# Board of Architectural Review - July 23, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · July 23, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6495 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6495?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-07-23 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 1, 2026 - **Length**: 22,545 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **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 July 23, 2025, to consider six applications involving proposed construction, renovation, and demolition projects within its jurisdiction. The board worked through a full agenda of residential and commercial property matters, taking a total of 10 votes across the course of the meeting. Two public comments were heard during the proceedings. Of the six agenda items considered, five were approved and one was denied — the application for 509 East Main Street, which sought to change the design, substantially increase the size of a structure, and create a new opening for a kitchen vent. ## Votes and Decisions All votes at the July 23, 2025 Board meeting were conducted by voice vote. No roll call votes were recorded, and no mover or seconder information was captured for any motion. - **Staff-Approved Applications (Consent):** The Board approved a block of 67 staff-approved applications by voice vote. [timestamp: 0:03] - **05550218-A — 218 Desha Road:** The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions. [timestamp: 4:45] - **03630638-H — 638 Central Avenue:** The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions. [timestamp: 6:47] - **32200179-J — 179 Old Park Avenue:** The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions plus one additional condition. [timestamp: 9:21] - **15410014-K — 14 Preston Court:** The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions. [timestamp: 11:28] - **04600135-K — 135 Constitution Street:** The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions plus additional requirements. [timestamp: 17:02] - **04600151-H — 151 Constitution Street:** The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions plus an additional requirement. [timestamp: 20:14] - **06900417-DD — 417 Fayette Park:** The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions plus additional requirements. [timestamp: 21:48] - **00710211-J — 449 North Limestone:** The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions plus one additional condition. [timestamp: 23:54] - **122-605-01 — 509 East Main Street:** A motion to disapprove all elements of the currently installed vent system at 509 East Main Street **failed** by voice vote. [timestamp: 1:51:08] ## Public Comment Two members of the public addressed the Board during the meeting's public comment period. **Marcy Deaton – Vent System at 509 East Main Street** [timestamp: 1:48:03] Marcy Deaton spoke regarding the vent system at 509 East Main Street. She expressed concerns about the approach taken, suggesting that alternative options should have been explored earlier in the process before arriving at the current solution. **Jennifer Reynolds – Fence at 831 West High Street** [timestamp: 2:20:53] Jennifer Reynolds, the 11th District Council Member, addressed the Board regarding a fence at 831 West High Street. Her comments focused on two primary concerns: the height of the fence and its proximity to the road. Reynolds emphasized that both safety and historic preservation should be central considerations in evaluating the fence as proposed. ## Contested Items Two items generated notable disagreement during the July 23, 2025 board meeting. **Vent System at 509 East Main Street** A procedural dispute arose over whether the board had jurisdiction to consider the vent system at 509 East Main Street. Questions were raised about the board's authority to take up the matter, but the board ultimately determined it could move forward and proceeded to disapprove the vent system. [No timestamp available] **Fence at 831 West High Street** This item drew opposition from community members, including at least one council member, who raised concerns about the proposed fence's height and its proximity to the road. Speakers emphasized issues related to both safety and historic preservation. The nature of the disagreement reflected broader community interest in how new installations interact with the character and safety standards of the surrounding historic area. [No timestamp available] ## 218 Desha Road: Demolish deck; construct patio [timestamp: 03:41] The Board took up an application for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 218 Desha Road, which sought approval to demolish an existing deck and construct a patio in its place. The Board discussed the application, and no specific concerns, debates, or individual speaker contributions are recorded in the available meeting data. The item was classified as a discussion item. The Board approved the application for the certificate of appropriateness. ## 638 Central Avenue: Construct a rear deck [timestamp: 05:45] The Board took up Agenda Item 2, an application for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a rear deck at 638 Central Avenue. The Board discussed the application, which sought approval for the rear deck construction at the property. No specific speakers, presented materials, or individual concerns were recorded in the meeting record for this item. The Board approved the application for a certificate of appropriateness. ## 179 Old Park Avenue: Renew permit to construct and increase rear addition [timestamp: 08:20] The board took up Agenda Item 3, an application for a certificate of appropriateness at 179 Old Park Avenue to renew a permit for constructing and increasing a rear addition. The board reviewed the application and discussed the proposal to renew the previously issued permit, which covers the construction and expansion of a rear addition to the property. The item was considered under the board's standard review process for certificates of appropriateness. - The application sought renewal of an existing permit, along with approval for an increase to the rear addition as part of the renewed scope of work. - The board's discussion centered on the certificate of appropriateness for this project. The board ultimately **approved** the application. *Note: The structured data available for this item does not identify specific speakers or detail the particular concerns or arguments raised during deliberation. For a full account of the discussion, the meeting transcript or recording beginning at approximately the 8:20 mark is recommended.* ## 14 Preston Court: Rebuild rear addition from tree damage and change openings [timestamp: 07:47] The Board took up Agenda Item 4, an application for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 14 Preston Court. The application sought approval to rebuild a rear addition that sustained tree damage and to change openings as part of the reconstruction. The Board discussed the application and moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness. No specific concerns, objections, or notable points of debate are recorded in the available meeting data for this item. **Outcome:** The application was **approved**. ## 232 E Bell Ct: Enlarge the Dormer and Construct Addition [timestamp: 12:29] The board took up agenda item 5, a application for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 232 E Bell Ct. The proposal sought approval to enlarge an existing dormer and construct an addition to the property. The board discussed the application, and the item was ultimately **approved**. *Note: The available data for this agenda item is limited. Specific details on presenters, the substance of the debate, concerns raised, and the vote tally are not available in the provided record.* ## 509 East Main Street: Change design, substantially increase size and create new opening for kitchen vent [timestamp: 1:32:32] The board took up agenda item 6, an application for a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 509 East Main Street. The application sought approval to change the design of an existing feature, substantially increase its size, and create a new opening for a kitchen vent. The structured record does not identify specific speakers or detail the individual arguments made during the discussion. However, the board deliberated on the proposed changes, which involved both an alteration to the existing design and the introduction of a new penetration in the structure for ventilation purposes. Following the discussion, the board **denied** the application for a certificate of appropriateness. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of 67 staff-approved applications - **05550218-A** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 218 Desha Road - **03630638-H** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 638 Central Avenue - **32200179-J** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 179 Old Park Avenue - **15410014-K** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 14 Preston Court - **00710211-J** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 449 North Limestone - **04600135-K** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 135 Constitution Street - **04600151-H** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 151 Constitution Street - **06900417-DD** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 417 Fayette Park - **122-605-01** — failed (0-0): Disapproval of all elements of the currently installed vent system at 509 East Main Street --- ## Full transcript I went as far as I could, tried to find a new face, there isn't one of these lines that I would erase, lived a million miles of memories on that road. Every step I take, I know that I'm not alone, he took the home from a boy, but not the boy from his home. These are my streets, the only life I've ever known. He says you can't go home, who says you can't? July 23rd meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. I apologize for starting a little late. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park. 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 parts. The board encourages and recommends that the applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'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 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 a review of the 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 67 applications approved by the staff. As you can see, they have been working very hard over the past couple of months. I'm going to dispense with the normal procedure by not reading them into the record. Instead, I'm going to ask for a motion from other board members to ask that the approval of these 67 applications be considered to be read into the record. Do I have a second? Yes. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Without objection, the motion is approved. There are 67 applications now approved and in the record. Turning now to our first application on 218 Deshaies Road in Ashland Park. In the 218 Deshaies Road, that's the alarm that went off that should have gone off 25 minutes ago. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not here, but you have an email where he agrees with the recommendations. All right. It's a routine application. It has been recommended for approval by the staff with what we call the two standard conditions. For the record today, I'll read them into the record, those standard conditions, and I'll refer to them as standard throughout the evening. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes of staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. And secondly, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes of staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Do I have any comments or questions about this application? Any comments or concerns from the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 05550218-A at 218 Deshaies Road, I move that we approve 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. I seem to have lost. Do we have number two? Thank you. Do you want this? I want it. Sorry. Seem to have. Number two. Number two. Okay. I don't think it was in my packet. I'm turning now to application number two. There we go. Okay. We're having an agenda issue this morning. All right. I'm turning now to attachment number 2638 Central Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District. The scope of the work is install a deck. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not here, but they received their staff report on Monday by email and have not heard from them. What did you do? Scare them all off today? I tried to. Okay. All right. Again, this is a standard recommendation with the two conditions. I think for the record I do have to read them into the record for this for each application. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes of staff for review and approval prior to start of work. And once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to work. Do I have any comments from the board? Any comments from the audience? Hearing none, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, with regard to case number 03630638-H at 638 Central Avenue, I move that a certificate of appropriateness be granted with the two standard conditions as read. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Hearing none, the COA is approved as conditioned and we'll move on to our next application. This is at 14 Preston Court. The scope of work is rebuild from free damage change openings is the applicant here. Everyone up. Mr. Dickinson, after 14 Preston Court is heard, can we go back to 179 Old Park? I'm sorry. I have gotten this agenda completely scrambled. Which one are we supposed to be on? 179 Old Park. Number three. Hang on. We have it. Okay. Ma'am, I'm sorry. I apologize. Let's go to 179. Trying to get this. Apparently they're not numbered correctly. Come back to 179 Old Park Avenue. The scope of work is demolish back porch and construct a rear addition in stoop is the applicant here. Come on up. Okay. Hello. If you'll state your name for the record, please. Jason Zavala. All right. The staff has recommended approval of the application subject to the standard conditions plus one other, which is that you provide the final door and window specifications and details to staff for review and approval prior to work. Yes. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. Any questions about this application? No. Any questions from the board members? Any questions from the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 32200179-J at 179 Old Park Avenue, I move approval of the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions plus one additional condition to provide the final door and window specifications and details to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you and good luck with your project. Thank you. I would also note we do have one letter of support, which is at your desk that came in today on that project. Turning now to 14 Preston Court. The scope of work is rebuild from tree damage, change openings. Ma'am, come on up. If you'll state your name for the record. Yes. Carlotta Abbott. Ma'am, I have to give you my sympathy. That was a horrible event that happened to your property with that tree. I'm so grateful I wasn't home when it happened. I can imagine. I have a huge tree in my backyard and I keep wondering with these storms. Anyway, the staff has recommended approval subject to what I've been calling the standard conditions. You've heard me give them. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Do you have any questions about this application? I don't. Thank you for your words of kindness about the tree damage. Well, we all live in downtown neighborhoods with these big trees and we love them dearly. Yes. And sometimes they can be, unfortunately, a problem for us. So, thank you. All right. Do I have any questions or comments from the board? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 15410014-K at 14 Preston Court, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Turning now, I think we're in the right place now. Turning now to, we have two that I suspect we need to have a hearing on. The first one is 232 East Belcourt, Enlarge the Dormer and Construct Addition. If you'll come up and introduce yourself. Good afternoon. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. The staff has recommended disapproval of the connector and approval of the rest of your application. I assume you want to be heard on that? I would like to be heard, yes. We're in agreement with all the other points, but we would like to be heard on the connector. All right. We're going to break this into two motions, but we'll hear it all at one time. That's just fine. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Turning now to 509 East Main Street. This is the scope of work is change design. Substantially increase the size and create a new opening for kitchen vent and stucco over FIS and losing trim detail. Is the applicant here? All right. We have, I think we still need to have a brief presentation on this one, so I'm delaying this until the end of the presentation. All right. So moving on. Turning now. It's happening again. Is it 631 or 613? We should be at 613. We've got 631. Sorry, yes. 631 East Main Street. All right. Another agenda issue. This is 631 East Main Street install signage. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present. This is one of the letters I handed you that she's unable to attend and she apologizes. Okay. Staff, again, this is another one where the staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions. And I'll read them into the record just to be on the safe side. Once they're reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the issuance of a CLA. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are there any questions about this application? Any comments from the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case 122-606-31-K at 631 East Main Street, I move that a certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions as read. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The COA is approved as conditioned. Turning now to 135 Constitution Street in the Mulberry Hill Historic District. Scope of work is install signage. Is the applicant here? Mr. Chair, the applicant is not here, but I've been in contact with them and they agree with the recommendations. Specifically, was there an agreement on the applicant's part to reduce the size of the fence? Yes, there was. It's a building code issue. It can't be over two square feet. Right. It's a zoning issue, is it? It's a zoning issue, is it not? Yes, zoning. Okay. Council, can I move forward or do we need to wait for the applicant to actually be here? I think if they have expressed that they're okay with the conditions, including the two extra ones on top of our standard conditions, then I think it would be okay for you to adopt the staff recommendations and approve. Barry, in the future, make sure you get an email or something in writing that says that they're okay. I think I do have that. You do? Oh, you didn't tell me that. Perfect. Thank you. All right, then. In that case, then, we'll move forward. This is the application pertaining to, again, 135 Constitution Street. Any questions or comments from the board members? Thank you so much. You're so loud. Oh, okay. It's nice to know that. Do I have any questions from the board? Any comments from the audience? All right, hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 04600135-K at 135 Constitution Street, I move approval of this certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions plus the following additional requirements, conditions. One is to reduce the size of the fence sign to 17 inches square. Number two is to mounting the hardware shall be anchored into mortar, not masonry. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion about the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion is approved, and the certificate of appropriateness as conditioned is approved. All right. Turning now to 417 Fayette Park Historic District. I'm sorry, 417 Fayette Park within the Fayette Park Historic District. Yeah, 151. Mr. Chair. I jumped in. That's my fault. I jumped in. Sorry, sir. I've got one more to go through. Turning now to 151 Constitution Street in the Mulberry Hill Historic District. This is another install signage application. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not here. They received an email with the staff report Monday, and I have not heard from them. All right. This is a standard approval with the standard two conditions. I'll read them into the record. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. And once reviewed by the other city divisions, any change shall be submitted to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Do I have any questions or comments from the… Yes, sir. And on the prior 135 Constitution Street, the second condition was mounting the hardware into mortar. Why is that not also appropriate for 151 Constitution Street? Barry? That would be appropriate. All right. Thank you. Good eyes and good catch. Let's pick up the other one and read it into the record, and we'll add it. All right. Whoever makes the motion. You find it, and we will make it. I actually have it. Here you go. Okay. All right. Okay. Make the motion, please. Chair, in regard to case number 04600151-H at 151 Constitution Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and a third condition that the mounting hardware shall be anchored into the mortar and not the masonry. 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. All right. The motion is approved, and the COA as conditioned is approved. Moving forward to 417. Thank you for your patience. 417 Fayette Park in the Fayette Park Historic District. The scope of work has changed the rear openings. The staff has recommended, I believe, they have a couple of conditions that are special. I want to read them to you to make sure we don't have a problem. The first one is replace the brick in the closed up portions of the openings set back two to six inches to demonstrate the previously occurring openings. Do you agree? Yes, I agree. Number two, provide the final doors and window details. The staff will review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. We provided that earlier this week for an Anderson E-Series window. Absolutely. And, of course, number three and four, the standard conditions. Are we in agreement with those? Yes. Do we have any questions or comments from the board? Go ahead. Just one comment. This is a neighbor, and I will abstain from voting. All right. Thank you. Any other discussion? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, I believe the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 06900417-DD at 417 Fayette Park, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the two standard conditions as have been previously read, plus the condition one, replace the brick in the closed-up portions of the opening set back two to six inches to demonstrate the previously occurring openings, and condition two, provide final door and window details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. 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 certificate of appropriateness is approved. Thank you so much. Turning now to 449 North Limestone. Again, we're still in the Mulberry Hill Historic District. The scope of work is to demolish a garage and construct garage and site work if the applicant is here. Here. Staff has reviewed and recommended approval of your application. There is one substantive change. That is they want you to change the garage door details and come back with no cross-butt details. Are you in agreement with that? I agree with that. Okay. The other two are the standard conditions. Are you in agreement? I agree. Do you have any questions about your application? No. If not, do I have any questions or comments from the board members? No. Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, for case number 00710211-J at 449 North Limestone, I move approval of the certificate of appropriateness with standard two conditions plus the one additional condition that the rear garage door details come back with no cross-butt details. Do I have a second? Second. Any comments or questions about the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you so much. Thank you. I believe the next one that's up is at 423 West 6th Street. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. It should be number 13, but it's 12 instead. On my agenda, it's 423 6th Street. If I switch these around. Is that correct? Are we on the right one? Yes. Here we go. 423 East. Yes. Okay. The scope of work is in the Northside Historic District. It's a very large agenda, so we have like 26 or 27 items to go through, so just bear with us if you don't mind. The scope of work is construct the front yard fence and gate. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present but is agreeable with their findings. Okay. Again, this is another one where the staff has recommended approval of the application with the standard two conditions, which I'll read into the record again. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. And once reviewed by the other city divisions, return any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to work. Do I have any questions or comments? So this application. Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 17310423-T at 423 West 6th Street, I move that we approve 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 of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right. Turning now to 555 North Broadway. Within the north side historic district scope of work, exchange the openings in the rear porch, construct deck, construct pergolo, patio, walkways, fountain, and stone walls. And the applicant is here. State your name for the record, please. Brian Bayshore. All right, Mr. Shore. Staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what I've been calling the standard two conditions. Do I need to read them to you? No, sir. Are you in agreement? Yes, sir. Say yes. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Do I have any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 025-00555-N at 55 North Broadway, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any questions or comments about the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the motion. All those in favor, call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Good luck for your rather large project. Okay. Turning to our next application at 444 West 3rd Street in the Northside Historic District is to construct pool and patio. Here's the applicants here. If you state your name for the record, please. Carol Martin. All right. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what I've been calling the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. I am. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the audience? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair will call, ask for a motion. Chair, per case number 18800444-K at 444 West 3rd Street, I move 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 conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. We're moving now to 134 Walrush Avenue in the Pensacola Park Historic District. Actually, there are two together, 134 and 136. They're adjacent properties. They both deal with the construction of a retaining wall. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not here. They received their staff report Monday and sent an email today that they would not be able to make it. Okay. With respect to both applications, the staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions, which are, I'll read them to the record, once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes to staff or the board for review and approval prior to start of work. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to work. The conditions are identical as to both applications. I need a separate motion on each individual application, starting off with 134 Walrush. Chair, in regards to case number 19750134-A at 134 Walrush Drive, 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 of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Turning now to 136 Walrush. And, again, I'll iterate for the record. These conditions have been read into the record. Chair, per case number 19750136 at 136 Walrush Drive, I move 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. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Turning now to 831 West High Street, which will be heard at the same time in conjunction with 835 West High Street. They're a little different, though. State your name for the record. Rashard Clark Hazard. What? RC Hazard. Rashard Clark Hazard. Mr. Hazard? Yes, sir. I think the staff has recommended approval, but they want you to reduce the size. I'm sorry. There is a disapproval of your fence without a COA permit of the front yard, and you need to have a four-foot yard fence instead. Would you like to be heard on that? Yes, sir. We've actually been working through it. I have one other case ahead of you, if you don't mind. Let me come back to you in just a moment. Okay. And I think the other one is less contentious, but we need to go through both of them. No problem. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Let's return now. Mr. Chair? Yes? The button for this mic is like. I can't hear you. I'm trying. Now I have power. It's like down there. Never mind. Would you mind also, before you start back up, act on the two, number 17 and 18, 702 Central Avenue and 711 Central Avenue. We need motions to postpone those two cases. Oh, you want me to do that right now? Okay. Please. Yeah, we'll work through the rest of the agenda then. And then two to just state for the record the two withdrawals below. Okay. In my efficiency, I sort of moved those aside and just moved. Turning now to 702 Central Avenue, there is an application to change previously approved garages. There has been a motion that this matter be postponed until the August 24, 2025 meeting. Yes. Thank you. Do I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Second? Second. All right. With respect to 711 Central Avenue, install the front yard fencing. Again, I have a request that we postpone this proceeding until August 24, 2025. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. We'll note for the record that 329 and 331 South Mill Street, both adjacent properties involving the paving of a gravel parking area, has been withdrawn. Thank you. All right. Now we'll move to, I guess we'll move first to 509 East Main Street. Did I get ahead of myself? What am I doing wrong now? I think 232. 232. I apologize. Let's move now to 232 Belcourt. I'm sorry. The fact agenda. OK. Mr. Taylor? We're not in the wrong order. First of all, I need to have you reintroduce yourself, and then we'll formally open the hearing. Does she have to report first? She does, but I want you to put yourself on the record first. Very well. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. And you're appearing for the applicant, correct? That is correct, yes. All right. OK. Ms. Armstrong? All right. So previously this case was first opened up on the April 16th meeting date, and we heard this case to look at a different set of plans. I'll walk you through this case. As you can remember, this is a corner property at the corner of East Belcourt and Boonesboro to walk you through. Of course, this is a one-and-a-half-story bungalow, and it has a, and you can sort of see here at this corner, and it was going to receive a new addition on the back and then also receive a new garage connecting these two. The proposal now is a little different, where we are extending the dormer and not necessarily building a complete new addition, just extending the dormer and filling in the void, as you can see here, but keeping this inset here and then also taking down this garage, building a new garage with more of a shed roof. But then the proposal is also to connect them with a connector, and we'll walk through these as we walk through some of the images. Again, there is an offset here. There is a part of the proposal of the plans does talk about insetting this, as the guidelines talk about insetting any addition off the corner. And just sort of to walk you through this corner yard. And, of course, their new stairs were walked down in this particular location. These were taken back in January, and this is the corner of Forrest and Sayre where this was done in 2010. There was a proposal to connect land, two proposals, or a property. And then these are other corner properties to sort of indicate what is going on in other corners. This is at Delmar and Russell. And I thought I had another one. And so here are the plans that extended this dormer with the connector. And this is the proposed site plan. And I apologize. I tried to darken up these plans as much as possible, but you do have these plans in front of you. So I might reference you look at the plans in front of you versus the plans here and with the connector here. The one-story addition that's on the first floor has been modified multiple times. It has appeared before this board probably at least three or four times within the last 20 years to have some alterations. But I think the proposal now is to extend the dormer down. And then to, let's see, I'm trying to get to these schematics so it might be easier to read. This is the existing. Oh, let's go back to this roof. And then the proposal to extend this down and to fill in this inset over here. And there's the rendering on the back that brings this until below. If this is from the backside, look at the garage. So this dormer will be brought down and then this will be infilled below. It will be brought off the existing roof line. You can see barely the wall system of the existing below. And then this will be brought in. Sorry. Well, I'm trying to get this to be there. So if you could look at the images in front of you, it might be easier to look at that. And so that would be filled in here and then this would be brought out on the backside for the extension. And then again, the garage will be totally new. Of course, this is a later built garage. It was built in the late 70s, early 80s. It's not the original garage. And it will have a shed roof. And you can sort of see the e-blind here. There. The schematics give you a little bit better punch. And this will be a slope roof to the back. And there will be an open connector proposed, leading from the back dormer to the addition. And if we need to put these plans on the overhead, we can. If that would be helpful. Guidelines are included for your reference. Finding stormer. The proposal to enlarge and widen the dormer on the second floor is within the guidelines. 2A4F state the addition should be built in a manner that avoids substantial removal or loss of historic materials, which does not damage or destroy the main architectural features of this building. Staff does find the dorm needs to be pulled off the southeast corner to have more original roof showing and not to overwhelm the roof. Staff recognizes this might result in the reduction of dormer. Staff finds, in the other instances, that the roof needs to frame the dormer. In other words, the roof needs to be more evident on all four sides of the dormer. This would be the meaning to sort of pull that off so all the roof is shown and not just bring the dormer all the way to the edge of that southeast side. I think you can see it a little bit more on this because you can see it below this roof line here. Staff would say that would need to be brought in so you can see more of it. The first floor proposal to construct a first floor addition is within the guidelines. Staff finds it appropriate and within the guidelines. 2A4A and B materials. Staff finds the proposal to use wood siding, softens both the dormer and the garage, and finds materials compatible with the stucco on the main structure of 232 East Belcourt. In the guidelines, 2A4J states materials, color, and texture, patterns, and construction techniques help provide and define building character and scale. Fenestration. The openings have a more modern appearance and are compatible with the main structure. Referencing guidelines, 2A4F, window openings should be compatible in scale, size, and proportion to establish patterns of openings in adjacent buildings. Garage. Staff finds the proposal to demolish the garage within the design guidelines, and if it is deemed necessary to do so, the garage is a non-significant accessory structure. The demolition of the existing structure would not be detrimental to the site or the neighborhood, as noted in Guidelines 6D, since the structure is a non-significant accessory structure. The construction of a new garage within ADU is within the design guidelines, Guidelines 2B2C or 2B1K respectively states accessory buildings should be compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape with other secondary buildings in the historic district. And architectural details help give building character and scale. Details should be included but not are limited to corner boards, rake boards, cornice brackets, downspouts, railings, columns, steps, doors, window molds, decorative elements, 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 district. Details should be appropriately scaled for the proposed structure and compatible with other adjacent buildings and district. Installation of ornament and details should make building imitation history. Historic appearance is not allowed and new construction may incorporate contemporary materials. Connector, however, the construction of the connector requires further discussion. Staff finds that connecting the house to accessory building inconsistent with the pattern of development along the East Belcourt and the Belcourt Historic District. Guidelines 2B1C, setbacks of new construction be consistent with the setbacks and distance the building from the street and adjacent building to convey a pattern in the sense of an overall rhythm along a block and within the district, which adds the character of streetscape and overall district. Placement of the new construction should be consistent with that of adjacent buildings along the block and within the district. This includes front and side yard setbacks. While the proposed garage will be nearly in the same location existing, there will be one other garage that is connected and Sam found that it is not appropriate to be connected to that structure. Sam finds the proposed attachment is not within the guidelines. Recommendation, staff finds disapproval of connector and staff recommends approval of the proposal with the following conditions. The dormer step off the rear south ridge another six inches with the final plans to be submitted prior to the issuance of the COA. Two final dormer details if the connector does not get approval to be submitted to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. And with the standard two conditions of number three and four. Okay, before you move on, any questions from the board members? I need some clarification on that last sentence. In your connector, did you say there's only one other garage that's connected and the staff found it was not appropriate? Have we previously approved a connector? We did, but staff did not recommend approval of it. But the board did. Do you happen to remember where that is? Yes, I showed it to you before. You probably have, but it's been a while. I'm going to. If you hold on one second. I would also note there are three letters in support of this project from various neighbors. I'll get to that in just a moment. Pardon? I'll get to those in just a moment. This project here at the corner of Forest and Sayre Avenue is connected. This was a garage that was done in 2009-2010. And where is this again, please? Pardon? Where is this again? Sayre and Forest Avenue. It's facing on to Forest. So it's in the Belcourt district. Correct. And the connectors behind the tree. Right. It's hard to see because they're landscapers. We have never been concerned about visibility before. So I'm trying to get details. Did the staff recommend disapproval and the board overrode the staff? Correct. Do you happen to recall what the findings were with respect to that? As to why they did not agree with the staff? I think the extenuating circumstances are a little different because this is a duplex. And the only way they could enter this property was through the front. And the way they were also including a deck, and so the deck allowed them to have access with a connector to this garage from the upper story, where before the people who owned this property were not able to access their backyard. And so this allowed them to have access to the backyard and to this studio garage space. And so it was extenuating circumstances. Okay. So to be clear, it was the board that approved it. It did not go to planning commission, and the planning commission reversed the staff. Okay. All right. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the board members? Ms. Armstrong, we're not done yet by any means. Okay. Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much. So as you all know with this project, we've been here for two conceptual reviews. I think my client is really interested in making sure that we went through really all the proper channels. We've also had a really good meeting with the owner and with staff that actually, I believe, kind of resulted in the design that we have today. And I really want to give the staff a lot of credit for that. There was a really good discussion. And I think not only did it make them feel better about having a platform to relay their ideas, but the owner heard that, too, and it was a really good process. So I really feel like this process has gone the right way that it should go as far as review by you all, input, and alteration of the design. And I'm going to go ahead through here back to – and I'll leave it on that image for right now. Obviously, when we first came with this proposal, the garage was in similar form. However, it had a low-slope flat roof, so it was more of a box condition. We've gone through several iterations on the dormer, trying to figure out how that would work on the house. Obviously, coming back to where we are now, we're in complete agreement with the staff's recommendations and their approval, if you will, of the design and their findings that they recommend. The dormer in the addition on the house works, that the garage works, and that the connector does not work. And I think my client feels like they've gotten to a good point with the design. They feel good about it. They like it. They still want to fight for the connector. They feel that it really helps them use this building the way that they want to use it, which is having aged parents when they come to town, which is regular, living in the apartment, and being able to communicate back to the second floor addition, which is a playroom for their young girls, so that they have kind of a connection to the house and they're not down the stairs and then up the stairs again. So that's really the driver for the connector. It's not just because they think it looks cool. It actually is really, for them, quite functional in a way. The other piece to this that we did was with the side stair. That stair used to be under the roof and sort of within that volume, if you will, yet open to the exterior. We've kind of pulled that back to get the massing down a little bit and not have it feel as heavy, and so the stairs are a little bit more exposed on that front. And then there was a question earlier brought up about the pitch of the roof on the garage. That pitch on the roof is really to match the addition dormer on the house, but we've kept the rear side of that as low as we could for code minimum, and then it pitches up from there. So that wall presents a little bit more with the glass in it, but I really feel like it now connects back to the house a lot better, and that was the struggle that I think everybody had with this proposal originally, was that the garage seemed fine and the addition maybe seemed fine, but they didn't speak to each other. I think we've gotten back to a point, and I think my client feels like the connector, again, is more of a horizontal kind of line visually that allows them to use this building a little bit more. So that's kind of that. I'm happy to answer any questions. So let me ask you this. Is the issue with the connector accessibility of the steps? I think they would prefer that their parents not have to go down steps to go in the house, to come back up steps to get moved to the second floor while they're staying there. Clearly they would be able to go within the house and come downstairs, but it would be a lot easier if they could circulate back and forth and that the children could go back and forth. And, again, I know that's a unique condition and not something that has precedent, and that's kind of really where their desire and their focus is. And just speculating, if this property ever went to rental, how would that connector be blocked off from the other apartment, if you will? I guess that would be a challenge. I think what's nice about this particular proposal is that you could remove that connector quite easily, and all you're dealing with is some siding on both volumes, and it's gone. So I don't feel like it's something that affects both of those pieces in that iteration. So if you're talking about a future use or somebody's interest in maybe keeping these properties separated, this is a young family, and actually their investment in this project and this property, they want to stay here. They love the neighborhood. They don't want to go anywhere. Elaborate on that some, the fact that it's easily removed. Yeah, I think for this case, and it's not really affecting anything on the main volume of the house to where there's masonry involved that you'd have to be patching through, I think is an element. It probably also should be noted that if you all were to see approval of this connector today, we're still not out of the woods yet with making it happen. I still have to go to planning and zoning. I still have to get them to buy in on that connection to the house, and so I'll have some challenges with that that can be overcome, but that still will be there. And I guess my final question to you is, no, I think we're good. Okay. Go ahead. On this connector, you've made it look fairly thin and slick and lightweight. Do you have confidence that that thickness that you've drawn is adequate to support this, or are we going to see it grow and get thicker? Well, of course, I don't have it engineered yet. That's the next step. But if you go through and look, we've attempted to understand in section here, if you look here, is this side thick enough for a double or triple LVL that would likely be needed? Probably a little bit more than that. But we're at least understanding that we would have some structure that would register on the side. size of that and we would frame in between it in sort of that x-axis and then the bigger. So could the depth of it grow slightly towards the ground? Probably a little bit, but I don't imagine it's going to get too, too much bigger. But probably a slightly bit, yeah, it could be. Other questions or comments from the board members? Go ahead, Susan. On the garage, second story, what are the requirements for entrances for a living unit like that? Is one adequate? Yeah, one is just fine, yeah. And it could be internalized as well, like within a building. So if you had a garage and you had, you know, parking space and stairs inside, you can do that. I'm just going to share a reaction to this that I had from the beginning and I think I've discovered now, looking at these drawings again, why I had the reaction. The design of this property, the redesign of this property doesn't bother me at all. But it does bother me where it is in its location. And I think what bothers me most is the height of that wall over the garage door. And again, from a design point of view, I think it's really cool. In its location, I think it is massive, and the streetscape. And you know, my way of trying to deal with it would be, you know, if it were turned around and the streetscape view was the roof, not the wall of windows, then that would soften the impact of that, not change anything about it, just the way it's presented against the street and the other houses in that area. So that's just an opinion. It seems very bulky to me. I'll address a couple of those things. I think in this case, we've got two things. First, we've got kind of a tight urban-suburban site. There's a neighbor's yard is directly behind there. They don't want to feel like they're looking over into the neighbors. They don't want to feel like the neighbors can look up into the house. So kind of pushing our view out towards the street and towards that side was important. This also faces more of a northeasterly side, so we're not getting as much direct sunlight. The other side would face more of a southern, general southern exposure. There's a lot of trees on the other property, so that wouldn't be as much of a concern. I think it was more about the privacy. And I think, you know, my clients felt like they wanted to have more of a kind of architectural view on that street. They felt like it was something a little more presentable than just like a roof. You know, of course, the original design was more of a box and it was lower because we didn't have the roof pitch to contend with. We just had a volume there and it had a consistent parapet. One thing to note, and I know that the drawings are a little light in the elevations, and I have a drawing in here and I believe that it is the top drawing here that you can see in your packet. And that is A-202. That's correct. Drawing A. That is an elevation from the garage all the way to the front of the house. And what you'll see is we've kept the height of that garage, obviously below the house, that's a requirement. But it's not registering here as well, but it does stay down from that. And while tall, I don't disagree with that, I think it's still subservient in a way that to me, just looking at it, and of course I have the luxury of having kind of our 3D model and being able to look at it in that and see, it's subservient. But I think the way that it feels taller here in this drawing, obviously as kind of a perspectival view or an axiometric view makes it feel taller, is a product of having to kind of pitch the roof. And before, our roof line was probably about right here before we had to pitch that roof. And maybe even a little bit lower. So that's kind of, just to kind of address your thoughts. I looked for that page that you referenced to see what the exact comparison was. We looked at that pretty closely to make sure we were kind of keeping it as low as we could. Okay, Ms. Hill? Yes. So the dormer on the historic house I think has gotten really nice. It's really integrated with the house very nicely. So I think it is, my concern has to do with, and trying to figure out exactly how to talk about it, but the house has very similar overhangs to the single slope roof of the garage, the proposed single slope roof. And those overhangs are very similar. But with it not just being a single slope on the historic house, it kind of contains that height a little bit. Even though I acknowledge that the upper edge of the single slope garage roof does not exceed the ridge line of the original house, it has a feel about it. So maybe it has to do, the overhangs seem to be reflective of the historic house. Architecturally, would that be part of the intent? Potentially, yeah. I think it was really, the goal with what we did with the roof on the garage was to sort of pick up on what the dormer is doing now. You know, to kind of speak the language, almost feel like those two roof lines were kind of commensurate to each other. So to possibly address what you're saying, there could be some eave reduction there that maybe makes that then feel a little bit more kind of isolated to itself, yet form making ties back. So that's absolutely something that could be done. Yeah, because it does seem like to me that it just is a separate object from the house. And I think that the side and upper eaves, not as much the rear eave where the water is draining off, but the other three sides. I think if that tightened that envelope up a little bit, that it, I think it would relieve some of that sense of wing-like feel of that expansive roof. Really heavy eave overhangs, yeah. But the other question had been whether, rather than matching the two and a half and twelve slope that the new dormer on the historic house is, whether if one could reduce that slope just a little bit. So keeping the back line where it is, the low line, and just reducing it down more toward the windows in the way that the new dormer on the historic house is. Whether that would soften that up just a little bit and make it seem a little more in keeping with the nature of how the roofs are meeting the window edge. Yeah, and I think all that's doable and I think it starts to then become a product of what roofing material we're using and what pitch we're at and those kinds of things. And there's some options to that that we can look at that aren't like a membrane roof, which I don't think we would want to do on a building like that. I'd want to try to stay with a standing seam or something. I don't think you'd have to reduce it down to, I don't think it'd have to be a one and twelve pitch. I think at two and twelve, I think that you'd get that high roof down to the top of the windows and have it not feel quite as expansive. And I think if you all are amenable to it, obviously, as I said before, we've had a really good working relationship with the staff on every project, but on this project in particular. And I think the windows in this are a product of proportion, right, in response to the roof lines and all those things. Those can all reduce in scale a little bit, right? We can bring the transom down a little bit. We can rework those. Those may not be something that anyone even might see and go, oh, I don't know, it's a difference, let's do it side by side. But it may make a difference. And if we're talking about some of that pitch, that section right here above, if you reduce the scale of this transom just a little bit and you reduce that pitch, you might get that down and that might be it right there. So we've tried to test those things and pull it in, and pull it in, and we've tried to test those things, but I think that's the next turn of the screw for this project, for sure. Okay. Go ahead. What is the length of the walkway? I have not committed that to memory, but I'm going to say it's about 14 or 15 feet, something along those lines, all in. Well, hell. I'm just realizing, looking at it, I think if the buildings were closer together, the reaction I mentioned before would be lessened. They would be more of a continuous structure rather than structure A, structure B, with the walkway between them. And I know that's awkward. Okay. Folks, I'm not helping anywhere, but I'm just saying that that's part of where that feeling is coming from. Okay. Folks, I think we're moving more into a conceptual review than an actual. We're looking at design specifications and drawings. This is correct. That you have submitted that I think are final in your head. They absolutely are. Yeah. Okay. And not to say we feel bad about that, but we feel like we have had a good two conceptual reviews. We've had a really good staff review. Changes have been made substantially. So we are ready to be heard by this point. And I don't want to stomp on good conversation, but I think we've gotten a little far from where we are. One final question for me, though, and this is sort of maybe conceptual review. Did you ever explore just a covered walkway? Underneath? Yeah. Instead of the connector? We didn't. The whole idea behind the walkway up above is that it's living space up and back. And so with the garage being on the first floor remaining, this is an apartment for the parents so they can come back and forth. That's really, that's why it's there. That's the driver for all of it. All right. Any other questions or comments from the board members? Just one comment about the review of the garage is that this is the first opportunity we've had to discuss the garage since it was really a rectangular box. So this is the first time we've seen it with a slope roof. I will consider myself appropriately chastised. Well, again, the staff has had the luxury of seeing that. You haven't. And we've gotten their kind of ideas and inputs. We've made that design change. They've seen it again. And so we're here. So to your point, Ms. Hill, you have not seen that. And I think, again, we're working in not a vacuum, but in a vacuum from you all. All right. So do I have any questions or comments from the audience? I think we're ready now to close the public comment. Thank you. And so I'll open it for discussion among the board members. And I would like, before we get into that, let me note we have three letters of support. First letter dated June 15 is from Kate, and I hope I'm not ruining their name, Heseldins. Okay. They are in support of the project and wrote a brief letter to the effect. I have a letter dated June 17 from Pierre and Margaret Cullen, who made the point of saying at the very ending, this beautifully planned addition will benefit the neighborhood and city. Please let this serve as my formal letter of support. And that address is 232. I'm sorry. They are on 214 East Bell Street. The first letter came from 624 Boonesboro Avenue, so they're in the neighborhood. And the final letter is from Kate and Leigh Ann Christie at 617 Boonesboro, also expressing their support. So we're now ready to move into a conversation, discussion about how we want to move forward. We'll start, we'll leave that, Sarah, why don't you lead off of that conversation, please? Well, I appreciate, especially the changes to the house, I really think that the dormer and how you've addressed that has really made it feel like a part of the house. I appreciate the garage, I could think of other ways to do it, too. I just do struggle with the bridge connection. I totally understand the logic and the need for it and the want for it, but I do feel it like it feels heavy on the lawn and adds a visual mass there that if it was on the ground, a connector piece, you wouldn't see, but it really does take up and fills in that void that you should have between a house and a garage. And the way it's drawn, it looks pretty slick, but I think that once you get the structure in there, once you get what the rails can actually do, all the verticals, it's going to feel even more massive than kind of what is proposed right now. And so I am leaning towards agreeing with the staff's recommendation that we do not approve the connector. And to be clear, we have two different conversations going on and I think we're focused on the connector. I think the dormer as conditioned is going to be fine. I'm fine with the dormer as conditioned. And to explain, we're going to break this into two motions when we get there. Mr. Burkett? Fine. Ms. Hill? The connector, I don't disagree that the actual construction of it may change the sense of it. And I'm grateful the garage isn't any closer to the house. I like the space between the two. I think that works really well. I don't know if there's, I'm all right with the connector if it can stay lean and thin. I think that's my struggle is how heavy is it going to actually get. And I don't know if there's a way to make a condition that the connector, that the review of it continue to understand the actual constructability of it. Yeah, and I think we would be open to that conversation for sure. If that's something that works with process, I think we'd be down with that. Because if it gets heavy, then I think it does create a weight that just doesn't work as well. Well, that begs the question. Do we want to continue to get one more time and let you submit some new design plans for that connector? Well, that would be up to you all in telling me from a process standpoint how you would do that. Is the possibility of approving the garage or the dormer so those are separate elements and then coming back for the connector and getting a final determination on that. I think that would be welcome because then we have the opportunity to really dive in and discover what this actually is going to be. And I think to Ms. Lemire's point, we might get a little heavier. You might as well not mind that once we saw it and once we showed it at scale. I'm not quite sure I followed your concern. We're going to approve the dormer, I think. Correct. And the garage. Now we're arguing about the garage and the connector to it. I think the garage structure itself is fine or is it? I'm fine with the garage structure. We could make design choices but overall I think it's really for me it's just that connector and knowing what those details are. Okay. I need some guidance from council or from the staff. How do you want to do this if we did this? Well, obviously if they don't redesign this little situation over here, I'm sorry to always be crawling. We can hear you. Obviously there'd be an option, well there'd be whatever option the board is interested in pursuing within reason. But certainly you could approve both the house and the garage as one motion and then make the connector a separate motion if indeed you think some other design aspects of that could be considered to facilitate whichever direction your decision is leaning. Or you could leave the garage and the connector in a together package with a similar outcome of how to vote. I think it would be better if we left the garage and the connector as one package. Go ahead and approve your dormer so that you have that assurance. If we do it that way. I'm going to have to express one concern I have. I'm really torn on this one. I really want to encourage downtown living and this is one way to do it by encouraging young people that have older parents to live with them and to have their separate unit. And we need to increase density downtown. The problem is, and I'm kind of like Ms. Burkett, it's the location. It is on a corner lot. I would have far less difficulty with this design guideline if it were in the center of the street. But with it sitting on a corner lot, with it being caught from both angles, it just sort of sticks out. Now we can discuss making it less heavy. The real issue in my mind is, is a connector even appropriate? And that's why I pursued the issue of how did this happen before. And of course the staff said we didn't approve this. So we've been down this road once before in the same district. And I wish I had the address beforehand so I could check it out. So I would like to be, I wouldn't mind seeing other plans to see if we can make this less obtrusive and Mr. Taylor, I want to compliment you, you have been extraordinarily patient with working with us. I know you want to get this done. And I'm happy to do that and I've been happy to do that. I welcome, as you know, the process in its entirety and I think this has been a really good example of how it should go. You guys have come, you guys have given good feedback. We've met with the staff, we've heard their concerns, we've altered that. At the end of the day, and I'm just speaking for my clients who aren't here, is they want to get this moving. They're ready to get this started. For me, the bridge is something that is almost an independent element a little bit. I can get all my engineering and my detailing and get the garage finished. I can do the house. I can come back. I can detail that and it doesn't affect my timeline per se. But for them, the sun is setting on our time of year to get this building started. So I would, if you all are amenable, would welcome really trying to get the garage and the addition done and come back and talk about the connector. That's just speaking from practice. I don't have a problem with just doing the connector if you want to go ahead and move forward with the garage and the dormer. I think we can break it out that way. If you all are amenable, that would be welcome. So I guess now I have still, we're still at two motions, are we not? Let me have a motion to approve the garage design and the dormer design. Yes, ma'am. Help me think through this. Yes, Sue. I'm comfortable making that motion, but I would caveat it with reducing the overhang scale of the garage and working with the staff for a reasonable, so that it's not, it sits up with such a presence as a roof. I think that's a good, definitely a good piece to put in there. So can we just add that in as a condition? I'll tell you what, it's going to be cleaner and safer. Let's do the garage, no you want to move forward with the garage and dormer, you just want to figure out how to connect them later. Can we add that as a condition? I'd like input from the staff, please. Well I think that what Mr. Taylor noted about if you did the work on the house, the dormer and the things that come with that, and then included in that same motion the garage with the conditions such as Ms. Hill has just mentioned and any other conditions tied to any board concerns within reason, everybody knows that, and act on that and then make a separate motion for the connector. And I guess we will, do we formally continue the hearing again? Well depending on your motions outcome of the house and garage work, you can either make a condition that any design changes come back to the staff as part of that package or that the design, the changes come back to the board, but either way you'd be making a motion, a final action of yes or no, but yes in theory if you seem headed that way. So it would not come back to us again. And then with your conditions, accommodate, come back to the staff or come back to the board, you can specify. But that will get them moving forward on all those things. And then if your other motion can be to continue the walkway, we might, and I think we will with that, need an extension to, Amelia's checking on the dates exact, but we're thinking it's about five or six days from now that this one. Yeah, the deadline for board action is 6-30, I mean it's 7-30, sorry. So if you're amenable to an extension, depending on how they're going to vote, this gets into, depending, depending, but on your extension, if your motion is to continue, we'll put on it, I'd suggest a 60 day extension. I think that makes sense and I think in the order of due process, let's come back to the board with that. I don't think that that's a staff, no offense to the staff, but I do think let's come back and let's let you guys see this thing, let's come back and do it. So whatever that means and however that works, that would be the way that I would, and the staff concurs with that, to have that come back to the board. So let's go ahead and break this into two parts. Let's talk about a motion from the board members, specifically oriented towards the garage and the dormer. Please do not forget we have a couple other conditions on that dormer already that we need to read into the record, and then we can pick up the connector separately. And I'm going to look to my very bright and intelligent board and let them figure out how to do that. That's why I get to sit here. All right, chair, per case number 01530232-H at 232 East Belcourt. I move that we approve specifically the dormer on the historic house and the new garage with the requirement that the garage roof and the reduction of its height and overhangs be reviewed with staff prior to the issuance of the COA. And go ahead and do the standard two conditions as well. And the standard two conditions, plus the two additional conditions, the dormer step off the rear south roof edge at another six inches with final plans to be submitted prior to the issuance of COA and the final dormer details if connected, well, that one just goes away, right? I think it just went away. You're right, it went away. Yeah. Okay. So it's just that one additional condition. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question on this particular motion. Say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned relative to the garage and dormer is approved. Now, turning now to the second part of this, do I have a motion, please? We're talking about the connector now, correct? Chair, in regards to case number 01530232-8 at 237, 232 East Belcourt, I move that we continue the approval or the review of the connector for 60 days and that that additional detail be brought back to the board for review and approval. Okay. Do we have a specific date? We do. Let me have that date, please. If my math is right, the extension takes you to the September 28th and so you would have within that the board meeting of August 20th and Mr. Taylor, as you know, the catch to that is that it's a pretty quick turnaround to have those details. So if you continue to August 20th, your second opportunity though would be to continue it to September 17th. So I would say the August 20th would allow you, if you're not ready, to at the August 20th for this board to continue it then to September 17th? I would say September would be better. Okay. Do you want to just pick September? I'd just pick September. Okay. So you want to continue it, please, to September 17th? To continue to September 17th. Okay. Before we take a motion, Mr. Taylor, I hate to ask this of you, but we've had some issues with our signatures. I want you on the record, oh, has he already signed it? He's going to. May the camera witness the fact that you're signing the waiver, please. If you don't know the story about that, you don't need to. Mr. Taylor, thank you. All right, I'm ready now. Is there any discussion on this motion? We'll email you a copy. If not, the chair calls to question. All those in favor of the motion relative to the connector, please say aye to continue. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The proceeding is continued to our next meeting in September. September. That's right. Thank you all. Thank you. So it's a really nice project. Thank you. And I think it's a nice project because there's been a consensus on how to make it a nice project. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, guys. We're on for an hour and a half. We need to take a brief bathroom break, five minutes or more. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're turning now to 509 East Main Street in the Belcourt Historic District, Schofield Worker's Change Design, substantially increase size and create new openings for kitchen vent and stucco over the IFIS, EIFS. I think there's a typo and there's a losing trim detail, I lose the trim detail, I'm assuming. All right. The staff has recommended disapproval. I will note and let the staff elaborate on that, that there has been some pushback from the applicant as to whether we have jurisdiction to consider this matter. In my opinion, we do, and we're going to move forward. So that's before us. I would like, however, just for the record, and to get all this into our record, to have the staff review how we got here and the reasons for your disapproval. Now, we do have another part pending for us, do we not, or is that – no, it's all done, right? Except for that. Go for it. Okay. So this is the case, number 6509 East Main Street. I'll walk you through some of the images. Of course, this is no longer the Crossgate Gallery, but it is now the Camel Club. And to walk you through this, this is all dealing with the exterior vent system, and this, of course, is prior to the vent system being put in, and this is the exterior parking lot area before, and sort of right as the makeup air handler unit was being put in here. And you can sort of see that when they went before the board and got approval back in the October 16th meeting date, that they only got approval for the small opening you see here, and that has turned into a bigger element of a tuba, as we're seeing, that has been installed that would need to be put in as to be the exhaust element to bring air out of the kitchen ductwork that would be enough to bring it over the exterior wall that you see here. And then we'll sort of pause here, and we'll go back to the staff report for a second. Note this background compilation reflects the April 16th and the May 21st, 2025 UAR meetings. This significant historic house was designed by Bertner Tandy and built in 1907 by the Combs Lumber Company for the Disconnett family, built as a colonial revival style resident. The house has had several changes over the years and has came to be home of a fraternity house and an antique shop and a resident more recently, the Crossgate Gallery, and also the residents above, and now is being renovated to be a private club. At the August 16th, 2025 UAR meeting, a number of items were applied for and approved, including repairs to the front porch, closing and opening garage doors to install a vent hood, mechanicals and exterior stairs and landscaping. At the May 21st, 2025 UAR meeting, the construction of a wall around the air handling unit, installation of additional landscaping by Sweetgums was approved at that meeting date, and at that time the applicants are requesting a much increased in size vent system for the kitchen. The initial proposal was for a small vent to be located in the rear garage wall, now an offset, and it is located at grade is the previously approved makeup air handler unit. The mushroom smaller angled vent was pointed up, but the plans did not indicate any mechanical engagement with the makeup air handler unit below. That connectivity has now been constructed, consisting of a vertical rectilinear metal ductwork running vertically from grade up the wall. In addition, once the LFUCG mechanical inspectors inspected the commercial kitchen venting its location, it was deemed necessary as part of a health safety review that the small mushroom vent previously approved by the UAR was inadequate. The applicants then installed a very large tuba-like contraption extending from a number of feet along the exterior wall above. This additional element has been positioned away from the rear of the building according to the property representative due to the proximity of the crown molding in the rear wall of the garage and kitchen. This metal element rising above to the parapet on the rear of the structure. This ductwork and kitchen vent as built were all constructed in violation of the Certificate of Appropriateness approved by the BOAR on October 16, 2024 and was completed without an H-1 process action and continues to be in violation. We'll go a little bit further. Here is the tuba-like element on top of the mushroom, and that had to be installed high enough to be away from the crown mold. We'll get a little bit closer. As you can see from a far distance, this element. And here we go. And here's the element from the wall. Staff found that during a site visit, the rear wall of the stuccoed former garage, now kitchen, was having the ephus applied to the rear elevation stuccoed surface of the building. Staff talked to the applicant and he said the existing stucco was cracking and they were trying to mend it as quickly by using the ephus, and the work was completed very quickly. Again, without a Certificate of Appropriateness, and the property owners were cited with a notice of violation reflecting this and other work on this property without a permit or violation of the BOAR approved at the October 16th Certificate of Appropriateness. After the April BOAR meeting with the BOAR requested the applicants to convene on site with the Historic Preservation Staff and the LFUCG Mechanical Building Inspectors. That meeting concurred and subsequently the applicants submitted a proposal to paint the duct work in the various color pink as the buildings were in a lengthy discussion during the BOAR meeting regarding various pierced screening possibilities, a solid wall construction and other variations. Per the stucco violation, it was disclosed the rear wall surface was not covered in the same product, resulting in a loss of profile of the architectural datum line. Only the east and the north walls of the datum line were covered with the ephus and stucco was painted to match the rest of the structure, resulting in adversely affecting the integrity of the datum and the elevation of the elevations. I'll go back to that to explain. If you can look at, let's see, I'll go back actually a little bit further. You can sort of see the new and the original. So where it says the original, you can tell that the datum line is very prominent. It has a distinct projection where the new, where the ephus was applied over the concrete block without actually not taking out the datum line and just applying it on top of that with the new stucco over top. It lost its datum line without any kind of architectural presence. So the difference of the original and the new shows the distinction of the fact that there's no projection and distinct architectural trim, detail, uniqueness in the new. Background at the May 21st BOAR meeting, the BOAR noted that May 31st deadline for the action on this application and the chair advised the applicant that the board would either take final action then or would agree to extend their time period to allow this case to continue for a maximum of 60 days, additional days. Did the applicant agree to this extension? The applicant stated a willingness to have the extension granted and the BOAR voted to extend this case for 60 days. An extension form was sent to the applicant following the May 21st meeting. On May 28th, the applicant, Mahink Morris, sent an email to staff requesting the application not to be heard at the June 18th BOAR meeting but to be further continued and heard at the July 16th meeting date, citing that he had a travel conflict for the June meeting. Staff replied to an email on May 30th noting that any further continuation of the hearing date would be determined by the BOAR action at the June 18th BOAR meeting. On June 12th, staff received an email from Mr. Morris stating that he'd be sending submittal materials per the event screening to the Historic Preservation staff on Friday, June 13th and that they would be present at the proposed screening solution relative to the kitchen vent to the BOAR board at their June 18th meeting. Staff responded to the email noting that it was too late to try to be part of the June 18th hearing process as staff reports are completed and sent on June 13th. Staff again sent another copy of the still yet to be signed extension waiver and told the applicant a signed copy of it had to be received on Monday, June 16th and it should be noted that the BOAR meeting of the May 21st, staff stated that any new information from the applicant need to be provided on June 10th to be part of the June 18th docket in order for staff to receive that information and prepare for the staff report. And of course... Alright, any questions for Ms. Armstrong? And I would say that he did propose to put in this screening, but there's no details, we have nothing else. This is the... And of course, I'm still not done with the findings, by the way, sorry. So for the record, there have not been any additional information submitted to us? That's correct. Alright. So findings relative to additional information related to the review, the construction and violated kitchen vents, staff has found only provided with schematic images of screening which have not indicated a finished appearance or outcome, nor any necessary construction details. Many emails have been sent asking for plans and details, the staff have also explained that plans are not permitted to be walked on the day of the BOAR meeting are needed to be provided to staff for review prior to the staff reports being completed. Metal duct work still remains as built, large and highly visible and intrusive and not compatible with the historic house site, Belcourt Historic District. Guidelines 3A, which states mechanical systems should be located where they are least visible and intrusive or invisible inside the buildings or should be screened in this element as constructed is not within the guidelines, is visually dominant and is inappropriate. The schematic submitted per any screening concepts depicted as an inadequate design approach were not within the guidelines. The proposal to install the stucco atop the APHIS material on the east and north walls is not, in keeping with the guidelines as a result, the loss of definition. The datum trim that breaks up the massing but adds interest to each elevation. Staff would note that the wall would have appropriately repaired and completely restuccoed rather than imitation material placed over the existing stucco in violation. Guidelines 2B, 2J, the state installation materials that give a building imitation historic appearance are not allowed. Recommendation, staff recommends approval of all the elements that are currently installed in the VIN system and the proposed screening and stucco of the APHIS on the garage and kitchen wall as constructed. And it will go back to the screening detail and, let's see, and you also have that in your packet. And then also included in that packet is this packet that staff put together of all the emails, the COAs, violation letters, waivers that we do have on file in general correspondence, and then also there's been a letter sent by the neighbor that is also included in the timeline and also her letter as well. Okay, is the applicant here? No, you did the recommendations. Yes, I just did them. I will read the recommendations because apparently, but I did say the recommendations. Yeah, go ahead and read into the record, please. Staff recommends approval of all the elements that are currently installed in the VIN system and the proposed screening and the stucco of the APHIS on the garage wall as constructed. Okay, I think we may have briefly got ahead of it. I noticed that the applicant appeared and then left. I don't believe there's anyone here on behalf of the applicant. There was never anybody here. Oh, I thought the two young men that were in the back. No. Mr. Chairman, that was the applicant for one of the Constitution Street projects, 151. All right, so the applicant's not been here at all. Right. Thank you for the correction. Briefly put, there has been an argument about whether or not we have lost jurisdiction from the applicant. There's not been any contact with us from any attorney regarding this issue. Insofar as I'm concerned, they had agreed to sign the waiver. They are stopped from refusing to sign that waiver, given their prior assurances at several meetings. So we're going to move forward with this. First of all, are there any comments from the audience on this matter? All right. You're an attorney, Ms. Ducey. I know that you're happy. Every time I come, I think, well, maybe I won't need to want to say anything, but I always do. By the way, I appreciate the timeline that you have sent us that helped. Thank you. Where am I? Oh, I'm Marcy Deaton, 116 Forest Avenue. Please state your name, please. I gave probably 500 pictures of the construction of this thing. So I went back into them to find, like, when did they start building this tuba and mushroom and all of that? And it was, like, November. Like, right after October approval of the small thing, they immediately start building the big thing. They built it from November to February. It started running in March because they started practicing and running the kitchen to get ready to open for Keeneland. So it's been up and running for a good five months. All right. So anyway, I had a thought that I did want to share with you. At the last meeting, I left, and I had come and presented my own, like, hey, look, they could screen it. Here's some ideas that I got on the Google real quick because they didn't present anything like that. But after I left, I thought, I think I missed the point. I think the point is not, oh, they put it up, how do we best camouflage it or how do we hide it? I think the real question is, and I'll give credit to my husband because during the meeting, he wrote this question on the back of my paper and said, if the Boer had seen this rendering in the beginning, would it have been approved? And I have to think that it would have been no. But then that led me to also think, and this is why I wanted to speak, is I think if they would have worked with the Boer and Mechanical and whoever, their engineers, whoever, designers, early, I believe there were probably other options. And just because they didn't explore that back then, they could still explore that now. I mean, it's going to be costly maybe, but for example, there's those three garages. I don't know what, they had to put it in that one. Maybe it could have been located in a different place within the structure. Maybe it could have been located upstairs in the other garage. I don't know. But did they ever even explore putting it somewhere else? Or maybe where it is, but whatever the interior design and layout of that kitchen could be different so that it could be vented differently. Maybe they could have done a masonry chimney going straight up. Maybe they needed to lose a little bit of their upper patio to make something work. I mean, there just seemed like there should have been a better option if they had worked with the right people early on. And that's what I wanted to say. Okay, Ms. Deegan, thank you so much. Any questions or comments from the board members of the staff? If not, I believe we might be ready. We've had numerous hearings on this. Are we ready for a motion on this? Yes, sir. Okay. Who would like to make the motion, please? Chair, with regard to case number 122-605-01. 5-H at 509 East Main Street. I move that the board accept the staff's recommendation to disapprove of all elements of the currently installed vent system, the proposed schematic screening, and the stucco over the EIFS on the garage slash kitchen wall as constructed. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any further, is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion to disapprove this application, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The application is disapproved. And that notice can be sent to the applicant. All right, I think now we're ready to move on to our next and final case. So let me call to order then 831. Thank you all for attending. 831 West High Street and 835 West High Street. If the applicant will come up please again. I'll note for the record that you're here, that Ms. Armstrong do her presentation. Okay, and we're hearing them together, but basically they are two very different, they're different fence proposals, so let me just come on up for just a moment. I just want to get some clarification. Yes, sir. With respect to 835 West High Street. Yes, sir. The staff is recommending basically that you reduce your eight foot fencing, be reduced to six foot. Are you in agreement with that? I had a conversation with them earlier, and I think we just need to work out the schematics of where the eight foot is and where the six foot is. I'm in agreeance with the evolution of the fence proposal. We just have to find out exactly where they want to end to begin. Everyone's been very easy to work with. In that case, then I think if we add it in final details as to where that eight foot ends should be submitted. The other question is your six foot side yard fence should not rise above the bottom seal of the house windows and stop at the midpoint of the side elevation of the house. Are you in agreement with that? Say that one more time. It should be on your app. Did you get the application? On 835? Yes, sir. It's number two. And I apologize for the sound system in here. It's not the world's best, and my voice is giving out. I need to go back and view that because I'm not exactly sure, currently on the house. Currently on the house, on the opposite side, there is a six foot fence that already rises above the seal of the house. So there was a fence on one side of the house that was existing that was much greater. We'll hear this one as well. Okay. So let's go back to 831, and then I'll let Ms. Armstrong. Let's do both of them just separately. So we're going to start off with 831 and deal with that one only, and move forward, Ms. Armstrong. All right, so let's start back in May when this fence was starting to be built, and it was starting to be built at eight foot along the roadbed. And so it was right behind the, there's a sidewalk over there, and we'll look at these images here. And this is an empty lot. There was a house here that did sit at one time. It was, I think it had a fire, and it was removed. It was a T-plan cottage. It was probably removed probably in the mid-80s. And this is sort of the side view of that. Let me go back. So this is the 831, and this is sort of looking at that point where the fence started to be built along Hurley and along West High. And this is along Hurley, looking at the modern apartment building at that area. And at that time, the applicant wasn't sure of intending on enclosing this with a more solid privacy fence. So then he had both building inspection stop his work, and then subsequently, we also got in contact with him and met with him. And at that point, building inspection said that any front yard fences had to only be four feet. And at that point, by the time we met with him, he had removed the fence down to a four-foot level. And so these pictures are reflective of him already moving the fence down to a four-foot level. And I will just note for your interest there, because this is a really good image of that, this is the fencing that's proposed here to be eight feet per 835. I know you wanted us to talk about 831, but his proposal is for this fencing here to be eight feet of a privacy fence. And there was a screening, there was screening here already, and so he wanted to go back with eight-foot privacy fence. And that's where we suggested any fencing that would be in this particular area could only be below the, that would need to be six feet in this particular location if it was gonna be a wood privacy fence, so. But so to go through here, and I'll go back, and he has a proposal for a framed fencing. So here's the sidewalk, here's the fencing. It's, he stopped construction, so it's sort of out of all over the place. These were taken last week, so it's sort of stopped construction. And these are, this is the property to the east, where this is a fence that was already approved by the board of a six-foot, of a four-foot wood fence. It's hard to see, because it's sort of in line. And then this particular area's city-owned property that's part of a right-of-way that's not Mr. Hazard's property. This property is actually owned by the city. Again, this property up to that fence is owned by the city along Hurley Avenue. This is Hurley Avenue, and this is an existing fencing that was already on along here. He just replaced the eight-foot fence. The fencing along Hurley on 831 has not been finished. It's been removed at this point. This is 831 property. And again, you can sort of see in the distance here, there is four-plank horse fencing back here for horses that are on, right now on this property, but they can be on this property as well. There's two gates there. And again, here are two examples. Again, this is the other fencing here that's got a transparency, and then across the way, there's a picket fence, so two examples of that. There's another example of a wood picket fence. This is a site plan that Mr. Hazard put forward to sort of help show here, if I can help show this. This is his proposal for a four-foot picket fence, or like not a four-foot, but a four-foot fence here. Then it would step back up to a six-foot fence along the back side here. And then this fence will be the six-foot fencing of the horse fence along in this particular area. This is the stretch here. He's asking for the eight-foot fence here. And then, again, also along the back side would be eight-foot fence here. And then the rest of it will be six-foot fence here. And this is for the 831 property. So this particular area is the one that we're saying no to as far as that this would all have to be, this would have to go back to a four-foot to six-foot fence to meet up with this six-feet fence here. And then for 835, again, this is going to be the, he's asking for the horse fence to be back here at six feet. And this will be the eight-foot fence back there. But I digress. Here's his proposal for the six-foot. It's gonna be just a wood privacy fence. And then this is his proposal for the front yard fence, which is a picture frame fence for the 831. And that's the cedar fence. I'm gonna go back to the front yard fence here for a second. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to install a front yard fence along West High Street requires further discussion. While the property owner has made an attempt to meet the zoning regulation regarding fence height, it still does not meet H1 design guidelines. Design principle for fence states wood fencing are not allowed, however it's important to keep the fences as transparent as possible, so not to obscure the view of historic buildings, and to be compatible with other fencing within the Woodward Heights Historic District. Front yard fences in Woodward Heights are reasonably transparent, reflecting an open design made of iron, metal, or wood picket. This front yard fence as constructed and currently proposed is too dense, and view is obstructive for this property, and the streetscape for this urban historic district. Woodward Heights Historic District, any fencing needs to be transparent, to be lighter in mass, and have less vertical members. The intent of this guideline is more of the picket fence, or slender spindle, or a metal fence versus a solid fence. Staff finds the proposal to enclose the rear of the property with a wood privacy fence was in the guidelines, however staff finds it's appropriate to only begin the six foot privacy fence at the midpoint of the building next door to the east. Guidelines two, one, B, note that fences of wood boards or privacy should be located in the rear yards, and generally no taller than six feet, and privacy fences of height should be at least halfway back from the front of the building to the back of the walls of the building. Note that staff does not condone any construction done without a valid COA permit, however this fence is built to date, can be recommended for completion as the construction is within the guidelines. Recommendation, staff recommends just approval of the construction without a COA permit, the front yard fence and the four foot fence as proposed. Staff recommends approval of the rear six foot fence proposal with the following conditions, wood privacy fence commence or terminate at the midpoint of the apartment structure to the east, and should a front yard fence be allowed, then a property owner should obtain a right of way permit. Any changes that are made to alter this information should be submitted for review or approval prior to the start of any work. And of course the last other standard condition, once reviewed by any LFUC divisions, any changes should be returned to staff or board for any review approval prior to the start of any work. So what we were just saying is that if the fence, if the six foot fence needs to start back to the midpoint of the modern apartment building and not start so close to that building, and I was trying to get a better image of that, but it's hard to, so. Okay. All right, any questions for Ms. Armstrong? All right, Mr. Hazzard. This is your turn to explain your proposal, and then we'll have a discussion with you about what you can and what we view as what you can and cannot do with the guidelines. So Mr. Hazzard. Which slot would you like to start with? I think we should probably start with 831 first. Well, we're not going in 835 at all, so let's just stay on 831. 831, okay. Yeah. So where, let's go. On the four foot fence in the front, we did, we originally started at eight feet, and then when they contacted us for safety reasons about blocking the view, when you look out of the houses, since it is one way, if you were to look out of the house past that and look to the left, you wouldn't be able to see what was coming around the corner. So when they explained that, they said, could you do us a favor and just chop it in half? We immediately took care of it. We got that taken care of just for safety concerns for everybody around us. But, so I have no problem at all with the four foot section of fence like I have on my site plan. My concern is that the beginning of the midpoint of the structure to the east of the house, well, if the four foot fence goes to the midpoint of 835 per se, then you're not blocking any view that the house wouldn't be blocking if anyone was looking from down the street. But if it goes so far down to where the apartment building is, the apartment building sits so far back down on its own lot, then it would actually break the fence almost in half on the property. So like right now where it's cut at four feet and then you see like that open area where there was gonna be a gate, if that were to be at the midpoint of 835, I think that would be absolutely fantastic. And the eight foot dropping to six feet, I have no problem with that. Also, in the suggestion of the eight foot fence that the previous owner of the property had that I wanted to retain, but they'd like me to drop to six feet, I have no problem with that. The only thing is the caveat about it being not higher than the window sills of the house, there's an existing fence on the other side of the house that already exceeds the seal height of the windows. You jumped 835, didn't you? Well, no, no, no, no, no, I'm still at 831, I'm still at 831. In between the two properties, okay. All right, let me get some comments from the board members. The problem that I'm initially seeing with your front yard fence. Is what it's made out of? It needs to be more transparent. I agree. It needs to be a picket style. I agree. I realize you're about to tear down what you already built, but we're going to have to change the design of that fence. And you're in agreement with doing that? I agree with that. Okay, all right. So let me get comments from the board members then about this 831 application. So what is left to negotiate? Well, I think we're talking about the midpoint. The midpoint on the property line between 831 and 835. No, it's the, let me go back a slide. So. I agree with you, Mark, I'm having trouble. Apartment building on the other side. Well, there's no apartment building on the map. So could you work from the maps, since that's really all that we have to understand relationships? Is there a map slide? Did you bring the map with you, sir? We've got a site plan that'll work for this in here. Totally awesome. Perfect. There you go. Thank you. Does that seem like it can zoom in on? That's the wrong one. Back slide. That's it. There we go. There we go. Where is the apartment building on this map? The apartment building would be to the far right. So this is the right of way we talked about? Ms. Armstrong, speak into the microphone. So if this is the right of way here, and here's Hurley, there's this modern apartment building right here. So you come in here to the, this is the only one that actually goes this way onto Hurley, and the parking of that apartment building is on the back side here. So where are we trying to put the midpoint of the fence? I think the midpoint would just be like right here. Is it think or note? Pardon? Do you think or note? Well, it would be. Is this something that can be worked out without more details being given to you? Yes. Correct. All right. Would you be in agreement to submit another plan just to show a little bit better where you want that midpoint? I have it listed. It's actually on the site plan extremely clear. So if you look on the site plan, or how do you make that? Okay, Ms. Armstrong, what's the problem? If you look on the site plan, you see where that orange line breaks right here? Correct. That is what I'm proposing to go from four feet to six feet. And so the midpoint of the building that they're proposing is about right here. So my argument for that is this is a one-way street, and anyone pulling out of this, this is not going to obscure their view because it's going to be down to four feet. And if they're looking this way, that's the other property. My property, the fence is not obscuring someone's view of oncoming traffic. Yes, sir. So what's the rationale about the midpoint across from the apartment building? Well, we typically always just make sure that fences always, six-foot fences always are pushed back and not at, right in front of other structures, right? There's a street between the apartment building. But it's still not, it's really not that wide of a street. I mean, if you, so we always sort of push back a little bit. So here. But if I may, it is. What, 30 feet, 40 feet away? I would say 50 or 60 feet. Yeah. So what is it? Essentially, if I might, the, it's not only about the visibility, but it is very real about the visible, to be able to not have your vision of looking through that impaired. So I get it about all that. But the other issue about fences in the front of buildings or adjacent to the side of buildings is the four-foot rule holds all the way to the front corner of any structure. And so you're really only talking about, that's front yard for by definition. So you're really only talking about the difference between, as far as the depth of the building, whatever the linear feet is of the side elevation of the apartment building. So is it possible for you to take the four-foot to the front corner of the apartment building, lined up with the front corner of the apartment building? So, oh, sorry. So, I believe that, let me see, get the site plan, because I can, yeah. Can it go to right there? I'm not uncertain that it might already be, because the building itself sits at an angle. And so if you, depending on what you are considering, like the front corner of the building or the front corner of the structure, because the patios of the apartment building are actually on the front of the building. So if it's going to the front, if you were going to the front corner of the structure of the apartment building, I believe it's already there. Because see where the break is in the fence? That part of the fence is going to be four feet. And so that would be four feet. And if you looked at the way the building sits, to the actual structure that is established as the apartment building, since the patios are on the front, I have no problem making it to the front of the total structure. It's that there's an extra, I don't know, maybe 10 feet to get back to the meat of the building, because the patios are on the front. Right, we don't, we never count porches or patios in the core building's footprint. And so what you just described is what we're requesting be the outcome to get that four feet to go all the way to the corner of the structure. To the wood structure. To the stone structure. To the, well, of any structure, whether the stone one that's next door or the apartment building. So right now, the way the site plan is proposed, the front yard section of the lot where it's fenced to four feet is set to be at the midpoint of that house. And I'm almost certain it is within a few feet of being at the front corner of the other building. Well, the way to everybody, I think, get this to satisfy both your needs and the process would be if the board's amenable and if you are amenable to us, you know, coming to the site, it'd be Amelia. For, Amelia's nodding her head, yes. And just stand there with you. And talk through it. And pick the points. And the board consider a motion that would allow that to occur as part of your action. That's a really good idea, thank you. All right, relative to 831, why don't we continue this hearing that you all gather on the site and figure out exactly where this midpoint is. Okay. And probably mark it. Sounds like a great idea. You know, paint or whatever. So that we, you know, it's a weird lot. It is, because it's technically not the end of the street. But since there's a right of way and the rest of the, so everyone's been really great to work with. So I think you all just had a conversation on the site. It'll probably clear up things. Okay. Now, I'm just talking about 831. I'm gonna say 835 in a moment. So if you're in agreement, let's have a motion and also our deadline's August 15th. So we're gonna need a waiver from you, sir. Okay. Okay. Because we have to continue to August 20, I believe. Am I wrong? Oh, the next meeting is, let me open. I think it's August 20th. Magic phone here. Or 24th. August the 20th, that would be correct. Okay. So we need to continue it to, are we right about that date? So we could do a 30-day extension. Or the next board meeting, whatever that is. When is the next board meeting? I don't think I'll be in the country. August 20th. Are you gonna be out of the country? I literally flew here today for this. I flew here today for this. Well, we can continue it to September. If the hinge point on this lot, if what can be approved, if we can agree on that the point, I can agree to that. I think we can figure out where the point is. I have no problem with it. The issue is, is that I'd like to have the fence finished as soon as possible because I've got a newborn foal that would love to run in that yard if it was fenced in. And the foal, her and I were talking earlier, and a friend of mine on the city council, he said, just imagine, he goes, when did you think the last time a new foal was born downtown? I went, all right, I don't know. Here's my problem. You're entitled to have it. I don't think we're ready to approve anything because we don't have enough details. Yes, sir. So I want to give us a date. Hopefully we'll get everything done. But if we don't, then we can come back and pick this up again. So I need a waiver from you and a postponement to September, when's the next hearing? The one after August is September the 17th. What date is the hearing in August? Wednesdays. Wednesdays? What day is it in August? It's the third Wednesday. And with the staff meeting them on site. It's been suggested to me. Should we just go ahead and approve and let you work out the final details of where the midpoint should be? I believe we are there. Okay. And the midpoint issue, I think, can easily be addressed standing on site about the windowsill concept. I'm talking about now when we get to the stone house part. You know, you do have the one window. But we'll go around and see the other side. Okay. You're saying about, you've got something over there. That doesn't necessarily, just to be sure, everybody's clear. Even if you have an existing condition on the other side that does allow that fence to be taller than your window opening bottom, it doesn't mean that this one shouldn't have that limitation. It's kind of one of those things, just because somebody's gotten to do it not quite right on the one side, doesn't mean you should repeat the problem on where you're doing current work. Yes, ma'am. But I think that you understand, obviously, from what you're saying, the philosophies that we're trying to respond to with our guidelines. And I think that if the board, not to speak for anybody on the board, but if you all are comfortable with the nuances of this getting finalized, one of the key things is to be sure the board agrees that indeed the four-foot fence needs to be open, more open, with transparency, whether it's picket or whatever. We can finesse, along with this nice gentleman, the nuances of how that can meet the guidelines by standing there on site. Okay, so if we, right now we have before a disapproval of the four-foot fence as built. If we go ahead and disapprove that, you can still come back, I believe, and submit to us a new plan. I believe what she's saying is, where I'm in agreeance to having a more, much more open picket concept on the front, I'm in complete agreeance to that. And so, in her suggestion to approve me having a four-foot picket that more resembles what my neighbors have, I have absolutely no problem with it. Got you, I'm just trying to figure out how to word our motion. Also, Mr. Chair, we should note that there's another person in the audience that, when you're ready, would like to comment. I'm sorry, excuse me, is there someone? Okay, ma'am, do you have a comment? I am so sorry, because I didn't see you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kirk. Thank you. If you'll state your name for the record, please. Yes, my name is Jennifer Reynolds, and I am the 11th district council member for this district. Councilwoman, I am so sorry. That's okay, that's okay. I am here representing my constituents in Woodward Heights, and myself, that initially put in their concern when they saw the fence being built. It is very, very close to the road. That is one of the deadliest curves that we have in Lexington. We're working on that, but it has been a very unsafe part of that road. And so their concern was the height, the closeness to the road, and that it didn't go along with the historic neighborhood. So I just wanted to echo those concerns and say that I agreed with the staff disapproval. I think that another thing that really concerned me was that the proper permits were not sought in the beginning, and then the second time around either. And so I think I heard from the applicant that he's very willing to comply, and that's great. Also, one thing that I heard that also concerns me is just the different types of fencing all in one area. It sounds like not only are there gonna be different heights but there's gonna be different styles of fencing, and I'm not sure how that fits in with the historic neighborhood as well. So I just hope that all of those things are looked at thoroughly for the site visit, and that this ends up being a fence that is further enough away from the street, and that is also compliant with historic preservation, and is sightly. So thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. So the extension, oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, are you? I think we're actually trying to give approval to 831, subject to some details being given to the staff for review and approval. For both a front yard fence. Front yard and side. And then how it works on the side where it meets the fence to step up. Yes. And I think that's the only two things, unless. If there's a front yard fence, we need a right-of-way permit, is that, we still need that? If there is a right-of-way permit becomes necessary, certainly as our standard condition says, any other government permits that are required would kick in, but we did contact engineering to ask about the right-of-way permit, and they didn't make a determination exactly where the right-of-way is. So that would be on our punch list as we're on site and working out the front fence placement and design. For the benefit of the audience, we always add a condition that if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit those changes to staff for review and approval prior to work. And secondly, once reviewed by the other city divisions, including zoning, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. That can fix up the right-of-way permit. As soon as we figure out where the right-of-way is. And it may not be affected, but we just need to get that straightened up one way or the other. All right, I think we're ready for a motion on this one. I hope. Ms. Hill? I'd like to just, to respond to the council person's concern about the variety of fence types. Is that anything that we need to include in this motion? Because the four-foot fence is gonna be a more open fence, which would be more typical in a kind of residential condition and would probably likely already exist in the neighborhood. But then we also have a six-foot privacy fence that's gonna be denser and an eight-foot replacement privacy fence that's denser. And those will be, to my understanding and through the photographs, the latter two you mentioned, the six-foot and the eight-foot are of identical design. It's the height that changes. And that's pretty typical throughout all of our historic districts where we have the vertical board privacy fences. They go around the three sides, but they're not in the fronts. So it's not uncommon if you're gonna have a front fence at all to have a different, either another wood material more transparent, properly scaled, properly located, or even a change of material, transparent, properly scaled, properly located. And we will address the rail planking fence on the next application. That's not part of 831. That is part of the other property, that's correct. I'm trying to keep us really focused on 831 for the moment. Okay. And may I, before you frame any motions, might I suggest, I think it becomes apparent you're talking about your calendar and all and everybody working together to get this worked out that you probably want a 60-day extension versus a 30-day extension, it sounds like. You wouldn't, you can resolve everything much sooner than that. The 60 days just allows time if there's still things to be figured out. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so a 60-day extension would be the staff's request to facilitate what we've been talking about. Okay, I think- So the idea is that we would approve with details going back to staff for review and approval. And if you don't come in, don't come to an agreement about things, then there's still time for it to come back to us for review. So that's why we're doing the extension. That's correct. Okay. All right, I think we're ready for a motion on 831. Somebody. All right, I shall attempt. Excellent. I don't know where the rest, hopefully it's- Let's see where the case number one, and my mic's off. Chair, in regard to case number 09300831-E at 831 West High Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. One, that the details of the front yard four-foot fence be brought to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate, and that that four-foot fence be made so that it is much more open and transparent, and in keeping with the guidelines of the historic district. Two, that the staff and the applicant meet on site and review the exact location where we shift from a four-foot fence to the six-foot fence, and that that point of transition is not any closer to the road than the corner of the apartments across the street, Hair Lily Street, whatever that street is, and that that point is determined on site. And then the other two is the two standard conditions that any other changes get brought back to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate, and then once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes get returned to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. And lastly, that we add an extension to this of 60 days to September 17th if the staff can't and applicant can't come to an agreement on the final details so that it is reviewed by the board again. We don't need that. We don't, he'll sign the waiver. But even if he signs a waiver? Oh, you're postponing it? Don't we still have to? We continue the hearing. Continue it, okay. So they're not taking final action. I think we'll let the timing of the next hearing be at the discretion of the staff. Well, two things here. I'd say that you're really approving it with, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think your intent is to approve it with the condition that these details be worked out with staff. Yes, correct. And if so, Law's just been mentioning to me, and it's not incorrect, but a bit of a nuance about the continuation of the 60 day timing. That is really only to suit a condition that would allow us to bring it back to the board if we can't find resolution. So you can approve it, and if we can work it out, he can get his final permit and be building it. And the FOA can have somewhere to be. But if we can't work it out, there's the waiver to allow it to come back. Okay. Without, because you know, you've got the issue that the other kicks in is you can't hear the same case in a year. That's one reason you need it. I guess that that was my question earlier, was like we were doing that because I thought we had to agree to. No, we're fine. So then I recall that last part. I misunderstood that that was needed. So the 60 day extension actually takes you to October 15th. But we don't have to make a motion to approve a 60 day extension. No, we don't, we don't. Yes, you're entering into an extension. Yeah, that's, you can put it in your motion. Let's, okay. You're used to continuing. I understand. With respect to your motion. Yes, we need to go ahead and add in that we continue this matter or postpone, continue this matter. Continue if you're going to do that. To October 17th. September. September. To October 15th, October 60 days. The 60 days. If indeed the property owner comes to resolution that the staff is in a position to approve, then is the board empowering us to issue the permits accordingly? Yes. I think that is the understanding. Yes. And think about for a minute, I know this is partly because work's been done without permit, which makes it a little more challenging. The fact of the matter is much of this fencing is a staff item. The board has already empowered the staff to act on side and rear yard fences, never front yard fences. So it's only the front yard that most technically needs your authorization. We, the staff, are empowered, if something meets the guidelines, to take care of the side and rear yard, issue permits. Okay. And that'll include on the next property, the horse fence. Now that we've confused everybody thoroughly. Yes. Do I have a second on this motion? Second. And whoever's typing up the minutes can figure it out. All right, any further discussion on this motion? Now, incorporated in that is the fact your four foot fence that you built without a permit, and I understand how the confusion developed over that issue is going to have to be taken down and redone. Yes, sir. Okay, all right. So I am ready to call the, any further discussion on the motion? Just a notation that October is actually a 90 day extension. Really? The day is July. Well, their current deadline for action is August 15th. There we go. That's where the 60 is. Clarification understood. They have a bit to go yet on the existing situation. Thank you. Any other discussion? No. Chair, we'll call the question then. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes as conditioned. Now, let's turn our attention to 835 West High Street, and if you could do a brief presentation. I think we've heard most of the details, but this is the one where they're gonna have the interior. Right, so this is the, the difference is that interior four plank horse fence. And, which is the big difference. So, let me, right there. Oh, sorry, thanks, Chris. Gotta be in there somewhere. Pardon? Yeah. And so, again, this actually already had a, oh, wait a minute. Here we go. This already actually had, this was actually all covered in, like, honeysuckle and so forth, but it had a privacy fence here and here. And so, now, the change is the fact that, shoot, you're driving. Am I driving? Okay. This has now, this privacy fence got changed to an interior horse fence. This parcel that is also, Mr. Hazard's, is actually not within the H1 overlay. So, this is his property here. And so, now, all these properties are able to be passed through. And then, this property actually has a eight foot fence here. And then, this gets changed to more of a wood privacy fence here. But these all have, and this, there was no change to this fence. And these all have the interior new plank fencing here. And again, this is the area where, here, this had a paneled, a transparent paneling of fence panels, or lattice panels, thank you. They got changed, and that's the, this is sort of more of the bigger issue here, where this is, we've asked for this to be reduced. To more in keeping to a six feet or less fence here. And I'll show you. Okay, I'm sorry, I had a question I wanted to address. Any questions be answered, Ms. Armstrong? Yes, Mr. Marquette. So, the plank fencing will back up against the six foot privacy fence. It will, it will not back up against it, it will, the interior fences will now be, this is the interior fences of these properties. Okay, well. We're looking right here. On the 831, it's noted that it is six foot privacy fence. And then, right on the other side of the property line, it's a cedar plank fence. That's a different fence. I know, so I'm asking, are your two fences congruent going down that property line? No, sir, that, on that site plan, there was an existing privacy fence there, and it's being replaced by that cedar plank fence. Oh, so the blue six foot is gone, is leaving. That's being removed. Where is, can we go back to that site plan? Oh, no, the other one, that one. But on the next one, the 831, it does show a new six foot privacy fence. From the garage to the rear property line. That's right. Right here. This is it. And so, it sounds like that goes away. Oh, now I see what you mean. Could you go back to the other one? No, the other site plan. Yeah, see there, on the maps that we have, they're back to back. Oh, okay, so it is, that green piece is eight foot replacement privacy fence, and then when you go to the next one. Of course, we don't have the colors, so we don't. See, it looks, that's the property, that's the property line, so it's not, it's the same fence. That's, it took me a while. It's the same fence. Okay. So it's the same eight foot privacy fence. Okay, so the conditions that we're working through, and we're not too dissimilar from having the same motion for this site as we do from 831, it's been pointed out to me, and I need to really emphasize that, basically, the staff's only concern with side fencing, what created the issue here is your front yard fence that was built without a COA, and it needs to be redone. Yes, sir. That's why the staff, that's why we're involved. Yes, sir, and there will be no front yard fencing created on 835. Okay, and to be really, really clear, you're trying to panic your animals, for lack of a better word, with that interior fence, with that cedar fence? Yes, sir, and also, because of the way the street turns, the previous owner had created a, like a tight lattice eight foot privacy, I don't want to call it privacy fence, like an eight foot lattice screen fence that went from the center of the house down to the garage, and she had put that up maybe 40 years ago, because when you come down High Street, you're looking into the back door of a house, so you couldn't sit on the back porch and have privacy, and so that's why we wanted to replace that with another eight foot fence. Staff has a suggestion that that should be six foot, right? Should go down to six foot, and I have no problem with that. Okay, so again, I think we'll just have you work out the details with all this, and I think this motion could be simpler, Sarah, if you want to try it in five foot. Are we ready for a motion at this point? Sarah, you've done such a good job on the first one, and we also have the same 90 days to whatever date in October. It's 60 days from August 15th, and it turns out to be October 15th. Yeah. So the extension is in the motion. Which happens to be a BOER date, which would give you yet another opportunity, but I think I'm pretty confident from hearing the applicant's response to all the questions and all that we're getting real close to this being worked out. Yes, ma'am. And if we can't, obviously they'll come back to you, but I'm optimistic that we'll get this all buttoned up. Let's move on with the motion, then. Ms. LaMere. All right, Chair. In regards to case number 09300835-B at 835 West High Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the following two standard conditions and additional conditions that the staff review the location of the fences, and the fence is reduced from eight foot to six foot. And the six foot side yard fence does not rise above the bottom cell of the window and stops midpoint at the elevation of the house. And we approve a 60 day extension if the applicant and the staff cannot come to agreement on the details to October 17th, 15th. I wrote that down wrong, I was like, I think that's it. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, Mr. Chair, we'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion is approved. We have also, do we have minutes or not? We do have a lot of minutes. Okay, give me the dates of the minute, or just let's do it one, no, separate motions for each set of minutes. Sarah, if you're doing for me, please. We need a separate motion for each set of minutes, please. Chair, I move that we approve the meeting minutes from the November 20th, 2024 meeting. Do I have a second? Second. Without objection, the minutes stand approved. Chair, I move that we approve the minutes from the, should be January. Are we that far back? I should have gotten there before I, oh, this is a long meeting, good job, guys. I left them at my office. The January 2022, 2025 meeting. Second. Do I have a second? Second. Without objection, the minutes stand approved for January 22nd. And March should be your next. There was no February meeting due to weather. Chair, I move that we approve the meeting minutes from the March, I don't have the date of that one. Here, I'll get it. That would be March 19th, 2025 meeting. Do I have a second? Second. Without objection, they stand approved. Is that it? And then we've got April and May, so April. And those are both emailed to us, right? Yes, April 16th and May 21. Chair, I move that we approve the meeting minutes from April 16th, 2025. Which were sent by email and reviewed by us. Do I have a second? Second. Without objection, they stand approved. And Chair, I move that we approve the meeting minutes from the May 21st meeting of 2025, which we received by email and reviewed. All right, do I have a second? Second. Without objection, those minutes are approved as well. Any other action items on my agenda? If not, then I believe we're ready for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Do I have a second? Sure. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you. No, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ♪ Here she comes with a basket full of chicken and eggs ♪