Music Good evening. I would like to welcome you to the August 8, 2012 Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park. We now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Bind 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'll have a presentation by the staff, and we'll 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. I also ask that you write your name on the signing sheet by the door so 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 the necessity for all applicants to appear before the Board. There are a total of 11 approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the Aylesford Historic District at 343 East High Street, renovate windows. 331 Linden Walk, repour and replace front stoop, excuse me, hand-replace windows, at 319 Oldham Avenue, Tuck Point Chimney. In the Belcourt Historic District at 164 East Belcourt, repair roof as needed. In the Northside Historic District at 487 West 2nd Street, reclad brickwork. And at 461 West 6th Street, replace, reline box gutters as needed. In the South Hill Historic District at 200 West High Street, remove diseased trees. At 215 South Limestone, renovate windows. At 219 South Limestone, renovate windows. In the western suburbs, Historic District at 716 West Short Street, install small storage shed. In Helm Place, local historic landmark, 2575 Bowman's Mill Road, remove diseased trees. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. Now, the first case on this evening's agenda is in South Hill District at 239 South Limestone, replace signage. Is that applicant here this evening? That's not here, apparently. I'm sorry, 239 South Limestone, you guys are here? Come on down. If you don't mind, please introduce yourselves. I am Aaron Anderkin, and this is Christine Oberst, both from Integrated Sign and Graphic, and we are the applicants on behalf of the landlord iVisionary. And your home address, please. Home address, 1056 Stonecrop Drive, Lexington, 40509. Great. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? We have, yes. And are you in agreement with their recommendations? We respectfully disagree with the recommendations. I can see why. Okay. Is there, I guess, what I'd like to do, if you don't mind, I'd like to kind of shuttle through any of these that we can get through quickly. So I'm going to set your case aside for just a moment. Okay. And we'll come back to yours once we've sounded all the others that can. All right. Thank you. Don't want to have a conversation. Thank you very much. We haven't done that in a while. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 629 East High Street, Change Roofing Material. Is that applicant here this evening? Hi, good evening. I'm Kyle Holscher, and I live at 629 East High Street. Very well. Good to see you this evening. Good to see you again. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? I have. And are you in agreement with the staff's recommendations? I am in agreement with him. Very well. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time for this applicant? Hearing none. Are there any folks here in the audience today to speak to this case? Again, this is 629 East High Street, Ellsworth Historic District. The scope of work is to change roof material. Is anybody here to speak to that? Seeing no motion and hearing no comment from the board. I'm sorry. One quick comment. Sorry. After the fact. I just wanted to say that I think that the documentation that you provided to the staff and the board illustrating the cost issues with trying to reproduce what was there was excellent. And even though the current roof structure is very much, the roof patterning is very much part of the structure, the historic character of the building, this certainly gives us very good information why a change is needed. And I just want to commend you for doing your homework and really supplying us with this information to make an informed decision. Thank you very much. Any other comments concerning this case? Hearing none, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 09290629-C, 129 East High Street, I'd like to make the following motion to approve the staff's recommendation on replacement of the metal roof with dimensional shingles on the following conditions. The roof has open valleys. Number two, the roof retains the metal ridge caps. And number three, final specification sheets come back regarding the dimensional shingles to staff. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with staff recommendations. Thank you very much. Our next case this evening is at 501 West Short Street, renovate church structure and site work. That applicant is here this evening. Good evening. I'm Jeff Pearson with Pearson and Peters Architects here in Lexington, 201 Kentucky Avenue. We're representing St. Paul Catholic Church. Great. Good to see you this evening. Yes, sir. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? We have. Yes, sir. And are you in agreement with those? We are. Very well. Are there any comments from the board at this time concerning this case? I just want to say an excellent project, and your documentation is very well done. So, again, thank you very much for the information. Appreciate it. Thank you. I'd agree that your answer is excellent. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case? Again, this is a 501 West Short Street. Scope of work is to renovate church structure and site work. Seeing no motion in the audience, hearing no further comment from the board, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 1710501-R at 501 West Short Street, St. Paul's Roman Catholic Church, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as it was submitted. Very well. Is there a second to the motion? A second. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well, the motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you all. I appreciate it. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 616 West Short Street, Demolished Deck, and Construct Terrace. Is that applicant here this evening? All sorts of familiar faces here this evening. I'm Lynn Pettigrew. I live at 559 North Broadway. Very well. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, I have. And are you in agreement with those findings? Yes, we are. Very well. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicants? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is 616 West Short Street in the Western Suburbs, Historic District, and the scope of works to demolish deck and construct a terrace. Seeing no motion from the audience, hearing no further comments from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, we're building case number 17170616-I, 616 West Short Street. make a motion to approve the application as submitted with two of the following conditions. One, the final details of terrace surface be submitted to staff. And number two, all exposed wood be painted. Very well, thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Very well. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 171 Woodland Avenue in the Belcourt Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is here, but I will make a note on this project that the side portion of this addition, not the rebuilding, but the side portion is going to be postponed due to some late findings of a different plan that might be coming forward to the next meeting. and so only this section will be postponed and so at this time the applicant is only asking to be here the rebuilding of the addition in the back that's the existing piece right now. Okay, so just to be clear, I'm sorry. I think I understood what you said, but I'd like to make very clear. The only part that's being applied for this evening is to demolish the existing one-story pantry room addition located at the rear northwest corner of the building and then rebuild it back in the same footprint from footer through roof system. That's exactly right. And we are omitting for this evening's case. Actually postponing. Well, yes. For this evening's conversation, we're postponing construct a new one-story 8x12 bathroom addition on the north side of the building. Correct. Can I ask just a quick question, housekeeping question, on the postponement meaning to be on the next docket? Exactly. Okay. And so when you do get to your motions, if you will, include that postponement with its date. You're probably already thinking that. Of course I was. Thank you. Very well. Okay. Well, that's cleared up. I think. Any other questions on the division of what we'll hear tonight and what we're not discussing this evening from the board? Very well. Please introduce yourself and give us your address. My name is Richard Hahn, 171 Woodland Avenue. Good to meet you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations concerning the portion on this evening's application? Yes, I have. Very well. Are you in agreement with staff's recommendations? Yes. Also good. Okay. Well, that being the case, are there any questions or comments from the board at this time for the applicant? Again, concerning item number two of the described work. Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Again, this is 171 Woodland Avenue. Seeing no motion in the audience and hearing no comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 21030171-E at 171 Woodland Avenue, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the three staff conditions. one, door to be of top light bottom panel design, two, all exposed wood to be painted, and three, should other LFUCG agencies require changes, those changes come back to the staff for review prior to the start of any work. And removing the first part of the application, not removing it, postponing it until the August 22nd, I believe, That is the next meeting, whatever the next meeting is. Okay. Would you just go ahead and read? And that portion, the postponed portion, will be the part about constructing a new one-story 8x12 bathroom addition on the north side of the existing building. Very well, thank you. Is there a second to the motion? A second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you very much. Just a quick comment, if I might. This is all so new to me and I knew nothing about how to do it, and I just can't say enough about the value of the help and guidance that I was given by Amelia and what a pleasure it was to work with everyone in the department. It was a little bit of a surprise, and thank you. Well, I certainly appreciate you saying that, and I know they do too. Thanks. Thank you very much. We'll see you next meeting. All right. On to the next case at 317 Clay Avenue, Renovate Structures, Front Porch. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here but has received a copy of the staff report. Actually, the applicant, there is an applicant here. There is? Yes. What's that? I just got the late word that there is a representative for the applicant here. Very well. Good. I'm Farrell Hawk, and I'm doing construction. As I say, I couldn't be here. She asked me to come down to her place. Good. And can you repeat your name, sir, and give us your address? I'm sorry, I didn't hear it. It's a garage in the front porch. I'm sorry. Can we have your name and address, please? My name and address? Yes, please. Ms. Farrell-Hawton, 1976, Fayetteville, Court 4503. Thank you very much. I know you said your name when you started, and I just misunderstood it, so thank you. Have you had a chance to read the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, sir. I read it first. I sure have. And are you in agreement with the recommendations that they've made? Just to make sure that we are all on the same page, those recommendations are that the final set of drawings be submitted to staff showing trim, cornerboard, and around the openings on the elevations and extent of new paving with dimensions on the site plan prior to the issues of COA. Two, that all exposed wood be painted. Three, concrete block foundation all exposed above grade to be either parched or stuccoed. And four, should other LFUCG agencies require changes, those changes are to come back to staff to review prior to the start of any work. And you are in agreement with those very well. Are there any other comments from the board at this time or questions for the applicant? Again, this is 317 Clay Avenue. Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? 317 Clay Avenue, scope of work is to construct. I don't know. Garage inside work. We need a front porch. There's two addresses. There should be a front porch and then there should be... Yeah, the one I think you're reading was the garage. Well, pardon me. Mr. Chair, if you wouldn't mind, since there are the two cases for the one address, obviously, as you're well aware, we have the A and B letters at the end of those case numbers. and we'll want to be sure on these two to be sure those numbers come with your motion so that we all, including the staff, stay on the right path. Well, that's great. So let's just go back in time a little bit. And again, attachment six, which is also for the same address, this one would be change porch support post and railing. You are the same applicant, of course. And the staff recommendations for the front porch work. are as follows. I wish you guys had stopped me sooner. Gee whiz. Number one, final detail of both the column and balustrade be submitted to staff for review prior to the purchase of said material. And number two, that all exposed wood be painted. And we're all in agreement with that. All right. We don't have any other questions or comments from the board, or do we? Which one are we? We're just doing front porch, right? We're doing them in order. Okay. Sorry, that's my fault. Never mind. That dash B. All right. Would you like a motion? Well, one moment. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case? Again, this is change of porch support, post and railings at 317 Clay Avenue. Seeing no motion, hearing no further comment from the board at this time, I would certainly entertain a motion. Regarding case number 04150317B at 317 Clay Avenue, I move to approve the application pursuant to the staff recommendations, number one being final detail of both column and balustrade be submitted to staff for review prior to the purchase of said material, and number two, all exposed wood to be painted. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That one passes. Okay, now, don't go anywhere. Moving on to the next one, which I've already introduced, so I don't think there's any need to discuss that part again. Are you in agreement with the staff's findings and recommendations for the second case at this address? and you are very well. Are there any comments or questions from the board concerning this case, which is to construct a garage and site work at 317 Clay Avenue? I just have one comment. On the elevation at the top of the gable, there's an illustration of a upside-down Victorian-style bracket going wrong. underneath. What reference, where's that? Is that just something that you all liked? Or was there, I mean, is there, I don't exactly see where it's coming from. How long? I'm back, pardon? I mean, why is it there? Is it just decoration? Yes, sir. Okay. I would say that it shouldn't be there. Could you just elaborate on how it doesn't relate to the house, perhaps? Okay, well, it's a foreign element. It's not found anywhere on the main structure, and I doubt that it's found anywhere on any other subsidiary structure on the street. And although it is somewhat stylistically correct to the period, it's a modern interpretation, and I think you're better off simplifying it and just going with the shingled gable and just leaving that out. Is the roof vented behind that? Thank you, pardon? Are there vents behind that for any reason into the garage roof? Typically there wouldn't be, but... I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. Are there vents behind this piece that Mr. Magrish is discussing so those would be exposed if this is removed? Yes, sir. Okay. So it would be just like a triangular vent, a louvered vent. Right. That's okay. Yeah, I don't think that would be terrible to see. Any other comments or questions from the board at this time? Hearing none, do you have any thoughts on Mr. Magrish? recommendation there? Is that acceptable or would you rather leave it there? What are your thoughts on that piece? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. The piece in question that Mr. Magrish brought up, do you have any comments or thoughts on that as far as possible recommendation of that being omitted from this design? Is that acceptable to you or do you have a problem with that? No. No concern of yours? Okay. Well, good. We'll see what comes in the motion. Are there any folks in the audience this evening who speak to this case? Again, this is 317 Clay Avenue, and the application is to construct a new garage. Seeing no motion from the audience, hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 04150317-A at 317 Clay Avenue, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the following conditions. The number one final set of drawings we submitted to staff showing trim, corner board, and around openings on elevations and extent of new paving with dimensions on the site plan prior to the issuance of the COA. All exposed wood be painted. Three concrete block foundation all exposed above grade to be either parged or stuccoed. and number four is what I'm adding to the staff's recommendations that the decorative bracket be omitted from the front gable and then the fifth would be that should any other LFUCG agency require changes those changes come back to the staff for review prior to the start of any work. Very well. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Very well. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion carries with recommendations. Thank you very much. Sorry for the confusion there. Almost derailed the whole meeting. We'll go back to the first case on the agenda where we'll actually have the staff come up and make their presentation, please, at 239 South Limestone in the South Hill Historic District. This is 239 South Limestone. The existing sign is visible. Oops. I think you can see it right here. It's located 10 feet behind the back edge of the public sidewalk. This is the proposed sign. The proposed sign is to be double-sided, have an overall height of 6'3.25". The 3-inch diameter posts are to have fluted 2'1-3.8-inch high bases that are 7 inches in diameter at the ground level and 4.5 inches diameter at their top. The post would be capped with 4-inch diameter finials. The 2-foot-8-inch wide message board is to be in two sections with the top 10 3-quarter-inch high portion indicating a street number and the bottom 3-foot-0 and 1-quarter-inch high portion having the logo name of either three or four tenants. you'll see on the large board, they've shown three, and on the smaller board, they've indicated four. Since detail 01 indicated three logos on the message board and 05 indicates four, it is assumed that the 3'0 1⁄4-inch message board in height does not change for the four logos. However, the height of each logo name panel changes from 10 3⁄4 inches to approximately 8 inches in height. The bottom edge of the message board is located approximately 29 inches above the existing grade. Construction of the post, bases, and message board is to be of aluminum, having a PVC tenant panel for each name change. The proposed sign to be installed in the same location as the existing sign, 10 foot behind the back edge public walk. No illumination of the sign is proposed. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. The proposal will change the design of this property's freestanding sign is found to be appropriate within the guidelines. However, the manner by which it is achieved requires careful consideration. Although the square foot area of the proposed sign's message board is virtually the same as that of the existing hanging sign, and it appears more massive since the area reads as a single board contained within two three-inch diameter posts, as opposed to the existing three individual signs suspended from the arm of the post, which is some six inches removed from the near edge of the signs. guidelines 3.7b and 5.c respectfully state landscape elements and sign elements open space should only be developed in scale use and character with the site and the historic district and signs should be sized and proportioned to the building relate and complement not overwhelm the site building and street and void oversized signs. Staff finds the sign as proposed with the large message board with its bottom ledge located some 29 inches above grade and mounted on post have included base and spherical finials to be out of state-owned character for the site in the street. A more appropriate sign for the site would be one of similar design with the fluted bases and spherical finial submitted and the bottom edge of the message board located no higher than 16 inches above existing grade. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the sign as submitted and staff recommends approval of the sign as described in the last sentence of the findings above. with the condition that should LFUCG agency other required changes, these changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Thank you, Martin. For my clarification, please, the overall height of the sign is appropriate. You don't have any problem with the overall height? Just the distance from the bottom of the sun board to the ground? No, the overall height. The overall height is still. I should have said that would be reduced in height. Okay. It would be reduced when that dimension comes down. Yeah, right. So you're not stretching the signboard length. You're reducing the overall height. The overall height. Until the bottom of the signboard is 16 inches above the ground, 16 inches max. Okay. And the finials and the bases are deleted. Yes, sir. I understood that part. Any other questions for Mr. Jocchio from the board at this time? Thank you very much. You're welcome. All right, if the applicant would like to come back up here and we can discuss the staff's findings and your preference and just see what happens. First of all, I want to thank you all for your consideration. and just to kind of restate, I guess, what we said in the introductions, we do respectfully disagree with the staff recommendation. I want to first briefly offer a little bit of background about the sign and how it came to be. The landlord, I, Visionary, is who we are applying on behalf of. However, what really kind of drove the desiring of a new sign was a new tenant that has moved in there, and that's Trinitas Ventures. And they are currently constructing a student housing development over on Angliana, across from 524 Angliana. And they plan to open that development in the fall of 2013. So what they are utilizing the space at 239 South Limestone for is a sales office. So they wanted to just do a little bit to kind of refresh the sign, make it look a little bit newer, and just they thought refurbishing it might help strengthen their appeal a little bit. iVisionary was very supportive, and they even had their own reasons for desiring a new sign, and I'll get into that in just a second. Where we kind of came in, we are a sign manufacturer. You might have dealt with some of you guys over the years. Right here in Lexington, we perform a lot of large-scale signage projects with just high quantity and volume of signs. We've done the Lex, which is similar to what Trinitas intends to do over on Angliana. We've done Keeneland, some of that stuff that you might be familiar with. We do it all over the United States. And, you know, we were engaged for the larger project, but, you know, our first charge was to develop, fabricate, and install this sales office sign. So we really had a few objectives after talking to them and to the landlord. The first was to kind of strengthen the appeal of the sign. But I want to emphasize that at all times we were trying to work within the parameters placed on us by the local codes. And, you know, as the staff has acknowledged, and I was encouraged by that, we are within the guidelines as they read. The proposed sign is no larger than the existing sign that you see now. It's the same size. We went out and we actually took physical measurements to make sure that we weren't making it any larger. Go ahead. For your knowledge, we do have the original sign. Okay. So we have all the dimensions and everything for reference. Awesome. There's no reason to help us. Absolutely. That's great. Did you receive a copy of this in the staff's findings? I don't think I have a copy of that, no. Would you like my copy? Here. There you go. Again, it's just for your reference. That's not really saying anything wrong or right. All right. Thank you. um you know we uh we also wanted to make the sign more structurally sound as you can imagine and i'm sure you know some of the other landlords probably face this as well you know those the the panels on the existing sign are are there just by hooks and the landlord has mentioned that he's had to replace a couple of panels over the years just due to vandalism and and theft and so we tried to give give it more of a structurally sound look. And then we also did try to keep in mind the sign's environment, where it was going. And it's obviously a matter of opinion in terms of what looks right in the environment. But the reason actually for the decorative bases and the finials were just our design team felt like that that was something that in that environment was appropriate. it. So those were really the three objectives. One other small consideration that the staff's recommendation does somewhat hinder is the landlord asked that they'd be able to mow around the sign. So that's why you see some open space there and why the sign's kind of elevated to 29 inches. Just a small consideration, but it was something that we tried to incorporate into design. That's our perspective. Hopefully that offers some clarity on what we were trying to achieve, and we would appreciate whatever consideration you could give both the landlord, iVisionary, the tenant, Trinitas Ventures. And again, thanks for your time. Thank you very much for your comments. Are there any questions or comments from the board at this time for the applicant? I've got one comment, and I think it deals with guideline 3.7.8, where it says, that suggests a false sense of history. And I really think the basis, even though you even kind of stated it, you felt like it kind of went with the house or was appropriate, we really want this sign to be understood as something added, just like the wood sign. It's very plain. And I think, I mean, I don't have a problem with the height of the sign, but I think if we could get rid of the decorative size, the bases and the finials, I think to me I would be fine with that. But I think that's where I see the issues, the decorativeness of the sign. Thank you. Any other comments? I have a little bit different take on this. I can see that the sign base somewhat replicates what has been installed throughout that entire district, the entire street, in the street lighting, which does totally create a false sense of history because that type of lighting never existed on that street. That's a utility company decision. I understand that was beyond everybody's thing. But anyway, so there is somewhat, let's say, a precedent for it. But my question to you would be, would there, to try to sort of maybe make a compromise here, be the possibility of lowering it to the ground slightly, let's say maybe to even 20 inches, and then reducing the decorative element, not necessarily eliminating it altogether, but reducing it in scale and simplifying it slightly so that you still have something that clearly reads as sort of a base, but it's closer in dimension to the actual structural pole that is holding it up. And then as part of that, probably just omit the round globes at the top. I mean, I really don't have a big problem with them, but I think that probably just would help simplify the overall design. I also think that those are, if they're not firmly welded on, will also disappear. Yeah. They will be firmly welded on. Yeah, but I think that if you just admitted them, maybe even you could even just do a rounded top to the pole rather than having a separate element. Sure. Again, just sort of simplifying the whole thing. But, I mean, all that design could be worked out and then submitted to the staff. I mean, overall, I think that there's such a, at this point, there's such a change of use for that whole stretch through there from residential to commercial. And there is an enormous variety of signage throughout that whole stretch of limestone at this point. and with the addition of these light posts that I mentioned before, I think that you can maybe use that as a precedent, as an idea of where you're going from. But I do think it does need to be lowered slightly, and that base design, whatever it is, maybe just gets simpler and just reduces the scale of it a little bit so it's a little bit more streamlined. I think that's a fair compromise. Graham, do you have anything to add? No, I like what Rob suggested. I think it makes sense and it feels right to me. I'll just add, given the overall height of the previously approved sign is 98 inches total, I don't really have much problem with the height that's proposed. If it came down, as Rob suggested, I think that's a happy compromise and appreciate your hearing that. What occurs to me, and I wonder if the bases that are shown, just food for thought, because I see everything you've said, Rob, and I agree with it, but something to consider. The original sign that was approved only showed three boards hanging, three placards. and then 24 inches clear space from the bottom of that to the ground. But as you can see in the photos, a fourth one has been added, and that clearance to the ground is gone. And what I imagine is if we had... Since then, actually, not to interrupt you, but since then, and I apologize for our photo being a little out of date, it's gone back to three. And so the photo that was shown there at the beginning is actually more recent. It only has three panels now. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't change my point that... Sure. in the picture with exposed posts that are still round in shape all the way down or further down, it allows room for that extra sign to be added in there after the fact that I'd like to avoid. Just something to consider that that base serves that purpose to maybe prevent that. That's not to say some smart person doesn't find a way to attach additional signage to the bottom of the sign without using the post, and then we can argue about that later. But just food for thought. I'm really happy either way, to tell you the truth. I imagine if somebody wanted to, they'd outsmart us either way with adding signage to the bottom of this. Your comments about having a mower go underneath it as shown versus 16 inches off the ground, I think 16 inches is a pretty good distance to get a mower underneath, so I don't see how that's going to hinder you. Other than that, I really don't have anything to add to what Rob's already said. and Ron's comments as well. I would say overall, and I think even the staff's findings said this as well quite plainly, that a new sign is appropriate. So no one's here to prevent you from putting in a new sign altogether. We think that that is probably a good idea and are okay with that. So we're all on the same page. Sure. At least starting off. Yeah. Any other thoughts or comments from the board at this time? Anybody in the audience speak to this case? Any other comments from you? Just one last item, if I may. To us, I really don't think that you're all's recommendations will really just modify what we're trying to do to the extent that it's going to hurt anybody. I think the landlord would be fine with it. I think the tenant that was driving it would be fine with it. We're obviously fine with it. Our biggest concern is, you know, that sales office opened on August 1st, and they would like some type of presence. So, you know, we can get whatever information the staff needs in their hands to be able to expedite it. I know maybe it's a couple weeks away is the next meeting, but we would ask for your consideration to be heard then and for hopefully that compromise to be finalized. Sure. Well, I think we're going to maybe vote on it one way or another here just in a second, so that will be a good quick start. All right. Any comments from the staff at this time concerning this case? No, other than depending, obviously, on the outcome of what you'd like included in the motion, the things that have been discussed certainly are things the staff would be glad to handle if that is the board's wish in terms of finalizing all the details, right of issuance of a permit. We haven't heard anything that I go, whoa, we can't do that. Just put that in your thinking as you're evolving this. Thank you very much for your recommendation. Well, all of that being said. I wanted to ask, what kind of base would you suggest, Rob, when you talk about making the base smaller, What's your thinking behind that? Well, there's lots of different ways that could be done. I mean, just reducing the flare of the base as it comes out, simplifying the fluting, maybe eliminating some of the decorative elements just below in the smartest area. the first sort of protrusion and maybe simplifying the base a little bit, but then just taking it to dissolve. It's more streamlined and tighter into the base. For your reference, he's pointing to the banding above and below the fluting as far as what might be simplified. This area, this fluting, and then at the base, just bringing that in. I think with anything that's a design, you need to have your designers look at that and see what they can do. I can't say precisely that if you just do this, this, and this, it's going to pass. But I think with our comments, you can take that back and come up with some alternatives. I just wanted to find out what you're thinking so I could since I was running to just strip it all off and just make metal poles down to the ground but I see what you're saying so I'd be willing to it sort of falls in the category of taking something that is basically kind of a true period design and reworking it so that it comes out that it's clearly contemporary but then has that reference to the period design and a lot of that is done by just streamlining and maybe changing the scales a little bit. Okay. Another question that hasn't come up to this point yet, and I think I know the answer. I mean, we're going to have concrete underneath this that it anchors down into, and that concrete will be down at grade. We won't see it, like, poke up four inches or anything. It'll be flush with grade. Okay. Good. And then one final thing, if you don't mind. In kind of preparation for tonight's meeting, we had the opportunity to review the findings before, and I know that you've suggested minimizing the base. We did go ahead and generate a design that reflected exactly the staff's recommendations, so it might be worthwhile for you all to review that, and maybe that is what you feel needs to happen. I know you mentioned minimizing the base. this doesn't reflect any decorative bases or finial. So if you all want to look at that. Our first preference was, of course, the sign as submitted. We had that in our back pocket. So while this image is coming up on the screen, is this obviously what you proposed, what we've seen, would be a first option. Our compromise, as discussed up to this point, would be a second option. Do you feel this will be a third option? That is what I would classify as the staff option. That's based upon my interpretation of what they ask to be eliminated. That's what it looks like. I told Amelia before the meeting I don't find it to be an unreasonable request. We obviously prefer the first option, but like I said, our primary preference is to have a sign-up. And this is basically the wrong option. Yes, it would be the wrong option. Actually, I would like it up. I think it up 20 inches would probably be like it would look a little better. There's no sense of false history here, that's for sure. Well, you know, without making a motion, I'm pleased with the compromise discussed, as well as this third option brought by the presenter. The only thing, I mean, if you're looking at time as a constraint, this may be just the way to go. This could be could it be voted on this evening? Okay. Yes. So you've got A and B. Forget the C at the moment. There might be some compromise with the dimension at the base or something like that. But if you're looking at a time frame and you want to get it approved or not or whatever, but you want an action taken tonight, then this may be just your best bet. It's almost like a motion could be put together that approves option B and states if any simplified basis discussed by the board is desired, then that can be brought back to the staff for review. That's always a possibility. And should it need to come back to us, if agreement can't be made, then that can also be a possibility too. Yes, absolutely. Interesting. Well, just quickly in terms of it is a little unusual to have something sort of walk on in the midst of things. However, it's fully advertised and all that, so you're in no problem as far as process. I'm hoping attorney is agreeing. That's accurate. Just poke me in the back if that's not the case. But staff's quick review of this would that this would be consistent with the guidelines. and I think staff would be in a position to recommend approval of this as submitted unless I'm missing something quickly. Anyway, just for what it's worth. Thank you very much. All of that being said, are there any other comments or questions from the board for the applicant at this time? Is there anyone else in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, this is at 239 South Limestone. The application is replaced by the sign. Seeing no motion and hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. If anybody would care to make one. I will take a stab. In reference to case number 11670239-0, 239 South Limestone, a move that we approve an application for certificate of appropriateness for a version of the sign initially proposed that was submitted as an alternate that shows a reduced decorative quality to the posts and a slightly reduced size with the understanding that the applicant may wish to introduce an alternative detailing at the base of the posts and with the understanding that any changes that the applicants submit be submitted to the staff and that the staff is authorized to review and approve the details of the applicant's proposals in that regard. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Any further discussion of the motion? If before you vote, I can make a suggestion. In light of the alternative design, if you'd be willing to call this an exhibit of some variety that we could add to the record, that might help with clarification. I guess this would be Exhibit B. It's a drawing with page number A.1, and it's dated 7-9-2012. It doesn't seem to have a revision date in the architectural identity box. So if you're okay just calling it Exhibit B, we will at this end also label Exhibit B. And that is accepted. Very well. Any other discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes with the recommendations as stated. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Sorry to put you through such exhausting conversation on the first two options to essentially fold at the end. Right back. Okay. Our next item of business this evening is for a conceptual review. And I have three conceptual reviews to discuss this evening. The first one is at 124 Barbary Lane.