# Board of Architectural Review - July 24, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 24, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4798 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4798?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-07-24 - **Last revised**: July 24, 2019 - **Length**: 8,949 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review met on July 24, 2019. The meeting addressed four agenda items, all involving property reviews at various locations throughout the city. The board took action on four motions during the session. Two properties received approval: 606 North Broadway and 558 Central Avenue. The remaining two items, 507 North Broadway and 591 West Short Street, were tabled for future consideration. No public comments were recorded during this meeting. The session focused entirely on architectural review matters for specific properties, with the board making determinations on half of the cases presented while deferring action on the other half. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on July 24, 2019: • Lauren Fahey • Michael H. Heitz • Antongiovanetto • Kelly Harris No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included four motions, all of which passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. **Certificate of Appropriateness - 606 North Broadway (02500606-g)** The board approved the application for certificate of appropriateness at 606 North Broadway with conditions. The approval requires the applicant to provide gravel retention by the use of a concrete curb or landscape timbers around the perimeter of the parking area. **Certificate of Appropriateness - 558 Central Avenue (03630558-e)** The board approved the application for certificate of appropriateness at 558 Central Avenue with conditions. The approval stipulates that any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. **Case Continuation - 507 North Broadway (02500507-m)** The board voted to continue the case for 507 North Broadway to August 28. No additional conditions were attached to this continuance. **Case Continuation - 591 West Short Street** The board voted to continue the case for 591 West Short Street to August 28, with the condition that a complete plan must be submitted by August 16. All four motions were decided by voice vote, with no recorded individual vote counts or roll call votes taken. The specific board members who made and seconded each motion were not identified in the available records. ## Contested Items Two applications generated significant discussion and disagreement during the July 24, 2019 meeting. **507 North Broadway Railing Installation** A heated discussion arose over the proposed railing installation at 507 North Broadway. The primary conflict centered on disagreements between the applicant and staff regarding the design and placement of the railings. The applicant challenged the staff's recommendation, leading to extended debate about the appropriate specifications for the project. The nature of the disagreement involved fundamental differences of opinion about how the railings should be designed and where they should be positioned on the property. **591 West Short Street Shed Retention** The application for shed retention at 591 West Short Street became contentious due to procedural issues rather than design disagreements. The applicant encountered difficulties meeting the required submission requirements and deadlines established by the review process. These procedural struggles created complications that prevented the case from moving forward as scheduled. As a result of the applicant's inability to satisfy the necessary documentation and timing requirements, the case was continued to a future meeting date, allowing additional time for proper submission materials to be prepared and submitted. Both contested items highlight different types of challenges that can arise during the review process - one involving substantive disagreements about design elements, and another stemming from administrative and procedural compliance issues that can delay project consideration. ## 606 North Broadway [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for 606 North Broadway to refresh and expand existing gravel parking facilities. Lauren Fahey served as the key speaker presenting details of the proposal. The discussion centered on the applicant's request to improve and enlarge the current gravel parking area at the property. Board members examined the specifics of the expansion plans and considered the impact on the surrounding area. During deliberations, the board established specific conditions that would need to be met for the project to move forward. These conditions were designed to ensure the parking expansion would be implemented appropriately and in compliance with local requirements. Following discussion of the proposal and the establishment of necessary conditions, the board voted to approve the application for the gravel parking refresh and expansion at 606 North Broadway. ## 558 Central Avenue [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for 558 Central Avenue to install solar panels on the rear roof of the property. Michael H. Heitz served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item. The discussion focused on the technical and aesthetic aspects of the proposed solar panel installation. The board examined the placement of the panels, which would be positioned on the rear portion of the roof to minimize visual impact from street view. Following their review of the application materials and discussion of the project details, the board moved to approve the solar panel installation. However, the approval came with specific conditions that must be met during the installation process. The application was ultimately approved, allowing the property owner to proceed with the solar panel installation on the rear roof section of 558 Central Avenue, subject to the conditions established by the board during their deliberation. ## 507 North Broadway [timestamp: 00:00] The board discussed agenda item 3 regarding proposed modifications to 507 North Broadway. The discussion centered on plans to install railings on the front porch and extend railing around the rooftop deck of the property. Antongiovanetto served as the key speaker presenting details about the proposed railing installations. The modifications involved both ground-level safety improvements to the front porch area and additional safety measures for the building's rooftop deck space. After reviewing the proposal, the board determined that additional time was needed to properly evaluate the project details. Rather than making an immediate decision, the case was continued for further review at a future meeting. The agenda item was ultimately tabled, allowing board members and staff additional time to examine the proposed railing installations and their compliance with applicable building codes and design standards. No final determination was made regarding approval or denial of the proposed modifications during this meeting. ## 591 West Short Street [timestamp: 00:00] The board discussed a case regarding 591 West Short Street involving the retention of a shed on the property. Kelly Harris served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The discussion centered on whether to allow the existing shed to remain on the property. However, the case lacked sufficient documentation for the board to make a final determination at this meeting. Rather than proceeding with an incomplete review, the board decided to continue the case to allow for proper preparation. A deadline was established for the submission of a complete plan that would provide the necessary details for the board to conduct a thorough evaluation of the shed retention request. The agenda item was ultimately tabled, with the expectation that a comprehensive plan would be submitted by the specified deadline. This would enable the board to reconvene the discussion with all required information available for proper consideration of the 591 West Short Street shed retention matter. --- ## Decisions - **02500606-g** — passed (0-0): Approve the application for certificate of appropriateness at 606 North Broadway with conditions. - **03630558-e** — passed (0-0): Approve the application for certificate of appropriateness at 558 Central Avenue with conditions. - **02500507-m** — passed (0-0): Continue the case for 507 North Broadway to August 28. - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Continue the case for 591 West Short Street to August 28. --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. The End Good afternoon. I would like to welcome you to the July 24th meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The Board was established by Zoning Ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The Board, which is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the division of historic preservation the historic preservation office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects the board encourages and recommends that the applicants use them as a resource the historic preservation office is located at 101 east fine street room 220. it is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on their 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 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 the applications there are certain items that the staff can approve eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board there are a total of 15 approved applications noted on today's agenda they are as follows in the ashland park historic district at 112 dashay road replace roof in the ellsford historic district at 150 kentucky avenue replace roof at 150 kentucky avenue renovate structure and again at 150 kentucky avenue repair replace box gutters fascia and soffits at 134 ransom avenue repaved apron and driveway at 138 ransom avenue repaved apron and driveway in the bell court historic district at 260 bell place renovate site in the mulberry hill historic district at 401 north limestone extend fencing at 425 north limestone replace facial board at 444 west 6th street re-roof structure in the seven parts historic district at 237 barberry lane renovate storage shed and 304 west high street replace roof in the western suburbs historic district at 620 west short street reissue the cla at 606 west short street renovate structure and at 716 west short street renovate the structure that concludes the staff approvals we now we now turn to our first application at 606 north broadway refresh and expand gravel parking is the applicant here come on that microphone is tricky so you may have to pull it down to speak into it if you state your name for the record please oren fahey all right miss faye uh your application i believe has been recommended for approval subject to one substance and condition which is that you provide the gravel retention by the use of concrete curb or landscape timbers around the perimeter of the parking area and the other two are what i refer to as the standard conditions that once reviewed by the other divisions resubmitting changes the staff aboard for review and approval prior to start of work and having changes have made that altered information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work are you in agreement with those conditions yes sir all right any questions from the board members any questions or comments from the audience if not then the chair is ready for a motion thank you mr chairman i move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness for case number 02500606-g at 606 north broadway with following conditions number one provide gravel retention by the use of a concrete curb or landscape timbers around the perimeter of the parking area as well as number two and three our standard conditions okay do I have a second any further discussion of the motion about the chair will call the motion up we'll call the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the COA has approved its condition thank you all right turning now to our second case at 555 Central Avenue Ellsford historic district install solar panels on the rear roof is the applicant here one up we seem to be getting a lot of these lately solar panels are finally catching on would you state your name for the record please Michael heights mr. heiss the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to one substantive change which is any increase in height shall we submit the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work and then the other two but i've been calling the standard conditions once reviewed by the other divisions resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work giving changes are made that altered information submitted resubmit those changes the staff for review approval prior to start of work are we in agreement with those yes sir all right do you have any questions or comments from the board members Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness on case number 03630558-E at 558 Central Avenue. With the following conditions, number one, that any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work, as well as number two and three are standard conditions all right do i have a second second any further discussion of the motion not the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the coa is conditions approved thank you thank you sir okay turning now to 507 north broadway uh the scope of work install railings on the front ports and extend railing around rooftop deck is the applicant here come on if you'll state your name for the record i'm anton giovanetto i live on the property at 507 north broadway okay you're going to have to speak just a hair louder having some trouble there there we go yes okay the staff has actually recommended disapproval of your rooftop second story edition railing before being extended to the front parapet they have approved the railings on your on the front porch subject to what i call one substantive condition which is the railing spindle size and shape and other details be similar to those from the 1920s from the 1920s edition and final details be submitted prior to the issuance of the cla and number two and three are the standard conditions if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work and once reviewed by the other divisions return any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work are you in agreement with those conditions no I'm not oh standard conditions yes but number one design I'm sorry there's not the historic design doesn't fit fit code part of the problem is when it's all said and done it it reaches uh dimensions of 26 inches high and it should be i'm sorry are you discussing the railings are the second which one okay there are two parts to this the first part was the disapproval i'm assuming you want to be heard on that may i say something about that let me have let me let me do it my place sir okay he's on the other portion of the what i was trying to get to is is this the only thing we need to hear or did you want to have a discussion about the railings as well the spindles i would like to have some discussion about the rails on the second floor what about the first on the main floor on the main floor i'd like to have a little a couple i have some concerns about the staff's recommendation okay let's do a staff presentation and then you can tell me your concerns. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Amelia? Okay. Thank you. Of course this is a project at 507 North Broadway and we've heard this case back in 2012 where they asked for a rooftop deck and previously there has been a request for railings at the front porch and these were had been approved but they were not installed um and we'll show you some images here in a second so um the second floor rooftop deck or the third floor is are the here's the structure and you can see here's the rooftop deck that was proposed and he did request it to go all the way to the front parapet but um staff requested in the board grant you know recommended and the board agreed to pull this back 10 feet so the the actual rooftop deck is actually 10 feet from this front parapet This structure has been reworked many times. The last renovation that happened in 1980s was the rebuilding, this building, the portion here. The building actually just started off just in this form, and this addition happened in the 1980s. And the windows happened as they were sort of in the early 90s. so this portion of the building is not original however staff requested that or recommended this not go to the front parapet so it would not necessarily be totally visible or intrusive to the structure but he is now asking for this railing we'll show an image of that come closer the other is of course to install a railing across the front. To be clear in 2012 he had asked initially for it to be extended around the entire project and the staff at that time? We recommended that it be held back ten feet in the board granted it also made the motion to keep that back. Was that contested was that recommendation contested at the time? I I mean, you mean appealed? Or, Mr. Yes, the case was heard. And over his objections, this determination was made. Correct. Okay, thank you. So just sort of give you some more images of the structure. And this is, of course, from the side. You can see, and this space is Mr. G. Avenatti's own personal space. This is not actually part of the bed and breakfast. These are images taken from the survey form from 1986 that show that there was a railing around that. And, of course, you can see how the addition was still there, and the windows were different than what you see now. but there was a railing there and this um this structure had many additions to the one of the many additions was that 1920 when the first the front portico was installed as well as the railing system in the front porch could i just note ms armstrong that this photograph the addition is under construction so you don't have window openings defined in the addition that's why there's that sort of oddity of voids okay under construction just give you some more images of the railing that was there from the 1920s and this is a bit more detail was the parapet installed in 1920s or that column the portico the portico was installed in 1920s okay and this is mr gianvanetti's proposal and this is actually might be clear in your packet as well So he does actually just sort of start from the back to the front. He requested sort of, I think, when he first purchased this property and was under renovation in 2001, he received permission to put on the metal in the back. and here's his proposal to move the railing system to the front parapet and his first proposal was to install metal railings and and staff actually concurred that would be appropriate and the board actually granted them wood and versus metal but he never installed them. On the front, on the top second floor proposal, the railing system will be 42 inches and on the front he is requesting to be 36 inches which is course residential code. Here's his images that were supplied by him and then sort of some details. So this is the railing system that is on the top parapet in the rooftop garden which has smaller spindles. These details are in your packet if they're not very clear here and just some other shots of that the railing system and this is a specification of how he would install the railing and the columns or to support post yes those are diagrams of the railings on the upper part this is how I think he was going to install and he can explain that letter because if you noticed in his diagram mm-hmm we're here I this in this area i think that's his proposal to install the smaller support post would you go back to that detail sheet mr giovannetti can speak to that more clearly Guidelines, of course, are included for reference. The proposal to extend the railing system to the front edge of the parapet is not within the guidelines nor appropriate for the structure. The proposed railing system would be too visible, visually dominant, and create a false sense of history. Guidelines 1.115F says roof. Added decks and dormers should not be placed where readily visible, but should be carefully placed to be compatible to have the least negative impact on the exterior appearance of the site structure adjacent surrounding buildings. In addition to being visible, it would be created imitation historic appearance, referencing guidelines 3B1K. Staff finds the concept of installing a wood railing system on the front porch within the guidelines. However, as proposed, a railing system is inappropriate for the porch. the proposal was too diminutive and too out of scale for the mass of the columns and the style of the front porch. The porch and portico that were built in the 1920s, according to the Kentucky Historic Survey record, and images indicate in railing it's much chunkier and having thicker spindles, as we saw in the previous photographs. Guidelines 1, 1B, D, and 2B, 1K, respectively state architectural details, if missing, may be added to a building if they were accurately based on physical pictorial or historical evidence like paint ghost lines removed or consistent with the properties of the similar design age and detailing in the surrounding areas architectural details include the installation added ornament which gives building an imitation historic appearance is not allowed and architectural details help give a building character and scale and details are limited to railings and architectural details when appropriate they give the building in which they replace a good sense of belonging within this the district and details should be appropriately scaled for the structure and the compatibility with other adjacent buildings installation ornament details that give building invitation history is not allowed recommendation staff recommends disapproval the rooftop second-story addition railing being extended to the front parapet and staff recommends approval railing being installed in the front porch with the the following condition the railing spindle size and shape of other details be similar to those of the nineteen twenties addition the final details be submitted prior to the issuance of a certificate appropriateness the two of course if any changes are made alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work and once reviewed by the other LFU divisions return any changes to the staff or board for review approval prior to the start of work of course the applicant is present. Let's discuss initially the third floor. Yes sir. And your argument as to why you think it should be extended out to the front of the parapet. Well, it's an attractive design for one. It's a safe design. And the comment I get from neighbors and guests is they ask me, well, why did you stop? Did you run out of money? It doesn't look finished. I think that system extended with and the system added on the front porch would add continuity and beauty to the house. Not only that, it's a very practical system. At the present, I cannot use the front porch to entertain my guests because there's no safety rails up. It's one thing that we'd like to do. One of the reasons I proposed the design for the rail is because it is code ready. It's the right height, the right distance between the balustrates. And it's something that I've received advice from a structural engineer in regards to how to really put this together on the third floor, and I think it would work on the main floor too. So that's the issue. One of the issues with the 1920 design, how lovely that is, but it doesn't meet up the code. The original banister was 26 inches high, and over a span of 16 feet, there were 24 balustrades. With the design I propose, there are 42 balustrades because the code, I believe, sets them four inches apart. That way, children and animals can't get their head through, and it's a safe place. I was a little confused about the recommendation because I was thinking that if I incorporated the old design I'd have to alter it, I'd have to redesign it, and that seems to be full historic. So I'm proposing my design because I think it fits the house. Okay. Questions or comments? I'm just trying to absorb it. There's a question I had. Excuse me. It is on. Can you hear? Now we go right up on. Speak on up to it. I want to ask you to explain to me why up on the upper garden, the railing goes straight across that you want to turn at the front of the building. why is it that you couldn't just use the railing over the part that has the pergola on it and then it would be disassociated from the front? So I'm trying, I don't understand your question. Okay. We're upstairs at the garden, and the railing along the side of the building goes from back to, almost to front. Right, except for it's 10 feet back. And there's a long piece of it that doesn't have a pergola over it. That's where I grow my tomatoes. Where you grow your tomatoes. Yes, that's where I... One of the things I do is I like to go from garden to table. I cannot grow vegetables on the ground because there's too many vermin in our neighborhood. and you come out the next morning and the whole plant has been consumed in the middle. Oh, yeah. That's a good idea. So that's one of the reasons. Plus, it is my private space, and I'm a gardener. And I get, well, it's a lot of fun. And the space is there, and with creativity and the sun, I've been able to do some really nice things with the garden up there. Of course, it's all container. No lawn up there. Well, let's see. And one of the reasons I'd like to extend it is because there's space up there that can be used. The system is visible from the street. I've gotten a lot of compliments from my neighbors. My guests, they're trying to figure out, Anton, how do I enjoy that space? Well, right now it's not available to my guests. And I think it looks incomplete when you stand across the street. My preference is to complete it all the way to the end of the parapet. So I've already said this. I'm repeating myself. I understand you're... Did I answer your question? You did. Okay. I still don't quite warm up to it because the existing front porch with over the edge. The existing front porch, it was a surprise to me when I learned that it was added in the 1920s. No, wait a minute. I wasn't going there. Okay. I don't think it's really appropriate to tie those two things together because they're clearly in two different parts of the building. It's a building that the new addition, I think you know it was added because it's just not quite the same. And I'd like to keep it that way for history's accuracy. And I think the building looks... We're talking about an addition that was put in the 1980s. One of the issues of the house has been added on so many times over the last 130 odd years. One of my thoughts is it would be nice to have a design that would pull all of these elements together so that they don't look another element that's different than this element. And I think a little continuity with the balustrates would help do that. And that's part of my thinking. Historians would disagree with you. They're very grateful when they can see the seams between the original and… I'm a historian. I'm a professional historic renovator. And one of the issues of history is that every time the building was added onto, a new part of history came in to be. whenever I did what I did to it I put the windows in I removed those commercial things put put the standard windows in at that point of history a positive change was made so one of the things I think you need to give history but people and historians more credit because when you look at a building like that, you can say, where are the original elements? And the original elements are on the north side of the building. As lovely as they are, unfortunately, the Greek revival thrust in the 1920s sort of smeared that out. I don't, speaking personally I don't see a conflicting issue I see adding an element like this as refreshing idea however that's my opinion and I'll leave it at that I'm will have to basically I think I'm in agreement with what the staff has recommended I think with respect to your third floor extension that's already been visited once and a different board looked at that issue and decided not to let you extend it out there probably for the same reasons that the staff is recommending today which is basically it's going to be too visually dominant I I know it looks incomplete when you're on the third floor, but from the ground level, I think it would be a little bit overwhelming to see that much railing on the third floor. With respect to the porch itself, I think what the staff is trying to say is they want to see something that looks like the 1920s design, so long as it's conforming with code, with current code conditions. they're not requiring you to violate code you have to but they want you to have that appearance and look uh that is similar to the 1920s and i don't think that's an unreasonable request from the from the staff either well i do think that when you start to diminish the ellis tricks that were on the 1920s to fit code you're going to be in the same neighborhood as the is the design that i proposed um i don't i don't think you're too far apart from each other on this design well I should have brought the other I have one of those balustrades and it would involve redesigning it and I think one of the things that I've heard the staff saying they like the bulkiness but it would it would not conform to well if I understand what the staff were saying the original proposal looks too thin or not bulky enough and it seems to me if i'm hearing you correctly that you're not really uh in disagreement with that are you or am i misunderstanding something here in disagreement of the design the staff findings where the porch and portico were built in the 1920s and indicates railing that had a much chunkier thicker spindles see included photos. Now I think that's all they're trying to get you to use are the thicker ... Something that ... ... the thicker ... Well, you know, with all due respect, it would be very difficult to put anything into scale with those huge columns. That's always been an issue. When the house was white, it just wasn't attractive they were just out of scale I added landscaping that helped censorate and take some of the angles off and I think whatever design that we agree to is going to be diminutive compared to those columns but the issue I have is I'd like to be able to use it and I need a safe system that those my guests whoever um want to go out there and sit in the morning for coffee whatever are we back to the front porch we're talking about the front porch okay all right i i'm confident that when you come up with a design and it says final details or to come back to staff that indicates there's some room for negotiation as to what the final design should look like okay so i think we'll go with that one number two and three are the standard conditions I think with respect to the third floor that the staff probably is correct that it's too visually dominant. Any other comments from the board members? I'm inclined to agree with the previous ruling about the roof deck railings. And I have no audience. the applicant does have a point about the proportion of the 1920s balusters compared to code requirements so that will take a decent amount of problem solving to come up with something Is your porch higher than 30 inches off of the ground? No. It's about, it goes from about 20 inches to 26 inches. Okay. Well, look into the code, and it may provide you some, you may not have to do this as strictly as you think you do. There are certain height limitations off the ground where you don't even need a railing. So there's wiggle room both ways here. But I don't see if you have to meet code. I don't see the 1920s proportions getting you there. I agree with you on that. But if we could, if you could work with staff and come up with a solution, I think it could move forward. Is that the best we can do? Yeah, staff, just when you're ready, has a couple of comments toward what the base issues are that I think everybody understands. but just to be sure we're all on the same page as far as the sort of approaches to get there. Because I think we can get there. But we need to be sure that we're talking about something that the volume of it is not too delicate for the territory in which it's having to occupy. So the staff's intent by referencing those 1920s balusters is not to say copy those, be very similar to those, because of course you're attenuating them, which is what everybody's referring to, by having to go to the taller, if indeed the code calls for, the 36 inch rail. What the staff's reference to those balusters is meant to reflect is that they were relatively relatively chunky balusters. Each element had a presence of volume and of diameter and of ins and outs that resulted in reading with some density of a material in that rhythmic of a material in that rhythmic row with the baluster rail atop it. So as Mr. Gilpin is referencing, it's in no way by the staff's comments to be, oh, make them look like the 1920 scale, because that's not going to work. It has to be taller. But it cannot have really slender spindles, because then it's going to look lost on this structure and not have a design relationship in a proper rhythm and scale and volume to the character of the front elements of this existing historic house. So procedurally, could we continue this case so that further details or further renderings could be proposed to you for your review or should we simply let you try to work it out and go ahead and approve it as written well it would need at the very least to have the staff review additional concepts brought forward by the applicant and work with him to see if we couldn't come to a consensus about a way to resolve this and I think that might be very possible and then if that couldn't be accomplished then certainly we bring it back to the board for that keep in mind that in terms of scheduling just for every case not just specific to this one that your next meeting is limited to the public hearing for an H1 overlay designation and that's the 14th right it's the 14th of August and so it will be the 28th I believe of August which is your next general docket and of course that's past the deadline meeting available so that's one reason that I think it would be helpful to all parties perhaps unless the applicant disagrees to see if we can't work together as staff and applicants see if we can't get there i would be very happy to work with you but i'd also have to work with the building inspection well because they're very adamant about yeah there's no question that the finished proposal has to meet code i do think that mr gilpin has raised an important point about the nuances of the code uh relative to the height of your porch and it's something that you can check further on and the last time i had conversation about that they wanted it to be anywhere between 34 and 42 inches and the 42 inch height applied to the third floor garden because the height from the ground and the rear porch was 36 inches because there was a five foot drop to the ground your front porch with that less amount of inches between the surface of the porch floor and the earth's surface that's what i think and further inquiry needs to be made about right right about where does that right in other words there's not as much danger to your customers because you know it's not that far off the ground so i think all those things need we can just further work if if i'm understanding the conversation correctly i think we're in agreement and you you will need to sign a waiver that we can continue this to August 28th? And we normally, the deadline for action, I don't have the right sheet right in front of me. What's the deadline on this one? It was August 25th. August 25th. Normally we do like just a 30-day extension just so it's clean. And that would give you technically the opportunity for two meetings, the August 28th and even your first meeting in September, which wouldn't necessarily happen but if we extend for 30 days it leaves those options I have time this is not urgent I work well with people all right thank you you know it's a very simple one-page extension thank you if that's what the board would concur with and the applicant as well okay so I think I'm hearing consensus we push this out by continuing the case to August 28th continue or extend I never know which okay gotcha 30 days from the date it's currently scheduled to have its deadline which is august 25th um and so we don't actually specify the hearing date we do well yes we do on thinking out loud your other option about the hearing dates would be september 11th okay yeah would both fall within that 30-day window all right all right so we're continuing this case to August 28th yes sir all right do I have a motion to that effect so move do I have a second second all right chair will call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed nay this case has then continued to August 28 and just for the record our reference that we're talking about case number zero two five zero zero five zero seven dash m thank you very much thank you okay all right now to 591 west short street and i know the applicant's here this is the scope of work retain the shed Ms. Harris if you'll come on up Good evening board Kelly Harris 591 West Shore Street We're not making much progress are we? Well when I met with them after we talked I met with them I informed them that I had to go back out of town I do have information here I don't know if y'all want to see it but I told them that I had to go back out of town because I have family issues going on. May I show you? I don't know. Well, what are you trying to show us? Well, I'm just trying to show you that I had to go back out of town. I did inform them before. I'm not going to argue with you. Here's our problem. This case has been sort of staggering along now for quite some time. Is there any possibility and hope that you can have that meeting that we need to have with respect to the four items that's been itemized on the first page? Yes, board. I did get some stuff done. I did give them some information, but it's one of those things, a day late, dollar short. So they were not able to add it, I guess, to their package. So what I would like to do is give them time to view it, the information I gave them, because I had went and talked to the building inspection as well. So I did start the process with building inspection, but I can't finish building inspection until I get their approval, that I get to move to building inspection. No, I don't think it works that way. Because I think, number one, they had a building permit. So I went and talked to building inspection to start that process. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I got interrupted. It's several things. For one, I did give them a drawing. i did get all the drawings and everything labeled and and show them exactly what i'm going to do to honor what they're asking for only thing that didn't get him to them on time because i was out of town when i came back in town i did provide them this information on that friday i did get a text from dear mr dennis on thursday i was supposed to meet with them sooner but by me being in court on the 15th and i told him i said i may not make it back on the 15th i would ask my son if i can get him to make it meet with you guys and get information to you he couldn't do it on the 15th dear kelly was in court dealing with some other stuff um and after court it was it was wow so i when i got back in town i did um let them know that i'm here i gave her some information showed them this it wasn't that i guess it wasn't it wasn't more detailed so later on that same day on friday i gave them another copy of a more detailed stuff um and i did um meet with um building inspection they kind of kind of helped me along told me to meet with building inspections get that part started and everything and i did get with building inspection they gave me some stuff that i need to do as well okay so your building your building permit is still pending correct yes sir i'm assuming that we can't really move forward with this until we actually know that the building uh permit would be issued we no let's back up this case cannot move forward until the applicant provides the information that has been enumerated by this process as required okay and if and when that information were ever to be provided, then the case could be reviewed by the staff and written up and the material available for the board. That failed to occur in the timing of the necessity to what she was not only informed, but to when the packets had to go out, the finished, completed reports. and the material she's referencing was provided to the staff after the reports had been completed on the Friday that she was aware they go out. So the staff cannot accept materials in a piecemeal basis that don't meet what's been asked for to have it be of any assistance. But secondly, those deadlines, the staff can't receive it, even if you'd brought it in two days before the reports have to be finished, the staff has a lot of cases they're working with, and it can't just sort of slot in and magically happen. So it's been, quite frankly, very challenging to facilitate getting the information that you need as the applicant to provide. So the staff has no alternative but to recommend disapproval of this, If it were on the front end, it really would be probably not even on the docket because it's not a complete application. It's never come forward with enough information to have this matter be eligible for a full review. Okay, as I understand it, your discussion items were the building permit is required for accessory buildings larger than 120 square feet. And I understand that process may be ongoing. going I didn't need to interrupt you mr. chair on that and I'm sorry to do so but a building permit cannot be obtained until a certificate of appropriateness through this process so the inquiry was intended to be to find out if indeed a building permit would be necessary and the answer to that is yes okay well I did I understand what she's saying I do have the stuff that I did finish it and submitted only thing that I was told that probably would be the best thing is ask for extension until the 28th so they can view the stuff that I have turning behind their deadline so I did this part I did do the other parts now when I I'm not gonna action but my main thing is to be able to submit resubmit what i've given her on friday to start all over again i guess because i don't know if she still have it but i submitted this we do of course have the information that came late friday looked at it very hurriedly this morning and it is not adequate to what you've been asked to provide we didn't there was very little to look at to be quite honest and and that's unfortunate if you were to do as you're suggesting and and kind of start again and bring that level of information to the process again or ask us to further that which you left for us on Friday afternoon it's not adequate to address this situation so how about you guys tell me what we'll make it up well we'll bring it up because all i did is basically did what i've seen what architects do you um draw out the lines you put out the measurements i measured everything because when i the thing i think the biggest problem is because when i talk to building and building um building inspection their idea what they told me to do is push the building up to the building and that gives me my footage that i need building inspection only want me to have it 20 feet from the street and 10 feet from the property line now when i talked to them they told me i can't put it up on the building because the building has to breathe so you need to pull it back off the building so i have a conflict of everything going on one would say one once another but my thing is i just want to get the building taken care of i'm willing to change these measurements on this paper to whatever was going to make you happy and put the building accordingly well the problem may well be and this is where we're coming up against the hard reality this this structure is just too large for the site and not and not a yeah well how i set it up it will fit i just need to be able to turn this back in and change and i understand what you're saying as well board member i understand what you're saying but i do believe that the building will fit if i just scoot it over a little and try to stay in it in the area of because the reason i have the biggest problem i understand what you're saying but i i need the space i need that i just don't have a lot of land and i have nothing behind me like a lot of places have land behind them if i put it on the other side i have problems if i put on this side i have problems wherever i put am going to have a problem and i know that they have like conditionals uh things that they have approved with conditions or this and that or i'm not sure exactly but i'm just trying to find a way and i'm asking if you could get me to the 28th where we can sit down again and try to re um try again and if not i understand that there may be other things that may happen i don't know let's interpose a couple of conditions for extending this case one last time yes that you're going to agree to a deadline to get all of the details that need to be submitted to the staff by about how many how much time do you all need to review something and have it ready for we would We would need it and need to have had her more fully understand and address what the problems are per the design guidelines charge to us. It's just giving us dimensions doesn't solve your problems. Okay. And I'd say that. Calendar. I'd say that the 16th, is that Friday? Right, yes. Friday the 16th would be when we would have to have that information. And it would have to be information that's not only numbers on paper, but numbers on paper that solve this problem in accordance with our design guidelines. Okay. because it leaves us no avenue to go, no matter how many times you put some papers with things. There's nowhere to go with this because it doesn't meet the criteria. And it's a very challenging situation. But just kind of holding off and giving us a few more pieces of this and that isn't helping you. What I'm going to ask is basically for exactly what you're looking for and dimensions or whatever your guidelines are. we've explained to you rather fully several times well what my understanding was a certain amount of space that's what my problem and i mean that's what i was and at the end of the day the sad truth is as the chair has been indicating in another of the board members this may not be possible to work and i think that it's not helping you and it's not making any difference in the realities to just keep kind of not having this such that it can be fully reviewed and action taken on it. Whatever that action needs to be. Ms. Kerr, let me ask you this. Would a smaller structure pass muster on this lot? Well, you're going to have a very similar set of challenges, as you're already aware. But, you know, we're all in the world of never say never. I mean, I think you look at is there something smaller that might be able to facilitate it. But the setback requirement from Short Street of 20 feet and the side yard setback of 10 feet from the eastern property line, that being Short Street, you know, going east on short, and the proximity to the existing structure, it's like putting 10 pounds of flour in a 5-pound bag. Yeah. Is there a Board of Adjustments process where she can get a waiver? To get a variance on the setbacks? Yes. I don't think you can get a variance on the 20 feet that is short street frontage. You might possibly, and we'd have to investigate this, get a variance on the side yard. That would be a long shot. I'll go and talk to them as well. I'll go talk to them tomorrow and ask them. All right, I really am trying to work with you, going to Josh. I'm sorry. If you want to extend this, what you will have to do is understand all of the guidelines and come back to us with an argument from those guidelines of, hey, what I'm doing is actually appropriate according to your guidelines. We can't just come up with your guidelines your solution for I understand we work together somewhat with staff and so forth but but right now as personally as I read through the guidelines the location of that shed doesn't meet them and so we're given you know if you want to extend it yeah then you would have the opportunity to study those guidelines find an opportunity in there that would let you argue otherwise so it's not so much about like what dimension do you want between this and that but find the argument in the guidelines and then document it with your drawing and say here's where it's gonna land and here's the guideline that would defend it I know it's one person told me when I first started this whole journey this if you're not anchoring it down it's not attached to anything you don't have to worry about anything Kali that's what one person told me and that's in the government so everybody has a different everyone says something a little different that's the problem that I'm having so bold I think it's important to keep in mind that the body charged with carrying out what by ordinance is defined as the historic district process of which the western suburb and your property is part are the party who work day in and day out with that process and board in a similar fashion so i believe i would suggest that they come closest to having the most full experience of interpretation of this process and it doesn't mean people can't have different opinions but at the end of the day there is continuity to why these uh each review of each application is carried out in the manner it is and just wishing it so while it'd be you know a fun thing it just can't change the facts so we we I think is that this is just spinning the wheels to be honest and I have not yet found evidence that you are closely looking at what it would take to meet the design guidelines relative to either the placement of the unit or the architectural character the design of the unit and you have to meet both of those categories of what I just mentioned in order to have a successful application that this board could weigh fully and interact with you to make a a decision on and i don't know how much plainly or how much more plainly to say it let me make a let me make a couple suggestions one is we're going to give you one last chance the condition is you get a plan submitted to the board to the staff by august 16th a complete plan not pieces but you need to step back and really think about going to whoever's been supporting your organization and saying, folks, I've got to be able to store this stuff because I've got a vagrancy problem and I've got a trash problem. And help me find a building that's going to be the right size for this lot and give up your Don Quixote quest to put this particular shed on that lot. So I think you need to have a conversation with your sponsors and see if they can help you with the fundraising to get you something that's going to work. I'm going to look at every avenue. And please, really read the design specifications. They're there for a reason. And we just cannot say no to them and say, because you're such a good person and such a great organization, that this shed, which right now doesn't look like it's going to fit, and I think the five pound, the ten pound into a five pound is a good analogy. So we're going to give you one last extension to figure out something. I will get to spinning. All right. Let me ask you a quick question. You're a catering outfit, right? Yes, I do a little bit of everything. Yeah. Do you need that year-round? The shed? Yeah. Yeah, because it stores my stuff. I have all my catering stuff in there because our kitchen is very, very small. Our building is smaller stuff. You can look at it and see it. So it holds all my stuff. My catering stuff is in there. And then also, like I said before, the fights of the garbage cans as well. So I do need it. I need the space. I need the space. Other than tearing out the wall and just build out. I mean, that's the only other solution, getting more space. Then I'm building out, taking up space again. But what I'm going to do is I'm going to try to see what I – I'm sure there's some things out there that people would do or help. There has to be something. I've had this before with our center on 1304 Bryan Avenue. It took me two years, but we got it done. But I hope this don't take me two years. Okay, people? And I do know that you have a lot of support in the neighborhood. I've heard good things about your organization, about your business. Which is why I'm trying to work with you. I appreciate it. I appreciate it. You guys are my favorite board. Just throw that on there. Our misfortune, I think, but that's okay. Okay. All right. Do I have a motion to extend this case or to continue the hearing to August 28th? So moved. Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes and we're continuing to the 28th. Okay, we have some minutes. If you have a chance to review them. Do I have a motion? I had reviewed them. And there's some typos and some corrections that were given to Amelia. They're very minor. Mainly just sometimes words being left out. Do I have my other one? All right, thank you. And so do I have a motion to approve the minutes? No, I'm moved. Second. Are you ready? Second. All right. No further discussion, the minutes stand approved. There is no other business depending before the board? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we stand adjourned. Thank you all. All right. ¶¶ . I'm not talking about moving in, and I don't want to change your life. But there's a warm window and the stars around, and I'd really love to see you tonight. I'm not talking about moving in And I don't want to change your life But there's a warm window in the stars around They call you Lady Luck, but there is room for doubt. At times you have a very unladylike way of running out. You're on this date with me. The pickings have been lush And yet before this evening is over You might give me the brush You might forget your manners You might refuse to stay And so the best that I can do is pray Luck be a lady tonight Luck could be a lady tonight Luck, if you've ever been a lady to begin with Luck could be a lady tonight Luck, let a gentleman see How nice a dame you can be I know the way you treated other guys