# Board of Architectural Review - October 12, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 12, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4085 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4085?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-10-12 - **Last revised**: October 12, 2016 - **Length**: 2,735 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 convened on October 12, 2016. The meeting addressed four agenda items, all of which were approved by the board. The board took six votes during the session and heard no public comments. The meeting focused on routine administrative matters and application reviews. Key accomplishments included approval of the minutes from the September 28, 2016 meeting and adoption of the Board of Architectural Review calendar for 2017. The board also reviewed and approved Certificate of Appropriateness applications and handled postponements of certain applications. All agenda items received approval from the board members present. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted six votes during the October 12, 2016 meeting, all of which passed by voice vote. **Certificate of Appropriateness Applications:** The board approved a certificate of appropriateness for 247 South Hanover Avenue on a motion by the Chairman. The approval was contingent on any changes to the plan going back to staff for review and final details of the post column and gate being submitted to staff for review. The board also approved certificate of appropriateness application 000710-k for 117 South Ashland Avenue on a motion by the Chair. This approval was conditional upon the staff's recommended conditions. **Postponed Applications:** Two applications were postponed during the meeting. The board voted to postpone the application for 455 East Maxwell Street and the application for 567 West Short Street. No conditions were attached to these postponements. **Administrative Matters:** The board approved the BOAR Calendar for 2017 by voice vote. Additionally, the minutes from the September 28, 2016 meeting were approved. All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded individual vote counts or roll call votes. The specific members who made motions and seconds were not consistently recorded in the meeting data, with several listed as "unknown" in the official record. ## Minutes for September 28, 2016 The board reviewed and approved the minutes from the September 28, 2016 meeting during this agenda item. The minutes from the previous meeting were presented to the board for their review and consideration. No specific speakers were identified during this discussion, and no transcript timestamp was available for this portion of the meeting. The board proceeded with their standard review process for meeting minutes, examining the record of proceedings from September 28, 2016. No concerns or issues were raised regarding the accuracy or completeness of the minutes as presented. Following their review, the board voted to approve the minutes from the September 28, 2016 meeting. The approval was completed without any amendments or corrections noted. This represents a routine administrative action typical of government board meetings, where the approval of previous meeting minutes serves as an official record of the board's proceedings and decisions. ## Approval of BOAR Calendar for 2017 The board reviewed and approved the meeting schedule for the Board of Academic Review (BOAR) for the 2017 calendar year during this agenda item. The board examined the proposed calendar, which outlined the dates and timing for all scheduled BOAR meetings throughout 2017. This annual scheduling item ensures proper planning and coordination for board members and administrative staff. Following their review of the proposed meeting dates, the board voted to approve the BOAR Calendar for 2017. The approval allows the board to move forward with confirmed meeting schedules and ensures all members can plan accordingly for their participation in upcoming sessions. The item was resolved with the board's approval of the calendar as presented. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications The board reviewed multiple applications for certificates of appropriateness during this meeting, with key presentations from Dan Rose and Lin Pedigoo. The discussion focused on two primary properties: • **247 South Hanover Avenue** - The board examined an application for this property, though specific details of the proposed work were not provided in the available materials. • **117 South Ashland Avenue** - A second certificate of appropriateness application was reviewed for this location. Dan Rose and Lin Pedigoo served as the primary speakers during the review process, presenting information about the applications and addressing any questions from board members. The specific nature of the proposed alterations, renovations, or improvements for each property was not detailed in the summary materials. Following their review and discussion of the applications, the board approved the certificates of appropriateness for the properties under consideration. This approval indicates that the proposed work was deemed appropriate and in compliance with the relevant historic preservation guidelines and standards that govern modifications to properties within the jurisdiction. The certificate of appropriateness process is designed to ensure that any changes to historic or architecturally significant properties maintain the character and integrity of the structures and surrounding areas. Board approval of these applications allows the property owners to proceed with their planned work while adhering to preservation standards. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Postponement of Applications The board addressed the postponement of two pending applications during this agenda item. The applications under consideration for postponement were: • 455 East Maxwell Street • 567 West Short Street Both applications were postponed until October 26, 2016. The board approved the postponement request without recorded discussion or debate from board members. No specific reasons for the postponement were documented in the available meeting materials, and no key speakers were identified as presenting arguments for or against the delay. The postponement was approved as presented. The next hearing date for both applications was scheduled for October 26, 2016, allowing additional time for review or preparation of the cases. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 247 South Hanover Avenue - **000710-k** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 117 South Ashland Avenue - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Postpone application for 455 East Maxwell Street - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Postpone application for 567 West Short Street - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of BOAR Calendar for 2017 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of minutes from September 28, 2016 meeting --- ## Full transcript In the Constitution District, 155 Constitution Street, re-roofed structure. In the Ellsman Historic District, 633 Ellsworth, renovate structure. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District, 353 North Limestone, renovate structure. In the Northside Historic District, 332 Hampton Court, renovate structure. 414 West 6th Street, renovate structure. 431 West 6th Street, rehab chimney. 411 West 3rd Street, renovate structure. 411 West 3rd Street, restored brick wall. In the Seven Parks Historic District, 111 Dantzler Drive, replaced replacement windows. In the South Hill Historic District, 326 South Broadway, preparation for painting. Also in the South Hill Historic District, 325 South Mill Street, renovate structure. In the Western Suburb Historic District, 510 West Short Street, replaced deck. And 730 West Short Street, renovate structure. And finally, in the Woodward Heights, this is our District 370, Marino Street, renovate structure. We will now turn the Board's attention to our applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The first application is 247 South Hanover Avenue, renovate brick site wall, construct iron fence on top of brick wall, replace wood fence, which I believe has since been changed. Is the applicant here? Please come. Good afternoon. My name is Dan Rose. I'm an attorney here for the Goodman family and their trust that's the owner of the property. Rob Seeland is with me, and he can answer any questions concerning the actual project. Okay. Actually, if we'll review the recommendations, I believe they're fairly favorable to you. Have you looked over the recommendations? We have. Do you agree with them? Yes, I think we do, yes. In which case, I think unless we have comments from the board or from the audience, we're probably ready for a motion. Any motions or any questions or comments from the board members? Now, I will note that the proposed fence has been eliminated from the application, correct? Yes. All right. It's part of the front yard. Maybe you could address that. Only the front yard fencing. The front yard, yes. I understand. Okay. Any questions? I do have a question. All right. The rendering shows the vertical supports for the iron fence projecting up above the top rail of the iron fence. Is that correct? The fencing has not been going to be addressed. Any of the iron work except apart from the iron gate has been withdrawn from that application. So we're only reviewing actually change of the curve right there as you turn into the drive. And we're not reviewing increasing the height of the peers? That's correct. They're not able to conduct that work, so that work has been, there's no change there, and no change to any of the columns, the existing peer systems. Okay. Great. I think it's a great improvement, the curve and removing that piece of wall. Thank you. Okay, with that understanding in place, are there any comments from the audience? If not, the Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 08760247-A, I make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, contingent upon any changes to the plan, going back to the staff for review, and final details of the post, column, and gate be submitted to the staff for review. All right. Do I have a second to that motion? Second. Any further comments or observations? All right. The chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Our second case is 117 South Ashland Avenue in the South Ashland Avenue's Central Avenue Historic District proposal to demolish garage, reconstruct garage. Is the applicant here? If you'll come up to the podium. And if you'll state your name and address for the record, please. I'm Lynn Pettigo, 559 North Broadway, Lexington, 40508. Okay. Lynn, with respect to this application, there are about five modifications or conditions. Have you reviewed them? Uh-huh. Are you in agreement with them? All but one. All right. Which one are you not in agreement with? It's the height restriction. I was kind of shocked, I guess, when I got it back and it was 20 feet. I thought it was 24 for some reason. Item number one. Pardon me? That's item number one. Oh, I guess. That's the only thing I have a problem with. The rest of them I can work with. I just need to discuss that, I guess. Let's have a staff presentation then as to item one. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. Barry? Can I ask you, before we get into this? Yes. I'm just wondering if it's necessary because the language of that condition may be the problem. The language says to assure that the height at the midpoint of the roof have an elevation no higher than 20 feet above grade. Correct. Because it's in the infill district. And the midpoint being the midpoint of? The midpoint of the 9 and 12 gable. Halfway up the roof plate of the 9 and 12. Halfway up the roof plane. So that's probably about what you've drawn, I think. It may be, but I just wanted to... It's very close to what you've drawn, Len. Yeah, it's not the ridge. It's the midpoint of the 912 gable. It has to be no higher than 20 feet, and I'm just not certain about that. Well, Len, let's go ahead and have a staff presentation, and if, Len, you're in agreement with that, then we can talk about it. I'll try to just hit on that portion. Thank you. It's the front of the house at 117 South Ashland. This is looking down the driveway, and you can see the existing garage that will be demolished and replaced. Just a closer view of it. This is a view looking just at the backyard and the development that we couldn't get in. This is looking from the south towards where the garage is located. So as the infill regulations are written, at this roof plate that is 912 requires that the midpoint be no higher than 20 feet. Could you point out the midpoint, please? Well, it would be somewhere in here. But the drawings I have are not to scale, so I can't ascertain that, ascertain that, I guess I should say. So it was just for the applicant's benefit to make sure that they're not exceeding that when they go into plan review with building inspection. Okay. Ms. Paggio. Questions by the board members? Graham, do you want to continue on your observation? I'm sorry? Did you have any further comments or observations? Not really. I think the staff's recommendations are right on the nose. Okay. Sarah? Kate? Kate? Kate? Kate? i think you can probably work with the staff and make sure i think so i was just confused i i don't know i was thinking i was right around where i was supposed to be but you never know i think if once you submit the final drawings and there's a scale presumably that probably can iron that tissue out. Yeah, I think even if I have to adjust it a smidgen, I've got the room to do that, certainly. Okay, all right. Yeah. With respect to the other conditions, pull the connection of the rear shed roof at the main gable down to the same elevation as the level, as the connection on the front elevation. Move the vertical shed wall back from the first floor wall, and those changes will provide a visual wrapping of the main roof around the dormers. You're in agreement with that? Item 3, change the divided lights to single light. Item 4, provide final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval. And 5, after final review, et cetera. You're in agreement with those? Okay. If there's any comments from the audience, any further comments or observations by the board members? In which case, the chair is ready for a motion. which I can't make. We want you to do all our work. Mr. Chair, regarding 117 South Ashland Avenue, case number 00710117-K, I move to approve the application of her certificate of appropriateness conditional upon the staff's recommended conditions. Those are, one, that the applicant is sure that the height of the midpoint of the roof have an elevation no higher than 20 feet above grade. Two, that the connection of the rear shed roof at the main gable should be lowered to the same elevation as the level of the connection on the front elevation. that the vertical shed wall be moved back from the first floor wall at the second level such that these changes will provide a visual wrapping of the main roof around the dormers. Number three, that the divided lights be changed to single lights. Number four, that final door and window details and specifications be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of their certificate of appropriateness. And finally, that after a final review by other LFUCG divisions, all details shall be returned to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of any work. All right. Do I have a second? Yes, sir. Any further comments from the staff or from the board members? Now, if the chair will call the question, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the application is approved. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Okay, that brings us to the end of the formal applications. We have a couple of postponements pending before us. There is a request that we postpone the application on 455 East Maxwell Street, which is in the Ellsworth District, Construct Edition, and that we post that one until October 26, 2016. Do I have a motion to that effect? I'll make a motion to postpone 455 East Maxwell. To October 26, 2016. To October 26, 2016. Do I have a second? Second. All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. With respect to 567 West Short Street, which is in the western suburbs of St. Star District, construct two-story porch addition and carport. We have a request that this application be postponed until October 26, 2016. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. Any further comments? Chair calls to questions. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. We have a couple housekeeping matters we need to do before we get to the conceptual reviews. The first is we have a proposed meeting schedule for 2016. have you all had an opportunity to review that schedule? And do I have a motion that we accept it? I think it's pretty standard. Jim, I think it's for 2017. You know, you're right. It is. I just read what was put in front of me. Thank you. I move that we accept this schedule. For 2017, right? Second. Second. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right. We also have the minutes. And I went through and caught some issues with them, and they are in front of you in the form of an email. Ms. O'Neill, did you actually make the changes? Are you going to make them as? Okay. Okay. these changes have been made and they're summarized on page one I'm not going to read them to the record you just look them over and you feed an agreement then I'll take a motion And the changes are noted in red. Any other corrections or changes? now the chair is ready for a motion move to approve the minutes from the september 28th meeting as recorded Second. Second. Thank you. Any further comments or discussions? If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The minutes as corrected are approved. All right. The first, we're down to two conceptual reviews. I believe the conceptual review for 455 East Maxwell Street has been withdrawn. So we are now at 292 Deshay Road. And which staff member? Ah, Amelia, do you want to take us through this one? So the address is actually 239 Deshay Road. I'm sorry. It's okay. And this is the structure. And these are new owners who are looking to make some changes to the structure. They are looking to gain more attic space on the third floor. so they have a and I'll just walk you around the property and we'll talk about the changes sort of walking around property this is sort of the side there proposing to actually increase the roof itself and also install front dormers in addition they would like to renovate the sunroom that you see in front of us to make that more of a usable space instead of a sunroom but they'd also like to install a dormer across this section and then to raise this roof up and create a new roof tying into the main roof. And so they'd also like to extend the chimney height above the roof line and that's actually because of wanting to increase the height of the roof itself. and then the other thing they would want to do, I'll go back for a second, excuse me as I move past. There are two brick pieces for a planter they would like to remove. Are those original to the house? Or do you know? It's hard to tell. Okay. So they would like to add the three dormers, and they would cover those with cementitious board. Add a short shed roof on the back, and of course a new bathroom, and a new dormer on the rear. And we'll go to the plans next. So excuse me as I walk through these a little fast. this is sort of the looking north west this is sort of the site plan this is a funny lot it actually doesn't go all the way back to the very back it stops right there so here are the as built on the the top plans and then the proposed on the second. This is actually the second and third floor. So you can see right now the third floor and this is a proposed to get a bathroom and two bedrooms upstairs on the third floor. So you can tell the plans on the top or that is built and then the proposal to increase the roof height and then add the dormers. And then you can see on the right elevation, proposing to add a continuous dormer that would die into raising the roof on that, on sort of the rear L as we were calling it. And that would also include increasing the height of the chimney. And then this is the right rear elevation in this section. As this is a conceptual, there are no findings at the time. However, items to be considered include the following. Is it appropriate to increase the height of the original roof? Is it appropriate to increase the chimney height of the original chimney? Is it appropriate to construct dormers on the front of the structure? Are the dormers in character and scale to the structure? Is it appropriate to construct a dormer on the rear of the structure? Does the dormer on the rear relate in scale, design, and placement? Is it appropriate to raise the rear L by increasing the roof and wall height? Do the roof and wall changes to the rear L result in too much roof? Does the increase in roof endormers create too much mass on the top of the structure? Are the openings compatible in scale, size, proportion to established patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings? Do the architectural details and articulation of the proposed addition relate in scale, rhythm, proportion, and texture to the existing and adjacent surrounding historic buildings? Are the materials and scale to the building in which they are located and compatible with materials in adjacent surrounding buildings? Is it appropriate to redesign the existing addition? Are the materials appropriate to the redesign? And is it appropriate to remove existing planters from the front of the building? And, of course, the applicants and I believe their architect is here. Okay, are there any questions? Thank you. ¶¶ I am...