# Board of Architectural Review - November 14, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 14, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4639 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4639?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-11-14 - **Last revised**: November 14, 2018 - **Length**: 15,478 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 November 14, 2018, to review applications for modifications to properties within the city's historic districts. The board considered four agenda items, all involving proposed changes to residential and commercial properties located in various historic districts throughout the city. During the meeting, the board took five votes and heard no public comments. All four applications presented to the board were approved, demonstrating unanimous support for the proposed modifications. The approved projects included signage installation at a commercial property on West High Street in the South Hill Historic District, a backyard fence installation on Dantzler Drive in the Seven Park Historic District, paving expansion at a Fontaine Road property in the Ashland Park Historic District, and a rear dormer enlargement on East Maxwell Street in the Aylesford Historic District. The meeting proceeded efficiently with all proposed modifications receiving board approval, allowing property owners to move forward with their planned improvements while maintaining compliance with historic district preservation standards. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on November 14, 2018: • Graham Paul • Josh • Sarah • Ms. Tate No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All expected attendees were present at the start of the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered five applications during the November 14, 2018 meeting, with mixed outcomes across the agenda items. **302 West High Street Signage Application** [timestamp: 00:00] The Chair motioned to approve the application for signage installation at 302 West High Street. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote with 4 ayes and 0 nays. Graham Paul, Josh, Sarah, and Ms. Tate all voted in favor. The approval was subject to standard conditions. **106 Dantzler Drive Chain Link Fence Applications** [timestamp: 00:00] This property generated two separate votes. Josh first motioned to deny the application for installing a backyard chain link fence, seconded by Sarah. This denial motion failed in a 2-2 tie vote, with Josh and Sarah voting for denial while Graham Paul and Ms. Tate voted against denial. Following the failed denial, Graham Paul motioned to approve the chain link fence installation, seconded by Ms. Tate. This approval motion passed 3-1, with Graham Paul, Ms. Tate, and Josh voting in favor and Sarah voting against. The approval included the condition that the fence was grandfathered due to existing posts and neighborhood character. **1047 Fontaine Road Application** [timestamp: 00:00] Graham Paul motioned to approve this application, seconded by Sarah. The motion passed unanimously 4-0 by voice vote, with all members (Graham Paul, Josh, Sarah, and Ms. Tate) voting in favor. The approval included the condition that the owner must work with staff to modify existing paving. **303 East Maxwell Street Dormer Application** [timestamp: 00:00] Graham Paul motioned to approve the application to enlarge the rear dormer, seconded by Josh. The motion passed 3-1, with Graham Paul, Josh, and Ms. Tate voting in favor and Sarah voting against. The approval was subject to standard conditions. ## Appointments The meeting included one appointment action during the proceedings. **Graham Paul** was appointed to the **Planning Commission**. The appointment was processed as part of the meeting's regular business items. No additional details about the appointment process, term length, or background information were provided in the available meeting materials. ## Contested Items The board faced two contentious issues during the November 14, 2018 meeting that generated significant discussion and disagreement among members. **Chain Link Fence at 106 Dantzler Drive** The installation of a chain link fence at 106 Dantzler Drive resulted in a split vote among board members. The primary point of contention centered on the presence of existing posts on the property and concerns about how the proposed fence would affect the overall character of the neighborhood. Board members were divided on whether the fence installation met the district's standards and guidelines. The disagreement reflected broader tensions about balancing property owners' practical needs with historic preservation requirements. **Paving Expansion at 1047 Fontaine Road** The proposal to expand paving at 1047 Fontaine Road sparked heated discussion among board members regarding its appropriateness within the historic district context. The debate focused on the potential impact such expansion would have on the historic character and integrity of the area. Board members expressed varying opinions on whether the paving expansion aligned with preservation standards and district guidelines. Despite the contentious nature of the discussion, the board ultimately reached a conditional approval for the project, suggesting that specific requirements or modifications were imposed to address the concerns raised during deliberations. Both items highlight the ongoing challenge historic preservation boards face in balancing property owners' desires for modifications with the mandate to protect historic district character and integrity. ## 302 West High Street (South Hill Historic District): Install signage [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for installing signage at 302 West High Street, located within the South Hill Historic District. Vlaun Connors served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The application requested approval to install new signage at the property. During the review process, the applicant agreed to comply with standard conditions typically required for signage installations within the historic district. The commission approved the certificate of appropriateness for the signage installation project. The approval was granted with the understanding that the applicant would adhere to the standard conditions that were agreed upon during the meeting. This agenda item was processed as the first item of business during the meeting, indicating it was likely a straightforward application that met the district's historic preservation guidelines for appropriate signage. ## 106 Dantzler Drive (Seven Park Historic District): Install backyard chain link fence [timestamp: 00:00] The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for installing a backyard chain link fence at 106 Dantzler Drive in the Seven Park Historic District. Catherine Pemberthy served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The application initially faced denial, but the commission's decision changed during the course of the meeting. The approval was ultimately granted based on two primary factors that emerged during the review process. First, the commission noted that existing fence posts were already present on the property, which influenced their consideration of the proposal. Second, the character of the surrounding neighborhood was determined to be compatible with the proposed chain link fencing installation. The commission's initial hesitation followed by approval suggests there was substantive discussion about the appropriateness of chain link fencing within the historic district context. However, the presence of existing infrastructure and the assessment that such fencing aligned with the established neighborhood character ultimately swayed the decision in favor of the applicant. The final outcome was approval of the certificate of appropriateness, allowing the property owner to proceed with installing the backyard chain link fence at 106 Dantzler Drive. ## 1047 Fontaine Road (Ashland Park Historic District): Expand paving [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for expanding paving at 1047 Fontaine Road, located within the Ashland Park Historic District. Mr. Wilson served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item. The application sought approval to expand existing paving on the property. While the specific details of the proposed paving expansion were not elaborated in the available materials, the request was considered within the context of the historic district's preservation guidelines and standards. Following discussion of the proposal, the commission approved the certificate of appropriateness with conditions. The approval was contingent upon the applicant working with staff on modifications to the proposed paving expansion. This collaborative approach allows for refinements to ensure the project meets the historic district's requirements while accommodating the property owner's needs. The conditional approval demonstrates the commission's standard practice of working with applicants to achieve outcomes that balance property improvements with historic preservation standards. By requiring coordination with staff on modifications, the commission ensures that the final paving design will be appropriate for the historic character of the Ashland Park Historic District. The item was resolved as agenda item 3 during the meeting, with the applicant now able to proceed with the paving expansion project once the required staff coordination and any necessary modifications are completed. ## 303 East Maxwell Street (Aylesford Historic District): Enlarge rear dormer [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed a certificate of appropriateness application for 303 East Maxwell Street, located within the Aylesford Historic District, to enlarge an existing rear dormer on the property. Bob Marshall presented the application to the commission. The proposal involved expanding the size of a dormer located on the rear portion of the historic structure. The commission approved the application with standard conditions. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with enlarging the rear dormer as proposed in the submitted plans. Since the dormer is located on the rear of the building, the modification would not significantly impact the street-facing facade or the overall historic character of the structure as viewed from East Maxwell Street. Rear alterations in historic districts are typically given more flexibility than front-facing changes, as they are less visible from public viewways and have reduced impact on the historic streetscape. The standard conditions attached to the approval likely include requirements for proper permits, adherence to the submitted plans, and compliance with applicable building codes and historic preservation guidelines. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of application for 302 West High Street to install signage - **Motion** — failed (2-2): Denial of application for 106 Dantzler Drive to install backyard chain link fence - **Motion** — passed (3-1): Approval of installation of chain link fence at 106 Dantzler Drive - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of application for 1047 Fontaine Road with conditions - **Motion** — passed (3-1): Approval of application for 303 East Maxwell Street to enlarge rear dormer --- ## Full transcript Kentucky in general and talk to them about our bourbon cult. I would like to welcome you to the November 14 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The Board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was France Park, and 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 is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so the information can be recorded correctly. I I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 27 approved applications noted on today's agenda. Beginning with, in the South Ashland Avenue Historic District, 244 South Ashland, remove Dying Tree. at 118 Deshay Road, renovate structure, 237 Deshay Road, install trees, 320 Deshay Road, remove dead tree. In the Ellsford Historic District, at 456 East High Street, replace roof, at 319 Linden Walk, renovate structure, at 135 Old Lafayette Avenue, renovate structure, at 161 Kentucky Avenue, replace front door and storm door, at 216 Rose Street renovate structure in the Constitution historic district at 115 Constitution Street install handrails in the north side historic district at 547 North Broadway renovate structure at 423 West 6th Street remove damaging tree at 445 West 3rd Street renovate structure and finally in 105 Hampton Court reissue the COA in the South Hill historic district at 355 South Broadway replace antennas at 388 South Broadway reinstall gas meter at 388 South Broadway reissue CoA at 388 South Broadway reissue CoA and 388 South Broadway reissue CoA in the South Hill historic district still 210 West Maxwell Street replace sign and at 315 South Mill Street venerate structure 422 through 426 South Mill Street, venerate site and structure. In the Woodward Heights Historic District at 817 West Maxwell Street, replace roof, remove tree. At 337 Merino Street, remove, renovate structure. At 364 Merino Street, renovate structure. At 344 Madison Place, prep for painting and repair structure. And finally, at 349 Madison Place, remove dying tree. Before we move into the applications themselves, I would like to acknowledge the fact that one of our board members has in effect been promoted and will be leaving us and has now been appointed to the Planning Commission. We have worked with Graham Paul for a number of years. It's been a pleasure and privilege to know you, Graham. And we have prepared a resolution in your honor, and I'd like to read that resolution into the record. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board of Architectural Review and the Lexington Historic Preservation Officer, acknowledge the dedicated community service of Graham Paul as a member of the Board of Architectural Review, and whereas Graham Paul served faithfully on this Board, sharing his much appreciated expertise to the benefit of protecting and enhancing Lexington's local historic districts, and whereas the members of the Board and the staff greatly appreciate the service given by Graham Paul, who will be deeply missed by this body. Now, therefore, be it resolved, we, the members of the Board, and the staff, do hereby express our gratitude to Graham Pohl for his service to the Board and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County and we the Lexington Fayette Urban County Board of Architectural Review and staff do hereby wish for Graham Pohl much success in its further endeavors and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Graham Pohl and also recorded within the minutes of this body made it at Lexington Kentucky this the 14th day of November 2018 Graham you'll be missed and thank you thank you this will be signed later on okay moving on to further business we'll begin with the first application at 302 West High Street install signage is the applicant here come on up hello stationing for the record please Shawna Connors okay miss Connors I believe your application has been reviewed and the staff has recommended approval subject to what I've always referred to as our standard conditions okay I will read them into the record with first time once reviewed by the other LFUCG divisions resubmit any changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work and secondly if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes the staff for review and approval prior to start of work are in agreement with those and conditions all right any questions or concerns by the board members any comments or concerns from the audience if not then the chair is ready for a motion mr. chair regarding case number zero nine three zero zero three zero two dash e at three oh two West High Street I move to approve the application pursuant to the two standard conditions read into the record earlier all right All right, do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Okay, turning to our second application at 106 Dantzler Drive, scope of work is install backyard chain link fence. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Come on up. All right. You're a little, you're going to have to pull that mic to you. This one? Yeah, please. And you'll have to speak directly into it. All right. My name's Catherine Pemberthy. Okay. Ms. Pemberthy, how are you today? How am I? Yes. I'm sorry. Nervous. Well, I'm asking you that because unfortunately the staff has reviewed your application and they have decided not to approve your application. I understand. I'm assuming you would like to be heard on that? I have heard of that, yes. Okay. Would you like to have, what we'll do now at this point is have a presentation by the staff. We have an opportunity to review the application and hear any arguments or comments you may have regarding your application. I would like to say a few things. They present first, is that how it goes? Yeah, let's do the presentation first and then you can talk. Okay. All right? Okay, that's okay. We're good. Barry One oh two dance or drive in the seven parks historic district The scope is to install a backyard chain link fence The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to install a chain link fence on the east property line of the property The chain link fabric was installed on existing galvanized pipe fence posts. The chain link fence existed in this location prior to the creation of the Seven Parks Historic District in 1987. Some times prior to 2010, the chain link fabric was removed, leaving the fence posts in place. Staff discovered during an H-1 review that the chain link fabric had been reinstalled and contacted the property owner to submit a COA application. this is 106 this is looking from the front of the house towards the rear 106 being in this location and the new chain link fabric on these existing posts this is looking from the west back towards the east again you can see the chain link just another view and this is looking from the back of the property towards the front the the guidelines are included for your use findings the staff finds that the proposal to install the chain link fence does not meet the guidelines the detect the design principle states fences are typically constructed of wood cast iron wrought iron, bricks, stone, or woven wire. Lexington has a number of historic metal fences. Historic fences should be preserved and maintained. The construction of new fences based upon historic designs and materials is also appropriate. Cast iron or woven wire is preferable for 19th and early 20th century buildings. Guideline 3-1-D states fences of wood boards for privacy should be located in rear yards and generally no taller than six feet. Fences of PVC vinyl or synthetic materials are not permitted. Staff recommends denial of the certificate of appropriateness to install the chain link fence. And that's the end of the report. Does the board have any questions? I have one question and that is what is the staff's interpretation of woven metal? I think Ms. Kerr is going to jump in. Yes. Woven metal does not include a chain-link fence in that it is over time been more of kind of a farm fence, if you will. The vertical oriented smaller vertical rhythm with the hoop loops at the top, all the elements of that. You purchase it as roll fencing. That is true, not dissimilar from a chain link. But chain link has never been approved within the historic districts and continues to not be within the guidelines to have a chain link fence. They are, some of them, existing conditions on properties throughout, varied of the historic districts, but they were pre-existing before those districts were created, were designated. And if I understand from the application, the polls themselves were still there, but the fence itself was gone? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Ms. Pemberley? You may come back. Thank you. Drop the microphone down to you. There we go. Okay. I'd like to explain my standpoint to y'all. I've owned this property since August of 2017, and for 11 months I had no idea. I was living in a historic district, strange as that may seem. I was trying to fix the driveway, which was a big mess when I bought the building, and I met Barry Dennis. so then he informed me that it's a historic district I need a certificate of appropriateness and I've sought one for anything I've done to the outside of the building ever since back to when I first got this building I noticed that people were using the backyard as kind of a semi circular drive and creating ruts in the backyard which was not really paved that well back in the back either so they're big dirt ruts so and I was worried about driving on people driving on the other neighbor's property too and I and I saw the posts that were there from the old chain link and I figured that when the weather got better I'd replace it because that seemed like a good way to handle the issue. And this morning, I took a walk in seven parks, and I saw at least 25 chain-link fences in the neighborhood, like mine in the back mostly, but I saw some in the front also of some houses. I think respectfully I'd request the board to grandfather in this fence because it was erected in good faith on the evidence of the past posts that were there, and because there are many other chain-link fences in the neighborhood still. And it's really great at keeping the cars out of the backyard, and my tenants really like it. And I think to take it down would be a waste of a good fence and money. Thank you. Thank you. I take it that your parents are living at the house right now? Pardon me? Are your parents living in this house or you? No, neither. I have tenants. I'm sorry. You thought I said parents. Tenants. Tenants. Okay. So this is rental property, correct? Yes, it is. Okay, thank you. All right, any questions or comments from the board members? Not necessarily for Mrs. Pemberthy, but a general question. The timing of the removal of the chain link, I mean, at what point do you decide that a project is not a repair project? Because it would be easy to think of this as being a situation where Mrs. Pemberthy bought a piece of property. There were pieces of it missing, which she then replaced. and so it seems to me that that's pretty that's a i mean it's pretty hard to say that that she's in violation when there was in fact that material there fairly recently and after the fat the fact of the seven parks designation so that i guess i i guess that's more of a question for staff to answer them there's no hard and fast definition of when something can be grandfathered in there's no it has to be that it existed 12 months before that or something like that but it's a finite window I think building inspection may even use a year as their their definition of what if something's been missing but you have documentation of it could be returned even if it's outside of the current regs this fence has been missing we know for about five years the actual mesh very 2010 it was removed so that's eight years and that's really too much of a stretch to consider it's eligible for being grandfathered in. It goes beyond kind of what's a reasonable expectation for something to reappear or continue a life that has something been fully removed for that period of time. So it doesn't open the door to grandfathering is what I'm trying to say. Let me ask a question just to get some guidance to the board members as well. Do you evaluate the propriety of fences based on the age of the historic district? For example, in the downtown areas, the older historic districts, chain fences were somewhat rare. but as suburban areas were developed that are younger in Dantzler, the Seven Hills is a fairly relatively young historic district, there are quite a few chain fences already there. And so that another chain fence would not necessarily be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Have you ever looked at the guidelines from that interpretive viewpoint? Certainly the guidelines include looking and reflecting the character of neighborhoods throughout all of our 15 historic districts. And so what was installed in, say, a neighborhood that's got a 200-year building pattern from, say, 1790s up to reasonably current, and then a neighborhood that starts say early 20th century its character what what that overall includes is certainly part of what's looked at so when you get to a neighborhood that has a mixed array of time periods which most of our districts do You know, this neighborhood ranges from the late 1930s, early 40s on up through the 1960s predominantly. It has a lot of Cape Cods in it, 1950s, early 60s, that kind of thing. So Chainlink came to join that neighborhood, and I don't disagree at all with what the applicant's saying about she saw a number of Chainlink fences that are existing today. They have slowly but surely come into the neighborhood over time, and certainly that is not to be ignored. But in light of the fact that chain link as a concept is not considered appropriate throughout any of the historic districts, the fact that we have different conditions that exist all over the place that are not considered appropriate to continue. and that's kind of where we're at is that do you really want to continue furthering chain link fence in any of our historic districts and then especially with this example continuing to have them be added to the seven parks district okay so the guidelines intent would be to not do that all right miss Do you have students on either side of this building? Yes, ma'am. I think the University of Kentucky is really to blame for this kind of assault on a historic neighborhood. and I can pull your mic down a little bit thank you now can you hear better it's much better it's true that you could use other kind of fencing to keep party goers from parking on your property and making a mess of the backyard. So it's really hard for me to enforce that regulation that because of the pressure that you did not cause, that properties are being are being properties say next to one of these buildings where there are a lot of students I don't think that they should bear the brunt of what 18 year olds drinking beer due to to your your property and I'm wondering I have another question when you buy a house there who gives you the information that you need about the historic neighborhood and and what it requires of you as an owner before you do anything. Well, I learned that from Mr. Dennis. I learned that from Mr. Dennis. Oh, you had never seen anything? No, the seller didn't tell me. And even though the historic district signs are posted, I didn't know their significance. I just thought, oh, it's a historic district. But I didn't know it meant that I had to do what I know I have to do now. At the time, I didn't. Your realtor didn't tell you what its land-use zoning is? That's correct. I didn't know. So you bought it without knowing what its land-use zoning was? Correct. Because it includes the fact that it's a historic district in your land-use zoning. I know now, but I didn't know then. That's really unfortunate. okay Josh that's Pemberthy I think I'm leaning more toward sticking with our guidelines on this but I am I'm very aware of your predicament over there I lived next door to this property when I was younger and had very similar frustrations but in light of that difficulty I think we have to or I would have to stick with our guidelines on this even as hard as that is so is that it well we're moving towards a motion in a moment I'm gonna have to make the comment as well that certainly a case can be made that a variance should be given in this particular situation because of the nature of the neighborhood, because the poles were still there, which sort of misled you into thinking that you would just reinstall your fence. On the other hand, and this is why this is why we're struggling uh the guidelines have always been consistently interpreted to not permit chain chain link fences as a divider historically they're not appropriate for neighborhoods they are a a relatively inexpensive remedy to have fencing you know but i can i can I had actually in my backyard a woven fence that would not be even if I wanted to replace it, they probably wouldn't let me replace it. Because it just was not appropriate for the neighborhood. I think at this point, do we have any comments or observations from the audience, what's left of it? of it any further comments or observations with the board members okay I are we ready for a motion you want to take the plunge mr. Gilton I don't believe the chair can make a motion correct that's correct okay One other thought has occurred to me, and I'll have this conversation with Ms. Kerr afterwards. There is the Kentucky Realtors Board in Lexington, and I think we need to start making sure that they add a piece about historic districts to their continuing education courses? We've participated in those several times. And it is a welcome opportunity to do so. Okay. Also, I think all the streets in Historic District need to be painted bright blue in honor of UK and designating a historic district. if we're going to paint them a color we'll have one specific to this process and we're not making a lot of your situation we're you can tell that we're we're sympathetic to you it's just it's going to cost you some money unfortunately but I think we're going to have to do what the guidelines for the virus to do if I can get a motion that is mr. chairman move to get the case name first regarding case number 30870106d at 106 Danzler Drive I move to deny approval of the application for the fence okay do i have a second second all right i do have a second any further discussion on the motion if not the chair will call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye aye aye all those opposed say nay nay nay all right the motion fails let me flip it around do i have a motion to approve the installation of this fence as installed so move so moved by miss tate do i have a second second okay one of you need to give me some findings as to why it should be installed i need some findings since we're disagreeing with the staff's recommendation i think it puts an undue burden on this particular property owner okay let me add into that as part of the findings that it is arguably a repair project in the sense that the poles were still there. Even though it had been in an unrepaired condition for a number of years, it is arguably that reasonable minds can disagree about that. Second of all, I think with respect to this particular historic district and no other, the argument can be made and the finding can be made that it is not inconsistent with the overall appearance of that neighborhood given the number of chain clances already in existence. If that helps with the findings. Any additional findings or suggested findings? Okay. Any further discussion? I'd like to ask the staff a question. You know, reading the guidelines, as you have mentioned, the guidelines include woven wire. And I understand exactly what you're referring to as woven wire. However, chain link fencing has been manufactured and used in the United States since the turn of the 20th century. And I can't help but think about other aspects of the preservation guidelines that dissuade the use of materials that mimic history. And yet here we have a situation where we're interpreting the guidelines to suggest that, particularly in the case of woven wire, it's okay to use a woven wire that mimics a woven wire-type fence, as you described with the loops on the top and so on, that clearly mimics history. And yet we're saying it's not okay to approve a woven wire product that is a more contemporary solution. So how do you come to that position? Well, I don't think that woven wire was made through the 1960s, fencing the round-topped loop. I know this for sure because I went to the hardware store and bought it as a teenager fresh out of the store. So these products ran somewhat concurrently and crossed over each other. if you will, and I think you know that. So I don't think either one, certainly you wouldn't suggest that a chain-link fence would have been available to people in 1840, 1870, that kind of thing, whereas some woven wires came to be available with the industrial era, obviously around the time of the Civil War and moving forward. So I think it's getting down pretty far in the weeds. I don't miss that point. But when push comes to shove, the character of most of our historic districts, and really including, I'd say, largely the earlier part of Seven Parks, has not been known to have included chain-link fencing. And the chain-link fencing that is in it seems to have come into it kind of 1950s forward. Now, we don't have the date of every chain link fence that's existing all over the city, but that is the general, our experience of the general evolution of chain link fences introduction into these areas. And so when the guidelines were both created and as they've been updated, chain links been talked about pretty much every cycle of that and really has continued to be and almost gotten during those discussions that's involved the public over the years, those updates, almost strengthened about no chain link, that they don't want to see chain link in the historic districts. And so it goes back to that is because something is an existing product, particularly in freestanding out on site elements, you know, because it exists, does it necessarily create a mandate to continue it? And in this instance of chain link, the guidelines do not reflect that it is a mandate to do that and reflect in the way they've been utilized, the guidelines for all these years, that that is not a desired outcome. Does that help you? But, you know, that said, I think it would help us if the Historic Preservation Commission were more clear about the exclusion i mean there are there are guidelines that you know specifically say certain things are not ever going to be permitted like vinyl well and that that evolved that thinking process on vinyl that resulted in the last update of the guidelines putting in it's prohibited right kind of went through the same discussions that we're sitting here having about chain link fence and so i think the time may be coming and that again the next update and today's chain link will will be on the discussion list. And today's vote may very well spur that discussion. As it is, and that's partly how these processes evolve. So I'm not saying the outcome will be to put that it's prohibited in in the next update, but I'm sure it will be discussed whether that should be. All right. Do you know if other jurisdictions around the country, do you know what their attitudes and practices are? We did study so many cities at the time of the update of the guidelines in 2009 and 2010, and I think the majority didn't allow chain link, but I can't. It's been a while on that level of research we've done. Amelia did a lot of the legwork. Do you have a take on that? I think it's very similar to us. I think the only thing that sometimes language is put into guidelines is the specific issue about urban versus suburban, and the fact that Chainlink is considered more in the suburban settings versus urban. So there's some language in some of the guidelines I've seen that talks about that. But they're very similar to us. and of course seven hills is one of the seven parks seven parks is one of the more modern or newer that's not the right word it's one of the first subdivisions that truly was of that moving outside the urban perimeter of downtown lexington and as i said before when was this designated historic district 1997. is it a most recent one or kate no no is kate in town after that uh ailsford followed that and that's right okay um the uh south ashland or the uh south hanover dashay all that area follows that okay any further discussion on the motion well i do want to make it clear that i don't love chain link fence but what what i turn your microphone on or speak into it thank you what um i do think is that the language um you could read the guidelines and the woven wire wouldn't you would you would probably think since it's wire and it looks like it's woven that that's okay and i just think it needs to be cleaned up i don't want to see um chain link fences in any of these neighborhoods but and i want to amplify with miss tate i'm not crazy about chain link either and i want to be explicitly clear that given the unique characteristics of this particular historic district and the number of chain link fences that are already there I think that gives us some basis for making an exception or a variance if you will from the guidelines all right is there any further discussion chair will call the question all those in favor of approving the installation of this chain link fence for the reasons expressed during our conversation say aye aye aye aye opposed nay all right our motion passes the recommendation of disapproval is disapproved I love that double negative it's not accepted and you have your fence ma'am thank you very much board all right thank you could the staff ask for you to back up and just tell me since I'm slow to keep the notes who made and seconded that motion uh the first motion was made by josh got that one and i seconded it the second motion was made by graham and seconded by sarah thank you all right moving on to our next case let me call up 1047 fontaine road is the applicant here come on no if you state your name for the record please our Wilson mr. Wilson welcome this seems to be our day for having disapprovals this is a I think that you were the scope of the work is that you wanted to repave the existing driveway you also want to enlarge the parking area and create a new parking spot along along the rear of the addition. I think the staff has recommended approval of your repaving the driveway, subject to the standard conditions I already read into the record, but they've also recommended denial of the additional expanded paving along the driveway and in the rear. I assume you'd like to be heard on that? Yes. All right, who has this case? Ms. Armstrong? This is the property at 1047 Fontaine, and this picture was taken from the PVA record. And also there's some pictures from when it was for sale. And so please note the driveway in the garage is tucked over here, and then there's green in this particular area. Again, there's some more photos. Again, this is actually from when it became an H1 overlay, and this photo was here. And you can sort of see this addition that's existing in the area where the trash cones are. And then this is when staff found that the driveway was repaved and then expanded. so this is the paving expansion on the side this boundary here is really no has no change so staff was concerned about the fact that the paving also was expanded but then it came up also on the structure and then the window seals and the window surrounds that's going to create drainage issues will that create drainage issues for the house yes and then this particular this is an additional parking space that was included and obviously it um and this is another view of that expanded paving but there was some paving to this point to pull into this side of the garage Here, but it was sort of on a can't. Staff contacted the property owner and he submitted an application as you are reviewing now for this particular paving. And guidelines are included for your reference. The repaving of the driveway is permissible within Guidelines 3-5-A, which states driveways should be maintained. However, staff finds expansion of the paving of the existing driveway and parking area not within the guidelines, nor appropriate for this historic residential neighborhood or home. This property was just on the market and recently sold, and from the real estate photographs, it is clear that driveway parking was expanded towards the house approximately five feet, and this area was once green. In addition, the expansion of the asphalt paving has been carried out in a manner which is detrimental to the historic fabric of the structure. The asphalt comes to and covers up the window trim in the basement windows and abuts the stone foundation. And that's what we call the windows. Surround us to rot or could potentially cause water problems to this house and its foundation. Guidelines 3.5B say driveway should not be visually dominant. A section of the guidelines titled Overall Approach and Format of the LFCC Design Guidelines state the rehabilitation is to review and determine the impact and compatibility and appropriateness of proposed work to the existing structure, site, streetscape and district and staff finds as the paving along the building should be cut and removed. In addition, the paving of the parking spot at the rear of the structure requires discussion. The character and pattern development of Ashland Park residential properties consists of a single drive leading into a two-bay car or a car garage. And the introduction of the parking in the rear yard is not within the character of a historic streetscape or district. As with most all of the single family structures, parking does not expand immediately behind the structure. The proposal for parking behind the structure is not within the guidelines, nor appropriate for the structure. Guidelines 3.6B, landscape that are altered and introduced should be compatible in site and surrounding properties. Staff recommends the paving be removed. Recommendation staff recommends that approval of the repaving the existing driveway be carried out in the following conditions. Once reviewed by LFUC2 divisions, resubmit any changes for staff and board for review approval prior to start of work, and any changes that are made to alter the information and resubmit the changes to the staff review prior for the approval of the start of any work. Staff recommends denial, the additional expanded paving along the driveway and in the rear. Of course, the applicant is present. I have a question. You've made a point of saying that the paving along the building would be cut and removed. Do you want to add that as a condition to the denial? Denials cannot have conditions. I knew you were going to say that. I don't know why I asked the question. I do think we have a problem here, though, and I'm not quite sure how we should address it. Okay. Come on up, Mr. Wilson. Maybe a little background to add to maybe the story. So the property was purchased, I think, in June of this year. we did file an application for a COA as it's termed for several of the improvements which was approved I think Barry was involved in that so we certainly were aware of you know the process we sort of the tail end of our renovation we had always had in our in our mind that we would expand the park well we had to replace the park or the driveway to begin with it was in very poor shape the picture that Amelia showed didn't really represent what it looked like in June the property on this either side even the right side of the property had basically been destroyed by the previous residents driving over it because there was no way to basically get a car out of the driveway if there was somebody behind you so a million I had several conversations about well where was the driveway in my position was it was really difficult to tell because it went from an eroded driveway on the left and eroded driveway on the right to complete mud. So certainly acknowledge the pictures that she was showing, but it was a bit difficult to determine where the where the line was to be drawn. So our our attempt here was to provide some additional safety for the situation because what you can't see in this picture is at the roadway there's a large you know tree that's been there forever that is right on the left side of the driveway and there's utility pole that's on the right side and I had before this we had contacted wind stream and Kentucky utilities and discussed you know the option of moving the pole because you literally have it's very difficult to back out of this so part of this idea was the the piece that's around the back side of the house was number one create some potential patio spaces a auxiliary use but also for an ability to have a turnaround so people could come out of this driveway and come out instead of backing on to a very very busy Fontaine and avoiding I don't get you have a picture that shows utility pole but it's been hit multiple times okay so that was the idea that you know instead of people driving up into the neighbor's yard that's on the right which had had occurred previously and not driving up and frankly to me creating a much more much less desirable condition on on the left side of the driveway where people were driving around it and well you can even still see a bit of the mud there kind of in the front part. So that was the idea. You know, I read the regulations and respectfully I think there's room for a different read of these regulations. The regulation says driveways and parking lots that are new should be located at the side or rear of the building and not be visually dominant. It also says driveways and parking lots. I suspect this is not written correctly, but it does say driveways and parking lots should have their parking areas located in rear yards and be screened with hedges, shrubs, or fences as appropriate. It goes on to say parking should not be sited in front yards. so I guess from my perspective it does not say anywhere in here that you cannot have parking in the rear it is very explicit that you cannot have it in the front but it but it leaves it leaves open the option to have some parking at the rear of the building so again maybe we're back to the chain link fence but probably one reason this was not included in the originals COA is that the right acronym I would I would submit that it's a much improved if you if you really saw what it looked like in June it's a much improved situation from what it was before now to the to the one point about the paving against the house if it if that has truly created a condition that's going to cause us some problems down the road then I agree that should be addressed if we need to pull that away because we don't want clearly we don't want it was it was sloped such that the way it was before there was mud that would just come down the center of the driveway it's now sloped so that it drains to the center and exits the property like it should be but if you know if it presents some problems at the actual house well as I agree as that driveway deteriorates you're going to having water come down into that casement window of yours right well it's gonna ruin it fair enough careful fair enough i'm not i'm not that's not my area of expertise okay uh we found the tree where's the goal right there it is oh that's a lovely oh it's it's been hit multiple times and it's and as everybody knows fontaine is a very busy street so and windstream didn't give you any love on it in terms of moving i couldn't afford that that was that would have been cost prohibitive okay it feeds people you had mentioned i'm sorry you had mentioned talking to windstream about moving the pole and they said to them and they said they weren't going to move it well basically yeah right i mean i would have had to pay for it it feeds across that pole feeds our our property the properties the apartment building there to the side it feeds across on the other side there's electric on it there's cable as sarah and graham know i'm in that business so i know i knew you know that that was just going to be ridiculous do we have the date of this picture I'm sorry what it's September 2017 okay and Randy if you would just shut walk us through with the Google up you know go up and around the house please it won't go that far well it'll go part way you can kind of see a little evidence of the it's just dirt there to the side see you can see the width of the existing drive before it was removed and those those are the previous residents I recognize at least one of the people I bet they had fun trying to back out it was terrible it really was and then really always back around to the rear I know it's not the highest view but just to clarify one point I think Amelia touched on the pavement did go around the back of the house slightly because the because the garage did overlap the back of the house slightly and it lined up with the garage so we extended it but in theory it was already a little bit behind the house to begin with Tyler how many units are in there for rent I mean it's just a single residence it's not it's not an apartment I have two boys that live there two of two of my sons live there okay thank you any questions or comments from the board members I can shed a little bit of light on this because I owned the property across the street for many many years at 1046 and no longer own it but there was a pretty significant paved parking area behind that building that was original to the building which was 1928 I believe and but that was a fourplex so it's a little bit of a different condition um i will also uh note that fontaine road is really really busy and getting in and out of those driveways is a challenge and i'll also note that at that particular junction on fontaine road the grade drops away pretty pretty significantly so when there's rain if there's an opportunity for sediment to be swept from one yard into another it will go and and so you really need if you want to prevent that you really need some sort of curb on a drive we had trouble with our drive and had to work on it and curb it so yes I thought that might help I would like to note for the record I forgot to do this that there is a letter of objection that has been filed with us from Alan J. DeYoung at 1054 Fontaine Road where he's asking that we approve the our go along with the staff recommendation of disapproval of the expanded paving in the back any further comments from the board members I feel comfortable with the parking in the back and I don't really feel too strongly about the window issue I think that's more on you sir than the guidelines I'm still struggling with we see a lot of parking on the side of the building and I think that's something we want to limit so I'm still thinking through that okay Sarah I think you're I'm sorry excuse me the expansion of your driveway looks like you just created more parking on the side of the house so I think yeah let me think through that a little more yeah I mean I what I'd like to see is for the for the asphalt to be pulled away from the side of the house by at least four feet and the and the turf reinstated not as much because I think it's very disrespectful of the of the historic integrity of the house as for any particular functional reason but I agree with staff that it does present a problem for the window wells and so and i also agree with josh that there that i'm concerned about double parking on the side of the house if the driveway is wide enough but i understand that you have a dilemma with getting traffic in and out well i don't i do think the intent was never for double parking but the intent was as you saw in the picture there was a car parked on the side but there are cars that park and can park in the garage that would still allow them to pass not not necessarily park permanently side by side. Well, let me ask the staff a question. Have we not approved Hammerhead parking before where there's a turnaround in the backyard? We've done that before, haven't we? Yes, it's usually not that close to the house. And for one thing, usually the garage is further away from the house. It's tight. And it is tight. It's tight. That's obvious. It's not an easy turnaround. And so, and usually you don't do the full car depth. wherever you're going to reverse into, the hammerhead is not as long as the whole length of your car. It's just enough to maneuver to then angle to go out head first. So you don't need the full 20 feet or 18 feet in length. You need probably two-thirds of that. I'm looking at gram. Which may sound like a splitting of hairs, but when you're that close to the back of the structure, every square foot helps in terms of not having them paved right outside the back door of the structure. So it's your intent, though, for people to be able to be in the garage and then reverse into that part that's parallel to the rear of the house and then head out headlights first. And there's multiple things that could happen, but yes, that's one other one. I'm wondering if we could maybe continue this case and let you all work out a new design spec for this driveway. and reconfigure the driveway, if you will? It's up to the board. It's up to you all. Or shall we just try to make those the conditions for approval if we do that? What's the board's pleasure on this? Go ahead. I could make a motion and then see where that goes. that that's somehow sometimes is what we do grant before you make a motion one comment about you know you use that distance four feet which i guess i'd like to if that's where you're going before we define some four feet which i'm not sure where that comes from certainly i don't mind to consider for the drainage reasons to pull that away but it would be really nice to not end up saying something like four feet and if if we could have said three feet it still was it usable sure sure i don't know if that's an on-site conversation or how we do that but yeah before we nail down i think if that's where we're going here i think jim's suggestion of um having the staff work out a final configuration with you would be the way to go um what i'm asking is the way i asked the question is would you be amenable to our postponing or continuing this hearing to the next session which is probably won't be till december because the driveway is already there so you know and just try to reconfigure driveway so that will be in conformity with the guidelines can we do that would you in agreement to do that with us well my position is that it meets the guidelines but you're on the board so i think this i think the sentiment of the board is that it doesn't meet the guidelines it needs reconfiguring and we just need need to figure out how to get that done could we not approve the application with the condition that the owner work with staff to modify the existing paving to a point where it's compliant it's Murphy with and I we could make some we can make some suggestions about some minimums perhaps I think we do that I I don't see why you could not. I guess you just can't make conditions on the denial. So we're changing the, because they denied the expansion. And staff would have a couple of questions, perhaps, before you make your motion as you're considering. One thing would be, what do you consider the basic minimum width of the driveway, say, at the sidewalk, of that linear headed up, what do you consider the minimum width that you think would be a functional driveway for this property? I don't know that I know that number off the top of my head. I know at the sidewalk it's the standard width, but at that point you're not expecting that. Your apron has, yeah. You're not expecting to have to go past a car at that point. No, it's very unusual to be looking at passing a car on a residential driveway like this. We really don't have ones where they are double-wide linear paths up toward the rear of the property in order to pass, or even with a pull-off, you know, a tooch. And that's why I'm interested in what your expectation from your desires are into what would be, you know, A basic driveway, there's certain standards that would travel a single vehicle well from that sidewalk up toward the rear of the property, and then that's separate from what happens when you get to the back. And it would be helpful to know that because that affects, I don't, from the staff's perspective, you know, a double driveway is not within the guidelines. That's part of the problem. right well per traffic engineering regulations for residential your driveway is 10 feet well that's where i'm going the driveway apron is 12. right so that's considerably less than what we have under the existing condition now if you we certainly don't wouldn't expect to be able as maybe josh said double park where you could open doors because that would be even wide well even to pass. Well I'm just saying so our goal was just to pass which was smaller which was a smaller width so. But it's still you know you just heard the specs on it are quite limited I mean 12 feet that's not going to ever pass another car and that's your more typical residential scale of driveway in all these neighborhoods so that's our base problem is that you're wanting to have the outcome be something where two cars pass. If you look at the image adjacent, maybe it's because it's an apartment, but it has a much wider driveway as well. And I'm not myself familiar with it. Is it not? And, of course, Rainey, if you could bring up the Google Map images, please, again, if you could. And that is because that is, of course, a preexisting condition. Right. And the conditions for a, you know, I think that's a floorplex. has a different configuration than the residential zone or you know yeah I just want to be sure we're all talking the same language and and expectations of outcomes here in terms of numbers of dimensions because you know if if I'm hearing properly the applicants and I'm just for clarification no no positioning on this just clarification the applicants desire and intent is to have it so that you have a travel path where two cars pass each other and that raises red flags to what the processes guidelines call for so continue on please board but i just want to be sure we're knowing what we're measuring motivation doesn't necessarily matter but you know i know graham probably knows urban is a road right around the corner from that and trust me i didn't really want to pay for more paving than was there before but the other motivation for me was urban is a very what is the word there's some pretty aggressive people that live on that street and there's public parking on that street and people that have lived here in the past including one of my kids was harassed when he parked his car on that public street before we did the driveway how long is your car going to be there and you know there are people on that street that are they click the stopwatch and if they can nail somebody for being there longer than than the period of time the cops left the sticker on so part of the reason I did this was to try to alleviate try to be a good neighbor and alleviate some of this by allowing this to be an easy transition in this driveway so if we go back to single car width one of two things is going to be happening they're going to be back on urban parking again because they won't they're not going to call their you know friend and say you need to back out so I can get in or vice versa they're just going to go park on urban again or it's going to end up with the unsightly condition that it had when we purchased the property which is just a big mud pit that's I understand the guy like but I'm just just give me that can be inhibited by some raised edges and other things The parking situation, I don't pretend to know the rules, but the police only come and tow people after they've been there for 48 hours or something. I don't know the regs, but they have to stay a couple of nights, I think, whatever it is. It's not that long. I know the reg pretty well now. Oh, dear. they they won't they you may be right about the towing but they will slap a orange sticker on a car by just a phone call from a resident there's no verification whatsoever for that so that's if you've ever had one of those stickers on your car those are a real pain to get off so anyway the the point is yeah i'm just giving you a little motivation outside of my turf to try to be a try to be the good neighbor and well keep people on on this property and not uh in a very tight urban is just around the corner there and that's that was the pre-existing condition when when the house is purchased let me suggest a compromise that we can look at it in terms of not just you know feet but in terms of what is what we're trying to do is avoid a visually dominant driveway and I think maybe we don't have to necessarily confine ourselves strictly to 12 feet but enough give you enough payment to allow some kind of a passage by a car, but keep it from being visually dominant. And I think that's the conversation that needs to be conducted with the staff. And that's where I'm coming from in the sense that I think we need just to continue this case and let you all see if you can't reach an agreement. Go ahead, Josh. I might make a suggestion real quick that we propose a condition where the owner restore landscaping along the side of the house. and that doesn't tie you down to a dimension. It preserves some of our guidelines for landscaping. I hope it would prevent a mud hole condition from having a really skinny driveway. Well, landscaping would certainly keep the car out of there. Or maybe aggressive. But there is, I don't think this board has any interest in parking on the side of a house. But my proposal for the condition would be to simply restore landscaping along the side of the house. Well, along those lines, would grassy pavers be a solution? I think this would be more about the history of the house having landscaping over there. Along the side of the house? We did establish, so you can't see it. Do you have the current picture? Well, yeah, you had the, it has some landscaping adjacent to the side of the porch that you can see just beyond the truck there. We do not obviously currently have any landscaping along the brick. Do we have the new photos? Okay. So we did introduce some landscaping at that location, but obviously there's pavement, so it didn't go down the side of the house. When you do cut the asphalt away from the house, can you put an edging to it like you see on your neighbors to keep the water when it's a heavy rain from coming back toward the house? I don't know what that is. I mean, I'd obviously accept some guidance. That we keep you off the landscaping. Right. There is, well, I'm not sure if it's going to show up in any picture. About two-thirds of the way down the side of the house, there is an old, it's probably paved over, but I assume it may be just under the pavement. There is an old, I'm sure it was an antenna that ran up the side of the house. So the foundation is still there. so if we're talking about pulling pavement back I would ask can we pull it back but once we get to that not have to remove it's covered up but that's just adding some well it's it's pretty much under the smaller window adjacent to that adjacent to the car you don't see it there used to be an antenna so you know conceivably maybe we could pull the pull the asphalt back across both of those basement windows and then maybe stop just just beyond that right that's not it that's not well you're not gonna see it but it's it's essentially right in that location it just may be a little more difficult to get that out well It's not large, but in other words, could we pull the pavement back but not quite get to that corner and stop a little shy of it? We could say that it would stop below that window. What room is that window in? That's the kitchen. The kitchen window. Speaking to your mic. So we could phrase it such that the landscaping could stop beneath the kitchen window. Well, but your whole foundation needs that pavement away from it. Well, I think for the health of the house. So I'm interested in how the board can control how well somebody maintains their house. And so for that reason. But putting asphalt against the stone surface means that you're technically about, that you're impacting the historic structure. Okay. and that's why it's within the purview of this process and it's bad idea you you really don't want that I'd like to suggest that we ask mr. Wilson to remove enough of the asphalt next to the house to allow for a reasonable landscape solution to be it turf or whatever his choice and that the width of the drive be restricted to no more than 12 feet from the apron to the to a position in in the same plane as the front plane of the main volume of the house and that behind that point he worked with staff to determine where there may be an opportunity for a vehicle to be pulled off to one side to allow for a vehicle to pass and he also worked with staff to diminish to reduce the extent of the new paving in the backyard and to plan for landscaping appropriate to that newly paved area in the backyard okay is that your motion um i i put that out there for comment but yeah it could be a motion let's make that a motion if you don't mind go ahead and make that into a formal motion or just make it a motion would you like me to repeat it or no no okay it's a motion do you have a second can i can i add something to the motion do you want now can i add something to the motion i would like to add that the uh extent of asphalt to be removed from the side of the house be also be discussed with staff to determine a an appropriate solution okay miss tate do you agree with that addition she says yes all right i'm gonna go ahead and call the question i think we have debated this issue at great length all those in favor of the motion say aye aye opposed motion passes thank you very much all right let's go to our last application which is uh at 303 east maxwell street welcome back bob marshall mr marshall how are you today fine uh i believe that you know you have have given us some new specifications and drawings. The staff has recommended approval of your COA subject to the following conditions. First, remove the muttons from the window and submit window specification and details to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. And number two and three are the standard conditions that we've been talking about all evening, which is if any changes are made, that alternate information is submitted. resubmit changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work of the affected work and of once reviewed by the other divisions resubmitting changes to the staff for board for review and approval prior to start of work do I have any questions or comments from the board members concerning this application I have some questions all right mistake do we need to walk through it No. It just feels to me that this set of documents is not correct. the details for the way the roof changes and the back balcony back construction for the bathroom of the second floor. It's just not, there's not enough information here to understand that what we're looking at is buildable. and can i ask is there an interior stairway from the second floor to the first floor no it's exterior only don't you have to have two exits out of um a second floor say apartment i don't know yeah you do Have these, have you had a work session with the city on these plans? Have they looked at them to see that they're code compliant? No, but they will be. You know, that would be part of the condition. Well, I don't think that we. That doesn't happen. I took about an hour and a half to really look closely at the details here. And I just don't think this is accurate. And I don't think what you... Have you been over to the house? No. Okay. Everything proportion looks fine to me. Is there any way we can see this from a Google Earth view at the moment? Sorry, what? Could we see this from Google Earth at the moment? We'll try with the trees. It's pretty heavy. I was afraid of that. Okay. The tree is gone now. Boy, is it. You really had one big whapping, didn't you? The tree pretty much demolished the front part of the house, which you're repairing nicely. That was a sad scene. There is a note on your plan that says chimney removed. Has that work been approved previously, or is that part of this remodel? There is no chimney. There is no chimney. Okay. And did it exist before the tree fell on the house? No. That part of the existing roof is still there. Okay. So you guys are just taking out the remaining structure under the roof currently? Yes, down to the first floor. Okay. So does I understand that you've got an apartment upstairs and one downstairs? No, there is three units, one upstairs and two downstairs. stairs. Has this always been a rental property? As far as I know. Okay. I've owned it for 10 years or so. Okay. Yeah, what is... No plans were submitted of the floor plan of the first floor. What you've got is just the second floor. Right. What is the, let me ask you this, what is the purpose of enlarging that dormer exactly? That's the existing dormer is the bathroom and height is five foot eight. It's just very, very tight. Just trying to get some more headroom in the bathroom? Headroom and add a washer and dryer. And what, washer and dryer? Washer and dryer. Okay. May I ask just in clarification, so you haven't had an informal meeting with building inspection yet? Oh yes. On these plans? Oh no, not on these plans. No, that's what I mean, specific to these plans. Thank you. Is that the first step or is coming here is the first step? You need a certificate of appropriateness from this process, certainly, to be able to be issued a building permit, but a lot of times people make informal visit to building inspection and see and be sure everything meets code before they finalize the plans and come through preservation, just so there's no surprises. This is all pretty basic. I don't think there'll be any surprises. be but I appreciate your thoughts. Okay Mr. Fowl anything? No I don't have anything. Mr. Gilpin? Going back to questions we had the engineer he drew up plans and tied to your structural? Yes. Yes I understand. I take it that Mr. Buckman is not an architect? No. He's an engineer. No, she's a draftsman. Oh, okay. And engineer, I don't remember his name. Okay. I don't have any real objections here. I may suggest to you to not bother with the hip roof that you propose and just gable it out, but that's apart from any of this other stuff. That's if you want to come back. I'm sure you don't. But otherwise, I don't have anything else here. Well, the other three dormers on there have the hip roof. Right. it it it's fine as it is I'm just making a suggestion and I'm sure you would not want to come back in okay anything else all right do I have a motion Mr. Chair, regarding case number 12670303-B at 303 East Maxwell Street, a move to approve the application for certificate appropriateness pursuant to the staff suggested recommendations or conditions. Number one, remove the Muntins from the window and submit a window of specifications and details to the staff for review and approval start prior to the issuance of the certificate appropriateness. Numbers two and three are the two standard conditions read into the record earlier. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? All right, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Any further discussion? Excuse me. I can't hear you. What? Did you call for a vote? I'm getting ready to. Okay. The chair is ready to call for a vote. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. I'm opposed. I'm opposed. Ms. State, do you oppose? I'm in favor. Motion passes 3 to 1. The application is approved as conditioned. Thank you. You're welcome, sir. And I'll come, I'll walk by there almost daily, so I may be checking on it later on just to see how it goes. I hope you do. Okay, will do, sir. All right, we're ready for the conceptual review. We've been at this for an hour and a half. I want to suggest a five-minute break. You'll get older. You can start without me if you want to. Chair, can you post... When you come back from break, would you please be sure to take action on the postponement? And I have to step away for a minute, so please be aware that the date that that would be postponed to is December 12. It is erroneous on your docket. Well, at this time, at least, December 12 is on the calendar as the next meeting. I understand. Let's just. Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. I'm sorry. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. No. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let me go ahead and reconvene the meeting. We're ready for the conceptual review. Whoever is in charge of doing that presentation, Ms. Armstrong? This is a two- I'm sorry, did you address the postponement? Of course I haven't. Why would I do that? Let me find my agenda. I always keep losing. May I borrow yours, Jones? Sure. Item 5 is 340. It's 340 Linden Walk. It's replaced timing pattern roofing with composite shingles. There's a request that that be postponed until... December 12th? Date's wrong. Oh, well, potentially December 12th at this point. And that was our question. Okay, December 19th. We're postponing at the 1219. Do I have a motion to that effect? So moved. All right, and we had a discussion. We may convene that meeting at 4 o'clock. So do I have a second? Second. Any discussion about the motion? If no, I'll call it. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right, this case is postponed until December 19 at 4 o'clock. All right, so now we're ready for the conceptual review. Okay, and so this is 251 South Ashland. And, of course, we saw this last month with a sun porch and a handicap ramp on the rear of the structure. Now we're looking at the garage parking area. This is the existing garage, which is an historic garage. and it does actually sort of have a one story upstairs to it. And it is framed. The stephort reflects brick, but it is actually framed structure. So the proposal here is to construct a new garage and have a connector to this existing garage. This would be the vicinity of the proposed new garage that would have a connector. just to give you an idea of this existing garage and the siding this is the window which would have that be connected to using this opening to the new garage just give you an idea of the yard of course I'm going to let mr. Clark talk about this further about just give you a little bit idea of the location. This is the existing location and here would be the proposed location. Of course this results in reducing some of the paving. And of course, excuse me one second. As this is a conceptual review, guidelines are included for your reference. And we have no findings at this time, but questions to ask. Is it appropriate to add another garage to the site? Is it appropriate to add on to the existing garage? Is it appropriate to alter the original building? Do the alterations to the garage make the existing garage lose its character to finding features? Is the proposed garage too tall for the site? go through with the elevations just so you can see. This is existing and here's your proposed. Does the proposed garage overwhelm the existing garage? Does the proposed garage replicate history? Do the proposed garage doors replicate history? That's the new garage doors we're referring to. While the alterations to the garage result in loss of historic fabric, is appropriate to add more paving or actually reduce paving and the applicant is here all right state your name for the record please ryan clark sir okay actually this is a i said the record actually i think this is more of an informal review process uh why don't you why don't you initially address and explain to us you're thinking about this additional garage and what you have in mind for it sure and then i think you'll have questions from the board members absolutely um so the existing garage that's on site is undersized for vehicles it's got a stairway actually it's kind of centered in the back and the depth doesn't really allow a modern car access to pull in it's a sliding actually sliding door on the front so you could get one and one out the the new uh residents are elderly they're in their late 70s so you know sliding a door back and forth is not going to be you know uh i don't think they're going to have the capability of doing that so what i proposed is an is a garage addition next to this that would actually it's it's not grand in size 26 by 24 it's kind of a standard modern day garage that would suit the vehicles um what What I propose in regards to the dormers on the top is they're downsizing to this home, and they're coming with five vehicles. And so in lieu of building a five-car garage or parking cars all in the back, we're proposing doing two car lifts inside this garage. So they have two sort of historic cars that they would park on the lifts up, and they would park underneath these lifts. So it would be essentially as a two-car, four-car garage. and then the existing garage Mr. Barnes was wanting to use as a shop so I think converting it into more of a workshop would be beneficial to him. So that's the thinking on this. I wanted to have a conceptual review because I wanted to talk through the details and the scale and scope of it with you guys to get input. Closer to that. Oh, sorry. There you go. That's perfect. Keep doing that. okay uh do you guys have any questions and uh comments what's the uh backyard setback requirement on this lot i believe it's five feet but this is 10 feet from the fence the structure is and why well oh um why wouldn't you push it back to be flush with the faces i think we'd be uh removing more trees that are back there are there some are there major trees behind there are some major trees in the backyard. Pull up a photo. Yeah. It gets kind of dense back there. The reason I bring that up is that one of the biggest problems with what you're proposing is that your placement of that structure really overwhelms the existing garage and if you were to push it back into the same plane it's dark it would help a great deal if you could if you could do that if you think about the way that's going to look from the house it's going to it's really going to overwhelm that i'd be happy to look into that absolutely can i say something um i had the same feeling that it was that's a really pretty little building there and um i grew up in virginia and so every class trip was to williamsburg and one of the charms are the and we have them here in in our our early buildings too it's that there's a kind of a compound of support buildings and they're small and so i did something i'm not supposed to do when i'm on this board but i i i did a excuse me a plan of moving the new building out in an l okay and um been developing let me show this to you. You take that while I talk. Or if there's any way to put it up. The The idea was to, I thought there would still be some car parking in there, so I didn't pay any attention to that. but for additional kind of maintenance buildings to do small ones and have kind of a compound back there of things that you use to care for the property. And you are looking, when you do that, you're looking just at the end of the garage and not the whole big piece. There you go. And you can connect the two with either a raised walkway or just a brick one or something. And then if you need a tool shed or any other thing that you have, you could do a small building back there. Then you're able to keep keep the new garage from just overwhelming what's back there do you think that would work at all potentially I had originally looked at that orientation just because I didn't want to saddle up next to the existing structure my concern with the that orientation was just if they were parking and then pulling out if they were trying to turn around it would it would it cumbersome it is tough and then i didn't want to i didn't want to eat into the yard space too much which was why i was looking at the rear of of the property yeah but it would be something i'd be i'd be um happy to look into okay so i think on this street plans like this have been looked at before and i think that we are concerned about over building on a site and creating creating over building too much on the site and the one advantage to the proposal is the fact that it's a connector so it's still sort of becomes part of the of the garage and not necessarily creating other entities on the site and that would be one of the things we've looked at before about being concerned with over building on the site as far as too many outbuildings that's strange because when you break them down they're much less overpowering to the existing one they're more in its scale well and i think the concern has been before is having more than two garages on a site so if you are actually connecting the garage then you're still creating in addition to the garage versus a separate garage and i think we've there was a property up the street that we looked at um because they had an outbuilding in a garage if you remember that they ended up you all recommend removing the garage and just putting in the new garage because the idea of having the two garages was over building on the particular site so if If you're adding on to the garage, it's, per hour process, easier to look at. But I think the point about recessing the other garage versus bringing it forward is very valid. Well, if you recess the garage, then you're going to lose that connection, aren't you? Not necessarily. No, I don't believe you would. I think you'd have enough left. i'm not sure whether the guidelines i'm not entirely sure whether the guidelines expressly address the issue of whether having more than one garage is inappropriate or not well it's also about the pattern development in the sense that typically in this particular area you only have a single garage or one you know one out garage or outbuilding versus multiple the only other site we've had that there was the the site ended up having to have their 1L building removed we have done a situation similar to the proposal and sort of similar to this on Hampton Court a long time ago and there was a garage addition to an historic garage like this and i don't i think mr pole may have been on the board at that time to remember that yeah was that uh greg year's project no it's peter tate's greg yery had a different garage on ellsmore park well i think the biggest issue right now is i agree with graham that you know the way you have it presently configured it's just overwhelming And I think we're just going to have to start with a plan that has it off that plane connected somehow if we want to avoid that issue. And then it's going to have to be more complementary to that smaller building. I know what you're trying to accommodate. You're trying to accommodate that lift. Right. Which is kind of interesting. When I first saw it, I said, okay, does this guy want to do his own repair work on his cars? I don't believe so. Okay. So he's wanting a storage area, I take it. A storage area? For the two cars. Technically, yes. Could that smaller garage not be used for that purpose? I don't think you can actually get a car in there. At all? At all. Okay. I could look at one of his smaller cars, but the fact of him opening the door and closing the door is... Oh, it's only 16 feet deep. Yeah, it's shallow. All right. Yeah, outside to outside, yeah. It's just 17-6 deep outside to outside on the depth of that existing garage. So that'll be for storage of... He likes to restore furniture and build stuff, so he was going to use it as a potential shop. you might consider looking at mounting the historic doors on the old garage on an overhead system because I think I'm going to look into that or at least a mechanized and maintain I had a place on Hanover that had that situation yeah those doors are not original to the garage they have i mean they have character to them but they're they are uh they're built out on the front they sort of have a flashing detail over the top of them i don't know you can kind of see it in the pictures but they're big there so another um another suggestion of something you might explore and i don't know if it would work with regard to the lifts, but if you could turn the roof form so the gable doesn't face the house, I think it would be more consistent with the appearance of the existing garage in that you'd be looking at a roof pitch. I originally looked into that, but I was afraid that it would look like I was trying to duplicate what was next to it. But it's pretty substantially different what you're doing. Yeah. The other thing is that the historic-looking garage doors are a problem. I think you really – I mean, I don't know what your clients are like, but if you can move them toward a more contemporary aesthetic, it's going to be more palatable. I agree with that about the doors. I'll third that. What do they plan to do with that, we'll call it an attic story? Over the garage? Uh-huh. I'm not certain if they're going to use it that much. It's kind of a two-stair up and turn, so moving anything large up there is not adequate. That's in the old one? In the old one, yeah. Oh, I'm talking about the new one. Oh, the new one? There is no attic. It's open. It'll be all open. It is. Yeah, it's so they can raise the cars up on lifts. So it's just head height. Oh. Door corner. Yeah, it will not have a second story or a half story in it. So I'm looking at your plan, and I see the way you've set it up, where you brought that building forward. and you've got a window that's kind of looking what you set up is really nice but so as we're talking about aligning the front planes of these personally I haven't found a problem with it and I'm curious more about back in our guidelines where that would be spoken of more specifically or I guess more of a pattern reference than anything, but I'm looking for some more. Well, I think, you know, where I was coming from on that is sort of the preservation of green space or open space that's related to the back of the house and the appearance from the house because the further it projects out toward the house, the more it obstructs the view of the historic building and begins to sort of divide the property up a little bit. I had pulled it forward just to reduce the amount of new asphalt. That was one of the reasons why I had kind of pulled it up, and in regards to some of the trees in the back were sort of the reasons why it was pulled forward. That's not to say that it couldn't be maybe a balance in there. And I tried to include two perspectives sort of from both coming down the garage and from the yard side just so you do get to get a feel of the scale with each other. Do we know the vintage of that original garage? Barry and I were talking about that. It's on the 1934 sandboard and plan the problem with the actual structure is of course the earliest one we have is 1907 and so there's a big gap and this house wasn't built till after 1907 so it sort of developed all at the same time but if you actually you know ryan and i met on site and really studied it and it's got quite a bit of old vintage to it it is the real deal so to speak yeah the siting inside It has all boxcar siding. The whole inside is lined that way. The stairs have all of that. It has the vintage that has the interesting detail on the corners. It has the nice little grooves on it. So it's got some vintage to it. It has had, I think, the only repair, I think, the biggest issue is just it has a concrete floor versus probably had a dirt floor before yeah but it's been taken care of very well and perhaps the doors the doors yeah because it does have that sort of an old flashing detail you see more on barn roofs to not you know barn door roofs not to have water leak in there keep the hinges from not rusting did i hear you correctly in saying that you're not really envisioning that up the upstairs being use that much of the of the existing of the new structure the new structure won't have an upstairs okay so why do you have this cable it's to allow the uh car lifts because there'll be there'll be cars raised up into that space yeah and i tried to make it the minimum while also complementing the the existing um structure is 11-4 to the rafter tails so i was trying to to at least create a datum across that and that was sort of my setting point the lifts started once once the cars on it they're basically eight foot and up and they'd be putting their two smaller cars so I have to have some overhead allowing with the pitch of the roof so okay sort of a Would that, if you entertained Graham's suggestion to turn it? It would still work. It would still work. Yeah. I would just place the gable up top, or sorry not the gable, the dormer up top long enough to allow the cars to fit inside. Okay. It's an ingenious solution, but I'll be honest with you, my gut's telling me this is just too much building. I mean, if you really think about it, it's just as big as a house between the two of them. Or at least that's what Ma is telling me. well that's your project you gave your um any other comments well i usually read the questions out yeah give my answer to them which i think sometimes is helpful so i'll go through that really quickly and and this these are just my answers to these questions so i'm not speaking for the rest of the board i'm just reflecting on it so if you see us nodding vigorously one way or the other then you'll know so uh number one is is it appropriate to add another garage to the site i think it is it's a large site there's a lot of green space i think it can accommodate that number two is it appropriate to add on to the existing garage i think the way you have suggested that with a sort of an interstitial uh hyphen between them is a good solution i think that it's not inappropriate and so i think there's a solution that allows that is it appropriate to alter the original out building i think the alteration your suggestion is minimal and so my answer would be in that condition yes to the alteration to the garage make the existing garage lose its character defining features and i don't think that it does is the proposed garage too tall for the site um it's on the edge there and so anything you can do to to minimize it is going to be good does the proposed garage overwhelm the existing garage and i think that it does in its current form okay um one thing you should look at in my opinion is the size of the new proposed garage because i think you could shave some feet out of it and really not lose hardly anything okay and it could make a big difference to the feel of the of the proposal number seven does the proposed garage replicate history yes it would be better if it didn't number eight do the proposed garage doors replicate history same answer number nine will the alterations to the garage result in a loss of historic fabric minimally and number 10 is it appropriate to add more paving i think you're removing some and then you're adding you're making an effort to to minimize it i think as long as you're doing that it's good i think you might in your presentation you might have a drawing that speaks to ideas about landscaping and ideas about how your additional paving is being mitigated with landscaping. That's all for... One last comment I would have is just to consider the neighboring property behind this and what sort of objections they might have to such a tall garage and then think through a strategy for your details or forms that might make them less objectionable. Okay. Perhaps a window or other details back there. Let's see, you're backing up on Hanover, aren't you? Clay. Yeah, Clay. Oh, it's that side of it. I was on the wrong side. Okay. Yeah, I have to agree with Josh because otherwise they're going to be seeing all this stuff. Okay. Anything else? I think then we're done. Are we? Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, guys. All right. We do not Right near Right near Right near Across the other side of the road and just a little closer to the Paris I want to take a moment We don't have any minutes to approve I do want to take a moment right now to acknowledge this has been somewhat difficult evening for us we lost a very dear friend and frankly I'm gonna miss her a lot Kathy was instrumental in so many ways making sure everything ran the way it needed to run she prepared the minutes for us she kept is organized. Frankly, in my opinion, her death is shockingly untimely and it's been a really rough time for us and I won't miss her. I'm ready for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Second. We stand adjourned in memory of Kathy O'Neal.