# Board of Architectural Review - May 21, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · May 21, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6437 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6437?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-05-21 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 26, 2026 - **Length**: 10,982 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 May 21, 2025, with Susan Hill presiding. The board addressed four agenda items, each involving a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application. Of those, one application — 407 East High Street — was withdrawn, two applications (446 East High Street and 396 Linden Walk) were approved, and one application (509 East Main Street) received a partial approval with a portion of the application extended for further review. Across the meeting, the board took 10 votes and heard 1 public comment. ## Attendance The following board members were present at the May 21, 2025 meeting: - Susan Hill - Darren Taylor - Robin Mickler - Dick Murphy - John Book - Hank Morris - Tyler Bromagin - Marcy Deaton **Absent:** Jim Dickinson No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took ten votes during the May 21, 2025 meeting, all of which passed unanimously. Individual mover and seconder information was not recorded, and no roll call votes were taken. - **446 East High Street – COA Approved** [timestamp: 0:13:34]: The Board unanimously approved a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) subject to two standard conditions regarding resubmission of changes. - **396 Linden Walk – COA Approved** [timestamp: 0:15:57]: The Board unanimously approved a COA subject to three nonstandard conditions and two standard conditions. - **137 West Bell Court – COA Approved** [timestamp: 0:18:53]: The Board unanimously approved a COA with the condition that the carport roof be lowered to a 6/12 pitch. - **426 West Sixth Street – COA Approved** [timestamp: 0:20:03]: The Board unanimously approved a COA subject to two standard conditions. - **444 West Third Street – COA Approved** [timestamp: 0:21:41]: The Board unanimously approved a COA subject to two standard conditions. - **462 West Third Street – COA Approved** [timestamp: 0:22:46]: The Board unanimously approved a COA subject to two standard conditions. - **117 Shawnee Place – COA Approved** [timestamp: 0:26:40]: The Board unanimously approved a COA with the condition that the proposal include two windows on the rear in lieu of one. - **124 South Ashland Avenue – COA Approved** [timestamp: 0:27:52]: The Board unanimously approved a COA subject to two standard conditions. - **509 East Main Street – 60-Day Extension Granted** [timestamp: 1:29:30]: The Board unanimously approved a 60-day extension for the COA review, with the applicant directed to work on proposed solutions for screening and EIFS during that period. - **509 East Main Street – Partial COA Approved** [timestamp: 1:32:13]: The Board unanimously approved a COA for masonry and green space elements at the property, with conditions requiring that the louver wall be replaced with masonry and that bamboo plantings be replaced with sweet gum columnar trees. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Board during the public comment period at the May 21, 2025 meeting. - **Marcy Deaton** [timestamp: 1:18:04] spoke about the impact of ductwork from an adjacent property on her home. Deaton expressed concerns about both the noise and visual impact created by the ductwork, describing the effect on her property as significant. ## Contested Items **Ductwork Installation at 509 East Main Street** The proposed installation of ductwork at 509 East Main Street drew opposition from a neighboring resident, who raised concerns about the potential noise and visual impact the installation would create. The disagreement centered on the effects the ductwork would have on the surrounding area, particularly as experienced by those living in close proximity to the property. No additional parties, vote tallies, or outcome details were included in the available data for this item. ## 407 East High Street COA [timestamp: 12:01] This agenda item concerned a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for 407 East High Street, which involved demolishing and constructing an addition at the property. The item was addressed briefly by **Darren Taylor**, who announced that the applicant had chosen to withdraw the case prior to any substantive discussion or review by the Board. As a result, no presentation was made, no debate took place, and no concerns were raised regarding the proposed demolition or addition. - **Applicant action:** Withdrawal of the COA application - **Proposed scope of work:** Demolition and construction of an addition - **Outcome:** Case withdrawn; no Board deliberation or vote taken ## 446 East High Street COA [timestamp: 13:04] The board took up Agenda Item 2, a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for 446 East High Street. Robin Mickler was the key speaker for this item. The discussion centered on a proposal to install a new service ramp at the rear of the building. Mickler presented the details of the proposed ramp installation to the board, which reviewed the application in the context of the property's historic character and applicable preservation standards. Following discussion, the board approved the COA application with conditions. *Note: Additional details regarding specific conditions of approval, concerns raised during deliberation, and the full scope of the presentation are not available in the provided source material.* ## 396 Linden Walk COA [timestamp: 14:47] The board took up Agenda Item 3, a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application concerning 396 Linden Walk, which involved the demolition of an existing structure and the construction of an addition at the property. Dick Murphy was the key speaker during this agenda item. The discussion centered on the proposed demolition and addition work at the site, with the board reviewing the details of the application as part of its standard COA review process. Following the discussion, the board approved the application with conditions. *Note: Additional details regarding the specific scope of the demolition, the nature of the proposed addition, any concerns raised during deliberation, and the precise conditions attached to the approval are not available in the provided source materials.* ## 509 East Main Street COA [timestamp: 1:28:59] The board took up Agenda Item 4, a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application concerning the property at 509 East Main Street. The discussion centered on proposed changes to the building's design and size, with key topics including the installation of ductwork and EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System). Hank Morris was identified as a key speaker during this portion of the meeting. The board examined the scope of the proposed modifications and deliberated on their appropriateness for the property. The outcome of the discussion was mixed: the board approved certain elements of the application while extending the review period for others. Specific components that were approved or held over for further review were not detailed in the available record, but the split decision indicates that at least some aspects of the proposed ductwork installation or EIFS application required additional consideration before the board was prepared to render a final determination. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 446 East High Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 396 Linden Walk with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 137 West Bell Court with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 426 West Sixth Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 444 West Third Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 462 West Third Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 117 Shawnee Place with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 124 South Ashland Avenue with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): 60-day extension for 509 East Main Street COA review - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of COA for 509 East Main Street for masonry and green space --- ## Full transcript ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ I am Susan Hill. I'm acting chair today as our chair, Jim Dickinson, is unavailable to attend. I would like to welcome you to the May 21st, 2025, meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Fine 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, 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 the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 32 approved applications noted on today's agenda. Ashland Park Historic District at 240 Deshaies Road, remove a large pin oak. At 1000 Richmond Road, replace pin oak tree. Ellsford Historic District at 425 East High Street, renovate structure and carriage house. At 317 Lafayette Avenue, replace the roof. At 404 East Maxwell Street, refresh gravel and fill in holes. At 456 East Maxwell Street, renovate site. At 345 Oldham, renovate the structure. At 335 Transylvania Park, renovate structure. At 350 Woodland Avenue, replace roof. The Belcourt Historic District at 145 West Belcourt, renovate garage. At 239 Delmar Avenue, remove damaged white pine. Fayette Park Historic District at 423 Fayette Park, re-roof the structure. At 425 Fayette Park, renovate site. Gratz Park at 250 West 3rd Street, install interpretive signage. Northside Historic District at 612 North Broadway, renovate the structure. At 432 West 2nd Street, remove diseased tree. At 427 West 3rd Street, re-issue COA. At 478 West 3rd, renovate the garage. Pensacola Park Historic District at 115 Penmoken Road, install storage shed. At 125 Lackawanna Road, replace roof. At 208 Lackawanna Road, replace and repair the front steps. At 208 Lackawanna Road, install new patio. At 181 Rosemont Garden, renovate structure. Seven Oaks Historic District at 122 Arcadia Park, replace tree. At South Hill Historic District, 406 Plankton, replace doors. At 321 South Mill Street, remove bricks. At 333 South Mill Street, rebuild fencing. At 340 South Broadway, construct fencing. At 432 South Mill Street, renovate pipes. Western Suburbs Historic District at 731 West Main Street, remove deteriorated tree. At 733 West Main Street, renovate structure. At 735 West Main Street, renovate structure. And now we shall proceed with review of applications for Certificate of Appropriateness. The first application is at 407 East High Street. Is that application, that applicant present? Good afternoon. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. Thank you. Has the, have you read the staff's report? I have, but my client would like to withdraw this case. Okay. As of today. As of today. Just suspend it? They just asked me to withdraw it for the time being given the proposal. Okay. Are there any questions from the board? Is there any formal motion that needs to be made on that? No. Then we accept the client's withdrawal. Thank you very much. Thank you. So the next application is at 446 East High to install a new service ramp at the rear of the building with the client, the applicant. Please come forward. Yes. Robin Mickler at 446 East High Street. So you've received a copy of the staff's report? We did. And have you read their recommendations? We did. And the staff recommends approval with the standard two conditions, which I'll read into the record. Number one is once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Number two, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of this work. Do you accept these conditions? We do. So are there any questions? No questions for me. Are there any questions from the audience? Then I wait for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 09290446-E at 446 East High Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Second. All those in favor? Aye. The motion passes. Thank you. Your COA is approved. Okay. On to the next application at 396 Linden Walk. Madam Chair, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm an attorney representing the owner. Cameron Hardin is the owner with me today. Also Paul Lee of Studio A Architecture. And so I have your name and your address. My address is 250 West Main Street, Suite 2510. Thank you. So you've received a copy of the report? Yes. And the staff recommends approval with three nonstandard conditions and two standard conditions. Are you in acceptance of these initial of all five of the conditions? Yes, we are. Yes. So are there any questions from the board? Any questions from the audience? If not, then I will wait for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 11720396D at 396 Linden Walk, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions, plus condition number one, submit final exterior siding selection details and specifications to staff prior to issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. Number two, submit final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. And number three, submit final patio flooring specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposition? So your COA is approved. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. The next application at 232 Eastville Court has been continued to the June 18, 2025, board review meeting. So we will move on to the application at 509 East Main Street. Hello. Hello. So have you read the staff's report? We have. And seen the recommendations? We have. I'm assuming this may be a case that you'd like to have reviewed? Yes. If so, then what we will do is hold this and go through the more standard cases and come back to yours after we get through sounding those. That's quite all right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving on to 137 Westville Court. Is the applicant here? Darren Taylor. Address? 239 North Mill Street. Thank you. So, Mr. Taylor, have you read the staff's report? Yes, ma'am. We have. I'm seeing that there are the two standard conditions plus one nonstandard. Are you in agreement with those? We are. All right. Are there any questions from the board? Any from the audience? If not, then I await a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 01540137-N at 130 Westville Court, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with three conditions, two of the standard two conditions, and the third condition is that the carport roof be lowered to a 612 and final details come back to staff for review. Second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. So your COA has passed. Thank you. Thank you. The next application is at 426 West 6th Street. Is the applicant here? Back up again. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street, for the record. Thank you. So I'm assuming that you have received a copy of the report and read the staff's recommendations with the two standard conditions. I have. So do I have any questions from the board? Do I have any questions from the audience? If not, then I await a motion. Mr. Chair, with regard to case number 329-30256-D at 426 West 6th Street, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Your application has been approved and your COA will be issued. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next application is at 444 West 3rd Street. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present but has received a copy of her staff report. Have they indicated that they're in agreement with the standard two conditions? Yes, since this is just a change of design from the previous. I would note also that the pool will be coming back for a later time to be reviewed that's on the site plan. It's not part of the application at this time. But yes. So we can move forward with this then? Correct. Then do I hear a motion? Chair, in regards to case number 18800444-I at 444 West 3rd Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Second. All those in favor? Aye. So the approval has been met and the COA will be issued. The next application is at 462 West 3rd Street. Hello, John Book 1320 Bryan Avenue. Thank you. So I'm assuming you've received a copy of the staff's report? Yes, ma'am. And you've read their recommendations? Yes, ma'am. With the standard two conditions? Correct. Are you in acceptance of those? We are. Are there any questions from the board? No. Any questions from the audience? If not, then I will entertain a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 18800462-F at 462 West 3rd Street, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions. Do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. So your application has been approved and the COA will be issued. All right. Thank you. Thank you. The next application at 117 Shawnee Place, is the applicant present? The applicant is not present but has received a copy of their staff report. Have they responded in accepting the three conditions? At this point, they have not. I mean, we've had discussion, had quite a bit of discussions. He preferred the one window versus the two windows. We feel the two windows would be more appropriate. So are they, I have the standard two conditions, but number one is a non-standard. So is it your assumption that they accept that non-standard condition? I'm just trying to decide whether we can act on it or not. I think they would prefer you act on it, but I can't say this. He's new to the process, and I walked him to as much as possible about this situation. So the only way I would know then would be to make a motion contingent on their acceptance of all three conditions. Right. Well, you wouldn't actually, you couldn't make a motion to issue a COA contingent upon their acceptance, because it's either you're going to impose the condition or you're not. If you have, when's the next BOAR meeting? Be June 18th. So you do have time on it if you want to continue, or it would be postponement to next month, if you want to hear from the applicant. You could do that. So I don't, I guess my only question is what the legality is moving forward with approving it without having a verbal or formal confirmation from the applicant. Well, okay, so what I would say to that is that they were aware of the staff's recommendations and of the day of the hearing, so it's incumbent upon the applicant to be here. You could impose the condition as a BOAR if you think it's appropriate. If the applicant, even if the applicant didn't want it, the purpose of the hearing is to give them an opportunity to explain one way or the other. They chose not to be here. I don't know what the reasons are. So it's really within the board's discretion. If you believe that's appropriate, you can still do that legally, or you could wait until next month and get them another chance to be here. But I would tell you that next month would be your deadline, and if they still don't show up and you want that condition, you would need to go ahead and impose it. Right. I would say I agree with the staff's recommendation. Yeah, impose the condition. Yeah, as a condition and move on with them. That makes sense to me. Are there any comments from the audience? All right. Then I say let's move forward. Chair, in regards to case number 17020117-C at 117 Shawnee Place, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and a third condition that the proposal calls for two windows on the rear in lieu of one. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. So the application has now been approved. All right. The next application is at 124 South Ashland Avenue. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill. So, Mr. Taylor, I'm assuming that you have read the staff's findings and their recommendations. Yes, ma'am, I have. And are in agreement with the standard two conditions. Yes, ma'am, I am. Does the board have any questions? No questions. Then I await a motion. Chair, with regard to case 00710124-M at 124 South Ashland Avenue, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be approved with the standard two conditions. Second. All those in favor indicate? Aye. Aye. So the DOA has been approved and will be issued. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. There are two additional applications listed that have been postponed, and I'll read those into the record. 329 South Mill Street postponed until June 18th, 2025, and 331 South Mill Street postponed until June 18th, 2025. So this returns us then to 509 East Main Street. Hello again. So once again, give your name and your address. My name is Hank Morris. I reside at property address, physical address? I think it's your address, the applicant's address. 164 Prospect Place, Brooklyn, New York. Thank you. So I assume you have read the staff's report and their recommendations and would like to have a full hearing, in which case we will start with the staff's report. And then have you make your presentation next. We're in agreeance with all the recommendations, all the staff recommendations. So let me make sure that I understand. The staff recommends disapproval. I apologize. On the actions where they've recommended approval, I think there were those two items we needed to discuss. There are. So I think we'll go ahead and hear the whole case. And then take the two parts to it. That sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. So to familiarize you with this project again, and also we have some pictures, new pictures, and also some pictures and new submittals by the applicants as well. As you might remember, this is a Combs Lumber Company structure that was built by Vernon Tandy for this very classic style structure. And most recently the Crossgate Gallery has now been renovated for a private club. And, of course, in October they received permission to replace the papers under the porch and to close up the windows on the side, close the garage doors and leave the garage doors in place, install a new vent hood on the east plane of the garage. We'll look at that in a second. Install a new HVAC handler system in the parking lot. Replace an older staircase system laying down from the third floor to the second floor on the rear addition and to create that. And, of course, we decided not to do a crate hanging box, and that was scratched. They decided also not to proceed with items number one, and item number seven was changed to bamboo plantings in a rhizome barrier. And that action has continued and is currently ongoing. And then as the work evolved, the kitchen addition accommodation sort of took a little bit more of a steerage on this project and to accommodate a full commercial kitchen. And as we walk around this, of course, this structure has had many additions, and you can see the garage addition, and this is sort of the entrance off the forest, and you can see there was a surface ramp into when it was Crossgate Gallery leading in there. And above the window, there's a datum line, and this was a garage at one point. And then there's a deck atop of that, and you can sort of see the staircase system a little bit. And here again is the ramp leaving, the surface ramp leading into now is what is the kitchen, and you have an existing. These pictures were taken back in October, by the way, and so these are the previous pictures taken of this garage that was changed into the kitchen area, and you can sort of see the beginnings of the service here of the makeup handler unit here at that time. This is a picture taken at that time in October showing the parking lot and the proximity between the physical structure and the Belcourt neighborhood and the most median house. And part of the proposal that went before the council, the urban county council, was to install the plantings along that in the ribosome barrier with the bamboo was approved, and that was also met at the planning commission to also on their development plan. And part of the proposal now is because of the rear part of this, and the most rear part has more islands that would be including more plantings of trees that is on the stocket as well, and part of this project as well. And so part of this also project was to put a vent system out, and this is the east wall that they were putting the vent system in. We also have that. And so those were the to put that in, and it would go down to the makeup handler unit. In addition, the mechanical inspectors inspected the kitchen stove and venting, and it was deemed to be needing this more duct work as this project went along, as we talked about. And so we had the smaller duct piece here, and then the mushroom, and then the tuba-like element because of the proximity of this back wall and this datum line. It had to be all the this had to be shooting away from this back wall. And so this addition element had been positioned away from the rear wall according to the property representative due to the proximity of the crown mold and the datum line and the element rising at the parapet because there is usable space above this wall with this duct system. And the duct work and the kitchen vent are now part of this violation now that we feel because this was not part of their original plan of the October 16th meeting date when we just had the smaller element that was proposed at that time. And that was what was approved by the BOAR in the October 16th meeting date. And another change to the certificate appropriateness that previously was issued, reflected, was the masonry wall. And around the makeup unit, this was supposed to be a louvered system, and it was initially applied for as the louver. However, after the mechanical inspectors looked at it, they felt like they needed to have more substantial masonry wall and that the applicants should reach out to HP staff regarding this change as they were getting ready to build the concrete block and stucco. And staff had erroneously advised the project manager that that could be issued at staff level, and that was not correct. Now we are going before the board to correct that issue, and the wall has been completed. And, of course, all of the mechanical units, as you see, or the makeup handler units behind that. And then we also found that the drive-it was installed on two of these walls, on this back wall here and this wall below the datum line, and not necessarily above it, due to some cracking and some water issues that the applicant said that that has occurred. And it is a concrete block wall, and then it also has the drive-it on it, and then it has the stucco application on that. But it does mean that the datum line crown mold is flush with this and not proud of it as it is on the other two elements of the structure, of the garage and the wall on the forest. And then, of course, we did talk. And then these are some other of these images of the vent system that was installed and from various different locations. And this is behind the makeup handler unit. There's some space between there to show you what's going on behind there and a little bit more detail of this vent system. So, of course, this case was heard last month, and we did meet with the mechanical inspectors, the applicants, and talked about many different things. We talked about painting. We also talked about some pierced screening possibilities and some solid water constructions and other variations of such. They have come back with just the painting of the elements here. And in addition, there's no change with the possibility of not using the rhizome barrier. There was discussion at that meeting that they decided not to use that because they found non-invasive bamboo. That is not the case. They have continued using the rhizome barrier and have been able to go ahead and plant the bamboo as it was approved at the October 16th meeting date. And then, thirdly, it was disclosed that all the wall surfaces were not treated the same way as I just discussed. And the profile of the architectural elements, the rear wall, the garage, is concrete block. But that datum trim, not necessarily to be proud, but as you can see in this image here of this projecting bay of this garage, that there's more of the datum line is more projecting here, and these surfaces did not have the same treatment as this treatment here. And then we'll go to some other images. These are images that have been submitted by the applicant as well as the missive that you see in front of you disclosing about their discussion regarding the elements to be discussed, including the bamboo in the trees, the other plantings that we put in, and also the bamboo in the rhizome barrier, and then their proposal to paint the ductwork here. This is the painted ductwork that paints out the same color as the structure. Again, just to show you, this is the new piece. These are both new. This is the original where the datum line is not projected out. This is where it's flush with this bottom, and it has a bit more of a profile here. And then these are the ductwork up close. And again, more of an up-close proposal of the painted-out elements. And again, this is the current, and this is our proposal to paint this system out. And of course, these images are in front of you as well. And again, a bit more of the original stucco, and a bit more of the original stucco, and then this is the new. These are their images. Again, the original versus the new as proposed in this image. Staff finds the proposal to change the louver screening to install the masonry wall as within the guidelines. The design principle for the mechanical system states, screening these units through the chubbery fencing lattice panels is highly recommended. Staff finds the wall is appropriate in the circumstances due to the fire rating issues. The stucco wall blends in with the garage and kitchen wall. Staff finds the proposal to install the ductwork going down towards the makeup handling units within the guidelines because it's hidden behind the newly built wall. However, the ductwork, as installed, leaning up and away from the opening does not meet the guidelines, nor is it appropriate. The element is large and highly visible in Guidelines 3, 3A, which states mechanical systems should be located where they are least visible and intrusive away from the sides and should be screened, and this element, as constructed, is not within the guidelines. The proposal to paint out the element to disguise does not disguise the ductwork. Staff finds the proposal to change the bamboo to columnar trees around the southeast parking within the guidelines, and 6B and C states landscape elements altered and reduced should be compatible with the site and surrounding properties and should be not visible or intrusive, suggestive of all sense of history. Staff finds it should be appropriate to be added more substantial trees where there's more green space to plant trees. The proposal to install the stucco atop the APHIS material on the east and north walls is not within the keeping of the guidelines. As a result, it loses the definition of the datum trim that breaks up the massing but adds interest. Typically, staff would like to see rather than it be re-stuccoed rather than an imitation placed over the existing materials. Guidelines 2B, 2J state the installation of materials that give building an imitation history and appearance is not allowed. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the extended vent system and the stucco over the APHIS on the garage and kitchen wall, losing the datum line. And then staff recommends approval with the replacement of the louver wall with masonry and the green screen replacing bamboo with columnar trees along with the southwest east parking lot wall. And the two items that we typically put in are within there too. So, any questions? Staff, does the board have any questions at this time? Not right now? Yes. Okay. The 20 degree angle that the vent comes out of the wall, is that required? Is a 45 degree angle unpermittable? I think the angle is not necessarily the, I think they added that on just because it was easier to add on because of the mushroom and that. I'm not sure the degree of it has any relevance. It's still, the big tube is still on there regardless. But it could be completely vertical instead of angled across the face of the building? I believe so. Which for me is part of the, is a huge part of the issue. The second thing is, once that, I assume stainless steel is painted, is there any way that our approval of that would include that it be maintained that way? I can't imagine that it would be painted and permanent. So it becomes, in other words, I'm trying to say, is there any way that we can provide that it be maintained in a painted condition, so that it doesn't become partially unpainted, paint peeling, and then we have no recourse? I've got that. This process does not have the ability to cite people for maintenance. And code enforcement, another piece of the urban county government, as you're well aware, does have that empowerment. It is not too frequent that the level at which they cite people for needing to do maintenance like that, they usually need to see it looking pretty bad before they get into sending people notices. And I think that that is an important distinction that you're referencing, because if nothing else, it's bound to get streaky and nasty looking pretty fast. So this process would not be empowered to assure its maintenance. And the grease issue may be worse on the paint than it is on the stainless steel. It's just tough to keep clean. So, okay. Thank you. Okay, I've got to refresh myself on how to use this. Just going to flip to the end here. Okay, so we are very much in agreeance with the items whereby staff has recommended approval. I think we're, forgive me if I'm wrong, I think that the items that were specifically disapproved related to the extension piece on the ductwork and then the issue of the drive-it insulation on the rear of the building and what that's, how that's impacting that cornice on the facade. I think just starting on the mechanical ductwork, I think I just want to highlight a lot of the photos that have been displayed today in the prior hearings or have been taken from directly behind the building in our private parking lot. What you see here, even in its current condition today, on the left-hand image is the view from the street and that's standing right at our driveway. When standing on Forest Avenue, this is sort of what's visible. As you can see, we went through an effort to locate that ductwork penetration in that recess where the building naturally sets back and went through a good deal of effort with the interior ducting and mechanicals to make that a possibility. As we look at this, we've referred back to the H-1 zoning overlay guidelines which have three key recommendations around mechanical systems being located on the exterior of the building. The first of which is, A, should be located where they are least visible and intrusive. This was certainly the least visible location for that exhaust system to be located. Second item, electrical and gas meters and other mechanical equipment should be located on the rear or side of a building, which this is. Then the last item being, if visible on the sides of the buildings, should be screened with shrubbery and or fencing. As Ms. Armstrong highlighted, since our last hearing, we conducted a site visit with the preservation staff as well as the mechanical department staff and the mechanical inspector. We were exploring different screening options. I think one of the issues we ran into, and I'm going to flip back to the straight on image of this ductwork. Here we go. We were looking at options. I'll start by saying we're very willing to come up with a screening solution that works here. One of the things we were looking at doing was constructing some form of screening on the top of that stub wall that would run up to the height of the parapet wall and screen off the mechanical equipment. The issue that came up with that, that the mechanical department raised issue with, was that they did not want anything obstructing the airflow between the kitchen exhaust and its exhaust to the open air. I think Ms. Marquette, you brought up the possibility of going straight up with the ductwork. That would certainly be our preference as well. The issue there was that because the terrace above, behind that parapet wall is occupiable, they did not want the ductwork running straight up. They saw that as a fire and a combustion issue. The angle that we set that at was specifically based off the mechanical department's recommendation and it had to do with the combustible materials on the side of the building and them not wanting grease build up in that little corner there. We looked at a screening solution. The mechanical department had issue with a continuously running screen. We talked through some of the other options. Is there a world where we could have a screen and maybe extend the ductwork to the edge of the screen and have a little cutout hole? We spent about 45 minutes or an hour on the property discussing this and chatting through a few alternatives. In the end, we didn't really reach a consensus, nor do we have a clear recommendation from either side on a solution. While we're here and we're willing and able to work towards a solution, there wasn't one immediately in front of us that seemed to make sense for everybody. We stepped back here a little bit and went to a simple proposal of what if we could paint the ductwork. This is not a Benmore, Home Depot paint. We would go in and we would electrostatically paint that metal ductwork, which is a permanent 30-year bond on the metal. Yes, there could be some grease-laden vapors that build up on there that would need to be relatively routinely cleaned, but it's not an issue of the paint chipping off or the would-be pink color fading away. I'll say the electrostatic painting solution is not a cheap one. It's a several thousand dollar expense. We're not slapping a roll of whatever Sherwin-Williams on there. It's a solution we believe would be long-lasting. When we look at this, I think one of the concerns that the planning staff had with a full screen wall as we were discussing it on site was that it would just add quite a bit of massing to the building and in itself would become a rather imposing structure there when viewed from Forest Ave. Given that this is really the most visible view from Forest Ave that you're looking at here today, we kind of stepped back and said, what if we did just go through this expense of electrostatically painting it and is that perhaps the best solution here? That's sort of where we ended up on the ductwork. We're very open to other proposals, talking through other potential solutions, but that's where we landed on that. Perhaps I'll pause there in case there's any questions. Yeah, I have a question. In regards to where that ductwork is coming out, why did you not just go straight up through the roof? Is it just because you didn't want to lose any seating up there and so you thought that coming out the side was going to be the better solution? Because you could have gone straight through the roof and it would have been a much smaller thing that you probably wouldn't have seen over the rails. That's right. We did ask that question after the fact. Of course, the issue of this came up at the very back end of our construction. The approved mechanical drawings did not show that ductwork piece. It was something that was requested by the field inspector as part of our closing inspection, so it wasn't as if we had months to prepare for this and come up with a solution to vertically exhaust it. But the other very practical issue with that is that, yes, it is possible that we could come up. It would mean losing a considerable amount of seating in our terrace area, an area that was already completed at this point of construction, but the bigger concern was there were mechanical guidelines that required the edge of that exhaust to be X number of feet away from the occupable space, so it wouldn't be a matter of just exhausting up to the parapet level. We would have to go considerably higher and build a chimney. Did you actually explore on a roof plan where you could put it that would meet the requirements of code away from that parapet for this? We have not studied that at a schematic level. We had a conceptual conversation with the mechanical department on it, and they told us it would essentially require us constructing a chimney that would extend past that roof terrace line. I guess I'm asking, but you wouldn't have to construct that chimney if you were so many feet away from the parapet. You would only have to do that if you were trying to do that directly adjacent to the parapet. No, we were told we would need to do that as a result of being immediately adjacent to a public occupable space. What is the perimeter? What is immediate? If you're trying to put a table right next to it, I get it, but what is that perimeter? Is it three feet? Is it four feet? Is it ten feet? I don't have the answer to that question. Like I said, we're very open to some form of screening solution to the extent that the board has any recommendations. Perhaps some sort of angled screening that came off the side here so that it would stick out as a 90 degree. We're very open to other recommendations. We really are. I'm happy to chat. Was the chimney option discussed with the mechanical folks when they were there with our staff? I don't believe that came up. No. No. And staff has a couple of comments somewhere along the line you need to know about when you're ready. So the chimney option would not be considered screening because the exit point would be unobstructed even though it would be higher up. Is that true? That is, we were told, what we were told was that if we were to exhaust vertically through the building, straight up essentially through the paver system on that roof, that we wouldn't be able to just terminate it at the floor level or even at the parapet level. They would have to be some considerable distance above. And I don't have the exact answer as to how many feet above it would need to exist. And then my second question would be, does that impact the noise? Does a chimney positively reduce the noise from that system? You don't have to answer that. I was going to say, truthfully, I don't. It would be the exact same fan and the exact same CFMs and the exact same motor speed of that exhaust system. I couldn't accurately. But it would be enclosed rather than being open to the air and to the neighborhood. The mushroom cap and the gooseneck would still be exposed to the elements above that chimney. It could not be part and covered by the chimney? I've never, I've built 50, 60 restaurants. I've never seen that as a possibility. We're welcome and we can explore those types of things. Like I said, we're open to figuring out a solution here. Building a 10-foot chimney that would meaningfully alter the massing of this building, we don't see as the correct thing to do here. We're open to any form of screening that everybody can agree on. I guess my concerns are more, not so much from the street where the traffic's moving, more from the sidewalk level and certainly more from the adjoining property, the house next to the rear of the building. They get both the full impact of its physical appearance as well as the noise. So I'm as much concerned about it from that point of view as I am anything else. Sure, and I, like I said, I don't know that I can accurately say whether or not that the fan would be quieter if it was located in a 10-foot chimney above that parapet line. I would make the note, I would think that the, I mean, just to ask the question, I can't imagine that sound concerns are relevant to the historic review process. Let me just be really clear. I could never vote for this arrangement, even if it were painted. Okay. We're open to different recommendations. Was that roof always occupiable or is that part of what you did in turning it into the club? It was always occupiable. So there was always a deck up there? Yes, that's how we purchased the building. So that was always a limitation? Yes. Any other comments? I think what's most concerning to me is that it's really not the role of the board to generate solutions for you. Our role is to review solutions that you propose to us, and painting's not a solution. And so despite the fact that both the historic staff have met with you on site, the mechanical inspectors from the city have met with you on site, we have no solutions other than verbal comments for us to respond to. That's what our role is, is to review submittals made by the applicant for solutions, not for us to generate the solutions. So it feels like to me we're not much further than we were at the last board meeting. And we would be open to schematically studying some screening solutions that the mechanical Like I said, we haven't received clear direction on preference from the staff as far as screening. So we'd be more than willing to step away, schematically study in 3D several screening solutions and come back with some of those proposed solutions. I think, Chair, may I interject? Yes, please. Well, what's just been being said by both you as Chair and you as the applicant is exactly where we as staff on your site left you, which was reminding you that the staff could not design this for you, reminding you that we could not, despite your asking us to, give you an opinion of what we would approve, because we told you we had to see it in drawings and submitted for materials to give us an idea of what you were actually putting forward for review, and that we could not just open-ended tell you, well, if you go this direction, we can approve it and that kind of thing. We were very clear on site and left with the expectation and your agreement at the time that you all were going to go and study this and do some schematics and put some options together on paper and put it forward, both about construction as more building-related type outcome and or screening, and we talked about when we would need that material by, arrived at the end of that same week. We waited patiently at the office for that to arrive. It came the middle of the following week and had none of the above of what was discussed. So the staffs, Ms. Armstrong and myself went and three members of the urban county government's mechanical division, its manager and two of his staff, and talked at considerable length about all the things that we're talking about today, but always throughout, it was made very clear that you have to submit options or at least one option, something that is your desire for what you're going to put forward as a solution to this, and we have nothing. And as I said, we did walk away from that meeting, went back with our design team, spent considerable time with our architects studying some conceivable options, none of which would satisfy the comments we had received from the planning staff and the mechanical department, primarily because the mechanical department does not want any screening that is preventing air flow outside of that kitchen. We do know that there are architectural screenings that will meet air flow requirements. So that one, and the mechanical staff statement was that they could put something around so that you don't see everything except the wide opening of the tuba. Everything else, they said, you know, could have successful screening design made for it. We've seen, obviously there are mechanical louver and screening products that are typically placed on roof dunnage around condensers, compressor units, ERVs, those are, you know, when we do that on a roof, the kitchen exhaust is always its own system and it's not immediately screened around. It is always kind of an open exhaust. But we're welcome to, you know, I mean, if this is not acceptable and the painting solution is not acceptable, we can go back and study some more solutions and come back with some more offers. I think it's the consensus of the board that we need solutions submitted that we can respond to that are architectural in nature. And I will say that rooftop screening for mechanical systems would not be what we were looking for. I was just referencing the type of mechanical screening and louvers that would allow air flow. Those things are used for makeup air units and for rooftop VRF condensers where some air flow needs to come into the units from behind. Not for the direct exhaust of a, you know, grease laden vapors from a kitchen exhaust. But I'm, I feel great confidence that there are architectural screenings that will also allow the air flow that would meet the requirements on this historic project that would be architecturally acceptable. So do you also wish to discuss the stucco and the EFA system? Yes. Thank you. So let me go there. All right. So this drawing was just to illustrate some areas where you can see the original stucco finish alongside the new drive-it panel insulation with stucco finish. And as you can see, the, we selected a drive-it stucco system where the texture and the finish perfectly matched the original finish. We've got a few more images that illustrate that. Oh. Maybe they're towards the end. There's also the question both about the finish itself but also about the trim, the datum line and its recessed nature now as opposed to its projection. Any solutions offered on that? Sure. No, I understand that now. That did not come up during our on-site meeting with the planning staff. But we obviously understand the concerns. This photo is just to illustrate the original finish next to the new finish, just to give you a sense of the similarity in texture and finish and color. But on that particular point, and here's one more image just kind of showing you directly, oh, directly side-by-side the new versus the original, and you can see it's a pretty close match. If I flip to another image, yes. So I think right here, we have not discussed this yet, but we'd be very open to adding some form of masonry trim applied to the building such that we could recreate that trim detail and provide some relief so that the outside edge of the trim sits proud of the building and not flushed with it. Any questions or comments? I guess, I mean, I think this picture in particular is one that I was kind of kept looking back at, is it just so clearly demonstrates the importance of that trim at the top of that wall. And you can just see where you like didn't finish that wall because it was behind, inconveniently behind your tube, but you can see how that line really does define this building. And even to the point where like the masonry walls all around the site and everything all have that piece, so it is a part of kind of the design of this property that is very distinctive and important. And then also, you know, an ephus finish is an artificial material, and you're like mimicking the look but not actually using the stucco, and that's all things that we really don't allow by the guidelines. And so I guess I can't approve it either as just what you've done here, and we need to get that historic feature back down. And again, I don't want to say how you do that. I don't want to say a piece of trim is okay. It's something you need to propose, show to the staff, let them talk about what a solution is here for what you've already done, and it may be removing the ephus and getting those details back and using a stucco. But again, I'm not here to give you ideas of what to do. I'm just saying that what's there now, I can't approve. So no problem at all with understanding the importance of that trim, that horizontal trim. We can find a way to culture that back on or apply a new masonry trim over the wall. As it relates to the drive-it and stucco versus synthetic stucco, I think I described in the previous hearing that there was never any insulation on the existing block. And we came back with a drive-it insulating system on top of that block to protect it, and then installed the drive-it stucco finish directly over that. I would hope we'd all agree that it's identical in appearance and nature and finish, and we'd be happy to have you see it in person. It truly is an identical match. I've completed no less than four historic renovations on South Beach, where we have an Art Deco district, very much a stucco-heavy architectural district. In every case, we use drive-it and stucco as a replacement material where repairs were required. I know there are different products that are provided by this manufacturer, and I assume no spec sheets have been submitted on what has been actually installed here. Some of it might be acceptable, and some of it would absolutely not be acceptable. And so that would be, one suggestion is to get spec sheets that could be reviewed by both the staff and the board as you're continuing to look at a solution with that datum line. I'd just add that we will absolutely do that. We can provide some specs of what was installed. I'd just add that what we're looking at here is a 1990s addition to a historic building that had no stucco. It was a painted masonry block building. That trim that we're looking at is not a trim feature that appears in the rest of the historic building. And then, of course, the original block on the historic component of the building is simply painted block. So perhaps it's worth mentioning that stucco is far from an original finish to the historic turn-of-the-century building. We'd be happy to provide the specs of what was installed. Madam Chair, I just wanted to bring you all along with this one in terms of the meeting we had on site. It was discussed with the applicants about the situation. Some of what has been referenced by the applicant certainly was discussed about the manner in which it was done. And the staff reiterated the proper manner in which it should have been done to be within the guidelines and essentially and literally said the staff would continue to be recommending disapproval in light of the outcome of this. It's kind of sounding like we never had a meeting, and we actually had a very thorough meeting with the applicants relative to what we're hearing from the applicant. Also, last thing, just wanted to reiterate something that Mr. Marquette already referenced, but that that is, and the board is well aware of this, but for everyone involved, that these properties are looked at equally on all four sides. And so it's not about can you see it from a street or can you see it from the front lawn, but it's equally from all four sides. I would disagree with that statement, just to say that the only street view is that one that we've rendered in the... I wasn't asking actually about if you agreed. I was saying that that's what our criteria calls for. Making a statement. Thank you. Thank you. This is our sole view from Forest Avenue. Before we go any further, I just want to see if there are any comments from the audience. I think we'll step away and allow audience comments, please. Okay. So I'm Marcy Deaton, and I am the one, along with my husband, who live right next door. It is very close, and I know that it doesn't matter that it can be seen. You can see it from every window on that side of my house, my back living area, my front porch, my front yard. If you're walking down Forest, they were showing just a very limited angle, but if you keep walking down Forest, you can see it better and better and better until you get past my house. So I just wanted to throw that out because I think that's an issue. I think a number of us have driven the street. Yes. So anyway, let's see. Okay. This is actually from my bedroom window. So this is what I see, and that is facing right toward where the sort of back end kitchen part of my house is. So I can hear it. You mentioned noise, and I'm not sure who's in charge of noise, but because of that tuba, that noise is in my house. I can hear it almost every room of my house. I can hear it on my front porch sometimes until I have to go inside because it's getting on my nerves. It's just like a low, and then it gets louder the more they cook and the longer the day goes on, and I can hear it all the time. So I don't know what to do about that, but that thing is amplifying it, in my opinion. I wanted to show you what I did today, like in an hour. Okay. Over here at Chun Lee, the mushroom is right there, and I don't know where the rest of the stuff is. I don't know why, if the Camel Club had started working with the city and architectural review from the beginning when they designed their kitchen, maybe they could have designed it in a way so that one of these mushrooms would have been somewhere else on the house or up or through a chimney. I don't know. I don't understand why there's so much ventilation out there, and this one, to me, looks fine. I Googled. There's so many different ways you could shield this thing, and some of them are architectural, louvered. I know nothing about this. I have no background, no engineer, and I just Googled this this afternoon, and then I looked at one in particular. It was kind of like theirs. It had a little wall already. I was like, okay. So I just couldn't believe that they couldn't come up with something besides painting it pink because from the pink picture, I think it's arguable that it looks worse painted pink than it does just being the silver. That's arguable, but I don't like it. So I even did this, and I don't even know how, but I learned how today to cut a little piece of a picture off and put it on top of a picture. I did this in an hour. Well, see, that's still ugly, but anyways. So anyway, I won't go into the Boer articles and all that. I just wanted to let you know that it does affect my property in a big way. I worry about my property values. I worry about the noise. I worry that the thing is throwing greasy air at my house because I'm really literally like 15 feet from their house. Anyway, so I oppose it, and I support the staff in not recommending it. Thank you. I would just like to say- Name and address. Tyler Bromagin, 467 Woodlake Way. I would just like to say that the ribosome barrier that we have installed, the bamboo, as that grows up, that will shield the view even more from not only her property, but also from forest. The views that you saw where you had the side of the wall going across, right behind that we've installed those bamboo, and those are supposed to grow up, I think it said maximum of 15 feet? No, maximum, I think, is what it said. The city council said up to 15 feet, and then I believe in the planning and zoning and what this board said, it came out of a maximum of 15 feet, but either way, that ribosome barrier will carry up there and hide this from the property and hide this from her property as well as from forest. Thank you. The development plan called for, at the time, the planning commission and the urban county council were reviewing all these things that were involved in getting the zoning so that they were even in a position to do this project, was that there be a minimum of a 15-foot shield for the adjacent and nearby properties. So nobody was charged with going out with a pair of shears and keeping it at 15 feet. It was to provide no less than 15 feet. Thank you for that clarification. So yes. That is not correct. It was a minimum of 15 feet, and we'd be happy to reference the approved development plan. And that is exactly what was just stated. It was a maximum of 15 feet, not a minimum of 15 feet. Okay. Well, I think if we can get, yes, if we can get clarification for the record on that, that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you. So I would like to come back unless there are additional suggestions or ideas at this point. Otherwise, I will have more comments from the board. Again, I would just like to say regardless of whether it's a maximum or minimum of 15 feet, if it's 15 feet high, you're not going to see it from forest. Her property is screened from it as well. And again, if we paint it the pink, it blends in a little bit more. But your visibility there is very limited. And per the guidelines, it is the least intrusive place that we can possibly put this. Our preference originally was to vent this out onto forest. This board told us that this location was where we had to put this vent. We spent a considerable amount of time already on a lot of this, time, money, energy, effort, just to get the vent to where it is right now. And we are doing the best we can. We're caught between two departments here. And fire code has said we can't do this or can't do that. We're trying to come up with a solution that works for everybody. And it just doesn't seem like there is anything else there. That's why we have proposed this. We have the screening as well. So thank you. Thank you. What I understand is that the mechanical department is not saying screening cannot be, architectural screening cannot be used. Their concern is the air flow. Yes. And that was the images that were just shown were standard mechanical louvers that are typically located around a condensing unit, not around a kitchen exhaust. I just want to clarify that they were not, they said that it was not an acceptable solution simply louvering around the exhaust. That was specifically stated. For a typical rooftop unit, I would understand that and be in agreement. But there would be screening that would be available that does have air flow that could, in fact, meet. We have no solutions provided, so this is a discussion that has no point in some ways. When we have a solution submitted, then there is some specific kind of nature to the discussion. But at this point, we do not have that. So let me, unless there is something new to be added here, I would like to go back to the board conversation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your deadline for action is May 31. Yes. I did note that. So because we're under the deadline of May 31, we have two options. One is to extend the board action deadline, but that requires that the applicant be in agreement and be willing to extend it. Without that agreement, then the board has no recourse but to hold a vote on it tonight. The staff would suggest if an extension is being considered by all parties, that it be a 60-day extension. And in the absence of an extension and the necessity for a vote, that would require the applicant to come back with a new application, or is there a prohibition for a certain period of time before that happens? Well, the applicant would then have these two items. If the board's vote were to deny a couple of these items, which might be very possible, then those items by that action would be in violation. So they would have 30 days to appeal that vote to the planning commission, or when that 30 days has passed, they would start receiving notices of violation from our office to rectify and come into compliance. And that would necessitate removal, potentially, of whatever's in violation and or coming up with another solution, but they'd have to be really fast about it because they're sitting with stuff in violation at that point. Which they are now because they built it without a permit. But all of this would not entail a new application. It would still be adjudication of this application. Because it already is in place. Okay. That's correct. That's what I understand. So I'm assuming the applicant is having a conversation about whether a 60-day extension is agreeable or not. We are agreeable to a 60-day extension. You are agreeable. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Then we'll get that into the record. Do we have any last questions here? I guess I would ask, the things that we are appropriate for Certificate of Appropriateness, would we want to go ahead and allow those to proceed? Certainly that's the board's choice. But I think that there would be some efficiency and effectiveness in considering doing so. So essentially it would be two motions, right? Okay. So is anyone comfortable with? Sure. All right. Chair, in regards to case number 12260505-H at 509 East Main Street, I move that we continue the hearing of this case for 60 days in regards to the kitchen hood application and the EIFS installation application portion of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Second. Chair, may I make one amendment that the applicant has indicated that they are in agreement with that 60-day extension? Yes. So moved. Yes. I add that amendment to my statement. Okay. Motion. Do you mind if I consider any language about that during that time it is understood the applicant will be coming forward with proposed plans for this process to review? During said 60 days, the applicant will continue to work on proposed solutions to the screening with staff and the EIFS with the staff to come before the board again with some additional options for review. Specific additional options. Second. Okay. Any other follow-up comments on that? Otherwise, I call the motion for a vote. Aye. Aye. Aye. And so that motion passes. So then the other piece of this is the staff recommendations for the following conditions. Do I have a motion on that? Chair, in regards to case number 12260505-H at 509 East Main Street, I do move that we approve a portion of the Certificate of Appropriateness as required to, one, replace the brick pavers on the front porch in the wrong area. Sorry. You're looking for louver. Yes. Replace the louver with masonry. To one, to replace the louver wall with masonry. Two, the green space replacement of bamboo with sweet gum columnar trees along the southeast parking lot wall and the other two standard conditions. I second. Any comments or questions? Otherwise, I call the motion for a vote. Those in favor? Aye. Aye. The motion passes. So I think we all have next steps to take. And my hope is that there will be very specific drawings and proposals to respond to so that we are not back in the same place at the next meeting. I appreciate everyone's deep interest and compassion for the project. It will get there and it will be wonderful. So are there any other business items? You have some minutes to approve from the previous meeting. You had three sets of minutes. They're not on the agenda. They've already been approved. In April? No, I think in April we postponed them because we had just gotten them via e-mail. They were a midnight delivery. Oh, no, that was back in March. The truth of the matter is I can't prove it to you because they run together. We were unable to complete. Minutes from the April meeting, but just fizzled out before we could get all the editing done. But I thought we had three other sets. Let's put it this way. We'll double check and have everything together for you at the next meeting of any date that needs addressing. Excellent. Thank you. Apologies if that was confusing. Any other questions or issues? Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.