# Board of Architectural Review - December 16, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 16, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5263 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5263?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-12-16 - **Last revised**: December 16, 2020 - **Length**: 18,203 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 held a meeting on December 16, 2020, via teleconference, presided over by Mr. Dickinson. The board considered 13 agenda items and took 13 votes during the session. There were no public comments heard during the meeting. The board's primary focus was reviewing Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) applications for various properties. Of the 12 COA applications reviewed, 11 were approved: 426 North Limestone, 474 West Second Street, 256 Bell Place, 147 Old Park Avenue, 1827 Nicholasville Road, 336 Hampton Court, 200 East Bell Court, 331 Linden Walk, 183 Old Park Avenue, 320 and 322 Deshay Road, and 346 Deshay Road. One COA application for 612 Central Avenue was denied. The board also approved the 2021 meeting calendar. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 16, 2020: - Mr. Dickinson - Ms. Hill - Ms. Irwin - Mr. Gilpin No attendees were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting resulted in 13 votes, all conducted by voice vote. Twelve Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) applications were considered, along with approval of the 2021 meeting calendar. **Approved COAs with Standard Conditions:** - **426 North Limestone** [timestamp: 0:15:57] — Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Josh. Passed 4-0. - **474 West Second Street** [timestamp: 0:20:00] — Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Irwin. Passed 3-0 with 1 abstention. - **256 Bell Place** [timestamp: 0:21:41] — Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Ms. Irwin. Passed 4-0. **Approved COAs with Specific Conditions:** - **147 Old Park Avenue** [timestamp: 0:24:57] — Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Passed 4-0. Final details of columns to be submitted prior to COA issuance. - **1827 Nicholasville Road** [timestamp: 0:28:18] — Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Passed 4-0. Final details of roof and columns to be submitted prior to COA issuance. - **336 Hampton Court** [timestamp: 0:34:34] — Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Passed 4-0. Photographs and measured floor plans to be submitted prior to demolition. - **200 East Bell Court** [timestamp: 1:05:50] — Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Passed 3-0 with 1 abstention. Final details to be submitted to staff for review and approval. - **331 Linden Walk** [timestamp: 1:12:06] — Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Gilpin. Passed 4-0. Deck should have skirting; final details to be submitted. - **183 Old Park Avenue** [timestamp: 1:14:47] — Motion by Mr. Gilpin, seconded by Ms. Irwin. Passed 4-0. Final brick paver and stone selection to be submitted. - **320 and 322 Deshay Road** [timestamp: 1:39:20] — Motion by Mr. Gilpin, seconded by Ms. Irwin. Passed 4-0. Design of more open top is in keeping with character. - **346 Deshay Road** [timestamp: 2:21:55] — Motion by Mr. Gilpin, seconded by Ms. Hill. Passed 4-0. Use rectangular wood shingles or siding to match first floor walls. **Disapproved COA:** - **612 Central Avenue for window replacement** [timestamp: 2:14:17] — Motion by Ms. Hill, seconded by Mr. Dickinson. Passed 3-1. Voting in favor: Mr. Dickinson, Ms. Hill, Mr. Gilpin. Voting against: Ms. Irwin. **Other Business:** - **2021 Meeting Calendar** [timestamp: 2:27:55] — Approved by voice vote 4-0. ## Contested Items **Approval of COA for 612 Central Avenue** The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for window replacement at 612 Central Avenue. The application resulted in a split vote and was ultimately disapproved. The primary point of contention was the applicant's proposed use of vinyl windows for the replacement project. The applicant argued in favor of the vinyl windows, presenting arguments about their quality and appropriateness for the property. However, the board did not find these arguments persuasive enough to approve the application, and the COA was denied based on the window material choice. ## Approval of COA for 426 North Limestone [timestamp: 00:15:57] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 426 North Limestone to install a shed on the property. Ms. Hill presented the application to the board. The application was approved with standard conditions. **Outcome:** The COA for 426 North Limestone was approved. ## Approval of COA for 474 West Second Street [timestamp: 0:20:00] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 474 West Second Street to install a storage shed. Ms. Hill presented the application to the board. The application was approved with standard conditions. **Outcome:** The board approved the Certificate of Appropriateness for 474 West Second Street. ## Approval of COA for 256 Bell Place [timestamp: 00:21:41] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 256 Bell Place. Ms. Hill presented the application, which requested approval for two proposed modifications to the property: installation of a storage shed and removal of paint from the structure. The board reviewed the application and approved it with standard conditions. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion. **Outcome:** The Certificate of Appropriateness for 256 Bell Place was approved. ## Approval of COA for 147 Old Park Avenue [timestamp: 24:57] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 147 Old Park Avenue to construct a carport. Ms. Hill presented the application to the board. The proposal involves the construction of a carport at the property. The board approved the application with conditions. Specifically, the approval was contingent upon final details regarding the columns being resolved to the board's satisfaction. **Outcome:** The COA for 147 Old Park Avenue was approved. ## Approval of COA for 1827 Nicholasville Road [timestamp: 28:18] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 1827 Nicholasville Road to construct a carport. Ms. Hill presented the application to the board. The proposal was approved with conditions regarding the final details of the roof and columns for the carport structure. **Outcome:** The application was approved. ## Approval of COA for 336 Hampton Court [timestamp: 0:34:34] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 336 Hampton Court to construct a garage. Ms. Hill presented the application to the board. The proposal was approved with conditions requiring documentation to be submitted prior to any demolition work. The application was approved by the board. ## Approval of COA for 200 East Bell Court [timestamp: 1:05:50] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 200 East Bell Court regarding changes to the location and design of sidewalks. Ms. Hill presented the application to the board. The proposal involved modifying the sidewalk configuration at the property, including changes to both its location and design. The board reviewed the application and determined that the proposed changes met the necessary criteria for approval. The application was approved with conditions requiring that final details be resolved before implementation. These conditions ensured that the sidewalk modifications would be completed in accordance with applicable standards and the board's specifications. **Outcome:** Approved with conditions ## Approval of COA for 331 Linden Walk [timestamp: 1:12:06] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the property at 331 Linden Walk. The application requested approval to change an opening and construct a deck at the residence. Ms. Hill presented the application to the board. The proposal was approved with conditions. Specifically, the approval included a requirement regarding skirting for the deck construction. The board's decision resulted in approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for 331 Linden Walk, contingent upon the applicant meeting the specified conditions related to the deck skirting. ## Approval of COA for 183 Old Park Avenue [timestamp: 1:14:47] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 183 Old Park Avenue. The application requested approval for three proposed modifications to the property: changing the siding, constructing a patio, and completing landscaping work. Mr. Gilpin presented the application to the board. The board reviewed the proposed changes and approved the Certificate of Appropriateness with conditions. The approval was contingent upon final selections being made in accordance with the board's requirements. The application was approved. ## Approval of COA for 320 and 322 Deshay Road [timestamp: 1:39:20] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the properties at 320 and 322 Deshay Road. The application sought approval to increase fence height at these locations. Mr. Gilpin presented the matter to the board. The application was reviewed and discussed by the board members. The board approved the application with conditions regarding the design of the fence. The approval was contingent upon the applicant meeting specified design requirements. ## Disapproval of COA for 612 Central Avenue [timestamp: 2:14:17] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 612 Central Avenue regarding a window replacement project. Ms. Hill presented the matter to the board. The application sought approval to replace windows at the property. However, the board identified a significant concern with the proposed work: the applicant planned to use vinyl windows for the replacement. The board disapproved the application based on this use of vinyl windows. The application was denied. ## Approval of COA for 346 Deshay Road [timestamp: 2:21:55] The board considered an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for 346 Deshay Road to reconstruct a garage. **Outcome** The application was approved with conditions regarding siding and window details. **Key Participants** Mr. Gilpin presented on this agenda item. ## Approval of 2021 meeting calendar [timestamp: 2:27:55] The board considered and approved the meeting calendar for 2021. The calendar establishes meetings for the third Wednesday of each month at 4 p.m. The motion to approve the 2021 meeting calendar passed. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 426 North Limestone with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of COA for 474 West Second Street with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 256 Bell Place with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 147 Old Park Avenue with conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 1827 Nicholasville Road with conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 336 Hampton Court with conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of COA for 200 East Bell Court with conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 331 Linden Walk with conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 183 Old Park Avenue with conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 320 and 322 Deshay Road with conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-1): Disapproval of COA for 612 Central Avenue for window replacement - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 346 Deshay Road with conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of 2021 meeting calendar --- ## Full transcript Thank you. All right, go right ahead, Mr. Chairman. All right, thank you, sir. I would like to welcome you to the December 16th special meeting of the Board of Architectural Review 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the state of emergency and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150, as signed by the Governor on March 2020, and Attorney General Opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 61.826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. The board was established by a zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was France Park, 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 a 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 applications in order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. I will ask the parties that wish to be heard regarding the application to raise their digital blue hand in order to be allowed to comment as an applicant or as a citizen making a public comment. Please keep your microphone muted until you're recognized to speak. And as you start your comments, please state your name and address for the public record. upon conclusion of the specific application that you're addressing you'll be returned to the regular attendee status and you are of course welcome to continue observing the meeting the board will ask questions or make comments regarding the application and will hear comments from any other interested parties the chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion and 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 applicants to appear before the board. There are pending before me today, and they have been a busy staff, 31 approved recommendations. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 226 to Shea Road, renovate structure. At 320 to Shea Road, install fencing. At 322 to Shea Road, install fencing. And at 131 South Hanover Avenue, renovate front store. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District at 221 South Ashland Avenue, replacement window. In the Ellsford Historic District at 331 Linden Walk, replace and install new fencing. At 404 East Maxwell Street, remove a deteriorated tree. At 309 Transylvania Park, replace dying tree. And at 161 Woodland Avenue, replace fence. In the Bell Court Historic District, at 218 Bell Place, renovate structure. At 256 Bell Place, replace driveway and install stepping stones. At 133 Forest Avenue, renovate the structure. At 609 East Main Street, remove dying tree. and 621 Sarah Avenue renovate structure and site. In the Cadence Town historic district at, I don't have an address, it's renovate structure. At Ellesmere Park at 638 Ellesmere Park, replace storm doors. In Mulberry Hill historic district at 435 North Limestone, remove the dying tree. In the Pensacola Park historic district at 108 Lackawanna Road, renovate garage. at 125 Lockamata Road, renovate structure. At the 7 Parks Historic District at 554 Arcadia Park, renovate structure and site. At 129 Barbary Lane, renovate structure, a renovate site. In the South Hill Historic District at 355 South Broadway, replace Atena. At 436 Lawrence Street, renovate structure. at 208 West Maxwell Street, repair rear wall due to fire, at 209 Pine Street, renovate structure, 211 Pine Street, renovate structure, 213 Pine Street, renovate structure, 215 Pine Street, renovate structure, at 427 South Upper Street, renovate structure, and 429 South Upper Street, renovate structure. In the Woodward Heights Historic District at 312 Madison Place, renovate structure. Those are all of the staff approvals. We will now turn to our first application at 426 North Limestone in the Mulberry Hill Historic District in Stahlshed. Is the applicant here? Do I have an applicant? What is their name, Mr. Chairman? it should be I'm sorry Sally Jones excuse me we have a Miles Palis sir I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly but they have their hand up sir if you want to bring them in for some reason the right applicant for that case I'm sorry what it should be that's not the right applicant he's on for 146 Old Park all right attachment one reads 426 north limestone street right with sally jones as the owner applicant is not correct that's correct all right oh we have the wrong person popping in right now gotcha sorry do i have do i have a miss jones only miss jones i have on here is mr chairman is Tracy so is that the applicant or is that someone else I believe that's from our law office okay oh you're right uh I will note that the staff has recommended approval with the following what I call the standard conditions I think we can move forward regardless of whether Ms. Jones is here or not unless there's an objection I'll read those uh standard recommendations into the record and they are as follows if any changes are made that altered information submitted resubmit the changes the staff are reviewing approval prior to the start of work and secondly once reviewed by the other lfucg divisions returning changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start at work do i have any comments from the board members as to this application Do I have any comments or concerns in the audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, I think we're ready for a motion then. Ms. Hill? Per case number 11660426C at 426 North Limestone, I move to approve the COA with the standard conditions as just read. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Second. All right. Josh seconds it. Any 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 of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Turning now to attachment number two, case number 1684. So, pardon me, Mr. Dickinson. We do have one problem with the television side. For some reason, you have been made a host instead of a co-host. So, you're the only one that's got the ability to bring the folks in. So, if you don't mind, on your computer where it says LexTV, if you can make me a host, then I'll be able to do it, sir. How do I do that? I'll just click on where it says participants. All right. And when it goes to panelists, you'll see LexTV me. just click on there where it says more and then to say make me a host i've got two urban county co-host is that you no sir it should be lex tv at the top gotcha all right and make host very good all right you realize you realize i'm too old for this i understand sir all right all right you'll be good now sir okay uh now how do i make the screen go away by clicking on it. There we go. All right. Okay. So I'm going to make sure we didn't have a Sally Jones that was trying to come in and I didn't see it because I was the host. That shouldn't be the case, sir, but I will look again. Like I said, once we only have Tracy. Okay. Can you make Tracy a panelist? I can. Great. Thank you. all right ms jones welcome aboard all right turning now to case number 16840474-a at 474 west 2nd street uh the scope of work is installed storage shed and we had daniel where is the owner applicant is mr where present Mr. Chairman, while he's coming on, I'll go ahead and say that I'll abstain from this one. All right. Mr. Chairman, I do not see anybody by that name waiting. All right. Okay. This is another one that has been approved or there's a recommendation of approval subject to the standard two conditions. are there any questions or concerns from the board members? Any questions or concerns from the virtual audience? I don't see any reason for us to hold this up and we can move forward. So I'm going to give it a count of 10. All right, then I need a motion to approve of this application. Mr. Chairman, as per case number 16840474-A at 474 West 2nd Street, I move that the BOAR grant the COA approval for this property with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. I have a second from Ms. Hill. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and this certificate of appropriateness is approved. Thank you very much. Turning now to our next application, which is at 256 Bell Place in the Bell Court Historic District. the scope of work is install a storage shed and remove paint and Celeste Lewis is the applicant and owner she presents Mr. Chairman I do not see anybody by the name of Lewis on our list alright we remind you folks you have your blue hand if this is your case just use your blue hand to let us know All right, if there's no blue hand, again, this is another application that has standard two conditions to it. I see no reason why we cannot move forward on this application. Are there any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion then. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 32930256-G, at 256 Bell Place, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions. Do I have a second? Second. I second. Ms. Hill any further discussion on the motion hearing now the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed nay the motion carries and the certificate appropriateness is approved as conditioned thank you very much turning now to attachment number five at 147 Old Park Avenue the scope of work is construct a carport and paved driveway the owner is Miles Palos and the applicant is Adam Crusoe are they present yes they are Mr. Chairman I'll bring them in right now all right all right I have a Bill Rouse and I have a Lindsay Brantlett Are they an applicant? Lindsay Brown is here for 331 Linden Walk. I don't think that's the right one. This is actually Mr. Palas and Mr. Croissant is part of this project. Also, you might want to look at behind item number three for the plans for 147 Old Park. They may have switched around. Okay. First of all, let me see if we have, I have Mr. Palos. Do you prefer to remain just with your avatar? And you'll need to unmute yourself, sir. Yeah, that's fine. All right. I just want to make sure. Yeah. All right. I think this should not require a whole lot of conversation. week. This is an application that has received a recommendation of approval subject to what I call the standard conditions plus one additional condition of final details of the columns being submitted prior to the issuance of the COA. Are there any questions or comments from the board members regarding this application? I didn't jinx it by saying it's not going to be a problem. Do you have any questions or comments from the audience regarding this application? Hearing none, then, I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, per case number 32200147-C at 147 Old Park Avenue, I move to approve the COA with the following conditions. The first one being final details of the columns be submitted prior to the issuance of the COA. And number two and three are the standard conditions. Do I have a second? You have a second? Second. Thank you. 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. The motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you all for your attendance at this meeting today. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right. Okay, turning now to attachment number five. This is at 1827 Nicholasville Road. Code, case number 13971827. Todd Reynolds is the owner applicant. Is Mr. Reynolds present? I have a Mr. Rouse holding up. Well, he's gone now. Mr. Rouse is holding up his hand. Mr. Rouse, are you wanting to be heard? And I have a Mr. Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds, you're in avatar form. would you prefer to be seen or do you prefer just to have a your silhouette if you will ever this is fine okay thank you the board has recommended approval of your application they have a couple conditions that they added in addition to the standard conditions they are the final details of the roof and columns be submitted prior to the issuance of the coa and that the eve of the gable have a finished appearance and have siding with the final details to be submitted to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Do you have any objection to those additional conditions? No, I do not. All right. Mr. Reynolds agrees to those conditions. Do I have, in addition to the standard two, which I believe you've heard me read into the record, any questions or concerns from the staff members or board members? Excuse me. I have just one question, and it's really a question to the staff. On the front, it says the scope of work is to construct a carport and change openings. You're right. Thank you. Sorry, I scratched the change of openings. That was a leftover piece. Okay, great. No other questions. And Ms. Hill, I will compliment you for your good eyes on that. Okay. 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. All right, then. I believe the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, as per case number 13971827-A at 1827 Nicholasville Road, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. one that the final details of the roof and columns be submitted prior to the issuance of the COA and two the eve of the gable have a finished appearance and have siding with the final details to be submitted to the staff prior to the issuance of the COA and conditions three and four being our standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Your application is approved and I hope you will have a good project. Thank you very much. Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you. All right, Mr. Rouse, Mr. Reynolds. Going now to attachment number six, case number 08730336-J at 336 Hampton Port. The scope of work is characterized as an accessory structure. The owner is Carl Kuhn. The applicant is John Book. Is Mr. Book present? All right, Mr. Coon. I saw his, saw it come up. Mr. Book. Yes, sir. How are you today? Doing well. Okay. I think we are finally reaching the end of this application. We are. We are. Okay, it's been a process and I want to compliment you on your being willing to work with the staff as we work through this demolition project. The findings noted there are some issues with how you're going to go about trying to get everything approved. So let me just read. I think there are two substantive conditions and then the other two are what we call the standard. The first one is prior to demolition of the existing brick structure, documentation consisting of photographs and measured floor plans shall be submitted to staff. We'll note there's a typo in that. It said exiting, so it should be existing. Number two is demolition of the existing garage may only proceed after a COA and building permit have been issued for the construction of the proposed accessory structure. The other two are the standard conditions. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes, sir. We just have one question, and we appreciate the staff and the board and all parties that have helped us to be able to get to this point. So the garage documentation, the photographs, would the photographs that we've already sent Barry, would those suffice that condition number one that we've already sent? And then we also have a set of plans that show the preexisting site and dimensions there. So would the plans that we've submitted suffice for one or do we need to do something else? I just want a little clarity there. Okay. Hang on. What we are looking for is photographs showing the elevations from directly on of each elevation, and then details of all of the openings and doors, you know, compiled into a package. As far as the drawings, the site plan that you have would be sufficient, but we need an actual dimensioned floor plan drawing, again, with the openings shown on that. And probably some of your, I think they want it all assembled into one packet so they can put it into archives saying this is what the building looked like? That's correct. Okay. Okay. So in essence, and we just do an as-built drawing of what we're looking at, what we're taking down. You have the new building. So a little bit, we're just kind of expanding the footprint drawing that we have. We can certainly get that taken care of. That's correct, with dimensions. Okay. And so long as you have photographs of all the elevations, that should suffice as well. All of the elevations plus detailed shots of the openings and their details. Right. Okay. Okay. Does that clear up the question? It does and we can certainly comply with that. All right, Mr. Book. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Yes, Ms. Armstrong. Ms. Hill had a question. She raised her hand. I'm sorry, Michelle. It's really just a comment. And I want to reiterate exactly what our chair said was, thanks so much for the patience through this process. I'm hopeful that you're pleased with the outcome. I think you have achieved the best of the outcome. So I'm hopeful that you're comfortable with it because I know it's been tedious. But thank you for your perseverance and your good humor through it all. You're welcome. Thank you. And I'll once again endorse that comment. Thank you. All right. I believe we're ready then for a motion to be made. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 08730336-J at 336 Hampton Court, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. that number one prior to demolition of the existing brick garage documentation consisting of photographs and measured floor plan shall be submitted to the staff number two demolition of the existing garage may only proceed after a coa and building permit have been issued for the construction of the proposed accessory structure and conditions three and four are our standard condition. All right. So do I have a second? Second. All right. There being a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness as conditioned is approved. Congratulations, Mr. Kuhn. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. and Mr. Book you earned your fee appreciate it let's move on to attachment number 7 oh hang on I've got a glitch here This one is at 200 East Belcourt Street. I did something wrong. and scope of work has changed location and design of sidewalks this is the application the owners are mary jane and jeff smith the applicant being john michler are they present coming in now mr chairman i thank you Mr. Mickler, I see your avatar. Do you prefer to be in avatar form or would you like to appear in video? Your choice. And I also have Andrew Moore. All right. Mr. Moore, are you here to make comments on the application? I'm here to make comments. John asked me to speak to the structure part of it. Okay, we will come to you in just a moment. Let me work through a procedure. I just was curious as to your involvement. Okay, so we have the standard two conditions. We also have a couple, I think, substantive conditions. I suspect, Mr. Mickley, you would like to be heard on those. The first one being the front wall may be concrete in lieu of stone. Final details of the concrete aggregate come back to the staff for approval and for the issues of the COA. And number two, the landing be reduced to allow for more green space between the walkway and the public walk. Mr. Michele, I assume that you all like to be heard on those? Yes, here I am. Yes. have um we've had after reading the staff report probably not um the first time there uh andy will be presenting a very simplified boiled down version that i think will be easy for everyone so okay we will be requesting some conditions okay there is a procedure let me have uh the staff do its presentation of its findings and then we can proceed to you and to mr boll okay Thank you. All right. Thank you. And is it Ms. Armstrong that has this one? Yes, it is. All right. And has she, I don't see her. Oh, there she is. There you are. It's always a process to bring up the photos. There we go. Very good. Amelia, your microphone is still muted. Still can't hear you. Okay, there we go. All right, thank you. We are at 200 East Belcourt. And at the last meeting, of course, we heard the front yard and the backyard with a pool and another landscaping. And now we're discussing the front in which the applicants are requesting to replace. They'd actually removed the front walk and steps leading down. As you can see, this is from the 1991 photograph that indicated the material that was housed at that time with the retaining wall systems. They got permission back in October to replace the driveway and to remove the knee walls. um here's uh this is sort of during the process of renovation where they changed the knee walls in 2007 from the the um concrete block to the brick and and now most recently they've removed that um and so in that process they also would like to remove that walkway or redesign that from the walkway leading to the public walk and to the sidewalk leading to the driveway and then redesign that. We'll look a bit closer here at some of the plans. So this is the walk from this. These are the stairs leading to the porch, but it's this walk. You can see my cursor with these stairs that they would like to replace with limestone. And then part of their whole proposal is we'll look out here a little bit further, which is also in your plan, is to edge the walkway with what we call sailor course of limestone. And then to put a new bit of soldier course limestone just along the driveway right at where the porch is, as we saw in this picture before. Could you explain to the layperson what those terms mean exactly? The limestone is laying, if it's sailor, it's laying long ways. And if it's soldier, it's standing up like a soldier. Oh, all right. Okay. And so really it'll be sort of edging along the front and then more upright, but not very, and you'll see in the plan, not very tall along just the porch itself. And of course, there has to be, and this is something that staff had sort of been aware of, that the porch needs to be reinforced, but you'll see that detail in the plan, and also the front foundation, which is just still a concrete block of the porch, and they're requesting to parch. Which, of course, means putting a skim coat of concrete over that to cover the sin, so much of the markings of the concrete block. First here is images that we saw last time. And then this is taken from the real estate sale showing that you've got the retaining wall systems here. And part of this whole proposal that was started was for the Smiths to be able to drive in the driveway and store park here to unload, but being able to open car doors because at this point with both the retaining walls on either side, that prevents them from doing so. and of course this is sort of during construction where they went ahead and removed that but we've since talked about that and they realized that was not supposed to happen and and they are trying to move forward in a positive manner now so and just sort of show their yard. And these were the steps leading up on the side. I don't have a detailed shot of the front steps, unfortunately, just a pullback shot. And this is an existing site plan showing sort of the as is before and this was a proposal that you saw in that staff reviewed in the packet with the limestone going down or at the flag blue block stone with flag with a big chunks of limestone going down for stairs and the edging that we talked about Again, this is sort of a plan showing the location of steps and walkways and landings. This is a section of reinforcement of the porch. And this is sort of a sketch rendering of the proposal. I'm going to go back to this plan for a second. Okay, guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to change the front existing concrete rocks to bluestone limestone respectively require further discussion. The front yards of these properties are significant elements of each site and streetscape of Belcourt historic district and the predominant front yard pattern for this block of East Belcourt includes open space trees, blocks running from the street to entry steps and set perpendicular to the street. These walks were usually of standard concrete panel construction. Guidelines 3 to A, C, and D state sidewalks and walkways that are added or altered should be compatible with the principal on the property and surrounding historic properties and C that should be added should not be visually dominant and trees have suggested false history and D should be a concrete stone or paper consistent with the characteristics of the site and adjacent properties. Staff does find the main walkway and stairs leading to the sidewalk should be concrete however staff does find that steps and stairs leading to the driveway could be limestone. Staff does find the landing area should be reduced from from a five by seven to provide more green space between the public sidewalk and the landing and the concrete should have a consistent with other walkways in bellcourt and have a larger aggregate the proposal to install limestone edging around the front yard and down the driveways when the guidelines three six b and c which state landscapes that are altered and introduced should be compatible to the site with the surrounding properties and landscape should not be visually dominant intrusive or suggestive false sense of history staff finds that limestone edging is found within the bellcourt area recommendation staff recommends approval of the proposed landscape changes with the following conditions. Number one, front walkway be concrete and stone with final details of concrete aggregate to come back to staff. Two, the landing be reduced to allow for green space between public walkway and walkway. And three, and four are standard conditions. And I would say Mr. Moore has submitted another plan that I think he will show that sort of speaks to number two about the landing area and about green space and that discussion. So to be clear, do we have the current plans in front of us now or have there been additional alterations? I think Mr. Moore will put that we'll share his screen. I'm going to stop sharing mine so he can share his. Okay. All right, Mr. Moore, let me go ahead and have Mr. Moore make his presentation and then we'll have the staff ask questions or the board members ask questions. Mr. Moore, it's your turn. All right. So I'm going to find... And if you don't mind, briefly just describe for me your credentials or your expertise in this area. Say that again, sir. I have the feeling that you've been called by Mr. Mickler as a kind of an expert witness. So I'm just wondering what your background is. Well, my background is engineering and landscape architecture. I've done a lot of landscape construction through the years. And John and I have worked on projects together for the past 30 years or so. All right. With my part being usually the hard scape and John's part being the beautiful part that you actually see. and after studying the suggestions that were made about a staff and talking with the owners we came up with a plan that really minimized the side access but increased the planting area that John would have and just ran a either a lawn or a some kind of plant that could be stepped on if necessary when the car doors were opened and the primary access in and out would be to the front door down the main sidewalk I mean to the main sidewalk from the front door and if necessary a secondary access with just some steppers through the planting that John will be doing. These few stones right here would serve as steps down over the curve there. So it's mainly just a little shortcut if needed to the main walk. we thought that this would free John up to do a lot more of what the Smiths had in mind with the planting by significantly changing this main access to the side that went here. And then I do have, I don't know, the discussion about the material with the concrete, with this being stone, we had selected some stone steps that were pretty much the same color as concrete, but I don't know if that is worth showing that photo right now of what we had talked about using. What's your thought on that, Ms. Armstrong and Mr. Dickinson? Can I show those, or is that part of the discussion? Well, it's part of the discussion, but certainly if you're characterizing them as being similar in color to the concrete, then I think we need to see your photographs because blue stone connotes something entirely different to me. Okay. It's a natural bluish colored material. Can you see this photo here? This is actually more Indiana limestone. it's the same material that we would be using for the curbs. Can't see it. I'm carrying your screen first. You don't have to do that? I need to. It may be that you're only sharing a program instead of your screen. That happens from time to time. Okay, let's see. How do I get this back to full screen? I can't get the share screen option to come up. I'll turn this one off. Okay. Okay. Scare screen. Yeah. So here's what I want to share. There you go. Okay. Does that come up? Yes. And that is the material you'll be using for your front sidewalk? This is the material that we would use for the curbing. And it's what we would like to use for the steps. and the thinner material for the landing and the walk going to the steps. Okay. And what is your characterization of that stone? I mean, what is it? What name does it have? I would call this Indiana limestone. Okay. It's what the sills on the house are made of. Okay. I would like to have a reaction from the staff, if that's possible. Amelia, will that work for you? If not, why not? Well, as we stated in the staff report, I think we're consistently looking at Bell Court's pattern development using the predominant amount of concrete. There are probably, I think we did an informal study and there's probably about 13 houses that don't have concrete. They have, majority of them either have brick. And then there's a couple that have either flagstone and or another kind of stone. So I think I've talked with both Smiths about this and Mr. Mickler and Mr. Moore about this and consistently that we were looking to see about them replacing it with an in-kind material. Okay. On the fact that that's the predominant character in the neighborhood. All right, Mr. Moore, if you'll drop the picture now so that we can see each other again, you'll have to take it back to a single screen. There we go. Anything else on your presentation, sir? I don't think so. If you have questions, I'll be glad to answer. That's what's coming up. Any questions from the board members? Do you have any questions? Yes, Ms. Hill. So just so I understand where the Indiana limestone is going to go, is that primarily the edging material and the stepping stones that go over to the driveway? I see Ms. Armstrong ready to speak. Do you want to? Well, it's your project, but I think what they were looking at is the front steps leading down to the public law. So, yeah, should I bring that photo back up? Well, is your front steps going down to the main sidewalk going to be Indiana Stone as well? That was what we would like to do. Okay. And the curbing around the planting area would be this Indiana limestone, that step material set on edge that Mr. Armstrong was talking about. Okay, I just want to make sure we're correct in our terminology. And the steps leading from the driveway to the entrance of the house sidewalk, what material is that going to be? I hadn't they would be a natural stone and we can get that same Indiana limestone for the steppers as well but they wouldn't be as formal as the way I see it. Okay and Ms. Armstrong do you have a problem with the limestone being used for the steppers if we can use that term of art? Within the no within the Belcourt area that material has been used so usually your public walk or your walkway going down to the public walkway is more formal, where the side steps leading to the driveway is a bit more informal and has been used. You have a myriad of materials being used in that, you know, from sidewalk, continued sidewalk to stepping stones to, you know, pavers, all kinds of stuff. So I think that has a bit more variance than the front sidewalk. Okay, so assuming we have a consensus about the steppers, Mr. Mickler, Mr. Moore, can you live with concrete for the front steps, making a more formal appearance, if you will, going down to the public sidewalk? I would like to speak to that if you can hear me. We can. Go ahead, Mr. Mickler. um the the stone will age differently than the concrete and the cut limestone is very similar to concrete and is in itself very formal so um i would argue that because we're using the limestone around the front of the house that the the unity of using that same stone is the steps going up will be will be handsome and will age in uniformity over time with the other edging that is really why we are requesting that i think it'll be a good decision in the long run All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? I have a question. The limestone steps, are you, and I can't remember, are you putting in new steps that go from the porch down to the, those are existing in place? Okay. So the only steps that we're talking about in the new revised plan is from the public sidewalk up to the front walk that then leads to the front steps. Correct. Okay. Anything else from Ms. Hill? So then from the proposed limestone steps off the public sidewalk, would the connecting sidewalk to the existing steps, would that be concrete then? We would be doing everything in the natural stone from the sidewalk up to the porch steps. So you're deleting all of the concrete entirely, correct? uh that's correct all right and putting in a similar look but with natural stone okay i'll put in my two cents worth what it's worth and then we can have a further discussion i have never been that in my opinion i don't think the guidelines are insistent that you have a completely non-diverse material that I think there is room, so long as you meet the guidelines of having some kind of a, the terminology I think they use is, find it, so long as that you're using materials that's not visually dominant into intrusive or suggestive and they should be of a uh they should be a concrete stone or pavers consistent with the characteristic of the site in adjacent areas i think sometimes we can make that too limiting and to be honest with you i frankly find that neighborhood a little bit more interesting when it has a variety of of entrance ways into the, especially when you have that sort of retaining wall look on the street. I don't think you necessarily have to have a brownstone look for each and every single house. Now, people can disagree with that. And I speak mainly because I have a non-conforming sidewalk in front of my house, which actually I think enhances the appearance of the neighborhood. But that's my personal opinion. And I think within the guy, there's enough room within the guidelines that we can allow this kind of material, which is not going to be intrusive or overly suggestive to be used in lieu of concrete. So I don't know how the other board members feel about that, but that's my two cents. I can agree with you, Jim, on the material choice. I'm fine with this material choice. I'll also note that the changes in the retaining walls in the driveway are a part of this and should also be considered. I think I'm okay with those two, but I just wanted to note that for everyone. Well, if nothing else, that brick is sort of dominant in its own light that's going up along the driveway. and it may be pre historic materials do I have any questions or comments from the audience? I'll give this a count of 10 yes Mr. Chairman we have a Jeff and Mary Jane Smith with their hand up would you like me to bring them in? Certainly all right they're being promoted to panelists Mr. and Mrs. Smith you have an avatar and you're welcome to stay in avatar form if you'd like to have your shining faces displayed that's fine too but you need to unmute your microphone there you go hello and if you'll state your name if you'll state your name and address for the record please either one of you speaking uh jeff 200 This is Jeff Smith 200 East Belcourt 200 East Belcourt Hi Alright, thank you So we're the homeowners We just wanted to Comment about The Character with the neighborhood Our next door neighbors have stone steps Several other houses That we can see from a front porch So So as John was saying, having it unified with the sidewalls, and plus we're reducing or eliminating the landing on the side of the driveway, we just want to create a unified look where we can have a large planting area on that corner of the lawn. So we put trees in and more appropriate material or landscaping materials. Yeah. Okay. And now, you know, I'll acknowledge your house is in the odd location in that dogway, and it can be a little bit confining so I can see why you want more landscaping. It's a neat house. I actually went through that house years ago when it was up for sale all about 20 years ago thinking about buying it, but I went on to my house I'm currently living in now. So it's a neat house. You and everybody else have been through that house. All right. Any other questions or comments from the audience? Any further comment from the board members? Do I have a consensus that we are in agreement the limestone material is okay? And so if we decide that, then we need to make a finding to that effect that is consistent with the guidelines. I'll just say because I'm a resident of the Belcourt neighborhood that I need to abstain from the vote. fine. Now she says. Okay, so either from Josh or from Susan, I did a motion and in your motion, please make a finding with regard to the determination that we're going with. Oh, don't be shy. Okay, I'll take that one. Thank you, Missoula. Mr. Chair, per case number 01540161-I at 200 East Bell Court, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. in reference to the revised site plan that has been submitted shouldn't don't we need to get that into the motion yes ma'am absolutely thank you um that changes um the side access from the driveway to the porch with simple stepping stones and provides for Indiana limestone steps from the public sidewalk to the stone side, new stone sidewalk going up to the existing porch steps. and the finding and reference is related to guidelines as provided by the staff for the site and the setting number four sidewalks walkways and curbs it is your finding is your finding that it is consistent with those guidelines and my finding is so consistent yes and then number item so we've mentioned two items one first one is the revised site plan as submitted during this meeting and reviewed And number two is the use of materials for the steps leading from the public sidewalk up to the existing porch steps and that sidewalk being stone also. One and two and then three and four are the standard conditions. Okay, I'm making sure that the new plans do provide for that the landing is reduced to allow for more green space. Am I correct in reading this plan? Okay. Yes. All right. Does the staff want final details brought to them for approval prior to the issues of CLA or are we okay with the proposal? I think that we, if any final details, do need to come back to staff prior to the issuance of COA. Okay. That can be worded if there are any changes that need, any changes in what we approve, it needs to come back to the staff for review. Correct. We have not, we've seen preliminary plan of this, but we haven't had a formal submittal. Okay. Let's say it this way then. The final details come to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of COA. Correct. Okay. that's incorporated into the motion do i have a second to all that second i got a second for mr gilpin any further discussion on the motion hearing none then the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed nay i vote in favor of it as well i'll note for the record that mr erwin has abstain. The certificate appropriateness as conditioned is approved for issuance. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. As always, it's always interesting to have cases come from you, Mr. McCode. Mr. Moore, it's a pleasure meeting you, sir. Thank you very much. And Mr. and Mr. Smith, enjoy your new sidewalk. We shall. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to our next application. This is application number eight, 331 Linden Walk. The scope of work is change opening and constructed deck. Fred Doak is the owner and beer property development is bear. Excuse me. Bear property development is the applicant. Are they here? Mr. Chairman, we have a Lindsay Bramlett who had her hand up, so I'm bringing her in. Okay, Ms. Bramlett, what is your association with the property? We're the contractor. Okay. Doing the project. All right, so you're an authorized representative for the owner? Yes. Okay. Okay. The staff has actually recommended approval of the application subject to what I would call one substantive condition, that being the deck should have skirting and the final details need to come back to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. The other two being our standard conditions are in agreement. All right. Okay. Can you understand what those conditions mean? Go ahead. Tell me just in case. that before you start your work that you give the staff a final plan that will show the skirting on the deck okay okay that's it yep okay along with the standard two conditions which means if any changes are made that altered information submitted resubmit those changes to the staff for review approval prior to start of work and once reviewed by the other divisions resubmit any changes the staff or board for review and approval prior to start the work. Okay, so the same thing it says in the email. Yes ma'am. We got it. It is. All right. All right, we'll do it. Hang on. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience, my virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. all right i believe we're ready for a motion mr chair as per case number 11720331-h at 331 linden walk i move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the recommendations that the deck should have a skirting and that the final details of that are to be submitted to the staff prior to issuance of the COA and with our two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion carries and the COA as condition is issued. Approved. Thank you very much, Ms. Brando. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. The next application is, this is case number nine. attachment 9 at 183 Old Park Avenue in the Ellsworth-Eastar District. The scope of work is change siding, construct patio and landscape. The owner is Griffin Van Meter and the applicant is Joe Gebbler. And I see Mr. Van Meter coming up. And Mr. Van Meter, how are you? I'm doing well. How are you? Well, the staff has actually recommended approval of your application. They had a couple of what I would call substantive conditions, that being one would be to submit the final brick paver selection to staff for review and approval prior to the COA. The second one being to submit the final stone selection in joint detail to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA, and the other standard conditions are added as well. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? Yeah, absolutely. Sorry. Regarding case number 32200183-I at 183 Old Park Avenue, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, submit final brick paver selection to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of COA. Number two, submit final stone selection and joint detail to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of PLA. Numbers three and four are our standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second for Ms. Irwin. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. the motion passes and the CLA as conditioned is approved. Thank you, Mr. Van Meter. Thank you. Have a great night. Thanks. I just want to comment. It's a wonderful project. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Well, yeah, Jason Zavala was on. He's watching this too. He's the designer. So he gets a lot of the credit goes to him. So thank you very much. It's wonderful. Very exciting. Thank you very much. All right. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for your work. Thank you very much and enjoy your project and spending money, Griffin. All right. Going to case number or attachment number 10, case number 05550320-F320, DeShay Road. and associated with that is another attachment 11, which is case number 05550322-C at 322. These are being heard together. The scope of work is to increase fence and construct garage. Is that right? I thought this was just a fence. Whose is this? Amelia? I believe we have a misstatement on the scope of work. That is correct. There is no garage. All right. Thank you. Patch and pace can get you in trouble from time to time. Anyway, the applicant is, the owner is next door properties at 320 and and the adjacent property is Bill Rouse, is the owner, and Dustin Gastineau is the applicant. Are they here? Mr. Rouse? All right, Mr. Rouse, are you going to be, do you have an interest in both properties or is your neighbor going to be with us? Or do you know? No, actually, we own both properties, sir. All right. I figured as much. I assume these are rental properties? No, one of them we live in. We live in 320 to Shea, and we're renting out 322. Excuse me, the other way around. We live in 322. We're renting out 320. All right. So the staff has actually recommended denial of your application, and I assume that you would like to be heard on that. uh yes sir i've got my my fence man on here as well mitch uh bad with rio grand mitch do you want to comment on that well actually let me have the staff make his presentation first and then then mitch can discuss it okay okay okay and barry is this yours yes sir all right thank you can you can you hear me guys yes okay uh you can remain in avatar form yeah okay the um all right mitch hang on yes our procedure is for uh the staff to make his presentation and findings and then you can offer comment. Okay. Oh, okay. Great. Thank you. All right. See if I can juggle these. It's 320 and 322 Deshay Road. Obviously, it's a fence that runs between the two of them. The COA was issued by staff to construct a six-foot high fence in this location, a six-foot-high privacy fence, and with discussion with the owner or with the applicants, it was explained to them that six-foot was the maximum, so they wanted to go ahead with six-foot-high fence and then come in front of the board to increase that height. You do not have to worry about the ornamental iron fence. That has been taken care of also. and so the increase in height and I'm gonna have to put the drawings how do I get rid of this this is not my screen In show. Okay. Now, get out of this. Now, go back to the Zoom call. It works as much. And then, excuse me, screen. Go hit on Mr. Rouse. Where it says, you see the little arrow? yeah and then you want to share your screen and share your screen first no here okay oh here okay hit from beginning. Okay. 320 Deshay Road and 322. This is 320. This is 322. This is looking from the east to the west. The fence would be located along this line. You can see the stakes in place for the permitted fence or fence that was issued to COA. This is the backside of the property at Butts Irvin Road. This is looking from the rear of the property to the west and the front and to Shea Road. So this is the location, the right side of the house that comes off of that corner, runs to the rear, and also runs to the south to connect with the garage that is shown here. This is the proposed design of the new fence or the extension. So it would have an additional top rail running between the fence posts and then vertical two by twos at some spacing to give it a little bit of open effect. The findings are the same for both properties. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet guideline 3-1-D, which states fences of wood boards for privacy should be located in rear yards and generally no taller than six feet. Privacy fences of this height should be kept at least halfway back from the front of the building to the back walls on the side of the house. Privacy fences of flat boards in a single row are more historically correct than shadow box alternating boards designs. But both designs are acceptable. Fences with flat tops, dog ears, or gothic pointed designs are all acceptable. Stockade designs are discouraged. Fences of PVC, vinyl, or synthetic material are not permitted. Staff recommends denial of the increase in height of the fence. That's the end of the staff report. If you have any questions for me. Okay, Mitch, it's your turn, if you will. Okay. If y'all saw in that over there by the garage, when we went back, the height of that there is six foot. Okay. Barry, can you come back and bring up the pictures, please? I'm not sure whether Mitch can share screens or not. Nah, probably. Well, I probably could, but I'm not capable. I'm over 50 and I'm not very smart. I have the same problem. Okay, what did you do? Barry, could you pull up picture three? Okay, so this thing, if you're, okay, I got my mouse. Can y'all see me moving the mouse or no? yeah okay okay so this is the garage i'm talking about uh we've got a fence post set coming straight out like our drawing shows now this fence is for the property over here the wood privacy fence it comes off that back corner over and back the lowest elevation point if you shot elevation is this back corner okay we we are right now we're six foot tall right there and we have that fence run with the cap just the cap on it not putting the topper on it and it gets up and we lose six inches of height from that back corner to right here when we line up at the corner of this house, which makes us five foot six with that cap right now. He's wanting to put those two-by-twos on top of that, but what we kind of had designed was going 14 inches with them. So at the highest point back here, we would be, well, 14 plus an inch and a half, so excuse me, 15 and a half. The highest point we're going to be is 87.5 inches. That fence line is going to be a level run squaring into that other house level. So it gets shorter as we get to the other house if you measure the height up. And that just gives it a real clean look going down through there. So it's not really an intrusive tall fence. The highest part is the low point down here. and he just wanted to share a picture Mitch I'd be glad to share a picture of what we've done so far that I sent you I think it would be and again I apologize guys I'm not more versed at this all right Mr. Rouse can you show the pictures I can okay but I had it out a minute there it is there it is it's beginning to share hang on there we go now is that the fence where is this fence that's a picture of what we're building just a shop drawing of what we're of what we're building uh bill why don't you send the ones that i sent you of the start of the construction uh okay uh great i'm gonna have to go into my text mitch and save those to this device i think mr rouse say that photograph is what they're proposing for the that's correct alright so if you're walking along the yard and with the slope of the yard is the fence going to be approximately six foot from given the slope in the back at the top of it it would be seven foot, three and a half inches. At the front corner where it squares into the other house, you're losing six, approximately six and a half inches. When we get over to the house, we lose another five inches. So it's less than six foot. Okay. So that doesn't look it, but that's level there. you take a level and stick it on that that's the level height and we're wanting to add a topper to that if he can't he's just going to cap that off and live with it so what is uh from what is from i'm sorry go ahead what is the the lowest height and i went in ties to the house i believe what is that height uh five well hold it let me let me do some math here six 11 inches six foot one if we if we do the two by two tops with the cap on it both of these yards have a slope in the rear uh and both of them are uh the elevation of the first floor level is about three or four feet above ground and we're just trying to achieve some privacy for my next door neighbor and for us and do it in an attractive way in addition we just did a major you know landscaping project there and um i'd be glad to send you guys pictures you're just on the side we're going to be doing more but we did some landscaping on the side with some arborbodies and some other plants and just moving some stuff around. All right. Do I have any... Can we drop that picture and bring us back to our grid? There we go. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Ms. Erwin? Yes. So my question is, I understand that the land slopes down towards the back of the backyard. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So then the highest point of the fence is where it meets. I'm asking, is the highest point of the fence where it meets that chain link fence in the back? Am I? That's correct. And then there's a small section that's perpendicular to that piece that runs from that fence to the, to the garage, to the Tudor garage that she saw in the pictures. And that, that'll be at a, at a lower height. But we're not worried about that. That's going to be at a lower height and we'll have a gate that goes into sort of a garden prep area for my wife and She's quite a gardener and that'll be lower. So the highest section will be exactly where right where it runs into the ornamental iron fence. That's correct. This is what I'm talking about when I'm looking at this. Is this the point at which it's the highest wood fence? No, it doesn't go back that far. The wooden fence stops right there at the garage. Okay, I got it. All right. I just need clarification. Oh, yeah. Sure. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the board members? I think I'm okay with it. And I'll have to add, I know that there's been a let me back up the the guideline speaks in terms of generally it's never been clear to me exactly what generally means but i think it was meant to accommodate uh sloping as long as you don't have a barricade fence and it's so massive that you know it basically blocks out uh anyone being of the sea, the idea of softening that barricade with this topper that's being proposed has been something that has been, I believe, done in the past and approved in the past by us back in the early 2000s. I remember seeing fence proposals not too dissimilar, and the understanding was your barricade could be six foot, but you could soften it and add another foot or so to even it out. And so this proposal does not really cause me too much heartburn either. But do I have comments from Ms. Erwin or Ms. Hill on that issue? I'm not sure that I have a problem with it but it is it is an interesting issue because in my own historic neighborhood I've discovered how many approved fences actually follow the slope of the land they do not they do not stay a consistent height at the top they slope with the land And it kind of looks weird, if the truth be known. It depends on what the slope is. I mean, if you don't have anything to kind of gauge it against, then quite frankly, you don't realize that it's sloping, even if it's fairly dramatic. But once you put a line that's... It just gives it a more... Yeah, it just gives it a more uniform look. Yeah. Any questions or comments from the audience? I'll give that a count of 10. While they're tuning in, I'll go ahead and add to Ms. Hill's comments. If this yard had a more severe slope to it, I would judge this a little differently. Just in case we start getting more of these. That's kind of how I'm looking at them. I think there has to be a little bit of flexibility with how we look at these fences that a fixed six foot sometimes may not be appropriate. So any other questions or comments? All right. I think we're ready for a motion then. and again since I think we're going to go ahead and approve it we need a finding that it conforms to the guidelines with that uh vague word generally can I ask one more thing before we make a motion absolutely Ms. Irwin okay so my question is the guidelines state that you said it needs to be generally no taller than six feet do we have and this alternates between did i understand five foot six at the lowest height and up to seven foot three at the highest is that correct uh approximately yes ma'am approximately yeah yeah i mean we we what we did is we at the lowest point we started with that design you all saw that bill shared the picture with we we are six foot there and we just ran our fence level so he's got some humps in the ground so you might put a tape somewhere and it's going to be shorter uh but that that that whole fence line when you look at it it's going to be level that you know right with the house even square and all that if that makes sense if i'm explaining that correctly where it can be understood and i think you know and the print is interesting they're saying most prefabricated wood fence sections are eight foot or eight wide by six nine i'm not sure if they're simply trying to say we're We're saying no more than six because that's how they're built, refabricated or not. But I think the intent of the guideline. I think it's more of the it doesn't block views. Exactly. I think the guideline is intended that you don't have such an intrusive fence that you're blocking the view as you're as you're characterizing. And I think that's the intent of this particular guideline. So are we ready for a motion? Along with the funding. I could give it a shot. Unless someone's really eager. Mr. Chairman, regarding two cases, first case number 5550322-C, as well as, well, I guess that's at 322 Deshay Road, as well as case number 05550320-F at 320 Deshay Road, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions. All right. And well, and also a third condition that, well, no, we've got final details. So those two conditions are good. And my finding is that the, yes, sir. I'm sorry. Okay. My finding is that this, let's see here, guideline 3.1. Which one was it? The. No taller than early be no taller than 60. And in this case, I believe they have met the six foot requirement and are. Trying to keep it consistent across the yard. All right. Do I have a second on motion? Can I add to our finding, the wording of our finding, to say that the design of a more open top is in keeping with trying to not obstruct too much of a view and is more conducive to the character of that area. yeah I want to treat that as an amendment to the motion do you accept the amendment Mr. Guilherme I accept that yeah I'm not going to go through the formal process of voting on the amendment first and then the motion we'll just go ahead and wrap it all up into one document and I did I hear you did I hear a second to all that Ms. Irvin I can second it if you go ahead Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? And let's be clear, we're not trying to create chaos for future applications. It's got to be within that range and it's got to have that openness that Ms. Irwin is looking for. And I think that's consistent with the guideline. All right. If there are no further discussion on the motion, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. opposed nay all right the motion passes and this fence as submitted to the staff for its review and rule has been approved subject to the details all right thank you very much all right turning now to thank you all all right Turning now to attachment number 12. This is 612 Central Avenue. The scope of work has replaced windows and partially brick and opening. Ms. Sawyer is the applicant and owner. Is she present? Yes, Ms. Saria, I see you're coming up. Ms. Saria, do you prefer to be in Avatar form or would you like for us to see you? There you are. Good evening. How are you? You need to turn your mic on. Thank you. I'm good. How are you? I'm well. Ms. Saria, I think you may be familiar with our procedure. the staff has they have recommended or they have disapproved or recommended a disapproval of the application to replace the windows they have however approved your application to partially brick in the opening with the following conditions those conditions being what we have called the standard conditions I'm assuming you are to be heard about the windows are you willing to conform to what the staff has suggested that you use wood as opposed to vinyl I would like to speak to those yes all right okay whatever procedure is then the staff will make his presentation first and then uh you can make your presentation to us as well all right sounds good thank you okay Ms. Armstrong if you'll begin hold on I'm going to switch gears here okay Barry. We're having technical difficulties. All right. Technical or operator? Okay, so I think what we're going to do is I'm going to use our slideshow has seemed to not ride along with the disc. Ms. Sawyer actually put together a very nice packet of information and also there's some images that I have included too. So I apologize for not actually having a report on the slide show, which is apparently not written on the floor from the other building. And I'm going to hold up some images, if you can see, and if you can bear with me. And maybe we can look at these together. So here we go. If you can all pull this together. This is going to be a little awkward. So this is actually, and I'm going to point with this with my pointer here. If you can see this image, you can see a garden window and the panel below. So we'll first start there. And then the windows themselves, if you can see in your own images that everybody has, these windows were six over six windows. staff did look at the zelo pictures and other realty state pictures and there are some images on that site that actually have that indicate the windows were wood windows so staff noticed that work was going on and felt that all the work was going inside and then all of a sudden the windows have all been replaced and as you can see in Ms. Sawyer's information that she put together which I'm going to skip to her packet under the information is information from the applicant she also has some images of that of the house and also if you look on page two of her information it shows where there was a panel below and then it got bricked in. Okay. And I also will reference this larger 11 by 17 image that's in your packet that also shows the windows before they were replaced and also the garden window plus the panel below. So everybody can sort of see the images that have been placed in your packet from staff and from Ms. Sawyer regarding that. So staff had sent a citation to Ms. Sawyer and had a discussion with her father after that citation was issued. And we discussed that the windows were wood and they had replaced the windows that were six over six wood windows with a combination of two over two windows that were vinyl with mutton sandwiched between glass. and also replace the garden window, as you can see that I just referenced. And then, you know, subsequently, she had submitted this information in the packet that you have in front of you regarding the windows. and I'm trying to make sure everybody sees his images of that and I apologize for that staff report or the image is not coming out but I felt like we were pretty well versed in images even if they were in paper form for the staff report just the audience doesn't have that. And I'll note for the record we do have those images they have been sent to us in our packets and we do have them for our review and approval. Thank you. And I just would note also there's an image at the back of the structure as well. There are seven total windows including one basement window that have been replaced. Are the windows currently wood in the back? They were wood now they're all vinyl windows. Were all the windows replaced all the windows I'm sorry yes ma'am oh yes sir yes okay all all seven windows were replaced with vinyl windows and this I would just say that this is not necessarily an uncommon occurrence to replace the windows in these cousin units we have actually had quite a few applications most recently we had one that was on the corner of Old Park and in Central Avenue that would for the They actually got approved at staff level, but two years ago, and most recently last year, they went for the board for solar panels, and that was granted by this board. While the structures were very well built, at the time they were built in the 1980s, the product they used, there was a variation of products. we have probably replaced since I've been in this position probably at least 10 within those units and we've all done them at staff level because usually they make application prior to making up prior to the work okay so the other units in this townhouse complex are they vinyl or they wood well I think there's a combination I would say but I think for the most part, most of them are wood. Have we had any applications submitted to us where we approved a vinyl window? No. Okay. Not that I remember. Well, if we did, I think there was one that was actually on Kentucky, and it was done before the guidelines. Okay, yeah. But it was also a like product in the sense that there was a particular, they had already had a replacement window of a different material so they were able to go back with the same material and when did we actually approve if you if you can remember when did we actually approve central park as a uh of course in the ellsford historic district so that happened and oh it's part of ellsford never mind okay so all right but ellsford did uh the the the structure predates the creation of the Ellsford Historic District. That's correct. These units are probably about 35 years old or so. Yeah okay all right. 98 so in Ellsford just for everybody reference is 1998. Right. And these structures are about I think 80, 384, 85 something like that. So you have your findings yeah. Guidelines are recruited for your reference. The proposal requires careful consideration. Typically, staff reviews the windows prior to the replacement to determine if they are candidate for replacement. However, staff was not able to review the windows because they were replaced without a COA permit. Over the years, staff has allowed replacement of windows in these townhouses and administratively due to the quality of building material used when the structures were built. The replacement of existing window sashes and installation of new windows is not appropriate nor in keeping with the LFCD design guidelines, design principles, window openings, window details, size, shape of these elements help establish rhythm, scale, proportion of buildings, and reflected architectural styles and characters. Windows should be maintained or repaired to match the original design. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, the installation of new wood windows to match original windows is recommended. Windows baked enamel or anonized aluminum clad may be considered only if the windows cannot be repaired. Vinyl or vinyl clad windows are not allowed. Staff finds the replacement should meet the guidelines of material size and design and the proposal to remove the garden window breaking the openings within the guidelines. Again the vinyl windows do not meet the guidelines. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the application to replace the windows as proposed and separate recommend approval to brick in the panel below the garden window with the final two conditions and would say of course miss sawyer did present a packet of information as everybody's got to look over that regarding her replacement so to be clear the scope of the disapproval is only as to the material of the windows, correct? That's correct. All right. In other words, you are approving or recommending for approval that she can replace the window. She just has to do it with the correct material. That's correct. And actually match sort of the profile that's set there. Because I believe some of those are a bit more Krakman style in design versus that. And also make sure they're not snapping buttons. to actually have a simulated violette or they could just be one of the ones. So she can, assuming that we move forward with this approval, she can then submit an application as to the kind of windows that she wants to use that will be conforming with guidelines? Correct. Okay. All right. Ms. Ari? Yes. Hi. First of all, I want to apologize for not submitting an application beforehand. this is my first home and I was unaware of the district that I purchased a house in. I do have photos that I can pull up to show of a before and after of my property that I would like to share with everyone as well. So the photo that you can see now hopefully is the day that I closed on the property back in June. So you can have a better view of the before just on screen as I know you guys had the photos there in paper as well as being able to see the kitchen window and how it was in the old windows. So the original windows were wood, and there's a letter from my contractor in my application stating the condition of the windows that needed to be repaired or needed to be replaced as opposed to repaired. The second photo is the after that I took upon the completion of the work. You can see the difference of the kitchen window that we replaced it with original brick from my landing, as well as the replacement windows. I would like to say that they are wood windows with vinyl clad as opposed to an aluminum clad. So they are not all vinyl windows. And all seven of my windows on the front and back are the same wood windows with a vinyl clad on the outside, which were recommended to me by my contractor, as well as a window company, as well as some people that I work with professionally that come from the windows and doors industry to be top of class windows and the best that I can get. Also with that, And this was, as my dad called it, a postage stamp of a neighborhood that I wanted to live in in Lexington. I was born and raised here, third generation Lexingtonian, loved the city and loved the neighborhood and certainly wanted to keep with the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood. This was one of two streets I wanted to live on. And I, by all means, wanted to remodel my house to be a very beautiful, fitting Lexington home. So by no means did I want to break convention of the Ailsford neighborhood or of even my row homes with my fellow townhomes with my neighbors. and tried to make it the best looking house that I could. I hope that you guys can see here with my before and afters. All right. Anything else? If you'll drop the picture so we can come back to our grid. Of course. Any questions or comments? And thank you for being young and very smooth and quick with that. Any questions or comments from the board members? Okay. Do I have any questions? Yes, Ms. Hill. So I really appreciate that Ms. Sawyer is being as thorough as she is and sharing everything with us. The sticking point that I have is there are very few guidelines that are just kind of absolute no wiggle rooms. And one of them is because I went back thinking, perhaps there's a distinction between vinyl and vinyl clad wood windows. But it's very clear. It says vinyl and vinyl or vinyl clad windows are not allowed. It's just a blanket statement that puts a burden on the board. understandably it puts a burden on the board but the reason why vinyl is is so emphatically rejected is because unfortunately miss sorry you'll find out notwithstanding what was told to you by the sales people final windows do not hold up well and they have a bad history of deteriorating and looking quite unsightly the truth be known so i'm sorry that your contractors The real issue we have are new homeowners coming into the neighborhood not realizing they have moved into a historic district. I have a neighbor across the street from me that's going to be having some problems with that as well. And it's just, I don't know how we can improve the educational part of that, but I am recommending that if your realtor misled you into thinking that you're not living in a historic district, then you can take a complaint to the real estate commission on your realtor. Because they're supposed to know and they're supposed to advise you properly. so and i have to agree with miss hill there is absolutely no flexibility with this issue and i know it's going to be an expensive replacement project for you and i do sympathize and you are not the first one to have come up before us on this issue so i do appreciate your thoroughness you did a great job in your presentation uh i wish it would be persuasive but the but the guideline is absolutely emphatic on this particular point. My father who helped me prepare my application is here and has asked if he could say something. That's okay. That's all right. Yeah, hi. I'm John Sawyer. I'm Rachel's father, and I'm also proud of my daughter, and I appreciate you guys taking the time to let her. I very much want her to explain what's going on. I perfectly appreciate the position that the guidelines say what the guidelines say but I would like since we're making the record to just put a couple things on the record if that's okay on the possibility we might appeal Mr. Sawyer if you'll state your state your name for the record and your address please sure yeah my name is John Sawyer and I live at 3209 Lion Court here in Lexington Okay. We couldn't have been more proud of Rachel for buying this house and also for her decision to live in this neighborhood and also to want to really put some money into the house and make it look well. I appreciate that the guidelines say what they say, but I do want the record to show a couple of things if I can mention it. One is the guideline that was referenced in the staff report does allow cladded windows, both aluminum and baked enamel. I also want the record, if I could, to show that the type of window that she's installed is Henderson 400. And with all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman, there's plenty of literature which was attached to the application that shows not only did these windows perform superior to wood, they also perform superior to aluminum. PermaShield is proprietary to Anderson, and we were advised by the staff that that's one reason they don't like these kind of vinyl windows. Not because vinyl doesn't hold up well, but it's that they felt it was a commercial advantage to Anderson, since only Anderson has these types of windows, if they would allow them. In other words, they're okay with cladded windows that are aluminum. They're okay with cladded windows that are baked enamel, but they're not okay with Anderson vinyl cladded wood windows, which, again, I understand what the regulation says or the guidelines say. But we were explained that commercially it wouldn't be fair to approve these if only Anderson could sell these kind of windows. That, to me, seems to step way out of the boundaries of what the whole idea of maintaining the aesthetic of the neighborhood is about. So I just want the record to show these are Anderson 400 wooden windows that are bonded to the enamel. These are not vinyl or bonded to vinyl. These are not standard vinyl windows. And then the last thing I want to call to the attention of the committee or to the board was that I did go back and look under the ordinance established the BOAR. And one of the provisions in there is that you guys are to also refer to the Department of Interior guidelines for historic preservation. So I took a look at those in their material on windows. There is not one mention of the type of material as long as replacement windows are consistent with the aesthetic and the character of the neighborhood. I think this is a recognition, Mr. Chairman, that in a lot of these cases, as improvements are made in window construction, you can definitely come up with better and more efficient technology. The guidelines have not been changed for over 12 years. They're revised in 2008 was the last time. And when I step into Rachel's house and what she's done, I do not see in the ordinance establishing the BOAR that you are required to only follow the guidelines. For example, the last case on the fence, you said the intent of the guidelines was met. What I'd say here, if you look at Rachel's house and what she's done, the investment she's made in the community, she certainly has complied with the spirit of what the guidelines are about in maintaining historic preservation. I would also say that this doesn't create a precedent if Rachel's windows are allowed to stay in. It'll be at least another $10,000 on a young woman who's working. She's already spent quite a bit of money into the house. And I have to ask myself, as not only her dad, but as a citizen, is this really what the whole idea of historic preservation is about? To be that particular about the guidelines where clearly my daughters admitted she made a mistake. She should have come and got the application. We would have probably come up with something different. But the House meets the requirements, I think, of what you guys are trying to establish in maintaining an H1 zone for Islesford. Islesford, as to whether we should pursue our builder, our general contractor who's worked in this area before, or two realtors worked on this project with us, sir. That's not the way Sawyers behave. This is our mistake at the end of the day. But we do feel you have the latitude to let these windows stay in. And again, I just wanted to put this on the record just in case. I'm not sure we'll do anything other than replace the windows if that's your final decision. But again, we did our homework after we found out we made a mistake and would really appreciate if you guys would give her some latitude. If not, we understand. And I thank you for your time. And that's all I had to say tonight. I'm sorry. Thank you. Very well stated. I'll put my daughter back on. Actually, I think the staff may want an opportunity to do rebuttal. rebuttal? Ms. Armstrong? I would only say that with regards to the comments about Anderson Window, we actually don't look at any particular product in general. The only comments that were made about Anderson is because they're the only ones that actually have a patent on vinyl clad versus other companies that have both. So they're the only ones that actually of that particular patent. There's no leaning one way or another towards any kind of window in general or any brand per se. I'd also would like to clarify the fact that yes the guidelines were reworked in 2008 but this was after a year study of doing multiple and with the whole committee doing work with over a year of reviewing window manufacturers, contractors, homeowners within the historic district, and lots of different parties all looking and researching all this information for over a year and coming up with that. So those guidelines were voted upon and created based on much research that had been done at that time. Thank you. I would like to also add, and I don't believe I'm incorrect in saying this, the guidelines that were proposed by the U.S. Interior Secretary are guidelines that are universally applied by all historic districts. However, there is no provision or restriction on a historic district having a more stringent standard than what may be proposed by the Secretary of the Interior. So there can be some variation and we do not have to default to a looser standard that may be set forth by the Secretary of Interior. For example, in many of the cities, they only have a front view historic preservation, if you will, that you can do whatever you want to in the back of the house as long as you can't see it from the street. We don't have that kind of provision. We actually have a 360 guideline here. it is a contentious issue and you know this is I appreciate the record being made in the matter but I think in this particular instance the guideline is pretty our guideline is pretty emphatic. Ms. Armstrong? Just add that after you know over the years we've done lots of different research on other historic different district guidelines and some as you know we our guidelines are based on the secretary to interior standard but we do actually have a very um even-handed guideline that you know we're not too stringent or not too lenient right with regards to how we review project projects and what we review okay any further discussion from the board members yeah i just had a question because this is an essentially an infill project and that the the structure itself is not a historic structure, even though it's within an H1 overlay. Is there any leniency because of that fact? I'm asking whoever, I do not know, but it seems like that that's, another issue. Ms. Armstrong? Well, I would just say that we review, you know, we have a multitude of different properties with the H1 overlay. We have the Marathon Station on Main Street, as well as, you know, you know, older historic structures, obviously. And of course, they all have the same standards that they, that the guidelines that they are reviewed against, because they were in the boundaries of the H1 overlay. The problem that you would have Ms. Irwin is that if we tried to do that kind of an accommodation you would eventually have no historic district at all. This is not an uncommon problem in the Seven Hills district where most of the houses are 1950s 1960s and their windows are beginning to deteriorate and we've had this vinyl clad issue come up before and we have consistently said you cannot replace wood with vinyl even though the houses were probably given uh had a vinyl window to be in with so miss uh miss kerr and then mr sorry i see that you took the seat and i'll let you speak just a moment let me let me hear from miss kerr first miss kerr i need to you need to unmute yourself um i was just going to further comment toward talking about it is something is a later more 40 year old 30 year old townhouse infill kind of building um those the guidelines for new construction are also looked at very closely and they don't have any exemptions in terms of oh because something is of a certain age, it can then have considered these materials. The guidelines are consistently applied to all eras of construction. Even if something's gonna be built from the ground up today, it would still fall under the same set of measures to be weighed relative to materials and all the other things you're used to looking at our guidelines for. Thank you. All right, Mr. Sawyer. Yeah, if I get one more question, I forgot to ask this. I get this picture back up for a second. I'll just refer to it. It's the new one, Rachel, not the only one. Mr. Chairman and board, if I can refer to the window that is in the kitchen. This was, I think, originally a full window when it was built. And the reason it was plywood and what have you is one of the prior owners put in a greenhouse window and didn't put in the plywood at the bottom because the kitchen sink and appliances block the bottom half of the window. And one of the questions was, this is not, I noted, Ms. Armstrong made a number of comments about the six over six issue. I see that as a question maybe on the top windows. But here, this is a casement style window. And I would also go down here to the windows in the basement. These are just almost skylight type windows. They don't have any kind of, I think, either historical purpose. They just let light into the basement. And we replaced those with a much superior window that's also a casement style. It would be my question to you guys. As we surveyed the neighborhood, we found nine over nine, even 12 over 12 windows. I don't see anything in the guidelines that suggests there has to be six over six. And I would like some leniency, if that's possible, on leaving this window in the basement windows like they are, because these are not traditional historic type windows anyway. They're fairly unique because of the rather odd way this townhouse was constructed. If you notice, for example, the neighbor over here, this is just a skylight window over the stairs. There's nothing in there. There's no muttons in there at all. And by the way, just to clarify on the four houses that make up this complex, I do not believe except the last unit has wood windows. The other two have replacement windows that I believe at best are aluminum. them. They're not wood. In any event, that's just another point of reference for the chairman. We'll take this picture down, is that we would like to be able to hang on to those windows, the unique windows that are kind of a problem for the house anyway, as opposed to replacing those. That may be something you can take up with the staff when you put in your proposal to replace the windows, assuming that we move forward with the disapproval. Okay. Yeah. Again, I just want to make sure it was on the record. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. I think we've pretty much spent all the time we can on this particular motion or application. Is there any other comments or questions from the board members? If not, then I think we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, per case, per case number 03630612-B at 612 Central Avenue, I move that the board disapprove the certificate of appropriateness with the application, yes, for the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. And there are none for disapproval. and that the second part of it where the staff recommends approval to partially brick in the opening, that that be approved with the two standard conditions. Right. Do I have a second? Do you have a second? Don't be shot. All right, the chair will second the motion so that we move forward. Am I hearing a concern? I'm going to go ahead and call for the vote. All those in favor of this motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Those who are opposed to the motion say nay. Nay. Aye. Are you changing your vote to aye or are you agreeing with the nays? Aye. My count is three to one. Is that correct? All right. Hearing a count of three to one, the application of the motion is sustained and passes as conditioned. All right. Thank you very much. need to move on to our final and Mr. Sorry I appreciate and Miss Sorry I do appreciate the issues that you're dealing with and you made an excellent presentation and that's what we're here for. Thank you for your consideration. Okay and as you as your father well knows there is an appeal process that you can look into. All right thank you all thank you and we'll go to our next application. that is if I can find it. All right turning to attachment number 13 346 to Shea Road in the Ashland Park and Star District. The scope of work is reconstructed garage. The owner applicant is James and Leanne Mason. Are they present? Mr. Chairman, they're coming in now. Thank you, sir. Okay, Mr. Mason, I like your J. There you are, sir. I was wondering if you wanted to stay with your J avatar. Well, I was having a moment there. My computer went blank, and I thought I had lost you guys. It does that, and it can fool people. if you could center yourself a little bit more in your camera half your face is visible and half isn't perfect there we go I understand you had started the construction of the garage before you actually got the COA approved you have now submitted the application and we'll discuss the fact that you jumped the gun so to speak, but the staff has recommended approval of your garage application subject to a couple of what I call substantive conditions. The first being that you use rectangular wood shingles or siding to match the first floor walls to the gable end, and secondly, that you provide the final window details and specifications prior to the issuance of the COA, and then we have what we've been calling the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those recommendations? Well, in principle, yes. I'm not sure I understand what would would citing they're referring to. I'm not sure that I'm aware of what it is that they actually are asking me. Okay, which staff member handled this one? Mr. Barry? Mr. Dennis. I'm sorry, did I say that? I've only known you 10 years, Barry. I've got 60 years being called Dennis. All right, go ahead. The wood siding that is going to be on the walls below your fascia and soffit is what I was referring to. because in the drawings that you submitted, it shows the fish scale or scalloped bottom shingles. Shingles would be perfectly fine, but that scalloped has kind of a replicating history look. So that was the reason for that recommendation. The exterior siding, I had planned to use like a hardy board or a clapboard siding. product? Is that not acceptable? That is acceptable. I'm talking about just in the gable lens where you show the fish scale shingles. I'm willing to use whatever product you think appropriate. I chose fish scale because I thought it was appropriate to the neighborhood. I'm not sure it's product so much as design. Correct. It would just be the square edge shingles as opposed to the fish. It'll probably be less expensive. It will be and I think both would look good. I chose the fish scale because I thought it was more appropriate. Okay. What do I know? Now if you won't be hurt on that we can go through the... Just as happy with the straight edge. I chose, like I said, my original plan was the straight edge and then I thought to be more sensitive to the neighborhood I would do the more ornate fish. This is the issue we sometimes deal with people thinking they're being conformed to the guidelines when they try to be imitative. And actually, with new buildings, we try to stay away from design work that is imitative. And we want it to be more natural and consistent with the modern age. Well, I apologize. I appreciate you hearing me today. There's no need to apologize. We're here to help you make sure you have the best building possible. Thank you very much. All right. So do I have any questions or comment from the board members? Any questions or comments from my virtual audience? And I'll give that a count of 10. Very good. Then I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, as per the case number 05550346-F at 346 Deshay Road, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions. One, to use rectangular wood shingles or siding to match the first floor walls in the gable end of the garage. Two, to provide final window details and specifications prior to the issuance of the COA. and the last two conditions being our standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Ms. Hill. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then I'll follow the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. the motion then is approved and the COA the motion passes and the COA is conditioned is approved Mr. Mason thank you so much thank you appreciate it enjoy your project I will thank you very much all right I believe that the we do not have minutes to approve at this point I'm uncertain as to when our next meeting date is going to be do we have a meeting date set yep well that's a very good question because i sent i said a work in process well there was an agenda that was i mean a schedule for you all to approve that was sent out later on this afternoon my apologies i didn't realize that was part of the attachment that's correct and so the meeting would be i think um january 20th do you have that in front of you so you can bring it up so we look at it do so the we're not meeting till june no january sorry what's the date again please january 20th all right 21 now do you want us to go ahead and approve the our calendar we're having a little change out here amelia very kindly has put together this proposed calendar for next year and just wanted to mention a couple of things. It is, you'll see, reflective of just one board meeting a month for the BOER for the whole year of 2021. And it is the third Wednesday of each month at 4 p.m., as you'll see. It is important to go ahead and get a basic calendar, such as is outlined here, approved and something that everybody can know to plan on and goes in all the government scheduling. But we're all aware in the times in which we're living that there may have to be adjustments to this calendar as time moves forward into the next year. But our anticipation is that we'll be most likely, and my crystal ball is always cloudy, but that we'll most likely be holding meetings in a similar fashion to now by Zoom, certainly for the first quarter of 2021 and possibly longer. But, you know, who knows? So this is kind of reflective of not in-person meetings. We don't anticipate, hopefully, not being able to have in-person meetings for a full 12 months next year. But we had to pick something. And so we're kind of in the current structure and want to go ahead and get your considerations for 12 months of meetings in 21. And then just know that, you know, as things evolve, we'll put forward to you adjustments that you can vote on at those times. Okay, I want to point out that four o'clock may be for some people a problematic time to meet. Is there, let me ask the board members, can you meet at four o'clock on the third Wednesday of each month? For the time being? Okay, I work actually, but I can probably arrange to take off from work and be available by Zoom. Now if we ever go back to in person, there's a whole different discussion. Right. At one point, I think there was discussion several months ago that 4 o'clock actually was helpful to people, and that's one reason we stayed with it. It is helpful to the LexTV staff to be able to have them get in another hour in a more traditional business day than to going into the after five hours. So that's a consideration but certainly not the only consideration. And the other thing you always know to know, and it's particularly been the case through COVID with all the other boards and commissions and committees and so forth of the mayor's office and the council, that there can be things where you think you're set and then that gets shifted. But we're all just doing hunting. You all have been hunting for this and we appreciate it so much. And I just hope you'll consider this is a basic plan that we're going to aim to stick to until we need to make adjustments. And while we're on the subject, do we elect our officers on the annual basis or fiscal year basis? I'm trying to remember off the top of my head. I believe we do that in January. No. No? Okay. Have we been doing it in July? I think it's fiscal year. I just wanted to make sure of that. Yeah. If so, it would definitely be at your July meeting. Correct? All right, then any further discussion on the proposed agenda or calendar? If not, do I have a motion to adopt? So moved. Do you have a second? Second. Chair calls a question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Without objection, the proposed calendar is approved. Thank you all. All right. And while I have, may I just say, we want to wish you all a happy holiday. And thank you for all of your service to this board and this community. We really appreciate it. Thank you very much for your sentiments. That's why I wore my red shirt today to be in a holiday loop. And it's been much enjoyed through the meeting. All right. So I wish you all a happy holiday. This is a strange, strange year that we're going through. and we all know that. Stay safe, stay well, and hopefully we'll all get together by Zoom in January. Thank you, Chris. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Say what now? I was going to ask Chris if he could hold on afterward. I keep having audio problems I was going to talk to him about. Okay. And speaking of which, is there any problem hearing me? Because I don't know if there's feedback on my audio or not. Okay, very good. It sounds good. It's been good at the staff's end. Okay. All right. Yeah. And your audio has been glitchy, Josh. I'm not sure. I think it's your headset. Well, yeah, I've got lots of problems. Okay. All right. So do I have a motion to adjourn? Ask our executive director. All right. Motion to adjourn? So moved. Second? Second. All right. We stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Happy holidays. Happy holidays. We'll reconvene Wednesday, January 20th. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you.