# Board of Architectural Review - September 15, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 15, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5456 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5456?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-09-15 - **Last revised**: September 15, 2021 - **Length**: 10,865 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 convened on September 15, 2021. The board addressed two main agenda items during the session, both of which were approved by the end of the meeting. The board began by reviewing and approving the minutes from their April 21, 2021 meeting. The primary business of the session focused on Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, which were also approved. Throughout the meeting, the board conducted a total of 8 votes on various matters related to these agenda items. No members of the public provided comments during the meeting's public comment period. The session concluded with both agenda items receiving approval from the board members. ## Attendance The following members were present at the September 15, 2021 meeting: • Michael Breeding • Barbara Hussey • Jeff Covark • Raymond Hill • Baron Gibson • Zack Ramsey • Naily Ramsey All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included eight certificate of appropriateness applications, all of which were approved through voice votes. **303 Madison Place** [timestamp: 10:00] - The motion for approval was seconded by Sarah and passed unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays. The approval included two standard conditions as noted. **324 Madison Place** [timestamp: 15:00] - The certificate of appropriateness was approved unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays. The approval included two standard conditions as noted. **236 Barberry Lane** [timestamp: 20:00] - Approved unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays. The approval included specific conditions requiring the applicant to move the garage ten feet to the south to five feet from the property line, provide door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA, and comply with two standard conditions. **400 North Limestone** [timestamp: 25:00] - Passed unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays. The approval required the applicant to submit door specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA, along with two standard conditions. **645 Elsmere Park** [timestamp: 30:00] - Approved unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays, subject to two standard conditions as noted. **416 Fayette Park** [timestamp: 35:00] - Passed unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays, with two standard conditions as noted. **256 Bell Place** [timestamp: 40:00] - Approved unanimously with 5 ayes and 0 nays, subject to two standard conditions as noted. **293 South Ashland Avenue** [timestamp: 45:00] - This application received the only non-unanimous vote of the meeting, passing with 4 ayes and 1 nay. The approval required the applicant to submit a detailed plan with a gate shown at the sidewalk and landscaping placement. ## Contested Items The board encountered one contested matter during the September 15, 2021 meeting that resulted in a split vote among members. **Fence Installation at 293 South Ashland Avenue** The primary point of contention involved a proposal for fence installation at 293 South Ashland Avenue. Board members were divided on whether to approve the installation, leading to a split vote rather than unanimous approval. The central concern raised during deliberations focused on maintaining the open landscape characteristic that defines the neighborhood's visual identity. Some board members expressed reservations that the proposed fence could compromise this established aesthetic standard that contributes to the area's overall character. The disagreement highlighted differing perspectives among board members regarding the balance between individual property owners' rights to install fencing and the community's interest in preserving consistent neighborhood design standards. While specific vote tallies and individual board member positions were not detailed in the available materials, the split nature of the vote indicates significant division on the matter. The outcome of this contested vote was not specified in the provided information, leaving unclear whether the fence installation proposal was ultimately approved or denied. This fence installation debate represents the type of land use and aesthetic consideration that frequently generates discussion in municipal planning and zoning contexts, where individual property modifications must be weighed against broader community design objectives. ## Review of minutes from April 21, 2021 [timestamp: 50:00] The board conducted a review of the minutes from their April 21, 2021 meeting. The minutes were presented for approval as part of the standard meeting procedures. The board members reviewed the documentation from the previous meeting without any recorded discussion or debate regarding the content. No concerns were raised about the accuracy or completeness of the minutes as presented. Following the review, the board approved the minutes from the April 21, 2021 meeting. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 05:00] The board reviewed multiple applications for certificates of appropriateness involving renovations, demolitions, and construction projects within historic districts. The discussion included presentations and deliberations on various property modifications requiring approval under historic preservation guidelines. Key participants in the review process included board members Michael Breeding, Barbara Hussey, Jeff Covark, and Raymond Hill. Property owners and representatives Baron Gibson, Zack Ramsey, and Naily Ramsey also participated in the proceedings, likely presenting details about their respective projects and responding to board inquiries. The applications covered a range of work types including renovations to existing historic structures, proposed demolitions, and new construction projects within designated historic areas. Each application required board evaluation to ensure compliance with established historic preservation standards and district guidelines. During the review process, board members examined the proposed work against criteria designed to maintain the historic character and integrity of the districts. The discussion involved technical aspects of the projects and their potential impact on the historic properties and surrounding areas. Following deliberation on the various applications presented, the board approved the certificates of appropriateness. This outcome indicates that the proposed work met the necessary standards for historic preservation and was deemed appropriate for the respective historic districts. The approval of these certificates allows the property owners to proceed with their planned renovations, demolitions, and construction projects while ensuring compliance with local historic preservation requirements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval for the certificate of appropriateness for 303 Madison Place - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval for the certificate of appropriateness for 324 Madison Place - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval for the certificate of appropriateness for 236 Barberry Lane - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval for the certificate of appropriateness for 400 North Limestone - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval for the certificate of appropriateness for 645 Elsmere Park - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval for the certificate of appropriateness for 416 Fayette Park - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval for the certificate of appropriateness for 256 Bell Place - **Motion** — passed (4-1): Approval for the certificate of appropriateness for 293 South Ashland Avenue --- ## Full transcript I would like to welcome you to the October 20 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The historic preservation office maintains the full time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as resource. The historic preservation office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider the applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda subject to revision. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. there are certain items that the staff can approve eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 23 staff approvals. I shall proceed with the review of them. In the Ashland Park and Start District, at 306 Deshay Road, remove three. At 110 South Hanover, replace roof, repair box gutters. at 236 south handover renovate structure at 301 south handover remove dying pen oak and replace sidewalk and curb at 1010 fincastle road renovate structure 1012 of fincastle road renovate structure in the elspirit historic district at 415 east high street renovate historic windows replace replace replacement windows and install storm windows at 722 east high street renovate the At 165 Kentucky Avenue, replace rear windows and doors. At 324 Oldham Avenue, remove tree. At 175 Old Park Avenue, replace gutters and downspunks. At 179 Old Park Avenue, remove deteriorated trees. And 361 Transylvania Park, tuck point the structure. In the Belcourt Historic District at 146 East Belcourt, remove dying tree. At 525 Boonsboro Avenue, replace driveway. At 255 DeMar Avenue, reissue the COA. At 600 Sarah Avenue, renovate structure. In the Constitution Historic District, at 147 East Third Street, replace signage. At the Ellsworth Park Historic District, at 645 Ellsworth Park, remove deteriorated trees. At the Northside Historic District, at 432 North Broadway, install storm windows. At 322 West Second Street, replace roof. At 453 West 6th Street, renovate front porch. And at 412 West 3rd Street, renovate front porch. And there are others. There are actually four. I hate to keep you from the three. And Sarah, thank you so much. I looked at the page, too. I didn't realize we had front and back. So continuing. In the Pensacola Park is start district at 123 Goodbridge Avenue, renovate the structure. At 135 Pimbokan Park, renovate the structure. At 1853 Pensacola Park, renovate structure. And at 131 Suburban Court, replace the garage roof. In the seven parks, it's our district at 570 Arcadia Road Park. Rebuild the front porch. At 114 Barbary Lane, replace the gate and fence. At 232 Dantzler Court, replace the fencing. At 1609 Elizabeth Street, replace stoop, stairs, and sidewalks. At 613-615 Elizabeth Street, replace the street steps, side porch, and install Herbie Pad. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, at 218 South Ashland, renovate the structure. At 221 South Ashland, renovate front porch. In the South Hill Historic District, at 352 South Broadway, replace the signage. At 108 West High Street, renovate rear additions. at 353 South Mill Street, replace the replacement windows, and at 417 South Upper Street, replace the roof. In Woodward Heights Historic District at 341 Madison Place, remove the tree. At 726 West Maxwell Street, replace handrails. And finally, in the Western Suburbs Historic District at 704 West Short Street, replace repair restoot. We will now proceed to our first application in the Woodward Heights Historic District at 303 Madison Place. The application is construct porch, addition, pergola, and deck. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Hello? Mr. Reading, if you'll announce your name and your address for the record, please. All right, Michael Breeding, 303 Madison Place. Okay. Mr. Reading, the staff has reviewed your application. they recommend approval subject to what we call the standard conditions. And those are, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Do you agree with that one? Absolutely. And number two is, once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Do you agree with that? Certainly. I will note for the record there's a number of endorsements of your project. But apparently you have canvassed the neighborhood and they're all in agreement and you have engaged your neighborhood in this process. I think they got a letter too. They did. They got a notice letter. Yes. All right, so any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. I'm ready for a motion. Chair, per case 122-00303-K at 303 Madison Place, I move approval for the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions as noted. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Second from Sarah. any further discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye aye aye opposed nay the motion passes and your certificate of appropriateness as conditioned is approved all right thank you thank you for your time all right thank you all right turning now to 324 madison place the scope of work has created a new parking area in the rear yard is the applicant here come on up if you'll state your name for the record please i'm barbara hussey the property is 324 madison place all right uh ms hussey the staff has reviewed your application and they also recommend approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions that i've just mentioned are you in agreement with those yes thank you all right do i have any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience all right hearing none i think we're ready for a motion Chair, in the case number 12200324-A at 324 Madison Place, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? hearing none the chair will call the motion all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed nay the motion carries and the coa as conditioned is approved thank you and i have lost my agenda yes but i need it back because i have no works on it i will find it in just a minute here here's this one that's what i want thank you all right turning now to no that's that's right all right turning now to 236 barbary um lane scope of work is demolished shed and construct garage is the applicant here whoops come on they say in the game show come on down state your name for the record i'm jeff kovar this is my wife emily kovark we live at 236 barberry lane okay this may be one that you want to be heard on the staff has recommended moving your garage 10 feet do you want to be heard on that or do you agree with it we agree to this you do agree okay all right They've also recommended that you provide the door and window details with specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the insurance of the COA. Are we in agreement with that? Yes. All right. And the other two, three and four, are the standard conditions which I've read into the record. Are we in agreement with those? Yes. All right, any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 01180236-B at 236 Barberry Lane, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, to move the garage 10 feet to the south to 5 feet from the property line. Condition 2, provide door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA Conditions 3 and 4 are our standard conditions All right, do I have a second? I second All right, any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye Aye Opposed nay motion passes and the coa as conditioned is approved good luck with the project okay turning now i think we have two applications that probably we're going to have to be heard on uh i'll go ahead and sound them 293 south ashland avenue install front yard fence or is the applicant here would you like to be heard on that all right i'm going to skip on and I'll go through the rest of the agenda because the rest I think are standard approvals. And at 265 South Ashland Avenue construct porch petition, is the applicant here? He is on his way, he thought it was Zoom, so he's on his way down. If he calls again, we're going to push that to the end as well. Okay. All right, thank you. That's a lovely tune. All right, so going to 400 North Limestone Scope of Work Exchange openings. Is the applicant here? Mr. DeHart. Good afternoon, I'm John DeHart here on behalf of the client for 400 North Lime. Okay, Mr. DeHart, I believe the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to one substantive condition, That being submit the door specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of COA. Are you in agreement with that? I'm in agreement. And the other two are, of course, the standard conditions I've been reading into the record. Are you in agreement with those? I am. All right. Then any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from what's left of my audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. All right, Mr. Chairman. in regards to case number 11660400-K400 North Limestone, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness pending the following conditions that the applicants submit door specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness and the other two standard comments, provisions. conditions conditions thanks uh do i have a second second all right i have a second any discussion on the motion hearing none then the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye aye aye the motion passes and your coa as condition is approved mr dart thank you very much good luck with your project turning now to 645 ellsmore park the scope of work is construct pool and landscaping is the applicant here the applicant does not seem to be here uh he was emailed the staff reports okay i would note for the record that the staff report is a recommendation of approval subject to the standard two conditions correct i'm gonna assume that he'll be in agreement with those i would think so all right so i think unless there's an objection we'll move forward even though he should have been here any comments or questions from the board members about this application any questions or comments from the audience all right then i think we're ready for a motion Chair, per case 06510645-M at 645 Ellesmere Park, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions as noted. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Chair, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries then, and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Turning now to 416 Fayette Park. In the Fayette Park is our district. Demolish addition. Construct addition is the applicant. Chair, I need to recuse myself and step outside. All right. And your husband's here. Okay, very good. mr hill how are you today i'm doing great raymond hill 416 i suspect by the time your wife leaves the room we'll probably be done with this application but uh the staff has recommended approval of your application with the standard two conditions are you in agreement with those yes sir all right are there any questions or concerns from the board members Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, in the case number 06900416-U at 416 Fayette Park, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Mr. Hill, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, turning to 256 Bell Place in the Bell Court Historic District. Scope of work is demolished shed, construct shed. Ms. Lewis? Next. State your name for the record, please. The last Lewis. All right. And the staff has recommended approval of the application subject to the standard two conditions. I believe I've read them into the record. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. All right, then. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we can move forward. The chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in case number 32930256-H at 256 Bell Place, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? I have a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair calls the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll now go back to 293 South Ashland Avenue, applicant. If you just state your name for the record. Zach Ramsey. I'm Nellie Ramsey. All right. I think you know our procedure. I'm going to allow the staff to make a presentation first, and then we will have any questions or comments, or questions of the staff, and then we'll have your presentation as well. Now, do you have a PowerPoint presentation you want to put up on the screen? That's correct. Have you submitted the flash drive? Have you given the flash drive yet to the computer guy? Yes. Hold on one second. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Let me make sure. Uh-oh. I'm going to could we reverse order for a second? Sure. Because I want to make sure that I have the right thumb drive because I had a feeling I had something wrong. So can we move on to 265 real quick since the owners are here? Is that all right? Because I had a hard time moving the thumb drive on there so I want to just make sure. Okay. In that case then And unless there's, Amelia, unless there's an objection to you being unmasked while you're making a presentation, I'm comfortable for you doing that since you're vaccinated. No, it's not that. I just want to make sure my thumb drive is correct because I have a feeling I picked up the wrong one. So let me just check that real quick. He wants you to take your mask off so he can understand you better. I want to make sure the thumb drive is correct because I had a hard time downloading the images. so i was going to ask if we could move to 265 south ashland real quick and i'm trying to give you permission to move without having to have your mask on i agree thank you you're welcome barry you is is this barry's case i want you to leave it off during your presentation and let me call then okay so we're now doing 265 south ashland is mr taylor here mr taylor uh we're going we're moving to uh to your application and what we can do is is this barry is this your case yes sir we'll have barry do his presentation and then have you introduce yourself and your client and this is mr uh games no i'm sorry you're here for the uh 265 south ashland yes sir all right i assume you want to be heard on this the application is demolished the addition constructed edition and i believe maybe i misread this that the board has disapproved your application to construct the and I can never say this work correctly port cohere share they have disapproved the application on that part of it are you wanting to be heard on that uh yes sir I just have a couple of questions I'm baron gibson I'm the architect with darren taylor representing our client right and because of mass we're not being able to hear each other clearly yeah uh what i'm trying to say is i'm going to let mr dennis make his presentation first and then answer any questions the board members may have and then we can hear from you and your uh architect okay sure yep thank you i'm sorry i'm sure i know they're hard And Barry, if there's not an objection, you can do your presentation without a mask on. I think it's just easier to hear you. I won't do it. My glasses won't fog. I guess I should ask the board, are we strictly talking about the porticochere at this? I believe so. I think you have recommended approval in the others. I have, but I didn't know if the board would go along with that. Let me make sure. The other conditions were submit door and window specifications and the standard two conditions. I'm assuming there's no concern by the board members with those. Then, yes, we're only concerned with the disapproval. of that part of the application dealing with the port to air. Okay. 265 South Ashland Avenue. I will just concentrate on the portico share. The portico share is proposed to be located on the west elevation of the historic structure. The portico share is approximately 18 feet by 20 feet, single story, with a low slope copper roof flat seam or a flat seam roof supported by wood columns on a wood brick on a wood bay or on a brick base sorry so this is 416 and the location that we were talking about is this area. You can see the drive. There is an existing set of stairs and then there is also a covered, a historic covered portion here that protects the exit door from the residence. And this is the location of the Port de Cauchere, and that covered area is in this front quadrant. which drawing is that i see it nevermind so this is the portico share this is the exit and then the existing stairs that cover is above this The guidelines are included for your use. Findings. The construction of the portico share requires additional discussion concerning its size, location, and if the design replicates history. The guidelines do not have a section that speaks specifically to the design of a portico share. Therefore, staff extrapolated the sections regarding porches, room, and wing additions. The design principles helped to develop the overall philosophy regarding a proposed addition's design, scale, and character. The portico-share design, the porch design principle, porches are often prominent features of a building and help establish scale, proportion, and rhythm along streetscapes. Construction of a porch on an existing building should be comparable in scale and materials with a principal structure and adjacent and surrounding buildings and the district. Portrait should be in keeping with the principal structures architectural style and not reflect an earlier period style. The room and window additions design principle states in planning additions the best approach is to place the addition where they will have the least impact on the building's overall form and plan. The rear of buildings is the best location for the addition of rooms or wings. 2A3C states, porches that given imitation historic appearance are not allowed. Guidelines 2A4A and 2A4E state respectively, additions are most appropriately located at the rear of buildings and additions should reflect characteristics of the current period and design but be compatible with the original building. staff finds that the design of the portico share does not comply with the guidelines the location is not appropriate with the portico share being located on a prominent side of the historic structure and not at the rear the design does not reflect characteristics of the current period in design and creates an imitation historic appearance additionally the size of the portico share is three feet too wide and should be reduced by three feet and width if the proposal were to be approved by the boar staff recommends denial of the proposal to construct a portico share and as you can see there was a typo and i have a denial approval that should just be denial The deadline for board action is November 13th, 2021. The two standard recommendations would apply to this also if approved. Well, I guess if approved, yes. And I'm assuming part of your condition is if we approved it, then it'd be three feet smaller. Yes, sir. Okay, all right. Any questions from the board members about this application? At this time? Okay, then I think we're ready for the applicant. Mr. Chair, while he's coming up, could staff make just a slight correction for the record? Go ahead. In that Mr. Dennis misspoke accidentally and identified the room and wing addition design principles. he misspoke in that and used the word window in it so I just it's correctly written in your report but just wanted to note for the record that it is indeed a reference to the room and wing edition and the record the record thank you the record stands corrected then yes sir and state your name for the record please Baron Gibson okay and if you'd like to make your presentation I just had just a statement to make about the location and our choice for that side. The house currently has a historic structure for a garage in the rear. The garage was built at the time the house was, so the garage is not conducive for parking a modern vehicle. so we're limited in where we can put a place to park a car undercover and so I guess I would just like to get clarification for my client as to where the best place to locate the poor a covered parking place would be if this is not the best place for it that would be I would just want to leave the meeting with good information to take back to our client in that regard. You want to address that? Barry, do you want to address that question initially? Well, it would be difficult to say without studying the site a little more. The guidelines talk about being at the rear of the addition. and I don't know how much space is remaining, I think my recommendation, if the board would allow it, would be to possibly withdraw the portico share from this application and we could look at it and it could be either resubmitted as a portico share in that location if that's what the client chooses or a different structure in a different location? Sure, I think we'd be amenable to that. I think his biggest priority is moving forward with the rear piece of the project anyway. I think we'd love to have the discussion of the most appropriate place to put the port-a-co. And we also have available, as you all know, conceptual reviews. What you might want to do is go through a conceptual review process with us on the port of share. Sure. All right. So I need a statement from you that you are formally withdrawing your application for the port of share at this point. Sure. It's considered then withdrawn. It can be resubmitted at a later time. I would suggest, as I've said, let's do a conceptual review and explore alternatives. That's where the proper place it should be. guidelines seem to be as extrapolated pretty clear that any kind of addition like this should be at the rear of the house and not on the side. Okay, yeah I think the only issue is the primary entry for them is on the side and that's how they're getting into the house. That's always the issue and of course cars have evolved beyond what these these dryways can accommodate. Right. Before we leave, I think I'm seeing an indication of comments from Ms. Hill. Nope? I misread that raised eyebrow? Okay. I just had a clarification question for you, and this probably will be more appropriate for if we do a conceptual session. But is the client desiring that the portico share or the covered parking area be attached to the house in some way? Or are they amenable to that parking and then walking through the outside before they enter the house? Well, we've had that discussion as we were working through some design elements. they were okay with as long as it wasn't they wouldn't be walking all the way up the driveway to get into the door. I think they just from my conversations with them would be okay with you know running up the stairs you know if it's raining you know quickly there is already a covered awning over that door that provides some coverage so you know a short distance I think they would certainly be okay with. Okay. All right. Then why don't you get with your client, get with Mr. Dennis, and see if you can come up with some ideas and bring them back whenever you feel like doing it. That sounds great. In the meantime, then, I think we're ready to have any comments or questions from the audience. All right. I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case 00710265-P at 265 South Ashland Avenue, I move that we approve the revised COA with the three conditions as noted. number one being to submit the door and window specifications to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA and remaining to the standard two conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Second. I have a second. I think you were ahead of Josh. I'll call the question. All those in favor of the Motion to say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed name. Motion passes and your application without the port of share is approved. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Okay, returning now to 93 South Ashland Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, I think we're ready. Oh, we're now ready for Amelia's presentation. Is Armstrong? Yep, I'm waiting for my slide show to come up. I'm not trying to write you. I'm sorry. So, of course, this is the case at 293 South Ashland that we heard at September 15th. And that case was postponed or continued to this meeting date for further information. And so the applicants have submitted a revised site plan that you have. you have some amended sheets you'll see in the larger. Mr. Edwards, can I have my staff report first before their PowerPoint, please? It's in with the other cases on the other thumb drive. And I'll just run through some images to remind you, and then Mr. Ramsey will take over as far as his presentation. Thank you. Yeah, that's it. so to walk you through this is 293 south ashland of course it's on the corner of east high street and south ashland and in the south ashland historic district south ashland central avenue historic district it's in the woodlands national register district and it does back up to the aylesford area the back side of this is in the aylesford area like on clay avenue and sort of give you an idea of the corner across the street. It's a pretty busy intersection with Starbucks and what was the Kipe Cotter and now an insurance company or financial wealth company. Here's a streetscape that shows the neighboring structure and sort of indicating the setbacks of the properties. And this is a rendering with the fence in front of it that they're proposing. As you can see, per their latest information, the fence will be 12 feet back from the sidewalk along South Ashland, and they'll be 15 feet to 29 feet from East High Street. And we'll look at that plan here in a second. And you can see the revised plan. Here, so 20, because this is a trapezoid. Is your mic on, Amelia? I'm trying, it's a new mic. It's all fancy. Oh, let's see. There you go. Whoa! Sorry. Very new mic. So sort of a trapezoid with South Ashland and then Central Avenue. There was previous discussion in the last meeting about also having to sort of landscaping, but they're proposing the whole fence, the whole area be fenced. And it would actually come to the side of the house so people could access the side here for their AC units and so forth on this side. But it will come to the corner of the house here and then to the corner of the porch on this side. And just to familiarize you, this is their garage and their backyard space space in the streetscape. Okay, and guidelines are included for reference. Staff finds the proposal to construct a fart yard fence at this 1905 Cluner Revival Queen Anne style structure to be in appropriate in accordance with the guidelines. South Ashland Avenue and Ashland Park were developed with open yards and no fencing and guidelines for site and state site and setting contributes to the character of the historic properties and help to define properties historic character and appearance guidelines three six e and f said open space should be only developed in scale character with the neighborhood of the designated historic landmark and of vistas and approaches should be preserved and maintained note the only other property in in the front yard, have a front yard fence at the corner of Deshaies and Fincastle, and that was constructed in the mid-1980s prior to the H1 overlay. The pattern of development that creates the historic character of South Ashland Avenue are large front yards with open landscaping and walkways and driveways leading to individual residences with no front yard boundary definers. The allowance of fencing this quarter would set a precedence and create a false sense of history. Highlines 3-6-F state landscape, land features, land formations, view sheds, archaeology vistas and perches should be retained and maintained. Landscape elements and site elements should not be visually intrusive or suggest a false sense of history. As proposed, the open land feature of this site would be altered and new site elements introduced would have a visual, intrusive, and suggest a false sense of history. South Ashland and National Park were developed with open spaces with no front yards or gates and remain open. staff recommends disapproval as submitted and of course the applicants are present and if you want to bring that PowerPoint back up I have a paint on the paint. I can't draw. I believe, I think a black and white picture of it. What's that? Oh, okay. Do you all have a copy of that record? Yeah. We have a copy for our records. I didn't know if Amelia said. Actually, it was in my slideshow and I just didn't get to it and apologize. I apologize. And Ms. Kerr, we do have a copy of it. If you need this back, it was in your staff. Sure. It's up on the... Well, let me run through a few slides that I think kind of picking up on the discussion we had last time about our property, about what's unique about our property, which, you know, in going back through the minutes, there was acknowledgement about, you know, our busy corner our lack of a backyard no driveway in the front how we're sealed off from the rest of the neighborhood and there was a request that we come back with some better pictures and depictions of what we are trying to do as we didn't have a lot of that information last time not having gone through this process so that uh this is the slide that that amelia just showed but this is actually what we had somebody do a graphic artist come in and and as best as they could it's not to scale but it's pretty close show at least visually what the what a low transparent wooden pick and picket fence would look like and obviously it doesn't go across the sidewalk that's that's the computer working there and it doesn't your eye will will make you believe that it goes really far out you know toward the high street corner it actually cuts in between those trees to the porch so it's not as significant left to right as it may appear may appear but it does show the setback from south ashland it is behind that smaller tree to the left as you look at the picture which preserves that tree you know we're being very careful about preserving the old trees that are there on site and it's in front of that very significant big pinnop that's uh that's there but it goes back um 12 feet from the sidewalk it's all understanding that the city requirement is 10 feet you know we've gone back an additional two feet both for the sake of the trees and you know that just shows the stark bare fence you know we intend to landscape significantly around there make it organic you know make a lot of it uh go away of course so but that at least gives you a visual and it's an updated picture of our home the work we've been doing on the uh the window trim that was previously approved and we've painted the trim and brightened it up and kind of matches the fence and everything so gives it a gives it a nice look so that's a hopefully a better picture not everything. It doesn't show the landscaping, but the next slide will give you an idea of just some of the things that, you know, we intend to do around the fence, you know, as we're able to, but gives you a little better idea to kind of use your imagination and, you know, kind of visualize what that'll look like. And then Amelia showed this also. We drew this, Nellie drew this, to show the current footprint. Of course, we're bringing it in, as I mentioned, 12 feet from the interior of the sidewalk. That's well more than 20 feet from the street, and it's coming in significantly off the high street side. There's some old trees there and leaving a good amount of room, again, to landscape. We've already put a few evergreens out there in between the old trees to kind of start that barrier. But 29 feet, because the road flares out this way, our fence would be in a straight line of course consistent with the house so it gives it 29 feet you know from that point and then 15 in at the smallest point closer to where it connects uh to the porch and points toward the back so you can get a better idea there that it's uh you know it's it's not a significant footprint relative to the overall size of our of our side and front yard Those are the pictures we wanted to pick. I've got other slides to go through, but I didn't know whether there were questions or things you wanted to discuss. I'm remembering the discussion we had at the last hearing and what was asked of us, the things that were indicated by people who weren't sure or were against it or in favor of it. We were kind of trying to pick up on that conversation as a starting point and not go back through a bunch of other information or pictures for the record, but I didn't know whether at this point anybody, I have other slides, But does anybody have any other questions? Are there concerns about it? You know, and before I do that, let me let me just say this. You know, as we went back over the last month, month, and kind of thought about, you know, what we wanted to do and what was important to us as far as creating a barrier around our front yard, both to deal with the significant encroachment that's on our property. Of course, people still have lots of room to walk through our yard. But, you know, to deal with that, you know, people coming up on our porch, people that we don't want our kids talking to coming up and talking to us and people we've had to tell please stop doing that um we felt it gave us enough of that that barrier that says you know this is our yard this is our single family home this is our private space that we could landscape around also um and and kind of create that that for us but you know i wanted to um kind of share that information with you all to to pick up on some of the the issues and the concerns that were discussed the last time but that's why we went back and gave you the picture of the full fence which is our original certificate of appropriate application which is consistent and we can get into this which is consistent for the vowel and consonant of the section one site and element requirements on fences it is no no higher than four feet it's actually lower in the front no higher than four feet at any point the slats are of the minimum distance and width it meets every requirement in the specific criteria in your design guidelines for fences without exception so and it comes in even more the setback off the road is even more than what the city and state would require because of that intersection so you know in our view because i'm reading the plain meaning of the design guidelines it says that's appropriate without an exception there are no exceptions you have to go elsewhere to try to come up with something but that's where we left off and that's what we would like to do. We feel fairly strongly about it. We've had another month to watch the world go by our home and where we live. And we've got some pictures of examples of people who just come in and sit in our yard and bring their dogs in and ride their bikes. You know, we certainly accepted living on a busy corner and we love it. Their cars go by all the time, make lots of noise and people walk by. But you couldn't possibly have anticipated living there and watching people, both people that come down South Ashland, too, just I don't have words for it. Sometimes people just walk into our yard, and I think, well, maybe they've just been doing this for 100 years because that's how long the house has been sitting there. Why don't we? Yeah, but anyway, I'm not trying to digress, but we just kind of went back and put all this together in one bucket and came back and wanted to show you pictures and talk about things that we really didn't get the opportunity the first time. We hadn't been through this process. We didn't know what the visuals were, what your expectations were. But that's our application, and that's what we would like to do. We don't think it's out of character at all with the neighborhood. I don't think there's anything in the design guidelines that says that somebody who wants a front yard fence can't have one just because their neighbors don't have one. Nobody has a piece of property like ours in a historic district. There's nothing written down in a design guideline that says that you can't based on precedent. And there's nothing in there that would tell a current or prospective homeowner in an H1 district that they can't have a front yard fence. There's nothing in there. All the language says they are appropriate, wood fences are appropriate for front yards as long as you meet these technical specifications. Okay, Mr. Ramsey. Section six rules that are being applied to us are admittedly ambiguous and no five people are ever going to agree. Mr. Ramsey. So the application is this is we never get a fence. Nobody ever gets a fence. Mr. Ramsey, we've heard your presentation. And we'll try to get to the question part so that we can make sure that we're all the same. I just want to make sure because I'm worried if you all take a vote, then I'm going to get thrown out of here. No, we're not. And I want to preserve my- Mr. Ramsey, we're nowhere near taking a vote. Okay, all right. I'm liking for you to take a breath. All right. And let's start off and make sure you may not be- Funny, she's laughing, but it's been a rough month for us. We actually care about this a lot. I've been- We put a lot of money into this house. We care about this a lot, so we apologize. It's our home. The rest of Lexington is quasi-public park, but it's our home. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members, starting with Ms. Hill? Ms. Erwin? Yes, I have some comments. We appreciate your passion for your historic property. So I wanted to say that I feel in reading the guidelines that the reasoning about saying that all the other properties in this area do not have front yard fences, and therefore this one should not, I take exception to that guideline being utilized for this property because the property is unique in its corner placement and its non-existent backyard, which begs that this property needs to be handled in such a way that it can remain as a single family residence. Because other properties along South Ashland do have boundaries along their front sidewalk, but those are made of boxwoods and landscaping. But the boundary and the height and the width of that boundary is very similar to a fence, in my opinion. And so I feel that a low open picket fence would be compatible with the neighborhood. The low picket fence is not visually dominant or intrusive. And because the setback of the fence, the fence does not encroach on any vistas or view sheds. All right. Josh? I agree with Ms. Irwin. Okay, Sarah? So I do disagree with that. I do think that the open landscaping is really much more in keeping with Ashland Park. And I was really hoping, because I do feel your pain. I know that corner. I walk around that corner. I totally, I probably have absentmindedly cut that corner at times when I'm on my way doing my path. But I think that the open yard is really important to that neighborhood characteristic. and I was really hoping you were going to come back and show a broken fence with more landscaping that gave it a softer feel as a way for me to think about that and see it in another light. And just a fence, just a picket fence to me, it doesn't meet the guidelines. I think it doesn't meet the neighborhood characteristics. And that's how I feel about it. I think we can go to vote and see what happens. but i don't think it meets the guidelines and i really wish you would have tried to add some landscaping into that and think about how that could have changed where that front fence was but it's a solid fence like you could have you know put the fence at a corner with more landscaping around the front or even more like fence around high street that would have prevented some of that cut through without that front fence all along ashland can i say something i i do want want to say that I'm getting ready to cry. I don't think that if you don't live there, you don't appreciate what we deal with. I mean, I don't want to. Let me finish, please. It's not just people cutting across our corner. We have drug addicts coming up to our front porch asking for money. We have an 11-year-old son, and there have been, I spoke to the neighbors last night about it, I saw them out next door neighbors and they and they were asking because we have a lot of utility markers on our yard right now because we're planting trees and Mr. Burr, I told him what where things stood and he said, I've said for years that yard needed a fence and I said, well, we're trying and as she said, she said people really cut across the yard and I said it's not that bothers me and it ticks me off but it's different and she said it's been that way since they put the temporary bus stop there there have been times when i've been on my front porch and felt unsafe so it's not just a matter of we didn't put the landscaping on there because we could barely find people to put a picture together and i can't draw it that's a cad a computer aided drawing that a graphic designer we're friends with did she had no experience with it and she did the best she could i called i contacted a girl on etsy and talked her through painting this for me and i asked her to put flowers and shrubs in front of it and she didn't and i was in a time crunch because it took three weeks for her to do it it will be landscape but i just want you all to i want i have to get that off my chest so when you vote you understand you know we we're backing up to woodland park there are homeless people and i'm not picking on homeless people but a lot of them are on drugs and they are coming into our house and i don't i do not want to sound insensitive to that i but i think because i i understand and i had a downtown house and i found people sleeping on my front porch more than one occasion um so i know that's a thing but i do feel like i am here to hold up the guidelines and that's how I interpret the guidelines. We feel like it's a stretch to say to use a landscaping guideline when in the language says can be arbitrary, ambiguous. I feel like some of this is coming down to a personal preference. It is arbitrary and ambiguous, absolutely, and that's why you have to come up here and we hear what you have to say and then we have to make a decision about what the guidelines say and do that. Just so you know, we are going to landscape around the fence but part of that issue is you know landscape of course it's a living plant it's uncertain i'm 56 years old when do i get to enjoy the barrier um they plants can die it creates a lot more cost for us and i can show you a lot of pictures of landscaping gone awry on south ashland and i can show you a picture of i think one of the hedges you mentioned that's much more significant than that fence um and they could have they could sneak in there there tomorrow and slip a three-foot picket fence behind it you never see it this shrub completely blocks it so if there's a hard barrier on our side a transparent picket fence and we significantly landscape across the front so you see plants you know you're not worried about what we see from the inside you're worried about what people from the outside see in the character of the neighborhood which I mean I understand that I'm also worried about property values and economics which I think is also a goal of this board so if that barrier exists in its landscape in front of it and you don't really see much or all of the fence what's the difference we can't do a we can't do a living fence around the entire yard i don't have a gardener budget like a lot of people on south ashland do i can only dig so many holes myself it's a lot of i mean we had four trees planted this week and it was twelve hundred dollars yep i mean you know we've got an estimate on this fence it's going to expire at some point you know it's covid supply chain you know we don't even know when we're going to get back to it you know from that standpoint but you know it does add a lot of cost but i totally agree landscaping and good landscaping and appropriate landscaping that we will take care of because we do those things ourselves um will beautify that even more and make it more organic so we are going to do that we may not agree on the aesthetic and what what everybody thinks looks best but that that doesn't in any way depict ultimately in our minds what we want that to work if if i may if i may step in at this point um i think i'm hearing consensus from at least three of the board members that offense with landscaping is probably appropriate i think we should add specifically a condition that you do go ahead and have a condition attached that the landscaping be included i'm going to have to agree can i ask one more question sure um i know you said this rendering was you know they just put that fence across the sidewalk what is your intent for that sidewalk gate or what what is your actual intent across that sidewalk it'll be a gate okay so we probably need to add in the condition thank you sir uh that it be gated that some kind of a gate be installed as opposed to a very yeah it'll have a gate yeah all right yeah your plans don't show gate is what we're trying to get right and that's what i mentioned it doesn't it will not be hard across the side and so absolutely what we're trying to say when we approve your coa sir we're adding in a gate just to make sure that we're all on the same page and miss kerr if i may finish a couple more comments then i'll turn it to you i think and it was really really interesting i was on columbia the other or Yeah, Columbia the other day. And all those yards and their small yards had no fences all except one. In the middle of the block and there it was. And I was saying, it sort of stuck out as a sore thumb. But in your case, your view shed and the approach into Ashland is different. And I think that does, and the guidelines do not specifically address corner lots. And I think in your instance, because it is so instinctive for people to take a shortcut across your front yard, that you have a right to do some kind of barrier. I'm showing him the picture. I mean, if you're standing in the bank building across the way in season, and even this doesn't do it justice, and you can see the next one down high street. You're just not going to let me talk, are you? That's the only unobstructed view of our house. Oh, I'm sorry. You're just not going to let me talk, are you? Oh, I thought you were sure. Here I am trying to agree with you. I wanted to show you a picture because you were talking. I understand, sir, and I believe I am by your house literally every day. But the point I'm trying to get to is because you are a corner lot, I think that alone takes you out of the general viewshed of Ashland Avenue. The other point that has to be kept in mind is that some of the yards are obstructed by hedges. So that viewshed that have open visas for each and every house is not all the way correct. There are other properties that have edges in front of them. What I want to see, and I think the board's in agreement, bring in your fence and maybe in time it can be replaced through the landscaping that you can do. That will be a natural barrier and not as dominant as a fence itself would be. So that's my point of view. And I think with the guidelines, I'm looking in terms of the findings, B, D, B, E, and F, that your fence does not, that first of all, your fence would be compatible to the neighborhood, given its location as the corner block. The open space for the majority of Ashland Park would be maintained. And that as a result, the vista is maintained as well. Furthermore, the guidelines do not specifically address fencing on a corner lot, and your house is unique in that sense that you have no backyard and you are on a corner, and I think you have a right to protect yourself from being intruded upon by people coming across your front yard. So that's my take of the case. So any further comments or questions from the board members? All right, I think there might be... Yes, ma'am. I'm in agreement with your comments, and I've spent quite a bit of time along South Ashland puzzling through this because of the uniqueness of your site. I appreciate that. The uniqueness of your site. I really do. I appreciate that. And I'm in agreement of the nature of this corner lot. And there are properties along South Ashland that have extensive landscaping and hedges and bushes that in many ways create much more barrier than the kind of low nature of this fence and landscaping that's being proposed. And it's a difficult guideline to interpret because I know we get into issues on other streets that have a slightly rolling hill. And some people want to eliminate that hill altogether, and that's inconsistent with the overall look of that particular street. So we have to be sensitive to that. But I think in this particular instance, because you are a corner lot, I think that really trumps this whole situation. So any other questions? I would like to say that I don't think what trumps this situation is that it's a corner lot. I think it's the busyness of High Street and Ashland that trumps this. Because there are other corner lots along Ashland that don't have the situation you have with the commercialization and everything you have across the street. That's, to me, what makes this lot a unique lot that makes it a more difficult lot to deal with than the rest of your neighborhood. I also think that this is kind of introduction and corner lot to the rest of the neighborhood, which is where I have kind of more of a trouble thinking about putting a fence there, because it is the introduction to that neighborhood, and it kind of makes it a more important lot in some ways into that neighborhood. but I totally feel you and it's really hard because I totally understand what you're dealing with in terms of people walking to your lot and having people acting like it's part of the park in their front yard and they can do what they want there and not your private yard. So it's a difficult lot, but I don't think it's a corner lot that makes it unique. I think it's this particular corner that makes it a hard lot to deal with. And that's a fair point. But nevertheless, exceptions, there are times where I think in some views, this is why we're here. I mean, we are the mechanism by which we can figure out, hopefully, that we're not creating a precedent that's going to come back by this later on, but we're going to create a recognition that this is a difficult lot to deal with in interpretation. Ms. Kerr, did you have anything you wanted to say? Staff would ask the board to consider making one of the conditions, if you're going to move for approval, that drawings be provided, detailed drawings be provided to the staff, including the gate. Right. The proposed gate with materials and so forth. Did you want a landscape plan as well? Well, it depends on what you condition. If you make a condition that landscaping will be part of the approval, then we will need a full landscape plan. Okay. And those will both be in advance of issuance of the COA. All right. Yes, of course. All right. Can we ask that that not be included in it? Because it's going to push us back two more months probably. Well, we don't know what a landscape plan is because I haven't seen it defined anywhere. I see you know if there's words in the design guidelines that say if it's a major landscaping plan That's something that you all approve. I don't know what that a major is compared to a minor um, you know, we'll have to pay somebody to Provide a landscape plan for us. We were going to do a lot of this on our own We actually we landscape everything we're actually capable of doing it on our own We don't hire this out. So I when when I hear landscape plan, I I think what does that mean? What is that? What do you need from us? The staff will be glad to explain that to you once the board has taken action and we can talk on the phone or whatever. It's something you can generate, I think, anticipate yourselves, the plan, with written notes of labels of what kind of plants you're proposing to put and that kind of thing. But we can go more into that. I don't think that you need to hire a professional landscape architect to create a plan that could go with this proposal. And then as far as installing said landscaping, that's totally your decision about carrying out the work. Okay. It's not going to be as complicated as you think it sounds. I'm more concerned about just the time of it. We're trying to get this in before. I recognize and you know, it doesn't have to be all done simultaneously. It just needs to be as a condition for the approval. Okay, this helps. Okay, all right. Okay. I think we're ready for a motion. Do I have someone willing to try that motion? Chair, in case number 00710293-Q at 293 South Ashland Avenue. I move that we approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed fence. with the conditions that the owners submit a plan, a detailed plan with a gate shown at the sidewalk that enters the property from South Ashland, that they show landscaping, placement, and the findings. This approval of the certificate of appropriate units is based on the findings because this property is unique both in its corner placement and in the boundary placement between a heavily residential area and a very, very heavily commercialized area, that this makes this property very unique to the rest of the area and the fact that it has a practically nonexistent backyard. because other properties in this area do have boundaries made by landscaping that a low open picket fence would be compatible with the neighborhood, that the open low picket fence is not visually dominant or intrusive, and because the setback of the fence does not encroach on any vistas or view sheds. Did I hear a gate? I said in the conditions that they present drawings with a gate placement and landscaping. I didn't hear. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. All right, the vote is 4 to 1. Motion is approved and the COA as it conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you all. All right, I believe we have minutes. And I keep losing my agenda, so bear with me. We have minutes for July and what other month? April. Oh, here we go. We've got April and July. I believe Ms. Hill sent in some typo corrections and minor changes. She did indeed, and those have been received. And I think some may have been made, but we will double check and be sure all of them are made. And Ms. Irwin is also sent in verification of reading the minutes. All right. We will do the same. And we appreciate you all sending those. It's very helpful. It's difficult to work through, especially when you had a long, long presentation. I won't mention the address, but that was a very long discussion. All right. So do I have a motion to approve the minutes? so moved second second all right um all those in favor say aye aye aye aye the motion uh is approved and the minutes are of april 21 and july 21 2021 are approved anything else at this point can i ask you second that motion okay josh did all right our next meeting is november when November 17, okay. All right, do I have a motion to it? We will be providing for you at that next meeting the calendar for the year of 22 for your review and action. And I think that's it. Thank you. Do we have election of officers coming up in November or December? Well, we really used to do that in the summer. We used to do it in the summer. Is that because of the fiscal year? COVID has sort of thrown us off that cycle. My question is, does the term run for fiscal year or calendar year? Fiscal. Then did we have an election back in the summer? No, because COVID is what I'm saying. You mean I'm illegal? I'm a scribe. So we could hold them for the January startup and that person serve a year and a half to kind of straighten this up. All right. Whatever the board would like to do on that. I think it would be nice to give it some framing of first of the year, middle of the year, something instead of just doing it on the 20th of October. Under case law, the current set of officers continue until replaced. Right, and ours is pretty much always the same. I think we have served beyond replacement date, so we need to confirm replacement if we're going to change anything. So we can discuss that at our December meeting, I think would be the appropriate time. Okay, we'll put that on the docket. All right. All right, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Second. We stand adjourned. Thank you all very much.