♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ The installation of new wood windows to match the original design is recommended. The installation of baked enamel or anodized aluminum clad windows may be considered. If aluminum clad windows are applied, they should match the historic wood windows as closely as possible in their dimensions, profile, depth of muddens, and surrounding trim. Vinyl or vinyl clad windows are not allowed. And windows should not have snap-in interior or flush muddens. The muddens are much thinner in profile than the muddens on the historic windows and don't provide the opening appearance of the historic windows. Staff recommends approval of retaining the replacement vinyl windows as submitted. So as I mentioned, this is an enlarged photo from the Zillow, or I can't remember, Zillow or Realtor.com. This also is from the online. These are the replacement windows. These are the original windows. And you can see in both the previous and in this, you can see the two-over-two pattern to the right and on either side of the picture window. This is another photo from the interior from the website. Do we have a picture of what it looks like now? Yes. Getting to that, I wanted to show what it looked like before. So this is the current condition and configuration. You can see that the two-over-two profile is absent and what we might call a prairie-type mudden pattern has been used. Here's a closer look at it. A detail of one of the windows. This is that front picture window that I pointed out previously. It lost the openings on either side, it appears. The opening windows. Oh, they do? Yes. Okay. So this is a comparison of the before and after. The photo on the left is the before and the photo on the right is currently with the existing vinyl windows. And that's the end of my presentation. I mean, he is correct. I'll be honest. We moved here, bought this house earlier this year. When we moved, we were not aware it was an H1 district. We didn't know anything about any of the rules or replacements. So that's why when we went to swap it out, we didn't ask for CLK because we didn't know it existed. And that's on us. A little louder. There we go. Sorry. There we go. I didn't want to yell. We bought this house earlier this year. When we moved in, we were not made aware of the H1 district and didn't think to look at it. We're not from Lexington. So that's why we didn't seek out a COA because we didn't know it existed. As far as the condition of the windows, like a lot of things on the house when we moved in, there was a pretty paint on it. But there were issues with bugs leaking, things like that. Three things we're actually going down the list of what we're preparing or fixing were the windows, the roof, which we actually just sprung a leak this last rainstorm, and the air conditioning unit, which is about 20 years old. But that matters here. And windows just happened to be the first thing we replaced. So that's why it happened. Did you buy it through a realtor? Yes. Did the realtor not advise you that you were an H1 district? No, sir. I mean, one of the things, we don't want to be under an HOA. We did look to make sure it wasn't an HOA. But this would have been something we thought about before that would have made us hesitate. Well, sadly, that should have triggered him to at least point out that you're an H1. And also, your deed should have had on it a notation that you were in a zone area that's historically protected. And our house has vinyl siding and parts and vinyl cladding. So, I mean, I didn't, there wasn't anything that screamed historic we didn't even realize. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? I have one question. Dantzler Court has been a historic, the Seven Parks Historic District has been a historic area for a fair amount of time, right? It's not one of our newer districts. I'm just curious about what the timeframe is. Since 2001. Okay. Thank you. And it's actually the H1 overlay is not on the deed. It's on the PVA record. Oh, PVA record. Okay. I thought Betty had mentioned that they were actually on the deed itself. No. It's not on the deed. It's on the PVA record. Yeah. And Mr. Chair. We have another case involving the same issue. We may have a conversation about that. Yes. We are dealing with this fairly regularly that realtors are not disclosing H1s. And there's actually a place on the disclosure form that requires that disclosure. So we had a previous case concerning vinyl siding when the applicant sued the realtor and the broker. And I think they both got suspended. But, of course, that was a different situation. So it is a real conundrum for the staff and the board. This may be of little solace to you, but I would certainly recommend that you reach out to the Board of Real Estate, the Realtors Board, and file a complaint against your realtor. He should have told you. Yeah. I'm sorry. In fact, you put him on enough notice by asking about HOA that that should have popped a light bulb in his head. And I am so sorry this has happened to you. But there are very few guidelines in our packet that are as crystal clear as this one is. Right. And we have had this problem before. We have consistently held that if you install vinyl, they have to be removed and replaced with wood. At your next step, it is going to be that you will have to replace these with new windows. Any grace for time? These were expensive. I mean, it is going to take a little while to recoup. I am not expecting you to do it tomorrow. We can't impose a deadline on you. I would suggest that you keep the staff updated as to what you plan to do. If you want to give yourself a Christmas present next Christmas of new windows, that is probably the way it should work. Okay. And again. That would be good. Because, yeah. You are not at fault here per se. Your realtor should have guided you on this. And this is why I strongly encourage you to file a complaint. Okay. The only way you are going to get any action from the board, from the realtor's board, is for them to start offering an educational CU, continuing education, that talks about historic properties. Yeah. Because it is big. Yeah. And with the understanding that he comes back to staff. Yes. Obviously. Yeah. Call and check in. Yeah. Don't pop the windows in. No. I will get the certificate approval. Yeah. Thank you. That needed to be underscored. Side question. For a quick roof repair. Is that something you have to call in? We are getting them to come look at our roof tomorrow. We are not going to replace the whole thing. We just want them to patch whatever is leaking. I understand if you are just doing simple repair work or even reshingling. That is a staff approval. Okay. So I just call the number in once they know what they need to do. Just file the little application saying we are doing this. Okay. That should do it. Correct? Okay. All right. We have to go through the final steps. Any other discussion on this issue? Do I have a motion to accept the staff's recommendation of disapproval? So moved. Let's do the whole thing. Okay. Let me find the front page. Is there a second? Second. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Aye. Okay. Any discussion? None. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion. Motion to approve. Second. Second. Second. Second. Let me find the front page. Sorry. I laid you into that. Yeah, you did. Chair, in regards to case number 05220329-A at 329 Dantzler Court, I move that we deny the certificate of appropriateness to replace the windows. 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? The motion passes and your vinyl windows are disapproved. Fair enough. Thank you. But thank you for coming. Yes, sir. Definitely. Thank you guys very much. Okay. Have a good day. All right. And please recognize that they're a resource. Anytime you want to do a reconstruction outdoors on your house, reach out to the staff. Yes, sir. They'll be happy to help you. Yeah. We went over the whole packet. We found it online and we've been educating ourselves on it. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, guys. Okay. Let's move on to the next item. Thank you. This is a motion on 13th street in the western suburb historic district. Applicants. If you'll state your name again for the record, please. Colton Scranton. Mrs. Scranton. And Taylor Provost. Ma'am. The normal procedure, we'll have a presentation by the staff first. Is this Shearsbury? Oh, you're just — okay. Thank you. And just to get the question out of the way, how long has the western suburb historic district been a historic district, if you know? It's been a while. 80s? I think since 1984 or something like that, yeah. It's one of the first ones. I'm not exactly certain, but a long time. 737 West Main Street, retained vinyl windows. This again, from a website from when the property was sold, shows the historic windows. Staff discovered that the windows at this property had been replaced. Staff sent a violation letter to the property owner, who subsequently responded regarding the letter. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to retain the replacement windows. The windows that were replaced were original wood, six over one. The photographs on realtor.com from when the property was sold show that the windows were in a condition that would not warrant replacement. Guidelines are included for your use, findings. Staff reviews windows prior to the replacement to determine if they were a candidate for replacement. However, staff was not able to review the windows most recently because they were already replaced without a COA. The proposal to retain the vinyl windows does not comply with the LFUCG design guidelines, nor is it appropriate for the structure or the Western Suburbs Historic District. The LFUCG design guidelines are very specific, sound like a broken record here. When they state in guideline 124B and 124C, windows should be repaired rather than replaced If the review process determines that replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should be in kind to match the originals in size, material, and design. The installation of new wooden windows to match the original design is recommended. The installation of enamel or anodized aluminum clad windows may be considered. If aluminum clad windows are applied, they should match the historic wood windows as closely as possible in their dimensions, profile, depth of muttons, and surrounding trim. Vinyl or vinyl clad windows are not allowed. Windows should not have snap-in interior or flush muttons. The muttons are much thinner in profile than the mutton on the historic structures and don't provide the opening with the appearance of a historic window. Staff recommends disapproval of retaining the replacement vinyl windows as submitted. And again, this is the historic windows. This is a view from the inside, again showing the historic windows. This is the current condition of the structure with the replacement windows and the wrapped window frames. This is a close-up of one of the porch windows showing the interior muttons between the glass panels. And again, this is a comparison of the property on the left prior to the replacement with the historic windows and on the right with the replacement vinyl windows. That's the end of my presentation. One note I would say is that upper story windows are too small, upper story windows that already were vinyl and at least the back one was vinyl, I would say, already. So the only windows were? All the first floor windows. The only windows we're discussing are the front windows, right? All the first floor windows have all been replaced. Okay, and your second, you're trying to make a clarification, I'm not sure I heard you. I'm just saying there are two tiny little upper story windows that were already vinyl. Okay, and we're not talking about those? Correct. Okay. The only windows we're dealing with are the ones that you replaced, so. Anything else from Mary? Come on up. I would note for the record we have received a letter supporting the staff's recommendation of disapproval from a Ms. Grider. I can give you a copy of the letter that she sent in to us. There's a second letter in the report, too. Hm? There's a second letter. Oh, is there? In the report. I believe there's two. Yes. I apologize. Who are these from? Here, it's this one. Okay, the other letter is from Heather Almond at, apparently she owns several properties on West Main Street, 731, 733, and 735. Okay, your turn. So, we purchased the house early June. The reason the windows were replaced so quickly is because the inspection that we had on the house before we purchased it stated that the windows should be replaced on account of missing glazing, loose and missing glazing, broken sash cables throughout all the windows and cracked glass across the windows as well, which is why they were replaced. We kept them in the original style, but judging by what I'm hearing from the other guy, that's probably not good enough. Again, like the last guy, we're first-time homeowners and we were not told by our realtor that this was. Actually, I think we asked and he actively told us it wasn't a historical district. So that's why we didn't ask for approvals. We didn't know we needed approval. So your realtor said that you were not in a historic district, by our recollection? Yes, because we had looked at another historical house with the same realtor. When we wanted to move forward with this one, we tried to make sure it didn't work out. Well, then you definitely have a complaint to be filed because the boundary lines of the historic districts are clearly delineated. Any realtor that's worth his salt and competency should know that. And if they come after me, they can do so gladly. I will deal with them. But again, this is a situation that you should have been apprised, especially if you'd asked in this situation. Did you use a contractor to have these windows replaced? We did. Because that's the other place where a contractor, I mean, most reputable contractors in Lexington because historic districts have been around for decades, should know about this. And the homeowner or the seller, we got some money off when we were doing negotiations to pay for the windows. And so every single person should, I don't know, I think there were a lot of steps where somebody could have mentioned it and they didn't. I don't disagree with you, but at the same time, you're obligated to do your own research. And I'm sorry this happened to you, and as I say, there's no immediate timeline that you have to replace these windows. They do have to be replaced. What do you mean by that? Because I mean, you said next Christmas, but I mean, this is tens of thousands of dollars that we spent. And now it's tens of thousands of dollars more. Sorry. Well, if you start showing a good faith effort and do it one by one and just get them done as you can get them done, that certainly will alleviate any impulse to seek enforcement of the order that we may be issuing. And I know this is a rough time. And it doesn't help that they look exactly the same. Like with the other pictures, I see that they look different, but we made sure that ours looked exactly the same. And I don't mean to be rude, but from the street level, it does look the same. And in the pictures, they look like they were taken from our property. Do you know what I'm saying? I do. And the reality is a lot of window companies have tried to imitate. The key word here is imitate. The real thing. I don't want to get into a long discussion about the difference between wood windows with the original painting and you could have reglazed them and actually retain a more handsome look to those windows as opposed to regular plain glass. But that's neither here nor there. We appreciate your efforts to be in conformity. And I only wish that you had noticed or had better advice. There is signage around that talk about there's western suburb signage around that. This actually has been a historic district since 1975. As I mentioned before to Mr. Scranton, that there is a typically you can't always use this historic tax credit, but there is a historic tax credit out there. To be able to and that could be available for you to replace these windows. Okay. Is that on your website? That's actually and I sent the link to him before. I'll send it to you before. I think I did send it to you. Did I send it to you before? I think to your email. And that's through the State Historic Preservation Office. If not, it's the State Historic Preservation Rehab Tax Credit that you can use to use these. And I think also I might have sent this or I could, if I didn't I'll send this again, a list of appropriate windows that could be used on this site. Because this is a National Register District as well as the H1 overlay. And I do know that we had, I personally took about four or five calls on this property prior to its purchase. So I do know there were people looking into this. I don't know if it was your realtor or not. There's also another resource you can reach out to, which is the Blue Grass Trust. They actually have a new staff person present that actually help people with the tax credit process and will help you with the paperwork for it. It's not terribly complicated, but it can be a little baffling. So I'll work with the Blue Grass Trust as well. But you need to reach out to the Historic Preservation Office as well. Okay, so just to be clear, we do still have to fill out the, or get the COA? Yes. You have to start this whole process over again as if you were doing it from the get-go. The COA would be to replace the vinyl windows with wood. And I might suggest a follow-up meeting later when you guys are available that we can meet on site and talk about this a little further. I appreciate you coming, and thank you for your cooperation, and I'm sorry this happened to you. And I wish I could wave a wand and make that unhappen, but you know, if it helps, it happens to all of us. I had my own embarrassing encounter with the board a long, long time ago, and it cost me money. Okay. Yes? I just want to say how pleased I am that you chose to move into a historic area. downtown, generational change, I love it, so thank you. And welcome downtown, it's a great place to live. We love it. Yeah, it's great, thank you. Thank you. And tell all your neighbors that come downtown, we're in the historic district, we'll tell you about the whole process. Oh yes. Okay. Alright, anything else, any further discussion? Okay, I believe the chair's ready for a motion then. Chair, per case, 1-2-2-7-0-7-3-7-dash F at 737 West Main Street. I move that we deny, disapprove the application for the COA. Yeah, we're accepting, in effect, their disapproval of the application. Okay, 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. Aye. Motion passes and the disapproval is approved. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, turning to our last case. Do we need to take a break or anything? Turning now to 232 East Belcourt. Karen, have I skipped over something I shouldn't have skipped over? Yes. We're ready. Yes. There is a Contractors Association. Amelia, are you going to do a presentation first? Well, we've been up here several times now. The staff has, I think we all know it, but recommended, again, disapproval of the application. How much of a presentation do, I guess let's go through the presentation. I'm going to be brief. Okay. Because I'm going to let Mr. Taylor do a lot of this. So I'm going to, I put a lot of paper and I think I've pretty much narrowed it down to a small dogwood that I've provided to you. Okay. If you think about paper versus tree form that I've provided to you. Okay. Thank you, appreciate it. And, but I'm going to, so you have all the documents and all the options in front of you. And of course we know exactly what's going on. And I think what I'm going to do, and we've walked through and we talked about the different connector options. And I'm just going to briefly walk you through these images. And then of course this is our last image that physical image, which is, as we talked about, this was the case that was approved by the Board of Architecture Review. But as the staff actually denied this case, and this is the case on the corner of Forest and Sayre. And it actually took as long as it has taken this time, in this case. So I'm seeing the officer. The connector that had an octagon garage and they took that garage down. That the difference is this one being a duplex versus a smaller structure. And so, disregard that one. And so you have option one. I'm not going to go through all of option one. I'm just going to go through and we'll look briefly at this particular plan here, which is A-202. That looks at the connector. This particular page. And this is, this is actually supported by the two steel columns. These columns are sort of in the middle of that connector. And of course this is the result of the board's request for a thinner connector bridge. Into that part. This is also showing you the section here. Of this way this has been connected. And I'll give you these two images here. The way that is connected. So this is option one. And that of course is going to be a connection of wood and steel together. With the wood ducking. And of course the handrails and all of these are going to be steel with a wood handrail. Connecting the previously approved dormer addition in the previously approved garage. Okay. These are other renderings of that same image. Okay, this is option one. Option one is supported by two steel columns. And they have a cantilever approach. I'm going to go back to this. And these beams are sort of a little bit wider. So this is 1A? 1A, sorry, 1A, sorry. And so you can sort of see these are wider and the columns are closer to the buildings and not sort of in the middle. Okay, this is option two. And so that is four post in concrete. And this is four wood columns with a bridge bearing and concrete post and with wood joists and wood beams. So that's option two. Now, and here is a page with all of those options. In the bottom option here is the option that was first put forward earlier that has sort of more of a thicker connector that has just cantilevered from the two structures with no supports. So it's not actually cantilevered. Well, it's connected. Supported, right, supported, right. Sorry, I struck that, sorry. But you could see, so this is option one, option one, option 1A, option two, and then this is the initial option for all four of those. And then, and I'm not gonna go into the September plans and I'll just go back to that particular plan. I'll just have you that. So those are the four plans that are sort of on the table that you all have seen. Guidelines are included for your reference. Findings, while the applicant has responded to the board putting forth three new proposals, staff finds that the connector is still not in keeping with the Bellcourt neighborhood and all proposals are for columns that create too much interruption of green space between the rear of the structure and the garage. Staff finds that connecting the house to the accessory building is inconsistent with the pattern of development along the East Bellcourt and Bellcourt Historic District. In the guidelines, 2B1C and setback of new construction should be consistent with setbacks and distances, the buildings from the street, adjacent buildings, and help convey a pattern and sense of rhythm along a block or within the district which adds character, a streetscape of overall district, and placement of the lot. New construction becomes inconsistent with that adjacent surrounding buildings while the block with the buildings in Historic District, this includes both front and side yard setbacks. While the proposed garage will be nearly in the same location as that existing, no other existing buildings are connecting the main structure with stairs at either form of attachment. Staff finds the proposed attachment is not within the guidelines and staff recommends disproval of the bridge connector as proposed. I do actually have some of those other detailings if you're interested of what Mr. Taylor did before that are also in your plans of these and these other bridging of their initial plans before that are also in your packet in blue, I believe. And. Okay. Taylor. Thank you, Amelia, very much. I'm gonna step back and I have, this gentleman's very helpful, I brought my laptop that if we wanna actually look at these options in real time in the model, we can, and I have that. If it's okay, can I go back to the PDF that was up there first? I wanna, just because that's been up, I wanna be able to reference that, thank you. I'm gonna step back to the options that Amelia has presented today that you all have in front of you as well. I'm gonna step back to option one first and I'm gonna just very quickly walk you through the differences in those that may not be evident from what you're looking at. So last time that we came and talked through this, Ms. Hill, you brought up the fact that looking at this with potential vertical columns to support the bridge or connector rather than have it be attached and bearing on the house and the garage, respectively, would be something to see. So we took that seriously and we decided to look at, as we have kind of two options, they're really one, 1A and two. The differences is that 1 and 1A are of steel, it's kind of superstructure with steel columns. Option two is wood columns. If we had to, for cost reasons or whatever, go to all wood, that's what we would likely need to do. If we start with option one very quickly, so we have in this option one, two steel columns that are directly underneath of where the connector would be. And what you're seeing here is if you look at this plan, this shows those columns where they would be in option one, so directly underneath of the connector on the neighbor's side yard side, more justified. What that does is puts them directly in front of the stairs. And so we saw that conflict and thought, well, okay, that's there. It's not super great or attractive. Let's look at what other options there may be as far as pushing these columns out, which then took us to option 1A. But in option one, as you can see, the columns are there. They're a little bit closer to kind of the center of the bridge, kind of equal spacing throughout. But they do have a conflict with where the stair comes down in plan. And there you can see that. You can see there on the right-hand image right here where the stair comes down and there you have a column directly in front of it. This is an existing opening and existing stairs. So we're testing- Which option are you saying that is? This is option one. Okay. That is option one is steel columns directly under the bridge, okay? That is option one. And there's the other images that show that. Option 1A is also steel columns, but recognizing the conflict of those columns within the plane of the staircase or the walkway, we pulled those columns out away from that staircase and actually provided a steel support. We'll call it an arm, if you will, that I'll show in a second that would come across and catch the bridge. So almost as if it would almost be a little bit of a cantilever to sit proud of that walkway. And you can see that there in plan, both on the ground level where they would come down and then up above at the connector level that are pulled out here and here, proud of the walkway. And, excuse me, I'm gonna go to the elevation. So in this iteration, given that, we decided, well, let's maybe pull those apart a little bit more to kind of give ourselves a little bit more breathing room, tuck them up to the stairs since they were off to the side of it and see how that looked. But it's a little bit wider centerpiece with, again, the steel underneath. And I'll, excuse me, I'm gonna go back. And so in these options, that column is here but is pulled away slightly and allows it to the bridge to sort of be cantilevered. I think this is the most probably expensive and intense option that we have of these as far as materials and engineering goes. Moving to option two. Option two is if we had to do all wood for the whole entire structure, what would that look like? We have four columns. I think you can see the appearance there and how that would look. I think it's obviously a little bit busy but we felt we needed to explore it to test all options and potentially answer some questions that you all may have tonight about this. So those are the options that we were asked to test, which we did. I think, again, moving forward a little bit more to where we were originally with this bridge being a bearing on the garage and on the house addition, we obviously tested several different steel options in that. I think we kept it in a pretty good depth, if you will, for that. You can see here in this image, you can also see that the depth of the bridge would be the same as the depth of the small balcony and entrance area on the garage coming across. So I'll say this is my sort of final presentation piece. I think we've looked at this as many ways as we can look at it. I feel confident about that. I feel very confident also in saying that I think that the column options for me personally are a much more intrusive, less attractive, more costly option. That's from an architectural design standpoint. But I'll say that after exploring it, I feel that way even stronger than I thought I might when we were just talking about it. But that's from design standpoint and from an architectural standpoint. And that's what we've tested and where we are today. My client is here, Mr. Goodall. I would love for him to come and speak to you all as well. Obviously, he is the missing key piece. Maybe the most important piece of this is the owner and the occupant of this, who you all have not heard from yet, but I think it's important that you hear from him. Mr. Goodall, if you'll state your name for the record, please. Drew Goodall. All right, Mr. Goodall. Yeah, I guess thanks for the time this evening. It's great to finally be here and certainly appreciate all of the input and the back and forth. I know this has been a process, but really I've appreciated the process and kind of where we've gotten to. Honestly, I think it's better than where we started, so I appreciate the feedback that you've given us. Appreciate the feedback along the way that's gotten us here. We love the neighborhood, the community that we've built within Belcourt. I think it's super special. And have a young family, want to stay there and want to grow in the space. We're kind of out of space as it is, so certainly appreciate the approval on the garage addition to allow us to kind of grow into the space from a generational perspective. We want space where grandparents can come stay, can kind of age with us if and when needed. And we feel like a big part of that is being able to easily move between the house and that space, make an accessible space that we can really be comfortable in with extended family. I think the options as Darren has presented, you know, in addition to kind of the steel structures that are pretty imposing, the busyness of the wood, you feel like it adds kind of significant cost that's maybe not necessary, you know, not even taking into account like concrete foundations and things that we would have to put in place for that, you know, really for maybe minimal pickup, right? Or maybe three, four inches in terms of the depth of the structure that would carry that. So yeah, I think that's kind of where I'm at, where we're at. Again, really appreciate the feedback in the process. And yeah, we're on the finish line here. Okay, any questions for Mr. Goodall? I have one quick one. Of the three options, assuming we go that way, which one do you like the most? Option one, option 1A or two? Do you have a preference? I don't. I think they all have their pluses and minuses. You know, what's challenging here and isn't shown in the renderings is we have a really nice sitting space between the house and the garage currently, like a nice, it's currently a deck. It would be kind of like a patio space. You know, all of those options kind of impede that area in terms of like outdoor living, hangout space, you know, to be outside with the kids in the backyard. So I would say none of them. All right, so we probably have option zero then, if you will? Option zero, yes. And that's the original, which is where the zero is coming from, correct? Yes. Yes, Ms. Hill. So the challenge and the reason for the request to look at columns, both wood and steel, is that this really does, this sets a precedent in a way that is deeply important that this board take a very cautious, careful step. And what we don't want to do is in the future, the attachment without the columns, the attachment to the historic building has potential to damage in the future with any water infiltration, create damage for that historic building. And that we do not, do not, we want to prevent that. And so, so it is a little bit of a conundrum. Part of looking, I do appreciate the three options. I do also caution that the steel may not be as expensive as you're anticipating. Having done on my own historic house with a simple addition, I had done some steel that did cantilevering. And I was surprised at how reasonably priced it was compared to the wood, mostly because it removed a lot of elements because of its capacity to support things. And the one thing that option 1A does, both closest to the historic house, it's adjacent to one side of the step. So that's not really impeding your outside space at all. As a column, it's kind of almost part of the handrail system at that point. Yeah, it doesn't, I guess it wouldn't impede the stairs per se but kind of where those columns would come down to the ground is right in the middle of kind of the outdoor seating space. Well, not for 1A, look at the floor plan of 1A because the floor plan that I'm looking at, the column that comes down next beside the historic house. I think what Drew was saying is that this whole space is where they hang out at here under the column area. So what I was looking at was the proposed first floor. And when I look at the column closest to the historic house, so the drawing on the left, that column is right next to the stair. So that's really not out in a sitting space at all. But it's not my role or job to try to convince you to be comfortable with it. I'm just observing that because of the components of that system, it does open up that space in a way that having say four wood columns utterly doesn't. I'm in full agreement with that. So given your hopes for the yard also, this one seems to the most cleanly kind of accomplish both keeping a spread of that space and keeping the detachment from the historic building, which has been a concern. I guess could I ask in terms of the concern connecting to the historic building with the addition on the back, this would all be kind of net new. And how would it be different in terms of like if there were a deck on the back of the house in terms of the concern of water intrusion? Certainly I don't want that and I don't know if there are any flashing details or anything we could provide to like ease those concerns in terms of how the construction would come together. No, those are all fair questions. I think it is this struggle certainly for me as a member of the board and understanding that this is the first such connecting bridge and it is such a contemporary element and in talking with jurisdictions in other locations in adjacent metropolitan areas, how they have kind of approached it to not have it actually there within the structure, but to have it more as an element that supports itself but connects those elements. And in this instance, it both connects them, but it bears on, it depends on those two large structures to be able to support the weight of it, so. One thing if I might, I just want to point out, I think you were alluding to this, Drew, is that both of the garage and the addition are both new elements and even the addition to the house is an addition that Amelia, we know was probably, we're not sure of the date, but that's a much more recent addition, last 30 years, let's call it. But I think to alleviate that concern, at least from where I sit, is we're not actually touching any real historic fabric, I don't feel like. I mean, I think the flashing concern and all that is absolutely our job baseline above that to control that. But I think for me, I feel a lot better about it because we're actually not really touching that main volume of the house. I think we'd have a completely different conversation, in my opinion, but I just want to bring that up. All right, any other questions from the board members? I have a couple of observations that I want to make. One is I've gone through the staff's review of the findings and they're maintaining, essentially, that it's inconsistent with anything that's currently existing in Belcourt other than the one that they disapproved and was later on approved by the board. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the staff with their findings. We have not changed, really and truly, the shape. We have not changed the setback. We've not changed its orientation. We have changed a detail. And the detail is we're authorizing through this column mechanism an addition that's on the second floor as opposed to the first floor. I don't think that is such a significant deviation from the guidelines that we can't go ahead and approve this. Now, I may get pushback from other board members, but that's my take of this issue that, frankly, I think it's an imaginative and creative solution to creating additional space on a relatively small piece of property. It allows you all to live in place with your grandparents, our parents. And so I think that is something that really has to be given some, it's not an overwhelming consideration, but it's a factor. And otherwise, if we keep it as two separate buildings, the property becomes less usable to you all. One of the guidelines we have to keep in mind is making sure that we do not exalt historic preservation over the ability of people to be able to afford to live in these historic districts. This is a solution. And for that reason, I'm gonna be in support, I believe, of option 1A. I think that's the least intrusive of the three options that have been given to us. Comments? Go for it, Sarah. I'm not sure I quite agree with your logic on that, because I think if this was built on the ground across the property, we would say that it is intrusive. And because we have put it up, it's keeping the ground open, so it feels less intrusive. But I think if this was on that ground plane, we wouldn't be talking about it as long. But because it's on this top flame, it does leave that ground open. And it is an interesting solution to, I think, a problem that we're going to be seeing in how people wanna occupy these houses, especially now that they're looking at accessory dwelling units in the garage and how you connect them. And what we do here will set a precedent. And that's where I get scared, because we approve one that we talk about in this much detail, and we get it perfect where we think it meets every rule. And everyone we see after this gets clumsier and clumsier and clumsier to the point where we're just building sheds that connect, and I'm not sure this does meet the historic. I like it as a design, I do. In fact, I like option zero best as a part of the design. But I'm just not sure that it does meet the historic guidelines. You know, people have been living in a house, they have not had connection to a garage. You know, those two things have been separated for centuries, you know, until the 60s when people started attaching their garage. And you move into a neighborhood where a garage is a detached garage and a house is its own house, you know, that's the historic nature of this neighborhood. But you see, that's where the, but you see, that's why the second level connection is less shocking, if you will, than connecting it all together on the ground floor. I kind of do think it's less shocking. I don't disagree with that, but that doesn't mean I think it meets the historical guidelines, right? And that's where I'm really struggling because I do like it as a solution. All right, Brack, anything? This has taken a lot of consideration and I am not professional by any means compared to my two colleagues. But I am hypersensitive about historic structures and historic areas. I think you all have been, and your architect and you and your family have been extraordinarily patient in trying to help us deal with what a precedent this sets. I'm sorry that we even have to look at the one that was approved some years ago for comparison. I think that was unfortunate. But that's then and this is now. I think the, my feeling was that Ural's adjustments on the roof line of the garage addition was probably the most extensive thing that brought it into, into acceptability for me. And I will note that the picture that we had on zero did not show the current roof line on the garage addition. It was still pitched. That's the only. Yeah. I personally think that the walkway, the raised walkway is a pretty extraordinary decision that we will see a lot of in the future. But like my colleagues have said, I don't know what else you can do to provide these accessory dwelling opportunities without cobbling them onto the actual structure. And I'm not sure that that's a good idea either. So flying the walkway seems seems to be acceptable, at least to me. The design work that has gone into this, Mr. Taylor, I think has taken a tough problem and made it attractive. And as far as I'm concerned, whether there are columns under the walkway or not is not that significant of a matter to me, but it is to some of my colleagues. And they have good reason for that and reasons that I can support. I would say that I think that 1A does a good job of arriving at a compromise without cluttering up the solution. Again, I appreciate everyone's involvement on this and you're all's patience, Mr. Taylor's expertise, you're all's expertise and longevity in dealing with these kinds of things. And it is a new day and I've got to get used to it. And I would like to say that my vote in favor of one of these options does not in any way say that I'm comfortable with this happening all over Belcourt or any other historic district. Because the quality of this result is what is key. That leads to your point. It's the quality of what might come after that we are guarding. Thank you. And that's one reason why we're here because we will have these minutes and we'll have these designs and the process as our precedent for what has to be accomplished before we're going to prove something. If that helps any. I'm not sure if we have to necessarily through a board recommendation, marry ourselves to any one of the three options. I think they're all three acceptable in their own different ways. If you prefer to do one A and I think that's the preference that I'm hearing. We could do that too. Ms. Hill. I'm undecided on my vote. I'll be honest with you. But I think option two, I really didn't like it's one A. Like if we're looking at this and the detail that is one A that moves those columns and makes it thinner is by far, I think for me, the preference. Yeah, I think option two, zero or one A as well. All right, Ms. Hill, I know that you're asking questions. Are you having comments you want to make on this application? I think our discussion has certainly reinforced the complexity of the decision. And what's not clear to me is if the board did elect to support one A, whether it's something that you'd be comfortable moving forward with. And I have to assume that you would be or you wouldn't have presented it as an option. But I think we do need to be cautious about the way we step into this because I think we're going to see a lot more. And I do agree that the solutions are not going to be as skillful as what we've seen here. And so having this lengthy conversation does give us a record to draw on and to pull back your stepping into the future here, so to speak. And so I do appreciate the time and effort both you and your consultant have put into this. It's important not only for your particular property, but for your neighborhood and our city also. All right, thank you very much. So I'm assuming we're moving towards a motion. If there's going to be a motion to override the disapproval, we need specifically to say that and findings as to why we are recommending acceptance of the proposal. And I won't talk to that. Mr. Chairman? Yes. Could staff make one comment? Do what now? Could staff make one comment based on the guidelines that weren't included in this guideline 2B, 2B states that accessory structures should not be close to or attached to the historic structure. Where are you? I'm sorry. I'm sorry? Where are you reading from and what page? From our guidelines for new accessory. Is that guideline set out? I'm sorry, from the guidelines for new accessory buildings. Those weren't included this time, but that is a guideline that we have. You can't suddenly throw in a new, in my opinion, we're not connecting the properties. They're simply in the way that the guideline is. I know what you're talking about. That guideline, I don't think it's really particularly relevant to this particular project. I believe it will become relevant in the future. Okay. We can deal with that issue. That was the only comment I wanted to make. Okay, well, thank you, sir. So it's partly about the legal definition of an accessory dwelling. And a garage as the kind of primary element of this. It's in the accessory structures section. Okay. And we're actually not, okay. So I think we can still move forward with these guidelines. Actually, I just want to address the staff comment about creating too much interruption of green space and the inconsistency. I don't think either are applicable. I don't think there is too much green interruption. And I don't think overall this orientation, this particular way that you're connecting is inconsistent with the neighborhood. Now, I'm not making these findings. I'm asking for one of the board members to make a motion. If we're ready for a motion. Okay. Brack, you want to go ahead? Chair, with regard to case 01530232-I at 232 East Belcourt, I move that a certificate of appropriateness be granted for the elevated walkway as delineated in option 0 or option 1A with the choice being that of the owner. Do you want to add in with final details to be submitted to the staff? Yes, with all of the standard conditions in addition to that. All right, we'll just say as a shortcut, the standard conditions one and two. Right. Do I have a second? Now, you need, also, if you don't mind, Brack, set out your findings as to why we're approving. If I could jump in for a second. This motion is based. I'm sorry, ma'am, excuse me. Did you say option 0 to 1A? So are you moving to approve the original without the columns? It would be the owner's choice. Okay, I just wanted to clarify. Yes, the owner's choice of adapting to option 0 or option 1A, and the reason for this accommodation in Belcourt is that it addresses an important priority for increasing living options within the current neighborhoods and zones and historic districts in Lexington in such a way that, particularly for the historic districts, it does not diminish their value or our attention to their integrity. All right, do I have a second? Do I have a second? I have a second, and I'm struggling with wanting to make a motion. You can have a second and then ask to approve it. Okay, I will second it. Or I would be glad to withdraw it if you would like to state. I will second it, but I'd like to make an amendment. Sure, go ahead. What is your amended motion? And would like to amend the motion to be specific to option 1A. All right, do I have a second to that? I will accept that amendment. All right, now, from a parliamentary procedure, bear with me, we have two votes we have to do. First of all is the amendment first. Do we have any further discussion on the amended motion? If not, the chair will call that question. We're voting on the amendment, which is limited to option 1A, with the rest of the motion being kept intact. All those in favor of the motion say aye. I'm sorry. The rest of the findings is what I was trying to get at. So we're voting to add that to the motion right now, and then we're going to vote on the motion? Yes. Okay. Yeah, it's a two-step process. On the amended motion. Because then I'll be asking, we will then turn to the motion as amended, and then we have to vote again, okay? I'm sorry, it can be confusing at times. So right now. I believe, Chair, if I accept the amended motion. Well, if you had withdrawn your original motion, I would have. Oh, okay, good, okay. So let's go with the amended motion. All those in favor of it say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The amended motion passes. Now we turn to the motion as amended, which is basically the same thing. Any further discussion on that motion? If not, the Chair calls the question. All those in favor of the motion as amended, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. All right. Motion as amended passes three to one. COA is approved as conditioned. Good luck. You'll need it with your project. Thank you. Okay. All right, any. Thank you all. Is there any further business before this body at this time? Do we have to approve the calendar? Are we ready to approve the calendar? Yes, please. Do I have a motion to approve the calendar? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Motion, the calendar stands approved. Anything else before us? We're ready for a motion to adjourn. What are we doing about the first one? The withdrawals? Yeah, we don't have to vote on withdrawals. Okay, so are we ready to adjourn? I have, do I have a motion, please? So moved. Second? Second. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you so much. So sorry. We'll move on. Take care, ma'am. You too. So, thank you. Have to get up. So sorry to keep you up at this hour, it's a very busy day. I know. Every hour counts. So too can you. We can't say, And I believe... I didn't list your name. We don't give our names. Well, maybe later, nevermind now. We don't give our names.