# Board of Architectural Review - September 26, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 26, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2708 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2708?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-09-26 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 5,780 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 26, 2012, to consider 30 agenda items related to property renovations, repairs, and construction projects. The board took 7 motions and votes during the meeting and heard 2 public comments. Of the items considered, 22 projects received approval, including renovations at 350 East High Street, 147 Kentucky Avenue, and 368 Transylvania Park; repairs to sidewalks, chimneys, and driveways; installation of air conditioning unit cages at five West Maxwell Street properties; and various construction projects such as a screened porch at 317 Clay Avenue and a dormer addition at 337 Arcadia Park. Three items were postponed: installation of front yard fencing at 852 West High Street, demolition and garage construction at 645 Elsmere Park, and installation of a metal gate and wood fencing at 432 North Broadway. Five additional items were deferred for further consideration, including a roof raising and second floor construction at 200 South Ashland Avenue, garage construction at 321-323 Arcadia Park, dormer installation at 522 Arcadia Park, and an addition at 852 West High Street. ## Votes and Decisions All motions were decided by voice vote. **Certificate of Appropriateness at 431 Jersey Street** [timestamp: 00:04:16] Approval of application to change openings passed. **Certificate of Appropriateness at 337 Arcadia Park** [timestamp: 00:15:15] Approval of application to construct a dormer addition passed with conditions. The roof and wall must step in 12 inches from the sides of the roof, and final details must be submitted to staff. **Certificate of Appropriateness at 114 Barberry Lane** [timestamp: 00:17:15] Approval of application to demolish garage and construct new garage passed with conditions. Final details of garage doors must be submitted to staff, and any changes from other LFUCG divisions must be submitted to staff. **Certificate of Appropriateness at 852 West High Street** [timestamp: 00:18:49] Postponement of application until October 24, 2012 passed. **Certificate of Appropriateness at 645 Elsmere Park** [timestamp: 00:19:20] Postponement of application until October 10, 2012 passed. **Certificate of Appropriateness at 432 North Broadway** [timestamp: 00:20:25] Postponement of application until October 10, 2012 passed. **Certificate of Appropriateness at 317 Clay Avenue** [timestamp: 00:36:31] Approval of application to construct a screened-in porch passed with conditions. The southwest corner of the new porch must be set off from the southwest corner of the main structure. If the existing slab is flush with the corner, it must be offset by 12 inches. Final details of the rear window and all final details must be submitted to staff. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the board regarding the 317 Clay Avenue screened porch project. **Debbie Salyer** [timestamp: 00:26:04] spoke as the applicant about the proposed screened porch project. She expressed concern about the setback requirement for the project. Salyer noted that a screened porch already existed on the property during the 1980s, establishing historical precedent for such a structure. She emphasized that neighbors have no objection to the project and highlighted the project's continuity with the home's architectural history. **Amelia** [timestamp: 00:28:15] provided staff clarification regarding the 317 Clay Avenue project. She noted that the existing concrete pad on the property appears to be inset from the house corner. Amelia recommended that the new porch follow the alignment of the existing pad to maintain both structural integrity and visual distinction between the new construction and the existing structure. ## Contested Items **317 Clay Avenue Screened Porch Setback Requirement** The board debated the setback requirement for a screened porch at 317 Clay Avenue. The disagreement centered on whether the porch must be set back exactly 12 inches from the property line, or whether the existing concrete pad's offset could satisfy the requirement. Staff clarified the applicable standard during the discussion: if the concrete pad is flush with the property line, a setback of at least 12 inches would be required for the porch structure. However, if the concrete pad is already inset from the property line, the existing offset of the pad may be acceptable and could serve as the basis for the porch setback. This distinction between a flush pad requiring a full 12-inch setback and an already-inset pad allowing use of the existing offset represented the key point of contention. The board's split vote on this item indicates members disagreed on how to apply or interpret the setback requirement in light of the existing site conditions. ## 350 East High Street: Renovate structure [timestamp: 00:01:32] Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 350 East High Street as part of the Aylesford Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. **Outcome:** Approved ## 147 Kentucky Avenue: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 147 Kentucky Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. [timestamp: 00:01:32] No board discussion was required for this agenda item. The matter proceeded as a staff approval. **Outcome:** Approved ## 368 Transylvania Park: Renovate structures Staff approved the renovation of structures at 368 Transylvania Park in the Aylesford Historic District [timestamp: 00:01:32]. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. The project was approved as a staff matter without additional deliberation or concerns raised during the meeting. ## 160 Woodland Avenue: Repair sidewalk [timestamp: 00:01:32] Staff approved the repair of the sidewalk at 160 Woodland Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item, and the matter was approved. ## 229 East Bell Court: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of the structure at 229 East Bell Court in the Bell Court Historic District. [timestamp: 00:02:04] No board discussion was required for this agenda item. The renovation received staff approval as part of the meeting proceedings. **Outcome:** Approved ## 2852 Cadentown Road: Replace above ground pool [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the replacement of an above-ground pool at 2852 Cadentown Road located in the Cadentown Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. The proposal was approved by staff. ## 343 North Limestone: Restore front entryway [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the restoration of the front entryway at 343 North Limestone in the Mulberry Hill Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. **Outcome:** Approved ## 411 West Sixth Street: Repair chimneys and install chimney caps [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the repair of chimneys and installation of chimney caps at 411 West Sixth Street in the Northside Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item, and the project received approval. ## 123 Barberry Lane: Replace shutters Staff approved the replacement of shutters at 123 Barberry Lane in the Seven Parks Historic District. [timestamp: 00:02:04] No board discussion was required for this agenda item. The matter was handled through staff approval. **Outcome:** Approved ## 1601 Elizabeth Street: Repave/repair driveway [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the repaving and repair of the driveway at 1601 Elizabeth Street, located in the Seven Parks Historic District. This agenda item required staff approval and proceeded without board discussion. **Outcome:** Approved ## 406 South Broadway: Replace side door [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the replacement of the side door at 406 South Broadway in the South Hill Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. The proposal was approved as presented. ## 208 West Maxwell Street: Install cages around A/C units [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the installation of cages around air conditioning units at 208 West Maxwell Street, located in the Woodland Heights Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. The proposal was approved as presented. ## 210 West Maxwell Street: Install cages around A/C units [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the installation of cages around A/C units at 210 West Maxwell Street in the Woodland Heights Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. **Outcome:** Approved ## 212 West Maxwell Street: Install cages around A/C units [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the installation of cages around A/C units at 212 West Maxwell Street in the Woodland Heights Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. The proposal was approved as presented. ## 214 West Maxwell Street: Install cages around A/C units [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the installation of cages around air conditioning units at 214 West Maxwell Street, located in the Woodland Heights Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. The proposal was approved as presented by staff. ## 216 West Maxwell Street: Install cages around A/C units [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the installation of cages around air conditioning units at 216 West Maxwell Street, located in the Woodland Heights Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. **Outcome:** Approved ## 341 Madison Place: Install iron fence around storage building [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the installation of an iron fence around a storage building at 341 Madison Place in the Woodland Heights Historic District. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. ## 501 West Short Street: Install satellite dish [timestamp: 00:02:04] Staff approved the installation of a satellite dish at 501 West Short Street in the western suburbs. No board discussion was required for this agenda item. ## 431 Jersey Street: Change opening [timestamp: 00:03:10] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness application for 431 Jersey Street to change openings at the property. Mike Sage presented the application to the board. Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. The board approved the application with no further discussion. ## 317 Clay Avenue: Construct screened porch [timestamp: 00:04:47] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness application for constructing a screened-in porch at 317 Clay Avenue. Debbie Salyer and Amelia presented the proposal to the board. Staff recommended approval of the project with conditions. The conditions focused on specific requirements regarding the setback of the structure and details concerning the windows to be used in the screened porch. Following discussion of the staff recommendation and project details, the board voted to approve the certificate of appropriateness. The approval was granted with the conditions that staff had outlined, requiring the applicant to comply with the setback specifications and window requirements as part of the project implementation. ## 337 Arcadia Park: Construct dormer addition [timestamp: 00:06:28] The board considered an application to construct a dormer addition at 337 Arcadia Park. Scott Book presented the item to the board. Staff recommended approval of the dormer addition with a condition requiring a 12-inch setback. The board approved the application with the condition that the roof and wall step in 12 inches from the existing structure. **Outcome:** Approved ## 114 Barberry Lane: Demolish garage; construct garage and site work [timestamp: 00:16:15] The board considered a certificate of appropriateness application for 114 Barberry Lane to demolish and reconstruct a garage at the property. **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the project with conditions. The recommendation included specific requirements regarding garage door details and an interdepartmental review to ensure compliance with applicable standards and regulations. **Key Speaker** Dudley Burke presented on this agenda item. **Outcome** The board approved the application with the recommended conditions on garage door details and interdepartmental review. ## 852 West High Street: Install fencing in the front yard [timestamp: 00:18:18] The applicant requested a certificate of appropriateness to install front yard fencing and a Herbie enclosure at 852 West High Street. The applicant requested a postponement of this agenda item, which was granted. The matter was rescheduled for consideration on October 24, 2012. ## 645 Elsmere Park: Demolish outbuilding and construct garage and construct sitework [timestamp: 00:19:20] This agenda item concerned a certificate of appropriateness application for 645 Elsmere Park. The applicant requested approval to demolish an outbuilding and construct a garage along with associated sitework. The applicant requested a postponement of this item. The request was granted, and the matter was postponed to October 10, 2012. ## 432 North Broadway: Install operable metal gate and wood fencing **Item Type:** Certificate of Appropriateness **Summary:** The applicant requested approval to install an operable metal gate and wood fencing at 432 North Broadway. Rather than proceeding with discussion of the proposal, the applicant requested a postponement of the item. This postponement request was granted by the meeting body, with the item rescheduled for October 10, 2012. **Outcome:** Postponed to October 10, 2012 ## 200 South Ashland Avenue: Raise roof and construct a second floor The board conducted a conceptual review of a proposal to raise the roof and construct a second floor at 200 South Ashland Avenue [timestamp: 00:39:47]. No vote was taken during this session. The matter was deferred for further consideration. ## 645 Elsmere Park: Demolish outbuilding and construct garage and construct sitework The board reviewed a conceptual proposal for 645 Elsmere Park involving the demolition of an outbuilding and construction of a garage and site work [timestamp: 00:39:47]. This project had been previously postponed and was brought back for consideration at this meeting. The board deferred action on this agenda item, postponing further discussion and decision-making to a future meeting. ## 321-323 Arcadia Park: Construct garage The board reviewed a conceptual proposal to construct a garage at 321-323 Arcadia Park [timestamp: 00:39:47]. This item was presented as a conceptual review. No vote was taken during this session. The outcome of the review was deferred, meaning the matter was postponed for further consideration at a future meeting. ## 522 Arcadia Park: Install dormers The board reviewed a conceptual proposal to install dormers at 522 Arcadia Park [timestamp: 00:39:47]. This was a conceptual review of the proposed project. No vote was taken during this session. The matter was deferred, with no final determination reached at this meeting. ## 852 West High Street: Construct addition [timestamp: 00:39:47] The board reviewed a conceptual proposal to construct an addition at 852 West High Street. This item was presented as a conceptual review for consideration by the board. No vote was taken during this session. The matter was deferred, with no final action taken at this time. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application at 431 Jersey Street to change openings - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application at 337 Arcadia Park to construct a dormer addition - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application at 114 Barberry Lane to demolish garage and construct new garage - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Certificate of Appropriateness application at 852 West High Street until October 24, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Certificate of Appropriateness application at 645 Elsmere Park until October 10, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Certificate of Appropriateness application at 432 North Broadway until October 10, 2012 - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness application at 317 Clay Avenue to construct a screened-in porch with conditions --- ## Full transcript Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to the September 26, 2012 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, and we now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff, and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application, and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door, so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 18 approved applications noted on today's agenda in the Aylesford Historic District. At 350 East High Street, renovate structure. 147 Kentucky Avenue, renovate structure. 368 Transylvania Park, renovate structure. and at 160 Woodland Avenue Repair Sidewalk. In the Bell Court Historic District at 229 East Bell Court, renovate structure. In Cadentown Historic District at 2852 Cadentown Road, replace above ground pool. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 343 North Limestone, restore front entry. In the Northside Historic District at 411 West 6th Street, repair chimneys and install chimney caps. In the Seven Parks Historic District at 123 Barbary Lane, replace shutters. And at 1601 Elizabeth Street, repave and repair driveway. In South Hill Historic District, at 406 South Broadway, replace side door. And at 208, 210, 212, 214, and 216 West Maxwell Street, install cages around air conditioning units. in Woodland Heights at 341 Madison Place, install iron fence around storage building and in the western suburbs at 501 West Short Street, install satellite dish. We shall now proceed with the review of the applications for certificates of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 431 Jersey Street. We changed the openings as that applicant here this evening. Good evening. Mike Sage, 438 North Broadway. Good evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes. To review their recommending approval as submitted? Yes. Are you in agreement with staff's findings and recommendations? I am, yes. Okay. Let's see. if anybody on the board has any questions or comments at this time. Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, this is 431 Jersey Street. Seeing no motion from the audience and hearing no comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 10130431-D at 431 Jersey Street, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted. 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? Thank you very much. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 317 Clay Avenue. That's in the Aylesford Historic District, and the scope of work is to enclose a porch. Is that applicant here this evening? Please come forward and introduce yourself. Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Debbie Salyer. Can we have your home address, please? 317 Clay Avenue. Thank you very much. Have you had a chance to look over the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes, I have. And are you in agreement with the staff's findings? With most of it. The portion that you're asking us to do an offset or an inset on the southwest corner, I think that there were so many different additions in the past with these residences on Clay Avenue. The original addition, from what I can understand you're saying here, is that it needs to be secondary and smaller to the main house. The main house is actually three feet wider on the front side of it. So I would, it is secondary to it. Now, it is being attached or it's coming off of the back side of the house. The inset on the other side, is that what's causing the issue, the little indentation on the other side, or does it just need to come in 12 inches from the back of the house? I think what we ought to do, and if you don't mind, what I'd like to do is set your case aside for just a moment because it sounds like we need to talk about it a little bit. Okay. And what I'd like to do is see if there are any of these other cases we can breeze through quickly. Sure. And then we'll come back to yours, if that's all right. And we'll have the staff presentation and get more on their recommendations. Okay. And we'll talk to you some more. Okay, thank you. Thank you for letting us do that. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 337 Arcadia Park, and that application is to construct a dormer addition. Is that applicant here this evening? Evening. Good evening. Scott Book, 1320 Bryan Avenue. Hi, Scott. Hey. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? I have, yes. And are you in agreement with their recommendations? Yes, sir. Very well. Let's see if the board has any question or comment for you. Any questions or comments from the board? I actually have one. If you could just clarify it, it might just answer my question and we can move on. The second floor addition, in looking at the roof plan, it appears that it is indeed lower than the ridge of the main body of the house, but as it extends to the plan west on this sheet, does it tie into the ridge of the existing? It does. The existing actually has two different levels for the ridge. The majority of that existing ridge is higher, but it does tie in on one small portion there. Well, that's what I thought you were going to say, and we typically discourage that. Does staff have any feelings on that in their recommendation? They note it in one portion, but they... Amelia, do you have a take on that in terms of the intent? And I think inherent in stepping off, I guess, that line that could have been noted to step down, but I further, I mean, stepped down a foot two or stepped down a little bit. I felt that stepping in on the sides was helping that since it already had stepped down. That was considerable on the main roof line. But, you know, per the guidelines, they step down the edge. either. I must have just sort of missed that part. Well, I wondered because it wasn't mentioned, but the other area was... Because we talked so much about moving it in on the sides. Well, I'm not that upset about it. I just wanted to hear the staff's recommendations or if it was something you wanted to comment on. Are there any other comments or questions from the board at this time? I think in this particular case, having the single plane of the new roof, the dormer roof, is a cleaner solution. And even though it doesn't exactly meet the guideline in that one section, it really seems to be the best way to handle this particular situation. That was my conclusion as well. Any other comments? I wonder if we should clarify that the 12-inch setback refers to the position of the outer edge of the roof relative to the existing roof. Is that correct? I see that the recommendation states roof and walls. So my interpretation is that the roof and the edge of the roof rake as well as the walls are to come in 12 inches. The reason I ask that is that the elevation seems to show that the wall has already stepped in somewhat from the existing roof line. So just for your clarification, I think the intent is that the roof line of the dormer would be 12 inches to the inside of the existing roof line. and otherwise the profile of what you've got drawn would just shift over a bit. Okay, yeah. So we could just shift those. There's multiple options here. We could shift wall and all in, which would bring the edge of that rake of the new dormer in 12 inches, or could we just create, could we bring that rake in itself as well? If you brought the rake in, there's an overhang on the proposed rake and the home, of course, does not have an overhang on the existing rakes. If we did something similar to that, would that suffice? I tend to agree with staff's recommendation that the wall and the roof edge come in that 12 inches. Whether there's a rake or not can be reviewed again at the end by staff, if that's going to be a change from what you have here. Okay. Any other comments or questions from the board at this time? Well, it looks like per the guidelines, it says the exterior wall should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edge of the existing building. Roof line should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident. It doesn't say anything about the roof having to step in 12 inches. So as far as the recommendation, I think if the walls come in 12 inches, I think they're within the guidelines. I don't have anything to add to that except that I still like the staff's recommendation. Well, it just says that staff says that dormer roof and walls step in 12 inches, and I think the roof part should be taken out because I don't think the guidelines call for the roof to come out. I mean the roof to step in 12 inches. But on the other hand, we're making an exception on this one segment of the roof and allowing it to engage the existing ridge line. And I think to be consistent with the intent of the guidelines, it would be best to require that the rake line be pulled in 12 inches so that one can still perceive the original roof line as the dominant roof line. Otherwise, it would look like it could have always been there. I'm not real happy about the idea of having a double rake, you know, stacked rake in the same plane either, which would be the result of leaving the roof out aligned with the edge of the existing roof. So, again, I fall back to the, for your reasons, I agree completely. and keeping the rakes out of parallel or out of the same plane, I still go back to the staff's recommendations. I see what you're saying. It's not in the guidelines to the word, but I think the intent is covered in the recommendations from the staff. Any other comments? In our efforts to speed through the easy ones, we kind of just went ahead and talked about yours. Sorry about that for the previous case that was waiting. I appreciate having a set of drawings that one can look at and understand. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, any other comments? Anyone in the audience speak to this case this evening? Seeing no motion and hearing nothing else from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 00510337 at 337 Arcadia Park, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the staff recommendations that the roof stormer and wall step in 12 inches from the sides of the roof and the final details be submitted to the staff and board. Second the motion. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Next case in the agenda this evening is at 114 Barbary Lane. That scope is to demolish a garage and construct a new garage, and that's in the Seven Parks Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present but has read and seen the copy of the staff report and is agreeable with the findings. Thank you. Oh, there you are. How about that? Sorry. Oh, gotcha. Bye. Well, please come forward and introduce yourself. Sorry about that. Hello, I'm Dudley Burke. Hello, Mr. Burke. What is your home address, please, for the record? 119 Barbary Lane. Very well. So you have had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes. And are you in agreement with those recommendations? Yes, I am. Just to review, they're pretty favorable. The staff recommends approval as submitted with following conditions. One, that the final details of the garage doors come back to the staff, and that number two, once reviewed by any other LFUCG divisions, any changes come back to the staff. So you're agreeable to those. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, this is 114 Barberry Lane. Seeing no motion from the audience and hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 01180114-C, 114 Barberry Lane, I make a motion to approve application as submitted with two recommendations. Final details of the garage door, come back to staff. And once reviewed, any other LFUCG division, any changes, come back to staff. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well, it passes. Thank you. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 852 West High Street. Is that applicant here this evening? That application is to install front yard fence and a Herbie enclosure. And it's in the Woodward Heights Historic District. I'm sorry that I have, that case has been postponed, or that applicant has requested a postponement to that case. Okay. We have two more cases listed on the agenda for postponement. Please help me remember, does that require an action on our part? Yes, it does, please, and they do need to have dates specific. So, Amelia, is the applicant wanting to the next meeting? To the next meeting date? To actually the October meeting date, or the 26th meeting date. So the second meeting in October, which is the 26th. Okay, very well. Well, that being the case, can I get a motion to that effect? Oh, excuse me. Sorry, October 24th. We're correcting ourselves over here. Thankfully, law keeps up with these things. It's the 24th. It's two weeks after the 10th. Well, normally, but some days it just doesn't seem possible. Okay, so the applicant has requested to postpone 852 West High Street until October 24th. Can I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Can I get a second to that motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, motion to postpone until October 24th passes. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 645 Ellesmere Park. That applicant has also requested to postpone their case until October 10th. Can I get a motion to that effect? So moved. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That motion also passes. The seventh case on the agenda this evening at 432 North Broadway has also requested to postpone their hearing until October 10th. Can I get a motion to that effect? So moved. 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, that motion also passes. Now, back to the applicant for 317 Clay Avenue. If you don't mind, we'll have the staff make their presentation, and then we'll have you come forward and have a conversation about your project. Thank you. This is a project at 317 Clay Avenue. The applicant has been before the board multiple times for replacement of the porch columns and recladding of the concrete skirt board. and at this time they're requesting, and they've also requested a garage. This time they're asking to install a screened-in porch at this location. They already have a concrete pad that's there, and the proposal is to expand this pad out for a total of 14 feet and then install a hip roof with a 312 pitch and with screened 3x5 openings and a rear opening coming out the back. Huh? That was really bright. So to walk you through, this is the physical structure, and so this will be the location of this area. This is the plan, and so you can see where the dotted line was, where the concrete slab was. and then here is the proposed location of the screened-in porch. This is the proposal. They'll have posts on either side and then blanking the door. with the siding below. The clapboard siding with the post here and I have the return in this location. There's a floor plan. This shows the area. in just a section in this sort of an aerial view of the house. Guidelines are unclear for your reference. In addition, I should mention that they have opened up a rear. One thing I missed was they uncovered the siding is they're replacing it from vinyl to hardy, and there's an opening that they're going to relocate in this area that's sort of higher, and they're going to drop it down. Guidelines are included for your reference. The overall proposal to construct an enclosed green porch is with the guidelines. However, as proposed, the plans require further discussion. The proposed porch roof and post wall needs to be set in off the southwest corner of the building. Guidelines 2A3B and 2A4B states porches should be compatible with the principal structures and architectural style, not be of the earlier architectural period. Additions should be secondary, smaller, and simple to the original porch and scale design and placement. Exterior walls should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building. A roof line should step down from the peak of the existing roof line, so the existing main roof remains evident. Reference the relocated window guidelines 124E states windows and new openings are not recommended in new openings. When permitted by the review process, shall be compatible in scale, size, proportion, placement, and style to the historic openings. And new openings should be located in the side to rear of the buildings. And it's discouraged on the primary side. The installation of the windows is within the guidelines. Excuse me. The recommendation staff recommends approval as submitted with the following additions. The southwest corner needs to be set off the southwest corner of the main structure, and final details of the room window be submitted to staff, and all final details be submitted to staff. And the applicant is present. Thank you very much. Hey, Amelia, could you put the photograph of the back of the house back up there real quick? Yes. I want to look at something. Yeah. So is that existing concrete pad off the corner right now? It looks like it. I can't really tell. It is. Okay. That's all I need to know. Thanks. If you'd like to come back forward, ma'am, and talk with us a bit. Hi. Thank you for your patience and for waiting to be last. That's all right. When he just asked the question about the concrete pad, if it was all the way to the end, my husband just reminded me that before we met, he lived there, before we bought this place. And he said that that back was a screened-in porch, the little part that's there now. And that was back in the early 80s, I guess, before they passed the Aylesford and put it in the historical district. But I just wondered if, you know, just curious as if it were already a screened porch and all we wanted to do was to expand it out. Would you have had to inset it there? Because he said it was there as long as he ever remembered it was a screened-in porch, which I think is what the neighbors, Ms. Norville, and then also the Turnbulls next door that they're there. And I don't think anybody has a problem with a screened-in porch. And I don't think anybody has a problem with the basic 14 by 14 shape of the porch. One of the things we try to do here with additions that are near a corner of a house, instead of continuing the existing lawn out with the addition and matching the edges, it's a very clear indicator of old and new if the new addition can set in that one foot, which I think you understand. I do. Now, we've flexed a little sometimes on what that actual distance ends up being, especially in cases where there's an existing foundation in place. In your case, you have an existing concrete pad. Is that concrete pad to remain and new concrete pad goes on to the end of it, or is the existing to be removed anew put in its place? Do we know that? This is called to expand the slab. Right, you're just going to expand it and then just put it, because the other part has to have a footer in it, and so they can have a monolithic slab over the whole thing. I think that if it weren't for the left side of the, as you're looking at it, no, I mean the right side, there's already where they did another built-on on the right-hand side back in the 70s. You've got three foot that's going out that's against a wall. So if I jimmy it over a foot, then that goes over a foot, and then all of a sudden it just kind of. Well, I think what we would recommend is that the, let me make sure I'm saying left the way you're saying left. I think we'd say that the left wall stay where it is and that the right wall come on in a foot from what you've drawn here. Okay. I think what Mr. Jackson alluded to is that the concrete pad is already shown inset from the corner of the building. And if you were to simply align with that edge, you'd probably be okay. We can't say that it's a foot for sure because we haven't measured it. We just saw a photograph. You're also going to have a post there that's seven inches that's going to be right on the corner. So the actual structure would be. The post would be on the concrete, though, correct, and not in the dirt off the side of the existing concrete pad. Sure. So that's something to think about if you were to, say, build on the existing pad or within the parameters of that edge, aligning with the existing pad, I think we're covered as far as our concerns. It's going to alter your roof detail, where that roof, the roof over the new porch, how it meets with the existing building. But I think that's a simple thing to adjust. And depending on how we vote, it might be easy enough to give you conditional approval that you review the final details. So just build on to the existing, as long as we build on the existing concrete pad, then we're okay. Well, we'll see what the motion is, but that's the way I feel about it. Well, that's if the concrete pad does, in fact, step in. I don't know that we know that for sure. It needs to be verified. I think the important thing to get across is that the guidelines are set up in such a way that when you're done, one can see that corner of the house, and it's very clear that the screen porch is something that's subordinate to that volume, and so you can actually see the volume turn the corner before you get to the structure of the screen porch. So it's not right up against the corner of the existing house but pulled in. If it is marginal as far as the, I mean, do you think the 12 inches would be? I mean, because to me with the post, that identifies a definite change in the structure from the original house. And so I see what you're saying. You just don't want to see the straight back to if somebody just slapped something on the end of it. But due to the 7 1⁄2-inch post and everything, it's clearly an addition to it. I think we're asking that the setback in addition to the change of material both be employed. I agree that the post does help define porch versus house. Right. But I, you know, like Mr. Pohl stated, it's also important to see that return corner as part of the story. But you had a wider portion, you know. That's, I guess, when I was looking at it, if I looked down on it, the house already goes in. It steps in three feet, the front of the house, and then it steps in three feet back about halfway and then goes back again. So then we have another step in. Now, I think originally, I think Amelia did fix this before you guys looked at it, but originally the aerial view was showing that that was all part of the house there on the left back side when actually it was just a sidewalk, and it was just showing incorrectly as part of the house. So there's already a step in there from that side. I think that you've got two things to look at as far as the structure of what you're talking about. If you have your existing pad and you're planning on reusing it and just extending it out further into the yard, if it does actually set in from that corner, which it appeared to be, let's say, maybe 8 inches, It may not be full 12, but 8 or so. You don't want to pour a little 8-inch strip and then try to put your structure on that because it will not settle correctly and you'll have lots of problems. So you'll probably want to follow the line of the existing pad anyway, just so that you have a better structure. If you get into your construction, you find that that pad maybe is settling or has some issues that it needs to come out to make the porch more secure and more solid, then what we would ask is that you would go for the full 12 inches. But if you're just going to extend the existing pad, you're going to follow that line anyway, and even though it's not the full 12 inches that's required by the guidelines, the 8 or 6 or whatever it is would be fine. And you'd want to do that anyway because you don't want to have this, like I said, this little extra piece of concrete that's just sort of floating out there on the side. So it's a really minor change. You'll lose, you know, a few inches on the inside of your porch, and it will pull the roof line in just slightly on that end. But it's very, overall, you will not really even notice the difference as far as the usable space. And on the other side where it connects directly to that corner to the 1970s edition, that just stays the same. So you're fine there. So it's just a little indentation, which if the pad is already pulled back, you're going to do anyway. I think that that would be the compromise. And as I said, if you find that you have to replace the whole thing, then just come back and talk to the staff, and they can help you with any alterations that need to be done at that point. Okay. and the window we we don't have to lower it i mean we just wanted we we discovered this hole there that there used to be a window when we took off the vinyl siding and they had just covered over it with a board and then so we wanted to put the window back obviously and it doesn't really matter to us where it is because it's it's a dormer attic type space so right i think that That's fine, too. And, again, when you get into actually framing out the window for the new sill and so forth, just work with the staff, and they'll help you get it to the right dimensions and so forth. Your estimation, does it match the window on the front that's in a similar location? We don't really know what it was because it was gone. It was just a hole there. It's just a hole. Okay. Yeah. Well, I was just being curious there. Like the one at the dormer front? I'm not sure. Kind of the same spot, front and back. It'd be interesting to know. Good luck finding out. I actually found one that was almost identical to that over at the 8th and Schoolhouse with the antiques, Joseph. Maybe if I can find that exact window, we'll just stick that in there. It could have been yours. You can find it, yeah. It may be the one from the house. I could say somebody fixed it up and selling it as an antique now. Well, okay. Are there any other comments from the board at this time? Anybody else in the audience this evening speak to this case? Hearing no comment and seeing no motion from the audience, I would entertain a motion. Well, Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 041-50317-E at 317 Clay Avenue, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the following conditions, that the southwest corner of the new porch needs to be set off the southwest corner of the main structure with a note that it should follow the existing slab, or if the slab needs to be changed, that the detail of that comes back to the staff. And that final details of the rear window come back to the staff as well, and that all final details be submitted to staff. Thank you very much. Is there a second to that motion? Second to motion. Is there any further discussion of the motion? I think that needs to be clarified, if you don't mind. I think that it should be clear that the final result is that the southwest corner of the porch is offset from the southwest corner of the house, regardless of what the slab is doing. Yes. I don't think that's really clear, so do you accept that as a change? Yes, absolutely. Accept that as a change. Do you accept it as your second? Yes, I second. Is there a guideline as to how much it's offset? You said it doesn't necessarily have to be 12 inches. You said whatever it is, 8 or 7 or 6, but it has to be offset. It will follow the existing slab. If the slab needs to be changed out, then it will not exceed 12 inches. But if the slab is not offset, then that's not adequate. Yeah, if the slab is not offset. If the slab is coincident with the corner of the house, then it's not adequate, and the corner should be offset by 12 inches if that's the case. Does it have to be a full 12 inches? I'm losing a lot of space there. That's what the guidelines ask for. Can't that be adjusted, though, somewhat? I mean, you just said earlier that if it is offset, and you said whether it's 4 inches, 8 inches, if it is already offset. That's based on if the fact is that the existing slab is offset. If it is. We wouldn't make you take any more or less if the existing slab is there. If it's flush with it, I have to go full 12 inches. Or if the slab has to be replaced, then it would be the full 12 inches. No leeway on that at all. That's what the guidelines say. The only leeway we have is with an existing condition, which is if the slab is already there and it does have a setback. Any further discussion of the motion and its amendments? Yes. I second. Second. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes with the recommendations. Thank you very much. But I do think if, just one more thing, if you work closely with the staff, you can see what is the best solution, and they'll be able to help you out with that. That concludes our certificates of appropriateness applications on the agenda this evening. Next order of business are several conceptual reviews. The first one of those is at the 200 South Ashland Avenue.