# Board of Architectural Review - April 11, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 11, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2466 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2466?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-04-11 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 16,963 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 April 11, 2012, to consider 39 agenda items. The board took 13 motions and votes during the meeting and heard 2 public comments. Of the items considered, 30 were approved, 3 were denied, 2 were postponed, 1 was approved with conditions, 1 was withdrawn, and 1 was informational. The approved projects included fence installations, tree removals, structural renovations, window replacements, landscape plan installations, and various property modifications across multiple addresses throughout the jurisdiction. Notable approved projects included converting an existing warehouse to a retail shop at 431 Jersey Street, demolishing and constructing additions at 426 South Upper Street, and replacing a historic marker head and repairing structures at 201 North Mill Street. Two applications for window replacements and inserts at properties on Oldham Avenue were denied. Two items—installation of a pergola and guardrails at 507 North Broadway and installation of a parking lot and lighting at 333 South Upper Street—were postponed. An application to install signage and a barber pole at 275 South Limestone #110 was withdrawn. An informational presentation was given regarding a proposed construction addition at 262 Delmar Avenue. The board also approved the minutes from its March 14, 2012 meeting. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on April 11, 2012: * Brian Smith * Bill Campbell * Clive Pohl * Justin Thompson * Michael Hayes * Bobby Friesbrook No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Certificate of Appropriateness for 216 Clay Avenue** [timestamp: 00:05:55] Approved by voice vote. The motion authorized changes to the opening and installation of a railing. Conditions include submission of final railing details to staff for review, masonry work in accordance with guidelines I.3, K, L, and M, and painting of all exposed wood. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 425 South Upper Street** [timestamp: 00:07:29] Approved by voice vote. The motion authorized removal of a rear addition and installation of openings. Final details of the rear entry stoop and railings must be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to purchase of materials, and all exposed wood must be painted. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 364 Park Avenue** [timestamp: 00:09:11] Approved by voice vote. The motion authorized demolition of a garage and retaining wall. Conditions require reworking the front lawn to be sodded or seeded with straw for turf, and submission of a COA application for fencing of the area at the existing garage to the Preservation Office before issuance of the demolition COA. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 431 Jersey Street** [timestamp: 00:11:51] Approved by voice vote with one abstention. The motion authorized conversion of a warehouse to a retail shop. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 433 Jersey Street** [timestamp: 00:13:37] Approved by voice vote with one abstention. The motion authorized reduction of height and change of design of the parapet wall. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 426 South Upper Street** [timestamp: 00:22:16] Approved by voice vote. The motion authorized demolition of an addition, construction of an addition, and a roof deck. Extensive conditions were imposed, including clarification of demolition and foundation plans, retention of existing south wall wood windows and clapboard siding, minimum 12-inch inset of the 7-foot wide addition, parapet wall specifications, guardrail placement, casement window design, stair compliance, and submission of all final drawings and details to the board or staff for review and approval prior to COA issuance. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 507 North Broadway** [timestamp: 00:23:31] Postponed until April 25, 2012 by voice vote. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 358 Oldham Avenue** [timestamp: 01:08:31] Disapproved by voice vote with one abstention. The motion rejected replacement of windows and installation of wood inserts. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 354 Oldham Avenue** [timestamp: 01:09:08] Disapproved by voice vote with one abstention. The motion rejected replacement of windows and installation of wood inserts. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 380 South Mill Street** [timestamp: 01:52:51] Approved by voice vote for masonry walls and chimney with conditions requiring final dimensions and details submitted to staff for review and approval prior to permit issuance. The motion disapproved replacement of 14 one-over-one windows with four-over-four windows. **Certificate of Appropriateness for 333 South Upper Street** [timestamp: 02:00:34] Postponed until April 25, 2012 by voice vote. **Minutes of March 14, 2012 Meeting** [timestamp: 02:01:37] Approved by voice vote. **Adjournment** [timestamp: 02:01:04] Approved by voice vote. ## Public Comment Two members of the public addressed the meeting with concerns related to property maintenance and preservation. **Michael Hayes** [timestamp: 01:05:42] spoke regarding affordable housing and vinyl window replacement. Hayes argued that vinyl windows had been replaced by a tenant and proposed that installing wood-faced inserts would serve as a financially feasible and historically appropriate compromise. He emphasized that this solution would allow the property to maintain affordable housing while preserving the visual character of the neighborhood. Hayes noted that 65% of homes on Oldham Avenue are not original structures, and contended that the proposed solution meets design standards without imposing an extreme financial burden on the property. **Bobby Friesbrook** [timestamp: 01:28:01] addressed security and HVAC protection concerns. Friesbrook explained that masonry walls were constructed to protect HVAC units from theft and vandalism, citing repeated incidents that had occurred despite existing security measures. He emphasized the urgency of protecting both tenants and property, and noted that delays in approval of the protective measures would jeopardize ongoing operations. ## Contested Items **Vinyl Window Replacements at 354 and 358 Oldham Avenue** A heated discussion arose regarding vinyl window replacements at these two properties. The applicant argued that a tenant had replaced the windows with vinyl and proposed wood-faced inserts as a financially feasible and historically appropriate compromise solution. The Board, however, upheld the staff recommendation that vinyl windows are not permitted under the design guidelines. The Board determined that the proposed wood-faced insert solution did not meet the required design standards. This disagreement prompted a lengthy discussion touching on multiple concerns: the affordability of window replacements, the appropriate context for the neighborhood, and the standards necessary for historic preservation. The Board's position prioritized adherence to design guidelines over the applicant's cost-based alternative. **Unapproved Construction at 380 South Mill Street** A procedural dispute emerged regarding work completed at this address without prior approval. The applicant had undertaken construction on masonry walls and a chimney without obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). The Board emphasized the critical importance of following proper procedures before beginning work. Despite the procedural violation, the Board ultimately approved the completed work, but only after imposing conditions on the applicant. These conditions required the submission of final dimensions and construction details to staff for review, ensuring that the work would be documented and verified to meet applicable standards. ## 244 Clay Avenue: Install fence [timestamp: 00:02:07] Staff approved the installation of a fence at 244 Clay Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. The approval was granted without a public hearing. ## 601 East High Street: Remove 4 dying and diseased trees [timestamp: 00:02:07] Staff presented a proposal to remove four dying and diseased trees located at 601 East High Street in the Aylesford Historic District. The item was approved by the body. ## 722 East High Street: Renovate and install landscape plan/paving Staff presented a proposal for the renovation and installation of a landscape plan and paving at 722 East High Street, located in the Aylesford Historic District. [timestamp: 00:02:07] The proposal was approved by staff. ## 404 East Maxwell Street: Tuck-point front porch railing [timestamp: 00:02:07] Staff approved tuck-pointing of the front porch railing at 404 East Maxwell Street, located in the Aylesford Historic District. The tuck-pointing work was presented as a staff approval item and was approved by the body. ## 326 East Maxwell Street: Tuck-point front porch railing [timestamp: 00:02:07] Staff approved tuck-pointing of the front porch railing at 326 East Maxwell Street, located in the Aylesford Historic District. The tuck-pointing work on the front porch railing was presented as a staff approval item and was approved by the meeting body. ## 354 Oldham Avenue: Remove dangerous tree [timestamp: 00:02:07] Staff presented a request for the removal of a dangerous tree located at 354 Oldham Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. The item was approved by staff. **Outcome:** Approved ## 324 Transylvania Park: Install fencing and replace curb [timestamp: 00:02:07] Staff approved the installation of fencing and replacement of the curb at 324 Transylvania Park, located in the Aylesford Historic District. ## 153 West Bell Court: Renovate dormers Staff approved the renovation of dormers at 153 West Bell Court in the Belcourt Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:37]. ## 220 Delmar Avenue: Renovate front porch Staff approved the renovation of the front porch at 220 Delmar Avenue in the Belcourt Historic District. [timestamp: 00:02:37] The project received staff approval as presented. ## 509 Russell Avenue: Replace awnings Staff approved the replacement of awnings at 509 Russell Avenue in the Belcourt Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:37]. The item was presented as a staff approval matter. No specific concerns or debate regarding the awning replacement were documented in the meeting record. **Outcome:** The awning replacement project was approved. ## 601 Russell Avenue: Renovate garage Staff approved the renovation of the garage at 601 Russell Avenue in the Belcourt Historic District. [timestamp: 00:02:37] The item was approved by staff. ## 155 Constitution Street: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 155 Constitution Street in the Constitution Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:37]. The agenda item resulted in approval of the proposed renovation project. ## 158 Constitution Street: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 158 Constitution Street in the Constitution Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:37]. The agenda item resulted in an approval outcome. ## 122 East Third Street: Install landscape plan [timestamp: 00:02:37] Staff approved the installation of a landscape plan at 122 East Third Street in the Aylesford Historic District. ## 126 East Third Street: Install landscape plan, fence, gates and paving [timestamp: 00:02:37] Staff presented and approved the installation of a landscape plan, fence, gates, and paving at 126 East Third Street in the Aylesford Historic District. The proposal was approved by staff. ## 201 North Mill Street: Replace historic marker head; repair of house and carriage house Staff presented a proposal for work at 201 North Mill Street in the Gratz Park Historic District, which included replacement of the historic marker head and repair of both the house and carriage house. [timestamp: 00:03:08] The staff recommended approval of these improvements to the property. The proposal was approved. ## Fayette Park Median: Replace tree Staff presented a proposal for the replacement of a tree in the Fayette Park Median located in the Fayette Park Historic District. [timestamp: 00:03:08] The item was approved by staff. ## 431 West Third Street: Renovate Porte cochere Staff approved the renovation of the porte cochere at 431 West Third Street in the North Side Historic District. [timestamp: 00:03:08] The project received staff approval as presented. ## 251 West Second Street: Install landscape plan [timestamp: 00:03:08] Staff presented and approved the installation of a landscape plan at 251 West Second Street, located in the North Side Historic District. The proposal was approved by staff. ## 411 West Sixth Street: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 411 West Sixth Street in the North Side Historic District [timestamp: 00:03:08]. The proposal was approved by the body. ## 287 South Limestone: Renovate structure [timestamp: 00:03:08] Staff approved the renovation of the structure located at 287 South Limestone in the South Hill Historic District. The item was approved by staff. ## 126 West Maxwell Street: Replace upper story windows [timestamp: 00:03:08] Staff approved the replacement of upper story windows at 126 West Maxwell Street in the South Hill Historic District. ## 333 South Upper Street: Replace front door and install new lighting at front door [timestamp: 00:03:08] Staff presented a proposal to replace the front door and install new lighting at 333 South Upper Street, located in the South Hill Historic District. The item was approved by staff. ## 425 South Upper Street: Rebuild side wall Staff approved the rebuilding of the side wall at 425 South Upper Street in the South Hill Historic District [timestamp: 00:03:08]. The proposal was approved by staff. ## 340 South Mill Street: Install fencing Staff approved the installation of fencing at 340 South Mill Street in the South Hill Historic District. [timestamp: 00:03:08] The proposal was presented as a staff approval item and was approved by the body. ## 216 Clay Avenue: Change opening; install railing [timestamp: 00:04:12] The Board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change openings and install a railing at 216 Clay Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. Brian Smith presented the application to the Board. The proposal involved modifying existing openings on the property and adding a new railing. The Board approved the application, contingent upon the applicant following staff recommendations regarding three specific aspects of the work: - Railing details - Masonry work - Painting of exposed wood The conditional approval ensures that the changes will be executed in a manner consistent with the historic district's standards and the Board's guidelines for appropriate modifications to properties within the district. ## 425 South Upper Street: Remove addition; install openings [timestamp: 00:06:25] The Board considered an application for work at 425 South Upper Street in the South Hill Historic District. The proposed project involves removing a rear addition and installing new openings at the property. Bill Campbell presented the application to the Board. The Board approved the application with conditions. As a condition of approval, the applicant must submit final details for the entry stoop and railings for Board review. Additionally, all exposed wood must be painted. The application was approved by the Board. ## 364 Park Avenue: Demolish garage and retaining wall [timestamp: 00:08:00] The Board considered a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of a garage and retaining wall at 364 Park Avenue. **Outcome** The Board approved the demolition request, subject to conditions. Before proceeding with demolition, the applicant must rework the front lawn and submit a separate certificate of appropriateness application for fencing. ## 431 Jersey Street: Convert existing warehouse to a retail shop [timestamp: 00:10:13] The Board considered a certificate of appropriateness for the conversion of an existing warehouse to a retail shop at 431 Jersey Street. Clive Pohl presented the proposal to the Board. The applicant was present during the discussion. No objections were raised regarding the conversion project. The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness for the warehouse-to-retail conversion. ## 433 Jersey Street: Reduce height and change design of parapet wall [timestamp: 00:12:56] The Board considered a certificate of appropriateness for modifications to the parapet wall at 433 Jersey Street. Clive Pohl presented on this agenda item. The proposal involved reducing the height of the parapet wall and changing its design. The applicant abstained from the vote due to a personal connection to the matter. The Board approved the modification to the parapet wall at 433 Jersey Street. ## 426 South Upper Street: Demolish addition; construct addition and roof deck The Board considered an application for work at 426 South Upper Street involving the demolition of an existing addition, construction of a new addition, and installation of a roof deck. [timestamp: 00:14:47] Justin Thompson presented the application to the Board. The Board approved the application with detailed conditions regarding design, dimensions, and review of final drawings. The approval establishes specific requirements that must be met during the construction process, with provisions for Board review of final design documents before work proceeds. ## 507 North Broadway: Install pergola and guardrails [timestamp: 00:23:31] This agenda item concerned a certificate of appropriateness application for installing a pergola and guardrails at 507 North Broadway. **Outcome** The application was postponed until April 25, 2012. The postponement was necessitated by intertwined issues that required combined review before a decision could be made. ## 358 Oldham Avenue: Replace windows; install inserts [timestamp: 00:25:36] The Board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with vinyl and install wood inserts at 358 Oldham Avenue. Michael Hayes presented on this agenda item. The Board reviewed the proposed window replacement project, which involved installing vinyl windows with wood inserts. After discussion, the Board determined that the proposed work violated the applicable design guidelines. The Board disapproved the application. **Outcome:** Denied ## 354 Oldham Avenue: Replace windows; wrap surrounds; install inserts [timestamp: 00:31:33] The Board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows and wrap surrounds at 354 Oldham Avenue, as well as install inserts. Michael Hayes presented the application. Hayes advocated for a compromise solution, emphasizing affordability concerns and the neighborhood context as factors supporting the proposed work. The Board disapproved the application. The decision reflected the Board's determination that the proposed window replacement and surround wrapping did not meet the standards for approval under the Certificate of Appropriateness review process. ## 380 South Mill Street: Construct masonry walls, and outdoor fireplace; replace windows [timestamp: 01:09:44] The Board considered a certificate of appropriateness application for 380 South Mill Street regarding proposed exterior modifications. **Presentation and Proposal** Bobby Friesbrook presented the application, which included three main components: construction of masonry walls, installation of an outdoor fireplace, and replacement of windows. **Board Decision** The Board approved the construction of masonry walls and the outdoor fireplace with conditions. The applicant was required to submit final dimensions and details for Board review and approval before proceeding with construction. However, the Board disapproved the window replacement portion of the application. Specifically, the proposal to replace 14 one-over-one windows with four-over-four windows was not approved. **Outcome** The application received an outcome of approved with conditions. The masonry walls and outdoor fireplace elements may proceed pending submission and Board approval of final specifications, while the window replacement component was rejected. ## 333 South Upper Street: Install parking lot and lighting [timestamp: 02:00:34] This agenda item concerned a certificate of appropriateness application for installing a parking lot and lighting at 333 South Upper Street. The application was postponed until April 25, 2012, at the applicant's request. ## 275 South Limestone #110: Install signage and barber pole The application for a certificate of appropriateness to install signage and a barber pole at 275 South Limestone #110 was withdrawn by the applicant. No discussion or debate on this item was recorded. ## 262 Delmar Avenue: Construct addition The Board reviewed the conceptual plan for a new addition at 262 Delmar Avenue. This item was presented for informational purposes, and no formal vote was taken on the proposal. ## Review minutes of the March 14, 2012 meeting [timestamp: 02:01:37] The Board reviewed and accepted the minutes from the March 14, 2012 meeting. The minutes were approved without objection. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 216 Clay Avenue to change opening and install railing - **Motion** — passed: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 425 South Upper Street to remove rear addition and install openings - **Motion** — passed: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 364 Park Avenue to demolish garage and retaining wall - **Motion** — passed: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 431 Jersey Street to convert warehouse to retail shop - **Motion** — passed: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 433 Jersey Street to reduce height and change design of parapet wall - **Motion** — passed: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 426 South Upper Street to demolish addition, construct addition, and roof deck with conditions - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone Certificate of Appropriateness for 507 North Broadway until April 25, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Disapprove Certificate of Appropriateness for 358 Oldham Avenue to replace windows and install wood inserts - **Motion** — passed: Disapprove Certificate of Appropriateness for 354 Oldham Avenue to replace windows and install wood inserts - **Motion** — passed: Approve masonry walls and chimney at 380 South Mill Street with conditions; disapprove replacement of 14 one-over-one windows with four-over-four windows - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone Certificate of Appropriateness for 333 South Upper Street until April 25, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Accept minutes of March 14, 2012 meeting - **Motion** — passed: Adjourn meeting --- ## Full transcript Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to the April 11th public hearing of the Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. We apologize for our late start, but we're all here and we're ready to go now. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958, and 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 a 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 the applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Divine 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 the staff can approve, eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 25 approved applications noted on today's agenda. And they are. In the Aylesford Historic District at 244 Clay Avenue, install fence. 601 East High Street, remove four dying and diseased trees. At 722 East High Street, renovate and install landscape, plan paving. at 404 East Maxwell Street, Tuck Point, Front Porch and Railing, 326 East Maxwell Street, Tuck Point, Front Porch and Railing, 354 Oldham Avenue, Remove Dangerous Tree, 324 Chansel Venue Park, Install Fencing and Replace Curve, in the Belcourt Historic District at 153 West Belcourt, Renovate Dormers, 220 Delmar Avenue, Renovate Front Porch, 509 Russell Avenue, Replace Awning, 601 Russell Avenue, Renovate Garage, at Constitution Historic District at 155 Constitution Street, renovate structure, 158 Constitution Street, renovate structure, 122 East 3rd Street, install landscaping plan, and at 126 East 3rd Street, install landscape plan, fence gates, and paving. In the Gratz Park Historic District at 201 North Mill Street, replace Historic Markerhead, repair of house and carriage house. In Fayette Park Historic District, Fayette Park Median replaced tree. In the north side Historic District, 431 West 3rd Street renovate Port of Chair. 251 West 2nd Street install landscape plan. 411 West 6th Street renovate structure. In the South Hill Historic District, 287 South Limestone renovate structure. 126 West Maxwell Street replace upper story windows. at 333 South Upper Street, replace front door and install new lighting at front door, at 425 South Upper Street, rebuild sidewall, and at 340 South Mill Street, install fencing. That was quite a list. And now we shall proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. the first case on the agenda this evening is at 216 clay avenue change opening install railing that's in the aylesford historic district is that applicant here this evening would you please come forward and introduce yourself at the microphone hi i'm brian smith and the owner of 216 clay Very well. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes. And are you in agreement with those findings? Yeah, that's fine. Very well. Are there any comments or questions from the board this evening concerning this case? Again, just to review, this is at 216 Clay Avenue in the Aylsford Historic District, and the application is change openings and install railings. Is there anyone here in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Seeing no action, I would certainly entertain a motion. I'll move in case number 04150216-1216, 216 Clay Avenue, to approve the request for appropriateness contingent on the staff recommendations Recommendations that the final details for the proposed railing be submitted to the staff for review and masonry work be accomplished in accordance with guidelines I.3, K, L, and M, and three, that all exposed wood is to be painted. Thank you very much. Is there a second? I second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next case this evening is at 425 South Upper Street. Application is in South Hill Historic District, and they're asked to install openings and remove rear addition. Is that applicant here this evening? Please come forward and introduce yourself. Excuse me, Bill Campbell, and I'm the contractor. Good to meet you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, sir. Are you in agreement with their recommendations? Very well. Again, this is to install openings and remove rear addition. And make sure we're all on the same page. Recommendations state, staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. Final details of rear entry stoop and railings be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the purchase of any materials for said work. and, two, that all exposed would be painted. Are there any comments or questions from the board for the applicant? Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Seeing no action, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, for case number 19450425-G, 425 South Upper Street, The motion moved to approve application based on two staff recommendations. One, final details of your entry stupid and relating to be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to purchase of any materials for said work. And two, all exposed wood be painted. Second the motion. All right. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, motion passes. Thank you very much. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 364 Park Avenue, applications to demolish garage and retaining wall. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant's not here but has received the board packet. Very well. Thank you. The staff's recommendations on this case are pretty favorable. I don't see any problem with those proceeding. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Seeing no action, are there any comments from the board at this time concerning this case? With that being the case, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 1460364-A, 364 Park Avenue, move to approve application based on two staff recommendations. One, rework front lawn to be either sodded or seeded straw for turf. and two, a certificate of appropriateness application for the fencing of the area at existing garage be submitted to your preservation office before issuant of COA for demolition of garage and retaining wall. Very well. Second the motion. Thank you. Is there any further discussion of this motion at this time? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. All right. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 431 Jersey Street, and we actually have two. Well, yes. We'll start with 431 Jersey Street. Is that applicant here this evening? Come on up. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I have to abstain in this project. I know this guy. Very well. I don't know you. I'm going to keep it that way. Now it's just getting weird. So if we could have your name and address for the record, please. Yes. My name is Clive Pohl. I'm an architect with Paul Rosa Pole at 620 Euclid, and my personal address is 813 Sherwood Drive. Very well. Thank you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening concerning this case? Yes, I have. And are you in agreement with the findings and recommendations? Entirely. Very well. Do we have any questions or comments for the applicant at this time from the board? Or at least between the two of us. Looks like a great project. Good. Good, good, good. Yeah, I'd agree. Obviously, this project came through the conceptual review process, and I think it was a good conversation, and I'm glad that you came back with an application. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case tonight? Seeing no action, do you have anything you'd like to add before we entertain a vote? Only that we did embrace some of the points that were made at the conceptual review, so I was glad to receive that commentary and improve the project. Very good. Thank you very much, and we're glad you were here to participate in it as well. All of that being said, and seeing no action from the crowd, the Chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, case number 10130431-A, 431 Jersey Street. I move to approve application for staff recommendation. Very well, thank you. And I will second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? All those abstaining? That would be me. That's one note, one abstention. The motion does pass. Thank you very much. Thank you. And while you're up here, the next case on the agenda this evening is at 433 Jersey Street to reduce height and change design of the parrot football, and that, of course, the adjacent property. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations on this case? Yes, I have. Are you in agreement with the staff's findings and recommendations? I am entirely, yes. Very well. Any comments or questions from the board at this time concerning this application? None. And just, I think I understand it correctly, but just to make sure we all understand, you are also abstaining from this case. Yeah. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, this is at 433 Jersey Street. Seeing no action. Hearing no further comments, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 10131433-B, 133 Jersey Street. What's that? I said 133. I'm sorry, 433 Jersey Street. I apologize. I move to approve this smittle per the staff recommendation. Very well. I'll second the motion. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? All those abstaining? That's me. Very well. One abstention and two ayes. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 426 South Upper Street. That application is to demolish an addition, construct addition, and a roof deck. Is that applicant here this evening? I'm Justin Thompson, co-owner of 426 South Upper. All right. Good to meet you. Let's see. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes, sir. At this time? And are you in agreement with their recommendations? We are. All right. Well, then, are there any comments or questions from the board at this time? I'm going to go through the recommendations. I'm just going to read through those to make sure we've all read the same thing and are in complete agreement because it is kind of a lengthy list on this case in particular. The staff recommends disapproval. The request is proposed to install stairs to the deck. The staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. 1. Demolition plan and foundation plan be submitted that clarify those areas to remain and or be reworked. 2. The existing south wall of the addition retain its wood windows and clapboard siding. 3. The 7-foot wide addition at the rear of the addition be inset a minimum of 12 inches. 4. The top elevation of the parapet wall of north elevation tuck under the bottom edge of the gutter of historic structure. Five, guard rail of roof deck be installed a minimum of 12 inches behind rather than atop the parapet wall and the railing have a residential scale. Six, windows of the addition, except for a south wall, be of casement design in lieu of fixed. Seven, solutions for stairs to roof deck be accomplished in accordance with the guidelines. Eight, all final drawings in detail come back to the board or staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. And finally, nine, should other LFUCG agencies require changes, those changes are to come back to the start of any work. Those changes are to come back. I'm sorry, that should state those changes are to come back before the start of any work. There you go. Very well. Hi, how are you? I'm good. How are you guys doing? Good to see you. We were just going through the recommendations. Thank you. As issued by staff. I like the recommendations. Well, very well. That is also what the co-owner here, Justin, stated. So, Board, do we have any questions or comments from the applicant at this time concerning this case and those recommendations? We really didn't just start. You haven't missed much. Read. While you guys are thinking about that, I actually have a question for the staff concerning one of their recommendations. I think I know what you mean, but I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Recommendation number three, seven-foot wide addition at rear of the addition be inset a minimum of 12 inches. I couldn't find the part of the addition that would be identified as seven-foot wide addition, or at least it didn't jump out at me readily. But I think. No, it's on the south wall. This corner right here. Where the existing structure stops and the new addition begins. Can you point it out to me, Martin? I talked to your dad about it, too. He's good. He actually would help him because this is all going to stay in the separate part. Oh, that part. Okay. So the step-in would be? Come new sighting. That'll help him tie. Yeah, she was saying that they would want all this to be the original sighting. Thank you very much. And then this to be the new sighting. Yeah. That'll work for me. It is as clear as you stated it in your recommendations, and now I understand and agree. Good. Thank you for helping me out there, staff. I have a question about the relationship of the parapet to the existing eaves at the, I guess it would be the east side, is that right? where the bathroom and laundry room are? Let's see. North. The side opposite the stair. So looking at your elevations, it's the north elevation, I guess. Okay. There we go. Okay. And I think this question may be for the staff, actually. it seems like the is there anything in the staff's recommendations that relate to that condition? It's recommended that the parapet not interrupt the historic cornice. And that is reflected Help me out here, Martin. In four, thank you. The top elevation of the parapet wall. The top elevation of the parapet wall, the north elevation. I got you. Okay. Tuck under the bottom edge of the gutter. Okay. Okay. So then I guess that's up to you to determine how you do that. Step it down or whatever. We'll have to notch that out. Thank you. Okay. And staff was envisioning the solution that they put forward to that coming back to the staff for review. unless the board wishes it to come to them okay i just got it thank you any other comments or questions from the board at this time i think the staff did a pretty thorough job with their recommendations and it does sound like there's room and latitude for you guys to to work together, and maybe we see it again, depending on how this vote goes. We'll see. Anything to add there, Ron? No, none at this time. Very well. Well, that being the case, you guys have anything to add? Do you have any questions, Justin? No. Okay. We're good. And please continue to work with the staff. Yeah, we're excited to do that. It sounds like you've been doing a pretty good job of that so far. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case tonight? Again, we're discussing 426 South Upper Street. Seeing no action, I would certainly entertain a motion. I will move relative to case number 19450426-D at 426 South Upper Street to follow the staff's recommendation for disapproval of the request as proposed to install the stairs to the deck, but to approve the remainder of the application with the following conditions, and one being demolition plan and foundation plan to be submitted that clarify those areas to remain and or to be reworked. Two, the existing south wall of the addition retain its wood windows and clabbered siding. Three, seven-foot wide addition at the rear of the addition be inset a minimum of 12 inches. Four, the top elevation of the parapet wall of north elevation tuck under the bottom edge of the gutter of historic structure. Five, the guardrail of the roof deck be installed a minimum of 12-inch behind rather than atop the parapet wall, and the railing have a residential scale. Six, windows of the addition, except for the south wall, be of casement design in lieu of fixed. Seven, solutions for stair to roof deck be accomplished in accordance with the guidelines. Eight, all final drawings and detail come back to the board or staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. and nine, should other LFUCG agencies require changes, those changes are to come back prior to the start of any work. Very well, thank you. Is there a second to the motion? I second the motion. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes with the recommendations. Thanks, guys. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next item on the agenda, the applicant has made a request to postpone until April 25th at 507 North Broadway. Can I get a motion to that effect, please? Mr. Chair, regarding case number 0250057-1, 507 North Broadway, We move to postpone it until April 25, 2012. And can I get a second to the motion? I second the motion. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Motion to postpone passes. And if the staff could, just so you all will know what's going on with that, what you're going to see on the next meeting is there were a couple of additional items that are intertwined with this topic. that needed to get advertised, their work that's been already done, and it was discovered when we went to do the staff report work for this application. And so you'll see that it will all come together at one time for you is why the postponement, the applicant and property owner who are one and the same is very agreeable to uniting everything toward that. But just so you'll have a little background and not be surprised when you see when it comes forward to you the next meeting that that's why we held off. So we're working towards one application versus two overlapping. Correct. And they have, in a physical sense, things that all make better sense to look at them together at one time. So do we need to restate the motion? I don't think so. No, you're fine with your actions, but I just wanted to have a little info out to you for next time. Thank you very much. The next case on the agenda this evening is in the Aylesford Historic District at 358 Oldham Avenue. Replace windows and install inserts. Is that applicant here this evening? Please come forward and introduce yourself. Give us your name and address. My name is Michael Hayes. I live at 139 North Ashland Avenue. Good evening. I believe 354 and 358, both agenda items involve me. I understand. Let's start with 358 because that's listed first on the docket here, and we'll go from there. Have you had a chance? Yes, I have. Are you in agreement with the recommendations from the staff? Okay. Well, let's hear what the staff has to say about it. This is the property at 358 Oldham Avenue. And just sort of walking around the property. During site inspections, the inspector found that these windows were being taken out in new aluminum or vinyl-clad windows or vinyl windows were being installed. This is the side of the house. There's a total of six windows that were replaced, and these are the sashes that were taken out. The work had stopped, but the windows had already been replaced. Staff talked to the owner, and we met on site to discuss the windows and the situation. and at this time he's making an application to request to retain the vinyl windows but also to install a wood insert over the sash. This is from the inside. And this is the house, and you can see these are the two windows and the four windows along the side. So he's requesting to install a wood frame over the vinyl to be able to retain the vinyl, but to put a wood frame over the vinyl that would go along the stiles and rails and the meeting piece. Just sort of walk you around. There's an addition and some windows. These windows had already been replaced at the time of this addition. that was prior to the historic district. And as you saw, the original sashes are on site. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to approve the already replaced sashes with vinyl sashes is not within the design guidelines nor appropriate for the structure. The design guidelines 124B states windows should be repaired rather than replaced. If the review process determined that window replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should be in kind to match the originals in size material and design. Vinyl and vinyl-clad windows are not allowed. The proposal to install a wood-milled frame over the windows is not within design guidelines. The wood-milled frame will have more or less act like a storm window, and the window itself is still vinyl. Reference the design principles of design principle. Window openings, windows, window details, and size and shape of these elements help establish rhythm, scale, proportion of buildings, and reflect an architectural style and character. Windows should be maintained and repaired to match the original design. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, the installation of new wood windows to match the original design is recommended. Windows of baked enamel or anodized aluminum clad may be considered only if the original windows cannot be repaired. Vinyl clad windows are not allowed. At the time they were removed, staff visited the site to inspect the condition of the existing windows. The window sashes appeared to be fair to good conditions. Staff has discussed with the owner the possibility of reinstallation and reconditioning of the sashes. recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the installation of the vinyl windows and the proposal to place the wood frame over the vinyl windows and the applicant is present thank you very much well mr. Hayes if you'd like to come back and we'll hear more of what you have to say thank you I actually have photographs as well I'm gonna have to and if you want a hard copy of what i'm going to present i've got that or do you care um well you can hand hard copies over there and he can put them up on the projector yeah there's an option and if you have hard copies for us to see too we'll take those well just keep in mind the the whole thing is microphone sensitive so stay near one of those okay that one on the your right comes loose if you feel the need to roam around? I don't think so. Okay. It makes us all less nervous when we know where you are. Roaming with the microphones. Which advantage is that I'm sorry? Okay. Okay. Of course, the purpose of the review, you know that, so I won't go through that. But who I am, of course, I'm Michael Hayes. I live at 139 North Ashland. I've lived there since 1997. Previously, I lived at 354 Oldham Avenue, which is what I want to talk about is actually both together. So if you kind of keep that in mind when you do 354 and 358, because it's really the same issue, if that's okay. Well, no, hold on just a moment. Are we free to hear both cases concurrently? What could be done is, if the board would like to handle it in this way, I would suggest that the staff go ahead and make the presentation for the second property as well. And then, obviously, your considerations and decisions will have to separate back out to the two parcels individually. but I understand the commonalities of talking about them concurrently. So I would suggest, if the board wishes, that the staff make the presentation on the second parcel and then come back to where we are at the moment. If you don't mind, I think that would speed it up, and I think you're just thumbing through your slides here. It looks like that's the way you've set things up, too. So let's go ahead and see the slides and presentation on the second address, and then we'll go back to it. This is the property at 354 Oldham. During the conversation with the 358, it was sort of staff notice, and it was made aware that the owner owns this one, and these windows also had been replaced. These windows had been replaced by his tenant. It was explained during conversation with the applicant. And so there are five windows here. You can see, just sort of walk around the structure a little bit. But in addition to the replacement of the windows, they also wrapped the surrounds with vinyl. And these also have vinyl replacement windows in them. And so there are three on these sides and two on the porch, or two on the porch, three on the front window, and then the two on the porch. Two on the driveway side, two on the porch, sorry. And then the rear addition here has already been replaced. I'm sorry to give you that. And, again, during conversation with the applicant that was disclosed that the windows had already been replaced by the tenant. The guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to approve the already replaced sashes with vinyl, And also, excuse me, with this other proposal, it's the same proposal to install the wood framing over the windows. And the applicant during conversation did say that he would be willing to unwrap the vinyl from the surround to the window. Findings of proposal to approve the already replaced sashes with vinyl sashes is not within the design guidelines, nor appropriate for the structure. The design guidelines 124B, state windows should be repaired rather than replaced, and if the review process determines that the replacement is necessary due to the severe deterioration, the replacement should be in kind to match the originals and size, material, and design. Vinyl and vinyl clad are not allowed. The proposal to install the wood milled frame over the windows is not within design guidelines. The wood milled frame will have a more or less act like a storm, and the window itself will still be vinyl. Reference design principle windows, openings, windows, details, and size and shape of these elements help to establish rhythm, scale, and proportion to the buildings and reflect architectural styles and character. Windows should be maintained and repaired to match the original design. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, the installation of new wood windows to match the original designs is recommended. Windows that baked enamel and ionized aluminum clad may be considered only if original windows cannot be repaired. Vinyl and vinyl clad windows are not allowed. Typically, staff reviews the windows. However, staff is unable to review the windows, most recently because they were already replaced without a COA. The proposal to unwrap the existing surrounds is appropriate within the guidelines. 1-I-114-11F. Architectural details and features should not be covered with aluminum or vinyl or any other artificial siding. Staff recommends disapproval of the installation of vinyl windows and the proposal to replace the wood frame over the vinyl windows, and staff recommends approval unwrapping the window surrounds. And, of course, the applicant is here. Thank you very much. Now I think we're really ready to talk to you. You ready? Again, well, I started before, and I'm Michael A. I'm the owner of both these properties, along with my wife, Peggy. I work in economic and community development. I have for 30 years. I work at a company called Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation in London, which is not quite the same here, but the closest, if you're familiar with community ventures. Oops, excuse me. If you're familiar with community ventures here in Lexington, we do the same thing, but we do it in 22 counties in southeastern Kentucky. I bought the 354 Oldham in 1985 before we were married, and then we bought a house next door in 1993. We lived until 1997 in 354. Then after our second child was born, we moved. We're not really landlords. These are the only two homes we owned. and really the only reason we purchased the first house, 358, there was a guy who was moving and he had a deal to sell it to a person who does a lot of rent to own here in town that's not always keeps the property up. Really just bought it to protect our neighborhood and our property. I am really tied to this neighborhood. This is 354 is the first house I've ever owned. 358, of course, is the second. Where I live now is the third. This is where we got married. Some of my best friends, including the next-door neighbor, at 350 there. This is where my children were born and raised. So I do have very much of an interest in, and I do have sympathy for historic preservation. I understand it. I have a master's in city and regional planning from Ohio State. My internship with Judith Kitchen, Ohio Historical Society. I did the first iced tea project in the state with historic preservation in Stearns, first UDAG, if you can go back that far, before even the oddest building of Victorian Square preservation. Anyway, I do have a sympathy for it, and I try to follow along. 354, there you see, I think it was built in the early 1900s. I've seen a map of 1906 and it's on there but 358's not so I'm thinking they're probably built around the same time because they're pretty close to the same house it was originally I think a three room house with a cooking kitchen I don't know that but right now it has seven rooms in it two bedrooms one bath when we bought it the previous owner advertised it as a three bedroom house I'm not sure it was but it was a duplex at one time. I think the interior you'll see in just seconds in good to excellent condition. It's currently occupied by a young couple that are engaged, about to be married soon. We rent it for $500 a month. And you'll see it's a good deal. And both of them rent it for $500 a month. What I do, of course, is work in community development in really a pretty kind of a distressed area, and I'm a firm believer in affordable housing. I've done that for 30 years, working for nonprofits, and it's just something I believe in. The windows, actually, though, were replaced by the tenant. I won't go into the details other than the fact that she and her father specifically, who was actually the former head of the Planning and Zoning Commission, And at the time, apparently vinyl window replacements were acceptable until a couple years ago. He thought it was fine. They just did. I don't know if that's true, but I have been told that. But he just did it. I've always just said, whatever you want to do, you just do it and deduct it from the rent. After not getting the rent for a couple months, I figured out what was going on. So that's the front of it. There's the rear, which Amanda already showed you. This is all additions. There's nothing here that's original to the house. This is the side view. I think the house, I don't know how to do that. Oh, my gosh. Sorry. Overreacted there, too. Thanks. Well, you can't, the house ended, I don't need the red button, And it just passed that second window, and up to the original is first. As you can see from here, there's nothing on the facade that's original to the house. It's 100% covered in asbestos. Box gutters are covered. There's a – when you look at it, the only thing that may be original, even the posts have been replaced because they were rotted out, I've replaced those. there's a little decorative trim on the front near the post. Nothing else is original to the house. Just a quick run through the interior. This is the living room or the third bedroom. That's just another view of the living room working to the front. Just kind of from a preservation point of view, those doors came from the old Stearns Hotel in McCreary County. So they were the room doors. That's why you see the transom. Just another view of the living room. I guess the third bedroom would be if you just put the door back on. Family room, they just moved in together, and there's a lot of stuff. They're getting married, I think, in September, and so it looks a little cluttered, but that's just looking into the kitchen, and this is looking the other way. There's an additional, the largest bedroom is straight in front of you through that door. I don't have a photo of it. in the kitchen. It's a, you can't see very well, but it's an eat-in kitchen. It's not real large, but it's comfortable and nice. This house is really in pretty good condition. We live there. That's just passed through the middle room. There's a washer-dryer room and just storage and closet. Then I want to point out, when we're talking about windows, three windows along that wall you're looking at were really just metal trailer windows. We went to take them out because the whole wall was just two-by-two studs holding up the whole shed roof that you saw there. The house had zero insulation in it, in the attic or below. No central heat or air. It just had one floor furnace and had five layers of roofing. So we've done quite a bit on this house. Too dark to see, but that's the back bedroom, which is an addition. And that's the interior of one of the windows there. quickly i know kind of going through this but i think 358 which is next door which is the first house on your agenda the first item on your agenda i'm sorry was built around 1910 we bought it in 1993 again there was chilling properties was had an option to buy it and the guy was moving back to toronto he's an architect and he just talked him out of it and we bought it. We never really wanted to be a landowner, a rental, but it had to be. Same thing, it's now two bedrooms, one bath, seven rooms. The vinyl siding that was installed by the previous owner, Tony McClurg, in 1991. There is some original exterior on the front, some scalloped shingles, screen porch, it's a T-11 siding. The house, we redid it when we bought it. It wasn't really very livable. And so it's completely renovated in 94. The interior is in good shape, and we've started some renovations. We really haven't stopped them to see how this turned out. Recently, most recently, it was occupied by a single mother and 12-year-old daughter. They didn't really pay the rent for a year. We let them live there because the alternative was, according to her, she'd be homeless. So finally, when the daughter wasn't there anymore, for whatever reason, we asked the woman to leave. But it went a year without any rent. Property, we would do rent for $500 a month. Again, you'll see this is a quality and affordable house. The window was replaced by me, the owner, kind of based on what I had heard from Nextdoor in 2012. Here's a quick view. You can see it's all vinyl. Except behind that tree, there's some original wood scallops through there. Nothing else is original. You can see it's a cinder block front porch. Already being rebuilt, poured concrete. There's nothing original in this house. Again, there's the backyard. All these pictures are taken the same day. that's a screened-in porch. It's on the back. It's about 10 by 14. It's already insulated, so it could be enclosed if need be. And even that access area to the left of the porch, the left of the green, that's actually an access to the basement. This house has a one-room basement. To my knowledge, it's the only house on Woldham Avenue. With it, it's dry. You can walk around in. It's got a concrete floor. And what that does, it makes a lot more room in the house because all the mechanical and storage can be handled down there. Again, this is looking from the side. You can see it's all vinyl siding, although it still has a box cutter up there. When we did put a new roof off in 2003, we did not cover the box cutter. This, as you'll see, is the living room. It's empty right now, just in the process of renovation. Front bedroom. Excuse me. Yeah. Just to help us focus, let's go ahead and scoot past the interior shots because it's really not in our purview unless you have a point to make about the windows from the interior shots. No, but what I will tell you, though, is it is. This is the second bedroom. This was the third bedroom, porch, which we've opened up, and ended the fourth bedroom. But we keep it as a two-bedroom. And our mission really is affordable housing. Okay. I didn't want to devalue what you're saying, but at the same time we need to, we can't, we won't have anything to say about the interior. Okay. Well, then I do want to go through the neighboring properties. You've seen these two houses have nothing original on the outside. It's asbestos and vinyl. So 354 probably has close to 98% not original, 95% probably on 358. So I started to look around, and I'm going to show you this because I think it's really important, that there's 33 residential properties on Oldham Avenue. 17 of them are sheathed in vinyl or asbestos. Two are brick, but both of them have the trim covered in aluminum. One has hardy board siding. So only 13 are original. So I started thinking, well, that's 61% of the houses really aren't historic in view. And so that's kind of wise. You know, I told them it might be a little different. So I looked around. Park Avenue, 18 out of the 30 are not original, 60%. Next street over, Kentucky, 20 out of 27. 74%. Play Avenue, 9 out of 12, 75% are not original. And Lafayette, 14 out of 23, 61%. So in other words, the 125 residential structures in this little grouping, which I would call the area, 81 or 65% are not original materials. The fabric, historic fabric, is not there. So why is this even a historic district, which I know is not your purview, but the only reason it is, in 1999, when it became historic, there was no neighborhood development overlay available. I came and spoke in favor of the historic district. At the time, I wrote a letter, at least on the file. Not that this was historic, but there was no way to stop the big box development, which you could see on the other side of Euclid, other than that. I'll just give you a fabric of the neighborhood and what I'm trying to do. These pictures are strictly from the front yard of my house. I didn't feel I could go to anyone else. Across the street, 350, I'm sorry, 347 Oldham, asbestos siding, vinyl, grass driveway, 346, biggest house on the street, probably the finest, biggest lot, all vinyl siding, all vinyl windows, two doors down. Directly across the street, triplex aluminum siding, paved front yard. 361, this is Paul Swisher's house. He's put hardy board siding, but it's not original fabric. But I know it's acceptable, and I think the same reason mine will be. 349, across the street, chain-link fence, vinyl siding throughout the front yard, chain-link fence, fencing the front yard. Right next door, original brick. The entire house has been trimmed in aluminum. This is just looking up the adjoining streetscape from 358. You'll see the house next door, which I'm going to show, has been redone in accordance with the historic standards issued by the city. That's an acceptable addition. I'll get to this in just a second. But what I want to say, when I lived here, and before the historic district ordinance was taken, every one of these was a single-family home. And each one that you see, the next four, all had children living in. They're all student housing now. Every single one. So what the goal was to decrease the student housing, it doesn't seem to have worked. Now this is right next door, 360. This is an acceptable addition. and you can see it was done maybe five or six years ago. Do you know when it was done? It was approved. I mean, it was five or six years ago. You can see where the original house was, everything behind. The original house ended at that first window, you see. Those dormers are not original in the house. You can see they're missized, but it's acceptable under the standards. Why? Because that's hard to port sight. You can't really see it, the trash cans in the front yard. It's five bedrooms now. I went from two-bedroom to five-bedroom. No storm, no screen doors, no screens on anything. And there's even a little window you can't even see that's at ground level that's been added. And this is the backyard. This is an acceptable addition under the standards, which is, you know, because you can get as many people as you want as long as you use the right material. Again, no screens, no storms, code violation. You can't get out the back door, trash everywhere. This is right next door. They put a fence around it, but under the standards or the design standards, you're allowed to do this. Five bedrooms, you can't even tell, but it's really two and a half stories. They dug deep. But these are not. These are the houses 354, 358. In fact, five bedrooms are getting close to, I think they are getting $1,500 next door. could care less about it. These, I had nothing to do with the siding on these. It's all gone, but we've worked really hard to maintain the character, the scope, and the size of these houses. So what I would propose to do, this is what I'm getting to, would be proposed to take the vinyl windows that are already there and face them with wood. The wood is going to match the exact material size, design, location, and panes of the original per guideline 1.24C The wood is actually affixed to the window Thus the window is not a vinyl window at this point, it's a wood-faced window As you say, this board has no purvey on the interior All vinyl is on the interior You will not be able to see any vinyl. It's a wood-faced window. The upper case will overlap. The, I'm going to skip it up that way. But the upper case will overlap. It does, this is the exact dimensions, scale, and everything of what came out of there, the wood window. It will actually attach. This is just tacked in. It's made by a cabinet shop down in Manchester, Green Forest Products. As it attaches, it is part of the window, and that's by definition. The appearance, the depth, and everything of the former windows will be maintained. It will be painted white in accordance with everything else that's there. It has the exact same dimension. And it meets the design principles for replacement windows because they become a wood window. It's not a storm. it is part of the window. And it's really the only financially feasible option. You can't really tell, but that's what the view from the sidewalk would be. The only thing I would propose was this needs to, and it's even beveled on the inside trying to create the glaze feel, kind of like hardy board. Hardy board is not a natural material. It's a man-made, it's concrete fiber, unbelievably damaging to the environment to make, but that's not the point. But this, like the Hardy Board, gives the same cosmetic appearance. Hardy Board is acceptable just because it gives the same cosmetic historical appearance. This will do the same. You can look at it there and see it from the street. It looks exactly like the casement windows that came out. This is the side view. Same. You walk up to it. Whoops, let me go back. I don't know how to go. There we go. So that's what I propose to do. And there's a couple reasons I would hope that this board would agree. It accomplishes, really, the mission of the ordinance, which is to maintain the visual and historic integrity. The neighborhood was never historic culturally. It really was probably not historic, as you can see. with 65% of the property not original material. But it does when you're walking by, when anybody's visualizing, we'll have the exact same view as the historic windows. It meets the design standards for replacement windows. It's not a precedent setting because it is actually affixed and attached and it's part of the window. You say what's ever on the inside pervades. It's not yours. From the outside, everything is entirely wood. That's a really kind of, in my mind, a creative solution to a difficult situation. These are good rental properties. These are affordable. This is the mission of the city. We've never ran into students, and because of our neighbors and friends, we never would. We've, in fact, taken them from three bedrooms down to two bedrooms. We've let people stay there that couldn't afford to pay just because of their situation. What the staff is recommending is quite frankly too expensive for us. I've always worked for a nonprofit. Peggy teaches part-time at a kindergarten for Fair County Cooperative School. We don't live big. We don't have the money to do what staff recommends. You know, my car has 494,000 miles on it, and that's the best car we got. The only financially feasible way to do what the staff wants is increase the density. You cannot take out, we've paid $3,500 for this windows. The only reason I got the money, I inherited some money in January from my mother's estate, $4,900. And so we decided to put it in this house. But what the staff wants to do, that would be gone. put more than $5,000, I don't even know how much, into wood windows. The other windows are gone from $354, $358. People are not losing their houses in affordable housing because they can't make the payments. It's because they can't pay the utility bills. I can document that, but I won't. But it does meet the community goal. and my feeling, the staff's recommendation, is to one extreme. Get rid of everything. Unfortunately, that triggers another extreme, which if you've got to pay for this, you've got to increase the density. Turn it into student housing and it will never go back. Nobody wants this. There's no reason for us to get to these two extremes. It would be silly to get to these extremes. So what I'm proposing meets the guidelines for wood replacement windows. Just like hardy board siding, it looks exactly like what was there. Become energy efficient for the tenants. You will not ever be able to tell it's not original windows, wood windows. So I'm asking the board to consider my point of view. I know I screwed up, but I can't go to this extreme at one end, which the government is looking for, without going to the extreme from the other end, to be able to pay for that. And so what I'm asking is to try to come up with a compromise solution. These are high quality. It's made by a good cabinet shop in Manchester, Kentucky. It's all indigenous products, and I'd like you guys to think about that. So that's all I got. Thanks for listening. Thank you very much. Okay. You know, before I open this up to the rest of the board for questions and comments, I just want to say a few things. You know, first of all, my question for you, when you purchased the property, and I see the dates from your presentation between the houses 85 and 93, I understand that the neighborhood was not an H-1 district. It was not. That was developed in 1999. It was R2. Yes, thank you. However, you were aware that it became an H1 district. I did. I came here and spoke in favor of it and wrote a letter in favor of it. Yes, I did. Okay, thank you very much. Even though I didn't live there, I did. Yes. Okay. So there are a great many things you said, many of which I found admirable. And great, and are a part of good neighborhood life, and I appreciate your efforts. Several things you said I don't agree with very much, but the point of this evening's application is simply the windows. We're going to keep it simple. Let's discuss the windows and the material of the windows, which are covered pretty clearly in the guidelines. There's not a lot of room for interpretation. vinyl is not a great long-term building product. I can present some evidence from the year. I was very patient while you spoke. If you'd please let me finish. I'm sorry. You'll have a moment here in just a bit. So that being the case, for that and many other reasons, The final is not favored in the guidelines. Are there, you know, you stated your tenant has made these, in one of the homes, tenant made the repairs. Are there other repairs the tenant makes that are appropriate? Is this something we need to pay closer attention to? Do you as the owner need to pay closer attention to this process? Are you aware of other changes that have been made? Not to the exterior. Not to the exterior. Okay. Well, the big bust, obviously, is that these changes happened before without going through the proper process. It's unfortunate the cost that's been incurred that even if any other solution besides installing vinyl windows was beyond financial scope, we could have discussed it before they were installed and paid for, which is a big bust in the process here is that we didn't start in the right order, which is unfortunate. I think that's all I'm going to say right now. Are there other comments from the board? May I ask one question, please? Sure. I was told, and by staff, that vinyl windows were acceptable up to a couple years ago. Is that true? I would like to clarify that. I was saying that there is now, with the new guidelines, no vinyl accepted. If you had vinyl prior to 2008, then you were able to retain vinyl. But the whole point is replacing the windows without seeing the condition of them. And if that was the case, you could replace them with a window. Nobody said you could replace them with a vinyl window. So my understanding is that up until 2008, existing vinyl windows were grandfathered in as an existing condition. Okay. Yeah, I misunderstood that. Okay, and then it's up to you guys to decide by attaching these, not an insert, but as actual attachment. My contention is that that is part of the window. It is a wood window. Well, it's wood over a vinyl window. It's still vinyl under there. It's still a vinyl window. On the interior. Well, not the interior of the house. The window is part of the envelope. So it does matter what the replacement window, so I know. The entire core has to be wood. I don't think that's what the guidelines say. Yeah, I think so. because the exterior is wood, the core then becomes vinyl. I read it, and it does not say that in standards. I mean, I'm going to lose this. I'll tell you what I read because I think it's pretty clear what it says about vinyl. Oh, I read that. You don't have to repeat that, but I'm just saying a wood-clad window is unacceptable. That's why I'm unclear. Aluminum-clad windows and baked enamel are to be considered. Aluminum-clad windows are applied. They should match historic windows. So it states that wooden-clad windows are appropriate and could be considered. And that is not what you're proposing. What I read is a wooden window with cladding over it of metal. Okay, we disagree, so that's okay. So anyway, at this point, I've just asked the board to consider the application for specific appropriateness on the putting this on there. Very well. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that can speak to this case this evening? Again, this is at 358 and 354 Oldham Avenue. Applications replace windows. Seeing no action. Any other comments, questions from the board at this time? The only thing I would like to add is, Mr. Hayes, I understand there is some financial hardship you have, but unfortunately, if you had read the guidelines before you started the endeavor, I think this probably could have been avoided, especially on 354. So I think it's very stated, very clear in the guidelines what we expect you to do, and obviously vinyl is not accepted. And I guess I'm just feeling that the wood exterior is, but I don't think I've been convincing enough. The guidelines state very clearly there has to be a complete unit that comes from, it's a manufactured process, it's not something that's attached. So, I mean, it's very clear what the guidelines states. Well, okay. I mean, you can try to test that. Yeah, I'm not sure that's what it says, but that's okay. I understand what your point is, for sure. So anyway, by asking you to consider this, we're dealing with an area that's not historic by definition that should really, maybe the new planning will look at it as the neighborhood development overlay since it wasn't available in 1999. We're looking at properties that are 95% to 98% not original material. I'm proposing to put the original material, indigenous material, back. I'm proposing not to take the extreme that's being requested in the report, because that will lead to another extreme, which I don't want to go to. I've gone 20 years not going to this extreme on purpose. So I'm looking for what I think is a creative compromise. and the only way I can pay for this is to go for that. And that's up to you guys. Thank you. Thank you very much. All that being said, as it relates to 358 Oldham Avenue, that's attachment 8 in this evening's agenda, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, as far as case number 14300358-C, 358 Oldham Avenue, I want to recommend the following staff recommendation to disapprove the installation of vinyl windows. Very well, thank you. I will second the motion. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed and those abstaining? It's me. The motion passes. On to 354 Oldham Avenue, Attachment 9. Given all of the discussion that's taken place so far, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, case number 14300348-B, 354 Oldham Avenue. I move to follow the staff recommendation to disapprove the installation of vinyl windows. Thank you very much. I'll second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? That being the case, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And those abstaining? I have to abstain. Thank you very much. The motion passes with staff recommendation. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 380 South Mill Street. That application is construct masonry walls and an outdoor fireplace and replace windows. It's I have to adhere this evening. Please come forward and introduce yourself. Hi. Bobby Friesbrook here for Boca Tide. Good evening. Good to see you again. Thank you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations concerning this? Yes, I have. I have. Are you in agreement with their comments? Sort of, not really. Sort of. Can you identify which of their recommendations you would like to discuss further? The window issue. At this point, I'm not applying to replace windows, but I would like to say that those windows that were put in are not aluminum clad. They are wood windows. But I'm not applying to replace any windows. As long as they're not vinyl, we can have a conversation. And the other part I'm in agreement with on the walls and the fireplace. So let me just make sure I understand you here. The application, as written by the staff, does include a replacement of the windows, and you're withdrawing that part of the application, or that was never your intent? I don't have any plans to replace the windows at this point. I think there's clarification. The windows have already been replaced. Okay. So the comments and application will be addressing the windows that have already been installed. So they are part of this application. Right. It's the windows in the new edition. Right. Those ones that were. But I'm not applying to replace any at this point. You've already replaced them. Right. And you're in violation. Right, but I'm not applying to do anything else. But you have to get a permit for what you've already replaced. Okay, that's fine. Okay, so that's what we're talking about. That's fine. Just to be clear, we're going to be doing a little backtracking in time with the application to cover the windows that have already been replaced, or at least discussed in this evening's application. That's fine. That's your understanding? Of what we're going to do? That's what you're going to do? Yes. That's fine. Okay, good. Very well. Well, that being the case, let's have the staff make their presentation of their findings, and then we'll get you back up here and talk about what you think. Thank you. So would the board like the staff presentation to be just about the windows that have been replaced? It sounds like that's the only point of contention. We may discuss the other part as the board. We can present the whole scenario. It's not a problem. Let's just hear the whole thing. Let's just get going. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. Give them the works, Amelia. So to walk you around the property of 383-72 South Mill Street and Dudley Square, staff first noticed that the walls are being constructed along this driving aisle area. And you can see here, and these are all around his HVAC systems, as you can see here. and if I will there is a site plan that you might want to follow along with that gives you the dimensions and each area that we'll walk along with and I'll scoot to if you look at page 34 that sort of walks through a little bit so this would be the the number three area, which is the north side closest to the South Mill Street side. And you can see the dimensions that were proposed here. And so there were previously the two metal staircases flanking the stairs, and this will be the metal staircase you see will be replaced with a brick wall. And you can see this is sort of as of today. The previous picture was a couple of weeks ago. And you will have fences flanking, or little gates flanking each side because there will be AC units on both sides. It will be masonry walls versus the iron railings flanking the steps. and you can see the wall being erected. She knows there was a staff ask in the stop work orders that this be stopped. They stopped primarily for a little bit, but they're trying to fence in their HVAC units because according to the owner, they were vandalized and wiring was stolen. This will be area number two. Again, you can see that they're all six-foot walls, and this has crusting on top. It is unclear if the other ones will have crusting on top and the iron gate. Of course, there are concrete block walls with cladden brick with ribbon, stone banding. and here's the crusting. I'm talking about the iron crusting. And they're all fencing in the AC units. This is along Max Alley. This will be the location of this one, and this is going to be number four on the list. And this will be fencing in this particular area. The applicant proposes to step a foot in from the corner for this masonry wall to stop. and this will be 12 feet long and wide and 72 feet tall. It is unclear exactly how far it's going to project from the building, so that dimension will need to be submitted if this is approved. I'll sort of walk you through this area. He proposes only to go to where the doorway will lead. You can see this is a basement access, and so it will stop at that particular point. This is the newest addition, so to speak, of the whole Dudley Square. This is sort of a one-story with sort of a basement, so it's raised up above ground. This was built in the 40 era and has a different feel from the Italian 8 portion of the building at the school, and it has one over one windows. The staff noticed this is actually in last fall that the windows were replaced on this structure. during a conversation this time last year, the applicant had talked about wanting to do that, and I said, well, when that happens, we need to talk about this bit more closely. But the work had already been done in the fall without getting a certificate of appropriateness. And there's a total of, I believe, 28 windows in this part, and he's replaced 14 of them. and he replaced the one-over-ones with four-over-four and he did mention that they're wood windows, not aluminum-clad windows. And this is the corridor between the two buildings going down into the basement and then this is along Max Alley and you can sort of see the difference between the replaced ones and the new ones. And then this is along Max Alley. And then walking around the building, And these sort of towards the east part of the building have not been replaced, but from the doors and around the corner they have been replaced. When asked about the replacement of the windows, he has his client who is in this building, the massage cylinder, has massages here, and he wanted to make these windows a bit more airtight by replacing them. and the staff questioned him during our meeting about why he chose the 4 over 4 versus just the 1 over 1 and he wanted to match the Italianate windows on the building. And so this is prior to, you can see the 1 over 1 windows that were during an earlier meeting. This is a couple of years ago. And there's the windows again. And then I'm going to jump back to a walled system, and if we look at the number one, this is where one of the proposals for the new wall system to go. And the existing brick is already there. And then here's also, again, the viewpoint of these windows that were replaced. And then this West Maxwell side has actually been bricked in already. He, according to the conversation real quick, he does not intend to paint this part, the brick, because it goes along with the existing brick. And then one of the requests, too, is to install a chimney. And if you could see, here's, again, the viewpoint of the 1940s addition with the windows. But in the foreground, you could see an existing brick bar. The applicant is requesting to install a new chimney that would be in that vicinity, sort of attached. It will be a total of 12 feet high, and it will come up between the two windows, but not interrupt the windows. and it will come up six feet high with approximately eight to nine feet masonry, and then it will narrow down to three feet for the chimney going up for the last six feet. It will also have the stone banding in it, And I believe that's it. And just sort of some other viewpoints of this area and the structure itself. And this is an earlier picture, a previous picture from a couple years ago and showing the 1940s edition with the one-over-one windows. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposed request, and also I would mention in the application, there's a couple of, you'll see the material included, which include the plans. I guess, Randy, do we have the plans? Can we go to that, please? So this is sort of exactly what you all sort of have, sort of outlining the different areas where the work has been conducted and will be conducted. And then these are the list of the windows, and you can see these windows have been replaced, and these windows have not. And then you can see a diagram of the chimney and what the plans there. The chimney wall also has a coping piece along the six feet, or they put six feet wide. And you can see the rendering of where it will come between those two windows. spacing. You also see some course minutes from staff to the applicant and guidelines are included for your reference. The proposed requests require further discussion because of what the applicant has asked for review was done prior to getting a certificate of appropriateness. Staff finds the proposed and as-built masonry walls and communities to be appropriate for the site and the historic district. Guidelines 3.7a and 3.7b respectfully state site elements should not be visually intrusive or suggest a false history and open space should be developed in scale and use and character for the site and the local historic district. In November 2010, the applicant went before the board for the brick piers flanking the driveway and the board at that time approved the brick piers with the stone banding and so the installation of the stone banding in the walls and chimneys are consistent with that decision that was made. The proposal to replace the existing one-over-one wooden windows with the four-over-four in the 1944 edition is not within the design guidelines nor appropriate for the structure. Staff did not have the opportunity to examine the windows well prior to them being replaced. However, the existing windows seem to be in relatively good condition. Staff would have suggested and still suggest the remaining 14 windows be refurbished, including reglazed, repaired, and repainted with installation new storm windows with either wood as existing or aluminum. The replacement of the windows with the 4x4 windows does not match the profile of the existing windows and totally inappropriate for the style of building. The windows as replaced also suggest a false sense of history. The style of buildings would have never had 4x4 windows because of the era and their size. If windows are replaced, they need to reflect the one-over-one windows that are original to the structure. The LFUCT design guidelines regarding windows are very clear that windows, if deemed to be replaced, need to match and shall closely match appropriate period wood sills and rails and motent profiles in a number of panes. Guidelines 124A, 124B, 124C respectively state windows should be preserved in the original location, size, design, and with the original materials and number of frames. The original framing of the windows should be retained and maintained. Windows should be repaired rather than replaced. If the review process determines that replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should be in kind to match the original's incised material design. The installation of new wood windows to match the original designs is recommended. The installation of baked aluminum or anonized aluminum wood-clad windows not totally of aluminum construction may be considered. If aluminum-clad windows are applied, they should match the historic wood windows as closely as possible in dimensions, profile, depth, and muttons and surrounding trim. Windows, if replacement, are allowed by the review process. They can be wood or baked enamel or anized liminal insulated glass windows, and windows should be consistent to match the appropriate period of window styles, rails, and or mutton profiles. Recommendation staff recommends approval of the walls and chimneys as submitted with the following conditions. the final dimensions of the chimney and the wall in the max alley depth be provided, and any and all final detail and changes be provided to staff. Staff recommends disapproval of the replacement of the 14 1 over 1 wood windows with the 4 over 4 window design. And the applicant is present. Thank you very much. Come on back up and we'll talk to you some about this. before I open it up to the board for comments and questions do you want to just walk us through what's happened so far or do you want us to start with some questions well perhaps questions but on the walls those are to protect the HVAC equipment I have cameras I don't have enough cameras I could put in twice, three times as many cameras. I still would not have enough cameras. I put in parking lot lights. I have security. I have all kinds of things, and I still am not able to maintain my units. And they're stealing the units. They're taking the copper. They're taking the line sets. I put different screws in there so they can't unscrew it, and they seem to be doing the same. I have tenants. Having the tenants allows me to preserve the building. If there were no tenants, there would be no money to preserve the building. And when I have one of my anchor tenants complaining that they cannot conduct their business because it's too cold, there's a drought coming in, when their lease is coming up for renewal, those are all considerations that I have to take into account. so I'm still addressing the walls because if I have windows with drafts and now I have no HVAC units to heat or cool I have twice the amount of problems and when a tenant comes to me and says like a couple weeks ago when it was 90 degrees that they can't work I don't have time to apply, wait for approval, because by that time I probably won't have any tenants. But likewise, if I go ahead and replace the units, and I've tried that before the walls are without walls, they'll just get stolen again. That's happened. And a restaurant has just opened, a new tenant, and a week ago the outside unit to that walk-in cooler was stolen. Fortunately, at that point, they did not have the food in there yet. So for me, the only thing I could do was build the walls. Very well. Well, before I open it up to the board for their comments, I do want to say a few things. I understand what you're saying. And everything you're trying to do in one form or another is fine. You know, the staff has even recommended approval of the walls, so that probably could have happened in staff review. The windows, I think their biggest contention is that you used 4 over 4 instead of 1 over 1. You know, you still could have used wood windows that you did use, just of a different light pattern, and you guys could have worked that out ahead of time. But still, I believe that probably could have happened in staff review. No promises. I can't go back in time and say that's the case or even speak for the staff, but I believe that would have been the case. I understand the intent of what you're trying to do here and the business you're trying to maintain and the tenants you need to please. I understand. And your goals are acceptable. and I've always appreciated your efforts to maintain and improve this property. I mean, we've seen you here a couple times. But we've also seen you here many times when work is underway that did not have a certificate of appropriateness. So I know you know this process, and I know that you know that we'd like to talk to you about it before it happens. I understand what you're saying about timing. You don't have a ton of time. You're trying to hurry up and get things done. But again, staff approval. You know it exists, right? We've done this before. So it's frustrating to me to see you here under these conditions repeatedly, especially when this is a perfectly approvable application except for the windows, and even that could have been worked out before they were installed. So that's aggravating to me because it makes me feel like the work I do here is a bit futile. to be circumvented in this way. So I don't understand how work continued after we have three letters. Three? Three letters from the staff to you about this project. And it seems like it kept marching on. Is that? Which three of that is that we're talking about? The one dated October 18, 2001. The one dated November 30, 2011, I'm sorry. And then the one March 22, 2012. I had that one. This is the same one? Yeah. For the windows. These two, which talk about the windows, I do not recall. That being said, we have not replaced any windows since, and I don't know if it was since then. So I don't know what the second one would have been for. Okay, okay. So all work was stopped after this. Good. This one I did receive, but a lot of the walls were actually done with me not present. Not that I didn't know about them, but I spent a lot of time out of the country. And so when I talk to the brick mason, he says, you know, this is what we're doing, and I give him the approval to do it. I have the police come do the police reports. But I do have this letter. I do have this letter. But at the time that this letter came, those walls were constructed. So there's really nothing else I could do other than not construct the last wall, which is not constructed. Well, that's one thing. So good. However, you agree that you understand this process and that we've gone through this conversation before? Yeah, okay. All that being said, I wonder about the chimney that's proposed. Has that been reviewed by other building code enforcement? Do they have any comments about the height and closeness to the adjacent building? No problems with that? It has been reviewed by building inspection and fire, and they're fine with that. Okay. That was just a red flag that occurred to me, but if it's been reviewed and they're cool, then that's great. That's really all I had to say or ask about. Are there other comments or questions from the board at this time? I would just like to agree with the chair on this. To me, it seems like you're just ignoring the process, which I think, you know, in a sense, like Greg said, you know, makes it feel like it's a little futile up here when people are asked to stop work and come talk to us, especially since it's been six months that that first letter was written. But with that being said, you know, obviously the work you're doing is nice work, but, you know, there is a process that has to go through, and you understand that process. So I would like in the future you come to us before or go to the staff and see if I get that work approved. In response to that, though, I think you've misstated. Because as of October 18th, I did stop the work. That letter was specific to the windows. No work on windows was done since that time. So I did not ignore that letter. But staff would note that you had a conversation with our inspector, Ms. Armstrong, several months before you did any window work about the fact you were thinking about it. And she counseled you about what all might be appropriate and not and so forth and so on and reminded you that you needed permits for that. And so the receipt of the letter saying you had put those windows in in violation was a written statement of the fact that you had gone ahead and done work following a one-on-one conversation that advised you that you had to have permits for that. And it's very frustrating. I would add that there was no action after the letter. Yes, you stopped installing Windows, but you did not make the application to get the Windows approved, the part of the application we're doing now that says, hey, I installed these Windows without an application. I need to see that those are okay and get an application approved. You didn't finish that part. So while I'm glad you stopped work because that's the appropriate thing to do when the letter came, I think the letter also talks about talking to the staff. and at that time I'm pretty sure the staff would have told you, you need to make an application for these windows that are already installed, which is what we're doing tonight. And that was a while ago. So I'm glad you stopped the work, but you didn't do anything else after that to fix the situation, which is also a problem. Perhaps that's the language barrier then, because an application to do something, I understand if I want to construct a wall, I want to do something, I'm going to apply it to do it. So my understanding is that an application is not to approve something that has already been done. So I guess maybe that's, I'm not following. I see what you're saying. The work was done, therefore we should try and get it approved, and I understand that. Well, it is obviously in the reverse order that we would like to do it. You do understand an application should happen before the work. So you understand that much regardless of any misunderstanding and language on what you should do after it's already put in place. The next step would be to let's talk about what I just did because I forgot to tell you about it before I did it. And I don't just leave it at that. Frustrating moment all around staff and the board, I'm sure. any other comments or questions from this well I have a I have a question for staff but you know the bottom line for me is that you have this amazing piece of property and you're clearly interested in the property and doing the right thing for the property but what you're failing to recognize is that at your disposal is a group of people who know more about that and how to do it well than you do. And if you were to act in a wise manner, you would take advantage of that free resource because it's free, and frankly it would have only taken a little bit of your time to consult with them. You said you didn't have time, but the reality is you could have made an appointment and you could have gotten it done very quickly and it would have been fine. So, you know, it's a question of whether you recognize the resources that are at your disposal or not, and I encourage you to try to recognize them in the future. I want to ask the staff, I want to put all that behind us, And I have a question about the language in the guidelines that says that the windows, if deemed to be replaced, need to match and shall closely match appropriate period wood styles, rails, and or munton profiles and number of panes. Now, that doesn't say specifically that the windows have to match the conditions of the windows that are being replaced. It says that they have to match in an appropriate period style, appropriate period, something that could be interpreted as having been of that period. That's the way I read it. And so what I wonder about is, and I'm relatively new on the board, so I don't know what the long-term decision-making has been in this regard, but it would seem to me that in this case the strongest argument against the 4-over-4 pattern in the 1944 edition would be that it seems to make an overt reference to the older portion of the building and could perhaps be interpreted as attempting to pretend that the later addition were part of the original construction, which would be problematic from a preservation standpoint. I would argue that in this case that the proportions of the windows are so different and the architecture of that 1944 element so different from the original that there's no way that anyone with an eye or even there's no way anyone's going to interpret that 1944 edition as being original to the development of the site. And so the question that comes to mind for me is this question about whether you interpret the guidelines to say that it's not enough to be something that's appropriate to the period, but it has to actually closely match the actual windows that are being replaced. Yeah, the latter. I mean, truly, the guidelines' intent, staff's interpretation of the same has been consistent along the way, is that the replacement reflect very closely that which it is replacing. The one caveat being, you know, if the windows had been altered badly in the past, you would not try to copy that scenario. but it is intended to retain the character that has been the existing character of whatever building, in this particular instance, this 1940s building, consistently, and to follow the profiles and such and the rhythm, that being the one-over-ones in this scenario, as has been the character of this building since the time it was built in the 40s. The flip side, I guess, to respond to that is... I guess as you read further on there, that becomes very clear that that's the intent. And the flip side is that by introducing divisions of Muntins that mimic the building adjacent does indeed introduce a false sense of history, which is prohibited by the guidelines. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board at this time? Is there anybody left in the audience to speak to this case? I see no one to add further comment. Do you have anything else to add based on anything we've said? I disagree with that, what was just said. I agree with what was said earlier, that nobody could possibly look at the building and think that I'm trying to mimic something. Sure. The intention is not to mimic. The intention is to improve. You can improve structurally. You can improve cosmetically. Those windows have all been replaced since the 1940s. On top of that, the reason those windows were put in was because they were more affordable at the time. They certainly did not look better. Had those windows been available and the money had been available, they probably would have, maybe not. But there are a lot of ways you can improve without mimicking, and I'm not trying to mimic anything. And you can see that from the walls. If that were the case, I would have put the stone foundation all the way around instead of making two bands. So I completely disagree with that. So do you know what the original 1944 windows were like? Is there evidence of that? No, I do not know what they would look like. So the ones you're replacing had already been replaced? And not only those ones, but the ones in the original part of the building have. and there was a study that was done, I guess, when the building was renovated, and it shows clearly in the old part of the building which windows were, which ones have been replaced and which ones have not been replaced. On this section, I haven't looked that closely. I don't know what they looked like originally. That choice, since the ones without the muttons and the ones with, both do the same thing from a thermal standpoint, that choice was purely based on cosmetics, but it's certainly not intended to mimic. I understand. I understand your point and what you're trying to say there. You know, the guidelines basically point to if you're replacing existing windows, you try to repeat and stick closely to the windows you're replacing. If you're adding new windows or adding an addition with windows, then you try to break away and say this is new and these are old and existing, and you define them that way. And one of the ways is certainly mountain patterns and divided light patterns. I think at the time that this property was put into H1 District, the windows had the one over one character and that was what was identified with that building. And again, to look at the two buildings side by side, you know which is newer and which is older. You know they weren't built at the same time. And it's clear, and not just in the shape and material and everything else of that building besides the windows, but I think when you look at the windows in the newer addition, immediately adjacent and even in the same view as the original structure that does have mountain patterns. And now you start to put windows on there that do have grill patterns that weren't there, at least not recently. To me, that does blur the line across. And I don't think it's to mimic history, but I think it makes too close a tie to history of the historic windows that are adjacent, even though some of those have been replaced, which I understand your point. but they were replaced with like windows. So like for like, if you were to maintain the one over one windows in the visual adjacency to those that have the grill patterns, I think that's one more way that these two buildings separate themselves. And to make them similar, while it's just one element, I think it does start to blur the line, which is what the guidelines try to do. But you can't make the point that in that period they didn't use those windows because we have found out. No, and I wouldn't try to make that point. I agree with you. They made those windows at that time. But today you're trying to replace a one-over-one window with a four-over-four window, and that is not a replacement in kind, which is what I think the guidelines are saying. Yeah, unfortunately, regardless of how we feel about the way it looks, whether we think it mimics or doesn't mimic, whether we think it blurs the line or doesn't blur the line, it makes no difference. The fact is that we as a board have to read the guidelines, and there have to be guidelines, and they have to be applied as universally as possible in order to be fair to everyone. So it doesn't matter how we feel about it. We have to look at the guidelines. The guidelines are very clear about replacing windows with like type. Had you been able to locate some information that indicated that an earlier window, more original to the 1944 edition, was in fact 404 or different from a 101 over 1, I think you might have had a pretty strong argument for going to something that was more appropriate to the original intent of the builders. unfortunately all of this could have been done in a discussion with the staff and and resolved and this this would never we wouldn't be having this discussion and but but i just want to make it clear that we're not in a position to to use our discretion and say well i really like that you know it just doesn't work that way unfortunately or fortunately, actually. Keeps us out of trouble. I don't think anybody here wants your air conditioning units to be stolen or your building to be vandalized or your tenant staffs tolerate drafty windows. I think that's, you know, let's make that clear. We want you to maintain and improve your property, which you've done in the past. We just wish you'd go through the proper procedure and do things in the right order. I think that's a big deal. I hope the next time we see you've got an application before any work's been done, that sort of thing. I was going to ask the staff one quick question about the Pella windows. Are those buttons, how are they attached? I mean, are they actually integrated? Are they full lights? or how are they? They are actually. They're insulated, so the mutton member does go all the way through. All the way through. So he's got a dark spacer bar in there because I understand what you're going towards. Yeah. Does that work? Yeah, that would have been nice. Take that little piece out. Okay. But it's all in there. Yeah. Well, any other comments from the board at the stone? any other comments from you anything else from the staff that being the case I would certainly entertain a motion considering this case I'll move relative to case number 13150380-L at 380 South Mill Street at we authorized approval of the walls and chimney as submitted with the following conditions recommended by the staff that the final dimensions of the chimney and wall at max alley the depth be provided to that any and all final detail or changes be provided to the staff for review and that we also support the staff in their recommendation for disapproval of the replacement of the 14 1 over 1 wood windows with 4 over 4 windows. That's the motion. Very well, thank you. Is there a second to the motion? I second the motion. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? May staff make one clarification suggestion? Yes. And that is to add on the items one and two of the approval per the chimney, given we know the walls are already built with the exception of the one, but that the final dimensions and so forth and the final details are to be provided prior to issuance of the permit and prior to, obviously, commencement of the work. So amend my motion to indicate that details of the walls be provided to staff and approved prior to issuance of the permit to continue with the work on the walls. And the chimney. And the chimney. And the chimney. If I may. Does this apply to the chimney or the walls? Both. Okay, because I would like to be very specific on one record. I'm building that wall. I will build that wall. I will build that wall, and I will build it very soon. Because I just had a detective there the other day. I have replaced the unit twice, and it has been stolen twice. And when it comes to protecting my property, I'm not messing around. I will build that wall. And I hope you're hearing what we've said very clearly. But wait a minute. Because I don't think you have. But wait a minute, because it was just said. We're not asking you not to build the wall. We're simply asking you to speak with the staff about your dimensions. I understand that. But with the fireplace, for example, this has been going on. Amelia, how long have we been talking about the fireplace? The day before it was the deadline for this case. Okay. for it to make this application, so it would be four weeks. And since that time, my brick mason has been down to the city, pulled all the permits, submitted all the designs, all the measurements, and now we're waiting. And now it's said that... Well, now hold on just a second. Don't build something. Get it nearly complete. Get stopped by us, by the staff, and then tell me about how long something takes. If you had done it in the right order, you could have started and finished a million years ago. I haven't started the fireplace. We were talking about the whole package. I don't want to split hairs with you, but if you're going to sit here and give us a hard time about your scheduling convenience and the time lost, I want you to recognize the fact that all of this could have been avoided by you starting in the right order. But your point was that had I come to you originally, it could have all been avoided. But this is exactly what the problem is. Because you can't make, if I came to you today and said, okay, I would like to build this, how long is it going to take? If you came to the staff and said, I would like to build this. Sure. and you told them how big it was, how tall it needed to be, and the details they needed to see to make an educated, well-informed decision, they could have approved it in staff. This project, I believe, could have been approved by staff. Am I correct? But in what time frame? Two things. The staff is not empowered to authorize new construction. Fair enough. So what happens is that when the material is received, You brought in material the day before the deadline. It was advertised within the immediate cycle. And the only thing missing in your chimney information are some dimensions. And all we're requesting is that in the next day or so, you provide those dimensions, at which time you can get a permit. This isn't a long-term wait, but it is a necessity to provide the necessary information. Are we talking about the chimney or the wall? Both. The wall, it's any information that's necessary. You can turn that around in a matter of hours, and then in accordance with the Board's decision tonight, we can issue the permit within a matter of hours. So your anticipation of being delayed by needing to provide the necessary information isn't correct. Which you failed to provide in a timely and correct manner anyways. I will add. I think maybe what you're not understanding is that this will not require that it comes back to the board. This is simply a matter of you communicating. What we're doing, right, the motion is to approve the work that you want to do on the wall in a chimney with one caveat, and that is that you communicate with the staff about the dimensions of the work that you're going to undertake, which means a few hours of your time and their time, and you're done. That's it. And they're authorized to issue a permit because we've already accepted that your work is okay, given that they're okay with your dimensions. And I would be very surprised if you can't work out something that will work for you and for them. There is no detail in this drawing. So does he talk anything about the top of the wall? I mean, what they're asking is you to provide that detail so they have it on record. So it's not, I mean, I don't, I mean. So if I provide that detail tomorrow morning, I can have the mason start when? You can then, the staff will tomorrow, upon receipt of your information, review it. If everything's good to go, we'll issue the permit within probably two or three hours of receiving it and reviewing it. And when you hold the permit, you may start work. But that's been a major disconnect with you with many things on this project over time, is that you don't hold permits, and yet you start work. And it's difficult to work these things out smoothly unless you get the cart before the horse and not behind it. So, excuse me, the cart behind the horse and not before it. Got that backwards. But anyway, my point being, if you will provide the information necessary, the process works very diligently to, as quickly as possible, turn these permits around and get you right with the process and ready to do your work as quickly as it can be. And I think you need to offer that opportunity per being in a historic district as the ordinance demands. So a motion has been made. There has been a second. There has been an amendment. The amendment has been agreed to. Any further discussion of the motion at this time? Done. That being the case, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Final issue on the agenda for this evening. We had previously listed 333 South Upper Street installed parking lot and lighting. That applicant is requested postponing until April 25, 2012. Can I get a motion to that effect, please? Mr. Chair, regarding the certificate of application of appropriateness for 333 South Upper, postpone it until April 25, 2012. Thank you. Second. Thank you also. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Motion passes. That one's been postponed. The next item was withdrawn by the applicant, and the item after that also was withdrawn by the applicant, the conceptual review. The final piece of business on the agenda for this evening is the review of the March 14, 2012 minutes. Has everybody had a chance to look at those prior to the meeting? I have. Yes. Very well. Any comments, questions, changes to pass on to the staff at this time? Hearing none, would accept a motion to accept the minutes? So moved. And a second? Second. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The minutes are accepted. I guess all that's left to do is leave. Can I get a motion to that effect? To adjourn. Second it. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Very well.