# Board of Architectural Review - June 27, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 27, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2602 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2602?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-06-27 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 12,757 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 June 27, 2012, under the direction of Mr. Chairman. During the meeting, the board considered seven agenda items related to residential architectural modifications and improvements across multiple properties. The board took six motions and votes and heard two public comments. Of the seven projects reviewed, the board approved four applications: the installation of an entry stoop at 253 Market Street, construction of a gate and arbor at 158 East Bell Court, enlargement and construction of a shed and deck at 128 Ransom Avenue, and construction of dormers at 112 Arcadia Park. One application—the installation of a fence and gate at 347 South Mill Street—was tabled for further consideration. The proposed construction of a garage structure and paved area at 321/323 Arcadia Park was withdrawn from consideration. A final application for garage construction at 441 West Second Street was deferred. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 27, 2012: - Foster Pettit - Greg Gunther - Tara Sinkowitz - John Sinkowitz - Stan Markham - Tom Holder - Mrs. Tom Holder - Ryan Kinnamer - John Scott Durbin No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The following motions were voted on during the meeting: **Certificate of Appropriateness for entry stoop at 253 Market Street** [timestamp: 0:06:07] Motion by Mr. Chair. Approved by voice vote with no abstentions. **Certificate of Appropriateness for gate and arbor at 158 East Belcourt** [timestamp: 0:07:51] Motion by Mr. Chair. Approved by voice vote with no abstentions. **Certificate of Appropriateness for enlargement of shed, construction of shed and deck at 128 Ransom Avenue** [timestamp: 0:09:35] Motion by Mr. Chair. Approved by voice vote with no abstentions. The approval includes the following conditions: final details of foundation material to be submitted to staff; all exposed wood to be painted or stained; all final details to be reviewed by staff. **Certificate of Appropriateness for fence and gate at 347 South Mill Street** [timestamp: 0:24:27] Motion by Mr. Chair. The application was tabled by voice vote. **Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of dormers at 112 Arcadia Park** [timestamp: 0:52:23] Motion by Mr. Chair. Approved by voice vote with no abstentions. The approval includes the following conditions: windows must be full light, one-over-one aluminum-clad wood or wood; final revised drawings to be submitted to board or staff; any changes required by other LFUCG agencies to be reviewed by staff. **Application for garage and site work at 321/323 Arcadia Park** [timestamp: 1:23:42] Motion by Ryan Kinnamer. The application was withdrawn by voice vote. ## Public Comment Two neighbors provided public comment on proposed construction projects in the area. **Support for Dormer Construction** Dino Constantine spoke in support of dormer construction at 112 Arcadia Park [timestamp: 0:48:25]. He expressed strong approval of the applicant's improvements, noting that the dormer is well-scaled and fits appropriately within the neighborhood character. Constantine confirmed that the applicant was upfront about the permitting process and stated his approval of the work. **Opposition to Garage Construction** John Scott Durbin spoke in opposition to proposed garage construction at 321/323 Arcadia Park [timestamp: 1:13:13]. He raised concerns that the proposed two-story garage would be out of scale with the neighborhood and would dwarf his home. Durbin emphasized that the structure is too large and noted that no other garages in the area feature exterior stairs, suggesting the proposal is inconsistent with neighborhood standards. ## Contested Items **Garage Construction at 321/323 Arcadia Park** A proposed two-story garage at this address faced significant community opposition. Neighbor John Scott Durbin expressed strong concerns about the project, arguing that the structure's scale was disproportionate to the surrounding area. He stated that the garage would visually dominate neighboring homes and dwarf his own property, ultimately disrupting the established character of the neighborhood. **Fence and Gate at 347 South Mill Street** A procedural dispute arose regarding a fence and gate proposal at this location. The applicant initially disagreed with staff recommendations concerning the fence height and design specifications. Following a staff presentation and subsequent discussion, the applicant chose to request additional time to reconsider the staff's recommendations. As a result, the case was tabled to allow for further review and potential modifications. ## 253 Market Street: Install entry stoop [timestamp: 02:48] An application was presented to install an entry stoop at 253 Market Street in the Gratz Park Historic District. This was a certificate of appropriateness request. **Applicant Presentation** Foster Pettit explained the proposal, noting that the entry stoop installation was needed for safety improvements and to ensure compliance with code requirements. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. **Outcome** The application was approved. ## 158 East Bell Court: Construct gate and arbor An application was presented to construct a gate and arbor at 158 East Bell Court. [timestamp: 00:06:43] The applicant was not present at the meeting. Staff recommended approval of the application as submitted. No comments or questions were raised during the discussion. The application was approved. ## 128 Ransom Avenue: Enlarge shed, construct shed and deck [timestamp: 08:28] An application was presented to enlarge an existing shed, construct a new shed, and build a deck at 128 Ransom Avenue. Greg Gunther addressed the item during the meeting. Staff recommended approval of the project with conditions. The conditions required that the applicant provide foundation details, specify wood treatment for the structures, and submit final details for staff review prior to construction. The application was approved. ## 347 South Mill Street: Install fence and gate [timestamp: 0:10:07] This agenda item addressed an application for a certificate of appropriateness to install a fence and gate between 347 and 339 South Mill Street. **Presentation and Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the fence and gate installation with specific conditions regarding height, material, and the removal of a paved area. **Applicants** Tara Sinkowitz and John Sinkowitz presented the application. **Outcome** The applicants requested additional time to reconsider the proposal in light of the staff-recommended conditions. In response, the case was tabled, allowing the applicants to further develop their plans before returning for consideration. ## 112 Arcadia Park: Construct dormers [timestamp: 25:02] The board considered an application for a certificate of appropriateness to construct front and rear dormers at 112 Arcadia Park. **Presentation and Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the project with a condition to lower the rear roof line. **Applicant Position** The applicants, Tom Holder and Mrs. Tom Holder, presented arguments for maintaining the dormers as built. They cited both structural and visual reasons for keeping the rear roof line at its current height, disagreeing with the staff recommendation to lower it. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Stan Markham, Tom Holder, Mrs. Tom Holder, and Dino Constantine. **Board Decision** The board approved the application with conditions regarding: - Windows - Drawings - Agency changes **Outcome** The certificate of appropriateness was approved, allowing the construction of the front and rear dormers at 112 Arcadia Park, subject to the board's specified conditions. ## 321/323 Arcadia Park: Construct garage structure and paved area This agenda item addressed an application for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a two-story garage structure and paved area at 321/323 Arcadia Park. [timestamp: 0:53:24] **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Ryan Kinnamer and John Scott Durbin. **Staff Recommendation and Applicant Response** Staff recommended disapproval of the application, citing concerns about the scale and design of the proposed garage structure. The applicant disagreed with this recommendation and engaged in discussion regarding potential design modifications to address the staff's concerns. **Outcome** Following the discussion, the applicant chose to withdraw the application rather than proceed with the review process. ## 441 West Second Street: Construct a garage A conceptual review was scheduled for the construction of a garage at 441 West Second Street. The discussion was initiated but not completed, as the meeting concluded following the withdrawal of the final application on the agenda. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, meaning the conceptual review was not finalized during this meeting. The review was anticipated to occur at approximately 1 hour and 24 minutes into the meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for installation of entry stoop at 253 Market Street - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of gate and arbor at 158 East Belcourt - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for enlargement of shed, construction of shed and deck at 128 Ransom Avenue with conditions - **Motion** — tabled: Table of Certificate of Appropriateness application for fence and gate at 347 South Mill Street - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of dormers at 112 Arcadia Park with conditions - **Motion** — withdrawn: Withdrawal of application for garage and site work at 321/323 Arcadia Park --- ## Full transcript I'd like to welcome you to the June 27th public hearing of the Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and 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 a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation 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 the 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, and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the Board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on a sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating necessity for all applicants to appear before the Board. There are a total of 14 approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the Aylesford Historic District at 268 Clay Avenue, replace garage roof, 403 East High Street install fence, 145 Woodland Avenue Tuck Point Masonry, 366 Transylvania Park install fence remove tree, as well as 367 Transylvania Park renovate structure. In the Constitution Historic District at 121 Constitution Street, renovate structure. In the Northside Historic District at 528 North Broadway, renovate structure. In the Seven Parks Historic District at 119 Barbary Lane, rebuild, replace side porch of garage. In the Woodward Heights Historic District at 856 West High Street, renovate front porch. As well as 341 Madison Place, replace garage roof and door and remove trees. in the western suburbs at 621 or 102 West Main Street, replace front door. At 621, 104 West Main Street, replace front door. In the South Hill Historic District at 316 West High Street, remove trees. And in the Alesford Historic District at 134 Ransom Avenue, replace spatial board. We shall now proceed with the review of the applications for certificates of appropriateness. The first case on the agenda this evening is at 253 Market Street, Grass Park Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? Very well. Sir, if you'd come forward and introduce yourself and give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Foster Pettit. I live at 316 West 2nd, right across from the Hunt Morgan House. And I'm a current board member of the Bluegrass Trust, which made the application. In fact, I made it on behalf of the Blue Grats Trust, and I've been a board member of that trust for a long time. And I come to this entrance where the offices of the Blue Grats Trust are located in the Grats Park kitchen. And I'm probably the oldest person who goes in and out of there frequently. And it has come to my attention that it is not very safe. It doesn't meet code. and I don't want somebody to slip and fall and decide to sue the urban county government. This is their building, as you well know. So I made the application, and it has been the Division of Parks is responsible for maintaining the park and this building. And I've talked to Mr. Hancock, and he has a letter in your file there that says he's going to pay for it, within reason, I'm confident. But the plan, which you all have seen, is drawn by a famous architect, Vladimir Pettit. His rates are good for his father. In fact, that's my grandson sitting on those steps there, if you take a look at that. But anyway, you see there's no platform when you open the screen door. And we use this. Those steps are fairly new. They were replaced by the city because the others cracked and were in pretty bad shape, but it doesn't still fit the code. You have to have a landing to open the door and stand on it and come out. And this drawing, I think, satisfies the code, and we will make it look very nice. Very well. Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let me just ask you if you've had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening. And are you in agreement with their recommendations? Totally. are to recommend the approval as submitted sir i was just stating the staff recommendation is for approval as submitted yes absolutely thank you very well um do you have any additional comments for us no i just think it's a great project and appreciate all the approvals i've received sure i will note we have received two correspondence in support of this project that has been transmitted to the board by the staff. Thank you. Again, in favor of this project and the addition that's proposed. Are there any comments or questions from the board for the applicant at this time? Are there any comments or questions from the audience? Anybody here to speak to this case? Again, this is at 253 Market Street to reshape the steps. All right. Seeing no motion and hearing no further comments from the board, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, in reference to case number 1250253-D at 253 Market Street, I'd like to make a motion to approve the application as presented. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion of motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well, the motion passes. Thank you very much. So my election is over. Next case on the agenda this evening is in the Belcourt Historic District at 158 East Belcourt, Constructogate and Arbor. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present but has received a copy of his staff report. Very well. Just to review, the scope of work is to construct a gate of arbor, and the staff's recommendations are for approval of the request as submitted. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time concerning this case that we want to discuss? That being the case and that the recommendation is favorable in the applicant's, towards the applicant's request, I don't have a problem taking a motion this evening. I will ask, is anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Again, this is at 158 East Belcourt. Seeing no motion from the audience, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 01530158-H, 158 East Belcourt, I make a motion to approve this application. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. The next case on the agenda this evening is in the Ailsford Historic District at 128 Ransom Avenue. That's in large shed, construct shed, and deck. Is that applicant here this evening? Would you come forward, please, and introduce yourself? I'm Greg Gunther. I live at 128 Ransom Avenue. Thank you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, I did. Are you in agreement with the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes. Very well. Just to review, those recommendations are staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. Final details of foundation material come back to staff for review. all exposed wood be painted or stained, and any and all final details come back to staff for review. That being the case, are there any comments or questions for the applicant this evening from the board? Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case this evening? Again, this is at 128 Ransom Avenue. Seeing no motion and hearing no comments, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, this is right to case number 15740128-1 at 128 Ransom Average. I move that we approve the application and submit with the following conditions. Recommended by the staff that all final details of the foundation material come back to staff. I'll expose what would be paying understain and ending all final details come back to staff for approval. Very well. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? A second. Thank you. Any further discussion of the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thanks. The next case on the agenda this evening is in the South Hill Historic District at 347 South Mill Street. And that application is to install a fence and a gate. And I see you are the applicant and are coming this way. We are. Hi, I'm Tara Sinkowitz, and this is my husband, John Sinkowitz. and we purchased 347 South Mill Street, which is a five-unit apartment building. We live in the front unit of the house, the historic part, and we're interested in installing a fence and a gate in between our property and 339 South Mill. and we've reviewed the recommendations of the board and we promise our fence will meet all the recommendations oh very well just to review i'm going to read through those recommendations real quick make sure we're on the same page and we are on the same page the recommendations are the staff recommends approval is submitted with following conditions that portion of the fencing forward of the front facade of the neighbor structure be of open picket design and no higher than 3'8'' picket width and spacing to be in accordance with guideline 3.1.c. The outside face of the picket fence area be either painted or opaque stained after the treated lumber is seasoned. And condition 3, the existing paved driveway area between the back edge of the public walk and the front face of the proposed fence except for 3 feet 6 inch wide length for a walkway is to be removed and said area returned to green space. And that matches? I think our application is missing a page. We only have number three of the recommendation and part of number two. Is there? Does your first page have a back? Ours does. I don't know if yours does. Oh, we've got that page. Oh, okay. Okay, so the front part of the fence would be three feet, eight inches high, a picket fence. Yes. Okay. And if you'd like, we can have the staff go through their presentation on this, including their recommendations. Okay. I think that would be a good idea if you're just seeing this for the first time. Yeah, okay. Yeah, that would be. Can I borrow this back? Can I get that back? Yeah. All right, well, if you don't mind, have a seat, and Amelia will walk us through what's happening, and we'll get right back with you. This is a property at 347 South Mill Street, and as the owners have just said, they've recently purchased this and renovated the front historic mass to live in and just sort of walk you around and get familiar with the project. This is the 343 South Mill that is right beside there. And this is the area. This actually has two driveways, given the fact it's got an apartment unit in the back. And so this is the area they're interested in fencing off, and eventually they do propose to remove the asphalt and to restore it to green. There's an existing fence right here that is a 3-foot-6-inch iron fence, as you can see in this foreground. And then these are the windows they sort of would like to block off from access and just sort of get familiar with this site a bit more and the driveway. So here's the plan. So the proposal in this area is to install a six-foot fence back and then come across to this area. This would sit forward of the building that's does set back. And they do propose a six-foot fence here that would be ten feet wide. Eventually they will put in essentially a gate as well as part of this proposal. and back to this area and then sort of to close it off, they would come down their property line and then come over to the property back here and close this off. So, and this is the area. This would come between the two windows in this location right here. And this is a bit more detailed of their proposal. and so they would like to make this termination after the electrical boxes of the neighboring fence property at 349s and then come across to this location with the gate here and of course here's the old iron gate with South Mill Street here The fence will be a six-foot-high, dog-eared, pressure-treated wood fence, and it is not proposed to be painted at this time. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to construct a fencing along the north side of the building to discourage the flow of traffic through the private property is found to be appropriate. However, the proposed material and design and location in the height of the proposed fence requires further discussion. Also, the proposal to close the driveway to vehicular traffic with plans to remove the existing paved driveway at a future date requires discussion. Reference location. It should be noted that even though the fence is to be located in the side yard of the main structure, it's not to be considered a side yard fence but rather a front yard fence since the front facade of the neighboring building is five feet beyond the starting point of the proposed fence. Reference front yard fences. Wood picket fences are most appropriate and should be no taller than three foot. Guideline 3.1C, reference side yard fencing, six foot high wood privacy design. Such as fencing should come no closer to the building's front facade than one half length of the side wall. Guideline 3.1D, reference the portion of the wood fence forward of the front facade of the neighbor's structure. Staff finds a more appropriate design to be an open picket having height no taller than the neighboring 3-8 iron fence. The outside face of the picket fence, the portion of the fence should be painted or opaque stained to provide a finished surface. Recommendation staff recommends approval is submitted with following conditions that portion of the fencing forward of the front facade of the neighboring structure be of open picket design and no higher than 3.8, and picket width spacing to be accordance with guideline 3.1c. The outside of the picket fence area be painted or stained after the tree lumber has been seasoned, and existing paved driveway between the back edge of the public walk and the front face of the post fence, except for the 3.6 wide width length of the walkway is to be removed, instead area be returned to green space. Thank you very much. If you'd like to come back forward and we can talk about that if you have questions for us, and we may have questions for you as well. Okay. At this time, a short wood picket fence isn't really, it's not going to serve the privacy needs that no I mean we at least need more to I this is the first time I've seen this so I think we at least need more time to consider the board's recommendation at this time it's drastically different than what we had proposed and serves a different purpose I think right for our purposes we need this I mean to act as a side yard and the amount of foot traffic that we get on South Mill Street, especially after UK basketball games or even before and people going to downtown to enjoy nightlife, we just need something a little more substantive. And we're willing to put plenty of greenery to kind of anything. The privacy is one of our main concerns. So you're basically saying you don't want the three foot eight height, you want a six height. Right. Are you going to move that back farther then? We would definitely consider that over this for sure because under the guidelines, there's not really a choice here. Well, okay. Yes, exactly. Okay. I realize by pushing it back, you may run the risk of having your bedroom window exposed. I don't really, you know, if this drawing is accurate to scale. Yeah. It's not perfectly the scale, but it is. Well, and if it comes down to a matter of inches, you may want to find the drawing just to see where that would strike because it sounds like your intent is for privacy. Right. And as it was discussed, the type of fence for that is not permitted past the front of your neighbor's house per the guidelines. Okay. So that's why the recommendation was made for a different style of fence once you got to the front of your neighbor's house. Sure. And forward. It would certainly meet your needs of keeping people out of the yard, but your other need of visual privacy is different. Right. Yeah. One of the things you might consider, if you do pull it back to get the height for the majority of that side area, is in the area to the front, using green material, hedging, something like that, closer to the street that can take a little time, but it will grow in and be very dense. Although it's not as much of a deterrent, it certainly would keep the passerby from wandering. Wandering. Sure. And it would fall within the guidelines and meet the requirements for front yard, side yard issues. Okay. Yeah, it's not simply enough to get behind your neighbor's house either, or the front of the neighbor's house. but which guideline is it that refers to half the length? To be, okay, here you go. We heard it just a moment ago in a millionth presentation. Side yard fencing of six-foot high wood privacy is on. Such fencing should come no closer to the building's front facade than half the length of that sidewall. So if you're still aiming for a six-foot privacy fence, that's going to be all the way back here roughly. Half the length of the alleyway, is that correct? Half the length of your own house. Okay, got you. All right. I think that that can be studied a little bit. Okay. And certainly if you talk with the staff, I think that because there's the original section of the house and then the addition, which was done, I believe, before the historic district. 1965. The length can be determined maybe by the historic structure rather than the addition or something like that. But talk with Amelia and Petty and so forth and see what could be worked out there. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board at this time? In your, you've got a copy of the staff report. If you look at 3.1C and 3.1D, that will help you figure out the height you need. and staff did a very good job pointing out in the report about how it's measured forward from the rear of the property. So when you all work on this over the next couple of weeks to come back again, you can sort of know what the rule says. What you've said, what you've applied for makes sense, but staff identified the right rules, and so what I think you're doing is the right thing to say, all right, how do we go back and measure this out to get what we want. Okay. Thank you. All right. We have listed here the deadline for action is June 24, 2012. I believe that. That was erroneous. It's actually July 13th. So we've got a little time. So I think where we're headed, what it sounds like you've stated with wanting to review this and consider this more carefully is that you're going to actually, we're going to put it off to the next meeting table. Is that correct? Yes. If the board would like to make a motion reflecting something in that school, that would be certainly an appropriate action for you all to consider. Have you been working with the staff up to this point on the staff? So they're very helpful, and they can help you kind of walk through some alternatives to what you've proposed to get you into it. Okay. Maybe find a way that meets everybody's needs. I recommend you work with them. They're great. Absolutely. All right. So if that's your intention and maybe we can get a motion to that effect, are there any other comments from the board at this time for the applicants? Is there anyone in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, we're discussing 347 South Mill Street. Seeing no motion from the audience and hearing no further comment from the board, I would certainly entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, we're going to go into case number 13150347-B, 347 South Mill Street. We are going to postpone this case until the next board meeting, which is July 11th. We'll postpone the meeting until July 11th. 11th. Okay. Very well, sir. And make sure you get up with staff to know what the deadline is to get back up with them in advance of that meeting so you don't get too far down. Is there a second to that motion? I'll second that. Is there any further discussion of the motion? Could staff ask just one clarification to continue this case or table this case rather than postpone, please, since you have had substantive discussion on the matter already? We will table the discussion. Thank you. All those in favor of the motion with the amendment, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Very well. The motion to table this project is passed. The next project on the agenda this evening is at 112 Arcadia Park to construct dormers. That's in the Seven Parks Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? Yes, we're here. Very well. Come on down and introduce yourself. I'm Stan Markham, structural engineer, and this is Mr. and Mrs. Tom Holder. I live at 112 101 South Hanover, and they live at 112 Arcadia. Very well. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? We have. They have. And are you in agreement with staff recommendations? We're in agreement, except for we'd like to discuss the roof line with the rear dormer. And that would be recommendation number one that states from the staff, the rear roof line of the structure will be lowered off the main ridge line and final plans will be submitted to staff is what you'd like to discuss this evening. While we're on the topic, I'll just go ahead and read the rest of the staff recommendations. I have a little hearing difficulty. I apologize. It's okay. I'll do my best to enunciate and speak louder. I'd like to go ahead and read the staff recommendations while we're here. As I stated, the first recommendations, first of all, the staff recommends approval as submitted with the following conditions. Number one, the rear roof line of the structure be lowered off the main ridge line and final plans be submitted to staff. Two, the windows be full light, one over one, aluminum-clad wood or wood windows. Three, final revised drawings be submitted to board or staff for review prior to final issuance of the COA. And number four, if other LFUCG agencies require changes, those changes need to come back to the staff for review. And as you stated, you guys would like to discuss further the first recommendation by the staff. If you don't mind, I'd like to have the staff make their presentation and discuss that point, and then we'll have you back up for a conversation. Okay. Thank you. This is the property at 112 Arcadian. And these are previous plans prior to the, during survey forms, right before this became the H-1 overlay district. I'm trying to give you an idea of this building prior to that. As you can see, it was a bungalow that had its front porch taken off. and the portico or the little porch put on. And then staff on site visits found that dormers were being installed, and so I stopped and talked to the contractors at this point and stopped their work. And this is that day that happened. And as you can see, there are two gable roof dormers installed in the front. and then a gable roof dormer installed in the rear of the structure. And then staff talked to the owners and found that this was an incident where a building permit had been issued prior to the COA being issued, and it was just somebody didn't see that it was an H-1 overlay district. And there is a building inspector to speak to that if you need to ask questions. And then so staff talked to the owners, and we had stopped all the work. They also re-roofed and installed new gutters, and that permit was issued separately because that is a staff-issued permit. And they boarded the dormers up until we can hear this meeting at this time. So like I said, there were front gable dormers that are 4x6, 4x6, and then the rear gable is 23x10. And you can see the plans have been submitted by Mr. Markham. These are the dormers here, and then this rear dormer at this point. I'm not quite sure where the microphone is not working. as you can see. And then here's a section through the building. And then a front elevation. And a rear elevation. And per conversations with the owners, They have expressed that they are going to be using composite siding of some sort. It would be with a five-inch reveal. And then the windows will be, we had a discussion, they first chose a window that would not be in compliance, but they have agreed to come into compliance with either a wood or aluminum clad one over one window. Guidelines are included for the reference. and at this time they are actually asking for the board to grant certificate appropriateness to approve the dormers as constructed. Guidelines included for your reference findings. The proposal to construct the front and rear dormers in the structure requires further discussion. The guidelines for dormers state the following respectively, 2A5A and 2A5B. Dormers should be in keeping with the character and scale of the buildings. Dormers should not be included in the front elevations, but may be added to rear and secondary elevations if compatible with the building's design. This structure, erected in the 1930s with a concrete front porch with brick rails and supports, originally started out as a bungalow and bungalow design. Over the years, it has lost its front porch, and it is not uncommon for bungalows to have dormers in the front and the rear of the house. In the seven parts historic district, several front and rear dormers have been approved and issued certificates of appropriateness in the last 12 years since its designation is an H-1 district. Its bill at the front dormers are in keeping with the character and style of the bungalow house. Reference the rear dormer. The design guidelines for dormers and additions state the guideline 2A for B. Additions should be secondary, smaller, and simpler to the original buildings in scale, design, and placement. The use of a small connector or link between the additions and the original buildings is encouraged when appropriate. Exterior walls should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building. A roof line should step down by the peak of the existing roof line, so as the main roof line remains evident. The dormer width as constructed is in keeping with the guidelines and the mass and scale of the dormers. However, the roof line is not in accordance with the guidelines. Staff suggests that the roofs step off the main ridge line. Windows should be 1 over 1 aluminum cloud windows in accordance with the design guideline. for windows which states 2B, 1J, material and material color. Texture pattern construction technique help define building character and scale. Materials are incorporated into all parts of the building but may vary from buildings to building. Installation of materials that give a building an imitation historic appearance are not allowed. Windows that are wood or anized baked enamel or aluminum windows are appropriate. Vinyl windows are not permitted, and the use of a plastic snap and muttons are not permitted. Thank you. staff for review. And the applicants are here. Thank you very much. If you'd like to come back to the microphone and we can have a conversation, please. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question of clarification from the applicants? Sure. Ms. Holder, are you the one who called me yesterday? Okay. For full disclosure and transparency, my referral from a real estate agent, I think, Ms. Holder called me at my law firm and asked me about this case, and not knowing I served on the board, and I told her that I served on the board and therefore couldn't talk to her at all about the application. And so I want to make sure that I disclose that. And as a result of that, we didn't talk about the case at all, but I'm going to recuse from discussing it and involved in it. But I want to make sure that the record is clear. and if the board has she didn't do anything wrong, you didn't do anything wrong, but I'm just making sure that for the public process, everything is above board and transparent. I appreciate that clarification. It's up to you to recuse yourself or not if no conversation occurred. The only reason is because to make sure there's no appearance of impropriety. There is none, but to avoid any appearance of it, I just think that it's better. We have a quorum today with four board members, so I think that that would be the best course of action. just to make sure that there is no question at all with the process. If that's what you feel comfortable with, that is how we shall proceed. Okay. So my first question for you, and just a general statement before we start the conversation over the design, is just the mishap that construction began without a certificate of appropriateness from us. were you aware when you purchased the house that you were in an h1 overlay district no sir we went through all the legal uh by the book you know we went out and had the building permit and we even called downtown they're the ones that gave us mr markham's uh phone number to draw the call sure we got the permit they never said go across the hall talk to anyone get another permit make sure there's a certificate of appropriateness i understand that further down the timeline of events there was amiss on the plan review side of this issue? Yes, a member of the building inspection staff is present. If you have questions of them relative to the fact that that permit did get issued, not in the proper order, if you will. Well, if there's any elaboration that needs to be made on that part of the process, yeah, I'd like to talk to or just hear it said and hear what happened. We can go through that and all understand and be on the same page. So if you don't mind, we're going to have this fellow speak to us and let us know what happened, and we'll go on. Mr. Markham. My name is Cash. I'll show you I'm a building inspection supervisor for the residential section over there, building inspection. How are you doing, Mr. Billings? Good. You know me. What happened in this process, I personally didn't have anything to do with the permit, But our process is through a geosync program. There's an overlay for ND1, floodplains, H1, zoning, who the inspector is for the area. In the permit process, we generally have to open up geosync, open it up. You click on the boxes, and it tells us what's going on with that property and the different things that we did. Well, in this case, the plan reviewer did not remember whether or not he hit the H1 button or not, but did not catch the fact that it was in the H-1, and the permit went out on 5-11 for the dormers. He did, he's no longer with us, he moved on to another job since then, but conveniently for me, huh? That Cherokee Park's right there, and he was thinking he had permits out there, and it wasn't necessarily in an H-1. And the inspector that actually got the permit wasn't on vacation for two weeks, so we didn't go buy the job in a normal 10 days. So it kind of turned into a culmination of things that let it go on a little longer than it should have, to be honest. And as soon as we found out from Historic, we called Mr. Markham. I believe our inspector did and said, hey, we issued an error. We've got to stop work until we resolve it rather than just avoid the permit and start over. And we didn't realize that construction advanced to that point. I actually was surprised to know that there were dormers there already just when I got to file tonight. So they were moving pretty quick. So it's an unfortunate collection of follies and errors that have gotten us to this point is what it sounds like. And I guess we're all aware that with work in place and were the staff recommendations to be enforced, we're looking at a bit of cost incurred by the owner as far as the change to the roof that is built. as it is now. So that's just to state the facts, just to say that this has led to a bit of a problem for the applicant and for us. So now we will work through the problem. Thank you very much for your comments and explanation. We missed the procedure that we have for catching it. There is a procedure to catch it, and I can't speak for the person or anybody in that matter. We don't stand over their shoulders. Well, these are the facts. Things happen. So let's see what we're going to do about it next. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Well, having heard that, if you'd like to make a presentation or discuss the issue of keeping the roof where it is, you certainly may. I didn't understand. Please proceed with your comments on why the roof should remain as it is on the rear dormer. Well, I should remain as it is. If that's what you would like. Well, from my point of view as a structural engineer, it is the ideal way structurally to do it. Now, certainly it could have been done by going by your 12-inch rule, as I understand it. But we didn't know we were in the historical district, so we didn't pay any attention to that. But the reasons, practically, for it staying as it is, it would be, first of all, quite expensive to change it. Whether that's of interest and an issue or not, practically the dormer, as you pass down the street, these houses are fairly close together. You cannot visually see the distinction of the original existing house line and the dormer line, if it were 12 inches lower, it would not be visually prominent as you drive down the street. The backyards of these houses, as you look down those yards from this particular yard, have a great deal of variation. It might be a kind way of putting it of different kinds of lean-tos. And so there's no rhyme or reason from this particular house of seeing the actual 12-inch room gone by. Now, as you drive through the neighborhood, the same thing is true. You see a lot of dormers. Some of them go to the peak of the existing original house, and some are down two or three feet, and some are within six inches, and some probably were strictly, maybe recently, done by the 12-inch rule. So the point is, there is no consistent rule in that neighborhood, and because of the closeness of the houses, I don't think this particular one can be seen readily from the street or from the backyard. There's a lot of foliage in these yards. You can't stand in the yard of this house and go to the fence of their backyard, look at that dormer, and see the ridgeline of the existing house. So whether that's a valid argument or not, I think that's a pretty good reason myself. They may have other reasons. You're certainly welcome to contribute if you have anything else to say. Nothing at this time. Are there any comments or questions from the board at this time for the applicant? I think that there are several different things that seem to have gone wrong with this project, as have already been indicated. First of all, when you purchased the house, your realtor should have told you that it was an H-1 overlay, So they did not give you full disclosure if they never mentioned that. So that's your realtor. Your deed says there's an H-1 overlay on it. The deed does not say there's an H-1 overlay. The deed does not? The deeds do not. Did you just say there's anything filed record? It doesn't identify it in the deed. It doesn't show the zoning? Talking about our realtor should have told us. Well, okay, so the deed doesn't have it. It's on the PVA. It's on the PVA website. It's on the historic preservation website. I mean, there's a lot of different things that tell you that that's an H1. But starting with your realtor, that was really the first part that I should have told you. I believe there are also physical markers in the neighborhoods. That's another part, yeah. Yeah, but I mean, you know, we came from Esterson Station, so as far as knowing what an H1 is, I mean, you see the BGT, but it... No, well, I'm not criticizing you. I'm just saying that there's lots of ways to know. So just like, you know, when you're coming downtown or coming inside New Circle Road, the first thing to do is start looking and see if you have any kind of special zoning, see if there's any unusual signs in the neighborhood, ask the neighbors, things like that. We didn't say it was a historical neighborhood. What she's saying is we didn't realize when we went to get all this stuff done, like I said, we went strictly by the way. No, you did, absolutely. So, I mean, there was a mistake. The only mistake on your part in the beginning is the fact that either you weren't told or you didn't investigate whether it was an H-1. That's a given. That can happen. The second thing is that it's somewhat unforgivable that another LFUCG department didn't follow through on everything they needed to do. So, I mean, unless they're going to pay for the changes that are required by the ordinances and the guidelines of the H-1 zone, you know, I don't really see where, you know, you had a legal permit. It was issued. we can't force you to change when you have that legal permit. So I think that that's the big thing. But overall, generally, with the entire project, all of that aside, the basic project that you're doing, I think, is fine. The house has been altered over the years. The addition of the dormers is not a major change compared to what's already gone on. And it's not out of context with what has gone on with similar houses in the neighborhood. So, I mean, what you're proposing to do is fine. The only thing about the roofline issue is that if we follow the guidelines exactly, it does need to be brought down, but that is going to incur costs. And I don't see how we can for you to incur costs when you already had a legal permit allowing it. So, you know, unfortunately, there's all these different things. Just in the future, if you do any other remodeling or anything on the outside of the house, just check everything out and make sure that it's all legal and maybe you'll be one step ahead of the permit department. Well, they have especially regret to me that it happened. And, of course, I regret that it happened. This is true. Just one of those things. It is certainly a collection of human error that has gotten us here. Are there other comments or questions from the board at this time? I'll just add, you know, I agree just about everything Rob said. You know, your points for leaving it the way they are are generally good points. There are a few things in the guidelines that run contrary to those concerning the roof line where our intent would be to make significant that there is an addition and not have it blend into the house to the point that it would look like it were original. When we have the opportunity, we like to make that clear, that here's old and here's new. And that's one of the things that the step-down Gable accomplishes. In this case, and given the circumstances of how we've gotten to this point, it's a smaller detail than the overall problem that we're trying to solve. So saying that, I'll just say that I agree with what Mr. Magrish has said so far. Is there any audience to speak to this case this evening? I see a couple. There's a hand in the back there. So if you don't mind, we'll have them come up and speak to that and see if there are any more comments after that and even consider a motion. Hello. Hello. My name is Dino Constantine. It's my daughter. Me and my wife bought the home next door at 110 Arcadia Park next to 112 back in 1991. 112 has been pretty much a rental property for the last 10, 15 years. All run down. The roof had a big hole in it. The place was just a mess. It was a disgrace, to be quite honest with you. Since these folks have been there, the improvements that they have made have been beautiful. We welcome these. We pretty much are the only people that can directly see this back dormer. It looks to be scaled to the roof line. The house is very small. I couldn't see it. If the dormer in the back was any lower, you'd have to duck to walk. So you might as well not even do it. We have that in our home. Our home has a pitch on it. That's really the only place a dormer could be without ducking. It wouldn't even be a room. I talked to the new neighbors several times. He was very confident that he had all the correct permits that he needed for that construction. He waited to get those permits. He was very confident. I explained to him, hey, there's been some issues in this neighborhood in the past with problems. He was extremely confident with everything he had was right. He was raring to go. We've seen people on a late Friday night start the construction through the weekend and have it done and all dried in on Monday morning. This wasn't his case. He was upfront about it. And like I said, I think we're the only house on the network right directly next door. I think we're the only people that can see the dormer. Everything looks scale and everything looks great, and we definitely approve of what he's done over there. Sure. Well, I appreciate your comments and being here this evening to speak in support of the applicant. Any other comments from the audience this evening concerning this case? Any other comments from the staff concerning this case? None. And I think hearing no further board comments at this time, I would certainly entertain a motion. I'll move that in case number 00510112-B at 112 Arcadia Park that we approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the exception that we include the staff's recommendations numbered 2, 3, and 4, those being the windows are to be full light one over one aluminum clad or wood windows. The final revised drawings are to be submitted to the board or staff for review prior to the issuance of the COA, and if other LFUCG agencies require changes, those changes need to come back to the staff for review. So we are, in so doing, not accepting the staff's recommendation that the rear roof line of the shed dormer at the back of the structure be lowered off the main ridge. And to clarify, the only reason why we are not accepting that recommendation is because of the conundrum that is caused by an error in the permitting process executed by LFUCG. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. Is there any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Aye. All those recused? And those recused. Very well. The motion passes with the recommendations listed there. Thank you very much. And thank you for moving into an existing neighborhood and taking interest in it. That's very much appreciated. Thank you. Sure. I'd also like to point out, you know, thank you for the folks from the review process being here and participating in the process as well this evening. It's no fun to talk about how you messed up, but I appreciate you coming in and taking your licks. Especially after hours. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 321 and 323 Arcadia Park, and that is to construct a garage and site work. That's in the Seven Parks Historic District. Is that applicant here this evening? Come on down and introduce yourself, please. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I am Ryan Kinnamer. I am the managing member of KNV LLC, who is the owner of the property. Very well. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings and recommendations this evening? Yes, sir. And are you in agreement with those? No, sir. Is there any particular part that you'd like to discuss? I believe the staff's recommendation is non-approval. It's the only recommendation. So I guess I'd like to talk about that and talk about some of our plans for the property and do other things. What I'll do is have the staff come make their presentation, and then we'll have a conversation about it. This is the property at 321 Arcadia. and previously they have received a permit to renovate the structure and so they're in the process of doing so at the moment and sort of walk you through. This is a duplex and then this is the area in the rear where they're proposing to install the garage. The proposed garage is going to be 24 by 30, be two bay and two stories. This is the area just to give you a bit more idea of where the garage will be located. There's an existing driveway going all the way back to the fence line. And the garage will be in this location. Also with that, there will be expansion of the paving to accommodate vehicular access to the garage, to that second bay. Going west. And then this is looking at the site of the proposed garage. Another view. This is the site plan. So here's the existing drive going back to the garage. And here's the site plan. or a floor plan. So the two nine-foot bays with access with stairs here. And then here's the elevations. The one thing that I had discussed earlier with the building inspection is the fact that the stairs are right on the property line and per building code that is not possible to put those right on the property line, so they will have to move those off. So, and they'll be front-facing with no wind openings in the rear. So, the floor-to-ceiling heights of both floors will be eight foot. The proposed garage has concrete block foundation, a concrete floor slab, six-inch reveal hardy plank siding, hardy board, soffit fascia, dimensional shingle roof, and OG-style gutter. Site work consists of enlargement of the existing paved parking area in the rear so as to accommodate the proposed garage. and there's been no dimensions given in the triangular area of the proposed paving that would lead to the bay on the west side of the driveway. It's evident the additional paving then shown is required for vehicle to the left bay. The site plan indicates stairs, as we already talked about before. Guidelines are included for your reference. Staff finds the proposed outbuilding of the duplex having a footprint of 24 feet wide by 30 feet deep and being two-story in height to be too massive for the site, incompatible with the secondary buildings in the historic district, and not in accordance with the guidelines. Guidelines 2B2A, 2B2C respectively state, Accessory buildings be simple in design, considerably smaller in scale, and the primary building and accessory buildings should be compatible in design, shape, materials, roof shape with other secondary buildings in the historic district. Garage and seven parks historic districts are typically one to one and a half stories in height and have a depth of 20 to 25 feet. So it's determined to the appropriateness of the proposed additional paving in relation to guidelines 3.5B reference visual dominance, and Guidelines 3.7B reference scale, use of character with a site. A more accurate site plan is required, showing the structure's offset from the property lines and a radius required from the parking area for a car entering the left bay of the garage. It appears that an excessive amount of green space will be consumed by the required parking pavement. Recommendation staff recommends disapproval of the garage as proposed, and you've received two letters from neighbors and there's an additional letter that did not come that was supposed to come but didn't get here in time. And the applicant's here. Thank you very much. Sir, if you'd like to come back up, we'll ask you some questions. I'm not sure if you have any handouts or anything, but I brought some sheets. We have the drawings that were just shown on this. Okay, I have an additional drawing. Okay. That's great. What does this drawing entail? I tried to represent the scale of the garage to the main structure. So as Amelia said, this is just a portion of the larger project we're doing on the property. We've already received a COA to do basically a massive overhaul to the main structure. When we got it, it had been a rental property for who knows how long, and it was in various states of disrepair all throughout the building. Our renovations so far have included basically renovations to, it's a duplex, so renovations to both kitchens, both bathrooms, updating of the outside, including landscaping and trimming trees back, stuff like that. But also renovations to the whole inside of the house include flooring, painting, all that good stuff. So this is just a small section of that. I think whenever we began discussions or I began discussions with Amelia, the main concern is the size and scale of the garage. The way that we proposed it is the way that we would like it. And that is, I think, the reason I'm here. One of the things we talked about is reducing the size, making it a one-and-a-half story, and maybe reducing the depth of the building. The reason that I kept it the way it is is because this is the way we want it. This suits our purposes, what we wish the structure to be. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, I was starting too soon. So to go along with the other recommendations of the historic district, we've done all those, including wooden windows, hardy plank siding with six-inch reveal, and I believe as well as the siphon and the fascia will be a hardy board as well. I appreciate the moves you've made so far to come into something agreeable to the staff and to the board. You know, the remaining issue is a pretty big one for us as far as scale compared to the house and the scale for the neighborhood too because we have to protect not just each individual structure, but the idea of a historic district is to protect the fabric of that neighborhood, which I think is your biggest knock against you. I mean, you've illustrated that proportionately, yes, it is smaller in height and width overall, but there's still a scale issue that sometimes goes beyond just X is less than Y type situation. So I'm sure we'll get to that in a bit in our conversation. I would like to ask your plan for the stairs. Amelia mentioned there in conflict with the easement. Whenever I actually bought this exact same draw and everything to the building code people, I wish you would have stayed. When I talked to them, they said that it was not in any violation of any codes that they could think of. So that is why I left at the time. I didn't think any more about it. But if it is in violation of any codes, we'll just, whatever that distance is, we'll push it off the property line that distance. And I'm not sure what that code is. There's no consideration to internalizing the stairs or putting it on the other side of the building? We hadn't discussed that with other designs. But on this particular design, no. On this particular design, there is not. But on other designs, we did discuss moving the stairs to the back. and actually putting them inside, making them internal stairs. So other designs that we came up with the garage do include internal stairs. All right. Well, thank you. Are there? I'll just open it up to the board if there are comments or questions. Have you seen the letter submitted by Mr. Durbin in opposition? I have not. Do you have an extra copy to show him? i guess i really have one question if there's some photographs of other garages on the street okay and and this is just a gut check question but right when you designed this garage did you really look at the size and the scale and the height of all the other garages on the street and design this garage to be in conformity and harmony with those garages honestly because this what you wanted? Honestly, I believe that we came close. This is, this would be the biggest garage on the street, but there are other two-story garages on the street. We would not be the only two-story garage. There's one other two-story that I'm aware of. There's a one-and-a-half story, but there's only one other two-story, I think. The barn-style two-story down from us? Okay. With that barn-style with what it is on top. Right. Right. Like a soccer ball sticking off the roof. But yeah, Yes, we did consider that, honestly. Yes. My simple reflection is that I understand. I just think it's too massive for it. I agree. The staff hit this on the head. I mean, it's one and a half story is probably possible. The mass of this is just way too big for the neighborhood. I mean, if you haven't had a chance to look at all the other garage in the photographs, it's very clear that this is massive compared to everything else. One story wouldn't be a problem. one and a half story probably wouldn't be a problem but two stories it starts to dwarf the house we had here a minute ago at the front of the street it's almost it's almost at that height right at uh 112 arcadia thank you very much any other board members have comments i have a just a quick question i mean i know that we're not really uh in the business of finding out what the end use is but i got I can only assume the end use is another rental unit, and is that allowed within the zoning there? It's not for another rental unit, and I want to make sure that everyone knows that it's not for another rental unit. Although the main structure is massive, and I have the square footage there, somewhere around 4,000 square feet, it's a duplex, so it's less usable square footage per side of somewhere around 1,500 if you don't include the basement. So it's just going to be storage or something? Right, exactly. So the idea is that you create a bonus room above the garage. You can have storage. You can have anything we want to there, basically. But the only thing that we wouldn't do is a rental unit, obviously, which we couldn't do with plumbing. It won't have any plumbing or anything of that nature. And help me with my facts, if anybody knows this. The zoning of the neighborhood, would it permit rental units in this property? No, it would not. It would not. Okay. That's specifically a prohibited. So it's been stated your intent is not to have an additional rental unit, and it's also been stated that the zoning for the area does not permit. In terms of for a secondary building, You cannot have a residential, whether owner-occupied or rental in nature, it cannot be inhabited as residential space. That's what I was going to say. It's not really a rental use. It's that it cannot have a secondary dwelling unit on the property. It has to either be a duplex or a triplex or quadplex with the zoning layout, but you can't have a second accessory structure that's for dwelling purposes, correct? It doesn't matter whether it's rental or not. And I believe that's for all of Lexington, not just for the seven parks. I think there's exceptions in like the AU areas in agriculture, but not just on all Lexington. Is that right, Betty? Or something like that. Okay. That's it. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was going to say, so yes, we did know going into it that we weren't going to use it for that. That was not in the intent of the design process. Okay. In that, it is not going to be a residential unit, and it's going to be, quote, a bonus room or storage room. I don't see where you need the volume. up there. And if we look at these comparable structures, even the one that you refer to as the barn-like structure, I think it's a vent actually on the roof there, not a football. No soccer balls. No soccer balls. I wish I had a little levity to it. The reason, I mean, it's not the greatest design, but the reason it kind of works is because that's called a gambrel roof, and technically that is a full roof form. So basically that would be overall considered a one-and-a-half-story structure. So I think that the first thing you need to do is look at minimizing the volume of the second level. You need to look at bringing the roof line down, the overall height down. There are lots of ways to do that, which still leaves a usable space with a 7, 6 to 8 foot ceiling height. And if it's just a bonus room and storage that people are not going to be occupying on a regular basis, that is more than adequate. In fact, most garages that have storage above them, the ceiling height is 7 feet, 6, 8, even 5 feet, because it's just storage space. So that would pretty much cure your whole issue here, is if you just simply brought the roof down and looked at the dimensioning of the overall height. So, I mean, if its use is what you say it's going to be, and we'll take you at your word on that, then all that volume is absolutely not necessary. And you can achieve the same purpose by bringing the whole roof line down and making the structure much more diminutive and more in scale with what's in the other structures in the neighborhood. So I think that that's one of the very first things you need to do to look at that. And I'd even say it's really the only thing. I mean, everything else about this is okay. It's just got to get reined in and shortened. So the height of the building. Well, I'd look at the footprint as well. Okay. I know when we first started talking about that, I know the stating and the actual guidelines is basically what fits. So I didn't know. That's the question is what fits. It does leave a little latitude for us to help consider it in context of not just the house that it is secondary to, but the whole neighborhood and the whole fabric. So you read correctly. If you're looking for some guidance on size, there's some information in the packet that I concerned two properties that have appropriate garages. Just one is at 321, what is the address of that one? 311, 313, which has a 22 by 24 foot garage. So that gives you an idea of what would be an appropriate size. There's also one at 317, which is a little bit bigger than that one, but it's still a story and a half. I don't know what the dimensions are on that one, but it appears to be maybe 24 by 26 or something like that. Can we just say that the scale is appropriate without saying that those dimensions are? Oh, yeah, I'm not saying that those dimensions specifically would be okay. I'm just saying what those two dimensions on those lots are is the monster of using those for you to review to say what would be appropriate on this side. Right. I think, just to make clear, we're talking about context. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't saying that's what the dimension needs to be for this one. I was saying those are two that are appropriate. Right. The dimensions on those two appropriate ones are what I'm saying. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Any other comments from the board at this time? Hearing none, do you have any final comments you want to make? I was going to say, I think when talking about scale, and obviously I'll be back here, but talking about scale of the garage and the reason I put on that page kind of the percentages of what it is to the main structure. When you talk about some of the garages around the area, for instance, our neighbors who sent the letter, But his particular garage is probably, in comparison to his main structure, larger than ours is in comparison to our main structure, or comparable. Saying where he has a one-and-a-half-story house, he has a one-and-a-half-story garage. We actually have a three-and-a-half-story house, and we're building a two-story garage. And off the top of your head, how would his garage compare to other garages in the neighborhood? In the neighborhood. So I guess that's my question. We need to look at how it compares to other garages in the neighborhood. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I think so. I believe we have some folks in the audience this evening. Is there anybody here in the audience that would like to speak to this case this evening? I see you come on forward, and we'll hear what you have to say. Hi there. I'm John Scott Durbin. I live as you face this property to the right. Actually, the last garage you all were just speaking of is my garage. And I can talk all night about this if you all want to, but no. I'm a realtor also, so I know historical overlay. I've been in that area for over 22 years, so I'm very, very familiar with what's been going on and what's going on in the neighborhood. A couple of concerns we have is there are no garages in that neighborhood that have stairs on the exterior. There are only two that are the barn-like one that you all are talking about and then the other two-story with the dome. Both of those were built prior to the historical district. Nothing else has been built that large since that time. My garage, which you see, which is probably the first one back that you see is the one-and-a-half story. It's this one right here. that was one that when i purchased my house um the builder or the fellow who was actually doing it at the time this was what was the result of the historical planning commission this is as big as it would be that they said anything can be built in the neighborhood at the time they actually would not allow enough storage or to have steps going to the second level even inside and you couldn't get steps inside mine it's not tall enough now i have a pop-up for storage okay i have no problems with him building a too hard garage i have no problems whatsoever this thing is so out of capacity so large it will dwarf my house i mean it's you know and i'll be moving i mean that's just all i can say is i will move if this is built there so i'm trying to think of any other points that I kind of had that I could think of. I'm not really sure, you know, why he needs steps going up to a second level on the outside. I know he says he's not going to rent it. I'd hate to see somebody use it as an office that somebody's going back and forth in. That's not really what a garage is meant for. They have a third floor. They have a basement they can do storage in. I think they're actually finishing out their third floor so they would have more than enough room now to do that. so I think they're going to have enough storage without going up two full floors because if you look at the way their floor plans are they go two stories and then the roof line breaks there's nothing else in the neighborhood that's been built since H1 overlay like that so that's the reason I ask you not to even consider something like that thank you very much any comments? thank you does anyone else here this evening speak to this case? from the audience, seeing no motion. Any additional comments from the staff at this time? No. The applicant had initially submitted a plan that staff sent back with all sorts of concerns raised. And then the next plan was much closer to what you're seeing now. And in that second rendition, it became a full two-story. So there have been discussions between the staff and the applicant, which I have not personally been privy to. Martin Janacchio and I know Amelia have been involved in all that. But there have been considerable discussion, but it went from one that was not appropriate to being even bigger and still inappropriate. So I would encourage the applicant to do what the Board has asked, which is to look very closely at what is truly compatible and consistent within the positive character of this start district. Sure. You know, before we talk about a motion, it sounds like to me that the applicant does understand our concerns and has made clear a willingness to reduce the scale of this structure. I would hate to move on it tonight and vote it down when there's an opportunity for the applicant to take it away, study it, refine the design, work with the staff to get it correct, and then we hear it again if that's something that anybody making a motion would want to consider. And then what I gather from the conversation up to this point is possibility. The only thing staff would say you might want to factor into your considerations, given that this is a full two-story structure, whatever revisions are made will probably not be a two-story structure if indeed it is to successfully meet the intent of the design guidelines. And I think process-wise you might want to weigh the appropriateness of taking action on the proposal before you tonight in some manner that you see fit and then looking at this anew with a dramatically improved proposal perhaps. Just something for the board to consider. Sure, and that would be followed by perhaps a new application in the future, and the first thing we'd have to do when we received that was determine and agree that it was a different application and not an application for the same proposal and not something we have to push out a whole year before we can reapply. No, absolutely, but if it is to come much more within the intent of the design guidelines, I would suspect that would be most possible to demonstrate that this is indeed that future coming application not reflective of what has already been acted on by the board previously. If it is reflected of what the board has already acted upon, then absolutely you would have to have that discussion. But it needs such a substantive amount of change, I think, in terms of if that's indeed what the board's comments are reflecting, and that's certainly what you're seeing responded to in the staff report, then I think that I would ask the board to consider your take on whether or not you'd like to reflect that in a motion. and if you don't, so be it. That's your choice. Sure. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Can I just get a clarification? So if we vote this down, he can come back with a new application with, say, a story and a half type structure, even though it's a two-car garage, but lower. We'd make that determination that that application is enough different. That's correct. Okay. All that being said, and I think we've heard all the comments that are going to come from the audience. Is there any further discussion from the board at this time? Mr. Chairman, one of the things you know that I'm big on to say, yes, you can if rather than no because. But in this case, I think there's a site plan issue, an external stair issue, and then really you're talking about a substantive change from a two-story to one-and-a-half story or even a one story, because I don't know exactly what the applicant wants to actually submit. So in contravention of what my normal position is, I would think that it would be appropriate to deny the application tonight or let him withdraw it. It doesn't matter to me. There's other components that need to be in place for it to be an appropriate application. If I may, just from the law perspective, if the applicant were willing to withdraw because of the potential similarity to any future plans, I just hate for the unintended consequence of he was unable to be heard for another year to come up because there was not a substantial difference at the time of the board's reconsideration. If he's not willing to do that, I do think the board could find that a different application was substantially different. but it's close. Yes, sir, I understand. So if it's clear to you, you certainly have that option. Before we make a motion to withdraw the application or you can hear the motion through. If we were to make a motion and to, and I'll just kind of restate the last four or five comments to make sure we're all on the same page here. Got a couple options. You could withdraw and then come back with a new application. And it would be that simple. I would encourage you to work with the staff on that application before it got to us. Or we could vote on it as it is if that motion were made. If it were denied, when you come back with a new application, if we don't find that your new application varies enough from this application, that it's not its own new separate application, then we won't be able to hear it for a year. In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, if you made the changes to make this passable, it would be a different application. But that's a risky run that maybe we don't find it that way when we finally do see the application. And then the other option we discussed was to table this to a later date, but I think that that kind of makes it a different process for us that's a little, it's not very straightforward for us. So those sound like our options that we're considering at this time. So if you have anything you want to say. Is there any disadvantage to me withdrawing it? No. I'll just withdraw. There's no disadvantage? You have the benefit of this discussion really. And as we said, you know, I don't think anybody is opposed to a garage, a disconnected garage. It's certainly in character with the neighborhood. Right. The opposition is to the scale and some other detail issues that need to be addressed. We encourage you to work very closely with the staff and heed their knowledge. They're very good at this. And, you know, we look forward to seeing a new application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. I'd also like to state we are pleased that the neighborhood takes concern and comes forward and participates in the process as well. We spoke of the fabric of the neighborhood. That's what we're trying to maintain here, so that's part of the process, and we appreciate you coming out, as well as all the letters that we received addressing this case. All of that being said, I believe that concludes the regular portion of our agenda this evening. The last item on the menu is a conceptual review for 441 West 2nd Street, and that is to construct a garage. you