# Board of Architectural Review - February 14, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 14, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4454 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4454?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-02-14 - **Last revised**: February 14, 2018 - **Length**: 9,476 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review met on February 14, 2018, at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220. The meeting addressed three main agenda items, including the review of minutes from the previous January 31, 2018 meeting, staff approvals, and Certificate of Appropriateness applications. The board took four votes during the session and accomplished approval of the previous meeting's minutes and Certificate of Appropriateness applications, while receiving informational updates on staff approvals. No public comments were heard during this meeting. ## Attendance The following members were present at the February 14, 2018 meeting: • Jack Stewart • Nathan Billings • Michael Peterson No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included four Certificate of Appropriateness approvals, all of which passed by voice vote. **Certificate 063-0558-A for 558 Central Avenue** was approved following a motion by Mr. Chair. The approval included the condition that final specification sheets for doors and windows must be submitted to staff prior to issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. **Certificate 004-60-0145-N for 145 Constitution Street** was also approved on a motion by Mr. Chair. This approval required that details of storm doors be submitted to staff for review and approval before the certificate is issued. **Certificate 04150266-C for 266 Clay Avenue** received approval with the condition that window and door specifics must be submitted prior to issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion maker and second for this item were not identified in the record. **Certificate 11660411-A for 411 North Limestone** was approved with the notation that this represents "a unique condition." The specific motion maker and second were not recorded for this item. All four certificates passed without recorded opposition. The votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call, so individual member votes were not documented. Each approval included specific conditions that must be met before the respective Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued, primarily relating to submission of detailed specifications for building materials and features to staff for final review. *Note: Transcript timestamps were not available in the source materials for these votes.* ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item involving a procedural dispute over window replacement guidelines. **Replacement of Windows with Vinyl at 411 North Limestone** The board faced a procedural dispute regarding an application to replace windows with vinyl materials at 411 North Limestone. The contention arose because the proposed vinyl windows appeared to conflict with established guidelines, yet the board ultimately approved the application. The dispute centered on the tension between current guidelines and previous planning commission decisions. Despite the guidelines that would typically restrict or discourage vinyl window installations, the board chose to approve the application based on precedent set by earlier planning commission rulings. The board resolved the matter by approving the vinyl window replacement, prioritizing consistency with previous planning commission decisions over strict adherence to the current guidelines. This decision suggests the board valued procedural consistency and precedent in their deliberative process. The outcome demonstrates how boards sometimes must balance competing considerations - maintaining consistency with past decisions versus strict interpretation of current guidelines - when making determinations on property modifications. ## Review minutes from January 31, 2018 The board reviewed the minutes from their January 31, 2018 meeting during this agenda item. The minutes were presented for approval with amendments that had been made since the previous meeting. Following the review process, the board voted to approve the amended minutes from the January 31, 2018 meeting. No significant discussion or concerns were noted regarding the content of the minutes during this review. The approval of these minutes allows them to become part of the official record of board proceedings. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed speaker information were not available for this agenda item.* ## Staff Approvals The board received an informational presentation regarding staff approvals that had been granted for various properties located within historic districts. This agenda item served as a routine update to keep board members informed of administrative decisions made by staff under their delegated authority. The presentation covered multiple properties where staff had reviewed and approved applications for work that fell within established guidelines and did not require full board review. These staff-level approvals are part of the standard administrative process for managing historic district properties, allowing for efficient processing of routine maintenance, repairs, and minor modifications that comply with existing preservation standards. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, suggesting it was presented as a standard administrative report. The informational nature of the presentation indicates that no board action or discussion was required, as these approvals had already been processed through the appropriate staff review procedures. The board's acknowledgment of these staff approvals represents the standard oversight function, ensuring board members remain informed about preservation activities occurring within their jurisdiction. This type of reporting helps maintain transparency in the approval process and keeps the board updated on the volume and types of work being approved at the staff level. The outcome was purely informational, with no board action taken or required. This agenda item fulfilled the administrative requirement to report staff activities to the governing board while allowing the meeting to proceed efficiently through routine business matters. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications The board reviewed several Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this agenda item. Key participants in the discussion included Jack Stewart, Nathan Billings, and Michael Peterson. The board examined applications for certificates of appropriateness for various properties, though specific property addresses and details of the proposed work were not provided in the available materials. The applications underwent review to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and local design guidelines. During the discussion, the board members evaluated each application based on established criteria for appropriateness within the historic district or designated areas. The review process involved assessing the proposed changes or improvements to determine their compatibility with the historic character and architectural integrity of the properties and surrounding neighborhood. All Certificate of Appropriateness applications presented to the board were approved. The approval indicates that the proposed work met the necessary standards and requirements for maintaining the historic and architectural character of the properties in question. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* --- ## Decisions - **063-0558-A** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 558 Central Avenue - **004-60-0145-N** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 145 Constitution Street - **04150266-C** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 266 Clay Avenue - **11660411-A** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 411 North Limestone --- ## Full transcript was established by zoning ordinance in 1958 our first historic district was Grant Spark 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 historic preservation office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects the board encourages and recommends the applicants use them as resource the historic preservation office is located at 101 East Vine Street room 220 it is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed in our agenda in each case we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant the board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties the chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion if you wish to address the board please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of eight approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. in the Ellsford Historic District 181 Kentucky Avenue install fencing and gate at 233 Kentucky Avenue renovate structure at 300 Woodland Avenue replace overhead doors in the Bell Court Historic District at 224 Duhamel Avenue install vent in the Ellesmere Park Historic District at 609 Ellesmere Park renovate structure in the Western Suburbs Historic District at 731 West Main Street Tuck point structure in the woodward heights historic district at 341 madison place remove damage tree and at 341 madison place again renovate structure we will now then turn to our first application which is 558 central avenue construct one story addition and enclose breezeway is the applicant here you come forward Good afternoon. I'm Jack Stewart. If you have a substitute name for the record, please. Jack Stewart. Mr. Stewart, how are you today? Very good, thank you. Good. I believe in reviewing your application, we had what I would call the normal recommendations of approval, except for one that is submit the final specification sheets of the doors and windows and there to be submitted prior to the issuance of the COA. Are we in agreement with that? Yes, sir. and the remaining two of course are if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to start of the affected work and finally once removed by i'm sorry once reviewed by the other divisions resubmit changes the staff or board for review approval prior to start work yes sir okay uh any comments questions regarding this application no any comments or questions from the audience if not then the chair is ready for a motion mr. chair regarding 558 central avenue case number is 0630558 a move to approve the application for certificate appropriateness with the following conditions number one that the final spec sheets for the doors and windows will be submitted to the staff prior to the issuance of the coa number two that if any changes are made that alter the information submitted that you'd resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to start of the work and number three once reviewed by other lfucg divisions any changes will be resubmitted to the staff or the board for review and approval prior to start of work okay do i have a second any further discussion on the motion if not the chair calls the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the ceo it's approved thank you very much thank you mr sure all right turning now to attachment number two 145 constitution street mulberry hill historic district i see that the applicant's here good evening mr chairman if you'll state your name for the record please nathan billings all right with billings law firm and also the owner of the applicant cole properties one with the business address of 111 church street also joined by my wife this evening and our architect greg for assignments i'm having a little trouble hearing you for some reason is the microphone on is that a little better it's better okay uh with respect to this application it looks lengthy but really isn't have you reviewed them i have reviewed it thoroughly and i've met with staff our architect has met with staff and we have had a number of email exchanges back and forth we're in agreement with all of the staff recommendations and really only have one what i would say is discussion point or clarification um with respect to the the shed roof on the proposed two-story edition okay um if i could have the powerpoint pulled up and just go to the second to last slide are you asking a question or do you want to if they're going to pull it up i'm going to show a slide and just to show the clarification of the staff report because it may be able to be done without a full hearing it's a little unorthodox I'll let you do it go ahead assuming it comes up so on the the addition on the rear we had several different concept drawings. One would be parallel with the existing roof line on the existing rear L and staff recommended that we step it down from the existing roof line to expose the fascia board and in doing that if we keep it parallel it actually creates a headroom issue in this corner here and we just wanted to make sure that with the staff recommendation and we've talked staff and I think we're okay on this that as long as the roof line will still be tucked in under here it would not necessarily have to keep the same pitch of the other L but it would at this point still be tucked under the existing roof line so that it may not be parallel but it would still be tucked under both points. Okay do we have a comment from staff about that issue? Staff has had the discussions with Mr. Billings and think that would be entirely appropriate and it would probably be more historically accurate to have a lower slope. I don't think we need to add that in specifically into the condition since we have it on the record as to what the modification are. Has that particular slide been submitted to the staff? They have the PowerPoint. They don't have that slide, but we'll submit it to them. It's in the record now. Okay. Why don't you go ahead and make sure that you print out a copy and give it to them? Okay. For the record, let's review the other changes or the other suggestions. starting at the top with respect to the historic front porch. Recommendations are the standard ones of any changes are made that altered information submitted. Resubmit changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Once reviewed by the other divisions, returning changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. With respect to the infill of the two window openings, the staff has recommended recess the face of the new brick and window opening at least two inches and therefore after that the standard conditions and finally with with respect to this two-story addition you're going to use option two for the shed roof with one over one windows as reflected in your application number two you'll add vertical palisters from the ground level to the belly band and from the belt belly band to the soffit to reference the existing porch design and submit those changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the issuance of a coa number three as we have discussed lower the roof roof slope to below the line of the historic fascia and reconstruct the missing historic fascia submit those changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the issuance of coa and as noted uh the slide that you've just shown us which you've characterized as option three i think that's correct is incorporated into that recommendation and finally we have the four and five of the standard conditions do i have any comments or questions from the board members with respect to this application no i i i'd like to discuss the um i guess i'd like to start by asking the staff why there's the preference for the shed roof versus a flat roof because the original porch most likely had a sloped roof and not flat there are also some penetrations in the brick wall behind i'm sorry if you want to go back in this location that need to be covered and we also in the future didn't want the option of mechanical equipment on the roof. Let's see where we're at. I see it there, but it's new. Okay, you need to speak up so you can be heard. The openings he referenced are right there where the board comes up. I'm not sure what the title of this board is, but the one that tucks into the brick molding in the corner here. They've actually extracted brick to make the porch. Okay. um could i could could i get the architect's opinion on this issue flat root versus the smoke group right and also i'm i'm i'm bringing it back in order are we going to go back to a staff presentation i think we need to do it if you have these these this many questions i think we need a staff presentation focusing on option number two is that correct yeah the the uh right i mean the only issue i have is is the question as to whether why we're going without any discussion to the uh shed roof versus the flat roof okay i'm not sure the narrative actually addressed the issue that you're asking questions about uh let's just have a brief presentation from the staff first and then we'll bring you up on just a moment barry 145 Constitution Street, and we'll look at just item number three in the staff report, which is the rear addition, which is located within a previously constructed addition. So construct a two-story rear addition in the location of the two-story porch. The applicant has submitted two options for the roof profile of the rear addition, as well as two options for window elevation. Option one is a flat roof, and option two is a composite shingle shed roof. Both options also are shown with either one-over-one window lights and six-over-six window lights. All other design features and details are the same for both options. the plan is larger than the existing porch rectilinear and plan 20 feet 6 by 16 feet with a setback from the existing structures corners and with a wood entry porch at the rear so this is the option that the staff preferred with a shed roof as opposed to a flat roof shown in this drawing There's also a wood entry porch. This location faces to the north. Siding and trim is noted as composite, but with conversation with the architect, clarified to be cementitious board. the siding is clabbered with corner boards eve trim and belly band located at the second floor doors and windows are proposed to be marvin aluminum clad wood the guidelines are included in the staff report for your use now if you'll look at page eight number three the staff finds that the option with the shed roof and one over one window should be used for the proposal to construct the two-story rear addition and the location of the two-story porch although it requires some modifications to conform to the guidelines, the staff reviewed the proposal as both a porch infill and a new room or wing addition. Guideline 1.13.D states that porches on the rear side of the buildings may be enclosed if height and shape of the porch is maintained and the open character of the porch is retained with a maximum amount of glass and minimal amount of solid area. The staff binds that add in pilasters at the appropriate spacing to reference the rhythm of the existing porch columns and void space along with lowering of the roof slope to below the main structure's fascia would meet the previously referenced guideline. the addition is per a or per 2a4a appropriately located at the rear of the building and 2a4b is secondary smaller and simpler to the original building and scale design and placement and the exterior walls are stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building. The proposal is 2A4C compatible in design with the original building's design roof shape. Additionally, the proposal complies with 2A41 and is of materials compatible with the historic fabric of the house. the wood of the use of wood is most appropriate however cementitious board may be considered for additions and to 4k follow design guidelines established for construction of primary buildings and as mr. Dickinson noted earlier there are five staff recommendations use option two for the shed roof with one over one windows add a vertical pilaster from the ground level to belly band and from the belly band to the soffit to reference the existing porch design submit the changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the issuance of a coa lower the roof slope to below the line of the historic fascia and reconstruct the historic fascia submit changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the issuance of a coa if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the the changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work once reviewed by other lfucg divisions return any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work the deadline for board for board action is March 19th 2018. Okay any questions Mr. Polo of the staff? I don't know I don't have questions for the staff. Okay Mr. Fitzsimmons and I know your name but you need to state it for the record. Excuse me Greg Fitzsimons 112 West Third Street. the design for the addition you know is especially challenging because of the nature of the existing building it it started out as a story maybe a story and a half uh eye building and then it was added on to significantly probably 40 years later so it's already mixing a federal style with a added on somewhat Italianate almost. We got some hood molds and some other brackets and things added when the building was renovated. And then all that starting in the front and wrapping around both sides with the bays added on. And then it comes back to the back where all those pieces have to come together, and they don't come together very well. So our first design was to maybe look at something that was a little more modern influence with the flat roof and that sort of volume attached to the back of the building inside the lines established by the porch. Showed that to staff and got the indication they more preferred the slope roof, and that's where we began exploring the options of using the slope roof. and my actual preference is to sort of maintain the original slope of the roof and use one big flat roof when there is no really good solution i look to try and do what is the best for the building will be the least maintenance in the future keep the most water potential water problems or leaks and dropping that existing roof line down below the eve and all that yes you can build it yes you know it's possible to do it properly but it would be more water resistant to have one big roof over the entire off the existing building and then on to the addition so you can see that in option number two there but dropping it down below the eve line is is eminently buildable and again if that's more what is preferred to establish it as a new volume attached within the sort of l that's created by the existing building so as with all historic projects in front of the board of architecture review you try and find the compromise points between everybody's interests Mr. Paul, with respect to your question on behalf of the applicant, in having probably more than most applicants some experience, you know, in reviewing applications that have been on the board before, sometimes there's not just one solution that satisfies the guidelines. There's multiple solutions that could satisfy the guidelines. From the applicant's perspective, I didn't come to this saying we have to have this look like X. I think sometimes there's a proclivity for applicants to say, like, this is what I want adamantly, and maybe you tweak things. We've sort of come to this to say, like, we have a big project on our hands. There's work that's outside of the scope of this application. We have federal and state tax credit application. We have significant work inside to do. The addition is a key component of our renovation, and we want to make sure that it is apparent that the addition is new construction, but we want to give reference to and complement the building and its various phases of construction history. We don't really have a preference whether it – I mean, there may be some construction elements that they're either cheaper to build or they may have things that we have to fix, but we don't have a preference whether it's a shed roof or a flat roof or a hybrid. because at the end of the day what we're going to do is it's going to be better than it is today and it's going to be a building that's going to last for another 60 or 80 or 100 years because that's how we're going to do it and there may be elements of design that would help the building sustain that but regardless of that any one of these can fit what our desired need is which is to expand the porch within the boundaries we're allowed to at the same time to do a significant amount of work that needs done with tuck pointing and structural issues and foundation anyway stuff you know about so um we're not i mean i guess the best way to say it is we're open to what the board thinks you don't I don't care, you just want to get the job done. It's not just get the job done, because it's not just we want to take the existing porch and wrap it around and close it, right? That's not the right way to do this job. That's a mistake. The porch has to be removed. I mean, it has areas where you have header boards that are tucked into brick that they just literally, you can see they chiseled brick out of the way. The fascia board doesn't touch the existing top of the brick line. There are gaps between two and four inches. For whatever happened, the fascia board is just gapped, and that's just stuff that has to be fixed in this project. So it's not just slap some siding on and make it. It's a big project. But we want it done. And from a design standpoint, different people have different views on it. My perspective is we have a guideline we have to work in, and you are the board who decides the guideline. You all tell us which one we can do. Let me ask you this. If you had your druthers, which one would you prefer? My druthers is to keep the existing shed roof all the way across. Greg and I talked a lot about it. and and we this wasn't done in a hurry we met with with barry october i think i mean before we even bought the building we went ahead and met with staff knowing we were going to be in this process for for a period of time and in that discussion it's it's very very transparent they said hey i think that shed i mean the flat roof may be a better solution at that time that was the initial discussion so we said okay let's begin looking at that we looked at other options that said for construction this one may work better we've gotten their comments back to step it down we're okay with that so i've drawn that hybrid option to step it down i mean none of this is argumentative we want what's best for the building anything else yeah just to clarify right now there is a porch back there and the roof over that porch is a shed roof that's continuous and continuous with the the, it changes the pitch, but it comes up to the top of the fascia. So there's no fascia, no gutter, nothing at the juncture other than a bend. Right. So let me see if I can. And is that shed roof, does that shed roof continue the same width as the proposed new porch roof? Yes. It's actually going to be brought in because the existing porch is not in the 12-inch. It's actually going to have to be brought into the 12-inch setback we have. it's actually into that 12 inches we have to bring that back in now does that make sense yep yep so uh so i i understand your concern about dropping the roof below the existing fascia um but you know you know that the guidelines are pretty clear about that also so it's a balancing act for us because we have a situation we've got an existing condition where maybe we could use that to justify leaving it as is but actually you're going to be tearing all that stuff off and redoing it the other the other um uh concern that i'd like to raise um is i understand the staff's recommendation i understand where they're coming from part of where they're coming from is the interest in considering this a porch infill and and I respect that idea. So that sort of is what generated the notion of the plasters, right? So that it's sort of enunciating the existing bays of the open porch. The little sketch that you put up there where it showed a plaster on the end elevation. Yeah, that last one. That one there. You know, for me, that is kind of unresolved and uncomfortable because of the shed roof, right? I mean, you're looking for an entablature that that plaster is moving up toward, and you're not finding it. And I find that, I just find that unsatisfactory. So to me, if you're going to do that, if you're going to follow the stats recommendations on the pilasters, that the discussion i i i was initially thinking that i much preferred the flat roof solution but but now i'm leaning toward just the the shed roof solution and so the question for us i think unless another board member has something else they want to bring up is the question as to whether it's necessary to step the roof down at the at the where it embuts the existing building or whether that shed can be left as it currently exists I like that drawing of this just and you can see here we've added a trim board across the top there to resolve the the temperature as you're mentioning so this is your side-by-side comparisons I guess as chair I'm asking a question do we need to rewrite condition number three or we good with it the way it is I think that's the question that I'm asking why do we frankly I I don't know the answer. Yeah, so maybe we can get the staff to respond to this a little bit. It would be helpful to get your take. Given the fact that we have an existing condition, it's actually a historic condition, right? And it's one of that existing condition, and the form it results in, and the fact that you're going to infill, you've hit the nail on the head in your comment, is the premise that per the interpretation of the guidelines, where the staff's coming from. And so I think we're all on the same page philosophically about what that guideline, what we're trying to accomplish with this roof form doing this. Having said that, I think that, I know you're not going to want to hear that either option is possible within the guidelines, but I genuinely believe that the tuck-it-under or the continuing the existing condition both are within the guidelines because the existing condition opens the door to what you've already said, which is continuing that existing condition even though you're going to reform it in the construction sense to be more functional with materials that are going to hold up. So having said that, since from the staff's perspective, I think both having the angle is important to the guidelines, but I think both options of how to accomplish it, either continue it as the reality of the physical built now in the abutting without a true band and so forth, is allowable, I think, within the criteria because of the existing condition. I think there are efficiencies that come with that tied to the water situation and to what happens when it abuts the right-hand or west existing roof line. You will not get that drop situation, and there's some efficiencies with that. And so that's a very, I think, efficient construction outcome that is within the guidelines. The other alternative of tucking it so that it allows the other roof form to read is totally within the guidelines, does, I think, result in a few more construction and maintenance challenges as time goes by. in in looking at the building on site it does not appear that this shape of roof was the original historic roof but it was changed sometime in the past prior to us having photographs of it is there evidence of what the original was not that we can see because it's covered up with Roof and the photographs we have just go back to I think 70s. It's a kind of long-standing change it's probably not a period change back to 19th century perhaps but we don't know that for sure it could be late 19th century it's a long enough standing change that it has become part of its evolution of character story and guidelines wise that's that having that long running roof is part of what has been a long-standing identity of the house and that's partly why it makes sense to consider it in the manner we're discussing i would agree with staff that we we don't have any evidence of what the original roof was or when it was original because it wasn't original to the structure the original structure is pre-1818 and this porch clearly doesn't date back then. Construction on this porch, some of it is within the last 20 years. Other elements are much older than that. The only thing that might give us some insight is there is a second story exit door onto the porch. And you all have seen lots more of these than I have, but I've seen a decent number of them. Most of them do not have stepped down to the porch. That is, in my limited experience, a somewhat unique feature that they would have come out maybe one step down, but typically on a sleeping porch or somewhere like this, they would have been level or maybe a step down. And you can see, you know, they have one, two, three, four steps down at this point. Now, I don't know if that gives insight that at one point the porch would have actually been higher, which then when you look at the roof line would have indicated a higher roof line. There's some speculation in that. That would be the only piece of evidence that I could just point to to say there's something going on with that door that's not consistent with the existing flooring of the porch. I don't want to burst your bubble, but step downs to porches are not uncommon from the time in which they're built, like in 1810. You'll see one where it comes down four steps and then you're at the bottom for the flooring. And so it's a fascinating thing to think through because there are clues about it, but it's no assurity. And you're not suggesting it is. No. I guess I was just thinking out loud of, oh, don't hang too much on any of that. We don't actually know that the second story here is the original structure. It's a change over time evolution, that's for sure. It's a fascinating house. It's got at least four significant period changes to it, which is one of the issues. And it's one of the things I think makes it quite, quite interesting and handsome. You know, it tells its story through those volumes evolving, and it's really cool. I think it's a great project to take on. Just an example, so this is an exterior door, so we don't lose this doorway when we build the addition. This will become a, because the new flooring would be about this level, this will be partially enclosed with transoms over it, So you're getting light into the interior rooms and keeping those existing openings so they're just not ricked up. So we want to keep those and show in the interior construction that it was a doorway, a window next to it, have transoms above it to let that light sort of flow in from the outside. Okay, I'm going to have to bring this conversation to a conclusion. We've got other applications we need to go through. Any other questions? Sarah, do you have any concerns? I have one. Okay, go ahead. the storm door would you describe what you're doing you're on the front porch so on the front porch here the front door is inset about 36 inches from the existing facing openings and let me i don't know that i have a design of that here here we go there we go And so what we have suggested is the main door here has significant detail on it. The door has some damage that will have to be repaired. The original flooring we think is there. What we want to do is enclose that vestibule with storm doors in order to help for weather and rain protection and HVAC ventilation. And we have discussed this option with the State Historic Preservation Officer as part of our tax credit application. there is a similar I don't have it in a slide there's a similar door done on North Broadway at the corner of I believe Pine and North Broadway but there's as a single pain or a single swinging door storm door before you get the main historic wooden door and the historic preservation officer suggested that he would suggest bifold storm doors on the front as being more true to the period with as much full light as possible whether they're divided or not. He doesn't want them enclosed as a solid storm door, but he said he thought it would be permissible to accomplish that. From that perspective, we still obviously have to get your permission too. And it's mainly to protect that vestibule, the existing door frame, even if we repair, to repair that door, it is going to basically be a new door. It's the way it's damaged and warped. We want to keep as much of that as possible. We're going to have to replace some pieces of it, but we're never going to get it weathertight and airtight. We just want to be able to create those storm doors, but still see the beauty of the front door. Anything else? I have a quick question. I just don't know if I'm not seeing it right. So you're planning multiple pain in that proposed storm? Is that meant to be multiple panes in each of the two lights? The drawing shows that and the State Historic Preservation Officer says that before I can put anything on there, I've got to get his permission. And so what I perceive is this may be a placeholder on the muttons because he said, I need to see exactly what you want to put in there before I'll approve it. Per our process, the H-1, something that is more streamlined without multiple panes. One big panel on each side, single light. I think that's what he said he intended. So if the board would consider just leave that details to be worked out, we'd be glad as staff to work with the applicant. And that's what I think the staff recommendations already allows us to do, and that's why there's other details like that that will come back. Absolutely. Thank you. So details of storm door to be submitted? To come back to staff. Right. Please. With plans to come back to staff. Okay. All right. Anything else from the board members? Anything from the audience? I believe I'm ready for a motion. I hope. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 0046001-45-N at 145 Constitution Street, I move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness. As with the staff's recommendations, I'm going to break the approvals into the three different pieces the first being the reconstruction of the historic front porch and there are three conditions on that piece number one provide details of the storm doors for staff review and approval prior to the start of any work number two if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit changes to staff or the board for review and approval prior to start of work and number three once reviewed by other lfucd divisions returning changes the staff or board for reviewed approval prior to the start of work uh i'm sorry i said three there yeah three so the second item is the infill of the two window openings uh with the brick and that has three conditions the first one is that the face of the brick should be recessed at least two inches behind the face of the adjacent brick number two if any changes are made to alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work and number three once reviewed by other lfucd divisions return any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work for the third item which is the two-story edition i am going to modify the staff's recommendations by eliminating number three so there will be four conditions number one use option two for the shed roof with one over one windows number two add vertical pilasters from the ground level to the belly band and from the belly band to the soffit to reference existing porsche design and submit changes to the staff uh board for review and approval prior to the issuance of a coa number three if any changes are made that alternate information submitted resubmit the changes to staff or board for review and approval prior side of work and number four once reviewed by other lfu cg divisions return any changes to staff or board for review to approve a prior start work all right do i have a second any further discussion of the motion if not the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay motion passes the coa is approved as conditioned thank you mr chair thank you board all right turning now to attention attachment number three 266 clay avenue scope of work is demolished addition construct new addition is the applicant here mr billings you're in the way no you're not okay if you'll state your name for the record uh mick peterson michael peterson mr peterson how are you today good thanks uh it looks like the staff is making their usual recommendations uh in addition there are also a couple of substantive one which is you submit the window and door specifications to staff also submit your railing details to staff prior to the issuance of coa uh do you have any objections to doing that no problems and with respect uh to the third condition the concrete block foundation be purged no problem or parched rather sorry i just wanted to destroy it sorry i can't keep them down anyway You know, it's funny how one letterer can make a big difference. Conditions four and five, of course, are what I call the standard conditions, meaning that if making changes, bring them back to the staff for review or approval. And if there are any changes made that alter the information submitted, resubmit those changes to the staff or review and approval prior to start of work. You look like you have a question. Continue on. And staff recommends disapproval of the removal of the chimneys. All right. With respect to the chimneys that you're asking to be taken down, do you want to be heard on that, or do you agree with that recommendation? We'll leave the chimneys if we need to. It would involve extending them beyond the addition of the dormer on the back would cover the chimneys, so that would require building the chimneys above their current height. This building is not in, this house is not, it hasn't been occupied for a while, and it was neglected, and so these chimneys were only two or three courses of bricks above the... okay can we see we may need to look at that for a moment and thank you i tend to miss your breakfast approvals if you all could um look at the plans at on a1 and also there's photographs they're a bit dark this particular one are you talking about the ones that are in the oh the picture unfortunately the um the computer has chosen to not want to cooperate so we'll need to look at your print pictures please and it's coming up now got it are those uh existing chimneys have they lost a lot of their mass it looks to me like they've they're they're all they're very very short yes someone has truncated them along the way no question so the problem is that if you build what you're proposing unless you extend them they're going to be under the roof is that right or that would be correct but if you notice in the He actually intends to retain them in the house. Really? In the dormer and in the floor plan, so they're not going to be removed inside. They will just be covered up because the dormer will be at that point. so you've said that you're okay with extending them above the roof line if that's as required i mean we'll do whatever we need to i it's a you know removing chimneys is a is a it's something we try to avoid at all costs because they represent a use of the house the historic use of the house and you can read a lot from that someone who's looking at the house can see things about the house historic can read historic stories from the chimneys so so that's why we're reluctant to eliminate the memory of them on the outside of the house. Sure, and there was no intent of taking them down inside. The question was whether we were going to build these up and extend them above the dormer and have two more roof penetrations. That was the only discussion. Presumably they're not in use for any kind of, are they in use at all those chimneys? There's no HVAC at all in the house right now. It had a gas central, Central heat was added just with vent ducting attached to the walls, nailed to the walls, and running up the dining room wall. And so, you know, all of that is, we're very much at a starting point on that. So there was a stove that was in one of the two kitchens that was in the back that was added in the 1950s that was ducted up through one of those. but when I bought the house, the first thing I did was get the gas turned off. And the second one I discussed was getting the electric off, because I said I wanted to get rid of both the spark and the flame. So current use is really nothing. It must have worked because the house was still there. Yeah, I got rid of both the spark and the flame. I had a similar issue when I bought my house on Transie and found out exactly how they're trying to vent the gas, and the guy said, don't you dare start this gas up again until you do something. So it's interesting, these older houses. Any further questions or comments? And I commend you for your willingness to work with us on the preservation of the chimneys, even though they have lost some of their mass and it's going to involve some expense, but I think actually when they're finished, it will read back into the character of the house. Okay. Any further questions, comments? Anyone from the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 04150266C at 266 Clay Avenue, I move to approve the application for certificate appropriateness with regard to the demolition of the existing addition and the construction of a new addition and dormer with the following conditions. One, that the applicant submitted window and door specifications to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate appropriateness. Two, submit railing details to the staff prior to the issuance of the COA. three parge or paint the concrete block foundation four once reviewed by other lfug lfucg divisions any changes come back to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work and five one if any changes are made to alter the information submitted that those changes be resubmitted to the staff for review approval prior to start of work and i i move to disapprove the removal of the chimneys. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, then the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The application is approved and also the uh your application to remove the chimneys has been disapproved. Thanks. All right, thank you so much. all right turning now to attachment number four 136 old park avenue is the applicant here hi i'm deborah fister good afternoon how are you today hey good thanks all right with respect to this particular application i believe the uh staff was pretty favorable to you they are asking you to do a couple of things and i did have a qu i think we may have a question about how this upper dormer looks but they've asked you to align the applied shutters with the window above and also provide the final door and window details and specifications to staff prior to issuance of a certificate appropriateness number three remove the muttons from the doors and windows because they're imitative number four any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes the staff will review and approval prior to start of work and finally once approved by the other divisions any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work are you in agreement with those changes? Yes I am I was recently since I did this thinking about enlarging it the width of the garage about two feet would I be able to just go to the staff for that or do need to come back in you may have to submit i don't know miss kerr technically staff is not empowered to increase the footprint of new construction or any of the substantive details and its dimensions and and size is a rather substantive detail so the board can however with you all weighing the matter right at the moment authorize the staff to review a proposed change to be no greater than two feet or something like that but it's a little unusual partly in that all new construction is to be determined by the board i think actually it might be wiser if you want to do that i think we probably just need to see new plans okay and just give the plans to the staff so that said do you want us to go ahead and approve this one yeah just in case i'll stick with this that'd be great uh maybe it's just my eyes the dormer looks top heavy is it just the way i'm seeing it on the design plans or because i'm not an architect it just looks a little top heavy to me um i you know i would note that there's an error in the drawings okay um and that error is that the rear elevation and the front elevation are drawn with the top of the dormer roof um going up to the ridge of the main gable and that may be what you're referring to i am and i think that was one of the changes that we recommended when we did our conceptual review to drop it down so that the oh i missed the conceptual on this one okay okay um you know i'm a little concerned about the width of the garage if you're intending to park two cars in there it is really tight yeah that's why i was yeah thinking about two more feet with the alley and everything Deadline is March 19. What I'm thinking is if you want to give serious consideration to this footprint dimension change, one option for you today would be to request this be continued. and in the meantime you go back and make some slight revisions you couldn't you know change to now i'm going to build a house right but you could do that and we'd have to get you to sign an extension of your time deadline which in conjunction with the board chair's signature can be accomplished but it's the quickest means i can think of to have you look at this issue more closely the board still be able to do its review as charged without stretching your time considerably more it's an option okay if I'm hearing you correctly you're in agreement that we continue this case to our next meeting to give you sufficient time to submit a new application okay thank you well a revised a slightly revised application application and it does need to be we Nothing too substantially different or else we'll get into needing to advertise again. Do we need to take out two weeks or four weeks? I think quite truthfully you'll need four. The turnaround is like four days if you need it for two. So I would urge you to consider four. And we'll do a little paperwork and have it for you to sign. So we're looking at February 28th? I'm sorry? We're looking at February 28th? Sorry. We're looking at March 14th. First meeting in March. I'd like to ask that you do a floor plan for the upper story of the garage. A floor plan? It's just going to be storage open. Ms. Tate, is your microphone turned on? Nope. Thank you. For the record, her question was for a floor plan, your answer was it's just going to be an open space for storage. Is that correct? The house has a crawl space and it has no attic per se because of some vaulted ceilings they put in. So this house has no storage area. Okay, then if I will have a motion that we continue this matter to March 14, and I'll sign the waiver if you agree to it. So moved. Do you have a second? Second. Any discussion? Chair calls the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. This matter is postponed to March 14, and you might as well just stand there. Turning now to 411 North Limestone. This is the, the chair will note for the record that we've gone through several applications involving this particular stretch of property and set townhouses. Ms. Murphy, do we need to have a formal full presentation? I know that she's going to disagree with the recommendation made by the staff. Do we need to have a presentation made? Well, that's certainly up to the Board's discretion. We're pretty familiar with the issue. Abbreviated would certainly, yeah, to just reference, actually, do you want to just talk about this? Our attorney is going to. If you just want to do an abbreviated, have the staff just state what, just on the record. Okay, let's just do an abbreviated presentation recognizing that we have visited this issue back in October. And basically you can just sum up the status of this particular site and property and what the Planning Commission has done. Correct. So the scope of work here is to replace the windows on the structure. And this was the grouping from, it goes from 401 North Limestone to 413 North Limestone. It's a grouping of townhouses. As we've discovered previously, that these structures were, went before the review board process in 1989 for construction. And at that time, we've noted also that many of the details were vinyl, including the pediment and the rear addition, but the windows were noted to be wood on the plans. And this owner had made application, but then there was some earlier, like in November, and then she was not able to attend the December meeting, so this meeting was put forward in January. And during that time, she went ahead and replaced the windows. There were wood windows and now they are vinyl windows in the structure. And guidelines are included in your staff. And of course, as we stated before that in October of 2017, we had two units that had gone before this process and were denied their application to replace their windows. And they were, before the planning, appealed this decision to the planning commission and the planning commission overturned the BOR's decision. Last fall, this body had approved vinyl windows based on the acknowledgement that there's a recessional approval based on the fact that these structures were built as a row house. In recent construction conditions, it has dominantly been that vinyl windows have been replaced. The original windows because the Planning Commission has overruled that board's decision on this application. The action should only be applicable to the addresses of 401 to 413 North Limestone. The board is overruling the staff's recommendation. That's what was said at the 2017 meeting. And of course we've taken all these considerations into fact that our guidelines are state very clearly that no vinyl windows are permitted. And recommendation staff finds that disproval of the replacement of the wood windows with vinyl. Okay, and we, Chair, will recognize, of course, have an obligation to adhere to the guidelines notwithstanding what the planning commission may have done and on forward has an obligation to recognize the precedent that has been established by the planning commission so i think we're in the same situation we were back in october when we have previously approved the other row houses for with final windows all right i think we should just uh i i i would move that we approve the application with the same statement that we made in october all right uh we can incorporate by reference the statement that appears in the third full paragraph on page 37 and that we go ahead and approve the application as submitted by miss uh is it feister or Pfister? Pfister. Do I have a motion to the effect? Sure. Regarding case number 11660411-A, 411 North Limestone, I move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness and with the understanding that this is a unique condition and that acknowledging that it's an exceptional approval based on the fact that these structures were built as a row house and the recent construction condition has dominantly been that vinyl windows have replaced the original windows and because of the planning commit because the planning commission has previously overruled ruled the board's action on applications this action should only be only applicable to the this address at 411 North Limestone and the board is overruling staff's recommendation of denial. I'd like to apologize for putting my windows in before approval so I'm new to this and learning. Thank you for the apology we recognize that this was this This was a very confusing situation. Oh, well, and I had code violations. I just purchased it, and it wasn't in very good shape. The roof was leaking. Anyway, so windows were broken out, so I did it. So it won't happen again. I realize that I might be able to own code violations. I'm hoping with the new tenants there that we'll see a new life for this whole stretch. Oh, yeah. Well, values are pretty much. the last one I hope that we're gonna have to deal with no there is one more of course there is that is as built okay I did make it cream on the outside white on the inside because I don't like how they're putting in white on the outside so it's not uniform but you can't do anything about that I hear no your colors are your colors and colors are not in this process is purview okay as you're aware do i have a second to the motion second oh second all right uh anything further discussion on the motion if not the chair will call the question all those in favor of approving the coa for the conditions as set forth by mr poell please say aye aye aye nay motion passes and the uh certificate is approved All right, we have the problem with being chair is things get sort of muddled. I had minutes. Okay. Yeah, thank you. I have before me the minutes from January 31, 2018. Do I have a motion to accept them or do you have changes? I have no changes. I had a couple of changes. All right. One is. What page? regarding hang on a second regarding 426 North Limestone that would be page 4 and 5 the motion on page 5 the motion to approve the application the first condition should read the 212 pitch roof shall be changed to a 312 pitch roof. And not either. Yes. Strike either. Strike either. And then on 219 South Ashland Street, the discussion that's on pages 6, 7, and 8. Okay. oh it's it's been added on page eight you'll see there's already something added okay so those change yeah you've already made the changes betting okay in red that's already on there okay uh as amended do we have a motion move to approve second second all right the minutes All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Nay. Motion passed and the minutes as amended are approved. Any other business pending before the chair? If not, then do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. We stand adjourned. Thank you so much.