# Board of Architectural Review - October 18, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 18, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5937 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5937?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-10-18 - **Last revised**: October 18, 2023 - **Length**: 6,840 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review convened on October 18, 2023, at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220, with Susan Hill presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed nine agenda items during the session, all of which involved architectural review applications for various construction and modification projects throughout the community. The meeting resulted in nine motions and votes, with all proposed projects receiving approval from the board. No public comments were recorded during the proceedings, indicating the session focused primarily on board deliberations and decision-making regarding the submitted architectural applications. ## Attendance **Present:** • Susan Hill **Absent:** • Chair **Late:** • None The meeting proceeded with Susan Hill in attendance, while the Chair was absent from the October 18, 2023 session. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting resulted in nine motions, all of which passed by voice vote. All votes were unanimous with no recorded opposition or abstentions. **Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals:** • **11660353-AA** - Approved certificate of appropriateness for 353 North Limestone with the condition to provide final door and window details and specifications prior to certificate issuance [timestamp: 00:00] • **17310426-L** - Approved certificate of appropriateness for 426 West Sixth Street with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] • **17310467-D** - Approved certificate of appropriateness for 467 West Sixth Street with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] • **18800427-F** - Approved certificate of appropriateness for 427 West Third Street with four conditions, including requirements to provide final window and door details, revise stucco and brick pattern, and meet standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] • **16370121** - Approved certificate of appropriateness for 121 Rosemont Garden with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] • **13020320-J** - Approved certificate of appropriateness for 141 Wabash Drive with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] • **13150353-V** - Approved certificate of appropriateness for 353 South Mill Street with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] • **13150380-BB** - Approved certificate of appropriateness for 380 South Mill Street with conditions to eliminate roof balustrade, submit final roof details, and other specified conditions [timestamp: 00:00] **Staff Authorization:** • Approved mandate to staff for approval of certain construction and site elements, including construction of sheds no greater than 200 square feet, construction of handicap ramps, and refreshing of gravel [timestamp: 00:00] All motions were conducted by voice vote with no individual vote tallies recorded. The names of members making motions and seconds were not documented in the available records. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary contested item that generated significant discussion among board members. **380 South Mill Street: Construct Addition and Deck** The proposal to construct an addition and deck at 380 South Mill Street sparked a heated discussion among the review board. The disagreement centered on specific design elements that raised concerns about historical compatibility and adherence to preservation guidelines. The primary points of contention focused on two architectural features: the roof balustrade design and the window muntin configuration. Board members engaged in detailed deliberations about whether these elements would be appropriate for the historic character of the property and surrounding area. Rather than rejecting the proposal outright, the board worked through the concerns by imposing specific conditions on the approval. These conditions were designed to ensure that the final construction would meet historic preservation standards and maintain compatibility with existing historic guidelines for the area. The discussion demonstrates the board's commitment to balancing property owners' development needs with historic preservation requirements. By establishing clear conditions rather than denying the application, the board provided a path forward that addressed their concerns while allowing the project to proceed with appropriate modifications. The outcome represents a compromise approach typical of historic preservation review processes, where projects are often approved with conditions that address specific design concerns rather than being rejected entirely. ## 353 North Limestone: Construct garage [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a garage at 353 North Limestone. Tom Wilms served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. Staff presented their analysis of the proposed garage construction and recommended approval of the application, subject to specific conditions. The discussion focused on the appropriateness of the proposed structure within the context of the surrounding area and applicable design guidelines. The board ultimately approved the application for the garage construction at 353 North Limestone, accepting the staff's recommendation along with the proposed conditions. ## 426 West Sixth Street: Change opening and enlarge the rear deck [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for a certificate of appropriateness to change an opening and enlarge the rear deck at 426 West Sixth Street. The applicant was not present at the meeting but had previously agreed to the recommendations outlined in the staff report. No speakers addressed the board regarding this application during the public discussion period. The board proceeded to consider the proposal based on the staff analysis and recommendations provided in advance of the meeting. The application involved modifications to an existing rear deck structure, including changes to openings and an enlargement of the deck area. The board approved the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed changes to the rear deck at 426 West Sixth Street. ## 467 West Sixth Street: Demolish garage [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed agenda item 3, an application for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish a garage located at 467 West Sixth Street. The applicant was not present at the meeting, though the board's representative confirmed receipt of the application materials. No detailed presentation was made regarding the proposed demolition, and no specific concerns or objections were raised during the discussion. The board approved the certificate of appropriateness for the garage demolition at 467 West Sixth Street. ## 427 West Third Street: Construct two story elevator addition [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a two-story elevator addition at 427 West Third Street. Darren Taylor served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the board. Staff recommended approval of the proposed elevator addition, subject to four specific conditions that were outlined during the presentation. The discussion focused on the appropriateness of the proposed construction within the context of the existing structure and surrounding area. The board ultimately approved the application for the two-story elevator addition at 427 West Third Street, accepting the staff's recommendation along with the four conditions that were part of the approval. ## 121 Rosemont Garden: Demolish garage, construct shed [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish an existing garage and construct a new shed at 121 Rosemont Garden. Roger Duffy served as the key speaker for this agenda item. Staff presented their recommendation for approval of the proposed project. The application involved removing the current garage structure on the property and replacing it with a new shed. The board approved the certificate of appropriateness for 121 Rosemont Garden, allowing the property owner to proceed with demolishing the garage and constructing the proposed shed as outlined in the application materials. ## 141 Wabash Drive: Change openings and extend driving aisle/parking [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed agenda item 6, an application for a certificate of appropriateness to change openings and extend the driving aisle and parking at 141 Wabash Drive. Lindsey Music presented the application to the board. Staff had reviewed the proposed modifications and recommended approval of the certificate of appropriateness. The application involved alterations to the existing openings at the property as well as extending the driving aisle and parking areas. The specific details of the proposed changes and their impact on the property's appearance and functionality were discussed during the presentation. Following the staff presentation and board discussion, the application was approved. The certificate of appropriateness will allow the property owner to proceed with the proposed changes to the openings and the extension of the driving aisle and parking facilities at 141 Wabash Drive. ## 353 South Mill Street: Construct garage [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed agenda item 7, an application for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a garage at 353 South Mill Street. Kelly Bartley served as the key speaker for this discussion. Staff presented their recommendation to approve the garage construction project with conditions. The application sought permission to build a new garage structure on the property, which required review for compliance with historic district guidelines and appropriateness standards. During the discussion, the board examined the proposed garage design and its compatibility with the existing property and surrounding historic district character. The staff analysis determined that the construction plans met the necessary criteria for approval, though specific conditions were recommended to ensure the project's appropriateness. The board ultimately approved the certificate of appropriateness for the garage construction at 353 South Mill Street, accepting the staff's recommendation to move forward with the project subject to the outlined conditions. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with building the garage according to the reviewed plans and any stipulated requirements. ## 380 South Mill Street: Construct addition and deck [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed agenda item 8, an application for a certificate of appropriateness to construct an addition and deck at 380 South Mill Street. Barron Gibson served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposal to the board. The staff had reviewed the application and provided a recommendation for approval, contingent upon certain conditions being met. The board discussed the merits of the proposed construction project, examining how the addition and deck would impact the property and surrounding area. While the specific details of the discussion are not available in the provided materials, the staff's preliminary review resulted in a favorable recommendation with attached conditions. Following their deliberation, the board approved the certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the addition and deck at 380 South Mill Street. The approval was granted subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. ## Mandate to staff for approval of certain construction and site elements [timestamp: 00:00] The board approved a resolution mandating staff to approve certain construction and site elements without requiring full board review. This streamlined approval process covers specific types of minor construction projects and site improvements. Under the new mandate, staff will have the authority to approve: • Sheds no greater than 200 square feet • Handicap ramps • Refreshing of gravel surfaces The resolution was designed to expedite the approval process for routine construction and maintenance items that do not require extensive board oversight. By delegating approval authority for these specific elements to staff, the board aims to reduce administrative delays while maintaining appropriate oversight for larger or more complex projects. The measure passed without recorded opposition, indicating board consensus on the need for this administrative efficiency measure. The resolution establishes clear parameters for staff approval authority while ensuring that larger construction projects will continue to require full board review and approval. This delegation of authority is expected to speed up routine maintenance and small construction projects, particularly those related to accessibility improvements such as handicap ramps and basic storage structures like small sheds. --- ## Decisions - **11660353-AA** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 353 North Limestone with conditions - **17310426-L** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 426 West Sixth Street with standard conditions - **17310467-D** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 467 West Sixth Street with standard conditions - **18800427-F** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 427 West Third Street with four conditions - **16370121** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 121 Rosemont Garden with standard conditions - **13020320-J** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 141 Wabash Drive with standard conditions - **13150353-V** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 353 South Mill Street with standard conditions - **13150380-BB** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 380 South Mill Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Mandate to staff for approval of certain construction and site elements --- ## Full transcript . The November 18th, 2023 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. I am Susan Hill, I'm the Vice Chair. I'm in acting on behalf of the Chair who's not able to be here today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and now we 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 on the sign in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 21 approved applications noted on today's agenda. The Ellsford Historic District at 331 Ellsford Place to renovate the structure. Number two, 601 East High Street, renovate pickleball tennis courts. Number three, 320 Linden Walk, replace the trees. Number four, 404 East Maxwell Street, renovate structure. Number five, 5 Preston Court, renovate garage as needed. Number six, 335 Oldham, renovate front porch. Number seven, 372 Transylvania Park, rebuild stone wall. And number eight, 127 Woodland Avenue, repair the stucco. In the Bell Court Historic District at 631 East Main Street, renovate the structure. In the Caden Historic District at 731 Caden Lane, construct a fence. In the Northside Historic District at 467 West 2nd Street, remove declining trees. At 426 West 6th Street, renovate structure. At 467 West 6th Street, replaced fence. At 427 West 3rd Street, renovate structure. In the Pensacola Park Historic District, at 141 Wabash Drive, renovate structure. In the Seven Parks Historic District, at 317 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. At 527 and 529 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. At 106 Dantzler Court, re-screen the side porch. In the South Ashland Historic District, at 225 South Ashland, replace tree. The South Hill Historic District at 339 South Mill Street, replace rear steps. At 401 South Upper Street, re-roof the structure. Now we shall proceed with the review of applications for our certificate of appropriateness. The first application is at 353 North Limestone. Is the owner in attendance? Would you like to come to the mic and give your name and your address, please? My name is Tom Wilms, Wilms Architects at 512 East Main Street. Thank you. And Lori Adkins, the owner, she works out of town, and she can't change her schedule. They're scheduled way ahead. She wishes she could be here. Thank you. Well, in reading the findings and the recommendation, the staff does recommend approval of the proposal with three conditions. Have you read those conditions? I've read the conditions, and I agree to those conditions. Okay. Are there any questions by board members? Are there any questions from the audience? If not, I will take a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 11660353-AA A, at 353 North Limestone, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, provide final door and window details and specifications prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. And the two standard conditions, which I will read into the record. 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. And the last condition once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Your certificate for appropriateness has been approved. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. The next application is at 426 West 6th Street. Is the applicant in attendance? The applicant is not able to attend today, but is agreeable to their staff report. Thank you. Are there any questions by the board? Any questions in the audience? Then I'll entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 17310426-L at 426 West 6th Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you. All those approved say aye. Aye. Aye and opposed. The motion has passed and the COA will be issued. The next case is at 467 West 6th Street. Is the applicant- Ms. Hill, the applicant is not present, but their representative has received their application. Thank you. Yes. Are there any questions from the board members? Any questions from the audience? If not, I will entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 17310467-D, D at 467 West 6th Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Do I hear a second? Sorry, I'm. That was, which one? This one. It's the attachment three. I'm taking them in order of the attachment. Yes, so moved. Sorry. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed, the motion passes and the COA will be issued. Sorry. And now for the next case, attachment four. At 427 West 3rd Street is the applicant present. Good afternoon. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. Thank you. Yes. So the staff has recommended approval with three conditions, and I understand actually that there are four conditions. Have you received and read those four conditions? Yes, I have. Yes. And are they acceptable? Yes, ma'am. Are there any questions from the staff, from the board? Are there any questions from the audience? If not, I'll entertain a motion. All right, Chair, in regards to case number 188-0427-F at 427 West 3rd Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with four conditions. One is that provide final window and door details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Two, revise the matching stucco and brick pattern to differentiate the elevator addition from the historic design and resubmit to staff for review and approval, and conditions three and four, which are the standard two conditions. Second. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, the motion passes and the COA will be issued. Thank you all as always. Appreciate it. Thank you. The next application is at 121 Rosemont Garden. Is the applicant present? I'll give you a microphone. Roger Guffey, I'm chairman of the property committee at Hunter Bregetarian Church. And we own the building next to it. And your address? Oh, the church address is 109 Rosemont Garden. Do you need my address personally? I think no. Okay. Thank you. That's fine. So the building is really falling apart very badly, and we look to try to get replaced. So we'll kind of start with recommendations. Sure. The staff has reviewed and recommended approval of your application. Thank you. And unless there are any questions from the board or any questions from the audience. If not, then we will entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 16370121 at 121 Rosemont Garden, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All those in favor, whoops, a second please. Second, thank you. Those in favor? Aye. Those opposed, the motion passes and your COA will be issued. Thank you. Thank you so very much. You're the best. The next application is at 141 Wabash Drive. Is the applicant present? Yes, I'm here, Lindsay Music. And your address? It's 141 Wabash. Thank you. So the staff has recommended approval of your project, of your COA with the standard two conditions. Do you have any questions on those? No. Does the board have any questions? Are there any questions from the audience? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 13020320-J at 141 Wabash Drive, 141 Wabash Drive, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? The motion is passed and your COA will be issued. Thank you very much. Thanks, appreciate it. The next application is at 353 South Mill Street. Is the applicant present? Good afternoon, my name's Kelly Bartley, I'm the applicant and the homeowner. I live at 353 South Mill Street. Thank you. Have you had a chance to read the staff findings? I have, yes, and the two conditions are acceptable. Excellent. So are there any questions from the board? Are there any questions from the audience? If not, I will entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 13150353-V at 353 South Mill Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The application is approved as submitted and noted, and your COA will be issued. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. The next case is at 380 South Mill Street. Is the applicant present? Hello, yes, Baron Gibson. Address? 304 Shinoway Road. Thank you. So the staff, I believe this is our third meeting on the project. Yes. So we're all very familiar and deeply interested. Have you had an opportunity to read through the staff findings and their recommendations? We have. All of them are agreeable. except for one and two, we would like to, not that we don't agree fundamentally with the thought process on the reasoning of those recommendations, we would just like to discuss one and two, which are the mutton bars and the balustrade. So I'm assuming we need to proceed with a modified presentation? Yes, the word modified is perfect. And we could, if you will, you can just perch for a second, please. And Amelia, if you could just focus on those two portions, that being the roof railing and the muttons in the openings. Okay. We will look at some images as we go through to find the plans regarding that particular situation. As you can see, most of these windows are two over two windows. They're long, narrow windows that have two over two. And then the 1944 section, there's also two over two windows. So I go through this. So the proposal calls for recording style doors with transom above that will have divided lights in the transom, making two transoms over each accordion door. And let me go back here for a second. I'll pull that out. So then the accordion cell doors will have two over two with the big astral in between. and then there will be a railing system above and you can of course see these a little bit clearer in your plans above on the roof system of this proposal. And let's see if I think you can sort of see the overhead plans that show the railing system around there. And here's a good detail of both the railing system and the window. And of course now there's a new bank of windows faces the 1944 edition. So guidelines are included for your reference. I'll start with the findings. Specifically, of course, the applicants and owners have responded to the plans and discussion made at the September 23rd meeting date. I'll accept these particular details. And. As noted in the background information, the proposed new building will largely occupy the footprint of the existing concrete with the brick paver patio. It will abut with the main mass of the historic school by enveloping the historic masonry exterior walls that include the three historic windows and their significant architectural design features. In order for the proposal addition to be considered, it is vital that the integrity of the buildings remain in situ, intact, be able to be experienced. Staff finds a proposed three-foot glass connector wall on both the west and east side of the proposed addition, allowing for the historic masonry exterior wall of the historic school to be read. It's within the guidelines for weaning additions, as noted in the paragraph above. The recent plans call for the addition's east wall to be moved approximately eight feet away to the west from the handsome foundation details, including the basement window arches and main floor of the existing 1944 historic wing. It is important to allow the handsome 1944 addition to be experienced as part of the evolution of the historic structure. The guidelines concerning addition and wings state in 3B3, additions B and C, state addition should be secondary, smaller and simpler to the original building in scale, design and placement. It should be compatible design in keeping with original buildings, design, roof, shape, and material color and location of window, door and cornice height. Staff finds this within the guidelines that is discussed and part of the recommendation at the last meeting. In addition, the east wall has a bank of new windows proposed, providing more transparency and giving this wall a face more on par with the balance of the project and the context of the historic structure. In addition, the proposed windows, door patterns, and transoms on all elevations need to be single, light, and have no muttons. The opening treatment design proposed is too busy and mimics the design concepts reflect in the historic window openings of Dudley School. hence it is not within the guidelines. Staff finds the design details of the proposed addition need to be simplified so as to not to be imitative of earlier styles, as found in Guidelines 2A4D, which states that should not imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period. Guidelines 2B6K, state details, including which are not limited to corner boards, rake boards, cornices, brackets, Hits, downspouts, railing, columns, steps, doors, window moldings, decorative elements, architectural details may be appropriate when they are given the building on which they are placed a good sense of belonging on the street and within the district. Details should be appropriately scaled for the proposed structure and compatible with other adjacent buildings in the district. Installation of ornament or details that give a building an imitation historic appearance is not allowed. Staff finds the proposed roof, balustrade, and railing on all three sides of the plan needs to be removed from the design as there will be no railing rising above the roof as the railing creates a false sense of history as noted in guidelines 2B6K stated above. And if railing needs to be provided for mechanical systems situated on the particular part of the roof, those details should be returned to staff in review. And also a note, along with that, in addition, care needs to be taken for the design of the stone pattern design details proposed to be alongside the base of east elevation design and constructed not to mimic the design as rhythm of the historic sound, the foundation walls of historic structure. This in accordance with guidelines noted as the paragraph above that covers all immutative history details. And, of course, as recommendations that the roof valestation be eliminated altogether for final roof details to be submitted to staff and or BOAR prior to the issuance of the COA. And, two, the transom and door windows being removed to result in a more contemporary design with the final details to be submitted to staff and or BOAR prior to the issuance of the COA. And, of course, as the guidelines noted above. I wouldn't name number four because I did read that one. The stone foundations along the east side have a different stone pattern than the other stone foundations, with details to be provided to staff and board prior to additions to the COA. Any other further questions? A couple of quick clarifications. Amelia, you unintentionally misspoke, and now I've moved my paper and lost my place. But on the finding about the windows, you left the word mutton out of and said window should be removed. So door mutton. I just want to note that so when the minutes are done, that can be clarified. Okay. Secondly, I was just going to note that the balance of the recommendations, the board is well aware, but for the applicant and others attending, that Amelia did not read as part of the formal presentation, which of course was trunked, trunkified, is that a word? Trunkified? I don't think that's a word. It was shortened. In reflecting that it's just the two concepts that are being focused on during this discussion, I would just note for the record that all of the recommendations as drafted within the staff report to the board continue to be the staff's recommendations. Are there questions or comments from the board members? Sarah, do you have any questions or comments? I don't think so. Okay. All right. Okay. I just want to say thank you for everyone's time in hearing this case. We appreciate all the feedback. and I'll start by saying that fundamentally we agree with the ethos of adding on to the historic building and striking a new line and that's fully our intent. I'm gonna jump to one of the slides before I get started. So, as Amelia said, our current design, I'll see if I can make the laser work. Oh, well. Our current design features large elongated two over two button bars. The existing windows are arch topped two over two sashes, both top and bottom, making it appear as a two over eight type window. So there's actually eight panes in those windows. We did add the full lighted glass that separates this building where it connects to the building. You can see that at this moment here. And on the other side, you can see that in here. Again we all agree that we should follow the guidance from the Department of Interior when adding new additions to the historic buildings. The Department of Interior website states there is no formula or prescription for designing a compatible new addition. A new addition to a historic building that meets the standards can be any architectural style, traditionalist, contemporary, or simplified version of the historic building. However, there must be a balance between the differentiation and compatibility in order to maintain the historic character and the very identity of the building being enlarged. It goes on to say that to preserve a property's historic character, a new addition must visually be distinguishable from the historic building. I do not believe that this proposed design creates a false sense of history. I believe that this proposed design strikes a new line while drawing inspiration from the existing building and engaging with it. The addition that was added in 2010 also has grids in it. So this isn't the best picture, but you can see this was approved, and that's a precedent for the mutton bars. We are talking about very large panes when it comes to the bi-folding units. So visually it will appear mostly as glass, and our mutton profiles are 5.8. contemporary style. I've previously brought the board to show that. Just continuing on to the balustrade, we feel the same principles apply when looking at the Department of Interior recommendation as it does to the balustrade, that there's no one formula that sets how things should be done. There is a functional use. Obviously, architecturally, I think we feel it is a flat roof. We feel that the balustrade crowns the top and encapsulates that roof and is a good terminus, a nice terminus visually. But functionally, there will be, with this being a restaurant, there will be plumbing that's going inside this room. There's going to be plumbing stacks that are going to come up through that roof. We think that although standing underneath it there would be no way to see that with the overhang of the roof, but from a distance we feel that that balustrade provides a visual break from any possibility of being able to see anything like that on the roof as well. So that's our thought process on that and And that's how we feel architecturally about it. So when you were reading the Department of Interiors, that quote that you read from there, it said simplified historic design. And I don't think what you're doing here is a simplified historic design. I do feel that putting that button in the middle of that window is very imitative of those original windows that are in the building. I can't speak for when that 2010 edition was approved or any of that or why that happened then. but I think for now that it is going a little bit too far and imitating the original building. Sure. And as for the balustrade, again, I don't think it's a simplified historic design. It's very ornate. I get your idea of wanting to hide some of those vents and stuff up there, but for me it is still imitative of other historic design for this project. Sure. Well, I guess one question in regards to that. Is there a situation where muttons would be appropriate, or is that to say that muttons are never appropriate in a historic addition? I would never say never, but I don't think it is appropriate in this, especially when it is very much responding to that existing building. Sure. And you are copying kind of that pattern. Not exactly, but enough in my opinion. I agree that the roof balustrade has too much of a historic pattern to it. I also am a bit concerned about having just that much more height underneath those trees. You have illustrated very well that it falls below the tree limbs, the large tree limbs. But just in the process of constructing that, anything that is getting closer and closer, I have some concern about. So I do agree that the balustrade should be eliminated. On the muttons, on the windows, I feel that they are a simplified version of the pattern. I feel that the shape and pattern of the openings differentiates enough from the historic structure so that it doesn't imitate that. So I do not feel that the muttons need to be removed. On the roof balustrade, my concern is twofold. One is that it seems more historic than the more contemporary design that you've developed. I do note in staff's findings that they have stated that if any railing needs to be provided for mechanical systems as the drawings are further developed and you understand the penetrations in that roof. And where they're situated in a particular part of the roof, that those details should be returned to the staff for conversation. Sure. That seems an appropriate way for that to be handled. And I am concerned about anything that continues to have some potential impact on the remaining tree that is under this. In terms of the muttons, I agree that they're responding to the historic building. I also find their scale really changes my perception of them. And so I do not, given the scale of what they're in, And I don't find them replicating exactly what's going on in the historic building. Any further comments? Yeah. So I do have two items that, and it has to do with my continued concern about the trees. And I really appreciate your all's concerns also, and your continued willingness to explore how we can best protect those two trees. So on number six, the language that I would like to add, and it is directly related to comments that are part of the record from our last meeting from Heather Wilson, the city arborist, that to add under number six, no pruning of any limbs six inches in diameter or greater. Good. Equipment digging is critical to remain outside the root zone, which is the tree's diameter times three, which is 12 feet beyond the trunk of the tree. I understand there is conversation about doing hand digging along that foundation that's closest to the tree, which would take care of this. But in terms of the record, I'd like it to state specifically number six to include the equipment digging is critical to remain outside the root zone per the city's arborist. We'd be good with that. At three times the tree diameter. And so that's number six, and you're comfortable with that? Yeah, we'd be good with that. Okay, and then I would like to add one more, just so it's part of the record, even though there's been continued discussion about it. So this would become number eight, and then the current number eight, nine, and ten would just move down to nine, ten, and eleven. So the new number eight would be due to the unusual close proximity of these old and healthy trees, the architect and LFUCG departments are to make site visits with reports on the control and placement of construction work to ensure that the construction team performs within expectations. And to ensure that these trees remain unharmed by the construction process. Yep, we'd be good with that as well. So those are really my only two additional comments. Are there any more comments from the board? Are there any comments or questions from the audience? Is anyone ready to propose a motion? Sure. I will try my best to repeat what you stated. All right. Before we start your motion, would you mind? I have a look for the button for the mic is why I keep sort of, they've installed the screen permanently. It doesn't move. So it's added to my logistics. Quick question tied to your item eight that you added. Is that written out? Might the staff take that from you? Yes, staff has received that. Okay. I did. So we have it verbatim. That's right. Excellent. And I did make a copy so it could be read into the record verbatim too. Yes, that's very important. And so it means too that you'll be able to just reference that whoever makes the motion. That to refer as please to see the typewritten number eight. And that'll keep it all clean. Is it possible for us to make a condition that requests LFUCG departments to make site visits? Well, we already do that on all the board. Do we need to specify that this site visit, I'm assuming, is for the arborist? Certainly, there's nothing, no harm, and you're including that language in your motion. Fine with that. Quite frankly, we would do that, request the arborist with us, with historic preservation staff. Okay. Probably set some times to be over there at the same time rhythmically through this. But I think it's important to put this formalized on this one and would encourage you to do so. At the beginning of this, before we start, does the applicant have any further questions or comments? Quickly, again, I appreciate everyone's time, and thankfully I think we'll be out of here a little sooner than the last hearing. And fundamentally, I think we're all on the same page. And with the balustrade, our attempt was on a flat roof just to provide some type of depth on what flat roofs tend to be pretty simple. And like Barron noted, any vent stack or any penetration that will come through with the full set of CDs, which I know will be reviewed with the staff upon that time, just to give some break in it. But that obviously, for the grand scale of the project, that's not a hill we want to die on necessarily. It was just we thought it was aesthetically appealing. And on the mutton bars, with them being such different dimensions than the existing panes, I think they're three times to four times in size. I believe they do strike a new line. But both those, like I said, on the grand scope of the project, those are both minor items that we would prefer just aesthetically. But fundamentally and operationally, we want to work with everyone and reach an agreement. So that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Chair, in regards to case number 13150380-BB at 380 South Mill Street. I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Condition number one is that the roof balustrade be eliminated altogether, with final roof details to be submitted to staff and or bore prior to the issuance of the COA. That condition number two, that the transoms and dormant be removed to result in a more contemporary design, with final details be submitted to the staff and board prior to issuance of COA is removed from these recommendations. Provided that they are of a more contemporary design on the building. Three, and this plays to that too, is that all door and window details be submitted to staff and final all door and window details be provided to staff or the board prior to the issuance of COA. Four, that the stone foundation along the east side have a different stone pattern than the other stone foundations, with details to be provided to the staff and or board prior to the issuance of COA. Five, if one or both of the decks are approved, then adjustable grate or ring be created to allow for a long term tree growth of final details to come back to staff and board prior to the issuance of the COA. Six, if one or more of the decks are approved by the board, the recommendation submitted in the letter from Town Branch Tree Experts, August 30th, 2023, as attached here to and incorporated here in, shall be used and carried out by the applicants to protect the historic trees greater than 10 inches in caliper. Such measurements shall include, but are not limited to, installing mulch for the staging area, hand digging the pier system, and using the air knives as needed. Any pruning shall be done in accordance with ISA Arbor standards and long term maintenance and and trimming also done in accordance with ISA Arbor standards in consultation as well. No pruning of any limbs six inches diameter or greater shall be done and equipment digging is critical to remain outside the root zone per city arborist equals three times tree diameter, three times 48 inches equals 12 feet. Seven, the removal of the sidewalk be accomplished by hand, no machinery with care not to hurt the critical root system of the trees. Eight, due to the unusual proximity of these old and healthy trees, the architects and LFUCG departments, including the arborist, are to visit the site with reports on the control and placement of construction work. To ensure that the construction team performs within expectations and to ensure that these trees remain unharmed by the construction process. And that is per a written email sent to the staff by the board. Then nine and ten are the standard two conditions. Second. May I ask for clarification? We have a motion and we have a second, so I think this is time for a clarification. My clarification just has to do with number two. Has that been removed? Yes, yes, I was removing it. subject that those details truly are more modern because you have deemed a more modern. That's what I was trying to say. Okay. That that is being removed as a part of that. But that those final details. Condition number two is not a condition. Right. In the move. We do not require the muttons to be removed. Okay. But that those details still go back to the board for final approval or back to the staff for final approval for condition number three. Thank you for that clarification. Is that clear? That makes sense. Thank you. Okay. Are we ready for- Also, if the staff could ask one question? Yes, please. This is similar to wordsmithing before. And I know the intent, but if you would please confirm. This is the added on wordage to item six about the no equipment digging outside of the root zone. And it was verbalized as outside the tree, about the diameter of the tree. But what was meant to be said, if Sarah concurs, was outside the diameter of the trunk at the three times 48. Yes, I concur. Thank you. Yeah, and it is that any equipment digging is to remain outside of that root corrupt zone. And we, of course, with the archive tape, as you're well aware, have the ability to play back and listen to partial sentences, portions of sentences and so forth for those things. But sometimes I feel better just while everybody's sitting with us, you all able to agree or disagree that my interpretation of what I've heard and your intents are synonymous with what you intend. Thank you. Are we ready for a vote? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Those opposed? There are none, so the COA as conditioned has been approved. Staff has one more clarification to ask. All of the options in each of the entries say come back to the staff and or the board. And I think you're well aware that usually, unless the board articulates that they want it to come back to the staff, some particular aspect or all of it or anything in between, then the staff does all the everything comes back to the staff with the knowledge, both from the staff's perspective and your all's as a board, that if there's some problem, that it will come back to the board. That being not the whole application, probably, on any, this is about any case, not just yours. So I just wanted to be sure that, again, this is a complicated list, that that is your intent as well, that the staff handle these matters unless there's some issue, and then we would bring that issue back to the board. Agreed. Agreed. Thank you. And specifically a design issue. Yes. We agree. So to the applicant, I think the redesign of the decks, as it turns out, there are now two of them. Right. I think has much improved the project and certainly provided the health and safety for those wonderful trees that the project's being built around. To lose them would be a huge loss for you all as well as the rest of us. So thank you for your patience. Thank you, and we appreciate everybody's feedback in getting us here, so we appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you very much. Did you all, I was stuck at a meeting. Did you all do this yet? No. Thank you. No, we have not. What you have in front of you, as you are aware, This is the short half page. Yes. As you are aware, occasionally, periodically, but occasionally, the staff makes some recommendation. As the process continues on, we start to see sort of some patterns of some things that we think might be something that could be considered by the board to be added to those items that you have in the past mandated to the staff for their having the empowerment as staff to review and issue the certificates of appropriateness on. As you know, that list has grown over the years and now encompasses many, many of the things to do with renovation of existing conditions and roofing and backyard fences and all sorts of things. And so what's before you today is the three things that we would like to recommend to you as staff are enumerated, as you see, under new construction, to add to this list that you would be empowering the staff to handle these. Again, with the caveat that if the staff at any time can't, does have empowerment to handle them, but there's some issue, they would be pulled out and sent to you as a full board. But the three items for your consideration are under, two are under new construction, the construction of sheds no greater than 200 square feet, the construction of handicap ramps, and the refreshing of gravel. be added to the items that the staff would be empowered to act on your all's behalf on barring any unusual or whatever problems, and in that case you'd see them before you? So I do have one question on that. If an applicant, for whatever reason, prefers to have it brought before the board, then that request can be made and it will. And I'm thinking primarily of the handicap ramps, probably more than any. I know that has been evolving over the years, and in some properties that can be a really tricky one. Handicap ramps can be very tricky, however, very important and obviously absolutely needed. Absolutely. And one of the things that why we're requesting this be something that mandates to the staff as a baseline is sometimes these are needed in a pretty quick fashion. You know, somebody has some kind of situation that they're doing just fine and all of a sudden have a need and can't get, if they've had to go to the hospital for a week, it becomes very important for them to get back home and then get to doctor's visits after that and that sort of thing. So the thought is that this would position the staff to handle these. If there's plenty of time where somebody's just sort of planning for aging at home, but no particular issue at the moment, and so forth and so on, certainly it would be if they would prefer it to come to the board or if the staff, if it's something that's going to have a real impact on either that individual historic structure or structure on the site or the site itself or the streetscape, which is a big part of this, it may be that the staff feels that due to people's other neighbors' interests, that the right way for that to be handled would be go ahead and have it be advertised and come to you as a board. The last thing I'd say on that, well, I guess two connected thoughts. One is the staff is not empowered to deny anything. So if we can't approve it appropriately within the staff's perception of the interpretation of the guidelines, then it will come automatically to you all as a board. And then the second thing is to be assured that in addition to honoring the guidelines and their intent, And the staff's intent is always, particularly with something like a handicap ramp, which will ebb and flow in terms of the need for it to be on that property, that time will pass and there may not continue to always be a need for this to be the case, is that we take an approach of do no harm as far as the installation method and that sort of thing. But the need for handicap ramps is very, very important. And we're trying to hit a happy medium where we can respond to people's needs as appropriately as is necessary and still honor everything the process intends. Are there any questions on that? So do we just, we need a motion please. Chair, I make the motion that the following items be added to the list that are able to be reviewed and permits issued by staff in new construction the construction of sheds no greater than 200 square feet the construction of handicap ramps in site elements, the refreshing of gravel. It is understood that any applications that staff cannot issue a permit on will be heard by the Board of Architectural Review. Second. Any discussion? Those in favor? Aye. Aye. Those opposed? There are none. So the motion. Thank you. Happy never to hear another case of breath. So are there any issues, or do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.