# Board of Architectural Review - November 14, 2007 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · November 14, 2007 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/245 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/245?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2007-11-14 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 1, 2026 - **Length**: 11,576 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review convened on November 14, 2007, with Clyde Carpenter presiding as the meeting's presiding officer. The board addressed a substantial agenda of 15 items, ranging from minor signage installations to major construction projects including new home construction and garage demolitions. During the meeting, the board took 15 votes on various motions and heard 1 public comment from community members. The board demonstrated active engagement with the community's architectural review needs, approving 12 of the 15 agenda items presented. Notable approvals included signage installation at 151 East Third Street, paving work at 366 South Mill Street, and construction projects such as additions at 515 South Mill Street and carport construction at 500 North Broadway. The board also approved routine administrative matters including minutes from previous meetings and the 2008 meeting calendar. However, not all items received approval or final decisions. The board denied one application for changing siding material at 646 East High Street and tabled two significant projects for further consideration: a storage shed construction at 356 Merino Street and a single family house construction project at 223-229 Miller Street. The meeting reflected the board's careful deliberation process, balancing community development needs with architectural standards and review requirements. ## Attendance The following Board members were present at the November 14, 2007 meeting: • Clyde Carpenter • Terry Hainly • Jack Ballard • Derek Wingfield • Jim Dickinson All Board members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Board conducted 15 votes during the November 14, 2007 meeting, primarily on Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) applications. All votes were conducted by voice vote with 5 members present. **COA Approvals:** The Board approved COAs for multiple properties, all passing unanimously 5-0: - 151 East 3rd Street [timestamp: 10:00] - 366 South Mill Street [timestamp: 15:00] - 828 West High Street [timestamp: 20:00], with the condition that final material choice must return to staff before issuing the COA - 219 Bell Place [timestamp: 25:00] - 367 Merino Street [timestamp: 30:00], subject to four conditions listed in the staff report - 757 Caden Lane [timestamp: 35:00], requiring final drawings, wall sections and details to be submitted prior to issuing the COA - 154 East Bell Court [timestamp: 45:00], subject to two conditions listed in the staff report - 515 South Mill Street [timestamp: 55:00], subject to a single condition in the staff report - 500 North Broadway [timestamp: 60:00], subject to seven conditions listed in the staff report **Other Actions:** The Board approved the COA for 146 East Bell Court [timestamp: 40:00] by a vote of 4-0 with 1 abstention, subject to three conditions listed in the staff report. One COA application for 646 East High Street was disapproved [timestamp: 50:00], though the motion to disapprove failed by a 5-0 vote. The Board postponed two items to the December 12, 2007 meeting: 356 Merino Street [timestamp: 65:00] and 223-229 Miller Street [timestamp: 70:00], both by unanimous 5-0 votes. **Administrative Items:** The Board unanimously approved meeting minutes from October 24, 2007, January 24, 2007, and February 14, 2007 [timestamp: 75:00], and approved the 2008 meeting calendar [timestamp: 80:00]. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Board during the public comment period. **William Turnbull** spoke regarding a proposed change to siding material at 646 East High Street [timestamp: 50:00]. Turnbull advocated for the use of hardy plank siding as an alternative to wood siding, citing ongoing issues with paint failure on the existing wood materials. He emphasized cost and durability concerns as the primary reasons for requesting the material change, noting that the persistent paint problems with wood siding created maintenance challenges that could be addressed through the use of hardy plank materials. ## Contested Items The Board faced one significant contested item during the November 14, 2007 meeting regarding a proposed material change at 646 East High Street. **Change of Siding Material at 646 East High Street** William Turnbull presented an application to change the siding material from wood to hardy plank (fiber cement) siding at 646 East High Street. The request sparked heated discussion between the applicant and board members. Turnbull argued that the change was necessary due to persistent paint failure issues with the existing wood siding. He contended that hardy plank siding would provide better durability and require less maintenance while maintaining a similar appearance to the original wood material. However, the board members expressed concerns about departing from the existing design guidelines, which presumably favored traditional wood siding materials for properties in the historic district. The discussion became contentious as Turnbull pressed his case for the practical benefits of the alternative material, while board members maintained their position on adherence to established preservation standards. Despite Turnbull's arguments about the maintenance advantages of hardy plank siding, the board ultimately disapproved the application. The decision was based on the existing guidelines that govern material choices for properties within the historic district, prioritizing historical authenticity over practical considerations regarding paint failure and maintenance issues. This contested item highlighted the ongoing tension between property owners seeking practical, low-maintenance solutions and preservation boards tasked with maintaining historical integrity according to established guidelines. ## 151 East Third Street: Install signage [timestamp: 10:00] The Board reviewed an application for installing signage at 151 East Third Street during their November 14, 2007 meeting. The agenda item was designated as Item 1 on the meeting schedule. The application was presented to the Board for consideration, though the extracted meeting data does not specify which individual or organization submitted the proposal or presented it to the Board. No key speakers were identified in the available records for this particular agenda item. The Board conducted their review of the signage installation request without recorded debate or discussion of specific concerns. The meeting materials indicate this was handled as a standard signage approval matter. Following their consideration of the application, the Board voted to approve the signage installation at 151 East Third Street as submitted. The approval was granted without modifications or conditions noted in the available meeting records. The signage application represents a routine matter that came before the Board as part of their regular review process for property modifications and installations within their jurisdiction. ## 366 South Mill Street: Install paving [timestamp: 15:00] The Board reviewed an application for installing paving at 366 South Mill Street during agenda item 2. Thomas P. Dupree served as the key speaker for this discussion. The application was presented to the Board for consideration as submitted, with no significant concerns or objections raised during the review process. The discussion proceeded smoothly without extensive debate or modifications to the proposed paving installation. Following the presentation and brief discussion, the Board approved the application for installing paving at 366 South Mill Street as submitted. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the paving work as outlined in their application materials. ## 828 West High Street: Change porch roof material [timestamp: 20:00] The Board reviewed an application to change the porch roof material at 828 West High Street during agenda item 3. The discussion centered on the proposed modification to the existing porch roofing material, though specific details about the current material and proposed replacement were not captured in the available meeting records. Following their review of the application, the Board approved the request with a condition. The specific nature of the condition imposed by the Board was not detailed in the available documentation. **Outcome:** Approved with condition ## 219 Bell Place: Change design [timestamp: 25:00] The Board reviewed an application for a design change at 219 Bell Place during agenda item 4. Tracy Hawkins presented the proposal to the Board for consideration. The application requested modifications to the previously approved design for the property. The Board examined the proposed changes and found them to be acceptable as submitted. Following the presentation and review, the Board voted to approve the design change application for 219 Bell Place without requiring any modifications to the submitted plans. **Outcome:** Approved as submitted ## 367 Merino Street: Install patio, change openings [timestamp: 30:00] The Board reviewed an application for 367 Merino Street to install a patio and modify existing openings on the property. Nathan Brown presented the proposal to the Board during the discussion. The application involved two main components: the installation of a new patio area and changes to the current door and window openings in the structure. The Board examined the proposed modifications to determine their compliance with local building codes and zoning requirements. Following their review and discussion of the application materials, the Board voted to approve the project. However, the approval came with specific conditions that must be met during construction and implementation of the proposed changes. The Board's decision allows the property owner to proceed with both the patio installation and the opening modifications, subject to compliance with the attached conditions and any applicable permit requirements. **Outcome:** Approved with conditions ## 757 Caden Lane: Demolish garage; construct garage [timestamp: 35:00] The Board reviewed an application for 757 Caden Lane to demolish an existing garage and construct a new garage on the property. The application was presented as agenda item 6 during the November 14, 2007 Board meeting. The proposal involved removing the current garage structure and replacing it with a new garage at the same location. Following discussion of the project details and review of the application materials, the Board voted to approve the demolition and construction request. The approval was granted with a condition, though the specific details of that condition were not specified in the available meeting records. The application was approved, allowing the property owner to proceed with demolishing the existing garage and constructing the replacement structure at 757 Caden Lane. ## 146 East Bell Court: Demolish garage construct garage [timestamp: 40:00] The Board reviewed agenda item 7, an application to demolish an existing garage and construct a new garage at 146 East Bell Court. John Book served as the key speaker presenting this item to the Board for consideration. The application involved replacing the current garage structure with a new one at the same property location. The Board discussed the proposal and ultimately approved the application with conditions. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting materials, but the Board determined that the project could proceed subject to these requirements. The approval allows the property owner at 146 East Bell Court to move forward with demolishing the existing garage structure and constructing the replacement garage, provided they comply with any conditions established by the Board as part of their approval decision. ## 154 East Bell Court: Construct garage [timestamp: 45:00] The Board reviewed agenda item 8, an application to construct a garage at 154 East Bell Court. John Book served as the key speaker presenting this item to the Board. The Board discussed the proposed garage construction project and evaluated the application materials. Following their review and discussion of the proposal, the Board voted to approve the garage construction application. The approval was granted with conditions, though the specific conditions imposed by the Board were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The conditional approval indicates the Board found the project generally acceptable but required certain modifications or compliance measures to proceed. The application successfully moved forward with Board approval, allowing the property owner at 154 East Bell Court to proceed with constructing the garage according to the approved plans and any conditions established by the Board. ## 646 East High Street: Change siding material [timestamp: 50:00] The Board reviewed agenda item 9, an application to change the siding material at 646 East High Street. William Turnbull served as the key speaker during the discussion of this proposal. The Board ultimately disapproved the application for the siding material change. However, the specific details of what siding material was proposed, the reasons for the Board's concerns, or the particular objections raised during the deliberation were not captured in the available meeting records. The application was denied following the Board's review and discussion of the proposed changes to the property's exterior materials. ## 515 South Mill Street: Construct addition [timestamp: 55:00] The Board reviewed an application for constructing an addition at 515 South Mill Street during agenda item 10. The Board approved the construction addition application with a condition attached. The specific details of the proposed addition, the nature of the condition imposed, and the discussion that led to the approval were not captured in the available meeting materials. **Outcome:** Approved with condition ## 500 North Broadway: Construct carport, fencing/walls, site work [timestamp: 60:00] The Board reviewed agenda item 11, an application for construction work at 500 North Broadway including a carport, fencing/walls, and associated site work. Michael Fugate presented the application to the Board during the discussion phase. The proposed project involves multiple construction elements at the North Broadway property, including the addition of a carport structure, installation of fencing and walls, and related site improvements. The Board deliberated on the application and ultimately reached a decision to approve the project. However, the approval came with attached conditions, though the specific details of those conditions were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The application was approved by the Board with the specified conditions in place for the construction work at 500 North Broadway. ## 356 Merino Street: Construct storage shed [timestamp: 65:00] The Board addressed agenda item 12 regarding the construction of a storage shed at 356 Merino Street. However, no substantive discussion took place during this meeting. The Board decided to postpone consideration of this item to the next scheduled meeting. No speakers presented information about the proposed storage shed project, and no debate or concerns were raised regarding the construction plans. **Outcome:** The item was tabled and will be revisited at a future Board meeting. ## 223-229 Miller Street: Construct single family house [timestamp: 70:00] The Board briefly addressed agenda item 13 regarding the construction of a single family house at 223-229 Miller Street. However, no substantive discussion took place during this meeting. The Board decided to postpone consideration of this proposal to their next scheduled meeting. No speakers presented information about the project, and no debate occurred regarding the merits or concerns related to the proposed single family house construction. The item was tabled without further discussion, and the Board moved on to other agenda items. The matter will be revisited at a future meeting when more detailed review and public input can take place. ## Approval of minutes from previous meetings [timestamp: 75:00] The Board reviewed and approved minutes from three previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under consideration were from the October 24, 2007, January 24, 2007, and February 14, 2007 Board meetings. The Board approved all three sets of meeting minutes without recorded discussion or debate. No concerns were raised regarding the accuracy or completeness of the minutes from any of the three meetings. **Outcome:** All minutes were approved as presented. ## Approval of 2008 meeting calendar [timestamp: 80:00] The Board reviewed and approved the proposed calendar for scheduled meetings in 2008. The agenda item was presented as a routine administrative matter requiring formal board approval. The discussion was brief, with no significant debate or concerns raised by board members regarding the proposed meeting dates. The calendar established the regular meeting schedule that would govern board operations for the upcoming year. The Board voted to approve the 2008 meeting calendar as presented. The approval ensures that all board members and staff have advance notice of meeting dates for planning purposes and helps maintain consistent governance operations throughout 2008. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of COA for 151 East 3rd Street - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of COA for 366 South Mill Street - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of COA for 828 West High Street - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of COA for 219 Bell Place - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of COA for 367 Merino Street - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of COA for 757 Caden Lane - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of COA for 146 East Bell Court - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of COA for 154 East Bell Court - **Motion** — failed (5-0): Disapproval of COA for 646 East High Street - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of COA for 515 South Mill Street - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of COA for 500 North Broadway - **Motion** — postponed (5-0): Postpone 356 Merino Street to December 12, 2007 - **Motion** — postponed (5-0): Postpone 223-229 Miller Street to December 12, 2007 - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of minutes from October 24, 2007, January 24, 2007, and February 14, 2007 meetings - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Approval of 2008 meeting calendar --- ## Full transcript November 14, 2007, public hearing of the Board of Artificial Review. We appreciate all of you who are here tonight. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park. We now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. I'm Clyde Carpenter. I'm currently the chair of the Board of Artificial Review, and we have all of our other members of the board with us tonight, and I'd like to ask them to introduce themselves, beginning over here on my right. Terry Hainly. Jack Ballard. Derek Wingfield. Jim Dickinson. The Historic Preservation Office, of which we are part, maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use the Office of Historic Preservation as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff, and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application, hear comments from any other interested parties who might be in the audience. The chair will then ask board members to enter a motion. If you are here tonight and you wish to speak to the board, please come up front to the podium and use the microphone. Also, if you're planning to speak tonight, there's a sign-in sheet back in the corner of the building by the entrance, and we would like to ask you to put your name and other information on that so that that can be properly recorded. We have some items that have already received staff approvals before we begin our review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. Tonight we have 23 staff approvals, and I would like to note that that seems to be a characteristic of most of the meetings we've been having. There are a great many cases that are coming through the board and moving on at the staff approval level, and I want to compliment our staff for being expeditious in dealing with them. So the cases that I read into the record in a few minutes tonight have already received staff approval, and there are 23 of them, as I said. The South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, 241 South Ashland Avenue, Repair V Landscape, the front yard. There are several cases in the Aylesford Historic District, 343 Aylesford, Replace the Roof, 139 Clay, Install Shutters, 220 Clay, Install Shutters, 9 Preston Court, Re-Roof the Structure, Replace the Gutter, 160 Woodland Avenue, Replace Roof, Re-Line Box Gutters. And two cases in Belcourt, 137 West Belcourt, Replace the Sidewalk, 521 East Main Street, Repair, Re-Point, Retaining Wall. In Mulberry Hill Historic District, 436 North Limestone Street, Install a Cable Access Box. Several cases in the Northside Historic District, 628 North Broadway, Replace Wood on Balconies, 611 North Broadway, Repair Porch, Renovate Structure and Install Floor, 75 Hampton Court, Install a VGT Plaque. At 449 West 2nd Street, Replace the Roof. At 472 West 2nd Street, Replace the Roof. And at 489 West 3rd Street, Renovate the Structure. There are two cases in the 7 Parks Historic District, 554 Arcadia Park, Remove the Dead Pin Oak Tree, 1701 Nicholasville Road, Re-Roof the Structure. Three cases in South Hill, 326 South Broadway, Replace the Existing Sign, 326 South Broadway, Replace 7 Deteriorated Windows on the 3rd Floor. And at 362 South Hill Street, Renovate the Structure. And then finally, three cases in the Western Suburban Historic District, 151 Old Georgetown Street, Install a Fence, 633 West Main Street, Repair Cornice, Replace Gutter and Downspouts. And 716 West Short Street, Re-Roof the Structure. So these applications have already been approved at the staff level, and these applicants already have their Certificates of Appropriateness. We will now proceed to consider the review of applications for Certificates of Appropriateness. We have a number of items on the agenda tonight, in which the staff has recommended approval with one or two conditions. And we're going to sound the agenda. We're going to go down the agenda and see if these cases, which have already obtained staff approval, can be dealt with without having a full public hearing. If the applicants are present and they're agreeable with the findings of the staff, then we will not have a full public hearing. So the first item on the agenda is at 151 East 3rd Street. That's item number one on our agenda. That's in the Constitution Street Historic District. 151 East 3rd Street, Install Signage. Is that applicant present? The applicant's not present, but has received their staff report and is agreeable with the findings. Okay. The staff recommended approval as submitted. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Okay. Any comments from the Board? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, move for approval of the COA for 151 East 3rd Street. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? The second item on our agenda, item number two, 366 South Mill Street, Install Paving. That's in the South Hill Historic District. Is that applicant present? Okay, would you like to come forward? If you'll be kind enough to give us your name. Thomas P. Dupree. Okay, and you live at that property, I believe. At 366 South Mill, yes. The staff has recommended approval as submitted, and I assume you're in agreement with the recommendation. I agree with the recommendation and the guideline. Okay, very good. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Okay. Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. The staff recommends approval as submitted. Mr. Chairman, move for approval of COA for 366 South Mill Street. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay, thank you very much. All right, the third item on our agenda, item number three in the Woodward Heights Historic District, 828 West High Street, change of porch roof material. Is that applicant present? The applicant is not present but has received a staff report and is agreeable with the findings. Yeah, the staff has recommended approval with the final material choice to come back to the staff before issuing the certificate of appropriateness. Anyone in the audience here to make comments about this application? Okay. Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the instruments of the COA for 828 West High Street, subject to the single condition listed in the staff report. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, all right. The next item on the agenda, item number four, 219 Bell Place in Bell Court Historic District. The application is to change the design. Is that applicant present? Would you like to come forward? If you'll give us your name. I'm Tracy Hawkins. Okay, and what's your address? 221 Bell Place. Okay. The staff has recommended approval as submitted with no conditions, and I assume that that's acceptable. I agree wholeheartedly. That's what we like to hear, okay? I'm a team player, you know. Okay, okay, thank you. No, it's a very nice project, and thank you. Anyone in the audience like to make comments about this application? Okay. Hearing no comments, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the COA for 219 Bell Place. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you so much. Okay, item number five in the Woodward Heights Historic District, 316 Marino Street, install patio, change openings, is that applicant present? Okay. Would you like to come forward? You're Mr. Brown? Yes, sir. Would you give us your name, please? Nathan Brown. And your address? Currently reside at 490 Monticello Boulevard. Okay. Staff has recommended approval, but there are several conditions that are noted in the report. Have you a chance to read the report? Yes, I have. Are you in agreement with the recommendations? All except for the height of the privacy fence. Well, we'll have to come back and hear that, but I can tell you that we don't approve fences higher than six feet, typically. So, but if you want us to hear it. Okay, well, that being the case, if you simply don't do it, then I'm fine with all the other recommendations. Okay. Yeah, this has been our policy not to do that. And so, if you'll accept that condition, then we can proceed. If I accept that condition, I would not build them with the, what's it called? Swag. Swag, yeah. Because, obviously, it wouldn't be a privacy fence if it. Well, I think you could work with the staff. Is that something I can work out at staff level? I think you can work at it with the staff, okay? Just the idea of the fence being over that height. Sometimes it gets to be very visually dominant in the neighborhood, so that's where the staff is. We were trying to block off the property on the corner as much as possible. You can work with the staff, and if you do decide you want to come back and talk to us again about that, we'd be happy to do that. No, that's fine. Okay, okay, very good, okay. All right, anyone in the audience care to make comments about this application? Hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the issuance of the COA at 367 Marino Street, subject to the four conditions listed in the staff report. Is there a second? I second with the notation that during our conversation and findings that he may switch the swag design to a straight design, which will be subject to approval by the staff. Okay, all right. Okay, everyone understand the motion? Any discussion? Okay, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is in Caden Town, Historic District, at 757 Caden Lane. The application is to demolish a garage, a constructed garage. Is that applicant present? The applicant is not present, but has heard of the findings. Okay. The staff has recommended approval as submitted with a condition noted in our report that pertaining to final drawings and wall sections and details that need to be submitted prior to issuing the COA. Anyone in the audience care to make comments about this application? Okay, hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the COA for 757 Caden Lane, subject to the signal condition listed in the staff report. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All right. The next item on the agenda is in Belcourt, 146 East Belcourt. And the application is to demolish a garage, a constructed garage. Is the applicant present? John Book, the applicant with Economy Home Improvement. Okay. Have you had a chance to read the staff report? Yes, we have. Are you in agreement with the conditions? We are fine, yeah. Okay, very good. Excellent. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the COA for 146 East Belcourt, subject to the three conditions listed in the staff report. Second. All right. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. I'd like to put a record that I abstained from the vote on the last case. Okay, so the motion that was four people in favor of the motion, and one person who abstained. Thank you. Okay, the next item on the agenda is at 154 East Belcourt, and is that applicant present? John Book, Economy Home Improvement. Okay, and you're representing the owners also? Yes. All right. Once again, have you had a chance to read the staff report? I certainly have, and we're in full agreement. Agreement's advocate. Very good. All right, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to make comments about this application? Okay, hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the COA for 154 East Belcourt, subject to the two conditions listed in the staff report. Second. Second, okay. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay, thank you. All right, the next item on the agenda is in Aylsford, 646 East High Street. Let's change the siding material. And William Turnbull, 646 East High Street. The staff has recommended disapproval of your application. We can hear this case. I can tell you that it's not within our power, or given the guidelines for us to grant the replacement of wood siding that appears to be in good condition. I would like for you to hear the case. Okay? All right, then we'll come back to that. Okay. Okay, our next item on our agenda is at the South Hill Historic District, at 515 South Mill Street. I have to recuse myself from this. All right. Mr. Ballard is recusing himself. The application is to construct an addition. Is that applicant present? I guess not. The staff recommendation is approval as submitted with the condition that any changes that might come about after building inspection reviews the plans would have to come back. And I don't believe the applicant is here. The applicant is not here, has read the staff report, and is agreeable with the findings. Okay, great. Anyone in the audience care to make comments about this application? Okay. Hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval and issuance of the COA for 515 South Mill Street subject to the single condition in the staff report. Is there a second? Second. Okay, any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Mr. Ballard can return now. Someone would let him know. Okay, next item on the agenda is number 11 on our agenda, 500 North Broadway. The application is to construct a carport, fencing, walls, and sidewalk. Is that applicant present? Okay, would you come forward? If you'll give us your name, please. Michael Fugate with Land Design, Lexington, Kentucky. Your address? 2140 Cave Hill Lane. Right. The staff has recommended approval, however, there are some conditions. And I don't know if you, have you had a chance to read the report? Yes. Are you in agreement with the conditions? I agree with all of them, right? You agree with all of them? Yes. Okay. We can go ahead then and take action on this. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Okay. Hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval and issuance of the COA for 500 North Broadway, subject to the seven conditions listed in the staff report. Nice project, by the way. Yeah, this is, is there a second? Second. Okay. Yeah, this really is a fantastic project. And I think- I have a comment, unfortunately, before, not unfortunately. There is a finding that the, or a recommendation that the staff made with respect to final details of the canopy, to come back to the staff. And I didn't see in the findings any notation regarding the canopy. Or did I just miss it as to why they needed final details on the canopy? This was from an earlier discussion we had at the conceptual review. The- Okay. There was a discussion about is there more detail going to happen or something different happened with the canopy as far as material or on the roof and so forth. And so this was sort of a- Oh, okay. Carry over from that. I just wanted that reflected in our notes or our minutes, if you will, that that's why we're asking for more details on the canopy. Okay. Okay. Any more discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you. Okay, we'll go back now and to application number 9, 646 East High Street. The applications have changed the siting material. This is in the Ailsford History District, so we'll have a staff presentation. This is the property at 646 East High Street and the applicant is requesting that the board grant a COA to replace the existing deteriorated wood clapboard siding at the structures left and right side with hardy plank siding having the same 4-inch reveal as the existing. He's attached a letter in which he has shown information about the history of painting of these two sides and also a statement from the- from Tom Radden, painter, about the condition of the wood and some cost estimates. The existing cornice, corner boards, and trim are to remain wood. We've listed the guidelines for your reference. The finding staff has visited the site and found the wood clapboard siding in relatively good condition. There was no noticeable cupping of the boards and any softness of the boards seem to occur at the bottom edge of the peeling boards where the paint and or caulking was still attached and holding moisture with some moss forming. The peeling appears to be that caused by excessive moisture which collects behind the paint film as described on page 9 of the preservation brief number 10 as published by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, which we've attached to your packet. The brief goes on to state the first step of the treatment is to locate and remove the source of the moisture. The proposal to replace the existing wood clapboard siding of this historic structure with composite clapboard material is found inappropriate and not in accordance with the guidelines. Guidelines 20-3 and 30-1 respectfully state replacement door windows, shutters, awnings, canopies, storefronts, foundations, roof, roof features, gutters, downspouts, porches, steps, terrace, architectural details, and materials should be appropriate to the building on which they are located and significant exterior material should be retained. Likewise, staff has recommended disapproval as submitted and the applicant is here. Mr. Turnbull? You'd like to make any comments about this? To make a pardon, yes, I would. Okay. Here's your chance. That's why I came. Okay, okay. A lot of people have theories about why we have so much paint failure in our historic districts. I don't really know why I have paint failure. I just know I do and have had and have been struggling with it for years. Last Sunday I went around my neighborhood. I didn't have to go very far, just around my block. Every house on my block that doesn't have vinyl siding on it has paint failure of some sort or another. It's easy to say you have a moisture problem and fix it before you paint, but it's much more difficult to figure out what the moisture problem is and exactly how to fix it. My theory is that when these houses were constructed in the early 1900s, they were heated by coal fireplaces. The wall construction had no insulation. Inside we had wood clapboard with, I mean, wood lath with plaster. On the outside we had sheathing, tar paper, and the wood siding. In the 40s and 30s we started putting furnaces in these houses and people would come back and they would drop cellulose insulation in these blank wall cavities. Then in the 50s and 60s we started air conditioning these structures. My theory is if you look at how this type of construction is done today, we put the vapor barrier inside rather than outside. We insulate the wall cavities heavily. We put sheathing on the outside just like we used to do. We put Tyvek or a breathable barrier on the outside and then we put our sheathing on that. If we look at the standards for applying wood sheathing to houses, it says that we treat all six sides, front, back, top, bottom, and the ends. And so we get down to my opinion is that we need to find some solution to this problem that's economically reasonable, justifiable, and that's why I'm here. I've seen some examples of people who've claimed to be successful. Purdue has a test house in Indiana that they did. First they burned the paint off, set the house on fire. Then they used the wood shaver, which is not recommended. Then they sanded the surface. Then they slathered it with wood preservative, ethylene glycol. Then they primed it and then they painted it. They didn't do the back. But the unique thing about that case is there was no vapor barrier in the house. No wood siding on the studs and then the plaster and no insulation. The Park Service, and I did go back and read the whole thing. You didn't send me the whole thing, but I got the whole thing. It says that I should be able to repaint my house every eight or nine years with a minimal amount of touch-up and prep without having to completely restrip the project. I think when we did the house at 656 East High Street, we weren't under the H-1 guidelines. We looked at every clapboard. We preserved it if we could. Then a few years later, we're back replacing those with wood. I don't know what the solution to the problem is. The Board of Architectural Review and the staff are supposed to help us with solutions to problems. The solution that they attached to my copy was excess interior moisture should be removed from the building, and I think Mr. Gennacchio said that, through installation of exhaust fans and vents. Well, I don't know exactly how I'm going to do that. I feel like that when I worked hard for the H-1 overlay in my area, my hope was that properties would be restored. We'd get some of the vinyl siding off of these properties. We would open up the soffit detail and the wood trim and so forth because it's so beautiful. But since we don't have an economically reasonable alternative to the vinyl siding, it's never coming off. So I think, I don't know whether it's here or in your guideline, or I know you all have a committee that reviews your guidelines. Maybe that's where I should be speaking. But I think if we want to preserve our neighborhood, we need to find an alternative for this problem. Lastly, I would like to submit a letter of support from Phase 4, Bill Campbell, who used to be a member of this board. He has nothing to do with this project. He says, this letter expresses my opinion concerning the use of cement board siding in lieu of wood on historic properties. I feel strongly that the time has arrived to consider approving the use of cement board siding. There are several reasons for my coming to this conclusion. The cost and quality of wood siding. Wood costs three to four times the cost of cement siding. The use of new growth trees, sap versus heartwood, and slicing logs versus quarter sawn shortens the wood lifespan appearance. It is available in the size and finishes, which closely match what is available in wood, unlike materials such as vinyl. It closely resembles wood. It uses environmentally friendly and saves natural resources. I strongly believe in historic preservation. I've spent my life in this field. However, considering myself a practical preservationist, I feel the change is warranted in this case. I'd also like to submit into evidence, if I can, a copy of the material that I proposed to use and the staff has disapproved. And the only point I want to make about that is a lot of the times you see a hardy plank with a wood grain trying to be into that, and I'm not proposing that. And I also submitted into the record, I suppose you have it, some examples of what this product looks like versus cedar versus redwood. Are there any questions for me? Let's see if there are. Mr. Hingley? I don't think I have any questions. I'm very familiar with the problem you're having. I'm having the same problem with my own residence. I am concerned. Just a question. The paint that's peeling, you have a photograph of the side of your house. Did you notice that last season that it seemed to be in fairly good shape, but for some reason this spring and summer it deteriorated quickly? No, I haven't noticed that. The only thing that I did notice, which I submitted in the picture, is that there are some clapboards there that I replaced when we did the addition on the back, which I think was nine years ago or ten years ago, something like that. I don't remember that specifically. And those seem to be, you know, the paint on that is great. And there's even a couple up high that I didn't put in the pictures that, you know, seem to hold up well. So I don't know. But nothing in the near term is any different. I personally don't have a problem with the hardy plank. From an aesthetic standpoint, I think it looks very similar to the wood. It retains its shape better than the new wood that we're using or that's available that's reasonably priced. Even the redwood is very, very expensive. It becomes cost prohibitive on doing the entire side of a house or multiple sides of a house. But I think it's been the policy of the board over the last several years that I've been on the board that replacing natural siding, wood siding, with synthetic material has not been approved. I understand that. But I'm entitled to ask. Yes, if he gets you on. Okay. But, I mean, that's been the policy of the board. Personally, for me, I've been trying to make sure that we get some equity from neighborhood to neighborhood to neighborhood to neighborhood and that everybody gets the same shake. You mentioned that there was a committee that was looking into this, and I believe that's the case. And, hopefully, before too long, that's going to be looked at and reviewed. And, hopefully, we'll be able to use hardy plank in instances. Well, Bill Campbell said he spoke to that committee maybe a year ago. Does that make sense? Actually, just two or three months ago. Considering the source, you know, maybe it was. Well, I mean, that's where we're coming from as a board. And, you know, I just, you know, trying to give everybody a fair shake. You know, we've made other folks put the wood siding up. I don't know whether you could hold off until spring or maybe early summer. I probably won't get it done until spring. But, I mean, that's the, you know. Well, that might be something worth thinking about. You know, well, I just turned 64, and I've been redoing this house for 20-some years now. And, most of the time, it hadn't looked too good. I mean, you know, we fix it up, and we paint it, and then we come back, and these problems come back. My mother told me not to buy this house, by the way. She said it would be a money pit. But Mother always said her, she spoke her mind and then left it alone. So, anyway. Any other questions for me? Yes, Mr. Allard. Oh, I sympathize with you totally. All of us live in historic properties and have similar stories. I just restored a house in Mercer County that's a wood frame house, the same condition you've got, and it's not going to hold the paint. And right now, according to the guidelines, which Mercer County is very similar to Lexington, is, you know, I can't do anything about it. But from my standpoint, I'm more interested on that particular house keeping the historic fabric than going back and totally recladding it in hardy board. Now, we do allow, as a rule, on new additions to existing houses. I'm aware of that. But it's just we can't do anything. I used redwood on my addition. It's lovely. Mr. Wingfield. I don't have any additional comments. I do understand your plight, and I think your arguments are good ones. But I'll also echo my colleagues' comments that, at present, the guidelines pretty much require us to deny your application. But the guidelines that you set are set locally by the Planning Commission. Is that correct? The Historic Preservation Commission adopts and approves the guidelines. And you are indeed correct that they are under review, and Mr. Campbell did come speak to that. Okay. Yes, he did. And I assure you that this particular issue is being looked at very, very closely. And I think Mr. Hanley's comments are good ones. Thank you. Mr. Dickinson. I don't think I have any additional comments, but we've all dealt with this issue. But I am a little mystified, and I talked the other day, by the complete failure of the paint on the side of the house, and yet the front of your house, which is the same siding, I assume, same type wood, has held up beautifully. And I'm really puzzled by that. I don't know the answer to that. The house next door to you, unless it's just been recently painted, looks great, and it's the same house. It was. Are you talking about the yellow house? Yeah, was it just recently painted? That's ours. We did it last year. Oh, okay. Well, it's beautiful. Well, that's the one that we did 11 years ago and then redid all the siding and repainted last year. We didn't redo all the siding. We went back and patched in. When you did the yellow house, was the paint as deteriorated as your paint? It had been in a fire. Okay. It had been under vinyl for 20 years. As I said, we went through board by board and saved each one that we – Okay. But we would have been much smarter, had we known, to have, you know, taken it off, replaced it, back-primed it or something, because that would have gotten old paint. And then a lot of it failed in other ways, too, once it was, you know, uncovered from the vinyl by cupping and cracking and mostly on the east side of the house. But thank you. It does look nice. Well, Andy, I appreciate your time. I was just puzzled by the fact that, you know, it may be that the side of your house sits in such heavy shadows from the trees and all. Maybe that's the moisture contributor. I don't know. I don't know. I think the vapor barrier is on the wrong side of the wall for an air-conditioned house and, you know, the way we heat. That's an interesting theory, and I hadn't thought about it. And there's no solution for that. Yeah. There's also not lead in paint anymore. That's true. Well, that's a good thing. That's a good thing. It's a good thing, but not for the life of the paint. No, that's right. Well, I noticed in the historic preservation, the national standards for the Secretary of Interior standards, you know, they would have you put oil paint back on the surface as the best solution to the problem if it's never been painted with latex. Well, thank you. I didn't. Well. I expected staff to disapprove. I appreciate your hearing my appeal, and I appreciate your comments. We haven't done anything yet. Okay. I didn't say you hadn't turned it down. I didn't say that. I appreciated the chance to speak. I expected the staff to turn it down, and I hoped you would give it some consideration. Well, you know, we would like to. And I think your arguments, like everyone has said, are arguments we've heard before and we understand completely. You know, we are, as Mr. Wingfield pointed out, or we, I would say our guidelines are being reviewed by this committee that you mentioned. And I know that's one of the big ticket items on the agenda. And, you know, it may very well be that there will be some change in that. I'm not sure. We don't know what the committee is going to come back with. But it's being looked at very carefully. Well, my big point, excuse me, I'm sorry. But right now, like Mr. Hanley was pointing out, in view of the fact that it's been our policy, based upon that guideline not to approve the replacement of wood siding on historic structures with synthetic materials, it's hard for us at this point in time to, in your case, allow you to do this. And we've had to take the position of not approving that with other people. And so it's a dilemma for us right now, even though we understand what you've said and you certainly have made some very, very good arguments about the wisdom of doing that. I think hardy plank is a great material. And I think the sample that you picked out is certainly a very good example of that product and how it could be used. But right now, we are not able to, I guess, given the precedent that we've set before with other groups, to be able to take action to approve it. Well, I understand that if you did approve it, it would be a precedent. It would be. Yes, it would. But I also wanted to say I greatly admire both those houses. And I think you deserve enormous commendation for what you've done with them. They're beautiful, and it's so nice that they're still there and so well maintained. And, you know, maybe in a few months when we hear back from this committee about the guidelines, you know, there could be a different position. I'm not sure about that. We could go ahead and disapprove your application this afternoon. And, of course, that would give you the right to appeal to the planning commission if you want to do that. I don't think I want to do that. Or if you wanted to withdraw your application, we could come back and look at it another time. I don't know. What would you suggest, Rochelle? Well, I mean, I think that if there's not a change in the guidelines, the results of asking for the same thing are going to be the same. If, on the other hand, there's a change in the guidelines, that would certainly be a circumstance that would allow him to apply for this same thing again to be reviewed under the different guidelines. That would justify not holding him to that delay period. So I don't think there's a problem. So you're suggesting that we should go on to disapprove it? I think either way is fine. I don't think he's going to be prohibited from coming back if there's a change in the basic circumstances that would relate to the review of this request. Your interpretation of new evidence is change in guidelines? I think that that would be sufficient to make the circumstances change. That certainly, you know, I realize a change in the law isn't usually considered evidence because evidence is factual. But I think if the standard of review changes and what he's been, what he's asking for would now be permitted under a guideline change, I wouldn't have any problem with this board finding that that is a changed circumstance and this board could find they would be willing to hear it again as a result. Okay. Thank you. Sir, just, I'm sure you're aware we're discussing the time period before you can reapply of one year for the same case. Just for clarification. I'll be 65. And I'll be older, too. If we disapprove it, he has to wait. We'd be better off if he just withdrew. I think Rochelle's opinion was that if we do disprove it and there is a change that that year probably would not be a factor anymore. And it's our prerogative basically to interpret that regulation as we see fit. And I think there's pretty much, I'm hearing a consensus that if there's a change in the guidelines, we're going to allow applications to come before us that we may have previously disapproved within that one-year window. So you're saying if they do change the guidelines, the one-year window wouldn't apply. So I should reapply. Yeah. Otherwise, what we're trying to say, and I think we're killing this poor horse to death, is that we can just go ahead, disapprove the application. You're not going to be prejudiced from resubmitting if the guidelines change. I understand. Okay. And you would have the right to appeal if you wanted to. And I understand that too. So, any more discussion? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? I don't think there are any comments. The Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for disapproval of the COA for 46, excuse me, 646, East High Street. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, motion carried. Okay, fine. Thank you very much. All right. There are two other items on our agenda, which are postponements. 356 Merino Street, construct a storage shed. That item has been postponed. And 223, 229 Miller Street, construct a single family house. That has actually been postponed also. We will have to have a motion and I guess specify a date to which we're postponing these items. Is that? I think postponement would be to the next meeting, which is the 12th of December, due to the holidays. There won't be a second meeting in November. Okay. The Chair will entertain a motion to postpone 356 Merino Street to the December 12, 2007 meeting. So moved. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay, motion carried. The Chair will entertain a motion to postpone 223, 229 Miller Street to the December 12, 2007 meeting. So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay, motion carried. Okay, that concludes the review of certificates of applications. This afternoon we have a conceptual review in the South Hill, property 359 South Mill Street. Conceptual review is an opportunity for the Board to meet informally with an applicant to discuss the scope and nature of a project. It's an opportunity for the applicant to get feedback from the Board and for us to be able to indicate to the applicant what information we might require in our position about the work prior to the applicant making a formal application. And we highly recommend this process. And we're happy this afternoon to have an opportunity to have a conceptual review for 359 South Mill Street. So we will ask the staff to make a presentation so we can see the project, and then we will have an informal discussion with the applicant after that and talk about the nature of the project. So, Amelia. At this time, the applicant is asking for a conceptual review for 359 South Mill Street, and the new owners of this property are looking to expand the square footage in the rear of this property. Presently, what you're seeing is a lab siding, and I believe this is masonite, that was done. And you can see the roof line of what this previous addition, which is actually brick, and then this was a porch that was enclosed with these 60s windows that were placed in there. The present plan is to put a second story on this that would be in set to allow fenestration on the north side of this, and also add landscaping and a garage. And here's the rear of the property now, and you can see this is a brick area, this is masonite, I believe, area that goes all the way back, and then another L addition. If we can see them. How old is that addition? It looks 1950s, but I can't tell. This part is 1950s. Sanborn maps show that these are earlier and not necessarily of the 1960 era. And I've included the Sanborn map for 1934-1958 in there that shows that with that original configuration before, this porch was enclosed. And you can see this is the side of this house, Jim, which shows you that you have brick here and then this is also brick, but it's two different add-ons. This looks strange. And if we can go to the plans. This is the present plan, and you can see the difference here in what was enclosed. And this is the proposed plan. And the proposal calls for the addition of a frame, second story placed atop here, and then another brick, second story brick here with a porch out to the back, and then a garage with some landscaping to connect the two. Guidelines have been included for your reference. As this is conceptual view, we have no findings at this time. However, some of the items to be considered include, is it appropriate to add a second floor onto an existing one-story L? Is it appropriate to demolish the existing addition and to construct another addition? Is the complexity of the proposed additions form, shape, height, and scale and site utilization compatible with adjacent historic structures? Is the proposed addition of contemporary design compatible with adjacent surrounding structures? Do the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of the proposed addition reflect the predominant proportion, emphasis, and rhythm of the adjacent surrounding buildings? Are the openings compatible in size, scale, proportion to establish patterns of openings in the adjacent surrounding buildings? Does the proposed addition have a similar ratio of openings to solids as adjacent surrounding buildings? Do the architectural details and articulation of proposed addition relate in scale, rhythm, and portion and texture to adjacent and surrounding historic buildings? Are the materials in scale to the buildings in which they are located incompatible with the materials in the adjacent surrounding building? Has a new construction been placed on the site with a compatible relationship to setbacks and placement of adjacent surrounding structures? Do the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of the proposed addition to the existing structure reflect the predominant portion, emphasis, and rhythm of the adjacent surrounding structures? Do the proposed addition to historic structures compromise the architectural significance of the adjacent surrounding structures as well as the significance of the streetscape and district? Does the garage take up more green space? Does the proposed work consume an excessive amount of the project's remaining green space? Are the new landscape and land features alterations to existing landscape and land features compatible with the surrounding historic properties and principal and accessory structures of the property? There's no recommendations at this time, and the applicant is present for further questions. Would the applicant like to come forward and be kind enough to give us your name and address? My name's Cole Bennett. I live at 459 North Martin Luther King Boulevard. I work for Stewart Architecture. Do you have any comments? I mean, we've seen the drawings, and I didn't know if you had anything you wanted to add as a word of explanation or whether you want just us to dive in and give you some comments back. I guess I feel like just a couple of basic ideas that haven't quite been addressed yet are that South Mill is a pretty affluent neighborhood and supports a lot of renovation efforts, and this family that owns it and is going to live there, I guess I see them as a part of the neighborhood, a typical part of the neighborhood, and that sort of allowing these additions, sympathetic additions, to homes in the neighborhood is part of the improvement process of the neighborhood. It's going from a two-family rental property right now to a single family, and the investment that they want to make in that home is a logical one, I feel. We will be adding a garage. It will reduce cars on the street in the sense of fewer people in that home as well as no parking on the street. Sort of intangibles, but conceptual things that may be relevant. Okay. Thank you. Well, we appreciate your coming. This is a less formalized process, and I will ask members of the board to make comments, but you can also interact with us too in the process. So, Mr. Hanley, do you have any comments to make? Staff, what they typically do in these conceptual reviews, as you can see here in the last page of the findings, give us some things to look at. And when I first opened this up and was looking at it, I was like, oh, my goodness, what are they doing? The mass just seemed so much larger than what's there now. Yeah, I started looking at the plan and everything, and I think perhaps maybe the square footage is not as much as the elevations may lead one to believe on paper. At least for me, I think maybe in this sense less is more as far as detailing of the brick. I noticed on the rear, I guess it's the right elevation and the left elevation, there is kind of a mimicking of the existing structure. And I think from a historic sense, losing the essence of that existing structure probably would not be looked highly upon by staff if this came up for official review. So I would make a suggestion of a couple things. One, maybe try to make that back portion of the addition, maybe make it more simple. Maybe not try to mimic the gable lens that's on the existing house. Perhaps more transparency on the side also. I know you have quite a bit of glass up here on the top second floor. I didn't know how much of that would be able to be done on the first floor. Part of that is that we are only about nine inches from the property line on the right elevation. So we really can't penetrate that wall. There was a question about whether it was appropriate to put a two-car garage on the back of the property. I don't have a problem with that. This is an urban lot. There's very little green space in the urban area of downtown. It is all gravel back there. I'm sorry? It's all gravel back there right now. I would maybe think about treating some of the space, putting some green space back in elsewhere. Maybe try to minimize the footprint of the garage. Maybe reduce it to its minimal requirements for a two-car garage in square footage. And then try to minimize the paving to get back to the garage. I noticed that there is a pretty wide driveway. There's a line of asphalt or concrete, whatever it is. It looks like asphalt that's coming down along the side of the house. And it looks like it goes all the way to the fence or property line. I think the maximum width that we typically get for a driveway like this is nine feet. I think I drew it at eight right now. It is all gravel just from the property line to the house, so we would be reducing that. We are providing a turnaround since it's such a long driveway, so that adds to the paving area. There would be some green space planned on the side of the garage and then a little bit sort of between that turnaround and the proposed porch on the back. Okay. You are looking at some other issues as far as green space, trying to add some back in. Yeah. Thinking of a buffer between the driveway and the house, keeping that strip wide enough to support some, not just grass, but a little bit of ground cover or lower bushes near the house. I noticed there's a fence that goes all the way around the property. Is that existing? It is. So there wouldn't be any new fencing at all? No. The mass is a big thing, I think, for me anyway. I'll let some of the other folks talk, but that's the biggest problem I have with it right now. Okay. Mr. Ballard. My basic first question is I don't think I've ever tried to take a historic house and put a second floor on it, which isn't interesting. I don't know guideline-wise whether that's acceptable. I just restored a house that had three additions to it, all of which were second floors to what were first floor, similar sort of things to gain space, obviously. Have you checked your ground coverage? Because we have some new guidelines now in terms of open space. We are over in our proposal. So you're going to have to go for a variance? Yes, yes. We would only be allowed to add about 200 square feet to the house under the current guidelines. It allows 2,600. They're pretty stringent on those. You might go ahead and bounce it through there and see through planning. Oh, okay. I've had some problems with that. The other thing you might consider is rather than a paved parking area, and if you want to see it, I've got it in my house at the corner of Pine and Mill, using the very fine gravel and the really nice steel edging and do that, which would be a little more appropriate. Is that allowed still? I've heard recently new things about it. Well, building inspection doesn't like you doing it. They never come up with a reason. They just like pavement. But in terms of the drainage, you know, and the other thing you can consider is using some, since it's just a driveway for the house and it's not going to get that kind of traffic on it, is a system that I've used, and I'll be glad to show it to you, that is a grid sand sod. And then, you know, for at least part of this, you could look at, you know, and it's actually drivable. Like Grass Creek, they call it sometimes? I'm sorry? Grass Creek, they call it, that has holes in it that allows grass to grow up between. This is total sod on top, and it's about that thick. It's a heavy acrylic that takes traffic, and you drive right on top of the, I've had very good success with that. I'm having a real hard time with building the second floor on the existing brick portion of the building and just kind of, you know, yacking that sucker up there and creating that big mass in the middle of what was originally, until they added the 60s addition, you know, a very simple house with a brick L on it. I don't know. I'll yield to the others on that. Mr. Wingfield? I think one of the first questions that I would consider, I would be seeing if the staff would come out and look at the existing addition, and give you at least some sort of determination of its significance. If, in fact, the existing addition has been compromised, the older addition has been compromised by the later additions, I think a whole different realm of design possibilities would open up to you that would allow this project to move forward in a much different manner, and I think in a manner that would be much easier to fit within the guidelines and still get the additional living space that your clients are after. I don't want to put staff on the spot tonight at all with regard to that question, but I think it's one that you should examine. I don't know about reflecting this. I guess my question would be as to whether the 1960s addition had compromised the integrity of the original L, the original addition to the structure, and that's a question that I would recommend to you, that you'd have staff come out and address that question. Right. Of course, it's our opinion that that rear addition is not complementary to the original structure and that our addition would be much more sympathetic to that and would replace some of the mistakes that were made in the past, but we'd certainly be happy to. I think that you should have that discussion as soon as you can, because as presented, I agree with Mr. Bauer and Mr. Hanley. I think that right now it's too massive for the original historic structure and the site. Typically, when we approve additions, rarely is the original cornice line violated, and I realize that's going to be extremely difficult. If the original additions are there, there's not much you can do. One thing that you can consider would be tying in above the existing additions, beneath the cornice line on the rear of the original historic structure, stepping that back with this almost like a little connector piece and then going back up, and you'd have that reed more as a separate mass from the front mass. So you'd have your front mass, a little connecting piece, and then go back up to your new addition. I think Mr. Hanley was very correct. I would reconsider the – and this might all be premature discussing this if, in fact, there's some other design opportunities that come before you. Without that said, again, I think that maybe the back part of the house should not echo the side gable situation that's on the front. With regard to the garage and the parking, I think that Mr. Bauer and Mr. Hanley's comments are right on the money. That was not allowed as a paving service in Fayette County except in historic districts when the Board of Architecture Review approves it. Okay. I hope that was a little helpful. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Dickinson. Well, I'm not the architect at all. I'll just have to give you a first impression that my reaction to the drawing, and it could be just that I don't understand scale particularly well. It's just too big. One of the purposes of the historic overlay is to – and I'm not suggesting your house is that at all – but is to prevent mansions from being installed. I think you have a very difficult site to work with, and I think you have a very uncomplimentary L to deal with to begin with. And you may want to explore with the staff, and I don't know where the staff will come, but perhaps a removal of that addition and start over with some other more complementary L that might work with the original fabric of that building better. Now, I don't know whether the staff can do that or not. But it's an innovative solution, I'll give you that, but I just don't see it in terms of its mass being consistent with the guidelines at all. I think it's a very innovative and a very interesting proposal, but the overall effect, especially when you walk along the side of that building, is just going to be too massive. Especially – I take it that's a fairly narrow lot to begin with, right? Well, it is a narrow lot, and it's – It's what, 50 by 100? 125, I think. 125, okay. But I think your problem is that the existing addition is interesting. It's so long, isn't it? Well, the existing footprint of the house, we're not really exceeding that. We're only adding about 30 square feet. That's what I mean, it's just a very long addition to begin with for the overall look of the house. Yeah. I guess some of the factors we were considering, too, were that the narrowness of the lot, the proximity of the houses near it, and the sort of street approach and the street view that you would normally get, you would still appreciate mostly that front mass that was untouched of the original. Yeah, and a lot of people have that impression that we only look at the front, and we don't – we look as we're looking down. On your garage proposal, have you thought about carport instead? Because you're wedging a lot of masonry into that very small lot. Yeah, yeah. That you may want to look at some kind of a carport structure if you want to get more of the cars off the street. Right, right. But as has been pointed out, you are in an urban area, and people park on the streets. And I think Mill Street now is on restricted parking. So I've had – I have friends living on Mill Street, and I've had very good luck always finding parking. Yeah, yeah, I have as well, except when there are two or three dumpsters in one block. It's a good first effort, but I don't think this one's going to fly, is my humble opinion. Well, I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here. I think the proposal is very innovative, and I think given the dilemma that you have with this house being so very small and trying to make it respond to the lifestyle of people who have families, I think it makes it extremely difficult, I think, to stay with the existing design. And you're not exceeding the ground coverage with this, with the exception of the porch, which you're adding on the back. I like the fact that you have preserved the right elevation by actually insetting the addition on the second floor so that we still maintain that reading. Yeah. I guess I could maybe wonder if there should be some differentiation between the proposed addition that you're making on the back of the house. Maybe – I don't know whether – I guess using brick would be all right. I mean, another possibility would be to do the gable end again, although maybe it's done in wood so that it's not reading the same as the original mass of the house. I'm not sure if that would work or not. Or perhaps trying to create some kind of a joint so you would understand that the gable end was something new. But I personally think when I go by there, it's actually very hard to even see the addition that's there because a lot is so very narrow. Right. And the addition that's on there right now I find incredibly awkward architecturally. And I think it's just been a series of additions which got added on, porches enclosed, et cetera. And so to me it's not a very contributing kind of addition with maybe the exception of the brick wall portion that we kind of see on the right elevation. Right. So from my point of view, but I'm just one person apparently here tonight, I don't find it too massive at all. And I understand the dilemma you're facing. I might consider relooking at the porch. I mean, I guess they want something on the outside. It's interesting. When I look at the plan, it looks like the porch is much narrower than it appears to be on the elevation. Maybe I'm wrong about that. And, you know, I think the reality that you're involved in, I mean the reality of the site, forgive me, is that it's a very small site. And I think even if you were to just simply add a garage and not do all of the other work that you're proposing, you're still, even with the addition of the garage, consuming a lot of space. And so I think the comments that were made about maybe how you can treat the driveway, perhaps you could minimize the size of the garage somewhat, although the depth is a given. And, you know, if you made it smaller, I guess you'd be creating a little bit of space on the side, but it doesn't really count for very much. But I think, you know, I also would say that I agree with the comments, however, that were made about the new rear portion, the new gable-ended portion. I'd be really happier, I think, if perhaps the window treatments were more contemporary. I mean, it's facing the rear of the property. Why not add more glass? Why not make that more transparent? Maybe those end gable walls are simply there on the sides and there's something new that happens in between them, so that it's obviously not trying so hard to replicate the front. But when I looked at it, I personally did not have the same issues with the proposal that some of the other people here are tonight. However, it's not going to fly only with my support, okay? So I think you need to think about what is being said to you. Can I make a couple? Sure. I do not consider it to be too massive. It just kind of caught me off guard that you're building up over an existing historic piece. And with that said, if that's not a big problem, I have several suggestions. I like exactly what Clyde said, that you're setting it in on the side. If it were mine, I think I would come on the back and do the back addition in wood frame, leaving the historic brick all exposed, including on the back elevation, and setting in somewhat that piece that's new so that it reads as what the original L was. The new piece is all done in the clapboard siding like you're proposing it be done. I would pull the roof down on the center section so that it does not meet the ridges of the others. It's much, much lower, which I think would distinctly, you know, down to the point that it's got just enough slope, you know, to drain, so that it doesn't read as part of the historic mass at all. And I think that would take a lot of the massiveness out that my fellow board members are concerned about. And I personally have a problem with the proportions of your little porch on the back. I think it's too deep, meaning going out the rear. I think it would be much more successful if it were half as deep as it is, and I think proportionally it would look much nicer with the building. Living on Mill Street myself, you do not leave a car on the street unless you absolutely have to. They love to go through after-ball games and break windows. So I would support the two-car garage. I would consider somehow creating the illusion of more green space, possibly using the gravel. And I think it's, you know, I got them to allow it, so I think it's allowed, but it's not been that long. And making it a little more green between the house and the garage. In this day and time downtown, I think Clyde will attest, I think you almost have to have a garage. So those are my comments. Oh, a couple of other comments. I would consider, I agree with Mr. Gartner, Clyde's comments here about, you know, don't get hung up on the traditional windows on the new addition. You know, I think if you could get, you know, even using double hung, don't use the sash, you know, the mutton. You know, maybe just one light over one light or something, just to differentiate the fact that it's not historic fabric, it's new. And those are my comments. Well, I think those are really good suggestions. Staff has a couple of comments. Yes. If you don't mind. I think in our preliminary meeting that Mr. Vint and I had, we did discuss that reducing the roof line in the middle below the cornice of the front mass was something we could look at, because you still could get head height in there. That would work well. This is a really tough site with the new building code that has come into effect. And so it is, this is one of these things that we're going to come up with as far as how can you do something within this new building code and also have a fire rating that would be appropriate, because those kinds of things cannot go and get, you know, variances. I mean, that's just pretty much how it is. But one of the things also maybe talked about, if a plan similar to this is to be used, that maybe the rear has a, doesn't have such a presence as the front, so the front retains its original mass and scale, but in the rear maybe has a smaller but equal size, you know. And I think there were some comments about the porch. And in plan and how this was talked about with the landscaping, it seems to flow well because it's not really expanding past the actual building form itself, but also it sort of creates sort of an outdoor space without having outdoor room to be able to do that. And I think this plan does call for putting more landscaping in where there isn't now. So that's interesting. But I think the mass and scale comments are something that really need to be pursued to have this read a little bit more softer in the reel so your main mass still keeps its original scale and form and presence. So just a couple of comments. Thank you. Anyone else like to add to this or make any additional comments? Do you have any questions or any points that you want us to address? No. Okay. Appreciate the forum. Okay. Well, we'd be happy to have you come back, too. I mean, if you want to come back and go through a similar process, you're welcome to do that and certainly work with the staff on this. And if you think you would like to come back and talk with us informally again, we're happy to do that also. But we wish you well and hope the comments were useful to you in terms of where you might go next. Thanks very much. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. I guess there are no other staff comments, I guess. Is that it? Okay. All right. We have one other thing left on the agenda, and that is to approve minutes that we have in our packet. We have minutes from the October 24, 2007 meeting, the January 24, 2007, and the February 14, 2007 meeting. Are there any additions, deletions, changes that anyone would like to propose? If not, the Chair would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from those meetings. So moved. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve minutes from those three meetings, signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. Is there any other business? We also need, we have a calendar that everybody's sort of given comments back to the staff about, but we actually have two, I guess. Are we making a decision on that today, Kathy? Did you get my email? Yes, we did. And if you look at the copy that we have now, that's all been revised. Okay. So it was on a Wednesday. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone, yeah, we've been presented a calendar for our 2008 scheduled meetings. Is there any discussion about that? I think that was sent to us by email, and then apparently there's a new copy today available for us. Okay. The Chair will entertain a motion to approve the calendar for the- So moved. Second. Sorry. Okay. All right. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. Is there any other business? Okay. Okay. The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carried. Okay.