# Board of Architectural Review - January 25, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 25, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2362 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2362?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-01-25 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 14,385 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review met on January 25, 2012, under the direction of the Chair. The board considered eight agenda items during the meeting, taking four motions and votes and hearing four public comments. Of the eight items reviewed, six were approved: the replacement of a fence at 444 Fayette Park; the replacement of a door at 253 Market Street; renovation of the structure at 224 Barberry Lane; renovation of the structure at 505 South Mill Street; construction of a front porch and replacement of sidewalk at 229 Barberry Lane; and demolition and construction of an addition with window sash glazing changes and closure of openings at 462 West Third Street. Two items were postponed: the construction of a deck and stair tower at 441 West Second Street and the extension of a garage at 616 West Short Street. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on January 25, 2012: * Andrew Moore * J. Peter Cassidy, Jr. * Martin * Amelia * Chip Crawford * Graham * Nathan * Ron * Mr. Bale * Joseph Clark * Barbara Smith * Charlie Smith * Dan Scully * Harry W. Farmer, Jr. * Ka Rue Farmer No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **229 Barberry Lane Application** [timestamp: 00:01:55] The application for 229 Barberry Lane was approved by voice vote. The motion was made by Mr. Chair. The approval includes the following conditions: - A sample of proposed stone for veneer must be submitted to staff for review before purchase or start of masonry work - Valleys of the porch roof must be of open metal design - If concrete curing compound is used, it must be clear in color - Final details and metal railing must be submitted to staff for review and approval before purchase **462 West Third Street Application** [timestamp: 01:33:32] The application for 462 West Third Street was approved by roll call vote with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 nay. The motion was made by Mr. Billings and seconded by Nathan. Voting in favor: Mr. Billings, Graham, Nathan, and Ron Voting against: Mr. Cassidy The approval includes multiple conditions: - Reglazing of existing window sashes with insulated glass is denied - Demolition of existing rear addition is approved - Construction of new addition, replacement of 13 windows, and closing of three window openings are approved subject to a 12-inch step-in from back corner - Chimney exposure and integration with gable design must be submitted to staff for review - Top elevation of masonry foundation wall must match existing - Masonry work must follow guidelines 1.3.KLN - Final drawings and details must be submitted to staff before Certificate of Appropriateness issuance - Any changes required by other LFUCG agencies must be submitted to staff - Sunburst pattern has been removed from the plan **441 West Second Street Application** [timestamp: 01:40:03] The application for 441 West Second Street was postponed by voice vote. **616 West Short Street Conceptual Review** [timestamp: 01:40:35] The conceptual review for 616 West Short Street was postponed by voice vote. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the board regarding the proposed addition and its design elements. **J. Peter Cassidy, Jr.** [00:22:04] discussed roof design and guidelines interpretation. Cassidy argued that the gable roof is compatible with the building's existing architectural elements, particularly the front porch roof. He stated that the guidelines do not require the addition to be tucked under the eave line and emphasized that the roof would not be visible from the street. Cassidy presented historical examples of similar approved additions to support his position. **Graham** [01:06:41] raised concerns about the addition's mass and visual impact. Graham expressed worry that the gable roof creates a dominant architectural statement that competes with the original building. He suggested reducing the gable's width and height and pulling it back to better defer to the original roof line. **Mr. Billings** [01:28:39] addressed setback and guideline compliance. Billings emphasized that the 12-inch setback requirement in the guidelines must be strictly followed, regardless of the existing addition's footprint. He proposed that the addition be stepped in 12 inches to meet the standard. **Mr. Cassidy** [01:10:34] clarified matters regarding chimney removal and design intent. Cassidy stated that the chimney will remain and be integrated into the gable roof. He requested that the details be submitted to staff for approval and noted that the board had not authorized the chimney's removal. ## Contested Items **Roof Design and Guideline Interpretation at 462 West Third Street** The board engaged in a heated and prolonged discussion regarding the proposed gable roof design at 462 West Third Street. The central disagreement centered on whether the roof design violated established guidelines. Specifically, board members debated whether the proposed gable roof projected above the existing roof line and failed to meet the required 12-inch step-back requirement. The dispute involved differing interpretations of key architectural terminology. Members disagreed over what constituted the "peak of the existing roof line" and whether the new roof must be "tucked under" the eave line. Multiple board members cited precedent and architectural intent to support their respective positions during the detailed debate. **Chimney Removal and Integration** A procedural dispute arose regarding the treatment of an existing chimney. The original drawings submitted indicated the chimney would be demolished, but the applicant subsequently confirmed during the meeting that the chimney would be retained rather than removed. This discrepancy created a requirement for additional work. The board mandated that the applicant submit detailed integration plans showing how the retained chimney would be incorporated with the proposed gable roof design. This requirement addressed the inconsistency between the original documentation and the applicant's stated intent, ensuring that the final design would clearly demonstrate how the chimney would function within the overall roof structure. ## 444 Fayette Park: Replace fence The application to replace the fence at 444 Fayette Park was presented for staff approval. The application was approved with no discussion or objection raised during the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## 253 Market Street: Replace door The application to replace the door at 253 Market Street was presented as an agenda item. Staff approved the application with no discussion or objection raised during the meeting. The matter proceeded without further deliberation and was approved. ## 224 Barberry Lane: Renovate structure The application to renovate the structure at 224 Barberry Lane was presented for staff approval. No discussion or objection was raised during the meeting. The application was approved. ## 505 South Mill Street: Renovate structure The application to renovate the structure at 505 South Mill Street was presented as a staff approval item. The application was approved by staff with no discussion or objection raised during the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## 229 Barberry Lane: Construct front porch; replace sidewalk [timestamp: 00:00:00] The application to construct a front porch and replace the sidewalk at 229 Barberry Lane was presented for consideration as a certificate of appropriateness. Andrew Moore addressed the board regarding this agenda item. **Outcome** The application was approved. The approval included four staff conditions that the applicant must satisfy: - Submission of a stone veneer sample - Open metal design for porch roof valleys - Use of clear concrete curing compound - Submission of final railing details for staff review ## 462 West Third Street: Demolish addition; construct addition; change window sash [timestamp: 00:02:26] The board considered an application for 462 West Third Street involving demolition of an existing rear addition and construction of a new addition, along with changes to window sash glazing and closure of openings. **Key Speakers and Discussion** The agenda item was discussed by J. Peter Cassidy, Jr., Graham, Nathan, Ron, and Mr. Billings. The application addressed multiple proposed modifications to the property, including the demolition and reconstruction work as well as window treatments and opening modifications. **Conditions and Requirements** The board approved the application with several conditions: - Denial of the window reglazing request - Implementation of a 12-inch setback requirement - Removal of the sunburst pattern - Submission of chimney integration details for review and approval **Outcome** The motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness passed by a vote of 4-1, indicating substantial but not unanimous board support for the project with the specified conditions. ## 441 West Second Street: Construct deck and stair tower The application to construct a deck and stair tower at 441 West Second Street was considered as a certificate of appropriateness item [timestamp: 01:40:03]. The application was postponed to the February 8th meeting at the applicant's request. ## 616 West Short Street: Extend garage The conceptual review for a garage extension at 616 West Short Street was scheduled for discussion at this meeting. However, the applicant withdrew her attendance and requested that the item be postponed to a later date. [timestamp: 01:40:35] As a result of the applicant's request, the conceptual review was deferred and rescheduled for the February 8th meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of application at 229 Barberry Lane with staff conditions - **Motion** — passed (4-1): Approval of application at 462 West Third Street with conditions - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of application at 441 West Second Street - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of conceptual review at 616 West Short Street --- ## Full transcript Is that applicant here this evening? Please approach the microphone and introduce yourself. I'm Andrew Moore. Hello. Good to see you this evening. Have you had a chance to review the staff's recommendations and findings? and are you yeah the the railing and the stone sample and we already discussed having the valleys open and not the California weave okay so are you in agreement with the recommendations from the staff at this time just to review and for those that are here again the application proposed work includes demolition of existing concrete steps and entry walk construction of a front porch, construction of concrete entry walk and porch steps. The recommendations from the staff at this time. The staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. One, sample of proposed stone for veneer be submitted to staff for review before purchase or the start of any masonry work. Valleys of porch roof are to be of open metal design. Three, if concrete curing compound is used, it is to be clear in color. And four, final details and metal railing to be submitted to staff for review and approval before purchase. Do we have any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? Is there anyone in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Seeing no motion and hearing no comments, the Chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 01180299-B at 229 Barbary Lane, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the four staff conditions. Thank you very much. Second a motion. Second. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very good. The application is accepted with the conditions. Thank you. Thanks. Moving on to our next application this evening at 462 West 3rd Street. That application is demolished in addition, construct addition, change windows, sash glazing, and closed openings. Is that applicant here this evening? Very well. Please come forward and introduce yourself. I'm kind of cheating. I'm really not the applicant, although I see I'm listed as the applicant, I think, on the application. My name is J. Peter Cassidy, Jr. I live at 431 West Third Street. The actual owner and the actual applicant is Harry W. Farmer, Jr. and his wife, Ka Rue Farmer. Harry W. Farmer, Jr. is a retired colonel now serving with the Marine Corps in Okinawa, Japan, where he's been for the last about 16 years. And that actually matches what we have as far as people and owners and applicants. That's why they're not here. They're in Okinawa, Japan. They intend to move back with their twin sons in a couple of years when they'll be going to college and live in this house. I understand. Okay, well, good. Good that they'll be coming back home. Have you had a chance to review the application this evening? I have had a chance to review the application and talk with the architect, who I might add is an excellent architect. and also my daughter. And I have talked with her, and she has been in touch on Skype with Jay and his wife, and we are prepared to withdraw or agree with the staff as far as the reglazing the existing windows, which they recommended denial on. I'm not sure that well we're agreeable not to reglaze the windows secondly we agree with number two condition agree with number three condition and of course four and five we have no objection to we do object to condition number one relative to the roof on the addition that will be built and we would like to discuss that when appropriate. Okay. Very good. And thank you for just trimming through the list for us. That will help with the next portion here. What I'll do is have you have a seat and we'll have the staff make a presentation. And if they could, if we could focus the presentation to the areas of contention, that would speed things along nicely. So it's just the roof of the addition? Yes. Yes, sir. Are you going through that kind of fast to get to the roof? Okay. Here is the existing addition. And this roof currently is a continuation of the shed roof that starts at the front facade of the building. But once it gets to this eight-foot-wide rear addition, it has a steeper slope, as you can see. so the water the water from the main roof and I guess I probably should go forward to the the roof plan but that's a good shot right there You can see how the original building had quite a coping there that rose up above to conceal the roof, and then this addition just became a straight shed. Could we back up that one? You can see here on the right-hand side. I'll turn this on. This roof, the water runs straight back. Good. Thank you. This is the proposed roof would have, is to have a gable. and the gable is to come above the gutter line of the original roof and run all the way 25 feet more up over the earlier addition and it will rise 2 feet. The ridge line is two feet above the existing gutter line. I guess the one extra thing I need to point out, and we'll see it right here, is that the gable roof that is proposed will project some 11 inches out past the rear masonry addition. The existing 8 foot by 15 foot 10 inch shed roof addition is noted in the June 1987 survey as a two-story frame porch. However, today only the first floor is an open porch, and the second floor is enclosed. The addition is inset six inches from the west wall, the main structure. The proposed 10-foot-seven inch by 16-foot-two inch The gable roof addition is to have its west wall inset 3 ¾ inches from the west wall of the main structure. The construction of the proposed addition consists of a concrete foundation wall veneered with limestone. Walls are panels of fiber cement clad in sheets, and the roof is to be a single-ply membrane system, having PVC extrusion strips attached at 25 1⁄2 inches on center to emulate the appearance of a stand-and-seam metal roof. No gutters are proposed for the addition. The e-projection of the addition from the face of the wall to the outside edge of the roof is 11 inches. Materials of the sunburst gable pattern was not known at the time of the writing. I've listed the guidelines for your reference. The findings, the two-story rear addition proposed for demolition is a non-significant later addition, and its removal would be in accordance with the guidelines. Any proposed new addition to this circa 1860s structure with a circa 1900 addition should relate in scale, mass, and rhythm to the historic structure as noted in guidelines 2A4C and 2A4E. which state additions should be compatible in design, keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, and location of windows, doors, and corners heights, and should reflect the characteristic of current period in design, but be compatible with the original building. The proposed location decides the additions within the guidelines and there is sufficient green space for such an addition. However, the manner in which it is accomplished needs further study. In accordance with guidelines, 2A-4B additions should be secondary, smaller, and simpler to the original building in scale, design, and placement. Exterior walls of the addition should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building, and roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident. As proposed, the addition is to be stepped in only three and three-quarter inches from the west wall of the historic structure, and the ridge of the proposed gable roof is to rise some two feet above the guttell line of the historic structure. The ridge board and associate values of the proposed addition will extend some 25 feet in length into the existing shed roof system. Staff finds that a more appropriate roof system for the addition to be a flat or shed roof system that would tuck in beneath the gutter line of the historic roof. Such a system would eliminate the proposed 11-inch wide eave detail which would project past the plane of the historic structure's west wall. The use of the sunburst motif in the editions gable would not be in accordance with guidelines 2A4D, which states editions should not imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period. Reference the stepping in of the wall of the new addition to a minimum of 12 inches from the edge of the existing building. Staff finds that if the roof of the proposed addition is changed from the gable to a shed system, the rakeboard of the shed would not project past the plane of the existing building's west wall like the proposed 11 inches of the gable's roof, Eve's detail. This would help justify the wall of the new addition being stepped no further in than that of the existing rear addition, although the rear addition steps in six inches, this proposed design was a step in three and three-quarter inches. So I guess if we at staff level would actually should have recommended disapproval. I guess is where we're coming from. But because of what we at staff level recommended with conditions, the conditions was for a shed roof. If I've understood the last paragraph discussed, Martin, the 12-inch inset is not as pertinent if the material changes and the conflict with the roof changes. If the roof changes, right. And then in similar cases in the past, if there's a significant change in materials and some setback, we've let that go before. Do you recall that as well in previous projects? I don't think I understood the question. We've allowed minimal setbacks, like a 3-inch setback versus a 12-inch setback in plan in previous instances because there was a significant change in material from the existing structure to the new to the addition. As long as there wasn't a conflict at the roof. I think that supports what this paragraph is saying. No, that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm adding to it. You're adding to it? Additional information. The additional information would be if indeed this had a shed roof instead of a gable, which means there's no eaves, just maybe a right board, it would not project past the face of the historic wall, the plane of the historic wall. I understand. Thank you. I'm not too sure I was listening. Was Mr. Cassidy, as far as the Masonry Foundation, was that? We're in agreement with that. In agreement. Thank you. So may I show you anything additional? I think your presentation is pretty thorough. I covered the subject that the applicant had contention with. I guess we'll hear what the applicant has to say and give them a hard time. Do you want the recommendations now or not? Are they different than what's been read up to this point? I can read them for you just briefly. You can, if you'd like, just state that the recommendations are contained within the staff report and they would be part of the record as part of that, or state them for the record so that everybody in the room and television land. Yeah, and just to make sure we're all talking about the same stuff for the rest of our conversation here, the recommendations for the staff. Staff recommends denial of the proposal to reglaze the existing window sashes with insulated glass. Staff recommends approval of the proposal to demolish existing rear addition construction, new rear addition replacement of 13 windows and closings of the three window openings with the following conditions. Number one, and this is the issue of contention, 1. Addition's roof be of flat or shed design in lieu of gable and a tuck-in under gutter of existing building. 2. And the remainder of the conditions are those that the applicant stated he was agreeable to. 2. Top elevation of the Addition's masonry foundation wall be the same elevation throughout as that of the existing building's foundation wall. 3. All masonry work be accomplished in accordance with guidelines. 1.3.KLN, and then all final drawings in detail to be submitted and reviewed by staff before issuance of the COA. And number five, should other LFUCG agencies require any changes, those changes need to be submitted to staff for review. And then deadline for board action, February 10, 2012. Thank you. Sure thing. Thanks, Martin. You're welcome. All right, if we can have you back up here, Mr. Cassidy. Well, if I want to come, you're going to give me a hard time. Well, we'll see. We'll see how it goes. Let me. So, yes, you've heard what the staff had to say. I have heard what the staff had to say, and I have already filed with the staff the original of the documents that I've been furnishing to you at this point. For those watching on TV, you'll need to be near my computer. Thank you. And I'll try to remember to use this. And I'll leave this up here. This is the roofing material that has been discussed and will be used, assuming that we're able to convince you that that's the appropriate type of roof to put on this addition. What I have handed you to start off with is, first of all, a letter from the Northside Neighborhood Association. This house is within the Northside Historic District. As you know, the Northside Neighborhood Association is the oldest historic neighborhood association in the city of Lexington. It just celebrated its 50th year about six or eight months ago, if I'm not mistaken. wrong page here. I am currently the president of the Northside Neighborhood Association. Had been president of the Northside Neighborhood Association back in the 70s, shortly after I moved to 3rd Street 41 years ago, and was very active on the board then. Had been pretty much unactive until Mr. Bale, who is one of the neighbors and one of the persons who's here in attendance, asked me to serve as president. So knowing how we operated in the 70s with the Northside Neighborhood Association, the first thing that we did when this project came up was, number one, to give to the immediate neighbors copies of the plans before we filed anything. And that included Mr. Bale, Mr. Clark, Steve Bale on the west side, Joseph Clark on the east side, Barbara and Charlie Smith, who live directly across the street. We are never able to get hold of the gentleman who lived directly behind this house, who actually bought that house that he lives in from the people who own this house now. But he is of Middle Eastern descent and travels quite a bit, and actually I don't think he's been here since we filed the petition we have tried. and his neighbor who was asked to kind of keep an eye to see if he came in indicated yesterday that he had not seen him in the last month or so at the house. So we were not able to get his input on this. Secondly, after we notified the neighbors and gave them copies of the plans, we then went to the Northside Neighborhood Association for the regular meeting in January. We presented the full plans. That's also the inside plans as well as the outside plans. I don't think you all are really concerned about the inside plans, but they were very interested in the inside plans. And the reason they're interested is that this building was built as a single-family home back maybe in the 1860s and then significantly changed in 1900. But only in recent history has it been changed to a multiple use, and it has been a triplex now, I know, for 41 years. That's how long I've lived over there. In fact, I lived directly across the street from it for 15 years and then moved up the street to another house. So the Northside was very interested in the fact that this would be a conversion of a triplex, multi-family use building to a single-family, owner-occupied building. And I think that was very, very important to them. Actually, we went through at that presentation at the Northside meeting, With the glazed windows that we have now agreed that we won't use, but I will point out that I hope at some time this board maybe revisits that. I will tell you that my daughter and Dan Scully, who she works with in New Hampshire, just received an award for renovating about a $4 million home in New Hampshire where they did this to the windows. And what they did, they took out the original windows, took them to a fellow called Window Masters in New Hampshire. He actually routed out an additional maybe an eighth or a fourth of an inch of the original window frames and then put double or by-glazed material in them. He can then either use the same type of hanging materials, the ropes, that sort of thing, or he can use vinyl siding so that they slide on so that it's more energy efficient. I think he probably uses vinyl even if he has rope on them because it's just so much more efficient. So, you know, I think that's something maybe in the future that we might want to consider. Obviously, New Hampshire is a place where it's a lot colder than it is here, and maybe it's more important to them than it is here, but I think as energy prices go up across the board or fail to come back down anyway, I think it's something that the board might want to revisit at some time in the future. The Neighborhood Association also was very excited about the design and part of the design being, could you put up 2.1? part of the design being the gabled roof and the pitch roof. And the reason for that, let's wait till we get it up here. At some point I want you to show that, but not right now. A2.1 first. Okay. That one, I think there's another page from the other side that's the same. Well, this changes it, doesn't it? This is good. This is good. Now, which one gives me the red dot? Underneath. You look. There you go. There we go. Okay. Okay. The Neighborhood Association and in the documents that I showed you, and I gave you copies of it, 22 people who own property within 200 feet of this house signed this letter saying that they were excited and they liked this roof line. These are people who have made an economic investment in the Northside in the history of Lexington. and these people say this is an appropriate roof line for this addition. They were excited about that. Now, I want to talk a little bit about that. If you go back, maybe show the photograph that I just showed you. If you recall, Martin said that the elements of this new construction needed to be compatible with the rest of the building. There's only one other roof line on this building other than the main roof line, and that is this one right here over the existing front porch. The roof line that has been designed for the back is very similar, if not almost identical, to this roof line. So obviously it's compatible with other architectural elements of this building. Now if we go to 2.1 here. I guess I'm supposed to keep this up here. Let me see. I can do this, right? You said? Yeah, this is fine. This is from Mr. Bale's side, from the west side, Jefferson's side of the street. I want to talk about the roof line. And remember, the argument of the staff is that this should not protrude above the existing roof line. This house has a roof line that has never been seen. This is basically a flat roof. You cannot stand on this property, or you cannot stand on adjoining properties and see this roof line. The roof line of this house is not defined by the roof. It's defined by the parapet, which goes right here. And that's the original building right here, if I'm not mistaken. I think we're in agreement on that, aren't we? That's the part that was built in 1860 where the parapet is. And then in 1900, this part came on. Okay, you can tell from the brick there that it was done later. I don't know exactly when it was done later. But the roof line is defined by the parapet. So the parapet is above the roof. You can't see the roof. This new roof that we propose to put on here, for one of the main reasons is to keep the water off of these stairs going into the back of the house. But the roof line is two feet nine inches below the parapet. You will not ever be able to see this roof line on this addition from the front of the street of this house. You'll be able to see it from Mr. Bale's backyard. You may be able to see it from 2nd Street if you can see through the trees, or you'll be able to see it from Mr. Clark's backyard. but you will never be able to see this roof right here from the front of the house. Now, the architects seem to feel, and Barton had one other agreement that we had, that she can submit revised plans whereby the west edge of that roof, of the sloped roof, the pitched roof, will not protrude beyond the west wall plain. And I think you were concerned that it protrudes beyond the West Wall Plain. Architecturally, we can take care of that problem, and it will be flushed with the West Wall Plain, not protrude beyond the West Wall Plain. And I'm not sure exactly how she's going to do it, but she doesn't seem to feel that there's any problem. I would then like to go, and I'll show you this picture. which has been taken, and you've seen one similar to it up here earlier today. And while Amelia is trying, here we go, while she's working on that, I will tell you the guidelines that Martin has, or Mrs. Janaki has given to you, indicates that the addition roof should not protrude above the existing roof. And so that's why I'm talking about the parapet. But the... The guideline says this. It says, additions should be secondary, smaller and simpler to the original building, and scale, design, and placement. The use of a small connector or link between the addition and the original building is encouraged where appropriate. Exterior walls should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building, and roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident. I think it's fair that we talk about the actual wording of the guideline and not just say step down from the roof line because there's extreme differences there in my mind. Go over the last two sentences. Yeah, the key language, I think that the two issues we have to address are, one, exterior walls should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edge of the existing building, which we talked a little bit, and I know this one's 3 3⁄4 inches if I read the plans right. And then second is, it says roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident. So those are the two, I think, what I think the elements that have to be examined. So it's not just the roof line. It says from the peak of the existing roof line to the existing roof remains evident. The existing roof on the historic part of this building is below. I mean, the existing roof line is the top of the parapet. It's always been a shed-type roof underneath the parapet? As far as we know, it's always been a shed-type roof underneath the parapet. Now, this roof, well, let me see. This roof obviously is not an original roof at all. I mean, no telling when this is built. Can we discuss the definition there for a moment before we continue too much further? Can we gather consensus on roof lawn versus parapet and which one sets the lawn? Because that seems to be a major driving point. here and i'd like to get it clarified before we continue down the road if because this is a a shed roof a continuous shed roof from the front to the rear of the structure and it doesn't have a there it's you know it doesn't have a peak per se the i think that the peak or the high point would be considered the highest point of the roof so in this case the highest point of the roof is along the front uh the back side of the parapet at the front of the house so does that make sure agree it's the highest point of the flat of the actual that would be the peak because if it had you know if there was another half of the house then it would go down on the other side but um i think that with with that then i mean this is clearly below that point but what it what i think I think it's really more what the staff was talking about was crossing the eave line of the rear rather than the peak of the roof. But that's my point is that without trying to step on toes here, sometimes we say rules here or there's things in the staff report that is not exactly what the guidelines say. And I think we've got to say, what do the guidelines say? For example, it's often said you have to step in the roof line underneath the peaks or you can't be above the roof line. That's not what the guideline says. The guideline is exactly what I read earlier with respect to how it's to be applied. So that's why I read the guidelines. All of us are on the same page exactly what the guideline says, which is how we have to apply it, which is roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing edges of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident. So in my mind, there's two elements there. The roof line should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line, which is the highest point of the roof, and two, that the existing main roof remains evident. So there's two different things that have to be met there. It's not as simple as saying that it needs to be stepped down or it can't meet into the main roof line. So that's why I brought that issue up. Right. Well, and I think in the case of an addition like this, the operative roof line is the roof that the addition is engaging. It's not the roof that's 60 feet away from that. It's this roof that the addition is engaging. So the roof line that we're talking about is the gutter line along the back of the building. So there's no question in my mind that the gable does, in fact, penetrate above the existing roof line and is in contravention of that particular guideline. I think it's all in interpretation. I mean, technically, if you're saying the roof line and the peak, then this meets that criteria, regardless of the exact design, because it does step away from the highest point of the roof. But I think that there certainly is a point, what Graham was saying about, is it for it crossing the east? And I think what we've worked on with other cases in similar issues, sorry to cut you off there, Ron, but what has been the determining factor in other cases that are similar to this is the interruption of the roof lawn at the edge, like you're saying, Graham, and the condition of what does the original roof edge and the original roof trim do as it's interrupted by the addition. And is that interruption appropriate or inappropriate? And I think that's what we're getting at. I think that's really the conversation, and that's really the only moment of disagreement here between your application. Well, I think there's another disagreement. I think the other disagreement for me is that the gable form with the sunburst is, in fact, an imitation of an earlier style and is also in contravention of the guidelines that specifically state that that's not to be done. So I think there are two issues here. We're not going to do the sunburst. We're going to use the same type of siding in the gable as on the building itself. So the sunburst we're not going to use. Do you know what the pitch is on the front roof? The main roof is going to be, I think, one foot to 12 feet. I mean, on the porch or on the front porch? Oh, no, I do not know. Because the only thing that really struck me is that the back porch seems to have a steeper pitch than the front porch. I mean, the new addition roof seems to have a steeper pitch than the front porch. I do not know. I do not know. One of the reasons you might pull. Mr. Cassidy, you might want to put Chip. He's over there nodding his head late. Oh, do you not? If you could approach the microphone as you state your name for the record. You know how this works. You're not new here. Chip Crawford with Crawford Builders, 310 Hampton Court. Sorry. The front porch is actually slightly steeper pitch than the back porch. So the back porch is at about a 2, 2 1⁄2. this is almost a dead three. Okay. Okay. But they're not, you know, they're remote enough from each other. I don't think that's a big, whether they match or don't match, they're similar. But still, I agree with what Mr. Polo said, and I'm happy to hear that you're looking to use a different material should the gable be. We are using a different material for the gable. Should the gable be permitted, that's good to hear. What I want to go back to in the picture that I was showing, but I don't think I need to, and that is the roof that Mr. Poe talks about and the pitched roof, not the original flat roof over the original building and the 1900 edition. This roof, I think it's short-sighted maybe to hold this owner to having to deal with a roof that was inappropriate when it was put on to start off with. I mean, if anyone's been out there, maybe Martin will tell you, it's a piece of junk. It's exactly what it is. And it should come down. and there's no reason, historically there is no reason why this owner should be governed by some piece of junk somebody put up there before he ever obtained ownership of this building. So that's kind of one of my theories on this. I'm not sure I understand. The white edition shown, it's been, I don't think anybody should be torn down. That thing's coming off, right? Yes. That whole thing is coming down. So there's really nothing to do with that that dictates anything. So the only line left that we're discussing is the gutter line or the eave line of the roof that slopes off the back facade of the building. That's correct. Okay. That's correct. And you think that's inappropriate, that that line should dictate what happens next? No, I think it's inappropriate to base the decision on the fact that we now have this type of a shed roof, and therefore we have to go back in a similar fashion with the new roof that we're going to put on this new addition. And it has to be tucked underneath the other roof. I fail to see where anything in the guidelines say that has to be done. That's really a function of the eve line of the structure to remain. Let me show you also several photographs. And the first one being of the Green Settle House, which is about 445 West 3rd. This is an addition that this board approved. Not you five, but this board approved. You'll see that that roof is not similar to anything that's ever been done in the historic north side neighborhood. Where's this property? 445 West 3rd Street. Oh, okay. This roof is done at 462 West 3rd, two houses away from the subject. Is this the Rambeke residence? No. This is what used to be Green Settle's house. Yeah, I know which one this is now. Probably the oldest house on the street. But what I'm saying, these are roof lines that have been approved by this board before. The second one is two houses down from this one toward Jefferson with the V section in it. The third roof line I want to show you is Mr. Bale's roof line, which is directly next door to this house, which is obviously a pitched roof. And it was also added, I think, before Historic Preservation Office was even in existence. But all these are below the existing roof. That's sort of the point I was starting to get at with you earlier up here with the slide. the single slope roof coming out towards us similar to the addition that's there is one of the few roof solutions that would work with the addition you're proposing and also fit underneath the eave line. But it doesn't have to fit under the eave line. I was going to say there's nothing in the guidelines that say it's under an existing eave line. That's my problem with the staff report here, is that it says that, I'm trying to find the report, that basically I think the word was tuck under. Yes. If I could find the word, as I recall, being tuck under in the report. And that's not what the guideline says. The guideline says exterior walls, and I think that tucked under was the language used in the prior guidelines before these were put in place a year and a half, almost two years ago now, beginning on two years, where it says the exterior wall should be stepped in a minimum of 12-inch. That's another issue to talk about in a second. But roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident. So the question, I think, for us is twofold. One, does it step down from the peak of the existing roof line? That's a yes or no. Or two, does it make sure that the existing main roof remains evident? Those are the two questions. Because the guideline doesn't say it has to be tucked in under the lowest point on the roof line, which is what we're debating. That's not the debate. That's not the legal standard by which the rule says here. Just for clarification, the staff's interpretation of the guideline reflects retaining the character of the roofline that this new addition is proposed to be hooked into. I don't disagree with that. But using words like tucked under the existing roofline is not what the guideline said. And if the Historic Preservation Commission, when they made these guidelines, intended that to be the rule, they could have used that language, and they didn't use that. There's been several examples where we have these arbitrary things that say the guidelines intent as such, and the words aren't in the guidelines. But the philosophies are. But that's not true. You can't say, as a matter of law, we apply the philosophy if that's not what the words say. It's just like the issue we have on fencing to say the issue is transparency. The word transparency is nowhere in the guidelines. There's nowhere in the guidelines and the fencing. This is an illustrative of an issue we have. There's nowhere in the guidelines that says you have to have an 8-foot or 6-foot fence. There's a thing that says 6-foot fences are preferred, but there are clearly areas where 8-foot fences are. So to say that the principle is transparency is not adequate to address the issue when the rule is very clear about what the guidelines say. Can I suggest that the intent of the guidelines is very clear? The intent of the guidelines is that when you look at the finished product, it's very clear what the original roof line was and that that original roof line is dominant over any new roof lines so the whole question for us is whether we think that this new addition is in fact subordinate to the original building and you know in this case and I think that you know pardon me, staff, for interpreting your intention, but I think that part of the intention that they have when they speak about tucking it under the existing gutter line or eave is that that's a clear and simple way to ensure that a new roof line is, in fact, going to be subordinate to an existing roof line. So that's where that comes from, and I think it's a well-founded recommendation. You know, in this case, I think that to some extent it's up to us to decide personally whether we feel that the gable, in fact, is too powerful relative to the existing roof line. And part of this is complicated by the fact that we don't have a 3D model of this. It would really help if we could see what this is going to look like three-dimensionally because I think that part of Mr. Cassidy's argument that, in fact, you won't even see this roof from the ground or from many vantage points around it is true because it's high and because you will be seeing the eave and you won't see much of the roof above the eave. But from the back, looking at it from the back very clearly, that addition is making an extremely strong statement and it is in fact competing with the original building in a big way and it's the gable that's doing it. If the gable were not there and if there were a flat roof configuration there about where the eave line is, it would be very elegant and it would defer to the original building. And so I think that's where the board is going to have to decide. When you say flat, do you mean a slightly sloped roof that continues the existing roof line, or do you literally mean like a flat roof system? Well, no, I mean, if I were to design it, I would not design a flat roof. There's two different, there's a proposal here for either a flat roof or a shed roof in the recommendations. That's why I'm asking to clarify, because one is a continuation of really the shed roof from the existing roof line, and one would be a flat roof system. I mean, this is a personal thing, again. I mean, for me, designing a flat roof is sort of silly because water stands on a flat roof. But, you know, as was done with the original house, designing a roof that appears to be flat because of the parapet condition but actually has the ability to shed the water is an excellent solution and I think would be an ideal solution for this addition as well. But ideal is not the guideline. There are things that, I mean, ideal would be the most optimum, but the guideline doesn't say you have to do the most optimum. It says these are the guidelines. And I don't disagree with you that there may be other reasons that would say a gabled roof system is not appropriate here. For example, it changes the character or the harmony of the building, or that there's no other detailing that relates to the structure. But those are different issues than the fact that it ties into the existing roof line and is above the gutter line. And so I think we should call spades spades here and deal with what the issues are. I agree with you with what you said, but I think if those are the reasons that we need to articulate, that's the reason why. I personally don't have a problem with the gable because the front porch roof has it, and I think that it needs stepped in 12 inches from the exterior wall because that's what the guideline says. It doesn't say 3 3⁄4 inches. It says 12 inches. and you know honestly I don't feel really strongly about this because I think this is a case where one could argue that one can very readily read the original roof line if one is looking for it and also one could argue that in fact the addition now has far more strength and power than the original and so is in contravention of the guidelines I would like to bring up one other point, though, that I think influences how we should consider this, and that is that if we were to approve this, it does set a precedent that there has been a sort of consistent approach to ensuring that a roof form is, in fact, subordinate to an existing roof form. and that is to make sure that the roof line does tuck under existing eaves or is clearly, in terms of its elevation, is subordinate. And if we approve this, we're sort of establishing a precedent where one could argue that that's not a determining factor. And we need to change the guideline. I'm not sure. Can I make one comment? Yeah, we interrupted you. We started it. I think the fact that we've been here half an hour and five of you have been discussing this is pretty obvious, that the guidelines are not clear. But what I was going to say related to Mr. Billings, the setback for this building is in exactly the same footprint of the existing addition. is not any further out, any further in. Yeah, but that's a slippery slope, Mr. Cassidy. But I wanted to point that out. This is in the same footprint of what exists now. On the perpendicular lines to the street, it extends a little farther. It's 30 inches back, which is an additional 45 square feet. Oh, I know, I know. But so you get the slippery slope here to say, well, if that's true, then why don't you keep the existing roof lines? I don't like that approach because you can only take that one step and then you've got a problem. I mean, there's a couple other solutions that have been done with the 12-inch step that have been resolved by this board. Mr. Hoskiel pointed out one earlier. There was one done actually on 3rd Street on the property across from you on the back where it actually steps in 12 inches and comes back out. And it's literally just a 12 by 12 by 12. It's this one right here. That's correct. That's correct. With these roof lines. You can't see it from the. And then there's one across the street from this structure also owned by Mr. Brewer where there is no step back at all, where he had an existing porch and this board allowed him to put on a brick addition which has no set back whatever. In fact, the bricks on the addition protrude about a half an inch out further from the existing plane of the west wall. I think the bottom line here, gentlemen, is that this is a very tasteful remedy to a situation which needs a remedy. I don't think, when you look at the other roofs that you have, not you personally, but this board has approved in this very block, this roof looks like, I mean, an ideal roof. the one that we just talked about. You know, you can see that roof. It's very dominant from behind. He's going to put up on the projector. Okay, good. Now, I mean, this is all new. Everything there is new that you see except right up there. From that point, all of this is all new in this house. Now, it's in the back, and it's not seen from the front. But I'm also going to show you another picture from the front. I'd like to take this opportunity also to point out, and you've brought this up a couple times, it doesn't matter if it's on the rear of the house or the side of the front. we give all sides of the house equal consideration regardless of whose view from where. I appreciate that. I've been there for 41 years, but I'd like to hear that. So understand, even if one person ever will ever see this thing again, it's on the outside of the house. So it's all fair game for our discussion. What I'm saying, this one from the front, and I realize what you just got through saying, does show from the front on this side of the house and also on the east side of the house. and a roof line totally different from any other roof line in the Northside District. There's a lot of work that's been done on this. That actually shows the 12-inch step-in, too. Yeah, but it comes right back out. Yeah, but it's a step-in. That was a very clever solution to meet the guidelines that a very, very good architect came with. He used to be the chairman of this board. I know who the architect is. I've known him for 41 years also. But also, the addition on the east side of that building does not have a step back line, and it is flush with the east wall of that building. In fact, the porch sticks out. There's a porch door from there. Let me take a picture of that. I'm sorry. but i mean i was just showing i was just showing the different types of roof lines that the board has approved on this very block so is the three and three quarter inch setback that's proposed the exact same i thought it was actually an eight inch setback i mean and that's what's existing now yeah that's what i thought was now was eight inches and what was proposed it's a quarter inches it's in the very same footprint so it should be eight inches back and then we're going to change the eaves so that it does not protrude past the west plane. Let's see if I can find that. Actually, I could find a dimension in the drawings to find what the setback is exactly. It is three and three quarters. Three and three quarters. The existing one? Six inches. All right. The existing is six inches. and the new edition is in the same footprint. It may not show on this piece of paper, but it will go in the same footprint. No, the drawing is three and three-quarter inches. We'll agree to six inches. We'll put it in the same footprint. That was the intent. I have a question for staff, and this is a little bit divergent, but I see on the original building there's two chimneys on the back side, and they're removing one, and you all are okay with them removing that one chimney off the original building? That's an addition. As far as the moving? Yeah, removing, obviously, where the addition is, the current addition, you're okay with them removing that chimney. No, they're not removing it. On the drawings, they say they're removing it. To me, if y'all are going to remove the chimney, then y'all are changing the character of the house, and that's where I'm having an issue. This chimney right here? We're removing that chimney off here. Maybe that. That's where it is. You're right. That's right in the middle of the boat. Thank you. Staff actually has some insight on that. relative to a conversation with the architect. Amelia, you want to report your news? Right. During a conversation with Ms. Sutherland, we talked about that, and she expressed that she was not removing the chimney. What might not be disclosed is the fact that because of the height of the chimney versus the height of the gable, the chimney will remain, but the gable goes over top of the chimney. It might be reflective in the plan. But she said that she was not removing the chimney on an on-site visit. Okay. Thank you. I was a little aware of that. Achieves the same effect. Build over. Any other questions of me? I think that there's some different things you can look at for and against the proposed design. You know, the use of the gable and even with the sunburst pattern could be considered an interpretation of historic form of the existing building. maybe not a literal copy, but an interpretation of an existing form that is often used as a way to introduce new elements into a historic structure while still giving it some continuity, the new element and the original element. It's pretty clear that if you look at the house, the front porch and the bay and so forth were all part of the early 1900s renovation, which introduced foreign forms to basically, I guess what started out as more or less an Italianate structure. So the house has a previous history of, let's say, foreign forms being added to it over the years. So that, again, sets somewhat a precedent for this particular house, maybe not for every house on the block, but for this one. or any other house in Lexington. But the introduction of other stylistic elements, there is a precedent for that the way it was done. The fact that using the gable end on the rear certainly does make the addition a more substantial element, architectural element, and certainly make a much more forceful architectural statement. but it also represents the change of use of a historic structure. When this structure was built, and imagine even when that funky little wooden addition was put on, the backyards were strictly utilitarian. They were used for drying other service areas. It was not used in the same way that people use rear yards today as a private entertaining space and so forth. So I think there could be an argument saying that, yes, this is a more forceful architectural statement, but it is representative of this new use that's happening on that side of the house. I mean, to be honest, just personally, I don't think that this is a bad solution at all. I think that maybe looking at where the roofline hits, you know, I was sort of just sketching here to see whether if a gable is used, if maybe pushing it up a little bit higher so it aligns a little bit more closely with the existing cornice line on that rear, if that would help, or actually pulling it back down so that it actually does fall underneath the cornice, whether that would maybe change the scale and the way it addresses the rest of the building. Also, the possibility of maybe combining roof forms. If the existing shed roof slope is brought out into the new addition as a sort of straight line, and then maybe the gable is added at the end as an architectural element, you're sort of getting the best of both. I don't know whether that would make it too complicated or not. It's something that would have to be looked at, and the calculations would have to be made about angles and what the surface is and so forth. But there might be some ways to actually still utilize the form, still create the same statement, the architectural statement, but stay within the guidelines or at least closer to the guidelines as it reads about specific elements of additions and so forth. I'd like to see some of the options developed a little further to make sure that whatever the final solution is, is absolutely the correct one. And see if there aren't some other options that would pull what's desired by the owner and the architect and what is required by the board and by the guidelines. You do have a copy of A1.0? Yeah. Okay. Does that answer your question about its protrusion into the existing roof line? Oh, yeah. I mean, I see what's happening here. Okay. I mean, this is what I said originally. Personally, I don't really have an issue with that. I mean, I think that it works. It does everything it needs to do. To me, it meets the guidelines, but I didn't write the guidelines, and we have to paint, too, what the guidelines are saying. I'm just saying that there might be some design ways of utilizing the Gable form that, by bringing it down or pushing it up, that might integrate it into the overall slope that would meet everybody's needs. and that's why I'm saying that maybe the thing to do is maybe look at these as alternatives to see whether or not it will meet the needs of the owner and the architect. I mean, without just saying this is it and that's it. I mean, I just think that's... I'm trying to think how I'm going to communicate this to her. Yeah, well... I'd like to second that thought on Mr. Cassidy. I think perhaps part of the intensity of reaction resistance to this is that the gable does project beyond the corner of the back of the building. And you had said that there was a willingness to pull that back in so that it no longer projects beyond the corner of the building. I think for me that if, in fact, you could see the corner of the building actually turning the corner so that you actually do see the brick all the way up and you actually see that, it would really help with the reading of the primary original roof line there at the back of the building. And so essentially what that suggests is that the gable becomes less wide. and I think that would help a great deal. And I think that if you were to look really carefully at the proposed gable and compare it really carefully with the gable in the front of the house, I think most people might agree that the one in the front of the house is actually the more contemporary of the two, even though it was done 100 years ago or 110 years ago. and I think I guess the bottom line is I think more consideration needs to be given to the relationship between the gable and the existing building and that perhaps reducing its width and its height would would go a long way to deferring to the building adequately. Again, it's a judgment call, and I'm not sure how else to be helpful. I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting that I suggest to the architect and the owner, but I find it... odd in view of the other projects in this block that you would ask this owner to reduce the size of a very small addition that he's putting on, adding a total, I think, 90 square feet, 45 square feet per floor. I don't think we're saying that. You're going all the way across the back of the house. I don't think that's what I was suggesting. That's not what I'm suggesting. I thought you said the fact that you... No, I was suggesting that the width of the gable, but not necessarily the width of the addition. Just the gable itself. Yeah, just the gable itself. I think the gable could be reconsidered. See the brick around the corner. I mean, it is going to be a different siding on the addition. Yeah, but I'm talking about the original brick on the original building. You want to see a piece of the original brick, or a brick around the corner? If your eye travels up that back corner of the building, there's a place where that relationship between the side of the building and the back of the building is. Well, if we did six inches, that would show that, right? If we go in the same footprint, it would be six inches, yes. Exactly. Or even three and a half inches. Well, I mean, six inches is a sad part. Let's not go backwards. We all agree that there's going to be brick exposed to the corner. Let's not start over there. Do you have anything to add before I say some stuff? Well, I just want to verify with staff. So they are going to remove the chimney down below the roof line and allow that roof to come over top of that existing chimney, correct? She indicated, as I said, are you going to retain this chimney? And she indicated yes, but it could be, if this is going to come back, that we'll need to have some kind of verification that's going to happen because it will make it very difficult with the gable roof plan to do this. Correct. That's where I'm starting. So I think it could be something we need to have clarified. Okay. I think that one of the key things is even in the existing plan, as shown, if I'm reading the photograph correctly, the two chimneys that exist are more or less the same height. Is that correct? Yes. I mean, very close anyway. So we've got the one shown here in the elevation, the rear elevation. That other one's going to stick right up. It's not going to be covered by the cable, even in the original form. So it will protrude through. So, you know, again, I don't think that's a huge issue. It's just a flashing issue and, you know, potential leaks and stuff, but whatever. You know, it's there. So I just think it needs to be shown in the drawings where it's going to occur. Because, I mean, if it stays, and I don't see any reason to take it out, quite frankly, because even if you look at the plan on the interior, that section of wall is staying in place. So, you know, that's one less thing to have to demo. But it will definitely show, and it will create, you know, make a vertical element in the center of the gable, which, again, you know, is just part of the design, the overall design. Not bad, not good, it's part of the reality, and it really needs to be shown to get the full comprehension of what's going to happen with the house. Well, with everything that's been said up to this point, I think there are some ticket items. Of course, one with the chimney, we probably need some clarification on what the exact intent is of that chimney. You can see in the photograph it's pretty tall. I don't, you know, we don't see it appear in the drawings anywhere else except for where it's marked for demolition. If it's true remain, we need to see that for sure. And that's simple. That's not going to hold up the show. That's just simply make sure the staff understands what your intent is of the chimney. This is a small, small issue. And I believe if your plan is to remove it, the staff may have some things to discuss with you at that point. But at this point, we need to know, please clarify the intent for the chimney on the left side of the rear elevation as you face it. So that's an easy one. The addition itself, we've had quite a bit of conversation about the roof. You know, gable or single pitch or otherwise, the issue in my mind is the mass of the addition and keeping the addition as a secondary object to the rear elevation of the project. I think that to either somehow, and I don't see how this is easy, but if you want to retain a gable roof, find a way for that gable roof to hit the house at a lower elevation than the existing heave line that's on the rear of the elevation. That would be difficult. I would certainly understand why you might go to a shed roof instead. but like i said the apex of the gable being below the i sure am now okay like i said it's difficult and it doesn't make sense but i'm not going to tell you not to use a gable roof because i think the gable roof is is not a bad shape uh given that it's used on the front of the house the issue i take with the addition and the roof as it's designed is the height of it and the way it comes over the existing E-line. Having heard all the other things discussed this evening, those are my thoughts. Otherwise, I think it's a good project. It's a good addition. It meets a need. It takes care of the existing addition that's not fantastic. So to see it removed and something better put in its place is a great thing. That's really all the loose ends I have to address. Any other comments at this time? Just one minor observation, and that is that the drawings show a copper gutter immediately at the corner of the original volume, I'm sorry, copper downspout, so that to the eye one would not be able to discern where the brick turns the corner at the back corner. Well, that does bring up one of the loose ends I may have failed to mention, is the setback. And as it's been discussed, I think, quite a bit, the guideline calls for a 12-inch setback in plan. That part is quite clear. And there are a number of reasons for this. We've worked our way around it in the past. So long as a separation is clear and a setback is made, you've offered up six inches, and I think that's a good step in the right direction. The corner is going to be obscured, though, by the downspout, which is, I guess, a detail that escaped me. Where would you go after that, Graham? What are your thoughts on that being tucked in the corner? Where do you see the downspout? I don't remember there being a downspout on that side. A1.0. It's right there. There will be a downspout that's tucked in that corner. Okay. That's on the outside of the brick, the existing. I think that was probably to appease the staff because I don't think Katie wanted to put gutters on it at all. I think the staff suggested they needed gutters. If you had the gutter, you had the downspout. You're going to have to have one there. I would just suggest that it would be more successful if the downspout were moved away from the corner so that it doesn't obscure the corner of the masonry. That's a minor issue, but it really would help the reading of the original volume. Pulled to the back of the addition. Essentially, he's talking about running a gutter to the actual gable port and then run to the very back corner of the addition. Pull it to the back of the addition. Or you have to pull it around the side of the house. I mean, you could pull it six inches toward the front of the house. It would do the same thing. It would reveal the masonry corner of the building. Right now the masonry corner is obscured by the copper gutter that's placed right at the corner. It's a minor issue, but I bring it up because I did talk about the possibility of pulling the gable around so that you'd see that volume. Graham, does that not occur above? She's lowered this gable roof line significantly. If you look at the two gutter lines, this gutter line is, with this scale, it's a little difficult, but it's about two, two and a half feet below the gutter line of the shed part of the roof. Right there. And then on that left-hand side, if you're in the rear, above that, you're going to see that brick. you're going to see, if you're standing at the driveway looking up, this is clearly defined as a separate, you know, she's not trying to tie gutter lines in or match details. And we can adjust it to where it's inset, the six inches, and that there's actually, you know, the new gutter has a little, it may only be an inch. but there'll be some dying of it in and then the new little gutter will come down, drop into this gutter. So you see a very clear definition of what was old or original to this 1900 edition. So this new downspot is not to ground, it's only to the new gutter? No, there was one that's going to be tucked into that corner but I'm sure we can adjust that. We can pull it all the way to the rear. I don't know. I mean, it makes the most sense to tuck it in that corner. I can't pull it into the middle or even a foot away from the corner because of the windows that are below. But, you know, we can adjust. And there are going to be breaks. If you think about it, you've got a little gutter here with a little downspout into another gutter with another break. So you're going to clearly see the definition of what was original to this new addition, which is lower. So the intent of whether you look at the eave line or the tops of the two ridge lines, by the intent of the definition of the guideline, I think she's tried to achieve both. Our peak, this ridge is not higher than the highest point. Our gutter line is below the lowest gutter. So, and I don't know if that's enough definition, but I mean, is that, are we supposed to interpret, does it meet the definition or not? Thank you. You know, I think as Nathan points out, the problem that we're dealing with is that the guidelines are somewhat nebulous in this regard, and it becomes an issue of personal reading, you know, an individual reading. And I'm going to express my opinion, and I don't think there's any particular way to argue it legally, but my feeling is that if the detailing of the gable were to be reduced in width to the point that the outermost edge of the addition were still several inches to the inside of the existing brick corner, so that as one looks at the existing masonry structure, one sees that corner going all the way up. and if that downspout were pulled away from the corner, I personally would pull it toward the front of the house so that, again, you can see the masonry turn in the corner. I think that those two moves would make the addition defer adequately to the original structure to make it read clearly and read as the dominant form. That's all I'm going to say. I have one more question for staff, actually. If they remove this old addition and the detail of the existing roof line is still there, then doesn't guideline I.1.A apply to architectural details that should remain? Be retained. Be retained. Yes, it would. Okay. So that is why I have issues with this gable, because until further investigation is done, and if the detail runs all the way across and it has just been covered, then I think guideline I applies. So that's my two cents. I want a clarity on that. Are you suggesting that we tear this off so you can decide whether or not there's an existing roof line that's not seen now? I'm saying that per the guidelines, it says architectural details and features should be maintained, retained, and shall not be removed or changed if original to the building. So if it is pulled off and it is there, then it is original to the building, and it would have to remain. That's all I'm saying. So it's already been changed by virtue of the fact that you can't see it. Well, I mean, but... It changes it. Well, obviously. What do you all want to do? I hate to act like I'm frustrated, but I am pretty frustrated. I've lived over there 41 years. This place has been an eyesore for all 41. We've had goats in the front yard of it. We've had other animals in the back of it. You know, garbage all over everywhere. And now somebody comes along and wants to put a half a million dollars in it, and you all are talking about a one-inch or two-inch turn at the corner, and you're talking about we have to tear off an addition which is a total eyesore. I'll tell you right now, I'll vote. I'll disapprove it because I don't like the gable roof. If that's the way you feel, if that's best for this historic district to do that, that's fine. Mr. Bale might want to talk to you about that, the next-door neighbor. Well, I was going to say, because all the photographs I've seen, everything's below the existing roof line. So I think there's a president sit there. And this is below the existing roof line. This is 2 feet 9 inches below the existing roof line. as I think you all, I thought, had come to a consensus on. You got something to say? Well, I was just going to say, the only thing that I'd like to see is if this rear elevation, if by either raising or lowering the gable form to more closely align with the cornice line on the rear as it extends on out. So, I mean, if you're looking at that, it's going to be slightly lower than what you see there. because as it's coming on out into the edition, to see whether simply making that align would make it a more harmonious element and not necessarily look as though it's crossing the existing cornice line in such an abrupt way. What I've been looking at is if it is brought down, it does lose a little bit of head height in the bathroom and closet area on the upper level, but it could be a clipped roof, and, you know, that is not a serious thing. It's not as if it wouldn't be unusable or would be unusable space. I mean, that's really... And then, you know, with the agreement to at least put it in the line of the existing addition so that, you know, it just scoots it off the corner another few inches, I really think that that... Yes. I think that just looking at that would just make a gesture to what the guideline is trying to get across. And unfortunately, it's kind of hard to describe that without drawings and graphs and all that good stuff that everybody needs. But I think that there's a real simple way to kind of just take it, what you've got, and it's just the most minor kind of tweak, and it actually puts it far closer to the guideline than where it is today. And I think that it's a win-win situation because the owner gets exactly what they're looking for. The architect creates a very interesting and contextual design for the rear of the structure, and it allows the board to look at it more closely as it relates to the guidelines. For me, I think that maybe just pulling back a little bit, trying a little tweaking and then bring it back would be what my suggestion would be, but that certainly is something that you would have to design. I don't have a problem with the gable roof system on this. I find that with the other use of the gable on the front porch, that is complementary to the existing structure. I don't have a problem with the way it ties in the roof line because I think that it clearly meets what the guideline says. I don't have a problem with either of those issues. I do believe under the guideline for 2-4-B that it's a exterior wall should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the existing building and that the addition needs to be stepped in 12 inches from the edge of the building because that's what the guideline says. I can't be strict on the guidelines of one area and loose on them in another one without applying exactly what they say. It's in the same section, which essentially costs 8 1⁄2 inches of interior closet space. it's not a space that there's some issue. There have been other times when exceptions have been made for various reasons and I haven't just seen those present. I know the issue is it's on the existing footprint of the structure but for the ones you've shown for this street here, that's my only issue with it otherwise I think it's fine. I think that change can actually be made by board finding tonight that the addition just needs to be stepped in 12 inches rather than whether it's 3.75 or 6 inches. I'm not sure which one's correct, but whichever one it is, that's my issue. Because that then solves all of this other issue about how to tuck in. It really does. The visual issue, it's going to open up more space on that corner. It removes all of these other issues that they're talking about there. And on the addition itself, it costs literally very little square feet for the addition with No real renovation or changes made to the drawings, but it is black and white, what the guideline says. Which, Mr. Hosko, has indicated that you all have ignored previously. Well, I wouldn't say ignored. He said got around. I take exception to that. Well, and not even got around, but we found an alternate way to meet the intent as it applied to other and similar projects. Now stand for it. Well, you know, it's very important to realize that every project is completely unique. And we're talking about a whole series of issues here, not one, not two, but multiple, and they all influence how we sense that this works. And so it's really dangerous to look at previous projects and say, well, they did this. And they just don't apply. They're not the same house. they're not the same situation. So what are you going to do? Well, if... We have asked for audience coverage yet. Well, I was trying to. We keep talking. Is there anybody else here this evening that would like to speak to this case? We've just about covered every angle we can think of, But I appreciate everybody's patience up to this point. Staff, do you have any final comments or contributions you'd like to make to this conversation? No, no further comments. Thank you very much. Board, do you have any final comments? I just have one comment, and it has actually nothing to do with anything we've been talking about. But it did pertain to this project. and it's the fact that at this time, since the window project has been removed, I do want to say that the re-glazing of existing wood windows into a thermal pane window, as I believe is what was suggested or what is intended anyway, has been used here in Lexington very successfully, and it is certainly the recommended way of improving energy efficiency of original windows. So down the road, when that comes up again, I think that that is a very good choice. Yeah, I agree with you, but you noticed that the staff doesn't agree. Yeah, it's due to the loss of the historic fabric of throwing away the Gwenda glass, essentially, and losing some of the profile of the historic sash. No, I understand what the staff was talking about. I'm just saying that that form of window upgrading is something that has been used here. There are certain situations where you've already lost a lot of that integrity, where that is an appropriate way to pursue that. But in this instance where the integrity is still very strong in the historic material sense, it contradicts the guidelines in that sense. The one instance that I think you might be referring to was an instance in Bell Court. I was thinking more in terms of the project that AU Associates did on Market Street. That's not in the H-1. No, but it is a project that utilized that technique. Right. The staff's interpretation of it has been consistent to date, including with this project. I understand. Thank you. Well, hearing no further comments and seeing no further action from the audience, the Chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, with respect to case number 18800462-B at 462 West 3rd Street, I move that we approve the application as submitted, except that, one, the reglazing of the existing window sashes with insulated glass be denied, that, two, the proposal to demolish the existing rear addition is approved, 3. The request to construct new addition as proposed in the submitted plans, the replacement of 13 windows, and the closing of three window openings be approved subject to a 12-inch step-in from the back as you're facing the property, the back right corner of the property. Two, that the details regarding the chimney and how it will be exposed from the proposed gable design be submitted to staff for review and approval, because those haven't been. Three, the top elevation of the addition's masonry foundation wall will be the same elevation throughout that as the existing building's foundation wall. that all masonry work be accomplished in accordance with guidelines 13K L&M, that all final drawings and details be submitted and reviewed by staff before issuance of the COA, and that, five, should other LFUCG agencies require any changes, those changes need to be submitted to staff for review. And, the sixth, the sunburst, as demonstrated based on the applicant's comments tonight, would be removed from the actual plan as approved, indicating that that was architectural drawings but wasn't with the intent to be built on the addition. Of course, as always, if there's issues at once, if the motion would pass, but if there's subsequent disagreement between the applicant and staff, as we do with almost every motion, that could come back before the board if they cannot reach a resolution. Thank you very much. Do I have a second to the motion? Could I ask you to accept a minor amendment, Nathan, Mr. Billings? I don't know what it is, but you could ask it. I would propose that we also ask that the outermost projection of the gable eave not project beyond the corner of the existing building. yeah i'll i'll accept that that's what that's what the 12-inch setback is in is clearly intended to result in so that's and uh so i second the motion with that uh addendum very well any further discussion of the motion i'm sorry just for my clarification i think i was zoning off for something did the uh motion include that it should be a flatter shed roof design. No, it's the approved gable design. The approved gable design. Thank you. I'm sorry, not the approved gable, but the submitted gable design. Right. That was my understanding as well. All right. Should we ask Mr. Cassidy if that seems like a I mean, is it? No. No? Okay. We've already asked Mr. Cassidy. Okay. All right. All that being the case, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Opposed. Let the record reflect. The vote was 4-1 in favor of the application per the motion put forth by Mr. Billings. I think I'm last on the docket. Well, we have two other issues on the docket. I think when I'm hearing you. You need to approach the. Well, it doesn't have to work. It sure does. Well, it really doesn't because you've already passed it. I think what I've to report, you've approved the plan with the conditions that the staff put on it, other than we're going to have the gable roof without the sunburst, and it sits back 12 inches. and there will not be any projection into the west plain by the east. Right. Essentially correct. Okay. And we have to work with this chimney. I'm not sure that chimney stays. Well, if it doesn't stay, and that's a point of contention between the architect and the staff or you, the applicant and the staff, and that needs to come back before us, that was also part of the motion. So the tail end of the motion was, and what was approved, well, there were two points that need to be considered here. One was that the intent of the chimney be clarified. Correct. The last item on the list of items was that if there are any problems in conversation between you and the staff that need to come back to us, then those individual items can come back to us for further discussion. And that should take care of you. So the motion was not that the thing regarding the chimney be submitted. It's that the way that the chimney stays and the way that it ties in the roof line be submitted to staff for approval. That was the motion. And so those details need to be submitted. So it's not just submit which way it's going to go. It's that you have to submit the details for the chimney to be tied in. That was the motion. Yes. And just everybody be aware, the staff's not empowered to authorize the removal of that chimney if there were a change in that. So that topic would come back to the board if indeed the decision is to not retain it and work with it. But if the chimney stays. That's what I'm saying. That's right. The chimney, that's what I'm saying. If you are to keep the chimney and work out how to do the details, then that comes back to the staff. but if you're wanting to propose removal of the chimney, that would be a board item. That was my understanding of the discussion up to this point as well. I think I understand. Thank you all. Thank you. Next item on the docket this evening is for 441 West 2nd Street, Construct Deck and Stair Tower. The applicant has requested that that be postponed until the February 8th meeting. Can I get a motion for that effect? So moved. Those that are the record. So moved. Is there a second to the motion? Second. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, the motion passes. And this has been postponed to February 8th. The final item on our agenda this evening is conceptual review for 616 West Short Street, which includes extending the garage. Do you have anything to report on that, staff? Sure. Pass that. The conceptual? Yes, ma'am. She gave up. She would like to be on February the 8th, please. I hope she remembers that when she's here, if her should go past 647 in 21 seconds, I may give up myself. Anyhow, that's the final thing on the agenda this evening. I don't think there's a motion required for conceptual review. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, is there a motion required for that? There's no deadline for action, and she's withdrawn her attendance, so she'll come back around. An informal review. Right. You're good. That being said, and no new business that I'm aware of, I would certainly entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. A second, please. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to get started. You can't sit down. I'm going to find it a miracle. Everyone's dancing and troubles away. Oh, John, I want it. See how it breaks. Chambonite, set the mojab. Yeah, jambu, jambu. Wait to party, oh, wait, go. Oh, jambu, nah. Chambonite, set the mojab. Yeah, jambu, papa. Oh yeah, we're gonna have a party all night long All night long, all night long All night long, all night long All night long, all night long Everyone you meet They're jamming in the street All night long Yeah