Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ The 10th meeting of the Board of Architectural 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 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages and recommends 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 and 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, 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 staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 21 approved applications noted on today's agenda. first of all in the Aylesford Historic District at 642 Central Avenue reissue COA, 656 East High Street re-roof structure, 223 Kentucky Avenue remove dying silver maple, 225 Kentucky Avenue remove dead and damaged trees, 342 Linden Walk remove dying tree, 125 Ransom Avenue Tug Point and repoint Masonry, 328 Transylvania Park, renovate structure. In the Bell Place Historic District at 200 East Bell Court, renovate structure and site. At 202 Bell Place, replace window. In Cadentown, oh, excuse me, also at 600 Sarah Avenue, renovate structure. In Cadentown Historic District at 2852 Cadentown Road, renovate structure and site. Ellesmere Park Historic District at 628 Ellesmere Park, remove deteriorated tree. At 667 Ellesmere Park, remove paving. In the north side, Historic District at 445 West 2nd Street, remove black locust tree. In the Bracratz Park, Historic District at 250 West 3rd Street, reissue COA to refurbish light fixtures. And also at that address, reissue COA to refurbish fountain. In the seven parks, Historic District at 522 Arcadia Park, replace replacement windows. In the South Hill, Historic District at 239 South Limestone, install railing system. In the western suburbs, Historic District at 632 West Main Street, renovate structure, as well as at 731 West Main Street, also renovate structure. And then in the Woodland Heights Historic District, 324 Moreno Street, renovate structure. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. First item on the agenda this evening is at 210 and 214 North Broadway. That application is to change openings. Is that applicant here this evening? Please come and introduce yourself. Thank you. My name is Maureen Peters, and I live at 535 Russell Avenue, but I'm here representing the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, which owns the building on North Broadway. Excellent. Good to have you here this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? I have. They're pretty favorable. Are you in agreement with those recommendations? I am in agreement. Great. Just to make sure we're on the same page, you all go through those. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. One, final handrail details come back to staff for review prior to the commencement of work. Two, any changes on stooped dimensions come back to staff for review prior to commencement of work. And number three, once reviewed by any other LFCCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to start of any work. Are there any comments or questions from the board for the applicant at this time? Are there any folks in the audience that would like to speak to this case this evening? Hearing no further comment from us and seeing no action from the audience, I would entertain a motion. I'm sorry, do you have anything else to add? I don't. Excellent. Okay. That all being the case, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 0250210-D at 210-214 North Broadway, I make a motion to approve application with the three recommendations. one final handrail details come back to staff prior to commencement of work any changes on stoop dimensions come back to staff for review prior to commencement of work and once reviewed any by any other lfucg division all changes come back to staff or review prior to work start of work thank you is there a second to that motion second any further discussion of the motion at this time 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. The next case in the agenda this evening is at 600 Sarah Avenue. Change openings on the rear of the structure. If you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself, please. I'm Mike Mitchell. My address is 667 Ellesmere Park. I'm representing the client who lives at 600 Sarah Avenue. Great. Good to have you here. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes, I have. I remember they were pretty favorable, too. Hold on just a moment. You're in agreement with these recommendations? They're pretty easy. Yes. Again, staff's recommended approval with the following conditions that once reviewed by any other LFCCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to start of any work. No problems there. Any comments for the applicant at this time from the board? I have a comment. Go ahead. The only thing that I would like to ask you to reconsider is the detail around the French door system. You showed two Greek revival-styled palisters. I did a detail that followed that. It was a little bit, did that make that in there, in your packet? I did a hand-drawn detail of the actual. You know, I did see that. It didn't have the fluting on it. Is that what you planned to do? Correct. The hand-drawn detail was a more accurate reflection of what we intended to do. Okay. That's all right. I saw that. Good. Okay. Thank you. I have a related question. The elevation shows subdivisions in the windows. Is that the intent? I'm not sure. It shows window mullions in the new windows? Yes. I think all of them are two by four is the intention. i mean i'm seeing mullions in all of the new windows with the casements having uh eight subdivisions and so on and so forth yeah that was correct i mean normally we wouldn't allow mountains and windows so i'm wondering why the staff uh overlooked that we actually looked at this pretty closely in the fact that all the windows in the structure do have, you know, these are elements that are within the structure and not necessarily a complete addition. While there has been changes in them previously to the structure, you know, these pieces, and in some ways the windows could be either full light or multi-pane windows. They sort of had the, this is sort of one of these situations where you have a lot more flexibility because of this not being in a new edition that we're reviewing today, but an existing situation. It seems inconsistent with policy in the past to me. I mean, I think we've always interpreted mullions to be an imitation, a false imitation of history, and that being forbidden in the guidelines, I'm not really sure why this is any different. Well, the existing windows or the existing door system in the bay has a multi-pane system. So in some ways, if the applicant came before us and asked to just replace the existing scenario, they would be allowed to go back with the multi-pain because that's the existing scenario. And I think this could be, they could go either way. We looked at this and talked about that very topic a lot and felt because of this existing scenario of having existing multi-pain situations, and the fact that this wasn't in a new edition piece, but rather replacing an existing scenario, that they could go back with either the multi-pane or the full light windows. Well, at a minimum, I would like to ask that the subdivision of the windows in the dormer, dormer, the attic windows, that they be either illuminated or modified so that the individual panes are vertical, not horizontal, because that's certainly inconsistent with everything on the building at this point. The existing sashes up there are, of that window, I believe, are one full light over maybe six lights on the lower sash. Yeah, eight over one. Okay. Yeah, I have a photograph of that. And if you look at each of those eight individual lights, their proportions are vertical. In other words, they're narrower than they are tall. And what I'm suggesting is that if, in fact, In fact, the board does agree that with the staff that allowing for subdivisions in the windows is appropriate, that those subdivisions in the attic windows be modified so that the panes in those windows would also be vertical rather than horizontal because the way they're depicted now, they're horizontal. Okay. And that's not consistent with the rest of the building. Okay. I will point out that of all of the lower windows that we're replacing, every single one of them have been added in the past, and the only one we're changing is taking a picture window and turning it into two casement windows. I can see that. I like what you're doing. I think it's appropriate. I'd have to check with the homeowner, but I don't think that a revision in the orientation of the dormer sash or pains is a problem. That's all I have. Thank you. Any other comments from the board at this time? Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Again, we're discussing 600 Sarah Avenue while hearing no further comment and seeing no action from the audience. Mr. Pohl, what would you recommend as far as a division on that dormer window or windows? I mean, I think they'd be fine without subdivisions in them, but if the owner feels that that's not in keeping with the rest of the project, I guess what I'd suggest would be a three over three, or three and three. So in other words, there'd be two vertical subdivisions rather than one. I think that's the best from our point of view. Or alternatively, I guess you could just have four total lights in each sash. I think that's also. Actually, that might be the cleanest, clearest thing to do. I think that might actually be preferable. Okay. And now that I look at the elevation, there is a little tiny window in another part of the attic that has a four over one configuration, so that kind of makes sense. I think two four light sashes, I think we're okay with that. Can I ask a question? Sure. The existing condition looks a lot better. Is there a reason that you're raising these windows up? Yes, ma'am. The roof is flashed over the windowsill. It's about two inches or three inches from the windowsill, and so upon obvious lots of problems they've had with it, they've decided just to flash it up over. So we'd like to flash up onto the wall and raise the window off the roof for snow and ice conditions. Well, mathematically, I think you're going to have in this holding to the same width, you're going to have a very hard time getting vertical light. And if you can't work that magic, I would prefer that you just not have any divided lights in there. Okay. Well, hopefully the board can approve it in a way that we can come back to staff with a final decision and we can still move forward. Any other comments from the board at this time? Well, that being the case, I would entertain a motion. Do you have one cooking down there? Yeah. Yeah, Mr. Chair, relative to case number 16780600-H, I move to approve the application with two recommendations, two conditions. The first being the one recommended by staff, which reads, once reviewed by any other LFUCG division, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. and the second condition being that the attic windows to be replaced in the dormer, if they are to receive subdivisions, that those subdivisions, each pane in those subdivisions be predominantly vertical and that the preferred configuration would be four subdivisions in each sash and that those details go to the staff prior to commencing any work. Thank you very much. Is there a second to that motion? A second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And the motion passes with those recommendations. Next on the agenda is at 667, Ellesmere Park. I believe you're also representing the applicant there. we've got your name and address on record already have you had a chance to review staff's recommendations in this instance yes those recommendations are to approve with the following conditions final specification sheet on the windows and doors come back to staff for review prior to the start of any work paint stripping and tuck pointing be achieved in accordance with the secretary of interior's standards and once reviewed by any other LFGCG divisions all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Are you in agreement with those recommendations and you're familiar with the Secretary of the Interior standards as far as removing paint goes and not destroying what's behind it? Yes sir. Excellent. Any comments from the board on this application for the applicant. I have another question for staff on this one. And that is that it seems to me that when we have reviewed similar projects where we're converting where an owner is converting an open porch into a enclosing an open porch that we usually try to move toward a configuration that somehow reflects the previous life of the porch as having been an open porch. And here there's no discussion of that, no effort to do that. Is there some, can you talk to that? And then I believe that I think the scenario, which is a bit confusing, which may have not been explained as well in the staff report, is that this addition piece of this porch was actually created and it was in 93. And so the original porch that was on there was actually sort of a clapboard or had wall system on it. And so this was takedown and this was added. So this isn't the actual original porch, so to speak. And so I think giving that precedence that this was added, that is particularly why that we didn't revert back to having more glazing than when we typically have porch additions, so to speak. So to summarize, had it been the original and historic porch, we would have required more of an openness like we do per the guidelines where it's more glass infill with post-type construction. Correct. In this case, it's a more modern addition that we're modifying, and that's okay. Correct. Thank you. Is anyone in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, we're discussing 667 Ellesmere Park. Do you have any other comments for us? I do not. Okay. Well? I have just a comment, and this isn't going to have any bearing on our action, I don't think, But I think that it would be helpful to think about that aspect of the porch and to consider the possibility that the trim that you end up putting on it has some notion of that as a sort of expression of frame. your elevations don't for example show corner boards or end boards at the where the porch meets the brick for example and i'm sure there will be some sort of trim condition at those locations and and also you're not really showing any kind of trim conditioner on the windows or doors but you will be putting trim there and i would encourage you to think about the possibility of using that trim in a way that maybe articulates the notion of frame. Just throw that out there. Maybe I can come talk to you about that later. You don't have to do that. Come back to it with some further details. But no, I'm open to suggestions. I'm not in a rush on this. I still have time to make some changes. Thanks. Well, it may just be a matter of illustration in your elevation drawings. I mean, it may be something you intend to do anyways to some degree. My intentions were 4-inch corner boards, 4-inch black casings, party board in between, and it was pretty simple. I don't really love the addition as it is, so I don't have strong feelings on the trim. I guess, you know, we might include a condition that asks you to share a finished elevation with trim details for the staff to review and discuss with you. And it might result in something that you like a lot better, too, you know. Okay. Yeah, I was going to say I think something like that can be added as a recommendation. It sounds simple enough. And I think the intent is clear. I think you understand the intent. And it's something that the staff can review. Should be something they can pass. but if not, of course, we can always talk about it again. But I think it's pretty straightforward what we're asking for, so I think it could be a recommendation that doesn't slow you down. Any other thoughts or comments on this case? Since that is the case, I would accept a recommendation for a motion. Mr. Chair, case number 06510667-C at 67 Ellsmore Park. I move to approve the application with the following conditions. Number one, that final specification sheet on the windows doors come back to staff for review prior to start of work. Number two, paint stripping and tuck pointing be achieved in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior standards. Number three, once reviewed by any other LFUCG division, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. And number four, that a final elevation indicating location of trim conditions be provided to staff for review prior to start of work. Thank you very much. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Yes. May I? Any further discussion of that motion? I request on this that that last statement be phrased to the prior of the finishing portion of the job. I would like to be able to sort of move forward with the framing and interior portions of the work. And I can, I don't know if that's. So I can amend that fourth condition to indicate that the drawings be available to the staff prior to the initiation of the siding work. And before we, while you're amending that, do you want to add anything to your motion about the intent of what the framing would illustrate? Well, I guess I'm comfortable with the staff speaking with Mr. Mitchell. I mean, I could articulate that, I guess. I think, you know. In eight words or less? Yeah, with the notion that the trim indicating in the drawings presents some suggestion of a frame-like condition that existed when the porch was open. I think that catches our conversation. Thank you. Did you second? No, I did. Do you accept that change to your second? I accept the change. Very well. Any other comments? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes with those recommendations. Thank you very much. Moving on down the line to 316 West High Street, demolished building number 2. Is that applicant here this evening? Good evening. My name is Marshall Osborne. I reside at 3877 Lee Adams Lane here in Lexington. Good to have you here this evening, sir. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes, I have. They're incredibly favorable. No conditions whatsoever. they recommend approval. Obviously you agree with that. I would think. Are there any comments or questions for the applicant at this time from the board? Are there any folks in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, we're discussing 316 West High Street. This is fairly simple. All of that being the case, do you have anything to add for us? No. Excellent. Well, then, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 09300316-M316, West High Street, make a motion to approve application as submitted. Thank you very much. Is there a second to that motion? I second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Thank you very much. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 137 South Hanover Avenue. Would you like to come down and talk to us about that, please? My name is Mike Warner, Warner Construction. I'm here representing the owners of 137 South Hanover, Justin Morrison, Bart Francis. Very well. Good to see you this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes. I'm sure you do not agree where they recommend disapproval for the vinyl fence that I understand from the applications already been installed. Yes, sir. just to review and catch everybody up to the same spot and make it clear that this fence was installed when a wood privacy fence was approved and then a vinyl privacy fence was installed. Just so we're on the same page, that's what's occurred. You know, I think the guidelines are pretty clear on this material on vinyl as well as what was in the application and what was approved. So what would you like to say? Well, I'd like to thank you for letting me come. We've worked well together to get to this point. We thought we were finished, but we're not. But we've presented a home in a historical district that not only looks great, but won first place the People's Choice Award for Best Remodeled Home in 2014. So it speaks for itself. I'm not here, and I hope that you don't see me in any type of adversarial role. There was a mistake made. It was an honest mistake, and it's that simple. This is not a situation where we tried to put something over on anyone or do something intentional. We understood that on December or on May 14th, when we made a recommendation, it was for an eight-foot fence surrounding the property. The May 28th minutes say that the following work was approved, which was to install a six-foot fence around the property. and then the last letter we received was again the background that the board and staff issued a certificate of appropriateness to conduct the following work item 10 was to install a six foot fence sure yep and so we we also understand that the plans called for a wood fence and i i have looked at that and this is where the mistake was made it does show a wood fence on the plan view on the elevations it every other place it just says privacy screen and pool fence when the pool company met with the owners it was the same company Geddes fence and pool company that installed the pool and the fence the options that were presented to the owners the vinyl fence seemed the most appropriate in a wet area, pool area. It's a very attractive fence. It is vinyl. It is, it does, I believe, meet the guidelines of that it would be privacy fences of flat boards in a single row or more historically correct than shadow boxing. I concede to the fact that the guidelines say very clearly the use of vinyl is not permitted. I would like to say just again in an honest mistake, I see that in the guidelines for construction of new buildings and new primary buildings, and specifically it talks about vinyl windows are not allowed. In the case of the fencing, fiberglass is allowed, or it appears to be an allowed product, and this is a very attractive fence. From 10 feet away, it could be fiberglass. From 10 feet away, it could be wood. It is not an inexpensive fence. And so with that, and the owners have asked me to state some things that they would like to have heard. If the fence is only seen from the street in one panel, a six-foot panel on the left-hand side, the side facing the property line to the left will have a brick fence constructed by the neighbor in the spring, making this fence completely unseen to anyone. The rear of the fence abuts the back of a large garage and prevents it from being seen as well. The right side faces the owner's garage and is not visible from the street. It functions as a pool enclosure, a saltwater pool, and is durable to salt, probably more so than a wood fence. to demolish the current enclosure will not change the look of the enclosure a wood fence will have the same exact appearance the homeowners want me to point out they paid ninety seven hundred dollars to the fencing contractor to have it installed and it certainly would be costly to take it down and rebuild they have asked me to say that when this current enclosure is no longer aesthetically pleasing, they agreed to replace it with a complete wood fence. Again, they said it's been featured on the tour of remodeled homes. It's going to be featured in the Herald-Leader. They've hosted several parties and functions and it's received nothing but the highest remarks. Again, it was an honest mistake. We thought we were approved for a six-foot fence. And I realized that I should have referred to the plans, but what I heard was a six-foot fence. And it seems to be the best option for this condition around a pool. and so we would like to request of you to reconsider and allow us to keep this fence. Well, I appreciate what you've said and I certainly appreciate how you've said it. Thank you and I understand how mistakes are made. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask Amelia a question or two. We sort of skipped her part of the presentation. I don't know if we really need it. I mean, I think we all have a pretty clear understanding of what's going on in the staff's report, unless any of you disagree. I would like to hear your thoughts on the statement about fiberglass fence being allowed or not being allowed, I guess, is how I think you said it. It's an approved material. So that's new construction may incorporate contemporary materials such as cementous board, fiberglass, and aluminum. The use of vinyl is not permitted. So that is accepted material. I guess, Amelia, if you could just clarify the context that that fiberglass is an acceptable material comes from, just so I know how it fits into this conversation. I'd appreciate it. Okay. Well, actually, the guideline he's referencing, there's throughout the guideline several times the use of vinyl is not permitted. In this particular context that he's referring to, he's talking about new primary structures. and is talking about the available material that could be used on primary structures in this particular scenario. And so that could have been referencing the idea of possibly using fiberglass columns or so forth like that as far as for new additions and that kind of thing. So that was what that was referencing because the guidelines throughout sort of discuss the use of no vinyl at the end of each comment. and that particular one talked about materials, new materials that could be used. Sure. I appreciate that. The no vinyl part is certainly clear to me and I think clear in the guidelines. I just wanted to make sure I understood where the fiberglass reference comes from. Right. Are there other comments or questions for Amelia at this time from the board? Some clarification? May I, on the fiberglass, just for a moment, Is there a reference in the guidelines specifically to fences that says no vinyl? There is actually no exact guideline that says no vinyl fences. The guideline simply references that fences need to be made out of traditional material of either wood, iron, masonry, so forth like that. inherent in that and many times in the guidelines you sort of couple that with sort of underlying statements about overall what kind of materials are going to be used and in this particular scenario staff issued those permits based on the comments in the made in the and the drawings that talking about wood fences and so in the guideline referencing what fences is for what you've already listed. And again, I'm not being adversarial at all. I just, if we are going to look at the fiberglass as a primary building material, that's where the no vinyl is also referenced, is in the primary building. So that's why we were looking at the fence as perhaps, and again, it was just an honest mistake. I can't say it any other way. Sure. Well, and we, you know, we have to think about what happens downhill from here. if this home that's been all over award opportunities and tours and people are seeing and know of this vinyl fence wants to keep others from trying to do it in the future when it is pretty clear there's no vinyl preferred in the guidelines. So we have to think of that as well when we think of this case. You know, I like to think and I understand if the application said privacy fence and didn't reference material one way or the other, it was because the drawings do say wood. I think if the drawings hadn't said anything, if the drawings had just said privacy fence, we would have asked some questions about what material is the fence supposed to be, which I feel like if it had been an application for vinyl fence or a material that hadn't been specified, we would have at least asked the question, what's it made out of? And we would have said that we don't like vinyl fences at that time, I'm sure of that. So it is unfortunate how it's occurred and how the fence has come to be installed, but I don't think we would have approved a vinyl fence under most circumstances. You have comments? Sorry. I need to abstain on this, I believe, because I'm within a radius of the property. I live within a radius of the property that makes it. Am I right about that, Amelia? That's not. Oh, that's counsel? Do I need to abstain? My home is within 200. Well, what is the radius? I think I'm within that radius, but I'm not positive. Yeah, so I have to abstain, right? Well, that's okay. Abstain if you need to. I have comments. Go ahead. I'm so sorry you're here with us today. I really, practically speaking, I hate to see somebody spend $9,700 on a fence that is inappropriate. But what's important to me is that it's in a really fine historic neighborhood. And visually, the problem with plastic fences, to me, vinyl fences, are there's no way you can get the finish to look like it's a natural product. It's shiny as patent leather, and it looks clearly plastic. And I think even I think it diminishes the quality of what you've done in that renovation, which is really, really quite nice. and just based on the fact that I care a lot about keeping materials appropriate to a historic district is really important. For many people, they wouldn't notice it. It looks like a brand new, nice fence. But they did choose a house in a historic neighborhood, and I'm kind of surprised that, and they may not have even noticed it until it went up, how the materials just don't seem like they're in the right place. And for that reason, I just can't support it. And I'm really sorry. I hate being in this position. I know you do, too. I mean, the only thing I can say is that, you know, I'm in the construction business as well, and, you know, we make mistakes, and we have to pay for them when we make mistakes. So, you know, I hate to say it, but the guidelines are very clear. And like the chairman said, you know, if we allow this to stand, then it allows other people to come and say, well, these people got to do it. So it creates a snowball effect, and we can't let that happen. So obviously I'm going to vote to have it taken down, and if they want to install a wood fence, that would be great. I just want to add, too, I appreciate, I think the whole board appreciates the efforts that have been made at this house. I know we had several conversations before about the original application, and I think the outcome of that was very positive. Yes. I think it's clear that it's gotten the attention it has because of the whole body of work. You know, I commend your efforts. I know you usually bring good projects before us when we discuss those, and I agree with Sarah. I mean, I hate for this to happen to anybody. It's awful to undo work. I don't like that for anybody, and it's certainly not my favorite move. I appreciate the comments from the owners that you shared with us, and I understand their reasoning behind that. You know, obviously how the views are not open to every angle. Of course, we can't limit ourselves to what's seen from the street. That's just not how it works. I mean, we have to consider the whole fabric of this property as well as the whole fabric of the neighborhood. And if we start bringing things in like vinyl fences, there's a snowball effect that comes. It starts a little chip away of the fabric here and a little change here. Slowly, we're creating opportunities to change the quality of this neighborhood, the Sarah reference, which I think is spot on in that this is a great historic district in our town. And unfortunately, these are the type of decisions we have to make that help maintain that. It's fortunate that we get to make these decisions. It's unfortunate that we have to. if that makes sense. Our concern is for the whole fabric and what we're preserving for the people who own this house, but also the neighbors that own homes in this neighborhood. And we have to think that way as well, not just of the individuals, but the neighborhoods and the city as a whole. So I have to agree with what's been said with the recommendations from the staff. You know, like so many of the party attendees that were referenced in the list from the owners about how they were complimentary, we did receive a letter of support that also compliments the fence in particular, feeling like it's, you know, supporting the applicant's wishes to keep the fence. But I have to agree with the board and with staff's recommendations that it's not appropriate. And when we were working on the house, there was some leverage leeway given in terms of what was inside the house in terms of the addition of things. And with the knowledge that the neighbor to the left is going to install a brick fence. I'm making this an interior. I heard you say that. And also the thought that. No, good question. And also, you know, the commitment from the owners in the list you read off to replace the fence as soon as it started to look bad. I appreciate those ideas, but while your intentions may be good and while these things may happen, your neighbor may not build a masonry fence, and you may not own the house when the plastic fence needs to be replaced. So I can't let these things stand, this vinyl fence stand, with the hopes that these other things happen. I'm not comfortable with that just because of the unknowns and not to mention that in the meantime there's a vinyl fence there, which is against the guidelines. But I appreciate the idea, but unfortunately I don't think it's quite enough to get us over the hill. Are there others? I agree. Are there others? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was just inviting the owner if he wants to say anything. Are there others in the audience that would like to speak to this case this evening at this time? That being the case, any further comments from the board? Hearing none, I'd entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 08760137-D, 137 South Hanover Avenue. I make a motion to approve the staff recommendation of disapproval of the vinyl fence. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? A second. Is there any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion to disapprove is passed. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next case this evening is at 200 East Bell Court. That application is to change the front porch, column rail system, demolish garage, construct addition, and garage. Hello, my name is Allison Rohr, and I'm representing Jaina and Michael Bissetti, 200 East Bell Court. Good to see you this evening. Good to see you. Welcome back. Thank you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations at this time? Yes. Trying to get to the end here. The staff's recommendations are to approve with the following conditions, the dental molding be removed from the addition in order not to replicate history, and that the final detail come back to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Two, that the windows be retained on the rear and side of the existing addition. Three, that the siding on the garden room have a 4-inch or 5-inch reveal in order to break up the monotony of the siding. Four, final overhead door details come back to staff for review prior to the start of any work. And number five, once reviewed by any other LFU-CG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review. and approval prior to start of any work. Okay, so we had a question. Actually, no. Not all of those. I was only aware of one. So we may have to go over those again. Well, if you don't mind, since you're not in agreement, and I kind of wish we had done this with the last case, I didn't know it was going to stretch out as long as it did. I'd like to run through the list and see if there are any other cases we can get through quickly. as a sounding means. Okay. And then we'd like to come back to this one so we have the time to further discuss it. Okay. Is that okay with you as applicants? Sounds good. Thank you very much. We'll come back and hear Amelia's presentation in a moment. So we're setting that one aside for just a bit. The next case on the agenda is 104 Dantzler Drive. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present that has received a copy of their staff report. Thank you very much. This is a pretty straightforward application. Staff recommendations are to approve it once it's been reviewed by other LFCC divisions and any changes come back to review or approve. for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Staff notes in their findings the suggestion that a curb, fence, and or shrubs be installed to prevent cars from driving in the yard to any other driveway. Is that something the staff means to include in their recommendation at this time? It is not because they need to actually tell us they could put shrubs in, but we can't necessarily make them put a fence in if it's not part of their permit. but there was a discussion that that could come back as the landscaping on that one side happens. So if that makes sense. But landscaping at this time is not part of their application? It will be. They're going to seed it, and they're going to come back in the spring and make application for possibly either a fence or, I know, landscaping and shrubs. Okay. I think a recommendation that states some sort of barrier be presented to the staff that could be replaced by landscaping in a future application just to make sure there's some sort of barrier included with our approval so we're not just approving some open-sided parking area. If whoever makes the motion were agreeable to that, I think it'd be a good idea. Any other thoughts or comments on this? I feel free to, I feel like we're in a good spot to make a motion even though the applicant's not here this evening. The only problem with that is that if they never choose to put any landscaping in, they don't have to come back and we don't get any landscaping. Right. And they're certainly not obligated to put landscaping in. But if this application that we approve has a form of border control, then we know we've approved some form of border control that has to be put in. And if they choose to omit that for the sake of future landscaping and a future application, then our bases are covered in both efforts, is my feeling on the matter. And if you're agreeable to that, I'd certainly entertain a similar motion, but if not, we can talk about it. Any other comments or questions from the board? Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, we're discussing 104 Dantzler Drive. If you'd like to come forward and speak to us. Good evening, ma'am and gentlemen. I'm Nancy Stengel, 114 Arcadia Park, which is part of the Seven Parks Historic District. I've lived on Arcadia Park for over 20 years and in this very immediate area for 60 years. My concern with this piece of property, and Amelia can help me if I don't have all the details right, I was told at Historic Review that a permit was issued for this in 1999. At that time, the applicant did not own the property. I did a large addition on the back of my home about a year ago, and y'all approved it, and I followed all of the rules for the historic overlay. This would be a precedent to allow this because there's currently gravel over most of the backyard, if not all of it. I have personally seen several vehicles parked behind the house that you can see from the street, and it is past the driveway. way. This is also a short, very short distance from where the two young ladies drowned. And although UK is doing a major project, they're not finished, and it will be quite some time before they are. We don't need any more surfaces that drain water, can't drain water appropriately to contribute to flooding, which has been a problem in this area. I'm representing several people and historic overlay, and they have a concern that if this is allowed, more and more will come down using precedent and wanting to do this, and we do not want to lose another street because of cars parked all over the backyard, as has been done further to the north outside of the historic overlay. And I would sincerely appreciate your consideration of these points on behalf of the citizens who live in this district and are not owners and live elsewhere. We want our neighborhood to be a great one. This type of stuff does not contribute to that. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Good to see you here again. Thank you. We've certainly required others in the past to replace pervious parking with pervious parking. obviously the gravel is a pervious material, and we've asked others to use pervious materials in the past. I believe we have latitude for that in our recommendation. I think Mrs. Stengel's testimony supports your suggestion that there should be a permanent curb of some sort to prevent vehicles from moving beyond the paved area. Yeah, and I think that protects us. If they want to do landscaping in the future, it can be in addition to the curb, or they can modify this application with a new application. But I don't want to leave ourselves exposed to just giving them an edge that they come back to one day later, similar to a previous applicant we spoke to this evening about. you know we appreciate the promise but I can't count on that. Any other comments or questions? If not I'd certainly entertain a motion. I want to get this clear to see if I'm understanding it correctly. Amelia. This applicant has proceeded with blacktopping the whole of the backyard, if I'm mistaken. And then it's been cut up. It's been cut off. Right. Could we have the images for that case, please? and this is um the 104 dance floor just so you can see for yourself so they did proceed in the the asphalt committee did pave the whole backyard and then they scissor call it and cut it up and then took the gravel up and scraped it off the ground have they have they prepared the soil and seated or sided? Not yet. They wanted to wait, of course, for this decision before they proceeded further. Right. So this was as of the summer when you all saw it. and this is actually fully paved and then this is where they've cut this up and this is right after they scissor cut it up and that's where the grass lawn was before in the previous picture right about the middle of that patio and then this is as that time to and then this is as of Monday where they've taken the gravel up. And so they do know that they're fully aware that their tenants could have the example of driving further. And they've discussed putting a barrier of some sort. They were actually discussing much more of a picket fence scenario so they won't drive through the yard, and this became, he retained his green. Whether they go all the way through the yard or not, it looks like there are pictures that are clear there, whether it was muddy or not. They've tried since it was paved, and it looked pretty clear to me in the first picture with the gravel that there was a path going through there. I think we must require some edge protection here in this instance. I guess I had a sequence of events backwards in my mind, too, and I was hoping we could require permeable paving here. I don't understand how I had that backwards. Okay. It seems to me that the expense of putting a proper curb in that they can't drive over may be more than landscape using green material for a divider between the grassed area and the parking area. but I'm uncomfortable without seeing what they propose and having them present us to do anything with this. I feel like it would certainly have to come back to staff for their review and would have to be substantial enough to stop a vehicle. I mean, that would be part of our recommendation, and whether they choose to do that with landscaping, bushes, shrubbery, et cetera, or if they choose to do it with a curb. And like you said, the cost and how they choose to do it is really up to the applicant. But I would certainly, I wouldn't just say, okay, do one of these four options. I would certainly want the detail to come back to the staff for review. I would too. And then back to us if it needs to. But I think if our intent is clear, the staff can handle it in their review. But if they can't come to an agreement, then it would come back to us. I wouldn't recommend less than that. We're still in a really bad position because they could just not do anything. Oh. I think they have to do something. We would make it a recommendation that we approve it would be part of the application. Previously, I do remember, hate to interrupt, there was that one particular case just this summer, or maybe last spring, or early last winter, when you all did recommend landscaping as a condition. I think in this neighborhood. Actually, it was in Ellsford, in Arlington. Amelia, you've worked with the owner. Is that who you've worked with? Yes, ma'am. Do you feel that they are, this is a difficult question, that they want to put this barrier up so that cars can't pull over on the grass and park. Per our discussion, they did talk about a barrier, and there was a discussion about a curb. There was a time, actually, whether she would go ahead and actually have a physical curb put in or have another rolled system. And the concern was that whatever she put in, if it was six inches, that their idea was that her tenants potentially could drive over that. And so at that time, that's when we had a discussion about a fence or landscaping to be put in in front of that. and she said that that was going to be left up to her husband to work out because he deals with the landscaping part and how they're going to be dealing with that but she did express that they would be coming back with a landscape plan but I have nothing at this time except what our discussion last month of that because she said her husband was a landscaper and he particularly wants more input on the landscaping that we could give right at our meeting on site. Well, if we don't approve this application but request that stage two, which includes how to make a barrier around the parking lot, be submitted before we do. Is that workable? Well, you probably could ask for, if you wanted to, to continue this case to the January 21st meeting to ask for more input about the landscaping that would be put into or whatever barrier to put in at the end of the drive and that to come back. the deadline for board action of course is right before that so we will have to get a waiver signed by the chair and by the owner but potentially that could that would probably be one course of action continue well that's the motion we're going to make let's let's vote with me I'm just looking behind your back at Ron. I mean, I like the idea of that. Graham, how do you feel? I'm good for that. Well, let's make a motion and see how the vote goes. Before we continue, so we might need to make a motion. Yes. All right. And you have to mention a date when you do it, please. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion on case number 307 30870104-I, 104 Dantzler Drive. I would like to make a motion to continue this case until the January 21st meeting. I realize that the deadline for board action is January 17th, and I would like to see if we can get an extension on that deadline. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? I second. Any further discussion of that motion? I actually have one thing we might include in our motion to continue that we're requesting development of the curb or landscape area so that it's clear why we're continuing this so we don't get the same application with no new information. I would accept. Do I need to say that or can I just say I accept what you say? I think it's understood. Yeah. Okay. I accept that. I'm sorry. I recommended that the motion include that the case is being continued and that we're looking for developed edge details of the parking area or landscaping plan to be part of the next presentation for our consideration. And I accept that. Acceptable to the second as well. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed. So the motion to continue this case passes. And I apologize. I asked you to wait, and then we sat there and talked about that case a lot longer than I meant to. Next case is 981 Fincastle Road. If that happens here, we can check in with you, and if it's one we're going to have to talk about, we may ask to wait as well. Do you ask a particular question? No, I didn't. uh... work can talk about anyone think as a really fits uh... the contentious case we make set it aside and come back to it is it pretty that those introduces the office they live uh... i realize you uh... with the money's alex donnie and i'm representing my mother pat donahue on this property uh... what we're here for is uh... some exterior Oh, sorry. Your typical HVAC vents, which you can see here on the pictures, they are on the westerly side of the building. And I don't think he... He's my neighbor, so I don't think he can get me. So then, basically, The brown vents, they're between the second and first floor, what we're talking about right now. If you want to get oriented with the property. If you don't mind. Thank you. We'll pass these out to everybody. It's no problem. For the. Okay. Well, there's multiple, multiple things. Okay. Well, for the flow of conversation, so we don't get the cart before the horse here, I believe you're going to disagree with the staff's recommendation. Now that you've seen, have you seen the staff's recommendations and findings? Yeah. And I imagine you disagree with their recommendation to disapprove. So that being the case and the fact that I think we ought to probably hear the staff's presentation and discuss this further. If you don't mind, I would like to set your case aside for just a moment. Run through the list, get the quickies, and come back down the list. I don't know how long it takes. I've got to have heard that by 730. I don't want to delay this. I've got a letter here from building inspection saying that I can't move these things. Further code. What? I really don't want to. I understand what you're saying there and the conditions you just mentioned. However, if that's the case, then we certainly, all things being fair, have to go back and hear the folks in front of you first. So I'm sorry. It's our effort to get through the meeting as quickly as possible and meet everybody's needs. So that being the case, we will come back to this in just a moment. 2852 Cadentown Road. Construct front porch, roof, and floor. Install dormers, clad brick below windows, and pave the driveway. Is that applicant here at this time? Yes, sir. Hello. My name is Leonard Gilliam. This is my wife, Shawna Gilliam. Hello, good to see you. Excuse me while I flip some pages around here and catch up. And your home address, sir, just for the record, if you don't mind. 2852, Caden Town Road. Very well, thank you. Staff at this time, have you had a chance to review staff findings and recommendations? Yes, I have. Very well. Just to make sure we're on the same page, staff recommends approval of the plan with the following conditions, final details of the dormer details and scale with the roof to come back to staff and or the board if needed. I mean, if staff finds it agreeable, then it may not need to come back to us. And that once reviewed by any other LFCCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval. prior to the start of any work. And then staff also recommends a denial of the brick cladding below the windows. I disagree with that. Okay. There's four new houses that's been built right around the corner. They all have the same look, and that's kind of the look that I'm shooting for. Yes, sir. Well, I certainly understand what you're saying there, and I want to discuss it with you. And much like the two cases before you, if we're going to have a bit of a discussion, if you don't mind I'd like to try to there's just one more case we'll see if it's a quickie and if it's not we'll set it aside as well and start back with the long conversations and work our way down the list I appreciate your patience thank you very much is that right? the next case in the agenda this evening is at 125 Ransom Avenue is that applicant here at this time? I'm proud of everybody it won't be a quickie recommend going back to number six. I appreciate you trying to help me help you. Very well. Try to hurry here. Well, you're certainly due your, uh, your moment to speak. So don't, don't rush any more than you have to. Okay. So we've, we've just reviewed everything. there's only one recommendation that we have and the windows that are on the back of the house above the new addition we recommend that we cover over those because on the inside they're drywalled over now anyway on the middle window we have a laundry room upstairs sure and there's a washing dryer on the inside of that, and so that window's not being used, and the other one is covered over two. Okay, so you're discussing staff recommendation number two, where they state the windows be retained on the rear end side of the existing addition? Yes. If you don't mind, I'd like to have the staff presentation. If that's the only point of contention, we can focus the conversation around just that issue and not waste time on things we agree upon. This is the property 200 East Belcourt, and this has many requests as part of this application. Part, of course, is to change the iron railing in Belle Street system to a wood system. and one of the other requests is to, this is sort of details of those parts, is to remove this upper story window and just reside over that. The bottom windows will be retained. And on the back, the rear of the structure, there are three windows. The applicants are going to retain this one that would like to remove these two and to reside over that with the six-inch fiber cement board. This, of course, is the proposal for the garage to be demolished. This is the rear of the looking back towards the house. This is the area where the garage will be located. And then this is the rear of the structure, and you can see the three windows sort of peeking over the garage that's proposed to be demolished. here's the site plan and the proposal of course has for a proposed new addition to be installed this is sort of a front elevation with the details of the new railing system in columns this is the proposal for the new addition and as you can see this is the second addition there's one addition of course I pointed out the window earlier and this calls for moving that window. There's a window on the opposite side that will be retained on the second story. And then this is the rear of the structure. You can see that the new addition is low profile. It has a parapet with a slanted roof, low-pitched roof. And you can see the one window. Those are the other two windows to be removed. This is the floor plan of the proposed addition, and then the proposed garage with the details of the roof and the wall sections. I'm a little out of order, excuse me. the proposal to change the front railing system to wood is appropriate with the guidelines 1 1 a c 1 14 d f which respectively says architectural details shall be retained maintained and shall not be removed or change of original to the building if missing may be added to a building if accurately accurately based or physically pictorially historically evidence a paint ghost removed features or that is consistent with properties of similar design age detailing and surrounding areas porch columns and railings of the front porch should be rebuilt in the historic design of the documentation of the original columns and railings porch columns railings in the front porch maybe require new balustrades in front porch and porch balustrades balustrade spindles, which are similar than two inches in diameter, not appropriate for the exterior porches. There is some ghosting on the brick and the concrete that provide some indication of the size and the number of columns. The proposal to demolish the existing garage is within the guidelines. According to the Sandboard maps, this garage was built after 1972, and the garage is concrete block and has a failing roof system. The proposal to demolish the structures within guidelines 5.1.C.2, which state the demolition request for non-contributing building and demolition, which will not adversely affect the character of the district. Staff finds the new building to be, a new addition to be appropriate in accordance with guidelines 2B2A, reference location, guidelines 2B2C, reference compatible in design, shape, materials, roof shape, which in other secondary buildings in the historic district, staff does find that the mimicking of dental molding is not within the guidelines because it replicates history. Guidelines 2B1K states details should be appropriately scaled for the proposed structure and compatible with the other adjacent buildings and districts. Installation of ornamentation or details that give a building an imitation historic appearance is not allowed. The proposed door openings are within the guidelines. and appropriate guidelines to be one F states location and proportion of entrances windows divisional bays and forges openings such as entrances windows architectural features such as divisional bays porches are design components that help establish patterns rhythm scale proportion and emphasis in structure patterns for these components on the buildings along with a block within the district create a characteristic rhythm for the streetscape and neighbors hoods it is very important the new construction respect the balance proportion scale of the existing buildings along the block within the districts in regards to those components. Staff suggests the reveal on the garden room addition being 4 to 5 inch in lieu of the 6 inch to break the monotony of the siding since the plans call for the siding to be 6 inches on the existing addition in the garage. Guideline states 2B1, materials and material color, material color, texture, pattern. Construction techniques help define building character and scale. materials are incorporated into the parts of the building that may vary from building to building the proposal to construct into garages when guidelines 2 B 1 2 B 2 B 2 C preference location compatibility with other secondary buildings the proposal to remove the windows on the second floor require more discussion as proposed the removal of windows would result in a disproportion opening to solid ratio on the rear and the side and the driveway side guidelines 1, 2, 4, 2B, 1, F. State respectively windows should be preserved, maintained in the original location, size, and design and window openings established patterns of openings and adjacent surrounding buildings should have a similar ratio of windows and openings to solid space. And of course staff recommends approval with the following conditions. The dental molding be removed from the addition order not to replicate history and the final details come back to staff prior to the issuance of COA. The windows be retained on the rear side, the rear and the side of the existing addition. The siding and the garden room have a four to five inch reveal in order to break up the monotony of siding. Four final details of the details come back to staff or prior to review for any work and five once reviewed by any other LPC divisions, all details come back to staff prior to approval to start the work. So Amelia, was that the old addition? Was that also done in 72 or do you know? That is unclear, but it looks like actually it had been there longer than that because it was once a boarding house and there was many people living in there. I mean, you know, it was a family house that had many family members living in it, as is now. All right. Well, if you'd like to come back up there, I want to talk to you a little bit. So as you stated before, the only staff recommendation you're not willing to accept would be their second recommendation about the windows being retained on the rear and side elevation at the existing addition, whatever year it was built in, we're not sure. Any comments or questions to start off with from the board on this? I'd like to suggest that should we agree with the staff recommendations that we change recommendation number three to be specific in indicating that the reveal for the siding would be four inch. Because I don't think there's enough difference between five inch and six inch. And I don't think that would really have the effect that the staff's looking for. So I'd just like to make that clarification. And while I'm on the mic here, I guess I agree with the staff that even if the windows are not effective on the interior of the building, they're there, and the relationship of window-to-wall is appropriate for the neighborhood, and I think covering them up would be unfortunate as it creates a sort of massive wall that's not characteristic of the neighborhood, and it would feel out of place. Even with that being an addition, do you feel the same way? Because I believe that's an addition that was on the original portion of the house. So with the guidelines, you know, as far as negative space goes, you want to have a little bit of negative space and not make it so busy. I think it's more critical on the back of the house than it is on the side where there's only one window in the middle of that expanse. But, yeah, I mean, I think it's a dramatic change to eliminate those two windows. My concern is only the height of our addition and how that's going to play. Because, you know, where I've penciled them in, it's pretty close as far as how high we need that to go up. So it's going to be close. But, you know, obviously, you all have to prove it and feel comfortable with it. If not, we can make it work. In that it's not a historic addition, there's some latitude there to rework the openings. Is that correct, Amelia, or am I making that up? Do you feel like there's opportunity to rework the openings and maintain an opening if the size doesn't work out as well with the design of the addition? and because it's not a historic addition, the opportunity to change it. Certainly, if the applicants put forward a plan to rework those windows, the review would be different than what it is now, but we were only reviewing to remove. Are these drawings, they are to scale, and you've measured the building, because it looks like you've got plenty of room from your rear elevation to leave those windows where they are. Okay. Are you done? Sure, I'm done. Go ahead. Could we see the side elevation of the new addition? while she's finding it. I want to talk about the way you are handling your flu from your fireplace. And here she goes. Could you come get this and then you can kind of follow what I'm going to. No, no, this. No, this one's different than yours. No, you don't. Oh, this is me. This is my suggestion for you. Sorry. You can pass that down. Okay. We're waiting until that gets up there. Yeah, there you go. Ever since we've started using pre-manufactured fireplaces in our buildings, which is, in the timeline of things, a suburban addition to housing construction, and largely, I think, because it's so expensive to do masonry fireplaces. But we've never figured out how to design a chimney that makes any sense, and it's kind of resolved itself in the way you have, which is building a little house around a flue. And I think it's a very awkward way to handle a flue, because let me ask you a question. What kind of pre-manufactured fireplace are you going to have in there? Yeah, so ventless gas. We haven't chosen the fireplace yet. Ventless gas. So with the ventless gas, do you even need that flue? Well, you don't have to. I mean, we went through that discussion, and they kind of wanted to do that because we talked about having something buried in the ground. And I'm not crazy about how that looks at all in scale with the rest of the house. So I guess we can revisit that if we need to do something underground. I'm just trying to get my arms around what you would build a completely false enclosure for a flu that you don't need. And I guess I don't understand your comments either about what would be underground in this instance or in either instance. Well, just the tank, basically. I mean, we don't really have, we can have it vent out. I mean, that's not a big deal. We just did that, I guess, aesthetically. My father-in-law's an architect. He works for Leo A. Daly, and he's helped us out with this. So that was his contribution to what he would suggest to do there. You know, I don't think she wanted it to vent out into the driveway there because they do a lot, you know, in that driveway if they have parties or whatever. Kind of wanted it to go out the top. But, you know. Well, it could go out the top, but if you don't need it. Yeah, I mean, I agree with you. As far as cost goes, that's, I mean, that's something that we can definitely discuss and look at. I would probably try to redo it completely. I don't know. I'm not crazy about this drawing. Well, let me talk about it just a minute. I'm not crazy about it at all if you don't have to have that chimney. but I do think that you have a projected little canopy over the two doors closest to the house. And you didn't have one over the other two doors. Right. And it is a way to kind of unify. Yeah, no, we talked about doing one over. I don't really even need to talk about it if there's not a flu. You could have two nice little gabled, I mean, shed canopies with brackets over both doors to protect them from the weather a little and make that elevation, I think, look a lot better. I don't mind extending the canopy over at all. I mean, we did even discuss that. I think we're looking at our cost, too, and trying to look at that. Yeah. Yeah. That way. Those are my comments. I really think I'd love to see you revisit eliminating the flu altogether if you're going to use Ventlus. Yeah. Yeah, I have a dozen questions just wrapped, came out of that conversation right there. which leads me to think that maybe the motion might center around revisiting the idea of the fireplace and just seeing your final proposal once you know for sure, like if you are definitely going eventless and you want to revisit the idea of not having a vent at all because that's eventless, that's something I think we'd want to know about before we issued a COA for that. Now certainly there are other parts of the application that you can move forward with, but that part sounds like needs to come back for further discussion, at least at the staff level and then back to us if it needs to. I'd probably like to see it if it's drastically different. It's just my thought on the matter and having not made a motion at all at this point. To go back to the issue of the windows, I agree with what we've heard from Graham and also Sarah's conclusion that the windows look like they're clear of any roof or flashing details. So I don't under, I mean, even though they're not being used at this time from the interior where we really have little say over what goes on, I think it's detrimental to lose them from this addition just given what they are doing for the house. That's not a problem. I mean, I think that's fine. We can definitely stick with that. any other comments or questions at this time for the applicant just one comment i wanted to make if that was the one item that you didn't really agree with i think if you'd brought a stronger case to change our mind it might have helped because i think even though you have information here you didn't you know if you had talked about maybe what goes on on the inside that would be a reason why I needed to do it or giving us a little more compelling reason than you just want to remove them? I think, you know, just the next time you come to the board. You guys seem pretty strong against it, so I can definitely debate that for sure. But I don't know how many other issues we've got here. I want to make sure that we're ready to build. We really want to move forward with the project, and I feel like we have a great set of plans in play. And the Bicettis are, you know, everything they do is pretty much top-notch, and I think it's going to look amazing. So I really want to move forward with this for them, for their sake. And I understand, you know, time is money and you all want to move forward. I'm just trying to give you a clue for the next time you come back. No, I appreciate that. If you want it to go smoother, then you may want to consider that. So that's all I got to say. Appreciate that. Thank you. Graham, do you have anything to add? Anything else? I just would point out that an alternative venting device is available that is just wall mounted. You might look into that. Sure. It vents out the side. Is that what you're? Yeah, it would just be on the side wall. The only problem with them is that they are hot to the touch when they're in use, and so you have to put plantings around them or something to keep, or place them in a location where a child can't reach them. Any other comments for us at this time? Is there any... Anything? Is there anybody in the audience at this time to speak to this case? Again, we're discussing East Belt 200 East Belt Court. All that being the case, I'd certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, relative to case number 01530200-M at 200 East Belt Court, I move to recommend approval with the following conditions. One, the dental molding be removed from the addition in order not to replicate history, and the final detail come back to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Two, the windows be retained on the rear and side of the existing addition. Three, the siding on the garden room have a four-inch reveal in order to break up the monotony of siding. for final overhead door details come back to staff review prior to the start of any work five revision of drawings related to the chimney element and submittal to staff prior to the start of any work and six once reviewed by any lf any other lfucg division all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Thank you very much. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Thank you. 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. Thank you very much. Thank you for your patience and letting us come back to your case the way we did. Next case in the agenda this evening is at 981 Fincastle Road. We set that one aside a moment ago. And I have to abstain from this case. Did everybody get a copy? While you're making your way down here, did everybody get a copy of each handout? Okay. Well, if you want to just hand them up here, we'll pass them out, and you can do what you need to. Thank you, sir. Here we are. Here I am. Here are you. Here are you. Here is mine. Okay, so we have several handouts here. As you said before, you're not in agreement with staff's recommendation for disapproval. If it suits you, I'd like to hear the staff's presentation, and then we'll talk to you about it. This is the structure at 981 Pencastle. And this is the side of the building. I guess we can't get these any bigger. Interesting. So there are staff notice that there were four holes that had been knocked into the side of the building at the second floor level. In this particular area. And subsequently, staff did meet with the owner who talked about we got a permit or he filled out a permit for various repairs to the structure. And he said that those were to be vent systems. He initially said that they were going to be or he was going to be looking into the EVR system, but that is not going to be the case. These are actually just ducts for exhaust and for the dryer vent and bathroom vents. This is sort of an image of what the hole is going to be. This is a, it was knocked into the brick, and it's going to be a 5x5 plate that's actually been installed already over the hole. This is one of them. And these are two other. So this is actually the one closest to the front mass. These are the two other vent systems. And then you'll see the fourth one. he did submit additional information today you have that and I think he's also passed that out the letter from the building inspection is a letter stating the codes for events It is not actually a, and it also includes the typical use for a HVAC system. This is not a, they did not say that this was the system he put in was only, was not, there was more than one way to do this. They're just stating this is just the codes for what has been done or the codes for HVAC systems. I understand. There's no statement one way or the other on that. At this time, he's requesting a certificate of appropriateness to retain these four event systems on this side of the structure. and just to give you an idea i don't know why these are all very small but all the vents are on the west side of the structure guidelines included for your reference the proposal to install the vents on the second floor level require further consideration. Staff is unable to discuss the installation of the vent system prior to the holes being knocked in to the wall. The vent system holes appear to be haphazard in their alignment or visually obtrusive. The guidelines discuss introducing utilities in the manner in which they are less obtrusive or visually dominant. Guidelines 1-3-N and 3-1-A respectively state brickwork and make sure you should not be obscured, covered, or removed if original, and mechanical systems should be located where they're at least visible or intrusive. And staff recommends disapproval. And the applicant is present. Amelia, before you sit down, I've got some questions for you, if you don't mind. I'm sorry. I guess one of my initial questions, this work required some permit. Is that correct? Not just COA, but also mechanical permit? Yes, they have not got their final inspection yet. But there was an application made and that was granted, a permit to do the work was granted? I have talked to an inspector, but they've not, I guess, they made no mention about actually if he, I mean, I'm sure I've not talked to him about he actually, the physical permit has been issued or not. I guess my question is, and where I'm wondering if there's a broken link, is any other building permit that's issued usually doesn't get issued without a COA with it. And I'm wondering if this, if a mechanical permit does or does not have that same requirement as like a building permit that we see sometimes. As long as the mechanical work to be done has exterior implications or impact, i.e. installation of condenser units, putting vents on structures, and so forth. That part cannot be issued by building inspection until a COA is issued. So you could put your furnace in the cellar, you know, all the basics that you know. But if it comes out onto the envelope, no. So the mechanical permit is just like other building permits that we deal with and that the two are linked in a historic district. Right. And whether they should have happened together. Yeah, it's no different from putting your hot water heater in the cellar and then needing to vent it. You get a permit from a COA from H1. Sure. And then you go back to building inspection and get that part of the permit resolved with them. Okay. So these vents fall in that category. Oh, look, we've gotten the pictures bigger. This is helpful. should have led to being kicked back to us. I mean, this work shouldn't have happened without involving the historic board. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. That clears that up for me. If you're ready, I'm more than happy to talk to you about this. Can somebody get copies? Sure. Yeah, we have extras of everything. I've set them here for you. And it's probably soon that. Uh-huh. As the board can see, the pictures technically have gotten made better sized for your looking at. Thank you. The photographs provided by the applicant also were a larger illustration. Okay. Once again, Alex Donahue, 981, Penn Castle, representing Pat Donahue on this matter. I'm not sure, got a little confused with the questions you were asking about permitting and whatnot. We did get a permit for the HVAC installation. We did make the comment that we were going to have to vent them. What happened was, and the only way to do the venting for the dryer units, which was told to us by building inspection that was kind of put in this letter basically said that the duct shall not go longer than 35 feet the next thing so we went out there they went out here they came out they measured then the max it talks about that you should you know put what kind of dryer unit you're going to be using which we attached then the third thing she wrote in here was there's four elbows there'd be four elbows needed to run it to the back of the house like the historical society would like us to do and it states in the code four elbows is not allowed it's not allowed period there is no way to run the vents to the back of the house without four elbows that that is stated in this letter from building inspection I've attached the dryers that are going to be used. They say that 490-degree turns is 25 feet, which doesn't even make it. If you allowed four turns, it's 44 foot if you allowed 490s. It's 44 feet. That's the calculation. So they did get the permit. They did go through building inspection. You know, I don't know if something was jumped from the HVAC getting the permit, going back to H-1 or any of that stuff. Sure. And I can't make any assumptions on that either. My questions were simply to clarify it should have happened. Now, how it didn't happen, I don't know. Right. Whether you were told or not told, I can't. But basically what you're saying is when the permit was the applicant got the permit, it should have been then notified to that gentleman installing that. Now you have to get a COA from the historical overlay. Is that what you're kind of saying? That is nearly okay. Okay. Before a permit could be issued, it would have been required that you have a COA to get that permit to add the events to the exterior of the house. Okay. It's typically what we're used to seeing. Okay. And which is kind of my question mark is how did this get past the process because that's the process typically with other types of permits. And I was just making sure that also applied to mechanical permits. Okay. Obviously, I'm not going to have the answer to that. I don't know that we'll ever get it. Right. Well, the next thing kind of when we went through all this, then I came down and said, you know, I was told that these were the situations. Come here. Just come here for one second. Go back there. Basically what happened after that point was I went back to building inspection and said now even though this is the way we were told that we should do it, that the HVAC mechanical company told us it needed to be done to go through building inspection for approval, now we're having to go and because we've you know made these holes can I grab her one second I apologize So after that, what happened was I went back to them and explained that there was an issue. And they got me the Kentucky Residential Code and highlighted, which I've given to you, Section R102 that states that no local ordinance shall be established any additional contradictory building construction standard than those adopted in this code. Is that not? Let me see if I can shorten it. first of all my own opinion I don't take great offense to the events that have been added here that's just my thoughts we'll see what the board says I you know have we seen it in an application I do take exception to that and however it happened it's unfortunate that we're here looking at something that was already built that never had an application for us with it Had we seen it, I think I probably would have said, hey, these HVAC rules, these mechanical rules are here for good reason. The ideas of limiting the distance of exhaust are there for safety. The number of 90s are there for safety. It's the guideline preference that to go to the rear of the building, in this instance, it's not feasible. So that's the chance we have to talk about it and say, well, if you can't do it to the rear, let's talk about other options. How are you going to do it to the side? You've done it to the side. Again, they're not huge. They're not dominant. I wish they weren't there, but they're a practical thing that has to be there. I would have liked to have talked about their alignment and getting the same elevation across the elevation. They're close enough that I'm not super angry about it, but at the same time, They could be a little differently spaced and maybe we'd be happier. I don't know. Bad angle. I'm sorry. It's a bad angle. I'm pretty sure they're on a direct line. They're pretty close. They're pretty close. My point is I think the biggest red flag in all of this is that it happened without a permit. And again, how that happened sounds like it got missed in the permitting process, which is unfortunate, but happens sometimes. It's certainly not an excuse for all actions. And that's all I'm going to say. I'm going to see what the other board members have said. Can I just make one more statement? If you'd like to. Well, just because we're basing things on what it looked like, what we're doing, keeping the historical fabric correct. The opposite side of the house now, because this was a duplex and it wasn't, you know, it was, you know, cable came after the house was built, all this other stuff. If you look at it, the house has got wires running all over. It looks like a spider web. I have preemptively on all this said, I'm going to clean up all the wires. I'm going to take the other gas meter off. I'm going to clean up the side. There is electric running out of the building, along the brick line, and then out the top of multiple spots for outside spotlights, underneath an awning, all sorts of stuff. I am doing my best and I am willing to do what is needed to beautify the house. This is the side, the ugly side is the side that faces everybody that's driving. You know, the other side has a ton of canopy. You know, in the winter, you are going to see them, obviously. But the other side is the billboard side. And I'm attempting to clean it all up. I do want to work with everybody. I had no clue that something got fired back or missed or whatever the case may be. That's it. That's all. I appreciate your efforts. I understand what you're saying and appreciate your intent to clean up sort of the minutiae that gets added to the exterior of a building over time. But I've said my part. Let's see what the other board members have to say. I guess the one thing I had was, you know, those could have gone up and out of the eave, actually. I think it could have been another possible location instead of off the side of the building if we'd had a chance to talk about it. Just to keep them off the face of the building, I think it would have been a much more unobtrusive place to put them. But, you know, but I mean, maybe I don't. I'm sorry. Well, I mean, I was going to say is just, you know, since you are now, I know originally this building was not in a historical district. It is now in a historical district. And just remember, any time you want to do anything to the exterior of this building, to your yard, it does have to come to us, no matter what. Paint it, you've got to come to us. I mean, it's just, you're going to have to get it. I mean, you guys are going to have to understand that now that it's in a historic district, anything you do, you're going to have to come in front of us. No, that's just the way it is. So, but.