# Board of Architectural Review - July 9, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 9, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3409 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3409?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-07-09 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 3,365 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 July 9, 2014, at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. The board considered 22 agenda items during the meeting, taking 5 motions and votes. The meeting included 2 public comments. Of the items reviewed, 20 were approved, including projects such as utility installation at 317 Desha Road, structural renovations at multiple properties including 139 Ransom Avenue, 228 Rose Street, 605 Russell Avenue, and 712 West Maxwell Street, and various modifications such as door and fence replacements, driveway resurfacing, and deck construction. One item—the proposal to demolish a garage at 320 Woodland Avenue—was withdrawn. One item regarding construction of a new single family residence at 731 Caden Lane was presented for informational purposes. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on July 9, 2014: * Nathan Ebert * Kim Bloomfield * Jacqueline Carfagno * Clive Pole * Calvin Cranfield No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included five motions, all moved by the Chair and decided by voice vote. **Re-graveling of rear yard at 104 Dantzler Drive** [timestamp: 00:04:46] The motion to approve re-graveling of the rear yard passed. The staff recommendation specified that gravel contain edging, and final details were required to come back to staff prior to Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) issuance. **Installation of front yard fencing at 302 East High Street** [timestamp: 00:09:22] The motion to approve installation of front yard fencing passed. Final details were required to come back to staff after review by other LFUCG divisions. **Installation of front yard fencing at 436 West 3rd Street** [timestamp: 00:13:22] The motion to approve installation of front yard fencing passed with the condition that the fence be set on ground with no brick plinth. Final details were required to come back to staff after review by other LFUCG divisions. **Construction of deck at 130 East Bell Court** [timestamp: 00:15:29] The motion to approve construction of a deck passed. Conditions included that details of skirting and handrail come back to staff, all exposed wood except flooring and stair treads be painted or opaque stained, and final details come back to staff after review by other LFUCG divisions. **Construction of carport and potting shed at 301 South Hanover Avenue** [timestamp: 00:23:30] The motion to approve construction of a carport and potting shed passed with one abstention. The carport and driveway were required to be surfaced with material other than gravel. Final details were required to come back to staff, and any changes required by LFUCG agencies were to be reviewed by staff before project start. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the meeting regarding the 301 South Hanover Avenue project. Calvin Cranfield spoke in support of the project [timestamp: 00:21:51]. He expressed his backing for the proposal and raised a question about the removal of a cedar tree in the backyard. This concern was clarified during the meeting, with the cedar tree removal determined to not be part of the current application. Clive Pole discussed the design approach for the 301 South Hanover Avenue project [timestamp: 00:16:33]. He explained that the project utilizes existing site vocabularies and materials in its design. Pole also indicated that the project team is open to value engineering as a means to address recommendations made by staff. ## Contested Items **Use of Gravel in Driveway at 301 South Hanover Avenue** A disagreement arose regarding the material to be used for the driveway at 301 South Hanover Avenue. The applicant advocated for the use of gravel, arguing that it was a cost-effective solution and an acceptable material choice for the project. However, staff and board members opposed this proposal. They upheld a recommendation to require an alternative material instead, citing countywide prohibition and established guidelines that preclude the use of gravel for this application. The staff and board position prevailed, resulting in a split vote on the matter. The outcome reflected the county's regulatory standards, with the applicant required to comply with the countywide prohibition and use a material that meets the applicable guidelines rather than proceeding with the gravel option. ## 317 Desha Road: Install utilities [timestamp: 00:02:01] The application for installing utilities at 317 Desha Road was reviewed as part of the staff approvals section of the meeting. The application was approved by staff, and no board action was required on this item. **Outcome:** Approved ## 141 South Hanover Avenue: Replace side door [timestamp: 00:02:01] The application for replacing the side door at 141 South Hanover Avenue was reviewed and approved by staff. No board action was required for this item, as it was processed through the staff approvals section of the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## 225 South Hanover Avenue: Replace sidewalk and lattice [timestamp: 00:02:01] The application for 225 South Hanover Avenue to replace the sidewalk and lattice was reviewed and approved by staff. No board action was required for this item, as it was processed through the staff approvals section of the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## 247 South Hanover Avenue: Extend fence/screen [timestamp: 00:02:01] The application for 247 South Hanover Avenue to extend a fence/screen was approved by staff. No board action was required for this item, as it was processed and approved as part of the staff approvals section of the meeting. ## 273 South Ashland Avenue: Change dormer design [timestamp: 00:02:01] An application to change the dormer design at 273 South Ashland Avenue was reviewed and approved by staff. No board action was required for this item, as it was processed through the staff approvals section of the meeting. The application was approved as submitted. ## 139 Ransom Avenue: Renovate structure The application for 139 Ransom Avenue to renovate the structure was reviewed and approved by staff. No board action was required for this item, as it was processed as part of the staff approvals section [timestamp: 00:02:01]. The application was approved as submitted. ## 228 Rose Street: Renovate structure The application for 228 Rose Street to renovate the structure was reviewed as part of the staff approvals section of the meeting [timestamp: 00:02:01]. The application was approved by staff, and no board action was required for this item. ## 164 Woodland Avenue: Install chimney caps [timestamp: 00:02:01] The application to install chimney caps at 164 Woodland Avenue was reviewed as part of the staff approvals section of the meeting. The application was approved by staff, and no board action was required. **Outcome:** Approved ## 153 West Bell Court: Replace fence The application to replace the fence at 153 West Bell Court was approved by staff and did not require board action. [timestamp: 00:02:01] The application was reviewed and approved as part of the staff approvals section of the meeting agenda. ## 605 Russell Avenue: Renovate structure [timestamp: 00:02:01] The application for 605 Russell Avenue to renovate the structure was reviewed as part of the staff approvals section of the meeting. The application was approved by staff, and no board action was required for this item. ## 230-232 North Limestone: Renovate front cornice The application to renovate the front cornice at 230-232 North Limestone was approved by staff [timestamp: 00:02:01]. No board action was required for this item, as it was processed through the staff approvals section of the meeting. The application received staff approval without additional discussion or debate noted in the meeting record. ## 104 Dantzler Court: Replace asphalt driveway The application to replace the asphalt driveway at 104 Dantzler Court was reviewed and approved by staff [timestamp: 00:02:01]. No board action was required for this item, as it was processed as part of the staff approvals section of the meeting. The application received staff approval and was included among the items handled through the standard staff approval process. ## 436 West Third Street: Remove rear yard tree [timestamp: 00:02:01] The application to remove a rear yard tree at 436 West Third Street was reviewed as part of the staff approvals section. The application was approved by staff, and no board action was required for this item. ## 712 West Maxwell Street: Renovate structure The application for 712 West Maxwell Street to renovate the structure was reviewed and approved by staff. No board action was required for this item, as it was processed through the staff approvals section of the meeting [timestamp: 00:02:01]. The application received staff approval as presented. ## 104 Dantzler Drive: Re-gravel rear yard [timestamp: 00:03:39] An application was presented to re-gravel the rear yard at 104 Dantzler Drive. The Chair and Nathan Ebert were the key speakers on this agenda item. Staff recommended approval of the application with a condition that the gravel contain edging. Following discussion, a motion was made and passed to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the recommended conditions in place. The application was approved. ## 302 East High Street: Install front yard fencing [timestamp: 00:05:18] An application to install front yard fencing at 302 East High Street was presented for review as a certificate of appropriateness matter. **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the fencing installation with a condition that final details be reviewed and approved by staff following evaluation by other LFUCG divisions. **Key Participants** The Chair and Nathan Ebert were the key speakers on this agenda item. **Outcome** The motion to approve the application passed with the recommended conditions in place. The approval requires that final details of the fencing project be returned to staff for review after assessment by relevant LFUCG divisions before installation proceeds. ## 436 West Third Street: Install front yard fencing [timestamp: 00:09:58] An application was presented to install front yard fencing at 436 West Third Street. The Chair and Kim Bloomfield were the key speakers on this agenda item. Staff recommended approval of the fencing installation with specific conditions. The primary condition required that the fence be set on ground without a brick plinth. Additionally, staff required that final details of the fence design be returned to staff for review before installation. The motion to approve the application passed with these conditions in place. ## 130 East Bell Court: Construct deck An application to construct a deck at 130 East Bell Court was presented for review [timestamp: 00:14:25]. Staff recommended approval of the project with specific conditions. The recommended conditions addressed three elements of the construction: - Skirting requirements - Handrail specifications - Staining of exposed wood The Chair and Jacqueline Carfagno were the key speakers during discussion of this agenda item. The motion to approve the deck construction passed with the conditions as recommended by staff. ## 301 South Hanover Avenue: Construct carport and potting shed [timestamp: 00:16:02] An application was presented to construct a carport and potting shed at 301 South Hanover Avenue. Staff recommended approval of the certificate of appropriateness with a condition regarding surface materials for the driveway and carport. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended that the driveway and carport be surfaced with material other than gravel. **Applicant Response** Clive Pole, representing the application, expressed the applicant's intent to use a pervious solution for the surfaces, addressing the staff condition. **Outcome** The motion passed with conditions. The certificate of appropriateness was approved for the construction of the carport and potting shed. ## 273 South Ashland Avenue: Change dormer design [timestamp: 00:24:33] This application for a certificate of appropriateness to change the dormer design at 273 South Ashland Avenue was previously approved by staff. No board action was required on this item, as it was referenced in the staff approvals section of the meeting. The application was approved. ## 320 Woodland Avenue: Demolish garage [timestamp: 00:24:33] The application for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the garage at 320 Woodland Avenue was withdrawn by the applicant. No board action was required on this matter. ## 731 Caden Lane: Construct new single family residence This agenda item presented a conceptual review of a proposed new single-family residence at 731 Caden Lane [timestamp: 00:25:04]. The item was discussed as an informational matter, with no formal motion or vote taken by the body. This item was noted as the final item of the meeting. The review remained at the conceptual stage, indicating that the proposal was presented for discussion and feedback rather than for formal approval or decision at this time. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approve re-graveling of rear yard at 104 Dantzler Drive with staff recommendation that gravel contain edging - **Motion** — passed: Approve installation of front yard fencing at 302 East High Street with condition that final details come back to staff after review by other LFUCG divisions - **Motion** — passed: Approve installation of front yard fencing at 436 West 3rd Street with condition that fence be set on ground (no brick plinth) and final details come back to staff - **Motion** — passed: Approve construction of deck at 130 East Bell Court with conditions on skirting, handrail, and staining of exposed wood - **Motion** — passed: Approve construction of carport and potting shed at 301 South Hanover Avenue with condition that driveway and carport be surfaced with material other than gravel --- ## Full transcript Music guitar solo Thank you. is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. Chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone 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 reported correctly. I'd 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 14 approved applications noted on today's agenda. in the Ashland Park Historic District 317 Deshea Road install utilities at 141 South Hanover Avenue replace side door 225 South Hanover Avenue replace sidewalk and lattice and at 247 South Hanover Avenue extend fence and screen in the South Ashland Historic District at 273 South Ashland Avenue change dormer design and the Aylesford Historic District at 139 Ransom Avenue renovate structure, 228 Rose Street renovate structure, and at 164 Woodland Avenue installed chimney caps. In the Bell Court Historic District at 153 West Bell Court, replace fence, and at 605 Russell Avenue renovate structure. In the Constitution Historic District at 230 and 232 North Limestone renovate front cornice. The Seven Parks Historic District at 104 Dancer Court replace asphalt driveway. In the Northside Historic District at 436 West 3rd Street, remove rear yard tree and in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 712 West Maxwell Street, renovate structure. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for a certificate of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 104 Dansler Drive. That application is to re-gravel the rear yard. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not here but has been sent a copy of their staff report. Well, this is pretty straightforward as far as guidelines go. I'm in full agreement with the staff recommendations, and if the board is willing, I'd entertain a motion. Well, first of all, are there any comments or questions regarding this case? Is there anybody in the audience this evening to speak to this case at 104 Dantzler Drive? Seeing no action, hearing no further comment from the board, I'd entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 30870104-I, 104 Dantzler Drive, I make a motion to accept the application as submitted with the one staff recommendation, the gravel to contain the edging. Pardon me. And the final details come back to staff prior to issue a COA. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I second. Very well. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with that recommendation. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 302 East High Street, install front yard fencing. Is that applicant here this evening? If you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself, please, and give us your name and address. Hello, everyone. My name is Nathan Ebert, and I reside at 302 East High Street. Good evening. Have you had a chance to review staff findings and recommendations at this time? Yes, I have. They're pretty favorable. The recommended approval is submitted with the following condition that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions. Final details come back to staff. When is the next staff meeting? Well, I'm not sure what other LFUC divisions you've spoken to so far. He will have, once he actually goes before the two-building inspection to ask for his, submit his application for this fence, then they'll have to have a separate review to deal with site distance issues on this particular case. And then that detail will need to come back to us. So, yeah, so as Amelia stated, once that's completed, if there are any changes and the final documents put together, that'll have to come back for the issuance of the COA. Okay. But back to the original question as far as the, is there a periodic date of these meetings? No. No, that's just an informal, you know, at the time you've gotten the other resolved. And sometimes if there's any, you've got some site triangle issues, I believe, given your spot. And sometimes it's just as simple. If you can give us a shout, we can just join you across the hall, talk to building inspection at the same time, perhaps. But it's at your choice. And then you just give us a shout so we can just take care of you in the next little bit. Fantastic. Thank you. If there aren't any drastic changes that go beyond the application, we probably won't even have to come back before us. Understood. Thank you. So it should be pretty painless. We'll see. Any other comments or questions for the applicant? I have a question for staff. Has an application been made for a fence in this location in the past? Yes, there was a fence here for probably about 10 to 15 years from the mid-'80s to pretty much 2005 when the fence did go down for when the house was renovated again. But the fence was actually a solid privacy fence that was actually six feet tall. And it predated the historic district's designation. Okay. I just wondered, because I know that's been kind of a sensitive site. Right. Because everybody knows where it is. By recollection, and we'd have to check the files exact, and Amelia, you may have, But my sense is that that fence came to exist before the Aylesford District's designation in 98 or 99. It actually appears that it was there in, I think, 93 to 2005 from just our photographic record in that area. And the reason specifically to point out that it preexisted the district, as a solid fence, it is not something that within the guidelines would have been approved in the manner in which it came to exist before the district. So this is the first cycle where what is being proposed is being reviewed within the design guidelines. It's a great house. Thank you very much. It's a great house. Is there anybody in the audience this evening speak to 302 East High Street? If you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself. Oh, wow. Just stretching. Pardon me. Stay seated then, by all means. Well, that being the case, I would entertain a motion at this time. Thank you very much, everyone. Mr. Chair, relative to case number 09290302H at 302 East High Street, I recommend that we approve the application with the staff recommended condition that once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, the final details come back to staff. Thank you very much. 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? And the motion passes with that recommendation. Next case in the agenda this evening is at 436 West 3rd Street. is that applicant here this evening. My name is Kim Bloomfield. Good to see you this evening. Can we have your address, please? 436 West 3rd Street. Great. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I have. Are you in agreement with them? Yes. Great. Just to make sure we're all on the same page, Staff does recommend approval as submitted with the following conditions. One, that the fence be set on the ground in lieu of a brick plinth. And that two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, final details come back to staff. Yeah, that's fine. I do have one question, though. I just realized if you take the brick plinth away, it will only be three feet. Well, it's actually... Okay. Yeah. It's still how you... You just want the 48 inches? Yeah. If you take the brick plinth away, the fence is in only 36 inches, and I'm asking for it to be 48 inches. I don't think, and correct me if I'm wrong, Amelia, but I don't think that your recommendation affects the height, but just affects the plinth. So a 48-inch tall fence is still appropriate. Okay. not one with a plinth underneath it perfect that's my understanding great any other i would agree any other comments or questions for the applicant at this time any questions for us uh i just want to make sure you're fully understanding the change because the drawing shows a four foot high fence on top of a one foot two inch high flint okay you're aware of that so the four foot high fence then drops down the ground you still have a four foot high fence but you're missing the one foot two inch plant right okay that's all so four foot fence no plant we're all on the same page that's good is there anybody else in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Any other questions? One last question. Why do you want it to be four feet high? I was just keeping it with the neighborhood. There's someone right next door just down the way that has also 48 inches. We've measured in the front. In the front. It seems a little high to me, but if it's in the neighborhood, it's consistent with the guidelines. Well, I'm just going by what the neighbor has. But it's not a continuous neighbor. I'm sorry? It's not your next door neighbor. Not right next door. No, it's two doors down. Okay. Anything to add? Will that be in the case? Hearing no further comments, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 09290302-M at 436 West 3rd Street, make a motion to approve application with the staff recommendations as follows. the staff's fence is to be set on the ground in lieu of a brick plent which will make the fence four feet tall and once reviewed by LFUCG divisions final details come back to staff. Thank you very much. Can I get a second to the motion please? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed. The motion passes with those recommendations. Thank you. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 130 East Belcourt. Good to see me again. Good evening. If we could get your name and address just listed for the... Jacqueline Carfagno, 130 East Belcourt. Good to see you. So have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes, and I'm fine with that. They are favorable. I'll just read through those real quickly. Okay. Staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. One, details of the skirting and handrail come back to staff. Two, all exposed wood of deck except for deck flooring and stair tread be either fainted or opaque stained. And that three, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, final details come back to staff. It's fine with me. Very well. Are there any questions or comments for the applicant at this time from the board? Do you have any questions for us? No. Okay. Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Pretty painless. Well, okay, then. That being the case, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, relative to case number 01530130-D at 130 East Bell Court, I recommend approval as submitted with the following condition. details of skirting and handrail come back to staff. All exposed wood of deck, except for deck flooring and stair treads, be either painted or opaque stained. And once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, final details come back to staff. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with those recommendations. Thank you very much. Thank you. next case on the agenda this evening is at 301 south handover avenue set up if you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself mr chair i have to abstain on this project okay this guy's my brother good afternoon my name is clive pole i'm with pole rosa pole and i live at 813 sherwood drive in Lexington. And with regard to this project, I recognize the staff has made some recommendations and approvals conditional upon those recommendations. The owner is, in fact, prepared to address those recommendations. And the only other thing I might add is that we have made an effort to reference and use existing vocabularies on the site, materials, colors, and so forth, and our further design efforts will be in keeping with that objective. Any questions for me? Well, just to make sure we're all on the same page, staff recommendations do state that they recommend approval with the following conditions. One, that the carport and driveway be surfaced with another material in lieu of gravel, and that the final details come back to staff for that, and that any other changes required by the LFUCG agencies are to come back to staff for review before the start of a project. And that's, I guess, number one is what you'd like to discuss a bit. Do we need to have a staff presentation for that, or do you guys feel comfortable proceeding with just this material for discussion? What would you propose rather than the gravel in the parking area? Well, we haven't allowed ourselves to go there yet in a design conversation. I would like to see it be a pervious solution, but we're going to engage in a value engineering conversation after we receive your comments and after your judgment and modify drawings accordingly and then resubmit them when we've got all of the information. Well, I appreciate you saying that. But I think new gravel driveways are kind of a touchy subject around here in that we get a lot of requests for it, and it's just simply not in the guidelines. I think the project is nifty, and I'm glad that it's come together the way it has. But I think the driveway, I tend to agree with the staff recommendation for the change of material there. And I trust that you can work the details there out with the staff to hopefully not have to come back. Yeah. I would like to affect change in that way because I believe gravel is an entirely acceptable solution very often and certainly cost effective. And so I know this is a conversation we've had on more than one occasion in the past, but this will not be the project that we'll use to attempt to change the guidelines. So basically you're saying you're going along with the staff recommendation. recommendation you'll just bring those details back to staff correct yes correct just generally if staff could one of the things to be reminded of for everybody is the gravel is prohibited countywide on properties i'm sure you're aware of that and within the historic districts it is still a possibility from that countywide ordinance it's only within the historic districts that can be considered but it's really not anything that unless there's some really extenuating circumstance that necessitates gravel this process is trying very hard to dovetail with the county-wide prohibition and not have gravel now we can have a talk another time about all the pros and cons of said topic but i just wanted to let everybody be reminded that it is tied into the countywide prohibition why we try to so carefully not unless there's something just quite unique that cannot be accommodated in some other manner consider gravel thank you thanks any other comments or Questions for the applicant? I just wanted to comment that when I looked at the drawings two weeks ago, and then I looked at them again in reviewing for today's meeting, and the detail on the parking area on your submittal makes it look like it's a floating slab, which I thought, that is really nice. And then I read that the staff objected to gravel there. And so I guess this is just a computer 3D program. May well be, yeah. Was that the image that threw you off, the 3D view? Oh, it did because I liked it. Oh, right. I understand. Yeah. Okay. Duly noted. Thank you. or is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? I just had a question. Sure, come and introduce yourself. My name is Calvin Cranfield, and I live next door at 271 South Hanover. And there's a large, I'm very much in favor of this project, so I hope that you all will go ahead and approve it. the big evergreen tree in the back is that intended to be removed I haven't seen any drawings of this but it can be accessed without that I think you're are you referring to the one it's in the corner of our lots in the back there is a cedar tree yes yes hang on to the evergreen I'd have to well there's more than one cedar I can't see it because there's a lot of bamboo back there I hadn't it but the owner is here and you may be able to speak to that better than I'm not certain I'm clear about the tree you're referring to and I would just like to say um Mr. Schweinberg and I had actually looked at that particular tree and have um discussed retaining it for the time being okay Well, that's just what I was trying to find out. I didn't. Good night, buddy. Thanks. And to clarify, removing the curie is not part of the application at this time. Is that correct? That's correct. Yes. So that is that. Yeah. Any other comments from the audience at this time? All right. Well, I'd certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 08760301301, South Hanover Avenue, I make a motion to accept the application with the staff recommendations. One, the carport and driveway be surfaced with another material in lieu of gravel and that those final details come back to staff. And number two, any changes required by the LFUCG agencies are to come back to staff for review before the project starts. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? A second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes with those recommendations. Thanks very much. Thank you. Good luck with your project. I'm a little confused about the next item on the agenda. Simply state, see agenda above. Is that because it's been dealt with at the staff level? That's correct. Actually, that should say, see approvals above. Okay. There was a discussion about potential whether a design change would have to go back before the board. So there's nothing to hear. It's been approved by staff. Okay. So the next case in the agenda, 273 South Ashland Avenue, as we stated, was approved by staff. So that agenda item is no longer an agenda item. It's reflected in your number five. Yes. of staff approvals. And then the final case in the agenda listed at 320 Woodland Avenue, Demolish Garage. That case has been withdrawn by the applicant, so there's no action required by us. That ends the formal part of our meeting this evening, and all that is left is conceptual review for 731 Caden Lane, and that project is to construct a new single-family residence. Thank you.