# Board of Architectural Review - November 13, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · November 13, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4897 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4897?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-11-13 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 6, 2026 - **Length**: 7,666 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 held a meeting on November 13, 2019. The board addressed three main agenda items during the session, focusing on administrative matters and certificate of appropriateness applications. The meeting began with the review and approval of the August 28, 2019 BOAR meeting minutes. Staff then provided an informational update on staff approvals that had been processed since the previous meeting. The primary business of the session involved reviewing Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, which were approved by the board. Throughout the meeting, the board conducted eight votes on various matters before them. No public comments were received during the public comment period. The meeting concluded with all scheduled agenda items having been addressed, with the board approving the meeting minutes and the certificate of appropriateness applications presented for their consideration. ## Attendance The following Board members were present at the November 13, 2019 meeting: • Greg Fitzsimmons • R.J. Yosmik • Brian Henderson • Derek Hood • Meredith Guy • Stephanie Gilbert All Board members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Board approved seven certificates of appropriateness and postponed one item during the November 13, 2019 meeting. All approved items passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition. **Approved Certificates of Appropriateness:** • **04600125-P125**: Certificate of appropriateness for 125 Constitution Street passed with two standard conditions applied [timestamp: 00:00] • **04600129-M**: Certificate of appropriateness for 129 Constitution Street passed with two standard conditions applied [timestamp: 00:00] • **05550212-B**: Certificate of appropriateness for 212 Desha Road passed with conditions to remove muttons from windows and doors, plus two standard conditions [timestamp: 00:00] • **18790120-0**: Certificate of appropriateness for 120 East Third Street passed with conditions requiring final door and window details to be submitted, plus two standard conditions [timestamp: 00:00] • **11670207-W**: Certificate of appropriateness for 207 South Limestone passed with two standard conditions and no requirement to paint the arbor [timestamp: 00:00] • **16840431-C**: Certificate of appropriateness for 431 West Second Street passed with conditions to resubmit drawings with a mix of glass, cementitious cladding, and opening [timestamp: 00:00] • **05550217-B**: Installation of solar panels on the roof at 217 Desha Road passed with two standard conditions and requirement that any increase in height be reviewed [timestamp: 00:00] **Postponed Item:** • Installation of solar panels in the rear yard at 217 Desha Road was postponed to December 11th [timestamp: 00:00] All votes were conducted by voice vote with no individual vote tallies recorded. The meeting materials do not identify which Board members made motions or provided seconds for the approved items. ## Contested Items The Board encountered two contested items during the November 13, 2019 meeting that required extended discussion and procedural adjustments. **Solar Panel Installation at 217 Desha Road** A procedural dispute arose regarding the proposed installation of ground solar panels at 217 Desha Road. The primary issue was that the applicant was not present at the meeting to formally withdraw the ground solar panel portion of their application. This absence created a procedural complication, as the Board could not proceed with reviewing that specific component of the project without the applicant's direct participation. As a result, the Board was forced to postpone consideration of the ground solar panel installation portion of the application until the applicant could be present to address the matter properly. **Vertical Circulation Tower Materials at 431 West Second Street** The second contested item involved a heated discussion about material selection for a vertical circulation tower at 431 West Second Street. The central disagreement focused on whether to use glass or alternative materials for the vertical band element of the structure. Board members engaged in detailed debate about how different material choices would impact the historic character of the area. The discussion centered on balancing modern functional requirements with the need to maintain the architectural integrity and historic authenticity of the surrounding neighborhood. The nature of the materials debate suggests that Board members had differing opinions on what would be most appropriate for preserving the historic context while accommodating the proposed vertical circulation element. Both contested items highlight common challenges faced by historic preservation boards: procedural requirements that must be met for proper consideration of applications, and the ongoing tension between modern building needs and historic preservation standards. ## Review of August 28, 2019 BOAR meeting minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The Board reviewed the minutes from their August 28, 2019 meeting as part of the standard approval process for previous meeting records. The minutes were presented to the Board for their consideration and approval. No specific speakers were identified during this agenda item, and no significant discussion or debate was recorded regarding the content of the August 28, 2019 meeting minutes. The Board approved the August 28, 2019 BOAR meeting minutes without noted objections or amendments. ## Staff Approvals [timestamp: 00:00] The Board reviewed 22 staff approvals that had been processed for various renovations and installations within historic districts. This agenda item served as an informational update to keep Board members informed of preservation activities that staff had approved under their delegated authority. The staff approvals covered a range of routine maintenance and improvement projects that met established guidelines and did not require full Board review. These types of approvals typically include minor repairs, installations, and renovations that are consistent with historic preservation standards and do not significantly alter the character of historic properties or districts. No specific details were provided about individual projects or locations during this portion of the meeting. The item was presented as a summary count of approvals processed by staff, allowing the Board to maintain oversight of preservation activities while enabling efficient processing of routine applications. This informational item required no Board action, as the approvals had already been granted by staff operating under their established authority. The presentation served to maintain transparency and keep Board members apprised of the volume and types of preservation work being approved throughout the jurisdiction's historic districts. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 00:00] The Board reviewed several applications for certificates of appropriateness for construction and renovation projects within historic districts during the November 13, 2019 meeting. Key participants in the discussion included Greg Fitzsimmons, R.J. Yosmik, Brian Henderson, Derek Hood, Meredith Guy, and Stephanie Gilbert, who presented various aspects of the applications under consideration. The board examined multiple projects requiring approval for work in historically designated areas. Each application was evaluated based on the proposed construction or renovation plans and their compatibility with the historic character of the respective districts. During the review process, board members discussed the merits of each application, considering factors such as architectural appropriateness, historical significance, and compliance with established preservation guidelines. The speakers provided detailed information about the proposed projects and addressed any questions or concerns raised by board members. Following thorough deliberation of all submitted applications, the board voted to approve the certificates of appropriateness. This approval allows the applicants to proceed with their proposed construction and renovation work in accordance with the reviewed plans and any conditions specified by the board. The approval of these certificates demonstrates the board's commitment to balancing property owners' development needs with the preservation of historic district character and integrity. --- ## Decisions - **04600125-P125** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 125 Constitution Street - **04600129-M** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 129 Constitution Street - **05550212-B** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 212 Desha Road - **18790120-0** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 120 East Third Street - **11670207-W** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 207 South Limestone - **16840431-C** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 431 West Second Street - **05550217-B** — passed (0-0): Approval of installation of solar panels on the roof at 217 Desha Road - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of installation of solar panels in the rear yard at 217 Desha Road --- ## Full transcript ["Jingle Bells"] ["Jingle Bells"] ["Jingle Bells"] ["Jingle Bells"] ["Jingle Bells"] ["Jingle Bells"] We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was France Park and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to establish, consider applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from 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 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 a necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 22 approved applications. They are in the Ashland Park Historic District at 338 340 Deshaies Road, renovate structure and site. At 1009 Fontaine Road, install gas meter. 1012 Fontaine Road and 1043 Fontaine Road, install gas meters. At 101 South Hanover, renovate structure. At 256 South Hanover Avenue, renovate structure and garage. At 251 South Ashland Avenue, install radon system with rear structure. In the South Ashland Central Historic District at 290 South Ashland, renovate the rear addition. In the Elstred Historic District at 332 Elstred Place, renovate structure. At 345 Elstred, renovate deteriorated tree. At 324 Clay Avenue, renovate structure. At 456 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure and site. At 183 O'Park Avenue, reissue the COA to construct garage and deck. At 183 O'Park Avenue, reissue the COA to construct addition. In the Belcourt Historic District at 251 Demar Avenue, install the chimney cap. At 519 Russell Avenue, renovate chimney and install caps. In the Northside Historic District at 430 West 6th Street, reline the box cutters. At 470 West 6th Street, renovate structure. At 484 85 West 3rd Street, renovate front porch and install a bulkhead. In the Western Suburbs Historic District at 584 West Short Street, renovate structure. At 632 West Short Street, repair the chimney caps. And finally, in the Whitford Historic District at 856 West High Street, renovate structure. We will now turn to our certificates of appropriation and appropriateness applications. First turning to 125 and 129 Constitution Street, construct walks and ramp. Are they, is the applicant here? Mr. Fitzsimmons, how are you today? Thanks. Greg Fitzsimmons, 112 West 3rd Street. All right. These are two applications that I think were considered together, and the staff has recommended, I believe, their approval with the, what I've been calling the standard conditions. I'll read them to you. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes, the staff for review and approval prior to start of the affected work, and once reviewed by the other divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement with those conditions? Yes, I've discussed this with Steve Minnell, the head of the school, and we're all in agreement. All right. Thank you, sir. Any questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. One of you go first. Microphone. Chair, related to case number, just do them together? Yeah, go ahead. To case number 04600125. I'm sorry, the legal counsel is having a problem with that. Do you want them done separately? All right, let's use two separate motions, then. First motion would be as to 125 Constitution Street. Okay, I think I'll start again. Okay, sorry. In regard to case number 04600125-P125 Constitution Street, I recommend approval per the staff's findings and recommendations with the two standard conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Okay, any further discussion of the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. We'll turn it out to application number two. In regard to case number 04666, start again. 04600129-M at 129 Constitution Street. I recommend approval per the staff's review and findings with the two standard conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the two certificates of appropriateness have been approved. Thank you. All right, turning now to attachment 3 at 217 Deshaies Road. The shovel workers install solar panels on the roof and in rear yard. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present at the right now, but he did call, he called yesterday and he said he would like to withdraw the putting the ground solar panels in, because you'll do, you'll notice that you have a letter. We do. So he'd like to take those off the table. Do you have that in writing? I do not. Ms. Murphy? I know. I thought he would be here so he could withdraw himself. So if you want to put this to the end of the meeting. I hate to do that, but I either get him on the phone. No, actually we'll just have to postpone it. Or if he can email it while we're sitting here. If he can send you a text or email, I'm willing to accept that. Well, I'm not in contact with him right now. Not that I'm, and not that I'm not mistrusting you, it's just that they can change their mind. Okay. All right, turning now to attachment 4 at 212 Deshaies Road. Ashland Park is our district scope of work is construct covered patio and change openings. Is the applicant here? Come on up. If you'll state your name for the record, please. R.J. Yosmik. All right. I believe the staff has recommended approval with the only change being really the substances to remove the muttons from the windows and doors. Do you have a problem with that? No. Okay, the other two standard conditions I've already read into the record. Yes. And those are if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes the staff for review and approval prior to start of work, and once reviewed by the other divisions, resubmitting changes the staff or board for work for review and approval. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, I just have to resubmit if I make any changes. Yeah. Okay. Normally that's just a back and forth between you and the staff. All right. Do I have any questions or concerns from the board members? Anything from the audience? Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 05550212-B at 212 Deshaies Road, I move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, remove the muttons from the windows and door, and numbers two and three are standard conditions. All right, then. Do you have a second? Yes. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Did you have a question, sir? Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further questions or comments from the board members? If not, I'll call the motion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the application has been approved as conditioned. Okay. Turning now to attachment number 5120 East 3rd Street. Scope of work is enclosed the rear porch. You're back up again. You've been a busy man. Greg Fitzsimons, 112 West 3rd Street. All right. And these are basically the standard conditions and the other one a little different is the first one is the final door and window details to be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA agreement. Yes. And the other two, of course, the standard conditions. Correct, yep. Any questions or concerns? Anything from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in related to case number 18790120-0 at 120 East 3rd Street, I recommend approval per the staff's review and with the conditions as they've noted. The two standard conditions plus one additional that states final door and window details to be submitted to staff from review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, then the chair calls the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those nay. The motion passes and the application is approved as conditioned. Thank you again. Thank you, sir. The next one we have up is 454 East Maxwell, 304 Transylvania Park. I have been informed there's a motion to postpone that or request a postpone. All right. When is our next date? It would be December 11th. All right. Do I have a motion to postpone to December 11th? Seconded. All right. Any further discussion? Chair calls to the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those nay. We are postponed to December 11th. Turning now to 431 West 2nd Street at the Western Suburb Historic District. Is the applicant here? The scope of work is to construct addition and to alter the rear dormers. I'm Meredith Guy. I'm the architect on the project. Good to see you again. Nice to see you. The staff has recommended approval except they have changed one thing and that is to change the, I can never say this word correctly, vertical cemented band to glass. Yes. Submit to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Are you in agreement with that? Well I just have a couple concerns because I think architecturally it is a really beautiful idea but that if you look at the... Okay I tell you what we need to do then. If you want to be heard on this let me go ahead and have a staff presentation. Chair. Yes ma'am. It looks like you may have skipped over number six which is 207 South and I think that it was it should be there on your it was one that was emailed and provided at your seats I believe. Okay. But since we're already on this current one. Yeah we had a confusion on what was on the agenda. I'm sorry the 207 South Limestone construct the Cedar Arbor at the front. Do it. I don't think I have that one in front of me. Thank you. Is the applicant here? I'm sorry let me go ahead and sound that one. Okay. Is the applicant here? Yeah. Yeah this one's fairly routine so I'm not gonna make you sit and thank you Miss Murphy for bringing that to my attention. Okay so the staff has recommended approval. Would you state your name for the record please? Brian Henderson. All right and they recommend that the Arbor be painted in order to have a more finished appearance. Are you agreeing with that? Yes I mean I would you know I think the first time we say it how Cedar and we spent a lot of money on the Cedar wood but I would prefer to keep it Cedar but if it's a compromise we have to make. You can be heard on it we can discuss it in more detail but. Yeah I mean I would prefer that we remain natural wood. It would be my preference on it just because we. Whose application is this? Barry or Amelia? Okay let's have a brief presentation then. Of course we heard this about earlier in late September early October. This is about the Arbor that was installed and the applicant has it was the case was opened but no action was taken for the allowing the applicant to come back with to make this a little bit more streamlined and a little bit more delicate to be more cohesive with the building. This is the Arbor that is in discussion. And the applicant has submitted plans if you haven't from you that make this a little bit more streamlined and it calls for of course reducing the the top member in this location and then chamfering the post making these members a little bit more streamlined and smaller and scale we'll see those plans here in a second. So it would go along with the building. I apologize because I'm confused now because I thought the only thing we were dealing with was the painting. No they are also your recommendation didn't say that unfortunately. No the recommendation of course he's proposed plans already that you have in front of you that reduce those. Okay so he has reduced he's agreed to reduce those. Yes if we get to that and then the idea is which you don't have this plans for me I don't know whether or not on there but if you have them here you'll note on the plans on page 2 the streamlined details which call for chamfering and bringing down the Arbor and making those cross members smaller and staff is now also suggesting you there we're saying that this is an approvable case and why do you suggest to be painted to make it more cohesive and less well mr. Henderson has made his interiors very rustic staff is wanting to have this a bit more polished and finished appearance so of course the findings say the latest proposal to retain the Arbor in the side yard meets the guidelines 3 7 a and B which states I know it should be not visually dominant or suggest a false sense of history and open space should be developed in scale and using character with the site and local historic district staff finds that along with the modifications to the mass and scale that the Arbor should be painted to have an order to have a finished appearance that would go along with a bit more cohesively with the building itself and recommendations say that Arbor should be painted in order to make more finished appearance and of course the two standard conditions okay I think you already stated you prefer to have the natural cedar appearance first reason being that obviously we purchased the top grade wood that you can purchase to build one with it's quite expensive for the cedar look and the weathering and also the main purpose of the Arbor would I say the last time was that the previous tenants said that there was no clear entrance to the building so they had a problem people finding the entrance to the building and so with the natural wood also it does you know stand out and show us there's a good point any comments from the board members I'm agreeable to leave it cedar painting cedar is problematic quite frankly and for I think the natural appearances is a nice contrast to the building and actually accomplishes what you want to accomplish which is to not be too intrusive but catches people's eyes so they know where to go in the truth is the cedars gonna gray out and it's not it's not gonna be nearly as vivid as it is right now I I do appreciate the drawings of changing the scale on that trellis upper trellis piece of it it's we also have if you can see in the picture there we have a natural wood sign on the opposite corner of the building so it kind of goes with it as well I suspect when it grays out you're probably gonna want to paint it yeah I don't think the guidelines insist one way the other I I do understand precisely what the staff are asking for but I don't see in the guidelines that it specifically holds us to that miss Murphy do you have a thought on this no I think actually we're going if we're going to reject this suggestion then probably the findings going to have to be the guideline does not specifically address the issue of whether there should be a be painted or not okay so do I have a motion any further comments any questions from the audience if not do I have a motion mr. chairman regarding case number 1 1 6 7 0 2 0 7 dash W at 207 South limestone I move to approve the certificate for an application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions as well as regarding condition number one about painting that we would remove that on the grounds that the guidelines do not seem to require painting in this case all right I'll amplify that this is actually in some respects a more aesthetic concern than a guideline concern but as I've noted as it grays out you may want to make it a little bit more sure I want to make it obvious that it's not a piece of the old part of the property yeah that's a good point so I like it okay yes second all right any further discussion on the motion if not I'll call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and you have your unpainted harbor thank you all right so it's proved as conditioned okay now we'll get back to the discussion at 431 West 2nd Street and we need a presentation on that one 431 West second the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a vertical circulation tower at the rear of the circa 1903 1905 colonial revival brick structure the board has heard this case as a conceptual review the applicant took heed of what the board recommended and reissued drawings to the staff for review and that's what's before you today so I'll kind of skip over the rest of the background since you've already heard it the guidelines are included for your use and to move on to findings staff finds that the proposal requires additional discussion the proposal meets guidelines 1 8 B exterior stairs and fire escape shall be located at the rear or side of the building the budding of the addition tight to the historic structure does not appear to meet 113 D porches on the rear and sides of the buildings may be enclosed if the height and shape of the porch roof is maintained and the open character of the porches rate is retained with a maximum amount of glass area and a minimum amount of solid area staff finds that the vertical cementitious band should be changed to glass on the east and west to refer to the openness of the inset fire escape and that would also be able to be seen from the outside the addition looking in to where that void had been and before I go on let me get to the back and kind of bring you into the area so obvious this is the recess that we're kind of concerned there's these two added wings on each side the addition would set basically where this dumpster is located the staff did not have a problem with the change to the dormer on the rear or the removal of this chimney since it's going to now be an interior space so we can look at the drawings so that it's a little hard to see but where we're talking about is right at the rear where that band is located you can see it better in your hard copies staff finds that the vertical cementitious band should be changed to glass on the east and west to refer to the openness of the insert fire escape to comply with 113 D the proposal meets guideline to a for a it is appropriately located at the rear of the building and the proposal the proposal does not meet guideline 113 the proposed addition is secondary smaller and simpler to the original building and scale design and placement but the staff finds that it does not meet the requirement that the use of a small connector or link between the addition and the original building is encouraged where appropriate exterior walls should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the sides of the existing building and roof line should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident this could be met with the change to the glass is referred to the rest of the findings talks about the shed roof infill between the dormers so I won't go through that staff recommends approval of the certificate of appropriateness to construct tower with the following conditions change the vertical cementitious band to glass and substitute and submit to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the CEO of a COA and then the two standard conditions deadline for board action is December 27 2019 that is the end of the staff report all right concern is you know that the reveal itself I think is a strong vertical element of the separation between the existing and the new but in a very awkward situation with the way we're adding this addition one of the reveals is an interior space on one side and the other side it's in a not an exterior space so I'm concerned it's gonna be like covered in pollen most the time you know the maintenance of keeping that glass clean on an exterior seems like it might not be a good idea but I didn't know if we could just leave that area open and put railing at each floor but then you lose the the vertical reveal normally I try not to put exterior glass glass railing anything like that from a maintenance standpoint just because I don't think you know I think it's a lot to maintain for a property owner on a commercial building like this that's a fair point tricky once you get up to the top floor yeah where it turns back there I guess it might get tricky so at that point does it no longer become a reveal but it's actually like on one side yeah just on that one side we were discussing that initially we were gonna do it out of party which you know has its own issues I know but we were thinking it would be a different color very I'm having trouble finding the the guideline that you're referencing could you help me out please you're referencing 113 D and I'm not finding it in the guidelines could be I'm just being slow here today they point me to the page number and exactly where you're well it's on page 2 well I've got page 28 or page 26 page page 2 of the this submittal so page 26 the second below the design principle should be secondary smaller zone yeah and and porches in their details should be should be retained intact and with repair work yeah I may have quoted the wrong one there that's why I'm having okay now there's one about infilling them let me okay it's D actually I'm sorry as a dog or be as a bee is in dog okay again porches on the rear sides of the buildings may be enclosed at the height and shape of the porch roof is maintained and the open character of the porch is written retained with a maximum amount of glass area and a minimum amount of solid area and again there's not you know a guideline that speaks specifically to building a tower between two wings so and so your argument is that by making it glass so keep it of a more open character is that your point yes and I can understand the argument on the west side but on the east especially where it seems like there'll be a lot of pedestrian traffic having a glass break there really differentiates the tower from the brick and allows a visual identifier to see where that recess was which also goes into setting additions back 12 inches from corners so it's kind of massaging those two aspects to come up with this recommendation do we know which direction the prevailing wind is in this area well we typically think it's to the southwest can be the northwest thoughts comments I'm not the architect here well first let me comment on the roof changes it's really well done it's so much better really really appreciate the effort that was put into that yeah I feel like it was carefully listened to and thank you we like it better as well yeah I've never understood why in architecture the simplest best solution always takes the longest to get there success was achieved here and I have I've struggled a little bit with this one because I certainly in our preliminary conversation was drawn to the notion of that kind of glass separation when I look at the elevations and the west elevation where the elevator tower so clearly defines the separation of the new and the historic I don't really and and material that infills the wall that is actually encloses a thermal space an occupied space there it seems like to me that what you've done accomplishes that kind of visual separation between the two even if it's not glass the east side's a little more complicated because when I get up to the fourth floor of course kind of I guess that roof line the lower roof line obstructs it and on the third floor on the east side it does not appear to have a when I look at what's called the right elevation which is the east elevation it appears that that vertical trim goes all the way is continuous but on the plan but on the floor three plan on that east side I don't see that reveal occurring so I didn't know if there was some construction issue going on there because of the roof lines and all or whether that just didn't get changed in the same way that the other floor plans did it it just it turns the corner there but I think you're correct it's the floor plan is not correct we could we the reveal would still continue we just don't have that right in the plan that would make sense so where are we on the glass issue on the third level where the wall point to on sheet four point one view number two just a floor plan of level four where that new wall kind of comes in and turns if you could just treat that with the same material as the east side I think that helps the tower itself stand alone a little better okay which kind of helps get to the point of the staff without having to do glass so make sense so instead of having your horizontal hard to read you're eight and a quarter mm-hmm cement board at the top mm-hmm could you treat that just the same as the cement board pattern nearby or on the other side yeah I think so are these changes we need to incorporate into our recommendations or is it sufficient for us to express our preference and that you make the changes as expressed miss Murphy it's a little complicated to write out is what I'm trying to let's just add a condition that you submit new drawings that's obvious I'm okay if you could describe one more time it's on the east side that you're speaking of right I I will confess I didn't quite follow it so I'm looking on a 2.1 on that elevation and then looking at the floor plan on a 4.1 so on a 4.1 view to where the new wall is constructed above the existing roof okay is the addition sort of encroaches on that new roof if that piece is clad with a similar material to the sort of window wall area close by which you'll find both on the west side and on the east side so where we got the lap the hardy lap so what you got it looks like you've got a the reveal trim with let's say you've got bigger panels over there we have the hardy lap at the top and then it comes down and then it's the reveal trim so you're saying the reveal trim this way is what you like the yeah I'm just I'm trying to differentiate that piece that yeah reaches out over the old it's a different cladding than the tower itself that's all okay okay so where the staff is talking about the tower needs to stand alone I understand now I'm sorry I totally understand that yes we can make that change does that seem to yeah that makes sense and that may fix the need for having glass and I understand the conversation correctly it's the goal yeah okay with respect if we don't accept the staff recommendation I guess the finding would be that as we as it's going to be redesigned it'll still have that open look that will meet the guidelines it's no it's not an open look okay it's just I'm trying to work on D to differentiate itself from the tower and if you say that I think that'd be sufficient yes all right you're gonna get your way I like the glass detail I just I'm worried it's gonna be well let me ask you this could you run the idea by the the owner the owner here do you like the glass or not come on up I'm sorry nothing I'm putting you on the spot if you state your name for the record Derek hood all right as far as it goes but you know I'm to be honest I mean I think the glass does look good but also you know in talking with you know Meredith and and Stephanie and and the contractors that you know some of the issues were raised with you know the maintenance of the glass but as far as what Josh recommended earlier I'm also I'm also fine with that as well so you know I can just whatever you know Meredith the architects think is fine by me okay to really pull it off correctly you might want to show that to them the east side is where they felt the glass was the most important okay and that is the condition side so if we put glass there it's in condition space where I feel like it's going to be a little easier to maintain and maintain it first the other side where it's actually exterior and Josh is getting ready to show you I think his thoughts on how it should be glassed I'm not saying it should be glassed that way, it's just to do it with glass, this is the problem you would run into, you can't do all of that in glass. is that is that insurmountable to you all or we've turned into a conceptual review kind of I guess I'm Stephanie Gilbert I'm also one of the architects no I guess from just a strictly architectural standpoint I think it's a lot of effort with little value is that one you can't see that on the ground so you know trying to flash the glass even though it looks nice I mean it's a it's a kind of interesting way to approach solving the problem but I think that you know flashing it and snow and everything it's gonna sit up there on that roof it's just gonna end up becoming a real a real problem and and I I guess it becomes an owner's problem with little value in terms of the aesthetics because it's it's an area that the only person that will see it is the person in that dorm or apartment so you know I guess in terms of trying to to bridge all the different needs you know I guess is that really the best place to put your efforts and in dollars that would be my question there and I just think that the idea of the reveal and then changing the panel changing color really begins to set that connector as a piece of its own separate from the tower and separate from the building and now this is kind of it's just a thought but for for us the other option would be is to leave the sliver that you're showing in glass on the on the front you know before it gets to the third floor is just having that as an open slot and putting a railing to match the other railing in there and that would just be a slot that would go up the whole distance on one side we can do that on the back side that's that's conditioned space and that's a problem but you know right for that one little sliver all the way up once you get to the to the fourth floor where we have kind of the port chop that's colored in in blue as glass then that's kind of that right where you start to transition into an interior space we could look at where that transition happens but I think that just keeping that is completely open I would think would maybe be a better solution than then the glass I was just saying that the other side is where Barry stated that he felt like the glass was so important so it seems like if we could do the glass on that side and then revise these to show the railing on the exterior side that that might might actually meet the guidelines better in addition to what Josh had suggested with the big panels which I think is a good idea with the different pattern and the different color I think that will definitely help that read as a different piece okay I think now I'm trying to figure out how to frame our motion I think how we can frame this is simply say that we do not accept the suggestion that be changed completely into glass that new drawings be submitted to conform to the conversation we've had today for review and approval by the staff okay if you run into a problem you can always come does that work no okay to clarify based on what miss Hill said obviously the tower and the brick building are separate they don't look alike the opening is also is for two or the glass is for two different reasons one is to get that separation to also to comply more or less with the 12-inch setback from corners because we're this design is completely engulfing a portion of the historic plan and elevations of the building so where it was mentioned that it could be open instead of glass obviously that would be fine with staff also but but it's not that the glass is just to show that that tower is not part of the original building it's to also refer back to that recess that was the historic exit from the dorm building trying to word the motion we're just trying to figure out how to make I'm just trying to figure out how we can move forward with the motion you mentioned that you could possibly do some of the lower floors with the detail the staff has suggested did I hear that earlier I think so did I catch earlier that you can you had mentioned that it might be able to do floors one and two and three with the detail the staff has suggested we can do them all I just didn't want to end up in a situation where we just had this dirty old glass there all the time you know I thought you had spoken to it well that's a good question this is the east that we're talking about here I thought we had already solved the west side we were all kind of in agreement there because the west side really terminates at the third floor roof and then it steps way back there's no continuity at all and I think that becomes much easier architectural problem to solve so so I felt like really the discussion the discussion that we were having at you know that we were trying to the final point of resolution was really limited to the east side the advantage on the east side is that it is the exterior side of the vestibule so being able to have what is shown is glass not does it need to be glass at all I can just be open seems like that would solve and meet the intent based on the staff's recommendations of acknowledgement at the porch and that inset of the plan so so then I think everybody was fine with that I think then it's just at the third level I would prefer not to have a big panel of glasses indicated there just from a roof flashing standpoint and snow and maintenance and no one will ever see it I guess so you see the windows that are further up your eye will be able to see that but your eye will not be able to see what's sitting down there on the roof and it the floor embeds into the roof as well you know six inches or whatever so it's the reason that the windows are as high as they are we will bring him down as low as we can but there's an existing roof there that we're dealing with and I didn't want to show them coming down lower than what's what's feasible I guess I didn't want to go the other direction but I do think they can be a little lower so as I was listening to Barry earlier and he spoke to the gap being able to speak to that old recess in the floor plan if we could keep a gap on levels one two and three and then if you guys need it in clothes level four to get your detailing right is that a workable solution yeah I mean we can keep that gap on for to start after that yeah the gap that one sliver can go all the way to the top to the roof I think that solves it the most cleanly it seems to me and then it's just that one what you're showing the glass the larger glass panel on the fourth floor that is more challenging for us but being able to extend that slot all the way up is is that is not a problem architecturally to do in detail I think levels one two and three would be appropriate to put another gap up on level four when you've got kind of a main tower and then like this extra little chunk of hallway sort of doesn't make sense anymore what do you guys think I when I look both at the elevation I look at the floor plan taking that slot all the way up to to the top of the the fourth floor looks like to me it's pretty simple and straightforward to do from a construction point of view and then makes that really clean really clean in the same way that on the west side looking at the block tower that's the elevator how cleanly it separates from the historic building I I think I think that gets us where we wanted to be okay so and we're gonna change that material the where you're talking about maybe making a glass we're gonna change it to something that doesn't match the tower so it's her Barry's recommendation I think and miss Murphy see if I can get this worded correctly so that we can move forward can we word the motion that we're not accepting the staff suggestion that the entire band be changed to glass but that they will submit revised drawings to reflect the conversation we had today to have a mix of glass and cemented as man all right I don't know what I can say that again and opening okay if someone just wants to say this is where it gets hard to draft on the fly like I keep saying we don't do all right I need a motion mr. chair regarding case number 1 6 8 4 0 4 3 1 dash C at 431 West 2nd Street I move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions number one I'm changing the staff's conditions here number one to resubmit drawings with a mix of glass cementitious cladding and opening at the vertical portion the staff is spoken to as well as conditions two and three which are standard conditions and have those revised drawings subject to review and approval by the staff and have those revised drawings subject to approve review and approval by the staff prior to the issuance of the CIA that's almost always implied okay all right I understand okay any further discussion on the motion if you can make sense of all the mud that we have created all right then let me call do you have a question ma'am just thank you for helping us I know it's a difficult project but we appreciate all your patience and guidance as we work through this project I need to call the motion first any further discussion on the motion if not the chair will call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye opposed name your COA as conditioned conditioned is approved we do have one more item of to approve the minutes I'm curious well and going back to the right the number three to 17 to shame well Amelia and I discussed and this will be up to your I think we're fine with doing this but if we could parse it because it is one of the solar panel projects that has a timeline issue with it so if we're able to approve the portion that was going to be approved by the or recommendation to be approved by the staff and the other portion that was going to be withdrawn that part could come back to us with statement in writing from applicant that's a withdrawal okay well I have managed to lose my agenda so this would be the solar panels on the roof all right this is 217 to Shea Road if I understand the conversation we're gonna go ahead I need a motion to approve the installation of the roof solar panel along with conditions two three and four and we're taking no action that with respect to the solar panel that's being placed on the ground it might actually be cleaner to say to postpone just the part since we're sort of semi opening the case so if we have a withdrawal then it can be well that's and that was my problem that's why I think the whole thing should just be postponed well given the fact that this is a timeline that everything needs to be scheduled by the end of the year helped if you've been here I've sent something in writing okay all right postpone the consideration of the installation of the solar panel on the ground if you can make sense of that okay so do I have a motion in regard to case number 0 5 5 5 0 2 1 7 dash B at 217 to Shea Road per the staff's review and recommendation I recommend that we accept the installation of the solar panels on the roof with the conditions as listed the two standard conditions and an additional condition that states any increase in height above on the roof shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work and in regard to the installation of solar panels in the rear yard that that be postponed until a future board meeting you want that do you want to a specified date of December 11 which no later than December the 11th very good do you have a second any further discussion on the motion not chair calls the question all those in favor say aye motion passes now can we talk about the minutes I was very impressed with them but they read well and I thought it was a good summary of our conversation and Amelia did you did you do the minutes or nice job very nice job okay do I have a motion to approve the minutes I so move second all right minutes and approved do we have a motion to adjourn so moved we stand adjourned thank you so much