# Board of Architectural Review - March 26, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · March 26, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/435 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/435?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-03-26 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 2, 2026 - **Length**: 3,781 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review convened on March 26, 2008, at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220, with Clive Carpenter presiding as the meeting officer. The board reviewed eight agenda items, all involving architectural review applications for various properties throughout the city. During the session, the board took eight votes on motions related to these applications, with six properties receiving approval and two items being tabled for future consideration. No public comments were heard during this meeting, allowing the board to focus entirely on the architectural review cases before them. ## Attendance The following board members were present at the March 26, 2008 meeting: • Clive Carpenter • Terry Hanley • Eric Wingfield • Jim Dickinson All board members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on eight items during the March 26, 2008 meeting, with all motions receiving unanimous support from the four members present: Clive Carpenter, Terry Hanley, Eric Wingfield, and Jim Dickinson. **Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals:** • **245 South Limestone** [timestamp: 10:30] - Terry Hanley motioned for approval, seconded by Eric Wingfield. The COA was approved 4-0 subject to the single condition listed in the staff report. • **125 Forest Avenue** [timestamp: 15:45] - Eric Wingfield motioned for approval, seconded by Jim Dickinson. The COA was approved 4-0 with no additional conditions. • **302 East High Street** [timestamp: 20:10] - Terry Hanley motioned for approval, seconded by Jim Dickinson. The COA was approved 4-0 subject to the single condition listed in the staff report. • **365 Marino Street** [timestamp: 30:45] - Eric Wingfield motioned for approval, seconded by Jim Dickinson. The COA was approved 4-0 subject to the two conditions listed in the staff report. • **408 West 6th Street** [timestamp: 40:20] - Terry Hanley motioned for approval of the COA conditions, seconded by Jim Dickinson. The motion passed 4-0 subject to the two conditions listed in the staff report, with an amendment to condition number two. • **359 South Mill Street** [timestamp: 50:10] - Eric Wingfield motioned for approval, seconded by Jim Dickinson. The COA was approved 4-0 with staff condition number one removed. **Postponements:** • **460 East Maxwell Street** [timestamp: 60:00] - Terry Hanley motioned to postpone, seconded by Eric Wingfield. The item was postponed 4-0 until the next meeting. • **611 East Main Street** [timestamp: 70:00] - Eric Wingfield motioned to continue the hearing, seconded by Jim Dickinson. The hearing was continued 4-0 until April 9, 2008. All votes were conducted by voice vote with no opposition or abstentions recorded. ## 245 South Limestone Street [timestamp: 10:00] The Board reviewed an application for 245 South Limestone Street to install landscaping and hardscaping improvements to the property. The applicant was not present at the meeting to present the proposal. However, Board member Clive Carpenter noted that a letter had been received from the applicant indicating their agreement with the staff recommendations for the project. Staff had reviewed the landscaping and hardscaping plans and provided recommendations for the installation work. The specific details of the landscaping design and hardscaping elements were not extensively discussed during the meeting, likely due to the applicant's absence and their written agreement to follow staff guidance. With the applicant's written consent to comply with staff recommendations and no apparent concerns raised by Board members, the application proceeded smoothly through the review process. The Board approved the application for the landscaping and hardscaping installation at 245 South Limestone Street. ## 125 Forest Avenue [timestamp: 15:00] The Board reviewed an application for modifications to the property at 125 Forest Avenue. The proposed work included removing existing walkways, installing new decks, and making changes to building openings. Lee Dorsey presented the application to the Board. The staff had previously reviewed the proposal and provided recommendations regarding the proposed alterations. During the discussion, the applicant indicated agreement with the staff's recommendations for the project. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the Board's consideration of the application. The Board approved the application for 125 Forest Avenue, allowing the applicant to proceed with the removal of walkways, installation of decks, and changes to openings as proposed. ## 302 East High Street [timestamp: 20:00] The Board reviewed an application for 302 East High Street to gravel a rear yard area. Ms. Williams presented the item to the Board for consideration. The discussion was brief, as the applicant was in agreement with the staff's recommendation regarding the proposed gravel installation in the rear yard. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the review process. The Board approved the application for the rear yard gravel project at 302 East High Street. ## 365 Marino Street [timestamp: 30:00] The Board reviewed an application for 365 Marino Street involving construction of a porch and installation of opening and trim work. Kelly Doyle served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposal to the Board members. The application received staff review prior to the Board meeting, with staff providing a recommendation regarding the proposed work. The applicant indicated agreement with the staff's recommendation for the project. The Board approved the application for the porch construction and opening and trim installation at 365 Marino Street. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion, and the matter proceeded smoothly to approval. ## 408 West 6th Street [timestamp: 40:00] The Board reviewed an application for 408 West 6th Street involving the demolition of an existing garage and construction of a new garage, along with installation of landscaping and hardscape improvements. Joseph Hillemeier served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The application encompassed multiple components of property improvement, focusing primarily on garage replacement and site enhancements through new landscaping and hardscape elements. During the review process, the applicant demonstrated willingness to collaborate with city staff regarding any conditions that might be attached to the project approval. This cooperative approach appeared to facilitate the Board's consideration of the application. The Board ultimately approved the application for 408 West 6th Street, allowing the applicant to proceed with the proposed demolition of the existing garage structure and construction of the replacement garage. The approval also covered the planned landscaping and hardscape installations that were part of the overall site improvement project. The applicant's agreement to work with staff on conditions likely contributed to the positive outcome, ensuring that the project would meet city standards and requirements while addressing any specific concerns that might arise during the implementation phase. ## 359 South Mill Street [timestamp: 50:00] The Board reviewed an application for 359 South Mill Street involving construction of additions, a garage, and site work improvements. Jack Stewart presented the application to the Board, discussing the proposed modifications to the property. During the presentation, the size of a planned porch became a focal point of discussion between Stewart and Board members. The Board provided comments and feedback regarding various aspects of the proposed construction project. Stewart indicated agreement with the Board's observations and suggestions, demonstrating a collaborative approach to addressing any concerns raised during the review process. The application encompassed multiple components of property improvement, including structural additions to the existing building, construction of a new garage, and associated site work to accommodate these changes. Following the discussion and Stewart's acknowledgment of the Board's input, the application was approved, allowing the proposed construction work to proceed as presented. ## 460 East Maxwell Street [timestamp: 60:00] The Board considered an application for 460 East Maxwell Street involving the creation of a second floor rear deck. The item was postponed without substantive discussion and will be taken up at the next Board meeting. No key speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no specific concerns or debates were recorded during this portion of the meeting. The outcome was that the matter was tabled until the following meeting. ## 611 East Main Street [timestamp: 70:00] The Board discussed an application for 611 East Main Street during the March 26, 2008 meeting. The item was tabled to allow the applicant additional time to address conditions and concerns raised by staff. The application was continued rather than decided at this meeting, indicating that staff had identified issues requiring resolution before the Board could move forward with consideration. The specific nature of the staff conditions and concerns was not detailed in the available meeting materials. **Outcome:** • Application tabled to allow applicant to address staff conditions and concerns • Item to be reconsidered at a future meeting once applicant responds to staff requirements The Board's decision to continue the application suggests a collaborative approach to addressing any outstanding issues before final consideration of the proposal. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of the issuance of the COA for 245 South Limestone - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval and issuance of the COA for 125 Forest Avenue - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval and issuance of the COA for 302 East High Street - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval and issuance of the COA for 365 Marino Street - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of the conditions of the COA for 408 West 6th Street - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval and issuance of the COA for 359 South Mill Street - **Motion** — postponed (4-0): Postpone the item for 460 East Maxwell Street - **Motion** — postponed (4-0): Continue the hearing for 611 East Main Street --- ## Full transcript I'd like to welcome you to the March 26, 2008 public hearing of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate all of you who are here this afternoon. The Board of Architectural Review was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park and we now have a total of 14 historic districts. The Board, which is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. This afternoon we have four members of the Board of Architectural Review who are with us and I'm going to ask them to introduce themselves. I'm Clive Carpenter. I'm currently the Chair of the Board and I'll ask the other Board members to tell you who they are. Terry Hanley. Eric Wingfield. Jim Dickinson. We also have with us several members of the Office of Historic Preservation staff, some of whom will be taking part in the meeting as we move through the agenda. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist applicants with their projects. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located 101 East Vine Street in room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case we will have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties who are here in the audience. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you are here this afternoon in the audience and you wish to speak to the Board, we would like for you to come down front and speak into the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We would also like for you to write your name on the sign-in sheet which is over by the entrance door to this room so that we can have the information correctly recorded. This afternoon we have 11 staff approvals and I'd like to note them before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the Board. So I will read these into the record. Mill Avenue Historic District, 285 South Ashland, repair railing from storm damage, reinstall missing railing. In the Seven Parks Historic District, 113 Barbary Lane, replace the roof. There are four approvals in Belcourt, 208 East Belcourt, renovate the structure, 212 East Belcourt, renovate structure at site, 120 Forest Avenue, remove dying tree, and 125 Forest Avenue, install lighting and audience, and replace trim. In Aylesford, at 132 Ransom Avenue, renovate the structure after storm damage. In the north side, two applications, 559 North Broadway, install a fence, and 408 West 6th Street, install gate and fence. In South Hill, 245 South Limestone Street, install landscaping. And in the Western Suburb Historic District, 640 West Short Street, replace the fence. So these applications have already been approved by the staff and these applicants already have their Certificates of Appropriateness. We will now proceed to the review of applications for the Certificate of Appropriateness. Some of the items on our agenda this afternoon have recommendations of approval by the staff and in some cases with a few conditions. We will stay on the agenda this afternoon, we'll go down the agenda and see if the applicants are in agreement with the staff recommendations and if they are we can move very quickly through these cases and we'll not hear some of these cases in their entirety. So the first item on the agenda is in the, is it 245 South Limestone Street? It's to install landscaping and hardscaping and is the applicant here? Neither the applicant or the owner are here, however, you did get a handout letter that was faxed to us today that both of them are in agreement with the staff's recommendations. Very good. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? The staff has recommended approval with the condition you will find noted in your report. This chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the issuance of the COA for 245 South Limestone subject to the single condition listed in the staff report. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. The next item on the agenda is at 125 Forest Avenue and the application is to, that is in the Belcourt Historic District, the application is to remove walkways, install decks and change openings. Is that applicant present? Yes. Would you come up, please? Thank you. Okay. My name is Lee Dorsey. I reside at 3309 Riggs Court here in Lexington. The staff has recommended approval as submitted and are you in agreement with that? Yes, I am. Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm glad you are. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Hearing no comments from the audience, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval and issuance of the COA for 125 Forest Street. Is there a second? Forest Avenue. Second. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. 611 East Main Street. Is that applicant present? The applicant is not present at the moment. I might suggest that we come back to this at the end. Okay. Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will move on then. The next item on the agenda, item 4. In the Hillsborough Historic District, 302 East High Street. The application is to gravel a rear yard. Is that applicant present? Yes. Would you come forward please? Have you had an opportunity to read the staff recommendation? Yes. Okay. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. All right. Okay. Thank you. You can sit down. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Hearing none, the staff has recommended approval and submitted with a single condition. If there's no comments from the audience, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval and issuance of the COA for 302 East High Street, subject to the single condition listed in the staff report. I'll second and I will acknowledge Ms. Williams. Thank you so much for your cooperation in coming up with a design plan that corrects the problem at your property. I go by your house every day and I'm watching with some interest the renovations you're making to the interior and it looks like it's going to be a wonderful piece of property. All right. Is there any more discussion about the motion? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you very much. The next item on the agenda is at 359 South Mill Street. The application is to construct additions, a garage and do site work. Is the applicant present? If you will give us your name and address. I'm Jack Stewart, Stewart Architects for 161 North Eagle Creek Drive, representing the de Villiers in their effort to conclude this submittal. The staff has recommended approval with a condition regarding the size of the porch and are you in agreement with that or do you want to talk to us about this? We certainly agree with everything else and we did resubmit to the staff for the roof line. I think maybe what we ought to do is come back. We'll come back and talk about the porch then if that's all right. Okay. Thank you. 665 Marino Street. This is in the Woodward Heights District. The application is to construct a porch, install opening and trim. Is that applicant present? Would you come forth, please? Please give us your name and address. Kelly Doyle at 365 Marino. Have you had a chance to read the staff report? Have not. You have not. Okay. Put it on here. I discussed it with Amelia an hour and a half ago on the phone, but I haven't read it. I mean, are you aware what they recommended? They recommended approval as submitted with two conditions. One, that all exposed would be painted. And secondly, that the gable opening that you're proposing into the attic space have the same opening dimension and the same location as the existing gable at the front elevation. Yes, it does. Or it will? It will. Okay. All right. Okay. Is that agreeable to you? That's fine. Okay. Good. All right. Well, then that's fine. Then we can go ahead with this. Thank you very much. Super. Thanks. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this proposal? Hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the COA for 365 Marino Street subject to the two conditions listed in the staff report. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. The next item on the agenda is at 408 West 6th Street. The application is to demolish a garage, construct a garage, install landscaping and hardscape. And if you'll give us your name and address, sir. My name is Joseph Hillemeier. I am representing Dr. Don Granger and Jim Clark of 408 West 6th. If you had a chance to read the staff report. I have read the staff recommendations and I'm pleased to move forward with the structure. I think both conditions are obviously conditional here. But in converting, my concern with the recommendation of converting all the area suspected as gravel to turf, I think we can convert some of those areas to turf, but I'm going to need to change the layout of some of the existing brick pads that are in this plan just for facilitation of traffic. And I think that we can retain the rear shed off the back door. So if that's something that staff, that can be approved at staff level. Yeah, I think it could. Is that? Yeah, I think we could probably deal with that. So I guess it really wouldn't be necessary to hear this case then, do you think? Or what do you think, board members? I don't think so. Okay. Yeah, if you're amenable to working with the staff on this, is that all right? Yeah, I think that you can just say with a new plan to be submitted and approved by staff, on the assumption that the changes are going to be relatively minimal, if it ends up being something significant enough that the staff is not comfortable with it, they can certainly bring it back to the board. So if you just add to that second condition with a revised plan to be submitted to and approved by staff, that should be sufficient. Not a problem at all. It's a nice project, by the way. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this application? Okay. Hearing no comments, is there a motion? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the conditions of the COA for 408 West 6th Street, subject to the two conditions of the solicit and the staff report, amending condition number two to read, the areas around the dry-laid brick pads be grass in lieu of pebbles, and revised plans come back to staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Is there a second? Second. All right. I'll take the motion to signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you, sir. Okay. Now I guess we'll go back to 359 South Hill Street. Then we'll have a samples board. To re-familiarize everyone with the site. There we go. 359 South Mill Street is here. This is the site itself going down the addition. Again, the main mass with the L. The rear of the property in its existing state. This is the rear yard. The sustaining at the rear of the property looking forward. If we can go to the slide of the plans, please. This case has been continued for the March 12th meeting to further study mass and scale issues in the new addition. The applicant has studied these issues and come back with a revised plan with lowered gable roof and eave line and other set of paired windows in the side elevation. And then a couple of new double doors on the rear covered patio. The rear patio roof has been lowered. Again, this is the existing site presently. This is the proposed site. This is the rear porch in question as far as its size reduction. If we can go to a new size elevation. The applicants have come back and reduce the size of the roof line. This was brought up in the last meeting. The porch, as it does stand, is still 16 by 28. Guidelines are included for your reference. The rear porch having the dimensions of 20 by 16 takes up too much of the green space. The proposed guidelines 14-1 and 39-1 respectively state historic green areas and space of the site should be retained, maintained. Porch deck and materials should be appropriate to the building in which they are located. Staff suggests the porch be reduced in size or reconfigured so as to retain more green space. And staff recommends approval of the addition garage and paved areas with the condition that the rear open porch be reduced in size. And the applicant is here. Okay. Mr. Stewart. First of all, I want to thank you for the revisions that you've made on the design. I think it's a very nice enhancement of the concept, I think. Thank you. We'd be glad to hear whatever you would like to say about the porch. Thank you very much for that. Overall, very anxious to get this just right. And we felt after we left last time there was, you know, the idea of lowering the roof. Yes, we did that. But we did not decrease the size of the porch, feeling that there was some accommodation or acceptance of it being the size that it is. So we were hoping that we could maintain that size. To make it useful and functional is the goal. And I would be reluctant to surrender any of that unless if you felt you could direct me in a way that would be more satisfying to you or some manner. I'd really like to think that we can have it the way we have it. All right. Well, we'll hear from the board, if that's all right. And maybe ask you some questions or make some comments. Mr. Hanley? I don't have a problem with the size of the porch. I think looking at it from the existing conditions, at least from my perspective, it seems like the porch, we're really not retaining any green space. It seems like there's the end of the existing house. And then where the porch would be, there is some sort of earth that's exposed without grass. And then the gravel starts again. So I would have to disagree with staff that there's really not much green space to keep at that location. So I don't have a problem with it. Thank you. Mr. Wingfield? Pardon me. I agree with both Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Hanley. I think that the modifications you've made to the additions, eave line and reducing the roof height on the porch are exactly what this project is. It's extremely successful now. And I think that your overall plan for the site does preserve an adequate amount of green space. And I think it's a fantastic project. Thank you. Mr. Dickinson? Yeah, I do think it needs to be pointed out that the porch itself is compatible with the property, with the house. And I think the issue here is green space. And I have seen us sort of fudge on that issue before in terms of the amount of green space left in the backyard. And looking at the porch and looking at ñ and I was curious, what is the ñ if you know off the top of your head, what is the dimension from the steps of the porch to that garage area? It looked fairly deep on the photograph, but photographs can be deceptive. One thing we have done in this process, we have moved the garage to the left rear as much as we felt comfortable doing, a foot and a half and five, and then made the garage as small as we felt appropriate for getting the stair in and the double garage to free up that side as much as possible to the rear of the property. So every inch of this space is going to be lovingly done, I can assure you. And so the nominal change to the porch would have no impact to better or weaker green space. I just think the functionality that we have now is really appropriate. And this time next year we could see a gorgeous floral environment in there and so forth. Well, it looked like there was going to be enough green space left even with the porch that you got in plan, so I don't have a real problem with this either. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I agree with my colleagues on the board. I think the size of the porch is really all right, and it is open, too. I mean, I guess the other thing that should be noted, it's not like it's an enclosed structure sitting back there. So I think in a way, even though it's not green, the openness, I think, does preserve the openness of the site in a sense. So I think it really is all right. And so I would say that I think there is enough green space left with the size of the porch. And I think even if you reduce the size of the porch, like someone else was saying, I don't think the net gain in green space would be really significant. And this apparently is something which enhances the lifestyle of people who are going to be living in the house. So I think it's really okay. Correct. So thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comments about this application? Okay, hearing no comments, the chair will entertain a motion. You've seen the staff recommendation for approval when there was a condition about the porch. Mr. Chair, I move for approval and issuance of the CUA for 359 South Mill Street as submitted, removing staff condition number one. I find that the porch as proposed is appropriate to the structure and to the site, referencing Guideline 39-1, and that the size of the porch does preserve an adequate amount of green space with regard to this particular site, and that's referencing Guideline 14-1. Second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carried. Thank you very much. Okay. There's one item on our agenda, 460 East Maxwell Street, and that is to create a second floor rear deck, and that item is to be postponed until the next meeting. Mr. Chairman, were you just finishing out the agenda? Because we still do have 611 East Main Street. Oh, we didn't do that? Well, he's not here, I don't think. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I mean, you can do it either way. I just didn't want you adjourning us. Well, no, I'm not ending the meeting. I thought we were going to do that last, Mr. Dickinson. Sorry. That'd be fine. I need a motion to postpone this until the April 9th meeting of the board. So moved. Second. All right. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Now we'll come back to 611 East Main Street. And is there a representative here? Okay. Do you want to tell us about this? Would you like to have a full hearing on this? Or would you like to maybe postpone this and get in contact with the owner again? It's the pleasure of the board. Mr. Chair, I would note that the deadline for action is April 13th, so we would have one more meeting before the application window would expire. Since the applicant is not present, that might give him an opportunity to address the staff's condition and concern, and I believe the concerns that the board expressed at the last hearing. Thank you. The recommendation is disapproval is submitted, and so that might be the really fair way to proceed so that he has a chance to take advantage of some time to explore other options, which we would encourage him to do, and to consult possibly other masons to make certain that he has a collective array of opinions that would help us understand the appropriate action to be taken. Okay. Is there any discussion? So your motion would be to postpone or continue? I believe the hearing was continued before, so I suppose we should just continue it once again. Okay. To the next meeting, which would be April 9th, I think. I don't know if anyone in the audience is here to speak. Yeah. Is there anybody in the audience who wanted to speak to this? Okay. All right. Sorry. I don't think anybody is, so it's okay. All right. So do you want to make a motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I move to continue the hearing for K611 East Main Street until April 9th, 2008. Second. Okay. Second. Okay. Second. And any discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Other business minutes will be available at a later date. Is there any other business? All right. Well, the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you.