# Board of Architectural Review Meeting - February 11, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 11, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3584 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3584?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-02-11 - **Last revised**: February 11, 2015 - **Length**: 12,279 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 February 11, 2015. The meeting addressed 20 agenda items, primarily consisting of applications for various residential and commercial property modifications throughout the city. The board reviewed a wide range of architectural and structural requests, including renovations, demolitions, new construction, and minor repairs. Most applications involved residential properties and covered work such as replacing front steps, installing fences, renovating structures, removing trees, and constructing additions or garages. Notable items included a comprehensive project at 125 Ransom Avenue involving the demolition of a 2-story addition and garage followed by construction of a new 2-story addition and parking area, and multiple renovation projects on Clay Avenue and various residential streets. Of the 20 items considered, 17 applications were approved, one was postponed (436 West Third Street garage construction), and two were handled as informational items - the review of January 21, 2015 meeting minutes and a preliminary discussion regarding 232 S. Hanover Avenue. The meeting included no recorded public comments and no formal motions requiring separate votes, suggesting most approvals were handled through the board's standard review process. The session demonstrated the board's ongoing work in maintaining architectural standards while accommodating property owners' needs for repairs, improvements, and new construction throughout the community. ## 345 Desha Road: Replace front steps The board reviewed a staff approval request for replacing the front steps at 345 Desha Road. This item was presented as agenda item 1 during the February 11, 2015 meeting. The proposal involved the replacement of existing front steps at the residential property. The request had already received staff-level approval prior to being brought before the board for final consideration. No specific speakers were identified during the discussion of this agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were available for this portion of the meeting. The item appears to have been handled as a routine matter requiring board approval. The board approved the request to replace the front steps at 345 Desha Road without recorded opposition or significant debate. ## 301 South Hanover: Remove deteriorated tree The committee reviewed a staff request for approval to remove a deteriorated tree located at 301 South Hanover. This item was presented as agenda item 2 during the meeting. The request involved the removal of a tree that had deteriorated to the point where staff determined it posed a potential safety concern or was no longer viable. The specific details regarding the tree species, extent of deterioration, or replacement plans were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The item was handled as a routine administrative matter, with staff having already assessed the tree's condition and recommended its removal. No significant discussion or debate was recorded regarding this tree removal request. The committee approved the staff recommendation to remove the deteriorated tree at 301 South Hanover. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 244 South Ashland Avenue: Replace front steps The commission reviewed a staff-approved application for replacing the front steps at 244 South Ashland Avenue. This agenda item was presented as item 3 during the February 11, 2015 meeting. The proposal involved the replacement of existing front steps at the residential property. The application had already received staff approval prior to being brought before the commission for review. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamp was available for the discussion portion of this matter. The commission approved the application for the front step replacement project at 244 South Ashland Avenue. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the proposed work as submitted in their application materials. ## 293 South Ashland Avenue: Install fence; repair stairs The board reviewed a staff-approved request for property improvements at 293 South Ashland Avenue. The proposal included two main components: the installation of a fence and repairs to existing stairs on the property. This item was presented as a staff approval matter, indicating that the administrative team had already reviewed and endorsed the proposed work. No specific speakers were identified during the discussion of this agenda item, suggesting it may have been handled as a routine approval without extensive debate. The improvements appear to be maintenance and safety-related upgrades to the property. Fence installation typically serves purposes such as property delineation, security, or aesthetic enhancement, while stair repairs address structural safety and accessibility concerns. The board approved the request for both the fence installation and stair repairs at 293 South Ashland Avenue. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the proposed improvements as outlined in their application. No transcript timestamp was available for this agenda item, and no significant concerns or opposition were noted in the meeting record. The straightforward nature of the approval suggests these were considered standard property improvement requests that met all applicable requirements and guidelines. ## 319 Clay Avenue: Renovate structure The board reviewed agenda item 5 regarding the renovation of the structure at 319 Clay Avenue. This item was presented as a staff approval matter for renovating the existing structure at the specified address. The discussion focused on staff's recommendation to approve the renovation project. No specific details were provided in the available materials regarding the scope of the renovation work, project timeline, or associated costs. No key speakers were identified during the discussion of this agenda item, and no significant concerns or objections were raised during the review process. The board approved the staff recommendation for the renovation of the structure at 319 Clay Avenue. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 218 Bell Place: Rebuild chimneys and install caps The meeting addressed agenda item 6 regarding necessary chimney work at 218 Bell Place. The proposal involved rebuilding existing chimneys and installing protective caps on the structure. Staff presented the request for approval to proceed with the chimney reconstruction and cap installation project. The work was characterized as a staff-level approval matter, indicating it fell within routine maintenance and improvement categories that did not require extensive deliberation. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this agenda item. The straightforward nature of the chimney repair and improvement work appeared to meet standard approval criteria without controversy. The outcome was approval for the chimney rebuilding and cap installation project at 218 Bell Place, allowing the property owner to proceed with the necessary work. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 209 East Bell Court: Renovate structure The board considered agenda item 7 regarding renovations to the structure at 209 East Bell Court. This item was presented as a staff approval matter for renovating the existing structure at this location. The discussion resulted in approval of the renovation project. However, the available meeting records do not include specific details about the nature of the renovations, the scope of work to be performed, or the estimated costs involved. No transcript timestamps are available for this agenda item, and no key speakers were identified in the meeting documentation for this particular discussion. The item was categorized as a discussion item and received staff approval to proceed with the proposed structural renovations at 209 East Bell Court. ## 163 West Bell Court: Replace retaining wall The city council reviewed a staff request for approval to replace a retaining wall at 163 West Bell Court during agenda item 8. The item was presented as a staff approval matter for replacing the existing retaining wall at the property. No specific details about the condition of the current wall, the scope of replacement work, or associated costs were documented in the available materials. The council approved the retaining wall replacement project without recorded discussion or debate. No speakers were identified as participating in the presentation or deliberation of this item. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with replacing the retaining wall at 163 West Bell Court according to staff recommendations and applicable city standards. ## 763 Caden Lane: Renovate structure The board reviewed a staff-approved renovation project for the structure located at 763 Caden Lane. This item was presented as agenda item 9 during the February 11, 2015 meeting. The proposal involved renovating an existing structure at the Caden Lane address. Staff had already provided their approval for the renovation work prior to the board's consideration of the matter. The item proceeded through the meeting without recorded debate or discussion from board members. No specific concerns were raised regarding the renovation plans, construction timeline, or potential impacts to the surrounding area. The board approved the renovation project for 763 Caden Lane as presented by staff. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the planned structural improvements under the terms and conditions established in the staff review process. ## 414 North Limestone: Install chimney caps and flashing The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a staff-approved application for maintenance work at 414 North Limestone. The proposal involved installing chimney caps and flashing on the property. This item was processed through staff approval, indicating the work was considered routine maintenance that met the commission's guidelines for historic properties. The installation of chimney caps and flashing represents standard building maintenance necessary to protect the structure from weather damage and water infiltration. The application was approved as presented, with no recorded discussion or concerns raised during the meeting. This type of maintenance work is typically considered appropriate for historic properties as it helps preserve the structural integrity of the building while using compatible materials and methods. ## 327 South Upper Street: Renovate structure The board reviewed agenda item 11 regarding renovations to the structure at 327 South Upper Street. This item was presented as a staff approval matter for renovating the existing structure at this location. The discussion proceeded as a standard review of the proposed renovation project. Staff had already conducted their evaluation and recommended approval of the renovation plans for the property. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this agenda item. The board proceeded with the staff recommendation without extended debate. The renovation project for 327 South Upper Street was approved by the board, allowing the proposed structural improvements to move forward as planned. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 632 West Main Street: Remove tree The board reviewed agenda item 12 regarding the removal of a tree at 632 West Main Street. This item was presented as a staff approval matter for tree removal at the specified address. The discussion was brief, with no key speakers identified in the meeting record. The item appears to have been handled as a routine administrative matter, with staff having already reviewed and approved the tree removal request prior to the meeting. No significant concerns or debate were recorded regarding this tree removal application. The matter proceeded without extended discussion or public comment. The board approved the tree removal at 632 West Main Street as recommended by staff. ## 501 West Short Street: Renovate structure The board reviewed agenda item 13 regarding the renovation of the structure located at 501 West Short Street. This item was presented as a staff approval matter for renovating the existing structure at this address. The discussion focused on staff's recommendation to approve the proposed renovation project. No specific details about the scope of renovations, timeline, or budget were documented in the available materials. No key speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were available to reference specific portions of the discussion. The board approved the staff recommendation for the renovation project at 501 West Short Street without documented opposition or significant concerns raised during the meeting. **Outcome:** Approved ## 408 West Sixth Street: Demolish garage; construct garage The commission reviewed a Certificate of Appropriateness application for 408 West Sixth Street to demolish an existing garage and construct a new garage structure. This agenda item was presented as a discussion item regarding the proposed demolition and reconstruction project. The application sought approval to remove the current garage facility and replace it with a new garage construction at the same property location. The commission ultimately approved the Certificate of Appropriateness application, allowing the property owner to proceed with demolishing the existing garage and constructing the replacement garage structure as proposed. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item, and detailed discussion points or speaker information were not captured in the available meeting records.* ## 319 Clay Avenue: Install dormer; change windows The board reviewed a Certificate of Appropriateness application for 319 Clay Avenue to install a dormer and change windows on the property. The application was presented as agenda item 2 during the February 11, 2015 meeting. The proposed work involved adding a dormer structure to the existing building and replacing or modifying existing windows. After review and discussion, the board approved the Certificate of Appropriateness application for the dormer installation and window changes at 319 Clay Avenue. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, detailed discussion points, and speaker identifications were not available in the provided meeting materials for this agenda item.* ## 419 West Second Street: Install new parking area The commission reviewed a Certificate of Appropriateness application for the installation of a new parking area at 419 West Second Street. This agenda item was designated as item 3 on the meeting agenda. The application sought approval to install new parking facilities at the specified address. As a Certificate of Appropriateness matter, the proposal required review to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and local design guidelines. The commission ultimately approved the application for the new parking area installation at 419 West Second Street. *Note: Detailed discussion points, speaker comments, and specific project details were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## 125 Ransom Avenue: Demolish 2-story addition and garage; construct 2-story addition and parking The board reviewed a Certificate of Appropriateness application for 125 Ransom Avenue involving the demolition of an existing 2-story addition and garage, followed by construction of a new 2-story addition and parking facilities. The application was presented as agenda item 4 during the February 11, 2015 meeting. The proposal called for removing the current structures on the property and replacing them with new construction that would include both residential space and parking accommodations. Following discussion of the project details and review of the application materials, the board voted to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed demolition and construction work at 125 Ransom Avenue. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, detailed discussion points, and speaker identifications were not available in the source materials for this agenda item.* ## 436 West Third Street: Construct garage The commission reviewed a Certificate of Appropriateness application for the construction of a garage at 436 West Third Street during agenda item 5. The application involved a proposal to construct a new garage structure on the property. However, specific details about the garage design, dimensions, materials, or architectural features were not provided in the available meeting materials. No key speakers were identified for this agenda item, and the specific nature of any presentation or discussion that may have occurred was not documented in the extracted materials. The commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this Certificate of Appropriateness application. The reasons for the postponement were not specified in the available documentation, nor was any timeline provided for when the item might be reconsidered. **Outcome:** Postponed *Note: Transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## 232 S. Hanover Avenue: Demolish addition; construct an addition The board conducted a conceptual review of a proposal to demolish an existing addition and construct a new addition at 232 S. Hanover Avenue. This item was presented for informational purposes as part of the preliminary review process. The proposal involves removing the current addition to the property and replacing it with a new structure. As a conceptual review, this agenda item focused on the overall approach and design concept rather than detailed construction specifications or final approvals. No specific speakers were identified for this presentation, and no transcript timestamps were available for this discussion. The item was treated as an informational matter, allowing the board to become familiar with the project scope and provide initial feedback to guide future development of the proposal. The outcome was informational, meaning no formal action was taken on the proposal at this meeting. This type of conceptual review typically serves as an early step in the approval process, giving applicants an opportunity to present their initial plans and receive guidance from the board before proceeding with more detailed submissions and formal applications. The project will likely return to the board at a future meeting with more comprehensive plans and documentation for formal consideration and potential approval. ## Review of January 21, 2015 meeting minutes The meeting included a review of the minutes from the January 21, 2015 meeting as a standard agenda item. This was categorized as an informational discussion item focused on reviewing the documentation from the previous meeting session. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamp was available for this portion of the meeting. The review appears to have been conducted as a routine procedural matter without significant debate or discussion requiring detailed documentation. The outcome of this agenda item was informational, suggesting that the minutes review served its standard purpose of ensuring accuracy and completeness of the previous meeting's record without requiring any amendments or corrections that would necessitate formal action by the body. --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. I'd like to welcome you to the, what is the date? February 11th meeting of the Board of Architectural Review, and we appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park. We now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It's 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 applications and then hear comments from 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 the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I'd like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. These are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 13 staff approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 345 Deshea Road, replace front steps. Also at the Ashland Park Historic District at 301 South Hanover, remove deteriorated tree. In the South Ashland and Central Avenue Historic District, at 244 South Ashland Avenue, replace front steps. At 293 South Ashland Avenue, install fence and repair stairs. In the Aylesford Historic District, at 319 Clay Avenue, renovate structure. At the Bell Court Historic District, 218 Bell Place, rebuild chimneys and install caps. 209 East Bell Court, renovate structure. 163 west bell court replaced retaining wall in the cadentown historic district at 763 caden lane renovate structure and mulberry hill at 414 north limestone installed chimney caps and flashing is south hill historic district at 327 south upper street renovate structure and at the western suburbs store district at 632 west main street remove tree and at 501 West Short Street renovate structure. We'll now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. And the first application on the agenda is 408 West 6th Street demolished garage and construct garage. Is the applicant here? Is the applicant for that project here today? And have you seen the staff report? And if you want to state your name and address for the record, please. My name is John Book, 1320 Bryan Avenue, Lexington. And we have taken note of the staff recommendations, and we are fine. You're in agreement with the staff recommendations? That's great. Thank you. is there any board discussion of the project? Nope. And is there anyone in the audience to speak to this project? And seeing no action, I would entertain a motion in the case. Okay. Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 17310408-A, located at 408 West 6th Street, I move that we accept the staff recommendations of approval subject to the conditions that all final door details are to be returned to the staff and that's once reviewed by the other LFUCG divisions. All changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. Do I get a second? I second. So all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed? the motion passes thank you thank you the next item on the agenda is 319 clay avenue as a representative for that project present hi would you state your name and address please Chad Grounds 3575 Michaels Cole Lexington and have you read the staff recommendations yes I have and I'm assuming that you're not in agreement with the staff recommendations, am I right? That's correct. I'm in agreeing with the window change. Okay. The recommendation I'm fine with that. Well, in that case, can we ask the staff to make their presentation and then we'll have a discussion? Have a seat. Okay. This is the property at 319 Clay Avenue. We've been working with the property owner on renovating the structure, including removing the vinyl siding and some other changes. At the last BYR meeting, we heard this case as a conceptual view, which involved installing a dormer on the rear side of the side gable. And to sort of walk you around this property to get familiar with this property again, the roof line specifically. This is the side gable in question, and the proposal for the dormer would be on this location. And again, here's another view of that side gable with the proposal for the dormer. And this is looking at the sunroom addition where there would be the request calls for window changes. and this is a hard image but it shows the rear roof line and the proposal calls for the dormer in this location and the window changes it also calls for the removal of that rear chimney just give you an idea of the whole roof line and at this window within the proposal will be retained the opening will be retained there'll be a new window the one over one that will be installed in that location and again this these window openings in this room room will be changed from the casement windows you see to two single or double hung windows. The plan calls for them to be spaced apart. Here's a site plan. This is the proposal which calls for the dormer. At the conceptual review, there was a discussion about moving the dormer over, moving it off the roof line, and moving it down from the ridge. He did move it over some, so it is over about another six inches. Some site plans. another second story or first horse site plan and then this shows again the dormer and the spacing of the windows the windows in the sunroom guidelines are included for your reference or and then the findings the proposal to construct a new dormer requires further discussion the design principle for dormer state if additions to roofs are desired such as new dormers these should be added on the rear or side roof lines and be compatible with the building's architectural style and materials. The guidelines for A, 1, 4, B, and C state exterior walls should step down the minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building, and roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the edges of the existing building and roof lines so that the main roof remains evident. Additions should be compatible in design and keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, materials, color, location of window, door, and corner sites. The dormer, as proposed, does not meet the intent of those guidelines. While the dormer does step off the end of the gable 12 inches from the exterior wall, the shed roof design is directly attached to that ridge and the side gable, resulting in too much roof lane taken up and it's incompatible for this pyramidal gable roof structure. The proposal to change the windows requires further discussion. The windows on the rear wall need to be paired windows in lieu of two separate windows. Design guidelines 2B1F, openings such as entrances and windows, and architectural features such as design bays, divisional bays, are design components that help establish balance, rhythm, scale, proportion, emphasis, and the structure. Patterns in these components on the buildings along the blocks and within districts create a characteristic rhythm for streetscape and neighborhoods. It is very important that the new construction respect the balance, proportion, scale of the existing buildings along the block and within the district in regards to these components. Divisional bays in this new construction should be compatible with the balance, proportion, divisional bays in existing buildings and on the block and within district. The proposal to remove the rear chimney is not within the guidelines. Design principle for chimney state, chimneys are often significant features of properties and help define its architectural character. Chimneys should be retained and maintained even if they do not serve their historic function. Removing of an original chimney lessens property's architectural integrity as well as a traditional building material indicative of the property's history. Staff finds a proposal to remove the chimney is not in accordance with the guidelines. Chimneys or architectural elements should be retained. Recommendation. Staff recommends judicial approval of the following items. The construction of the dormer as proposed and the demolition of the rear chimney. Stafford recommends approval, the window changes with the following conditions, the rear windows be paired, a final drawing detail of the existing window size and location on the southeast side of the sunroom, and once reviewed by all other LFU CG divisions, all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to start of any work. the I'll start with the chimney the chimney in the rear that we want to demolish has been previously at some other point had been it's beyond repair as far as the inside it really serves no purpose it's been halfway torn down from the inside so that's the reason for the request on the chimney. As far as the dormer, we're trying to finish that upstairs portion. We're even dropping the interior ceilings down a little bit to maintain some head height. The reason for the dormer such as it is, that's going to be the bathroom. So in order to maintain a seven foot head height over the plumbing fixtures, that's the reason for the request. and you look at the dormer the last meeting we had we wanted to shift it over we've shifted over as far as the structural engineer will permit all the way to where that roof line comes down so that's as far as we can go that way without significant structure change. And then also we moved it over to the right. So you'll have a little more roof line if you're in the rear elevation on the left. Oh, and the last meeting you wanted the window in the rear on the addition to make that a little bigger um that is a a 10 foot space there and um i think 10 foot eight or so and that window would be like a 3030 you know which would take you know kind of split it in half which one are you talking about down on the first level no i'm talking about on the dormer now. I know, I think you'd mentioned you'd like to see that window a little bigger on the dormer, and I'm okay with that. You know, we may have to obscure the glass where that's going to be a bathroom, but that would be, you know, minor. Well, what do we have to do to get that dormer roof down off of the peak of the existing building? You've got a seven-foot ceiling height in there now. Yeah, that's the way it's proposed. So if I go down, it kind of defeats my purpose. I'm already lowering the interior ceiling on the main structure of the house to gain head height just for that reason. And I really can't go any lower and make that a bathroom. Couldn't you go to like 6'6"? No, the requirement of a plumbing fixture is 6'8 to 7. 6'8 finished. You know that they will allow, like if you're, say your vanity or whatever, needs to be six foot eight above that. And if I go any lower, it'll eliminate that. You know, it will not, you know, the city will not approve that. How much have you worked on rearranging the fixtures in that space? A lot. You know, it's kind of like, because we wanted a full bath, so you have, you know, three fixtures. so you know you know even it's only 10 foot space so you're kind of eliminated with you know two foot for the toilet you know minimum two foot for the vanity and then a five foot tub so I think you can get the roof of that down a little bit and the reason I say that is that the code requires six foot eight in front of the fixture and for i believe for 22 inches in front of the fixture i might be remembering wrong but i believe that it refers to in front of the fixture so the ceiling height over the top of the fixture can actually be a little bit lower it's where you're standing that they're concerned about and you're showing on your drawing a six foot nine inch wall at the outside of the dormer yes You're also showing some roof pitch that you could modify a little bit. Flatten that out a little bit maybe? Yeah. I mean, it's already pretty flat, but that would take us to, you know, on the roof structure, that would take us to a TPO or EPDM as far as you don't think. Right. I don't know if that's something that would have to be approved separately. You know, if you get above a 3, even with ice guards, you can't really use shingles. Is that what you're showing here, 3 and 12? Yeah, it's borderline 3. It's pretty shallow. You know, we do a ton of roofing, you know, with certainty and that kind of thing. Like I can guarantee the shingles at this pitch with putting an ice guard membrane underneath of it. Right. But if you go any flatter, we'd have to go, you know, EPDM or TPO or some kind of, you know, rubber type material. Yeah. Or metal. Yeah. Or metal. Hmm. Well, I can tell you one thing I can't live with, and that is demolishing the chimney. I know it seems strange that if you can't use the fireplace that you would keep a chimney in place. but it takes going into a neighborhood where people have taken out all of those chimneys that were no longer functional and it makes a difference in the historic appearance of the house. You kind of understand how the house grew by the chimney structures and when it grew so can we trade the chimney for the dormer I'm thinking about it I'm trying real hard I do feel like I know you need to run that plumbing down that back wall which is a shame because you've got the head height back here on this other wall but you don't have the plumbing Anybody let me out of this quandary? one thing that an accurate section through the bathroom 22 inches out from the wall so you can tell exactly how much space you've got between the floor and the ceiling would be a first recommendation that we get a really accurate dimensional drawing of what that is to see if we're talking three inches that we've gained two inches, one. I just want to get that roof dropped no more than three inches if we can, just so it doesn't go into the peak. That's another thing, that when you look at a historic building, it never looks right when you take it right up to the ridge of it. So can you produce a scale drawing that you feel like will accurately tell you exactly how much room that you're going to have 22 inches out from your fixtures? See what we can do. I, you know, I know that the, like, the gentleman that did the drawings, you know, took great pains as far as, like, you know, even three inches was almost took it out of balance where we needed to be. So I think on the, you know, it's just right there two to three inches below the peak would be our limit as far as what would make it work. it's the um lavatory that is the biggest problem there yes well it's really all the above the shower and the alright hmm was that bedroom upstairs going to be a spare room or is it going to be it's going to be the it's going to be the no it's going to be you know to make the kind of the project work that's going to be you know like a master suite or a second master up there well that's what i was trying to get at you've got what appears to be a master bedroom with a and a master bath downstairs. It is. You really need to have a full bath upstairs as well? Could you not make do with just a half bath? Well, I think for the, you know, in order for it to be functional as a family with the child up there, you know, would need the full bath. because you've got I'm looking at your design correctly you've got the master bath separated enough from the bathroom from the bedroom itself that it could serve as a bathroom for anyone else because they come through the kitchen excuse me I'm sorry the pantry doesn't connect to the bathroom does it I'm sorry. I was looking at it wrong. You know, kind of our intention there was the master bath to be, you know, for the owner's suite per se, and then the upstairs to be the second bedroom with its own bath. Okay. I was wondering if you have looked at the house next to you that's been recently done. I have. It has a dormer. that seems to be compatible with the standards. If you're facing my house at 319, do you know which one it is? If you go up, going north, up Clay, towards the light. It's on the, as you're facing your house, you're facing, it's on your right. I've been in that house, and like, when you go up their stairs, The downstairs is, you know, for lack of a better word, it's awesome. It's finished. But when you go up, you have to – none of that space counts. It's like five feet. That's what gave me the idea of the 10-foot ceilings. We're going eight and a half, whereas the reason eight and a half is when you walk in and it'll feel like nine. And, you know, people know it's over eight, and then that will still give us almost a foot because the ceiling joists now are two by six, and, of course, that won't work. You know, they're two by tens, and then we'll have to – some of that span is too long, so we'll have to have an LVL and a post because if we go two by 12, that's just, you know, more. So, you know, a lot of it's just kind of the, you know, we want to maintain, you know, I'd love to leave it the same as far as everything, you know, but in order to make that work for what we want to, we'd like to have that space. You can't have that dormer attached straight on to the peak like that. I mean, it just doesn't comply with the guidelines. There's not really a good reason to deviate from the guidelines in that respect. That's the problem that we're faced with here. And I'm not sure we can horse trade the chimney for the dormer, even though that was a nice idea. I think the guidelines are 12 inches, is that correct? down. You know, that would kind of eliminate the purpose. There is the proposal. What's the possibility of being able to run, if you move your fixtures over on the opposite wall, running your drain over to the back wall in between the floor joists? if you move them on the, like, you kind of have the same problem as far as their space, but they're not head height. If you move them over, like, the way that, not my dormer, but the original, like, you know, that's kind of have the same problem as we have before the dormer. You get part of that where you would need to be 6'6", 6'8", whatever, is only five eight or so I'm going to make a little bit more of a little bit more. well you know how tall the knee wall is on the side of the bathroom opposite where you have the fixtures five foot I think I think all those knee walls are five foot you know it seems to me that the only solution is to study this carefully in section and come up with the best possible solution pulling the top of the roof as far down off the ridge as you can within you know and and we have to assess you know you have to assess whether it works make sure it works for you and then we have to assess whether it's acceptable i don't see any other way for us to to move forward on it it's one of those items that come up repeatedly and once we say it's fine for you then we have to say it's fine for anyone else, and it dilutes the whole intent of the guidelines. I do feel like that if you keep trying, you're going to be able to do this, but I think you're going to have to make some changes and consider things like, you know you've got a large space for a bathroom in there but you might consider moving like a lavatory out into back it up to the wall that the door is on and put it in the bedroom part with a little wing wall like a European bathroom and see if you can move these fixtures around and get them off the low wall. You know, I guess what I'm saying is I think you need to go back and try harder because I think it can be good. This looks like the simplest way to do it when you're just considering floor plan. And we're not. We're considering how it looks from the outside. Do you have a suggestion? I mean, I know it's square. You know, I mean, it's kind of square to the architecture of the house. I understand that. But, you know, in order to accomplish the purpose, it has to be pretty flat and boxy. So, you know, if the boxiness and the flatness, is that kind of what's holding you back? Or is it just... No, it's the relationship of the top of the roof to the existing roof. It's the fact that the top of the roof is coming right up to the top of the existing ridge line. And the guidelines are very clear that it needs to be below the existing ridge line so that you can see what the original configuration of the house is. I think the guidelines are, what, 12 inches? Is that correct? I'm willing to negotiate on that, but I'm not willing to negotiate on it going right up to the peak. I guess my question would be, I mean, if negotiating would start at 6 inches, it would kind of defeat my purpose. You know, I guess I'm kind of looking for parameters. I mean, if we could go three inches, I could make it work. But if we're going to start at six, I would be kind of back up and punt, per se. I would like to see a larger scale, sure enough, accurate section through the building, through the bathroom so that we're real sure that when you get in there and do demolition and start new construction, that what that dimension is. It's completely demoed now as far as you can see the roof lines. It's actually a funny thing. The drywall upstairs was actually old store signs like 25 cents Valvoline, quarts of oil, so it was kind of interesting. And they used that for drywall and insulation, I guess. But so anyway, it's. So you're getting an accurate dimension now. Yeah. But we don't know absolutely that it's been, sections have been carefully drawn by your architect. That would be, you know, I'm not sure if he carefully drew them or not. Since we're just talking inches, I think it's important. Yeah. Could the staff just remind everybody that the process is limited to being able, for the board to be able to review that which is drawn and before them at the meeting, and they can't be reviewing things that are verbally discussed hypothetically, what if I dropped, you know, whatever. I mean, the concepts are important to discuss, but it all comes back to having to submit to this process a final drawing that depicts what you want them to review and vote yes or no on. And so I just wanted to clarify that or be a reminder if I might. Thank you. And to that end, I think as a matter of procedure, I think we have to be careful not to disapprove your proposal because I'm not sure your new proposal will be significantly different enough for us to be able to pick it up as a new proposal. I think you're getting a sense from us that we can approve your plans as drawn at this point, And I would like to suggest that you agree, perhaps to another continuance, to come up with new plans that we can approve. And that you work with the staff and maybe take Ms. Tate's ideas into consideration. But you're going to have to drop it off that ridge line. I mean, the architects have been clear about that, and I am too. I'm the layperson on this panel. But to be honest with you, by putting it on the ridge like that, it looks odd. And second of all, it doesn't read right with respect to the historic roof line of that property. And that's why we're having such a problem with it. Yeah, I think on the original drawing I brought the last time for the conceptual review, I know the architect had notated in there to back it off six inches if possible. I know this new drawing doesn't seem to have that in there. Because I know Amelia was kind of like, you know, that was one thing that was important to her also. Well, we've got a February 26 deadline. So if you come back on the 26th and you made some progress, you know what we're looking for. Okay. And see if you can get there. so I guess so and I guess any further discussion I mean I I think we're ready to for to make a motion and move forward I guess it's my feeling that maybe I could get a reading from council on this presumably we could approve the portions of the application that staff recommended for approval and have a a continuous continuance for the portions that were recommended for disapproval. Yes. Is anybody else in the audience to speak to this issue? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Okay, Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 04150319-B, 319 Clay Avenue, I recommend that we accept the staff recommendation of approval subject to the condition that the rear windows be paired that the final drawing indicate the existing window size and location on the southeast side of the Sun room and then once reviewed by the other LFU CG divisions all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work we will also move that we continue these proceedings with respect to the dormer and the demolition of the rear chimney and that we do not take any further action at this time the next meeting date being February 26 is that correct 25th 2015 does that say it well enough can I recommend perhaps a slight consideration of an adjustment in in your language to further clarify that the dormer, the items not being approved today are? Yes. If you will. Are not approved. We are approving the staff recommendations of approval, as I've outlined. We're considering and we're continuing further discussion pending review with respect to the rear chimney and the dormer. Thank you. All right. I thought I said that. Second. Is there a second to the motion? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All right, thanks. Thank you. Thank you, sir. The next item on the agenda is 419 West 2nd Street. Install a new parking area. Is the applicant here today? Would you like to... If you would, state your name and address. I'm Paul O'Neill, owner of 419 West 2nd Street. Thank you. And I'm assuming that you are not in agreement with the staff's recommendation for disapproval. What I do understand is that I do not meet the guidelines. and I can agree with that because I do not well so we have the staff's presentation and then we'll move forward with it thank you I'm sorry exactly what's going to be argued then if you agree that you don't meet the guidelines and what exactly are you going to be suggesting that we do it's it's about being able to have a driveway around the side of my property because I can't my property line is hemmed in so it is probably a foot and a half on each side of the house so there's no way to get a driveway past the house I just want to get clarity on that all right this is a 419 West 2nd Street is the yellow structure and this is a shot of our image of the structure the owner has been wanting to put a driveway in in in this location for many years. The board has never heard this because previously it was not allowed to be done. He did go before the Board of Adjustment and get permission subject to approval of this Board of Architecture review. So it is not necessarily a done deal until this body approves this. and this particular hedge here is the location he's proposing to put a curb cut and a brick driveway or parking space this particular area as he stated there is little room on either side of the structure again another view of the location for the curb cut in the driveway this would result in parking in front of these windows sort of another view of the street in this particular location Thank you. And that was an existing condition at the time the H-1 overlay went in into this area. So it was grandfathered in as an existing condition, the next-door neighbor situation. So all the parking is on the main street, or is there an alleyway in the back? No, for this particular structure and these structures, all the parking is on West 2nd Street. It is street parking. Okay. this is the proposed plan that was approved by the board of adjustment with subject to approval by this body it's a 23 by 11 brick parking space edged in brick and with a 13 foot wide apron Could you explain the procedural reason that the Board of Adjustment would hear this? The reason why is that in the ordinance there's no parking in the front yard. And so he had to go before the Board for a variance to allow parking in the front yard. So that's why this had to go before the Board of Adjustment. And do we have any evidence of the Board's discussions during that hearing? We do not. The property owner might give more discussion to that point. Well, I guess what was being driven at, were any findings made as to why this variance was approved? Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Guidelines are included for your reference. Findings. The proposal to install a new curb kit and parking space in the front yard of this property requires further discussion. This front yard has never had parking space and or driveway. and the installation of a curb cut in parking space in this front yard will result in the loss of green space and drop the pattern development and is too visually dominant. The design guidelines 3.5B and 3.6C respectively state driveway parking lots that are new should be located at the rear and the sides of the buildings and not be visually dominant. Landscape, land features, land formations, viewshed, and archaeology should not be visually dominant, intrusive, or suggest a false sense history. Staff finds the proposal is not within the design guidelines. Recommendation, staff recommends disapproval. I do have a summary of the BOA meeting from 625-2010, because that's when that meeting took place. I'm not sure you've stated your name for the record. This is Paul O'Neill. at 419 West 2nd Street. Okay. Can I just go to it? Sure. It will need to submit your copy for the record. I hope. Do you have another copy at home? Yeah, I do. Okay, so you're okay with that. And we can run to make some copies while you all are discussing if individual board members would like to have a copy to be looking at while this is ongoing. And that's not an official submission of their minutes. That's my summary of their minutes. Oh, that's your summary. That's another matter. I mean, of course, I don't have their minutes. You didn't request their minutes. I mean, I do have them, but I don't have them here. With you. All right, I understand. Well, in that case, it was informed of what you were presenting them. Well, with that caveat, he can still submit his summary of what he thinks the Planning Commission was approving. Right. And we'll have to accept it with that caveat. Right. No, I'm agreeing. Thank you. Do you want me to give you just a regular overview of the situation? I live at 419 West 2nd Street. I live in a competitive parking area. And as you guys already know, I don't have any off-street parking. Is that better? Okay. I don't have any off-street parking. So I have, and my house is near the corner of Saunier and West 2nd Street, which is, I would call a competitive parking area. So therefore, people who work, say, for instance, in the Hyatt or in restaurants on Short Street or maybe the Radisson will try to find parking spaces on 2nd Street. Also, there are events that happen, such as UK basketball games, Rupp Arena events, and Opera House that also people want to find parking spaces for. So I have to compete with them for parking spaces on a regular basis. There's also a possibility that 2nd Street will be made into a two-way street. And if that happens, and I have a photo that can show the parking spots from Saunier heading east to North Broadway, all of those parking spots that are there now will be gone if city government decides that they want to turn 2nd Street into a two-way street. because I have to because my house is across the street from the parking area I always have to contend with the traffic on 2nd Street to from where I parked my car to cross the street and that has posed some security issues I've had at least three car break ins one time a man punctured my tire almost in front of me because I wouldn't give him any money. He was a person that was walking through. You know, living on 2nd Street, you've got to contend with things that sometimes suburban people don't have to, like middle of the night, someone tries to get into your house because they're drunk and they think it's their house. It's interesting, that's for sure. I've had that happen to me. And my main point is that if you grant me an exemption for a parking spot, that the historic character of the property can be maintained with good landscaping. You know, it's kind of like a hardship exemption. if I could find a way to get parking, you know, in other words, because there's no other way around it, I just can't get around my house. And the BOA, the Board of Adjustments, took note of the fact that especially the 2nd Street, the possibility that 2nd Street will become 2-way and that there's no way around the house. those two points got their attention and if I could I'd like to show one of the photos from my thumb drive okay yeah that's the one I want to see that's a 474 West second street it's It's the House of Mark and Devin Krause. They have a driveway that's right there where the car is. They had to get approval from historical preservation or from the BOAR for that spot. And you can see that they are able to get around the house, and I think that's probably why they were meeting guidelines. but my main point is that the look suggests it maintains the historic character that we want on 2nd Street and also Devin Krause told me that after they put it in people believe and say to her it seems like that driveway must have always been there so they don't notice that it's even been added. Which house is this again? Sorry. Which property is this again? This is Devin and Mark Krause. Where is it located? 474 West 2nd Street. So it's just down the street from my house. Ms. Currie, is this the one that was grandfathered in? This one was not. They did apparently get a board approval for that driveway, and they had to meet specifics. Can I ask a question on that? I'm sitting here thinking, I don't think that's come through us. Do you know when that was? They said that they got approval in the 90s, but they didn't build it until 2000. I'd have to check the records, and I'm not disputing your report. I just don't know. Quite honestly, I would have some question if that's accurate. And I'm, again, not questioning your intent in reporting the news. I have some question if it went through the H-1 process. Are you? Yeah, go down a little bit. Where's this parking, Saunier? Yeah, that one. Okay, that's a shot from Saunier to Broadway looking east. So you're standing on Saunier and looking towards North Broadway. And that's a shot of the parking spaces that will potentially be lost if Second Street becomes a two-way street. because that will become a turning lane. I have several questions. Yes, sir. I'm sorry, I wasn't watching. Are you going through some images then? No, I was just saying that all those parking spots, if you see the cars parked on the right side, they will all be gone and removed if 2nd Street becomes a two-way street. And then there will be even less parking than there already is now. Is there a reason why there's been an almost five-year delay of your application to the BOAR? I was never under the impression that I needed to do it right after I made the... I just, yeah, I mean... So I just basically put it on the back burner and wasn't able to get to it until now. Okay, I have a few questions. Have you spoken with the neighbor with the driveway to the right of your house about perhaps purchasing an easement to allow your access along that drive? I never have, but I don't think it's an option. And she's here, too. She could probably answer the question. You said the right or the left? Facing the house to the right? Yeah, it wouldn't work to the right because in the back of my house, right behind the front of the house, is a cistern. The cistern is underground, and there's no way you could basically get a driveway over that spot because I wouldn't do it, you know. I think it would collapse. And then looking at the site plan, there appears to be a paved area in front of the house to the left of your house. Is that accurate? That's right. And what is that paved area? That is a brick paved area that, as I think Ms. Kerr said, was grandfathered in because it was there before the historic overlay came into play. And in your site plan, you're showing a sidewalk. and presumably that sidewalk appears to be inches away from the property line is that correct but that sidewalk is on your property this yeah the sidewalk is on my property and it goes to the edge of that curb that's to the right of it as you face the house and the curb is the essentially the property line? Yes, that curve is the property line. And I guess the intent pulling the parking space away from that sidewalk, the intent is to be able to get some screening plantings in there? Is that the intent? Oh yes, definitely. And I'll follow any recommendations for that. Does the neighbor's paved area actually come over on your property line the way it's shown in this drawing? Oh, that drawing? Let's see. I'm just curious. It's sort of an odd condition. Not that I know of. The way that the property line, as I understand it, is the right to the left, or right to the left of my house. Oh, so that thin line does not represent the property line. I think that's not correct. Okay. Those are a little skewed because they're based on, they're done by shadow lines. Oh, gotcha. if i had to guess i'd say it's probably from the edge or the corner of the house probably three feet if that i'd like to see the photograph of the front of your house in the front yard again While he's doing that, can I ask a quick question? Has your neighborhood ever pursued getting a parking permit system such as is in Mill Street and Market Street and Transylvania Park and several neighborhoods near the university, where property owners have the similar problem you're having of people parking on the street, leaving their cars for some period of time. Not that I know of. Okay. It's a tool to think about because it creates – it puts windows of time in which people cannot park without a permit and the property owners would get permits. and it inhibits people being able to park and go to work, park and go to a ball game, you know, that kind of thing. Suggestion? You have a parking lot there where Sonia comes in. Yeah, there's a parking lot across the street. Is that where you generally park? A lot of the times, yes, unless they need their parking lot, which is Sundays and events because they'll close it off and they need it a lot. Yeah, yeah. Okay. To understand you correctly, the driveway to the right of your house, you cannot use that driveway to access a parking area in the back of your house because of a cistern? Is that correct? Correct. So if you were to drive down Gay's driveway, and then there's that curve has a... Well, that could be taken care of. I mean... Yeah, but anyway, but if you were to go down, yeah, you'd have to go over the cistern, and I wouldn't recommend it because it might collapse. I haven't even looked at that thing. How big is the cistern? It seems pretty big. I've looked into it, you know, I've pulled the cap off only once, but it's basically a big brick box that's halfway filled with dirt. And the cistern's not operative anymore, correct? Not, but it's there. well it's probably less expensive to fill the cistern in and get it level than to install this brick paved area and the landscaping but i i can't answer for your neighbor as whether that's an arrangement that you all could work out. It's a typical arrangement all through Lexington that in those older neighborhoods, two houses share a driveway. And I see just down from your, yeah, on the other side of the house to your left, that that's the condition they're sharing, a driveway. It is really too bad that you've got that big backyard and you can't get to it to park your cars. And, you know, the idea that the cistern to me is what gives historical credibility and value to my property, too. I like the fact that I have a cistern, that my house was built there before cars and before running water. You know, to me that's something that is of value, and I would want to see it go. I respect that. I respect that. Whereabouts is it located? Okay. You want to just mark it on there? Right. It runs like that. Hello, thank you. And I don't know if it runs under this driveway or not, but it's pretty big, and the cap's probably right around there. And there's a privy there, too. There's an eight-foot brick cylinder that goes under the ground that was the privy and it has a cap on it. Okay. So I have a cistern and a privy. Okay. I think I stole your pen. Oh, thank you. Well... This would be a lot easier if the two-way thing had already happened. You know, I mean, it's... Yeah, it was kind of not... It's been up in the air so long. It's not really relevant as a piece of evidence since it's conjecture, you know. So I think that that would be a pretty compelling argument. It would be my sense that the ideal scenario would be for the neighborhood to try to get the permit-only parking that Sarah mentioned so that you can always be assured of finding a space nearby. I guess I'm concerned about the precedent set by putting a space in front of the house. I can tell you from personal experience, having lived on Transylvania Park when we applied, we were inundated with students parking on our street continuously. and the obtaining the residential permit restrictions substantially cut down on the amount of parking that was taking place on transit to the point where several of our neighbors basically park on the street all the time as opposed to using their driveways because there's now parking available. If you have an operative neighborhood association, the process of getting that kind of restricted parking is not particularly onerous. And certainly you can show a compelling need for it. And that might be the solution that you need. The other solution is, sister, no, I can't help but feel that probably you could execute some kind of a dual easement on her driveway, cut through that curb, and set up some kind of parking area in the rear of your house. because behind my house is broad broadway apartments and so it's completely fenced in and there's no access through the back if that's what you mean and then as far as you know um yeah i'm talking about if you could use if you make uh if you can cut a execute an easement with your neighbor to use our driveway which one the one on the right yeah gay redding yeah Is that Gaze? That's Gaze House. And basically it's a really very thin driveway, and he only parks one car there, and you can't really pull that car back past his house because it's so thin. Okay. It's been there a long time. Okay. Well, is there any further discussion of this case? anyone from the audience want to speak to this can you come to the podium i'm jessica winters i'm paul's neighbor to the left and um and the house number 421 thank you I'm a big proponent of historic preservation. I was on the board of the BGT, and I've been involved in preservation matters in Lexington for quite a while. So I don't come in favor of this petition lightly, believe me. Paul didn't mention to you that he went around all his neighbors and got a little petition signed of support for this project. I just wanted to speak to the permit parking issue. I think that a reason that's never been attempted on our block anyway is that pretty much every single other house on the block has parking. There are either parking spaces in the front of houses or driveways to the side of, I think, virtually all of the houses on the street. So Paul is one of the only residents that doesn't have a parking space. He's a longtime resident. He's taking great care of the property, improved its value, and the parking space will improve the value of his home as well. I would say that with landscaping, I believe the historic integrity of the area could be maintained. With my house having what it has to the left, I didn't install it. It was there when I bought it. And like has been previously stated, it was grandfathered in. But the fact is it's there, and it does impact when you're looking at the street as a whole. Is what Paula is requesting so different than what's already there that it shouldn't be approved, even though the Board of Adjustment granted the variance, right? The Board of Adjustment granted the variance. The variance was required because parking lots should not be in front. So the Board of Adjustment already said, well, maybe in this circumstance it's okay for a parking lot to be in front, and it's up to you guys to see whether it fits within the historic character of the neighborhood. I think you also have to consider that on the corner of Broadway and 2nd, which is only a couple doors down from these houses, there's a giant surface lot that a church tore down a historic building to make way for that surface parking lot, and there's virtually no landscaping around that. And then directly across the street from Paul's house is another surface parking lot used by the church. So our houses are within eye distance of two giant surface parking lots. And to the right, Paul's neighbor has a driveway. To the left, his neighbor has a paved front yard, and he's just asking for a paved parking space. So I'm just asking that maybe this is a situation where hardship exemption would apply or maybe some sort of creative solution could be come up with. I see what you guys are saying about the easement. I'm not saying that won't work. I just wanted to speak in support of Paul. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on board? Well, I think one additional comment has to be made. Even though the rest of the residents on the street may have private parking, that certainly is not an inhibition towards getting the restricted parking permits for that particular block, and that might be the more feasible, or at least that should be ruled out before we go ahead and approve a variance from the guidelines that you're now requesting, especially given the fact that you've waited five years from when you got it from the Board of Adjustment. I would like to at least see whether or not you can get the parking restrictions approved through the city first. If you can't get it, then I think maybe your case would be a bit stronger for getting a variance from us as well. And basically involves filing a petition from the people living on that block. They do a study to see how many people actually that aren't residents of the street parked there. And if they make a determination, I think it's more than 50% of non-residents are actually using that space, then they'll go ahead and approve the restricted parking i have one last thing to say um would they and you'd have to talk to gay about this um if there's any chance that you could enter at his curb cut and turn into a smaller paved area in your front yard so that you could have, continue the landscaping at the sidewalk. The thing that bothers me about it, the way you've got it drawn the most, is that you've got a new apron and you've got a flat paved area right up to the house, and so there's not any way to buffer that from the street. So I don't know who did this design for you, but if you could talk to Gay, you may already have, to see if he would be amenable to you using the first part of his driveway driveway to get into yours and maybe just have one space there. Don't try to get two cars in there. Well, it's just, it's only for one space. The Board of Adjustment granted the possibility of one space pending BOAR approval. And that's, so there won't be two spaces. That can't ever happen. Do you have a big car? No, it's, you know, your typical Altima. Okay. You know, a typical parking space is 18 feet deep, and you have 23 feet shown. I can adjust that the way you want to. I know that from the Board of Adjustments meeting, the typical parking space is 20 feet. because I did try to have a second 18-foot space right beside that one in the previous rendering. And I think he was an engineer. He said it needs to be 20 feet. 18 doesn't do it. I guess that's their guidelines. So I'm definitely amenable to changing, you know, either narrowing or shortening the area of the pavement. Because I too want to preserve green space. And also, you know, make it blend in and a part of the historic character. That's what I want. it just seems like maybe there's a way to meet a balance. Can I get a motion on this? Gay had told me, too, if the driveway was granted, he wanted me to park a really nice car in front of the house. Let's see if this is an application. We have until March 9th with this application before it has to be totally dealt with. Yeah, I definitely would like you guys to think about it if you're wanting to think about it. That's for sure. What I'd like to see is it's a landscape architect or who's drawing this up for you. That's Frank Marino. No, he's an architect. Yeah. I'm wondering if you might try another look at how one car could get into this property and be able to buffer it from the sidewalk in a... Yeah, so what you're seeing is a different way of entering it so that the entire sidewalk part would be buffered by greenery. It would help because if you had a little bit taller plantings along the front, it would really disguise a lot of the side of your car. And also with Gay's driveway to the right, there is an elevation issue. Is there? It's higher than mine, and there's this pretty big curb right there. So if that were to happen, that has to somehow be leveled, and I think it would be a little involved. Okay. And then I don't think there's a way to do it from the other side either. What is the material of your existing front walk? It is concrete. Concrete. Are you willing to look at the restricted parking issue at all? Oh, sure. May I suggest that maybe you withdraw this application for the time being so that we don't have to disapprove it, and then you'd be off? Then you could not come back to us for another year? Well, if that's a smart thing to do, then you know I want to do it. Yeah. And I do have, you know, the ability to wait five years, as you have noted. I really, you know, I know this is important to you, and at the same time, I can see where, in a way, having a front yard parking area might improve the saleability of your house. But I think what would really cut down on the density for your street would be restricted parking. And so I really would like for you to pursue that angle first and just go ahead and withdraw and see if you can get that done. If you can't, then come back to us. Does that mean if I withdraw that I can, if I can't get the restricted parking, that I could reapply in a timely manner? Yeah, absolutely. And I think that Sarah's line of questioning with regard to other ways of getting the car onto the front yard. I think that what that goes to is a sensitivity to the view shed because the guidelines specifically talk about the view shed, meaning what one sees in the community. And so the idea of a car sitting in front of a house can be harsh, and the objective is to minimize that harshness. and so I would encourage you that if you do end up reapplying it, that you think about that issue and maybe rethink the configuration of the proposal. As you can see from our earlier discussions, it's difficult for us to negotiate changes in size and shape and so on while we're sitting here, So it's best if you've kind of gone through that exercise carefully and can make a strong argument for it. When you say size, you mean the size of the driveway or the type of maybe landscaping, specific landscaping adjustments? I think all of that, size, materials, location, you know, just how the whole thing works. so if it was it would this be the time for me to withdraw it yes we're waiting for that yes okay i'll withdraw it okay for another time so we can so i can do some homework on restricted parking thank you thank you very much yeah thank you guys And that completes the, oh no, no, we're not there yet. We need to take a five-minute break. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. I'm ready to resume. And the next case on the agenda is 125 Ransom Avenue. A demolished two-story addition and garage and constructed two-story addition and parking. Hi, good evening, everyone. It's a pleasure to be back before the board. My name is Kyle Holscher, and I live at 629 East High Street, and I'm the homeowner at 125 Ransom Avenue. I've had a chance to review the findings of the staff, and I'm in complete agreement with them. I believe there's one point of confusion, though, on staff recommendation number three, excuse me, number two, request that the driveway have a two-tracked system, and there will be no changes to the driveway. Really, the whole parking area almost gets left alone. But other than that, I'm in complete agreement with the staff. Okay. So for clarification, because we talked about this internally when the report was being done, your driveway and parking area are in rough shape, so you're not planning to resurface them? That will be at the end of the process. I don't know if I'll have funds enough left over to resurface it. Okay. So at the moment, there's not any going to be change? Not at the moment. Longer term, yeah, I definitely need to address that. I just don't know if there will be any funds left at the end of the project for that immediately. Okay. As a word of caution, then, since I'm hearing you saying that you're withdrawing any changes you're making to the driveway. The driveway, as it approaches alongside of the house. In the rear, there's an existing garage that will be demoed, and some of the existing asphalt will be torn up and a little bit shifted over. Overall, the total square foot of paving on the driveway and parking area combined is only increasing by a total of three square feet. Basically, where the garage pad is will be ripped up, and that gets shifted just a little bit closer to the house. so that there's enough space to kind of back towards the parking areas at the back of the property there. This parking plan has been approved by the traffic engineering department. So I guess perhaps relative to the fact some paving work is going to occur, if you're interested in doing so, I think it would be just helpful for the record if you note that the existing paving condition, and this is a suggestion, you do what you want, but that the existing paving condition from the street to the rear of the building line or something like that is going to stay status quo because that would allow the staff to remove that condition. Yeah, just to state it clearly for the record, the driveway from the street to the back of the house will all remain exactly the same as it currently exists today. Okay. To follow that, obviously, then the staff would pull that condition tied to that topic. Thank you. And also present is my architect, Rebecca Burrenworth, in case you have any questions. All right. Are photographs of his middle on the, I'd like to see A106. Would the board like the staff presentation to be made? Well, he's accepting everything. It's totally at the board's choice, so you can let us know, or we can show you selectively such as has just been requested. I feel that I am completely on top of this one because we've seen it twice before. I agree. In that case, Randy, if you will, just put up the requested image. That would be great. You're going to think this is funny. I'm going to say this. This is lots better. there's one thing that I could you speak closer to the mic please I can this is greatly improved the one thing that looks out of proportion a little to me is the two story part I feel could benefit from a two to three foot extension because it looks out of proportion with such a steep roof on such a narrow body. And I would love to hear what my colleagues have to say about that, but that's the first thing. Just to make sure I'm understanding you clearly, the existing pitch of the roof is acceptable. You would just like to see the overhang extend further towards the rear of the property and maybe closer towards the original property? I'm all right if you take and make that whole two-story part two to three feet bigger toward the parking area. Okay, understood. And I would like your input as to how you feel about it. While they're looking at it, the vertical siding that you have is what? This would be a hardy board material. Board and baton. In my opinion. I'm not sure that I really agree with you, Sarah. I think that the, I think when you look at the elevation, it seems that way, but when you look at the three-dimensional characteristics, the flat roof portion is clearly a distinct volume. And I think, you know, if it were strictly, if it were flat as it appears in the elevation, I would agree with you. But I feel like that the two-story gabled element presents itself differently. And when you think about it, when you view it three-dimensionally as it's depicted on the cover page, it does look better on the cover page okay and to be clear we are looking at plans dated 2-2-15 I know there's been several iterations most of which I have missed I've heard it for a long session but I want to be clear that we are talking about the drawings of 2-2-15 and Sarah are you alright with the layouts depicted on the front page? Yes I am Okay, all right. And it is true that in elevation, the gable roof looks taller than it's going to appear because it's vanishing from the... Okay. I'm really delighted that you've come to this place. And this is so much better. And I think you've done a heck of a lot of work to get there. And I admire you for that. And thanks to Rebecca for helping out with that. I just have one completely tiny little detail comment, and that is on the trim boards that you're showing, the horizontal trim boards, they're called out as one-bys, and I think it would be better if they were five-quarter so that they have some projection beyond the thickness of the siding material and have a little bit of a shadow line. other than that I'm really pleased I also feel that the vertical board and batten doesn't work that well I like it better and the the perspective sheet where it's all the same it's just not quite enough why don't we do this i think maybe we should add a condition that any final details per some suggestions are being made come back to the staff for a final approval that'd be fine all right that way they can incorporate the 5-4 suggestion in yours as well sarah i have one further request mr dickinson yes ma'am um i love the idea of him being able to go to staff for for the approval final details um prior to coming to this meeting um he had asked if there was any way we could do something different with the railing and i loved for him to have that flexibility because sometimes those railings can get a little bit pricey um the other option that we saw were would be perhaps something that was um uh maybe a routed panel a uh i don't know see if i can picture this like uh something you would set on a cnc where it had a more artistic look to it um i don't know if the board would again be willing to pass that to staff but i'd like to to have him um I suppose a more expressive or an artistic railing I think could be fun for this as opposed to the ladder rung railing well I think basically I think the rule of thumb has been that when we say final details if the staff looks and saying yeah that's more than just a final detail that it needs to go back staff goes back to the board and they'll say so. But I'll try to mention in the course of making the motion some of these suggestions. Okay. Might the staff comment tied to the fact that the railing detail might be coming back to the staff? Partly in order to get the board's take on that issue a bit as far as a little bit of steerage of where you all are with what is currently before you, I think it's important that whatever is the specific solution to those handrails and to the rails on the platform and porch edge be very transparent. And that's one of the reasons it works currently in staff's opinion as a proposal on those back entrances is that it's a slender product that isn't treated lumber. Right. It's not heavy-handed, all those things. So I want to be sure that we're all on the same page, that it's important to have something that's finely enough articulated and has considerable transparency to bring some style, some architectural identity to those back entrances such as, and I think what you have proposed, it's minimalist, it's streamlined, and I think that's what makes the current proposal and the staff's opinion at least successful. So I just wanted to be sure if the board disagrees with that in any way, that we know that as staff in terms of where we all land at staff level review. I'm totally in agreement with that. Well, when you said CNC, I perked up because that is kind of a... A little agreed panel. How about that? That's hard to describe. Yeah. Well, I think using CNC will come up with a product that we're not imagining right now, but it may be wonderful. Right. Facebook page? I think that the observation that the reason these railings work visually is that they have a great degree of open area, that they're frame-like and minimal, and I think that that should be a standard that we try to stay with, even if we do a CNC panel. And I think you can. I mean, I've done them. And another thing you might consider is creating a series of frames with galvanized welded wire mesh as an infill, and that visually really goes away. It's a much more economical solution that gives it kind of a, can be a really great look. So there are lots of different ways you can do it. Okay. We're on the same page. I agree. Thank you. Thanks, buddy. Oh, God. Trying to frame up the motion is going to be interesting. Okay. Any comments from the... Any comments from anyone else in the audience? Any further discussion? If not, I'd entertain a motion. Okay. I'll give it an effort. With respect to case number 15740125-D, I recommend that we accept the staff's recommendation approval subject to the following conditions and it may be a little rambly but we'll try to get there that the final door and window details come back to the staff prior to purchase. Is that what you wanted to say? Execution. Prior to issuance of the certificate of appropriateness it's my understanding that with respect to condition two that there's not going to be any changes currently made to the driveway and if there are changes you'll run them by the staff first item three the walkway from the parking area to the rear deck be reduced to a walkway and are stepping stones number four shrubs and hedges be planted around the parking area to soften the paving once reviewed by other lfbcd divisions all changes come back to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work and that final details with respect to the finishing aspects of this building be brought back to the staff for approval including such minor changes as perhaps doing a 5-4 on the baseboards that the railings have a transparency, a transparent appearance, but they may be not exactly as proposed in the plans. And I think that is it. Anything else? I'll second. Okay. All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Aye. Okay, good. I did it. All right. Thanks, guys. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. It's been a long process, but I've learned a lot. It's been a good experience. Good job. Thank you. Oh, no, really? No. That's his project. It makes it feel like it. Oh, oh, oh. Well, I think he's backing. Would you all be willing to do your minutes review before you go into your conceptual? That would be helpful. Thank you. We did have a fifth case that is postponed at 436 3rd Street. Sorry, I jumped ahead. That's okay. But that's all needs to just needs to be stated, right? We don't need to take any action on that. So prior to the conceptual view, does anyone have any comments on the minutes from the January 21st meeting? They look okay to me. uh were there i had made some comments um earlier to the staff were those picked up in the minutes okay so um we have no comments so i guess um um i guess we could entertain a motion to approve i move that we approve the minutes of the january 21st meeting as presented a second you can't second I will you have to second even though you can't vote on it I can vote but I won't abstain on it oh okay but I will second it all in favor say aye aye minutes are approved so now we have completed the formal part of our session and we move on to conceptual review The End I have no need of friendship. Friendship causes pain. It's laughter and it's loving I disdain. I am a rock. I am an island. Don't talk of love. Well, I've heard the word before It's sleeping in my memory I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that I've died If I never loved, I never would have cried I am a rock, I am an island I have my books And my poetry to protect me