Thank you. The End Thank you. Good afternoon, it's four o'clock so we're going to get started. As a preliminary remark before I do the opening statement, I'm aware of the fact that we have several people from the Cadentown neighborhood. We will be hearing your comments at the end of the presentation on Cadentown, which I'm going to take last. We have, the majority of our agenda is basically pro forma. And so I'd like to have those items disposed of before we move into a substantive hearing. We welcome you here and we look forward to your comments and a discussion of the proposal. I would like to welcome you to the February 15, 2023 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 Grant's Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which was appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the urban county council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. Historic Preservation Office maintains the full time staff to assist you with the projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. 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 public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign in sheet so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would also 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 only ten staff approved applications. Let me read them. In the Ashland Historic District, in 236 South Hanover Avenue, renovate structure in sight. In the Ellsworth Historic District at 431 East High Street, replaced trees. At 138 Ransom Avenue, replaced steps. At 340 Transylvania Park, renovate structure. At 135 Forest Avenue, reroof the structure. At 2950 Cametown Road, install fencing. In 448 North Broadway, renovate the structure. That's in the north side historic district. In the Pensacola Park historic district at 153 Pinmoken, renovate structure. In the western suburbs at 501 West Short Street, replacement windows and replace storm windows. We will now turn to the applications, the first one being at 137 South Hanover Avenue, install solar panels. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present but has read their staff report and is agreeable with the findings. All right, I will note for the record that the staff, this has been the one where they had to move the solar panels off the porch and move them to the garage. The staff has recommended approval, subject to what I call the standard conditions. They are as follows. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start a work. And secondly, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, We submit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Unless there is any comments or questions from the board members about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I think the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 08760137-J at 137 South Hanover Avenue, 60137-J at 137 South Hanover Avenue. I move to approve this application with the standard two conditions. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion of the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved. Thank you, with conditions. Turning now to attachment number two, at 260 Clay Avenue. Scope of work is construct garage and driveway. Is the applicant here? Mr. Parrish? No, Vincent Thompson, I'm representing the architect, Gibson Taylor Thompson. All right. Staff has recommended that this application be approved subject to the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes, sir. Any questions from the board members? I have just one question, and it has to do with trees. Yes. The site plan shows no trees, and there are, I notice in the photograph, two trees backed by the existing old garage. And they don't look like they meet the diameter requirements, but since we don't have anything shown, I have no way to know. Sure. I could get a copy of the site plan or the survey and try to measure those trees and get those measured if you'd like us to do so. I don't have that information with me. Were they measured at the top? Amelia may know. I would just say that Mr. Dennis did go out, and, you know, of course, he's the one who took the photographs and did not feel those trees were at that 10 inch diameter. Typically, of course, any kind of measurement, just to make sure, is four feet from grade and be 10 inches is our part that would require a certificate of appropriateness. Thank you. And I think in fairness to the applicant, I don't believe they're required to show on the site construction map trees that are less than 10 inches. So I think we're good, but it wouldn't hurt to double check and hope there's not a problem. Sure. Okay. Yeah, we can check and let you know. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Turning now to our next application at 364 Transylvania Park. Scope of work is to Modest Garage. Is the applicant here? The applicant, of course, is not present. Do what now? The applicant is not present. Did he have an opportunity to review the? He was sent the staff report. Okay. Actually, the staff has recommended. This is a garage, and I'm going to actually shift. I will stay present for purposes of maintaining a forum, but I'm going to have to, at this juncture, recuse myself from this process since I'm within the 200-foot zone. So I'll turn it over to Ms. Hill. So I have a quick question, and it has to do with attachment two. I don't think we actually voted on it. Oh, attachment. Did we go back? Attachment three. We're on attachment, yes. But should we go back to case two and complete that? Did I jump ahead of myself? I may have. I'm sorry. Did I jump ahead of myself? I did. Thank you. I'm getting old. All right. Any, we had the comments. Do we have any comments from the audience? If not, do we have a motion at this point? Chair, I make a motion that we, in regards to case number 04150260-D, at 260 Clay Avenue that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and after confirming that the trees are indeed under the ten inch diameter requirement. Very good. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you for the second. Any further discussion on the motion? Sorry about jumping the gun there. If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Okay, now turning to our third application at 364 Transylvania Park. I will yield the floor to Ms. Hill. Thank you. So this is for the demolition of a garage and the staff has recommended approval of the proposed garage demolition with the standard two conditions. Is the owner present, the applicant present? No. And you've not heard from them? Barry had, and Mr. Dennis may have had some contact with them, but I don't think, I'm not sure of that status, but he has sent a copy of the staff report. so should we hold this till we've gone through other applications and see if someone i think that's your call okay well since there are no um unusual requirements and the staff has recommended approval are there any comments or questions from the board Are there any comments or questions from the public? Then I suggest we move forward. All right. In regards to case number 19130364-D at 364 Transylvania Park, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Second. all those in favor say aye aye aye and opposed an extension okay so it has passed and i will turn it back to you chair all right thank you uh turning now i'm removing past cadentown we'll come to that at the end let's go to attachment number five and actually in conjunction with that attachment number six uh 1831 nicholasville road and 1835 Nicholasville Road. Are the applicants here? The applicant is not here, but they have received a copy of their staff report. With respect to number five, the staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions. Since there's nothing substantive to the approval, I don't think there's a problem moving forward with this one, and we'll vote on them separately. Any questions or comments from the board members about this one? I only have one question. It has to do with the staff recommendation that paving only the shared driveway. Is that additional definition from the request from the applicant? They also, if you looked at their application and requested to actually also pave in the front yard, their zoning does not allow them to have front yard paving. the other paving which is right next door is grandfathered in so I just wanted to make sure everybody knows that this we couldn't even hear the pair of parking the front yard because it's not approvable by zoning so does that need to be one of the I just wanted to make sure to clear to everybody that this is only gonna be paving of the shared Drive for the 1831 proper parcel so I don't it needs to be an addition okay thank you any other comments about this application any comments from the audience hearing done i believe we're ready for a motion chair i i do have a quick question sure go ahead am i to i'm to do each of these separately correct yes and actually i need to discuss i think we're going to have to discuss six by itself so let's do so I will just address five chair per case number one three nine seven one eight three one dash B at one at 1831 Nicholasville Road I move to approve this application as recommended by the staff with the standard two conditions all right do I have a second second any discussion of the motion hearing none chair calls the question all those in favor say aye aye aye the motion passes and the application as to 1831 nicolico road is approved subject to conditions turning now to attachment number six this is a little different in that the staff has recommended a specific finding that the front yard paving remained brick and i think the application had proposed something slightly different, Ms. Armstrong? They did propose to pave that with concrete as well. Okay. The problem is, have you heard anything, yay or nay, from the applicant about this? No, I think ultimately they would run to result in some kind of paving in the front yard. now they can actually if they were going to um pave it they could still put brick over top of it because they've got the brick i think we just wanted to sort of soften that amount of paving in that front yard because it's smaller but as you can see on there um and that's what was as of last year when they were working on paving they got approval to to put this brick in that front yard last year. And so they just wanted to switch it to concrete. And these pictures are super dark, apologize for that. But I wanted to sort of show you, this is where the proposal and their evidence is just to point out that all the starred areas. Okay, and to be clear. They're indicating other areas that actually have paved surfaces other than brick. So that paving had already existed prior to the adoption. That's right. They had a grandfathered situation, so the only thing you're really weighing is whether it should be retained brick or go back with concrete in the front yard. Council, do you see any problem with our moving forward with this one? I think it's fine if you do want to move forward I would note that I don't know what the reason would be that she has not responded so the deadline is actually March 21st when is the next meeting that we have if the board has concerns you could potentially pass this to that meeting but you have to renotice it again so if she's not showing up and hasn't responded despite efforts and you wanted to proceed I think that's fine all right let me sound the board then are do they are there any concerns about this application we've certainly reviewed this condition previously it seems like to me that the position where we are now is very clear okay and it certainly the document so states it okay in that case let's move forward then any additional comments or concern from the Board members, any questions or concerns from the audience? Hearing none, Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 13971835-A at 1835 Nicholasville Road, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. And that third condition that the front yard paving remain brick. All right. Second. Second. I have a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Okay. The motion passes as conditioned. So the COA is approved as conditioned. So turning now to attachment number seven. At 720 Central Avenue, scope of work is constructed edition. Are you substituting in for Mr. Taylor? Yes, sir. All right. Staff has recommended approval subject to a couple of of substantive conditions, I just want to review those with you. The first one being step the dormer to the roof connection down from the historic structure ridge by six inches? Yes, sir. There's no problem with that? No problem with that. Secondly, that you provide the solar panel details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA yes sir and the other two are the standard two conditions yes all right any questions or comments about this application I only had one minor question that I think it's probably easily answered that has to do with the site plan yes shows an an area of it's not noted and that's why i'm asking um is there some change to the driveway in the front area um that's being changed materiality or shape it's it's in it's hard for me to determine what the green hatching is supposed to be i think um the the driveway is supposed to just remain as is yeah and if if there are updates to that driveway in the future we can submit something that that would be my preference okay yes that's all okay any other comments all right then chairs ready for a motion chair per case number 03630720-i at 720 central avenue i move to approve this application with the following requirements number one step the dormer to the roof connection down from the historic structures ridge by six inches number two provide solar panel details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the coa plus number three and for the standard two conditions okay do i have a second second any further discussion on the motion hearing now the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the coa as conditioned is approved thank you sir thank you all right turning now to attachment number eight at 341 marino street in the woodward heights historic district scope workers install a storage shed and i note that the applicant's here thank you for attending okay i believe the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what we've been calling the standard two conditions are you in agreement with them yes all right any questions or comments about this application any questions or comments from the audience hearing none the the chair is ready for a motion chair in regards to case number one three zero two zero three four one dash g at three forty one merino Street I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions do I have a second second any further discussion on the motion hearing none the chair calls the question all those in favor say aye aye Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you. All right, turning to attachment number 9716 West Maxwell Street. Scope of work is construct exterior fire escape. Is the applicant here? Hello, I'm the contractor. Dudley Burke. State your name please. Dudley Burke. All right, and you're the contractor? Yes. All right. The staff has recommended approval of the application subject to the standard two conditions. Are we in agreement with those? Yes, we are. Thank you. Any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 12680716-G at 716 West Maxwell, I move to approve this application for 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 question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right, the motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir, for your time. All right, returning now to attachment number 4, 2986 Cadentown Road. Scope of work is the reissuance of a COA to construct building parking areas. I will note for the record we have several attendees that are interested in this particular project. Is the applicant here? Yes. Who is the applicant? I'll tell you what we're going to do. I'm not going to make a hop up and come on. We're going to go ahead and do a staff presentation of the application and the recommendations they have made. Then I'll let you make a few comments in support of your application and then we'll take a public comment. Is that agreeable with you, sir? Yes. All right, Ms. Armstrong? I'm going to first walk through the photographs and the plans and then I'll get to the staff report here in a second. And walk you through. So here's the corner of 2986 Canetown Road. This structure did have another structure that was built sort of in the 1960s, located this corner. It faced Canetown Road, which was formerly Liberty Road at that time, which is this road you see it, and then Old Todd's Road on this section. And this body heard this case many times as a conceptual view and did approve it at a formal hearing on August 26, 2015. And sort of to give you an idea of the lay of the land and there's a tree that's sort of in front of us there. And this is standing at Canetown, or Old Todd's Road, looking towards Canetown going sort of looking south, west, I believe. You'll stop for just a moment. Yes. Let Ms. Irwin get us seated. Okay, certainly. We just started on this one, Ms. Irwin. This is Caden Town. We have worked through the entire docket other than attachment number four. All right. All right, so I'll give you a moment just to get oriented and then we'll pick up the presentation. So as I noted before that this case was heard several times in 2015. We heard several different conceptual reviews where the final approval in August 26, 2015, And then actually it was renewed again, the application was renewed in 2016, but that could be done at staff level because it was within the year of the permit being issued. And then several other times it had been, it was noted to be approved or thinking that they were going to start the work, but it never got started. Sorry, yep, there we go. And then this is sort of looking along the tree line on that opposite side of Old Todd Road and looking at the back side of CVS and sort of looking from this angle looking towards the corner. land and this was the structure that was there that was removed this did get a permission to be removed in 2015 and and then it got it also got it received a different permission permit to do so And these were pictures taken at that from that meeting. It was from it this structure was demoed in 2016 in May of 2016. just thinking about the traffic in the um this is canetown road or sorry eltage road and the neighboring structures alongside along that stretch taking from at the time of the 2015 meeting date the neighboring structure and then the lot in question and this is across the street from that parcel and this was taken from the 2015 meeting date. And this is the neighboring structure next door on Canetown Road. And then, of course, the proposal does call for a one-story commercial structure. This actually, the zoning of this lot is a commercial B1 zoning. And so staff and this board worked on this proposal with many conceptual reviews and many meetings with staff at that time. and just sort of walking through some of the images these are framing plans trust details floor plans so as you note it's it's really just one one unit and then here is the tudge roadside which would be the old tudge roadside and then canetown driveway which would be the old canetown road other elevations and you can see on the proposal in front of you and I do actually have some images of the materials if you could see the little pictures of the materials in color of the proposing, which would be a combination of stone and ephos or stucco with a stainless steel metal roof and commercial storefront windows. The only minor change that occurred in May 2015 was I think they were going to change change a window to a door at that time, at that meeting date. The proposed development will have 23 parking spaces and consist of combination of asphalt and permoral pavers. Asphalt, the applicant proposes to have low light bollards. And during the previous review, the applicant had a preliminary review with building inspection, traffic engineering. Traffic engineering established the curb cut is to be located off the Canetown Road in lieu of Old Todd's Road. Engineering also required one ingress and egress curb cut into the parking lot to prevent corner cut through traffic due to proximity of the stop sign at Old Cuyntown Road and Old Todd's Road. Staff has, we did consult with the arborist and look over at that time for some of the trees along Old Todd's Road and in front yard. It determined that some of the trees are ash trees that will be affected by the emerald ash borer. And one tree has been struck by lightning. Those trees have been removed by this time. And the proposal does call for a six-foot-high wood fence along the west and north property lines, but details have not been submitted at that time. But it does note it on the plan. And then final plans for any kind of signage has not been submitted at this time. And that should be a separate application. I'm also going to walk through here some details of the commercial storefronts, trusts, and section sue the structure i'm going to go on to this is actually the site plan so here's the site that we just walked through with photographs and this is the proposed location this does actually have a building line setback as well as utility line setback the parking will be on the back side and the structure will be in the front they will have that driveway on Canetown Road again some details on the site plan and I was going to get to you and this site plan shows that this indicates the six foot fence alongside the both properties of the neighboring properties with the trees I think there was a question by a property owner that will be it could be discussed later or discussed now with as long as the trees along this property as well as a grade change or a berm and here's some details about trees and the accessibility. Guidelines are included for your reference. Findings, the proposal meets the guidelines. The design was simplified during the 2015 design review period while still retaining a contemporary flair. The design principle for new primary building states, New primary building should be designed to be compatible in adjacent historic buildings and those along the block. Compatibility is demonstrated by having similar orientation, reforms, materials, window, door sizes, placement, port size, location, foundation heights as adjacent property buildings. New buildings that are exact replications of productions of historic designs are not appropriate. New construction should clearly be recognized as of its time and distinguished from historic buildings. The proposed structure has a size and form that tends to be residential in appearance. The proposal meets guidelines 1B1F, location, proportion, and entrances, windows, and divisional bays and openings, such as entrances and windows, architectural features such as divisional bays and porches, or design components that help establish balance, rhythm, scale, proportion, emphasis, and structure. Patterns of these components on the buildings along the block within districts created characteristic rhythm for streetscape and neighborhoods. It's very important that the new construction respect the balance, proportion, and scale existing buildings along the block and within the district in regards to its components. The proposal meets the design area for parking areas. State new parking and surface should be materials appropriate to the site and historic district. Paving and parking should be not visually dominant and parking areas should not be sighted in the front yards, but the sides and rear locations are appropriate. Recommendation staff recommends approval of the proposal for the following recommendations. Provide defense information for staff to review and approval prior to the issuance of COA. Two, once reviewed by other LFUC divisions, submit any changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. And if any changes are made that alter the information submitted and we submit the changes to staff review prior to the start of work. I think I'm also going to add one additional one that we haven't really talked about, which would be review. Again, the trees would be on that property line that is alongside Mrs. Kelly's property. I'm sorry, be more distinct. I can't hear you. I was going to say, I think we should add additional one that wasn't discussed about reviewing again the trees alongside the neighboring property line that would be Ms. Kelly's property. And what do you want to have done? Review with the trees. Okay, thank you. Along this side up here. Which direction? Which boundary? In that particular area, which I was going to say, I think it is going to be west. West. And of course the applicants are present. Yeah, it's not on the linear. Northwest. Yes. Okay. I'm not sure we're quite done with you. Sorry. We may be, but I'm not sure. Any questions from the board members of Ms. Armstrong? Not right now for me. I have one. I'm wondering about the lighting. Is the lighting going to be a down lighting so it's not blasting out into the neighborhood or do we know? I think that we should ask the applicants about the lighting and what they're anticipating. Do they propose any? Okay. I think that may be an issue for the neighborhood. Too much, you know, we tend to over light our parking lots at times. The only thing I also would add is the fact that you'll have minutes from the 2015 approval meeting and then conceptual reviews at that time at your desk of what was discussed at that time. The other thing I would add is there was a letter from an applicant, I mean a neighbor in the area that's at your desk. Yeah, I'll note for the record we have an email from Paul Moore. Is someone's – anyway, we have an email from Paul Moore indicating his opposition to the proposal, basically citing traffic concerns that may be generated by this new commercial development. Okay. Is the applicant here, if you'll step up, sir? Mr. Chair, while the applicant's arriving, I would suggest that we add when the condition about the trees that Ms. Armstrong has already referenced, I think we should also include in that same condition that the trees and the exterior lighting would be coming back for review to staff prior to issuance of the COA. So to review and exterior lighting. Please. All right. So there should be details. Okay. All right. State your name for the record, please. Chris Benazette. All right. Do you have anything you want to add to your application? I know basically this is a renewal of an application that's been approved in 2015. Yeah, I mean, we're building everything per plan, per the original plans, site work. we're going to have a six foot privacy fence. We don't plan on touching any of the trees on the adjacent property or on that property line. Speak directly into that. I'm sorry. We don't plan on touching any of the trees on that property line. Thank you. And we agree with all the recommendations. Yeah, I think the issue of lighting could be of concern to the neighbors, especially, and also to be honest with you, loitering. That's something we don't have a purview over per se, but there may be a concern that needs to be thought about. Yeah. I mean, we don't have any plans for lighting right now. We definitely do want to put lights on the exterior of the building to help deter ordering. But I don't think it's going to be excessive where it would necessarily bleed into the neighbor's property. When we do that and we give it to plan review, we'll have a light spec, and it will show how far out, you know, what it covers. Mainly it's going to cover the parking lot area closest to the building, Just protect from vandalism and whatnot. All right, so for the matter of the record, you have no objection to providing fencing information to staff for review and approval prior to the construction of the- Yeah, no sir. It was just going to be a six foot pressure tree. As well as what Ms. Kerr has suggested that you do a tree review and also submit a lighting plan? Yeah, that's fine. Okay, all right. Yep, yes sir. Then we have what we call the standard, do we have the standard two conditions? We have the two standard conditions as well, which I've read previously to the record. They are basically once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. You in agreement? Yes. And also, if there are any changes made that alter the information submitted, resubmit those changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Yes, sir. All right. All right, I believe we have several people that would like to make comments. I would like to make, and you can take your seat if you like. I would like to make an observation just to understand our jurisdiction. The zoning is not an issue we can address. The issue of whether it should have been zoned B1 commercial has been resolved already by the Planning Commission. We are primarily focused on whether this application conforms to the guidelines for historic preservation. So I hope that you'll address your remarks relative to the guidelines that you had before you. Is there a principal spokesperson for this group? Okay, would you like to kick off, do a kick off? I'll give you about five minutes. If you need more time, ask for it. And if you have to state your name for the record, please. My name is Kimberly Robinson. Ms. Robinson, nice to meet you. And I am opposed to the reissue of the Certificate of Appropriateness. I don't think the building is within the guidelines of our neighborhood, all the windows, the lighting, the excessive parking lot. And the reason why I say that is because of the traffic flow as well. The driveway that's going to be coming out onto Cadentown Road, it's going to be in competition with the driveway at CVS parking lot as well. It's a blind site there. We get excessive traffic in the area, and adding another business to the area is going to create even more traffic. I looked at the plans. The roofing is not, to me, is not within the historical overlay. It's a tin or aluminum roof. No other homes in the neighborhood has that. I'm not talking about the people across the street, which is Todd Station. They're not a part of Cadentown. I'm talking about Cadentown Historic Hamlet. The driveway that was originally there came out onto Old Todd's Road. That would be a problem as well. All the windows in the front of the building is to me is not conducive to what we are accustomed to. I have many concerns, but I just wanted to address the building itself and the need that we do not need that in our community. 20-some parking spaces on that little lot to me is excessive. Having traffic come out onto a road that's already over-traveled is excessive. The people that are building the building, they don't live in the community, and they don't know the history of the community. I did research. I sent it to several people and told them about the traffic flow. It is awful out there. That intersection does not need anything else. And that's all I really have to say. All right. Ms. Robinson, thank you. Yes. I'll just let you raise your hands and however you want to. We'll go with you first and then you, all right? State your name, please. Yes, I'm Teresa Kelly. Your address? So, 2968 Cadentown Road, so we're on the property next door. Okay. I really just had a few questions. I did not see all the information we're seeing today before this and that's my fault. I didn't prepare ahead of time. Speak into the microphone. I'm sorry. There you go. One question on the building itself. I don't know how large the building's going to be and is it supposed to house just one store? Or is this going to be multiple stores in this building? I didn't know. So let's come up to the microphone. We'll have that dialogue. Chris Benazette again. We have a plan to house one main location for retail, which will be about 3,310 square feet of the proposed 4,000 square foot building, 3,980 to be exact. And then the other space will be 670 square feet, which will just be a small office space. So you're contemplating two tenants? Two tenants, yes. Okay, do you have any idea what kind of a- one will be retail and the other one will be like i said office space uh real estate real estate firm any idea about type of retail um clothing all right yeah yeah and it won't be high traffic either all right now people people you can make your comments at the microphone but don't don't shout out your comments okay thank you yes ma'am my other question was just so i'm the one who's concerned about the trees on the property line um and so i know they're already going to to look at that because the previous plan involved keeping the trees on the property line that I think were over 10 inches. And then there was also a mention of a berm that was going to be built between our property and theirs because we already have a drainage problem in our yard and that side as it is and concern that water runoff would make that problem worse. So the previous agreement was that there was going to be a berm built there. I just want to make sure that was still in the plan. Sir. And Mr. Chair, would you mind pull your microphone up closer? We're having trouble hearing you a bit. Okay, I'm up. Is this better? Better. All right, thank you. Chris Benazette again. I'll have to review the plans about the berm. I don't know what side that was agreed on either your property or piece of property it doesn't look like there's enough space to do a berm on this piece of property i just have to look back at the plans i'm uh unable to answer that question about the berm at this time was there a berm proposed yeah i can't you might you might know better than me from the previous meeting if memory serves me correctly there was a discussion about having some kind of a Yeah, just where that fence line is. I don't know if it would be on this side. It might have to be on the adjacent side. I mean, we could try to fit it in that area. If it was discussed previously, I'm sure we could make that happen if that's what was previously discussed. I don't believe there are details, construction details, about the berm in the plans that were put forward in 2015. but I know that it was discussed and had the project been carried out, the intent was to provide plans for the berm. So I would recommend that consideration be given by the board to adding that to the conditions, that the berm would be worked out as one of the conditions. I don't see that being a problem. Which side of the property is that? We'll just have to see how much space there is. So looking at the picture, it's at the top. So I don't know if that's west, maybe. Is this a laser? Yeah. Which one? The red button? So right there. Show it to us. We can't see it. Turn that way. There we go. Yeah. Obviously, you'd probably like the berm to be on our side. Assuming that map is oriented north, is it? I believe it's a northwest elevation. Okay, all right. Okay, sir, you need now to speak into the microphone. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'll talk with the owner, but I don't think the berm is an issue on either side of the property line. I think what we'll do is we'll add a condition that details of a berm be provided to along the northwest side of the property. Yeah. Be submitted to the staff for review and approval. That's fine. All right, very good. All right, who's next? Is that all your comments? Well, I just wanted to say that I do partially agree with what Ms. Robinson said about the look of the building. I'm not sure that it really conforms with all the windows and all the glass, that it really conforms to that. And also a concern about there being multiple businesses. I understand it's a formal wear store initially and a real estate office and probably won't be a lot of traffic, but what happens when they move on and somebody else moves in there, then it may be more of a traffic issue and more of a concern after that. Sure, I understand. Who's next? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Alvin Seals. I am a resident of the Caden Town neighborhood. I would like to request that the review, well let me read it, the Board of Architectural Review reconsider not allowing this group to set up a business in our territory, or in our community. If you would remember, we successfully worked with the Urban County Government and particularly the Office of Historic Preservation. Getting the designation of a historic neighborhood. If we allow one or two people to break that pattern, it will cascade into a non-historic neighborhood. We have homes there that date back indirectly or directly in ownership to 1867, 68, 69. That means that in fact for my own great grandfather and mother they bought property there in 1868, 69. And not only my family, but some of the families that are presently there, They bought property during that time. So we worked diligently with the urban county government, the historic preservation office, and as well the other entities of the city to make sure that we got that historic preservation, I think it was 2001. If we allow businesses to come into the territory, Then another business will sneak in and it will cascade a run like water and destroying the whole concept. This particular overlay that we have is the only one that is a historically black hamlet or a town that has it. If you allow that to change, I think you can understand it will be very difficult. One other thing I'd like to cite is that when, and I would say this respectfully, but when a group wants to make money, when profit becomes important, often the valued things are not considered anymore. Please help us stop that process. Respectfully, I see the businessmen, they want this property, they have it. But by the way, let me remind you, they should have known when they bought the property that it was under historic preservation. If not, then the second point is that when that overlay was introduced, why did they not change it or challenge it? They did not challenge it. According to my knowledge, I was on the issue with Ms. Kerr and others. We did not get a challenge from the owner of that property during that long and laborious work we did. Obviously, that knowledge is not up to date, but I respectfully request this committee, this commission, not to grant that particular request. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any other comments, sir? Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Leon Slatter, and I don't normally need a microphone, but I think this is going to work all right. I don't think we're going to have a problem hearing you, sir. No. I'm the pastor of Caintown Missionary Baptist Church, and I have a few things I want to share with you all. I've been there for 36 years. On October, the first Sunday in October of 86, when I left New Circle Road, I drove off into the countryside. and everything that's there has changed since that time. I'm very much aware of all of the changes and so forth and so on. Let me say right away that I don't have a problem with businesses. I definitely don't have a problem with Mr. Benedict. Chris, he did work in my house and he did excellent work. Amen. That I'm very appreciative of and I don't have a problem with him. But I want you to know today, and I'm going to say to him and the man that there's an issue here. There's an issue, and I don't know about what you're over control of or whatever the case might be. But let me say there is a problem of consistency. There is a problem of consistency when you go from one historical overlay to the next. Now, if it's not, you need to help me to know, because now a few years ago, a couple, just a couple of years ago, I was here. We wanted to tear down a house that we had bought, and it had been there for years. I remember Miss Alexander used to give us heat because of that building. And you may, I don't know, I'm sure you probably know, I don't know where she is now. But even to the point of there was some graffiti that was written on the wall, man, I don't know how you all find out about the graffiti on the wall, but you all told us that we had to paint over it or erase it or something, and we did. We did. When we got ready to tie down the building, we went through the process of coming before you all and everybody, and we did exactly what you told us we were responsible to do. and the consistency. A few years ago, I think it's East End Church of Christ, East End Church, I think it is that day on the corner of Caden Lane in old Taj Road. Before that church was built, after the historical overlay, there was a group that wanted to come in and build townhouses. You all told them they couldn't do that because the community is supposed to be single family homes. And they didn't, they couldn't build. A few years later, this fraternal organization, what was it that wanted to build on Caden Lane? I can't think of them. Swahili. They wanted to build a lodge. You all said, no, you can't come in and build a lodge. They said, okay. Then after that period of time, they said, well, can we come in and build townhomes on the property? And you said, no. And so I'm talking about consistency here. During the time that I was here for the house behind the church, there was men you all gave a lady over on third street or second street. I wish I could say what I want to say, but I'm not going to say it. You all gave her that blues because they had changed a window in the house. I don't know how, I guess your team reviewed that. Amelia, some of you may have reviewed that for whatever the case. But they had changed a window. And they used a different material than the original material. You couldn't see it. It was painted white. But some way or another, you all knew that they had changed the material. It was not the original material. I really don't know what the outcome of that situation was, but I know you all gave them the blues because they just wanted to change the window. And it was material that would last longer than a wooden material. You said, no, that's what you got to put back in. And I didn't know this, but we're actually on that because of the fence that we want to build on part of the property. And we got people dumping. Right now, we're not cleaning it up until we get a fence build. Debris. And so we got in touch with you all and talked to you all about building a fence. either a chain link fence or something to stop that. You all told us that you would prefer for us to build a wooden fence. So we're going to build a wooden fence. And let me say this real quick. By the way, it's going to look like the fence that faces Liberty Road and the rest of Caton Town Road, Caton Town. There's a section there where there's a wooden fence on Liberty Road and part of the area that when they redid Liberty Road that used to be homes. Now it's just a grassy area. You may not have a thing to do with this, but the city takes care of the grass. the fence is in disrepair and we have said, okay, somebody need to see about the fence. And so the city is saying we don't own it. Man, I'm confused. If you take care of the property and the city doesn't own the fence, what's that like? So the fence is falling down. Consistency. You may not have a thing to do with it, But let me say this in the process of trying to close here. We miss, we slept, we went to sleep. When the guy came to you all originally, he came through the community and this is what he said. Listen, I know what the situation is, but I just want to build a building. It's going to conform to the rest of the houses and stuff in the community. He talked to me. And I'm going to use it also for karate. But it's going to look like the rest of it. He lied. He bought the property to sell it at an excess profit. Now, consistency. We in the community missed it. but can I tell you something we hope that you would catch things like that you are more aware of what's right and you represent us so we would expect for this board to have caught that and said no I don't have a thing against these guys, but we missed it. You missed it. And we got a problem. I'm just telling you, there's a problem here. Who do you all represent? Do you all represent big business or do you all represent? You know what? And I'm going to sit down because I'm getting emotional. And when you get emotional, you tend to say some things that maybe you would regret later. And I don't want to do that because you all have worked with us. Your staff has worked with us. But on this issue, you all have blown it. You blew it. Thank you. Any other comments? Yes, sir. And do I have others? Are you the last one? All right. Go ahead, sir. How are you doing? Carrick Seals. Alvin Seals is my father. These are the family friends all sitting here, right? I may be the youngest here, but I'm here because of generational acceptance, leadership, family. We go back generations now. My father now has grandchildren. Mrs. Robinson has great-grandchildren. They live there. They commune there. We have our parties and our fun time there. Traffic flow causes issues because it did. when I was a young child and I was being babysat by Mrs. Kim Robinson and her sisters and her brothers. Walk across the street, I could do it at any time in 1991, 1988. But now my children, they can't walk across the street like their daddy did. They can't walk across the street to Mrs. Robinson's house to see her. It is an effect. It will affect my grandchildren. If we put more non-residential areas up and our small, and I will say black community, it will negatively affect us. I understand business and I will say I'm teasing my father. I do better with annuities, mutual funds, CDs. I learned because I had a family that was able to have a little bit more than what my friends had that lived in the east end of the north side. Canetown, Prod Town, Jimtown, Smithtown, on and on and on. Great places. But Canetown's special. We are special. And we need help and assistance in this situation. I don't have enough money to buy his business in his area. If I did, I would. My brother literally is buying an area right now in Louisville. Now in Louisville, if we could get the money to take his place, we would. We would offer him the money right now, but we can't afford that. And then we could stop this. But I can't stop it, because I don't have enough money. I do have land, because they, their grandparents, they came directly out of slavery, and they got me that land. They got me that land. And my babies are going to have land. Something that so many African Americans don't have. So many of us. And if you put more business in that area, it's going to take away. And we have so little. We have so little. Reverend said it. I have seen, I have been a part of my daddy taking me outside and knocking down trees and cleaning up that area and that space. We burned some wood and we got in trouble when I was four or five years old because my daddy was burning wood in the backyard. And they said the smoke goes through the hair of others and it causes a smell. We got in trouble for that. I was four or five years old, and I remember that. I'm 40 now. I remember that. That fire didn't bother anybody. But putting a new place up that's going to cause more people to come in, that's going to cause traffic issues, that's going to cause lighting issues, that's going to have more people coming through our area. So many people drive down the new, what I call Caden Road, speeding, trying to get through the other side because they don't know that they can't be from the old Liberty to the new Liberty or whatever that's called now. They speed up that street and see it as a dead end. It's unsafe. We need your help. We need your help. You need to work with us. And I hate to do this to a business person because I understand business. But it's the reality of the situation. I'm glad to know Reverend even has a relationship with this man. That's a good thing because maybe we have a chance to get to him and take another angle at this. But we have to keep what we have because that's all we have. The Nelsons, the Carters, the Mortons, the Sealses, the Robinsons, on and on. These families are still here. We're thriving, but we need our area because that's all we have. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? If not, then I will close the discussion, and we will now reserve any comments to be made by the board members themselves, starting with Ms. Hill. I actually have a question first. All right. To whom is that question going? Amelia or to? Before I pose the question, thank you. Powerful words. Thank you. My question has to do with this piece of property and its zoning, which we unfortunately kind of unravel as a body but is this a relatively recent rezoning was this zoned b1 when cadentown was established as a historic district what's the history here it was already zoned b1 at the time the h1 overlay was put forward and the planning staff has very recently gotten into researching the history of the zoning on this property and done a response to the Robinsons and others with their concerns and asking about the zoning history. And it came to be zoned in the late 1960s as B1 and has been, of course, B1 since. It has had a residence on the house that would have been on the property, I don't know, same building. I haven't gotten into the research on that. But at the time the zone change occurred, there was a house residential structure that continued on. But the underlying land use became commercial zoning in the late 60s. Was that part of kind of looking at, I guess it's old Todd's Road then, kind of the commercial development along there? Is that part of why it was rezoned? I do not know the rationale as to why it was zoned in the late 60s, but it definitely was zoned at that time. That just creates such a barrier to this conversation because our board has no authority over that at all. Absolutely none, legal or otherwise. And that's really at the heart of what's being talked about here. I would point out there are other commercial zone property across the street, not talking about CVS necessarily, but across to the other direction as well. And I think back in the day when this was probably the corner of Liberty Road and Todd's Road that they may have been eyeing that it was a little commercial four-way stop. Who knows? But again, none of us were party to any of that. But the director of planning did a very well-done letter reflecting the history of the zoning. So are there currently other B-1 properties within the Caden Town history? Yes, not within the overlay. This is the only parcel that has that history of having been the commercial zone at the time the H-1 overlay was put forward. As you know, when H-1 is pursued, that it is an overlay, just as the sound of that word, it's an umbrella, if you will, that always has to honor the existing zoning, land use zoning that it encompasses. So whatever it is, they still have the legal right, any property, to continue with that zoning, and it leaves this process to address the manner in which the structures are built and their site plans and so forth. The idea that if anybody wanted other properties in the historic district of Cadentown to become commercial, they would have to go through a zone change process, which this board would not be privy to or part of the process. But I would like to think that consideration would be given with the Planning Commission considering or weighing such a request about the fact that it has come to be in the H-1 overlay process. process, but again, it is not within the purview of this board to either alter or ignore what by law is the underlying land use. Thank you. Anything else? Ms. Irwin, any comments? I had a question on the guideline that we have scale. So guideline 2B1B, I guess. Say again, please. Which one? The guideline on scale of a building in the historic district should be in keeping with adjacent properties in height and in width. Should not vary in height more than 10% of the average along the block within the historic district. and then also the guideline about floor-to-floor ceiling height Florida floor-to-floor heights or floor-to-ceiling heights regular patterns of floor-to-ceiling heights along the street and throughout a district and I don't think that we have enough information to know whether this actually conforms if the rest of the historic overlay district is residential scale, residential scale on the amount of floor area ratio, the amount of built form on the lot is much less. That doesn't, our guidelines don't say that we have to alter that if it's a different zoned property? I'm asking. Our guidelines do not interact with zoning. But it also doesn't say that you have to have, commercial properties have a denser more built form for the lot than a residential property innately by their character they usually character they that's correct but if you have the legal right to use a property for commercial you have the legal right to have building reflective of that purpose and use. But our guidelines state new construction should be in keeping with adjacent properties in height and in width. This is a one-story proposal and it's about as minimal of a commercial building that I believe you could accomplish relative to fitting in with the scale and rhythm of the sites and parcels and their residential architecture, which certainly this process would not suggest a building that is going to be a commercial function with multiple occupants of enterprises. I'm just trying to look at our guidelines to say, is there anything that can create a form on this commercially zoned property that would be more in keeping with the historic district that it are you thinking it should look like a residence i i'm and i think it's really unfortunate that this is zoned commercial because it's very i think that you would have consensus from everyone about that and i'm trying to find anything that can be helpful to in i don't know mr kerr i need to ask a question let me point it or are we actually referencing the correct design guidelines i thought there was an an explicit section that dealt with commercial development and i don't see those referenced in our guidelines we do have section of that and that's why i'm wondering why is that section not referenced amelia i'm going to say typically of course with all our guidelines that the commercial also referenced back to the guidelines for new construction and i think that is inherently what you see more of you know but i think the um that's what is reflective here you know so you're saying by citing the new construction guidelines that it envelops the philosophies in the commercial. That's correct. Counsel, do you have the entire guidelines in front of you? I hate to ask this question, but I wish I had paid more attention to this. I do have the guidelines in front of me, yes, Chair. And so what's your question about? I'm looking at page 115 for commercial buildings. New commercial buildings. I'm sorry, we don't have the entire guideline packet in front of us, so is Amelia's answer correct in that it is incorporated into the new construction, or is there a separate standard under the commercial guidelines? Well, it says new commercial buildings should be compatible in design, shape, proportion, and scale to other commercial buildings along the street and within the historic district. And, of course, there are no other commercial buildings. And there are no other. That's right. The philosophies, I've been involved in this long time and the guidelines evolution over the years, and the philosophies are the same. The new construction in commercial and residential, all about the top five, compatibility, scale, mass, volume, and site utilization. and each of the underbelly of that is tied to the identity of the property of the use of the property you don't build a commercial building to look like a house and you don't build a house to look like a commercial building they are with integrity to be built reflective of what they are functionality to go with so I don't you know we don't mimic history We don't mimic residences while creating something that's going to have one to three tenants going to a commercial enterprise. Commercial enterprises tend to desire and operationally utilize storefronts, which don't go into residential scale houses. You could end up with an amalgamation that's neither fish nor fowl. Okay. There's an architectural term. And I would just also add, many times the commercial guidelines, what you see in the new construction guidelines are more details relating to bays and spatial relationships that are outlined in commercial, but the details are more clearly outlined in the new construction. All right. Anything else, Ms. Irwin? Ms. Limmer? If anything. In the guidelines, it says that roof shapes and pitch are to be a minimum of six to 12 or to a maximum of 12. And that flat roofs are, and they're more typical than flat roofs. So can you talk a little bit about how you think these guidelines meet the roof, given that the majority of it does have variety, but the majority of it is a flat roof? I think during our discussion many times, and you might see these in the minutes, looking at the different kind of roof already in Canentown, you do have a lodge that does have a parapet roof, so this is reflective of that particular structure, and you also see some gabling on the sides as you look from old Todd's Road that is more referenced of more of a more residential look. So this structure is a combination of different roofs that have been seen in Canetown. And I think that was sort of the discussion at some of those conceptual reviews and that came up too. So you have the commercial parapet of the lodge sort of Mickey Lane and Old Cain Town Road and then the gables along that stretch too. All right, thank you. All right. I would just say, too, one of the things the staff working with every application works. I could turn on my mic. I'd have to tell myself to turn on my mic. One of the things the staff works on, of course, with every application that comes in, is protecting the integrity and the character of the areas that are to be affected, which no question, Cadentown's a very historic, very significant neighborhood, which a lot of work over the years by both the residents and people here in this program and in the government and just everybody's very supportive of the importance of Cadentown and very protective of it. But I don't think that we're accomplishing anything to seek an architectural solution that makes it mimic something or pretend to fit in when the real issue is you don't think that it's an appropriate use. And at the end of the day, trying to disguise by architecture something that is not wanted as a use just results in bad architecture, quite frankly, in my humble opinion. And so we as staff have to accept that this zoning allows specific uses, as is the case with every application we get. And we have to respect the fact that by right that zoning is in place, the person has the right to use their property, and then within our guidelines do as much as is possible whilst keeping the integrity of the program and the integrity of the neighborhood fully in mind to come up with the review of a proposal that does not in any way possible more adversely affect what is an allowed outcome to the neighborhood at large. Thank you, and I think the staff does an excellent job in reviewing it, and I totally know that that is the guidelines that you have to use, and so I was just asking how it met the guidelines with that gable, and Amelia gave me a perfect answer. No, and I appreciate each of you looking for ways to soften this problem, because it is, at the end of the day, a serious problem. Everybody, I think, understands. But the tools available to us can't change the base reality of that this is a parcel that is not going to have a use that makes it fit in architecturally as closely as the remainder of the historic district. Everybody else has the residential zoning, and this one is the one man out. and it's been that way for 50 years as if I may observe and I want to make sure I'm saying this correctly because it is a b1 property there is nothing to prevent them from putting up a mini mart is there no okay in the context of things and no I'm not reopening the conversations are In the context of things, if you look at this design and its efforts to be, if not residential in appearance, certainly not out of scale with the overall area. And in fact, there was a finding made that specifically noted that the Petro's structure has a size and roof forms that tend to be residential in appearance. I think that helps soften the appearance of this property. The other is there is a restriction on the curb cut in terms of how people can egress and exit the property. There's only one entrance. They can't do a cut through, which would cut down some of the concerns. I realize you're shaking your heads and I realize that this is not a great solution by any means. It is a solution. The difficulty is this is an outlaw. It's a commercial property in a residential neighborhood. We dealt with this in downtown Lexington all over downtown Lexington. Because back in the good old days when people weren't sensitive to the historic districts, we had a lot of bad building. I live on a street where four or five houses were torn down to put up a motel-looking apartment building. Our answer was, we down-zoned ourselves. And we down-zoned from R3, we down-zoned to R2. When we found out that you could do huge additions on R2, we down-zoned ourselves to R1. I don't think that's an option available to you here, unfortunately. But fortunately, this is the only commercial B1 property you have. And I'm certainly hoping that if anyone ever dares to propose another B zoning for your neighborhood, that we'll see the passion that you have shown today at the Planning Commission. I want to commend all of you because I have been struck forcefully by the passion that you have and the caring that you have for your neighborhood. it and as susan has pointed out correctly i think the biggest barrier we have to this conversation is we're given a fait accompli we can't change the zoning we don't have that jurisdiction if we did that the planning commission would reverse us in a nanosecond they really would so we have to make the best we can and in many ways you're not going to believe me this is not a bad plan. It's a two-tenant building. It has what appears to be a better look to it than most commercial buildings you'd see of this type. We've seen all the ugly strip malls. This doesn't have that appearance. And it also has the benefit of not mimicking history, which is another. It's going to clearly be the new boy on the block. It's not going to try to pretend to be anything else other than what it is. So, given what we have, given the findings that we have, I don't think we have any choice but to go ahead and prove this. I would like to comment that it is a continuing disappointment that the guidelines, the historic preservation guidelines, do not include language that can defend against something that is inherently disturbing to many historic neighborhoods, which is the use, the zoning use of the property. And the use of that property, no historic guideline is going to make better. And so there is nothing to be done about it. I just would like to say that it's very disappointing that the historic preservation guidelines do not have anything powerful enough to make a difference in a use of a property that is detrimental to a district. The guidelines, of course, are in conformity with the ordinance. The ordinance is in conformity with the statute. That's right. It is a statute, a state statute, and it's nationwide. You're not going to find any area that has a merger of land use zoning and historic district regulations. It is very disappointing that that cannot exist anywhere. I don't misunderstand that, but I don't want to leave citizens with the thought that they could be merged, because that's not realistic. I know that. Well, let's make sure that they understand it, too, because it is something that is very integral to the historic district process and very integral to land use zoning. and the two aren't going to marry each other at any time according to state statutes and federal governments and state governments and so forth. So it is something people may yearn for, but I don't want people to have unrealistic expectations, and I appreciate your sentiment very much, but we have to follow law, and we do so, and so do you all, and we thank you as a board, we thank you as residents. We all have a little bit of a tough business to deal with. where it's frustrating to us individually and i i i have gone through cadentown more often than any other historic district in in lexington because cadentown is so unique and it hurts me when i see how we're not protecting it as well as we could and i applaud you who are here that have that passion and desire to protect cadentown and to the extent that we can we'll help you and that's all i can say all right so yes ma'am so given that the zoning of this property um his separates itself from cadentown in a way that that is giving us all such grief. That if visually there were more separation, whether that would be a plus or a minus, but with more screening along that northwest edge to clearly delineate what is just about that corner at this point in time, given its zoning, whether that would be something to consider. Other than the fence, what do you suggest? Landscaping? Shrubs? Something that gets tall enough that it's up above the fence itself. Well, it's within our purview to suggest a... Go ahead, Ms. Kerr. More trees. The fact that you're going to have a B1 abutting a residential zone will bring a deeper level of landscape requirements. You know how when two zones meet each other. So there will be further requirement that happens with building inspections review. And that will be reviewed by our staff as part of this review. And so we're anticipating a more dense landscape screen being a requirement to go in tandem with what is decided per the COA. And if it helps, we can modify our findings to reflect that we find that to be a desirable... I think that would be very helpful if you all would add that language to your actions if you would so consider. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I just want to address very briefly, because of clearly how important this is to all of us, we are a board of volunteers, and the rich history of everyone in this community is really important to us. Thank you. Okay, I think I'm ready to call an end to the conversation unless there's an urgent need to say anything further. We need to craft a motion at this point. Ms. Hill, I want to ask you to take a stab at it if you'll mind. Okay. I like that word, crafting a motion. I think I've gotten it. So as I go through and add the various things that we've spoken about, please correct me or add to. It can be informed in that respect. We can work the language as we work through the motion. All right. All right. Chair, per case number 43732986-A at 2986 Caden 10, I move that we approve this certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, provide fence information for staff to review and approve prior to the issuance of the COA. COA to review trees, existing trees, and exterior proposed exterior lighting along neighboring properties. Number three, a berm to be reviewed and details provided to the staff prior to the issuance. Number four, that additional barrier landscaping be reviewed along that northwest boundary. And number five and six, the standard two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any changes to the wording? I have a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Chair, may the... I knew that was coming. I'm sorry to interrupt, but if you would consider making all those conditions, information being provided and resolved by the applicant to the staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Accepted. And so amended. Second. All right. So as reflected by the change by the staff, that's incorporated into our motion. Any further discussion on the motion? All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. One opposition. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you very much for your time and attention. That brings us to the conclusion of our conversation on our applications. Is there a minutes to be approved? No, not today, thank you. Ms. Irwin, were you the nay? Yes. Thank you. All right, so we'll move forward. If there are no minutes to approve, our next meeting is when, Ms. Kerr? I think it's March 15th. Early this time, okay. Next meeting will be March 15th. Am I correct about that? You are correct, thank you. I will point out for the record for what it's worth to you all. You can also consider yourself parties adversely affected by this decision, and you can request a review by the Planning Commission. You may want to look at that option. I would suggest that you look at hiring an attorney, or finding an attorney to volunteer services. All right, anything else? Chair is ready for a motion to adjourn. Do you have a second? Second. We stand adjourned at 540. Thank you so much. Thank you.