# Board of Architectural Review - September 12, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 12, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2689 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2689?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-09-12 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 36,123 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 September 12, 2012, to review 50 agenda items. The board took 15 motions and votes during the meeting and heard 4 public comments. Of the 50 items reviewed, 44 were approved, 2 were denied, 1 was postponed, and 1 was withdrawn. The approved projects included a wide range of architectural and property modifications across numerous addresses, such as chimney repairs and rebuilds, roof replacements, fence installations, window repairs, structure renovations, and various other property improvements. Two applications were denied: a proposal to paint masonry at 150 Forest Avenue and a proposal to install a gazebo at 372 South Mill Street. The board postponed consideration of a proposal to install an operable metal gate and wood fencing at 432 North Broadway. One application for fence, gate, and arbor installation at 838 West Maxwell Street was withdrawn. The board also approved the minutes from the August 13th Ashland Park Historic District (H-1) Designation BOAR meeting. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on September 12, 2012: * Graham * Ron * Betty * Lee Thomas * Richard Rau * Richard Hahn * David Lafferty * Mike Sage * John Scott Durbin * Bobby Friesberg * Bill Tolliver * Darren Taylor * Connor Larkin * Jeremy Reese * Anton Giovanetto No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Board of Architectural Review conducted voice votes on 15 matters during this meeting. All votes were conducted by voice vote. **Passed Applications:** - Window design change at 203 Dantzler Court [00:04:45] — approved with condition that existing brick mold be retained at the opening. - Door and window openings and foundation wall refacing at 317 Clay Avenue [00:07:18] — approved with conditions including submission of veneering stone samples to staff, revised drawings of front and side elevations, painted exposed wood, and disapproval of antique leaded glass transom and window at rear. - Paved parking area at 146 East 3rd Street [00:09:32] — approved as submitted. - Elevation restoration and walkway installation at 341 Madison Place [00:11:43] — approved with conditions requiring final window, door, and stucco details submitted to staff or BOAR. - Stairs, landing, and deck replacement at 160 and 162 Woodland Avenue [00:14:52] — approved with conditions for painted or stained exposed wood and final railing and skirting details. - Addition construction at 171 Woodland Avenue [00:17:30] — approved with conditions for painted exposed wood and submission of any required changes from other LFUCG agencies to staff. - Patio, pergola, and sidewalk material change at 317 Arcadia Park [00:18:40] — approved as submitted with no conditions. - Opening changes and previously approved plan modifications at 431 Jersey Street [00:22:17] — approved with one abstention, with conditions for final window, stucco, and mechanical system details, and staff recommendation to postpone north wall plan review until September 26th. - Metal railings at 507 North Broadway [00:33:12] — approved with conditions regarding 42-inch height requirement for front porch railing and anchorage details for roof deck railing. - Site work and landscaping at 343 South Upper Street [00:44:30] — approved with conditions for permeable pavement in parking area and final grading plan submission. - Minutes from August 13th Ashland Park Historic District Designation BOAR meeting [00:33:31] — accepted. **Failed Applications:** - Masonry painting at 150 Forest Avenue [00:12:50] — disapproved as submitted. - Gazebo installation at 372 South Mill Street [00:43:23] — disapproved as submitted. **Postponed Applications:** - Operable metal gate and wood fencing at 432 North Broadway [00:48:11] — postponed with wood fence approved pending final details and gate approval contingent on acceptable infill material; chain link gate disapproved. **Adjournment** [00:33:31] — meeting adjourned. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the board during the public comment period. **Bill Tolliver** [timestamp: 01:37:49] spoke regarding painting masonry at 150 Forest Avenue. He presented a detailed case for using a lime-based coating to preserve the historic masonry, characterizing the work as a conservation effort. He argued that alternative approaches involving cleaning and repointing would be too costly and damaging to the structure. **Bobby Friesberg** [timestamp: 02:22:36] expressed frustration about a gazebo proposal at 372 South Mill Street that had been denied. He criticized the board for not allowing flexibility, despite the gazebo being a temporary structure. Friesberg argued that the guidelines were being applied too rigidly and stated that the board was not listening to applicants. **Lee Thomas** [timestamp: 02:40:42] spoke on behalf of the South Hill Neighborhood Association regarding the same property at 372 South Mill Street. Thomas stated that the association supported the renovation and upgrades to the property provided that proper legal channels were followed. He expressed no objection to the gazebo itself. **Richard Rau** [timestamp: 03:20:00] addressed landscape design and grading at 343 South Upper Street. He argued that the project was a necessary response to changes in the neighborhood, including new construction that had altered the grade. Rau emphasized the importance of water management and garden design in situ, and stated that the design was not intended to be a permanent, pre-planned project but rather a living one. ## Contested Items Four items generated significant disagreement during the meeting: **Gazebo at 372 South Mill Street** The applicant expressed frustration over the denial of a gazebo proposal, emphasizing that the structure was temporary in nature. The applicant criticized the board for applying guidelines too rigidly and failing to allow flexibility in their decision-making process. **Painting Masonry at 150 Forest Avenue** A dispute arose regarding a proposal to paint masonry at this address. The applicant argued that painting the masonry was necessary as a conservation effort. Staff countered that the guidelines explicitly prohibited painting non-painted masonry, creating a conflict between the applicant's conservation goals and the established regulatory framework. **Operable Metal Gate and Wood Fencing at 432 North Broadway** The applicant and staff disagreed over the use of chain-link fencing for this application. The applicant raised practical concerns about cost and accessibility, arguing these factors justified the proposed material choice. Staff recommended alternative materials instead, indicating they viewed chain-link fencing as inconsistent with applicable standards. **Site Work and Landscaping at 343 South Upper Street** The applicant defended a proposed construction and landscaping project as a necessary response to changes occurring in the neighborhood. Staff raised multiple concerns about the proposal, including visual dominance of the proposed elements, potential damage to tree roots, and the obscuration of building foundations. This represented a fundamental disagreement about the project's compatibility with the surrounding area. ## 317 Clay Avenue: Rebuild chimney [timestamp: 00:01:33] Staff approved the request to rebuild the chimney at 317 Clay Avenue, located in the Aylesford Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 403 East High Street: Renovate front porch Staff approved the renovation of the front porch at 403 East High Street in the Aylesford Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. [timestamp: 00:01:33] ## 348 East High Street: Replace roof [timestamp: 00:01:33] Staff approved the replacement of the roof at 348 East High Street, located in the Aylesford Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 538 East High Street: Replace concrete stairs and landing [timestamp: 00:01:33] Staff approved the replacement of concrete stairs and landing at 538 East High Street in the Aylesford Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 538 East High Street: Install side yard fence [timestamp: 00:01:33] Staff approved the installation of a side yard fence at 538 East High Street, located in the Aylesford Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 417 East Maxwell Street: Repair windows Staff approved the repair of windows at 417 East Maxwell Street in the Aylesford Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. [timestamp: 00:01:33] ## 147 Kentucky Avenue: Rebuild/tuckpoint chimneys Staff approved the rebuilding and tuckpointing of chimneys at 147 Kentucky Avenue, located in the Aylesford Historic District. [timestamp: 00:01:33] The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 147 Woodland Avenue: Repair/replace decks and fencing [timestamp: 00:01:33] Staff presented a proposal for the repair and replacement of decks and fencing at 147 Woodland Avenue, located in the Aylesford Historic District. The item was approved by staff without a hearing. No transcript details regarding specific discussion points, concerns raised, or individual speakers are available for this agenda item. **Outcome:** Approved ## 154 East Bell Court: Re-flashing chimney [timestamp: 00:02:05] Staff approved the re-flashing of the chimney at 154 East Bell Court, located in the Belcourt Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 611 East Main Street: Install chimney caps and fence; remove dying tree Staff approved a proposal for work at 611 East Main Street in the Belcourt Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:05]. The approved work includes installation of chimney caps and a fence, as well as removal of a dying tree from the property. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** The proposal was approved. ## 621 Sayre Avenue: Replace sidewalk with stepping stones [timestamp: 00:02:05] Staff approved the replacement of the sidewalk with stepping stones at 621 Sayre Avenue in the Seven Parks Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 3017 Old Todds Road: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 3017 Old Todds Road in the Cadentown Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:36]. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 118 Constitution Street: Replace sidewalks/driveway apron [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the replacement of sidewalks and driveway apron at 118 Constitution Street, located in the Constitution Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 609 Elsmere Park: Replace/install fence [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the replacement and installation of a fence at 609 Elsmere Park, located in the Ellsmore Park Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 663 Elsmere Park: Repair chimney Staff approved the repair of the chimney at 663 Elsmere Park in the Ellsmore Park Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. [timestamp: 00:02:36] ## 414 Fayette Park: Repoint masonry wall and porch Staff approved the repointing of the masonry wall and porch at 414 Fayette Park in the Fayette Park Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:36]. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 353 North Limestone: Replace deteriorated window [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the replacement of a deteriorated window at 353 North Limestone in the Mulberry Hill Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 218 North Broadway: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 218 North Broadway in the North Side Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:36]. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 506 North Broadway: Install fence [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the installation of a fence at 506 North Broadway in the North Side Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 119 Barberry Lane: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 119 Barberry Lane located in the 7 Parks Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. [timestamp: 00:02:36] ## 426 South Broadway: Replace door Staff approved the replacement of a door at 426 South Broadway in the South Hill Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:36]. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 120 West High Street: Rebuild stone walls Staff approved the rebuilding of stone walls at 120 West High Street in the South Hill Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. [timestamp: 00:02:36] ## 200 West High Street: Remove tree Staff approved the removal of a tree at 200 West High Street in the South Hill Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. [timestamp: 00:02:36] ## 324 South Mill Street: Install fence and landscaping [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the installation of a fence and landscaping at 324 South Mill Street in the South Hill Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 381 South Mill Street: Remove deteriorated trees [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the removal of deteriorated trees at 381 South Mill Street, located in the South Hill Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 323 South Upper Street: Remove tree [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the removal of a tree at 323 South Upper Street in the South Hill Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 327 South Upper Street: Remove tree [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the removal of a tree at 327 South Upper Street in the South Hill Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 621 West Main Street: Replace door Staff approved the replacement of a door at 621 West Main Street in the Western Suburbs Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. [timestamp: 00:02:36] ## 616 West Short Street: Repave rear parking area; relay brick patio [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the repaving of the rear parking area and relaying of the brick patio at 616 West Short Street in the Western Suburbs Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. ## 852 West High Street: Replace fence [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the replacement of a fence at 852 West High Street in the Woodward Heights Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 331 Madison Place: Install side yard [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the installation of a side yard at 331 Madison Place, located in the Woodward Heights Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 341 Madison Place: Replace roof [timestamp: 00:02:36] Staff approved the replacement of the roof at 341 Madison Place, located in the Woodward Heights Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. **Outcome:** Approved ## 341 Madison Place: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 341 Madison Place in the Woodward Heights Historic District [timestamp: 00:02:36]. The approval was granted without a hearing. The item was approved as a staff decision. ## 320 Merino Street: Repair/replace roof Staff presented a proposal for the repair and replacement of the roof at 320 Merino Street, located in the Woodward Heights Historic District. [timestamp: 00:02:36] The item was approved by staff without a hearing. No concerns or debate were documented during the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome:** The repair and replacement of the roof at 320 Merino Street was approved. ## 352 Merino Street: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 352 Merino Street in the Woodward Heights Historic District. The approval was granted without a hearing. [timestamp: 00:02:36] ## 203 Dantzler Court: Change window design An application to change the window design at 203 Dantzler Court in the Seven Parks Historic District was presented for consideration. [timestamp: 00:04:11] The application was approved with a condition requiring that the existing brick mold be retained at the opening. This condition ensures that certain historic architectural elements of the property are preserved as part of the window design modification. ## 317 Clay Avenue: Change door and window openings; reface foundation wall [timestamp: 00:05:51] The application to change door and window openings and reface the foundation wall at 317 Clay Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District was approved. The approval included several conditions for the applicant to fulfill: - Submission of veneering stone samples - Submission of revised drawings The applicant will need to provide these materials to satisfy the requirements before proceeding with the work. ## 146 East 3rd Street: Install paved parking area [timestamp: 00:08:25] An application to install a paved parking area at 146 East 3rd Street in the Constitution Historic District was presented for consideration. The application was approved as submitted. ## 341 Madison Place: Restore elevations; install walkway An application to restore elevations and install a walkway at 341 Madison Place in the Woodward Heights Historic District was presented for consideration [timestamp: 00:10:05]. The application was approved with conditions. As part of the approval, final details for windows and stucco must be submitted to staff for review before proceeding with the work. ## 160/162 Woodland Avenue: Replace stairs; construct deck [timestamp: 00:13:49] An application to replace stairs and construct a deck at 160/162 Woodland Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District was presented for consideration. The application was approved with conditions. The approval requires: * Painting of exposed wood * Submission of final railing details * Submission of final skirting details ## 171 Woodland Avenue: Construct addition An application to construct an addition at 171 Woodland Avenue in the Elspurt Historic District was presented for consideration [timestamp: 00:15:56]. The application was approved with conditions. The approval requires that exposed wood be painted and that any changes mandated by other agencies be submitted to staff. ## 317 Arcadia Park: Construct patio and pergola; change sidewalk material The application to construct a patio and pergola and change sidewalk material at 317 Arcadia Park in the Seven Parks Historic District was presented for consideration [timestamp: 00:18:03]. The application was approved as submitted with no conditions. ## 431 Jersey Street: Change openings, and change previously approved plan [timestamp: 00:19:40] An application to change openings and modify a previously approved plan at 431 Jersey Street in the South Hill Historic District was presented for consideration. The application was approved with conditions. Final details regarding windows, stucco, and mechanical systems were required to be resolved. Additionally, review of the north wall was postponed to September 26th to allow for further consideration of that specific element. ## 432 North Broadway: Install operable metal gate and wood fencing [timestamp: 00:23:21] An application to install an operable metal gate and wood fencing at 432 North Broadway in the Northside Historic District was presented for consideration. The item was postponed to allow for further discussion and submission of alternative infill materials for the gate. No additional details regarding specific concerns or debate points were documented in the meeting record. **Outcome:** Postponed ## 507 North Broadway: Install metal railing [timestamp: 00:24:59] An application to install metal railings at 507 North Broadway in the Northside Historic District was presented for consideration. The application was approved with conditions. The front porch railing approval was made contingent on the applicant proving that the 42-inch height requirement is necessary. The roof deck railing was approved subject to the submission of anchorage details to staff for review. ## 150 Forest Avenue: Paint masonry An application to paint the masonry at 150 Forest Avenue in the Forest Avenue Historic District was considered at this meeting. [timestamp: 00:26:36] Staff recommended disapproval of the application as submitted. The application was denied. ## 372 South Mill Street: Install gazebo An application to install a gazebo at 372 South Mill Street in the South Hill Historic District was considered as an ordinance matter [timestamp: 00:27:40]. Staff recommended disapproval of the application as submitted. The application was denied. ## 343 South Upper Street: Construct site work and landscaping [timestamp: 00:28:44] An application to construct site work and landscaping at 343 South Upper Street in the South Upper Street Historic District was presented for consideration. The application was approved with the following conditions: * Final grading details must be submitted and approved * Gate details must be finalized * Fence details must be finalized * Berms must be eliminated from the project * The new gravel parking area must be removed The project received approval contingent upon these modifications and the submission of additional specifications for the site work elements. ## 838 West Maxwell Street: Install fence, gate and arbor The application to install a fence, gate, and arbor at 838 West Maxwell Street was withdrawn by the applicant. [timestamp: 00:32:29] ## Review of minutes from August 13th Ashland Park Historic District (H-1) Designation BOAR meeting [timestamp: 00:33:00] The minutes from the August 13th Ashland Park Historic District (H-1) Designation BOAR meeting were reviewed during this agenda item. The minutes were accepted without any changes or modifications requested by the board. **Outcome:** The minutes were approved as presented. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to change window design at 203 Dantzler Court - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to change door and window openings and reface foundation wall at 317 Clay Avenue - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to install paved parking area at 146 East 3rd Street - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to restore elevations and install walkway at 341 Madison Place - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to replace stairs and landing and construct deck at 160 and 162 Woodland Avenue - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to construct addition at 171 Woodland Avenue - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to construct patio and pergola and change sidewalk material at 317 Arcadia Park - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to change openings and previously approved plan at 431 Jersey Street - **Motion** — postponed: Approval of application to install operable metal gate and wood fencing at 432 North Broadway - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to install metal railings at 507 North Broadway - **Motion** — failed: Approval of application to paint masonry at 150 Forest Avenue - **Motion** — failed: Approval of application to install gazebo at 372 South Mill Street - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application to construct site work and landscaping at 343 South Upper Street - **Motion** — passed: Acceptance of minutes from August 13th Ashland Park Historic District (H-1) Designation BOAR meeting - **Motion** — passed: Adjournment of meeting --- ## Full transcript I'd like to welcome you to the September 12th meeting of the Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The Board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park. We now have a total of 14 historic districts. The Board, which is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed in honor agenda. In each case, we will 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. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in 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 application. There are certain items that staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the Board. There are a total of 35 approved applications noted on today's agenda. in the Alesford Historic District 317 Clay Avenue rebuild chimney 403 East High Street renovate front porch 348 East High Street replace roof 538 East High Street replace concrete stairs and landing also 538 East High Street install side yard fence 417 East Maxwell Street repair windows 147 Kentucky Avenue rebuild and tuck point chimneys also at 147 Kentucky I'm sorry, 147 Woodland Avenue, repair, replace decks and fencing. In the Belcourt Historic District at 154 East Belcourt, reflash chimney, 611 East Main Street, install chimney caps and fence and remove dying tree. At 621 Sarah Avenue, replace sidewalks with stepping stones. In Cadentown Historic District at 3017 Old Todd's Road, renovate structure. and Constitution Historic District at 118 Constitution Street, replace sidewalks, driveway apron. In the Ellsmore Park Historic District at 609 Ellsmore Park, replace and install fence. And at 663 Ellsmore Park, repair chimney. In Fayette Park at 414 Fayette Park, repoint masonry wall and porch. And the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 353 North Limestone, replace deteriorated window. In the north side, Historic District, 218 North Broadway, renovate structure. In 506 North Broadway, install fence. In 7 Parks, Historic District, 119 Barbary Lane, renovate structure. In South Hill, Historic District, 426 South Broadway, replace door. At 120 West High Street, rebuild stone walls. At 200 West High Street, remove trees. 324 South Mill Street, install fence and landscaping. 381 South Mill Street, remove deteriorated trees. 323 South Upper Street, remove tree, and at 327 South Upper Street, remove tree. In the Western Suburbs Historic District, at 621 West Main Street, replace door. At 616 West Short Street, repave rear parking area and relay brick patio. And in the Woodward Heights Historic District, 852 West High Street, replace fence. 331 Madison Place, install side yard. 341 Madison Place, replace roof. 341 Madison Place, renovate structure. at 320 Marino Street, repair, replace the roof, and at 352 Marino Street, renovate structure. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 203 Dantzler Court, and that application is to change the window design in the Seven Parks Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present but has received a copy of their staff report and is agreeable with the findings. Thank you very much. Are there any comments or questions from the Board at this time regarding this case? Again, this is 203 Dantzler Court. Is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Seeing no motion and hearing no comment from the Board, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 05220203, 203 Dantzler Court, I make a motion to approve application as submitted with one following comment. The existing brick mold be retained at the opening. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Thank you. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Very well. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 317 Clay Avenue. That's in the Aylesford Historic District, and the application is to change the door and window openings and reface the foundation wall. Is that applicant here this evening? the applicant is not present but has received a copy of the staff report and has read the findings and regarding this and so she's aware of all the situations is aware but no comment one way or the other if they agree with staff findings I suppose they actually she did she talked about the window today and she was she had was okay with that okay well that's that's good I I feel like this is a pretty straightforward case and I actually side readily with the staff and their recommendations on this if the applicant had chosen to argue with us I feel like she would have come and done So are there any other comments or questions this evening from the board? No comments. Is there anybody in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is 317 Clay Avenue. Seeing no motion from the crowd and hearing no further comment from the board at this time, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 04-150317-C and D, 317 Clay Avenue, I make a motion to approve the application as stated in the recommendation. I want to read that just to make sure we're all clear. The staff recommends approval of the proposed remove in toto, the side entry and closing of opening with clapboard, the shifting of the side window of rear addition, and the veneer of the front porch foundation wall with the following conditions. Samples of the proposed veneering stone to be submitted to staff for review and approval. Prior to purchase, no veneering of the concrete steps be permitted. Revised drawing, both front and side elevations, showing this change to be submitted prior to issuing a COA. All exposed wood be painted. And then also, the staff recommends disapproval of the proposal to use antique leaded glass transom and window at rear of a building. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 146 East 3rd Street in the Constitution Historic District. That application is to install a new parking area. Is that African here this evening? Good evening. Darren Taylor, 414 North Limestone Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Thank you very much. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? I have. And are you in agreement with their recommendations? I am. Very good. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? Just to review, the recommendations are the staff's recommended approval of the project I submitted, so that's pretty clear. Is there anybody in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is 146 East 3rd Street. Seeing no motion, hearing no comment or question from the board, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 18790146-C, 146 East 3rd Street, I'll make a motion or recommend approval of the application as submitted. 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. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Moving on. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 341 Madison Place, restore elevations and install walkway. That's in the Woodward Heights Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? Come on down. Good evening. Mike Sage, I'm the contractor. And what's your home address, sir? 438 North Broadway. Very well, thank you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I have. And are you in agreement with your recommendations? I am. Okay, good. Well, just to be clear and make sure we've all read the same thing, staff recommendations are staff recommends approval is submitted with the following conditions, final window and door details be submitted to staff or the BOAR, and that the final stucco details be submitted to staff. Are there any questions or comments from the board at this time for the applicant? The only thing I would say is I love what you're all doing to the house. I think it's going to turn out really nice. Thank you. Hopefully they're watching. The honors. I'd be happy to hear that. Are there any folks in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is 341 Madison Place. Seeing no motion from the audience, are there any more comments from the BOAR? Hearing none, I would certainly entertain a motion. So I move relative to case number 1220341-E at 341 Madison Place to approve the application with the caveats that the final window details be submitted to staff or the BOAR and the final stucco details be submitted to the staff. Very well, thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Second the motion. Any further? The staff has for one clarification. I presume, since you haven't raised anything on that, that it's okay with you as a board for the detail to come to staff unless there's some issue per that recommendation in the report. I'm comfortable with that. It says to staff or board. Yeah, that was, I guess, any time we've done that before, my interpretation was that it would come to you, and if it needed to come to us, it would. Yeah, we normally put in them just to come to staff, and it's always understood that anything can come on to you all if there's an issue. But sometimes we do put in the language so that if the board wishes to choose on a particular scenario, it come to you all. But I would anticipate you would enumerate that. So our plan would be to just handle it at staff unless we cannot come to agreement, if that's okay with you. Presumably this is the intent is to restore. It's a restoration issue, so it's fairly straightforward in terms of. Yeah, I don't foresee any potential glitches. And you have the precedent of the existing window to be looking at. Yes. Thank you. All right. So we're going to make that. with that understanding in mind you i think my my motion okay and your second remains yes any further discussion of the motion at this time hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye all those opposed motion passes thank you Thank you very much. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 160 and 162 Woodland Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. The scope of work is to replace stairs and landing and construct a deck. Is that applicant here this evening? Hello, David Lafferty, 162 Woodland Avenue. Hello, good to see you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I have. And are you in agreement with their recommendations? Looks fine. Very well. Just to be clear, I'm going to run through them real quick. The staff recommends approval of the application as proposed with the following conditions. One, that all exposed wood be painted or stained. Two, the final details of the railings come back to staff. And three, final details of the skirting be submitted to staff. That's all pretty clear. Are there any questions or comments for the applicant at this time from the board? Hearing none, is there anyone from the audience to speak to this case? Again, this is at 160 and 162 Woodland Avenue. Seeing no motion from the audience and hearing no more comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. i move relative to case number 21030160-a at 160 to 162 woodland avenue to approve the application with the following conditions one all exposed wood be painted or stained all final details of the railings come back to the staff and final details of the skirting be submitted to the staff thank you very much is there a second to the motion second motion any further discussion of the motion hearing none all those in favor please say aye aye all those opposed motion passes thank you very much thank you the next case on the the agenda this evening is at 171 woodland avenue in the elspurt historic district the The scope of work is to construct an addition. The applicant's here this evening. Hello again. Hi, how are you? Good, how are you? Pretty well. If we could have your name and address, please. Richard Hahn, 171 Woodland Avenue. Very well, good. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I have. And are you in agreement with the staff's recommendations? We are. Very well. Just to make sure we're all clear, I'm going to run through it real quick. There are recommendations. State additions should be a compatible design in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, material color, and location of window, door, and cornice heights. With that being said, the staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. All exposed wood to be painted, and should other LFUCG agencies require changes, those changes are to come back to staff for review prior to the start of any work. It's all pretty straightforward also. Are there any comments or questions from the board for the applicant at this time? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Again, this is at 171 Woodland Avenue. Seeing no motion, do you have any comments you'd like to make? No, I'm happy we no longer have a door to nowhere on the outside of the house. I'm also happy for that as well. Thank you. Thank you for using the process and going through it, of course. Hearing no further comment, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 21030171-E, 171 Woodland Avenue, I make a motion to approve application as submitted with the following conditions by the staff. One, all exposed wood be painted. And two, should other LFU-CG agencies require changes, those changes are to come back to staff for review prior to start of any work. Very well. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next case this evening is at 317 Arcadia Park in the Seven Parks Historic District. The scope of work is to construct a patio and a pergola and change sidewalk material. Is that applicant here this evening? Here you are. John Scott Durbin, 317 Arcadia Park. Very well. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes. They have recommended approval as submitted with no conditions. Are there any comments from the board for the applicant at this time? Hearing none, are there any folks in the audience interested in speaking to this case at this time? Seeing no motion, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 00510317-C, 317 Arcadia Park, make a motion to approve application as submitted. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor then, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Next case on the end. I'll tell you later. The next case on the agenda at this time is South Hill Historic District at 431 Jersey Street. The scope of works, change openings, and change previously approved plan. Is that applicant here? Yes. The Larkin Group, 1795 Ali Shiba Way, Suite 6106. Very well. And your name, sir? Connor Larkin. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? I have. Are you in agreement with their recommendations? Yes. Oh, great. Just to review those quickly, the staff recommends approval with the following conditions. Final window details be submitted to staff. Final details on stucco treatment also be submitted to staff. Final details on mechanical system location also be submitted to staff. staff has also recommended postponing the review of the plans for the north wall until September 26th BOAR meeting. Yes. So that's all part of the same agreement there. Very well. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? I have to recuse myself from this project. Very well. I have a question. We might be short on voters. Hey there, legal counsel. Having a little conflag about procedure. Well, I was going to say, yes, Graham has accused himself from this project, so there's only two of us. I'm so glad you asked. That's the very thing we were talking about. Would you like to address that, please? If the board member were... If the board member were willing to abstain versus recuse, he's still sitting for quorum purposes, but doesn't have to participate in the proceedings. If he recuses, there's no quorum. Well, I guess I need to abstain then. I'll un-recuse myself. We appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. That will tidy up some bit of this. Okay. Well, very well. That being the case, are there any other comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? No. Are there any folks in the audience this evening who speak to this case? Again, this is 431 Jersey Street. Seeing no action from the crowd, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 10131431-A, 413 Jersey Street, I make a motion to approve application for staff recommendations. There are three final window details to be submitted to staff, two final details on stucco treatment, and three final details on mechanical system location. and also the staff recommends postponing the review of the plans for the north window until september 26th boar meeting 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 note that one has abstained the motion passes thank you very much Thank you. Next case this evening on the agenda is at 432 North Broadway in the Northside Historic District. And that application is to install operable metal gate and wood fencing. Is that applicant here this evening? Not the applicant contractor. I guess I'd be the applicant. Jeremy Reese, 232 Industry Parkway, Nicholasville, Kentucky. Thank you very much. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes. And are you in agreement with staff's findings and recommendations at this time? No. After speaking with the owner, he would strongly like to stick with the original proposal using the chain link with the privacy slats. more or less not only for cost effectiveness and everything else, it's just that's what he had financially set up for him to do. Due to the fact, I guess, that his nature of being handicapped and everything as well, that's why we were doing the cantilever gate and everything with the operators and things of that nature. Make it easier for him to get in and out of his van and everything else of that nature and be secure and stuff. Okay. Well, what I'd like to do, because we do have so many cases on the agenda this evening, is work my way through the rest of the agenda and sound any cases that are quick and come back to this one when we can get into the staff presentation. So we'll go through our list and come back to you. Sounds good. Is that okay? Thank you. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 507 North Broadway, install metal railing. That applicant is here this evening. Can I interrupt for a minute? I'm missing parts of my package, and my agenda does not correspond to the other agendas here. Let me give you mine. I have information here I'd like to share with you all, if I may. I'm very visual. I've got reports and an example of what I'm not doing. Okay. Well, in just a moment, we'll be with you. We're going to straighten out some paperwork here, and we'll be ready to go. I also have questions, so I may need to go back to the back of the line. Okay. So if we could hear the other cases, because I'm going to need some conversation about this. Yeah, that's fine. Well, if you'll hold on just a moment, we'll let you introduce yourself and then walk through that process, too. We're kind of creatures of habit up here. Yes, sir. All right. So the next case on the agenda is 507 North Broadway. My name is Anton Giovanetto. I'm the owner of 507 North Broadway. Very well. And I take it you've had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes, I have. and I need some conversation about this because there's some inaccuracies. Okay. Well, very well. And as you have noticed from the case before yours, what we'll do is sound as many of these as we can and then come back to yours. Okay. If you're agreeable to that, I appreciate it. All right. Thank you very much. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 150 Forest Avenue. that application is to paint the existing masonry. Good evening. Good evening. Bill Tolliver, 150 Forrest Avenue. Good to see you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes, I have. All right. There we go. Pardon me. I'm shuffling through my stack of paper trying to catch up. I believe that the staff has recommended disapproval as submitted. I am sure you're not in agreement with that, as the case may be. And again, like the two cases before you, I'd like to see if we can get through any of those quickly, and then we'll come back to those that need a staff presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you for being agreeable to that. Next application on the agenda is at 372 South Mill Street, install a gazebo. If that applicant is here this evening, come on down. Good evening. How are you? Good, thank you. Good. My name is Bobby Friesberg, and I'm here on behalf of Boca Tide at 372 South Mill Street. Thank you very much. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? And their recommendations for disapproval is submitted. I don't imagine you agree with that. No, not at all. Well, if you don't mind, much like the three cases before you, I'd like to try and sound the next case. And if we can't get it over with quickly, then we'll come back to the top of the list and start with the staff presentations. Okay. Thank you very much for being agreeable to that. And our final case on the agenda this evening is at 343 South Upper Street, to construct site work and landscaping. Hello. Hello. Gentlemen, Richard Rau, 343 South Upper Street. There's going to be some discussion about this. Very well, very well. So I take it you are in disagreement with staff's findings and recommendations at this time. So we'll just bump me then and wait. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Now back to those that are requiring staff presentations. That takes us back to 432 North Broadway. Install operable metal gate and wood fencing. If the staff would please make their presentation, we'll start from there. This is the property at 432 North Broadway. Of course, we saw this case many years ago as it was renovated and had an addition put on the back. This is the situation now. You have fences on either side and then a driveway off the alley on the rear of the structure. And so the proposal would be to install a fence and gate across the rear here. and sort of to walk you down the alley. And then looking north. So it would be replacing this fencing that you see that goes up to the six foot to the four foot with a six foot fence and then the gate as well, sort of a different view. So here's the site. We're looking at that location in the rear of the property against the alley. And you can see the fencing and then the gate will be the side behind the fencing. Here are some details regarding the gate. The gate will be vinyl, six-foot siding gate, well, chain length with vinyl strips, creating privacy between the chain length and the slats. Guidelines are included for your reference. The staff finds the proposal to replace and install a new wood privacy fence so as to secure the rear yard of this property. To be in accordance with the guidelines, guidelines 3.1.D. and 3.7.B. respectively, the fences of wood boards of privacy fence should be located in the rear yards and generally no taller than 6 foot. Most pre-applicated wood fence sections are 8 foot wide and 6 foot high. And landscape elements and site elements, open space should be developed in scale, use, and character of the site. with the site of the local historic district. Reference the proposed vehicular gate with chain-length fence fabric. Staff asked the applicant if gate could have wood planks applied to the fence in lieu of chain-length, and the applicant responded that the gate would need to be a tubular metal or open picket design with openings between the pickets filled with wood, in such a design would permit the cantilever roller assembly to be attached, you can see, to operate. The cost difference would be considerable, and as you can see, $2,300 more. And while the price difference is considerable, the consideration of chain length is not within the guidelines, and staff still suggest that an alternate material could be considered the gate. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the wood fence as submitted with the following conditions. Any final details come back to staff. Staff recommends disapproval of the chain link gate and staff recommends that alternative material be considered in lieu of chain link. And the applicant is present. Thank you very much. If you'd like to come back down and discuss this with us. Real quick, just a question for the staff. Is there any opportunity to use the metal gate structure as proposed with any sort of wood attached to that? I know that's one of the things that the staff talked to the applicant and property owner about is to use a metal frame gate and then clad it in wood. But they don't, I think, at this point are indicating they don't want to go that route. But we've done that, we, the process, in several other situations. Thank you very much. All right. Well, please proceed, sir. I would say, I mean, really, other than the gentleman's financial situation, I'm not really wanting to, you know, being able to spend that much more for some but still needing some that provides security and such. We just didn't really have another option other than the one that we previously stated. We're open to options or opinions on something. But, I mean, really other than what we've said, even if I were to use something to do wood on using a chain link frame still, it really doesn't work out unless you use kind of like an aluminum style fence, which I know is approved all over. And then you would basically have to cut the wood, and that's where the extra expense and everything comes from, is using an aluminum gate opposed to a chain link and then that. Really the biggest thing for him is the main reason he wanted everything was for security issues. Gentleman's handicapped. He has a wheelchair that he gets out of his van and everything with. For him to get out and do the gate and everything else like that is just kind of not really an option. But he still wants to be able to have the ability to pull his van up, be able to open the gate and things of that nature. That's why we went with the chain link frame for financially looking at it as well as trying to give him still what he needs to have for security reasons. Sure. And I think nobody on this board would disagree with the need for any of those points, you know, the security or the ease of operation, certainly if you were in such a state that you needed assistance. However, the point we're having trouble budging on is the chain link material. So I'm not sure where that takes us. We're okay with the fence. We're okay that it operates. And we're okay with the location. It's just more or less style. It's the material. I guess the biggest thing would be, I guess the only other alternative would be to do the more expensive, and then that would be something that I'd have to talk with him before I could really move on or anything with that then. I understand. Other than that, I'd say I've got nothing else really then for it. Well, I understand and appreciate that your authority to disagree or agree with any of these decisions is limited. It almost makes me wonder, you know, pending the other comments from other board members, if there's not an opportunity to postpone this until a later date when it can be discussed further with the owner? Certainly that's something the board could do. And the only question I would have is, would the owner be willing to come down? Yeah, I'd have to work with him with his schedule. He's also in college at well at the current moment, so I'll have to contact him. But it could happen. It could happen, yes. I just need to give him enough heads up that he can plan it out. I understand. Thank you. Don't understand correctly that the proposal is for a wood fence for 22 feet of the width of the property line and then a 12-foot continuous gate on rollers with a chain-link fabric applied to a steel frame? Correct. And does the chain-link gate slide behind the wood fence, in front of the wood fence? What's the orientation? It'll be sliding behind the wood fence. And what's the relationship between the height of the chain link framed fence and the wood fence? It should be both the same height. They'll be six foot, so it'll match up. Going across the top, the only difference would be the material for the actual rolling gate itself, or cantilever gate itself, opposed to the wood, which is the rest of the fence. and the drawing shows part of the gate having no fence fabric and part of it having a fence fabric can you explain that yeah correct the part that doesn't have the fence fabric is actually considered the cantilever part which makes it a cantilever gate it's basically a counterbalance for the other end of the gate. That part is going to always be behind the fence and never exposed. The only area that will be exposed will actually be the 12-foot section of the gate where actually the gate's longer than that due to the extra that's added on for the cantilever part. Does that make sense? And where is the operator located? Operator will be located on the inside of the yard as well. It'll be pretty much right next to or just inside of the opening. If I'm looking at the gate, you would have the opening here. The operator would be on the inside of the fence just a couple feet in. That way it can hook up to the fence and run the chain and everything, drive for it. What kind of wood or I'm just curious, what other materials did you price to get, did you look at on this gate? To do the other option, we looked at using a six-foot-tall aluminum fence. Basically, it would be set up to, you would have your six-foot-tall aluminum frame. It would have four-inch. Every four inches, you would have an aluminum picket that goes in it. And then in between that four-inch airspace, we would have to cut and then mount boards in between each one of those pickets then to consider it a privacy or to try to close it off to provide that privacy. I mean, so that's why it's an extra $194 per foot to do that gate that way. Opposed to a cantilever chain link metal frame gate, opposed to an aluminum gate, there is considerable more expensive for an aluminum opposed to a cantilever gate. I mean, I have a friend of mine who actually used the same kind of gate, but he just used cypress wood slats on it. He used self-tapping metal screws and lined the boards up on the gate. Did he work that out to, the only question I would have with that then is, then how would the cantilever gate roll with the rollers on how the rollers are set up? Because it rolls actually on that chain link frame, which is the reason why we couldn't actually mount boards to that chain link frame. Have alternate woven wire fabrics been considered in lieu of chain link? As in? Well, there's innumerable styles of welded wire fabrics that would provide security and can be obtained in rolls or sheets. But I guess the biggest fact would be for him is it's still giving sight through the fence, and that was his biggest issue. There would be many options. I'm not familiar enough with the pricing to know what the difference would be. If you're talking about the fence, are you talking about pre-made with something in it fabric-wise? I guess I just don't understand exactly what you're referring to. I can think of, like out of the McAllister catalog or the Granger catalog, just your standard sheets with different types and sizes of openings. There's any range of private to very translucent where you can see through it quite well. Are you talking as in like a screen or something is what you're referring to? Well, there are weld-in-law meshes, but there are also punched round openings and a wide variety of types to choose from. Just screen panels, is that where you're... Yeah, I mean, it seems like that would be a viable option that would give an appearance that would be a more acceptable appearance. It's the kind of system that would be easy to apply to a frame like that. It probably would be wired on like the chain link, I would assume, is wired on. Is that right? Well, it's actually been not wired on. It's on the inside of the gate frame to where the chain link mesh would be on the inside of the gate frame, and then it's tied on from there. That way it gives the rollers the ability to roll on the top. You really can't have anything obstructing the rollers to roll on top or bottom of a frame. Well, I was going to say, my friend, what he did, he actually put angles underneath that bar, so it actually allowed the slats to pull out so they're not on the rollers. So he cleared the rollers with an actual angle so he could. So, yeah, there would be some modification to that gate, but it can be done. Yeah. Yeah. I think more or less really what, I mean, not saying that there can't be other things done. I think really that's why the price really had came in the majority of it. Right. And without sitting here to design the whole thing and without your client being here to discuss the options with, I think we've made our point. I think you understand our intention and what our needs are. You need a more viable option. I think so. So that is in better accord with the guidelines. And the staff is here to help you. I think there's an opportunity for you and the owner to get together with the staff, I hope, and discuss the options and maybe find something that keeps us all pretty happy and meets your client's needs as well and also works. We need something that functions properly. So with all that being said and with the owner not being here to help make some of these decisions, you have the opportunity to postpone your case to a later date. postpone is correct and we might need to set an end date at this point they should continue right you've had some substantive discussion on the topic and so I believe we would suggest that you continue the case which is same outcome different word sure that's why I looked at you when I said postpone because I was sure it was the wrong word continue as it were to a later date Do we have a deadline for action, October 15th? It's what's listed on the application that's in front of us for review. That gives you a month. So all that being acceptable, do we need to make a motion to continue? Yes, please. And the next meeting would be the 26th of September. We would need to put a date into the meeting date. Pick an actual date, not a final date. A meeting date. And if your client couldn't come on the 26th and you let us know, obviously, somewhat in advance, the board could at the 26th take action to continue it one more time to the first meeting in October, which is the second Wednesday of the month, which is the 10th. Thank you. So surely between those two options we can work out a time with your client. Quick question. If I were to discuss with him, work out something that works that you all are happy with, but at the same time he's happy with, everybody's happy, do I still need to wait for the board meeting, or is there a way for me to stop down and submit that and then go over that and decide if we need to make further action in it? Well, I would certainly take it down to the staff before then just to get it checked and see how it looks and kind of hedge your bets. but after that I mean it's a change of your application we certainly want to see it at this point now that it's gone this far couldn't could we not could we not approve it contingent upon the applicant reaching an agreement with staff on the infill material for the gate device I I would be open to that. That is an option. And can I get a clarification from staff on, you know where I was going with this discussion of a welded wire fabric. Is that a reasonable concept that a welded wire fabric like a 2x2 or 4x4 galvanized material would be acceptable? Yes, there have been some driveway gates created out of things like that within the district. I would suggest there's a manufacturer, McNichols, M-C-N-I-C-H-O-L-S. I don't know if you're familiar with him, but McNichols has a huge range of that type of material. There's not any more board discussion. and if no one else is here to speak to this case in the audience, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Relative to case number 02500432-K at 432 North Broadway, i would like to move that um the board agree with the staff's recommendation for approval of the wood fence with the following condition that any final details should come back to the staff and And I would like to move that the gate be approved contingent upon the owner coming back to the staff with an infill material for the gate that's acceptable to the staff. Very well. Is there a second to the motion? Actually, can I amend that? Graham? I'd also like to say that the staff disapproved the chain link just to make sure. I accept that. Okay. I'll second the motion then. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next case that we've come back to on the agenda is at 507 North Broadway in the Northside Historic District. If the staff would like to come make their presentation, that would be great. This is 507 North Broadway, and the scope of work is to install metal railings. We heard this case back in April of this year, and at that time the request was to cut the masonry open and install a roof pergola in the guardrails and the conditions of that were the proposed deck flooring over the roof of the two-story addition terminate 10 feet behind the front parapet wall the guardrails be of wrought iron construction in lieu of wood and the pergola above the sun deck extend only over the rear quarter a bi-toll area of the two-story addition and then the applicant did submit some details back let me break and sort of walk around the area as you can see this is an aerial view of the roof and previously this is the area that was cut into for the masonry from this existing deck onto this with new flooring and then the So the request was to cut the deck, put a pergola here, and then to put the railing in the motion that was made, stated that it would be 10 feet back from this. And then to walk around the structure. As you can see, part of the request today is to install railings around the front that are similar to the railings that are on the rear of the structure. and the same railing would be the railing detail he's put forth for the rooftop deck as well and give you some more details of the front of the structure The applicant submitted the details per the motion made in April. He submitted the deck showing the floor terminating 10 feet behind the parapet, and they provided the details for the wrought iron. However, the wrought iron was proposed to be installed on the parapet in lieu of behind the parapet. so at that time staff had a discussion with them regarding that staff found that it was that need to be not attached to the parapet but inset and attached to the decking of the deck floor and then he at a time expressed interest in installing a railing around the front porch as well so then at this time the applicant is requesting the board granted a certificate appropriateness conduct installing the handrails around the front porch and the railing on the upper deck atop the parapet. And then the latest drawing indicated that the railing system design used that was the same as in the rear. When the proposal for the railing system had come back, the railing showed it coming all the way to the front of the parapet in lieu of the 10 feet back. but since that case had already been heard and that decision has been made this is not subject to be weighed because action has already been taken by the board to approve it 10 feet back from the front parapet and the railings will be 42 inches atop the decking at the top floor. And as you can see, there were some details about how he was going to, he submitted the details regarding how it was going to be attached to the parapet. And here's the detail, the railing of the rear of the structure, that would be what he initially proposed. And again, sort of some details of the second floor rooftop deck. Guidelines are included for your reference. Staff finds the design for the wrought iron railing, which is the same style as approved by the BOAR in 2001 for the rear yard, to be appropriate for the rooftop deck. However, the proposed installation method on drilling into and mounting the railing on the deck atop the historic parapet capstone is not appropriate or in accordance with the guidelines. Guideline 1, 115, and F states, Ruth added skylights, decks, and dormers should not be placed where readily visible, but should be carefully placed to be compatible to have the least negative impact on the exterior appearance of the site, structuring adjacent surrounding property. In addition to becoming readily visible, it creates an imitation historic appearance. reference guidelines 3B1K. Also drilling in the top face of the protective stone would not be in accordance with guideline 113A, BEBG, referencing the preserving and maintaining the existing masonry. Aside from the guidelines, the proposed railing system would make it possible to pull self or with toes on a capstone or having the railing height of only 31 inches of protection. The 42 inch rail should be mounted on the deck floor in accordance with the detail at the bottom of sheet 5. Staff finds the proposal to use the iron railing detail approved for the rear yard to be inappropriate for the front porch and terrace area of this historic 1888 structure having additions of 1920 and 1980s. Guidelines 2B1K states architectural details help give building character and scale. Details include, but not too limited to, corner boards, break boards, cornices, brackets, downspouts, railings, columns, steps, doors, and window moldings and decorative elements. Architectural details may be appropriate when they give the building on which they place a good sense of belonging on the street and within the district. Details should be appropriately scaled for the proposed structure and compatible with the other adjacent buildings and districts. Installation of ornament or details should be given to give a building an imitation historic appearance is not allowed and new construction may incorporate contemporary material. Recommendations. Staff recommends disapproval of the iron railing being installed on the front porch and terrace of the structure, and staff recommends approval of the iron railing being installed on the roof deck with the following addition, railing to be anchored to the wood deck in lieu of the top of the existing coping piece. And the applicant is present. Thank you very much. If you'd like to come down and talk to us a bit about your application, please. That's what was constructed 129 years ago. This was the rail system on the front porch. There was also a piece on the top of the porch. When I commissioned the Kentucky Ornamental Iron Company 12 years ago to create something for the back porch, I asked them to do something simple but elegant. and the design you saw, well, design you couldn't see, which the Historic Preservation Office omitted, I have here, if I may. Sure. I have drawings of what it would look like from the front side. Yeah, we do have this. We do have this. You have that. We do have that. And we have the side drawings. Yep, yep. Yeah, nothing was omitted from ours. Good. Okay. Very good. Thank you. I was a boy scout when I was younger, so I always believed to be prepared. Now, I'm surprised at the staff's findings. My friends in the Historic Preservation Office, I'm sure, have good intentions. But the issue with this building is it sustained so many different renovations, and especially in the 1980s, there was little regard for the old structure. So I inherited an awkward building that didn't seem to fit the neighborhood. So my objective was to renovate it, to make it a beautiful place, an elegant place, something nice to look at. I wanted it to fit the neighborhood because the neighborhood is awesome. So in regards to the guidelines and being readily visible, one of the things I wanted to do with this south addition is you look at it, it looks like an addition. You look down the side, it looks like an addition. One of the things that I considered at length was how do we make the hole look like it's not together. One of them was to install a stylish rail, which I think the Kentucky Ornamental Company did a successful thing. They actually designed something that was very simple with a little bit of detail in the middle. So my concern was I didn't want anything installed on the porch to distract from the building itself because the building detail is very nice. So I think they succeeded. I believe it complements the building, and I think it would also bring a sense of belonging, actually. You have the rails on the back, on the third floor porch, on the front porch. Visually, it's nice. It does something to the building that's missing. The building, as it stands, it looks not finished. My objective is when I leave the structure, I want this to be a gem. I'm also the kind of person that when I put money into a building, it has to go towards resale. I want to do something that someone else is going to say, yes, this is nice. The front porch I can't use right now because there's no railing. And the building inspection office has been very gracious with that. I can't offer my guest to sit out on the front porch and have tea or lemonade because there's no railing. Someone would fall off and there's liability issues there. But what's interesting about the status report is that when they see a guideline that indicates a negative, I see the same guideline approving the positiveness, putting oneself in harm if the rail is on the parapet, and if those who are being supervised by an adult decide to climb up onto the parapet, that's going to happen even if the rail is affixed to the deck. The cap is still accessible. Both would work. I think going on the parapet cap makes more sense. Now, the issue of imitation history, historic, came up. I don't see it. I think the design, my concern is the design is too simple, but I did not want to construct anything that anyone would misinterpret as part of the original house. I'm not trying to put the house back together. I'm trying to make sense of the house. I'm trying to make it a beautiful structure, and it's been a real challenge. The protective stone issue with the parapet cap, I would agree with the Historic Preservation Office if this was limestone, which it would have been traditionally. But what it is is steel-reinforced concrete that was formed up and poured over the wall, and it's common material. There's no historic significance to it. it would be easy to repair, replace, or even modify. They did not splurge when they put that addition on. The appropriateness of scale. Well, part of the design of the rail was I was in constant contact with the Lexington-Fayette County Urban Government's Department of Building Inspection. What was code? The height, the width, where the picket should be, where the tow rail is. And the design came out, and the inspector approved it. It met code. So to me, that says it's an appropriate scale. Now, when you put a rail on a front porch where there are six 23-foot Corinthian columns, one would have to say, what does scale mean? I think it means human scale, something that when there are people on the porch, someone stumbles, they hit the rail, they're safe. They don't go over. They don't break an arm. and I think the inspector, building inspector would agree with me. I think the design, the whole concept of taking a building that had been, some would say, vandalized with renovation in mind, to take that building and turn it into something positive is what I'm trying to do. And I believe that the current design of the rail in the back is fitting for the side and the front, and that it would make the structure fit. It fits. It's the right design. No conflict with the buildings next to it. In fact, one building next to me on the north side is falling down. The building to the south has Victorian fencing out there, but that's a little bit more ornate. Anyway, I think this is the right design. One of the things I'm a little disappointed with is when I first started this trip with the Historic Preservation Office 19 years ago, I got people from the office coming to my house to see what I was talking about. I remember once Betty came up on the roof with me because I wanted to take the slate off because it was delaminating and crumbling. Well, she agreed. Part of the conversation was, what do we place it with? Well, I had all kinds of options. When I bought the house at 507 North Broadway, I had various people out. Martin and another historic specialist came out to speak specifically about the rails, about the back parking areas and so forth, made suggestions, and that was all helpful. I think having conversation with the owner, with the ideas that they want, is very important, and that's one of the issues that was missing here. The idea of wrought iron is first rate. That's the right decision. It's more expensive, and I think the design that was created 11 years ago still is a good design. I think Bill Campbell liked it when I proposed it, and I think, why not? It makes sense. I think it's very, very fitting, and it would be good. It would be good to the house. It would be good for those who are passing by to see something that looks finished, something that doesn't necessarily look like someone was creating something that they shouldn't, but just taking care of an old house that deserves it. And that's what I've been doing. So I think this design is appropriate. Well, I appreciate your comments, and I do understand what you're saying. I would agree that a railing on the front porch at the lower level is a valuable asset for safety. I'm not really, you know, I don't have a problem with the rail at the front porch. I like the design that's here. I like the material that's proposed. And I'm not, I don't completely agree with the staff's recommendation there at the front porch. Well, I appreciate their hard work, and I know that each report requires a lot of thought because you're working with guidelines. And to protect the historicity of what we have now is very important because if it's destroyed today, it's gone for the future. And that's not my intention. I want this building to stand long after I'm gone. um well i'm glad you see it that way the the part of your application that i do take issue with is actually the part that i think we've already covered and i'm not really even clear why it's how we can discuss it the the railing at the top of the porch is has already been proposed at the top like on the third level correct we've already gone through Are you asking specific to the placement of installation or the 10-foot toward the front of the house issue or both? I think they're sort of married together, aren't they? I mean, if we approve that it's, I guess, that's not true. I guess there is a possibility that it could be on the cap down the side, and then when it turns the corner and is held back 10 feet from the front, it would no longer be mounted on top of the cap but make a transition to be mounted on the wood deck. Is that what the proposal is this evening? Well, the board's previous action, the reason it's back to you tonight, tied to the installation manner, that being onto the decking versus onto the parapet, you all, as part of your previous motion, left the details of installation to be worked out by the staff with the property owner. And when the property owner came back with the detail to put it on top of the parapet, the staff did not feel it was appropriate to say that was the way to accomplish this. I understand. And so we had to say, we didn't say no, we just said we can't approve that. Right, I understand. Hence, we're back to you as the board to be the final voice on that. The 10-foot, if I may, on the other topic for a second, the bringing the fence 10 foot forward, you would need to find new evidence to reopen that portion of the discussion because you did act on that and limit it to the 10 feet back. I'm not prepared to go against that at this time because my thoughts on it now are as they were then. And to answer your query, it is a 12-month time period. I read that. I did some research. And so if the board doesn't wish to reopen it today, you could, after 12 months, elapses, come back for that. So I guess my question for clarification. Hang on a second. I guess for my needs or for my point of clarification, the previous application had it running the perimeter of the building, whether it was attached to the cap or to wood decking. the design was railing to the front of the house on the third floor porch. Right. And within that, the staff at that hearing recommended that the railing not come all the way forward. Correct. Tied to the visibility issue. Correct. So the motion at that time was, yes, have a porch on the third floor, hold it back ten feet from the front, and guard rail around the perimeter of the porch, the wood decking. to be held back 10 feet from the front. So to hear, so what I'm getting at, my point, I guess, is that this application at this time should simply address the attachment method of the rail, not the location. It can't be 10 feet, within 10 feet of the front of the building, because we've already decided that that can't happen. So today we're just discussing the attachment method in the approved location. That's the only thing we could move on, I think, today. We're also talking about a different design and a different approach. Well, yeah, I've subdivided it, sorry. As far as the third floor is concerned, do you consider this a different design? Absolutely. One of the things that we had, we had wood and metal plaits and a lot of wood and faux stone. And I understand why that was to be set back. After looking at it again, I wouldn't want to see that either. But the design we have now is the kind of design that is pulling the house together. it makes sense now I don't know it's a different design that's all I'm saying the old design didn't work so I'm asking is it possible to consider this a new design something that is not what was because of the design and the materials plus it's it is something that is going It pulls elements together from one section to the other, and I think that's what appeals to design with me. It also creates interest. It's a creative element. The stuff on the top is a creative element, but it's similar to what would be on the front porch and the back porch. I guess what I would say in return to that is that the reason we didn't, as I recall, correct me if I'm mistaken, board members, the reason we didn't approve the railing at the front, be it wood or any other material, was because of the guidelines that discuss porches and porches at the front of the property or at the front of the house. But the guideline basically said it had to conceal things that were not original. The problem with this house is we've got the paper. The guideline says very clearly second-story decks and balconies should not be built on primary elevations, black and white. It's in the guidelines. But it may be appropriate on rear elevations. So we made a concession that allowed you to have it on the side elevation, and we said you need to hold it back. I mean, that is, I mean. And while this is a different material and a different method of attachment, I don't think that it's a different design in that way. One of the issues here is the problem, the big problem with the building is I bought something that was unusual. You have everything coming up to the front. The proposal is a way of making sense of what was misdone in the 80s. It really is a very, it's harsh, it's very angular. The old building had curved lentils and so forth, and they were taken out with soldier courses. There's a lot of things that happen to the building that one would cry over if they really knew what was going on. And the proposal tonight, I mean, this is a, the design is a fitting design, being visible, tying into one another. It's about creating an elegant space. It's also a practical space. But I would wish that you would at least consider design because the design changes things. I'd like to make some observations and see if this moves the conversation forward a little bit. Looking at your front elevation, there's a balcony element above the central entry which has this detail. Yes, sir. It's very clear that that is the detail that is being referred to when issues of scale are brought up. Right. Because one can imagine that should the front porch, the original front porch, be developed with a railing that has that detail, it would certainly be in keeping with what was the original intent of the architecture, it seems to me. Right. And it's almost unfortunate that the balcony element is there, in that it reminds us of that elegant solution. Oh, it's a wonderful, wonderful feature. So, you know, what that suggests to me is that the ideal solution is to recreate the railing that was originally there, at least on the old porch. I thought that that was what was not desired. I thought replicating what was old was part of the taboo. Well, I think in this case you'd be replacing something that originally existed. Right. I don't think it's the same thing. It's not the same thing as creating something that creates a false sense of history. It's really a restoration of a historic artifact. Okay. So it's clear from a design standpoint everyone could see that that would be the ideal scenario for the porch. That also creates an issue for you in terms of cost probably and in terms of maintenance. Well, also code. You would have to change the proportions of it somewhat. Right. And then if you change proportions, you've altered the design. But nevertheless, my point is that this is a very clear illustration of the issue of scale. I also think that the clear indication of scale is what the building inspection would improve, which the back rails were. I think we're talking two different centuries. The modern century has a requirement. The Victorian century, there were no uniform codes. So you could have a porch rail that was up 26 feet or 26 inches. It was ornamental, and I don't know if it was used or not. But nowadays, since I've got a variance and I've got a commercial license and I'm serving the public, a front structure needs to be up to code, which is 42 inches high. So you're operating commercially. I'm operating a bed and breakfast in the building. So you have to comply with commercial code. You can't comply with the residential code. That's right. I'm not so sure about that. Are you certain that you have to do a 42-inch railing on your front porch? When we, when I, the whole issue with going code was having a variance. And when we got our okay for variance with planning division to go to operate a business in a residential neighborhood, the whole thing changed. Then I was required to employ commercial tradesmen, plumbing, electrical, whatever. So everything changed. That's part of the restrictions I'm working under. Now, this is a lovely idea. But I really do think the design at hand is very fitting and very practical. Let me give you another reaction. Okay. And I'm going to say that I agree with you that if you, in fact, have to build a 42-inch railing, that there's really not a good way to do it in that sort of style and achieve a look that would be appropriate to the building. I just think that if 36 inches were adequate, I think you could modify the proportions and make it work. Oh, sure. But I think 42 inches is just too heavy. It raises the visual height too much. Let me bring up another issue just to put it out there. Your comment about the fact that the portion of the building to the left is an addition I think is informative. And it is in conflict with your desire to integrate the building. because to put the same railing on the addition at the top as if it were historically the same as the original portion of the house, I think, is unfortunate. Let me finish. I think should you put the wrought iron railing on the lower porch, and you wanted to make a visual relationship with a railing above, that what you should consider is that that portion of the house was an addition and that perhaps that railing on the addition should be modified to acknowledge that fact. So perhaps it should be a simplification of the railing that you see below, not a replication of the railing you see below. So I just put that out there because it seems to me that it doesn't make sense for the railing above to be as ornate as the railing below. Well, the rails aren't ornate. Ornate was not the issue with the railing. It was to make it practical and elegant, and less is more nowadays. um i'm not arguing i'm just putting out an observation for you to digest and i think that in fact there's a very simple way to do that by simply removing the little the color device and the collar um let me ask you this um I have a unifying design in front of you that I think works and fits. If we need to reconsider this, we need to think about this more, I think it's the right design. Modifying it on the side, taking the collar off, that can be done. That's a nice option. But personally, with aesthetics, it's nice the way the eye moves. At this point in history, I just want an elegant building. However, you make good points. I want to get back to kind of what the recommendations are. Obviously, they're disapproving that they're really on the front porch, and then they also are talking about the installation of the railing, which I think is a very valid point because even if it is concrete, that concrete will deteriorate much faster if you attach that rail to the top of it. Guaranteed, no matter what. I'm in the business. I mean, we no longer install railing in the top of concrete because in two or three years, we have to go back and fix it. And I know that's... The cells in the back are in great shape. They've been there for 10 years. You have the right solution you put them in. Well, I come from a family of masons, too, and the railing in the concrete parapet would be much stronger than putting it to the deck. and i think at some point there are personal preferences that you really ought to consider throwing a bone to the owner um we did we we allowed you to put the railing on the top floor and we only told you to put it back 10 feet i think that was a pretty nice concession considering that we could have you we could have uh i appreciate your help you know so i mean i I think we have given some, but I think we need to look at what they're talking about and try to keep the conversation focused in that way. I think we've covered the front porch adequately up to this point. I think the attachment detail is linked to, well, no, we've actually discussed it. It's not directly linked to the location of the rail. I think the location of the rail has already been moved on and determined as inappropriate at the front and as it pertains to the top porch, to the third-level porch, for reasons that have already been stated. I mean, we don't need to go through that conversation again if that's what the board agrees with. I think it's the attachment of this railing. I have a question about the design for the front porch railing. Yes, sir. It appears that every eight or so pickets is extended to the front of the floor system so that it actually appears to be in front of the porch floor. Is that accurate? Oh, no. Now the system is on the porch, and it will be fastened to the porch. What you see is the bottom rail, and there's four inches between the bottom rail and the porch. Gotcha. And every six feet, there's a three-quarter inch iron, which is the post. I got you. Okay, I'm misreading the drawing. May I ask a question about the top rail? Ten feet back, I'd like to come back and rethink that a year from now. Because I really do think, I mean, I've got a wonderful design here, but it'll go back ten feet. But I'd like to come back and discuss it again. I mean, it's in the guidelines. I mean, unless you want to try to get the guidelines changed, I don't see us changing our mind. Well, you know, we made actually what's in the guidelines. It's not what we've made. And I feel like we actually made a concession to the guidelines to get to the point of what it was approved. And you have. And you are pushing back with your original proposal. I just said 10 feet back. is what you said and what you agreed on, so that's what's going to happen. Gentlemen, you've been very accommodating, and I appreciate the conversation. Because of our last meeting, this design was developed. I think the iron rail design at the top is much better solution than the wooden rail that came before us the last time. And I'm happy to see the direction that it's gone. However, I'm just not sure my thoughts on the location would change a year from now based on the reasons. It's not material-based. It's that guideline that talks about where the port should be and should not be. So that's kind of that as far as I'm concerned. I feel like I've taken up too much time more than I deserve, and I appreciate your consideration. I'm glad you're willing to be a part of the process that's why I'm here are there any other thoughts or comments from the board at this time for the applicant is there anyone in the audience this evening speak to this case again this is 507 North Broadway well seeing no action and hearing no further comment I would certainly entertain a motion at this time If you need to think about it, that's okay. Thank you. i guess i'd like to hear from ron what his opinion of the railing on the front porch is um i don't really i mean as far as the railing i think uh i don't really have a problem with railing on the front porch but i do think that the installation should be looked at i just know how water infiltrates when you penetrate a surface like that it's going to cause issues in the future so but when i talked with the fellas as they uh installed the things on the back porch they informed me that they're using a product that had some vinyl some portland cement that this was impervious to water now amazingly enough apparently it's it is because i've not had any problems uh with the rail except that 30-year paint that they put onto it doesn't last more than 10 years that's the only problem I have with the rail system is that painting it, it doesn't last, but the structure itself is sound and beautiful. I'm just very pleased with how they installed it, and I'm inclined to have them install the other pieces too. However, if this requires research into installation, then we need to do that. Any other comments from the board at this time? I mean, if he comes back with other details, I mean, I'd be willing to come back to the board or the staff details that they would approve. I'll make a motion in relative to case number 02500507-L at 507 North Broadway. i would like to move that the iron railing on the front porch be approved contingent upon the owner establishing beyond beyond any doubt that the 42 inch height is required I think it would be well worth the owners effort to find a way to reduce the height of that railing if possible. relative to the second part of the proposal i i would approve the iron railing on the roof deck with the 10 foot setback as previously approved contingent upon the owner submitting anchorage details to staff that are acceptable to the staff. I have a question to counsel. Can we actually force somebody to look into something like that, the 42-inch height? Can we force them? Yeah, I mean, that's basically our recommendation is saying we are asking them as a recommendation that they have to do this. Could it be covered by other? There would just need to be a little more discussion with building inspection to see if, due to it being a historic structure, it could participate in the 36-inch height, and that's something we'd be glad to facilitate. But whatever they determine is code. This is different now because we're talking about historic structure of the house, and then the back was not historic. Is that the differentiation? Because what they told me is if you're serving the public, you have to have a rail that's 42 inches high. I'm just suggesting we would be glad to have a similar discussion with them and explore if there are any alternatives, and it may come out to be exactly what you've already been informed, and there will be no surprises if that's the case. I don't want anyone in the government to be missed about this. Well, it will make your process much smoother to have it all understood and worked out with everybody. But we will be glad to be party to helping talk about that, and everybody will have to carry it out however is determined. Thank you. Can I ask a question? Are you through with your motion? Is there more? I think so. Oh. Well, my question is just tied to the attachment topic. Is your intent on the roof system to have it attach into the wood decking or to attach into the parapet? I guess the reason I think that it's worth further discussion is that I suspect that there is a good solution for attaching it to the top of the parapet, but that it would need to be carefully, the materials used would have to be carefully specified. and they would in fact need to be not just water repellent but actually impervious. I think it just is something that needs to be researched. But you would like to make it possible, if that good solution for a manner in which to accomplish it, you would like to make it possible for it to go into the parapet? I think so. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I just want clarity about what you'd like. That would be my intent. That was my understanding of your motion as well, as you stated it. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. Is there any further discussion of the motion? That being the case, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes with the recommendations. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you very much. moving on the next case hold on just a moment pardon me in that stack of paper I lost my agenda The next case this evening is at 150 Forest Avenue. Proposals to paint the masonry. We'd like to hear the case presented by the staff. Who's next? This is the structure at 150 Forest Avenue. The applicant of this 1910 colonial revival structure is requesting the board grant a certificate of appropriate permit to paint or stain the building. In this instance, this is a paint. Of course, the building has previously unpainted walls, and the new owner is interested in painting the brick because some of the areas of the tuck pointing were done inappropriately in color and joint size. And there's a letter from a representative of the applicant, as you can see in your material, that has disclosed discussions with masons on that topic and some pricing. The masoning closest to the front porch seems to have been impacted with some sandblasting when they did strip the paint of the structure of the front porch railing system, and that was in our records. but just to give you an idea of the masonry and you can see some of the areas he's talking about with the inappropriate tuck pointing where the size and color and joint tooling were erroneous. Just to give you an idea of the masonry itself. As part of this project, there will be tuck pointing some areas. And the product that he proposes to use is a material from Virginia Lime Works Company, and information on that material is included in your packet. sort of walk you still through some of the masonry on the structure. This is on the northeast side. And none of the paint will be for the foundation. It would only be for the brick masonry surface. Guidelines are included for your reference. And I also would like to say, as you'll see in your packet, there are three letters, including your packet, regarding this case in opposition. Findings. The proposal to paint or stain this non-painted masonry structure requires further discussion. While this building has had some unfortunate brickwork, this building was never intended to be painted or stained. In the LFUCG Design Guidelines, 1.1A and 1.13H, respectively, states, architectural details and features should be maintained and retained. It should not be removed if it's original to the building. Brickwork masonry that has never been painted should not be painted. While it's known, the Virginia Line Works Company is specifically geared to older structures. The guidelines examine the historic character of the house and bell court. Staff finds it is not within the guidelines to paint the structure. The masonry of the structure does need attention. The building needs to be tucked, pointed, re-pointed, and gently cleaned in order to remove the vines in accordance with 13B through G, 13L through M. Due to the emissary issue, staff vines would be more harmful to paint or stain the structure because of the sensitivity of the masonry. Staining and painting is a building process that needs constant maintenance, and the brick has already been abused, and further disruption could cause more issues, such as water infiltration, spalling, and deterioration. Recommendation. staff recommends this approval as submitted and the applicant is present. Thank you again Bill Tolliver, 154th Avenue. I appreciate the photos. They are much better than the ones I have here but I do want to present a few photos of just close up some of the vine. I don't have them on my slide deck. What you'll want to do is... If we can put them up on the screen for everyone to see. I think Amelia's photos presented a good story. And I do have a slide deck. But I'm not certain what I need to do here. I'm sorry? Let's do the slides first. Okay, again, I've already been introduced to 154th Avenue. Is it the top button? Okay, thank you. Key points I want to make today is one big one is conservation versus preservation. Aesthetics, financial impact, and then I'll have a summary at the end, and just the definition of the conference. What I'm talking about when I talk about conservation, use in a sense of preservation for future. Preservation defined as keeping safe from harm or decay, and preservation is I think what you guys are about. So a little more definition on this. So I'm recommending at this point, because of the damage to the structure, the brick, conservation versus preservation approach due to the damage that's already been afflicted to the structure. As already noted from history of the structure, you've had sandblasting, which has compromised the fire skin on the brick. The Portman cement used for tuck pointing has future compromised bricks. Both of those, I know, are against the guidelines. That's been done. That's already done. And vine removal on the side, I feel, is going to damage the brick further. The individual that I've had to look at this, just the method of removing that. However you do it, you're going to remove some of that fire skin. Other considerations. We already talked about the LimeWorks product. Better than paint. So the argument about paint, this product is breathable. It absorbs CO2. It's non-toxic. There's no VOCs in this. And it has been proven use on historic masonry, and I think I heard you have some information about this product. The aesthetics piece, as you've already seen, the discoloration on the brick, the mortar joint color inconsistency between the historic and the portmint cement that's been added. Inferior patchwork with portman cement. Some closer pictures, and I might have a little bit closer in a few areas. Chipped and broken brick, patina inconsistency, and just wide and or inconsistent mortar joints and inconsistent mortar color on the aesthetics piece. So not too appealing to the eye when you drive down the street. Financial impact. Tom England has quoted the tuck point and cleaned the brick. It'll be greater than $40,000. He said, and I think you have in the letter that's been submitted as well, that's a starting point. He would give a final proposer a quote if we wanted to go that way. My concern with that even is how do you do that without damaging the soft brick that are there? Another quote to do patch point damage brick and remove vines, $1,800. So I'm going to do a comparison between the top one and basically this bottom one, where I've got a quote to patch work damage brick, remove vines, and apply the Virginia LimeWorks product. It was about $6,000 for that work in comparison to even if you could go in and do tuck point, $40,000. The LimeWorks product itself is probably going to be about $500. I know there's maintenance with the painted structure. I've talked to LimeWorks. They have evidence that the life expectancy for this product is 10 years, so it's not going to be an annual painting or repair. LimeWorks products, as I've already said, is intended for historic conservation, And, again, you've got some information on that. So real quickly, as a summary here, I'm advocating the use of LimeWorks paint. It will assist in the preservation of the historic masonry, in my opinion. If we leave it the way it is right now, there's going to be further deterioration. It's going to enhance the appearance of the structure. I know Amelia has provided me there's 147 structures in Belcourt. I haven't gone through and counted how many are painted, but my guess is probably 30 or 40 percent. Conservation of the property is paramount and is aligned with the general guidelines of the board. Part of the intent and purpose, and just going out and looking at what you guys have out there, but part of the intent and purpose of the Lexington Design Review Guidelines are to assist property owners in maintaining and enhancing the appearance of their property, keeping up property values, and improving the livability of the historic area. so again i'll start i'll jump back to uh uh i'm i definitely think the limeworks product is the way to go to first of all conserve what's there and long-term uh preservation thanks and i don't know if you that some of the pictures i have are just a little uh most of them she Would you like to walk us through that? Yeah. If it shows up. Probably not going to show up. Yeah. That's some of the mortar joints that was repaired. If you get a little close up, there's chipped bricks on there. You can see the mortar joints are thicker. You can see a few chipped away where they've gone in and tried to repair that. and this is just some of the vines I think Amelia had there's one close up of what I'm talking about I'm trying to remove the vines out of the brick I think this is similar to what you had that's just more vines you can skip that one if you like that one there so that's vines that have been pulled away I don't know how you're going to get what's left in there without either burning it out or removing the, you know, scraping it so much that you're going to remove the fire line. What would you do to prepare that surface before you painted it? I'm sorry? If we were to allow you to paint this building, what would you do to that surface where the vines had been removed before you painted it? How would you prepare that surface? The individual that I've had out there to look at this said the only way he can get that out of there is to burn it out. So you would burn it out and paint over it is your intent? Yep. Can staff ask a question on that in terms of the method? I mean, they didn't talk to you about using a low-pressure wash? No. The comment was the only way I can get this out of there is to burn it out. Well, I just would suggest there are some other alternatives. Yeah. There are some chemical solutions that are pretty good at chewing that stuff up. I think it's all. You can also take a shoe and rub the sole of a shoe on it and it comes right off. Do you want to come out and help me? I've done this. It's pretty deep. After it's been dead for a year and dried out and the worst of it removed, you can take a But honestly, you can take a shoe sole and rub it off, and 90% of it comes off. Yeah. Does that remove the fire skin? It's a lot of elbow grease, but it won't remove the fire skin? Not with the sole of your shoe, I don't think. I mean, it sounds silly, but no. I can imagine it happening. Yeah. I'd like to see it. I'm welcome to come out and take a look at this. And with my shoe. Yeah, with your shoe. So really, do we have any comments or questions for the applicant? I'd like a little definition on what you're considering discolored brick. We saw a couple different pictures that show different ranges. I mean, across the whole field, there are some that are lighter and some that are darker, but that's kind of an even spread. To me, that's kind of the character of that wall. And then we saw other images where brick was discolored to the point of, like, there were two or three that were white and discolored and that nature. Which one and to what extent would you intend to replace if you were not allowed to paint? just looking at it on the aesthetics piece there are several areas and I think Amelia's photos demonstrated it best yeah run us through Amelia's photos if you can just show me what you're calling discolored versus just character of a brick field I guess is what I'd like to see your impression of if you don't mind so there is a is an example the wash on either side of the window you see that yep that's more more of the same and do we know just just for a moment if i can interject while we're looking at this do we know I mean, that looks like it's related to previous tuck-pointing work. Is there? Yes, I think that's true. It was tuck-pointed there, and then that's the wash that's been left on the face of the building, and it's never been cleaned off. So are we looking at something that can be addressed with, like, a Prosoco product? Are we just missing the acid wash to clean up the masonry after the tuck-pointing, or are we looking at a different issue than that? Or does anybody have an opinion on that at the time? Seeing the picture, Amelia, you've seen it live and in person. Right. It's a deeper joint. It's not as thin. This is a very thin joint, and the joint is thicker. And instead of having more of a... There's not as much rake here. Exactly. The rake is totally different, so it brings it to the surface, the same being slightly recessed. And also, some of the headers and lentils are painted, and so some of that sort of comes off a little bit in some places. But all that could be cleaned. So that would help some, but I think they'd still see a very visible joint without... We'll see the joint. So is that just an issue if somebody went back and repointed without taking out the old joint? Well, that or it might have been already, who knows? Who knows? Can't say. It doesn't have the same rake as the joints adjacent. That's what we know. Okay. But the white cast that is over the surfacing, I believe, could be cleaned off very successfully without damaging your hard-edged brick. I mean, the Prosecco products are paid for this very thing. Yeah. Okay. Continue on. Sorry to interrupt. Yeah. That's another. And so my understanding is, you know, this is part that was sandblasted in the front of the house. And I'll clarify, the brick wasn't sandblasted. The porch railing was sandblasted. So just the area adjacent to the rail. Around the porch. So are we seeing spalled brick surfaces there? Is that what that is? So we're not talking about, I mean, if we were going to replace the brick affected by the sandblasting, we're talking about what was affected by the sandblasting. We're not talking about the hole from the house. We're talking about a relatively confined area. Relatively confined area. Not two inches, but maybe four feet confined. I'm just trying to get a feel for the details of the damage here. That's one area there. Do you have any vantage point on that area up there? Let's see. There's another area there. It's not, but the images, all the images are very similar to this. So we don't have a data head view is what you're asking. At least not with us. I can do that? Yeah. Okay. Okay, there's more of the same on the other side of the porch in front of the house. And it's hard to see, but you can see some discoloration up above on the left side. That controller has a laser. See if you can find it without changing the slide. Nope. Oh, you did what everybody else does. I can't. Is that on top? Oh, is it on top? It's right here. Yeah, that dude right there. Okay. You're not the first person to get that. I've used these before, but not one that looks like this. Right. So here. Definitely some. Let me see if I. I'm waiting. I don't want to hit it again and go to the next slide. Okay. In here. Let me use all of this. Again. There's some tuck pointing in there. What is that white stain? Is that efflorescence? That is efflorescence. And is there efflorescence elsewhere on the house? This is majority the worst part. And probably some of that discoloration, because that area he showed above is just above this area. So that's probably... So that's probably moisture getting in behind the brick and then coming back out through the brick. Which is a concern I have. And is there evidence of a problem with gutters or water disposition off the roof? Not at the moment. because I looked at this with the previous owner, which is also the representative that's helping Mr. Tolliver with this situation, and there could be some issues with the down spouse just needing to be a little beefed up because this is right in the crooks of a corner where it has a lot of overflow as this having this roof coming off and not necessarily accepting that water as well as it should. And that really was probably what's happening versus any of the fascia or sopa being deteriorated. We're the same. This is the other corner. I don't even know what's going on there. It's like caulk was used. What's that? It's just so wide and gooey. What are the big, wide, wide joints there? This lower middle of the screen? This is, yeah. Yeah, I think that was a vent or something. So right now I don't know what the material is that is in that hole. it's like a foam or something that has closed that whole opening it's around the same area it's more of the same you got a couple pictures So I purchased a couple samples of the LimeWorks lime coating. Those are new bricks. I just covered them for Amelia to come out and take a look and see what that looks like. And potential colors. I don't know what else you have on here. I'm scared to hit it again. Yeah, okay, just more of the same. All right. Can I ask you a question about your prices that you got here? I mean, it's a pretty wide swing between minimum $40,000 and $6,000. I mean, have you just talked to these three folks? Are you looking at other people? I mean, because... Well, they're very different in the scope of work. Okay. Yeah, the $40,000 that's going in and taking out, you know, redoing tuck point. I think you have maybe a little bit more definition on that in a letter. It just says he would give us a written quote if you decided to hire him. Right. And he would, you know, tuck point brick on the entire house. I see what, okay. Clean brick surface. but i mean in the guidelines the state's pretty clear that if it hadn't been painted before it's not to be painted so i mean i think um you know as far as i'm concerned you know it's pretty cut and dry i mean i understand there's some financial ramifications but hopefully over time you can take parts of the time and haven't worked on, but that's kind of my feeling on this situation. My biggest concern is the conservation. I maybe don't agree that something needs to be done on the surface of the house. I don't know what all has been done in the past. There are certain some issues that need to be corrected that exist with, it looks like, the method of the pointing that was done in the past and the material used for the repointing is suspect. I don't think it's, you know, you see the mix of materials as inappropriate and likely to cause harm over time. So that is a problem that needs to be addressed. But, you know, at this point the question is can we paint it or not? And by the guidelines I tend to agree that they're pretty clear. You know, it's a brick building that's never been painted before. But that doesn't mean there still aren't problems that need to be solved. I just don't think that painting it is the end solution to the problems as a whole. Is there any consideration for the aesthetics part, you know, the looks of the home and the structure itself to me or the neighbors? Well, I live in this neighborhood, so I certainly am part of the group that have to see it every day. And there are issues there, too, of cleaning. I'd be interested to know just what can be accomplished with the right cleaning solutions. I'm not sure burning the vines off is the only way to get them out. I mean, this is a problem that's happened before, and other people have solved it by other ways that are not destructive. So I think the vines can be dealt with, or I believe at least more research is warranted there as far as how that problem gets solved. Other discoloration and the efflorescence, you know, there are ways of dealing with that as far as, again, treatments and cleaners can be dealt with. the sandblasted brick, it's tough for me to tell from the photos how much area is affected. I know there's some financial ramifications there as far as do you replace those or do you just accept it as the history of the house and the character of the house? I mean, from the street, I've never said, man, look at all that sandblasted brick. Now, I know that that brick that has been sandblasted has its glazed face damage and that creates some susceptibility to the home. But I also know there are clear sealers that can reseal a damaged brick. So I think these are other options to not go back and refurbish and replace, take all the brick off and put all new brick back on, but I think there are stabilizing options that are there to maintain what is there, clean up what is there to a great degree, get it back to aesthetically pleasing, because I agree that some of the discoloration is noticeable, even from the street and harmful to the character of the house. You're not going to change the Portland cement color, that difference, and the historic. I don't care what you do to clean the brick, if you can get the vines off, if you can get some of this discoloration off. The face discoloration, that's one issue. And then the joint work itself, there's some new tuck pointing that needs to happen, I think, just for the house. I would not want to just paint over the Portland joint work. I think that's harmful, too. The Portland cement is going to be a problem no matter what happens, painted or otherwise. So that needs to be addressed anyways as far as the life of the house goes. Right. Painting over it with this product, at least the research I've done, will not hurt. It won't help, but it won't hurt what's already there with the Portland cement. That was a question I had specifically for this product. I think the Portland cement over time will continue to hurt the house, whether it's painted or not. To me, that's an issue that needs to be dealt with, whether you paint it or not. So those are my thoughts on what you've said, and I appreciate your presentation, and I appreciate what you're up against as far as making the house look good, But I'm a little worried about long term, and I also think that other things can be done that haven't been discussed or thoroughly investigated as of this evening. Okay. Well, I would like to hear more of those, and you've mentioned some of them. You know, I'm not, I guess I wouldn't go away satisfied with not doing anything. Well, I definitely would contact, you know, the folks over, like, not to pick any brickyard over another, but any of the larger brickyards in town. that sell and represent these products and get their opinion on how do we clean up our bricks. Because they'll know because they have to deal with it all the time, too. So there are certainly some larger companies in town that have representatives that do that all the time, that are there to do field work and talk about individual projects. And they do it for free. Yeah. So cleaning the brick may be one thing. Again, the concern with all the other different mortar aesthetically is not pleasing or appealing. Well, yeah, I think the different mortar needs to be addressed, painted or otherwise. It needs to be, the bad mortar needs to be taken out and good mortar needs to be put in. That's at least $40,000. I'd want it done even if you painted it, which is, I mean, that sounds like a rough pill to swallow, but the bad mortar that's in there is going to continue to be bad mortar and continue to damage the house whether you paint it or not. And so that's a bigger concern, right? Even if you paint over it, it's going to continue to be destructive and move at a different rate than the mortar around it. And it's going to cause opportunities for that mortar to pop out. Even if you paint over it, the paint may hold it in place for a while, but eventually you're going to get enough force in between the differing types of mortar that's going to pop out or it's going to grow in and do bad things to the face of the brick. I mean, those are the worst-case scenarios, but that's the opportunity that's created by leaving the two together in the wall. So even if painting it was a good idea, that problem with the mortar exists if it's not cleaned out and redone. Yeah, and that's not going to change. You're telling me it's not your desire to change it. That's right. I'm telling you it's a problem that somebody's going to have to deal with sooner or later. Any other thoughts from your end of the table there? I agree with Greg. I think that I guess I would like to have seen a more proactive effort to look at a discrete series of treatments to attempt to clean and preserve what's there. my suspicion is that you could get a pretty good result I think the only place on the house that looks really problematic is the sandblasted place near the railing in the front and there's probably no way of undoing the aesthetic damage there you can protect it so that it doesn't get worse but short of replacing those bricks probably nothing you can do there Unfortunately, the repointing that needs to be done is not at that same location. If you're repointing that area anyways, then it's just while the brick is loose, replace it. But it's not the case, which makes it harder to replace a brick. I mean, you're just going through the same process to replace individual bricks. Have you looked into staining the lighter mortar to match the older mortar? No, I have not. There are several of these topics that have been being discussed that the staff will be glad to help you with further in terms of options of different things to handle your different problems, if indeed the board's decision tonight is not to paint. So we'll be glad to get with you and facilitate that with you. Yeah, I would like that. I mean, you know, the path that I've been on since I purchased a home is to make it more appealing. Okay, so the folks that I've had come in to look at this have given me their opinions of what can be done. You've given some more options. I don't know that I like them, but it's something to look at. But I still would like to go with the LimeWorks paint covering. And I do believe that it will protect the home that's there presently. And again, in the presentation, it will help with the conservation piece, which will long-term help with the preservation, because I think it's going to continue to have problems. Well, we certainly appreciate your efforts up to this point and understand the considerations you're having to make and the decisions that are here and appreciate that there's more to consider than just what we have to consider. I mean, we don't always get to talk about which one costs more and which one's easiest. We're trying to work within the guidelines as well. Right. All that being said, is there anybody in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is at 150 Forest Avenue. The application is to paint the masonry. Seeing no action from the crowd, is there any further comment from the board at this time? That being the case, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 07280150-E, 150 Forest Avenue, I make a motion to follow the staff recommendations on disapproval of this submittal. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion is denied as submitted. Is there a timeline to come back with other proposals? If it's a new proposal and can be established as different than what you have proposed, then it's the next application timeline. I mean, it's whenever, however, with. as soon as you're able to get it on a meeting agenda. The staff can get with you about such things. Right. And many of the repair and other alternative approaches to this, permits can be issued by staff. Right. So you wouldn't need to come back to the board necessarily for those, but we can help you with this timing. My specific questions are there are some recommendations that you guys have that may help correct the condition that's there. So I'm going to research those. And if I find that they are not going to work for this structure, then can I come back with that information? And again, with potential covering the brick with paint, with the LimeWorks paint. I just want to leave that open. The board would need to, with whatever new information you were bringing them in your materials, rule on a determination if indeed they believed that constituted enough new evidence to revisit this topic, because you're essentially saying to ask to put the same product on to paint the house. Same application for a different set of reasons. Right, and those reasons would have to be distinctly different and additional new information than what they've heard tonight. but that would be something the board would first weigh and make a determination on, and then if they concurred that it is new evidence to reopen the case, then you'd be to carry on and discuss that evidence. As I say, as staff, we can help you with these details. Right. Okay, I just want to make sure that option is there because we're assuming some things looking at the photos of what can and can't be done. Sure, and we've been wrong before. If you can believe it, if it happens, you know, we feel pretty strongly about what we've said, but if you can find evidence to the contrary, then, of course, we're going to consider it. All right. Okay. Thanks. Good evening. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 372 South Mill Street, and that application is to install a gazebo. I see the applicant is still here, which is good. We're kind of getting lengthy. I will have staff make their presentation and then hear what the applicant has to say. This is the property at 372 South Mill Street, and staff noticed that a gazebo was being erected, which you see in the picture, on this site. And let's get a little bit more detail here. And staff did send a stop work order. Work had stopped, and the Certificate of Appropriateness Application had been submitted. The gazebo, as you can see, is a hexagon-shaped structure. It's 12 feet wide, 9 feet deep, and is at a height of 8 feet at the outside edge, with the roof reaching the 10-6 at the center point. The construction is redwood and is proposed to have a finished dimensional shingle roof that'll match the historic structure. So there's some more images here. You can see the location here and then the drawings, construction drawings, or the plan. Findings. The proposal to erect a gazebo in the front yard of this historic structure is found to be inappropriate and not in accordance with guidelines. Design principles state that installation of swimming pools, hot tubs, gazebos, percolows, etc. should be limited to rear yards. In addition, the site elements locations are found to be visually intrusive, suggest a false sense of history and be out of character with the site in the South Hill Historic District, which is contrary to guidelines 3.7a and 3.7b listed above. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval as submitted, and the applicant is present. Thank you, Amelia. Good evening. Hi. Could I borrow one of those? Your findings? Yeah. Thank you. Okay, so obviously I disagree. And a little bit of background. I was actually very surprised when I was told I couldn't have a pergola. It never occurred to me that something like that would have to go in front of any kind of board. And I mentioned that to Amelia, and I said, this is something that is basically trucked in like a piece of furniture and put there, to which I believe she said, well, actually, you were building it on site. That is partially true. When I set about to have this program, I looked online, and I found several companies who were, in fact, going to make it at their site and truck it in. And I was talking to Ben Robertson, who's the carpenter on site, and he said, well, wait a minute. I've done those before. Why don't you let me do those? So I said, sure, why don't you do that? And he proposed that he would build it at his house and then bring it on the trailer. Well, once he got the building, he realized he doesn't have a trailer big enough. So he built the sections and then proposed he would put everything together. But this is not anything that is attached to the building. This does not take away from the building. It does not take away from anything in the neighborhood. and I'm actually at a loss for words why I'm even here. That said, I'm looking at the guidelines and it says the installation of swimming pools, hot tubs, gazebos, pergolas, etc. should be limited to rear yards. So my question is at 372 South Mill Street, also known as 380 South Mill Street, Dudley Square, where, please, is my rear yard? First, that's my first comment. The second comment is the installation of swimming pools, hot tubs, gazebos, pergolas, etc. I would like to know what the etc. is. Is the etc. perhaps the little shack that's attached to the building that Dudley's restaurant used to have some of the equipment in? Is the etc. the patio? Why do we have a patio? How is that approved? That's not the backyard. How about the chimney? That's an et cetera. So, I don't understand this. Next, landscape elements and site elements should not be visually intrusive or suggest a false sense of history. I'm not suggesting or creating any history. We're putting a pergola there so that the restaurant could use it. That's all it is. I don't think anybody looking at it would say, oh, this was built in 1848. I don't think that would ever occur to anybody. Next, landscape elements and site elements. Open space should only be developed in scale, use, and character with the site and the local historic district. I think the scale is fine. I don't see how it could be any bigger and I don't see why it would need to be any smaller. And as far as in character with the sites, I mean, this was a school. They might have had a playground. They might have had a pergola. Dudley's restaurant had a tent. So I don't understand any of this. I guess that's what I have to say. Very well. Can I ask you a personal question? Yeah. What do you have against this board? Absolutely nothing. You have everything against this board because this is like the third or fourth time I've been here that you've already done work. Why can you not get through your thick head that, no, let me finish. I'm going to finish. I am appalled that you keep coming to this board after you get work done. You didn't listen to me. You didn't just listen to me. I said, when I put that pergola there, I did not at least think that I would have to go for a board for putting a piece of art. I want the staff to give you one of these guidelines so every time before you even think about doing something, you read the damn thing. Because it is clearly stated in here that you cannot have a perler in the front yard, and it is very intrusive. When I drove by and saw that thing there, I was like, what the hell is going on here again? Okay, now I understand. I mean, it's just like it is constant with you. So actually, the problem is not with me. Yes, it is. I could ask you the same thing. Well, because we are trying to follow a set of guidelines as it states in the front. Yes, with all due respect, I heard that throughout the night tonight. And we are very, to me, we have been over backwards for a year. I've heard that tonight as well, in other cases. But let me tell you, you're applying the guidelines, and I understand that you have guidelines. I do understand that. Well, can you follow them? But listen, for example, when you have a board as educated as all of you are in your professions, and I know you all take it seriously. You don't just run down guidelines and say, oh, it doesn't meet the guidelines. There are times when you actually have to look at each case individually and you have to understand what's going on. And we do that. But the problem is that you are in a violation all the time. I mean, it's like if you would sit down with this staff and talk to them at all, they would help you out tremendously. I didn't want to do this last time, but I'm now going to do this this time. And I hate to offend anybody here, I don't know who recalls this, but the front door on Mill Street. We replaced that. Before I replaced that, I called staff, and I had a meeting. And I said, we've got the door, and we've got two side lights. Of the side lights, only the top one, which has the old glass, is original. Now, I would like to replace this. How do I do this? staff drew drew it how the door should look. I said, okay, thank you very much. I ordered the door. The door came in. I paid for the door. The door was very expensive. I did what I was supposed to do. Guess what? It was denied. So that's the root of the problem. Wait a minute. I'm not done yet. I'm not done yet. So then we came towards the board and it was approved. So when we went ahead with that, the carpenter took out the old door and took out the first transom on top of the door and lo and behold, what did he find? He found hinges that the original door was actually taller than what was there now. So in talking to staff, staff proposed that it had to be a certain way because this was original and because certain elements proved that it was original. No, it was not the case. It was not the case. So nobody can make a mistake. No, I appreciate you can make a mistake. But what I'm trying to point out is that when I do approach the staff and ask for help, and I'm told they can help me, look what I get. The same thing with those things around the HVAC set. I have a commercial building. I cannot tell my tenants, I'm sorry, you have to wait. wait, what, until the next board to see if we can get that approved? I'm going to lose my tenants. You know what that means? That means I'm going to lose income. That means I cannot do things to preserve the building. So we appreciate that problem that you have because we have things. I mean, I have a barn that somebody came in and ripped $4,000 worth of electrical out of it. You know what? And guess what? I get to pay to put it back in. You know, but that's just part of life. And I understand that you have a business, but if you know that you're going to do something, all you have to do is start the process. We are very accommodating, and I don't understand why it seems like, you know, I'm so surprised that a gazebo can't be built here. I mean, it's like, I think it's a farce. I think it's a joke. Well, with all due respect, it's not. You know what? Well, I mean, it's right here in the guidelines. And the fact that you didn't find it tells me that, obviously, you didn't look through it thorough enough or what. But it's just like, I'm not just. At the time when that came up, I was talking to the owner of the restaurant, and we were talking about how he can improve his business. And he said, look at this space. How could we use that? We got the thinking. And I said, okay, why don't we build this? And he said, well, my problem is... Well, why don't you put a patio out there? Why don't you just expand the patio then? I mean, make a brick patio that goes all the way to the sidewalk. Well, I understand that too. But what we're dealing with here is that September was coming around. You've got Peaneland. You've got events. And he said, it doesn't have to be anything permanent. I would like to have a table in there that I can rent out people there who come to eat. if I honestly it never occurred to me that I would have to come in front of the board for something like that then there's a time issue he's now missed the season was there was there a permit issued or was there did Dudley's restaurant come before the board when they put up their tent because I haven't seen that anywhere It was for my time. I mean, I'm just saying that... But let me get back to your question about what you asked me about. Why I don't come to staff. After we had those HVAC enclosures done, we decided we would do the one in the back. And then we wanted to do the dumpster. And then there was the wall across the road. And I met with Amelia. And I said to Amelia, we want to do some posts. do we want to do all these things? What do you think about them? And she said, well, you'll have to fill out an application for all of these things, which we did. I spoke to my brick mason. He's been working on site for eight years, as have most of the people. And he said to me, I have a family. I have employees. I need a job. Yeah, we all do. So, wait a minute, I'm not done yet. So I said to Amelia, I wrote her an email, and I said, Amelia, because the posts were approved on the other side of the road, they're going to be identical. Because we've done already one part of the dumpster that got approved, can we just do one other wall to continue that so that could you already approve that on staff level because it was already approved somewhere else, it's identical, so that A, my employees can have a job, and B, it'll help me budget. Well, I got an email back saying, yes, we'll look into that next day. Surprise, surprise. No, sorry, you cannot do that. So that is part of the process of this board. I mean, that's what part of this historical preservation does. And I understand you can say, well, you know, this guy needs to feed his family. Well, you know, we all have to feed our family. Yes, of course. I mean, I'm not a trust fund baby. I can't sit there and just piss, you know, throw money around and all that kind of stuff. But you know what? I agree with what you say about that. But you know what? If everybody does that, if everybody says, oh, sorry, I can't help you, where are we? But if everyone would say, okay, I can help you, and this person says, I can help you, and this person says, I can help you, well, we wouldn't have the problems in the economy. If I want to help... But it's not about the economy. This is about... No, it's because you have workers in Fayette County. Okay? When I pay them, they pay tax. I pay tax. That goes into the government's pocket. Okay? And if there are no... You're way off base. Let's just go back to this thing. I mean, it's just... You just don't like what I have to say. No, it's not. It's not at all. No. Well, then let's agree to disagree. It's the fact that you just disregard... Let's agree to disagree on that. I think we're off subject here. The question is whether the gazebo is acceptable. In my opinion, it's absolutely not acceptable. Some people can justify their behaviors in every possible way, and no one is going to be able to talk them out of their personal justifications. So let's get back to the work of discussing whether the gazebo is appropriate. It is not appropriate, in my opinion. I would like to make a motion to that effect. I wanted to approach. Yes, sir. We'll get to that. That will be fine. You know, I'd also like to point out that all of us are doing this work on an absolutely volunteered basis. We don't get a nickel for what we're doing. We're doing it for our community. It would be really nice to get a little bit of respect from the community in return every now and then. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. I'm just going to make two quick points. First of all, and I want to also, okay, three points. First of all, I can't speak to past events. Some of the things you referenced I was here for, some were not. Tents, temporary structures, I don't know. They happen. There are permit processes. We've seen tents pop up in town and go away. they're handy structures, they're certainly temporary, there are guidelines even for temporary structures like tents. If your pergola is a temporary structure, there's a guideline process for that. There's a permit process for that. Point number one. Number two, you know, it's hard, it's a pergola. You know, it's a pergola. There's no other name for it, temporary or otherwise, you've built a pergola. Whether it came in prefabbed on a truck and you dropped it off or you had a guy build it on site, it's mentioned quite specifically by name, it's a pergola in the guidelines as being unacceptable in the location where you put it. We've had conversations many times before about side yard, front yard, rear yard. Your building is unique in that it's on a corner. we've had moments of latitude of just where does the backyard start and where does the side yard start and where's the front yard where this is located it puts it pretty much in the front yard of both sides of the building it's I'm not saying there's a guideline that says here's the front yard it's the most prominent possible place in which it could have been put to argue that it's not the front yard is specious I didn't argue that I think you misunderstood that. I was not arguing that. Please stop. The point I'm trying to make is, in some cases, we can discuss and we can find the gray area because not every guideline covers every situation. In this case, because of its prominent location, it's definitely not in the rear yard. Wherever the rear yard might be established, and I don't think we need to do that this evening, This location is certainly not the rear yard. Just onto that real quick. Just let me finish, and if you want to come back, we can talk to that point. That's fine with me. None of us are against people having work, gainful employment, getting things done in a timely manner, keeping masons busy on site so their family can eat. I'm all for that. We all work for a living, everybody in this room. somehow gets paid to eat and do all the things we do with our money that we earn. We all understand that. But timelines are also a part of life. With prior proper planning, getting your ideas on paper and through the submittal process in a timely manner, if your concern is keeping that mason busy, come up with your to-do list, get it on paper, get the application in on time early enough that there's not a gap in work. That is a problem that can be handled on your end as the owner. That's not a problem we can solve for you. We have guidelines that are set. We have timelines that we follow, and they're not a secret. So I'd encourage you to keep that in mind for your future projects. I don't think it's necessary for me to talk to you again about doing work and then doing an application. It's not working for us. In this case, I'm afraid it's not going to work for you because I'm afraid this gazebo is going to have a short lifespan. I can't say until we make our motion and vote on it, but the feeling I get from the conversation so far is that we're not going to let this gazebo stay where it is just by our ruling and our thoughts on the guidelines and how they work. and I think that's a shame because I hate to see anybody waste their effort, I hate to see anybody waste their time and their money doing work that we could have, if the application had come through, it could have been stopped before it was built or a better location could have been found for it or an alternative idea could have been worked out and that's a shame because that's something the staff is very good at helping with. I'm sorry that there were hinge pockets found in existing construction. Again, I can't speak to the whole story of that, but I can tell you there's a human factor in all of this. And I can tell you that compromises have been worked out before. I think that this could have been avoided. I think that somebody spent time and effort on something that's not acceptable, and that's a shame. So those are my points. A motion hasn't been made yet. We have a person in the audience who wants to speak and certainly want to hear what you have to say. The second point that you made, and I think Mr. Paul brought that up too, was I think you believe that I'm trying to argue where my backyard is. No, no. All I said by that was, and that was in line with there are times when perhaps you might have to look at the guidelines, is that I have a commercial building. As you pointed out, I don't have a typical rear yard. So I would like to be able to have people look at that and say, how can we make this work? That was my first point. My last point was, what was the last point you made? Timelines, I believe, was the last thing I spoke on. And I do understand that. and we got most of that done now when we had the dumpster enclosure and the posts and the wall that we want to build. I can do that. I can do that. But as you've noticed, though, it's very discouraging when I have 23 HVAC units, when I have seven units that are not operational because parts were stolen, copper was stolen, and now I have tenants, and I'm getting cold every single day. When are we getting up? So what do I say to them? I understand this is a timeline, but what do I say to them? No, I understand that's a predicament. And without getting into it too deeply, I'll go back to the two things you commented on just to wrap up the conversation because I don't want to leave it open-ended. I think everybody here is in favor of you improving your property and maintaining your tenants and maintaining your business. We're not against these things. These are good, noble things and part of making community work. So we're not against you in any way. That can't be tolerated, and it's not how it's going. My point about the rear yard, side yard, I understand what you're saying. I hear what you're saying about your point on where's the backyard of my building. My point is simply that where it is now is not an acceptable location, be it side yard or front yard or otherwise. I think I was making a parallel statement to your statement about backyard and side yards. So I think that's a done deal. Timelines, you know, I think about that case with the air conditioners being stolen, and I wonder if they're in my head readily, I think, of a handful of alternative temporary solutions that could have been done while the masonry solution was thought through. And it's too bad that that's not how that happened. But in the end, I think we came up with a good solution. It got built. I hope it's protecting your HVAC units. And everybody's doing better. I hope that's the case. That being said, any other comments for the applicant at this time from the board? Sir, if you'd like to come up and make whatever comments you have to make, I'd appreciate that. Lee Thomas, 427 South Mill Street, and president of the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association. The board, our board met last night and discussed the gazebo situation. We, the board, support the owner of Dudley Square as long as he follows the proper legal channels and requirements of the BOAR and historic overlay. Nobody objected to the gazebo. There are more questions as to why versus, you know, objecting to its actually being there. One comment was made that it's possible that as a school there was a gazebo. and a teacher would bring her children out and give an open-air classroom under such a structure. So it wasn't a big stretch for us to see it there. Others wondered why at all would Mr. Freisberg want to put it out there. There was another comment that was made by one of the board members that will it be used as a music bandstand. We didn't have the answer for that, but if so, probably permission would have to be granted for that use. The only other comment that was made was that it could, a concern would be that transients could use it as an overnight shelter, and the neighborhood has had problems with that in the past. Obviously, it's up to you, the board and the staff, to come to a conclusion on whether it stays or not, but I wanted to make you aware of that the South Hill Neighborhood Association Board did not really object to its being there per se, but I've already mentioned the other comments that were made and we'll just leave that up to you all. Thank you very much for your contribution to our conversation. Any other, well there's nobody left in the audience to speak to this case this evening. Are there any other comments at this time from the applicant or board members? Hearing none. Betty do you have anything? You were looking over here like I thought you had something to say. Okay. Well, if that's the case, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 13150372-8, 372 South Mill Street, I make a motion to follow the staff recommendations in disapproving the application as submitted. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? No. Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion to disapprove as submitted carries. Thank you very much. Final case on the agenda this evening is 343 South Upper Street, Construct Site Work and Landscaping. This is the site at 343 South Ever Street, and the proposal is to regrade and to construct new fences and landscaping and herbie enclosure. So July, and to sort of walk you through the property, let's go back here for a second. of the property. And then this is an aerial view to sort of give you the whole land overview is from 2004. And then this one is from 2007. And to give you more images of the site, staff noticed that dirt was being delivered to this site and talked with a representative of the owner who expressed that they were and just sort of give you an idea. That was the front yard. This is the rear yard. To give you an idea of, and this is actually just as when staff first noticed the dirt being delivered on site. And you can see the grade as is versus when the dirt started to be delivered. and then the rear here, this is sort of on the side, and sort of still the grade. And then dirt continuously, after staff talked to the owner, sent a stop work order to the representative and the owner, and the work still continued as far as dirt being delivered to the site. This is at a later time after the letter had been sent, and more dirt was still being delivered to the site. And you can see this is sort of the house, the structure, and this is sort of the northwest corner. And you can see the foundation and the French drain pipe. And here's an idea of where the foundation level is prior to being the dirt being delivered in the French drain, and then after, you can see that it came up considerably on the site. And then to walk you through again, so this work had continued, and then the applicant had did made a submit an application that would call for regrading, creating berms, but also including fence work and creating new fence entrances and pathways along in the whole yard and these berms. So one of the fence areas to be included would be at this location. You could see the flags that outline the pathway, which would be a wood chip that would be newly created. Plus, this area would have a new gate of sort of more of a contemporary design. not reflective of the existing, but something a bit more contemporary to sort of give a change. And this would be for your Herbie enclosure, or for the Herbys to be taken back. And you can see the pathway leading back with the flags towards the rear of the structure. And then, of course, the owner and representative have done some considerable landscape, flanking the sidewalk. And then down at the south end, this area would be proposed to put a new gate that would lead to mailboxes that would be in the location behind this particular new entrance. And you can see pathways with the flags leading out there. There was part of this application is the removal of the Y concrete pathway that would lead to the middle, and this is the other door. So there was a Y-shaped concrete pathway that led to the existing entrance. The applicant proposes to keep that entrance during the conversation we had, but then lock it. and he prefers now that these new entrances be used. And again, here's the leaning to the front side of the dirt that has been put into the front yard. And here's the existing gate that he said that he will be using. However, part of the plan does propose taking, as it had been, taking the concrete walkway that led to this door, and the new pathway would be parallel to the street and not necessarily the front doors don't have a direct relationship to this gate in this proposed plan. And you can see the dirt that has come along the brick itself, which is causing what looks like some moisture issues along the building. And then this was taken right after a rain we had. You can see the pathways that had been created. And pathways, of course, would be wood chip or mulch. And there would be a new herb enclosure that would be in this area, sort of in this vicinity. It will be a semicircular design, 12 feet wide, and will hold the herbies in this location. And some of the trees will actually be in the closure. If you can see the plants, you'll notice that here in a second. You can see that part of this proposal is to create a new parking area, and this will be sort of a, for four spaces that will be in this vicinity, the proposal is for large grade gravel with small gravel over that. that landscaped between each finger, so to speak, of the parking lot. You can see that there has been some large gray gravel already put in, coming off Mack's Alley that would come in a swath over into this area, but the area itself has not been graveled yet. You can sort of see this location. Part of the proposal, and you can see the gravel, the area in the foreground, which is the largest mound, is proposed. It was designed to hide the parking area from the south upper street. and you can see sort of the area coming from going east to west looking at the largest mound here in the corner of the building again and then you can see sort of the earth in the rear of the structure the neighboring property. And this is standing from in the parking area looking at the rear of the structure. So here is an impervious plan showing where there was sort of parking before and you saw them at the earlier aerials of the 2004 and 2007. And then this is the proposed plan. Amelia, what was the parking surface before? You may have said it a second ago. It was gravel before and it's gravel now. Okay, thank you. But only it's not in the same footprint of where the gravel did exist. And so the ordinance tied to no gravel will be expanded will apply here. That's countywide. So it's not limited to the H-1. We're not refreshing at this point. Correct. He would have the possibility of refreshing where the gravel had been in the past, but the newly proposed areas just can't be gravel. As I say, it's not limited to the historic district area. It's just government-wide, county-wide. And you can see, so on the whole plan, this being their upper street side structure, Your new proposed gate here, the new proposed gate here, wood chip areas here. You'll have one pathway leaning from this door to this pathway around the house or out to this new gate. The existing gate is still present. And then you can see your berms that are all. This right now, there is no topsoil on the mounds or the landscaping that has been noted on this. And there has been a drainage area put in here and then a dry well here. This is the swath where the gravel was noted and then the area where it was supposed to be parked cars here. In a conversation with the applicant and the owner, they said they were trying to take out low spots and also to deal with water runoff from the neighboring property. And you can see the dumpster enclosure. Here's an overall view of the site and the pathways. It's a rendering that denotes the gates, there will be a new gate along the back in the dumpster enclosure. Amelia, could you, pardon my interrupting, but while you're there, could you point out there's to be some of the historic fence proposed to be removed? Right. These areas here, this area here. No, but over by the garbage. Oh, no by the garbage. The dumpster, this is supposed to be a new gate here and replaced with a, or a new gate replaced here, fence to be removed, for this is where the Herbie would be taken out in this location. That's the notation of a section of fence to be removed and stored. Exactly. And so this would be the pathway leading back to the dumpster enclosure, the Herbie enclosure right here. Okay. along this pathway. And the same here, this would be the postal driveway, or delivery in this location. Thank you. And again, you can see a little bit more clearly the proposal for the plan of the parking of the cars with the sort of fingers, so to speak, with the landscaping between. and then this outlines the mounds and the pathway leading up to the house and over to the pathway leading to the front. And here's a rendering of the proposal for a gate design. And this one would be towards the south. And then here's the rear gate, which will be cantilevered and sliding. Of course, there's already an existing brick metal fence in the rear and then brick on the sides in particular places. And then this is the Herbie fence or gate. And then this is the semicircular Herbie enclosure, and you can see the trees that have been denoted to stay. And this is information regarding the gates. And then you'll see you have more information in with your packet of potential gate materials. Guidelines are included for your reference. Findings, the proposal to construct landscaping, which includes the construction of berms, pathways, fencing, gates, changes, and re-raveling requires further discussion. The new grading work that constructs berms and pathways, conducted without a certificate of program permit and continued after the stock work order was issued, is overwhelming and detrimental to the site, structure, and the building of the trees. The berms are constructed, are visually dominant, and create a false sense of history of this land. The LVCG design guidelines say 3.1F, 3.7A, and 3.7B, respectively state, landscape features, land formations, view sheds, archaeological or vistas or approaches should be retained, maintained. Site elements should not be visually intrusive or suggest a false sense of history. In landscape elements and site elements, open space should be developed and scale, use, character with the site in the local historic district. In addition, it has changed the character of the site as an urban structure to a more country setting. Grading of the site in order to fill in erosion holes is within the guidelines, however. Grading of the site as conducted, creating giant berms that alter the character of the land is neither in character nor in scale with the site. Besides the visual dominance of the dirt berms, staff has serious concerns regarding the amount of dirt that has covered the foundation of the structure and the tree roots. The dirt berms against the house seemed to have caused a wicking and moisture on the sides of the walls, and during the discussion with the owner, staff did express concern about the amount of the dirt against the house. The owner agreed that it was too much and stated that he would be removing some of the dirt around the structure. Staff suggested the dirt berms be reduced considerably to grade and fill in the dirt around. The yard needs to be reduced to at least four inches below the depth of the concrete slab of the front porches across the front elevation and below the foundation to show the top of the ashlar face of the limestone foundation. The rear foundation needs to be exposed at least 18 inches. Guidelines 1, 3N, and 2B1G respectively state masonry work should not be obscured, covered, and removed if original. Heights of foundation should be a minimum of one-sixth above grade, and foundation heights should be consistent with the average heights of other buildings on the street in the historic district. In addition to the dirt around the structure, staff has concerns about the dirt around the trees, and the dirt and the depth of the burns could cause considerable impact to the trees, and the covering of such deep soil layers over the top of the tree roots could cause the roots not to receive oxygen and begin to deteriorate. Design guidelines 3, 6G, and 8 respectively state landscape, land features, land formations, view sheds, and archaeological trees with trunks greater than 10 inches in diameter should not be removed unless diseases are unsafe. And landscape, land features, and land formations, view sheds, and archaeology of new construction rehabilitation work activities should work around trees greater than 10 inches in diameter. Reference the front sidewalk. Staff is concerned regarding the street pattern. The removal of the front Y entrance from the house to the street changes the pattern of development. While the house precedes much of the neighborhood development, and it does have a different setback, its relationship of the street is equally important. Per the plan, the present situation, the walkway from the existing gate to the front porch is no longer present, and the new walkways are parallel to the public sidewalk apart from the proposed utilitarian gates of the postal gate and the new Herbie proposed gate. The elimination changes the street pattern of the street, easement, sidewalk, walkway, front porch, and front door. Staff finds a proposal to eliminate these features by regarding regrading the front yard to be inappropriate and not within the guidelines. Guidelines 3.6.F say landscape land features, land formations, and view sheds. The vistas and purges should be maintained and retained, and staff suggest that the front walk, if not be used, then that the walkway be installed to pay reference to the pattern of development. Guidelines 3, 4B, sidewalks and walkways and curves that are added and altered, should be compatible with the principal and accessory structure of the property and surrounding historic properties. The proposal to install wood chip and walkway or walkway mulch is with the guidelines 3, 4C, the state sidewalk, walkways, curbs that are added should not be visually dominant or suggestible since history. the proposal to add the gates to the front and the rear are within the LFUCD design guidelines referencing 2B1K and 3A the state architectural details that help give the building character and scale an elimination or installation ornament or details that give building imitation appearance is not allowed new construction may incorporate contemporary material 3A fences of iron Castarian original to the property may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. The proposal to install a driving aisle and gravel requires further consideration. Within the guidelines, no new gravel can be installed. Gravel can be refreshed but cannot be added or expanded. Staff recommends the proposed gravel area be of grassy pavers or another form of paving. The driving aisle is permitted to be refreshed. The proposal to install a Herbie fence enclosure is within the guidelines. 3.1.D. Fences of wood boards of privacy should be located in the rear yards and generally no taller than 6 feet tall. Private fences of flat boards and single rows are more historically correct. Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the following. An addition of the front and rear gates and refurbishing of the front yard fence, which is part of the proposal. the creation of the Herbie enclosure, the creation of wood chips and mulched pathways areas, the proposal of the driving aisle that is refreshing the existing gravel with the condition of the parking area via grasscrete or another permeable paver, and with the overall conditions of the final details of the Herbie and fence to come back, final gate details, and the final grade plan. Stafford recommends disapproval of the following request. the gravel, the parking area, the elimination of the pathway that leads from the front sidewalk to the front porches, and the creation of the berms around the site. And the applicant is present. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, while he's coming forward, staff would also just note, and I think you all had this at your place, an email tied to Division of Water Quality's need for there having been erosion and sediment control issues and permits issued accordingly. And as they've just disturbed over 5,000 square feet, so there's going to need to be erosion control plan and grading plans and so forth and so on. That is mostly FYI for you all and also for the applicant in the sense of reminding them of that as well. Do we know that this has been reviewed or gone through any application process with the city up to this point? I can answer that. The staff doesn't have knowledge of that. It has been. We've talked with the environmentalists. They've approved it. We've talked with the arborists. They've approved what we're doing. We've talked with engineering, and they approved it. In fact, can we get your name and everything, please? Sorry, what? To start your conversation, could you give your name and address, please? Oh, I'm sorry. Richard Rau, RAUH, 343 South Upper Street. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. So you have spoken to environmental. You want to know why that gravel is there. It's because city engineering told us to put it there. As a means of sediment control? Yeah. But not as a means of permanent driveway? Number one, they said that what we're doing, we tried to get them to give us an official written permit. And because one neighbor kept complaining that we were doing work without a permit, or that we were digging in our yard without a permit. And so they said, no, what you're doing is inconsequential. You don't need a permit. And I can tell you who told us that and has been to the site several times. Not that we disagree. We went ahead and did what was recommended by the engineering guidelines, which was to put down the gravel and put up the silt fence. So we have the silt fence on the downhill side, and there's no runoff. At the time that it was determined that what you were doing was inconsequential and did not require a permit, was that in view of the entire scope of the project or the work that had been done up to that point? Say that again, please. When you were told the work you were doing was inconsequential and did not require a permit, was that comment based on the work you'd done so far or the entire project that you were going to do? It was based on this drawing that you got. Okay. Okay, so anyway, it is 8, 10, 12, and I don't want to rag this out, but there are some things to be said. I don't know what you want to do. Well, you make a good point that it's 8, 10. Yeah. And actually, Mr. Pol's going to come right back in just a moment. and I sympathize. Could we take just a few moments, just a few minutes, to maybe take a restroom break and come back? If you don't mind, we've been talking a lot. Let's drink water. You could recess. If I could get a Coke somewhere, that would be great. I left Atlanta at 8.30 this morning. I've been driving my brains out, and I'm going to try to drive back tonight. So do we need to actually call for recess? Yes. Oh, you don't? Counsel. I heard yes and I saw a nod no. We're going to be back in three minutes. Yeah, sure. Motion it. Well, you don't have to motion it. Just announce. Just announce you're recessing. Announce. Tell them to all go at home and get a Coke and come back. Did you say you were looking for a Coke or a coat? Downstream machines. Downstream machines. Thank you. I did. It's just like a guy. And what happened to my... Thank you. It takes cards. I'd have been glad to treat. Can you wait to find them? Well, you can start with these. This is fine. We can get some better than an office. You have two aerial smithers. One with a back sock I want to put up as well. Is it different than the one she had on it? My only concern is it's so wild. It actually isn't. No, it just has green dots on it. Jacob said that they could ask me to speak. Wow. Oh, so we can speak. We're going to start. The board inviting the board to speak briefly. I said, no, no, he can speak shortly. We're having a group of board members who are saying in law is advised that it wouldn't be out of order, exactly. It would be out of our traditional order, but it wouldn't be a problem. If you all are willing to invite the neighborhood president to make his comments, he could go home. And then the applicant is willing to let him have that. I'll yield the floor to him. If that's suitable to you and you would rather not hear the rest, then that's fine. Well, because I'm really not here to rebut anything. Sure. And basically the board of the South Hill Neighborhood Association talked about this situation as well last evening. and we support the renovation and upgrades to the property as long as the owner probably follows the proper legal channels and requirements the BOAR and the historic district overlay the only comments we're not we really felt that the design was immaterial to our needs its its aesthetics unless the board and the staff decide otherwise. The only concerns were the possibility of excess water runoff on the Max Alley and in the event of the proposed water retention basins, there are two of them. One, as I understand, will have a pump for irrigation, which is fantastic. The only concern is that if at once those basins are full, that the overflow be addressed. But it sounds like if there's any overflow, it's going to be more of a problem for the property owner than for any of the neighbors. But that was it. That was basically it. We'll leave the rest for you all to work out. Well, we appreciate your endurance. Thank you. Staying with us this long, and we appreciate your comments towards this case. Thank you so much. Thank you. Down some hours. Go into an 8,500-pound cistern. Yeah, and that can take a good six-hour rain with no problem. Six-inch rain. I think. We know that. But once it's filled, then we'll be okay. You'll work it out. If we could take a look at these two things first. Yes, sir? That's okay. Oh, all right. I want to give you a quick answer. I don't want to belabor this. It's important that you use a microphone. Do you want a pointer? Here is this thing right here. In spite of the exuberance of Ms. Armstrong's presentation and complaint about the gigantic berms, we're really not very far apart on where we want to be on this. in a way, I mean just to before we get into this, what you're seeing is the equivalent of stumbling in on your wife or sister when she's got a mud pack on rollers in her hair and her bathrobe and if you see her two hours later she's stunning and that's kind of what you're seeing here what you're seeing with those photographs but I'll lead into the explanation of all that first this is an aerial of the property taken before this humongous thing happened behind the Lafayette School after Mrs. Higgins let it burn and it sat there vacant for years and vagrants lived in it came over here and salted my house, busted all of my historic light fixture collection up and sold it, cut out all the copper out of my basement, and the basement filled up with water. But be that as it may, what I wanted to point out to you with regard to historic viewsheds and the preservation thereof and or the continuing changing of that. Originally, this was all a nice continuous landscape. And Max Alley is actually seven to eight feet higher right here than it is over here. You can't tell it in this picture, but the street's higher than Max Alley slightly at this point. And Max Alley comes back at this point and then drops about eight feet from here to here. For 150 years, we were all a unified little watershed there. and of course in the 19th century the roads were higher than the side yards backyards and the water was run off into the residential properties and that was the way you did it my backyard there collects water, collected water for a long time because it was low it collected water in 1976 collected water in 1978 when I designed and built this house over here. That's the back end of it. It's the faux front gray brick townhouse on Mill Street. All the dirt from that site was deposited in this backyard in order to try to raise it up a little bit more. Still, you can see it's a soggy bog. It was a soggy bog then. Can I have the next slide? We'll move on real quick here. The same view from reverse. Not that it helps that much. Okay, we'll skip that. Let's go to the site plan. So, no. Did I just do that? Yes. Oh, okay, thank you. All right, so also in the late 70s, we constructed this stone and clay tile and brick and ornamental iron fence around the back. As I told Amelia, my wife was getting upset by stumbling over inebriated people in the hedges and stuff, and it was just scary. But we never put a gate in. We just wanted to make it hard to climb in and make a camp with pornographic literature in the shrubs. That worked. But a couple years ago, Alan Schubert came along, and after much hemming and hawing around, we all worked with him, and he built this thing on the back of the Lafayette School with a parking lot back there, raised the grave four to five feet at the property line, which put me down in a gigantic hole. The bottom of the fence is up to your chest. I think I left you a picture here of the conditions. Well, you know, let's talk about viewshed. You want to talk about viewshed? that's destructive of the viewshed. That's a completely different viewshed. That viewshed that I just described that was around for 150 years is gone forever. And so what do you do about that? So you have new conditions. You try to do something to mitigate the impact of that. And also you try to do something to deal with the water and whatnot. Well, it just turns out that we also have wanted to do this. What we're saying here is rainwater reclamation management and gardening project. So what we're doing is channeling the water in a deliberate way, and we're taking all of the rainwater, recovering all the rainwater from the roof of the house, which in the past just went out onto the site and in some cases went into perforated pipe that we put in in 78. And we decided we were going to pipe it all into the cistern, this 8,500-gallon cistern that we have there, historic cistern, and use it as gray water to irrigate our garden. And so that's what this drawing is for, to explain that. You've already heard about the gates and the dumpster and whatnot. You can see the landscaping intention here with the flowers and the bushes and the trees. And you can see the cautionary notes about putting dirt against trees and that sort of thing. The site topo, if you are interested in those things, originally looked something like this, an L that just kept coming down and down and down, which meant that this corner right here was the low point. Always was the low point. Still is the low point. And this area right in here, the grade has not changed. that's still the same grade except, of course, for a little bit of infilling. So it's all sort of level with that seven foot down from the corner of Max Alley kind of situation. So the water continues to move in the watershed down Max Alley and on down to Maxwell Street, which is how this urban block is drained. And so that's the overall conceptual frame for this. Now, I did speak to Amelia about my landscaping, my gardening vision. And it was sort of ridiculed in that report. he said he wanted it to seem like a house on a hill or something. That's fairly unfair because what I told her was, she's talking about right here, where actually we almost added no dirt. What we did do was to press the walkway slightly to expose this front edge of this existing grade. And I told her I wanted to plant an azalea hillside there or some roses or something of that order. And that became that statement that she quoted. I did tell her that I thought that putting a garden in here and putting woodland plants in and enhancing the existing trees and basically continuing the walkway that had always been used but birming up flower gardens around it would give it a feel that was a little bit more appropriate for an Italianate villa, which is what this house is. But Italianate villas were in cities, too, and they had certain character associated with that. So I'm trying to evoke some of that. But to be perfectly honest, this is a gardening project. And 99.9% of gardens are designed in situ, meaning in place. They aren't worked out, you know, unless you're Gertrude Jekyll or something. They're not worked out way ahead of time, or A.E.B.I. maybe. most normal people work out their garden project on an ad hoc basis. And so what we were doing after we realized that this summer was the summer that we were going to respond to the Schubert project with the big pit that he put us in, and we were going to start putting some dirt in there to level it out, As we started doing that, we said, well, why not? At the same time, let's deal with some of the other issues, like screening the parking lot from Upper Street, like screening the parking lot from the house itself, so that if you're living there, let's say, you know, you don't want to look at it at a parking lot, you'll have a little bit of a visual screen so that you feel like, you know, it's a decent place to live. historic South Hill. I mean, I was president of the historic South Hill Neighborhood Association back in the 70s. My wife was too. I'm committed to this neighborhood. Even though I don't live here anymore, I haven't sold this house. Now, there were times when I went through some economic rough times in the 90s and the recession, and I had some bad luck with tenants, but I didn't sell the house, and I don't intend to sell the house. Everybody wants me to sell the house to them, and I don't want to. Historic South Hill never recovered from the Great Depression. Great Depression is what devastated the in-town neighborhoods. Before the Great Depression, these houses were lived in by doctors and lawyers, and they were considered a decent, prestigious place to live. Great Depression wiped out a lot of that. And then there are a few families that survived, like Mrs. Gamble, You know, married to a doctor and whatnot. And those houses have always been landmarks in the neighborhood because they never run down. This house at one time had like eight different units in it. It was a place where railroad people would come to shack up overnight. When we first got it, people would knock on the door in the middle of the night and ask us if we had a room. So the point is, why am I saying that? The historic, quote-unquote, viewshed that you see on Max Alley and you see on historic South Hill is not a historic 19th century viewshed. It's a depleted, dilapidated, neglected environment that's a result of the devastation of the Great Depression. And if you like that, fine. You know, we don't. I don't think the Neighborhood Association likes it either. If you want to preserve it, that's fine, but I think that's nuts. But you can certainly make an academic argument for it, and you could use all kinds of jargon to support that. But, you know, and I'm not diminishing Amelia. She did a nice job. It's a difficult scenario to deal with. What are you actually supposed to say here? But this is a larger issue. Anyway, and yes, quite frankly, this is a demonstrative design. I'm an architect. I'm a historic architect. I've been doing historic preservation for 35 years. I did the largest project in Ohio 20 years ago. I restored the tallest building in Cincinnati. I've been around the block. I understand what, you know, not only on the micro level, but on the macro level, we're trying to do with this, and I'm in it up to my eyeballs. But I am not a janitor. I'm an architect. And I believe, and it is my belief, and I've told a lot of people this in very large rooms, that the best restoration architects are architects that are good designers. Unfortunately, most restoration architects aren't good designers. They're doing restoration because they want someone to give them a rule book to go by rather than to use their own creativity. I'm not going to make an argument here that I'm supreme over anything else, but I am going to make the argument that I believe you can dialogue with a previous architect or with a previous builder, and I believe that's healthy. and I respect, when I find an old building, a remarkable old piece of architecture, I don't look at it as an object. I look at it as a communication between me and the guy or the people that built it. I want to know what they were thinking. I enjoy that. I want to, you know, it's like putting the building on a psychiatrist's couch and finding out what created it. and I want to play a concert with that person. I want to play a duet with that person, and I think that's perfectly legitimate. I think making architects in historic districts or that deal with historic properties into janitors is unconscionable. In some cases, it's appropriate, but in other cases, it's not. And there's no reason why that's in contrast or in contradiction to the Secretary of the Interior Standards. None. You show me where it is. And the other thing that I'd like to point out is that the business about changing the viewshed, that's already been done. What we're doing now is trying to fix it, trying to fix the damage that was done, if damage was in fact done. that the pattern or the policy if there is a policy of this board Not to put words in your mouth because I didn't like being put in my mouth, but the policy seems to be that changing the viewshed is Okay, if there's an expeditious reason for it and because that's what you did next door And that's what happens all over the place in town. I'm not saying it doesn't have an important point to be made but viewshed is really just a fancy word for changing the way it looks. Viewshed, jargon again. So I believe that it's possible to do a dialogue, a meaningful dialogue with a previous architect or with the historic resource itself. In some cases, when you play the duet, the historic architect's doing the concerto and you're doing the accompaniment. In some cases, you're doing the concerto because your project's bigger and the historic resource is an ancillary satellite to it, and they're playing the accompaniment. I think that's healthy. I think that's good. I think that's something we should all strive for. Anyway, am I running too long? Sorry. I just wanted to give you some background or some sense of what I'm up to on that. Now, am I adamantly advocating no change to what you see right now? Actually, what you saw in those pictures isn't even really what's there anymore. but why did I we've been talking with Amelia all summer long by the way we haven't been ignoring her we just didn't know what we were going to say how do you evaluate how do you talk about something like this if gardening garden design is 99.9 in situ improvisation you don't know what kind of dirt you're going to use what kind of plants you're going to have, whether it's acidic, whether it's alkaline. You know, you can't know. So our template was to kind of work this up. And we told her that once we had it figured out, we would draw a drawing. And that's exactly what we did. And we gave it to her. She saw it. And we said if we needed to and I said I honestly do not think that at this point It's appropriate. We have anything to say to this board Because I don't think this board would know What's react to I could come in and wave my arms around you can't react weight your arms around So now we have this and I I told Amelia also that I was very much aware of the BOAR. I was very much aware of the standards and the process. And that when we had something that I thought was appropriate to put before you, we would do it. And that's what we've done. Now, I'm very appreciative that basically almost everything we've done has been approved. The gates and all that stuff. The thing that is a little queasy about is whether the berms are too high. Just to comment, you're saying these things have been approved, and I think what you mean to say is recommended for approval. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to. It's a very... Asserve your authority. Well, it's a big issue with this project, so let's just make it clear. Sorry. Nothing's been approved. You're right. At this moment. Wrong choice of words. It's been recommended. In any case, that's basically where I'm coming from. And we intend to work with the Historic Preservation Office because we think we're all in this together. But we do think that, as this gentleman said, that there's nothing wrong with this design. and that to argue vaguely using nonspecific terms that there is is to avoid admitting that there really are no standards for this kind of work in your ordinance. There's only the caveat that it might be important because we asked her every time she encountered us, we asked her, well, what are the standards that we should be paying attention to? And she could not tell us. She said, I don't know. I'll get back to you. I'll look at it. You want me to see it? Give it to me. I'll read it. Landscape, land features, land formations, viewsheds and archaeology. Yes, she quoted that. It's vague. It's vague. It just simply says it's an issue. There are actually one, two, three, five, six, seven, nine very distinct items on it. So it's not vague. There is some specificity on it. Well, do you disagree with what I'm saying? I'm just saying that you can't say there was nothing there. All right. That apply in great specificity to this. But I'm not completely right on everything I say. But it's the principle again. That's what Ernest Conley, Ward Jandl, always emphasized, was it's the principle of this. They wrote the standards in 76. I watched them overturn numerous state historic preservation offices, numerous National Park Service regional offices, because the enthusiastic interpreters of the standards didn't get the point that it's the principle that's important. And that's what I'm putting out in front of you now. So what am I saying here? If you all do decide to vote favorably about this and follow most of what Amelia's suggested, and by the way, she uses the term suggested in here a lot rather than something more absolute. I'm willing to, it's a work in progress. It's not a finite, defined, I don't even like it yet. I think it could be a little bit too out of proportion here and there. Within, say, an 8 to 12-inch modification category of cutting and shaping and moving, the garden beds, the planting beds are crude. They're not actually suitable for prime time yet. and she is nervous about it and I don't blame her so their intention is there what else is there to say the vestigial entrance off the street through the gate that was put up probably in the 20th century say about 1915 or 1910, possibly a little earlier but probably not, is out of sync with the house by 50 years. But still, I respect it. I like it. We have been doing our best to keep it up now. and if having a vestigial entrance there, and Amelia and I talked about this, I said, well, we'll just lock the gate and leave it. We're not going to take it out. Somebody might want to reopen it in the future, and that, by the way, is one of the basic principles of good preservation work, is to allow subsequent generations to do their own interpretation of things. but if we want to we can do a vestigial pathway through it and all that stuff I have no problem with that even though honestly the thing that was all busted up and broken and sagging into the ground and full of water that we took out is not a 19th century walkway it's not even an early 20th century walkway it was probably put in the 1940s but again you know Can I ask you a question about that? The front porches were also reconstructed out of crummy concrete. Excuse me. Yes. Could you address your impressions of the changes you're making to the front yard relative to issues of urbanism versus rural landscapes? Okay. If you go on Broadway and look at the twin of this house, which is where C.E. Pennington put his office in the 1970s and then promptly copied our paint colors, I don't know what he painted it now, but that's what happened then. Those houses all sit up on an embankment. It's a fairly normal Victorian treatment, actually. horse and carriage neighborhoods, Victorian houses, depressed streets and embankment in front of them. And those embankments were characteristically planted with flowers and ivy and whatnot. The amount of dirt that we put in the front yard is minuscule. If you can look at it, if you look closely at the excavation photos, which is the reason I gave them to you, You can see the line where the topsoil is. Not that one. There we go. One of these. Somewhere in here there's one of these. There it is. It's about 10 inches. The photograph you saw, which made it look like there's a big mound in front of the house, there's no mound in front of the house. The dirt is still level with the street. What we did was make that walkway dip down a little bit, which exposed about two and a half feet of an embankment there that we can plant. That's what we did. We didn't mound up dirt. There's no berm there unless you consider a cut down, a little drop down. But it appears that there's dirt against the base of the house at the porches that conceals. That is dirt that was left over by the excavator when they dug the drywall. So is it your intention to restore the original grate? Absolutely. In fact, there's a vent under each of those windows, an underfloor vent with a cast iron grate on it, which is covered up by this dirt. And we're going to bring the dirt down so those vents are exposed to where they normally were. And they were before. So yes, yes, thanks for bringing that up. We're going to do that. I think 18 inches is a little bit too high all the way around the house, but it's already, if you look at the photographs, about 12. Now, by the way, that French drain, she pointed out and said, look how high it's sticking up. I put that French drain in. In 1978, why did I put that French drain in that high? Because that's where the grade was going to go. And I finally put it there. And that's where it is now. All around the house, I set the grade with those French drains. I just couldn't afford to put the dirt against them until recently. or I couldn't figure out, as I told her, exactly what kind of thematic idea made sense. Because in 1978, I'll tell you, I was completely in awe of Gratz Park and John Gaines' house and the urban courtyards and, as I said to her, the New Orleans urbanism of the back alley stuff. And I kept thinking, how am I going to do that with this house? And I could never figure it out. And the reason I could never figure it out is because of this big, gigantic yard. It's the biggest yard on the street. It's the thing that makes the house distinctive. It's the second house on that site. Their house was there. Before it was a federal townhouse kind of deal. It burned to the ground. The remnants of that house were used to build my house. And my house was built in the Italianate style with a Gothic Revival exterior and a Greek Revival lumberyard interior trim because that's what was popular in the early 1860s, and that's when the house was built. And then the other houses on the street promptly, in the next 25 years, copied my house when they all became Italianate. because they weren't originally Italianate. All those brackets and crap on those houses, that came in the late 19th century, and it was applied to houses that were built in the 1820s and 1810s and 1830s. The 300 block of South Upper Street has a house from every decade of the 19th century, including an 1803 log house, which my wife owned when we lived there, but we couldn't afford to keep it, so she sold it. Anyway, it's all very interesting, and I'm not oblivious to it. I didn't just wake up one morning and decide to drive to Home Depot and buy a bunch of stuff and come back and put a birdbath and a fire pit and a pressed concrete purple or pink patio in my backyard. This is much more considered than that. However, I'm sure you have your own feelings. So I feel like I've taken up too much of your time at this point. Half an hour is enough. If I think of something else, I'll say it. Well, let's get to the point. I understand what you're saying. I appreciate owning property and the evolution of design and wanting to see things go the right way. And I'm a fan of a good, great deal of what you've done. I think there's some really neat things going on. Your drawings are amazing. And I'm happy to see them and review them. There's some basic things that are being overlooked here, just kind of glossed over, that I think we as the board can't appreciate. You know, you kind of just said, I'll make a presentation when I feel like there's something to talk about. In the meantime, loads and loads of dirt are coming in. Things are changing. You know, you've got to meet us halfway. I mean, there needs to be more done on your part as the applicant. I mean, there's a lot of work that's already been done, and we're just now talking about this here. And that's a problem. And I understand what you're saying about your process of design. And there's an organic nature to creating a garden and how it's not all planned. And that's great. But there are some things that can be planned that, you know, we really should have talked about sooner. Just so we could all be on the same page. Like I said, I didn't know much. I mean, I said that better. That doesn't change. I'm sorry. How do you put something like that? You find a way. It doesn't excuse you or set you aside from the rest of the world that follows the process and comes to talk to us first. I mean, you saw the last guy that was here before you, he does it repeatedly, and it's not good, not a single time he does it, it's not good. I actually couldn't hear what he was saying. It sounded very contentious, but I couldn't hear. My point is you've disregarded the process, and that's upsetting to me. And I wish you hadn't done it. I apologize to you for that, but again, I think she was told, and I made it very clear to Robert when he's talked to her to let her know that we are not ignoring the BOAR. Which part, I think he ignored this page pretty good. Design review process, how does it work? And then it talks about what changes you make, fine, but it also talks about going through the process of application and review and discussion. Not to cut in, but, you know, obviously you've been part of the historical process in this town. This can't be new to you. You know, you're a historical architect using your own words, so obviously you know that there is a process here. And that's what irritates me is that you're talking about knowing all this historical background and all this kind of stuff, and you know about the BOAR, the BOAR, but you did. You literally just disregarded it because you're like, well, I'm not done designing yet. But, you know, I think that's just a cop-out. I mean, I think, you know, you could have come to us and said, I want to do this to my property, and this is an idea that I want to pursue. instead of just loading up and just taking off. You know, the project next door was done the same way. They came in, they did it, and they came and asked for forgiveness. And it just, you know, I've said it a thousand times, and it seems to be getting worse and then better, is that we have people do work and come in and ask for forgiveness. And I've said it before, is that this board needs to start, we need to figure out a way that it can have some teeth so people who disregard the process pay some way. If it's financially, maybe that's the way it is. It's from doing it again. Yeah. I mean, it just, I mean. That's the procedure, okay? So that stinks, and you blew it off, and it's aggravating. But more importantly, now let's talk about the design that's here and what we're here to review and move forward on, approved or otherwise. Let me speak to Mr. Jackson for a second. If I had done a single nail in the house, I would have been here. I haven't touched the house. It was probably my mistake to think that if it wasn't a man-made item, like a door or a window or whatever, that it was not as imperative. And in fact, it's a continuum. At what point do you prohibit? And this is an academic question. It's not a defense. At what point do you prohibit property owners from digging in their own yard? But you're not digging in your own yard. No, not now. In the beginning, though, I didn't know where I was going with this, and it just kind of snowballed. But by that time, we were talking with her. But by that time, we had to send you a legal stop work order. At what point did you stop? I never saw that. But it was sent to your representative. It was sent to you. Yeah, he told me about it. It puts our inspector in a very difficult position. I agree. We're continuing right on after that's gone. I know. But I actually did have a disagreement in principle about the appropriateness of that. Oh, okay. Now, well, you didn't call to say, hey, let's talk about this. You know, it results in not having a successful mechanism for you to get your permits because you just continue on and continue on and continue on with things happening, and it leaves our inspector pleading with your workman to stop after it's been sent. It doesn't even matter at this point. I know. I agree it's not good. I accept full responsibility for it. If I have consequences, there are consequences. I'm not here. I'm somewhere else. I'm not blowing it off. With me, won't you put all that? I'm going to help you write an ordinance that will create a fine. But again, that's correct. No disrespect to bed. We're past that. Disrespect all around. I'd like to express where I am on this and try to get this wrapped up so I can go home and go to bed. i am in agreement in agreement with staff with regard to the approvals that are recommended the disapprovals that are recommended number one gravel of parking area i have a feeling that's a no-brainer because i think it's going to be required by the zoning ordinance anyway i don't think you can gravel a parking area i don't think it was our gravel i think for this engineering Well, you know, okay. But ultimately, your parking area is good. You're going to have to deal with it other than with gravel, I think. Well, here's an interesting thing. We don't have a lot of definition. What is the surface intended to be for the parking area? End result. At this point, wood chips. Wood chips. Mr. Rout, do you have the mic? Are you holding the mic? Where is the mic? Sorry. We need to get you on the mic. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, if you'll hold that up. Wood chips. Okay. I think that's going to be a building inspection issue because I think you have to pay the parking area. I don't think you can do anything else at this point in time. Am I right about that? I know that gravel is not going to be considered a way to do it. As we said, you can refresh gravel where it existed. You will need to contain it with some sort of a lift. It grabs off the table. We'll put edging around it. Parking lot. But any additional area will have to have some form of a paving, whether it's grassy pavers, blacktop, concrete, whatever. So wood chips is not an approved material to your knowledge? I don't believe it is. I don't have the final answer to that, but it seems to me that that's another product that rolls away and appears in the storm sewers and that that's the intent of the gravel ordinance is to stop that. So paved surfaces, our understanding, and the grassy pavers have been kind of getting everybody on board with that, that that is a good alternative in terms of from an engineering perspective, that kind of thing. Concrete grass pavers you're talking about? Like the waffles? There are a variety of options in pavers, as you would well know. If you have anything prohibited is really what I'm trying to find. Just a hard surface, but it can hopefully drain water. So you want a hard surface. But hopefully something that also can help drain water. Permeable. Permeable. Sustainable. And the grass able to come up between it would be helpful in a visual sense. Okay, we will do that. Yeah. So let me go on to the second item is the elimination of a pathway leading from the front sidewalk to the two front porches. I'll be glad to put the vestigial connection through the front gate. You know, I'm ambivalent toward that. My concern about the front yard was that it appeared from the photograph that the grade at the house had been changed dramatically, and it completely changed the... That's not the intent, and that's not the way it's going to end up. Now, there was a mound in front of the house that we have not yet fully restored, but it wasn't of a great magnitude. I mean, it was a garden. It was a flower garden intended to be. We didn't make it. It was there already. So do you hear what I'm saying? Does that sound right to you, that the original condition of grade to house, and particularly in front of the house, is an important thing to protect? Yeah. So then the third one is the creation of berms around the site. And for me personally, that's way too general of a concern. I don't have concerns about the creation of the berms around the site. I think that what you're doing arguably could be really elegant and beautiful and appropriate, particularly in light of what's happened next door where the grade, as you have said, the grade has been changed, which forces your hand at any rate. What I am concerned about relative to the berms around the site are two issues. One is that it appears from the photographs that there's way too much overburden on top of the tree roots, which will ultimately damage the trees. I know that you had in your drawings notes to the effect that dirt should not be against the trees, but it's not just the bowl of the tree. That's right. It's the drip line. It's the drip line. So that's a concern for me. And we're pulling that back. It's just this process. So it takes a lot of time to dig those out, but we've been digging them out, and they're much more dug out now than they were in the photographs that you saw were made. But I agree with that. So then the other concern relative to this is one that you don't seem to agree with, and that is the piling of dirt against the house, because you proudly announced that you put your rainwater leaders deliberately in. There's none of that really happening, and we're not doing it anyway. No, you did, because you set your rainwater leader high so that you could fill the dirt. It's a foundation. It's a foundation, yes. And we are putting dirt against that foundation, but not to the top of it. Right. But you're dramatically changing the... Our only discussion here is about six inches of dirt. And there are some places where six inches is the right amount, and there are other places where it could be more. We'll pull it down more some places if that is necessary. I, frankly, as an architect, don't think that's a big deal. But I saw the guideline. I know what it says, 16 inches or the average of what else is in the neighborhood, which is a very strange standard considering a neighborhood isn't fixed at any point in time. But be it that as it may, that's what it says. So if you're asking me to meet that guideline, we will. So you're saying you're going to change this condition? We'll lower it a bit. A bit. How much is a bit? Well, right now it looks like it's about 10 inches. So we need to lower it 8. So basically two courses of stone. I don't have any before photographs to judge by. The only one I've seen is of the staff presentation. If we could see that for comparison, that would be handy. Thank you. Randy, would you mind the before photographs about the foundation measure ground? I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. We're asking him to put up the photograph that shows the earth with the foundation pre. There was an addition on the back of the house. Some of what you're seeing there, it was crawl space. It was not an original ground line. We tore off almost as much square footage as we left. Hard paper sheds that were put up in the 20s and 30s that those railroad guys were sleeping in. Wouldn't you agree that the relationship of the brick house, the brick enclosure to the foundation wall, that there is a certain gravitas that's created by a deeper foundation wall, and that by burying most of it, as you've done in this particular case, you're changing that sensibility. You're changing that feeling of the brick portion of the house sitting on something that has mass and substance, and that's a significant architectural intervention. All right, I'm listening to you. What it mostly is is the distinction between public and private or between front and back or between served and servant. I mean, the whole house reflects that. But again, part of that goes back to an era which is no longer with us, which is when you had farm animals in the back and the place looked like a dump in the backyard and nobody cared about it. Same token, if you're just looking at it from the standpoint of form and massing and architectonic issues, what you say is true. But I don't think it was a deliberate design intent. I think the front was a deliberate design intent, and you can tell that by looking at it. The face brick is different. The stone trim is cut stone and sits on top of this, and it was intended to sit down on that nice finished stone front. In the back, it became ragged by accident, by neglect. Not neglect, by disinterest, really. So if you want to preserve that sense, I think that's legitimate, and I completely will agree with that. As to the degree of it, you've got to remember what you're seeing here is something I created. That's not the grave that was there in 1940, because I did a significant intervention on the back of this house in 1978. But that doesn't really matter in terms of your point. your point of reading that, I'll accept it. I mean, do you think that's good for the house? I mean, to have that much dirt laid up against that foundation as far as structurally over time? There's dirt on the other side of it. I've been down in that crawl space. We'll bring the dirt no higher than the bottom of the joist bearing, which is really 12 inches down from that line, but if you want to take it a little bit further, we'll do that. That is what's going on inside. And I think having it vary somewhat where there are entrances and where there are step-ups into the house, I think, you know, is appropriate. But you like this corner, having this corner read with its engineering strength under it. A valid point in terms of a message a building can give. But again, I was not focusing on the building at this point as much as we are now. And to be honest with you, like I said, I put that clay tile in in 78. I imagined the dirt being there, and so that's where I put it. I can't believe you all are holding your interest this long. I haven't looked at the residential code in so long, but I do. It sounds very familiar. I think that's true. I don't know if we're going to get the answer to that this evening. right here and it's not even for us to determine residential code compliance but it could be stipulated in the motion that all grade reflect at minimum residential code requirements easy stipulation to add i think if you check i think if you check the residential code you'll find that you have to to have grade eight inches below the bottom of framing. That would be two inches more than 16. That would be, you said eight inches. I believe it's eight inches below the bottom of framing. The framing is 12 inches, so that would be 20 inches. Six inches would be 18 inches, which is what your ordinance says. I'll agree to that. At least the section she quoted. I mean, I'm referring to a code that refers to new construction, so, you know, it's, you know. All right. It's only relevant as a sort of bellwether, you know. Well, a new framing isn't 12 inches either. That's probably nine and a half. Are there more comments or questions for the applicant at this time? No, not for me. Staff, do you have any additional comments? No. We've cleared out the audience. There's no one left to speak for this case, which is to be expected. Will that be in the case, and no further comments from the board at this time, I would certainly entertain a motion. we're looking at you go for it okay relative to case number one nine four five zero three four three dash a at three forty three south upper street i move to recommend approval of the items for which staff recommended approval with the conditions recommended by staff those being the items recommended for approval are number one additional front rear gates and fence refurbishing number two the creation of the herby enclosure number three the creation of wood chip or mulch areas and number four the proposal of the gravel driving aisle that is refreshing the existing gravel with the condition that the parking areas be of grass crete or another permeable pavement and the following conditions also should be met one final details of the herbian fence come back to staff two final gate details come back to staff and three final grade plan comes back to staff. Relative to those items recommended for disapproval by staff, I move that the parking area of finished material be a material that is not gravel, but is a paving material of some sort that complies with the zoning ordinance. that final details of the parking area come back to staff to actually I'm going to include in my recommendation for approval the elimination of the pathway leading from the front sidewalk to the two front porches and so that's that's in addition to the four items that were recommended for approval by the staff on the third item that the staff recommended for disapproval the creation of berms around the site i am going to move that the final grading plan come back to the staff for approval and that that grading plan um not um obscure the foundation wall of the house beyond 0.8 inches below framing, that the protection of the tree roots be considered in the grading plan so that the overburden is limited in such a way that the trees will continue to thrive. and that the existing relationship between existing grade and front of the house be maintained in its current condition or in its original condition. i'm sorry the design with the the flower bed mounds well i i think i covered that by asking that you come back to staff with a final grading plan okay as well as and i think also addressed by that would be the amount of dirt at the foundation being at the elevation described. It all fits together, basically, or so? I think so. I think they're related, don't you? I think they are, but I just wanted a clear indication that the conceptual design and its intent is not disapproved as it was indicated. I would be happy to add that, that the fundamental conception of the landscape design is acceptable. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? And I'd like to make clear, part of the motion, as you heard, was a final grading plan, something that I think would be helpful for the staff and for us, should a final grading plan, you know, when the final grading plan comes back, are some indication of actual elevation so we know the highs and the lows relative. So make a benchmark that says this is zero and then describe everything else plus or minus that. The benchmark that's used now is the property line, which established. We don't have anything higher than that. Not now. But you understand the drawing we'd like would have a reference point that would make clear how high the berms will be, how low the lows will be, and where they are relative to the plan itself and the objects on the plan. Yes. Yes, we are. Yes. So there's a second has been made. Point has been made, clarification that yes, indeed, we are looking for a drawing with some elevation heights indicated for further review and clarification's sake. All that being said, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. No. Pardon me. I'm not voting. I have two points to ask. All right. On your denial, the only thing, if I'm hearing all this properly, the only thing you're flat denying is the extending gravel where it had not been. So, Kate, did I miss anything? Okay. So you can, within your motion, that that is the only piece to be denied, and we would enumerate that. The other thing, though, is tied to the, I've lost my train of thought. The berms? Give me a break. No, the berms. Take the microphone. That's because the pathways are going to be filled in with stuff. Sidewalk. You know, that would be made clear on the plan, right? It will. I just think visually. Sure, and that's fine. And I think you made that point pretty clear while we were talking about the photographs that it's a work in progress what we're seeing. The smack in the face was there was progress before we'd ever seen it on paper. We didn't know what to expect, so you have to understand our reaction to be an overreaction. I do. So what we need to see, and what I think you understand, what we will see, is the finished elevation of the services. By and her time. And thank you, and I've put it to good use. I have remembered. And that is tied to your recommendation that the Y-shaped sidewalk be allowed to be removed, since that is not tied to the staff's recommendations and is contrary to that, if you would note some finding of fact for that reverse guideline that says that's okay. Well, I have to do that? Well, of course, you have to ask my bedtime. And I need to ask, tied to staff needing to do their job of monitoring all this, when are we going to receive a plan designating what the board has requested, and are you going to be doing work in the meantime? Because it will leave us, just so you'll know, it will leave us needing to send you another stop work. That's a fair question. Next week. The plan? To receive the plan next week? I'll put heights on it by next week. Okay. Because we can't issue your permit until we receive that plan, and you need to hold a valid permit to continue your work. You mean my certificate of appropriateness? Otherwise known as a permit. COA permit. We use them interchangeably. I just want to make sure that... But I just want to be sure we're all clear that you can't be doing further work until you have obtained your COA. Well, I picked up rocks. Oh, sure. No, I'm talking about more shaping, more trucking in of soil, more removal. We're not trucking in anymore. Anyway, but you understand. We need you to have a valid permit to do substantive work that is in the order of what's been going on because it would leave us to have to cite you again, and this whole process doesn't like to cite people. We like to work with people and have them hold. We might get a delivery of something, but I don't mean dirt. You know, I mean, like we're ordering new clay tiles for, you know, the downspouse because a lot of them have been busted over the years. That might happen. But no, no dirt work, no sculpting of this topo. I just want to be sure we're all on the same page. Yeah, maybe some picking up of rocks. That's what I do every weekend. I can't find a good reason to. Relative to the front walk, I'm looking more carefully at this. I'm realizing that while the existing walk may have not been original to the house, Nevertheless, a paved walk from the street to the house is an important part of how one perceives the house in relation to the street. And so I think you do need to address that in some way. I had trouble finding sufficient grounds to overturn this test recommendation. I actually wanted to be sort of an old Stibian man. In with the microphone. We will put the same treatment that we put in the parking lot in the front walk. And it's going to end up with wood chips on top of it in both cases. But it will be hard surface. I think the final details of that should also come back to staff. I'm not sure wood chips on top of it is appropriate. All right. Well, if we have a little dispute brewing about that, we'll come back to you. Fair enough. Okay, but your point's well taken. You can put that in, that it should be hard surface. That's fine. So you're amending your motion? Yeah, so the motion is amended to require that there be a paved walk from the street to the house. do you accept the amendment in your second sir can we just say that it's just not only a pathway but it goes just a sidewalk to the two front porches because it obviously it splits it makes a y shape so I want to make sure it's covered that was my understanding of your intent was it is it inaccurate it has the walk already been removed so the question that comes to mind for me is was the y-shaped walk done at a time when the house was subdivided and um is it is there any indication that that was an original condition My impression is it was not. Would it be appropriate for there to be a paved walk to one or the other of the entries? I think that would probably cover it. It is a very balanced design in the sense of the house with the two flanking porches. If I may clarify this, I know you don't want to hear it, but the left-hand door was an office. It was where the person who lived in the house did business. It's not a normal room. It's a little funny 19th century lawyer's office kind of situation, with a fireplace in the corner, and it's locked off from the rest of the house if you want to. So that door was a trade entrance, if you will. The other door goes into a stair hall, and it was, in terms of interfacing with the street, secondary, in the same sense that this would have been primary as a commercial entrance. None of that was made clear by this 1940s thing. And the reason I say 1940s is the concrete looks like that, and it's the same concrete that was used to rebuild the front porches, which is all busted up. We want to get rid of it, and I'll come back to you with that, with something else. because I think it should be something else. And it was never a why. It was a loop. It's what it was. I mean, that's what was there, not a why. We use the term why. But I would agree with you that to the entrance, a hard surface to one or both entrances, depending on the design would be the way to go so shall we amend the motion to ask you to submit to staff a plan for paved walk to address the house in such a way that's consistent with what was probably an original intent with regard to access I think that's excellent. Yeah. I will second your amendment. Any further discussion of the motion from the board, from the staff? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes with recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with your project. And your service. We do have one more project listed on the agenda this evening at 838 West Maxwell Street, and that applicant has withdrawn. The final order of business on the agenda this evening is the review of the minutes from the August 13th Ashland Park Historic District H1 designation BOAR meeting. There are only two of us here that can... Again, if you would be willing to abstain and sit for quorum purposes, the other two members could take the action. I'll abstain. Way to go. Do you have any comments or changes to the minutes as you've read them? No. Me too. I take a motion to accept. I accept the meeting minutes from August 13, 2012. I'll accept the motion, or I'll second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? No. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well, the motion passes. That concludes the agenda this evening. I'd certainly accept a motion to adjourn. So moved. Is there a second to the motion? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed.