# Board of Architectural Review - February 15, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 15, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5801 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5801?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-02-15 - **Last revised**: February 15, 2023 - **Length**: 19,780 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 met on April 19, 2023, at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220, with Susan Hill presiding as the presiding officer. The board addressed two main agenda items during the session: Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, which were approved, and a Conceptual Review for Helm Place, which was presented for informational purposes. The board conducted a total of 9 motions and votes throughout the meeting. No public comments were received during the public comment period. The meeting successfully completed its review of architectural applications and provided conceptual guidance for the Helm Place project. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on February 15, 2023: • Susan Hill • Jay Cockily • Jessica Voight (arrived late) • Chris Zander Jessica Voight arrived late to the meeting. No members were absent from the session. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included nine votes on certificates of appropriateness, all of which passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. **Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals:** • **00710124-I** - Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 124 South Ashland Avenue passed with the standard two conditions • **00510317-D** - Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 317 Aylesford Place passed with the standard two conditions and an additional condition • **09290530-G** - Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 530 East High Street passed with the standard two conditions • **0630702-8** - Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 702 Central Avenue passed with the standard two conditions and an additional condition • **21030320-E** - Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 320 Woodland Avenue passed with the standard two conditions and an additional condition • **04600158-G** - Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 158 Constitution Street passed with the standard two conditions • **13971859-B** - Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 1859 Nicholasville Road passed with the standard two conditions and an additional condition • **104820104** - Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 104 Penmoken Park passed with the standard two conditions • **02242575-G** - Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 2650 Bowman Mill Road passed with conditions including archaeological monitoring and testing All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded individual vote tallies. The motioning and seconding members were not identified in the available records. Each approval included various conditions, with most receiving the standard two conditions, while several properties received additional specific conditions beyond the standard requirements. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this meeting, with several key speakers participating in the discussion process. **Key Participants:** - Susan Hill - Jay Cockily - Jessica Voight - Chris Zander The applications covered a range of property modifications including renovations, demolitions, and new construction projects. Board members engaged in detailed discussions about each application, examining the proposed changes against historic preservation standards and district guidelines. During the review process, the board evaluated how each proposed project would impact the historic character of the properties and surrounding areas. The discussions involved technical aspects of the proposed work and compliance with preservation requirements. **Outcome:** The applications were approved following the board's review and discussion. *Note: Specific property addresses, detailed project descriptions, and individual application outcomes were not available in the provided meeting data. Readers seeking complete details about specific applications should refer to the full meeting transcript or contact the relevant municipal office.* ## Conceptual Review for Helm Place [timestamp: 00:00] The board conducted a conceptual review of proposed additions and renovations at Helm Place during this discussion item. The project involves both demolition of existing structures and construction of new additions to the facility. Key participants in the discussion included Susan Hill, Barry, and MR. Ryan Hold, who presented details about the conceptual design plans. The review focused on the scope of work planned for the Helm Place property, examining both the removal of certain existing structures and the proposed new construction elements. The discussion was informational in nature, allowing board members to review and provide input on the conceptual plans before the project moves forward in the development process. This type of conceptual review typically serves as an early checkpoint for major facility projects, enabling stakeholders to assess the proposed changes and provide feedback on the design direction. The agenda item concluded as an informational discussion without requiring formal board action at this stage of the project planning process. --- ## Decisions - **00710124-I** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 124 South Ashland Avenue - **00510317-D** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 317 Aylesford Place - **09290530-G** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 530 East High Street - **0630702-8** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 702 Central Avenue - **21030320-E** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 320 Woodland Avenue - **04600158-G** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 158 Constitution Street - **13971859-B** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 1859 Nicholasville Road - **104820104** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 104 Penmoken Park - **02242575-G** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 2650 Bowman Mill Road --- ## Full transcript Music I am Susan Hill, and I am the acting chair of the Board of Architectural Review for today, and I would like to welcome you to the April 19, 2023 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz 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 a full-time staff to assist you with your 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 the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we will 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 in the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. First, I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 43 approved applications noted in today's agenda. In Ashland Historic District at 210 Deshay Road, renovate structure. At 237 Deshay Road, remove damaged pin oak tree. At 338 to 340 Deshay Road, rebuild rear deck. At 1-12, I'm sorry, at 10-12, 10-14, Fincastle Road, renovate structure from storm damage. At 10-22, Fontaine Road, remove tree. At 2-29, South Hanover Avenue, renovate outbuilding. At 3-14, South Hanover Avenue, rebuild front stoop. At 908 Richmond Road, replace driveway apron and sidewalk. At Ellsford, Ellsford Historic District. At 622 Central Avenue, replace the courtyard. At 614 Central Avenue, replace the courtyard. At 371 Ellsford Avenue, renovate roof. At 375 Ellsford Avenue, renovate roof. At 348, Linden Walk, renovate structure. At 147, Old Park Avenue, rebuild chimney. At 8, Preston Court, replace siding. At 126, Ransom Avenue, renew the COA. At 348, Woodland Avenue, replace roof. In the Bell Court Historic District, at 149, West Bell Court, replace the front porch. At 601, Boonesboro Avenue, replace fencing. At 611, Russell Avenue, renovate front porch. At 602, Sarah Avenue, renovate structure. In Cadentown Historic District, at 731, Cadentown Lane, renew the COA to construct house and site work. In the Gratz Park Historic District at 262 Market Street, replace replacement windows. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 343 North, limestone, replace fencing and install new roof. In the Northside Historic District at 536 West 6th Street, renovate structure. In the Pensacola Park Historic District, at 99 Goodrich Avenue, renovate structure. At 132, Pinmoken Park, install new fencing and gate. At 110, Suburban Court, install patio. At 118, Suburban Court, restore porch and stoop. At 153, Wabash Road, replace porch and portico. In the seven parks historic district at 116 Arcadia Park, remove deteriorated pine tree. At 119 Arcadia Park, rebuild house from storm damage. At 121 Arcadia Park, renovate rear yard from storm damage. In the south Ashland Central Historic District at 702 Central Avenue, renovate the structure. At 702 Central Avenue, remove tree. At 229 South Hanover, renovate deck. In the South Hill Historic District, at 352 South Broadway, renovate structure due to storm damage. At 515 South Mill Street, replace the roof. In the Western Suburbs Historic District, at 735 West Main Street, rebuild retaining wall and remove tree. At 603 West Short Street, replace deteriorated sash. In the Woodward Heights Historic Area, at 726 West Maxwell Street, renovate site and structure. At 822 West Maxwell Street, renovate structure. At 360 Merino Street, replace replacement windows. So that brings us on the agenda. We shall now proceed to the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. And our first application is at 124 South Ashland Avenue, demolish a building. In the review by the staff, the staff recommends approval with the two standard, what we call the standard conditions. Once removed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Hello? Yes, I'm Reese Reinhold. I live at 244 South Ashland. Excellent. And you're the applicant. Yes. Are you and the owner in agreement with the standard two conditions? Yes, we are. Are there any questions from the board? Are there any questions from the audience? If not, then I'm ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 00710124-I at 124 South Ashland Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Second. Second. So we will now vote on this. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So it passes, and you're good to go. Thank you. Thank you. Our next application is at 317 Ellsford Place. No? Yes. Yes. Is the owner here? The owner is not present but has received a copy of their staff report. Thank you. So the staff recommends approval as submitted with the standard two conditions plus one additional condition. Has the owner reviewed that condition? Yes. Okay, thank you. So are there any questions from the board? Any questions from the public? Then I'm ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 00510317-D at 317 Aylesford Place, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and an additional condition that a barrier or retention element be installed along the perimeter of the gravel area to contain gravel with the details to come back to staff prior to issuance of the permit. Second. Thank you. So we will vote on the approval of this COA. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? So it passes and the COA will be issued. So our next case is at 530 East High Street. Is the applicant here? Jay Copley with Necto Architecture. So the, I understand the staff did recommend approval with the standard two conditions and one additional one. And Barry, I understand there's been an amendment on that additional? Yes, there has. the dumpster has been moved back, so it would be an approval with just the two standard conditions. Okay. So just eliminate that first item completely. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Are there any questions from the public? Then I will entertain a motion. All right, Chair, in regards to case number 09290530-G at 530 East High Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Second. Thus, we will vote on the approval of this application. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And those opposed? So the motion has passed and the issuance of the COA will proceed. I do want to just comment on this application because I know it's been a very long process and my thanks for your patience and persevering. It's going to be a wonderful project. All right, moving on to the next case at 702 Central Avenue. Is the applicant here? The applicant has received his staff report, Darren Taylor, and could not be here tonight. Okay, thank you. But he sent me a text saying that they agree to the terms and conditions as presented. Thank you. So the staff has recommended approval with the standard two conditions plus one additional one, and the applicant has accepted that condition. So are there any other questions from the board? I did have a question about this one. My packet was a little bit out of order, so there were some existing drawings and some new drawings submitted with this. And I think what I was looking at for the new drawings kind of showed like a wraparound addition, and that's not to be considered here, right? Yes, it is. Previously, that structure had an addition in that location. and the board approved the demolition of that. The structure was to be a multi-unit. Now they're going back to single family. So that's the reason for those changes. So this, I guess, there's a little, in this little axon, there's a little wraparound that has little faux columns on it and stuff? Yes. That's part of this application? I'm a little confused by that. Staff thought that because they were already approved for the addition and they were taking off a portion of the addition, making it much more clean and not having quite the expanse of concrete and decking in the back. Did that answer your question? I think so. It was just a little unclear what was there previously. This was the addition that was approved. That's what I'm talking about right there is if that's a part of it. I do understand. The revision from this to this was a staff review and the deck is what's being reviewed in this specific application. Okay, got it. Chair, in regards to case number 036, let me just ask, are there any other questions? No. Any questions from the public? Thank you. Chair, in regards to case number 03630702-H at 702 Central Avenue, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the standard two conditions. And another condition that the applicant submit details of the guardrails, handrails, and deck skirting for review prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. I second. Per the motion and second, those in favor of approval of this application? Aye. Aye. And those opposed, the motion passes and the application is approved to be released. The next application is at 320 Woodland Avenue. Is the applicant present? The applicant is not present, but has received a copy of their staff report. Thank you. So the staff has recommended approval with the standard two conditions plus one additional requirement. And the owner has accepted that. Yes, thank you. Are there any questions on this one? Nope. Are there any comments from the audience? Then I'm ready for a motion. All right, Chair, in regards to case number 21030320-E at 320 Woodland Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and an additional condition that a barrier or retention element be installed along the perimeter of the gravel area to contain the gravel with details to come back to the staff prior to the issuance of the permit. No second. Thank you. So all of those in favor of this motion? Aye. Those opposed, the motion passes and the COA is to be issued. Thank you. Okay, the next case is at 158 Constitution Street. Is the applicant here? Yes, ma'am. State your name and address, please. Chris Zander, 158 Constitution Street. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval with the standard two conditions. Is that acceptable? Yes, ma'am. Are there any questions from the board? Any questions from the audience? If not, I will entertain a motion. All right, Chair, in regards to case number 04600158-G at 158 Constitution Street, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the standard two conditions. I second. Then I call the motion to vote. Those in favor? Aye. I think so. And those opposed? So the motion passes and the COA will be issued. Thank you. The next case is at 1859 Nicholasville Road to install solar panels on the primary structure and garage. Is the applicant present? The applicant is not present, but has received a copy of her staff report. And she had a conflict at 4.30, so I'm not quite sure she was able to come. Okay. But she's agreeable with the findings. All right. So are there any questions from the board? Nope. Are there any questions from the audience? If not, then I entertain a motion. Actually, she just walked in the door. All right. We're just beginning. Your case is up right now. Oh, yeah. So please just state your name and address. Hi, my name is Jessica Voigt, and my address is 1859 Nicholasville Road. And we're just trying to apply for solar panels on our building through the LFUCG Empower Lexington, or Solarize Lexington, I should say. Sorry, I was rushing here. We went to the wrong building. So we were just hoping to get solar panels on the back of our historic portion that does not face the streets, It's just on the uppermost roof and then on our garage, which is a more modern edition built in 1995. And it would just be on the front face, but it is not on the historic building front face, so to speak. Thank you. Well, the staff has recommended approval with what we call the standard two conditions. Have you had a chance to look at your staff report? I saw the staff report, yes. Okay. And are all three of those conditions acceptable to you? Yes. Excellent. So any questions of the applicant? Any questions from the audience? If not, then I entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 13971859-B at 1859 Nicholasville Road, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and an additional condition that any increase in height above the roof shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Thank you very much. So those in favor of the motion? Aye. And those opposed? So the motion passes and the COA will be issued. Thank you. That was like the fastest meeting we ever had. Thank you. The next case is at 104 Penn Moken Park. Is the applicant here? I'm the applicant, it's Meredith Guy, 105 Ashford Drive, Winchester, Kentucky. Thank you. So the staff has recommended approval with the standard two conditions and are those acceptable? They're acceptable, absolutely. Okay. So are there any questions from the board? No. Are there any questions from the small public? If not, then I will entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to 148-20104 at 104 Penn Moken Park, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. I second. So a vote on the motion. Those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? So the motion is passed and the COA is approved. So enjoy. All right. The next application at 132 Penn Moken Park. Is the applicant present? Yes. Yes. Hello. So state your name and address for the record. My name is Ulysses Juarez Luna. My address is 132 Penn Munkin Park. So the staff has recommended approval with the standard two conditions. Have you had an opportunity to read those? Yes. And are they acceptable? Yes. Okay. So are there any questions from the board? There appears to be no public to ask a question. So I'll entertain a motion. All right, Chair, in regards to 132 Penn Moken Park, case number 14820132-A, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. I second. Per this motion, those in favor? Aye. And those opposed? So the motion passes and your COA will be issued. Thank you so much. Have a good day. That's right. Our next case is at 123 Dantzler Drive, and obviously the applicant isn't here. Has the applicant received a copy of the report? Yes, they've received a copy of their staff report, and they are agreeable with the findings. And he expressed, you know, I've talked to him several times about this garage, and apparently it's got a lot of deterioration inside, but it's covered with vinyl siding on the outside, and it's got termite damage at the end, and so, at the end, so. Are there any questions from the board? Nope. Then I will entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 01180123-F at 123 Dantzler Lane Drive, Court Drive, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. I second the motion. All those in favor of the motion? Aye. Those opposed? The motion has passed and the COA will be issued. So the next case is at 359 South Mill Street and the applicant is not here. Have you heard from them? Yes, we've talked. He had a conflict this afternoon, so he was not able to attend, but is agreeable with the findings. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval with the standard two conditions. Are there any board questions? Then I will entertain a motion. All right, Chair, in regards to case number 13150359-D at 359 South Mill Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Second. Per the motion, those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? The motion is moved and the COA will be issued. So there's one more COA application and then a conceptual review. Are we anticipating the owner? He's here. The applicant is present. There he is, okay, excellent. I thought you had disappeared. I tried to keep working. So in terms of the application for a COA for the federal, the small house near the garden, I know the staff has recommended approval with six conditions, and have you had an opportunity to read those? Are you comfortable with all six of those conditions? We're comfortable with those, yes. So are there any board questions on this one at this point? So, in some ways, given that this feeds right into the conceptual design, I kind of almost want a presentation on it because it gives context to the conceptual design. It all fits together, and even though we're all in agreement, I think it would be helpful for the record to have had that full board review. Are you comfortable with that? Yeah. All right, so we'll need a staff review first, and then we'll ask the applicant. So this is a little different than most projects we review. As you mentioned, it is for the federal small house near the garden, and to demolish the addition on that house, construct addition, and renovate. This also covers a lot of the site work. So let me get into this. So we started out, these are historic photos of Helm Place, and it's a very special place. And so we wanted to give you just an overview of the historic images that we have been able to find. And I also want to thank my staff mates because without everyone in the office, this project would not have gotten done. So this is the main house. This is Helm Place, built sometime in the approximately 1840s, plus or minus. We don't know exactly when. And these are the federal house that we're seeing now. There's a dairy barn on the property. This is an old cistern. So this is the gate that leads into Helm Place. you can see the main structure at the top of the hill. This entry gate is fairly narrow, so trucks cannot proceed through it very well, as you will see. So this was just recently taken out. This mailbox is proposed to be removed and relocated. This is a shot looking back down to the gate. Elkhorn Creek is across the road and then there's a small pond. Now we're starting to look at some of the work that they want to do. This is what we have been calling a lattice brick fence. This is a wall that sits just across the driveway. That's a circular driveway at the main structure. And I think Reese is going to talk about this a little more, but it's a not very well done dry stack wall with major slabs capping it. This is what is termed the gazebo. The brick has some age to it and the construction, again, we don't know exactly when, but the roof that is existing now is constructed of modern two by four with plywood sheeting. And you can see it's in not the greatest shape. So this is the front. of the federal house the end this would be the east end and with the addition behind it this is the condition of the additions this is looking to the east from the west This wall will need to be completely rebuilt. There's some major cracking. For some reason there's a concrete band where a course of brick may have existed at one time. And this is close up of that corner. So this is the garden. This is looking from the east to the west and that's the gazebo. This is an existing fountain that would be to the south and is going to be retained. Of course, it will have to have work. And this is an existing walkway from the federal house out to the proposed road. This is the proposed road on the east side of the property. There's already a utility easement here that the road will run along that, along with new underground utilities. And these are just some more shots of that road. Got ahead of myself. This is the location of the road that is shown on the site plan to go to the garden house. It is existing, although hard to tell, there are areas that show gravel and asphalt. This is following along that same road, and it's turning back towards the garden house. So you can see the garden house here for the federal house, and the gazebo is right there. This is the garage that's slated for demolition. This is the shed that's slated for demolition. This is the inside of it. This structure is to be repaired, but there hasn't been a COA issued or any documents at this time. This is that dairy barn, and again, that's going to be repaired, but a COA for that has not been applied for or issued. This is either we're not certain. It's either horse stalls or equipment storage, but it's dilapidated, and we're unaware of what's going to happen to it at this point. And this will just whet your appetite for the conceptual review. This is, of course, the main structure. So the way we've set this up is the portion immediately around the main structure, other than the two buildings to be demolished, will take place in the conceptual review. This is the new drive that goes up the utility easement, and then across some more, another tree line and a fence, there is an existing road that the rear of this property is leased to another horse farm, and they use that to access their property, or their leased property. so this is the gate area the new entrance will be set back 100 feet to allow a semi to pull in and not block traffic and this is the garden house and the garden and this is that fountain that i pointed out to you There is a 15-foot wide walkway that will be redone in turf. And this is the overall site plan of the project that, well, I'm sorry, this is an enlarged portion showing the garden, the federal house, the main house, and the outbuildings. So this is the first floor of the federal house that will be renovated, and the addition, there are concrete patios on each end of it. This is the second floor with decks on each end. This is the west elevation that will have to be taken down and rebuilt. And this is the front where they will be doing some work and putting in new jack or rebuilding the jack arches. That's... So now, since I've kind of given you an overview, I'll go into the staff report. 2650 Bowman Mill Road, Helm Place Landmark. The scope of work is the federal small house near the garden, demolish that addition, construct addition, and renovate, etc. Helm Place, Cedar Hall, it's also known as or was known as, was listed in the National Register of Historic Places on August 3rd, 1978. And is also included in the Bowman Mill Rural Historic District. It was designated in 1999. In 1990, Hound Place's 53-acre Hound Place portion of the farm was designated a local historic landmark, H1. In 2006, Helm Place's entire tract of 150 acres was designated for protection by the Lexington Fayette County Purchase of Development Rights, the PDR program, and its regulatory process. process. The integrity of the architecturally significant historic interior design and features is also protected by 2022 conservation easement held in perpetuity by the Kentucky Mansion Preservation Foundation. Please refer to the various technical documents reflecting these meaningful and protective designations for an overview of Hound Place's significance and the process that facilitate and assure the preservation of the site, its character, defining assets, and associations. Helm Place encompasses the site of Todd's Station, constructed during the earliest period of Fayette County's Pioneer Settlement Area, and reflects fascinating evolution of an early central Kentucky farm with its intact rural landscape and context. Its historic association with a diverse array of significant individuals and families throughout the multiple time periods and roles, all entwined with Lexington and Fayette County's evolution. Significant history association on the local, state, and national levels. Hound Place has recently been acquired by a new owner who has extensive plans for renovations, repairs, and new construction on the 58-acre Hound Place portion of the farm while preserving the entire 150-acre rural land and operational farm intact. The work on the home place is proposed for the primary historic structure, historic small federal common bond brick house on the edge of the garden, as well as other non-residential buildings such as a historic barn and a smokehouse. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the following work. Demolish the addition to the small historic federal brick house construction and construction of the new addition. The existing rear condition to be demolished is not historic and is severely dilapidated. The proposed new addition will be located on the north elevation of the structure and is proposed to be two stories with shed roof and cementitious siding, A concrete patio is proposed on each side of the addition with second floor balconies supported on 8x8 wood posts. A concrete patio is also proposed on the front of the structure. It's actually existing and may just need repair. It was uncovered since we were there for photographs. The west elevation brick wall will be taken down and rebuilt with the addition of four new window openings. Four new window openings are also proposed in the rear elevation. On the south, which is the front elevation, replacement of windows and reconstruction of the jack arches as proposed. Number two, reconstruct, repair garden house walkways. Number three, we can reconstruct and repair planting beds with associated, that are associated with the garden. Number four, construct a new farm access driveway and entrance. That's the one to the east that I mentioned. So east of the existing entrance and create a new entrance and gate. to a new farm truck access road. The new road leads to a barn, which is building D, and that I referred to as the dairy barn. Construct a water feature below the primary structure and above the pond. Demolish two outbuildings noted on the drawings as garage building B and shed building D. Repair and renovate the garden gazebo by adding a new roof. And inference the guidelines established for new construction of primary buildings. Reconstruct the findings. Reconstruct and repair the federal house walkways. Staff finds the proposal to repair and reconstruct and construct new walkways meets guideline 3.4a. Walkways that are significant paved surfaces should be maintained and preserved. The proposal also meets guidelines 3.4b and 3.4c, which state respectively, walkways that are added or altered should be compatible with the principal and accessory structures on the property and surrounding historic properties and that are that are added should not be visually dominant intrusive or suggest a false sense of history number two repair or reconstruct repair planting beds associated with the garden staff finds the proposal meets 3.6a, 3.6b, and 3.6c, which state that are significant, should be preserved and maintained, and that is landscape. Landscape that is significant should be preserved and maintained, and that are altered or introduced should be compatible for the site and the surrounding properties, and should not be visually dominant, intrusive, or suggest a false sense of history. Number three is construct a new farm access driveway. Staff finds that the proposal meets 35A and 35B. Drives should be maintained and that are new should be located at the side or rear of the building and not be visually dominant. The proposal also meets guideline 3-5-E requiring new curb cuts for access should be kept to a minimum. Number four, reconstruct and repair the existing driveways, historic entrance, stone wall, reusing the existing gate. Staff finds the proposal meets guidelines 3-5-A and 3-5-B. should be maintained and that our news should be located at the side or rear of the building and not be visually dominant. Number five, construct a water feature below the primary structure and above the pond. Staff finds that the proposal does not meet the guidelines and is intrusive to the historic sites, historic design, and land features of the approach landscape. Guideline Line 36B and 36C, which say landscapes that are altered or introduced should be compatible to the design and with surrounding properties and should not be visually dominant, intrusive, or suggest a false sense of history. Number six is demolish two outbuildings noted on drawings as garage building B and shed building D. Staff finds the proposal to demolish the outbuildings meets the guidelines as neither structure is significant historic outbuildings or support structure. And their removal will not have an adverse effect on the historic site. Guideline 6C1.2 and 3 states demolition of a building within a locally designated historic district is not permitted unless one of the following conditions exists. The demolition request is for an inappropriate addition, a non-significant portion of a building, or a non-significant accessory structure, provided that the demolition will not adversely affect those parts of the building or buildings that are significant as determined by the BOAR. The demolition request is for a non-contributing building and the demolition will not adversely affect the character of the district. The property owner proves that no reasonable economic return may be gained from the property through a process designated in Article 13, Section 7C, Appendix E. Number seven, the repair and renovation of the gazebo meets the guidelines. 37A and 37B should not be visually intrusive or suggest a false sense of history. An open space should only be developed in scale and use and character with the site and the local historic district. The property on which Helen Place resides has the potential to yield significant information about the past as it was active during the region's settlement era, and possibly during earlier periods as well, being an especially intact 19th and 20th century significant historic home place and farm. The property's continuous use for the past 244 years in abundant areas of undeveloped land likely would result in a high potential for archaeological and material recovery. As such, it is imperative that a qualified archaeologist monitor its presence during any construction activities that involve removal, excavation on previously undisturbed land within the H-1 overlay boundary. Recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the following conditions. conditions. Submit door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Submit drawing showing the proposed new roof and roof materials of the gazebo. Submit deck and patio details specific to materials, design features, and any patterned concrete or applied pavers on the patios. Submit details of any proposed change in the garden path paving materials. Submit details of the federal house roofing materials and details of any proposed gutters. Number five, archaeological monitoring and testing in areas necessitating earth disturbance or excavation will be performed by an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, and in accordance with the specifications for conducting field work and preparing cultural resource assessment reports issued by the Kentucky Heritage Council State Historic Preservation Office, revised in 2017. Plans are to be reviewed and approved by the PDR program, which is the Rural Land Management Board, and any changes that approval result in will be submitted by the applicant or owner to historic preservation staff or the BOAR for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Number eight, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work. And that is the end of the staff report. Does the board have any questions for staff? I have just one question, and I may have just lost my way in the numbering system. But under the findings, I have nine items. Is that? At some point, I seem to be my paragraphs and the numbers seem to be off by one. And just wondering whether something changed or whether I was just, I had that same problem. At some point, something, so the basic question is, are there nine items under the findings? That would simplify the answer. The answer to that question would simplify my question. It is in the findings. Yes, in the findings. How many numbers? And in the recommendations, it would be number five about the archaeological testing. No, how many, I'm sorry, let me rephrase it. How many findings were there? There are eight. I'm sorry? There are eight. Eight. So what we've been provided has nine findings, and that's what the confusion is. Yeah. I'm hearing you, and I'm looking to see this report is about three-way of authorship, and I'm thinking that somehow finalizations, the number is best for you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Yes, I do have one question. In the findings, which you called finding number five, but is number six on our findings about constructing the water feature, You say that the staff finds that the proposal does not meet the guidelines, but in the recommendation it is not mentioned anywhere that we reject doing that water feature? We would recommend denial of that water feature, and that is the one in front of the main structure. So is that water feature part of this initial COA application? Yes, it is. So the recommendation should have an added line saying that you recommend denial of the water feature? Yes. Earlier on, we were back and forth a bit to divide out what would be the formal application and what would be the conceptual list. and there's a water feature in each. So the garden has a modest water feature that is part of your formal application that is intended the staff's recommendation to approve. And honestly, I didn't realize we had the front yard water feature. This is the new fountain that they're rejecting. I think that's not part of what... That's in the conceptual. Yes, the conceptual. No, we were trying to limit the conceptual. I agree, but I think that's what disappears. So you're saying toward the road, the broader feature became part of the formal application? Well, I think content-wise, we know where we're headed. We're just organizationally with our two cases popping in and out a little bit, I'm feared. But our purpose is to be very accurate. So as is ours, I know it is, and we appreciate that. And so I know we are advising you accurately per the staff's intent within the guidelines by relaying those two bits of information that the garden one is recommended. The garden water feature is recommended for approval and that the water feature in the front lawn approach is recommended for disapproval. And we will reflect accurately when you make your motion, whatever you'd like it to be as the outcome. So on our listing, the number six, it says construct the water feature below the primary structure and above the pond. That is not under consideration. That's the one the staff is recommending disapproval of, but that's not part of this COA. It is part of the formal application. If I go back, pull up case 12 again. Barry, I hate to correct you, but it's not part of the formal application. Always has been in my mind. This is our challenge. With two of us flipping things, we've just had, and it's been a day-by-day adjustment, quite frankly. It's a major project. I do understand that. I don't just want to be accurate. I'm asking the owner's rep and Mr. Reinhold, and he was saying he didn't intend it to be part of the formal application. So may we, with his sitting here agreeing to it not being part of the formal application, put it in the conceptual? Or we can just delay it to another time. We don't have to do it right now. Either way, but I guess the thing is it's not in my literature. They only have eight. I thought it was in the other one. That's the extra one that we have. I have one that matches yours, so we won't go there. But I think seriously, the most correct way to resolve this would be to have the front approach water feature not acted on today. And it will either could and can be discussed in the next segment of the meeting that is the conceptual and should be in light of this, and or will then come to you for formal action in the next round. Are you okay with that? That's fine. You need to see what you're all. I don't think you ever submitted it, but never mind. So a follow-up question to that then is that I am assuming that the water feature in the garden area is to be included in this application for the COA? You're correct. Everything in the garden area is part of this formal application. Chair, if I might just for one moment for clarity. when a motion is made on the COA. If you, assuming if you do want to approve it pursuant to staff's findings, you need to make it clear on the record that you are striking that finding so that that does not become part of the record. I'm sorry, in the motion we're... You need to make sure in the motion that that paragraph, number six, is not part of the findings you're incorporating into the record. We have to add... Because the water feature in the gardens is not anywhere in here. Yet it's not referred to. We really need to just amend that and strike the water feature in the front of the house, but add in the water feature in the garden area because I am not finding that anywhere else in the listing. Yes, one of our challenges, and we don't need to go down this path, garden or otherwise, is that our site plan is inclusive of everything, whether or not it's in today's formal application or a broader, further out conceptual discussion. So it's one drawing for all of it, and that doesn't facilitate clarity about these subsection ideas, particularly when the land presence, they jump back and forth topics. So we apologize for the confusion, and I think what you've just stated will take care of keeping us in our process-wise and for behalf of our applicant, accurate. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I do have another question, and other board members may also of you, Barry, and it has to do with the two buildings that are proposed to be demolished. Yes. And given the age of this site and the age particularly of Shed Building D, which I don't think it's understood maybe what the historic use of that building is, and maybe we don't know the age. But if there's any reference to former occupants that served the owners of this land that are still on the property, I think we need to be very sensitive to that. When the National Register nomination was written, those logs on the exterior were brought in from another town, and that building was constructed in modern times, but it has old half or square logs on it, Almost like garden timbers, although they're from the 1950s or so. So neither of those buildings would be construed to have been, even in the most modest way, occupied buildings. Correct. I'm trying to get the garage is a metal building, like a Morton building. This is the garage. So that's this building. Are there any other questions? The garage is building D. And I do see that. Okay. And then the other building is this. it was determined not to be contributing. The term contributing makes me a little uncomfortable. If the age of the materials is late in the 19th century or early 20th century, then I get a little more comfortable with that description. But I'm... It's late 20th century. Late 20th century. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. the materials and it doesn't meet the the standards for a relocated building either because it was just the log skin that was brought in. Okay. Okay. And I believe Sarah has more information about that if you would like her to respond. I know that it was, the logs were from a 19, well I don't know what year, but from a Mercer County log structure. And it was relocated in 1968 to this site. And that's all I know about it. But it was, in the landmark report, it was a non-contributing structure. It's very modern inside. Thank you. And that landmark report that you're referring to established, the H-1. Yes. On the drawing, are we approving today? I'm sorry, I can't hear. the drawing, are we approving today all of the driveway, the location of the current pond, and all of the road aspects, or is that coming later? We are under the formal application. All of the roadways and the walkways outside of the rectangle that's shown on the site are part of this application. Outside the rectangle. So that would then include the water feature that goes to the pond unless we by exception listed because it's outside that rectangle. Yes ma'am. So that seems to add slight further confusion. My note was that it then suggests that both water features in the garden and that go to the pond are part of this application. If everything outside of that rectangular conceptual review is part of today, then it includes both water features. Director Kerr and Mr. Reinhold have stated their opinion that it should not be part of the formal application at this time. Being new to this body, does this body consider pavement options? and will those be coming later? Yes. The existing drives which are being reconstructed, they will be gravel during the construction period, and then towards the end of the construction period, they will be paved in asphalt. You mentioned the wall in front of what I would call the carriage entrance. That's to be removed? I think Mr. Reinhold will speak a little more to that. I know this is confusing with there being act on today's and conceptuals, obviously, but maybe it'll help clarify. There are two walls not being acted on today that are one's brick and one's a low stone. They will both be in your discussion in the next few minutes informally. And then when the applicant comes back for another package of things that you need to review and act on, the result of what's determined to do about those two walls will be before you. Does that make sense? One's to the side. The brick one is to the east side of the house next to an existing brick patio. And the low stone one is right in front of the front portico driveway area. The brick wall is what I refer to as the lattice brick wall. Right. Also, just so I'm understanding, the federal house and the garden house are the same structure? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Could we have the site map back up that showed the rectangular dashed area of the conceptual review? Is it possible to then at least with the laser to identify what is also in that conceptual review, which includes those stone walls and the water? I was trying to do that in my original or first presentation with the photos and things. So I will try again. So as you see, this is the rectangle that includes the historic residence, the garage to be demolished, the shed to be demolished, and another building which will be repaired. This is, there are additions that go on each side and the rear of the structure, which are part of the conceptual review. It's this that I don't think is included anymore. This is the entry gate, which is part of this application. This is the new farm truck access entry and the road that goes up along the utility easement. That is part of this application. The garden house area, including the federal house, are part of this application. The dairy barn and this structure are not a part of either the conceptual or the formal. So the brick wall, the low brick wall is a part of the conceptual review that's right outside that rectangle. That's correct. Sorry. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. and here's a little bit of a little bit of a rectangle is that I understand is not included in today's. It may have been what you were showing but this large rectangle is not included in today's COA. That's part of the conceptual design. That's correct. Okay. So it goes all the way up to include this and down there. It's essentially, if I may suggest, the elements to the west that are the garden and federal house and the roadways to them and demolition of the back of that federal house. They're all kind of on your western. It's not quite as clean as just having a line totally because you do have your road situation coming, and this road situation is included too, the one coming right in here. So I guess it flanks either side, perhaps I should say, of the central that is to be conceptual. I don't know if I'm thinking things better. I have a question, just a clarification on the refurbishment of the driveways and roadways. Is that, and I may have missed it, is that an actual, are those being moved and brand new, or those are just existing location and being refurbished? Other than the new farm road, all of the drives outside of the conceptual review area are included in the applications, and they are reconstruction of existing roads. Okay. You could say they were abandoned. Okay. Okay. And so there is nothing, where that farm road is, there is nothing existing there now? That is a new construction? No, it's an existing utility easement. And so this is the one to the garden house or the federal building that turns and goes up. and then the parking that is shown would be approximately there. This is the farm road. So there is a two track? Correct. Pathway there. Correct. So on our list of findings under what I have as item number four, construct a new farm access driveway and entrance, that is following the existing utility easement. Correct. I think that needs to be added likely. I feel like we're having afternoon tea, but I'm the hostess with the mostest, but I didn't bring any teacups or coffee or anything. I could use something. There's a question about the garden. When it was developed as the garden that we know to know today in terms of evolution, And the Helms family buys the property in circa 1912, and two of the primary members of the household design and start the garden. And then it is flourished and added to over both that family and then the next family, the Murphys, and comes right on up to the present day. The only thing being that it became extremely overgrown in the last 20 years. So you're going to find that the, and you'll hear more about this in the future, but they're going to keep the plan and everything and watch the garden for maybe as much as a year. And observe what comes up and what the light does and all those sorts of things. and Mr. Reinhold, correct me if I say anything incorrect, which easily could happen. So the layout you see on your site plan with the rectangles framed by the brick and all that, I believe I'm correct in speaking for the applicant that they're planning to continue with that historic pattern and seek out and encourage to grow the heritage plants that will come up and all those good things. We don't know that it didn't have a garden before 1912, but I believe it's very correct to say that what is reflected there today is reflective of what they started in the early 20th century, 1912-ish. Well, I was given our mutual experience at Ashland, you know, gardens can be put in and then become famous for who put them in. And I was wondering if any of that might be available here, and particularly since the family came from Louisville. Right. And would have seen and known some pretty neat gardens. Right. And so absolutely. And it's Mrs. Helm and her two daughters and her son. She had three children. And they are who, in buying the property and making it their home in 1912, There is a tablet, a bronze tablet near the garden that takes note of they being the people who created it and their heritage. So the historian in me said, aha, it's like Indiana Jones. We must be at the spot. Here's the marker. Are there any other board member questions to the staff at this point? Otherwise, we can ask the applicant to present his review. So I just, one other question on the site, this colored site plan that we have. The kind of elongated triangular beds that come from the main house out into the garden, are those, I mean, they're rendered white or not rendered, and there's green around them. Is that because they are beds, or are they a different type of turf, or do we know? I'm not understanding where you're talking. So from the main house that's inside the red rectangle, going south, plan south, plan south. So towards the federal house. Oh. There's, well, there's a. It's actually west, but. I know, right. Okay. Yes. So here. I don't have a north arrow, so. Yeah. What are you all asking about? What portion of it? I just didn't know if those were planting beds, if they were grassland. The bright green areas? What we have, yeah, let's just do it this way. Please speak into the microphone if you can, please. So all of this area is... Planting beds. These are all planting beds. Those are plant beds, yes. And all the green is just grass. The grass is green. Okay. And these areas are homesickled. Understood. If that could be pointed out also on the map, just to make sure that we all got that since there are many moving parts. The only problem is... That area is a combination of existing planting beds. They have brick curbs around them, and then the walking surface was turf, and it's going to go back to turf since it's been overgrown. It's just dirt and stumps, basically. So are you comfortable? You have your answer? Yes. All right. Okay. So, Mr. Reinhold? Yes, thank you for your all's patience. I know this is overwhelming. It's overwhelming to me at some point, too. We want to get it right. We want to know what we're reviewing and approving. Our goal here is to restore the garden. It's the Elodie Garden, which is Catherine Helms' sister. She might have been the architect of it, too, because she did do some of the architecture in the main house. and she was a distinguished artist. So that's probably where most of the design came from. But we're going to try to put it back just the way it was. There's really no paths in the garden that aren't turf. And everything else is, we've cut everything, the honeysuckle out of it to see what comes up. So there is one path that leads from the garden house back up to the main house, which is gravel. I don't think it's very old because it has polyethylene underneath it. So it's a crushed stone, probably number 11, just stuck inside of a brick border, and it's elevated about eight inches off the ground, like it's lifted for some reason. But I'll be glad to answer any questions. I do have a couple things that I just wanted to clarify. One is on the front entrance gate, there are not two walls. There is the existing wall at the front entrance gate, and then there is the proposed wall, which moves back about 30 feet. And that's just to allow you to get two cars off the road without having the second one sitting out in the middle of Bowman's Mill. That is this area? Yes. The drawing shows just the single wall there, whereas the enlarged plan that was in the package, or shows both, I believe. And what the intent on that is to reuse the stone to create the same stone posts but move it back, which allows you to get a straight-on shot at the gate because right now you come in almost on a 45, and that makes it even more difficult to get in the gate. Anybody with any size vehicle doesn't make it through it. The power company hit the post, and the movers on the way out hit the metal gate. And that's the reason why the other gate is being proposed because the owner does not really want to enlarge that gate and make all that traffic come through because he's got 150 acres. And if he wants to use it as a horse farm when the lease expires or if it expires at some point, he's got to be able to access that 150 acres. And it's a gate design, what you would do on a horse farm for a service gate to get in equipment. It would be very understated. And the gate needs to be around 100 feet off the road to allow trucks to get in safely off Bowman's Mill. We're putting up the drawing of the start entrance. And Mr. Warnock has just given you a good description of the service entrance. That's the proposal for the start entrance. That is the proposed new gateway. I'm sorry? That's the proposed new entrance right there. This is the proposed for the end product of the renovation. And that only has the cut stone or the face stone on the elevation that you see from the driveway. The back side is rubble and parched on the back. So the only good stones we have are on the front of that wall. And we're trying to preserve as much of those as we can. They have become delaminated, a lot of them, so we don't know how many we're going to save. And I'm going to have a hard time matching it. So we're going to try our best to utilize everything we have and put it back the way it is. And then rehang the existing gate. we're going to widen the post about two feet so we have a 14-foot gate. And the way the gate is hung now, if we hang it in between the posts like that, the gate will function fine, the existing gate will function fine. I did want to go back to, do you have any questions on that, on the gate? I did want to go back to the building, the two buildings we were going to demolish. One is the Morton building, the garage, and that showed up on the survey. That was an old garage that they detailed on the survey. That new garage, I think, was built in the 1990s, and is not the garage that they say is a contributing feature to the property. And it's basically a metal building with a wood frame with metal sheeting all around it. As far as the other building, the one with the logs on it, it doesn't really do it justice from that. That's the best picture you could ever take of it because on the inside it's four six-by-six posts with those logs nailed to it. So it looks substantial, but if we don't do something with it really quick, they're going to just fall right off the building. We're going to try to salvage them and reuse them somewhere on the project. But they're to the point now that they may not even be salvageable. And my understanding is that that is a building from the 20th century. Yes. And that those lugs came from off-site. They were salvaged from something else and cut to fit that. but they're only about three inches thick. It's a veneer. It's like it's applied to just the four post, corner post of the building. The rest of the building is vertical wood planks that don't even have battens on them. So when you're inside, you almost look like you're outside. I just wanted to also note that we are going to demo the mailbox. It's out on Bowmans Mill Road. It looks like it was done with farm labor at some point. The stonework is not very good, and it also is very hazard when you come out of the driveway because you have the marker the historical marker and this and the mailbox right in your field of vision and it's a pretty substantial mailbox this is the interior yeah that's it that's the interior of the shed But Ford, rest assured, is seeing a better image of it up here. Her photography is not, but it is readable. The other image of the outside of this building, that. So that's the law. And then the mailbox will be the mailbox. And that is the only two sides that have logs on it. The other two don't have logs on them. . Also, there's been a discussion about moving the state's stark marker. The only reason to determine why we'd like that to go. And technically, we have to do work with the stark society because you're aware that it's really marked of their approach. So the finalization of its location will come to you with some input from the players' description. Also, the low wall that we've had some discussion about in front of the house that has the stone cap on it. We actually found out that the stone cap was originally on the main house porch. And that's part of being the conceptual view. We were going to, they put, at some point, took those stone caps off and poured concrete over the front porch. The original porch was wood because we found some pictures that show the wood planks on the porch. So what we'd like to do is take that capstone back and put it back on the original house where it came from. And we did that just by measuring in between the stone bases of the columns. They fit perfectly in between there. It's just too much of a coincidence. But we cannot find a picture of that stone band around the porch. We haven't been able to locate one yet. So that's why we were asking for the demolition of the wall because when Barry was saying earlier, once you remove the cap off it, there's not much of a wall there. In fact, it's laid in much the same way of the stone field that they just threw inside the front porch before they put concrete on it. So hopefully we would like to demo that porch and raise the one column that's settled and then put the wood porch back on it. Mr. Reinhold, may I make one additional comment toward all that? All of which I totally understand what you said and about the stone pieces being the right length to go on the porch. The only complication to this consideration to take into account is that the historic photographs going back to approximately 1880 show this low stone wall looking like it does today with the stone cap. Now, I can't promise you that it didn't have a switcheroo tied to what you're reflecting, and that's certainly a possibility, but we will show you more of the historic images when you're actually making a decision about this, because the historic images tell you that that wall and that design and with a stone cap, with the urns, has been there since the 1880s. So nothing to go down a separate path about, but I just wanted to integrate it into what you're raising. And I know you want your stone caps back, I understand, for the porch. Well, it does show up on the 18A. There's no wall there on the Irwin. Then in the 1912 one, you can't really see the wall. If you look at those pictures, I couldn't tell if it was in there a lot because I looked for it. It's in the 1880s one, actually. There's no wall. You and I can argue over that later. But I can't find it in the 1912 because the pictures we have don't show it. It shows from the wall up. Well, we'll all put our heads together on that matter. But after that, it is definitely there. Any picture after 1912, it's there. It's in all of them. And I'll gather more detail from the historic images, and we'll have further evidence to consider. for you in the future. And in the meantime, the property owner and Mr. Reinhold and the staff will all try to put this puzzle together. So the removal of the stone caps is not part of the COA for today or is? No, it is not part of today's COA. That's clarification. All right, other board member questions? Is there a growing sense that we understand what the COA is requesting for approval today? So is there anyone who's interested in making a motion on it then? Because there are things to be added and subtracted. I'm going to try, but he hasn't talked. So let me just ask one more time. The staff recommendations to approve the proposal did include the six items that Barry had reviewed, plus the standard two conditions. And as I remember, those are acceptable to the owner. Yes. Thank you. Just clarification for the record. Thank you. All right, then, Chair. In regards to case number 02242575-G at 2650 Bowman Mill Road, I move that we strike item number six regarding the water feature at the front of the house, between the house and the pond, from this application, and that we add the water feature that is in the garden to this application. In addition, I recommend the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions. One, to submit the door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Submit drawings showing the proposed new roof and roofing materials of the gazebo. Submit deck and patio details specific to materials and design features and any patterned concrete or applied pavers on patios. Submit details of any proposed change in garden path paving materials. Submit details of federal house roofing materials and details of any proposed gutters. Five archaeological monitoring and testing in the areas necessitating earth disturbance and excavation will be performed by an archaeologist to meet the Secretary of Interior's professional qualification standards and in accordance with the specifications for conducting field work and preparing cultural resources assessment reports issued by the Kentucky Heritage Council State Historic Preservation Office, revised 2017. plans to be reviewed and approved by the PDR Program Rural Land Management Board, and any changes that that approval results in will be submitted by the applicant owner to the historic preservation staff and or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Seven is that the new farm road is to follow the existing utility easement. And then eight and nine are the standard two conditions. Second. Is there any discussion or question? Then I call the motion for a vote. Those in favor? Aye. Aye. Those opposed? The motion moves and the COA will be issued for this application. So that brings us moving directly into the conceptual review. And I will note the rich complexity of this wonderful project and anticipation of lengthy discussion. It may well take a second meeting on conceptual design. but it looks like you have your hands full with the COA that's being issued. So does the staff wish a clear? Barry, are you ready with your overview? And as the board's already well aware with conceptuals, well, we have a number of pictures, and then instead of, in lieu of findings, the questions. just a list of questions. And then both the owner and the applicant, as you're aware, are here. Mr. Barker has been very quietly sitting in the back, but he is also present along with their architect builder, Mr. Reinhold. And so as soon as Barry gives you an overview and such as you're used to, then Mr. Reinhold and the owner, if he chooses, can start right in with you. So this is the front elevation of the primary historic structure held in place. details. They have very unusual columns. They have these belled bases. The columns are brick and plaster and then they set on stone plinths. You may be able to make out here their joints, which that is where it's believed the stone from the stone wall may have been. And you can see it's kind of in disrepair. This is the east elevation, close up of one of the windows there. This is what I've been referring to as the lattice brick wall. It's orange brick as opposed to the red of the main house and even this patio. This is the rear. These are the additions that, or at least this and this, that are inappropriate and I think it would be just more of a close up here of those. As I usually do, I'm working my way around the building. So this addition would be gone, this would be gone, and the proposal would have the new addition setting in this location from the rear of the historic structure back. This is a close-up of what used to be a colonnade, a breezeway, and this is the west side of the house. This is that lattice brick wall again. And I believe you've seen the site plan, so we are concentrating on the area within the rectangle minus the out buildings. So this is the proposed plan. This is the main house with the front door, an addition on the right side and on the left. This is the second floor of the structure and this would be the second floor addition on top of the the lower floor additions this is the attic I believe with the those are your skylights There's your skylights. This is a roof plan of the main house with skylights and the addition along here, that white lean-to structure will be gone. This is a breezeway that leads to a proposed garage, a four-car garage, which is not a part of this application or conceptual review. Will you show them the kitchen while you're on that drawing? The kitchen? Would you show them the location of the kitchen on that roof plan? This would be the kitchen area here where the new addition ties into it. The kitchen historically was a freestanding masonry building. And it had the breezeway connecting. So this is the front elevation minus the porch. So you will see both additions towards the rear of the historic structure on both the east and west elevations. This is the east elevation of the east addition. And then this is the east side of east elevation showing the second floor bathroom addition with existing structure and then beyond it would be the addition. And again, this is the breezeway to the garage. So this is the rear elevation. This is the west, the west addition. We'll have a covered porch along its back wall and that's the east elevation and that will be a master bedroom wing with a hyphen connector there. This is the west elevation with the additions and the porch on the front of the addition. So now I'll go and pour into the formal report now that I've tried to orient you a little bit. I hope I was successful. So it's a conceptual review, and the scope of work is demolish the later additions, construct additions, and renovate the primary historic structure. Site work including the demolition of two walls, one stone, one masonry, pave and repave driveways in the vicinity of the proposed new garage and construct a four-car garage. But again, we do not have any drawn proposal of the four-car garage. Helm Place, Cedar Hill, I think you all pretty much heard all of this in the formal, so I don't think we need to go into that first paragraph. And then please refer to various technical documents reflecting these meaningful and protective designations for an overview of how in place significance. So that's the PDR, obviously the H1 with the Board of Architectural Review Oversight. New additions are proposed to the historic Greek Revival House in a new garage connected to the rear of the house by a colonnade proposed to replace the non-historic garage, which you approved for demolition in the formal case. In addition, the heritage garden established by the Helm family beginning in the 19-teens will be reinvigorated, restored, and furthered. Historic iron fences will be restored where possible, and some sections may be relocated to result in a continuous intact runs of nettle fence. Stone columns and wall sections are in several locations within the home place, rear yard area, are proposed to be returned or retained and renovated where possible. Wood fences will also be continued and or replaced as needed. A swimming pool is proposed for future, which again, we do not have documents at this point. that the current thought on the location of the swimming pool would be in this area. The historic entranceway with its signature triangle along the site of an enormous bur oak tree in the driveway entrance at Bowmansville will be retained and augmented to accommodate today's vehicles. and a second farm entrance will be created a bit further to the east to provide drive more suited for farm equipment and horse trailers. The applicant is requesting a conceptual review for the following. Note, several of the items referenced are not as of yet available in detailed drawings, but are for discussion per the site location, design considerations, appropriateness, materials as known, etc. Number one, the primary structure, demolition of later additions, construct proposed new additions on the east and west and rear elevations, and fully renovate the historic house. Note, the small federal house renovation is contained, detailed in the formal application for a COA, which has been reviewed and acted on. And then the demolition of selected outbuildings has been acted on as well. And then on the site, reconstruct patios as required. Demolish one 19th century stone wall in the front yard adjacent to the circular driveway near the opposite front entrance. demolish a 20th century lattice pattern brick wall near the brick patio on the east elevation of the main house and construct driveway to the proposed garage location and refresh the circular driveway approaching the front elevation. The findings, as this is a conceptual review, staff does not have findings at this time. The following are some questions that the BOAR may want to consider for comment and discussion. So number one, is it appropriate to demolish the kitchen lean-to addition at the rear of the historic house? That was the white addition that I pointed out. Is the proposed new garage location, the four-car garage, and we don't know the overall height at this point, but is it a true? appropriate and not intrusive to the house or the yard space or site? Is it appropriate to construct a colonnaded breezeway connecting the multi-car garage and the primary house? Is the design of the two proposed additions, one on the west and one on the east elevations, appropriately scaled to not overwhelm the historic structure inside? Does the proposed design of the two additions on the east and west elevations of the historic house mimic history in any way or all of their elevations. I'm sorry, not any way, but in any or all of their elevations. Number six is the proposed location and manner in which the side wing additions join or abut each side of the historic main house elevations as non-intrusive and necessitates the least removal and interruption of the historic fabric of the main house and its exterior wall rhythms and integrity as possible. Does the design of the hyphen concept facilitate the east elevation addition being added successfully to the historic house. Does this approach result in the existing window or door openings to accomplish the connectivity to the main house, main historic mass in accordance with the design guidelines? Number eight, the proposed new addition to the west elevation is to facilitate the creation of a unified space, including the existing historic kitchen space, opening into a vaulted ceiling great room, hence not proposing to utilize a hyphen connector similar to that proposed on the east elevation. Is the removal of the exterior brick kitchen wall. This historic kitchen appears to have been freestanding brick gable roof building that still exists that came to be joined to the main historic structure by infilling of an early breezeway between the freestanding kitchen and the main house. Is it within the design guidelines to remove the historic west masonry wall of the historic kitchen? Is it necessary to remove one of the gable end windows flanking the chimney. So this is the rear elevation with the additions, and this is the existing kitchen in the background with a window located there and one on this side also, which is classic federal type style, and the roof should be changed in some manner to allow that window to remain. Would be the staff's recommendation anyway. Number 10, there are other options that could facilitate the creation of the kitchen family room resulting in a similar square footage, ceiling heights and sight lines, while lessening the loss of the historic fabric and integrity of the exterior wall of the historic kitchen. Is the removal of a smaller chimney on the west elevation of the historic structure in proximity? to the proposed new addition area appropriate and within the design guidelines. Could you pause and point that chimney out to them? You actually had it on what you were on. It's showing right there. It's rising right there. Right there. Right. I can't see it. Can't see it right there. Yep. Number 12 are the proposed additions on both the east and west elevations of the historic house, appropriately scaled, sided, and massed. 13 is the bedroom east additions design, compatible and in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, material, color, and location of window, door, and cornice heights. 14 is the proposed standing seam metal roof, second floor addition along the rear of the historic house, appropriate and within the design guidelines. 15, would it be appropriate to replace the roofing with faux wood shakes such as a da vinci roofing and the metal standing seam or dimensional asphalt shingles? 16, are the skylights for the main roof of the historic house and the historic kitchen roof within the design guidelines. 17, is it appropriate to demolish the low stone wall opposite of the front porch entrance steps adjacent to the driveway in front of the historic house? 18, is it appropriate to demolish the lattice patterned brick wall in the proximity of the brick patio on the east side of the house? And 19, are the renovations to the historic front entrance at the Bowman's Mill Road in the proposed new farm entrance driveway appropriate and within the design guidelines. That has actually been approved in the previous formal review. So we can remove that question? Correct. And that is all that I have, unless the board has questions for the staff. One thing I might add, obviously with renovation of several structures, but particularly the main house, all the existing historic portions, as you're well aware, there are a number of construction activities that are actually able to be reviewed and approved by the staff. So we have not, we want very much for you during the conceptual to talk about any and all points that you would like to address and what the applicants and owner want to get your feedback on. But don't feel like you have to address things that are more of an in-kind repair, that kind of thing, that will fall under the umbrella of the staff process-wise. because it's so much to talk about that we're very welcoming and seeking the opportunity to get your all's frame of reference relative to the guidelines and your experience on the new additions, the demolitions you've already reflected in your previous action, and any of those really making a change. kind of outcomes could you please pull up the photograph that shows the shed lean to to the back of the historic kitchen that one So that comes to the back of the kitchen, and is that, what is the status of that as far as the structure? It has a concrete floor, and it's not a historic addition. The addition that the wood addition that is between the kitchen and the main house. This? Yes. That is what I've referred to as the breezeway that connected the main house to the kitchen. We have an approximate age on that? No, we don't. The concept, obviously, and you already all know this, is original of having a breezeway. But the manner in which it was elevation, its exterior elevation reflected and it predates the, there's a dining room addition that comes out that got added to the house on the first floor. It's at the end of the front hall. If you're inside walking through the house, you go straight through that front hall, and you're coming to it. There you are. So the breezeway's footprint has been probably historically ever since the main mass was created and whatever. This is so complicated, too, by the fact that the Bowman family and other families predate the Helms' arrival, certainly, and started building a place to live probably by 1800 or 1810. And there's never been thorough and known documentation about what became of the houses, the house that was built for that, and additions it might have had and all that. So there's possibilities that it's going to become apparent as the construction's going on and the kind of sifting through with the removals of some things, exposing ghosts of other things if they're pertinent. It's a very fascinating evolution. The main mass, of course, speaks very clearly of what it is architecturally, but the old kitchen, for example, and what did it serve in its early life? Not sure, not sure exactly when the old kitchen was built. So the breezeway, back to the point in hand, I think the only thing we can be sure of is that there was a breezeway in that footprint serving between an outbuilding and the main house. The exterior wall, the frame wall that you saw in the pictures, obviously has had a number of alterations over time in the 20th century. Can you show me on the photographs, so I am looking at the north rear elevation, and there is a notation to demo a chimney between the existing brick kitchen and the new addition. and it'll be in the, what chimney is that? That one. It is this chimney and it's basically a flue stack. A flue, okay, that's, yes. I see. Can we get you on record, Mr. Reinhold, please? He's, yeah, showing the colored photograph of the slide that is existing. I guess it's a little clearer. We can put it on Elmo. It is this photo. It's the same photograph. It's the same one already on the screen. We're good. But that is the chimney for the boiler, and it is not let into the brick at all. It was added later, different brick. It actually has iron straps. that are holding it to the wall to keep it from keep it structural. And Barry, on the kitchen, those upper windows that we're looking at, of the one... These two windows? And that's what you're, one of the questions asked about protecting both of those windows. Yes. Is there a way to redesign the roof or come up with some details? And I believe Mr. Reinhold wants to do that also to let more light into that kitchen. It's fairly dark in there currently. I have a question about the new additions. Is that appropriate at this time? Absolutely. The only thing that I was curious about was in the way that the wings, the new wings, are connected to the main house. Sure. Have a glass front. Yes. Are they intended to look like a breezeway? The one facing the house, the one on the right, has sliding, I suppose, glass doors on the other side. Our guidelines talk about on the west side, the glass fronts, but the new addition does not have glass. It's room. It's part of the building behind it. My question gets to why was a clear glass pane chosen for the front of those two connecting parts to the wings? On the master bedroom side, which would be the east side of the house, it was to get egress out to that patio that exists in the front. It's a radial patio. And the idea with the glass is to make it disappear so it doesn't look like there's anything there. It just looks like a porch. The glass is frameless. It goes within a quarter inch of the wood columns on each side. So it appears that there's nothing there. It's just, and it's glass on the rear side too. So when you look through it, even on the addition that's very deep, it's still a glass hallway all the way through on both ends. Glass doors on each end. The only reason it would be different on one side or the other is if we wanted to get out the doors. But I think we've come to the realization we can get out of the house another way. So those probably will be fixed glass panels, and they'll match on both sides. Can you reference this on the floor plan so that we're all following you completely? The front elevation is where it's noted. Thank you. we were originally going to have a door that opened to let you out into the back. But I think what we're going to do is maybe incorporate doors into the old porch back towards the center. We're working on turning it up. Got it? Better? Better. Okay. So this one originally we wanted to get out the front and the backs. This is the laser. That one? That one? This hyphen right here was going to have a glass door in the front. We originally had a door there so you could get out this way and a solid glass panel here. But what we came up with was to put a door here where you could access this patio out here. So this would be a solid glass panel just like that one. And you access this one out the side door too. So from the front, they both look the same. With so much care that you all have given to making everything, every other detail seem historically appropriate, you know, an eight-foot square glass pane wouldn't have probably been possible when the house was built. You're definitely correct. And I'm just interested in why the choice was not made to put something that matched the other windows or mimicked the other windows on the front of the house. I think I can answer that one. Our guidelines tend to lead the designers towards a more contemporary design so it's not in conflict as far as fooling the eye thinking that it was historically that way. So based on the guidelines, there's also talk about connecting with a hyphen, and that's to minimize the loss of historic fabric on the historic structure and have some separation between the new addition and the historic structure. and i don't want to talk for mr reinhold but i think he was looking at the structures as if they were outbuildings more or less or to read that way that's correct we did want them to read that way but the other thing is that we don't want the glass to be seen as glass we want this to be seen as a void so there's nothing there we don't want you to pick up on it that it's glass and i think with it being recessed with back four feet from the porch, I don't think you're going to really see it at all. And it basically disappears completely. So instead of having an element that looks like a window that you have to match or not match, it just looks like it's not even there. So it's really to read as an open breezeway with that large painted glass. Even though it's not on one side, but kind of is on the other. I'm not criticizing the choice, just basically, here's my novice role here, is whether or not it needed to reflect more historical treatment. And I have my answer. Thank you. One of the things to talk about the sort of intent of the guideline tied to what Mr. Dennis said is it wants to allow somebody to read the building when they encounter it for its different time periods. And these new proposed additions on either side, the east and the west side, strongly encouraged in the guidelines to do just what Mr. Reinhold has reflected, particularly successfully, I believe, on the east elevation. He's aware that I have some concerns about the west elevation and the manner in which it attaches, but we'll all talk about that and very much welcome your all's take on that. So I think in this instance of the East Elevation Wing, that as time passes and people visit this house in 20 and 40 and 60 years from now, they'll be able to read it and know to think, ah, well, you know, in the early 21st century, we're not quite as early into it as we might mentally and myself think we are. that this next piece over is not integrated fully into the historic and has its own identity but is compatible with the historic in its selection of materials and its scale and the way it responds as an addition built in 2023 or 2024, depending on things. and that's part of the intent of our guidelines is to have integrity of the time period in which these things are built being compatible in scale, mass, volumes, roof forms, materials that don't replicate the materials in the historic necessarily but work well with them. And so I always think of it as sort of the top five of when you're going to make new construction to existing buildings, no matter what era they came before, that you provide integrity in those additions that allow it to speak successfully with what it's being added to, not detracting from it, but not trying to make people think it's always been there. There's also the intent on this to create a hierarchy in this design of this so that every addition is not as complex as the main part of the house and to simplify it as it moves away from the front of the house. And most old houses are like that. The materials, the construction methods are different as they move around the house. and they're all at a lesser degree than what's on the front of the house. So we're very mindful of that, and we're going to try to do that as we move around the house. And the additions represent that, that they're not at the same, I guess, quality, not quality, but the detail that's on the front of the house. It's scaled back so that you can kind of also read it through that as you go through and look at the house. That would be both on the interior and the exterior. So, Board, I will note that we've been discussing the project for a bit over an hour and a half at this point. And we know that we'll want to have at least one more conceptual design review. So there are some questions that are more complex in their asking and some that are fairly straight, maybe fairly straightforward. That's not always true. But such as 14, 15, 16, such as our skylights proposed that are proposed for the main roof of the historic house and the historic kitchen roof are those within the design guidelines and appropriate. And did you have adequate information to reflect on that, you see them on the drawings? Okay. So I also, while everyone's pondering what I said was a simple question, I will note that the complexity of the project and the site might well behoove us to see if it's possible to request a site visit that the staff could set up that would be appropriate to us not having a convening meeting, but being able to have an opportunity to visit the site, to walk through it, to feel the scale, to walk through the elements as opposed to just the view of the flat drawings that we're watching. So another question that I've thrown out to the board. so you wanted us to comment on which numbers the um it um i had specifically noted 14 15 16. okay Okay. Any particular of those questions that you would like to prioritize getting talked about? It might be helpful to the applicant if they're ones that particularly, so that they can be moving forward thinking further. I think the one that's most important is that we need to, the roof isn't damaged in the windstorm. so we need to get back in and do some repairs structurally on it and we'll be stripping the roof as soon as we can strip it to get it under underlayment also to facilitate we either want to do that starting before we do some of the brick repair on the on the chimneys so we want to brace up the roof and get it under something that will protect it in case more of the shingles come off it hadn't started leaking yet but it looks very bad there's probably 300 shingles off the roof and i think there were some things that as that go with that one would be if we do do that we want to put the skylights in as we do that and if that was something that you all had some input on there there are five skylights that actually open into the third floor and then the sixth skylight actually is centered over the entry hall in the back of the long entry hall which go it like the second floor through the stair down to the first floor so it dramatically changes the interior of the house and puts the light back in it that the previous additions have kind of cut off and we also would the standing seam roof that we were talking about on the second floor addition there's already an existing standing seam roof on the lower porch that some of that would probably stay and we'd probably just match that roof up on the upper roof. It's not visible from the ground, so it may not even be important that we even use standing seam. It may be something that you could use an EPDM roof on top of that because it's so high up in the air. And the other thing is, as far as the da Vinci roofing, the metal standing seam and the dimensional carriage house shingle. We're also mindful of the hierarchy of this house, and it's a very monumental house to look at the front. But the roof's not really visible. In fact, most people that come out and look at the house don't even know it has a red roof on it. And it's a red roof, so you'd think it would stand out, but we didn't know if we needed to give the main body of the house a different roofing material than the sublux additions that come off the house to try to create that hierarchy so that we just don't have an overwhelming amount of one roofing material there. Also, we probably that plays into the garden house too of what we would put there. It would probably be similar to what some of the additions were on this house so that the outbuildings matched the additions to the main house. But the garden house being a standalone building, we may want to have that stand out a little differently by a different roof on it. But we still haven't made any decisions on the roofing. But the feedback, I brought some simple samples of the da Vinci shakes and the da Vinci slates. slate is not an option for us on this house the structure is just not there on the roof it's two by sixes and it's just not it's not going to support it without redoing the whole roof structure but i did bring a couple of those samples if you'd like to look at them and see if any you think any of that would be appropriate for the just the main body of the We're just talking about the two-story 1850s original structure. What is the roof material existing on the house, main body of the house? It's three-tap red shingles. Asphalt shingles, red. Okay. Please take your hand off. The two of you. Well, I was saying he can stay here. Oh, well. so this is the dementia slant plastic and this is the faux shingle wood shingle or shape Yes, natural slack. Right, because it has two asphalt roofs on it right now, so it will breathe a sigh of relief. So any of the samples you have, the existing roof structure, would sustain? Right. And it's a very simple roof. There's no details in it that makes a product, even the metal, It won't look like it's had to work around details. It's going to be very clean, very straightforward, because there's not a lot of detail in the main body of the roof. Do you have a preference between those two? The owner probably has a preference, but he hasn't really decided on it. I think the price dictates preference a lot of this. You might note in the historic images that are at your desk that this house did have a stained-sea metal roof in 1954. But before it, it had a wood shake roof that are still underneath on the deck from underneath. You can see the wood shakes. That's on the main body of the house. That's very interesting. And we definitely don't want to put those back. So, Barry, I don't know what the guidelines are about plastic roof shingles. I was trying to find that. What are those? Da Vinci? They're a plastic material? Yeah, I don't know that this is a question we can pull out and answer, per se, tonight. Well, I think that's a good point. Yeah. In general, pseudo-false material trying to attempt, and false is the wrong word, an alternate material trying to fool the eye and look like, imitate, thank you, and imitate another roofing product, particularly a vintage one, is discouraged by the Secretary of Interior standards for sure. And our local standards philosophies reflect those standards. So we have not had a situation yet where an alternate contemporary material that is trying to look like another material of a different era has been approved. And we haven't really had many applications reflecting that problem. but we have had one and I can't remember the exact address but we have had one that did put a the concept of this I can see why the roof could hold this but we We have had one property that was approved to use an alternate that looked like slate. But the catch to that most often is even if you don't disagree with that philosophy of the idea that it's not appropriate to put a contemporary material pretending to be something else. To get a quality product that really successfully looks like Slate is very difficult and pretty expensive usually. So I think the quick answer to that question is it's discouraged if not, it's not prohibited, but it's strongly discouraged to use a modern product pretending it looks like something else. I would also add if they are going after tax credits and there's no evidence that slate as ever was on the house, then they would not be, since we have evidence there were shingles, we have evidence that it's standing and seeing, and we have evidence that it was some kind of shingle, they're going to go with those three roof forms versus a new roof form that we don't have evidence of. Yeah, that's a very good point. The metal roof, you said you don't want to do a metal on the main house. We haven't discussed that yet. That's one of the three options. Yeah. We haven't decided on that yet. It is, I think everybody knows, pretty characteristic of that 1840s, 50s era for standing seam metal roofs to be used. But in the, and I believe, Madam Chair, you're right about there may not be the quickest available answer. But keep in mind two things. The staff is empowered to issue the permit for the roofing and could do so between board meetings if you all will provide enough feedback on the material. So just think about that. It's a little different now that staff's empowered to, we could, you know, we used to only be able to issue a permit where it was an in-kind replacement. So if a house had asphalt shingle, the staff could issue a permit for an asphalt shingle, but it couldn't issue a permit to put a standing seam metal. But that was amended several years ago, so the staff's empowered to have it be a change of material and still issue it at the staff level. The reason we particularly, of course, this whole process and the owner and applicant genuinely want your feedback about this because it's an important decision and you know that. So I'm just saying that I think there could be a little bit of time to think about options and for the applicant and owner to still be thinking about the options, but I'd still be able to, in a reasonably short amount of time, three to five working days, exercise what that permit should reflect by staff with the research going into it in the interim and your all's considerations. Empowerment for that permit is going to come from the staff. So if I'm, if the board gives this some consideration and we come back to it at the next board meeting and following that next board meeting, there could be something issued by the staff. But even before that next board meeting, actually, if you all were to make a site visit, now we won't go into the weeds about this, but you cannot all convene together at one time because it violates the open records laws and we don't need to take your time going on about that. we'll arrange in conjunction. We already raised this issue and I believe both yourself and the owner are amenable. Mr. Barker, you're nodding yes. Thank you. So we'll work that out. And what I'm saying is perhaps while you're on site and while you're in the interim, you could be thinking about this too. Staff could also do a little more research about what other communities are doing about this idea of using alternate material that's not the real deal, but I'm pretty sure what that research is going to show, but we're always glad to investigate. But I'm saying you could provide us feedback informally, and the staff could, in that instance, almost flip the reality and make the final decision reflective of the comments we've received from you all while you're on site. There is no process violation in that, since the empowerment has been mandated from you to us as staff. And so I'm just saying we could, in this, you know, this is a matter for, you're only needing to weigh in about what your opinion as informed members of this board are tied to the appropriate material. All the details and so forth would be in the permit that's signed off by staff. I would just note, the only time I've known that those late shingles were added, and it was a tax credit project that Scott Walters talked about at the Offutt House at the crossroads of Midway and Old Frankfort Pike. They actually recently changed that back to shingles. Oh, that's not encouraging. But I think Mr. Walters at that time, he discussed it, the tax credit project, that that was allowed. But they had to do a lot of research and a lot of approvals from the Secretary of Two Year's standards for that to occur. But, again, since that meeting, which was like 15 years ago when that meeting happened, and discussed that at a state preservation conference, you know, within the last two years it was replaced with asphalt shingles. Any other comments? Any comments on the skylights? I feel that the skylights would follow the design guidelines because they're on the back of the house. And that occurs very often in our historic districts. So I see no problem whatsoever in that. I agree. I agree. And it does seem very interconnected to any roof replacement that takes place. And I would also feel that a metal standing seam or a dimensional asphalt shingle would be more appropriate. And I feel that with the complexity of the roof plan and the many things, I feel having a single roofing material would help to unify everything. But that's an opinion. So my observation would be that the historic main tall volume of the main historic house is so much less visible, as has both been viewed and noted. is that I'm not, the consistency of the historic and the new that are lower buildings, I think is pretty critical that they be tied together with a uniform roofing. I would pose that the taller volume of the historic house could be, say, standing seam, and the lower ones be dimensional shingles or other. and that that difference not be incongruous. Well, and again, the main house roof is more visible from the rear than it is from the front because of the front porch. So I think if we were dealing with an opposite situation where the main view was the critical one here, I think what has been said about that is fine. I think it would be very helpful if you all came out and looked at it at the site because it's very hard to judge it from drawings. You can't, unless you walk out there on the site, you really can't tell what's going on. It's just too much. It's much more massive and monumental when you get out there. And anything we put on the house is not going to phase that. And we tried to keep it to the back as far back to that every, even the back corners of the brick are still exposed. That's your addition. Yeah. So those roofs are going to be much more low. And if they change material, I don't think it would bother them at all. I just don't know if we're going to put all that in one material all over the whole house. That's an awful lot. Well, I think we're in complete agreement that there's a rich complexity on site and we need to get out there. And so that at the staff's earliest convenience of offering us individual options would be really helpful. and where why don't we get with the owner and Mr. Reinhold and get two or three options of a windows of time we'll circulate it to you all and if you could respond back and just know that it'll be like from two to four or one to three or whatever maybe even for a three hour window and I'm not trying to commit the two of you overly but we do need you windy day right well there is that to it's pretty windy out there we do need you all to come and go and not just be all five of you there because of our open records this year excuse me our open meetings issue so we could keep a little communication and then while it be tempting and it's there's efficiencies if you all came at one time and you know many things could be discussed it's the very thing we're prohibited from doing because it's not on the record and the public isn't able to know and all those things. So we'll very rapidly see what their availabilities are, make it known to you, et cetera, if that's okay with you. That sounds excellent. Could I put one more thinking thing in the hopter about roof? And that is when you talk about a standing seam metal roof, one of the options that needs to be acknowledged is that it might need to be, in terms of finance, a ready-made system. versus a handcrafted in the old school narrow, each run and the crimped edges and so forth, particularly given that you don't see it. And it's not that this process approves anything under the, well, it doesn't have to look that great because you can't see it. Well, that's never a valid way for our process. But there are new systems of these metal roof systems that don't all look like they belong on a barn. And some of them that are meant to go on barns look pretty good on the barns. And there are others that are dreadful visually. So put in your hopper, please, what you think about systems, you know, what's the right word for those? Where it's a baked-on finish, assemble it on site. Baked-on enamel finish. It's a powder-coated Kynar type finish. Powder-coated Kynar finish. I will tell you that they do have some roofing out there that was put on the 1912 covered porch that would probably just match that. So there's an example out there right now. And it doesn't have the interior ribs. It just has the standing seam, the pans with caps on it. So there's no interior ribs in it that look what you think of an old barn roof. It doesn't have that. They're just flat panels with ribs. Right. Well, that certainly is available in manufactured standing seam roof panels these days. Right. And typically our guidelines that we've discussed to serve a standard for standing seam metal roof is to have a rib height no more than an inch and a half depending upon the slope and your panel between the ribs between 16 and 18 inches with no to little ribs between those. No accordion file along the way. But it is amazing. I see some of these out on projects, not even necessarily in a historic district, and I have to slow down and go, now that's getting really good, what's available. So it's something I know you all are thinking about that, and I just wanted to have you all thinking about it too. The other one, if you could just give us a little feedback, is on the lattice brick wall, the one on the east side of the house, the low wall. Do you want to put a picture back up on that, Barry? I mean, I would have to look through the guidelines to make sure that this was supported, but I feel that that is not terribly contributing. It's non-original. It's not original. I, yeah. It's an orange brick. It's not constructed very well. It's not very straight. I have no trouble. In fact, the manufacturer's name is exposed in quite a few. Okay. Okay. Okay. A landscape element like that, like that. I'm not a famous historic. So any final comments or requests? Otherwise I'm heading toward tying this off for tonight. I would like to just make a brief comment about the overall concept of the additions and what you're calling the hyphen attachment. I feel that that is appropriate. I think it's a strong way to connect and to define what is edition and what is original. I would say the, well, on that photograph, the right side, the master bedroom edition reads more strongly because it is very see-through and it's very minimal from front to back. And I think what I would like to see happen with the opposite side, because it is so deep and it is a connector along that whole thing, and it runs adjacent to the historic kitchen edition, that that whole piece needs to read as a piece, as a see-through piece. It needs to be different before it connects to what is added on. And if that allows for more light, if it's pulled in as a clear story to where you have more light coming down into that so that it reads on the inside as being very light and open. if it illuminates the brick of the kitchen, if it allows for air or to light to kind of wrap around into that kitchen space. I think that it needs to read more that way. that would make it a stronger language of this is the separation between the two. So less solid and breathing a little more with light and glass and not as solid in competition with the historic volumes that are so solid. So the volume to the left or on the great room side, it's not just the hyphen? You're thinking that that has to become more transparent on the front? Well, I think it needs to be more. I think it needs to read. I would love to see it read more all the way through from front to back as a clear space between the two. But there's nothing between the front and the back. It's just it's a long distance between the front and the back. Well, I mean, it's a corridor. In the plan, it's a corridor. It's a transition space, and it's a wide hallway. And I think if it can read to where. I think we can do that with skylights to make it accomplish that. But I think also from the back elevation, that was my other comment, that the back elevation has that addition side has just an enormous amount of. See through stuff going on. And it reads wonderfully in plan, and the elevation of it tends to diminish the, specifically the kitchen, the original kitchen building, it clutters that up. And so if there's a way that those lines can maybe not have as many gables coming out, that you have the gable end of the kitchen and you have the gable end of the family space and everything else maybe is a shed roof or something that reads differently, then that would be, that would, and then in the center of that you've got this really strong open spine that goes through there that that becomes that hyphen, kind of an elongated hyphen. Because that small gable was actually the breezeway. The very small gable. Yes, it's a section through the breezeway. And that one's fine. I mean, that's fine. But that you're reading that on top of the stair, the covering of the stairwell and the gable of the screen porch and the higher gable of the, it's, that's, and I know it's a lot of different depths there. But it feels like it needs simplification to. Covering up that kitchen, though, we're going to have a hard time doing that because we need to add the mudroom to the back of the house to enter from the garage. So we may have to pull the other way from the house. I think that that mudroom can still be there, but I think the roofing of that mudroom needs to be different so that it doesn't read as a gable. If I may, that's the same place we talked about adjusting that, trying to adjust that roof. to facilitate the square window opening continuing to exist. And maybe it has a similar language as the old addition on the left that has the two double windows on the first floor. Yeah, keep going left, that part. You know, maybe the roofing that you're reading there is similar over here. But those are the things about it that tend to, my feeling is that it takes away from the historic structure. You know, the space of it and the floor plan doesn't bother me. But that, you know, how it reads this way calls too much attention to that. So I would pose when you look at the roof plan that what I'm going to call that kind of central gusset piece that connects these two volumes, that there's an opportunity for something there that I think could address part of what I'm hearing, whether that's both volume or whether it's materiality or but lightening that up that that that's and when you look at the roof plan everything reads reads really kind of cleanly and then there's that gusset piece that connects it all together and that that that one needs a new seamstress. So since this got brought up, I feel like the elevation is actually really mimicking history. You're doing a Flemish Bond, you're adding the concrete, you have windows that have divided lights, you have shutters. To me, that just reads like you're trying to mimic history, and I don't mind that you have this hyphen and you're trying to do an addition, but to me, I just don't think that it is meeting the guidelines. So it just feels too much like the existing structure. And I think it's trying to mimic history. And what we're trying to do is a new addition to this house that is a 21st century addition. So my suggestion is that given the hour, it's almost 7 o'clock. and that we have provided a lot of thinking already that we may sift through as we go through our days until we actually visit the site. And I think that we may have new insights when we're actually on site. So unless the board has specific comments that they'd like to make, I think that we've given the applicant and the owner a lot to think about, and I think we need more input, and that means a site visit to be able to be of assistance. Well, thank you all very much for taking your time to do this. Is the board amenable to thinking sometime later next week, perhaps? like Wednesday to Friday next week? Is there a conflict? Wednesday is the last day I will be available because of the Rolex event. Wednesday, I haven't gotten to ask the owner and architect, is that a possibility to think about next Wednesday? It's just going to be cold as all get out. Well, we'll get the ball rolling to try for something like that to get us a quick resolution to a good time. Excellent. Thank you very much. Any final comments, board members? Thank you all. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. We're adjourned. Thank you.