# Board of Architectural Review - December 14, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 14, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4134 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4134?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-12-14 - **Last revised**: December 14, 2016 - **Length**: 6,229 words - **Speakers**: Question, I Think The Problem Is This > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution 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 held a meeting on December 14, 2016. The meeting addressed two main agenda items and resulted in seven recorded votes, with no public comments received during the session. The board accomplished its primary business by reviewing and approving the minutes from their previous meeting held on November 9, 2016. The majority of the meeting focused on Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, which were also approved by the board. These applications typically involve requests for modifications or improvements to properties within the board's jurisdiction that require architectural review to ensure compliance with local design standards and historic preservation guidelines. The meeting proceeded efficiently through its agenda items, with all matters receiving approval from the board members. The absence of public comments suggests either limited community interest in the specific applications under review or general satisfaction with the proposed projects. The seven votes taken during the meeting indicate thorough deliberation on the various Certificate of Appropriateness Applications presented to the board. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting resulted in seven Certificate of Appropriateness approvals, all passed by voice vote with no recorded individual vote counts. **717 Central Avenue** - The board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness with conditions requiring a barrier retention element to be installed, resubmission of any changes, and review by other divisions. **120 South Hanover Avenue (08760120-b)** - Approved with standard conditions requiring resubmission of any changes and review by other divisions. **241 South Ashland Avenue (05450251a)** - Approved with standard conditions requiring resubmission of any changes and review by other divisions. **385 Oldham Avenue (14300385)** - Approved with specific conditions requiring modifications to elevations showing two chimneys, differentiation of the new stem wall, and provision of final door and window specifications. **194 North Limestone Street Storage Sheds (11660194-cc)** - Approved the moving and construction of storage sheds with standard conditions requiring resubmission of any changes and review by other divisions. **194 North Limestone Street Reapproval (11660194-bb)** - Due to an error in the legal notice, the board reapproved a previous application for this property. Conditions include retaining trees greater than ten inches in diameter, resubmitting any changes, and review by other divisions. **784 Caden Lane (02960784-a)** - Approved construction of a single-family residence with detailed conditions including adding vertical trim and banding at corners, installing a window in the north side, supporting the bay with foundation, submitting final window details, and using smooth hardy plank siding. All motions passed unanimously by voice vote. The meeting records do not indicate who made the motions or provided seconds, nor do they include specific vote tallies or individual member positions on any of the items. ## Contested Items The December 14, 2016 meeting featured significant community opposition regarding the removal of legacy trees at the Sayer School site. **Removal of Legacy Trees at Sayer School** Community members raised strong objections to plans for removing large, established trees at the Sayer School location. The primary concern centered on preserving the historic character of the surrounding neighborhood, with residents arguing that these legacy trees were integral to the area's identity and aesthetic value. The disagreement highlighted tensions between development or renovation needs at the school site and community preservation priorities. Residents expressed worry that removing these mature trees would fundamentally alter the neighborhood's historic atmosphere and visual appeal. The extracted data does not specify the final outcome of this dispute or detail the specific parties involved beyond noting the community opposition to the tree removal plans. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item discussion.* ## Review of minutes from November 9, 2016 The board conducted a review of the minutes from their previous meeting held on November 9, 2016. This agenda item involved examining the official record of proceedings, discussions, and decisions made during the earlier session. The minutes were presented to the board for their consideration and approval. Board members had the opportunity to review the documented proceedings and verify the accuracy of the recorded information from the November 9th meeting. Following their review, the board approved the minutes from November 9, 2016, indicating that the members found the documentation to be accurate and complete. This approval formally establishes the minutes as the official record of that meeting's proceedings. The approval of meeting minutes is a standard procedural item that ensures proper documentation and transparency of board activities and decisions. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications The board reviewed several applications for certificates of appropriateness during this meeting, which are required for modifications and construction projects within designated historic districts. These applications ensure that proposed changes to properties maintain the historic character and architectural integrity of the districts. The board examined various requests for property modifications and new construction projects. Each application was evaluated based on established historic preservation guidelines and standards that govern alterations to buildings and structures within the historic districts. During the review process, board members assessed whether the proposed changes would be compatible with the historic character of the surrounding area and would not negatively impact the architectural or historical significance of the district. The applications likely included details such as proposed materials, design elements, and construction methods. The board ultimately approved the certificate of appropriateness applications that were presented. This approval indicates that the proposed projects met the necessary criteria for historic preservation compliance and were deemed appropriate for implementation within the historic districts. The approval of these certificates allows property owners to proceed with their planned modifications or construction projects while ensuring that the work will be conducted in accordance with historic preservation standards. This process helps maintain the historic integrity of the districts while allowing for necessary improvements and appropriate development. *Note: Specific details about individual applications, property addresses, and project descriptions were not available in the provided meeting materials.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 717 Central Avenue with conditions - **08760120-b** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 120 South Hanover Avenue - **05450251a** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 241 South Ashland Avenue - **14300385** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 385 Oldham Avenue - **11660194-cc** — passed (0-0): Approval of moving and constructing storage sheds at 194 North Limestone Street - **11660194-bb** — passed (0-0): Reapproval of application for 194 North Limestone Street due to error in legal notice - **02960784-a** — passed (0-0): Approval of construction of single-family residence at 784 Caden Lane --- ## Full transcript >> attachment 2, refresh gravel. >> your work address will be fine. >> fincastle road. >> you have an application for refreshing the gravel and I believe that, even though the staff has approved it subject to the three conditions. Have you read the conditions. >> I have. >> are you in agreement? >> yes. >> all right, just to state for the record, condition one is a barrier retention element being installed along the perimeter of the property line to contain the gravel. Number two any changes are made, that attar the information submitted that you should resubmit the changes and three, runs. Once reviewed by the other divisions changes come back to the staff for review. Are you in agreement with those? >> agreed. >> all right. And any comments from the board members? >> I'm asking for clarification. Does the gravel go from the sidewalk down to the road? >> is it of he-is there a slope? >> yes. >> is that what you're saying from the sidewalk out to the street? >> there is a slight slope, yes. >> is that gravel or poured concrete. >> it is gravel. >> >> w6d^ holding it in place in. >> a small trench at the base. >> and I think of a trench as catching gravel. Does it get out on the street? >> no. >> >> a better solution for the area between the sidewalk and the street. And I'm not talking about the rest of it. >> >> I'm not 100% sure on that I know that I have seen water line. And I don't know how deep the grassy pavers go. Compared to what you have to kind of excavate to get the gravel. I mean, I don't know. But, I do know in that, there is a water structure, I don't know what exactly it is. But. >> like a french drain. >> I think it is more like from the water company. >> like a water meter. >> outside there. >> that wouldn't affect it that much, I wouldn't think. >> would but willing to explore that with the staff a little further? >> certainly. Mr. Dickenson, is your mic on? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. Because your -- >> you're hard to hear. >> I feel like I'm almost like shouting. But -- is it not. >> it does not appear that way on this end. But, okay. >> is that better? >> that's better. >> certainly you can make a motion for him to explore that. And make it -- and to find out that this is the solution that he wants to pursue. Question: is there parking available behind the house? >> you can't get behind the house because that driveway belongs to the adjacent house. >> correct. >> there is actually a bit of a bay that sticks over, that is -- that projects out. >> I would make the observation that there is a residence across the street with a gravel parking lot in the front as well so it is not alone in its treatment. >> okay. Any other comments? Any comments from the audience? Chair is ready for a motion. >> >> regarding case at 717 central avenue, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the starve's recommended computers that one a barrier or retention element be installed along the perimeter of the property line to contain gravel, and, that if any changes are made resubmit prior to the start of any work. And, that once reviewed by other lfucg division, any changes come back to staff or the board for review and approval prior to the start of any work. >> all right. Is there a second to the motion? >> second. >> any further comment or amendments to the motion? If not the chair calls the question. All in favor say aye. All opposed nay. The motion passes. And as presented. Thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> >> all right, turning now to attachment 3, 194, is this mic working properly? >> okay. 194 north limestone street. The mull berry hill historic district is. The applicant present? >> the applicant not currently present for 3 or 4. You might want to -- >> why don't we defer consideration of attachments 3 and 4 until -- I think they are straightforward approvals. >> they are recommended. >> we'll see whether they show up. If not we'll come back to them later. >> thank you. >> turning to attachment 5, case at 120 south ashland is. The applicant present? >> good evening. >> good evening, andrew written I did, office address is 633 west main. >> this application has been approved by the staff with the usual conditions, one and two. Are you in agreement with those? >> yes, sir. >> all right. Any comment or questions from the board members? Any comments from the audience. This seems pretty straightforward. Add a guard rail to the second floor deck. Do I have a motion then. >> in Chairman, relative to the case 08760120-b, at 120 south hanover avenue, I move that we approve this application for certificate of appropriateness for the work proposed in this and reviewed and approved by the staff with the following conditions: if any changes are made, that alter the information, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work. And number two, after review by other lfucg divisions, any changes shall be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to start of work. >> all right, do I have a second? >> second. >> all right, any further comment or observations? If not, the chair calls the motion all in favor say aye. All opposed say nay. The motion passes. >> thank you very much. >> >> turning to attachment 6, 234 south ash land, change to a mud room is. The applicant present? State your name and address for the record, please. >> david witmer. My home address is 3082 huntertown road, versailles. >> a little louder, please. >> sorry. >> a little louder, please. >> okay. >> >> any comments from the board members? Again this is fairly straightforward application. Any comments from the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. >> Mr. Chairman in regards to 05450251a, I make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness. Provided any changes made that alter the information submitted be resubmitted to the staff for review and approval prior to start of the work. And once reviewed by other lfucg divisions, submit any changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. >> all right, do I have a second? >> a second. >> any additional comments or observations? >> if not the chair calls the question. All in favor say aye, opposed nay. The motion passes. >> replace existing final fence with wood fence. The applicant present. >> the applicant is not present. They were e-mailed their staff report, and we have not heard whether they would be here or not. >> all right. >> you might also note the board action date is January 2, so, we can't extend to our next meeting. >> well, note that you have recommended approval subject to the standard conditions. There is nothing truly strang, nothing strang to it about submitting the final design. >> I would like to state for the record that this should never have happened, and the reason that it is happening is because the planning commission overruled a ruling by the board of architectural review with no justification for that overrule. And that should never have happened. So now we have a situation where we have a fence war that should never have happened. and we're being forced to approve a fence that is higher than it should have been because of a previous ruling by this board being overruled by another board that had no -- no authority to make that ruling. >> the objection is so noted and I'll share that sentiment. On the other hand I'm delighted they are going back from what was a very ugly vinyl fence to what will be hopefully a more attractive wood fence. So those observations are made. Any other observations? >> I would like to defer until we get plans and elevations. I have a real problem with having these historic neighborhoods separate the backyard~%*-s, as completely one from the other. And it seems so strange to me that on their -- the boundary on the left has an 8 foot high brick wall, and they would want to come in and three or four feet next to that brick wall and put an 8 foot high wood wall. >> I'm curious as to why they want to put a fence in at all given the fact the wall is there. >> can. >> the brick wall was actually built on the property, completely on the property to the south, and the owner of 17 wanted to paint the side of the brick wall on their side white. That other than refused and so now they want to build screening fence because they do not like the color of red of the brick. >> all right, I think we need some guidance. How come we didn't have any more time to review this? >> because November and december, we only have one meeting and so when the application came in late for the November meeting, it makes -- >> andfy remember the -- >> the schedule. >> if I remember my procedure correctly, if we do not disapprove, it stands automatically approved, does it not? >> that's correct. >> I would prefer we be in a situation where we require them to submit the final details. >> and if there is a problem with the final detail, presumably the staff can ask for another review. >> yes,. >> I okay, let's do it that way then. >> the staff recommends recommends that in their set of conditions. >> absolutely. >> can I ask the staff a question: is this a good time for questions. >> go ahead. >> >> I'm curious about what. >> does not exceed it and that's the owner's desire also, so it would have the same step as the brick wall that is on the adjacent property. We just don't have the final details as the fencing company is not been contracted at this point. >> and the owner has expressed a willingness to do that. >> yes, the excessive height is only along the pool deck, and where it is getting that high. There are other areas where it would slightly exceed the six feet. But not to the extent that it does toward the front of the property. >> and it is kind of a moot point given the fact that there is that gigantic brick fence right next to it. >> yes. >> do they have any idea if they put landscaping along the brick wall, the neighbor's brick wall it would be a much better sound response and look a whole lot better? >> yes. Again, it is the color of the brick is their complaint. I think amelia might have some -- >> it is actually pretty tight between those areas. It wedges back at at one point you only have six inch and the other a foot so I think it would be very tight to get landscaping that would be -- they are wanting to -- the white fence to reflect their house and accents of the house. >> I really need to see a landscape plan. I don't mean a landscape plan of but a site plan to be able to understand the area better before I can. I Think The Problem Is This: we have to approve something today or else the application stands automatically approved as submitted with no conditions whatsoever. >> or it could be denied. >> do we really want to do that? >> I mean, it is the middle of the winter. >> the problem is if they resubmit, -- >> help me outing dennis. >> yes. If you deny it, then, there would have to be substantial changes or or could not come back for a year. >> do a review of what you have got. >> the staff had a lot of trouble with some of the same questions that the board has and I think that, our feeling was the same as yours, Mr. Dickenson, that, getting rid of the vinyl is a positive step. Even though, the board has been put into a situation where refereeing a conflict between the two homeowners. >> walk us through the application. Walk through the application. >> >> this this is the home. You can see some of the fencing. Adjacent to the driveway or the garage, I mean. And this is the fence or the wall in question. The brick wall that was approved to have the steps to screen this vinyl fence which is already reflective in the bright sunlight. There is a lot of glare off of it. This is walking back. The driveway, again, the fence on top of the deck. And this height doesn't change, this is the six feet. And this is among interior view. And this is an interior view. This is the deck and this is where it exceeds and so it would follow basically this profile. >> any further comments or observations. >> can we add a condition that they submit along with the final detail it is the landscape plan? >> >> you can ask for that but what are you asking? I mean, are you making that a condition? Something is wrong. >> I can't hear you, excuse me. >> you can ask for that to be submitted, however, what are you asking the landscaping plan to match in order for it to be approved? If you're just asking for the landscape plan to be submitted, it can be submitted but what it is something that you don't agree on or you're not in agreement for? >> are we then saying it is disapproved and the vinyl fence will stay? >> I mentioned that I would like to see a plan, I corrected myself to site plan and not landscape plan. >> I misunderstood you. >> and, I'm all right at looking at this just to approve the fence and not get into the site plan. >> okay. >> all right. >> any further comments? Any comments from my fast dwindling audience? Chair is ready for a motion. The objections being noted that we shouldn't be in this situation. >> Mr. Chair regarding case 08760137f at south hanover avenue we move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness to modify or replace the fence, and with the following conditions as recommended by the staff. One, that the applicant submit as final design of the fence to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the coa, and two, that if any changes are made, that attar the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff prior to the start of any work and after review by other lfucg divisions, any changes should be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. >> do I have a second? >> second. >> any further discussion? If not, the chair calls the question. All in favor. Opposed nay. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you very much, non-appearing applicant. Is sayer school yet? I think that was the enden of the applications. No, one more, excuse me. Turning to 8, 385 oldham avenue in the historic district. Is the applicant present? It is the holidays, isn't it the applicant is not present. They have received their staff report, and we did hear from lynn, she has a med issue and cannot make it. >> another meeting before the last. >> yes. >> let's postpone this. >> January 15 our meeting is I believe the 22. I believe that I misheard you. >> okay. >> excuse me, January 18. >> I just, I want to state that I want to make it clear that the plans be revised to show the existing, the second existing chimney to remain. >> I don't think that we need to added that as a condition. Everybody agrees the chimney was omitted from the plans. >> yes. But, I think it would be a fail safe to include it add it in. >> >> that was a very good catch. Thank you. >> any further comments? >> any questions? >> could you describe the relationship of the -- is the footprint the same? Is the footprint staying the name. >> no, sip, it is not. The shed addition within the l, is coming off, and it is going to be widened to where it is about a foot from the southwest wall of the historic structure. >> and currently how far is it from that corner? >> this is -- >> we do have an existing plan. >> >> I cannot read it. >> it will be about nine foot ten inches wider than the current addition. >> basically they are more or less matching the footprint of the main building itself. Widening it -- >> a foot narrower, right? >> minus the requirement for the foot setback from the guidelines. >> okay. >> >> you know the vintage of the existing addition on the back? >> it is around 1934 or so. But, the staff did not feel that it had any significance there, really no openings and covered in vinyl. >> do the plans call foresheeting the whole portion? >> yes, they'll change from vinyl siding to -- well, you am assuming that you meant siding a change from vinyl cementing to the board. >> okay. >> >> again we felt like it was -- and that's around the whole structure. >> any further comments? >> I'm okay. >> any comments from the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. >> Mr. Chairman, in regards to case 14300385, I make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness following with the following conditions. One, is that the elevations be modified to show the two chimneys to remain. Two, assure that the stone stem wall uses different stone or detailing to differentiate the new stem wall from the historic stem wall. And three, provide final door and window specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Four, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. And five, after review by other lfucg divisions, any changesbe submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. >> >> a neck. >> I second. >> any further comments or observations about the motion. If not, the chair calls the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed nay. The motion carries, and the application is approved. >> this is 784caden lane in the historic district. Is the an my can't. >> the owners are on their way, and if we could go back maybe and hearsay sayer. >> is sayer school here yet? >> they are not. >> I'll note and let me go ahead and call 194 north limestone street in the mull berry historic district. 1160194cc, this is an application to move an existing storage shed and construct a new storage shed and the staff has recommended approval with the standard conditions. I don't think that there is a problem with us moving forward with that one. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or economies in the audience? In that case, the chair is ready for a motion. >> Mr. Chair, regarding case 11660194-cc at 194 north limestone street, move to approve the application with the following conditions: if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, the applicant resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work and that once reviewed by any other lfucg division, that submit all changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. >> okay, thank you, and any -- do I have a second? >> second. >> all right, all in favor of the motion, say aye. Opposed May? The motion carries. >> case 11660194-bb, 194 north limestone street, this is basically a reapproval of the application we already approved. Apparently there was a problem with the way in which it was published. And so I'll note, I'll simply say and note this case was heard and approved sent 28, 2016 meeting recently learned there was an error in the legal notice sent out for that meeting. This is made necessary to readvertise and rehear a formal zhang being taken again on this application. No changes have been made to the application plans since previously reviewed. Any questions or concerns by the board members? >> Mr. Chairman I noted when this first came -- first reviewed it there are several really large legacy trees in the middle of the area where the primary school's playground is and let me see if I can point you all to this. And at the time I asked john carmen if those trees were going to be preserved. And I believe that he said they would be. >> he said no, they will not be and it still shows that. And I feel very strongly that those two trees if you look in the existing floor plan, I mean, excuse me. Site plan on page -- and I'll give you a better page than that. Hold on just a minute. Look at c-20. And you can see, the layout of the -- that area. >> I don't have a c-20 either. >> I have a horrible feeling this is double sided printing. >> yes. It is on the -- >> and we don't have the right side. >> I got lucky. I got the double sided print. >> three of our sets do not have the backside of the double sided printing. >> c-20. >> 320. Right there. >> would you highlight where that play area is where the -- yes. Well, on the bottom side, they have even left it off on some of the drawings. There is this large tree. And this is in your packet. These are the two trees in question. But primarily, this one. And, john indicated that I think they were going to run some either water lines or sanitary lines that the root system of the largest tree would be disturbed. >> these are the trees in question. >> there you go. Those two, the one there and the one up on the other side. I feel strongly, really strongly that those two trees should be preserved because they are the only ones of a night that gets the cap no by up over the buildings, and that whole historic neighborhood is really distinguished by the older trees there. Otherwise I'm fine with this whole project but I'm not fine with that. >> I would tell you, during my conversations with sara most recently, they are looking to tweak some of the locations in of the buildings because of some other lines they found that run underneath so they are might be coming back with the tweaks of the change of the plan and location of buildings. So, we'll wait to see what that happens. So, this particular approval right now is to get this approved again, but then, knowing that we might see this plan again. >> yeah, well, I won't vote for it until I see it. >> okay, Ms. Armstrong, walk us through the rationale about which we decided these trees could be taken out. >> so why we approved initially the removal of these trees? >> I don't think that -- >> we had -- >> this was in conceptual review, wasn't it, the last time we saw it in. >> no. >> >> September 28. >> I wasn't here. >> that's why this issue went right by us, I think. >> I feel that when we reviewed it, he had taken the list of questions from the conceptual review, and he had said something about trying to save those trees, like I remember we did not talk about it because it seemed like he had answered that question. But I don't remember that. >> there was a checklist that he went through and that's why I was remembering that the trees weren't going to be taken out, that they were going to change the plans. >> I'm happy as a clam but -- >> I don't remember what that checklist was but I feel like he had addressed in those answers he had given, he had addressed it. >> yes. The question on question was, to note any trees of the ten inches or larger on the plans from the connecticut vential review which they had done in the formal application. >> now, that was part of his packet, I thought, and I don't -- I had a horrible feeling that was one of the pages that did not get -- do you have the full packet? >> yes. >> was there a checklist in that? >> >> I don't think so. >> that's my last page. >> I don't think I have seen a checklist. >> will, what's the pleasure of the board? >> I believe that you have citizens here that would like to speak also. >> okay. >> thank you. >> >> whoever would like to address this. Do we have a citizen here? >> ma'am, are you here to address the sayer school application? >> >> okay, we have non-commenting observers. >> right. >> okay. >> my memory is not what it used to be but, I remember that our concerns about the legacy trees were resolved during our meeting that we were not concerned about it. Otherwise, I think that we would put a condition on it. >> I think we should put a condition on it because, it states in these guidelines, still, that we noted on item 6, g and h, that the tree trunks greater than ten inches should not be removed and that new construction or rehabilitation activities should work around trees with the trunks greater than ten inches in diameter. But, it is not indicated in this set of drawings. >> all right. Then, what we can do is, we can have an amendment to the motion to added that condition to the conditions that have been previously submitted by the staff. And I have lost my paperwork. >> I have it here. >> we'll simplied ad in condition number three. >> as a condition of approval. >> right. >> okay. Any further discussion or comments? Anything from the staff? >> in in that case is chair is ready for a motion. >> >> listen carefully because you might want to make an amendment to my motion. >> Mr. Chair, regarding case 11660194-bb, I move to approve the application with the following conditions: 1, that the work being proposed be designed and executed in such a way that any legacy trees of greater than ten inches in diameter be retained and protected during construction to ensure their survival. and number two that if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, that the applicant resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work and three, that once reviewed by any other lfucg division, that applicant submit all changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. >> okay, I second that. >> okay, the only concern that I have is, with the motion is the use of the word legacy. I don't think that that is a defined term. >> well, I clarified that by saying any trees of greater than ten inch in diameter. >> all right. Do I have a second? Any further comment about the motion? All right, the chair calls the question. All in favor say aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes. Subject to the three conditions. >> all right, turning to caden. Are they hear yet? >> we have a representative. >> thank you. >> I'm the representative. >> >> case 02960784a. And, this is the construction of the single family resident and I think the conditions were pretty straightforward. >> >> and you agree to them. >> yes, I brought samples. >> we have skipped a couple of steps because apparently I was supposed to go through amelia first. I'm karyn and I live at 3383 nevius drive, I'm the real estate agent selling the lot and I'm also guiding Dr. Huff through the house process, and her -- she should be here momentarily. She's detained in a full-time wheelchair so it takes her time to get places. But I'm spearheading it and I've talked to her today and they are in agreance to doing. >>. >> and are authorized to speak on their behalf? >> yes, I am. >> >> do we have any questions or comments? >> >> I think the front elevation is -- more successful than many of the efforts that we have seen in this neighborhood. >> it is a nice looking house. >> well scaled and it has this sort of level of detail that's appropriate for the neighborhood. >> I just have a comment. >> yes. >> the staff has recommended on the left elevation on page 5 that would be 2, the north side have a window in the here bedroom on that elevation, and I in looking at the plan, I have a feeling that that is the wall, I will go on the small bedroom. And I understand that they want to leave enough wall space to get a clean or a king in there. >> she's pro windows. She want windows. So they are fine with it if you all want them have an extra window. They are fine with it. >> I think if they put a window, there is a closet on the party wall inside of the building, and if they put a window there, that will leave about try feet of space to walk around the bed, and use the closet and that would be my recommendation, and it almost in that left elevation, there is a window already on it in the front. In the front bedroom and that lines them up. And that's just a suggestion of how to accommodate. >> she's -- they they are they are accommodating and respectful of the historic aspectwell do whatever you would like us to do and happy to do it. >> and I think what they also could do is, they have three windows on the back wall, which is almost an entire wall. They could take the center one out and move it around on the side. >> on the side. >> and that would leave adequate space for furniture in there. >> that's my only comment. >> the trees are staying. The trees are staying. >> thank you. >> in light of your comments, do we need to add that as a condition or is it simply an observation. >> it is just a suggestion. >> okay. What I would suggest and I don't think that we need to do a formal condition but, when do you your final detail plans, if you tweak, I have a feeling in light of the comments that have been made that the tweaking will probably be approved. >> okay. >> in terms of the actual placement of the window itself. >> okay. >> the staff when it is rereview if they just decide if that is suitable or, to leave it alone. >> okay. Er in-comments? >> okay, any other comments? We're here to confuse you, of course. >> that's okay, it is all right. >> I'm sorry that they are desperately trying to get down here in time for the meeting. >> it is okay. She'll be here as soon as I'm ready to leave. But if you need her, I'm -- if you need to do other folks, I'll be glad to wait and -- >> you can call them and tell them not to. >> not to start the -- I already have the guard waiting at at the elevator. >> there has been a fire downtown which May have caused some snow of the traffic. >> calima. However pronounce it. And let's move forward then. >> I have one other -- one other suggestion that you -- I would like to see made as a condition and it is in line with the staff recommendation, for a condition that the. >> I would like to add to that that there should be a piece of trim, a vertical piece of trim to the left of the garage door in a location could incident with -- co-incident with the bottom of the gable so that mirrors the corner toward the front of the house because I think that would go further toward the objective of breaking up that mass and would also help to read the volumes of house a little more clearly. >> that's a good suggestion. >> >> she's the trim master, right. >> do we have more than one additional condition or -- you said you did not care to make the window a condition, right? >> yes. I'm fine. Just to -- it is mentioned in the staff review on number 2. And so I was just suggesting a way to do that. >> I was wondering if you want to add in something line the along that per the board's approval of this application that final details incorporating the board member's suggestionsbe submitted to the staff for final review and approval? >> yes. >> that makes it -- it is our input in there without tying you down to a specific condition, and that sort of gets into the condition number six, if you will. >> unfortunately I can't make the motion, so -- >> that would be my suggestion if I would handle these comments. >> so you're suggesting that make the detail changes and get back to -- >> exactly. >> okay. >> I need to be guided a little bit. >> are we ready for a motion then? >> >> would you like me to make a motion? >> Mr. Chair, regarding case 02960784-a, at 784 caden lane, move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. number 1, that the side of the building with the garage door have an additional piece of vertical trim, added to the left of the garage door to correspond symmetrically around the gable with the trim at the front corner. Number two that the sides of the building shall have banding at the corner to break up the mass. Three that the north side have a window in the rear bedroom. Four, that the bay be supported by a foundation in lieu of just a bay opening out from the wall. And 5 final window detailsbe submitted to the staff prior to the issuance of the coa. And number 6, that the hardy plank siding be smoothed in lieu of wood grain. Seven, that any changes if there are any changes made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the applicant should resubmit the changes to staff for preview and approval prior to the start of any work. And number 8 that once reviewed by any other lfucg submit any changes to staff review prior to the start of any work and I'll add number nine that, the changes described in these conditions shall be indicated in the drawings and submitted to the staff to ensure that interpretation is correct prior to the approval of, or prior to the start of any work. >> do I have a second? >> second. >> any other comments or observations? >> >> we agree. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> the chair -- I'm not quite done yet. The chair calls the question. All in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes. >> thank you. >> now you have the approval. >> thank you. >> that's our last item and I don't believe that we have minutes. >> yes, we do. >> we do have minutes. Did I Miss Them? >> I missed them. >> >> they were not in my packet. >> do you want my copy? >> actually I wasn't at the meeting so it doesn't matter. >> do I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> do I have a second? >> second. >> all right, the minutes stand approved. We now have a conceptual review to discuss.