# Board of Architectural Review - January 17, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 17, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6016 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6016?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-01-17 - **Last revised**: January 17, 2024 - **Length**: 10,567 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 January 17, 2024, at 101 East Lime Street, Room 220. The board reviewed five agenda items involving various residential and commercial property modifications throughout the jurisdiction. During the meeting, the board conducted six motions and votes on the proposed projects, with no public comments recorded during the proceedings. The board approved four of the five projects presented, including residential additions, demolitions, signage installation, and solar panel installation. One agenda item at 291 South Ashland Avenue received mixed results, with portions of the proposal approved while other elements were postponed for further consideration. All approved projects involved modifications to existing structures, ranging from garage demolitions to dormer enlargements and the installation of renewable energy systems. ## Attendance **Present:** • Paul Lee • John Book • Chris Beneset • John Shepherd • Jill Rappaport • Eli Crane **Absent:** • Emily **Late:** • None Six members were present for the January 17, 2024 meeting, with one member absent. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included six motions related to Certificates of Appropriateness for various properties. All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call. **361 Linden Walk** [timestamp: 00:00] The Chair moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 361 Linden Walk with conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. The approval included the condition that the applicant must submit final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval. **157 West Bell Court** [timestamp: 00:00] The Chair moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 157 West Bell Court with standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. The approval was subject to the standard two conditions. **2986 Cadentown Road** [timestamp: 00:00] The Chair moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 2986 Cadentown Road with standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. The approval was subject to the standard two conditions. **154 Wabash Drive** [timestamp: 00:00] The Chair moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for 154 Wabash Drive with standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote. The approval was subject to the standard two conditions. **291 South Ashland Avenue - Postponement** [timestamp: 00:00] A motion was made to postpone the review of demolition of rear porch, removal of tree, and new window at 291 South Ashland Avenue. The postponement passed by voice vote, with the item rescheduled to December 19, 2024. **291 South Ashland Avenue - Dormer and Door** [timestamp: 00:00] A separate motion was made to approve the dormer and man door at 291 South Ashland Avenue. This motion passed by voice vote with no conditions attached. All motions that were voted upon passed unanimously, though specific vote counts were not recorded for the voice votes. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated heated discussion among board members. **Demolition of rear porch and removal of tree at 291 South Ashland Avenue** The board engaged in extensive debate regarding a proposal to demolish a rear porch and remove a sycamore tree at 291 South Ashland Avenue. The disagreement centered on the historic significance of both the architectural feature and the mature tree on the property. Board members were divided on whether the porch held sufficient historical value to warrant preservation, with some arguing for its architectural merit while others questioned its contribution to the property's overall historic character. The sycamore tree removal also sparked controversy, as members debated the balance between property owner rights and environmental preservation considerations. The discussion became particularly heated as board members presented conflicting assessments of the porch's historical importance and the necessity of the tree removal. Rather than proceeding with an immediate vote that might have resulted in a contentious decision, the board ultimately chose to postpone the demolition request. The outcome was a decision to delay action on the demolition proposal to allow for additional study and evaluation of both the porch's historic significance and alternatives to tree removal. This postponement will provide time for further research and potentially allow for compromise solutions that could address the property owner's needs while preserving historically or environmentally significant elements of the site. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item discussion.* ## 361 Linden Walk: Demolish addition, construct addition [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for 361 Linden Walk to demolish an existing addition and construct a new addition in its place. Paul Lee presented the proposal to the board during the discussion. The application involved removing the current addition structure and replacing it with a new addition to the property. Following the presentation and board discussion, the application received approval with conditions. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting materials, but the board determined that the proposed demolition and construction project could move forward subject to these requirements. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with demolishing the existing addition and constructing the new addition as proposed, contingent upon meeting the conditions set forth by the board. ## 157 West Bell Court: Demolish garage [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application to demolish a garage at 157 West Bell Court. John Book presented the item for consideration. The application requested permission to demolish an existing garage structure on the property. The discussion focused on the proposed demolition and whether it met the necessary requirements and standards. Following the presentation and review, the board approved the demolition application with standard conditions. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this item. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the garage demolition in accordance with applicable regulations and any conditions specified by the board. ## 2986 Cadentown Road: Install signage [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for signage installation at 2986 Cadentown Road during agenda item 3. Chris Beneset served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the signage application to the board for consideration. The discussion centered on a request to install signage at the Cadentown Road location. While specific details about the proposed signage design, dimensions, or purpose were not detailed in the available materials, the application underwent standard review procedures. Following the presentation and discussion, the board moved to approve the signage application. The approval came with standard conditions, which typically include compliance with local signage ordinances, proper permitting requirements, and adherence to established design guidelines for the area. The application was ultimately approved, allowing the property owner to proceed with the signage installation at 2986 Cadentown Road, subject to meeting the standard conditions set forth by the board. ## 154 Wabash Drive: Install solar panels [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed an application for the installation of solar panels at 154 Wabash Drive during agenda item 4. The discussion focused on a residential solar panel installation project that required municipal approval. The application was presented as a standard solar panel installation request. Based on the available information, the proposal appeared to meet typical requirements for residential solar installations in the jurisdiction. The board conducted their review of the application materials and determined that the proposed solar panel installation complied with applicable regulations and standards. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this agenda item. Following their review, the board approved the application for solar panel installation at 154 Wabash Drive. The approval was granted with standard conditions that typically accompany such installations, which may include compliance with building codes, electrical safety requirements, and any relevant zoning or aesthetic guidelines. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the solar panel installation project at the Wabash Drive location, subject to meeting the standard conditions attached to the approval. ## 291 South Ashland Avenue: Enlarge dormer, demolish and construct porch; change openings in a garage [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed an application for 291 South Ashland Avenue involving multiple modifications to the property, including enlarging a dormer, demolishing and constructing a porch, and changing openings in a garage. Key speakers during the discussion included John Shepherd and Jill Rappaport, who presented details about the proposed alterations to the property. The commission reached a split decision on the various components of the application. The proposal to enlarge the dormer received approval, as did the installation of a man door. However, other aspects of the project were not immediately approved. The remaining elements of the application, which included the porch demolition and construction work as well as additional garage opening modifications, were postponed for further study. This suggests the commission required additional time to review these particular aspects of the proposal, possibly due to concerns about their impact on the property's historic character or compliance with preservation guidelines. The partial approval allows the property owner to proceed with the dormer enlargement and man door installation while the commission continues to evaluate the other proposed changes. This approach enables some progress on the project while ensuring thorough review of the more complex or potentially problematic elements. The postponement indicates the commission's commitment to careful consideration of all proposed alterations, particularly those that may significantly impact the property's appearance or historical integrity. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 361 Linden Walk with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 157 West Bell Court with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 2986 Cadentown Road with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 154 Wabash Drive with standard conditions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postpone review of demolition of rear porch, removal of tree, and new window at 291 South Ashland Avenue - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of dormer and man door at 291 South Ashland Avenue --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon. I would like to welcome you to the January 17 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. I apologize for being out of breath. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district with Scrantz 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 and the office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to Consider applications in order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, thereby eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 13 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In the Ellsworth Historic District at 357 Transylvania Park, renovate shed. At 319 Linden Walk, replace deteriorated columns. In the Belcourt Historic District at 633 Sayre Avenue, remove deteriorated trees. In the Constitution Historic District at 135 Constitution Street, replace doors. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 461 North Limestone, renew the COA to construct garage and to remove trees. In the Pensacola Park Historic District at 167 Goodbridge Avenue, replace the concrete stoops and steps. In the 7 Park Historic District at 328 Arcadia Park, replace sidewalks and walkways. at 307 Barbary Lane, replace a tree, and at 323 Barbary Lane, replace fence. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, at 255 South Ashland, remove dead tree. In the South Hill Historic District, at 371 on South Upper Street, install shed. And finally, in the Woodward Heights Historic District, at 706 West Maxwell Street, renovate structure. We'll now turn to our first application at 361 Walden Walk, or Linden Walk, in the Ellsford Historic District. Scope of work is demolished addition and constructed addition. Is the applicant here? State your name for the record, please. I am Paul Lee with Studio A. Mr. Lee, how are you today? Doing wonderful. How about that? I'm doing well. It's a little warm in here today. all right we're looking at i think the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what i would call yeah one substantive suggestion that we submit the final doors and when the details and specifications the staff are reviewing approval prior to the entrance of the coa are you in agreement with that yes sir the other two are what we call the standard conditions let me read them into the record once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work agreement and lastly if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit those changes to the staff for review and approval prior to start of work yes okay do i have any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience i believe we're ready for a motion Chair, in regards to case number 11720361-A at 361 Linden Walk, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following recommendations. One, submit final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA, and the other two are standard two conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Any comment or discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. The motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Turning now to... Yes. They're in hot tonight right now. Turning next to 157 West Belcourt in the Belcourt Historic District. Scope of work is to Modell's Garage. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. State your name for the record, please. John Book. Okay, Mr. Book, the staff has recommended approval of the application subject to the standard two conditions, which I just previously read into the record. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. All right. Are there any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 01540157-G at 157 West Bell Court. The motion is for approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Mr. Book, thank you so much. Thank you. Next application is at 2986 Cadentown Road. Scope of work is to install signage. Good afternoon. State your name for the record please. Chris Benazette. All right. Staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what I've been referring to as the standard two conditions. which i just previously read into the record are we in agreement with those uh yes all right do i have any questions or comments about this application okay any questions or comments from the audience hearing none i believe we are ready for a motion Chair, in regards to case number 4373-298 at 298 Cadentown Road, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and your COA is approved as a condition. Thank you. Thank you so much. Turning now to 154 Wabash Drive in the Pensacola Park Historic District. Scope of work is install solar panels. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present, but I did speak with her today, and she is agreeable with the findings. Okay. I will note we have a couple of letters that relate to this application that are favorable to its approval. one is from Rebecca Claire Glasscock I think and the other letter which I can't put my hand on hang on well what did I do with it yes thank you it's not favorable this is an email from Mary Parker in which she is objecting to I agree now remember now she's objecting to the application based on environmental issues which are outside the scope of our approval is that person here i believe we can move forward with this application in light of the fact the applicant has been in touch with the staff today noting that their agreement agreement with the findings right and we have we have entered these letters into the record yes and um i think amelia is there a third letter on that the one you said i have a handwritten note and a email anything else there's an additional email yes and you should receive that that was from a couple that live right next door that was sent to you today and that was sent to you really last night or this morning okay what i have is mary parker yes right and there was another email sent at the same time the sandborn maps were sent it was within the body of an email yeah we got it today and wait i can call that and it was favorable all right so anyway they're in the record all right so do i have a motion to uh for approval of this application chair per case number 197-501-54 at 154 Wabash Drive. I move that this certificate of appropriateness be approved with the standard two conditions. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. All right, so we're coming to 291 South Ashland Avenue. Is the applicant here? All right, so please step. Whoever is, who is ever going to make, come on up. All right. I'm John Shepard, Crawford Builders. All right, Mr. Shepard, the staff has recommended disapproval of some aspects of your application and has recommended approval of other aspects. I think what we probably need to do, I'm assuming you'd like to be heard on this. I assume that we would like to be heard. We'd like to be approved if we could. I think, go ahead. We'd like to be approved if we could. Well, we'll see what we can do. okay our normal let me explain to your procedure our normal procedure is to have the staff do a presentation of their findings then you can make any comments that you like with regard to those findings as to why uh you disagree with them or agree with them and then normally we have audience participation but there's no one left here so we'll start with miss armstrong and then we'll pick up with you and you can have a seat i would i would prefer you sit down mr shepherd oh thank you so this is the property at 291 south ashland um we heard this as a conceptual review in december of 2022 of course have changed the plans quite a bit and so they're coming back with a new scope of work and part of the application is for the enlargement of the rear dormer and then the proposal would also include the and there's the rear dormer in the foreground I think we can do this now. Oops, there we go. Whee! And then the proposal would be to demolish the existing rear porch and to construct a rear porch and also remove this large sycamore that's also here as well as remove that porch and to construct a one-story rear porch across the back. That also would include, the proposal also concludes, removing the two windows, or actually there's three windows because there's a window inside the porch, and to make those larger and to put in picture windows. Ms. Armstrong, as you're using your pointer, it's not coming up on our screen, unfortunately. Oh, no. Let's see. and if you could speak into the microphone a little bit more clearly here we go let's see here we're going to do this but your cursor is not coming up i know well i'm working on it okay yes well there you go okay now if we're supposed to have this wonderful technology that so so you could see the tree and of course the rear addition in the foreground you can see the garage that's right beside us that we'll discuss in a moment and and then the rear dormer and then the and then per the garage the proposal would replace the sliding garage doors with new overhead doors and remove a window that we'll see here in a second with a pedestrian door and to remodel the interior of the garage and we'll go through some images here this is the porch and of course there's a bulkhead in front of you sorry that's not working and then there's one of the windows that would be removed to enlarge to make a picture window and then this would be a picture window and the one on the other side would be a picture with casements on the side and we'll go through some more images here this is the tree that would be proposed to remove be removed and this porch is part it looks as as I've included in your email this morning same board maps that include this this porch the structure is built in 1920s and this porch was there of course by 1934 and then has stayed the same shape all this time and i've included the 1934 1958 and 1972 sambor image there's sort of some details where it has lattice on the sides but open screen inside and also on these panels it does have quite a bit of a step down as you can see with the grab rail beside it and this is from the looking at the south side looking north and the existing steps and the tongue and groove rear decking another picture of that and this is also a picture of the proposal for the dormer at the top would include adding two additional windows but retaining the existing two windows that are there so there be four windows across oops sorry excuse me in this let's go back to here to the garage excuse me for a second is this the pointer that does the little fancy stuff to it is I do like your technical questions I just want to pinpoint stuff well Barbara straightening that out I like to point out to the board members there was a problem with the packet that was distributed right before the meeting started it only has it's not two-sided or at least mine isn't no I think I accidentally was making copies really quickly and I'm sorry the only change the only substantive change is that there was a formatting era that the guidelines was printed out incorrectly and that was being straightened out in the do with but they're all there they started on page 17 they're repeated on page 19 I believe and so actual guidelines pertaining to the porch is on the back it starts at page it starts at page 18 through 19. yeah there we go i don't have a microphone is my problem here so i have done so here is our cute as a button little garage that is original too using because it actually has the same stone as the original the main structure and the proposal will be to remove the two the the two sets of doors here and the two sets of doors in the back this actually has an one of the few structures on south ashland that has an alley off of east high street and a driveway that's off of south ashland so they could actually potentially drive through that and actually being on East High. So this is and you can see this this has been a situation for a very long time. The Sanborn maps show that as well and so this is the back of the garage. There was a tree here that has been taken care of with the removal of that tree coming out of the foundation here. This panel of doors does seem to have a little bit more of a rougher situation than the other sets of doors and we'll look at that a little closer and this was a red bud that sort of got a little crazy and out of control here and you can I've got more pictures of the panels of the track system here and you can sort of see that a little bit of the damage that would have to be rebuilt for this one and then here's the interior of the garage and this is actually the doors facing thank you the front and there are two sets of windows facing the interior of the yard of this property's yard and the rear one they're proposing and we'll look at them in a so i can hear some more details of the garage doors with the brackets and the track system and this of course would be board doors with the middle post and here's the side of the doors of the garage and this one where has the light here is the proposal to make this a pedestrian door it would lead down to the yard and then this is standing at the alley looking at back at the at the property and of course this has that lovely portico share as well we'll go through that this is actually the existing set of plans it shows the existing rear porch and then the garage this actually has one window but there's actually two and down here in the corner is the existing rendering of the garage with the doors in place here's our proposal which this is actually the demo plan that shows everything that would be demoed here is that rear porch and you can sort of see the outline you've got this in your in your set of plans in front of you that show the existing windows in place and also this you could see the notations on this plan that talk about the removal and widening of this opening in these two openings and plus the the courts that will be removed and then this is sort of more details and then this is the proposal for the proposed porch and this is the i believe this one sort of shows i think this is the second floor plan this is the first floor plan i believe or did i get that wrong and um and then um you will have a better image and your of this front of this report that they're proposing and the dormer on the main structure but these windows being the same and then these being added and this is a cross-section of the construction of that dormer Guidelines are included for your reference. Finding stormer the proposal to expand the rear dormers within the guidelines of proposal to widen and large of your dormers and with guidelines to a five a B and C respectively state dormers should be in keeping with the character and scale of the building. not be introduced on front elevations and may be added to rear secondary elevations compatible with the building design staff finds proposal within the guidelines findings the demolition of the rear porch and the construction of the new covered porch and change of rear windows this 1920 stone arts and craft structure has many original features including this rear porch the proposal for the demolition in the construction of the new porch require further of consideration the existing board porches has an open has had been an open porch and having the same size dimensions as existing but was screened probably by the 1950s this porch was built with using the same stone piers the same as the physical structure and the porch is one of the few remaining intact porches along south ashland and central avenue in addition is in good condition it should be noted that in the conceptual review in the december 2022 byr meeting there were favorable comments about the concept of a rear addition without a review of the existing porch the size of a sycamore that would be impacted by the new addition after further review and study staff recommends disapproval of the demolition of the existing porch as we consider this a significant historic feature of the structure guidelines 4a and b state that any proposed demolition should occur as a last resort after all avenues to protect historic buildings and structures have been exhausted and the demolition of any original port future and part of the historic building should be avoided in addition the design principle for porches states design principle porches are one of the most important defining characteristics of historic residents and original porches should be repaired and remain and maintained and if replacement of porch elements is required using materials to closely match original and historic components. Rebuilt and replacement of new porches need to be compatible to the structure in which they are built and their adjacent properties. In some cases, houses have porches of later architectural period of the main building, and the porches reflect building's historic evolution and may be significant features in their own right. In addition, the proposal to expand and enlarge the duct needs further consideration due to the impact of the large sycamore tree given that note about a covered porch was not going to be built right away staff recommends further review of the proposal staff suggested any portion deck expansion the main be made to remain off the healthy large sycamore tree the tree was reviewed by mr. Sutherland the LFUCG urban forester and and found it healthy and in good condition. Per the proposed covered porch, staff does find the proposed porch is simple and consistent with rare porches in South Ashland and Central Avenue. Staff does suggest the e-blind not project past the main mass of the historic walls. Guidelines 2B, 1F, and K respectively state porches and decks should be compatible in scale and materials in which the principal structure and adjacent surrounding buildings. Installation ports that gives a building imitation historic appearance is not allowed and architectural details may be appropriate when they give the building on which they are placed a good sense of belonging on the street and within the district. In summation, staff suggests further study of the existing porch design that would respect the existing historic screen porch and the large healthy sycamore tree. The replacement of the first floor windows with the large picture windows is contingent on the demolition historic screen porch the port in the past has allowed changes in the windows however staff still finds further studies should be reviewed and how new proposed changes in the openings and porch expansion impacts the existing screen porch in the large sycamore garage the proposal to install a man door in the garage within the guidelines 2b1f which state entrances and division bays should be compatible in scale size and proportion to establish patterns of openings and adjacent surrounding buildings the proposal to replace the historic sliding glass doors requires further discussion these doors are unique and provide significant characters of garage the proposal calls for too much loss of the original fabric of this distinct garage design principles of architectural details and in future state architectural details and major components and defining buildings character and style historic architectural details should be preserved and maintained if the details need to be replaced in the new garage to be matched the original as closely as possible guidelines one 10 a and c state garages that contribute to properties historic character or in the original to the property should be preserved and maintain significant historic features such as sliding and windows should be assigned doors and windows should be repaired and replaced to match the original staff recommends the doors be repaired and built so that the garage drawers be retrofitted to be used in a more modern manner so that we made to use with overhead horizontal system door systems if that is not possible then an alternative solution needs to be brought back to staff recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the dilution of the original historic porch and further study of the construction of the new covered porch and replacement of the rear windows staff recommends approval the dormer and the installation of man door in the garage and the renovation of the garage with the following conditions the original garage doors shall be so that the garage doors be retrofitted to be used in a more modern manner so they'd be used with horrors overhead horizontal door systems if that is not possible an alternative solution needs to be brought back to staff any changes that are made that alter the information these are the remaining to the regular conditions submit the changes to staff review prior to the start of work and once reviewed by the LFUC divisions any changes should be returned to staff or board for the review and approval prior to start of work anybody have any questions at this point any questions from mr. Armstrong can you go back to the pictures of the porch So the structure of that porch, is it just those thin mullions holding up the roof or are there columns behind the screen? There are some images in your packet that might give that answer a little bit more. I think there is more framing on the exterior, and there's some members. These corner pieces here are sort of the members holding up that porch. And you mentioned that it's original, but the screening happened in the 1950s? We're surmising that that happened in the 1950s. Can you maybe delineate what part is original versus like what part was added for the screening? I think the rear, because on the same board of maps it has delineates sort of an open porch, and then by 1950s it has more solid on the sides. I guess what I'm asking, so obviously like the trellis work on the side, I'm forgetting the name of that, would have been added, but there's some vertical and horizontal thinner membranes. is that a part of the screening or is that just infill and they put the screen in i think it's a bit of both so if you can see sort of there's a bit of a chamfered yeah that's that's i think the original bit and then and then they added sort of this infill and then you have the framing that was done at that time that's kind of how i read it i just wanted to get a little more intake input from you thank you yes also staff would add relative to the elements and the design features of that porch it is I think as has been written in your report certainly original to the house and I think traditionally almost every house on South Ashland Avenue had a latticed back porch fully latticed on all sides and it doesn't mean this one definitely was but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this lattice may be replacement lattice over time but I suspect that it was lattice on all three of the elevations then meeting the stone house if indeed it it it seems it's so original in its overall presence and its foundation stones and post supports and so forth that it would be unusual for it not to have been lattice perhaps all the way around so it's possible somebody decided to want to look out more in their backyard and get screening to keep the mosquitoes out and hence the the rear elevation of the porch changed over time as far as its envelope but I think your core of the tongue and groove porch floor and all the the core features of it are the real deal okay any further questions from the board members also mr. chair when you're ready I do have one thing about the recommendation but please do everything else you want as to this case oh absolutely okay if there's nothing yes uh the existing porch what is the depth of it i believe it's um seven feet it's very small well i'm trying to contrast that then to the depth of the proposed is 11 and a half? Is that right? I think the proposed porch is 15 feet. 15 feet, okay. That's how far the way the tree is from the rear of the building. Okay. The applicants checking on dimensions. Also just curious, in the drawings for the proposed rear porch, The front porch has a relatively flat angle. The rear porch has a pitched angle. Why are those not more consistent front to back? I think that's a good question because I think that's one of their issues with the porch because it's so low and you have to have two steps to get up there. but i think it happens to be because of the floor level or not floor level but the where they put the knee walls for those or the um the piers for the foundation but i'm not quite sure why that was that way so just made it a sharper angle and and one's a more utilitarian outcome your rear your rear porch is pretty much a service porch historically and so it's a more utilitarian functional practical kind of thing your front porch is usually had a little more eye to statement and style as does the side portico correct the the existing rear porch what kind of angle is that let's see it's a flat isn't it it's pretty flat is it a hip roof i think it's a low pitch roof um and i think the existing renderings yeah i was going to say whatever mr stewart did as far as the i think it's it's like a low shed roof if it it's a hip low hip roof okay he didn't indicate here right family use thank you okay any other questions from the board members so do we have a dimension of where that sycamore tree is we don't have a site plan it's that's a good question so on the I think mr. Shepherd I met out on site with arborist and we're looking at the back and this is a portico sharing the driveway and this is the end of the porch it actually is right there the porch actually misses the tree but okay mr shepherd i think the porch is close enough to the tree that it would be in the drip line that the excavation that would be required to put the peers in for the back porch with you know what jack stewart drew is historically accurate for the area but that amount of work and excavation right next to that tree we feel would be a death sentence so your plan is just go ahead and take the tree out correct that was the the homeowner believes the tree is 30 years old and was planted by the previous owner so our position is it's not 130 years old you know a really classic historical tree for the area it's old but not is that why it went away that microphone i hope so we'll hope so that was very strange um do we know the diameter of that tree the lfucg arborist was there and probably measured but i do not know the diameter now it's well over 30 years old but and Amelia I'm gonna ask if you would to go back to the photographs that show that tree it may look skinny but it is thicker than it is and you'll see how tall it is in one of these images We don't know the age of the tree, but we do know it was one of the former owner's daughters was telling us about being young when it was planted, so we know it was not original to the house. I just want to say we love trees. Let me let you all make your own statement in just a moment. okay all right go ahead okay no i just was curious about the dimensions of those things sorry that was one of the things i meant to do before it snow sorry let's go back and double check the dimensions of all that um but i believe i think it is a pretty sizable tree and of course sycamores in in love water in ashland park so and excuse me can get the staff can get more information from our urban forester on approximate vintage and so forth as this goes along yeah it's clearly though in excess of the 10 inch uh limitation i mean i'm just tell the yes you asked the question about what our guidelines call for and anything with a 10 inch or greater in diameter trunk four feet up from grade is what is to be reviewed and consideration and action taken about whether something should be cut down or not okay this just uh staff question this is this building this house was built in 1920 yeah correct 1920s and we feel the staff feels that the entire structure of that porch is original to 1920. i believe so you've had some replacement of elements of your exterior envelope walls but your floor floor probably is from the real 1920s there's several on South Ashland that still have their 1920s tongue groove porch floors this has been a historic district since 1992 or 1991 and i went back to all the and these people got applications and certificate appropriateness for everything and there's no been no request to replace any porch and that and i i do feel like there was changes made in 1950s because i think that's where the framing of the back went so so some um you know the achieving the screening obviously brought in some change of wood products and so forth but the form of this porch its roof system presence and its foundation structure is all from the 1920s And it's an American four square if anybody wants to know that. But I suspect you all know that. So Ms. Currid, what was the change for the recommendation? I was going to note that the first sentence of the staff recommendation is missing about ten of the words that were meant to be in it. It should read, staff recommends disapproval of the demolition of the rear original historic porch but what's missing is and the large adjacent tree as well as the proposed replacement windows and then it goes on and further study of the construction of a new covered porch and replacement of rear windows so it's left out the phrases about denying the large the removal of the large adjacent tree and and it's denying the recommended denial of the proposed replacement window. And so is that in the revised packet that was given to us today? Because we don't have that page. Neither do I, unfortunately. But we would like as staff to enter this information as part of the record of the meeting because it is definitely missing. You do have that in your original document. No, I don't. Yes, you do. in the original staff report i'm sorry right under recommendation is that where you're trying to read miss kerr yeah that should be in your original i have on page 12 staff recommends disapproval of the demolition of the rear original historic porch and further study of construction of the new porch and replacement and she's adding those comments right but i was asking was that set out for no no i see what you're saying no yes yes that was not was it all right that notation being made by the staff all right we'll consider it to be added to the record unless there's an objection okay all right so uh mr shepherd let's let's hear yours let's hear your arguments please or a discussion if you will it's not an argument this is just a review of the application uh and i'll point out to you this one this one's fairly problematic given the historic nature of that rear addition so i understand i understand our our position is that the size not the historical value we acknowledge the historical value of the existing porch we tried to create a new porch that was a practical usable size for the family that's moving into the house and what and maintaining the historical appearance for the neighborhood that was that's our position okay I can just tell that you're just would you like to add some comments ma'am and if so to state your name please I'm Jill Rappaport I don't I don't know that I have too much of a substance to add just to say that we appreciate your time and and we actually really value the historic nature of this house and and trees and old trees and we don't like to take down trees, we plant trees, but we are trying to make the house also work for our family. We've got three children and just a lot of movement in and out of spaces and the existing porch is a little difficult to navigate. So we're just trying to work within the feel and historic nature of this area to be practical as well. That's all really. Thank you. thank you all right i will i have one question please come back up is one of the right have you all looked at the possibility that's a fairly deep yard of adding in some kind of a terrace area outside of the porch that could be a sitting area and a covered area for you all to use as a recreational purposes jill um we've paused some of the the landscaping and and other additional aspects of the house while we while we pay for the current instruction work and and updating of you know electricity and plumbing so we we have not yet explored those possibilities um although i think we'd be open to them down the down the road okay all right thank you so much do we want to talk about the porch first and talk about the garage that's right that was my thinking um you You read my mind perfectly. Let's turn first our consideration to the recommendation that the porch not be demolished and that further study be needed on how to make this, well, how it can be renovated without tearing it off. So let's take that under consideration for us. Questions or comments? Suzanne? Well, I'm very torn by this because it is a lovely little porch. I have a hard time thinking that it's really all that original because porches rot quickly. But that's not for me to say yes or no to. but my issue is with that a lot of the historic houses do not afford the kind of indoor outdoor connectivity that is so beneficial for a family and for just human beings in general you know they tend to close themselves off to the back um you know the it it is a lovely little porch but it does not have that true connectedness between the indoor and outdoor and you know i but that doesn't mean that it's not historic but i don't know it's on the back of the house so i will point out that we have a 360 policy i know that okay i know that But we allow things on the back that we don't allow on other sides of the... But they're almost never significant and historic like this one is. And I'm torn too. Yeah. I think we're all torn. It's problematic. In today's modern world, that is entirely too small a porch. The problem is initially when I started off looking at that thing, saying it looks like almost like a carbuncle uh it's so small but the problem that i ran into is you're replacing a porch with a porch if you're wanting a full-fledged addition i think we might be having an entirely different conversation i think i don't know it's well i disagree with that i just think the way that we utilize porches it is like another living room I mean it is an addition and the way you use it with a covered porch is I think it's a valid addition oh I agree with you and you know but you know this is not it's the porch that was built with the house and that's that's where I have to take into mind that guidelines are very firm and very clear that you do not demolish what was originally constructed with the house my problem is is that you know sometimes you have bad construction in the 1920s that you sometimes wonder do you want to keep it or not but the guidelines are pretty pretty clear on that point as I said if we were looking at a new addition that might be a different conversation we'd be having but to take off a porch to add a porch I I don't think we can approve. Yes, Ms. Hill. So, because it's on the backyard side of the house, my instincts are the porches there is not, it's really more of a mudroom transition space. it's not it's not a usable porch in the way that we engage backyards now so but my struggle is more with the with the generous kind of scale of it and both that it comes within a foot of each corner of the house the new proposed porch and it reaches out 15 feet so my question would be in the interest of finding better balance for other things that are going on, both around the historic house but also in the backyard with a tree. I just recently spent time with a 400-year-old sycamore. I didn't know they could get to be 500 to 800 years old. Did you have any idea? I thought they were kind of trash trees, but they aren't. So I've developed a new appreciation for what it means to take care of a tree that has a lifespan way beyond mine. So I think that that's what I'm struggling with is that we want our historic houses to breathe and be present for hundreds of years forward. We want to be in that position. and we know that the way we engage our yards in the natural world which we also want to be protecting has to do with some flexibility on those rear elevations of these houses so my question would be is there consideration of revisiting the scale of that porch to not have it kind of take over both the backyard in the back elevation you've been waiting to say something and that's consistent with that is consistent with what the staff is recommending that we we need further study uh i think miss hill has identified correctly the real issue is oversized you're going to be killing a sycamore tree that has some that has a historic characteristics to it uh mr marquette did you have a comment is is that uh a seller access to the so under the under the proposed rear porch would that be built over or removed the plan was for that to be closed off that outside entrance to no longer function in the original plan that was drawn by the architect right and to state the obvious obviously there's an interior access to that basement that's correct there's a back door i just want to state the obvious for that all right yeah it was probably the cold door at one time mr kerb yes okay all right Mr. Shepherd, can you respond? Could you use the microphone? Thank you. I will. We need to have you do your presentation from there. Yes, you. May I ask a question? When we, or if we revisit the idea of designing the porch, does the board prefer that the cellar doors remain visible and available? I think of them as the Wizard of Oz doors. Is that something we need to be thinking about as we revisit? That's a good question. Ms. Kerr, what's your initial? I've got my own mic. After preaching at you all to use your mics, I realize mine's turned off. I don't think the mechanism by which a cellar entrance is created, as in the angled doors, which of course over time have always been what the old houses had, but they're not sacrosanct in the sense of they're a functional mechanism to get people, particularly in earlier times, into those basements. Some people choose to put a trap door within a floor, because some houses, their interior access is just too narrow or too tight, and they still really do need that bigger opening possibility from exterior. So I think the guidelines has room for how to address access to that cellar on the exterior if you want to continue to have outside access in various means. The angled doors, whether a single or double, open up and out, I don't think over time have continued significance. Okay, any further discussion on the porch? If not, let's move on to the garage doors. I did want to just say that I kind of I understand that this is not a living porch but I would like to see some investigation of how you could keep the porch and add to the porch and see if there's a way before just removing it do some exploration there and I'm definitely not going to be okay with removing a 30 year old Sycamore I think I really do think that there's a way to to do this that doesn't take that tree down along those lines I think you just need to be figure out a way to be creative about maintaining the original boards and then adding to it that might work okay are we done with the porch yes let's move on to the garage doors any comments or questions about it and you didn't really object to the staff recommendations on the garage did you say yes or no our original why our original proposal was to delete the sliding doors and change to a more conventional overhead door so that it could maintain its drive-through status that it's always had it's always been a pass-through carriage that goes all the way around staff is recommending that we try to repurpose those sliding doors and convert them into some kind of raisable door that you know we're with a remote I'm not sure how feasible that is but I'm we're willing to investigate that correct and that's what they said if it's not feasible to come back and explain why it's not feasible and exactly exactly so along those lines As a thought, that was done, they had of repurposing, you know, recutting them so that they would hinge and allow you to do something like that on the Gratz House. It was done on Mill Street with some very careful thought, just as a reference. Okay, Mark Brack. So to what extent does uh staff evaluate the condition of the wood of both the porch and of the doors and determine uh to what extent repair replacement is necessary because if we're talking about elements of deterioration in each in either of them or both then that would I think impact my impression of retention or alteration we're not I don't think we're asking that a less than less than not perfect but a deteriorated porch be retained because it's 60 years old and it is is appropriate in terms of its style are we retaining a a well-constructed and a solid porch that can continue for another 40 or 50 years i'm not saying this the way i want to but i think that's it i'll shut up okay all right let's let's continue your come on up sir stationing for the record please eli crane so i i think i had a comment very very similar to yours that is i guess kind of a question for everybody about historic preservation in terms of at least one of the panels is very very of the doors is very deteriorated and so in terms of of using, what is the difference between, or what is the purpose of using the materials of the door to preserve a style versus using new materials of a similar style so that the doors could last longer, as opposed to reusing, because if you guys visit the porch, as an example there are sections of the ports that are not in in good in good condition there are sections of the doors of the garage that aren't in good condition but in in terms of preservation what what is the difference between using those specific materials and keeping those untouched or unaltered and preserving them or replacing them with new materials that are, does it make sense? Like, are we talking about style or material or both? And, and. Well, Ms. Curry, did you have a comment on that? I certainly can if you would like. like well I think basically it's the sliding doors are somewhat unique to as a garage style and I think that we would like to keep that in tact if we could miss Kerr yes if if indeed they can be functional and livable in that sense everybody in today's time loves to drive up and click their clicker and drive in that is not going to happen with something hung from an upper rail that is accordioned back which is the old style way that those were accomplished they are usually very well built doors of that nature they're like barn doors in a way and they have a very heavy frame around the exterior portion and and then you know the very tight detailed panels between. And so several things need to go into the further study on this, one is the question of how much renovation to the building or to the elements of the building, both the garage and the porch would be necessary to keep it. The preservation ethos nationwide and in this community and its design guidelines is that we are first and foremost trying to protect the real thing the real historic elements we're not looking for replicas of these buildings we're looking for you're seeing what has been here for decades and decades it doesn't mean that every piece of it's been there for decades because wood does rot mortar falls out roofs need replacing all the things we deal with all the time and you all do too so a porch or a garage if the ratio is that 90% of a porch or 90% of a garage is physically so deteriorated it can't serve then it might be time to consider demolition and we have done that with a number of old garages along the way they have not been a wonderful stone garage like this one this is a really great garage by the way so absolutely it's like a teeter-totter you're you're wanting the original building and original you got to remember original was not all to 1923 or four or five whatever it is it is a indicative of the time it was built from the time it was built and then moving forward but you know changes that have been had to be replaced in the last 20 years are different from changes made to a building or repairs made to a building appropriately 80 years ago or 60 years ago they are expected buildings are kind of like I was gonna say living and breathing things that's a little overstated but they evolve and respond to what is necessary to keep them thriving and not only habitable but to be enjoyed and so that's what historic districts are about is is retaining the real aspects of these things repairing what needs to be repaired and it is repairable and is a ratio enough if you have something that has 85 90 percent of deterioration then you really are building a replica if you were to do that in which case you might you might do better to tear it down and just start anew with a maybe you wouldn't and one of the things this process is very careful of and our guidelines are very stringent about is if you needed to tear down an outbuilding or a porch you would not copy it and put it back with just new build materials because it would be mimicking what used to be there but it's not the real deal so all that's long way saying I think it would be super helpful in this situation I think everybody and I don't mean to speak for the board but certainly the staff I can speak for I think at least that's what I'm charged with doing we understand where you're trying to get and and want to facilitate this process helping you get there while protecting through our design guidelines what we're meant to see to it stays for a lot longer time. So more study, please. So I think where we are, we're trying to let you move forward on some aspects of your construction and we need further study on other aspects of it. And so I think we're maybe moving to a consensus. Am I hearing consensus here? Are we ready for a motion? Any further questions or comments it's a two-part it's a fairly complicated motion but it has several parts to it so just i have a if we're wanting them to come back with some additional ideas of what that porch can be saving the sycamore are we really denying the application or are we just postponing that part so that they can do that and come back to us Can I point out that on this particular case, because we have a request to demolish a portion of the... Okay, I don't think your mic's on, or I can't hear you. Well, it says it's on. I wasn't close enough to it. Sorry about that. These are so sensitive that you have to speak right into them. I didn't want it to have static feedback, but I'll be this close. So because this is a request to demolish a portion of the structure, this is governed by Section 13-7C of the zoning ordinance. Right. And that says you may, as a board, vote to postpone the decision to approve or deny the request to demolish for a period of time up to a year from a date of filing if you think more study should be done. So to answer your question, you would actually, if you choose to do that, you could vote to postpone your final action to a certain period of time. Why don't we just agree to postpone and you can come back with a new plan on that part? Do we need to take action on the dormer, though? Yes. Yeah, I mean, right now, the way the recommendation currently reads, the staff recommends approval of the dormer, installation of the main door into the garage, and the renovation of the garage with the following conditions. That's part two. Part one is I think now our, and we can do that as a separate motion, is to postpone consideration of the porch to a date not greater than a year from now? It says reasonable time, but no later than a year from the date of filing. If we could, I'd like to ask that we postpone the garage door question too so we could do further study on the feasibility of repurposing those to a new mechanism, maintaining the look, et cetera, et cetera. all right that that works for me so right now all we're doing is just approving your application that pertains to the dormer the demand or in the garage the rest of it will postpone to a date certain No, we, do you want to address that? All the ordinance says is for a reasonable period of time, but I would recommend, I think it would make sense to have a date certain. Our date certain will be January 23 or January 17, 2025? Well that actually would be more than a year from the date of filing. When was the application filed? 1219 so 1219 of this year would be the latest you could all right so we'll postpone it to 12 19 2024. i'm seeing i'm seeing puzzled looks are we all on the same page it's just a little unusual to do this for a demolition that doesn't involve an entire structure usually over the years that's been used when someone is applying to tear down an entire historic house or an entire well i think in this case it might be appropriate however there's no mechanism that says you can't use it this way and i think it it's uh helpful in this instance to have that window of time allow some room for cogitation and that's what council was for that's and i'm hanging my hat with her okay all right so yes ma'am i just wanted to check about that date is it if we need to extend it at that point i mean we will probably be moving into the house at that point and that year deadline is more for your protection than for our convenience if you want to extend it i'm sure you can okay thank you okay yes ma'am yes susan so ross may i just um tag on to your question about materiality and that's what i'm going to address it in historic for me this is about protection of our natural environment it's about woods that are old growth that we no longer have available and even they do give up they do rot and age does take its toll but there are so many of our historic buildings where the wood is salvageable and percent wise so it's really about looking at the whole thing but for me it's about protection of our natural resources and utilizing wood that we materials that we've been less careful about over the centuries and trying to be more respectful in other words wood is not what it used to be so hanging on to your old wood is actually to your advantage all right I want to wrap up this conversation are we ready for a motion at this point Go for it. Oh, you want me to do it? Well, you looked at me like you were. I think so, if you don't need it. Whoever wants to make the motion, I just can't do it. I will do it if you want me to do it. Yeah, if you're clear on it, that'd be good. Okay. All right, so it's two motions, right? All right, so in regards to case number. There you go. Okay. 00710291-J at 291 South Ashland Avenue. I move that we postpone the review of the demolition of the rear original historic porch, the removal of the tree and the new window to a date one year from the application 12, 19, 19, 19, 19, 24. Yes, 2023. 2023. 24. 24. Sorry, the year from 2023 is what I was trying to say. So 12, 19, 24. And we also postponed the review of the original garage doors to that same date. So that's one motion, right? Just keep going. You're fine. Okay. And then I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness to install the man door into the garage and the approval of the enlarged dormer. Very well done. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair, uh-oh, do you have a question? I have a question. In the recommendation, the staff recommends approval of the dormer, the man door, and the garage door conditional to a couple different things. Can we make it the garage door's conditional of getting approval of staff? We're just postponing it right now. he's asking for something different though. I guess I heard that you all wanted to add that to postponing so you could think about it more in that conversation. This is the owner, if he thinks we can come back to staff with an option on the door that you guys could approve. This is not something staff's empowered to approve. It'll need to be acted on by the board. I guess that's what I'm asking for. Is it possible for you guys to approve staff to make that call if we have a good enough design to do? Okay. Nope. Nope. All right. Motion is as stated. Do I have... We have a question of what you just said. Did you say it's not in the power of the board to enable the staff to take action on his garage doors? under your direction what was your intent of what my intent was that it come back to the staff for your all's recommendation to us but we can't approve it until you all have looked at it first no correct but you're saying you the board want to see those garage doors yes absolutely thank you do I have a second I think I had a second didn't I all right any further discussion on the motion all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye those no motion is opposed the motion is approved and we will pick up elements of this in about a year or sooner or sooner thank you for your time and patience with this process before we all jump up and leave uh let's go back no we need to go back to wabash i got ahead of myself i did not actually read into the record the recommendations the recommendations made by the staff was that any increase in the height above on the roof shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to start of work and the other two beating the other two standard conditions do i have a motion to approve those conditions so moved do i have a second second any discussion chair calls the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and that coa as conditioned is approved do I now have a motion to approve the minutes so moved you have a second second without objection the minutes are approved council I just wanted to point out that there was right so we just know there was one error in the sense that this myth was here and Miss Emily was not in the minutes. All right let's back up then sorry you need to jump in and stop the train sometime. So Miss Brittany Smith was here as the attorney and not Miss Emily Boutram and that's the only correction. May I have a motion to approve the minutes as corrected? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Any questions about it? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The minutes stand approved as corrected. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. They stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Without objection. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.