# Board of Architectural Review Meeting - May 27, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 27, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3664 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3664?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-05-27 - **Last revised**: May 27, 2015 - **Length**: 10,504 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 convened on May 27, 2015, to review applications for certificates of appropriateness within the city's historic districts. The meeting addressed 61 agenda items, with the board approving the minutes from their April 23, 2015 meeting and reviewing numerous renovation, restoration, and installation projects across multiple historic districts throughout the city. The board approved 60 of the 61 items on the agenda, with only one item postponed - a dormer installation at 328 Transylvania Park in the Aylesford Historic District. The approved projects spanned 12 different historic districts, including Ashland Park, South Ashland/Central Avenue, Aylesford, Bell Court, Constitution, Elsmere Park, Gratz Park, Mulberry Hill, Northside, Seven Parks, South Hill, and Western Suburbs historic districts. The applications covered a wide range of work including structural renovations, window refurbishments, door replacements, gas meter installations, driveway repairs, fence installations, roofing projects, and various restoration efforts. Notable clusters of similar work included multiple gas meter installations throughout Aylesford Place and several driveway repair projects in the same area. The meeting also addressed utility-related improvements such as radon pipe installations and infrastructure updates. No formal motions or votes were recorded in the extracted data, and no public comments were documented for this meeting. The comprehensive agenda demonstrates the board's active role in preserving the architectural integrity of the city's historic neighborhoods while allowing property owners to make necessary improvements and updates to their structures. ## Approval of Minutes from April 23, 2015 The board considered the approval of minutes from their previous meeting held on April 23, 2015. This routine administrative item involved reviewing the official record of proceedings from the prior meeting to ensure accuracy and completeness. The minutes were presented to board members for their review and consideration. No specific speakers were identified during this discussion, and no particular concerns or issues were raised regarding the content or accuracy of the April 23, 2015 meeting minutes. Following the board's review, the minutes from April 23, 2015 were approved without amendment or further discussion. ## 111 Desha Road, Ashland Park Historic District: Refurbish windows Staff approved the refurbishment of windows at 111 Desha Road in the Ashland Park Historic District. This property is located within one of the city's designated historic districts, which requires special review procedures for exterior modifications to ensure compatibility with the historic character of the area. The application involved refurbishing existing windows at the residential property. Window refurbishment projects in historic districts typically focus on preserving the original character and materials while improving functionality and energy efficiency. Such projects often include repairs to existing window frames, replacement of deteriorated components, and restoration of original hardware when possible. The staff approval indicates that the proposed window refurbishment work met the design guidelines and standards established for the Ashland Park Historic District. Staff-level approvals are typically granted for projects that are considered routine maintenance or minor modifications that clearly comply with established preservation standards without requiring full commission review. No specific details were provided regarding the scope of the refurbishment work, the condition of the existing windows, or any special preservation techniques to be employed. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the window refurbishment project as submitted to staff. This type of maintenance and preservation work supports the ongoing stewardship of historic properties within the district while allowing property owners to maintain and improve their buildings in accordance with historic preservation standards. ## 315 Desha Road: Ashland Park Historic District: Install radon pipe The board reviewed a staff-approved application for the installation of a radon pipe at 315 Desha Road, located within the Ashland Park Historic District. This item was presented as agenda item 2 during the meeting. Staff had already granted approval for the radon pipe installation at this historic district property. The application involved necessary health and safety improvements to address radon mitigation requirements at the residence. The installation of radon pipes in historic districts requires review to ensure that any exterior modifications are compatible with the historic character of the district and surrounding properties. Such installations typically involve the placement of PVC piping that extends from the foundation through the roof to safely vent radon gas away from the building. The board accepted the staff's approval of this application without additional discussion or concerns raised during the meeting. The outcome was approved, allowing the property owner to proceed with the radon mitigation system installation as reviewed and approved by staff. This type of health and safety improvement is generally viewed favorably in historic districts, as radon mitigation is considered essential for occupant safety, and modern installation techniques can typically be implemented with minimal visual impact on historic properties. ## 338-340 Desha Road, Ashland Park Historic District: Renovate garage and structure The commission reviewed a proposal for renovating a garage and structure located at 338-340 Desha Road within the Ashland Park Historic District. This item was presented as agenda item 3 during the meeting. According to the meeting records, staff had already reviewed and approved the renovation project prior to the commission meeting. The proposal involved renovating both a garage and an associated structure on the property, though specific details about the scope of work or architectural changes were not detailed in the available materials. The Ashland Park Historic District designation requires that any exterior modifications to structures undergo review to ensure compatibility with the historic character of the neighborhood. Staff approval indicates that the proposed renovations met the established guidelines for historic preservation in this district. The commission accepted the staff's approval of the renovation project without recorded discussion or debate. No concerns were raised regarding the proposed work, and no speakers were identified as participating in discussion of this item. **Outcome:** The renovation of the garage and structure at 338-340 Desha Road was approved through staff review, with the commission accepting this determination. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 343 Desha Road, Ashland Park Historic District: Replace front walk Staff approved the replacement of the front walk at 343 Desha Road in the Ashland Park Historic District. This agenda item was presented as a staff-level approval for work within the historic district boundaries. The proposal involved replacing the existing front walkway at the residential property located at 343 Desha Road. As this property is situated within the Ashland Park Historic District, any exterior modifications require review to ensure compliance with historic preservation guidelines and district standards. Staff determined that the front walk replacement met the appropriate criteria for approval without requiring full board review. The project was approved at the administrative level, indicating that the proposed materials, design, and installation method were consistent with the historic character of the district and would not adversely impact the property's contributing status or the overall integrity of the Ashland Park Historic District. No specific concerns were raised regarding this application, and no additional speakers or board members provided commentary on the proposal. The straightforward nature of the walkway replacement and its compliance with district guidelines allowed for expedited staff approval. The outcome was approval of the front walk replacement project at 343 Desha Road. ## 242 South Hanover, Ashland Park Historic District: Remove trees The commission reviewed a staff-approved request for tree removal at 242 South Hanover Street within the Ashland Park Historic District. Staff had already granted approval for the removal of trees at this property location. The matter was presented to the commission as part of their regular review of administrative decisions made within historic districts. No specific details were provided in the meeting materials regarding the number of trees to be removed, the species involved, or the reasoning behind the removal request. The discussion appeared to be brief, with no recorded speakers raising concerns or questions about the staff's decision. The commission accepted the staff's approval of the tree removal request without further debate or modification. **Outcome:** The tree removal at 242 South Hanover Street was approved by staff and accepted by the commission. ## 207 South Ashland Avenue, South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District: Renovate Agenda item 6 addressed the renovation of a structure located at 207 South Ashland Avenue within the South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District. Staff presented their approval of the proposed renovation project for this historic district property. The application involved renovating the existing structure while maintaining compliance with historic district guidelines and preservation standards. The renovation project received staff approval, indicating that the proposed work met the necessary requirements for alterations within the historic district. The approval suggests that the renovation plans were consistent with the district's historic character and preservation objectives. The item was approved without recorded discussion or debate from commission members, indicating staff's recommendation was accepted by the reviewing body. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 218 South Ashland Avenue, South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District: Renovate Agenda item 7 addressed the renovation of a structure located at 218 South Ashland Avenue within the South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District. Staff presented the renovation proposal for review and consideration by the commission. The project involved renovating the existing structure at this historic district location. The commission approved the renovation project as presented by staff. No specific concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this agenda item. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the proposed renovation work at 218 South Ashland Avenue in accordance with the historic district guidelines and requirements. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 237 South Ashland Avenue: South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District: Renovate The commission reviewed a staff-approved renovation project for the structure located at 237 South Ashland Avenue within the South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District. This item was presented as agenda item 8 during the May 27, 2015 meeting. The renovation proposal had already received staff approval prior to the commission meeting. The project involves renovating the existing structure at the specified address, which falls within the boundaries of the designated South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District. No specific speakers were identified during the discussion of this agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were available for this portion of the meeting. The commission ultimately approved the renovation project as presented. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the planned renovation work at 237 South Ashland Avenue in accordance with the historic district guidelines and any conditions established during the staff review process. ## 247 South Ashland Avenue, South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District: Replace Bulkhead Door Staff approved the replacement of a bulkhead door at 247 South Ashland Avenue, located within the South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District. This agenda item was presented as a staff-level approval, indicating the proposed work met established guidelines for historic preservation without requiring full commission review. The application involved replacing an existing bulkhead door at the property. Bulkhead doors typically provide exterior access to basement or cellar areas and are common features in historic residential buildings. The replacement was deemed appropriate for the historic character of the district. No specific speakers were identified for this item, suggesting it was handled as a routine administrative matter. The staff approval indicates the proposed replacement door was compatible with the historic district's design standards and would not adversely impact the property's contributing status to the historic district. The South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District encompasses residential properties that reflect the area's historical development patterns. Staff approvals for items like door replacements help streamline the review process for property owners while ensuring historic preservation standards are maintained. The outcome was approval, allowing the property owner to proceed with the bulkhead door replacement as proposed. This type of maintenance work is essential for preserving historic properties while allowing for necessary updates to building infrastructure. ## 255 South Ashland Avenue, South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District: Replace Front Entry Door The commission reviewed a staff-approved application for the replacement of the front entry door at 255 South Ashland Avenue, located within the South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District. This agenda item was processed as a staff approval, indicating that the proposed door replacement met the established guidelines for historic district modifications without requiring full commission review. Staff had determined that the replacement door was appropriate for the historic character of the property and the surrounding district. The application was approved, allowing the property owner to proceed with installing the new front entry door. No specific concerns or objections were raised during the meeting regarding this modification. The South Ashland/Central Ave Historic District maintains standards for exterior modifications to preserve the historic character of properties within its boundaries. Door replacements typically require review to ensure compatibility with the architectural style and period of the structure. ## 203 Arlington Avenue, Aylesford Historic District: Replace beadboard ceiling The commission reviewed a staff-approved application for the replacement of a beadboard ceiling at 203 Arlington Avenue, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This item was presented as agenda item 11 during the May 27, 2015 meeting. The application involved replacing existing beadboard ceiling materials at the historic property. Staff had already reviewed and approved the proposed work prior to the commission meeting, indicating that the replacement met the district's preservation standards and guidelines. The commission accepted staff's approval of the beadboard ceiling replacement project. No additional discussion or concerns were raised regarding this application during the meeting. The outcome was approval of the ceiling replacement work at 203 Arlington Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. ## 210 Arlington Avenue, Aylesford Historic District: Repair gutters Staff approved the repair of gutters at 210 Arlington Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District during agenda item 12. The application involved maintenance work on the existing gutter system at the historic property. The proposal was processed through staff-level review rather than requiring full board consideration, indicating the repair work met established guidelines for routine maintenance in the historic district. No specific concerns or objections were noted regarding the gutter repair project. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the necessary gutter maintenance at 210 Arlington Avenue while maintaining compliance with historic district preservation standards. ## 317 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install gas meter Staff approved the installation of a gas meter at 317 Aylesford Place, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as a routine administrative matter without recorded discussion or debate from board members. The application involved installing utility infrastructure at the historic property, which requires review due to the property's location within the designated historic district. Such installations typically require careful consideration to ensure compatibility with the historic character of the area and compliance with preservation guidelines. The staff recommendation for approval indicates that the proposed gas meter installation met the necessary criteria for historic district compatibility and would not adversely impact the historic integrity of the property or surrounding area. **Outcome:** Approved by staff *Note: No transcript timestamps are available for this agenda item, and no specific speakers were recorded for this discussion.* ## 320 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install gas meter Staff approved the installation of a gas meter at 320 Aylesford Place in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as a routine administrative matter without recorded discussion or debate from board members. The application involved installing utility infrastructure at the historic property located within the designated Aylesford Historic District. Gas meter installations in historic districts typically require review to ensure the placement and appearance of utility equipment is compatible with the historic character of the area. The staff approval indicates the proposed gas meter installation met the applicable guidelines and standards for utility work within the historic district. No concerns were raised regarding the impact on the historic property or surrounding area. The outcome was approval of the gas meter installation as requested. ## 324 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install gas meter Staff approved the installation of a gas meter at 324 Aylesford Place in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as a routine administrative matter without recorded discussion or debate. The application involved installing utility infrastructure at the historic property located within the designated Aylesford Historic District. Gas meter installations in historic districts typically require review to ensure the placement and installation method are compatible with the historic character of the property and surrounding area. **Outcome:** Approved by staff No transcript timestamp was available for this agenda item, suggesting it may have been handled through the consent agenda or administrative approval process rather than through formal board discussion. ## 325 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install gas meter Staff approved the installation of a gas meter at 325 Aylesford Place in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as a routine administrative matter without recorded discussion or debate. The application involved installing utility infrastructure at the property located within the historic district boundaries. As with all modifications to properties in historic districts, the installation required review to ensure compliance with preservation standards and guidelines. The outcome was an approval for the gas meter installation, indicating that staff determined the utility work would not adversely impact the historic character of the property or district. No speakers were recorded as participating in discussion of this item, suggesting it was handled through the consent agenda or administrative approval process. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the gas meter installation at 325 Aylesford Place in accordance with any conditions or specifications outlined in the staff review. ## 325 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Repair driveway; install patio Staff presented agenda item 17 regarding proposed work at 325 Aylesford Place within the Aylesford Historic District. The application requested approval for two specific improvements to the property: repairing the existing driveway and installing a new patio. The staff review determined that both the driveway repair and patio installation were appropriate for the historic district and met the applicable guidelines and standards. No concerns were raised regarding the compatibility of the proposed work with the historic character of the district or the specific property. The application was approved by staff, allowing the property owner to proceed with both the driveway repair and patio installation as proposed. The approval indicates that the work was deemed consistent with the preservation standards and design guidelines that govern modifications within the Aylesford Historic District. ## 328 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Repair driveway and parking area Staff approved the repair of the driveway and parking area at 328 Aylesford Place in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was designated as item 18 on the meeting agenda. The application involved maintenance work to existing vehicular surfaces at the property located within the historic district boundaries. As a repair rather than new construction or significant alteration, the project received staff-level approval without requiring full board review. The outcome was an approval for the proposed driveway and parking area repairs at 328 Aylesford Place. *Note: Specific discussion details, speaker names, and transcript timestamps were not available in the provided meeting materials for this agenda item.* ## 330 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Repair driveway and parking area Staff presented agenda item 19 regarding repairs to the driveway and parking area at 330 Aylesford Place, located within the Aylesford Historic District. The proposal involved maintenance work on the existing vehicular access areas of the property. The application was processed through staff review as part of the standard procedures for modifications within the historic district. The proposed repairs were determined to be routine maintenance that would not adversely impact the historic character of the district or the individual property. Staff approved the repair work for the driveway and parking area at 330 Aylesford Place. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the necessary maintenance to restore the functionality of the vehicular access areas while maintaining compliance with historic district guidelines. ## 331 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Repair driveway and parking area Staff approved the repair of the driveway and parking area at 331 Aylesford Place, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was designated as item 20 on the meeting agenda. The proposal involved maintenance work to restore the existing driveway and parking area at the historic property. As this property is situated within a designated historic district, any exterior modifications or repairs require review to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and guidelines. The application was processed through staff review rather than requiring full board consideration, indicating the proposed repairs were deemed appropriate for the historic character of the district and met established criteria for routine maintenance work. The repair work was approved, allowing the property owner to proceed with the necessary driveway and parking area improvements at 331 Aylesford Place. ## 332 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Re-issue COA Staff approved the re-issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for 332 Aylesford Place, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as a staff-level approval without requiring formal board discussion or presentation. The re-issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness indicates that a previously approved certificate for this property needed to be renewed or updated, likely due to expiration or modifications to the original approval terms. Properties within historic districts require Certificates of Appropriateness to ensure that any alterations, renovations, or new construction comply with historic preservation standards and maintain the character of the district. No speakers were identified for this item, and no transcript timestamp was available, suggesting this was handled administratively by staff under their delegated authority. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with previously approved work at 332 Aylesford Place in accordance with historic district guidelines. The outcome was an approval of the re-issued Certificate of Appropriateness, enabling the continuation or completion of the proposed work at this Aylesford Historic District property. ## 332 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Repair driveway and parking area Staff approved the repair of the driveway and parking area at 332 Aylesford Place in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was designated as item 22 on the meeting agenda. The application involved maintenance work to existing paved surfaces at the property located within the historic district boundaries. As a repair project rather than new construction or significant alterations, the work was processed through staff-level review rather than requiring full board consideration. The outcome was approval of the proposed driveway and parking area repairs, allowing the property owner to proceed with the necessary maintenance work while ensuring compliance with historic district guidelines. ## 332 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install gas meter Staff approved the installation of a gas meter at 332 Aylesford Place, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as an administrative matter without recorded discussion or debate from commission members. The application involved the installation of utility infrastructure at the historic property. As part of the standard review process for properties within designated historic districts, any exterior modifications or additions, including utility installations, require approval to ensure compatibility with the historic character of the area. The staff recommendation was to approve the gas meter installation, indicating that the proposed work met the necessary criteria for historic district compliance. The commission accepted the staff recommendation without additional deliberation. **Outcome:** Approved *Note: No transcript timestamps are available for this agenda item, and no specific speakers were recorded for this discussion.* ## 342 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install gas meter Staff approved the installation of a gas meter at 342 Aylesford Place in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as part of the meeting's administrative business. The application involved installing utility infrastructure at the historic property located within the designated Aylesford Historic District. Gas meter installations in historic districts typically require review to ensure the placement and installation method are appropriate for the historic character of the area. The item was approved without recorded discussion or debate from commission members. No specific concerns were raised regarding the proposed gas meter installation, and no speakers were identified as participating in discussion of this matter. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the gas meter installation at 342 Aylesford Place in accordance with staff recommendations and any applicable historic district guidelines. ## 345 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install gas meter Staff approved the installation of a gas meter at 345 Aylesford Place in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as a routine administrative matter without recorded discussion or debate. The application involved installing utility infrastructure at the property located within the historic district boundaries. As a staff-level approval, the gas meter installation met the established criteria and guidelines for utility improvements in historic districts without requiring full board review. The outcome was an approval for the requested gas meter installation at 345 Aylesford Place. ## 346 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install gas meter Staff approved the installation of a gas meter at 346 Aylesford Place, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as an administrative matter without recorded discussion or debate. The application involved the installation of utility infrastructure at the historic property. As this work falls within a designated historic district, it required review to ensure compliance with preservation standards and guidelines that govern modifications to properties in historically significant areas. The staff review determined that the proposed gas meter installation met the necessary requirements and standards for work within the historic district. The installation was approved without conditions or modifications to the original proposal. No speakers were recorded as participating in discussion of this item, suggesting it was handled as a routine administrative approval. The outcome was a staff approval for the gas meter installation to proceed as proposed. ## 371 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install gas meter Staff approved the installation of a gas meter at 371 Aylesford Place in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as a routine administrative matter without recorded discussion or debate. The application involved installing utility infrastructure at the historic property located within the designated Aylesford Historic District. Gas meter installations in historic districts typically require review to ensure the placement and installation method are appropriate for the historic character of the area. The outcome was an approval, indicating that staff determined the proposed gas meter installation met the necessary requirements for work within the historic district. No concerns or objections were recorded regarding this utility installation project. ## 375 Aylesford Place, Aylesford Historic District: Install 2 gas meters Staff approved the installation of two gas meters at 375 Aylesford Place in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as part of the meeting's administrative business. The application involved installing gas meter infrastructure at the historic district property located at 375 Aylesford Place. As this property falls within the Aylesford Historic District, the installation required review to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and guidelines. Staff reviewed the proposed gas meter installation and determined it met the necessary requirements for work within the historic district. The installation was approved without recorded discussion or debate from board members. **Outcome:** Approved by staff ## 131 Kentucky Avenue, Aylesford Historic District: Renovate structure The commission reviewed a proposal for renovating a structure located at 131 Kentucky Avenue within the Aylesford Historic District. This item was designated as agenda item 29 during the meeting. Staff presented the renovation proposal and provided their recommendation for approval. The project involves renovating an existing structure at the Kentucky Avenue address, which falls under the jurisdiction of the historic district preservation guidelines. Following staff's presentation and review of the renovation plans, the commission approved the proposed structural renovation. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the planned improvements to the building at 131 Kentucky Avenue while maintaining compliance with the Aylesford Historic District's preservation standards. No specific concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this agenda item. The renovation project received staff approval and was subsequently approved by the commission without noted opposition. ## 152 Old Park Avenue, Aylesford Historic District: Re-roof and reline gutters Staff approved a request for re-roofing and relining gutters at 152 Old Park Avenue, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was processed as a staff-level approval for maintenance work on the historic property. The application involved routine maintenance activities including replacing the existing roof and relining the gutters on the structure. As the property is located within the Aylesford Historic District, the work required review to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and guidelines. Staff determined that the proposed re-roofing and gutter relining work was appropriate for the historic property and district. The maintenance activities were approved without requiring full board review, indicating the work met established criteria for routine maintenance that preserves the historic character of the building. **Outcome:** The re-roofing and gutter relining project at 152 Old Park Avenue was approved by staff. ## 148 Woodland Avenue, Aylesford Historic District: Renovate front porch Staff approved the renovation of the front porch at 148 Woodland Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item, numbered 31, involved a discussion of proposed renovations to the front porch of the historic property. The application was reviewed under the historic district guidelines that govern modifications to properties within the Aylesford Historic District. Staff determined that the proposed porch renovation met the appropriate standards for historic preservation and compatibility with the district's character. The outcome was an approval of the renovation project, allowing the property owner to proceed with the front porch work as submitted. No specific concerns or objections were noted in the record, and the application appears to have moved through the review process without significant debate or modification requests. ## 338 Woodland Avenue, Aylesford Historic District: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of a structure located at 338 Woodland Avenue within the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item, numbered 32, involved the review and approval of proposed renovations to the historic property. The application for structural renovations at this Aylesford Historic District location received staff approval, indicating that the proposed work met the necessary requirements for modifications within the historic district. Historic district renovations typically require careful review to ensure that any changes maintain the architectural integrity and historical character of the area. The item was processed as a staff-level approval, suggesting that the proposed renovations were consistent with established guidelines for the Aylesford Historic District and did not require additional review or discussion by the full board or commission. **Outcome:** Approved by staff *Note: No transcript timestamps are available for this agenda item, and no specific speakers were identified in the meeting record.* ## 605 Boonesboro Avenue, Bell Court Historic District: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of a structure located at 605 Boonesboro Avenue within the Bell Court Historic District. This agenda item, numbered 33, involved the review and approval of proposed renovations to the historic property. The application for structural renovation was processed through the standard historic district review procedures, ensuring that any modifications would comply with the preservation guidelines and standards applicable to the Bell Court Historic District. Staff determined that the proposed renovation work met the necessary criteria for approval. No specific details were provided regarding the scope of the renovation work, the nature of the structural modifications, or any particular preservation concerns that may have been addressed during the review process. The item appears to have been handled administratively by staff without requiring extensive board discussion or debate. The outcome was an approval of the renovation project, allowing the property owner to proceed with the proposed structural work at 605 Boonesboro Avenue in accordance with the approved plans and historic district requirements. ## 141 West Bell Court: Bell Court Historic District: Install fencing Staff approved the installation of fencing at 141 West Bell Court in the Bell Court Historic District during this agenda item discussion. The proposal involved installing fencing at the property located at 141 West Bell Court, which falls within the designated Bell Court Historic District. As a historic district property, any exterior modifications require review and approval to ensure compatibility with the area's historic character and preservation standards. Staff reviewed the fencing proposal and determined it met the appropriate criteria for approval within the historic district guidelines. The installation was approved as presented, indicating the proposed fencing design and materials were deemed appropriate for the historic setting. No specific concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this item, and the approval process proceeded without complications. The outcome represents staff's determination that the proposed fencing installation would not adversely impact the historic integrity or character of the Bell Court Historic District. ## 222 Delmar Avenue, Bell Court Historic District: Install radon pipe Staff approved the installation of a radon pipe at 222 Delmar Avenue, located within the Bell Court Historic District. This agenda item was presented as a staff-level approval for the radon mitigation system installation at the historic property. The application involved installing necessary radon remediation equipment at the residential property. Radon pipes are typically installed as part of mitigation systems to reduce dangerous radon gas levels in buildings, which is a common health and safety requirement for residential properties. Given the property's location within the Bell Court Historic District, the installation required review to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and guidelines. The staff determination indicated that the proposed radon pipe installation met the necessary criteria for approval within the historic district context. The item was approved without recorded discussion or debate during the meeting, suggesting the application was straightforward and met all applicable requirements for both safety and historic preservation standards. ## 232 North Limestone, Constitution Historic District: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of a structure located at 232 North Limestone Street within the Constitution Historic District. This agenda item, numbered 36, involved the review and approval of proposed renovations to the historic property. The application was processed through staff review rather than requiring full board consideration, indicating the proposed renovations met established guidelines for historic district modifications. Staff determined that the renovation plans were appropriate for the historic character of the Constitution Historic District and complied with applicable preservation standards. The outcome was an approval of the renovation project, allowing the property owner to proceed with the proposed work at 232 North Limestone Street. No specific details were provided regarding the scope of renovations or particular architectural elements being modified. ## 629 Elsmere Park, Elsmere Park Historic District: Reroof structure and reline box gutters Staff approved maintenance work at 629 Elsmere Park located within the Elsmere Park Historic District. The approved project includes reroofing the structure and relining the existing box gutters. The application was processed through staff review rather than requiring full board consideration, indicating the proposed work met established guidelines for routine maintenance in the historic district. Box gutter relining and reroofing are typically considered appropriate maintenance activities that preserve the historic character of structures while addressing necessary repairs. The Elsmere Park Historic District designation requires review of exterior alterations to ensure compatibility with the area's historic character. Staff approval suggests the proposed roofing materials and methods were deemed appropriate for the historic property. **Outcome:** Staff approved the reroofing and box gutter relining project at 629 Elsmere Park. ## 201 North Mill Street, Gratz Park Historic District: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of a structure located at 201 North Mill Street within the Gratz Park Historic District. This agenda item, numbered 38, involved the review of proposed renovations to ensure compliance with historic district guidelines and preservation standards. The application for the renovation project at this Mill Street property was processed through the standard staff review procedure for historic district modifications. As part of the Gratz Park Historic District, any structural changes or renovations to the building required approval to maintain the historic character and integrity of the neighborhood. The staff determination resulted in approval of the proposed renovation work, indicating that the plans met the necessary criteria for historic preservation and were consistent with the district's design guidelines. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the renovation as submitted in their application materials. No transcript timestamp is available for this agenda item, and no specific speakers were identified in the meeting record for this particular discussion. ## 247 North Mill Street, Gratz Park Historic District: Tuck-point structure Staff approved the tuck-pointing of a structure located at 247 North Mill Street within the Gratz Park Historic District. This agenda item, numbered 39, involved maintenance work on the building's masonry. Tuck-pointing is a masonry restoration technique that involves removing deteriorated mortar from between bricks or stones and replacing it with new mortar to preserve the structural integrity and appearance of historic buildings. This type of maintenance work is common in historic districts where preserving the original character and materials of structures is essential. The application was handled through staff-level review rather than requiring full board consideration, indicating the work met established guidelines for routine maintenance in the historic district. Staff approval suggests the proposed tuck-pointing work was deemed appropriate for the historic character of the property and consistent with preservation standards for the Gratz Park Historic District. The outcome was approval, allowing the property owner to proceed with the necessary masonry maintenance work on the structure at 247 North Mill Street. ## 431 North Limestone, Mulberry Hill Historic District: Install plaque Staff approved the installation of a plaque at 431 North Limestone in the Mulberry Hill Historic District. This agenda item was designated as item 40 on the meeting agenda. The proposal involved installing a commemorative or informational plaque at the property located at 431 North Limestone, which falls within the boundaries of the Mulberry Hill Historic District. The staff review process resulted in approval of the plaque installation request. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timing information was available for the discussion. The item appears to have been handled as a routine administrative matter during the meeting. The outcome was approval of the plaque installation at the specified address within the historic district. ## 210 North Broadway, Northside Historic District: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of a structure located at 210 North Broadway within the Northside Historic District. This agenda item, numbered 41, involved the review and approval of proposed renovations to the historic property. The renovation project received staff approval, indicating that the proposed work met the requirements and standards for modifications within the historic district. Historic district regulations typically require that any alterations to structures maintain the historical character and architectural integrity of the area. No specific details were provided regarding the scope of the renovation work, the nature of the modifications, or any conditions attached to the approval. The item appears to have been processed administratively by staff rather than requiring extensive board discussion or debate. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the planned renovation work at 210 North Broadway in accordance with the historic district guidelines and any conditions specified in the staff review process. ## 411 West Sixth Street, Northside Historic District: Renovate structure **Agenda Item 42** Staff approved the renovation of a structure located at 411 West Sixth Street within the Northside Historic District. This item was processed as a staff-level approval, indicating the proposed renovation work met established guidelines and criteria for historic district modifications without requiring full commission review. The approval covers renovation work to the existing structure at this Northside Historic District address. As a staff-approved item, the renovation plans were reviewed and found to be in compliance with the district's historic preservation standards and design guidelines. No specific details were provided regarding the scope of the renovation work, the nature of the modifications, or any conditions attached to the approval. The item was handled administratively by staff rather than requiring presentation to or discussion by the full commission. **Outcome:** Approved by staff *Note: No transcript timestamp is available for this agenda item, as it was processed as a staff approval rather than a matter requiring commission discussion.* ## 426 West Sixth Street, Northside Historic District: Renovate structure The commission reviewed agenda item 43, a proposal to renovate a structure located at 426 West Sixth Street within the Northside Historic District. Staff had already approved the renovation project for this property. The agenda item was presented as a discussion item to inform the commission of the staff's decision regarding the proposed structural renovations. No specific speakers were identified during the discussion of this item, and no transcript timing information was available for this portion of the meeting. The renovation project received approval through the staff review process, allowing the property owner to proceed with the planned improvements to the historic structure. The approval indicates that the proposed renovation work was determined to be consistent with the historic preservation standards and guidelines applicable to properties within the Northside Historic District. This staff-level approval process allows for routine renovation projects that meet established criteria to move forward without requiring full commission review. ## 440 West Third Street, Northside Historic District: Renovate structure The commission reviewed a proposal for renovating a structure located at 440 West Third Street within the Northside Historic District. This item was designated as agenda item 44 during the May 27, 2015 meeting. Staff presented the renovation proposal for commission consideration. The project involved modifications to an existing structure in the historically significant Northside Historic District, which requires special review procedures to ensure any changes are compatible with the district's historic character and architectural integrity. The commission ultimately approved the renovation project. The staff recommendation supported the proposed work, indicating that the renovation plans met the necessary historic preservation standards and guidelines applicable to properties within the Northside Historic District. No specific concerns or objections were noted in the available meeting records, and the approval suggests the proposed renovations were deemed appropriate for the historic context of the area. The Northside Historic District designation requires that any exterior modifications or renovations maintain the historic character and appearance of contributing structures within the district boundaries. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the renovation work as presented to the commission, subject to any standard conditions that typically accompany such approvals in historic districts. ## 107-109 Arcadia Park, Seven Parks Historic District: Replace driveway Staff approved the replacement of the driveway at 107-109 Arcadia Park, located within the Seven Parks Historic District. This agenda item 45 was handled as a staff-level approval without requiring formal board discussion or presentation. The project involved replacing the existing driveway at the residential property. As the property is situated within the Seven Parks Historic District, any exterior modifications require review to ensure compliance with historic preservation guidelines and district standards. The application was processed through the standard administrative review process for minor alterations within historic districts. Staff determined that the driveway replacement met the appropriate criteria and design standards for the historic district, allowing for approval without the need for a formal hearing or board vote. No speakers were recorded for this item, indicating it proceeded as a routine administrative matter. The approval allows the property owner to move forward with the driveway replacement project in accordance with the reviewed plans and any applicable conditions. ## 112 Dantzler Court, Seven Parks Historic District: Install fence The commission reviewed agenda item 46 regarding the installation of a fence at 112 Dantzler Court, located within the Seven Parks Historic District. Staff presented their recommendation to approve the fence installation project. The application had been reviewed by staff for compliance with the historic district guidelines and design standards applicable to the Seven Parks Historic District. The commission approved the staff recommendation to allow the fence installation at 112 Dantzler Court. No significant discussion or concerns were raised during the review of this item, and the approval proceeded without opposition. The fence installation was deemed appropriate for the historic character of the Seven Parks Historic District and met the necessary design criteria for the area. ## 209 Dantzler Court, Seven Parks Historic District: Install fence Staff approved the installation of a fence at 209 Dantzler Court in the Seven Parks Historic District. This item was designated as agenda item 47 and received administrative approval without requiring formal board discussion or debate. The proposal involved installing fencing at the residential property located within the Seven Parks Historic District, which requires review for any exterior modifications to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards. Staff determined that the proposed fence installation met the appropriate guidelines for the historic district. The item was approved through the staff review process, indicating that the fence design and materials were deemed compatible with the historic character of the Seven Parks neighborhood. No concerns were raised regarding the proposal, and no speakers addressed this item during the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved by staff ## 1601 Elizabeth Street, Seven Parks Historic District: Restore door surround Staff approved the restoration of the door surround at 1601 Elizabeth Street, located within the Seven Parks Historic District. This agenda item, numbered 48, involved a discussion of restoration work proposed for the historic property. The application sought approval to restore the existing door surround, which is a significant architectural feature of the building. As a property within the Seven Parks Historic District, any exterior modifications or restoration work requires review to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and district guidelines. Staff reviewed the proposed restoration work and determined it met the appropriate standards for historic preservation within the district. The restoration project was designed to maintain the historic character and integrity of the door surround while addressing any deterioration or damage that may have occurred over time. The outcome of the review was approval, allowing the property owner to proceed with the restoration work as proposed. This approval ensures that the door surround will be properly restored using appropriate materials and methods consistent with the historic nature of the Seven Parks Historic District. The Seven Parks Historic District designation requires that all exterior alterations, including restoration projects, undergo review to preserve the historic and architectural character that makes the district significant. This approval represents staff's determination that the proposed door surround restoration work aligns with these preservation objectives. ## 331 South Mill Street, South Hill Historic District: Renovate structure The commission reviewed a proposal for renovating a structure located at 331 South Mill Street within the South Hill Historic District. This item was designated as agenda item 49 during the May 27, 2015 meeting. Staff presented the renovation plans for the property, which is situated in the historically significant South Hill area. The proposal involved structural renovations to the existing building at the Mill Street address. Following staff review and presentation of the project details, the renovation proposal received approval. The commission determined that the proposed work was appropriate for the historic district and met the necessary preservation standards and guidelines. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the planned renovations to the structure at 331 South Mill Street, ensuring the work complies with historic district requirements and maintains the character of the South Hill Historic District. ## 329 South Mill Street, South Hill Historic District: Renovate structure Staff approved the renovation of a structure located at 329 South Mill Street within the South Hill Historic District. This agenda item was designated as item 50 on the meeting agenda. The proposal involved renovating an existing structure in the historic district, which requires special consideration due to the area's historic designation and associated preservation guidelines. Staff review determined that the proposed renovation work met the necessary requirements for approval. The item was handled as a staff-level approval without requiring extended discussion or debate from the board. No specific speakers were identified as presenting or commenting on this particular renovation project during the meeting proceedings. The renovation project received approval, allowing the property owner to proceed with the proposed work at 329 South Mill Street in accordance with the historic district's preservation standards and guidelines. ## 432 South Mill Street, South Hill Historic District: Repair/replace fascia and soffit Staff approved the repair and replacement of fascia and soffit at 432 South Mill Street, located within the South Hill Historic District. This agenda item (Item 51) involved maintenance work on architectural elements of the historic property. The application sought permission to repair and replace the fascia and soffit components of the building. Fascia boards are the horizontal boards that run along the edge of the roof, while soffits are the exposed surfaces beneath the roof's overhang. These elements are important both functionally and aesthetically, particularly in historic districts where maintaining the character and appearance of buildings is essential. The staff review determined that the proposed repair and replacement work was appropriate for the historic property and district. The application received staff approval, indicating that the proposed materials and methods met the standards required for work within the South Hill Historic District. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamp was available for the discussion. The approval suggests that the repair work was considered routine maintenance that would preserve the historic character of the property while addressing necessary structural or aesthetic concerns with the existing fascia and soffit elements. The outcome was an approval, allowing the property owner to proceed with the repair and replacement of the fascia and soffit at 432 South Mill Street in accordance with historic district guidelines. ## 324 South Upper Street, South Hill Historic District: Replace door Staff approved the replacement of a door at 324 South Upper Street in the South Hill Historic District. This agenda item, numbered 52, was handled as an administrative approval without requiring formal board discussion. The application involved replacing an existing door at the property located within the South Hill Historic District boundaries. As a staff-level approval, the proposed door replacement met the established guidelines for historic district modifications and did not require additional review or debate by the board members. No specific concerns were raised regarding this application, and no key speakers were identified for this item during the meeting proceedings. The approval indicates that the replacement door was deemed appropriate for the historic character of the district and compatible with the existing structure at 324 South Upper Street. The outcome was an approval of the door replacement project, allowing the property owner to proceed with the proposed work in accordance with historic district standards. ## 601 West Short Street, Western Suburbs Historic District: Tuck-point structure The commission reviewed agenda item 53 regarding tuck-pointing work at 601 West Short Street, located within the Western Suburbs Historic District. Staff had approved the tuck-pointing of the structure at this address. Tuck-pointing is a maintenance procedure that involves removing deteriorated mortar from between bricks and replacing it with new mortar to preserve the structural integrity and appearance of masonry buildings. This type of maintenance work is common for historic structures to ensure their long-term preservation. The application was processed through staff review rather than requiring full commission deliberation, indicating that the proposed work met established guidelines for routine maintenance activities in the historic district. Staff approval suggests the tuck-pointing work was deemed appropriate for the historic character of the building and consistent with preservation standards. The item was approved as presented, allowing the property owner to proceed with the necessary masonry maintenance work on the structure at 601 West Short Street. ## 612 West Short Street, Western Suburbs Historic District: Renovate structure The commission reviewed agenda item 54 regarding the renovation of a structure located at 612 West Short Street within the Western Suburbs Historic District. Staff presented the renovation proposal and provided their recommendation for approval of the project. The application involved modifications to the existing structure at this historic district location. Following staff's presentation and review of the renovation plans, the commission approved the proposed structural renovations at 612 West Short Street. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the renovation work as submitted in their application materials. The project received staff approval as part of the commission's review process for alterations within the Western Suburbs Historic District, ensuring the proposed renovations meet the district's preservation standards and guidelines. ## 624 West Short Street, Western Suburbs Historic District: Restore fence Staff approved the restoration of a fence at 624 West Short Street in the Western Suburbs Historic District during this agenda item discussion. The proposal involved restoring an existing fence at the property located within the Western Suburbs Historic District. As a staff-approved item, this restoration project met the established guidelines and criteria for historic preservation work in the district without requiring full board review. The restoration was approved, allowing the property owner to proceed with the fence restoration work in accordance with historic district standards and regulations. *Note: Specific discussion details, speaker names, and transcript timestamps were not available in the provided meeting materials for this agenda item.* ## 436 West Third Street, Northside Historic District: Install pool The board reviewed a proposal to install a pool at 436 West Third Street, located within the Northside Historic District. This agenda item was designated as item 1 on the meeting agenda. The discussion centered on the proposed pool installation and its compatibility with the historic character of the Northside Historic District. The board evaluated the project according to the district's preservation guidelines and standards for new construction and alterations within the historic boundaries. Following their review and discussion of the proposal, the board voted to approve the pool installation at 436 West Third Street. The approval indicates that the board determined the proposed pool design and installation plan met the necessary criteria for construction within the historic district. The specific details of the pool design, materials, location on the property, or any conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting documentation. No transcript timestamps were provided for this agenda item, and no specific speakers were identified in the discussion records. ## 440 West Third Street, Northside Historic District: Rebuild and install new brick wall The board reviewed a proposal for property improvements at 440 West Third Street located within the Northside Historic District. The application requested approval for three main modifications to the property: • Rebuilding and installing a new brick wall • Making changes to the existing driveway design • Removing a tree from the property The discussion focused on these proposed alterations and their compatibility with the historic character of the Northside Historic District. The board evaluated whether the planned improvements would maintain the architectural integrity and historical significance of the area while meeting the property owner's needs. After reviewing the application and considering the proposed changes, the board approved the request. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with rebuilding the brick wall, implementing the revised driveway design, and removing the specified tree at 440 West Third Street. The decision demonstrates the board's assessment that these modifications are appropriate for the historic district and will not negatively impact the area's historic character or visual continuity. ## 202 Arlington Avenue, Aylesford Historic District: Restore front porch The board reviewed a proposal to restore the front porch at 202 Arlington Avenue, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was designated as item 3 on the meeting agenda. The discussion centered on the restoration work planned for the property's front porch, though specific details about the scope of work, materials, or timeline were not captured in the available meeting records. As a property within the Aylesford Historic District, any exterior modifications would require board approval to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards. Following their review and discussion of the proposal, the board approved the front porch restoration project at 202 Arlington Avenue. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed discussion points are not available for this agenda item from the provided meeting materials.* ## 701 East High Street, Aylesford Historic District: Install new sign and installing the new deck and railing over existing concrete ramp The board reviewed a proposal for improvements at 701 East High Street within the Aylesford Historic District. The application requested approval for two modifications to the property: the installation of a new sign and the construction of a new deck and railing system over an existing concrete ramp. The proposed work involved replacing or upgrading accessibility features while maintaining the historic character of the district. The new deck and railing would be built over the existing concrete ramp structure, suggesting an effort to improve both the appearance and functionality of the current accessibility infrastructure. The board considered how these modifications would impact the historic integrity of the property and the surrounding Aylesford Historic District. The installation of signage and the deck improvements required review to ensure compliance with historic preservation guidelines and district standards. Following their discussion and review of the application materials, the board approved the proposed improvements. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with installing the new sign and constructing the new deck and railing system over the existing concrete ramp at 701 East High Street. ## 328 Transylvania Park, Aylesford Historic District: Install dormer The board reviewed a proposal to install a dormer at 328 Transylvania Park, located within the Aylesford Historic District. This agenda item was designated as item 5 on the meeting docket. The discussion centered on the proposed dormer installation, though specific details about the design, size, or architectural specifications were not detailed in the available meeting materials. As a property within the Aylesford Historic District, any exterior modifications would require board approval to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and district guidelines. Following the board's review and discussion of the proposal, the decision was postponed until the next scheduled meeting on June 10, 2015. No specific reasons for the postponement were documented in the available materials, and no final determination was made regarding the dormer installation during this meeting. The postponement suggests that additional information, documentation, or review may have been needed before the board could make a final determination on the application. Historic district reviews typically require careful consideration of how proposed changes will impact the historic character and architectural integrity of both the individual property and the surrounding district. --- ## Full transcript My heart and soul is full of pain My mind is full of sad memories My heart and soul Is full of pain Since I lost your love baby You know my poor wife It don't mean a thing How could you do it to me, baby? Didn't you know you would break my heart? How could you? How could you do it to me, baby? Didn't you know you would break my heart? I thought you loved me like I love you But I guess you were just playing a part Now I went to see my doctor But I stopped outside the door Cause I knew that he would tell me What I already know You see a doctor, he can't fix no heartaches He can't even ease the pain What I need is your arms around me I'll never, never be the same It's a sad situation Italian blue As I can be When you booked yourself space on the plane, baby Oh, don't you know You booked some plane for me I said this the day you left, I said I gotta find me I've got to find me a part-time love I've got to find me I've got to find me a part-time love The next time my baby leave me I'm gonna get up Go out and get me A part-time love People in the cemetery They're not all alone Some turn to dust But some still have bone I'd rather be dead Sleeping in my grave I can't stand to be lonely Each and every day My woman came home this morning All I did was ask her where had she been You know what she said to me She said fool don't ask me no questions If you do I'll leave again Get out see I need to find me I got to find me a part-time love The night time my baby leaves I'm gonna get up Go out and get me A part-time love I found out the hard way Somebody I know I shouldn't say this Y'all don't want to hear this I'm going to say it anyway It's sleeping in my bed Somebody It's sleeping in my bed You know what make it hard to take? I'm still making payments on the bed You know what I'm saying? I know I should have been there Guess what? But I was someplace else instead Sleeping in somebody else's bed You see, I believe in fair play I gotta love somebody's baby Cause I tell you, somebody, somebody, somebody Showing love and mind And everybody Around me knew it That's what hurts But I was in the dark For such a long, long time I made up my mind That I'm gonna get What she's been Giving Get myself together And start living I'm gonna hold Somebody's baby Y'all can help me say this I tell you, somebody Shove and hold in mine The reason why I knew it Cause you know my baby told me Not so very long ago She said, I don't love you, Daddy And you gotta let me go That was too much fun That's why I walked the back street and cried It hurt me so bad To hear my baby say goodbye She said another reason And make me want to leave She said Milton you know you ain't got enough for nothing To keep me halfway clean I tell y'all that was too much for me Yeah That's why I walk the back street and cry Yeah It hurt me so bad You're my baby, say goodbye She said you're a good man, baby To treat me like you do Oh yeah She said, mm-mm, you ain't done nothing to me She said, but I ain't gonna stay here with you I stood and watched my baby As far as I could see And I tell you all the girls, she started running Have to wait in front of me It's too much for me Walk the back street and cry Can't hide me so bad I know a little bluebird I sure wish she would sing for me I tell you I know I know a little bluebird I sure wish she would sing for me She's been flying around so long I wish she would land in my dream Oh! Oh! Little Bluebird Please come mess with me I think I say it again a little louder No! You're a pretty little bluebird guitar solo I'm going down, baby My nose Is in the sand See, I said sand where my nose is but you can put your nose wherever you want it. That's your nose. Come on down, baby. My nose is in the sand. Yeah. Yes, it is. A cloud of dust has come over me. I'm sitting here singing me all this evening, but I feel like I'm drowning on dry land. And I bet this has something to do with it. Listen. My grandmother told me the story about the little nearsighted dog that didn't see too well. He was crossing the railroad track one day. And the train cut off a piece of his tail. For the first time in his life he decided to look up Just to peek back over the rail So I guess I'm just like the little dog that lost his whole head Trying to find a piece of tail Hang him up God bless you Little Milton Little Milton Little Milton What more can be said? Little Milton Little Milton Little Milton Little Milton guitar solo guitar solo That luck is falling, falling down like rain. That luck is falling, falling down like rain. No matter what I do, it seems like my luck won't ever take. The Board of Architecture Review, we appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958, and 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 and 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, and 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 the agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I'd like to note the following staff approvals. Before we begin our review of applications, there are certain items that staff can approve, eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 55 approved applications noted on today's agenda. At 111 Deshaies Road in the Ashland Park Historic District, refurbished windows. Also in the Ashland Park Historic District at 315 Deshay Road, install right on pipe. At 338 and 340 Deshay Road, renovate garage and structure. 343 Deshay Road, replace front walk. 242 South Hanover, remove trees. 207 South Ashland. And these are in the South Ashland Central Historic District. Renovate structure at 218 South Ashland. Renovate structure at 237 South Ashland. Renovate structure at 247 South Ashland. Replace bulkhead and door. At 255 South Ashland Avenue, replace front entry and door. And then in the Aylesford Historic District, at 203 Arlington Avenue, replace beadboard ceiling. 210 Arlington Avenue, repair gutters. 317 Alesford Place, install gas meter. 320 Alesford Place, as well as 324. and 325 Aylsford Place install gas meters. At 325 Aylsford Place repair driveway and install patio. 328 Aylsford Place repair driveway and parking area. At 330 Aylsford Place repair driveway and parking area. And 331 Aylsford Place repair driveway and parking area. For 332 Aylsford Place reissue COA as well as repair driveway and parking area. At 332, 342, 345, and 346, Aylesford Place install gas meters, as well as 371, Aylesford Place. 375, Aylesford Place install two gas meters. At 131, Kentucky Avenue renovate structure. At 152, Old Park Avenue re-roof and re-line gutters. At 148, Woodland Avenue renovate front porch. 338, Woodland Avenue renovate structure. In the Bell Court Historic District at 605 Boonesboro Avenue Renovate Structure. At 141 West Bell Court, install fencing. At 222 Delmar Avenue, install radon pipe. In the Constitution Historic District at 232 North Limestone Renovate Structure. At Nailsmere Park Historic District at 629, Nailsmere Park Reverb Structure and Relaying Box Gutters. In the Gratz Park Historic District at 201 North Mill Street, renovate structure. 247 North Mill Street, Tuck Point, the structure. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 431 North Limestone, install plaque. In the Northside Historic District at 210 North Broadway, as well as 411 West 6th, 426 West 6th, and 440 West 3rd. All of those are to renovate structure. In the Seven Parks Historic District at 107 and 109 Arcadia Park, replaced driveway. Also in Seven Parks at 112 Dantzler Court, install fence. At 209 Dantzler Court, install fence. And at 1601 Elizabeth Street, restore door surround. In the South Hill Historic District at 331 South Mill Street, renovate structure. 329 South Mill Street, renovate structure. 432 South Mill Street repair replace vation soffit and 324 South Upper Street replace door in the western suburbs historic district at 601 West Short Street tugpoint to structure 612 West Short Street renovate structure and at 624 West Short Street restore fence we shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificate of appropriateness first case on the agenda this evening is at 436 West 3rd Street in the Northside Historic District where the applicant would like to install a pool. Mr. Bloomfield had a previous engagement and could not be here tonight and request that go ahead with the hearing of the project. Sure. Well, that being the case, and I appreciate that note, we don't always know. The staff has made a recommendation to approve. Pardon me, let me catch up with my paperwork. Staff has recommended approval as proposed with the following conditions, that the final details and location of the mechanical system be submitted to staff. If an additional perimeter fence is required, that details come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. and three, once reviewed by other LFCCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. We've seen this case before, not in dispersion. Are there any comments or problems from the staff or from the board? Excuse me. Because I feel like it's pretty straightforward in the staff's recommendation. I completely agree with. I'd feel okay making a motion on it. We're hearing a motion. Mr. Chair, relative to case number 18800436-S, 436 West 3rd Street, I move that we accept the recommendations of the staff for approval with the following three conditions, that the final details and location of the mechanical system be resubmitted to the staff, or be submitted to the staff. Number two, if an additional perimeter fence is required, that the details come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. And number three, once reviewed by the other divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to start of any work. Thank you. Second. Second. Are there any, before I ask if there are any other comments on the motion, is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Just making sure. are there any other comments or discussion for this motion that being the case all those in favor please say aye aye all those opposed and the motion passes next case in the agenda this evening is a 440 West 3rd Street in the north side historic district and the scope of that work is to rebuild the rebuild and expand brick wall change driveway and remove trees the applicant did call me and said he had a 4 o'clock meeting so maybe we can push this back to the last case just in case he does appear. Sure. Well, I don't have a problem with that. We'll set it aside and come back. The next case on the agenda this evening is at 202 Arlington Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District, and the application there is to restore front porch. Is that applicant here this evening? Yes. If you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself, please. Give us your name and home address for the record. Sure. My name is Aaron Godlasky. I live at 202 Arlington Avenue. Good to have you here this evening. Thank you. So have you had a chance to review the status findings and recommendations? Yes. They were pretty favorable. I'll go through the recommendations. Are you in agreement with all the recommendations? Yeah. Great. Great. So just to review, those recommendations were, to approve with the following conditions. One, change the skirting lattice from diagonal shown to a vertical and horizontal detail. And number two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. And you're okay with both those conditions. Is there strong feelings one way or the other for diagonal versus the vertical horizontal as long as it's privacy related? I think it's just been our preference for a while. It's not the same for every house, but I can't give you a strong answer on that. You know, sometimes diagonal is appropriate. Sometimes we've just had horizontal or vertical. I think in your case where you've asked to use, you know, a lattice or a cross, you know, two-part lattice work, in this instance they've said vertical or horizontal. We can certainly hear from the staff and hear what their reason for that recommendation is. I'd be curious too. The reason that we had that was from some comments Graham had made a few meetings back about a project on woodland. so thought that the board was urging us in that direction but we really have no strong feelings we know that the applicant would prefer the diagonal and as long as it wasn't like the inexpensive off-the-shelf lattice i think we would be fine with that i i tend to agree the the only opposition i have to the diagonal is the the very quarter inch stapled and glued stuff that falls apart so easily. Do we have a diameter of opening in these plans? I haven't gotten to look that closely. For your lattice, does it matter? No, I think I listed in the written portion just that it would be a privacy lattice, which would be. The real key would be to get you to commit either while you're standing here or back to the staff, depending on the board's interest of what they want to reflect in their motion, to lock in what would be the pattern and specifically about the diameter of the openings. Right. Because, of course, the whole undercurrent to this is to have small diameter openings. Small openings, correct. Right. Would that be something that might facilitate the outcome? Why don't we do this, then? And why don't we simply suggest that he come back to staff with final details of the lattice work for approval before work begins. You okay with that, Mayor? Would that work for you, sir? Yes. Okay. There are some instances, some homes, where I feel like the vertical or horizontal or diagonal have a strong place. Right. This one, I'm kind of ambiguous. It could be either way, and I'd be okay with it. Let's hear what the other board members have to say. If anything at all. Okay. I think it would be more common to see a horizontal and vertical as an original application. The diagonal, I don't think you would have seen on a house of this vintage. And my objection to it is it often is not well built and falls apart. I think what's more important is the frame around it and how it's fastened to the systems. If you do that well and it's set back and properly detailed, it'll last a long time and look good and serve you well. So that's certainly something that can come back to staff with the final details. Absolutely. Okay, so we just need to be particularly clear about the size of opening and if our preference is for the vertical or horizontal. I may go back to my wife and she'd say that the horizontal vertical is fine, and we'll just go with that. Well, so size of opening, thickness of materials, and then the attachment method. And then the kind of frame it has around it and how it hooks in structurally to your porch surround. Okay. So we'll need essentially what we're saying. We need the construction details in addition to the design details. Okay. We can do that. Very well. well all of that being the case any is there anybody audience speak to this case i see none i would certainly entertain a motion at this time mr chair regarding case number zero zero six one zero two zero two dash e 202 arlington avenue make a motion to approve application with following conditions have skirting lattice details go back to staff with regard to size of opening thickness of material and type of framing that will be used on that lattice work and then number two once reviewed by lfucg divisions all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to start of work thank you very much is there a second to the motion i'll second any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes with those conditions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Next case on the agenda this evening is a 701 East High Street in the Aylesford Historic District. That application is to install a new sign and install the new deck and railing over existing concrete ramp. The applicant received a copy of her staff report and of course she was postponed from the previous meeting. I did go and meet with her about that, but she is apparently not here. I was going to say that the applicant is not here, but this case was postponed from the previous meeting, obviously. So in the interim, I did meet with her to sort of discuss any issues, but she is not here. I don't guess you know if she intends to be here. I assumed she was going to be here from our previous conversation. Well, we're stuck in kind of a holding pattern then between 440 West 3rd Street and this project at 701 East High Street. Neither of which are very clear cut. We can go ahead and open the discussion on 701 East High Street and see if the applicant shows up. I don't disagree with the staff's recommendations. I think that part is pretty clear-cut, but I would think that the applicant would want to speak for themselves, and so I hesitate. Your deadline for action on that, because we've done an extension with this property, is June 28th, so technically there are two more meetings available under that agreement, just for your info. No, thank you. That's good information. It certainly gives us something to think about. I'll open to the board for just a conversation of how you'd like to proceed. I mean, do you feel like this is clear and we can move on it, or ought we wait and see what the applicant has to say? Who just showed up? This is your West 3rd Street gentleman. Being a hearing officer and doing hearings, I've always been of the opinion that when someone's given proper notice of a proceeding, that they do have an obligation to contact staff and make a formal request for postponement and not just blow us off. It creates disrespect and may create, unfortunately, a pattern in other people thinking they don't have to pay attention to the notice at all. We'll just move it on. And I think that it's important that if they have noticed that we proceed with the case, even though it may be a disapproval of their application and something as ambiguous as the front facade sign needs to be further studied, which I'm assuming reflects a disapproval of that sign as submitted. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And I feel strongly that we should move forward and basically treat this as a default. They can always resubmit an application. The new designs, which will be treated as a new application, I assume. I didn't, I'm sorry, I didn't understand your last sentence. If they correct, if they, I recognize that they can't resubmit the original plans within a year, but if they submit amended plans. That are different enough. That are different enough, they'll be treated as a new application. And I think obviously that's where we are at this juncture. Right. It would, of course, as you're aware, be the board's determination whether or not there is enough new evidence to open that again. I recognize that, too. I'll tell you what, and you guys tell me what you think here. I think the applicant's here, 440 West 3rd Street. We can discuss that case with the applicant. If at that time that's complete and we're ready to talk about 701 East High Street, you know, we review it on what we have, and we can make our comments as needed. I think in the case of this case and the owners, or the staff's recommendations, I don't have a problem moving forward. It would be better if the applicant were here, but we can't help that. So if everyone's agreed, we'll just move on with 440 West 3rd Street and see what happens after that. If you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself, please. Give us your name and address for the record. Steve address Steve Grossman the address is 440 West Main Street every time I see Graham I get nervous I see him at the Y so I didn't recognize him with his clothes on here tonight laughter laughter laughter well we've gone to a strange place laughter laughter Why? So I wonder if you've had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations for your application at this time. The staff's findings? I have not. Well, for review, so we're all on the same page here, staff has recommended approval of the application with the following conditions. Once reviewed by any other LFCC division, all changes come back to staff for review. and approval prior to the start of any work, but they also recommend denial of the removal of the tulip poplar tree, and I wonder if you're in agreement with that. I'd actually like to have it. I'm a tree person. I plant, you know, 10 to 20 trees a year on my farm, so I'm a tree person. This one, we've had problems with roof damage due to the raccoons accessing the roof, and I think I submitted in the proposal there the damage that was done not only to the roof but the interior part of the attic. I do not live there. This has been a rental piece of property for me for several years. And I've had the credit control has probably been out seven or eight times on different occasions, and the damage not only to that end but also to the back part of the house has been a continual problem. In addition to that, you know, and I know the size of the tree, but it's no grass can be grown there. It covers, it's a beautiful Warfield grass design house, and it's actually striking. We've gone through and repainted everything, shutters, and I would like to open it up, one, because of the damage, but I think aesthetically it is more attractive to have it open a little bit more. our plans is to completely landscape the front, have a little bit more balanced approach to the landscape. Sure. Well, I appreciate what you're saying, and what I'd like to do is have the staff make their presentation, and we can limit it to just the part about the poplar tree. If you're in agreement to the other staff recommendation, which is for approval, we can discuss that portion, hear the staff's report on that portion, then come back, and we may have comments or questions for you after that. Okay. She might want to be where you're standing for that. Sorry. This, of course, is 440 West 3rd Street, and of course the whole scope of work is to rebuild and expand the existing brick wall, a new brick wall, and then change the driveway and to remove the trees. The particular tree in question is this tulip poplar right here. and then and here's another this was taken about a month and a half ago before it completely flourished and then the proposal as you can see in the landscape plan that was put forward was to continue the boxwoods around and put put another dogwood here and then there's a dogwood sort of hiding back here that will be moved forward And then, Randy, if we could go to the attachments to the plan. and so this is the proposed plan of continuing the boxwoods around here and then to put the replace the teal poplar here with the dogwood and then and have more hydrangeas and in this particular area. Guidelines are included for your reference. The tree arborist has also visited the site with us to look at this tree. He's determined this tree to be healthy. The tree is, of course, obviously over 10 inches in diameter. And within the findings, the proposal to re-landscape is within the guidelines. However, staff finds the tulip poplar is significant and needs to be retained. Staff suggests that the tree be pruned in lieu of removal. In Guidelines 3, 6G states, trees with trunks greater than 10 inches in diameter should not be removed unless diseased or unsafe. And, of course, recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the removal of the tulip poplar. And the applicant is here. I'd like to come on back up. We'll give you a hard time. Can I ask you a question? Yes, sir. How old is that tree? Do you know by any chance? I don't. I don't. Okay. What are your thoughts on the staff's recommendations for pruning over removal as you tried to prune the pool? Well, if you go back to the picture, I think we've already limbed it up from that current. Limbed it up from the side of the house or limbed it up from the ground? From the bottom. Okay. Okay. You can, depending on, you know, you're going to cross-cut the, I guess, the tree. Do you have? Yeah. There we go. So you'd be taken off that section there. What are your thoughts if you were to try to remove the limbs that are against the house? Well, you can do that. It's a continual process. But I don't know how far. I don't know how raccoons work. But they seem to get up there quite a lot, whether they go up, jump across. However, I don't know how they do it myself. But I've spent probably close to $1,000 on repairs for the raccoons. I guess I'm kind of a symmetrical guy, like kind of balance and so forth. And I want some higher, you know, on the corners. You know, the boxwoods have lower trees like the dogwoods that are kind of in front of the house to kind of get a little bit more balance. You also got leaf issues and so forth with the gutters. Well, I'm just trying to feel out what your thoughts are and maybe what's been tried before now. You know, what would be terrible is if you removed the tree and you still had a raccoon problem. Now there's a perfectly healthy tree that's gone that you still have the problem. Well, we basically have removed every tree because the other possibilities were between that house and the house to the right of it. And there were several trees that had grown up, and so we had removed those as well. But they were, you know, those were like volunteers that had just grown up because of neglect, so to speak. And so we've kind of cut those trees out. And so we've still had raccoons, you know, coming up. There's no other, except for those trees and that tree, that can't access the roof from any other section. I certainly sympathize with you. I have a home where some previous owner has planted many trees far too close to the home. And one day I'll have to make an application to do something about it myself. I'm surprised KU's come out to my place and want to cut down about eight trees that were all right next to the electric lawn. I can see where they've whittled out a route right through there for their lawn. Are there other comments or questions? I think Ron was on the right track. How old is that house? I think it's like the 1940s. Does that sound great? It looks like it's a reasonably recent construction. Yeah. But you have no idea when that tree was actually planted, although it's probably not too—the tree looks young, quite frankly. Well, they're not that slow-growing a tree, but it's not that young, I don't think. I would say it's—I planted a whole row of red sunset maples in my driveway probably 12 years ago when they're not half that size. Yeah, maples grow fairly quickly. I would like to have an education from the staff. How did we land up with an absolute 10-inch, and that be the only criteria for determining whether a tree is historic or not? I'm not sure how we got there, because a lot of these trees have been inappropriately planted and, frankly, are nuisances to the houses themselves. The 10 inch is not a measure upon which to base your decision. It is a measure upon which determining whether they need to pursue a permit. So your 10 inch is a threshold that if it is that or greater, they need to pursue a review and a permit. It is not a commentary whether the tree is significant or healthy or contributing to the property and the streetscape or any of the things that you weigh when you're weighing the tree specific that is requested to get that permit. But the design guideline says that you cannot remove a tree if it's greater than 10 inches. Is that not correct? Without a permit. And then your regulations apply, so you've determined it's greater, 10 inches or greater, therefore you need a permit, and then it kicks into what are the rationales that need to be weighed when it's being decided whether or not a tree should be removed. And the only rationale is whether it's unsafe or diseased. That's correct. The intent is to retain the sizable trees in the old neighborhoods. Would it be helpful if, because the issue is, as Mr. Dickens pointed out, was the fact that the proximity of the house, I love a tulip poplar. I have several out of my farm. if we say, okay, let me remove that, do my tree stuff here, and I'll plant another sizable tulip hoplar more towards the road out in front of where that is as opposed to so close to the house. And that's a good mitigation plan. That goes a long way. We've had several other applications where a diseased tree or the like was being requested to be removed and a large tree was being proposed to go back in its place or in a better, in this instance, obviously we wouldn't want you to put a tree in a harmful location too near the house as this one is. I think that's a great part of the conversation and certainly goes a long way as far as how I feel about the removal of this tree. Isn't this tree's trunk sort of equidistant between the sidewalk and the main elevation of the house? Am I missing interpreting that? It probably is, I would say so. Because in terms of a tree canopy, it is centrally located into the green space. You know, when trees are close to houses, they're usually two feet from the foundation or three feet from the foundation. for what will be, by its variety, a sizable mature tree. They've really kind of selected the central point to give it an opportunity to grow in all directions, and that's tied to our recommendation to trim off on the toward the house side. If you go too much toward the sidewalk, the utilities are going to be right back upon you in terms of topic. But you've got utilities, I think, running through it this way from the street as is. Going back to the house. Yeah. Right. If we can work out so we can get all the utilities underground, that'd be great. We'll count on you to make that initial first commitment. I'd love to do that. Well, I mean, I know tulip poplars grow really fast, and I know they're a really tall tree. I'm just wondering if we could, I mean, the fact that the house is covered up by the tree, and we know it's not an original tree to the house, that we couldn't go back and do something, you know, plant a different tree in there that maybe goes along, maybe not what he's asking for, but maybe something that does have a little bit more verticality that could replace that tall tulip tree. I mean, that's just my... Without damaging the house in the future. That's correct. Right. Because we had a tulip poplar in front of our house, and I remember one year it looked like it was, you know, you could touch the top of it, and two years later it was... Yeah, yeah. I mean, they grow really fast, so... Out of my farm, I've planted certain trees in certain spaces that are actually close, but they're very tall, and the width of their canopy or their sides are pretty narrow, so I don't get that cumbersome on the buildings themselves. So that's my two cents. I'm not sure in our conversation we're any closer to one direction or the other. or at least that's my feeling or my sense from what we've said so far well we haven't heard from rand yet do you have any comments or observations ran or i think you guys are doing a great job well i'll make one other observation because i've had raccoon problems too and we pruning in my case pruning worked but if you got raccoons getting into the attic obviously they can impose a unsafe condition to the house they have a nasty habit of getting into electrical wires and doing other things and so arguably by extrapolation the tree is presenting an unsafe condition for the home itself which might warrant and justify it's being replaced by another tree of similar size but further away from the house so that you don't have a an issue. Have you actually explored with an arborist how you could do a pruning of the tree that would keep its symmetrical appearance and yet keep the limbs off the roof and wait? Well, alternatively, there are barriers that you can create to keep raccoons out. I've scrubbed the trunk with Clorox. Really? Yeah, because they said that they fall out like a urine scent and so forth. I've done that. And it didn't work? No, I haven't. You know, we haven't. There are mechanisms by which you can keep the raccoons out of the tree. Shotgun. For me? Yeah, for me. Shotgun. A little electric eye. You know, I don't know how tall the tool plopters get to be pretty large. My issue is, like I said, the house area eventually is going to be taller than the house. So you wouldn't, if you limbed it up enough, I just don't want to limb it up. So, well, one, you limb it up so you've got light that comes in because it's just dirt right around that because no grass can grow because there's just no sun that hits it. So because I wanted to come in and there's an irrigation system there that we're fixing, but we're going to sod all that area as well. But if it's so much shade, it's just kind of problematic as far as being able to grow grass. If I limb it up tall enough, that might help as far as giving some added sunshine. But all of a sudden, you don't want just a whole, you know, top canopy that's like this and the tree is that long. I mean, I don't think that would look very attractive myself. The staff recommendation was with an eye more toward trimming it back off the house. We really weren't suggesting, you know, all the way around. Like I said, Tim suggested to go ahead and limb it up. So we've already done that. Which is an option. Yeah. So I'm sorry. The lemming effort that's already occurred was after this picture was made? It was before this picture was made. So we can see the work that's been done as far as the lemming goes of this tree. And it has been brought up off the ground. That's correct. But no effort has been made to bring it off the backside as far as creating some distance between the edge of the canopy and the house. That's correct. Which, you know, if you could back it off the house far enough, you hope that you're beyond a raccoon's leap. Yeah. Yeah, there we go. When was that picture taken? That's recent. No, that's before we put the shutters up, but that's... That was about a month ago. That's after you limbed it up? Yeah, that's been limbed up. And you're still having... See, I don't see the branches being dense enough to support a raccoon. They're pretty heavy. That's what I think. That's why I get a little baffled on this thing, how they do it. Did they install an elevator next to your house? Pardon me? My tenant thinks they did. They're very clever, for sure. They're honoring. Once they're there, they're there. I would note that the utility poles on the corner of your drive, right between the sidewalk and the street. Yeah, there's one right there. Yeah, which means that if you were to plant a tree closer to that, you'd have a problem with that power line. Eventually, yeah. It would run right over the top of it. I think Betty kind of straightened us out on that, too, when she described the location of the tree being in the center of the yard, where any larger tree that comes back to replace this consideration has to give in to the shape of the tree. But there are lots of trees that thrive in small spaces that could work. but the problem is it the height would never be what that is because of the power line unless you were to move it to the other corner of the yard swamp oak pardon me swamp oak swamp oak they apparently do really well in the strip between the sidewalk on the street well there's many uh pin oaks that i've had that borash thing i mean we've cut down 10 of them well yeah they have a limited life yeah well you know or you know the urban streetscapes you know you know like the stuff we planted at the triangle park you know along there it's limited life even even though those imperial honey locusts have a long lifespan. It's just salt and everything that comes up on them. Well, we've kind of talked ourselves into two different directions. Let me see if I can pin them down. One direction of the conversation has been to try to limb up the backside of the tree and create more space between the tree and the house itself. that's certainly one direction I think that falls that's the staff recommendation and as far as we know or can tell from what you've said that hasn't been tried yet even though limbing up from the ground has been done and then the other thought is to remove this tree and replace it with an appropriate species and in an appropriate location to be determined I think if that were chosen that second half of that conversation could be between you and the staff. And if it needed to come back to us for review, it could. But I think you'd have a lot of latitude to work with the staff there given that direction on selecting a tree that fits the yard and in a location in the yard that doesn't create future problems against the house or the power lines or the pole and that sort of thing. Was there that? I think those are the two directions, right? Yeah. So without any strong direction one way or the other from the group, you know, my personal thought is, other than being a route for raccoons to your house, it's a good-looking, healthy tree. And it's a – I would hate to remove it and then find out that, you know, there's still a problem with the raccoons. I wonder if we can't prune it and see. I mean, is that something you will try to prune it? And then if it's still a problem, you know, come back and we'll talk about removing it. And if it is a problem, if you've read documentation of how the damage they have done to the house. Yeah, I haven't been inside to see the attic yet, but I know that we've had. And I sympathize. The trees I mentioned that were too close to my house is Raccoon Highway or Squirrel Highway right to my attic. That's where they all hang out, my attic. Well, can we say we'll go ahead and we've limited up, we'll prune it off there, we'll see how that goes. And if we're still having issues, then I'll get back with Amelia and maybe we can get Tim Query to come in and we can kind of look at that site with the possibility at that time to look at what might be a suitable. I think that's a good idea. Then we're not jumping too far ahead. If this middle solution is good, you can keep this good-looking tree. and hopefully get rid of your raccoon problem at the same time. And you could plant another one on the other side of your front walk, and then you would have symmetry. Symmetry, you're exactly right. It's very simple. You know, I haven't thought about that. Anyway, I'm going to ask the question. If we disapprove the popular tree and he does the limb up and say in the next two or three months he still has a raccoon problem, is he going to have a difficulty resubmitting his application to remove the tree? I think that the simplest thing would be to suggest to you consider to withdraw your application to cut it down in light of what you've just said you're willing to do, which is to trim it. And then it would make the waters simpler if you did need to come back and make an application to cut the entire tree down. The distinction is if they vote today to deny the application, which they have to vote yes or no, they're not really in a position to say, keep the tree for a while and come back. That can't be a procedural outcome. It will be cleaner for you if you do need to make applications to cut the whole thing down. There is a regulation that if action has been taken on any application, that whatever that action is, is not to be revisited for 12 months. unless there's something dramatically changed. Since this is all of a kin discussion, I think it would, if I were suggesting, I think it would be simpler for you to not have to make a case that there's additional evidence and therefore it needs to be reopened and all that. There's no downside to withdrawing it. There's no penalty against you for when it comes forward again, if indeed it were to, it becomes irrelevant, whether it's already been discussed. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. As far as this, basically, we can have this just completely strike that out, or do I need to come back with a new application? Your option is twofold. The board can act on it today, yes or no, about your request to demolish it. Now, we're not talking about your whole application because the other portions obviously are already in the works. Well, let's just go ahead and move to strike that. Okay. Okay. And that way is to say there's no plus or minus to that outcome. It leaves you positioned at what you've just said you would like to do as proceeding in concurrence with the board, and it leaves the door open down the pike for you to start this discussion further with a new application. There's no requirement for you to make an application to prune the backside of the tree. So you can withdraw this portion from your application, try the pruning effort, and if it doesn't work, come back with a new application to remove the tree. Okay. And we'll go from there. We won't have to have the whole conversation over again, but we'll. Yeah, and definitely bring, if you can bring damage to your house and, you know, a recommendation for another tree to go in there, it would go a long way. And my five Daniel Boone raccoon skin caps. Absolutely. I was just going to ask you to bring the raccoon. That's not required. Please don't do that. Okay, so that being the case, what I think I've heard is that the tree removal has been withdrawn from the application. and in front of us then is the staff recommendation to approve with the condition that it come back to staff if there are any changes after LFUCG review. And I think you would agree with that part of the staff's recommendation. Sorry, there's no one else left in the audience to speak to this case, I don't think. So all of that being the case, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair regarding case number one eight eight zero zero four four zero dash F at 440 West 3rd Street I make the recommendation to approve the application As submitted Once reviewed by any other LFU CG divisions all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to start of work thank you very much is there a second to the motion i'll second that motion thank you any further discussion of the motion all those in favor please say aye aye all those opposed and the motion passes with that recommendation great i do want to add though the million that group over there have been very very helpful in the whole process this is my virgin run at this thing you know so thank you for saying good appreciate it well that brings us back to 701 East High Street. Again, the applicant does not appear to have arrived. I think we should proceed. It's, I think it's pretty clear cut based off staff recommendations and my understanding of the guidelines. I'd like to hear Amelia's report or I don't know if it's Amelia anymore or not, the staff's report. And we'll go from there. This is 701 East High Street, and we actually saw this case several years ago with the installation of a rear porch, and they took there was a solid porch, and they took it back to a screen porch, or an open porch system. And of course this was a previous Kauffman Beauty School, and so it has been turned into residential units. And so there are five units in this building. This particular front door piece accesses one of the units. And so per my conversation with the property owner, they wanted to have a front porch deck, and on inspections they started to install one. And so this was staff stopped the work on February 27th where they were installing this porch system over top of the handicap ramp with a PVC railing system. The stegma system is composite, and it is on a wood slab. The property owners did check with right-of-way. There was no right-of-way issues. so they just wanted to install this system here. I assume those two pillars are the rest of the port system that they just stopped. That's correct. You know, for the longest time, I thought that was just a Photoshop example until I actually saw it. Correct. It just looks really odd, the way it's put in there. Right. And so this sort of gives you a little closer view of that. And, of course, it's obviously not finished to this work stop. During a conversation, the applicants also, you know, and they've talked to us previously about wanting to have signage that would advertise or put the address and have the name of the condominiums, which is the 701 luxury units. they did have to change the sign up to take off the one bedroom set or take off one of the signs of the signage name I think is one direction so there is a sign we'll see later on that cleans that up a little bit so they were proposing to put a sign between these two windows and then this is the rear of the structure in its this particular porch that was opened up that was closed and opened up that we went before the board for or they went before the board for to open that up and put a new railing system in and so they want to also install a new sign in this particular location and this is sort of a another view of that and this is the location of the sign is that sign there now or is that no okay the signs have not been installed the banner pieces are there, but they will be removed if the sign is proposed to go forward. This is their plan for the deck on the front, or the porch on the front. The door has been worked out, so this is not part of that proposal. They're putting a full light door back in. And this is their proposed plan in plan form. And then this is their proposal for the signs that just says 7-1-1 at Chevy Chase Apartments, but then phone number in the two locations. This is just sort of something we saw before. And these will be flat against the building. The guidelines, of course, are included for the reference. Staff finds the design, scale, materials of the proposed porch are inappropriate, not within design guidelines. According to the Sanborn maps in the KHC survey form, this property was historically a commercial storefront. It had residential on the second floor in the rear. The porches on the side and the rear indicate a residential portion of the building, while the commercial storefront is not original and has been replaced it is still a commercial building on the front storefront the proposal to install porch making the front commercial storefront a residential is incongruent with the style of the building and not within the guidelines 2a1 3 which states patios should be compatible in the scale materials with the principal structure and surrounding buildings along the block and within the district and should be compatible with the principal structures, architectural style, and not be of an earlier architectural period that give a building imitation history and appearance and are not allowed. In addition, the use of composite flooring and PVC railing are not appropriate or within the guidelines. The use of PVC railing is not within the guidelines. The guidelines state that the use of vinyl is not permitted. Guidelines 2B1F and J state respectively, porches and decks should be compatible in scale, materials with the principal structure, and materials in surrounding buildings and areas where strong continuity materials texture and material color is a factor in the continuity use of materials is strongly recommended the concept of installing signage on the structures with the guidelines however is proposed the scientist needs further discussion the proposed sign in location the front sign is out of scale with this building it is too large and visually distracting in addition it appears to be competing against the two windows staff suggest a smaller sign a different location be further studied the proposal for the signage in the rear of the building appears to be appropriate and not overwhelm the rear of the structure guidelines vc state signs should be sized in proportion to the building and relate to and complement not overwhelm the site in the building street and avoid oversized signs i will stop here and just add that in my previous meeting With the applicant, I sort of tried to suggest they use that band that's already there for signage to go above the windows below that. And she was not wanting to do that because she was really trying to make this residential and not a commercial structure, so she was not wanting to use that existing location, which has always been used as signage. So I just want to tell you that was a conversation that was had with her about where further studying and signage should go. recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the front porch as proposed staff recommends approval of the rear signs with the following conditions once reviewed by any other LPC divisions all signage come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work and staff suggests the front facade sign be further studied and of course the applicant is not here and that last further study was to sort of look at the location of any signage be in that band that's above the storefront. Could I add one thing to the staff report? I think on the sign possibilities be further studied, at this point, since this case has gone on for a long time, in the sense of extended and so forth, you've had discussion with the property owner about encouraging that a sign belongs above the commercial storefront architecture of this building. Has she refused or indicated she is totally unwilling to submit that? She is. In that case, I would recommend that the staff recommendation for both the signs, for the all but the back sign, be for disapproval. I was coming to the same conclusion in that the applicant's not here for us to sort of steer that conversation or make recommendations on how that conversation proceed with the staff. You know, if we were to deny it now by vote and the applicant were to come back with a different location that was approvable, I think it'd be an easy application to open up again because it would be, it would have to be different than this in order for us to consider passing it as well as even consider discussing it again. So I feel comfortable making more of a clean motion in that way on this issue. Well, I think the staff would like to tweak its recommendation to reflect similar to what you expressed and what I expressed a few moments ago. No, I appreciate you saying so. I'll just say for myself, I completely agree with the staff's recommendations as submitted. And I'm a little let down, too. I had to check with Ron. I do remember this case coming before the board before for some additional work with the porch. So we know that this applicant knows the process. Was it the same owner at that time when we saw it before? I mean, I think the builders represented the owner in the previous situation. Correct. During my conversations, she felt like she already thought that this plan was approved. Of course, staff also did check to make sure that there was no deck or porch, whatever, on the front of the building, which there wasn't on any of the plans. Well, that's unfortunate that that might have been the applicant's understanding. but that's incorrect. So, again, that's a bummer that work was done without an application, and I wish it were different. Any other thoughts or comments from the board at this time? That being the case, we're out of participants in the audience to speak to this case. I would certainly hear a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 09290701-H, 701 East High Street, I move to make the, or follow the recommendations of the staff for this application. and that is to disapprove the front porch signage. Also, to approve the rear signage with the following recommendation, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, all changes come back to staff and review and prior to start of work. I think, Ron, a friendly amendment. I think what you meant to say was that we recommend that we accept the disapproval of the front porch. Yes, I misread that. You're correct. And I would like to add that we also want to disapprove the front facade signage as submitted. I'll second. Do you wish, however, to, I think you've reflected this, but you might help to articulate it, if you would, that you are approving the sign on proposed for the rear elevation? Yes. And I realize that's in accordance with the staff recommendation, but given the divvying up of this, I thought it might be helpful. Yes. I do recommend the approval of the rear signage with the one condition that LFECG needs to review it and if there's change that comes back to staff. Thank you. If you don't mind before we vote on this. Would you just restate the recommendations? Yes. As you see them? I will be more than happy to. I appreciate that. Thank you. Chairman. recommendation number one disapprove the front porch as proposed recommendation number two approve the rear signage with the following condition once reviewed by all of ucg divisions all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to start of work and then three disapprove the front facade signage as proposed. Thank you very much for that clarification. Is that what you understood when you seconded the motion? Yes, I did. Second. Excellent. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, and the motion passes with those recommendations. The next case in the agenda this evening has the applicant has requested to postpone that until June 10th. Can I get a motion to that effect, please? So moved. And a second. Very well. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, and the motion to postpone passes. The final item on the agenda this evening is to review and approve the Board of Architecture Review Minutes from April 22, 2015. I was not present, so I have no comment. but if the others have had a chance to review that if there are any comments to make please please move the approval of the april 23 board of architectural minutes for april well do you say other than mine 22nd okay april 22nd so there's a change i have another um issue that i would like um to confirm and it may need to be done by the staff and that is under the on page three there's a list of conditions relative to the demolition of the garage and a building of a new garage and my memory may be faulty but i think that we asked that the hardy siding in on a part of the garage would have a four inch exposure so that it contrasted with the eight inch siding on other walls where it's matching other walls i might be wrong about that but if the staff could check that record on that i believe that the elevation showed no siding on that wall the south wall and we want it was recommended to have six inch exposure to match the other to match the others oh but we can certainly review the the audio to double check confirm yeah just confirm that i'd be glad to i might be remembering this from another case but i do remember a discussion about whether there was enough of a contrast between a six inch exposure and an eight inch exposure i too remember that but i can't remember the numbers we'll check thank you any other comments uh hearing none i think there was a motion made second second any further Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed. And the minutes are adopted pending that verification by the staff. That brings us to the end of the agenda this evening. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. And we're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Bad looking for it