# Board of Architectural Review - June 16, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 16, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5380 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5380?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-06-16 - **Last revised**: June 16, 2021 - **Length**: 7,624 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 June 16, 2021, conducted via live video teleconference with Mr. Chairman presiding. The board addressed two main agenda items during the session, including the review and approval of meeting minutes from November 18, 2020 and December 16, 2020, as well as receiving informational updates on staff approvals. The meeting involved significant deliberation, with the board taking a total of 10 votes on various matters throughout the proceedings. One member of the public provided comments during the public comment period, contributing to the board's consideration of the items before them. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included ten certificate of appropriateness applications, all of which were approved by voice vote with standard conditions. The following certificates of appropriateness were approved: • **055-0230-G** - 230 Desha Road: Motion seconded by Susan Hill, passed by voice vote with standard two conditions • **00610222-D** - 222 Arlington Avenue: Passed by voice vote with standard two conditions • **09290601-I** - 601 East High Street: Passed by voice vote with standard two conditions • **15740129-K** - 129 Ransom Avenue: Passed by voice vote with standard two conditions • **07280148-K** - 148 Forest Avenue: Passed by voice vote with standard two conditions • **10950198-B** - 108 Lackawanna Road: Motion seconded by Irwin, passed by voice vote with standard two conditions • **01180113-H** - 113 Barberry Lane: Passed by voice vote with standard two conditions • **171-7091-F** - 591 West Short Street: Passed by voice vote with standard two conditions • **32200127-B** - 127 Old Park Avenue: Motion made by Irwin, passed by voice vote with standard two conditions • **12260521-A** - 521 East Main Street: Passed by voice vote with standard two conditions All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call, with no recorded individual vote tallies. Each approved certificate included what were referenced as "standard two conditions," though the specific details of these conditions were not provided in the available data. The consistent approval of all applications suggests routine administrative matters rather than controversial proposals. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the board during the public comment period. Charlie Sears spoke in support of his neighbor's project at 108 Lackawanna Road. Sears expressed his hope that the board would approve the proposed deck for the property. No additional public comments were recorded for this meeting, and no transcript timestamps were available for the public comment portion of the proceedings. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split decision between staff recommendations and the board's final vote. **Front Stoop Expansion at 127 Old Park Avenue** The primary point of contention involved a proposal to increase the size of the front stoop at 127 Old Park Avenue. Staff had recommended denial of the application, creating a disagreement that required board deliberation. Despite the staff's negative recommendation, the board ultimately approved the stoop expansion after engaging in discussion about the proposal's merits. During their deliberations, board members emphasized the importance of community interaction as a key factor in their decision-making process, suggesting that the larger front stoop would facilitate better neighborhood engagement and social connections. The split between staff recommendation and board approval highlights differing perspectives on the project's value to the community. While the specific reasons for staff's initial denial were not detailed in the available information, the board's emphasis on community interaction suggests they viewed the expanded stoop as beneficial for fostering neighborhood relationships and street-level social activity. The board's decision to override the staff recommendation demonstrates their authority to weigh community benefits against other planning considerations when making final determinations on development proposals. ## Review of Minutes from November 18, 2020 and December 16, 2020 The board conducted a review of meeting minutes from two previous sessions held on November 18, 2020, and December 16, 2020. This agenda item involved examining the written records of these earlier meetings to ensure accuracy and completeness before formal approval. The review process allowed board members to verify that the minutes accurately reflected the discussions, decisions, and actions taken during both meetings. This standard procedural step ensures proper documentation of the board's official proceedings and maintains transparency in governance. Following the review, the minutes from both November 18, 2020, and December 16, 2020, meetings were approved by the board. The approval indicates that board members found the documented proceedings to be accurate representations of what transpired during those sessions. This routine administrative action helps maintain the official record of board activities and ensures compliance with meeting documentation requirements. The approved minutes now serve as the formal record of the board's deliberations and decisions from those dates. ## Staff Approvals The board reviewed a comprehensive list of staff-approved applications for various renovations and installations across multiple historic districts during this informational presentation. This agenda item provided an overview of projects that had been processed and approved by staff under their delegated authority, without requiring full board review. The staff approvals covered a range of renovation and installation projects throughout the city's historic districts. These applications typically include routine maintenance, minor alterations, and installations that fall within established guidelines and do not require extensive board deliberation. This informational item allows board members to stay informed about the volume and types of projects being approved at the staff level, maintaining oversight of the historic preservation review process while enabling efficient processing of applications that meet standard criteria. The presentation served as a regular update mechanism, ensuring transparency in the approval process and keeping board members apprised of ongoing preservation activities throughout the various historic districts under their jurisdiction. No specific concerns were raised during this informational presentation, and no board action was required as these items had already been processed and approved by staff under their delegated authority. --- ## Decisions - **055-0230-G** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 230 Desha Road with conditions - **00610222-D** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 222 Arlington Avenue with conditions - **09290601-I** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 601 East High Street with conditions - **15740129-K** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 129 Ransom Avenue with conditions - **07280148-K** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 148 Forest Avenue with conditions - **10950198-B** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 108 Lackawanna Road with conditions - **01180113-H** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 113 Barberry Lane with conditions - **171-7091-F** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 591 West Short Street with conditions - **32200127-B** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 127 Old Park Avenue with conditions - **12260521-A** — passed (0-0): Approve the certificate of appropriateness for 521 East Main Street with conditions --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, go right ahead, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome you to the June 16, 2021 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. Due to the COVID-19 state of emergency, this meeting is being held live via Vito teleconference pursuant to 2020 Senate Bill 150, in accordance with the Open Meetings Law KRS 61826. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants 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. Excuse me. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. I will ask the parties that wish to be heard regarding an application to raise their digital blue hand in order to be allowed to comment as an applicant or a citizen making a public comment. Please keep your microphone muted until you're recognized to speak, and as you start your comments, state your name and address for the public record. upon conclusion of the specific application you're addressing you'll be returned to regular attendee status and you are of course welcome to continue observing the meeting the board will ask questions and make comments regarding the application and 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 the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are, for approval, 21 staff approval applications. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District, at 2.30 to Shell Road, replace and install new doors. At 10.12 through 14 Fincastle Road, renovate the structure. at 1020 Fincastle Road, replace roof shingles, at 250 South Hanover, install handrails. At the Ellsworth Historic District, at 141 Old Lafayette, replace garage door. At 450 Old Vine Street, remove dead tree. At 355 Woodland Avenue, reissue the COA. In the Belcourt Historic District, at 543 Boonesboro Avenue, install landscaping. at 255 Del Mar Avenue, install gutters and downspots at 239 Duchea Avenue, renovate the structure at 133 Forest Avenue, install gate 600 Sale Avenue, remove holly trees and new trees at the Constitution Historic District at 110 East 3rd Street, replace roof membrane. In the Ellesmere Park Historic District at 611 Ellesmere, renovate the front steps in the north side historic district at 515 north broadway install allied storm windows and 408 west 3rd street renovate the structure and 470 west 6th street renovate structure and site in the pensacola park historic district at night at 1831 nicholasville road renovate the structure garage's site, 1835 Nicholasville Road, renovate garage, 1853 Pensacola Drive, install exterior wall vent, and finally, at 169 Rosemont Garden, replace fence. Those are the, oh, I'm sorry, let me keep going. In the seven parts historic district at 332 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. at the South Hill Historic District at 340 South Broadway renovated structure at 314 Merino Street replaced patio in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 314 Merino replaced the concrete patio and that is all the staff approvals I believe wait a second yes there seemed to be a duplication here All right. I think we're now ready for our first application. That application is at 230 DeShay Road in the Ashland Park District. The scope of work is construct patio, pergola, and pool. Is the applicant here? I see a hand. Coming in now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. yes i'm here mr mr blair we can see you you want to turn on your video or you can remain what i call avatar status mr blair yes how are you today just fine how are you good uh the staff has reviewed your application and has recommended approval subject to i believe the standard two conditions that we normally associate with these applications. And those are, I'm going to read it into the record. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting and changed staff or board for review and approval prior to the issues of the COA. And secondly, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Are you in agreement with those conditions? You need to speak up, sir. We can't hear you. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board members? Do I have 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. i move in the case number 05550230-g at 230 deshea road to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions all right do i have a second i have second All right. Second from Susan Hill. 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 passes or the motion is approved and your COA is approved as condition. Thank you, Mr. Blair. Thank you. all right turning now to 222 Arlington Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District scope of work is changed roofline of the rear addition installed pergola and patio is the applicant here and I see a hand coming up coming in now Mr. Chairman all right see there ah Mr. Oxnard if you will unmute your mic and if you'd like to be seen turn on your video start video if you'd like to that's fine I wasn't sure if I was seen or not. Okay. There you are, sir. How are you today? I'm great. Yourself? We're doing well. And we're almost at the end of these virtual meetings, I believe. This may be our last one for a while. The staff has recommended approval of your application, I believe. What I call the standard two conditions. I believe. Did you hear me read those into the record earlier? Yes, I did. Okay. Are you in agreement with those? yes i am all right uh let me just make sure uh sorry again say again please could you read them again i'll be happy to uh the first condition is if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to start of work or any agreement with that one yes okay the other one is once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement with that? Correct, yes. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? I'm seeing none. Yes, Suzanne. On the back, the small addition, which is going to be the area that's going to be torn down and then the new addition added with the flatter. Is that, that I'm seeing from the Sanborn maps, I just want to verify that is a later addition to the home. Yeah. We believe, yes. We believe both elements, we know both elements are later to the original home. Yes. Okay. Yes. Suzanne, there's a picture that I sent later on, you may have received via email, that sort of shows that there's a recessed and then it was sort of added on to like the edition we're talking about. The Gable-sided edition was probably added on to, that was part of an earlier structure than was sort of added on to later. Okay. And that's since it's later, that's why there's not an issue with it being changed. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's my question. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the board members? All right. Do I have any questions or comments from my virtual audience? I'll give that a count of 10. Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 0061-0222-D at 222 Arlington Avenue, I move to approve the COA application with the two standard conditions as noted. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness as conditioned is approved. Mr. Okson, good luck with your project. Great. All right, thank you. Do I, Jim, can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can I get like an email of the appropriate? Jake, you'll actually be sent via email, your application, your certificate program is being mailed. It will be a yellow piece of paper and you need to post that in your front window. We'll send one to Mr. Trott and yourself. And should I email that to the city? What will happen is we'll actually handle that at the city end. We'll approve it at the Xceler program. Thanks. Awesome. Good questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much. Let's go to our next application. It's 601 East High Street in the Woodland Park. This is actually an application from the city for the renovation for demolition of the restroom and the construction of a new building. And I see the applicant coming on board. Will you bring him in, please? Should be coming in now, sir. All right. Mr. Nichols, are you there? Yes. Can you hear me? I can. Do you want to remain in avatar status? Can we see your corresponding face? I'm not sure that I have the capability. Oh, okay. That's fine. I know you're glad that this project has finally come to an end. It started out almost about a year ago, I think. Yes. We're hoping that this time around, you know, we've got it into budget. Right. So this is the application. It's been approved by, it's been recommended for approval by the staff, subject to what I've been calling the standard two conditions. Let me read those into the letter, please. The first condition is if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of affected work. Do you agree with that? Yes. and secondly once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work are we in agreement with that yes no problem all right thank you uh any questions or comments from the board members this is a big project it's been since i'm close to woodland park this was you know of interest to my neighborhood and we're glad to see it comes looks it's a handsome building and we're looking forward to it thank you i really appreciate that all right all right any questions or comments from anyone in the audience i'll give it a count of 10 hearing none i believe we're ready for a motion uh chair per case number zero nine two nine zero six zero one dash i at six oh one east height high street in woodland park i move that we approve the coa with the two standard conditions all right do i have a second second i have second from miss hill uh any further discussion or comments about the motion itself if not i'll call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed nay the motion passes and the coa as conditioned is approved congratulations mr nichols thank you i appreciate it all right thank you very much bye Okay, turning to our next application at 127 Old Park Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District. The scope of work is increase the front stoop and install a front yard fence. Is the applicant here? I see his yellow hand. Coming in now, sir. All right. I'm dealing with allergies today, so bear with me. Mr. Childress, if you'll turn on your mic. Can you turn on your microphone, sir? Hello, can you hear me? We can. If you'd like to remain in avatar status, that's your option, or you can turn on your video. I'm not sure I have that ability. So just go right ahead. All right. The staff has reviewed your application, has recommended approval subject to what we've been calling the standard conditions. I'll read those into the record for you. The first condition is if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start work. Are we in agreement with that? Yes, sir. And the second one is once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start the work. Are we in agreement with that? Yes, sir. Okay. And Mr. Erie, you have appeared at the podium. Hey, Nick, turn on your mic. um i would have to point out that uh the staff recommended denial of the increase of the front stoop and recommended approval of the i i apologize that got by me i thank you for bringing that to my attention uh mr childress they don't want you to increase the size of your front stoop if you would like to be heard on that you certainly may uh yes sir i think in our block There's 13 homes and we're the only home that does not have the ability to sit on our front stoop or front porch. Okay, let me have Mr. O. I do apologize. I just went right by that. Sometimes you get too busy. So we're going to have a hearing on this. Are you ready to move forward with the presentation? We're going to have a presentation from the staff first. Okay. Exit for you. Yeah. Pull it away. What's that? Pull it this way. Pull it this way. Not that. That's great. Have you brought up your slides yet? Working on it. Trying to find. Oh, part. Part top. Right there. No. Oh, shit. okay we're having a technical issue with that um okay and i would suggest jim maybe i'm just gonna go back to the office and get yeah get a different hard drive a different thumb drive we can move on to another case while we're doing that? Mr. Childress, I apologize. We're going to have to give them some time to find the appropriate hard drive, I guess. And so we will come back to you in a bit. Okay. So if you'll just continue to monitor the proceedings. We have several routine applications, I think are just requiring an immediate hearing or review. So we should be with you in 20 minutes or so. okay thank you i do apologize all right and i completely lose that all right turning to our next application which is at 129 Ransom Avenue. The scope of work is replace rear addition, sidings, and windows, add rooftop deck to addition. Is the applicant here? All right. I see the logo coming up. Mr. Thompson, how are you today? Good to see you all. It's Dan Taylor. How are you? Good. They're doing well. Good. having some glitches today, but not. All right. The staff has reviewed your application, has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions or those conditions being the first one being once reviewed by the other city divisions. Any changes come back to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. And secondly, if any change is made, then alter the information submitted. Resubmit the changes to staff or review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement with those two conditions? Yes, yes, sir, I am. Okay, any questions or comments from the board members? They're shaking their heads, no. Any questions or comments from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count in. Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion then. Chair, per case number 157401, 29-K at 129 Ransom Avenue. I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions noted. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Second for Ms. Irwin. Any questions or comments or any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, may. All right, the motion has passed and the certificate of appropriateness as conditioned is approved. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Thank you all, have a great day. All right, thank you. All right. Get my paperwork straightened out here. turning to our next application being at the 148 forest avenue in the bell park to start district scope of work is installed solar panels on garage roof and i see a yellow hand coming in now sir uh mr clark can there you go how are you guys today aha you're technologically savvy we can see you and hear you all right so the um the staff has reviewed your application they have uh recommended it for approval subject to 11 column the standard two conditions the first condition being if any changes are made that ultimate information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work or any agreement with that? Yes, I am. Right. And secondly, once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start with work or any agreement with that? Yes, I am. All right. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board members? Okay. Any questions or comments from our virtual audience? I'll give it a count in. Hearing none, the Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, as per case number 0728-0148-K at 148 Forest Avenue, I move to approve the COA as written with the standard two conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Susan, turn on your mic. Thank you. All right. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Thank you. turning to our next application at 521 east main street in the bell court is our district the owner's arcs on main llc applicant is kimberly bowman scope of work is partial install fencing in front yard is miss bowman here i do not see that name or a hand mr chairman there was a what i would call a halfway substantive condition on this one miss armstrong this is your case it is my case um she has read the staff report she or she acknowledged that she'd gotten the Chaperpord. And I had a chance to talk to her about moving that fence back. I have a hand just popped up. Okay. Was that the one? And I'm not able to see what you're seeing. I don't see a hand, sir. It's just very brief. It may have been inadvertent. if you want to go on to the next case potentially we could see she comes up and i'll see if i can try to text her yeah if you could email her or let her know that we're meeting and ask her at least by email if she has an objection to that change on the where the finish go okay okay thank you all right going to our next one uh this is at 108 clackawanna road in the pensacola park and start district scope of work is increased the deck size and daniel laro who i think was trying to come in earlier is the applicant mr laro coming in now sir all right thank you thank you sir yes it's always a feat isn't it well i i work at uh the children's hospital and we just have a new electronic medical record and oh wow yeah i i bet your life is interesting right now that's one word for it okay I won't use the real words that you're probably thinking. Yeah. Okay, so anyway, the staff has recommended approval of the application subject to the standard conditions. Let me just read them into the record. If any changes are made, then alternate information submitted. Resubmit the changes that staff will review and approve prior to start of work. Are we in agreement with that? Yes. And secondly, once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes that we return to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work? or in agreement with that. Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? They're shaking their heads. Any questions or comments from my virtual audience? I'll give it a count in. All right. Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 10950108-B at 108 Lackawanna Road, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions as read and noted. And do I have a second? I saw briefly a hand second from Ms. Irwin I briefly saw a hand pop up and it doesn't look like it's one of our applicants I'm wondering if that's someone yes Charlie I can't make up the last name Charlie Sears he's on his way in all right Mr. Sears are you wanting to comment on this application sir yes I did it seems that it might not be necessary, but hello, my name is Charlie Sears. I live at 107 Goodrich Avenue. I'm directly behind 108 Lackawanna, and I'm here simply to support my neighbor. I saw they requested something, and they're here, so I hope that you will abide the staff recommendations to approve the deck as mentioned. Just wanted to give my support, so if there's no further questions, I'll yield the rest of my time. Okay, Mr. Sears, thank you very much, and we always appreciate neighbors who come in and have comments or observations and your support I'm sure is appreciated by Mr. Leroy. He is giving you the appropriate kudos. All right we are at the motion stage. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none and this motion is for approval. Hearing none the chair will call the question. All those in favor of approving this COA application say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you very much and good luck with your project, Mr. Leroy. Thank you very much. All right. Okay. The next application is at 113 Barbary Lane, or Barbary Lane, in seven parts of our district. Scope of work is to install solar panels and garage roof, and the applicant, I believe, is coming up, Jamie Clark. Welcome back. It's me again. I see that. You're a busy man, sir. I'm a very busy man. Well, solar is catching on now. And we finally have, I think, a process by which we can finesse them in historic districts. Yeah, yeah. We've been real pleased with your all's rulings. Thank you. So, the scope work is installed on solar panels. We have the standard two conditions, which I have previously read in other cases. Are we in agreement with those conditions? I am. All right. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? I will give the virtual audience a chance to speak. All right, hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, as per case number 01180113-H at 113 Barberry Lane, I move that we approve the COA with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the motion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Mr. Clark, thank you for your attendance and good luck with this project. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you, sir. All right, turning to, I think this is our last application, meaning the one that has to be heard. and further word from Ms. Bowman. This is 591 West Short Street in the western suburb historic district. The scope of work is install signage. Is either the owner or applicant present? Alma? On our way in now, sir. All right. Ma'am, if you'll turn on your mic. There we go. Okay. All right. I'm here. Very good. If you'll state your name for the record, I would appreciate it. Alma Kaitazovich with Sorela Gelateria at 591 West Short Street. Very good. And I believe the staff has recommended approval of your application for this new sign subject to what we call our standard two conditions. Let me just read them into the record and get your approval. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. And secondly, if once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with that? Say that again, the second one. If it's reviewed by the other city divisions, if there are any changes made, they shall be returned to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Yes. All right. Thank you. Any questions or comments about this application from the board members? No. Actually, I was asking for the board members comment. My bad. Do I have any questions or comments? Yes, Ms. Armstrong. You're muted. I'm loading Barry's information. Okay, that's fine. I'm just making sure. Okay, so do I have any questions or comments from the audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 17170591-F at 591 West Short Street, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions noted. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. From Zerum. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will follow the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Good luck with your project, ma'am. Okay, thank you. All right. I see that Barry is here. and we'll return i need to have mr childress come back in uh mr childress he's coming in now sir i think hopefully they'll get the mr childress if you can turn on your mic I may have called you in too soon. I'm not sure whether the staff is ready or not. Okay. Be sure to turn on your mics, guys. And Mr. Childress, if you can turn on your mic, it would be appreciated at some point. Okay, there we go. Can you hear me? We can, and I believe the staff can be heard as well. This is 127 Old Park Avenue. This is the staff's presentation. Mr. Childress, once they finish their presentation, board members may have some questions of that staff member, and then we'll give you an opportunity to be heard on this matter. Okay. And we may have questions of you as well. This is the House of 127, and the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the following work. Increase the size of the front stoop by approximately 10 feet to a total of approximately 15 feet 11 inches. This is the existing front stoop. It will not get any deeper from the front of the house towards the street. It's only adding width on each side. Circa 1900, wood-sided structure. Originally had a projecting front parlor on the southeast corner, this location, and an L-shaped wraparound porch where these windows are located. There's a little closer view and then a closer view of the existing stoop. And so this is that northeast corner where the L-shaped porch was infilled. Per the architectural survey of the structure on Old Park Avenue, the porch was enclosed after 1934. Although the available Sanborn Insurance Company maps do not show the infill. Consultation with the staff of building inspection did not find any building permits to determine the actual date of the porch being closed in. And the historic structures to the south of this property still retain their open porches. All front facades of the structures along Park Avenue are aligned, and I would refer you to the Sanborn maps that were in your package. The second part is install a metal front yard fence, and the fence is proposed to be a 36-inch high quarter-inch metal pickets. The guidelines are included for your use. I find staff finds that the proposed increase in size of the front stoop does not meet the guidelines. The design principle states, porches are often prominent features of the building and help establish scale, proportion, and rhythm along the streetscape. Construction of a porch on an existing building should be compatible in scale and materials with principal structure and with adjacent and surrounding buildings in the district. Porches should be in keeping with the principal structure's architectural style and not reflect an earlier period. Guideline 2A1A states deck should be located at the rear of buildings. Guideline 2a3a states porches should be compatible and scale the materials to the principal structure and surrounding buildings along the block and within the district. Guideline 2a3b states porches should be compatible with the principal structure's architectural style. The proposed enlarging of the stoop is not in character with the adjacent properties. The proposal calls for a 15-foot wide concrete stoop while the adjacent properties are constructed of wood. The stoop projects beyond the building line at the adjacent structures, which all have their front walls and porches aligned. The large open concrete stoop is not in character with the other historic structures along Old Park Avenue. Staff finds the proposal to install the 36-inch high metal fence meets the guidelines. The design principle states the construction of the new fence is based on historical designs and materials is also appropriate. Cast iron or woven iron is preferable for 19th and early 20th century buildings. buildings. Guideline 3-1-B, the fence proposed to be of cast iron may be added to properties with buildings constructed in the early 20th century. Cast iron fences are not appropriate for buildings built after 1920. Staff recommends recommendations. Staff recommends denial of the proposal to increase the size of the front stoop. Staff recommends the fence proposal be approved with the standard two recommendations. Okay. Let me show you a little more here. This is a photo trying to show the alignment of the front faces along the street. again this is this site plan shows the existing stoop in the center with the additions on each side and then this is a rendering that was provided by the applicant to show what the stoop would look like once it's in place and that's the end of the staff report okay Mr. Dennis do you have any further pictures of the other houses on the street are every one of them in the identical alignment or is it just the ones immediately adjacent on both sides of the street the houses are all aligned on the front facade east and west sides of the street okay Any questions from the board members of the staff? All right. Mr. Childress, it's your turn to sing, if you like. Well, the style would be basically the same, and we're not going to transition to wood. It would be concrete. It's concrete now. And when you say 15 feet, that sounds like a lot, but it's five feet on each side. But currently, we can't put a chair out there without blocking our front door. We just want to put a chair and increase our sense of community a little bit more by maybe some time out there. We would do a good job. It's not going to protrude towards the street any further. So it would just be a little wider and we can move the rail to the edge. But if I know that's the guideline, I think we're just outside the guideline a little bit. We'll just go with the fence if need be at this time. Okay. Any questions or comments from the board? Would a different rendering or a different drawing help us out? any uh mr dennis can you come up front and suzanne go ahead you have any ideas um yes i would uh argue that um that with in order to meet the guidelines if we were to state that what they are proposing is not prominent in any way. And so it does not go against, it's not really a porch. It's, I look at it as, you know, an extension of a concrete stoop that's existing. I don't think that that constitutes a porch or a deck. I feel like it would not be prominent. It does not visually allow, it doesn't make the house look like it is coming outside of the alignment with any of the other houses. And I would argue that the use of using a front stoop, using a front porch, sitting out there is more in character with what and more supportive of how historic neighborhoods are utilized. and that it actually would contribute to it being more participatory in that community by having an occupiable front stoop. All right. Ms. Hill, any comments? Yes. In support of those observations, this particular house did have a porch that's been enclosed. So the notion of porch was kind of removed from the current owner capacity to sit out on the street. And certainly one of the characteristics that we attempt to support is the sense of community in these historic areas to keep them connected and vibrant and to be able to undertake a small enlargement of a stoop. because without a roof or support structure for a roof, it certainly doesn't become a prominent feature or project out in any kind of way toward the street itself. I think the two of you have a point in that if there had been a roof over this stoop, that would change really drastically how this house would project on the street. But with the stoop being relatively unobstructed and small, I mean, 10 to 15 feet is not that much. I was wondering, did you explore the possibility of allowing him to have maybe a sitting area in front to the side of the existing stoop? No, we only review what is submitted to us and that cannot come up. hypothetically speaking if that had been suggested would that be something that could pass muster or not um i don't want to put you on the spot i don't believe so you know based on the guidelines uh it's nuts guidelines are pretty clear in most sections about additions to the front of structure that they're more allowed sometimes on the sides and especially on the rear. If you're talking about a, let's say a paver area down at grade, I suppose that could be within the guidelines as long as it didn't completely take up all of the green space. Sorry, I'm looking at you on here instead of there. Mr. Childress, is that an option for you to maybe have a sitting area that's not necessarily expanding the stoop itself? I'm just exploring options at this point. No, we'd rather, if we couldn't, increase the stoop not to create what might look like a patio in between the driveway and the existing stoop. I have to acknowledge, one quick comment for me and Susan, I'll let you. This house, as Susan has pointed out, this house is already an outlook in that by having its porch, the original side porch, enfoes like it is, the house does not look like the other houses anymore on the street. Ms. Hill? just the observation that in looking at the um similar houses down the street that we have photos of i i don't see and of course they do have porches but it would seem to me even more out of character to have a basically kind of a terrace at grade level out in front of me i agree okay i I was just thinking off the top of my head. I think the board members are more or less in consensus that this application should be approved. Ms. Irwin has already made, I think, some extensive findings already that I think we simply incorporate by reference into a motion. Are we ready for a motion? Let me get some comments. Let me make sure I don't have any comments from the audience first. And I'm going to give the staff one additional run at it. First of all, do I have any questions or comments from the virtual audience? Let me give that a count of 10. Hearing none. Mr. Dennis, do you have anything additional that you'd like to add? um now i would just say that the staff report was uh researched historically and what's existing and i think if uh um you're going to see this we know of in a few more cases where there's going to be more extensive porches uh applied for on the front of houses that have had their porches filled in. Again, the guidelines in all areas talk about not adding to front facades. The problem is the guidelines don't... Go ahead. I was... The problem is the guidelines in effect, this house had been sort of, and pardon the expression, Mr. Chodron, it's a handsome-looking house, but it was to a certain degree bastardized by the fact it had its porch building for more space inside. It's a perfectly understandable impulse to want to have outdoor space. And we are moving back to now a community where people are wanting to be outside in the front, not hold up in our house in the air conditioning or in the back. And so that's actually a positive development and it creates a better, more friendly historic neighborhood, if you will. We think so. Yes, sir. I guess I would have one more thing based on what you said. Also, one of the principles of the design guidelines is that additions gain significance over time. So, Inflinch Porch's very old addition definitely predates the H1. Do we know when that when that filling occurred? The Sanborn maps for some reason do not pick it up. The Sanborn maps 1934 was then modified for the later maps. So they may not have surveyed that area. We just don't know. And then I also checked with building inspection and they had no building permits for it. so this fill-in did occur you think back in the 30s or 40s that's what the survey architectural survey says all right take a point all right uh what is the will of the board members can i give a go at a motion have at it And I'm trying to help you out by simply saying, I think you made a very nice set of findings in your observations. I think since we have videotape, we just incorporate and not make you repeat everything again. Well, I think I would like. So let me try to make a motion and I can. That's perfect. Okay. Chairman, as per case number 32200127-B at 127 Old Park Avenue, I move that we approve the COA for the increase in the size of the front stoop and the proposal of the fence with the two standard conditions. The finding for going in contrast to this staff's recommendation on the stoop is that the. in in respect with the design principle guidelines saying that porches are prominent features of a building and help establish scale proportion and rhythm along streetscapes that this extension of this stoop is not a construction of a porch. It does not change the outline or the front edge of the buildings in relationship to the rest of the neighborhood in any substantial way. and that it being made of concrete rather than wood is appropriate in that it is less substantial change to the front in that it gives the owner the opportunity to sit in the front of the house gives the same historic purpose as the porches in the community building of interacting along the front of the street and therefore should be approved as being contributory to the historic nature of the neighborhood. Okay, do I have a second? Second. All right. I will observe as well that this is, I agree with the sentiment, this is truly not a porch. This is an extension of the stoop, if you will. And it is not a dominant feature of the front. So any further discussion on the motion? I would just say emphasize the fact that our findings are that it is not a substantial change to the beginning to the to the front of the building. And most importantly, there is no roof being proposed. There is no jutting out, if you will, of the front. So that would be disproportionate to the other houses. All right. To make it clear, these standard two conditions are all now applicable to this porch construction as well. Okay, as well as the fence. With that clarification, 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, all three of us. and the certificate of appropriateness as approved by the board is approved. Thank you all. Good luck with your project, sir. Thank you all very much. All right. We are back now to the missing Ms. Bowman. So I did talk to Ms. Bowman and she was unable to Zoom at the moment. i did talk to her about the condition about setting the fence back the 30 inches and so she talked about if you saw on her little rendering she talked about having a row of trees across the front so then she'll probably put those trees in front of the fence that's proposed so between the retaining wall and that fence across the front and so she's agreeable to the conditions as they've been put forward. Okay. In light of her agreement and your discussion, is the rest of the board comfortable moving forward with approving this application? Let me ask for any comments or questions from the virtual audience. If I have any left, I'll give it a count to them. Hearing none, then I think we're ready for a motion. This is the application on 521 East Main Street, Belcourt Historic District, partial install fencing in front yard. Chair, per case number 12260521-A at 521 East Main Street, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions noted. All right. Do I have a second? I have a raised hand. There we go. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, then the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you very much. We're now at the stage of approving the minutes and I lost my outline. Therefore, which dates, Ms. Armstrong? March 17th, 2021 and April 21st of 2021. Okay. I believe that other board members have submitted some corrections and changes. I'm assuming they're minor in nature and that they'll be incorporated by Ms. Armstrong in the final iteration. Is that correct? That's correct. Did you see anything that bothers you, Ms. Armstrong? Or have you had a chance to look at them? Blaine, briefly, no. All right. It takes a village to draft a report. Okay. So then let me have a motion to accept the minutes for March and April. So moved. Do I have a second? Second by Ms. Irwin. Chair will call a question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion stands, the minutes stand approved. Anything else on our agenda today? Nope. Where is Ms. Kerr? We missed her bright, shiny face. She is probably paying attention via Zoom. Yeah. Okay. All right. So I'm assuming our next meeting is July 21st and the plan is for us to come back into the council chambers. It'll we'll let you know. Okay. All right. Okay. Anything further we need to talk about that? If not, then I thank the two of you for your participation and always your insights and help. And so I will ask for a motion to adjourn. I move to adjourn. All right. I have a second. we stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you.