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Mr. Chair. Passed by roll call vote with 1 ayes and 0 nays. Raisa Timaji voted in favor. Conditions include: sign must be cut from a 3.5-foot wide sheet of plywood, 7.6 feet wide, bottom edge 24 inches above grade, posts 4x4, all exposed wood painted, bottom edge straight. **Signage and barber pole at 275 South Limestone #110** [timestamp: 00:21:51] Motion by Mr. Chair, seconded by Mr. Chair. Postponed until March 28, 2012. ## Public Comment Two members of the public provided comments on signage specifications during the meeting. **Goheri Kamdar** [timestamp: 00:05:25] addressed the proportions of a yard sign, requesting a change from the current 3x8 feet dimensions to either 3.5x7 feet or 3.5x8 feet. Kamdar emphasized the importance of design in signage, particularly for a vacant building, and noted that the sign serves an advertising function. Kamdar also mentioned agreement with a neighboring designer on this matter. **Raisa Timaji** [timestamp: 00:35:40] provided comments on sign height and practical installation considerations. Timaji clarified that the bottom of the sign should be positioned 24 inches above grade to allow for lawn mowing access. Timaji expressed support for the proposed 7.6-foot width as a way to maintain proper proportion while accommodating landscaping maintenance needs. ## Contested Items **Yard Sign Dimensions at 462 East High Street** A disagreement arose regarding the proportions and size of a proposed yard sign at 462 East High Street. The applicant preferred a sign measuring either 3.5x7 feet or 3.5x8 feet, while staff recommended a 3.5x7 foot sign with a straight bottom edge. This difference in specifications prompted extended discussion among meeting participants and ultimately required an amendment to the motion before resolution. The contested item resulted in a split vote, indicating that board or council members were divided on the appropriate dimensions and design specifications for the signage at this location. ## 270 South Ashland Avenue: Re-roof porte-cochere; repair railing [timestamp: 00:01:38] Staff approved a request to re-roof the porte-cochere and repair the railing at 270 South Ashland Avenue in the South Ashland Historic District. The approval was granted without requiring board review. ## 169 Kentucky Avenue: Repair front paths and walks [timestamp: 00:01:38] Staff approved the repair of front paths and walks at 169 Kentucky Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. The repair work proceeded without requiring board review. The project was approved as a staff decision. ## 167 Kentucky Avenue: Repair front paths and walks Staff approved the repair of front paths and walks at 167 Kentucky Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District without requiring board review [timestamp: 00:01:38]. The item was approved as a staff decision. ## 165 Kentucky Avenue: Repair front paths and walks Staff approved the repair of front paths and walks at 165 Kentucky Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District without requiring board review [timestamp: 00:01:38]. The project was approved through the staff approval process, allowing the work to proceed without additional board consideration. **Outcome:** Approved ## 163 Kentucky Avenue: Repair front paths and walks Staff approved the repair of front paths and walks at 163 Kentucky Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District without requiring board review [timestamp: 00:01:38]. The project was approved through staff authority, allowing the repair work to proceed without additional board consideration. **Outcome:** Approved ## 161 Kentucky Avenue: Repair front paths and walks Staff approved the repair of front paths and walks at 161 Kentucky Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District without requiring board review [timestamp: 00:01:38]. The item was approved as a staff decision, proceeding without additional board discussion or deliberation. ## 159 Kentucky Avenue: Repair front paths and walks [timestamp: 00:01:38] Staff approved the repair of front paths and walks at 159 Kentucky Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. This item was approved by staff without requiring board review. **Outcome:** Approved ## 140 East Bell Court: Replace front storm door [timestamp: 00:01:38] Staff approved the replacement of the front storm door at 140 East Bell Court in the Bell Court Historic District without requiring board review. The project was approved as a staff-level decision, meaning it did not necessitate full board consideration or discussion at this meeting. ## 535 Russell Avenue: Reseal driveway Staff approved the resealing of the driveway at 535 Russell Avenue without board review. [timestamp: 00:01:38] The outcome of this agenda item was approval. ## 520 Sayre Avenue: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 520 Sayre Avenue without board review. [timestamp: 00:01:38] The approval was processed as a staff matter and did not require additional board consideration. ## 347 South Mill Street: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 347 South Mill Street without board review [timestamp: 00:01:38]. No additional discussion details, concerns, or speaker information were recorded for this agenda item. ## 425 South Upper Street: Renovate/replace windows and brick mould Staff approved the renovation and replacement of windows and brick mould at 425 South Upper Street. The item was approved without requiring board review. [timestamp: 00:01:38] ## 624 Sayre Avenue: Replace porch and main mass roof [timestamp: 00:01:38] Staff approved the replacement of the porch and main mass roof at 624 Sayre Avenue. This item was approved by staff without requiring board review. ## 455 West Third Street: Install arbor [timestamp: 00:02:44] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of an arbor at 455 West Third Street. Goheri Kamdar presented the item to the board. Staff recommended that the final location of the arbor be submitted for approval. The applicant had already provided the location details via email prior to the meeting, satisfying this requirement. The board approved the installation of the arbor at 455 West Third Street. ## 462 East High Street: Replace yard sign [timestamp: 00:04:54] The board reviewed and approved a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of a yard sign at 462 East High Street. **Proposal Details** The applicant proposed replacing the existing yard sign with modified specifications. The new sign would feature dimensions of 3.5 feet by 7.6 feet with a straight bottom edge. The sign would be mounted 24 inches above grade on 4x4 posts and constructed of painted wood. **Discussion** Key speakers Goheri Kamdar and Raisa Timaji participated in the board's discussion of the proposal. The board examined questions regarding the proportion and practicality of the proposed design during their deliberation. **Outcome** The board approved the certificate of appropriateness for the yard sign replacement with the specified modifications. ## 622 Sayre Avenue: Veneer foundation wall The board considered a certificate of appropriateness application for a veneer foundation wall at 622 Sayre Avenue [timestamp: 00:08:10]. Staff recommended approval of the application without any requested changes. The board voted to approve the veneer foundation wall application as submitted. ## 535 Russell Avenue: Install canopy at side door [timestamp: 00:09:45] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of a canopy at the side door of 535 Russell Avenue. Joe Turley presented the proposal to the board. The board approved the installation of the canopy with a condition requiring that all exposed wood be painted. ## 1610 Elizabeth Street: Construct deck roof [timestamp: 00:11:17] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a deck roof at 1610 Elizabeth Street. Ken Owen presented the proposal to the board. The board approved the project with the following conditions: * Posts must be engaged into the existing deck * The gable roof projection cannot extend past the window jam line * All exposed wood must be painted * Final drawings must be submitted to staff before the certificate of appropriateness is issued The application was approved. ## 838 West Maxwell Street: Construct basement access [timestamp: 00:14:00] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness for basement access construction at 838 West Maxwell Street. Michael Edwards presented the proposal to the board. **Outcome** The board approved the basement access construction with the following conditions: - Anchorage details must be submitted to staff before concrete placement - All exposed wood must be painted or opaque stained ## 344 South Upper Street: Enclose portion of side porch [timestamp: 00:16:07] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness application for the enclosure of a portion of the side porch at 344 South Upper Street. Reynolds Hart presented the item to the board. **Outcome** The board approved the enclosure of the side porch with the following conditions: * Final door details must be submitted to staff for review * Any changes required by other divisions must be returned to staff or the board for consideration ## 616 West Short Street: Construct garage addition [timestamp: 00:17:40] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness for a garage addition at 616 West Short Street. Ms. Pettigall presented the proposal, which involved constructing a garage addition with a slightly raised roof designed to accommodate an overhead door. The project represented a deviation from the prior conceptual review that had been presented to the board. Despite this modification to the original concept, no objections were raised during the discussion. The board approved the garage addition as presented. ## 275 South Limestone #110: Install signage and barber pole [timestamp: 00:21:18] The application to install signage and a barber pole at 275 South Limestone #110 was presented as a certificate of appropriateness request. The application was postponed to March 28, 2012, at the applicant's request. There was no discussion or opposition recorded during the consideration of this item. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approve installation of arbor at 455 West Third Street - **Motion** — passed (1-0): Approve replacement of yard sign at 462 East High Street with modified dimensions and conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve veneer foundation wall at 622 Sayre Avenue - **Motion** — passed: Approve canopy at side door of 535 Russell Avenue - **Motion** — passed: Approve deck roof at 1610 Elizabeth Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve basement access at 838 West Maxwell Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve enclosure of portion of side porch at 344 South Upper Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve garage addition at 616 West Short Street - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone application to install signage and barber pole at 275 South Limestone #110 until March 28, 2012 --- ## Full transcript Music Good evening. I would like to welcome you to the March 14, 2012 public hearing of the Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. 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 at 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 public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain types of items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the Board. There are a total of 13 approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the South Ashland Historic District, we have 270 South Ashland Avenue, re-roof, Port Cachor, and repair railing. In the Aylesford Historic District at 169 Kentucky Avenue, repair front paths and walks. 167 Kentucky Avenue, as well as 165, 163, 161, and 159 Kentucky Avenues, also to repair front path and walks. In the Bell Court Historic District at 140 East Bell Court, replace front storm door. At 535 Russell Avenue, reseal driveway. 520 Sarah Avenue, renovate structure. and at 624 Sarah Avenue, replace porch and main mass roof. In the South Hill District at 347 South Mill Street, renovate structure and South Upper Street, renovate, replace windows and brick mold. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificate appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 455 West 3rd Street in the Northside Historic District and scope of work there is to install Ann Arbor. Is the applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present but is aware of the staff report. I think everybody's received an e-mail sort of talking about the different location. They've changed and are going to cant it a little bit. So that site plan and sort of e-mail sort of explains a little bit what's going on there. And the applicant has got that information back, the final details to us. Does the email and additional drawing change any thoughts? No, it does not. About the staff? Okay, thank you very much. I believe this application is pretty straightforward. Are there any comments or any discussion from the board at this time? Any additional comments from the staff? None? Well, again, the scope of work is to install an arbor, and the staff's recommendations is that they approve the submittal and that the final location of the Arbor v. submitted to staff, which it has been by e-mail that the staff has passed on to the board. I would certainly entertain a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there anybody in the audience speak to this case this evening? Seeing no motion now, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 18804555-C at 455 West 3rd Street, I can make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the one staff recommendation. Well, no, without the staff recommendation because that's already been done. So just approve the application as submitted. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Hearing two seconds. Any further discussion to the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well, the motion passes. On to the next case at 462 East High Street in the Aylesford Historic District. That's to replace a freestanding sign. Is that applicant here this evening? Very well. Please come forward and introduce yourself. My name is Goheri Kamdar. Hello. Can you give us your address, please? Yes, it is 462 East High Street. Very well. Thank you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, indeed. And are you in agreement with their recommendations? Actually, I would like to ask for maybe to change that somewhat. Unfortunately, for the panel, I'm a designer by education and work as well. And so the visual is extremely important. The proportions are extremely important, especially in a signage. And to have a three feet tall by eight feet, especially if the bottom is straight, it would be extremely horizontal, narrow, and unfortunately would not be as pleasant. and maybe if we can have it 3 1⁄2 feet, and instead of 8 feet, maybe 7 feet, to where proportionally it is a little more pleasant to the eye, that would be nice. Or we can have it 3 1⁄2 feet by 8 feet. Again, we can work that. My plan was to actually make the two poles instead of 4x4, 6x6s. but if we keep it at 8 feet I'll just keep it at that and we'll do just fine and make that 3 1⁄2 feet and the bottom we can make straight, that's not an issue one other thing is that these 6 blocks that you see here are actually 6 pieces of wood that's going to be bolted in the spot so it would be double-sided. And the reason is that once the tenant leaves, we can just do that part of the sign and not have to do the whole sign. And so if we go much smaller, they're going to become very narrow and kind of out of proportion. Okay. Well, hearing that you don't agree with the staff's recommendations, what we'd like to do is have the staff make their part of the presentation and hear what their findings are and their thoughts behind that, and then we'll get you back up here and talk about that some more. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And actually, in the interest of time, what I'd like to do, because we're going to talk about this case a bit, I think, is set this aside for just a moment and whip through the cases that are quick and then come right back and start at the top of the line. Thank you very much. Moving on to the next case at 622 Sarah Avenue, and that application is to veneer the foundation wall. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here, but has received a copy of the board's staff's recommendations. Thank you very much. Just to review, again, the application is to veneer the foundation wall, and the staff's recommendations is for approval as submitted. Are there any comments or questions at this time from the board? Is there anyone here this evening who speak to this case at 622 Sarah Avenue? Seeing no action there and hearing no comment up here, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that case number 16780622F at 622 Sarah Avenue, that the application for sure-tip it appropriateness be approved as recommended by staff. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes at 622 Sarah Avenue. Thank you. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 535 Russell Avenue, and that's to construct a canopy. Is that applicant here this evening? While he makes his way up here, I'll probably have to sit this one out. So, Rob, you're in charge of this case. Hello. Give us your name. My name is Joe Turley, and I live at 535 Russell Avenue. Have you had a chance to read the staff's recommendations and findings? I have. Are you in agreement with these findings? I am. Okay. Are there any comments from the board about this particular project? Anybody in the audience here to speak to this particular project? Okay. That said, I would be willing to hear a motion. Mr. Alternate Chair, in reference to case number 16520535-G, 535 Russell Avenue, I make a motion to approve this application with the one recommendation from staff that all exposed would be painted. Second the motion. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thanks. I like the one-by-one vote. It's nice. All right, moving on down the agenda here. The next case is at 1610 Elizabeth Street, and the application is to construct a deck roof. Is that applicant here this evening? Yes. Hello. Hi. My name is Ken Owen. And your address, please. It's 1610 Elizabeth Street. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? And are you in agreement with their recommendations? It's a bit of a list here. I'm going to run through it just to review. Staff recommends approval is submitted with the following conditions. Both posts of the deck's roof system are to be engaged into the existing deck. No end of the gable roof system is to project past the jam line of the window below. All exposed wood is to be painted. All final drawings, including to mention typical sections, to be submitted to staff prior to the issuance of COA. and should other LFUCG divisions require changes, those need to be submitted to staff for review. Are there any questions or comments at this time from the board for the applicant? Are there any folks in the audience who speak to this case this evening? Again, this is 1610 Elizabeth Street. Seeing no motion, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, in reference, case number 06381610-B, 1610 Elizabeth Street, I make a motion to approve this with the staff recommendations. One, both posts of the deck roof system are to be engaged into the existing deck. Two, no end of the gable roof system is to project past the jam line of the window below. Three, all exposed wood to be painted. Four, all final drawings, including dimension typical sections, to be submitted to staff prior to issuance of COA. Should other LFU-CG divisions require changes, those need to be submitted to staff for review. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well, the motion passes. Thank you. The next case this evening is at 838 West Maxwell Street, and that's to construct a basement access. Is that applicant here this evening? Michael Edwards, 838 West Maxwell Street. Thank you very much. Good to see you this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? I have. And are you in agreement with them? Yes. Very well. Just to review, the staff's recommendations are for approval as submitted with following conditions. One, that the final details of the proposed anchorage of wood railing to concrete construction be submitted to staff for review prior to placing of any concrete. And two, all exposed wood to be either painted or opaque stained. Are there any comments or questions at this time from the board? Does anyone here this evening speak to this case? Seeing no movement out there, I would certainly entertain a motion concerning this case. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 12680838-G at 838 West Maxwell Street, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the two staff recommendations noted earlier. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? I would add, you know, this is at least the second time this House has come before us, and I'm glad that things are happening over there, so I appreciate that and that it's done in a careful way. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next application on the agenda this evening is at 344 South Upper Street in the South Hill District, and that's to enclose a portion of the side porch. Is that applicant here this evening? I am Reynolds Hart with Kendall Hart Contracting, 446 East High Street. Good evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff findings and recommendations? I have. And are you in agreement with staff recommendations? Yes. Very well. Just to review the recommendations from the staff is to approve as submitted with the conditions. the final door details be submitted to staff for review, and that any changes once reviewed by other LFCCG division come back to staff or the board. Are there any questions or comments from the board at this time concerning this application? A quiet bunch this evening. Anybody in the audience here speak to this case? Again, this is 344 South Upper Street. Seeing no action in the crowd, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 19450340-B at 344 South Upper Street, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the two staff recommendations noted earlier. Very well. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Second it. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 616 West Short Street in the Western Suburbs, Historic District, and Scope of Works to construct a garage addition. Ms. Pettigall, how are you? I'm good. Good to see you. Good to see you. Have your address one more time. 559 North Broadway. Very well. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I have. And are you in agreement with them? I am. Very well. Just to review, staff recommends approval as submitted. We did see this case in a conceptual review some weeks ago. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time? I just had one quick question. And when we looked at this at a conceptual review, I think that we were talking about the roof of the new addition being at the same height as the existing sort of little nub piece that sticks out. And I noticed you popped it up a little bit. No way to get a garage, an overhead door in there. Okay. No way. so that it's really just to because after I was here for conceptual I went back to the site and took more dimensions just to make sure it wouldn't work I mean I don't really have a problem with the fact that the roof comes back up it gives a real separation of the two structures I tried I mean it would have been nice if it had been sort of uniform but I think that If that was not going to work, then this is a reasonable solution. Is the vent on the existing vent on the west elevation the only thing that's keeping the high portion of the addition roof from landing, just extending directly across? Yes. That's the only thing? Bummer. I think one of the things that came up in the conceptual review is just keeping it as simple as possible. Well, that's all I have to say, really. It's not as simple as we had hoped, I guess, at that time. Well, I would have been glad to raise the existing bump-out roof height up to match what we've added, but that vent would be gone then. It would have to take another shape. Sure, sure. No, I understand. Any other comments or questions at this time? Anyone in the audience speak to this case this evening? If that is the case, then I would certainly entertain a motion at this time for this case. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 17170616-8, 616 West Short Street, I make a motion to approve the application as submitted. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Very well. Any additional comments on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. I would like to say that I do think that doing the conceptual route is a good thing to do, and I would highly recommend a lot of people doing that. I appreciate your endorsement of our process. Have a good evening. You too. Thanks a lot. All right. The ninth case on our agenda this evening at 275 South Limestone, number 110, install signage and barber pole, that applicant has requested that it be postponed until March 28th. Can I get a motion to that effect, please? So moved. Thank you. I second the motion. Second. Very well. Is there any additional discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any of them? All those opposed, the motion passes, and in that case we move to March 28th. Which brings us back to 462 East High Street, replace yard sign, and if we can have the staff make their presentation concerning the size of the sign and the placards, that would be very helpful. This is the existing sign at 462 East High. At the present time, the placards are approximately five existing on that sign. and it's more or less of a vertical type design. The top of that sign is at seven feet. The applicant desires to install more of a horizontal type sign. At the time the applicant is requesting the board grant, a certificate of forgiveness to change the existing freestanding five-panel vertical design sign to a six-panel horizontal design sign. The message board is to be 4x8 sheet of 3-quarter inch plywood having curvy linear cut top and bottom edges. Screwed to each side of the board is to be 6. They've been changed now from 40 to 42 inch by 6 inch panels of half inch plywood. The board should be supported on a pair of 4x4 posts with the leading edge of the double-faced sign being located behind the back edge of the public walk, about 10 feet. The bottom edge of the sign is to be mounted 24 inches above grade and the topmost point of the post spherical finials located 6 inches above the top edge of the sign. No lighting of the sign is proposed. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. The findings, Guidelines 3.7b and 5.c respectively state, landscape elements and site elements, open spaces should only be developed in scale, use, and character with the site and the local historic district. and signs should be sized and proportioned to the building and relate to and complement, not overwhelm the site, building, and street. Avoid oversized signs. Stan finds the proposed sign, which adds only one extra name panel over that of the existing sign, but increases the square footage to three times that of the existing to be oversized plus out of scale and character with the site in the Aylesford Historic District. A more appropriate eight-foot wide sign would be one cut from a sheet of three-foot by eight-foot plywood with only the top edge having the curvy linear cut. The panels would retain their 42-by-6-inch dimensions. Recommendations, staff recommends approval submitted with the following condition. Signing board be cut from a three-foot wide sheet of plywood with only the top being curvilinear and all exposed wood be painted. Thank you very much. You're welcome. If you'd like to come back to the microphone, we'll talk to you some more about your ideas here. I believe where we left off was that you had a preference for more of a two-to-one ratio, possibly three and a half feet by seven feet or even your original proposal four by eight. Is that the general idea? That is right. And the reason being, if I may share this with you, is that this building, we really haven't gotten any tenants. We haven't had even cars in the past couple, three years, and there is so long. You can keep a building empty with one or two tenants. It's very difficult. So we have had to do something drastic. Of course, we have remodeled the inside, and now this is the last stage where it announces, you know, and it's the best advertisement. We are hoping for the future tenant to see a nice-sized sign with their name on it. And of course, next door to this building is a designer as well, Hubbock Company, has renting the property, Francis Whitman property, right next door. And I have talked to the designer there as well, and he agrees as far as the size of the sign proportion-wise. And I have no objection for you to reduce that proportionally, as long as it's not skinny and long, without a character. I think this is the advertisement for the building, so it's nice to have some character. Plus, I think for the street, we are partial to that spot. It really is a nice place in town. Sure. Okay. Well, those, and I don't think anybody would argue the importance of having signage or being partial to that location. Are there any questions or comments from the board at this time for the applicants? Just so that I understand it, basically, if the size as a whole was just reduced to 3.6 by 7.6 but retained the curvilinear edge at the bottom and the sort of pediment cut at the top, It can still work successfully, yes. That would still work for you. Because what would happen, instead of four inches in between, we are going to put two inches in between, we can still keep the size of the board. Oh, for the individual nameplate. Yes, sir. The same. Okay. Thank you. Of course. Could you stay with us for a clear view of the wall? Could staff ask for a clarification? Yes, we can hear it. As long as you can hear it. About the size of the post, are you requesting the 4x4 or the 4x6? We'll keep it at 4x4 if we don't have to make it. One other thing I need to add. We can bring it down 6 inches if you wish. In other words, make the post shorter. and a foot and a half off the ground and not half. I was planning to have a little bit of landscaping around it, but it doesn't matter. One and a half foot would be just fine. I'm just going to stop getting it. You're bringing it up. You might. Oh. Thank you. He says, for the mowing purposes, please keep it at two feet. It gets underneath my practical husband. It's a fine contribution to the conversation. Absolutely. It makes so much sense. You have said one thing, and the staff have recommended another, and I'd like to clarify. So the staff, in their recommendation to reduce the size of the sign, mentioned reducing or removing the scrolling at the bottom of the sign. In your scheme, to go for 3 foot 6 inch total height of sign, you would keep the scrolling at the bottom of the sign? That is really the bottom. It's not as important as the top is, I think. Whatever your recommendation is, I'll be happy to go with that. But I think it will be much more pleasant to the eye to have the scroll at the bottom, especially because of the colors. It's going to be like a deep green with kind of a mellow yellow, if you feel. I'm not sure the staff's intent of having the scrolling removed was simply to reduce the size of the sign. It wasn't an objection to the scrolling itself? I mean, that's my understanding. That's correct. Okay. It was just for the size. Yes, sir. Just to add some more, if we don't have the scroll at the bottom, the concern was that that way we can have a little more square footage on the sign itself to make it, you know, to have enough room for. Are there any more questions or comments for the applicant at this time from the board? Does anyone in the audience here speak to this case this evening? Again, this is at 462 East High Street. The proposal is to install a new sign. Scene. I agree. The applicant's husband has said he agrees. I swear. Very well. Thank you. Well, that being the case, the Chair would entertain a motion if there's no further discussion. I'll make a motion that in case number 09290462-B at 462 East High Street, that we approve the request for the certificate of appropriateness on condition that the sign be cut from a sheet three and a half feet wide, that it be seven feet in width rather than eight feet in width, that the bottom be a straight line and that the bottom of the sign be positioned 18 inches above grade. And a second condition, or probably an 18th condition, that all exposed would be painted. Of course. Very well. Is there a second to that motion? I'd like to make an amendment. It should be 7'6 instead of 7' feet. And I think they would like to keep it at 24 inches above grade. Do you accept that grade? I'm sorry, what was the first part of that? The board would be 7'6 instead of 7' feet. Well, I think she's looking for something that's proportional, which would mean 3 1⁄2 feet by 7 feet. That is indeed what she said, but then later on she indicated she'd like to reduce the 4-inch dimensions between the placards to 2 inches each, which gets us down to 7 foot 6. That's fine. If it's not an issue, of course, I think going down to seven feet would meet the staff's intent, which is to reduce the overall square footage. If the 42-inch placards going down to 39 inches wide each is not a hardship to you, I think it's a pretty good compromise, and I actually stand by Graham's original motion, but that's... I'm good. If we go to 7.8... I'm sorry. My name is Raisa Timaji. I think what he was proposing, we just want to keep the sun above the ground for the purpose of mowing, and that's where the 7.6 is coming from, is we are not adding a square footage. We just want the sun to be raised up so when we are mowing the grass, we will not have any... That was certainly the second part of his suggestion that I understood was to maintain the bottom of the sign at 24 inches. Correct. Yeah, not 18 inches as proposed here. Correct. Yeah, that was the only comment I had to make. Thank you. Thanks so much. Could we get your address for the record, please? That 462 is high street. You just have to tell. All right, no problem. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so if I've heard everything correctly, and if everyone agrees to what I think I've heard, the motion at this time is for a sign that is 3 foot 6 tall, 7 foot 6 wide. The bottom of the sign is 24 inches above the ground. The posts are 4 by 4. Yes, sir. And the wood is to be painted. And the bottom edge is to be stripped. Does that match the intent of your motion? That's fine. Well, I'm not trying to change it by any means. And does that match? Is there a second to that motion? There is a second. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with the changes. Thank you. That is the end of this evening's agenda. With no further business on the docket at this time, I would certainly entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Is there a second to the motion? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Very well. Good evening. Thank you.