yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah if i may have your attention we are beginning the meeting i would like to welcome you to the november 19 2025 meeting of the board of architectural review we appreciate those of you who are in attendance today the board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958 our first historic district was grants park and we now have a total of 15 historic districts the board which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the urban county council is a part of the division of historic preservation the historic preservation office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects the board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource the historic preservation offices located at 101 east fine street room 220 right downstairs is there a procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda in each case we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant the board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties the chair will then ask the board members to enter motion if you wish to address the board members please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record we also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that information can be recorded generally speaking we will restrict your comments to three minutes each i would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review applications there are certain items that the staff can approve thereby eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the board there are a total of 37 i believe yes 37 approved applications i ask for a motion that they be considered read into the record so moved do i have a second without objection the staff approvals are read into the record we will now turn our attention to the first application which is in the ashland park historic district at 257 south hanover drive is the applicant here come on up uh yes i guess you get to go to the big podium and hopefully there we go oh my name is uh joe martin olich i'm an architect and i my office is at 838 east high street number 199 all right the staff has actually recommended approval of your application subject to what i call what i'll call a couple substantive conditions i want to ask you about those the first one is to submit the final door and window details and specifications the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the coa are you in agreement with that no problem there yes okay the other one is that you set the south side of the addition in by one foot from the side walls of the historic structure structure are in agreement with that um actually no i'm hoping to give you some additional information to help make a better decision okay hopefully reverse that decision i'll say all right in that case i'd like to go ahead and sound the rest of the agenda to see which ones need to be heard okay and we'll come we'll circle back to you okay and have a hearing okay so all right take a seat please okay uh turning now to our second application at 1007 fontaine road in the ashland park historic district the scope of work is constructed carport is the applicant here please don't come up to the podium please i know it's a bit of a hike if you'll state your name and address for the record please yeah good afternoon brad hawkins owner of dudley road bungalows office address 620 euclid avenue suite 202 in lexington okay the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to one what i call a substantive uh condition which is the final detour details of the columns be submitted prior to the issuance of the cla are in agreement with that yes sir the other two are uh once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting any changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work or an agreement yes sir and finally if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit those changes of staff for review and approval prior to start of work no problem all right thank you thank you any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience if not then the chair is ready for a motion chair per case number 07 201 007 dash a at 1007 fontaine road i move that we approve the certificate for appropriateness with the one non-standard condition that has been read into the record and the two standard conditions as also previously read and agreed to all right do 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 motion passes and the cla as conditions approved good luck with your project thank you all right turning now to our third application at 128 clay avenue in the ellsworth place historic district is the applicant here i'm going to just jump over you right now i know that you want to be heard okay thank you all right moving now to the next one attachment number 4 135 ransom avenue scope of work is construct a rear addition demolished garage and construct garage is the applicant here come on up hi all right state your name cindy trap address please 135 ransom avenue okay staff is actually has recommended approval of the application there's one what i call substantive condition which is provide the final doors and window details and specifications prior to the issuance of the cla okay are in agreement with that yes and the other two are the what we refer to as the standard conditions that i've previously read are in agreement with those yes all right any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience hearing none the chair is ready for a motion chair with regard to case number one 15740135-j i move that a certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions which have been read into the record and condition number one provide final door and window details and specifications prior to the issuance of a cla all right do i have a second any discussion of the motion hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the cla as conditions approved thank you and good luck okay hopefully not too much uh turning now to attachment 5497 east main street in the belcourt historic district scope of work exchange openings and main structure rear addition and garage remove shutters is the applicant here give your state your name for the record please i'm mike tuttle residing at 247 north broadway all right mr total the staff has recommended approval yes has recommended approval of your application uh with just the two standard conditions i have previously read are in agreement with those or do i need to read them again i'll read them again i just i just got i honestly haven't read this i didn't even know we had staff approval but thank you yes you have staff approval okay all right let me read them to in the record the standard two conditions are once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes the staff or board for review and approval prior start of work in agreement agree 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 we agree yes all right any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience if not the chair is ready for a motion chair with regard to case number one two two six zero four nine seven dash h i move that a certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions as noted and read in the meeting all right do i have a second second in discussion of the motion hearing on the chair we'll call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye uh the motion then as conditioned is approved mr toddle thank you thank you very much uh turning now to attachment number 6 29 30 cadentown road uh the scope of work is to demolish a house and garage and that's all it is is the applicant here yes sir lindsay mosley on behalf of the applicant all right are there people here that wish to comment on this application okay i think what we're going to do then is let me go through the rest of my agenda and then we'll come back to you sir okay for public for comments from the uh residents who are here most certainly there are other applicants there'll be two or three other hearings that we'll have to do first okay okay okay and and i have a council meeting i need to be we're all running late today and i apologize for us running late so hopefully i think once you understand the scope of this application there'll be as fewer concerns than initially thought okay all right uh turning now to 423 west fayette park and the fayette park is start district scope of work is to install a platform is the applicant present come on my name is sarah katzenmeyer my parents live at 423 fayette park thank you ma'am i believe the staff has approved your application subject to what i call the standard two conditions are in agreement with those maybe repeat them let me repeat them sorry the first one is reviewed by the other city divisions resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work i agree and secondly if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work i agree all right any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience chair is ready for a motion chair with regard to case one seven three one zero four two four dash n at 423 west fayette park i move that we grant the certificate of appropriateness with the two conditions that have been read and noted at this time all right do i have a second any discussion of the motion hearing none the chair will call the motion all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the coa as conditioned is approved thank you turning now to 624 north broadway the applicant here is the applicant here um all right we'll postpone it we'll come back to this in just a minute all right turning now to attachment nine at 538 542 arcadia park in the seven parks district uh scope of work is to install a deck and fence and i'm the applicant i'm tommy walleyes and i live at 538 and 542 arcadia park all right uh and the applicant has the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions i've read them previously did you hear them yes and i agree thank you uh any questions or comments from the board members questions or comments from the audience hearing none the chair will then ask for a motion chair i'll just talk loudly case number zero zero five one zero five three eight dash six dash d 538 park i move that we approve this certificate of appropriateness with standard two conditions and 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 condition is approved now let's figure out what's wrong with your so so yours when i speak it's it's just not it's not coming on it's not working either green maybe maybe it will be stopped it did on the first case so this is all because you have to be at and sir this is all because you have to be a bible studied i need to be somewhere all right so do we have working microphones or not this this one continues to be in cooperative okay well susan i know how strong a voice you have well i'll make the motions okay so now we are at 200 west high street remove sycamore three is the applicant here thank you thank you my name is jennifer gibson i'm the church business administrator for first-gen methodist church located at 200 west high okay um staff did you all submit any did you submit me a new recommended conditions or not i don't have them in front of me i don't know what happened to it but i don't have it that's emberton hang on maybe i do have it i i take that back i do have it everyone okay thank you for your patience now i'm ready state your name for the record please jennifer gibson i'm the church administrator okay miss gibson my name is jim dickinson i'm the board chair uh the staff has recommended approval but they have one what i would call fairly substantive condition that i just want to read over if in agreement with you we can just move on if not then we'll have to have a hearing on it that condition is replace the tree with a tree that would be a similar size of the tree that's being removed that large you can't that was my question thank you eventually well you didn't say eventually that was my question as well i was like how am i going to get a tree that big okay let me rephrase it replace the tree with a tree that will become a similar size of a tree that's being removed before replacing the tree submit a plan to the urban forester for review as to whether the proposed site will have enough green space to allow it to grow to maturity and a maintenance plan for continued care of the tree or in agreement with all that yes thank you so much the other two are the standard two conditions we've been previously reading into the record or in agreement with those yes all right any questions or comments from the board members questions or comments from the audience if not i believe the chair is ready for a motion chair with regard to case 0 9 3 0 0 2 0 0 dash cc at 200 west high street i move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions and the additional condition number one which has been read into the record all right do i have a second second any discussion on the motion here now the chair will call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the coa as conditions approved i hope you have a wonderfully healthy tree thank you thank you okay turning now to 107 south ashland avenue in the ash in these ashland central avenue historic district scope of work is construct a brick wall staff is recommending approval only of a six foot brick wall or an agreement with that we would like to be heard i thought you would i'll come back to you later thank you all right turning now to 124 south ashland avenue in the same district scope of work is move garage and narrow driveway is the applicant here yes sir darren taylor 239 north mill street mr taylor's task i believe has recognized recommended approval yes sir subject to the standard two conditions are in agreement with those we are do i have any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience hearing none the chair will call yes thank you all right do i have a second second any discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the question all those that favor the motion say aye aye opposed nay motion is passed and the cla as conditions approved thank you as always uh turning now to our last case to be sounded at 298 south ashland avenue scope of work is demar's garage construct garage and associated sidewalk is the applicant here yes sir uh state your name for the record please tim parton all right mr parton staff has recommended approval of your application in full subject to the standard two conditions are you agreeing with those all right yes any questions or comments from the board questions or comments from the audience all right then i'm ready for a motion and i'm going to try this one okay and we're still trying to find microphones ah this working yes chair for per case number zero zero seven one zero two nine eight dash r at 298 south ashland avenue i move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions all right do i have a second second all those in favor of the vote any discussion on the motion hearing on the chair recall the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed nay motion passes and the cla as conditions approved thank you so much good luck with your project all right i'm going to exercise my prerogative as chair and given the fact that we have a number of people in the audience i think that want to be heard on a particular issue if we get to get to that point i'm gonna go ahead and call the cadentown application first but let me catch up with you sir yeah i've got it all right let me explain to you briefly our procedures the staff has recommended approval of your application in order and i'm assuming and those are changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes the staff for review and approval prior to work and the other is once reviewed by the other city divisions resubmit those changes the staff or board for review and approval to start the work this application in no way authorizes any kind of a subdivision it is simply a single family house that's being demolished are there people in the audience that would like to be heard on this application yes sir all right in that case then we're going to have a staff presentation and then you can be heard with respect to your application and then we'll hear from the audience public comment okay mr dennis so 29 30 cadentown road the application is to demolish a house in the garage the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to demolish a historic frame house and a later concrete mason masonry units garage give me a sec both structures are in a severely dilapidated condition the cadentown historic district was designated as a historic district based on the pattern of land development as to oppose to its historic structures the historic structure was originally constructed as a wood siding on wood frame on wood frame bearing on wood pilings the previous owner of the property owned a concrete company company over time the concrete stucco was placed on the exterior of the structure which increased the loading on the wood framing and has contributed to the structural deterioration the owner states that the property is currently in much distress that it is found not safe to be habitable the foundation has eroded away which were wood log posts as well as roofing and window structures the property has been deemed by multiple contractors as a complete teardown so that a safe structure of a new build could take place now the owner also states the property is inhabited by squatters and contains drug paraphernalia when staff visited the site to photograph the structure a lady came out to question why the staff was there and again this is only demolition of those two structures and then in the next meeting there will be another coa application for a new single-family residence findings the guidelines are included for your information staff visited the property to and determined to the staff's satisfaction that the structures are in such a severely dilapidated state and are and are beyond any reasonable effort to save them staff finds the proposal to demolish the historic structure and the garage meets guideline 6a which states demolition should only recur as a last resort after all other avenues to protect the historic building and structures have been exhausted the owner has submitted financial information to show that the proposal also meets guideline 6c3 which states the property owner proves that no reasonable economic return may be gained from the property through a process designated in article 13 section 7c appendix e additionally the proposal meets the guideline 6d demolition of a structure or building should not be detrimental to the character scale rhythm and design and importance of a group of buildings streetscape or district the cadentown historic district was designated a historic district based on the pattern of land development as opposed to its historic structures the boar has previously approved multiple coas for demolition in the cadentown historic district that is the end of the staff report let me get my microphone if you come up to the audio i think we heard the staff report i'm assuming that you were the one that submitted the information concerning the uh deteriorated condition of the of the site uh yes sir okay now you have a are you intending to build a house there as well single-family residence and is that application still pending before us yeah we didn't we don't have the plans a hundred percent ready for the submit but yes all right i suspect there might be some people there for that as well let me ask you this are you going to be ready by december 17 to have that presentation or do we need to push it out no we should be ready by the 17th okay the demo part is more about what's going on at the existing residence trying to get it what is going on exactly well you got like i said it's staff report you got squatters and they're staying there yeah there is evidence of drug paraphernalia can the house not be barricaded off no okay you can't uh i mean they're real nice they invited the owner and i look around do what we need to do as far as that but they can't okay yeah all right uh i understand there's some people in the audience that like to be heard yes go ahead sir take your seat and if you'll state your name and how many people are wanting to speak on this matter what all right well i'll tell you what um i'll give you about five that's okay it won't take that long okay and and i'm going to tell you what we appreciate let's start off please leon slatter thank you all right uh 1190 oakwood drive i'm the pastor king time missionary baptist church yes sir right next door and um to make a long story short uh we have put up with the squatters for over a year so somebody just finding out about it but um anyway um that's okay matter of fact we went ahead and allowed them to use the water from the church and so you know out of kindness but then um we're very appreciative that you are considering a single family home and this is what my concern is that it is a single family home uh where there are no curves of any kind uh we know that it has a part that has occurred in the neighborhood in some kind of way no what sir huh what did you say i said single family home no nothing additional you know no no curves curve there you go yeah okay thank you um and you know as far as the uh demolition is concerned the house need to be torn down something need to be done to it we're in complete agreement with that the thing i will say is we think we have a very beautiful little section there as it has to do with the trees we would hope that you give consideration to the trees and don't because we own the property on both sides we're on the property on the other side there are trees there that you uh be careful about the trees and um we're um i think more than anything else we're concerned about what your plans are and um you know if if you on the up and up we would appreciate knowing what they are amen as soon as possible as soon as you know whether than even to wait to come back down here if you will consider that maybe you could maybe you will know but it'd be great i'm assuming there's a neighborhood association or that he could just meet with the church well absolutely absolutely we'll be happy to do that and have it we got other members of the community here so we'll be happy to do that yeah um and and i want to thank the board for holding to the fact that this is a senior family dwelling so my time i saw the time anyone else not yet mr balding true yes ma'am state your name for the record please my name is kimberly robinson and i've been a resident of katentown since uh 1964 i'm 61 years old and i just plead to the board and i thank you all for sticking to the single residential home because we've had other things occur in our community that we didn't agree with that got approved but we fought we lost but we're gonna fight again this time we wanted to stay a single residential home um we don't want an airbnb because somebody just snuck one in on us on cape lane so if we can hold people to accountability and have a single residential home because we are a family in katentown everybody sees about each other sometimes developers come in the community well all the time developers come in the community they're not staying so they don't care what happens but we care what happens and we want accountability and we uh we do agree with the demolition demolition of the home and the garage because we do have squatters there and we occur you know they come across our property and do things they've shot up in our stairwell so i agree with that it does need to come down thank you thank you anyone else mr balter if i can have one other thing to address like uh the trees totally agree with you they're actually valuable to what we're trying to accomplish as well yeah you know typically six inches earth or larger stays get the underbrush clean it up and the house would look i mean it'd be a really nice four-bedroom two and a half bath ranch it'd be hardy and uh brick barry i suspect that there'll be restrictions on tree removals that's the size of the trees that can be removed if any well the demolition permit would not cover no i'm talking about tree removal i'm talking about when they buy a house yes our standard 10 inch diameter rule would apply and it would be up to the board to approve a removal of any particular tree do you have your site plans and your uh blueprints already prepared we have uh the site plan a tentative with the blueprints mr paulie's in the process of getting them finalized for me let me encourage you that you meet with the members of the cadentown association in church and review those plans with them beforehand oh i promise you i won't give a reverend my business card before i leave here and they reach out to me perfect and we're gonna be just like champ we have learned over the years that communication between neighbors and applicants is the best thing that we can do to avoid uh controversial and drawn out meetings i agree we're trying to build a nice house to sell okay and so you know the things that it's going to be important to everybody else is important does you know we want they don't cut trees i don't want cut trees because it costs money to take them down and it's hard work you know but no we won't keep the and plus you got a one of the reasons i got mr lee involved he's done several projects in that community you know so he's very familiar he's designed most of the houses what's his name again paulie do you know him sir paul paulie is an architect that has been in front of the board numerous times a few times in the last few months how do you suppose last name lea oh okay yes yes he has been here all right so he knows more about it which is usually good and i have seen the schematic and it's a very nice looking structure all right well we will deal with that at the next meeting perfect okay any other questions comments from the audience do you have anything else to add sir uh no sir i appreciate your time okay well we're not quite done yet i'm sorry any questions or comments from the board members okay uh you see i i have a question it's probably a legal question um is there is there a way to insert in my motion the um a request that a meeting be held with the neighborhood and association of the church prior to we appreciate what the coa and if i i can imagine that it can be a formal requirement but i'd like that language to be in my motion is that possible i think you could put that in your motion if you uh wanted to and i think it's possible if you want to put it as a condition you might could do that but i i think it's up to you i think we can only go so far as that you strongly suggest as a part of your um as a recommendation attorneys in both directions okay all right thank you okay any other comments or questions uh i also have uh an a an amendment okay um what is your conditions and how would we be adding that uh she makes a motion that i would amend that or are you we can informally discuss it right now see what she can add it in to her motion for you what are you looking i would like a condition to be added that um no plant material be removed outside a perimeter of three feet from the existing house's foundation you want to keep the green space intact in other words correct until we see the next proposal okay um miss hill can you add that in definitely um so he just doesn't like you this is quite the evening um the condition being no plant material be removed uh outside the three foot perimeter of the existing structure removal yes okay all right are we ready to make a motion and miss hill you just wanted to be a rock star and just sing into that microphone oh i can do that all right let's go um per case number four three seven three two nine three zero dash c at 29 30 cadentown road i move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions plus um a an added condition that no plant material be removed outside a three foot uh outside three feet of the existing footprint of the removal of the structure all right do i have a second to that second go ahead i had one more i'm sorry comment to make and this is not it and i'm going to formalize it as a condition that the uh developer the applicant and developer uh this would be condition number two i think it would be best just to make that as a suggestion and not as an actual condition okay a recommendation then i strongly recommend that the developer um set aside time to meet uh at the convenience of the church and the neighborhood association to review uh the plans in the site development prior to the formal review by the boar okay i would like to suggest an additional statement to that the plans as documented in the coa i want to make sure that the plans at the meeting match the plans of the coa proposal that comes to us um this is an informal conversation right as we look at revising this i am in full support of that but i also would like the neighborhood association to have the ability to have input on any on any modifications um during the interim between that formal submittal so i don't want to lock it in um but to give them that informal input and then to make sure they've reviewed the final submittal okay i will suggest that we're getting a little too close to micromanaging what the staff would be doing i think what will be happening and just as an assurance to the members of the kingtown association once the plans are reviewed and finalized by the staff those blends will be available for inspection by anyone and they'll also be available prior to the meeting our next meeting and i think that's about as far as we can go with that so if there's any discrepancies between whatever you all talked about and whatever is submitted to the staff then the staff can point that out that there is a discrepancy and you most certainly can point that out at the at the next meeting and hopefully there'll be an exchange between you all before we even have that meeting all right so let's start let's start this whole motion over again if you don't mind all right the second part of it in terms of the um conditions yeah the motion includes a new condition number one that no plant material be removed outside of the three feet the three feet of the footprint of the existing building structure plus the two standard conditions anything else and i'll get to the endorsement in just a moment do i have a second to that second okay this motion carries with it an implicit per our discussions endorsement that the applicant and the cadentown association and the baptist church meet to discuss these plans before the next meeting does that work okay any further discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye opposed motion as conditioned is approved thank you sir thank you okay make sure he has your business card thank you and to the residents of cadentown thank you all for coming and giving us your input you're welcome to stay for the rest of our meeting all right thank you all so much thank you pretty well how about you okay let's move on to uh yeah number one let's go back to 257 south hanover i appreciate your patience this is the problem being the number one yes all right so you want to be heard on the uh the setting in the south side yep yes all right what we're going to do is this is our procedure let the staff do their presentation and reasons for why they're adding that condition then you can give your statements and then if there's anyone from the audience i'd like to be heard we'll call in the audience thank you oh we're working barry today okay mr dennis 257 south hanover avenue and i think i can make this pretty brief the applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a rear addition it's a one-story rear addition and approximately 23 feet six inches by 32 feet the roof is low slope parapets with parapets and painted concrete masonry and the guidelines are included for your use and i believe that it's just the one so the recommendation number two so the one uh the one part of the findings it says that the proposal does not meet two feet two four b which states in part exterior wall should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edge of the existing building because the south wall of the addition is not stepped in that's why it doesn't meet the guideline and recommendations submit final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a coa set the south side of the addition and one foot from the sidewall of the historic structure and then the two standard conditions all right go ahead your turn thank you let me let me just jump in here i just received a comment from a person that regularly watches our proceedings and she says there's no sound is the tech person here if you're behind you she's saying that there's no sound on the program normally we cover you all cover it sorry i've got my tv let me i don't know for sure but she always watches me ah gotcha okay i'll tell her that thank you but that's a problem for us in the sense that we're now having our substantive hearings on we will be on youtube now okay and it'll be then posted on youtube is there a screen that says that's what yes it'll be in archive movies and meetings as youtube and i meant to make announcement about that earlier i apologize this has been one interesting day well because of our i know i know i know all right so i apologize we will now pick up on with your i want to make sure that your comments were being heard as well yeah and i should add one thing um it's been pointed out to me that uh the south side of this new edition abuts a previous edition and so i think do we have the plans yes yes again my my name is joe martin olich i'm architect and i'm working with the uh the homeowners on this project um the point i wanted to bring up and maybe it's more of a clarification to help uh mr dennis and his staff is to maybe just explain a little bit more about where this alignment occurs i don't know if there's a way to get a visual on the for the application just to make it a little bit clearer okay we should be able to do that here we are so sir just that's uh we'll just keep going yeah and then the lower one is back okay so if i can just point out that the is there a pointer on this barry let me suggest that you do it on that screen oh okay so the area that we're talking about in particular is right there on that corner you can see this is i'm going to i'm going to jump to it but that's the primary original facade on that side of the driveway that piece right down there on the first floor is the addition that was previously done prior to the owner taking residence and then the additions being added to that so let me just jump to that elevation kind of shows it a little bit clearer so basically what we have is there's the original from the 1930s or whenever this house was built that was the original facade this area right here where those triple windows are shown is the um an existing addition and then we're adding on to and you can see very very subtly that line there is where the original or the current corner of the building is the point i want to bring up is the amount that we're adding on is literally three foot four about this wide that we're adding on to this piece there i'm going to try to jump to the um the floor plan to make it a little bit clearer for you okay and the area that we're talking about is right there so this is the edge of the where the existing addition ends this is the corner of where the existing original facade ends and you can see where we've added on it's just three foot four part of that is because of the fact that we just needed in order to make everything work we do step back as you can see as you get further back a few other points i'd like to to make on that respect is this elevation right that's the view from the driveway um the area where we're adding on is you won't even i i would think you would be hard pressed to even see it from the street much less the driveway so the point i'm trying to get out is this is such a minor addition onto it again we're careful not to um to touch the original facade that's there the brick facade and again we're just hoping that because of that you hopefully reconsider that recommendation and allow us to to put that in um see if anything else that we had to do there again the materials that we're planning on putting there will match up exactly so i think currently this painted brick we'd have brick there and by painting it we don't worry about the the visuals not not looking proper i think it'll still be very sensitive to the neighborhood and respectful for the original structure all right any questions or comments from the board members so you are showing that it's already set in on the blueprints yes two feet um the the original the existing building already is set in about two and a half feet yes well i'm looking here i'm trying to get at the addition appears to be set in right two feet yes the so are we seeing what you see in yellow there is what's the proposed addition correct and the area in question is this little corner right there and that's what we're asking to allow to just extend that portion of that wall by three foot four to allow us to to get the interior space as we need to to work out understood thank you okay you're still okay uh barry what's your response to this statement if any and you don't have to get up are you having microphone problems too let's see i think mine's working all right um yeah um the guideline is not clear it just sets the wall says to set the wall in uh but based on the previous addition being set in the two feet and this being such a small um addition to that area um i don't know that a foot setback would make much of a difference well my impression is this is such a de minimis change and normally we have that one foot set in mainly just to make sure that the new boy on the block is being adequately delineated i don't think that's what is happening here well i think that as i mentioned it's set back from the corner of the historic structure and the guidelines are to allow to see the uh the progress and growth of the structure and personally i think that it would be fine but i had to go with the black and white of the guideline yeah and and additionally we we look at all sides of the structure not just the front as you know i know that miss hill so uh to continue your comments um the way the roof lines are done of that initial addition older addition and then the current new addition i think make very clear where the step back is for the proposed addition i think separates it visually very clearly from both the original house and that older addition i would agree with that in this case okay in that case then any further comments no okay uh i think we're ready for a motion chair with regard to case 0 8 7 6 0 2 5 at 2 5 7 south hanover avenue i move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions as well as the condition to submit final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a coa do i have a second second it being noted that we are not adopting the staff recommendation number two any further 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 the motion as conditioned is approved and good luck with your project thank you i appreciate your patience sir okay turning now to 128 clay avenue is the applicant here i think you know our process i think what we need to do is have a staff presentation because i think you won't be heard on on this application so this case was heard last year in october and i'll go through this again these are pictures taken last year and then i'll show you this year and specifically we're looking at this particular tree because this was one of the contentious issues last year at this time so this is the property at 128 clay that proposal is to remove the tree in question and install a driveway we'll look at a little closer this of course is this sweet gum tree again the tree and then these are more current pictures of this particular area so the applicant previously this property was accessed i believe had or somebody had access i believe on off of central but now they're wanting to create a new access point here in this particular location so the the idea would be to create remove this tree and to create a driveway here between the edge of the porch and this area mr barrett has submitted plans for a 16-foot wide driveway apron and to construct a 10 by 45 foot long driveway for the side yard of this duplex i would say because of this infill he is limited to 12 foot apron because of the infill regulations and also there is a driveway in the rear where there's a fence enclosed here i'll give you a little bit more pictures this would also include removing the the sidewalk here and and you can see this is a new fence that was put on where there is a driveway currently and this would include removing this particular area and creating a new patio in the rear yard and we'll look at this plan here in a second and the applicant also is proposing to plant a new tree and remove this asphalt and i do want to show and this would be where the patio would be but remove the asphalt here as staff was sort of looking at this project staff noted that on a google street view this is the driveway from 2019 that included that the silver car is where that this the in right here is the back addition of the house in question and a car was parked here but now if we look further in that same area and currently the new fence is there so the fence that did get a permit is there now and so these two parcels oops sorry have now separated out and are not necessarily using this as a shared drive as maybe perhaps it once was before yes sir the house in question is on the right side of that it would be this house right here which one this brick one right there i'm completely dumbfounded so this is on the corner of clay and central so before can you we're all so this is clay avenue right here right right so on the back side this is just two houses down from central so as i was looking around and doing a google street view i noticed that that this is the backyard of that say of this property that they're proposing to take up the asphalt but if you look at it the other way this is a shared driveway with or once was a shared driveway with the property at 7-eleven central yeah and or once so the paving they're asking for we'll look at the site plan here in a second this might help you so here is the proposal or 707 so if you look at this so here's 707 central that there's a driveway that leads from down to central avenue and so there was a car that would park here before inside 128 clay avenue a car that was parked that had come off of that shared driveway correct from and what has that to do with this application well i'm just saying that that is what where a car would park before and i'm just saying that i'm just saying that that's why that was where this a car parked here before to indicate that this paving was taken up what was the driveway is what i'm indicating here let me see if i understand that is the fence interfering now with it being used as a shared driveway is that what i don't know i'm not saying that i'm just sort of saying what this driveway is i mean this area this asphalt was being taken up by that and i wondered and what i'm indicating is the fact that this once was a driveway that now will be a rear yard of the structure it would help us if you point at that picture instead of this one sorry thank you sorry so here is the asphalt that will be removed and a patio will be put here okay do you have any objections to that patio being put in i do not have that but per the um the guidelines for the reference and staff does not have an issue with the patio being put in but staff does have issues with the driveway being put in let's stay focused on that please so um staff finds a proposal to remove the tree and to fill the green space with the driveway further requires further discussion guidelines three three three g and h states trees greater than 10 inches in diameter should not be removed and new construction should work around trees with trunks greater than 10 inches on diameter the urban forester has visited the site and found the tree was healthy and does not appear to be damaging the historic structure also roads are close to the earth and very visible in addition the installation of the driveway would take up the majority of the green space on that property staff does not find that the guidelines that the proposal does meet the guidelines three five c d and e which states landscape land features should not be visually dominant intrusive or suggest false sense of history it should not be created by demolition of existing structures or open spaces to be developed in scale and character of neighborhood and designated historic landmarks or vistas or approaches are preserved and maintained the proposal to remove the concrete in the rear and solution the patios when the guidelines as it swaps the existing paving for new paving and creates green space in the area of the property guidelines 2a 1a says patio should be located at the rear of the buildings and should she be noted the patio space is also it should have a plane and design and have no stamped concrete and then staff recommends disapproval of the proposal to remove the tree and put in the patio but and separate removal of the of the driveway and installation of the removal of the tree in the installation of the driveway but staff finds removal of the driveway and installation of the patio within the guidelines with conditions of no stamp concrete and then guidelines of the typical guidelines of once reviewed by lfucg guidelines um and number three of any changes that alter the information submitted all right gary who's making the presentation okay come on up and when you get to the podium you're stationing for the record please okay and i had i'm tony barrett with barrett partners i'm a landscape architect in lexington and i'm here representing the the property owner gary and his wife gary and gary and his wife have they live in this house it's a owner occupied and they have since their purchase in 2001 so and they hope to continue to to reside in the residence and and age in place if if you would and allowing a driveway for their use uh would be very beneficial and i have a oh you've got my uh my slides uh set up so i appreciate that um this is the house uh as uh as again let me suggest that you use your pointer onto that screen since we can't see the screen very well here i like to look at you though i understand my feng shui or whatever is not uh is okay so this is the uh the house at 128 clay avenue uh you can see all the on street parking uh there are a few spaces on the street that are not metered because clay avenue has a large commercial uh area we are uh just a few non-metered spaces and i'll show you in a minute those tend to be occupied primarily by people using the commercial and avoiding the meter as as i would too so It makes perfect sense, but it doesn't help Gary and his wife with what they need. But this is the tree. It's a sweet gum, and that is the location for where we are proposing for the driveway. This is the site plan that Amelia presented, and we're fine with the requirement that that be 12 feet apron for the infill, but we're proposing a 10 foot driveway that would extend back so that there is a parking space that is permitted behind the front plane of the house as would be required. We have adequate side yard, and then this is the covered porch that I'll show you slides of, and then the patio in the back here, removing the driveway that extends back here. That driveway was shared with Gary and his mother who lived in the house behind them, and she has passed, and now it's new ownership, and that agreement is no longer available to Gary and his wife. So that kind of precipitates the need for the driveway quicker than maybe we would have needed it otherwise. But in addition to the driveway I'm proposing, in kind of a mitigation, I guess, of removing the sweet gum as planting a new tree, that would be more in keeping with the character of the patio, if you would. So that's the site plan that I submitted, and then the front would be traditional lawn and garden area. The, this is the house again, and then that, yeah. So in the brief, as kind of an example of what it, of the need, while I was out there taking pictures, this car in the middle there, right there, it switched just in the short time I was there, and it immediately filled in. So it is constantly being utilized by, and you can see that lady, she's got her yoga gear, so she's going to the studio down the street, and so they fill in those spaces immediately. This is the neighbor to the left, that's his, and this is the neighbor to the right, and that's their parking lot right there on the street, let me go back to that other one, and this is his neighbor to the left there with their parking on the street, really. And then this is an exhibit that, using GIS, I identified all the driveways in the immediate area. This is Gary's house right here, and that's the proposed driveway that we're proposing, so every house. Gary's, his outline in blue, is that correct? Yes, in the blue, yes sir. Every house in that photo, or that sketch, has a driveway, except my client, so that is what we're trying to remedy, so that he has a place, a designated place to park. And then, so from your last meeting I understood, and from staff's report I understood that the tree was an issue, and I understand that, so I went out to take a look at the tree and see what was going on, and you can see, or maybe you can't, but there's exposed roots for the tree, it's a large tree, a sweet gum is a large tree, and it's really just a case of too big of a tree in this spot, and it's starting to, it's not a historic tree, it's about 20 years old, so it's fairly new, and it's only going to get worse, the concerns that I have, but you can see where it's buckled to sidewalk, and there's exposed roots that are causing that, and will continue to cause that. Also that's in the utility, overhead utility lines in the way, and you can see where KU has come through their arborist, and they've cut to keep the tree out of the lines, and again, this is only a 20 year old tree, so it's only going to continue to get worse. I'm sorry, how did you reach the determination it's only 20 years old? I'll show you in a minute, by the miracle of Google archives, but also his service line weaves its way through there, and it's kind of bent and manipulated where the tree grows and moves, and it's starting to probably yank the line down before too long, so we've got the buckling sidewalk and the utility lines, and then this is the tree over top of his side porch here, and you can see, it was raining when I was out there, and that's why I noticed it, but just the balls of the sweet gum drop, it's a large tree, it's overhanging the roof, so it's going to be a continuous maintenance issue for him, it's clogged his gutters, it's down, it's dripping down, and then down here is a ponding water that's going to undermine his foundation over time, so those were my observations, and I wanted more of a professional opinion, so I asked Tim Query to come take a look at it. Tim was a 30-year urban forester for the city, and he met me out there and reviewed it and provided me with his assessment and his report, and basically, he identifies that it was planted during the early 2000s, and recognized the surface roots, and damaging the concrete walk and exhibits what he called a current crown structure, which I wasn't really familiar with, so I looked that one up, and that's where the utility company has come through, and they've done their cutting, and they're doing it to protect their line, not necessarily to protect the tree, or for the best of the tree, so that creates a, it's prone, when they cut like that, it's prone to structural damage to the tree, so that's going to be a continuing issue, and he identifies the... Okay, we have a problem. Do we have a copy of that letter in our packet? When did you get this letter prepared, sir? No, that was noon today, yes, I met with Tim today. I can leave you with my packet, and it's on your flash drive, so that will be yours. Well, I'm not sure it's appropriate for us to take that into consideration, considering that it was not in the packet that was reviewed by the staff, and this is new information for the staff, and it's something they should have been given a heads up on. Okay. I'm not suggesting we postpone. Well, Tim is essentially confirming my assessment of when I went out there, so... Well, I'm going to suggest that we not rely on this letter. For lack of a better word, I'm ruling this letter inadmissible at this time. Okay. All right. So that was a significant finding to me, but I understand. Okay. So I went on to the city's website for their tree manual, and I looked up approved street trees, and the Sweetgum is not in their general list of approved street trees, so it's not recommended as a street tree because of the situation that I'm doing. It's just too big of a tree in this location. And then, so I went deeper and I looked into the plant manual, and it is in the plant manual as you go a little deeper, and it is a permitted street tree, but they specify specific cultivars of the species. So trees have varying sizes depending on the specific cultivar, and they say it's recommended for large areas, extensive root system needs room to develop, and the fruit can be considered a nuisance. And that's what we're finding here. It's really just a case of a beautiful tree in the wrong location for its situation. I looked at Michael Durr. He's kind of the leading authority, a prominent horticulturalist, author of at least 12 reference books. I studied him in school 100 years ago, and he continues to be prolific in his publications, and he's at the University of Georgia. But he describes the sweet gum and talks about the size of it. It's a very large tree, 60 to 75 feet, with a spread of 40 to 50 feet. The fruit continues to be a maintenance liability as a street and general lawn tree, and he says, I have slipped, fallen, and taken offense to the tree because of the mess it creates. So it's not good for the city plantings in small areas where roots are limited and their development. And again, that's just what we're finding here in this case. It needs a large area for root development. So this is kind of an interesting, I love dealing with aerial photos, and as you look through you will find, well here let me show you, this is for reference, this is Gary's house here, this is the tree of reference, and this is Clay Avenue, this is Central Avenue, more in line with the Aylesford Historic District. And the point of this is that the landscape is dynamic, and trees come and go for various reasons. They get too big, they get unwieldy, they need to be removed, and they are not, this tree in particular is not the historic context of the district. The overall landscaping is, but this specific tree is not, and you will see, if I were to give you more time, these are aerial photographs from 2023, 2010, and 2002, and you can see the evolution of plant material that has come and gone, it's gotten bigger, and then all of a sudden it's gone, and so that is characteristic of the whole neighborhood, and characteristic of everywhere in particular. But in 2002, hang on, would you point out the house in question once again on that photo? Yes sir, it's right here, and this is the 2002, and the tree is, it's either not there, or it's a seedling, so that's why I know, and that's why Tim knows, that it's somewhere between 2002 and today that it was planted. And who owned the house in 2002? Gary bought it in 2001, so he did, and he says it was small when he moved in, so that's why I say it was a seedling at that point. And based on Derr's comment, it being a, he made a point further, that it's native, but it's almost invasive because it self-seeds itself so much, and I suspect that this tree So you truly have to wrap this up. Okay. I'm almost finished. Okay. The Aylesford plan from a long time ago, it recognized that street trees become unwieldy and need to be replaced, and although I'm not relying on this, but Tim recommended that we supplement with additional trees, so what I did was I added a new tree, or second tree, to the front, and I'm proposing that as further mitigation to the removal of the sweet gum that we would propose two trees on the property. What kind of tree are you recommending? Well I'll leave that up to my wife, she's the more plants person, although we're both landscape architects, that's her strength, but I'm thinking that the tree in the front would be more a dogwood size, a small tree, and then the tree in the back would be a medium tree, maybe a Chinese elm or something of that character, but I'm going to defer to her because I've learned that over time. Alright, so are you done? I am finished, thank you very much. Any questions from the board members? Mr. Burkett? In staff's description, the skirt on the proposed plat is 16 feet, the driveway is 10 feet, and a statement was made that under infill guidelines, the skirt can only be 12 feet. We've not talked about that before that I recall. How is this an infill? So the whole neighborhood is within the infill redevelopment area, and typically you never get plans so you have to question that, but because of Mr. Barrett's plans not being approvable, period, per our guidelines, because of putting in the driveway, we didn't question it or ask him to put new plans back in because we didn't feel they were appropriate to begin with. But within the infill redevelopment area, which is also within this particular area that goes all the way practically, it goes actually to the back side of, actually this is where it stops pretty much, because Ashland, it stops. Your driveway can only be 10 feet with your driveway only being 12, period. That's no negotiation, that's just how it is within the infill redevelopment per building inspection. And how does this qualify as an infill and redevelopment project? This area, not this particular project, the whole neighborhood, the whole block is within this. This block is subject to the restrictions that are associated with an infill area. I'm understanding that. Thank you for letting me ask the questions. It's a zoning, period. It's an overlay, just like an H1. And that would be, it wouldn't be of any consequence what the skirt width is on existing driveways in that area? That's a grandfather situation. Any kind of new ones would be limited to 12. Thank you. All right, anything else, Ms. Hill? A simple question, and I do acknowledge that the location of the Sweet Gum and utility lines are a problem in many older neighborhoods across our city, planting trees that get way too big for what's going on. Are there utility lines in the rear of this property that are going to create a problem with the type of tree that would be placed in the proposed location? No, ma'am, there's no overhead, anyway, that I'm aware of, below ground. I will say we are agreeable to the 12-foot apron. I should have known that because I was on the infill committee for probably 15 years or so, and that infill area was based on the Sanborn map, I think, of 1935 or something, so that created the boundary. Also I was reading through all of the description, and please reacquaint me with the moratorium or the denial of stamped concrete. Where is that articulated? We find stamped concrete is an imitative material, and we don't allow it, we've never permitted stamped concrete because we find it is an imitative material, so I think you'll find that in guidelines that we're talking about, in details, in, I can't remember the particular guideline, but we really just find that you either have to have it either a true brick material and or a, something of an actual true material and not an imitative material. But that is a policy decision, not something mandated by the statute? No, it is mandated by the statute. Oh, just not here? Right, well, no, I just, I can't think of the guideline off the top of my head, but I think you can talk about that, yeah. Also, my experience has been it just doesn't hold up as well. All right, anything else? A couple of comments from me, I'm in a dilemma. I have been at war for quite some time mentally with the prohibitions that we have put around trees that get to the wrong size, and then the homeowner seems to be stuck with them. We have equated, and this is actually an issue that's going to have to be visited sometime by Historic Preservation Commission with a revision, we have equated 10-inch with historic, the assumption being if it gets big enough to be 10 inches in caliber, then that's a historic tree that's deserving of protection. Obviously, I'm not sure that's necessarily a true, valid assumption. My personal belief is that the Secretary of Interior was concerned with maintaining landscapes and property of historic homes of trees that had been there from its inception and it became an integral part of the historic home or whatever it may be. We don't have that situation here. In fact, we have, unfortunately, hemlocks that are planted in front of houses that aren't maintained or pruned and grow into huge trees, and yet the property owner is stuck with them. That's not saying I'm going to vote to approve this. I recognize what the guideline says, I have to adhere and observe that guideline. Regretfully, you're not the first person to have had this problem with a tree that's very healthy, and it is healthy, that is just totally inappropriately put in the wrong place. So I wish we could do something for you, but I don't think there is. Michelle, do you have a comment? So, yes, given the nature of this existing tree, both the scale of it and its impact on utility lines that are only going to intensify as our climate continues to intensify, the proposal to add a more appropriately scaled tree that's away from utility lines but still on the property and add a second tree, smaller, more appropriate tree, in the front yard, I find to be a fair tradeoff. This is not a 150-year-old tree that I would stand in front of to protect. The other factor is the removal of that shared driveway that has occurred since the purchase of this property that the owner had no control over, does change the need and requirement in a very dense, very busy urban section. Anything else? Regretfully, I don't think the guidelines call for a mitigation plan. If you swapped better-sided trees, that justifies the removal of a tree that's greater than 10 inches. And I personally do not want to get on that slippery slope of determining whether trees that are over a certain dimension but inappropriate planted can be removed if appropriate mediation measures are taken. Ms. Hill, I fully recognize, I know where you're coming from, and part of me is in sympathy with that, but I don't think we have that authorization to do that, in my opinion. Legal Counsel, do you have any opinion about this? All I can say is that the guideline, it does say trees greater than 10 inches in diameter should not be removed, that's not a shall. Don't go there. You really don't want to go in that direction. It also says unless diseased or unsafe, so if you find a way to justify it by being unsafe, then that's a possibility to fit it in the guidelines, but it's up to you. Is the tree unsafe, in your expert opinion? The exposed roots are definitely a tripping hazard, it's creating an ongoing maintenance issue with the house and the gutter system and the drainage, and the impact that it has on the utility lines and the service line that has to weave through there. How is the canopy, is it intact? The canopy is generally intact, it's starting to lean because of the pine trees on the other side of it, over to Gary's house, but the side of it where the utility companies continue to prune it, it's got an edge. All right, thank you. Any further discussion on this? Are we ready for a motion of any kind? Chair, with regard to case number 041-50128-A at 128 Clay Avenue, I move that a certificate of appropriateness be granted as recommended for the removal of the driveway and the installation of a patio within the guidelines with the following three conditions. The first condition, no stamped concrete used, and the other two conditions being the standard conditions which have been read a number of times in this meeting. And additionally, I move that the board disapprove the staff's denial of the proposed new driveway and placement of new trees and approve the removal of the existing tree in order to accommodate the driveway with a 12-foot skirt. And I'd be glad to discuss my rationale for that motion. Well, let's get to it. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Chair abstains. Motion passes. Get the wording from, since it was fairly elaborate, the staff will prepare the minutes and we'll show you the COA as approved through this motion process, since we have now reversed the staff, basically. Well, thank you very much. All right. Thank you for a very good presentation. Thank you. Next time, when you come before us, bring extra copies. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right. I am sorry. I'm going to have to take a five-minute break, and then we'll come right back to you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let's go ahead and resume the meeting. Thank you for your indulgence. We're now turning to, if I still have it in front of me, number eight. Yes, 624 North Broadway. Change roof and siding? No. Which one? Number 11. Excuse me. 107 South Ashland. This is technically a reissue of the COA to construct a perimeter wall. Staff makes the presentation, and let me find what I did with it. Do you want to vote on eight first or not? Oh, I thought we did. No. I apologize. I thought we had voted. All right. Oh, Shingle. Let's go back to him. He's not here. I'm sorry. Let me get my... Let me find it. Okay. This is the one where I think... Yeah, here. I found it. We need to discuss, I think, a suggestion. Let's have the staff recommendation on this one, please. And do we want to continue this, or can we? Did he ever call in? No. It's been a very painful situation to try to be honest with you to get work done. All right. Well, right now the matter stands with the staff recommending approval of his proposal, but they are suggesting also substantively reduce the roof pitch to be no more than 3 over 12, with final details returned to staff for review and approval, and that the mansard material shall remain asphalt shingles. The other two are the standard two conditions. Are we having a discussion about the staff recommendations? I do have a question. All right. Go ahead. I do have a question. And I note that in the findings that it's... that to change from asphalt to hardy plank is not in keeping with the design because it changes the character-defining features of the structure. For me, the mansard shape is the defining feature. So here's my question, is I'm not in disagreement about the hardy plank necessarily, but hardy does make shingles that would be much more appropriate for the 21st century and would have much more of the sense of asphalt shingles but be 21st century. Would that be an appropriate alternative from the staff's point of view? I can't speak for that because I think that might be a cost and I'm not sure he would like to accrue on that. So it would be hard. I mean, he has hired somebody to do some work. But, you know, he's pretty much asking the 11th hour to have them help, and so they haven't necessarily been able to apply time to do this. I'm going to tell you I'm not sure it wouldn't be appropriate to sort of see if we can approve one part, maybe get a waiver on the other. You know, they do actually have a standing certificate of appropriateness just to replace the roof with a membrane. So he could just get a membrane on there, but he wanted to pitch it because this is an older roof that has some really big slopes in it that need to be addressed. And he thought it would be a wise idea to pitch it. Well, we could just go ahead and disapprove it entirely since he's not here. We could. I don't like being blown off like this, quite frankly. No phone call, no text, no nothing. I mean, I pretty much have done as much more hand-holding on this project than I need to do on this. I'll just be honest with you. I'll second that. All right. Can I make two comments, Amelia? Sure, go ahead. As far as the cementitious shingles, staff has reviewed that in other situations, other projects, where they were trying to replace wood shingles and determined that the scale and the different thickness was not appropriate for that. We did discuss it, by the way. We have discussed it numerous times, although I do agree with you. It's a more modern material. And it could be considered a bit more because of the age of the structure. In some ways, more historic also. I mean, just in terms of the asphalt shingles are certainly not historic to the nature of a man. Let's finesse it this way. Let us go ahead with the shell remaining asphalt, but we offer him the option and approve an option of installing hardy plank, hardy board shingles. Would that work? The board's call. Do I know? The board's call. Okay. I think that's what we'll do then. Okay. All right. A question, please. Yes. Hardy board is the size of an asphalt shingle? No. I think what she's referring to is the shake shingle, hardy shingle, like a shingle that looks like a shake. A shake. Thank you. That would be consistent with the appearance of this. And that's fine. I'm very familiar with, have a lot of experience with this very problem, and I was thinking it was more of a plywood siding, but thank you. All right. So any more discussion on this motion or issue? Are we ready for a motion then? No, I know. I know I'm ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case 025-00624-D, I move that a certificate of appropriateness be granted as recommended by the staff with the two standard conditions, and additionally, condition number one, reduce the roof pitch to be no more than 3 over 12 with final details returned to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA, and two, the mansard material shall remain either asphalt shingles or may be replaced with hardy shake shingles. All right. 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. Motion passes unanimously, and the COA as conditioned is approved. Okay. Turning now to the ever-patient Darren Taylor. At 107 South — Mr. Whitley. I'm sorry, yes. I'm sorry. Darren was so large he blocked me from seeing you. So we're at 107 South, Ashlyn. Come on up here. All right. Ashlyn, let's have the staff present. Yeah, I'll do this real quick. So we have seen this project in many different ways. I think we're wrapping up on the last entity of this project, and that would be to replace or to reissue the COA to install the masonry wall, but now they did get a permit in 2019, then also again sort of in 2022-ish, 2024-ish to reissue that with some other issues. But now we are formally asking for it again, but to increase the height to eight feet. And I want you to look at this picture in the sense, and I'll do it over here, because there is a hedge between this and Donato's. Of course, this structure sits on South Ashlyn, and it is sort of situated between two entities of commercial, but also one entity of residential. So here we are having a hedge that were proposed to be a part of a new masonry wall that would be consistent with the masonry wall that's across the street, that separates the property across the street with what was Judy's garden wall, then put in, and then also our next image shows its initial proposal when you have a little picket fence back here, which is actually quite hard to see, but it would be right here. And you can see, and it also goes along the property line, that would also now include to be a masonry wall with just a gate here. And then going back on the other side of this, this is the backside of Donato's, would be another masonry wall, and this actually backs up to the former McGee structure. And this is, again, the hedge. And then this goes back to McGee's, and then this would be going back to the former McGee structure and the installation of a new masonry wall against this structure that would be completely on Mr. Whitley's property or 107 South Ashland's property, and then also separate the neighboring structure. And so they're proposing to have it completely enclosed now with an eight-foot masonry wall versus the formerly six-foot masonry wall. And I'm going to include, show some image, and then go back to the site plan. As you can sort of see, we walked over here, and so this now will be, he does actually want this just to be a six-foot down to, walking this down a little bit, sloping this down, and then this part here to be the eight-foot coming down to this being eight-foot, and then two pedestrian gates on either side or particular gates here in this particular area. This is the part that backs up that they're asking for the eight-foot here. This is in the backyard now? This is in the backyard. We're not talking about the side at all? Well, we are, but that's going to be six-foot, which is fine. According to, okay. Yeah, right. The hedge will be removed and replaced by a six-foot fence. Right, and the hedge has already been removed, so these are older photos from that time period. And Mr. Whitley and I had already talked about that when the hedge was removed. So staff finds the proposal to construct the eight-foot wall around the backyard requires further discussion. The first proposal has had this brick wall at six-foot and would be consistent with the historic neighborhoods. However, the proposal calls now for a real wall to be at eight-foot. Staff finds the six-foot to be too tall and not in keeping with the guidelines. Guidelines 2, 1D and E said fences should be no taller than six feet and pre-stained brick and concrete walls are not appropriate in front walls but should be acceptable in rear yards and side yards. And staff finds a six-foot wall would still be more in keeping with the neighborhood. Recommendation, staff recommends approval of the six-foot high brick wall and reducing the eight-foot wall to six feet within the following conditions of the standard two conditions. I'll make sure I'm not hearing a typo or seeing a typo. Fourth line down where he said staff finds that six-foot is too tall? Oh, eight-foot is too tall. Oh, no. Yeah, that six feet is appropriate. Sorry. Yes, you're right. Sorry. How do you want that to read? I want it to be that six feet is fine, would be acceptable. Six feet is acceptable. Which is under the recommendations. That's right. Okay. Right. I'm trying to fix your findings. Thank you. Well, I haven't heard it yet. Right. Well, I'm saying that the recommendation approval of the six-foot high brick wall. That is substituted with your finding staff finds that six foot is appropriate, period. Correct. Thank you. All right. As corrected. Now, Darren, I guess, are you ready? Yep, he's ready. Yep. So I'm going to go ahead. Let me say my name for the record. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. I will go ahead. Thank you. So I know I'm making you turn away from us, but we can see you better. That's right. No doubt. I may have gotten off the, no, there we go. Okay. So I think what's important to note here, obviously, as you're seeing, this is a very urban suburban condition, right? They're bounded on two sides. One side by Donato's, the rear side by the former McGee's building. It's a very tight site and they've got not only visual concerns, but really safety concerns. And I'm not going to super belabor this because the owner is here to talk about this. But I think this is an image that's really important is obviously you have, this is the backside of the McGee's building. The original structure is a brick bowstring truss building, but then there's a rear mono-pitched CMU building at the back and then a lean-to shed that used to serve the bakery as well. They have multiple concerns here with safety of people coming into their yard from that property, coming into their yard from the front through there and sort of passing through that over to Clay Avenue and all those areas. So this is really about control for them and visual control as well, but safety. But one thing that's not to note that may not be understood in looking at this photo is that the gentleman who owns McGee's, who Mr. Whitley is very friendly with and in communication with, we've also worked on that building internally a little bit, is potentially planning to remove that shed structure and maybe some of those elements. So there's some exposure that could be worse than it is now as far as how they have people on their property. But there's also a little bit of an elevation change back on that side of the property. And so a six-foot fence on the McGee's property side might be more like four and a half or five feet depending on how it's graded. So this is really an effort to keep people from coming through there once this fence is built. And we also talked about an idea of a pierced brick wall being something that maybe gives a little bit more visibility. That may be something for someone to use to climb over. So it's really about control. And I'm going to let Ralph come in and speak to you to that point. But I think that ultimately this whole section back here is why you'll see in the plan the way that we're proposing this is really the important piece of this. So, Ralph, I'll let you go. Mr. Taylor, am I hearing you correctly that you're saying that a pierced brick is not appropriate? Well, we're concerned. I think Amelia and I talked about a pierced brick wall. We're just concerned that someone actually might use that to climb over. It becomes sort of a foothold piece and you can hold it and get above it. So that's really our concern. I just want to make sure I was hearing it. Yeah, the aesthetic of it is just fine. But I think in this application it's not great. And Ralph's got some things he's got to bear in mind. State your name for the record, please. My name is Ralph Whitley. Mr. Whitley. Do we have pictures or not? Yeah, I have a PowerPoint that I was hoping to bring up. If I can limit your presentation to about ten minutes. I'll be done in five. Good. I'm not going to try to be super detailed. I'm going to try to just give the 500-foot view because I think you all have been doing this a while. You definitely get it. Literally, you gave me as a 500-foot. I am. So South Ashland Avenue, I think we have probably one of the most unique properties on that street. So we are right here. Right? So that's South Ashland. That's where I live. It's the smallest lot on the street. So every piece of square footage on the lot is valuable. And it is completely surrounded in pink by commercial property on all sides. And I stopped once I got to Hanover Tower. But all of that's commercial property. So I wanted you to just make sure you understood, like, the only part that we're talking about making eight feet is this part that kind of blocks this back parking lot. And if you look here at our house, there's a whole parking lot that's used as cross traffic. So since we've lived there, we've had people sleeping behind the fence for several weeks. We've had, you know, drug usage, things like that. You know, it is urban. We're in a downtown environment. I understand that. But it is a security risk. So I wanted to also point out that down the street is, you know, more rental property and more rental property, which I'm going to tell you why that's important in just a second. So anyways, the only part that we're talking about making eight feet is this part. We're only intending to go to here out of the gate because they may not tear down that addition. And if they don't, we're going to use that concrete block wall as part of the boundary because our property line, which you can't do in modern day, is right against the wall. You could not do that in today's building codes. So this is kind of what the keeping with the front would look like. It's more just a visual gap. The bushes along there would stay. People could still kind of get back behind, you know, as if they wanted to get into our driveway. But we're also intending to build a gate that kind of blocks the backyard, makes it secure eventually. So this is across the street. And the idea for the kind of sloping lattice at the front is from this house. This is the first house right across the street. When we did the conceptual design presentation, one of the things we talked about was trying to create a gateway into the community as best as possible. Not mimic it 100 percent, but somewhat reflective. What you can't see right here is there's another fence that's a lot taller that separates this residential property from this commercial property. So this is what the back of my house looked like before we did the renovation. And what you can see here is, you know, you've got this exposure here to the back parking lot. It's aesthetically not very pleasing. And you can see this from the front of the building. So this is what an eighth fence would look like. It would still not cover completely the freezer coolers, but theoretically those won't be there unless it stays a restaurant. Even if it does, I think that's a much more improvement if you can imagine a brick fence that's built very nicely and well. This is kind of, Darren touched on this, but you can see this sloped wall that may get removed by Greg. I think he's been looking at a lot of different options right now. So this is kind of what that would look like with that eight-foot wall and how it would connect to that. I've already talked with Greg. Greg is fine with us either, you know, connecting to his building or perhaps hanging some sort of metal piece off the end that connects to our wall but doesn't actually physically intrude the structure of his building. Yes, and so part of what Darren was mentioning is that the intent, or at least the conversation is, is that if that addition gets removed, that would be parking for the McGee's building. So there would be more traffic there. So in our neighborhood, it's surrounded by commercial property. Right here, this is my neighbor I was pointing to across the street. That is an eight-foot brick fence. I look at one right up my front porch, and it separates a residential property from commercial property. This is H1. That's commercial property. So my property, I think Darren mentioned two sides, but in my mind, I'm surrounded on three sides by commercial property because I still count the multi-use residential as commercial property. Across the street where you have the Temple Market and you have these condos is an eight-foot brick fence. And then when you go down the street on my street, right here, there's a rental property, and separating that rental property from this rental property is an eight-foot fence. This fence, I didn't include it. It's actually seven foot four. When you go up... I'm assuming all these fences predate the creation of the neighborhood H1 overlaid it, don't think? Oh gosh, I didn't do that research because honestly, I just looked this morning. I just took these photos this morning. These are not all the eight-foot fences in my neighborhood. But they're also, I mean, to be fair, there's more six-foot fences than eight-foot fences. When was this H1 created, Amelia? Do you remember? It was... Mid... That long ago? 1999? Uh-uh. I thought it was... I thought they came into being in 2010, 20... No, no, no, Ashland. Ashland was not. That was like 91. This is the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District. Yes. 91? Okay. Okay, go ahead. So I didn't include it because I was honestly running out of time. But if you go up Central Avenue, there's a couple condos... Or I'm sorry, townhomes. There's two townhome developments. Both of them have eight-foot fences surrounding. I don't know if that's an H1. Is it H1? Okay. So my neighbor across the street, that fence right there, that separates their property from Hanover Towers driveway, that's an eight-foot fence. That's the eight-foot fence that I was showing you separating those two rental properties. And this is on the side of the building. Obviously, mine's going to be in the backyard. And I guess another thing, too, although not an architect by any means, the height of the building relative to the height of an eight-foot fence I don't think is going to overpower our building, which has the attic. So I don't think that's a – to me, that wasn't an issue. This is the one across the street. Now, that one markedly is shorter. You'll see the – this is like six-foot-eight, but that's eight-foot. Or this is like six – or seven-foot, I'm sorry, and that's eight. Anyways, so that's essentially what I wanted to say. The main reason for us is security, increased aesthetics when you look at the building from the front, the curved view, because you see the commercial property and all the air handling units and stuff that we're trying to shield. But the other thing that maybe I would point out, too, is it's the smallest lot on the street. And one of the issues with that kind of lot is that you need to be able to maximize your square footage that you have. So we've talked about doing things like – I can't remember what they're called, but the big trees that grow tall and hide everything. There we go. Yeah, right. But what winds up happening on a lot that size is that you're going to lose four feet when you get to ten feet. But if you get one that will cover all of it, you're eight feet. So you're losing eight feet of your backyard. So that's why the brick fence, done appropriately, meaning however aesthetically you feel would be appropriate, I think would be the best thing for the neighborhood. What if you had a six-foot wall fronted by trees that would block egress into that backyard? A series of trees, evergreens or whatever, that would be tall enough that would be, you know, you're eight foot, nine foot, ten foot, whatever, assuming you don't have power line issues. That would serve as a buffer, would it not? Yes, it would. And so the other options I considered was that, which was a brick fence with bushes or trees on our side. And that's where I was getting at. You're losing that. By the time they grow tall enough to cover that stuff, they wind up being somewhere between six to eight feet in diameter. And they impinge on the small lot. That's one of the things that I'm trying to maximize, given the depth that we've done to this property. There are some skinny trees that can get that tall that are still pretty skinny. What's the depth of your house? It's probably 20 feet. If you take 20 feet from the house to the fence and you take four out of it, because we kind of looked at it, we were looking at it. I didn't realize it was that short. It's quite tight. I mean, it's probably one of the tightest houses in that whole area, forget even Central Avenue. So the property that McGee's is on, it used to be part of South Ashland. So on the sandboard maps, you can see it goes back further at some point. You had two questions, I thought. Maybe not. I looked at another option, which was building a six-foot fence and trying to put something on top of it that would grow on top of it, so not permanently a fix. I didn't close the loop on that. I didn't research it much more because I felt like eight foot would be appropriate, and that's what we'd actually like to do, so I wanted to come in here and just honestly make the case work. As you know, eight foot's going to be a problem for us. Yes, that's why I definitely came myself, and I certainly understand the guidelines to make it clear six feet's the answer per the guidelines. But I thought, given the fact that there's eight foot in relation to the neighborhood, that perhaps it's worth a different consideration if you were to come by and see the house. Okay, let's see if there's any rebuttal. What is the zoning status of, what is it, 111? What, the house next door you said was multi-use? What's the zoning for that? It's R3. That's what I was going to say, R3. Just as your house is. Mine was R3. We bought it and converted it back into a single-family home. Which would be R1? Yeah. Thank you. Oh, no, we know this house very well. Well, thanks to some of y'all's variances, we've been able to do the project. If you remember, that dormer was going to kill the whole thing, so thank you all for that. The dormer was a process for us. All right, rebuttal from the staff, if any. I mean, I think Mr. Taylor and I talked about this quite in depth about this. I think, you know, we have had several issues with our other areas where we've backed up to development or other commercial entities. You know, we have, Ellesmere Park is one of those entities where a lot of the backyards back up, and they have a consistent situation of 8-foot fences. I think the quam we have is not necessarily the back side of it. It's as it comes forward between the properties is the bigger issue. And I think if the board were to see if they are wanting to give some relief to allowing an 8-foot fence in some regard, I think maybe there's a way you could step down between the parcels to have between the neighboring structure that we're talking about that's an R3, because what happens if that changes to a single-family structure, and then you're stuck between having an 8-foot wall between that? I think, you know, we have seen, you know, I think another example is on West Short Street, where there's a structure that backs up to the marathon station that has an 8-foot fence behind that because of the nature of that. But I think it's between the structures that's more concerning to have an 8-foot fence between. Okay, I thought we were already talking about the fence behind. We are. Okay, so why are we getting into a discussion about in between? Because they're asking, he's asking for an 8-foot fence all the way around, right? Right here. He's asking for an 8-foot fence all the way around. And that's on the south side of the structure. Yeah. So the west side of the structure backs up to McGee's, which is commercial, but the south side is also asking for that. And that's the part that I think is more problematic in some ways. That's correct. I'm clearly asking for 8 feet back here. And this is still, as I understand it, still approved at 6 feet. I'm always asking. So that was my question, actually, is that it's just that L-shaped piece in the back that we're talking about. I am intrigued by the idea. I have no problem with the 8-foot fence against those commercial buildings at all. And I don't really have a problem with the 8 feet as it comes perpendicular to that. But I am intrigued with the idea of the upper 2 feet having a lighterness about it so that it doesn't have the same kind of heavy blockage. Okay. You know, as an architect, I can think of all kinds of ways to. Could we go to pierced brick from 6 feet up and allow that transparency? That might be a really handsome idea. It's a good look to it, and it could really work well. And then the other thing, and I won't speak for you, but the other thing is if we returned back. You can always put glass in between the cracks, too. If we said that this was 6 feet with a 2-foot pierced brick portion to the top, and then maybe this comes down to only here and then that drops to 6, that may achieve some of that privacy and some of that security as it just returns a little bit, and then you go down to 6 as it returns. You know, I think that would help that a little bit. Hey, Darren, could you repeat that? Are you saying 8 foot along the back or 6 feet along the back? I'm saying the section here is 8 feet down to here, and then potentially it returns only one little section here is 8 and then drops all the way to 6 as it comes up to meet the house. So that at least if someone's back here, they can't get into here and get over. But I think this property line actually goes back here, Ralph, if I'm not mistaken, like this. Your neighbor has that. So, I mean, again, maybe just this whole thing goes to 6 on the side, and the back is 8 with a 2-foot section on top of it. Just a thought there. You just said 6 in the back. That's why I just wanted you to clarify that again. I think the kind of open lattice brick just sounds contradictory, doesn't it, could be a really handsome look and still accomplish that sense of enclosure and privacy by still being visually more open. The opposition to 8-foot barricade is when you just have a solid edifice. But if you open it up with a pierced or lattice or whatever you want to call it, with a solid wall of 6 foot and then you top it with a more transparent topping, we have done that or certainly have not had objections to that kind of a project at all. That's what he does. But, I mean, holistically, that would solve my concerns. What is the security... I won't make sure. What are the security issues with the house to the, I guess, south of you that you're having? It's an R3. Yeah. It's an R3. It's an R3. What's that? It's a what? It's an R3 property. It is an R3. R3. Okay. I can't say that, you know, I've seen people sleeping there. What's that? No, that's not any of the areas where I saw people sleeping or doing drugs or anything. Okay. So, no, I can't say that, but it is an R3. Well, you're saying it's going to be student or rental property? It is. Okay. It is. And, you know, I've never had any problems with tenants from over there. We get along great. If I could do eight feet around, I think it would be a nice look and it would help with the shielding. I certainly am open to the lattice option. We can't do the eight-foot solid. I can tell you that right now. Oh, yeah, for sure. Okay. What are you sketching? So, I'm just drawing this. This is more for him, but the idea is that you have the overall is eight feet. You have a six-foot section, and then the top is pierced brick. And whether that includes the columns or not, however you want to do it, it's the idea that that whole top section is actually pierced brick. You can see through it. And you couldn't climb that. You know, you wouldn't be able to get up there and get to that. And that's the concern of the whole thing is pierced brick. You just put little pieces of barbed wire in there, too? Yeah. We'll have spikes that we need for us to use. Okay. All right. No. Okay. I think we see what you're saying. I don't have a problem with that. I don't either. Okay. Any further discussion? I would just like to take a minute. So you're on now. Matter. There we go. Okay. The three-wheeled wagon. So I just want to say that guidelines that we work with typically are in residential areas. And I don't know all of them specifically. But we're talking of a situation here where you're bounded by non-R1 properties. And for that reason, I think there are exceptions available. I think the lattice brick is a nice option, and I appreciate that. But I just would like to say for the record that we run into situations where the guidelines and the requirements that were built for what were primarily residential properties but abutting each other doesn't seem to apply here. So I appreciate the compromise, but I just want you to know I'm very sympathetic with the overall situation that requires you to respond with an eight-foot request. Thank you for that. Thank you. All right. Anything else? I think we might be ready for a motion. In this meeting, I might add that Beda Kerr assured me we would not last longer than an hour or so. About this far, I would have known better. Not your fault at all. All right. So let's have a motion, please. All right. Under per case number 00710107-N at 107 South Ashland Avenue, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions, that an eight-foot tall brick wall, solid brick wall that runs parallel to the commercial properties and turns the corner and continues as solid for two feet and then provides a six-foot solid wall with a two-foot open brick pattern atop it to the edge of the corner of the house. In addition, the two standard two conditions will apply. 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. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you, guys. Do we have any minutes to review? I believe then we're ready for an adjournment. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you.