# Board of Architectural Review - July 10, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 10, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4795 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4795?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-07-10 - **Last revised**: July 10, 2019 - **Length**: 3,227 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 July 10, 2019, at 101 East Vine Street Room 220, with Mr. Chair presiding over the session. The board reviewed five agenda items, all involving properties located within various historic districts throughout the city. During the meeting, the board took five votes and heard no public comments from attendees. All five applications presented to the board were approved, demonstrating unanimous support for the proposed architectural modifications and improvements across multiple historic neighborhoods including Woodward Heights, Aylesford, Western Suburbs, Northside, and South Ashland/Central Avenue Historic Districts. ## Attendance **Present:** - Felicia Snyder - Matthew Wills - Ralph Whitley **Absent:** - Applicant for 334 East High Street **Late:** - None ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included five voice votes on applications, all of which passed unanimously with one member voting. **Application 13020338-e** for 338 Merino Street was approved with standard conditions [timestamp: 00:00]. Mr. Chair made the motion, and the application passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays. The approval included the standard two conditions. **Application 09290334-f** for 334 East High Street was approved with standard conditions [timestamp: 00:00]. Mr. Chairman made the motion, and the application passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays. The approval included the standard two conditions. **Application 17170579-a** for 579 West Short Street was approved with standard conditions [timestamp: 00:00]. The application passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays, with Mr. Chair voting in favor. The approval included the standard two conditions. **Application 16840472-k** for 472 West Second Street was approved with standard conditions [timestamp: 00:00]. The application passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays, with Mr. Chair voting in favor. The approval included the standard two conditions. **Application 00710107-I** for 107 South Ashland Avenue was approved with additional conditions [timestamp: 00:00]. The application passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays, with Mr. Chair voting in favor. This approval included eight conditions total, comprising the standard two conditions plus additional design corrections. All five applications were approved unanimously with no opposition or abstentions recorded. The voting pattern suggests a single-member decision-making process, with either Mr. Chair or Mr. Chairman serving as the sole voting member present for these applications. ## 338 Merino Street (Woodward Heights Historic District) [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed an application for 338 Merino Street, located within the Woodward Heights Historic District, regarding a request to refresh a gravel driveway. This item was designated as Ordinance 1 on the meeting agenda. The applicant was not present at the meeting, but the commission had received and reviewed the staff report for the project. Mr. Chair addressed the application during the proceedings. The request involved refreshing an existing gravel driveway at the property, which required review due to the property's location within the historic district. No specific details about the scope of work, materials, or timeline were discussed during the recorded portion of the meeting. The commission approved the application without recorded debate or concerns raised during the session. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with refreshing the gravel driveway as outlined in their application materials. ## 334 East High Street (Aylesford Historic District) [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed an application for 334 East High Street in the Aylesford Historic District to construct a front yard fence. This item was designated as agenda item 2 and classified as an ordinance matter. The applicant was not present at the meeting but had been notified by phone regarding the proceedings. Mr. Chairman led the discussion of this application. No specific details were provided in the available materials regarding the fence design, materials, height, or other specifications of the proposed construction. The transcript does not indicate any debate or concerns raised by commission members about the application. The application was approved by the commission. ## 579 West Short Street (Western Suburbs Historic District) [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed an application for demolition of a sunroom addition at 579 West Short Street, located within the Western Suburbs Historic District. This item was presented as Agenda Item 3 and classified as an ordinance matter. Felicia Snyder served as the key speaker for this application. The proposal involved demolishing an existing sunroom addition to the property. Staff had reviewed the application and developed specific conditions for approval. During the presentation, the applicant indicated agreement with all conditions recommended by staff for the demolition project. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this application. The commission approved the demolition application for the sunroom addition at 579 West Short Street, with the applicant accepting the staff-recommended conditions as part of the approval. ## 472 West Second Street (Northside Historic District) [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed an application for 472 West Second Street in the Northside Historic District to construct a front yard fence and install a backyard shed. This item was presented as Ordinance 4 on the agenda. Matthew Wills served as the key speaker for this agenda item, likely representing either the applicant or staff presenting the proposal to the commission. The application involved two main components: the construction of a front yard fence and the installation of a shed in the backyard of the property. As part of the review process, staff had developed conditions for approval of the project. According to the meeting summary, the applicant was present during the discussion and expressed agreement with the conditions that staff had recommended for the project. This cooperation between the applicant and staff appeared to facilitate a smooth review process. The commission ultimately approved the application for 472 West Second Street. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with both the front yard fence construction and backyard shed installation, subject to the staff conditions that were agreed upon during the meeting. This approval represents a routine historic district review where the proposed improvements were found to be compatible with the historic character of the Northside Historic District, and the collaborative approach between the applicant and staff helped ensure the project met the necessary preservation standards. ## 107 South Ashland Avenue (South Ashland/Central Avenue Historic District) [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed an application for 107 South Ashland Avenue, located within the South Ashland/Central Avenue Historic District. The proposal involved remodeling and expanding an existing addition, constructing a new garage, and building a brick site wall. Ralph Whitley served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The applicant was present at the meeting and indicated agreement with the conditions recommended by staff. The application represented a comprehensive renovation project that would modify the existing structure while adding new elements to the property. The proposed work included both building modifications and site improvements, with the brick site wall being a notable feature of the overall development plan. Staff had prepared conditions for approval of the project, which the applicant accepted without objection. The willingness of the applicant to comply with staff recommendations appeared to facilitate the review process. The commission ultimately approved the application for 107 South Ashland Avenue. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with the remodeling and expansion of the addition, construction of the garage, and installation of the brick site wall, subject to the conditions established by staff. This approval represents another project within the South Ashland/Central Avenue Historic District, demonstrating ongoing development and renovation activity in this designated historic area. The commission's decision enables the property owner to move forward with their planned improvements while ensuring compliance with historic district requirements. --- ## Decisions - **13020338-e** — passed (1-0): Approve the application for 338 Merino Street with standard conditions - **09290334-f** — passed (1-0): Approve the application for 334 East High Street with standard conditions - **17170579-a** — passed (1-0): Approve the application for 579 West Short Street with standard conditions - **16840472-k** — passed (1-0): Approve the application for 472 West Second Street with standard conditions - **00710107-I** — passed (1-0): Approve the application for 107 South Ashland Avenue with additional conditions --- ## Full transcript Music I'd like to welcome you to the July 10th meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and we now have a total of 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 in room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed in our agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and will hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name in the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a list of 14 approved applications today in today's agenda. I'll go ahead and list those. At 222 Clay Avenue in the Ellsford Historic District, replace and construct new fencing. At 141 Old Lafayette Avenue in the Ellsford Historic District, replace steps and handrail. At 369 Oldham Avenue, Ellsford Historic District, renovate structure. At 358 Park Avenue in the Ellsford Historic District, renovate front porch and structure. At 136 East Belcourt in the Belcourt Historic District, replace fencing. At 140 East Belcourt, remove deteriorated hackberry. At 223 East Belcourt, renovate front porch. At 210 Bell Place, remove deteriorated Hackberry Tree. At 609 Russell Avenue in the Bell Court Historic District, remove deteriorated Hackberry Tree. At 673 in Ellesmere Park, renovate structure. At 424 Fayette Park, remove deteriorated tree. At 182 North Broadway in the Northside Historic District, replace concrete steps. At 601 West Short Street, install utilities. At 620 West Short Street, reissue COA. And we shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of appropriateness. first of which is 338 Marino Street in the Woodward Heights Historic District to Refresh Gravel Driveway. The applicant is not here but has received a copy of their staff report. Okay. And are they in agreement with... That we do not have that information. Okay. All right. Shall we go on to number two? Well, you have the option, if there are no issues that you perceive, of taking action on that application. If you think there are any issues that you feel that the applicant slash owner would be helpful to be present for and might want to comment on or something, then you could wait and see if that party appears toward the end of the meeting and then decide if you want to postpone it to the next meeting or whatever. But you would, I'd say, on this one, you only have as your conditions the standard two conditions and there are no additional conditions. and so it would not be unusual if the board is interested in doing that and going ahead and acting on this case or at least considering doing so. Do we have any comments or questions from the board? Do we have any comments or questions from the audience? If not, can I get a motion from the board? Mr. Chair, I move to approve the – it shows a light, so maybe I'm just not close enough. I move to approve the COA application for case number 13020338E at 338 Marino Street with the following conditions, which are the two standard conditions, which I will read into the record. Number one, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. And number two, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Do I have a second? I second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. The motion is passed. The certificate appropriate is approved. Moving on to case number 09290334F at 334 East High Street. Is the applicant present? the applicant is not here he notified me by telephone that he would not be here and I asked him to send me an email that he agreed with the staff report upon receiving it and I did not get that so it's up to you how to handle it. All right well uh but he said that he would not be here today correct? That's correct. Okay. Similar situation of the one that we just referenced before that again it has only as conditions the two standard conditions okay are there any questions or comments from the board not or from the audience okay um could i get a motion for the board perhaps Mr. Chairman, relative to case number 092-90334F, I move that we approve this application for a certificate of appropriateness for the work proposed in the submittal and reviewed and approved by the staff with the following conditions. that if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work. And number two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, return any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Can I get a second? I second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes and the application is approved. We'll move on to case number 17170579-A at 579 West Short Street. Is the applicant present? All right. Thank you. Please state your name and address. Foolish Snyder for 579 West Short Street, owner. Thank you. Have you read the staff conditions for approval? Yes. Or do you agree with them? I agree. Okay. Do we have any questions or comments from the board? I don't have any. Okay. Any from the audience? Okay. Could I get a motion from the board? Relative to case number 17170579-A at 579 West Short Street, I move to approve the COA application with the standard two conditions as previously read into the record. Can I get a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. The application is approved. Thank you. Motion passes. The application is approved. Next case is number 16840472-K at 472 West 2nd Street. The applicant present. Hi. My name is Matthew Wills at 472 West 2nd Street. Thank you. And have you read the conditions from the staff? Yes. Are you in agreement with them? Yes. Do we have any questions or comments from the board? Don't have the comments. Okay. You go ahead and do this one. I don't have any questions. Sarah, do you? Okay. Could I get a motion from the board? Yes. Relative to case number 16840472-K at 472 West 2nd Street, I move to approve the COA application with the standard two conditions as listed. Can I get a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. The motion passes and the application is approved. Thank you. Moving on to case number 00710107-I. Aye, at 107 South Ashland. Is the applicant present? Yes, Ralph Whitley, I'm the owner. Thank you. Have you reviewed the staff's recommendations and conditions? Yes. Are you in agreement? Yes. Okay. Are there any questions or comments from the board? Chair, would you mind to read those conditions since there are more than just the standard ones? Thank you, yes. I'm glad to. Thank you. The following conditions are recommended from the staff. The staff recommends approval of the COA with the following conditions. Number one, reduce the size of the deck and provide final plans, skirting and railing details to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Number two, change the window and door in the brick walls to wood or clad wood. Number three, provide final door and window details and specifications to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Number four, if any changes are made, and four or five are our standard conditions. And now we can go back to if you had any comments. So I do have a few questions, and I acknowledge that I did not get to participate in the conceptual review, so I'm kind of jumping in in the middle of this. And it's mostly drawing questions, but not entirely. I don't know if we have any to be able to. Okay. Okay, great. I didn't bring any. Sheet. Actually, this is as good a place to start as any, and it's a small thing. But once again, I'm mostly concerned that the application, that what application get approved is reflected in the drawings. So on this site plan, it shows that entire edition as being remodeling a previous edition, which is not quite accurate because there is both a new addition as well as the old addition on there. I think it would be helpful if that's so reflected. Okay. So correct that to say, to actually indicate that there is part of that as an addition. Yeah. And it does show up on the demo. On the. Yeah, it shows up on the existing floor plan. I think I know how it occurred, if that is relevant, but we were going to try to keep as much of it as possible. We're trying to reuse. Yeah, just so that the kind of written part of the application and the drawn part of the application supports each other. so that there don't end up being any field questions that come up because of that. And then on A1.1, the original edition, the older edition, head on the right side so the driveway side of the house there was a step back from the original historic house and now we have some kind of a double wall that's being shown which does two things. I'd be interested in what the double wall is about, but it also then brings the new addition out to basically to be flush with the edge of the original brick house. Well, I can tell you why it's there, but we can certainly, I'm sure we could squeeze six inches out of it for sure, or what have you. It was just there because, or why the shadow wall. It was to create some sort of, at least why I think John did it, was to create some. Yeah, because we couldn't put a lot of glass because it faces that Donato's. And it's just kind of trying to create some sort of interest that pulls your eyes away from the rooftop unit that's right there, to be honest. But I'm sure if that is a major issue, I mean, I would still want to try to keep the, I hope that part's okay. The, what do you call it, the step out? But maybe pull it in a little bit? Generally, the guidelines are that an addition needs to have a reveal that shows what that original brick house is as the addition is made. And we're losing that by adding that extra, what you're describing as a shadow wall. Could I shift it or maybe take six inches off the floor plan? How do I? Excuse me. There would be the possibility, if they want to keep the shadow line, to at least pull it back somewhat so it would have a recess and then come out so we keep that one foot set back. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Yeah, that would. I actually didn't know I liked it until I saw it, to be honest with you. Okay. And then on that same drawing while we're looking at it, where the new stairway is showing what used to be a door out onto that first floor patio, So it now is just showing not either a new wall or a new window, but there must be something going in there. Yes. It's not really showing right here. I guess it's on the first floor on the right where it looks like there's a gap right there where the existing stair is. Is this right? Or is it the new door? I think you'll be able to point to it, and I can say yes. This is the lower floor. This would actually get filled in. That should be shown as brick. Okay. And then at the second floor is where the new window opening above occurs. Okay, so just filling in to show that there's new brick there would be helpful. Right now it looks like there's a hole on the wall. Yeah, I know why that's showing up now, because they moved the door when it was turned into apartments. They put it midways, and I think they cut planes. But the point is we're even going to reuse the same brick. We're just going to move it. Yeah, that's fine, just so the drawing reflects what that intent is. Please. And then I think my only other question has to do with that new window in the historic brick building where the door is being moved inward, whether that is to be aluminum storefront or whether it should be wood to match the existing windows that are in the building. We'll do either. Just as material. Okay. Yeah. The recommendation is for it to be wood or aluminum-clad wood. Okay. Excellent. Then that takes care of that concern for me. So those were my issues, concerns. On that note, I guess that I need to, I think part of what you said is I need to make sure I have cut sheets and everything finalized before we start anyways. We'll take care of it. Yes. Okay. So just I need to make sure. I cannot issue the COA until I have those. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Further questions or comments there? I have a quick comment about the driveway. I saw where you've taken recommendations from the conceptual review to pull it off of the house. Back by the steps, That's an area where I think it would be good to... Can we zoom in on that, Randy? The steps that lead into the driveway? Can we zoom in on that, Randy? Can we zoom in on that, Randy? Can we zoom in on that, Randy? Can we zoom in on that, Randy? The steps that lead into the driveway? Control. It should do. No? Yes. Link. Yeah, okay. So I think the first thing to note here to the rest of the board is this is a new opening in the wall. So just to consider if that affects anything. And then the point that I was going to bring up was where the steps land at the concrete or asphalt, I actually don't recall what you've got here. That's fine. But where the asphalt actually touches the house is something that we'd want to pull away from the house. As long as that's the historic part of the structure, then we'd want that pulled away. Okay. So if you can. So I'm clear? Correct. As well as there as well, yeah. Okay. And the board will add that to the recommendations, I'm assuming? Yes. I'm trying to make a list of these further recommendations we have. So that new door that's related to the steps is actually an existing window opening, correct? That's been just lowered down to become a door as opposed to a window. Just out of curiosity, the window that's facing south, is it just too small to get a door in? Is it too narrow? I don't know that it was ever analyzed. It looks like it's probably too small, but I thought I would ask. Go to A1.1 if you want. Is it this one? Yeah. Okay. Yes. I don't know if it's appropriate or not, but the staff's recommendation would be that the north window being a sidewall as opposed to a street elevation might be more appropriate. Unfortunately, the deck obscures it. We don't have a photo. but we could assume that it's the same as that. So installing a new door would be more appropriate on this side instead of facing the street? Based on the guidelines, yes, sir. I agree. Okay. Any further comments? Okay, we've got a few extra conditions here that we'd like to apply to this case. I've made some notes here if anybody wants to use. Okay. And if you guys are ready for a motion, feel free. Okay. Do you have any other comments? Okay. Those are shorthand notes, buddy. I just can't read them, I. Okay. You want me to go ahead and take it? Or do you want to? Do you want to do the motion or would you like to? No, I don't want to. You don't want to? Okay. Relative to case number 00710107-I at 107 South Ashland, I move to approve the COA application with the following conditions as listed by the staff recommendations. Number one, to reduce the size of the deck and provide final plan, skirting, and railing details to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Number two, change the window and door in the brick walls to wood or clad wood. Number three, provide final door and window details and specifications to the staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. And number four and five are the standard two items listed on all projects. And then I wish to add to correct on sheet C1.0 to note that the addition, the previous addition that's being remodeled, Then there's also a new addition that should be so noted on sheet A1.1 to redesign what's being called a shadow wall that's on the driveway side of the new addition. to pull that back and away from the historic brick house so that there is a reveal there that allows the brick house to stand on its own. And the last additional one would be to revise the driveway so that asphalt no longer comes in contact with the existing historic structure. So that should bring us up to eight conditions. Any questions on that? Good. Is there a second? A second. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. The motion is passed and the application is approved. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. We have no minutes to review. And can I get a motion to adjourn? So move and second. We're adjourned. All right.