# Board of Architectural Review - November 18, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 18, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5252 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5252?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-11-18 - **Last revised**: November 18, 2020 - **Length**: 26,122 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 November 18, 2020, under the presiding officer Jim Dickinson. During the meeting, the board approved the minutes from the September 16, 2020 session and reviewed Certificate of Appropriateness applications, with varied outcomes on those applications. The board took 9 motions and votes throughout the session and heard 1 public comment. The meeting addressed 2 agenda items in total. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on November 18, 2020: * Jim Dickinson * Suzanne Irwin * Josh Gilpin * Susan Hill No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included nine votes on Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) applications. All votes passed or were continued as follows: **209 Dantzler Road** [timestamp: 0:22:57] Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Approval of COA with standard conditions passed unanimously, 4-0. Voting in favor: Jim Dickinson, Suzanne Irwin, Josh Gilpin, Susan Hill. **230 Desha Road** [timestamp: 0:45:25] Motion by Ms. Irwin, seconded by Ms. Hill. The matter was continued to December 16th for further information. Unanimous vote, 4-0. Voting in favor: Jim Dickinson, Suzanne Irwin, Josh Gilpin, Susan Hill. **119 South Ashland Avenue** [timestamp: 0:50:00] Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Approval of COA with standard conditions passed unanimously, 4-0. Voting in favor: Jim Dickinson, Suzanne Irwin, Josh Gilpin, Susan Hill. **212 Desha Road** [timestamp: 0:52:12] Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Approval of COA with standard conditions passed unanimously, 4-0. Voting in favor: Jim Dickinson, Suzanne Irwin, Josh Gilpin, Susan Hill. **251 Kentucky Avenue** [timestamp: 0:59:35] Motion by Ms. Irwin, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Approval of COA with standard conditions passed unanimously, 4-0. Voting in favor: Jim Dickinson, Suzanne Irwin, Josh Gilpin, Susan Hill. **200 East Bell Court** [timestamp: 1:32:12] Motion by Mr. Gilpin, seconded by Ms. Irwin. Approval of COA with standard conditions and continued discussion for front yard passed 3-0 with one abstention. Voting in favor: Jim Dickinson, Josh Gilpin, Susan Hill. Abstaining: Suzanne Irwin. **416 Fayette Park** [timestamp: 1:40:09] Motion by Ms. Irwin, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Approval of COA with standard conditions and trellis removal passed 3-0 with one abstention. Voting in favor: Jim Dickinson, Suzanne Irwin, Josh Gilpin. Abstaining: Susan Hill. **133 and 137 Kentucky Avenue** [timestamp: 1:54:05] Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Approval of COA with standard conditions and care for tree passed 3-0 with one abstention. Voting in favor: Jim Dickinson, Suzanne Irwin, Susan Hill. Abstaining: Josh Gilpin. **336 Hampton Court** [timestamp: 3:01:12] Motion by Ms. Irwin, seconded by Ms. Hill. Approval of demolition and new construction with standard conditions and further study of roof and cladding passed unanimously, 3-0. Voting in favor: Josh Gilpin, Suzanne Irwin, Susan Hill. ## Public Comment Mr. Kay addressed the meeting regarding tree preservation [timestamp: 1:46:25]. He expressed concern about potential harm to a shared black walnut tree that could result from construction activities. Mr. Kay emphasized the importance of preserving the tree. ## Contested Items **Demolition of Historic Garage at 336 Hampton Court** The board debated the proposed demolition of a historic garage located at 336 Hampton Court. The disagreement centered on balancing preservation concerns against practical constraints. The owner cited the structure's compromised structural integrity and economic hardship in undertaking restoration work as justification for demolition. The board was divided on this matter, resulting in a split vote. No additional details regarding specific board members' positions, the vote count, or the final outcome are available in the meeting record. ## Review of Minutes from September 16, 2020 The board reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting held on September 16, 2020. Jim Dickinson led this agenda item. The minutes were approved by the board. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications The board reviewed various applications for certificates of appropriateness during this agenda item. Key participants in the discussion included Jim Dickinson, Suzanne Irwin, Josh Gilpin, and Susan Hill. The applications under consideration involved renovations, demolitions, and new constructions within historic districts. The board discussed these proposals to determine their appropriateness for the designated historic areas. The outcome of the review was varied, indicating that different applications received different determinations based on their individual merits and compliance with historic district guidelines. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 209 Dantzler Road with standard conditions - **Motion** — continued (4-0): Approval of COA for 230 Desha Road with conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 119 South Ashland Avenue with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 212 Desha Road with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 251 Kentucky Avenue with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of COA for 200 East Bell Court with conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of COA for 416 Fayette Park with conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of COA for 133 and 137 Kentucky Avenue with conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of demolition and new construction at 336 Hampton Court with conditions --- ## Full transcript I don't want it That's where I can always say I got it honest. Friend, there ain't no doubt about it. I got it honest. Thank you. you Nothing like the elite Okay, sir, whenever you are ready. All right. Are we on the air? Welcome, everyone. I would like to welcome you to the November 18, 2020 special meeting with the Board of Architectural Review. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the state of emergency, and pursuant to the Governor's Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing. This meeting is being held via teleconferencing pursuant to Senate Bill 150, as signed by the Governor on March 30, 2020, and the Attorney General Opinion 2005, and in accordance with KR 61.826. These provisions allow us to meet in this format because it is not feasible for us to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grant Spark and we now have a total of 16 historic districts. The board which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the urban county council is part of the division of historic preservation. The historic preservation office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. It is our procedure to consider the 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. I will ask the parties that wish to be heard regarding an application to raise their digital blue hand in order to be allowed to comment as an applicant or a citizen making a public comment. Please keep your microphone muted until you're recognized to speak and as you start your comments, state your name and address for the public record. upon conclusion of the specific application you're addressing you'll be returned to the regular attendee status and you are of course welcome to continue with the meeting and please go ahead and re-mute your elf or your your camera or phone the board will ask questions or make comments regarding application and hear comments from any other interested parties the chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion and to take final action 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 the necessity for all the applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 21 staff approvals. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park and Start District at 307 Deshea Road, renovate structure. At 230 Deshea Road, renovate structure. At 977 Fincastle, replace decking. At 242 South Hanover Avenue, renovate landscaping. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, at 244 South Ashland Avenue, remove street tree. In the Ellsworth Historic District, at 271 Clay Avenue, renovate roof. 353 Oldham Avenue renovate structure. 140 Ransom Avenue replace trees. 161 Ransom Avenue replace sidewalk as needed. In the Fayette Park historic district and 435 Fayette Park renovate structure. In the Mulberry Hill district at 339 North Limestone renovate structure in site. 241 North Limestone renovate structure, 367 North Limestone remove tree, 369 North Limestone remove tree, 425 North Limestone replace deteriorated sills with like material, and at 111 through 113 Salem Street renovate structure. In the north side historic district at 478 West Second Street replace the fencing, at 445 West Third Street install fencing and gates. in the seven parks historic district at 523 arcadia park replace signing on dormers in the south hill historic district at 200 east high street reissue the coa at 249 south limestone remove dying trees and at 251 north upper street renovate structure for the saint paul ame church in the western suburbs at 591 West Short Street replace defense and finally in the Woodward Heights at 328 Marino Street renovate the structure I would like now to turn to our regular applications in the order in which they're presented we may sound some out of order depending on the circumstances but beginning first of all with application number 1209 Dantzler Road construct covered patio to garage. Is the applicant here? We have an applicant. Should be coming down, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I believe we have a Charles who is still muted. Is that Mr. Penn? Mr. Penn, there you go. Do you wish to turn your video on or do you want to go with your avatar? Mr. Penn? Can you hear me? well this is one of those days Mr. Penn can you hear me the application has been the staff recommends approval and they have this two standard conditions if any changes are made that altered information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to starting work and once reviewed by the other divisions any changes shall be returned to staff or boards for review and approval prior to work. If you agree with this, raise your digital hand and indicate your agreement. Okay, do we not have him with us or what's going on? Or do we know? Sir, he's in the panel, but I'm not sure why he's not answering. Okay. All right, I hate to do this, but I think we'll have to move on and see if we can pick up with Mr. Benn when he can figure out how, like the rest of us, can make these Zoom platforms work properly. Mr. Benn, you're not hearing us at all, are you? Mr. Chair? Yes, ma'am. One other option, and it has some pros and cons, would be to perhaps see if the board has questions, and since it has only the two standard conditions, go ahead and act on it. Mr. Penn may be able to be viewing this and you know I'll leave of course to the board to do your best choice. I think what we'll do is let's go ahead and see if there are any questions that are concerned by the board members if they are from the audience. If they're not we will go ahead and take a vote and if Mr. Penn wants to be heard subsequently we can do that. All right. So first of all, are there any questions or questions from the board members? I'm seeing shaking of heads. Are there any questions or comments from my virtual audience? And I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, I think we're ready for a motion. Ms. Hill? Mr. Chair, per case number 0522-0209-H at 209 Densort Court, I move approval of this COA with the standard following conditions as read into the record. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Second, Mr. Gibbon. Mr. Penn has unmuted himself. I'm seeing his name without a mute button on it. Mr. Penn, are you able to say anything? I guess not. All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and this certificate of appropriateness has been approved as conditioned. Mr. Penn, if you'd like to be heard later on, we'd be happy. And he's already left. okay all right so moving now to our next application this is at uh 230 de shea road daryl blair is the owner applicant scope of work is construct garage is mr blair with us joining you now sir all right i see his avatar i see his muted uh can you unmute yourself mr blair yes mr glare how are you sir just fine how are you very good now now see your video yeah you work all right so you're not going to be like the mysterious mr pen all right so the uh the board has recommended approval of your application subject to three conditions the first one being a little bit substantive which is you'll submit the final door and window details and specifications of staff for review and approval prior to the issues of the COA. And the remaining two conditions are what we call our standard conditions. And I read them into the record previously. Did you hear me read them into the record, Mr. Blair? Previously? Yeah, I've heard everything you've said. Do you agree with those? Are you in agreement with those three conditions? Yes. Okay. I think I heard you say yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? I have just one question and it has to do with the site plan versus the photographs. It appears in the photographs that there is a tree in the area where the proposed garage is, but I don't see that tree on the site plan or any mention of it in the report. So my question is, is that tree in conflict with the proposed garage or is it not going to be impacted at all? Well, my estimation is that the tree will not be impacted by the garage, but most likely it will be blocking the drive access to the corner of the garage. And the reason it's not addressed at this point is I don't know exactly where the pins are and where the location of the garage will be. but the intention is with proper setbacks it will be in the farthest southeast corner of the lot and once we proceed with the contractor he'll identify and then most likely if it's as I suspect I want to replace that tree with something over in the north okay how okay then we're We're going to have to discuss that. How large a tree is it? It's more than 10 inches diameter, right? All right. Good eyes, Ms. Hill. Mr. Blair, we have an issue here. Ordinarily, you have to get approval from the board for the removal of the tree. The trees of a certain size are protected. and usually we do not sanction a removal of those trees unless they're diseased, or are going to be a threat to property in terms of being out of limbs needing to be removed or whatever. So I'm not sure we can approve your COA without not knowing for sure whether the trees can be impacted or not. Well, are removed. Yeah. So if we actually I spoke to Amelia when she came out to take the photos and I explained exactly what I've said. My estimation is that the tree will interfere, like I said, not with the garage, but with the access to the garage. And that's just as important, is it not? Of course. Of course. So can we proceed under the assumption that the tree will need to be removed and replaced with another tree? Ms. Kerr? And maybe Ms. Armstrong needs to make a presentation and show us where this tree is. And I would say while she's coming, I agree a presentation is in order. And while she's coming up and getting that going, I'm just looking at the photographs in the report. And this looks like a pin oak to me. Is that correct? Correct. And it's not a small pin oak. It's of some significance. So I think per the guidelines, every effort needs to be made to accomplish your project and keep that tree standing. And so that's just my quick, and I don't suggest that the photographs I have show every angle and all the considerations that need to be weighed. But I think this is a substantial topic that may mean some adjustment in plans in order to be within the guidelines. Amelia are you working toward presentation? There he is. Oh sorry. I'm so used to being all the staff in the same spot that I'm having to adjust a tad. Okay Mr. Dennis. As we all are. You having a look, sir? Thank you. Okay. We can still see you. We don't see anything on the screen yet. There we go. Thank you. It's your screen. We can still see you. We don't see anything on the screen yet. And now, Chair. There we go. Thank you. I'll go ahead to the beginning of our... Okay. That's fine. There you go. All right. All right. Sorry about that. So, So the applicant is requesting the certificate of appropriateness to construct a garage. The garage is supposed to be 25 feet by 25 feet, wood frame on CMU stem wall, sited with cementitious siding. The roof is pyramidal shape and covered with dimensional shingles. So this is looking from the shea back towards the rear of the property along the driveway. And a little closer here. This is the tree. A nice, young, healthy. This is the tree in question. And then the existing concrete drive there. So, again, the tree. And as you can see, the garage actually sits behind, and the garage would sit along this line, beyond the tree. So that tree appears to be in about this location. And as you can see, the driveway is shown only coming over halfway, across half the frontage of the garage. These are the details of foundation, floor plan, then the elevation. So the tree would be, it appears approximately in this location. So the guidelines are included. Findings. Staff finds that the proposal to construct a garage meets the guidelines. The design principle states new accessory buildings should be simple in design and considerably smaller in scale than the principal building. It should be appropriate to and not overwhelm the site. The proposal meets guideline 2B2A. The details of the garage are simple in design. The proposal also meets 2B2B. 2B, the proposed garage is located in character with other secondary buildings for the street at the rear of the property, not close to or attached to the primary building. The proposal meets guideline 2B2C and is compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape with other secondary buildings in the historic district. The mass roof form siding of the proposed garage is within the guidelines noted above. The proposal to construct a garage meets the guidelines as they regard design, scale, and location. Staff recommendations. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. Submit the final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. and then the two standard details. The deadline for board action is December 21st, 2020. Okay. I have a couple of questions before we get to the other board members. I'm assuming that this garage is going to have a concrete floor. Yes. I'm assuming they're going to have to lay that floor and also the pins for the walls, correct? Yes. there there is a concrete spread foot in continuous footing with the samu stem wall that will be well i think this begs the question how we can construct this garage without impacting the tree or damaging it um miss armstrong is um telling me that she had spoken to the applicant of possibly about possibly doing some type of pier system and suspended slab so it would require structural detailing but that would be a possible so there basically be caissons and then a structural grade beating that would not have to go down the full 20 inches to meet the frost depth. Let me hear from the other board members. Comments? Anyone? Ms. Hill, it's your chart I that solved this, so thank you for noticing. I didn't even notice it. I have no problems with the garage whatsoever. None of us do, I don't think. I want to note that as a starting point. And if the tree were on the site plan, then it'd be a much easier discussion. I mean, we're having a second guess where that tree is. And I don't know against what the setback is along the rear property line, whether it's possible to move the garage a little back there and still meet the setbacks. I don't know exactly what the zoning is in that area or whether that's just undesirable. But it is a young tree, but on the other hand, it has some real size to it. And it looks like to me that even with the garage in its current location, that it's still going to be up underneath the canopy. And I'm just trying to figure out how much impact it's going to, you know, if it's way over near the corner, it will be that the young tree figures out a way to deal with the great beam system and keeps on growing. but you know what are kind of what are our options in terms of the current garage design without having a negative impact on the tree whether it could be shifted back a little to give a little more distance from those roots okay I'm going to suggest that we perhaps entertain the notion of continuing this meeting and having revised plans submitted to us to show us the exact location of that tree and a proposal as to how the garage construction can take place without causing harm to the tree. Any comments on that suggestion? Are you asking the board or would you entertain my comments? Mr. Blair, I barely hear you. I said are you asking the board or me? I was asking the board about you know let me ask you this are you amenable to doing it this way well probably the omission is is is my fault because this is i recently purchased the house in fact about six weeks ago and this is the first time i've gone through this process so i was more focused on getting the house to match the or the garage to match the house with the roof and the exterior surface. And I did not realize that the tree would be that issue. And my understanding was that if the tree was an issue, that that would be more of like a board approval process to replace the tree. So that was my thinking to get the garage approved. See, our plan is, or my plan is to put the garage as far back and as far south as possible on the lot, but with the setbacks. And I relied on my contractor for that. He tells me the setbacks are five feet on the back of the property and three feet on the side. And then you'll have overhangs because of the type of roof. So, yes, the intention was to put it as far back. Like I said, we haven't gone as far as identifying the exact location of the property marking. So that's why I don't know exactly how far it is. But I've stepped it off or measured it off where I think the property line is. And my estimation is, yes, the tree is well in front of the garage, but it's still going to impact the drive. And you can see in my plan, I did not really put the... the widening of the drive either in the plan because that sort of depends on where where exactly the property line is. But yeah my best estimate would be that I would need to relocate the tree. Not that that's not going to be that's not going to be easy I don't think. Yes, Ms. Irvin. I think we might want to look at the setbacks for an accessory building because a setback for a secondary accessory building is different than a primary setbacks. And I can't say exactly what those are in different, but I think it's less than six feet or five feet. So I think that we would need to have that information on if that garage is an accessory. It is an accessory building, so it can, I think, be much closer to the back property line. I'm not sure exactly. Yes, Ms. Hill. It does seem like we need the tree located on the site plan. The operation keeps kind of floating around the exact location of the center line of the trunk of that tree. Okay, Mr. Gilpin, do you have anything to add? You've been very quiet. Yeah, I think we need to continue this or postpone this case until we have more information. Technically, we're going to continue. Mr. Blair, I apologize. I realize that you thought this was a straightforward, and to be honest with you, so did I. but we do have a duty and obligation under the guidelines to protect trees that are historic. That's a misnomer. I know this tree is fairly young but the designation is if it's got a caliper greater than 10 inches then the tree needs to be protected. So we're going to have to have a further conversation and we can't have an intelligent conversation unless we know exactly where that tree is located. This may also give you an opportunity to figure out a way that you can reconfigure your garage so that you're not going to impact the tree. So I think, do I have any comments from the audience, Ms. Kerr? Yes. The only other thing. I can wave your hand, yes. Yes, I can't decide if I should be a raise your hand button person or wave at you. Do you have a preference? It doesn't matter. Okay. I can see all of you clearly. So long as you do something like this, I'm good. The other thing might be something to factor in is the possibility of a variance about the setbacks. And it may or may not help the situation. But I think that Ms. Irwin's on a good thought about could those setbacks be tightened up if indeed it helps. But I would add that for secondary buildings, getting a variance is not an uncommon thing. So getting a variance to the setback is part of what is being looked at. So I just, particularly for the new property owner, wanted to put out there that that is one piece of the formula can also be addressed. Does the variance come from the Planning Commission? It comes from the Board of Adjustment. That's what I thought. But it's just one element to put into all the hopper of trying to work this through. Right. Yes, Ms. Irwin. So I just wanted to say before you go through any variance applications to just inquire with the zoning department what the setbacks are for an accessory building in your zoning district. and that may not even require any variances. So that's all I wanted to. I think the five and three is correct for this area. The five foot rear and three foot side is, I think, correct for this area. But your advice is absolutely correct and needs to come from the horse's mouth, that being planning. Okay. Do I have any comments or questions from the audience? I'll give it a count of ten Hearing none I think are we ready for a motion To continue The terminology has continued Not postponed Somebody Miss Irwin I won't call on you okay you need to practice i do need to practice yes um per the case number 05550230-d at 230 de shea road i move that the case uh receives a continuance to be heard with uh in additional information provided by the owner and the date of our next meeting is uncertain at this point miss burr or is it tentatively december 16th this time it is december 16th and if there needs to be um we'll know within the week if there needs to be an adjustment we've already encountered some scheduling issues within the bigger parts of the use of the government programming um so but it's appropriate today to make it to the next scheduled meeting which is december 16th do i have a second i i see a wave i'm gonna acknowledge miss hill is making the second second uh any further discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye aye opposed nay motion carries and we are continued to december 16 at a time to be determined mr blair thank you for your cooperation i i apologize that we've run into this issue but this is part of what the process is all right thank you very much all right let's move to our next case then uh that case being 119 south ashland avenue the scope of work is constructed pool and landscaping and the applicant is Shane Eckman is Mr. Eckman here coming in now Mr. Chairman hello Mr. Eckman good morning or afternoon Good morning. Good late afternoon at this point. The staff has recommended approval of your application to construct a pool and to install landscaping. They are subject to what we call the standard two conditions. I'm not sure. Have you heard me read them into the record? I am familiar with those, sir. Okay. Are you in agreement with them? I am in agreement with them. okay uh do we have any errant trees in the way we do not good are there any questions or comments from the board members miss hill i seem to have lost you did miss hill lose her connection it seems to be mr chairman again please she has dropped off for a moment we'll see if she comes back on her in a second this is going to be one of those days I can just tell it's only because I have another meeting at 6 actually you're well aware three of you are a quorum I know and I think since this is a straightforward one I think we'll just move forward with it any questions or comments from the other board members not hearing any any questions or comments from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. I hear none, and Ms. Hill was able to join us. Ms. Hill, I'm not sure whether you heard Mr. Ekman's agreement. Also, I want to know, Mr. Ekman, apparently you're a very good neighbor. Several of your neighbors wrote recommendation letters saying that they're in complete accord with your proposal. Thank you. Always helps get your neighbors out of cooperation. We are on memberships there. Okay, I think we're ready for a motion then. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 00710119-M at 119 South Ashland Avenue, I move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Okay. The motion carries and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Mr. Ekman, thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving on to our next application. This is at 212 Deshay Road. Scope of work is install fence and gate is the applicant here. The applicant being RJ Joshua. Coming in now, Mr. Chairman. I see. Good afternoon. I probably have massacred your last name and I apologize. It's all right. Close enough. Yoswick. Yoswick. Okay. Ms. Yoswick, the staff has recommended approval of your plan to install a fence and a gate. I believe this is slightly revised from what it had been before. Subject to the standard two conditions. Did you hear me read those into the record? Yes, I did. Are you in agreement with them? Yes. All right. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? All right. Do I have any concerns or questions from the virtual audience? Anyone that wish to be heard on this? I'll give it a count of 10. All right. Hearing none, then I believe, unless there's any other issues to be considered, that we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, per case number 05550212-D at 212 to Shea Road, I move approval of the COA with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? I see Mr. Gilpin with his hand any further discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay all right the motion passes and the certificate appropriateness as conditioned is approved Ms. Armstrong did you miss number four all right sorry i will go back to number four i'm sorry which one is that 251 kentucky avenue that's correct am i good on number five do we know yes i'm good okay we don't have to do this again no we're done I just need to find my application for number four is my problem. Jim, it says attachment number five. Yeah, I know, and it's a double attachment, isn't it? Bear with me. This would be in the new material that has been dropped. Yeah, this is Craig Harden's application. Thank you, Mick. number four on it. Yeah, 251 Kentucky Avenue. Yeah, in an earlier iteration of the packet, I think we had two fives. I see Mr. Hardin is coming on board. The scope of work is rebuild the front porch. Mr. Hardin, how are you today? Mr. Hardin, can you turn on your mic? can you hear me now i sure can how are you today i'm well thank you very good uh we're going to have to have a small discussion apparently you got ahead of yourself and started doing the work um as armstrong characterized it as you got carried away uh and in fact you know you should be complimented and commended for recognizing that there was originally a porch across the entire link to the house and that you're willing to go to the expense of rebuilding the entire porch but we would like for you to wait and get the appropriate coa okay yes sir i understand uh if you didn't bring it up i was going to bring it up as well i mean no disrespect or the contractor we have, we had a meeting with Amelia, and we had a COA to proceed with the replacement of what was existing. But then I don't know whether he misunderstood or what, and then when I showed up a few days later, he already had a front porch beam all the way across the front of the porch. And then I called Amelia and said, what do I do? Because I suspected your reaction and I didn't want to proceed with any kind of arrogance. So I apologize. It's my responsibility, but I didn't follow up with him. So we stopped work immediately as soon as that happened. But there's no trim and no details that have brought forward. So, well, my reaction was in this case, you know, no good deed goes on. You know, thank you. This is that we do appreciate the fact you're willing to go to the expense of putting back the ports the way it originally had been constructed. So thank you. That said, staff has recommended approval of the application with what we've been calling the two standard conditions. Are we in agreement with those? Yes, I'm in agreement with those. However, I have a correction to some of the items in the findings. I just want to make sure everybody's on the same board. Okay. in the background it described the existing porch and then talked about the new porch the new porch is proposed with round columns not square and the old porch had the ebdm on it and the new porch is going to have uh asphalt dimensional shingles with underlayment i just wanted to be clear about that the way i read that i was wasn't sure how how you all were interpreting that. I think I need some guidance from the staff. Is the round versus square a significant variance that we need to have it reconsidered? No, that's fine. Those are details that will mark that there's no problem with those. Okay. Can I? Sure. One question to staff. uh amelia is there any ghosting on the house or any photographic evidence of what this previous porch looked like there's not except the fact that the existing porch has square columns um i mean the ghosting comes to the fact that there's because it's been cited with the asphalt the asbestos tile um we only have the evidence of course that went across of the um we've lost all our ghosting of what the columns wouldn't look like or the piers would have looked like Right. So we don't we don't have any. But I think given that any record. And so without that either would be in keeping to the architectural style and heritage of the house. That's correct. Round or square. That's correct. Just wanted to be sure we're kind of noting for the record that this was considered and hence what you just heard. And the recommendation for round is within the guidelines. Okay. And I have learned to ask that question because I thought one feature was a insignificant difference and found out otherwise. So I've learned to ask. And it's always important to ask. Thank you. You're welcome. Greg, I was just curious. Has that house always had that jut out so that, you know, the porch is going to be a little bit narrower on the left hand side of the house as you face it? As you see in the Sanborn maps that are in your packet, you'll see that has always been the situation. Okay. All right. All right. Any other questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion then. I'll try it again. Thank you, gentlemen. Per case number 10620251-H at 251 Kentucky Avenue, I move to approve the COA to repair and renovate an existing front porch or add the entire porch with the standard two conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Second for Mr. Gilpin. Any further comments or questions about the motion itself? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. All right, the motion passes unanimously, and the COA is approved as conditioned. Mr. Harden, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. All right. Okay. By my count, we are now at 200 East Belport. Is that right? Is that where we are? Okay. Yes. All right. Scope of work in this case is change location, design of sidewalks, construct a pool, retaining wall, and landscaping. I will note that some of this application has been disapproved. And is the applicant here? The applicant being either John Mickler or Mary Jane and Jeff Smith. Coming in now, Mr. Chairman. All right, Mr. Mickler. Can you hear me now? I sure can. How are you today, Mr. Mickler? I'm doing okay. Thank you. All right. Very good. But, Mr. Mickley, as you are aware, the staff has reviewed the proposal. They are recommending a denial of the changes to the front yard. They are recommending approval of the rest of it. However, there was a notation that this seems to be another case where people got ahead of themselves and started doing the work. And I understand we're rather obstinate about not stopping their work. And so I'm wondering what's going on. You are very familiar with the guidelines, Mr. Mickley. I certainly am and I live in a historic district myself so I am I am yeah the obstinance I have not been witness to myself all I know was I spoke with the property owners today and we of course moving forward we're going to be completely compliant with the board's decision I apologize for any miscommunication that may have happened with the subcontractors and all of those things. I have not, I drew the design, but I have not actually done work on the site. So some of the work got ahead of itself. And anyway, we just want to, we just want to be in compliance moving forward and make this right. So if whatever we have to do, that's, that's what we'll do. Well, in the event that we go ahead and accept the disapproval, I'm hoping to see from you and your clients full cooperation in doing a restoration of that partial removal of the landscaping in the front yard. That's right. We went ahead and applied for the steps were not great as is, but we would like to have a discussion about those steps. if you guys look at the plan, if you decide to... And Mr. McClure... If you want to put the steps back, we will. Okay. Okay, John, don't get ahead of me. Let me go ahead and have the staff make a presentation... Please do. ...about the landscaping plan, and then we can have you do your presentation, and we'll try to figure out how we're going to go forward, okay? Yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. McClure. Ms. Armstrong. Give me one second, please. So I split around items here. This is the house that sits in at the foot of the dog lake, right? That's correct. Okay. Can you see this image? Nope, not yet. Hold on. There always seems to be a lag. It's not as good as the position. It's coming up. Okay. So, this is the case at 200 East Belcourt, and you're correct. This is sort of as you're driving. This is the first house in the 200 block of East Belport that's sort of in the dog leg. And this picture was taken in 1991 at the time that that became an H1 overlay. This was a photo at that time. And I personally have had a lot of history with this house and over time. And I'll just sort of walk you through some images. that sort of give you an idea. And specifically, the purpose of looking at this is if you can see my corner, we have the front steps that lead down onto the public sidewalk. So you have the steps, then a little bit of a walk, and then you get to the actual steps leading up to the porch. And then there's a little bit of a sidewalk here. We'll see your steps leading out to the drive. And these knee walls have always been in place recently where Mr. and Mr. Smith had made application to remove the knee walls and and this was actually taken later when they actually when the knees walls got changed in 2008 from the concrete to the brick and this is another image taken in 2008 soon as the knee walls are being replaced on both sides of and it would before the board to have the knee walls on both sides of the drive. And as you see, this is from 2008. And here's me in 2008 on site with this project. And this is a picture taken from Zillow when the house was for sale. As you can see, the knee walls are in place on both sides. So when we first met back in October, earlier October, they did make application to replace the drive and to remove the knee walls that are in place now. And that's where they started the work this past, last week. And that's where they got a little ahead of themselves there. But I also point out that you have the front steps. You could see the public walk with four steps leading up to these. And this was part of the proposal is to remove these steps and then relocate the steps to this location in here. And this is, of course, under construction as taken recently. And I just wanted to point out, here's the, of course, everybody's blocking in gallery here but the steps leading out onto the drive and this was taken in 2008. This sort of goes in the back of course it's all been removed and landscaped to correct some drainage of water. In this part of the proposal is to create landscaping and create a retaining wall system back here just a one-step retaining stone retaining wall system and this is where they dug the pool. The pool is proposed to be seven by I think 14. And then of course here's the front that removed the front steps. And also indicate this picture showing that. Here's the little steps that exist now. and I purposely put this street this is sort of a picture from I think 2007 when there was a storm went through but I think one of the images I wanted to show is the fact that all the walkways all lead out onto the front there's a direct pattern of development from the sidewalk to the front of the steps and this is a consistent pattern within the neighborhood and again of course this is the existing site plan that shows the site as it is now this is sort of a detail of the rear 7 by 14 and it doesn't this doesn't show their team all but the next plan will so this is a proposal would be to relocate the entry that leads directly on to the the driveway with stone edging and widening the drive at this point. And so previously the retaining wall system was out further here. You could saw a couple feet into this driveway so the proposal would be to widen the drive all the way and widen this area instead of coming out straight as it did before. And then, of course, here's the landscaping plan for the back, which includes a patio, a stone retaining wall, and then the plunge pool. And I would note that all the mechanical systems would be located into the garage. okay and i'm just gonna read through um so of course though as you can see um the new owners are asking to remove the um the front concrete block and stairs um and um and also um remove the little patio that or the steps leading off directly here um and then construct a new curvilinear path into the drive. Landscape remove the walks and drive plantings and lawns, replace the retaining wall at the front porch, construct a pool in the backyard, check a patio, rear routine wall, and install a landscape plan. Guidelines are included for your reference. The removal of the existing concrete sidewalk from the front yard of this property and the installation of a curvilinear concrete walk leading to the driveway at grade landing along the driveway is inappropriate not within the guidelines noted above. The front yards of these properties are significant elements of each site and street of Belcourt Historic District and the predominant front yard pattern of this block of East Belcourt includes open space trees and walks running from trees to entry steps and set perpendicular from street. These walks were usually standard concrete panel construction and the removal of the existing walks would be counter to the guidelines. Let's talk about significant historic paved surfaces being retained, significant historic sidewalks curbing the street patterns being retained, and the interdiction of new curvilinear walkways asymmetry to the front of the dwelling should be be out of character for the neighborhood in this design guidelines. And these reasons are the proposed new walk is counter to the guidelines versus new paved surfaces and alterations to existing paved surfaces should be compatible surrounding properties, principal, and accessory structure. And new paved surfaces should be visually dominant, intrusive, and suggestible sense of history. Staff does not condone work without a certificate of appropriateness, but the proposed work to construct the pool and is within the guidelines 2A1A in patio 2A1A and guidelines 3A7A and 3A7B respectively. This is landscape elements and site elements should not be visibly intrusive or suggestive all sense of history and landscape elements and site elements and open space should be developed in scale use and character of the site, local, historic district and the proposed landscape is within the guidelines. Seth recommends denial of changes to the front yard as proposed and Seth recommends approval of the installation of the pool, patting and the retained walls of landscaping with the following two standard conditions. Of course, the applicants are present. Can you take the picture down, please? All right. Mr. Mickler. Yes, Jim. I don't think there's a real significant issue, of course, with the pool. It is the front yard that we're talking about. And I'd like to hear your thoughts. I know that you're eminently familiar with the guidelines. And of course, all the other properties in that particular district have their sidewalks going straight out to the street and also have that setback and sloped yard, if you will. yes this this property had a driveway issue in that it was a little uh the retaining walls and the slope came down to the driveway making it very difficult to open the car door they they could literally couldn't park in the front of the driveway there and open the car door and move around so that was really the germ that brought the the entry walk over to preserve as much green space as possible to bring the and to have only one walkway up to the house which came from the side with the drop where the driveway is that enabled us to widen the drive just enough to be able to open the car doors comfortably and um that was what's that was what brought that um that part of the design that was what pushed that part of the design was to widen the driveway but to do it in a um how do i say a um a way that didn't affect the amount of green space um so i'm curious as to what people's thoughts are about that and I'm happy to work with you. I will note for the record that Mr. and Mrs. Smith have joined us. They are the owners of the property. Welcome. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the procedure. We are doing what's called findings, and we have just heard the board presentation, and now we've heard Mr. Miklas' presentation. Did you have anything you want to add to that? I just wanted to note that concerning the stock work is that as soon as Amelia told us what we got ahead of ourselves, realizing that it's all my fault. I will take full responsibility for that. We had talked with the contractor before we got started. We were trying to get on the October meeting and we organized it based on that. when it was on the November meeting, I did not get back to the contractor to reorganize the work to keep the scope within what we had the approval for. But as soon as Amelia visited us, we stopped work on the pool, stopped work on the steps. The only work that continued on was on the driveway and on a drainage pipe. Our garage was actually emptying the roof water into our neighbor's yard. And so we put a drainage pipe from the garage down along the back of the yard into the driveway and then into the street. So after after the stop work order was posted, we completely stopped work on the pool and on the steps. OK, I'm sorry. There was noise outside, which is why I left the chair for a moment. Do we have any questions or comments from the board members beginning with Ms. Irwin? Mr. Gilpin? And Ms. Hill? Am I assuming then that the are in agreement that this front yard proposal should be disapproved? I'm seeing nodding heads of yes. Okay. Mr. Smith, to explain, we are governed by guidelines. Those guidelines call for a certain degree of uniformity of appearance in a historic neighborhood. I know John very well. He's an extraordinarily creative and talented landscaper, but sometimes creativity can be at odds with what is the normal historic appearance of a yard. And in this particular case, I understand your driveway issue, and it's a good solution. But nevertheless, your yard doesn't match up with the other yards, and it's not in its appropriate historic characterization. Our yard doesn't match up with the other yards as built. As you say, we're the dogleg there. And so our side yard is actually, or to the side of our house, to the side of our front yard is actually our neighbor's house. Their backyard. Yeah. So if you look at our house, our front yard is bounded by a neighbor on the left, normal yard. On the right, it's literally a house. So it makes our, and plus our house is a three foot setback, which I'm understanding how it's a variance. so we are really literally our front yard is tucked up against our neighbor's backyard backyard and house yeah so we're just trying to maintain as much of an open green space as possible right um once again i you mentioned that was also a desire so if you look at our neighbor's houses they have front yard extends on either side and ours the front yard only extends to the left it It does not, I mean, literally it just goes right into our neighbor's backyard and house. So that was part of what we were wanting to achieve is to create a larger open space in the front yard by moving the sidewalk away from our neighbor's house and yard, backyard. I understand, but it just doesn't really meet within the guidelines, I don't believe. Jim, is it possible for me to say one more thing? Sure. You're always welcome. Thank you. um looking looking at this we still have this um accessibility issue due to the um their yard has a more extreme slope than the other houses and that that necessitated this um so you know i'm not sure where where we're going with this i i i do know that we were hoping to be able to create that accessibility by the driveway and um and then um i i hear that the i understand i'm beginning to get the feeling about the sacredness of this front walkway going straight down and um i'm i'm curious and had drawn a sketch of can we if we agree to preserve the front sidewalk Can we still do the design as drawn going to the driveway so that we have that accessibility and the ability to open the car door and manipulate there? I don't think so. I'm curious to what the board would think about that. Well, I don't want to put your yard in a state of construction for the next four weeks. but if you want to submit revised sketches for the front we can go ahead and approve the rest of the uh your application come back and revisit the disapproval without taking formal action today are you willing to do that mr mickler uh resubmit new plans that would be that would then put us on to the december meeting as far as Our next date is December 16. I'm certainly amenable to that. I guess what I was putting forth, and I don't quite know, if we restored the steps, would the rest of the plan stand without objection? or do we do we need to submit a entirely new plan for formal review i think we can approve the construct miss kerr do you want to step in i was i was just going to say i think the latter of what mr mickler just said that all right it needs to have a formal plan that reflects the reality that the board doesn't appear because they're going to honor the guidelines as they are charged with i know there's been no vote but unless anybody wants to speak up say they're interested in approving the front walk and steps being removed i think it's to move this forward would be very helpful to have the plan that is next available to the process reflect the return of that sidewalk, just as you've been discussing, to put it back in the footprint where it belongs in the materials of what historically they've just removed. And then whatever else reflecting this sort of marriage, I guess you'd say, that they're thinking of still trying to pursue. But I think a new plan would facilitate this moving forward with clarity. I think what we need to do is bifurcate this proceeding, go ahead and approve the application as it pertains to the backyard, if you will. And, John, have you, let's continue the conversation about the disapproval to the next month and have you submit new plans that will show the front sidewalk back in place with perhaps your pollinator garden being also kept. Very good. Very good. We'll do it. We'll see you next month. We're not done. John, we're not done yet. Ms. Erwin, go ahead. I just was thinking that it might be helpful from the design perspective for the board to possibly comment. I think Mr. Mickler is asking if we have any issues with the widening of the front part of the driveway, which is trying to achieve a specific goal for the owners. if that part of the front, if we have any guideline issues with that part of the front, and maybe that needs to be commented on by the staff, do we see any guideline problems with the side section of the front yard design as it is now? We know that we need to have the steps coming directly to the front. But are there any guideline issues with this side? That is a very good question. I think, and when I talked to the Smiths and we talked about this, that, you know, we always felt that when the knee walls are going to be removed, I think it's going to give them a completely different perspective and not be so closed in at the front. and we didn't really talk about till Mr. Mickler presented plans about creating a low flat widening now technically when you say widening that sort of brings up many different issues in the sense technically outside the h1 process but per code you can only allow to have a 10 foot wide drive with a 12 foot wide apron so I think you're what you're potentially maybe I'm going to rephrase it say creating a landing right beside the driveway I think is what you're pretty much indicating Ms. Irwin but I feel like that's still not necessarily you know per our guidelines not necessarily part of the development of Belcourt as well. I'm not sure where you go with that because they had an existing situation of having a walkway leading down two steps so into that was an existing situation that we saw on the plan. You know, so I'm not quite sure that leads you, but within the guidelines and per the pattern development of El Court, it is not necessarily something we see a lot as far as having landings. You know, sometimes there's widening of these of sidewalks that lead into driveways, but given the fact you've got rolled earth going down to the public sidewalk and to the driveway. I think what Mr. Mickler is trying to do in his plan is trying to accommodate how you can get into the driveway safely and have the Smiths being able to open a car door at the same time. And to be honest with you, I think that is a conversation that Mr. Mickler and the staff need to have at length so that we can have a good plan before us to look at for next time and hopefully we'll be able to approve something. I hate to move this along, but I am on a little bit of a deadline myself. Yes, Ms. Kerr. Quick question tied to what additional information I think may be helpful to things. This is back to the pool. The pool is labeled as a partially in-ground performance modular swim, etc. But we don't really have elevations that shows how the pool's finished elevation top works with the landscape. Is the landscape going to be regraded to accommodate how this pool is going to work? And so we need some plans that shows the elevations of the pool as a finished product. We have construction information, but we don't have a site plan that has elevations showing you the finished grades and how those elements that are being introduced in both the front yard and the front yard work out. So additional information. a new condition be added? That information needs to be additionally provided, please. And we can discuss that at staff with Mr. Mickler, just as you're suggesting. Okay, with us moving forward with the approval of the pool, I think we need to go ahead and add that in then as a condition. It needs to be a condition that all that be known and reviewed and approved prior to issuance of the COA, which means they're going to have to wait to continue on. There have been some challenges. I know there's been this discussion about the stop work order, but it's unusual when we go out as a staff and verbally tell the construction staff who's working to stop that we have to go back a second time because they've started work again and we get called again on a different day and have to go yet again and tell, I don't know, I wasn't there myself, if it was the same contractors are different, but I would strongly urge that they get the communications in the field day-to-day better connected, because I know building inspections had to go out there and issue stop work. It's just unnecessary to have this going on. All right, thank you very much. This is actually news to us. We're not aware of any work that was performed on the pool or the front steps after Amelia's visit. She's made two visits and found work occurring both times. Work on the pool. Amelia, we can talk to you afterwards. I know your goal is to try to straighten this up. And so we won't take time during the meeting if you might, but we can talk afterwards to just talk about what we did experience. Since I wasn't the one, I don't have all the nuances. just so everybody can move forward positively. That's what we want to know. I'm going to suggest Ms. Armstrong, you reach out and schedule a phone call with the Smiths and with Ms. Kerr as well. And let's see if we can reach a resolution. I do want to move forward, however, with a two-part motion. The first part of the motion is going to pertain to the backyard. The second part will pertain to a continuance. Do I have a motion? I just need to say that I'm going to abstain from the vote because I am a resident of the Belcourt neighborhood. I keep forgetting that. Now you tell me. Okay. All right. Mr. Gilliam, you haven't had a chance yet to make the motion, have you? Glad to. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 01540161-I at 200 East Belcourt, I move to disapprove the application as far as it pertains to the front yard and the widening of the driveway. But I do move to approve the work in the backyard, around the pool, the patio, and landscaping. with our two standard conditions as well as a third condition that the finished elevations of the pool patio be submitted prior to the issuance of the COA? Yes. Okay, so the reframe I just meant we'll make sure I heard you correctly. We are continuing the consideration of the first of the front yard and the disapproval to our date that we're not. His language was to disapprove. I hate to go ahead and disapprove. Okay. I'll give that another shot. You're freezing. I'll give that another shot. I apologize. You want me to start from the top? Let's do it this way. Yeah, let's start from the top. All right, Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 01540161-I at 200 East Belcourt, I move to continue this case as far as it pertains to the work in the front yard. and as far as the work in the backyard around the pool, the proposed pool, I move to approve the certificate for appropriateness with our two standard conditions as well as a third condition that the final elevations of the pool patio be submitted to the staff. And friendly amendment that continues to be to December 16th. And the continuation would be to December 16th. And also, if I may suggest you want to repeat the approval of the rear yard, those three conditions be contingent before the issuance of COA be met. Okay. Also, yeah, as mentioned. So noted. All right. May I have a second? I'm not sure whether I ever called for any comments or questions from the audience. I will now do so. I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none. Before we take the vote, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I want to thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and I hope we can move forward and make sure everything goes appropriately. Okay. All right. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. All right. The motion passes as conditioned and we will pick up the front yard portion of this application at our meeting on December 16 at a time to be announced. Thank you all very much. I'm bringing this particular hearing to conclusion. Thank you. All right. Moving now to, I want to go ahead because I might have to duck out. I'm sorry. I am the chair of the Lexington History Museum, and we have a fairly important meeting starting at 6. So I want to go ahead and pick up attachment number 9, which is 416 Fayette Park. I know that Miss Hill has to step away from that one since it's her husband is the applicant. Jim, I will also – sorry to interrupt you. I'll also be recusing myself from attachment 7. Where else I leave this? Recusing or abstaining, Mr. Gilpin. Can you simply abstain from voting? Yeah, whatever is appropriate. Ms. Hill has to recuse. Let me explain the difference. Ms. Hill has to recuse because she has a financial interest in this case. you can abstain simply because it's a preference of your not wanting to be in conflict with either a potential client or whatever it may be. And Mr. Gilpin, make sure you know this is case number nine, not the next case dealing with Woodland Avenue. This is not the garage demolition. This is the solar problem installation. I am. I'm just bringing up, Jim, because I know you want to get out of here, that I would not be able to vote on attachment seven. Right. Okay. So that would leave us with two people to vote. Oh, in other words, I'm stuck. Let's go ahead. Let's go ahead and take care. There's a confusion. So Mr. Gilpin can't vote on number seven. And Ms. Hill can. Not the same case. So we're hearing number. Yeah, he is telling me now in advance that we now have the same problem of not having enough board members because are you abstaining? And let me finish. Mr. Gilpin, are you abstaining or recusing on number seven? I will abstain. The applicant is my former boss. Do you have a current financial relationship with him now? No. All right. You can abstain as opposed to recuse. That way you can continue to be a participant, but you just don't vote. All right. I know that's a little technical. Essentially, Mr. Gilpin, you'd be sitting, not participating and allowing your presence to be counted for the quorum. But when the vote is taken, you would not be voting and your presence would silently go with the majority vote. But you're totally out of having any participation. Does that make sense? All right. Sounds good to me. I think it will accomplish your goals, what I'm trying to say. Okay, and turning now to 416 Fayette Park. The school of work is installation of solar panels on trellis. I'll note for the record that Mr. Raymond, you're here, and your wife has stepped away. And there are what we call the standard two conditions. In addition, there are two other conditions. They are providing the details of wrapping the steel frame to be more compatible with the wood trellis or the removal of the existing wood trellis to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. And secondly, provide finished details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. I think the first one, they basically want to know how you want to handle the wrapping, if you will. uh we prefer not to try to do that and just remove the trellis okay uh that's your option yeah i'm assuming that's not going to be an issue they just take the trellis out altogether yes yes that that would come into compliance with the guidelines as another means to solve this yes okay shall we amend that condition then that you'll remove the trellis yes okay very good i'm just making sure okay and i assume then that the certificate of appropriateness can be issued yes okay yeah yeah the record will note the owner's um initiation of the removal of the trellis as part of your application and then that will make it very streamlined for the board to continue their action. One question I do have what kind of time frame are we looking at? One of our major goals in this process was be able to do net metering and we are up against the timeline of that in December. So we have everybody standing by to remove the trellis and install the panels. When's your COA? Go ahead, Ms. Kerr. If the board's action in a few moments grants the authorization for the certificate of appropriateness, it will be issued tomorrow. That would work perfectly. I was thinking you were asking whether you could have how long you could have and it's up to a year but you can have it tomorrow. Tomorrow's fine. Okay. All right then. I'm going to ask for any questions or comments from the audience. Giving you the count of ten. Hearing none. I'm ready for a motion then. mr erwin okay i'll give it a try uh mr chairman uh as per case number zero six nine zero zero 416-R at 416 Fayette Park, I move that we approve the request for the COA with the following recommendations that the owner provide details or should i say that the owner has indicated that they will remove the existing wood trellis uh does there need to be anything provided okay it negates that condition okay all right So given that the owner has expressed that they will remove the existing wood trellis. And so then does that negate the second condition being needing to provide details? Yes. Okay. The first detail. I believe that we have got, let's see, Barry, let me get Barry real quick at the mic. Do we lack any additional details with the trellis not being part of this formula? Do we need any additional details on the new elements that are coming with the solar panel? No, we do not. we have the full package showing the layout, the structure and the panels. So we can delete conditions one and two from the staff report as written. Okay. That leaves only the standard conditions. Yes. That's the motion. Okay. So to restate the motion, we are now recommending approval of the COA with the two standard conditions. Do I have a second? I have a raise stand for Mr. Gilpin. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. Say aye. Aye. Aye. The motion carries and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Thank you. Have a nice day. You too. All right. We are now at, I believe, application 7, which is 133 and 137 Kentucky Avenue. The scope of work is construct parking lot, fence, and landscaping. Are the applicants here? I have Mr. Murphy. I don't see you. Are you the applicant, Mr. Murphy? Yes, sir. I'm the attorney on behalf of Paul Oshankowski. Here I am. Okay. Are you here? Is that your client? Yeah. Okay. Okay. The scope of work in this case is to construct a parking lot fence and landscaping. the staff has recommended approval subject to the following conditions that the curbing room in its existing location and the fence could and can be moved eight inches towards the property line and that care be taken to prevent harm to the tree that's either the hack or the maple or walnut. And the other two conditions are what we call standard conditions. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement. I wanted to clarify two little issues on the number one, the condition about the fence to be moved in eight inches toward the property line. That is the average of what we'll be moving it, but we will be trying to place the face eight inches from the property line. We may have some of our posts up to two inches from the property line. And so it may be just two ways of saying the same things, but more instead of moving it eight inches toward the property line, which is what we're doing precisely, we're going to be trying to be eight inches from the property line. We're about 16 inches away on average. Okay. And I'm curious as to why we're doing this, to be honest with you. This could have been a staff review item except the tree is a tree on the property line, which was a point of issue, I suppose. We are not removing the tree. Number two, take care to prevent harm to the tree. We are leaving the tree up. We are doing... and there may be some effect on the roots of the tree, which are under the driveway, because they're the ones that are elevating the driveway right now and invaded a pipe and broken a curb. So we're going to have to redo that to keep water from coming into Mr. Ocean Chesky's house on that. So just wanted to clarify that with you all. Okay. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. There's actually a blue hand being raised. Yes, I'm bringing you in now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. K. I'm sorry I'm not seeing him yet. We have the force. There we go. Mr. Kay, my name is Jim Dickinson. I'm the chair of the Board of Architectural Review, and we've been hearing this application pertaining 133 and 137 Kentucky Avenue as a joint application. Yes. Any comments regarding the application, sir? Yes, I'm the owner of 136 Woodland and the co-owner with Dr. William McRoberts, who's on the case number 10620135 portion of this. So the two of us own that tree. I discussed this with Dr. McRoberts, and he wanted to also make sure that there was nothing that was going to endanger that. It's about a 90-foot black walnut. And it frames his backyard, shades my children, and really makes our backyard tolerable. It's probably about a 90-foot tree. It's had some pretty aggressive pruning in the past, and it's also been vandalized recently. And so we would like to limit any further damage that might be done to that tree by moving either the – or with any work that would happen around the root system. And so that's what I wanted to add is that we were most concerned about that tree, which we both own. Okay. Mr. Murphy, have you looked into the possibility of bringing in a certified arborist to assist you in making sure that there's no additional damage to this tree? Well, absolutely. I want to point out that Dr. McRoberts has signed our application. He is one of the co-applicants on this. I'm just representing Mr. Oshankowski, but Mr. McRoberts has signed her application for us to do what we're proposing to do exactly. We did have a consulting arborist on this, Mr. Dave Leonard, who I think is probably the leading arborist in central Kentucky. He actually recommended removal of the tree because of the safety problem, the problem that it was causing water drainage into Mr. Oshankowski's house. It was pushing over the fence. It broke a curb. It's breaking his pavement. But we understand that we cannot remove that tree without the signature of Mr. K on an application to you all. So we are not removing the tree. We have redone the fence so that it will come up to either side of the tree and not touch the tree. So from either side, you will see the trunk of the tree from either the Kentucky Avenue side or the Woodland Avenue side. We will come up to it, not touch the tree. As I said, we're going to be taking out some paving, which has been heaved up by the tree. We're going to be taking up and replacing a pipe, which has been heaved up by the tree, all of which are putting water into the Ocean Kowski house. so there may be some impact on the roots but we are not going to impact the trunk of the tree and we're trying to do this to maintain the health of that tree all right and mr k anything else uh yeah i dr mc roberts was not aware of really any of the details of this plan When I told him that the property line between our two houses bisected that tree, he was unaware of that. And he was also unaware of the fact that really any of the details of this work. So, like I said, he and I both want to prevent any further damage to this tree. I will note for the record that there is a specific condition within this approval that mandates that no additional harm be done to the street. And Mr. Chair? Yes. Staff has talked at length about this. tied to as this moves forward if the board approves it tonight how does it be demonstrated to the historic preservation office with its charge about the method of construction of this fence would not in any way damage the tree or be as approach it as carefully as possible so one of the things we think would have would help is if we were provided a plan that reflects where the posts are to go that would drive into the ground because there may be some opportunity to help avoid the tree root by spanning some areas for the construction methodology to do some spanning rather than putting rhythmically posts at just set intervals without consideration. And it's going to count on some probing, gentle probing to work out from a construction method. And that information needs to be put on a plan. That's what that condition number two is really reflecting, is we need that information of how are we going to care for this tree to come back in a planned format that has coped with the fact of how are we going to anchor this fence by bridging, by spanning, whatever the words are, as needed. And I don't think it has to be extensively the whole run or anything like that, but I think it does have to indicate what they're finding relative to the physical realities of trying to insert posts that will give a good fence outcome and still protect the tree. So I think we may need some clarification on item two then that in the course of taking care to prevent additional harm to the tree or any harm to the tree, that the applicant will submit prior to the erection of the fence a plot plan showing the post holes for the fence. And any other construction details as needed. Right. And any other construction details. Mr. Murphy, I'm assuming you're... We'd be happy to do that. All right. Mr. K? Yes. Dr. Burke Roberts, in my conversation with him last night, also offered... He said that he really was not in need of any more room on that alley side, and that if necessary, he would cede enough of his property so that the fence could jut out and enclose the tree in my backyard. So that's what he offered last week. Okay, I think that's a conversation for Mr. Roberts and Mr. Murphy, your client to add, and see if you all can't work out an accommodation. But I don't see any reason why we cannot move forward with the approval of the COA. Any other questions or comments from the other board members? I've already asked for the virtual audience. I have you never mind uh all right then I think we're ready for a motion Ms. Hill I think it's your turn you haven't made one for a while it is my turn Mr. Chair Per case number 10620133-B and 10620135 at 133 and 137 Kentucky Avenue, I move to approve this COA with the following conditions. Number one, the curbing remain in its existing location and the fence be moved in eight inches toward the property line. Number two, care be taken to prevent harm of the tree, specifically the black walnut, with plan detail being submitted prior to issuance of the COA being submitted to the staff for review. And then number three and four are the standard conditions. Did I hear you say in construction details as well for the fence? Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. Do I have to? Second. You can't second. Oh, I can't? Mr. Gilman. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Do I have a full board on this one? Yes. All right. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Say aye. Opposed nay. The motion carries. And Mr. Gilpin abstained, correct? Yes, and as conditioned. That's right. Mr. Gilpin abstained. Excuse me. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Okay. We will now with me being able to but to be honest with you, we have a fairly important meeting starting at 6th. I really need to be in attendance so I'm going to have to step away from this meeting. I can never remember. Who is the vice chair? Is it Mr. Gilpin? I believe that Mr. Gilpin takes the honor. I'm seeing a lot. Okay, Mr. Gilpin. All right, you can deal with the garage issue. And that is coming up next. And I'll just go ahead and I'll call it and then I'm going to step away. This is attachment number eight, case number 083730336, 336 Hampton Court, scope of work, Demar's Garage, construct auxiliary structures. Thank you all. I'm taking off now. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Is the applicant here? Coming in now, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Hello, Mr. Book. Hello. Do you have a copy of the staff report regarding this case? Yes, sir, I do. OK. And have you read the conditions recommended? I have seen the recommendations. Yes, sir. OK. And are you in agreement with those recommendations? I would like to discuss further, and I think my client is likewise going to be here this evening, but they still would like to be able to construct a new build on their site. Okay. Well, I think what we'll do is let the staff give a presentation, and then we'll hear from you guys on how you would like to present. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 336 Hampton Court. As you might remember, the project was heard originally in September and the applicant has provided new documents to review for the construction of a new garage. So let me see if I can get this thing working here. Sorry, the mouse has decided to not work. There. Thank you. Sorry for the delay. This is... I'm trying to find that. Can everyone see that now? I know. Amelia, have you got a magic formula to get this going? I think I've got it now. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Sorry about the delay. I'm not a tech person, but you may notice. As I mentioned, everyone can see it, correct? The case was originally in front of the board, September 16th meeting, and continue to allow the applicant to provide additional information. The request is for the demolition of a two-bay, one-story historic garage. The garage was first documented on the 1934 Sanborn Insurance Company map, the same year as the primary structure. The garage is constructed of double-white brick walls with tile parapet caps on the west, north, and south sides. with a low slope roof draining to the east into a gutter. The west elevation consists of wire cut brick up to the roof line and smooth brick at the parapet. A mandor with a wood lentil on and one double hung window with a brick arch at the head occur in this elevation. A single double hung window with a steel angle lentil is located in the south elevation. The two garage doors are located in the east elevation separated by wood posts. There are no openings in the north wall. The combination of wire cut and smooth brick is referenced in the primary structure, notably in the jack arches above the window details. The roof framing in the garage has been replaced with modern timber and covered with a single ply membrane roof. The proposed new accessory structure to replace the garage is a single story frame structure of approximately 24 foot by 2 inches. A brick form the base of the wall with cementitious board siding and corner boards above. The roof is a north-south gable with two gable dormers on the west roof plate. The roofing is architectural composition shingles, and windows are proposed to be the Anderson E series. The guidelines are included for your reference, and I'll just go through. This is the front of the primary structure. This is looking at the garage from the approximately southwest as you can see the door with the wood lintel and then the shallow radius arch above the window with the tile parapet caps. This the south window that I noted has the still linted. This is looking from the opposite corner and you can see in more detail those conditions. Should note that the windows are replacement windows. This is the north wall which has no openings as mentioned. Again looking at the parapet this is the what would be the northwest corner. South elevation and this is the west elevation with two garage doors. You can see how the parapets come up above the roof and the flashing and the roof slopes again from the west back to the east. You can see the the header being let into the correct parapet or below the parapet. Now this is a detail of the main house showing the the jack arches with different correct is similar to what is located in the garage. Here's a view showing the multiple windows. Now to move on to the drawings provided. The dashed line within this floor plan on this on the site plan is is the existing garage location floor plan. These are the elevations. Again, the brick around the base, cementitious board, siding, corner boards, and trim. This would be the west wall facing the main or primary structure. structure. Two dormers on that wall also. This is you from the south and a couple of perspectives. The applicant has some photos which when he's doing his presentation he'll be able to go through with you. uh the spine excuse me go ahead uh findings as uh referenced above the garage is noted on the 1934 sanborn insurance company map the same as the primary structure although the garage has been modified over time, it still retains its massing form and historic character. Staff finds that the proposal to demolish the historic garage does not meet the guidelines. The design principle states demolition of historic buildings permanently alters the character of the individual site, streetscape, building, or district grouping. Demolition of buildings and structures and historic districts and of landmark structures should only be an action of last resort. Additionally, the proposal does not meet guideline 66A and 66B, which state respectively, demolition should only occur as a last resort after all other avenues to protect the historic building and structures have been exhausted and of any original feature demolition of any original feature or part of a historic building should be avoided. The proposal does not meet guideline 6D as a demolition would be detrimental to the character scale rhythm design and importance of a group of buildings streetscape or district. The loss of the historic brick masonry structure would be detrimental to the site and the historic district. Based on the intact form, mass and character and historic integrity, the proposal to demolish this garage accessory building is not within the design guidelines. The proposal to construct a new accessory structure as submitted would necessitate the demolition of the existing historic structure. Although the revised proposal for the structure meet guidelines 2b2a. It is simple in design and considerably smaller in scale than the primary building. The proposal also meets 2b2b. It is located in character with other secondary buildings for the street near an alley or the rear of the property, not close to or attached to primary building. Additionally, the proposal meets guidelines 2b2c and 2B2D which state respectively accessory buildings should not be compatible in design shape material and roof shape with other secondary buildings in the historic district and should preferably be a brick or wood siding however cementitious board and other contemporary sidings may be considered vinyl siding is not allowed the the existing historic garage accessory structure should be retained and if more space is desired by the property owner, study should be given to possibly adding a small addition to the south side of the existing structure. Recommendations. Staff recommends denial of the demolition of the historic garage. If the BOAR approves the demolition of the historic structure, staff, the historic garage, Staff recommends approval of the construction of the proposed accessory building with the following recommendations. Once approved by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. And if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work. The deadline for the board action, none at this time for the COVID-19 related executive orders. And that is the end of the staff report. Thank you, Barry. Mr. Book, we'd like to hear from you. I failed earlier to have you state your name for the record, and I'd like to do the same for Mr. and Mrs. Coons. Okay. My name is John Book. I'm the owner of Economy Home Improvement of Lexington. Hi, Carl and Joellen Kuhn, 336 Hampton Court. Thank you both. Mr. Book, I assume you'd like to discuss the matter of the demolition? Yes, sir. So first of all, let me just say this here. I respect everybody on this board and we have cooperated and worked for years and we want to continue that relationship. And so I don't want, you know, anybody during this discussion to think that we're trying to be pushy or we just want to cooperate and get along with everybody. Um, but, um, I'm, I'm, I'm working for my clients and they want to put a new buildup. And so we want to approach this in a delicate manner. We do respect each and every one of you for what you bring to the table and want to continue to work with, with, with the board. Um, we were asked two months ago, uh, two months and two days ago to, uh, go back to kind of take a pause to where we could look at this from a economic standpoint, first of all. And I did do that. We are busier than ever. And with this pandemic, all the things that are happening right now, I'm also a grocery delivery boy to my mother and my mother and father-in-law. We're doing everything right now that we can. So we did go back. And what I just wanted you all to know that when we did the initial approximate estimate, when we were asked to do that, how I arrive at that, we don't use the Xactimate program. We still do things. My mother does triple entry bookkeeping still here at our office. As you can see, our office has not changed since 1966. And so we do things the old way. I did go back through. And what we did initially was we took cost per square foot of other projects of things that we have accomplished, and I'm able to pull those files. So therefore, that was when I came up with the approximate, and I had a couple of my subcontractors go out and give me some estimates. We put that together initially on the September 2 form that I had that we were told at that meeting that it looked like it was just kind of racehorsed in. So we did go back and I spent time putting together an estimate and we went through and did an initial breakdown. And the initial numbers were a few thousand dollars higher, but we still came up with a number of a little over $71,000 to do the repairs to the structure. So we were trying to comply with what the board asked. And so our position, we are not arguing that there was a structure there. I think it's easily seen with a little bit of research that there was an existing structure that was there. The standpoint that we are positioning ourselves on, or at least with myself, was really, we know there was a building there, but we don't know when that building, the massing of it. Now, it did say in the Sanborn maps that there was a unit there. But as far as the size and the modifications that have happened over the years, I would say that it calls into question just the length of time that that unit has been there. We're not debating that there was a build, but we really don't know the original dimensions, shape, forms. We could even say that possibly that that thing may have even had a flat roof at one time, and the parapets were added at a later point. It's definite that the entire, entire roof system has been modified because all of that lumber is after 1970. Because I've gotten up and measured it, and we had Brian Johnson at Pogue Engineering go out. anything can be fixed with enough money. Here's the conundrum that we have. How much money do we put towards something that doesn't function? Another concern that we have is the depth of the footings. Those footings, and from the time I was a child, I watched my dad put footings in when they used to hand dig footings. They only went, at that time, 16 inches down on the ground. Now we have to put footings 24 inches down on the ground. So that's where we went into and started looking at putting shelf footings up to support that structure, grinding out and tuck pointing. And that's where the initial or that's where those numbers are coming from. You know, when we look at the inconsistencies with this build that we're talking about wanting to take down and to put something back that is going to complement the house, when we look at those jack arches, they were laid with precision and they were consistent with the house. When I look at this building back here, we have numerous different sizes and different styles and material of not only mortar, but also of the pattern that it was laid. Again, we discussed it last time. The sidewalls have header brick that are turned sideways to hold everything together. The entire back wall does not. so that lets me believe that at some point when a modification was put in play one of two things happened either the half of that rear wall came down and it was relayed and it was not too thin or really you can't even see it from the inside either or a good portion of that wall came down and was relayed at some point. That brick is inconsistent with the rest of the build. So in conclusion, not wanting to wear everybody out, but we really would strongly like to encourage the board to work with us. We'll work with you all. I don't like tearing things down. I have built my or renovated my daughter's house at 143 Berry. My son's house at 129 Highview in Vercels, Kentucky. Both of them are historic builds from the 30s and 40s. And we were able to save those because while the bedrooms are a little small, the ceilings are a little low, there was something there that was workable. What we're trying to do here moving forward for Carl and Joellen, getting an office area, getting the utilities in, I would fear if we try to undermine and bring 30-inch water lines and sewer lines up underneath of all of this, we're going to even spend more money trying to fit that building that is really an oddity right now. So, you know, that's what I've got to say, and I think Carl and Joellen have some comments likewise. Thank you. Yes, thanks. I would just say, again, as we've spoken in September, we've lived here 29 years. We've looked for ways to maintain that building. We've gotten John's quote. We submitted a second quote from Superior Home Improvements that was in the same ballpark, $77,000 to restore that, but it's still not including plumbing or air or utilities within that space. So, you know, our challenge is I just don't see a feasible way to restore that into a useful building. And I think it was last September when we talked about it, it was referred to as a Frankenstein building. It's regardless of when it was built, it's certainly been rebuilt. I submitted some pictures. I don't know, Barry, if you want to show them. But the addition on the back of the house was obviously added after the original build. It is different brick, which matches the brick of the garage. And it is not toothed into the main house. There's no brick bond on the sides of the addition to show that it was obviously added at some later time. and the brick and the brickwork from the attachment on the back of the house matched the garage. So that's just showing the original house on the left. The addition are the brick on the right and not bonded together. Certainly not part of the original build. that wire cut brick carries through to the back side of the house inside of the inside of the back porch and then Barry if you show the next picture that's just a wider view of the same shot but pointing out the brick work on the addition and then comparing that to the brick work on the garage. Again, just to just to point out that both were added at some point after the original build of the house. We understood leaving last meeting that we were pretty close to agreement on the teardown and the biggest contention at that point was the design of the replacement building and if you remember our original design we tried to repeat the historic look of the existing building and it was recommended that we step back for two months redesign the new building and design it such that it doesn't try to reproduce history And so that was our focus over the last two months. As I said, I thought the board was certainly indicating that we were in agreement to tear down the existing space at that point. If everybody doesn't mind, hang on a second. We've had a little disconnect happen, and we need to get our IT people to bring Josh, who's chairing the meeting at this point, to bring him back into the audio, bringing into the meeting. He has become disconnected. He's visible to us, but he has no audio capabilities at the moment. This is accomplished by texting back and forth that we have learned of this problem. so I'm hoping the IT people are listening I don't have a number to dial them up real quick and Amelia you're monitoring have you got a number to dial up the operator in IT is Nolan with us I don't know who's the operator tonight Can you hear me? You can hear it barely. Try it now, Josh. Let me go down and check. Well, nothing is ever boring about these. All right. Sorry about that. I brought his phone number in. You're good. One way to do this, I guess. So you're back on with us, Josh, right? I can hear you. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Oh, good. Sorry about that. I think you're back on track. Sorry, everybody, for the interruption. uh so where we were as you knew mr chair chairing um had you all as owners are you completed with your comments or do you have more comment you'd like to make in which case mr gilpin can continue on with you i didn't know i had to interrupt just what i'm saying no that's fine I think I was complete unless there's questions and I'd be happy to have further discussion on it. Josh, we're not hearing you. I'd like to see if the board has any questions at this point. My only question was on the photographs and on the plans. It does indicate a tree next to it to be removed. that's not part of this request? Well, it is specified in the plan that that tree would be removed. It is diseased. We've got an arborist that works on the oak tree in the front of our house, and they've looked at that tree and said there's no way to save it. It's dying and falling into the garage at this point, so it needs to be taken out. we could, if necessary, provide certification of it from the arborist if it would be part of the conditions. We actually, we do need that information for your application to be complete, and we need to know what variety of tree it is. What is it? I'm not a tree guy. Maybe an elm? I was so overwhelmed in the most wonderful way by your oak. I've already mentioned that to you in the front yard that I think I was blind to the variety of any other tree on your property. There's a pecan. The other one is a pecan tree. I'm just not sure what this one is. Okay. Well, we would need you to tell us what kind of tree it is. Give us a estimate of how much, how big a caliper, what the diameter of the trunk at four feet up is. And you've already cited it on your plan. We have it in broader photographs. But that would then, and depending on what the board decides, you know, we can add that as a condition to whatever the outcome is tonight. if indeed it would be an outcome that results in the tree being involved. And so you could just send that all to us before we issue any permits. Okay. And it would be dependent, of course, upon that. And don't forget the letter that is the arborist, the professional arborist's evaluation. What happens is the staff evaluates all that. And if that all demonstrates its case, then we usually honor those arborists' professional opinions because they are, after all, the professionals. But if there's any doubt, we would come back methodology-wise to the board with it. But let's just go with plan A at the moment. Okay. Yeah, I'd also point out that if we look at those pictures again, that tree is literally growing into the existing building to the point where structurally it's getting into the foundation and within inches at the base of the tree of the wall of the building, which creates another problem in trying to save that building. And I might, while Barry, do you have a photograph in our materials that shows a portion or all of that tree? Yes, we do. There you do. I'm seeing one that's in the pack. And I might add that the tree is going to cause damage to the garage or the garage to the tree one way or the other. can you put this here do the board members are you all looking in your pack and seeing i'm not able to share a screen but and but to see the tree example okay it's coming up so there is the tree and i think i have another shot that will show there this is a better shot it shows it's pretty much a budding brick wall yeah and most of the green that you're seeing in that picture is from the tree behind that because there's there's so much dead dead to it there's not many leaves left on it and I think this was taken in August right or or prior to that September meeting. Yes, sir. That tree behind it, is that on your next door neighbor's property? Yes, it is. Thank you. Back to you, Mr. Chair. I didn't mean to go on, but while we were on the topic, I might want to get that going. Thank you for clearing that up, Betty. Mr. Book, I'd like to ask Ms. Hill first. Yeah, I just want to say one. Do you have any questions? Oh, I'm sorry. I just want to say one other thing is that, you know, while we're anxious to get. Mr. Book, just a second. Let me let Ms. Hill. Oh, sorry. So I did go back and reread the September submittal and the meeting minutes that actually will be reviewed and approved tonight from that meeting to kind of refresh myself. and to kind of see where we left you as the owner of the property at the end of that meeting, what our thinking was, and where we were, understanding that we didn't want to, the sense that that building had evolved over time, and it didn't necessarily represent where had started historically, that its history and form may have been compromised in ways that we really couldn't determine easily, and clearly was struggling with structural issues, and that we had asked that you look at what it would be to use a form of a building that didn't represent it historically so but look even if the forum did what to look at different more contemporary materials to make it clearly not as a historic building but clearly to represent the century in which we are and that's what I'm struggling with to be truthful is the design that you've proposed and is kind of a mesh of historic forms and materials and more modern materials. but it's not clearly of the 21st century. And that's really what I'm struggling with. And I would appreciate hearing from other board members too. And so for me, the kind of question is more about what the new proposed building that you put forth is, Does it represent what I had understood the board was kind of encouraging you to reach for or whether we weren't very clear to you? You know, to be honest, I preferred the design that we originally proposed. And we're flexible. We looked at multiple options there. We'd certainly be flexible to go back to the drawing board. If we were to do so, I'd ask if we could at least vote and get approval to tear down the existing building, conditioned on appropriate plans so that we don't have to relive the tear down part again if we come back to the board with new plans. I'd be open to ideas there. That's a fair enough request. I'd be interested. and what other board members are thinking on it. I feel like since our last meeting, I feel like we have done a lot of research and looked at other garages and buildings around all historic areas. We've walked and walked and looked And we felt like this was something that was very doable, considering all the other structures that have been added around our neighborhoods throughout Lexington. So that's why we thought this was something that would be very much accepted. So since we completely changed the design from before, you know, it's completely different. and I don't know I was thinking that this would would suit you know you you know if it doesn't and and you've got suggestions yeah we'll we'll be happy to do it I just it's we're trying to work within the guidelines we just it's our first time through this so thank you so I'll make two more observations unless Josh you'd like to go ahead first before I continue So two observations is the original new building design you had that really used the form of the historic building also used historic materials. materials and I and I think that that was the struggle with the board was that it it represented with both the form and the materials the history of the building and that a use of more contemporary materials with that form would clearly distinguish it into this century then that might be more appropriate. The new building that you proposed uses the roof lines of the main building, adding the dormers. The rest of the windows and doors are very similar to what you had proposed earlier. You do have the hardy board, which is a more contemporary material. the only place you have the brick is with the base, which for me feels in a very urban area where Hampton Court is, it feels much more like historic suburban kind of detail than an urban detail. Okay. So those are my kind of initial thoughts. Other board members. Thanks. Yep. Ms. Irwin, if you have anything further to say, I'd like to hear from you or else I'd move on to Mr. Book. I can definitely see the points that Ms. Hill is making. I feel like, I mean, the proposed building does meet the guidelines. but I can definitely appreciate Ms. Hill's points. Ms. Hill, if we were going to look at a redesign, would you prefer more of a hip roof or going back to the shed type flat roof? You're not crazy about the dormers and the gable in this instance? Ms. Hill, you're on mute. Sorry. I think it's really the materiality that I'm responding to even more than the form. but because in some ways the roof lines of the new proposal are much more reflective of the main house. So, but it's really the materials. Okay. Mr. Book, we cut you off earlier. Is there something you'd like to add? Yeah, I'm sorry for over talking. We have a little bit of a lag right here in our office. So with our Internet, we when we went back and sat down and talked with Carl and Joellen, we were able to sit outside. It was a nice evening and we looked at contemporary brick. We also in our initial design, we had the parapet gone and we had just a shed style roof that spread and broadcast that entire structure. Um, at that point, um, the homeowners felt, uh, it's, it was a little overpowering for the backyard. Um, and, and I don't, I didn't give that one to, to Barry, but we went through with our design team and had that shed style roof. And with the overhangs, uh, it did look completely different. And I do agree that moving the materials to more of a contemporary brick, getting away from that parapet would be nice. But I think we could do the same thing. And we could even remove the brick skirting off of the bottom and run and run that hardy. We could even put a shiplap hardy on that building, which is what we're seeing in a lot of more contemporary builds. If we ran something like that, and we did that down on Broadway at the old Wildcat warehouse structure across the front, gave a very clean line to the front of that building. The only issue with the shiplap material on the exterior is that you always worry about moisture intrusion with that, whereas this other product laps over. so we also had a design where we put a hip roof together and I know you can't see that but we did yeah it's probably not going to show real real well there we had a hip roof design we ran a parapet and we ran the gable in essence all we did was take the footprint and adjust the roof lines and put different hats on it to try to get it to comply to where it pulls away from what our original design was. Thank you, Mr. Book. Am I getting a kind of a general sense from the board members that demolition in this case would be okay? so I've um struggled with this for the last two months really because um it is a historic structure um our experts have told us that it's a historic structure but it is economically quite a burden for the owners to try to create this, to recreate, to revise what is left of the building to make it useful for them. So that is what I'm struggling with is it is historic. It is in the footprint of what was originally there. I would say there is a large portion of the, I mean, there are portions that have been rebuilt or redone at some point in time, but the history of it is there. So that's my struggle with it. And I think it is important to respect the economic and the utility needs of the owner. Thank you, Ms. Irwin. Seel, do you have any thoughts on that? Well, it does seem like we're heading in a consensual way. I do agree that it's in the location of the historic building and there are elements of it that are probably original, but there are also elements that have changed over time. And it clearly has suffered from both changes and just the age of it. And so I find myself not as, that the kind of integrity of that original structure doesn't feel fully present at this point. And to put that kind of economic resource into something that doesn't have its full integrity creates a question for me. I would agree with you, Ms. Hale. And then the other, Ms. Kerr, do you have any comment? No, I think that you all have heard the staff's evaluation of the historic structure. I do feel pretty strongly it is the real deal. I think I've already said that to you all before. No one, I think, is on the staff suggesting that it has not had changes over the years. I think as a secondary structure, it still has its character and it's for good and bad, frankly. But its integrity, its reading is a historic structure in its form and in its placement and in its relationship to the site and the neighborhood, the period secondary structures are becoming more and more rare. And so we look so closely at ones that do survive, such as this one, and take into account There are changes over time. And yes, some of those changes over time, like putting garage doors, blowing out the back wall and putting in garage doors, certainly haven't helped the building structurally or aesthetically. But the guidelines leave us charged with defending and protecting towards the future, the historic elements that make up the character and integrity of our historic areas. and that's what we're charged with interpreting and upholding as your staff and so hence that is our study and recommendation tied to this structure. There is nowhere that is going to tell you that it is not also inclusive of this process particularly within the board's mandate and responsibility to weigh additional factors. And that is certainly from the staff's perspective, very much respected. And the hard decision, unfortunately, comes to you as a board. But I think we would be remiss to not have provided the information we have and remind everyone in their considerations of the points I've just mentioned. Thank you, Miss Kerr. Well, we might be close to making a motion of some kind with this. However, there's still the comments from Miss Hill about materiality. and then we should also recall the adding a condition for a letter from the arborist would anyone like to try for a motion in that may prior to a motion may i uh just revisit one one item um particularly since the owner has raised their still their attachment to their original design understanding that the board's strong objection to that had been the materiality did seem very duplicative representative of a historic building which we absolutely don't want to to see that so I think there is still outstanding. For me, making a motion would involve the form of a new structure, whether it be with the single slope roof as original or whether it is more represented by the new design. And that one seems like it's still on the table for discussion. I definitely with the second design would want the brick removed because I do feel that that base it it it just seems like an added element that doesn't serve the building okay Is there the the form design is currently not submitted for a review is the question to the staff is that even an option to go back to that during this meeting this meeting is a continuation of the previous hearing. And so it certainly could be brought back forward and continue to be on the table. We do not have in your current packet any of those materials. So we're a little hampered by people's availability to be looking at them at the moment. The other thing I guess I'd say is not only in reference to what you just asked about the previous design. The false sense of history problem, if I may say, the staff thought was a real problem with that previous design in terms of losing a historic structure and building one that spoke so closely and referenced it so closely. You all already are aware of that and have heard the staff's findings on that topic. But there are other options that have been alluded to in this evening's discussion. And Mr. Book held up a pyramid roof. I thought when you said, Mr. Book, about putting the different hats, it's actually we refer to that sometimes in the office. You know, you're putting different hats on a design or you're giving it new skirts or, you know, they become other terminology, all of which, of course, technically so correct. and I'm laughing. But the roof form, I think, could still be more successfully, a proposal could come forward that more successfully would, the outcome, I think, satisfy the owners and also be closer to the intent of the guidelines. I think what they've put forward at the current time for tonight is within the guidelines, but I don't think it really satisfies an outcome that everybody would yearn for. But our process is such that if something meets the guidelines, we're charged with reviewing what is put forward and saying yes it does or no it doesn't. So technically it does meet the guidelines, but for very little change in the scope of the project, and probably not much difference in money. I do think if the owners and their construction firm would work with this another go-round, as staff, I'd like to suggest that I think both the board and the process and the owners could come up with something you might be much happier with, particularly the owners, to be quite honest. And losing the skirt, the brick skirt on this project, the staff would strongly support. So it's really the roof line we're talking about at this point, given that the doors and the windows, that those openings in both of the new proposals were basically identical. It's really what's occurring on the roof portion of the building. Yes, Mr. Booth. so am i am i correct in in thinking that then if we went maybe back to and we did discuss this with carl and joellen maybe um doing just a shed style roof over the entire thing and carl and joellen the address that i gave you at 315 irvin for the mcgilligaries that we that we just finished if you all went by there, we could clean those plans up and that would be very similar. We're taking that roof line off. It would definitely be a complete change from what is there. Having a shed style roof, maybe running a nice bead board around that overhang like we did over there, gives a nice accent to it. And it would definitely not be replicating anything and would bring us up into our modern century. I would just ask if we're going to do this again, would we be better to try the shed roof, as John mentioned, or go back to the pyramid roof that Betty mentioned? Do you want the board to respond to that? I think that's who your question is directed to, but the staff will be glad to when the time is right. Well, I would say that, and not to belabor this discussion any longer tonight, could we consider approval on the teardown contingent on approval of a new design, and we wouldn't begin the teardown until we had approval for the new design. We don't want to get in front of it. I just don't want to have to revisit that or come back into question and spend more money on new designs and Mr. Book's time in meetings such as this to have to revisit the teardown? Mr. Chair, I think that that's a decision for the board. The only thing staff would suggest, it is a bit problematic process-wise because demolitions are meant by our ordinance to always be tied in Article 13, to always be tied to what's approval of what's going to be put back. So I'd be interested, really, I think that's a decision for the board. The staff knows procedurally what is asked for it to be how to be handled, but I think it's the board's call. Could a condition be placed that states, I'm trying to think on my feet here, a condition being placed that subject to approval of roof form? Does that make it? Are you thinking of if the board wants to agree to demolition? It hurts me to say that. I know. If the board, but I've been in this business a long time and, you know, never mind. So if the board's intent is to approve the demolition. you could almost i think i'm just thinking out loud you could almost frame a motion that approved what's proposed that the garage proposal we've got on the table not the one from the first submittal portion but the ones on the table and then start adding conditions which is i think what you're suggesting right that the roof be further studied and all of them would have that at the end and reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a COA. That the roof would be further studied, that the skirt board would be removed, that alternate siding materials be considered. I mean, it's a terribly broad punch list and you normally wouldn't go that route. But because of all this in-depth discussion, which is, of course, part of the record, um you would be meeting the letter of the law and i'm wondering if tracy jones might need to comment on this too our attorney um but nobody's suggesting the footprint is problematic right nobody's suggesting the site location is problematic including the staff um you could include the removal of the tree or put well you would put a condition that information documenting the need to remove the tree and the health of it would be provided prior to issues of the COA um I'll start writing you all keep talking Tracy can we ask for Tracy Jones if she has any guidance there you are Tracy good evening I think you could accomplish what Betty is talking about if you tied the demolition to approving the plan in front of you with the various conditions that you would like to have attached to it. In that way, I think you'd still be compliant with Article 13. Thank you, Tracy. Well, who's brave enough to try that one? I think Mr. Book may have a question. Mr. Book may have a question. Go ahead, Ms. Book. I'm sorry, and I don't want to make this go longer, but I just wanted to say this here. We definitely do not want to get ahead of ourselves, and so we have always wanted to make sure that we have everything clearly outlined, And so whatever we need to comply in changing the hat or the roof system and then the veneered materials, we will certainly bring options and let Carl and Joellen look at that and then bring those back so that everybody is on board. And the end result is that we can have a project that will bring that will complement the neighborhood and complement the house. I guess I should also stop and ask if there's anyone in our audience that has questions. I think we have one person left. I'll take that as a no. Back to the board. Would anyone have interest to make a motion? I've got a beginning. If somebody wants it. I'll give it a go. Okay. Do you want a beginning or do you want to just do your whole thing? Help yourself. Okay, I'll try and then we'll, you know, patch this together. So I apologize in advance. All right, Mr. Chairman, per case number 08730336-I at 336 Hampton Court. I move that the board approve the demolition of the historic garage with the condition that the garage be documented with photographs and measured floor plans. And then I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed accessory building with the following recommendations. That the documentation be provided to the staff for the removal of the diseased tree. that the roof structure form be studied further and submitted for further approval prior to the issuance of the COA. What else? Well, other board members, you want to kick in? Oh, the removal of the masonry skirting and the two regular if there's There's a two regular, I can't even say what those are now. Standard conditions. Thank you. There was also a note for materiality, I think, on the cladding. Okay, and that the the material for the cladding be studied further and resubmitted prior to the issuance of the COA. Does that work? Anything else? I would suggest you want all details to be brought back. I know that's, there's, the two standards include that to a point, but since this is becoming moving, nuancing, I think we'll need to put details of openings, cornices, corner boards, you know, a little punch list of that would come back for review, you know, prior to. One thing, talking about the comeback for review, is it your intent that this come back in its entirety to the board or that it come back in its entirety to the staff or some combination thereof? I don't know. Somebody else comment on that? I'm not sure. I would suggest a combination. I mean, the details of the corners and such seems like staff review, but given this more lengthy discussion of materiality and roof form, seems like maybe the board does want to have some kind of final blessing on it. I think process-wise, that's very healthy. I think the other thing to always think about is that part of this process, as you all strive diligently every time you work with it every month, is to be sure that adjacent neighbors and citizens can have an awareness of these projects that are substantive and will have an impact both close to the house, close to this property and further afield. So I will sort this list kind of to be the smaller things like details of openings and cornices and trims and so forth and so on. We'll put that all in a comeback to staff along with the tree details, for example, because it seems like unless you all want to disagree, that tonight you've learned enough you seem comfortable with the tree probably particularly with tear down that the tree is going to have to go so i'll put that unless you as a board wanted on your list i'll put the tree on the staff list um we'll put leave on the come back to the board um and i think we might want to work in here if you agree as a board that moved to approve the COA for proposed accessory building with its proposed footprint, site location and footprint. To kind of enumerate that as an anchor of part of what you are affirming is going to be the outcome. so and then go on into the list of um that the details about the roof that the masonry skirting to be removed the cladding is to be further studied the roof and cladding are to be further studied and so on so you've really got i think two or three items come back to the full board the further study of the roof and the further study of the cladding. And that may be the only two things to come back to the board. And I think if you all are in agreement that the rest of this list could all be put under the, and to bring back to staff, all these other things, and that would have the prior to issuance of the COA. So it would mean that the applicants would be coming at their choice of timing, because your action tonight will then grant them the permit. Well, we should back up a second. You know, as you talk, these things pop in your head. I'm sorry to go on so long. we should go back and on your approval of the demolition of the historic garage with the condition the garage be documented and all that which is very important and thank you for that um probably put a condition that it would not be demolished prior to successfully obtaining a certificate of appropriateness and maybe even you can want to put and a building permit for the new build. It would honor more closely the intent of why the demolition and the new construction are married in terms of issuance of permits. Y'all consider that. That sounds agreeable to me. Okay. All right. with I'm adding with that with condition that that the building shall not be demolished until successfully obtaining and out the permits we just mentioned condition the building okay what else and the good thing is all this discussion you know is is available to us to go back and listen to so So we will, as staff, go back and listen closely and finish this list and even send you all out a draft version of it if you want. I'm not saying you can do anything behind closed doors separately, but you're each welcome to send. That's not the wording I meant or something like that, because I know you're taking a bit of a wing and a prayer here trying to form this. Do we have to go back through all that in a motion or could Ms. Irwin just agree? Excuse my laughter. Tracy, are you still with us? Can they reference the motion as Suzanne has stated it and it has been further discussed? I think it so moved language would probably work at this point and also I don't know if you want to say set a date as to when like is it going to come back at the December meeting the items that the board's going to review or what's needed or not so just while you're on that subject you might want to determine that want me to say so moved before we get to the date that'd be fine thank you so moved and seconded um on the date i believe certainly it's the board's choice either way as our attorney has just said um i believe with this action you will have um resulted in a formal action that just has conditions like they all do and or most do and so i think that in uh it's it's a pretty quick turnaround to try to bring all this this restudy the roof and restudy the siding unless the applicants feel like they've been doing so much of that that, you know, within a week they could give us all that information, in which case we're all available is for December 16th. But I don't know, does the board want to lock it in that it is scheduled to come December 16th? Because procedurally I'd say it's the applicant's choice because the clock isn't ticking after you take this action tonight. The clock is ticking relative to the applicant's desires to, you know, move ahead with this project in timely fashion but that's the board's decision either whether to pick a date of a meeting or to leave it open-ended with the applicant able to bring it back we'd have to i'm thinking about legal notice for a minute too um because we're only we're only less than a week out from legal notice having to go out for December 16th. Well, to get formulated to get in the hopper. And I think it will have to have legal notice. This is not a continuation of a case. It is meeting the conditions of a case. I'm all right leaving it open-ended and not setting the data as a board. Tracy? Also, I think, if I'm not mistaken, and Amelia thinks her recollection is the same as mine, when you all made the motion that you haven't voted on yet about the demolition, I don't think you provided any reasons as to why. and you do need to have those and the reasons would be that either the issue of the financial situation in the building and or that you don't think due to the reasons that you all discussed today about the changes to the building that it's not going to alter the historic character of the neighborhood to take it down but you need to probably include that as well whichever you feel is most applicable under these circumstances. It's a really important point. And the thing to think about, if I may suggest, is what one is most specifically focused on the issues this building, this historic building is defined by. is it to your all's opinion more about what it costs to turn this building around to another span of life or is it about authenticity and integrity and uh it's meeting the criteria to be considered historic and you by picking one or the other will make a difference to how this could be used in future hearings about other historic buildings? I would be inclined to say the reason, the predominant reason would be for the economic hardship for the applicant. But that's my opinion. So what does anybody else on the board think? Well, I think we're in the middle of trying to make a motion. But they're saying that we need to, in making the motion to demolish the garage we have to state what the reason behind us making the motion that goes against the guidelines that that goes against the guidelines and also is contrary to the staff recommendation right but usually you're well aware that you usually can elect to hang your findings on the staff's writings right in this instance is you need to come up with what's just been suggested since it's contrary to the staff writings and so it does procedurally need to be in place before you vote on the motion as ms erwin is suggesting the findings has to be in place i i just would think that the economic hardship is what we would want to say our reasoning was because I feel like the building is a historic building. So that's my opinion. And I'm just going to mention the fact that, of course, Ms. Irwin hasn't seen the amount of brick structures that we've seen, that Mr. Gilpin and Ms. Hill have seen within the last couple of years that maybe be tied a little bit more to the construction of the building, as you all have discussed before. I might mention that since Ms. Irwin doesn't have the history of Ms. Hill about that. I would say the integrity of the historic building probably overrides for me the economic piece of it. And particularly in terms of setting a conversation for future projects, that I don't want the economics of it to be the overriding factor, but the historic integrity. We seem to have lost our chair. We've lost our chair right now. Ms. Hill, can I ask, are you thinking of its integrity structurally or its integrity as a historic element? An appropriate question, probably structurally. We probably need to get Mr. Gilpin back on before we go any further. we lost a form too. I wonder if the same thing has happened to us. Let me text him. He may be let's see yep he's he's okay let's see Thank you. Amelia, are you in touch with IT again? I'm coming. Here he is. Thank you. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Good. I'm very sorry about that. It kicked me off again. I could hear everything you were talking about, though. I just couldn't respond. Okay, so getting back to the motion, we're talking about the reasoning behind going contrary to the staff recommendations. So we're trying to decide, do we just say both economic hardship for the owner and a reduced structural integrity or a highly compromised structural integrity of the historic building. I will tell you that findings that go into the economic hardship issue, there's a long section of the ordinance that tells you what you have to do to demonstrate economic hardship. Yeah, I saw that. And that's not been an exercise this has gone through. It's touched on about a 5% beginning of that, which is get several quotes about what kind of money does it take to accomplish what this owner is requesting. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. So I think that going, I would recommend that the structural integrity of the historic structure had compromised perhaps the ability to be renovated and then, you know, whatever you want to say from there. But, you know, everything can be renovated. It's all a matter of how badly do you want to fix it. Right. And how much how much is it valued for reasons other than money and how much, you know. So I think Susan's on a beginning point that should makes good sense, if I may suggest as a staff. But, of course, it's very important. You as the board are the ones who decide on this, not the staff, because. the staff is already on record with our findings. But you're off to a good start is what I'm trying to say. Okay, so. And it doesn't need to be lengthy what you decide for your findings. Okay, so if I restate it as saying the reason behind our approval for demolition going against the staff findings would be for the reduced structural integrity of the building that seemed to prevent the owner from being able to achieve it. achieve the necessary utility for their accessory building. Something like that. Perhaps you'd like to consider the word compromise instead of prevent. Okay. Yes. I agree. To compromise. So would that do Susan, do you and Josh agree with that? I do. Okay. So can we say that is so moved? Does that work? With the addition of that reasoning? Because we're going to have all this to go back and go through for minutes and stuff. Okay. And I can second that. And now we can vote. All right. We have a second. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Motion is passed. And yes, Ms. Hill. I just want to thank the owners of this property for their willingness to work so closely with the board. Um, it's, I know it's been a, it has been and has a little bit more to go, but a tedious process. And clearly your appreciation of the place where you live, where your roots have been the last 29 years are reflected in the care with which you're willing to go through this tedious process. And I really do appreciate it. And thank you so much. Same here. Thank you all for staying late tonight and putting up with us as we get through this. Thank you. And to the staff for all the work done on their side. Thanks, everybody. Thank you. All right. Well, I think we have some minutes to approve. And is there anything else on our list, Amelia or Betty? I believe you're just with the minutes. All right. Can I hear a motion to approve the minutes? I'm moved. The minutes are approved. Minutes are approved. And can I get a motion to adjourn? Can I ask one quick question tied to next meeting, December 16th? 16th we're having some um conflicts about uh crossovers of different government entities having meetings on that day uh is your timing such that um you could be available to start anywhere four o'clock 4 30 5 o'clock could you be a little flexible on time to your knowledge on December 16th. This is a poll only, a poll. Okay. Thank you. That was it. All right. I move that we adjourn. All right. We're adjourned. Thank you. I write the songs that make the whole world sing. I write the songs of love and special things. I write the songs that make the young girls cry. I write the songs, I write the songs. Oh, my music makes you dance And gives you spirit to take a chance And I'll do some rock and roll So you can move Music fills your heart Well, that's a real fine place to start It's from me, it's from you, it's from you, it's from me It's a worldwide symphony I write the songs that make the whole world sing I write the songs of love and special things I write the songs that make the young girls cry I write the songs, I write the songs I write the songs that make the whole world sing I write the songs of love's bending I write the songs that make the young girl cry I write the songs, I write the songs I am music And I write the song Night and day You are the one Only you Need the moon Or under the sun Whether near to me or far It's no matter, darling, where you are Thank you. you can get that video going he's probably eating lunch I'm actually smoking a cigar oh come on I just said that domestic we are live and the city of Lexington knows what James Brown is okay you're live mayor thank you very much all right I'd like to welcome everyone to the November 18th 2020 council update on COVID-19 and I'll go ahead and read our statement due to the COVID-19 team pandemic and state of emergency. This meeting is being held via live video teleconference pursuant to 2020 Senate Bill 150 and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. Welcome everyone and this is a public meeting with council members and so I have a few quick points and then our CAO Sally Hamilton is on she'll have some things Dr. Craig Humball will have some things I know and and we'll take questions let's see I don't know if anybody else is on who will have a report if you are we'll get to you So as of this morning, November 18th, Lexington has reported 14,367 confirmed cases of COVID-19, and we now have 105 deaths. And citywide, we've recently seen an uptick in the number of people being tested at our test sites, so that's a good thing. And we're also continuing our mayor's mobile neighborhood testing program. And we continue to bring it into the neighborhoods and the areas where there have been disproportionately higher numbers of cases. So last week we were at the Red Mile. And we are back at the Red Mile Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of this week from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and this mayor's mobile testing neighborhood testing program has been very successful we have tested almost 15 000 and that is in a total of 58 separate days that we've tested so those are walk up and drive up and you'll get your test results in about 48 to 72 hours so we will continue this program until we no longer have a need or can't continue it. So testing's available at various other sites in Lexington, Fayette County. You can find all of those on www.lexingtonky.gov slash COVID-19. And so next week, just so everybody knows, our Southland Christian site on Richmond Road will be closed the whole week of Thanksgiving. And the BCTC site will be open Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, but closed Thanksgiving and Friday. And as some of you know, the state has recently opened up a new test site at Keeneland that's open Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. As for the University of Kentucky, as of November 18th, UK has reported 318 active cases of COVID-19 with 2,524 students who've already recovered. And then my administration continues to hold the weekly call with our healthcare stakeholders, which includes all the hospitals and other providers. It's quite a robust group. And it's turned into a wonderful, not only have we shared information, but Dr. Humball has the opportunity to give the very latest updates this morning. I thought your update on the vaccines was excellent. And it also has provided our healthcare providers the opportunity to ask each other questions about what they're doing. And one thing that we are starting to put out in the media is that we are going to hold a service, we're calling it In Remembrance, this Friday at one o'clock p.m. for all those in Fayette County who have died during the pandemic. As I said, as of now, it's 105 of our citizens. it of course we cannot hold it in person so it will be live streamed online and on lex tv you'll get the links out to everyone and we encourage our community to take some time on friday to think about those who have passed during the pandemic we have i believe four members of the clergy of various religious persuasions who will be in the service. And we're not opening it to the public because of the governor's red zone guidance. And as you know, we are expecting to hear the governor's new restrictions, which will be mandates at his press briefing today. And so I just encourage everyone to continue doing what you individually can do, wearing your mask, distancing, washing hands, and then listen for the latest updates. So with that, I'd like to ask CAO Hamilton if she has some things to add. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Can everybody hear me? Yes. I don't have anything really unusual to add or special to add. We are just getting, we can notice in our staffing, John Maxwell is continuously reporting more and more people who are out in the government based on COVID. We're getting a lot of people who aren't sick themselves, but Dr. Humboldt are in the contact tracing group, and so therefore are home and in quarantine for 14 days or so. So we have noticed a major uptick in that. Fire, and I think is Ken on here? Ken, please correct me if these statistics have changed, but fire has sort of been hit hard. They had 38 that tested positive, 13 in quarantine and two in isolation. And police had 22 and two were in quarantine. Have those statistics changed any, Ken, recently? Yes, ma'am. In my conversations with Chief Chilton, they actually have, I think, if I'm not mistaken, 35 people in isolation right now. Now. But that will be changing dramatically on Friday when 10 to 12 are scheduled to come back. But they have five that are positive right now. So now with that being said, it hasn't impacted services, as you know, Mayor and Ms. Hamilton, because we've been able to use backfill over time to make sure that we're not required to shut down any services. And I had the police number as 22 tested positive and two in quarantine. Have you got an update on that, or is that number still holding? That number is correct, to the best of my knowledge, yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. Then FIRE has had approximately 663 calls for COVID, and that's up 41 from last week. So it's, as you expect it, it's all on an uptick. Monica is on here, and I think Monica had a case today. Monica, you may want to tell everybody what had happened at Gainesway and what you're doing there. Yeah, we had a student in our NTI camp at Gainesway who tested positive on Monday. And so we have shut down that camp and our counselors and, you know, asked them all to quarantine. And then we'll restart that, certainly depending on the calendar, but not for at least two weeks. Okay, thank you. We've also are monitoring waste very carefully to see if we have to make any adjustments to our schedule there, because we're having quite a few out there also. So I think the government itself is experiencing what the population is experiencing more and more cases. You know, we were talking earlier today. It used to be you would say, do you know anybody that has had COVID? And everybody said, well, no, but I know somebody who knows somebody. Well, now, of course, that story is really changing. So we're becoming more and more. And we're going to even start to we've got so many people that are working from home. but we're going to even strengthen that in the next couple weeks. All right. Very good. I see Tim Brandy-We on here from Division of Emergency Management. Before we go to Dr. Humboldt, do you have anything, Tim? Ma'am, we had at our public safety meeting on Monday outline with Commissioner of what our basic outline is for essential personnel vaccination based upon the CDC guidance. You know, I briefed the heads of the divisions. We're utilizing, obviously, it's going to be the CDC prioritization list, which is out by type of discipline of employee and things of that sort. Right now, what we're doing is lining up the connection between Lexington Fire, who can likely provide vaccinations for critical frontline personnel in a closed pod in conjunction with the health department's authority as the local agency. So right now, while we're waiting for more details on the timing and shipment, we're trying to get our administrative ducks in a row so that if hypothetically we get X amount and say 20% of that can come to us on the first shipment, what is our top priorities relative to the established CDC guidance. I briefed the commissioner, talked with Commissioner Humball this morning. So we're mainly getting our admin process in a row. And then starting today, now that I've been cleared, going down that CDC listing, I'm going to be contacting select division directors whose employees may fall into either Phase 1 Alpha or Phase 1 Bravo, which is the initial focus, to start getting true numbers. And by that, ma'am, I mean truly numbers of people who are essential, that they are in contact or are touching other human beings, frontline medical workers, frontline patrol officers. That's one alpha. And then as we get down, we start getting into corrections and some other things. It's a very logical prioritization, but we're trying to get our ducks in a row now. So I assume it's going to be real short notice when the early vaccination numbers arrive in Frankfurt, and it could be even shorter notice for us to put him in arms. So that's basically what I've been pulled off to do, and I'll be working with Dr. Humboldt's people and some of the other division directors. Okay, very good. That's a perfect segue to Dr. Humboldt. Thank you, Tim. Craig? Hey, thanks, Mayor. So, well, as you've all heard that, you know, we're experiencing record numbers of COVID-19 cases each week in Lexington. This is more disease circulating now in the community than we've seen in the entire eight and a half months or so of the pandemic. so it's certainly a challenging time for all of us. We are now having identifying about 200 cases a day on average in Lexington alone. That's around a thousand or so a week and more and we have currently around 1,500 people who are in actively in isolation so they're active cases that we're monitoring daily. I think it's important to know because of this latest surge that one-third of all cases reported in Lexington so far since the beginning of the pandemic, approximately one-third, have been reported in the last month. Okay. So from the last month forward one-third of all cases in Lexington. As you said, Mayor, we are at over 100 deaths now in terms of Lexington residents who have died from COVID-related complications. Our numbers in the hospitals have gone up since this summer. We're averaging about 65 to 70 hospitalized Lexington residents due to COVID-19 every day now. That's about twice what we're experiencing this summer. Let me talk a little bit about changes to our contact tracing process. So the surge in cases that we've seen here and across the state have eclipsed our ability to effectively get in touch with all close contacts. We, as of yesterday, announced a change in our process. And I think you all know, but close contacts are those who have been within six feet of someone who's infectious, who's tested positive for 15 minutes or more during their infectious period. And so it's more difficult for us to do that, that contacting of those contacts and quarantining them based on just the total number of cases that we're seeing here in Lexington. So we have made a move to ask the, we're going to be asking the cases to notify contacts about the need to quarantine. We've developed handouts both for the cases and for those who are quarantined about what we the directions and guidance about what to do. We'll still be working in high-risk situations helping to identify close case close contacts of cases that'll be primarily in nursing homes, child care, schools, that type of thing. But in most situations, we won't be directly issuing quarantine orders anymore. What this will allow us to do is to continue to focus on what's been our priority from the beginning, which is early identification of actual cases of people who test positive, interviews of those cases, and then isolation of those cases, quick isolation of those people who are actually contagious, getting them in isolation until they can be released by the health department. I think this move will allow us to have a greater return on investment because there are diminishing returns as we have more and more cases in the community from the contact tracing piece. So I hope that that is clear to everyone. And again, I can take questions about that at the end. I do want to say a few words about vaccination to follow up on what Tim from emergency management said. There are two promising candidates out there for as effective vaccines for COVID-19. That's the good news. They are moving through the FDA's authorization process. They will most likely receive emergency use authorization as opposed to full FDA approval upon their release to us at the state level and the local level. The process, as Tim pointed out, will be really pretty much managed from the federal government through state health departments. The federal government is basically buying up all the vaccine at this stage. Vaccine will come out through local health departments, just like if you all remember the H1N1 vaccine for the pandemic influenza year, which was 11 years ago. The vaccine, as Tim said, in phase 1A, which is the first phase, will be targeted to healthcare workers and first responders. And we don't know yet what our allocation will be here in Lexington. There was still a lot of planning assumptions that are unknown. Both of these vaccine candidates are different in their storage and handling requirements. There's, looks like a bit of difference in terms of the interval between doses that have to be given in order to be able to protect the person who gets the vaccine. So it looks like maybe there'd be two doses, but the intervals may be different.