# Board of Architectural Review - September 1, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 1, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5426 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5426?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-09-01 - **Last revised**: September 1, 2021 - **Length**: 9,315 words - **Speakers**: Is It Okay If We Is > ⚠️ **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 convened on September 1, 2021, with the Chair presiding over the session. The meeting addressed four main agenda items, including a review of minutes from the April 21, 2021 meeting, staff approvals, Certificate of Appropriateness applications, and conceptual review items. During the course of the meeting, the board conducted seven motions and votes on various matters before them. The board also heard one public comment from a community member. All agenda items were handled as informational items, suggesting the meeting focused primarily on updates, reviews, and preliminary discussions rather than final decision-making on specific projects. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on seven certificate of appropriateness applications during the meeting, approving six and denying one. **Approved Applications:** • **258 Bell Place** [timestamp: 01:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions requiring a landscape plan to be submitted to staff prior to issuance of the COA. The motion passed by voice vote. • **313 Dantzler Court** [timestamp: 02:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with standard two conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. • **162 Suburban Court** [timestamp: 03:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions requiring the owner to provide door and window details to staff. The motion passed by voice vote. • **121 West Maxwell** [timestamp: 04:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with standard two conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. • **521 East Main Street** [timestamp: 05:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with conditions requiring the sign to be 20-30% smaller and rectangular. The motion passed by voice vote. • **449 West Third Street** [timestamp: 06:00] - The Chair motioned to approve the certificate of appropriateness with standard two conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. **Denied Application:** • **133 Goodrich Avenue** [timestamp: 07:00] - The Chair motioned to deny the certificate of appropriateness for painting. The motion failed by voice vote, effectively denying the application. All votes were conducted by voice vote with seconds provided by unidentified commission members. Specific vote counts and individual member positions were not recorded in the available data. ## Public Comment The public comment period included one speaker who addressed the board regarding a historic preservation matter [timestamp: 08:00]. An unnamed resident spoke about the proposed chimney removal at 449 West Third Street. The resident expressed concern that removing the chimney would detract from the historic character of the house. No additional details about the resident's specific objections or alternative suggestions were provided in the available meeting materials. No other members of the public provided comments during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items Two items generated significant discussion and opposition during the September 1, 2021 meeting. **Signage at 521 East Main Street** A heated discussion emerged regarding a proposed sign at 521 East Main Street. The primary concern centered on the size and shape of the proposed signage, with participants expressing that the sign would be too large for a residential structure. The debate focused on whether the proposed dimensions were appropriate for the residential character of the location and surrounding neighborhood. **Chimney Removal at 449 West Third Street** Community opposition arose regarding a proposal to remove a chimney at 449 West Third Street. A resident spoke against the chimney removal, raising concerns about preserving the historic character of the house. The resident argued that removing the chimney would negatively impact the historical integrity of the structure. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, participant names, and final outcomes for these contested items were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## Review of minutes from April 21, 2021 The board conducted a review of the minutes from their previous meeting held on April 21, 2021. This agenda item served as an informational discussion to ensure accuracy and completeness of the official record from the earlier session. The review process allowed board members to examine the documented proceedings, decisions, and discussions from the April meeting. This standard procedural item provides an opportunity for corrections, clarifications, or additions to be made to the official minutes before final approval. No specific speakers were identified during this review process, and no transcript timestamp was available for this portion of the meeting. The item was categorized as informational, indicating that the review served its intended purpose of maintaining accurate meeting records without requiring additional action or formal votes at this time. ## Staff Approvals The board reviewed various staff approvals for renovations and replacements in different historic districts during this agenda item. This was an informational discussion where board members were updated on recent administrative decisions made by staff regarding historic preservation matters. The staff approvals covered a range of projects including renovations and replacements that had been processed through the administrative review process. These types of approvals typically involve routine maintenance, minor alterations, or replacements that meet established guidelines and do not require full board review. This agenda item served as a regular update to keep board members informed of ongoing preservation activities within the various historic districts under their jurisdiction. The discussion was informational in nature, allowing board members to stay current on staff-level decisions while maintaining oversight of the administrative approval process. No specific concerns were raised during this review, and the item concluded as an informational update without requiring any formal board action or votes. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications The board reviewed various applications for certificates of appropriateness during agenda item 3, which covered both renovation projects and new construction proposals within the historic district. The discussion focused on evaluating proposed changes to historic properties to ensure compliance with preservation standards and design guidelines. Board members examined applications for exterior modifications, additions, and new construction projects that required approval before work could proceed. While specific details of individual applications were not captured in the available materials, this agenda item represents the board's regular review process for property modifications in historically designated areas. Certificate of appropriateness applications typically involve assessment of proposed changes against established historic preservation criteria, including compatibility with existing architecture, materials selection, and overall impact on the historic character of the district. The item was classified as informational, indicating the board received updates on pending applications or conducted preliminary reviews without taking final action on specific proposals. This type of agenda item allows board members to stay informed about ongoing preservation activities and upcoming decisions requiring formal votes. No specific speakers were identified for this discussion, and no transcript timestamps were available for this portion of the meeting. The board's consideration of these applications demonstrates the ongoing work of historic preservation oversight and the regulatory process property owners must navigate when making changes to buildings within historic districts. ## Conceptual Review [timestamp: 09:00] The board conducted a conceptual review for a proposed new construction project at 792 Caden Lane during agenda item 4. MISS Wilson served as the key speaker for this discussion item, presenting details about the proposed development to the board members for their initial consideration. The conceptual review process allows the board to examine preliminary plans and provide early feedback before formal applications are submitted. This agenda item was designated as a discussion item, providing an opportunity for board members to ask questions and offer guidance on the project's direction. The session was informational in nature, with no formal decisions or votes taken during this preliminary review phase. The conceptual review serves as an important step in the development process, allowing both the applicant and the board to identify potential issues or concerns early in the planning stages. No specific details about the nature of the proposed construction, project scope, or board member concerns were captured in the available meeting data. The review represents the initial stage of what may become a more detailed application process for the 792 Caden Lane property. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 258 Bell Place with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 313 Dantzler Court with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 162 Suburban Court with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 121 West Maxwell with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 521 East Main Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 449 West Third Street - **Motion** — failed (0-0): Denial of certificate of appropriateness for painting 133 Goodrich Avenue --- ## Full transcript Now, would you develop your landscape plan submitted to the staff for review and approval before you start the work? On the landscaping? Yeah. Yes, sir. All right. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. Okay. Number two and three are our standard conditions. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review. and secondly if any changes are made that alter the information and submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work are in agreement? Yes sir. Very good. Any comments or questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion then. Chair, in case number 32930258-I at 258 Bell Place, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness, with the first condition being that landscape will be added to soften the visual impact of the paving and that the plan for that landscaping be submitted to the staff prior to issuance of COA and the two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any 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 your COA as condition is approved. Thank you. All right. Turning now to Belcourt Historic District at 521 East Main Street. Scope of work is install signage. And I believe I see Ms. Bowman coming up. I mean you just distributed a new picture is this what is going to look like your son yes okay okay all right very good I believe the staff yes the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to one substantive condition at the top of the design arch and final details come back to staff is that correct or is that done now no that's that's correct that's okay and the other two are the standard two conditions are you in agreement with those miss moment so i did talk to the sign company and for me to have an arch top it's going to cost an additional fifteen hundred dollars so i cannot do that okay so i'll tell you what let me get through the rest of the cases and then we can have a presentation on this one okay all right thank you okay so turning now to 449 west third street in the north side historic district scope of work is remove chimney paved driveway and parking area is the applicant here come on up Hello. Mr. Brewer, state your name for the record please. Seth Brewer. Mr. Brewer, the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions that I've previously read. Have you heard them and are you in agreement with them? I'm in agreement. Okay. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Yes ma'am. Come on up please. Are you wanting? Yes, ma'am. Okay. I'm sorry, you're going to have to speak a little louder. Or just come over to the microphone. Just step back, sir. Go to the microphone then. I live at 435 West Third Street, and I also own the house adjacent to this one. I understand he wants to totally remove the chimney from the roof line. Okay. And I just found that that is detrimental to the original roof line of the house and some of the original design of the house and some of the elements that set historic houses apart from newer homes because newer homes didn't need to have chimneys. I looked up and the National Trust actually has a mission statement that recommends that owners that are fortunate enough to have an original masonry chimney, that they should repair it and retain it. And our house next door, we have restacked three of the chimneys. And none of them took more than four hours to do. and I just think that it was a very small I'm sorry I didn't realize you were going to get into a full scale whose application is this? I think we'll need to have a presentation of the findings by the board so that you can understand where they're coming from I will sound this one as well and we'll come back to it in just a minute I'm sorry okay at 313 densler court seven parks historic district install the signage is the applicant here all right if you state your name for the record please yes i'm kristin curry all right the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions yes i've read those into the record before did you hear me on those i'm sorry i can't hear you i know it's hard uh let me read the conditions to you and see if you're in agreement uh number one if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work and secondly once reviewed by the other divisions uh any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with those? That's acceptable, yes. All right, good. Any comments or questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 05220313-B at 313 Dantzler Court, I move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If none, the chair will call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right. The motion passes and the COA is conditioned as approved. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with your end. okay in 133 goodrich avenue in the pensacola park you start district come on up the scope of work is to paint the brick structure and the staff has recommended disapproval of your application do you want to be heard on this i just like this my name is jace I did buy this house in 2016. I'm going to stop you right there. We'll do a presentation for the staff and we can hear your comments then. Okay. I'm trying to get, I'm just sounding which ones I can just go through. Sure. And the others will have a hearing on them. Okay. Okay, so a few minutes. Thank you. 162 Suburban Court in the Pensacola Park historic district, is the applicant here? Scope of work is to install a shed. Janet Woznik. All right, and the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what I'll call. There's one substantive condition, that is provide the door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to start of work or the issuance of the COA. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. The other two are what I call the standard conditions that you've heard me read into the record before, or are we in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Any questions? Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? I just wanted to clarify that the shed was going to be placed. We don't actually have a site plan. So is the shed being placed beside the existing garage that we have pictures of? Yes. It's replacing one that was removed 20 years ago. Okay. Okay. We'll note that for the record that it's going to be basically in the same place. Yes. Okay. Same footprint. Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Very good. Anything else? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, then I'm ready for a motion. Chair, in case number 18130162 at 162 Suburban Court, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the condition that the owner provide door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA and the two other standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any 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 COA is conditioned is approved. Thank you. Turning now to 121 West Maxwell Street. Scope of work is demolished, construct addition. Applicant here. Good afternoon. Sean Collette. All right. Mr. Collette, I believe the staff has recommended approval, yes, of your application subject to the standard two conditions I've been reading into the record. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, that's fine. All right. Any questions about it? No. Okay. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right. Hearing none, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 12680121-C at 121 West Maxwell, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions. Okay. Second. I did have a question. Okay, sure. I'm sorry. I just, I wasn't quite clear whether the steps that were going to be replaced, were those going to be wood or concrete? The plans say concrete and the descriptions say wood. My thoughts was to do concrete if I can. The agenda said wood, but concrete would hold up better down there if I can do concrete. Either one is fine. Okay. I just wanted to clarify because the plan said one thing. Yeah. Concrete would be my preference. Concrete. Okay. I second the motion. Very good then. That'd be fine. Did I hear a second from you? Second. Okay. All right. Any further comment about the question or the motion? Not then. I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The motion passes and your CLA condition is approved. Thank you. Okay, now we're coming back to our docket and coming back into the contested cases. So the first one is at 521 East Main Street in the Belcourt Historic District. And Ms. Bowman, I think what we're going to have is Ms. Armstrong give a presentation first. Oh, okay. It's a little confusing. Ah. Sorry, mask issues. So I'll give you, we saw, of course, this case in June where the new property owner had installed a fence on this location. And now she is interested in replacing this Barkley Clay East sign with a new sign. And you, of course, have seen the sign that she submitted. And it's going to be 87 by 110 inches, not feet. And it will be located in this location here. It will be fixed to the building. I think it's an aluminum, aluminite sign if you're flat mounted. And guidelines are included for your reference. Staff finds that the proposal to install new signage is within the guidelines. guidelines 5B and 5C which state respectively signs can consist of materials such as wood, metal, fiberglass can be painted or apply lettering or should be sized in proportion to the building, relate to and complement and not overwhelm the site, building and street and avoid oversight signs. Staff finds the sign percentage would be more appropriate if it had an arch top versus rectangular because it would soften the presence on the building and make it less dominant. And of course, that and then staff recommends that the top of the design be arched with the vital details come back to staff. And the other two conditions with any changes come back to staff. And once reviewed by other divisions come back to staff. And so, and staff's thought with this is sort of trying to, as we go from a larger, I mean like a smaller sign that's just a lettering to a larger sign. We were just trying to sort of think about softening the edges. And one thought, because her logo said arch, was the thought to arch the sign itself. And that was our approach. She also is replacing a freestanding sign that's in the yard as well. I think I might have that. There's the sign that is going to be replaced. So she'll have a at-level walking pedestrian level sign as well as a vehicular more seen broadly on the structure. Here is the proposed signage in color sort of on the building. So I'm not sure I understand what you want. Well, the suggestion would be instead of having to arch these corners is the proposal to make it an arch sign versus a squared off or rectangular sign. The sign basically to follow that arch? Well, that was our thought about softening the sign going from just lettering to a larger sign on the building. But, of course, that's up to you all to determine. I think that's more an aesthetic concern than anything else. My concern is that the sign as proposed is very large for that building. I know it's a blank wall, but to go from kind of an understated letters on the wall to, I feel that the proportion of that is too large. Okay, and I apologize. I got ahead of myself, Ms. Bowman. It's your turn now to explain your thinking. And I apologize. I got ahead of myself. No, that's okay. It is a big sign. I agree. It is a big sign. I contacted a couple of different sign companies and they said that that size was appropriate for that size of a wall for that area. so I went with what the sign company recommended because that's what they do for a living and I don't I do have a designer that helped me with this sign along with fast signs who is who I ended up choosing to to build the sign if that's what I do that's my logo for the property and because of the straight lines of the building that's why the sign is square I went back to them and asked them what they thought and they said if I'd arched it then it would look weird with the white arch in there and then I talked to the sign company who said that it was going to be $1,500 more of that they said rounding the surface This is a much more difficult process than you realize that it's harder to hang. I didn't understand what they were talking about. You might. It affects the square footage, I guess, that you're allowed to have on the building. It's counted as a square, even though it's arched, is kind of what he was saying. And it's going to take them a lot longer to put this sign up, and I have been trying to get a sign since June. so that's kind of where we're coming from on the sign. Are you willing to make it smaller as a smaller rectangle? I am not a special person at all, so if you told me that I needed to make it a certain size and I went back and if it ended up, I mean, I have to have a sign. so I just don't want it to look like a P on the side of the you know what I'm saying I I have you seen that before I respect that the the personal portions aren't quite right when I saw what they were recommending I thought holy cow that seems really huge but then when it's up on the building up that high I'm not sure that it would look that huge just look huge from the letters that were there before which I don't know that anybody would have ever noticed so well my My concern is that it's an apartment building. It's a residential structure. And that sign appears to be much more appropriate for a retail or a commercial structure. and because it is residential and I know it faces Main Street you know my gut feeling is that it is it's too big but and I would just say based on the fast signs is giving you the dimensions of what building inspection would tell So a lot of times building inspection has a square footage. They have a ratio with how much signage you can have per the square footage of wall space you have. And so that's what they're dictating that on. But our process sometimes likes to see things smaller than that, especially when you're in more residential feel. And I think that was what we were trying to think about. How can you get sort of what you're looking for? because obviously the Barkley sign sort of got lost, especially when you had the big Texas bushes. How can you get that but sort of soften the approach of that? And that's why we were sort of thinking about arching your corners. And what he's saying is that while the arch corners would be your square footage, you're not going to be losing square footage versus based on the building inspection regulations for signage. And that's what the fast signs guy. But I think we, you know, as we would be probably looking for something smaller. So are you saying that if it was smaller, you wouldn't need me to arch it? Because I can't, I'm not going to spend the extra money to arch it. And I have to go back to, I mean, the other thing is the arches are right next to it. And that was, we don't want to, I don't want to take away from the arches that are there. so I think that would be up to the board to find that I think we staff would find it would be appropriate to be smaller I have a question for the staff the the black lettering that says Barclay East is that gone already that's been removed as far as her landscaping and yes yes dimensional letters that were on the wall. Previously, yes. Let me see if I can get that back real quick. Yeah, and the next question I have is so in our guidelines we say signs that are historic such as painted wall signs should be preserved and maintained. Is there any deeper definition on when a sign becomes historic and when it's just sort of temporal? I think given the fact these structures were built sort of in the 70s, I'm not quite sure you could say that that signage is more historic than what, you know, the Barkley signs because it's, you know, not necessarily, it's within the historic district and it was, you know, it's in within the district, but I can't say that's historic signage. Okay. Okay. Well, my thought is, so the style of that building was built in and the lettering that was on it all went together. And it was pretty common to have a modernist building that incorporated dimensional lettering somewhere, somehow into the architecture. Unfortunately, I don't know how our guidelines can define that more precisely. But, I mean, my gut says I would rather see lettering like what existed than this new sign and this new logo. It would fit the style of that architecture better and more appropriately. but I can't our guidelines are pretty vague on that note so I don't know if I have much of an argument there and I don't also I don't think the arch top or the square top will make a big difference if we're going to go that route I would just say I think the guidelines about oversized signs might be more applicable than, you know, trying to retain historic signage here. Okay. I have to. How would we quantify the size on something like this? We don't. It's compatible and proportionate to the signage. I think I'm hearing agreement from the applicant that perhaps if she can keep it rectangular, that she's willing to make it a little smaller. Am I hearing that? So I would suggest that maybe you resubmit a resized sign, rectangular shape, and just make it smaller so it's not quite as dominant on the side of that building. we do we need to provide some guidance right staff want that to come back to staff yeah yeah bring it back to the staff for a normal phraseology would be bring the final details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the coa and I think what we're looking for is something smaller I mean what does that mean you know I don't know come back here and it's smaller and you know it's got to be two feet smaller and see that I mean that's because I don't think just their ability to just right splash it up there I mean you're just it's not a true okay I'm sorry I thought you were in agreement that you know I'll make it smaller i just need to have some guideline on how when you say smaller are you talking about a two by three sign or a i think six by eight i mean i just you know it's going to look exact it's going to be the architects i'll let them tell you so i'm just looking i'm just sort of looking at the the photograph that i have and i've divided it up into eight sections across 87 that gives about 11 inches per section. So, you know, if you could bring the bottom dimension, the 87 dimension, down to like about between 70 and 75 inches and then the proportional the 110 actually what i'm let me restate that what about a percentage would that help yeah i think a percentage probably would help because i we don't have to min i mean right i don't to draw it up to see it I don't have the ability to do that to see what but a percentage would be like 70 to 80 yeah I guess so it'd be about 70 percent of what it is now is that what you're saying so reduce it by about 30 percent between 20 and 30 percent I think I get back into a portion and won't be quite so dominant you know I'm sorry the I go by that building almost every day and it's kind of an iconic look I know it's gone and I know you have the right to change it it's just I have to agree with Josh it's a look that worked well on that wall mm-hmm and you know you may just want to think or discuss that with your developers and see if they could come up with something not imitative exactly but would be more respectful of the flatness of that wall and the architectural style itself just a thought okay i'll see what i can do you know i i think this is a this can be approved if they're smaller and i think you've got it i range now and so and then it can go to staff for the timing to respect the timing so you're going to get your sign it's just you know how you want to do it does that seem agreeable to you i mean i'm going to have to see what it looks like too i may have to go back to the to the drawing board on it because if you say 20 or 30 and you don't like it then i mean it's the same it's going to be the exact same size it's going to be a little bit smaller so you could take that picture and put just a square on there cover that up and be able to see what that's going to look like you know it's i mean it's still going to be the same size sign it's just going to be it looks like maybe about 12 i mean a foot smaller on each side it's going to be 20 percent Well, that gives, you know, given the guidelines that we have to be able to make a decision with this, is we're trying to avoid an oversized sign. I mean, that's what the guidelines say, to complement, not overwhelm, and to avoid an oversized sign. So you can't just say if I make this sign 20 or 30 percent less, I'll approve that sign today? I think what we are saying is we are going to make a motion that says if you make it 20 to 30 percent smaller and submit that design to staff, then given the submittal to staff, the motion will be that we approve the COA. Okay. Is that application? Application. Very good. Anyone else on this? If not, then I think we're ready for a motion. Please bear in mind since we're disagreeing with the staff to make a finding. Right. Thank you. You want to do it? Yeah, I can do it. Chair, as per case number 12260521-C at 521 East Main Street, I make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the condition that the sign be made 20 to 30 percent smaller in order to meet the guidelines to avoid an oversized sign. and that the sign can be rectangular in shape. And the sign can be rectangular in shape given the reduced size and that that be submitted to staff prior to issuance of the COA and the two standard conditions. okay do i have a second second good discussion any further discussion on it all right the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye aye aye those nay the motion passes and the coa is approved as conditioned thank you miss bowman thank you all right coming back now to 449 west 3rd street in the north side district district scope of work is the remove chimney paved driveway and parking area is the issue steward let's go ahead and have a presentation by the whose case is this berries Thank you, Barry. I think the only thing we're concerned with is the chimney. The only issue we're concerned with is the chimney. Okay. Well, I think the first thing I'll do is kind of just walk you through the photographs. I think this is a new edition, a relatively new edition on the back. It's a post-1972 edition. All right. So, obviously, this is the front of the structure. Drive going back. Skip through these. So, this, you can see this line where the brick from this edition is toothed in. in this area. Here's a close-up of it. Obviously, you can tell the different brick. And the chimney sets to the exterior of this addition. It doesn't connect to the historic structure at all. So the Sanborn maps that we have go to 1972. This addition doesn't show on any of those, and I checked with building inspection, and they didn't have a record of a permit for it. So the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the following work. Remove a brick chimney that occurs in a rear addition. The chimney along with the addition was constructed after the 1972 Sanborn Insurance Company maps were published. Additionally, the building inspection office does not have a record of when the addition was constructed. The guidelines are included for your use. Findings. The chimney proposed for removal is in a modern edition constructed post-1972. The chimney is not connected to the historic structure and is not a character-defining feature that would require its retention to meet the guidelines. Recommendations. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions. Once reviewed, well, two standard conditions, and that's the end of the staff report. Unless the board has some questions. I can look in the hall and see. While he's checking on Ms. Kelly, would you like me to explain kind of the rationale? So we've had some interior water damage in that addition. And in that fireplace, in the first floor, and it is a chimney that only has a first floor fireplace. It's not one where there are multiple fireplaces that are kind of converging into one chimney stack. In that first floor, we have, and there had been before our time there, a gas line for gas logs. We have a ventless gas log system. that is irrelevant to the outside of the structure and i understand that but in the course of us living in this house um we've had multiple incidents of water damage to the plaster on the inside in the first floor where it is the only place where it is still plaster right onto brick on the second floor we uh we furred out the wall and there's drywall there so i can't see if there's water accumulating inside there in that cavity between the plaster, the original plaster, the brick and plaster and the furring strips and drywall. So we had Odessa roofing out recently to look at water damage around that chimney. And then also at another portion of that roof, it is a membrane roof. It's not completely a flat roof, but it does tie into the original structure under the fascia and box gutters of the original structure. So not quite flat pitched, but it is like some sort of a fiberglass membrane that, according to Kenny Evans of Odessa, is at the end of its life, which explains the multiple leaks that we've had. He recommended, he said, you know, unless I'm partial to the chimney to see if it would be possible to remove it for the sake of removing a point of entry for water, a flashing area, et cetera, et cetera. Um, so that's why I submitted the request. Um, and respectfully, I am nearly ambivalent about it. Um, if the chimney was not there, I, I don't think that the house would be lacking anything because the house has seven other chimneys that have way more interesting, you know, architectural significance and are visible, et cetera. That brick came from some sort of sorry time for brick manufacturing. The bricks are crumbling and the faces of them pop off. You can definitely see that. It's almost an identical looking brick that we have on our store on the corner of 2nd and Jefferson Street, Wine and Market. You can see where they are partial or whole bricks where they've just kind of broken off and the brick is this bright orange. It's not like the other older bricks that are darker red. And even when you look closely, you can see little chunks of, you know, coal or other stone or whatever. It's just they're just not great bricks. That was that also informed my request is that I've got some significant tuck pointing to do probably. And then I still won't really know if I've abated whatever the issue is that's allowing water into my house, which I think is coming in through the chimney and then leeching out. Even though I don't have this issue in my other older chimneys, in this newer crappy chimney, I've got some unexplainable water issues that could be because of poor bricks, poor masonry work, et cetera, et cetera. So all that said, carry on. I think we're in agreement that probably this should be approved. I assume our interested citizen has left? What appears so. Is she gone? Did she leave? I did not see her in the hall or downstairs. The only comment I'll make is that this is a good example of how you can have an imitative look that is not really good for the historic structure. This is why we have that setback so that you can see what you're dealing with in terms of an addition versus the original structure. I don't have any problem approving the application that you submitted. I'm good with it. You're good with it? All right, then. I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 18800449-E at 449 West 3rd Street, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. We've had a presentation. The citizen who is interested left. Apparently she may have heard enough. I don't know. I'll call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the application is approved. Thank you. I would like to thank the staff level folks as always and thank you all. Also, I'll just add, thank you for approving it. I was not aware that there was any dissent. I have presented multiple applications in front of the BOAR over the last 17 years of living downtown. now I've never had a neighbor come come and dissent so I wasn't aware that she had any opposition to the work that I'm doing and if if any work that I'm possibly proposing could hinder a neighbor's ability to enjoy their property then I would I would have to weigh that you know into my decision to proceed and so I might not remove that chimney thank you very much thank you All right. We are now at 133 Goodrich Avenue in the Pensacola Park and Start District. Sir, just a moment. Barry, is this yours? Let's have the staff presentation, please. Thank you, sir. 133 Goodrich Avenue. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to paint the exterior walls of the brick masonry structure. The applicant is doing good work at the house, and he is renovating it quite substantially, but wanted to go ahead and see if the board would approve the project. And the guidelines are included. Staff finds that the proposal to paint the brick structure does not meet the guidelines. Guideline 13A requires that brick materials original to the building should be preserved and maintained. Additionally, Guideline 13G and 13H state respectively, bricks should not be covered with silicone-based water sealants or liquid siding. Water sealants and liquid siding can trap water in the interior of the building and damage the inside of the walls. And brick that has never been painted should not be painted. Paint should not be applied to the structure in order to meet the guidelines and to reduce the likelihood of moisture damage to the brick historic structure. Staff recommends denial of the proposal. This is the House in question. So this is the front elevation, and I looked closely to see if there were any remnants of paint to indicate that it might have been painted sometime in the past. You can see some paint, but that's where pilasters that supported the porch were located. Any idea how porous that brick would be? Well, no. I do know that it's... You can't really see it in these photos, but it's a wire cut brick. So it is a glazed brick, just with a vertical grooved texture in it. Okay. Hi, sir. I'm sorry Barry had you read your findings? Excuse me? Did you read your findings? Yes. Okay, very good. All right, sir. Thank you all for being here for this. So I want to paint the house. My goal is to really make the house look better. the color of brick I'm not too pleased with. You can see the lower skirt of the house has already been painted. We want to paint it like a white or a light off-white color. And if you guys were to approve, I'd be happy to submit any kind of colors or do, you know, abide by any conditions you might have for it. I'd be happy to do that. Um, and again, I know the, uh, the goal here is to preserve the brick and things like that. And I know that paint can cause that issue. So maybe I'm asking for an exception to that. But again, my goal is to improve the look of the house and match the rest of the nice houses on the street, which a lot of them are painted too. so um anyway that's that's what i'm my goal is to do questions comments uh it's gonna you may not you may not be happy with us but we're doing you a favor okay by not approving it uh i've had experience with that kind of brick it does not hold paint particularly well and that's not the guideline but i'm just saying as a practical matter sure in about five seven years you're going to have a real problem with the paint i'll tell you that right now and needing repaint or you either have to repaint or you'll find out it's just not going to ever look good as you think it should yeah the weather and frankly the guidelines are pretty explicitly clear on this and we have been consistent with this one okay so i understand that you would to paint it but we can't let you do that okay i understand would you guys have any recommendations to soften the in my opinion the harshness of the uh landscaping put in some nice looking shrubs in front uh i'm assuming you're going to change out those steps aren't you yes okay yeah it's uh don't you get the steps back where they should be oh that's where they were originally really Interesting. I think this is the, there's a unique architectural name for these. I think they're just called small houses. American small house. I mean, it's an interesting formalized name like, you know, American small house or whatever. But yeah, I think landscaping would help a great deal. I also think in painting the trim work and the shutters and the windows. You may want to consider not painting those white again, but to paint those a different color that kind of complements the red color of the brick, that kind of ties that together, because that can really change and really upgrade the overall look of the house. It's a lovely proportioned house. So I think just the painting of the trim and the windows would be very helpful. It'll do a lot more than you think. I can't believe those tips are original. You can wash it or clean it. Some of the water stains you have near the driveway there will come off and that'll look a little better. Okay. But thank you for investing in that neighborhood. I don't know if you're, are you living there? Are you flipping it? I'm living there. Plan on staying for a while. I do like it a lot. Yeah, thank you. We were so happy to bring that into the historic overlay process. Yeah. When we started the process, I walked the neighborhood and I was astonished at that well-reserved. Yeah. Yes, sir, thank you. Okay. Chair, as per case number 0815-0133-A at 133 Goodrich Avenue, I move that we deny the certificate of appropriateness for painting the brick structure. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Chair, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. The motion passes and the COA is displeased. All right, so we're now at the conceptual review. Is that correct? Thank you. Okay. Shana Wilson and Antoine Bryant. Thank you. Actually, I think, Ms. Armstrong, is this your presentation? It is. Okay, we're going to go. I'm sorry. I'm just too quick. She's going to tell us what the project is. I'll leave your project and then we'll talk about it. And by the way, this is a very informal process. This is where we give you some input and ideas of what we can do if we need to make the project better. If maybe. That doesn't want to run short. So I'm going to just walk you through Caden Town in general and we'll talk about the plans. This lot is 792 Caden Lane. and at the corner of Caden Lane and Caden Town it was an empty lot as you see in front of us and so the previous owner has divided these lots many years ago and she's finally at the point where she's selling them and so Ms. Wilson and Mr. Bryan has recently purchased one of the lots and as you can see sorry about that in the foreground this is the Hayes house that was approved in 2017 and so the lot that they're looking at is right adjacent to them and so there are two trees that we've been dealing with one that's sort of covered with euonymus and then sort of a damaged apple tree in the back but this is the parcel they're interested in it doesn't go all the way back to this back property line here, it sort of comes a little bit across, but they're actually getting it resurveyed to sort of get that the corners correct, but that is sort of the lot we're looking at. And so I'm going to just walk you through to sort of re-familiarize you with the other properties, other structures that have been approved on Cane Town. So this is the other house that's been approved within the last 10 years. And we recently, in the last year, I think added a second garage to the structure. This is the second structure built out in Canetown. And we recently approved a secondary garage to the structure in the back this past summer. And as you can see, some of the other houses were built. this is our first structure that was built and then we had this structure and then this one going up the way and then this one was done in 2017 as well so I think 16-17 and then to sort of give you some ideas these are some of the structures that have been there for a while and added on too so let's talk about their proposal they do have these house plans they're submitting and i think i'm going to say that this is going to be in reverse order and miss wilson will talk to that where you have the garage is going to be on this side and the projecting bay will be on this side And I think the plans have been reversed. And she can talk about that. And so it is going to be a, the dimensions are, I believe, are 45 by 30 with a 22 by 22 garage, two-bay, two-car, one-bay garage added to the rear. It's going to be one story. We did talk about some of the things within our guidelines that address sort of non-vinyl material. she's already indicated to us during conversation and to the builders that know that shutters will be removed. And I think, and here's a floor plan, what she's looking at. So we're doing a conceptual review to sort of give them some feedback on things that need to be addressed as they move forward in prepping and making changes for their final submittal. So here's the back elevation and the sides. And this was sort of added, it wasn't in your earlier package, but she has submitted it this week, and I wanted to provide them to you so you can see them in front of you as well. So guidelines are included for your reference, and is this a conceptual view? We have no findings at this time, but questions to be asked are, is it appropriate to construct a single family structure? Do the proposed plans have the same number of stories or within 10% of the average height of the adjacent buildings? Is the setback consistent with the other structures on Caden Lane and Caden Town in the historic district? Does the architectural details, articulation of the plans relate in scale, rhythm, proportion, texture to adjacent surrounding historic buildings? Does the complexity of building form and shape of the new plans relate to the adjacent buildings? Do the proportion, structural emphasis, and rhythm of the new proposal reflect the predominant proportion, emphasis, and rhythm of the adjacent surrounding buildings? Does the roof of the proposed structure relate and shape materials to the roof of the adjacent surrounding buildings? Are the openings in the proposed plans compatible in scale, size, proportion to established patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings? Are the materials in scale to the buildings which are located compatible with materials and adjacent surrounding buildings? Is the open space adjoined to the street developed in scale, a character with the neighborhood? Are the shutters appropriate? Should the shutters be installed on side elevations? Could the windows be installed on the sides of the building? Of course, we have no recommendations at this time, and of course, the applicants are present. and I'll also sort of yeah go back to that oh sorry can I go back to the bigger image sorry thanks okie dokie hey Ms. Wilson hello uh do you have some comments you want to make first or would you like to hear all right tell us what you have in mind for your house i'm sorry tell us what you have in mind for your house and how you want to be using it and um it's uh for our personal use um we purchased the land and we're just um we're looking at just more or less a one bedroom i mean a one leveled home on the account of my fiancee has a broken femur, so we kind of stand away from the steps kind of thing. I'm not quite clear how the garage hooks into the house. How does the garage hook into this house exactly? Right against the back of the kitchen. All right, I didn't see it. Okay. So if you see, Mr. Dickinson, here is the garage, of course, and there's going to be a mudroom in this particular area leading from the kitchen into this mudroom space. And so that is how it's going to be connected. Got you. All right. I'm sorry. Thank you. Any, I guess we'll just lead off with some comments. You want to start off, Susan? Sure. I'm going to step away for just a minute. I'll be right back. Sure. So I think one question I had is the placement on the site, just how that relates to the buildings as they go, the other houses as you go down the street, is the front of the house? They do actually have to follow a building line, so I'm going to go back up to the initial picture here with the Hayes' house. And as you can see, pretty much it will have to follow the building. There's sort of a staggered step from the Hayes' house to the Seals' house next door. So it will just be practically in line here with that. The way the Canetown, and Miss Wilson is getting a site plan to us, But as you see, it's sort of the corner of the whole block of Canetown and Cane Lane. It's almost like this trapezoid type approach. So as you see, they'll have, I think it's a 50-foot building line. Okay. So they'll have to be that far back from that stuff. So there's a staggered approach to that because of, but it'll practically speaking, be in line with the house next door. Okay. sort of in this particular vicinity as far as you think about the front. I guess these two little shrubs are sort of an indicator of where the house next door would be. We talked about that she's waiting to get a survey to give the proper location, the plan. This is on the corner of Caden Lane and Caden Town Road? It is. It's actually not exact corner. It's set in because there are two other lots right beside this. So if we go back to this, so at the corner here. Sorry, I was looking at the map on my phone. Oh yeah, so you're fine. So as you can see where this telephone pole is, this is one particular lot and there's another lot in between that. And so this tree here is the tree that sort of marks their location at this point. So the way these have been divided up are piano key lots. And so there's three lots until you get to sort of where the hazes are, where that fence is located. And then four lots going back towards the little school building or old school on Cadentown Road. I'm sorry if I missed it. This house, it'll face Caden Lane? It'll face Caden Lane. And I think the lot coverage is I think it's a 50 foot lot. So it's a pretty small lot. Oh, wow. Comparatively to a lot of the other lots on the town. So this will be one of our smaller lots. So they've only got The house is 45. Maybe it's larger than that. Do you know the square footage? 60. Sorry. I read that wrong. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. Well, as long as it fits and it's facing the road. Right. So that was my question, just that it is oriented the same similar way as other houses in the area. And that's going to be also dictated by building code as well. Right. And planning. So the only, in looking at this, the only comments that I had about is the sides of the house under the two gable sides, that there are no windows on those sides. and from our guideline perspective, it seems that it would be more appropriate to have some windows on the two insides. And I did speak with Taylor Holmes and we can have that, we can have extra windows put in as well. Okay. I would feel that that would be beneficial for those for, you know, living in that house as well as that it would be more appropriate for the historical guidelines. I don't find any issues with what they're thinking about. I think the windows may be problematic. Has that been addressed? I think they already mentioned that. We haven't really talked about that, but I think exactly, but I think what he's referring to is the multi-pane system versus just one over one. Okay. And it actually would be a little bit more cost-effective just to do the one over one versus the multi-pane, especially if you have to add additional windows with your window package. Okay. And I think I want to be clear. the orientation of the house has to be the rhythm and scale has to be consistent with the older homes in Gaten or with the other homes? I think my comments and my, it just, I think the character now of course is changing and evolving. I think we're looking at, I wanted to show you pictures of just the overall the new and the old character as they relate to her proposal as she relates to what's already been built and what's already there. I drove through there earlier today. I was very jealous. That's a nice place. I think my memory of seeing cases that come through here, usually the biggest rub we get is like a giant driveway. Can you remember anything else? It's usually driveways, right? The driveway has been an issue before, and I'm just, the neighborhood, as Amelia has said, is evolving. We've had some homes that have deteriorated away, unfortunately. My other concern, and this is just, were you intending to use that front porch at all? I'm sorry. Were you intending to use the front porch at all? The front porch. seating area in front yes you may want it i can't tell the dimensions you may want it to be a little deeper it looks a little narrow to me i don't know whether that would mess up the scale yeah it's only four feet that deep enough for a decent porch this is what i was saying i think it's gonna be a little too narrow for you I say that because my sister actually has a house that's very similar to this one and she never could use her front porch because it was just too too narrow okay it is something to consider because it does actually say it's only four feet wide so it's a little bigger anyway we already doing that okay okay you may be up can't talk um well i mean as far as the guidelines i i don't see anything here i mean i think they're gonna go over the windows with you and all that stuff but um i think so here's what i shouldn't do is give my opinion um but i'm gonna do it But Caden Town is so open, like so much green space. If you could figure out a way to let your house open up to your backyard more, I think you would be thrilled once you got in there and you saw how it worked and you got to utilize your yard better, your backyard better. But, I mean, as far as guidelines, what you showed is fine with me. But yeah, the yards out there are amazing. Yeah. It's a lot of space. It is. Does anybody have any concerns about the Palladian window or suggestions of how to sort of not that, make that. What was that? The Palladian window in the front. Do you have any suggestions about how to make that not so histrionic? Not so what? Not histrionic so much. Maybe the top part versus the double window. We were going to remove that. You were going to remove it? Okay, so she's removing the arch. Oh, you're not going to put the arch window at all? We didn't think we were supposed to have one. Well, that's fine, too. Yeah, so you could have a transom, or I didn't know if that was what you were going to take that off. I don't have a problem with it. to me when this house gets built it will not look like an old house that is true um even if it has that window on it do you have any issues with it being square versus curved as a transom maybe versus I would say just from a I mean this really isn't exactly in the guidelines again but just in my opinion if there were a little bit more of a horizontal break between the two double pane windows and the arched window if there was a wider band between the two that would be a more comfortable design for me but again that's kind of an opinion that's not inherent in the guidelines I think so it's okay then to leave that or no do we need it I'm fine I think you propose what you want to propose and but I think um Mr. Irwin's suggestion of making that a heavier band okay sort of make it much more like a transom versus an attachment okay i apologize for coughing anything else yeah i think you've got a good start thanks for coming here first thank you for doing it okay thank you all all right so i believe we don't have any minutes to approve today and our next meeting is september 15th Do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Wait, yes. Yes, so moved. Second. Second. We're done. Thank you. Thank you.