# Board of Architectural Review - December 11, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · December 11, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4917 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4917?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-12-11 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 6, 2026 - **Length**: 8,017 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review convened on December 11, 2019, to review six agenda items related to residential construction and renovation projects throughout the city. The board took action on five motions during the meeting, with no public comments recorded for this session. The board approved four construction and renovation projects, including shed construction and renovation at 1623 Nicholasville Road and 1046 Fontaine Road, rear steps and patio improvements at 621 Sayre Avenue, and a two-story deck and garage construction project at 567 West Short Street. One agenda item concerning the demolition of a garage at 454 East Maxwell/304 Transylvania Park was tabled for future consideration. The meeting also included an informational presentation regarding garage construction at 1014 Fontaine Road, which did not require board action. The session focused primarily on residential property improvements, with projects ranging from minor shed renovations to more substantial additions involving decks, garages, and site work modifications. ## Attendance The following Board members were present at the December 11, 2019 meeting: • Matt Campbell • Krisha Rosa • Mary Quinn Raymer • Eric Thomas • Scott Bishop All Board members were in attendance. No members were absent or arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Board approved four certificates of appropriateness and postponed one case during the December 11, 2019 meeting. **Case 13971623-H - 1623 Nicholasville Road** [timestamp: 15:00] The Board approved the application for a certificate of appropriateness by voice vote. The motion was made by the Chairman and passed with two standard conditions regarding resubmission of changes. **Case 07-201046-C - 1046 Fontaine Road** [timestamp: 25:00] The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness for constructing a shed by voice vote. The Chairman made the motion, which passed with two standard conditions regarding resubmission of changes. **Case 16780621-H - 621 Sayre Avenue** [timestamp: 35:00] The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness for work at this property by voice vote. The Chairman made the motion, and it passed with two standard conditions regarding resubmission of changes. **Case 17170567-F - 567 West Short Street** [timestamp: 45:00] The Board approved the certificate of appropriateness for work at this property by voice vote. The Chairman made the motion, which passed with specific conditions regarding stone material, doors and windows, and railing height. **Case 454 East Maxwell/304 Transylvania Park** [timestamp: 1:15:00] The Board voted by voice to continue this case to January 15. The motion to postpone was approved. All approved motions passed by voice vote without recorded individual vote counts. The standard conditions applied to most cases typically require resubmission of any changes to the approved plans for staff review before implementation. ## Contested Items The Board meeting on December 11, 2019, featured one contested item that generated community opposition. **Demolition of Garage at 454 East Maxwell/304 Transylvania Park** Community members raised concerns about a proposed garage demolition at the property located at 454 East Maxwell/304 Transylvania Park. The primary disagreement centered on the potential impact of removing the existing garage structure and the resulting effects on neighborhood parking availability. Residents expressed opposition to the demolition, citing concerns that eliminating the garage would create additional parking pressures in the surrounding area. The community members who spoke against the proposal worried that the loss of off-street parking capacity would force more vehicles onto nearby streets, potentially creating congestion and parking difficulties for other residents in the neighborhood. The specific details of who initiated the demolition request, the exact number of community members who opposed it, and the Board's final decision on this matter were not captured in the available meeting data. The nature of the opposition suggests this was a local neighborhood issue where residents were actively engaged in protecting their community's parking infrastructure and overall livability. ## 1623 Nicholasville Road: Renovate and enlarge shed [timestamp: 15:00] The Board reviewed an application to renovate and enlarge an existing shed at 1623 Nicholasville Road. Matt Campbell served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the Board. The discussion centered on the proposed modifications to the existing structure on the property. The applicant sought approval to both renovate the current shed and expand its size, though specific details about the proposed dimensions or renovation scope were not detailed in the available materials. During the review process, the applicant demonstrated cooperation with the Board's requirements by agreeing to accept the standard conditions typically associated with such projects. These standard conditions generally include compliance with building codes, setback requirements, and other regulatory standards, though the specific conditions were not enumerated in the discussion summary. The Board found the application acceptable as presented. With the applicant's agreement to the standard conditions and no significant concerns raised during the discussion, the Board moved forward with their decision. **Outcome:** The application for renovating and enlarging the shed at 1623 Nicholasville Road was approved by the Board. ## 1046 Fontaine Road: Construct shed [timestamp: 25:00] The Board reviewed an application to construct a shed at 1046 Fontaine Road during agenda item 2. Krisha Rosa served as the key speaker for this discussion. The application involved a standard request for shed construction on the property. During the review process, the applicant demonstrated willingness to comply with municipal requirements by agreeing to the standard conditions typically imposed for such structures. The Board found the application to be straightforward and in compliance with local regulations. No significant concerns were raised during the discussion, and the matter proceeded without notable debate or opposition. The application was approved, allowing the property owner to proceed with constructing the shed at 1046 Fontaine Road under the agreed-upon standard conditions. ## 621 Sayre Avenue: Replace rear steps, fence and enlarge patio [timestamp: 35:00] The Board reviewed an application for 621 Sayre Avenue to replace rear steps, install fencing, and enlarge an existing patio. Mary Quinn Raymer served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the Board. The discussion centered on the proposed improvements to the rear of the property, which included replacing existing rear steps with new construction, installing new fencing, and expanding the current patio area. The application appeared to be straightforward, with the proposed work focused on enhancing the property's rear outdoor space and improving functionality. During the review process, the applicant demonstrated willingness to comply with the Board's requirements by agreeing to the standard conditions typically imposed on such projects. These standard conditions likely included compliance with local building codes, proper permitting, and adherence to any relevant design guidelines or restrictions. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion, suggesting the proposed work was deemed appropriate for the property and consistent with neighborhood standards. The scope of work - replacing steps, adding fencing, and enlarging a patio - represented typical residential improvements that would not substantially alter the character of the property or surrounding area. The Board approved the application, allowing the property owner to proceed with the planned improvements to the rear steps, fence installation, and patio enlargement at 621 Sayre Avenue, subject to the standard conditions that were agreed upon during the meeting. ## 567 West Short Street: Construct two-story deck; garage and associated site work [timestamp: 45:00] The Board reviewed an application for the construction of a two-story deck and garage with associated site work at 567 West Short Street. Eric Thomas served as the key speaker for this agenda item. During the discussion, the Board examined the proposed construction plans and considered various aspects of the project's design and compliance with local regulations. The application included specifications for both the deck structure and garage construction, along with necessary site modifications to accommodate the new structures. As part of the review process, the applicant agreed to specific conditions to address the Board's requirements. These conditions focused on two main areas: the materials to be used in construction and the height specifications for the deck railing. The agreement on these conditions helped ensure the project would meet the Board's standards for safety and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area. The Board found the application acceptable with the agreed-upon modifications. After considering all aspects of the proposal and the applicant's willingness to comply with the specified conditions regarding materials and railing height, the Board voted to approve the project. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with constructing the two-story deck and garage at 567 West Short Street, provided they adhere to the conditions established during the meeting regarding construction materials and railing specifications. ## 454 East Maxwell/304 Transylvania Park: Demolish garage [timestamp: 1:15:00] The Board reviewed agenda item 5, an application to demolish a garage located at 454 East Maxwell/304 Transylvania Park. Scott Bishop served as the key speaker for this discussion. The Board determined that additional time was needed to properly review the demolition application and its implications. Rather than making a decision during the December 11 meeting, the Board chose to continue the case to allow for more thorough consideration of the proposal. The outcome of the discussion was to table the matter until the Board's next scheduled meeting on January 15, 2020. This continuation will provide the Board with additional time to review any supplementary materials, conduct further analysis of the application, and ensure all relevant factors are properly considered before making a final determination on the garage demolition request. No immediate action was taken on the demolition application during this meeting. ## 1014 Fontaine Road: Construct garage [timestamp: 2:00:00] The Board conducted a conceptual review for a proposed garage construction project at 1014 Fontaine Road during agenda item A. This was an informational review to provide early feedback on the project concept before formal application submission. Clifton Matakovich served as the key speaker presenting the proposal to the Board. The discussion centered on plans to construct a new garage structure on the property. During the review, Board members raised concerns about two primary aspects of the proposed design: • **Height of the structure** - Questions were posed regarding whether the proposed garage height would be appropriate for the surrounding area and consistent with local standards • **Scale of the building** - The overall size and proportions of the garage in relation to the existing property and neighborhood context were discussed As a conceptual review, this agenda item was informational in nature and did not result in any formal approvals or denials. The purpose was to allow the applicant to receive preliminary feedback from the Board before investing in detailed architectural plans and formal application materials. The conceptual review process enables property owners to understand potential concerns early in the design phase, allowing them to make adjustments before submitting formal applications. This can help streamline the eventual formal review process and reduce the likelihood of significant revisions being required later. No formal action was taken on this item, as conceptual reviews are designed to provide guidance rather than binding decisions. The applicant will need to return with a complete application and detailed plans for formal Board consideration if they choose to proceed with the project. --- ## Decisions - **13971623-H** — passed (0-0): Approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness at 1623 Nicholasville Road - **07-201046-C** — passed (0-0): Approve the COA for constructing a shed at 1046 Fontaine Road - **16780621-H** — passed (0-0): Approve the COA for work at 621 Sayre Avenue - **17170567-F** — passed (0-0): Approve the COA for work at 567 West Short Street - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Continue the case for 454 East Maxwell/304 Transylvania Park to January 15 --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome you to the December 11, 2019 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. 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 on 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 the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, thereby eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 11 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In the Aylsford Historic District, S632 East High Street, replace shingles. In 352 Linden Walk, repair soffits and renovate porch roof. In the Ashland Park Historic District, at 1005 Fontaine, 1006 Fontaine, 1020 Fontaine, 1046 Fontaine, and 1048 Fontaine, install gas meters. In the Belcourt Historic District, at 604 Sayre Avenue, renovate dormers, tuck point to chimneys. In the Seven Parks Historic District, at 304 Arcadia Park, replace the porch roofing. At 275 South Limestone, at the South Hill Historic District, renovate structures as required, units 110, 120, 130, and 140. In the Western Suburb Historic District, at 623 West Short Street, remove damaging trees. And finally, in the Woodward Heights Historic District, at 816 West High Street, replace shingles. We will now turn to our first application. At 1623 Nicholasville Road, renovate an enlarged shed. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Good afternoon. How are you? I'm well. State your name for the record, please. Matt Campbell. All right. Let me get my notes straight. Mr. Campbell, I believe the board has reviewed, or the staff has reviewed your application and has recommended approval, subject to what we call the standard conditions, and those are, number one, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, that you'll resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of any affected work. And secondly, once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 13971623-H at 1623 Nicholasville Road, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions, number one, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the affected work, and number two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. All right. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Turning now to attachment number two, 1046 Fontaine Road in the Ashland Park Historic District Constructor's Shed. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Krisha Rosa. Hi. I'm Miss Rosa. Nice to meet you again. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions I've previously read. Are we in agreement with those? Yes. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, in regard to case number 07-201046-C at 1046 Fontaine Road, I move that we approve the COA for this project with the two standard conditions as previously noted. Do I have a second? I 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. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and your certificate is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Turning now to attachment number three at 621 Sayre Avenue in the Belcourt Historic District. The scope of work is replace rear concrete stoop, replace an enlarged brick patio, and replace privacy fence, as the applicant here. Come on up. Mary Quinn Raymer, 621 Sayre Avenue. Ms. Raymer, good to see you. Nice to see you. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions. Do you agree with those conditions? I do. Okay. Any comments or questions from the board? Any comments or questions from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, relative to case number 07201046C. Ms. Tate, you're on the wrong one. It's attachment number three. Mr. Chair, in regard to case number 16780621-H at 621 Sayre Avenue, I recommend we approve the COA with the two typical conditions as previously noted. All right. Do I have a second? I second. The motion has been made for approval subject to the standard conditions. I haven't heard a second. Any questions about the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and your certificate appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Turning to attachment number four, this is 567 West Short Street in the Western Suburb Historic District. Scope of work, extend the driveway, construct a two-story deck and a garage. State your name for the record, please. Eric Thomas, 567 West Short Street. All right, Mr. Thomas. Well, actually, we've got a couple of substantive conditions, actually. Okay. It has been recommended by the staff that your application be approved subject to that you submit stone material to the staff for the review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. Okay. Secondly, that you provide doors and windows without muttons, submit the final doors and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Okay. Are you in agreement with those? Agreed. And the other two are what we've been referring to as the standard conditions. Correct. And are you in agreement with those? All right. Any questions or comments from the… I have just one notation. Sure, go ahead. And it has to do on the drawing that shows the rear elevation that shows the railing on that rear elevation is that I think you need to confirm the height requirements. Given the height off the finished grade, I think it's going to have to meet a different height requirement, but that's a code issue. Okay. EOAR issue. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Toward that end, staff would then recommend that a condition be added if the board is so inclined to note that that railing height needs to be addressed tied to code and that information brought back to staff prior to issuance of the COA. All right. And so I would assume that that is probably addressed by the standard condition where other LFUCG divisions because they will pick up on that. Right. It is. But I think when it's called out like this at the meeting that it would be a good idea to make it specific. So basically you're saying railing height has to be reviewed with the code enforcement? Yes. Is that correct? Any changes to be approved? Mm-hmm. Okay. All right. I will also note, and Ms. Kerr, this may just be my being sometimes a little overly picky, there was no discussion about the mutants in the findings and I'm wondering if we needed to have something about that in the findings? Yes. Although it's, excuse me, it's obviously in the guidelines as they're not allowed, but we will amend the staff report to draw attention to that in the report. All right. Thank you. All right then. As amended and with the additional condition, any other questions or comments from the board members or from the audience? If not, then I'm open for a motion. You can go for it. Mr. Chair, in regard to case number 17170567-F at 567 West Short Street, I recommend approval of the COA for the work as submitted with the conditions, both the standard two conditions previously read, or would you like for me to re-read them into the record? No, you don't need to re-read them. And in addition, the conversations about the particular items, the handrail, which height, which will likely need to be a guardrail height, needs to be reviewed with code officials and brought back to the staff when that is finalized. Is there anything else? That works. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Did we give the staff any heartburn? Yes. Okay. If not, then I'll call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and your certificate appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Turning now to attachment number five. Mr. Chair, may I just ask, I was writing, who made the second, if you would? Thank you. Okay. This is 454 East Maxwell, 304 Transylvania Park. The application, the scope of work is to demolish garage. Is the applicant here? My name is Scott Bishop. I'm here for Anthony Humphreys. All right. Mr. Bishop, the staff has recommended approval of the application subject to two conditions, that being fill and finish grade and plant turf grass after demolition, and then provide some method of restricting parking, such as a curb, wheel block, or planting shrubs to prevent parking on the new turf. It's my understanding you would like to be heard on that particular condition? Yeah. What he wants to do is run the timbers up and around, extend the timbers that are already there, up and around where the garage would be, would have been, just extending it. Is that garage currently being used for parking? It is not, because it's getting ready to fall down. I think two things. I'm going to probably have to step away from this one because I'm a resident of Transylvania Park. The other is I think you need to be heard on this. Yes, but also we would need plans reflecting how you're going to accomplish that, not just a verbal or written on your application that you want to make two parking places, well one parking place really. What is your anticipation of what you're asking for? I think I'll just add one, really. One, because it's a one car. It's a two car garage, but I don't... Well, we don't really... It may add to... I haven't measured it. Well, this is partly why we have to have plans. So, we're really not in a position to hear this part, to revise kind of on the fly, to go to a parking situation. And, you need to know that if you do that, it would have to be a paved surface. It cannot be gravel. That's county wide. And, I will also note for the record that probably we do need to postpone this. I do know some people on Transylvania Park are concerned about so many cars being parked in that area. There's already four cars regularly parking. Well, it all would come to full discussion based on having the full materials necessary to hear it. Yeah. I think at this point, Mr. Bishop, we're going to have to postpone. But, they used to give him permits for people to park on the street there, and they won't give him no more. That makes... I understand. And, there's probably... I don't know that program closely, but there's probably a limit per household, and he may have already got as many as that program will allow per household. Yeah. My understanding is I think they quit giving them, period. That I can't help you with. Yeah. Yeah. But, I understand. Yeah. So, is the procedure at this point to continue? Or, do we open it? You would... Well, you really haven't started talking about the merits of the case. Let's put... You would have an option to continue it or postpone. But, since we have had the dialogue we have had, I believe I would recommend continuance. All right. I hate to jump right by you, but I think you need to get some plans submitted so we know exactly what you're proposing. Okay. Your plans... It might be best to show in your plans exactly how you're going to nominate that parking area. Mm-hmm. And, probably think about doing some paving. Okay. Okay. You would have to also on that plan, and we can counsel you about this more as staff, but you would also need to reflect on the plan, the existing parking, and how that parking is being handled currently in addition to what you're proposing be added to it. Okay. And, finally, it just occurred to me, the neighbor that is O. Maxwell behind the next house... Mm-hmm. Her first name's Linda. I can't recall her last name. I think she's concerned there'll be a hole left if you take the garage down, that the fence is up to the wall of the garage. I believe the fence goes all the way past. It would help if we knew that. Barry, do you know if the fence is contiguous to the south side of this garage, if the fence counts on the garage as part of the fence gapping, or if the fence is totally in situ? Most of that fence blew down. South side. Last week. There is no fence between the garage and the adjacent property. Okay. So, that needs to be addressed as well. So, there would be a gap and a need to... Show you the photos. Well, we can do that at the next meeting. All right. Well, here you can see it. Yeah. Yeah. No fence. Okay. Okay. So... It's a chain link. So, there's several things to... Right. ...get thought through by your application, and the staff will work with you on that. Barry, what is the deadline for action on this application? 12-20. 12-20? No. 12-12. 12-12. Ah. We need a waiver. That would be tomorrow. So, we do need a waiver that we will prepare, and are you authorized to sign on behalf of the property owner? I will assume so. I'm his maintenance supervisor. I don't know. Well, that's between you and the property owner. And legally, he's an agent. So, I just always want to be sure whoever's signing it really understands they're signing on behalf of the owner. What you're doing, sir, is you're allowing us to extend this approval of the application or consideration of the application beyond its deadline date. Okay. Yeah. That shouldn't be a problem. And I think we'll... You're not giving away the world. Right. No. That's the only thing you're signing for. Our next meeting is January the 15th, and we are going to need your completed plans really right at the end, probably on that calendar. Probably that Friday, January the... Is that the 3rd? 2020. How can that be? Yeah. Friday the 3rd, or at the very latest, the 6th. But we have to get those staff reports out and all. So, I would tell your property owner and working with you, you all plan to aim for the 3rd and then at the very latest, Monday the 6th. Okay. We just want to build in a little time on the 6th when you bring it to sit and meet with us so we can be sure everything is what's needed. And we can talk in the meantime, too. And one other thing. I would suggest staff review with Mr. Bishop or with Mr. Humphreys the economic necessity for taking down this garage. Well, I must tell you, while we're not getting in the merits of the case, both of us, Barry and myself, have been out and looked at this garage, and it is not going to stand up. And it's tied to, and Barry, you're better positioned... If it gets a snow load on it, it's going to fall. You're, Barry, well-positioned to explain just briefly, if you will, Barry, what the problem is here, why it can't be repaired. If you push on it hard enough, it's going to fall over. If you sneeze on it, it might fall over. I couldn't get photos very good of this side, but as you can see, in this location, there was a window at one time which has been infilled and not toothed back very well into the existing structure. It's a double-width, unreinforced brick building, so basically, the north and south walls are three short sections of double-width brick walls. So, basically, three walls end-to-end which, basically, you could push it over because the bottom or the collar ties on the framing of the roof are not tied into the top either. So, our discussions were that if it was taken down and the brick saved and it was built back, it would cost an exorbitant amount of money to do that, and then it would basically be a new garage. Okay. If the staff's made that conclusion, then I'm fine, except I'll note that it's been there so long that our pure habit, it just stands up. Well, it's really true, and partly why it's such a challenge to work on it versus let it go is the method that it was initially built with is not very good. Okay. So, there's really not a way to improve upon something that's not there. All right. I wonder if it started out being a livery at one time and then got converted into some kind of a home. I don't know. A horse could have kicked the wall down if that were the case. All right. It's an interesting challenge on a masonry like that. You don't see many like that that aren't better built, that are period. And we're really concerned that that's going to fall and tear up the building next door because it's real close. Okay. Fortunately, the prevailing winds are in the opposite direction. But it's actually leaning towards that building. To the south. It's leaning to the south. Okay. All right, then. Do I have a motion to postpone to January? Continue. Continue to what date? January 15. All right. Do I have a motion to affect, please? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. I'll call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. We are continued until January 15. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Thank you for indulgence. Thank you. All right. I believe we have a conceptual review coming up. Yes, this is an item that they initially wanted to have a full hearing tonight at this meeting. But in the staff's looking at the character of the other garages in the vicinity of this property and so forth, we determined that a full two-story garage such as is proposed is not within the guidelines. And so we thought a conceptual review might be the most helpful means to move this forward. I'm assuming the applicants agreed with that? No, we just did that. That's okay. No, of course. The applicant's representative, Mr. Book, I believe, is here. All right. This is 1014 Fontaine. Is the applicant representative here? Dr. Berry? Yeah. Yes. So we'll leave him to explain his application. All right. I'll tell you what we need to do probably is have a staff presentation. Yes. Berry's ready for that. All right, Berry. Sorry, Mr. Book. No problem. 1014 Fontaine Road. As Ms. Kerr mentioned, it's a two-story garage proposal with either a carport. It's called a porch. It could be used for either. This is the front of the property. This is looking from adjacent to the property towards the rear. The garage is proposed to be located about where this area. And this is looking from the back of the property towards the primary structure. So the applicant is requesting a conceptual review to construct a 16-foot-by-26-foot two-story garage with a 14-by-23-foot porch and associated site work. The garage is sited at the rear of the property and is a frame construction with cementitious siding. The roof of the garage is a gable with a single-shed dormer. The porch roof is a shed type and all roofs are covered with dimensional shingles. The guidelines are included for your use. And this is a conceptual review. But the following are a few issues that the BOAR may want to consider. Is the siding of the structure appropriate? Is it appropriate to construct a two-story garage? Is the height of the structure appropriate? Are the exterior materials appropriate? Is the fenestration appropriate? There are no recommendations at this time and no deadline for board action. Did you do any kind of a survey of what the average size of the garages are in that vicinity? Do we have any other two-story garages in that area? That is along Fontaine. There are some two-story garages, but within the actual H-1 on Fontaine, there are not. And that's what we have to look at is the H-1? That's what we were looking at, yes. It has to be within the confines of the H-1. Okay. As I mentioned, this is the location of the proposed garage and extending the drive back. This is the porch area. This is the first floor. This is the roof. And so it's a full two stories as opposed to what the board normally sees on garages as being about a story and a half. This is the one-shed dormer that was mentioned. Is the upstairs intended to be residential? I guess we can ask that of Mr. Book. It's noted as a studio. A studio. Okay. All right. Okay, Mr. Book. And I think I heard someone say there is one other two-story garage. Come on up. Let's hear him while we're at it. Say your name. Clifton Matakovich. And your statement is? I think there is one two-story garage on Fontaine. You know where? It's two houses before the overlay stops on Irving. Is there a document, camera, or anything? We've got the staffers. May I ask while he's setting that up, do you have the address on the property? It's the house right next to the last house on the overlay. The last house is 1058. So it's the house right before that. Sorry. I don't know. So you're saying it's just west of 1058? Away from town or towards town? Toward downtown. Yes, back towards Timmy Chase. That'll do it. And we'll see it in a minute. But I'm assuming that's going to be that gable roof toward Fontaine garage. Anyway, we'll get there as soon as he's got that up. All right. Thank you. Thank you. 1014. I believe it's on R2. I did hear somebody ask about if it's residential. We honestly plan to use it as storage. I know it's kind of labeled as a, you know, we're not planning on renting it out. I'm not sure if that's an issue or not. But that's not the intention of that. Although you have provided for a bath. That was just kind of part of the plan, honestly. So if that's the determining factor, then we can. The only reason why I'm inquiring, I'm not sure whether we have a code issue with a residence being a second residence in effect being built. Well, it can't. We'll have to double check that because, of course, code is not the use. It's not in our purview. And we can check into that. But everybody is limited to one primary structure on their parcel. And so putting in a bath and kitchen and so forth in a secondary unit is usually not within the zoning ordinance. But we are not. I'm just trying to keep them out of trouble. Moving forward that we are, you know, interpreting the zoning regulations because we are not. But the. Go ahead and let's hear what the applicant would like to tell us. All right. We'll stop peppering you with random questions and let you do your presentation. Mr. Wipke, go ahead. Okay. Can't say that I have a formal presentation. I thought I would be answering questions. But we can we can work this out. If you don't have one. I mean, we can just go with the questioning if you want to. Sure. I'm okay with the scale that you're proposing. It is two story, but it is. It is not true. Blank on the right word here. It is secondary to the main house. It's not another huge house in the back. Right. And I think it's just proportionally the way you've got it sized up makes sense to me. I think it's fair. Fair proportions and scale. And form. Details and such, I'll see if anybody else has anything to add. Could you lean into your mic a bit, please? Oh, sorry. Form and scale and proportion I'm happy with. But I'm sure there's more stuff like details and materials that might be commented on. Ms. Tate? Anything? I think the only problem with, I think it's a nice looking project. But we have to always be careful because it is outside of the things that are within our guidelines. And once that goes up, it's going to look really nice and we're going to be, we're going to be, we just can't do that unless we commit to allowing it to happen again and again. And when I first joined this group, it seemed like a small issue. But I'll tell you it's not. As soon as one goes up, we'll be, we'll have a leg to stand on. And it's one of the frustrating things because when it's voted as a historic area, if you don't freeze it in time there, really, it's not going to be an example of a good enough example. So it puts us in a real hard place. So is the question then at hand, the fact that it is a second story and that we could do something different with that and still have the same floor space? I know we've gotten into some, not in H1 overlays, but in some MD1 overlays with guidelines as well and within the design, you can satisfy the guidelines. So I just would want to understand, and Mr. Clifton here would, just so that we would know where to move forward with that, of course. Well, it's the height and the fact that it's a full second story. And your dormers are quite extensive in that second floor, resulting in a good bit of roof form up there. And so the rest of the houses, both Barry and myself, we didn't go into people's backyards, but we looked up their driveways and saw them relative to the relationships to the structures. And the predominance of the garages within the historic district all along Fontaine are smaller scale. They're lower and not got a human occupancy possibility on the second floor. Some have some very finite center probably under the ridge line kind of walkability. But this one would be certainly in terms of the character of what the existing condition is, which is what we're to protect when the neighborhood gets designated, it is more massive vertically. Your footprint is not, it's more petite, quite frankly, than some. Then you're helping that by putting the proposed carport kind of concept next to it. And that, I think, is a very successful mechanism. So from the staff's perspective, and I didn't mean to interrupt the board, Susan is sitting there going, excuse me. But since we're on the conceptual approach here versus a formal hearing, if it's okay with the chair, I'll finish the thought. My thought is that if you could get the height where the ridge peak is not as high and bring that down some and get your dormers to perhaps be a little more diminutive, and Barry may want to add to this in terms of recommendations, I think you're getting there. But I think as proposed, it doesn't meet the guidelines because of its volume vertically. It's not a footprint issue. And your location of it is fine, you know, your placement, unless the board, that's all what I've just said is from the staff's perspective, of course. All right, Ms. Hill? So a few kind of easy things. The divided lights on the windows would, unless there's some reference point, I don't find those particularly helpful. The height piece of it, because I was trying to, looking at the height of the existing house and wondering why the proposed garage is so steep, why the slope of that roof couldn't be reduced down. I mean, it's 10 to 12. I mean, it's a pretty steep pitch. And so it exacerbates the, when you look at the elevation with the dormer, you have a lot of height kind of above where that dormer comes into the side of the roof. And so I think if the slope itself were reduced, I think it would really help to, and I think it would help with the scale a lot. And I, quite truthfully, I don't know that that would have a tremendous impact on that sectional elevation. That's obviously the thing that's going to have to be looked at. But if, in fact, this is primarily storage and not living space, then that simplifies that issue for you. But for me, it's really the exaggerated height due to the steep slope on the roof. I say storage, but I do want to be able to, I think something, be able to walk around in there and not be hunkered down. I don't think it would be. Are we locked into the, maybe the reason there aren't other buildings like this in that area or a majority rental along Fontaine, and maybe that would be a consideration of why that is. Are we locked into those types of, since 2012, like whenever the overlay took place, are we kind of locked into the designated or what those kind of properties are used for? I know that ours is an R2, so I'm trying to, we want a better property and grow and have space for our family, but we just, are we? Well, I don't think you have to lower that roof so much that you can't walk around up there at the high point. What about the other buildings around there being as high as they are? I know there's like a 10% kind of thing. In relation to the other buildings in the area, it's not very substantial at all as far as the height goes. Well, now you're relating it to the other primary buildings, and we're looking at it as a garage, not as another primary building. So the only other garage on Fontaine in the Historic District is a two-story. There is, I guess, precedent there for that, and within the district itself, there's several two-story garages in the district. I know not on Fontaine. I know you look at the property first, then the street, and then the district, but there are examples of that through the district, so. Yeah, there is one on Woodland that I think we have regretted approving because it's way too large relative to the property. But the footprint's okay. It's just the height, right? No, the footprint's fine. Except the one next to Donato's? Yeah. And I'm not suggesting necessarily lowering that whole roof, so it shouldn't be an impact at the eave lines. I'm really talking about the steepness of the roof and lowering the ridge, which shouldn't impact the walkability inside that space whatsoever. If I may make one observation, Barry. To me, the house doesn't read particularly well with the – this garage doesn't read particularly well with the house. The design is really quite uncomplimentary to it. And to be honest with you, from my eye, and this is just a layman's eye, it looks top-heavy to me. It looks too thin and too tall relative to its width. So I think that you would benefit from having that ridge line dropped a little bit and make it a little bit more proportional. Now, that's a layman talking, so. The single bay aspect of it from the site utilization is very appropriate and quite charming. It does make it, I think, more challenging to have a second floor volume up there that doesn't start to look like a Hansel and Gretel or something kind of problem. To answer your query about the fact that some of the other properties are investment properties versus owner-occupied and so forth, none of that is relevant to the historic district process in terms of the design reviews. It's all about the outcomes of these proposed designs. And I would encourage you, before you tweak this proposal further, to get with planning staff and check about your land use zoning and just be very honest with them about whatever it is you're intending this to be when it is finished and be sure you're within what's allowed within your zoning. Because it is not a matter that this process deals with, but you want to be sure you're right on that because all that will happen is, after you do successfully obtain a certificate of appropriateness from this process, you won't be going anywhere with it because the planning end will say it's not within your land use ability. As far as it being? If you're thinking of, you know, if it's going to have a bathroom, kitchen, whatever, you need to be sure that whatever you're architecturally putting it together, anticipating using it for, is allowed within your zoning. And to that point, the way you intend to use it is not the only factor. It's what it could be used for. Yeah. In terms of after you've sold it. So it's just a matter of dotting your I's and crossing your T's. We want to be sensitive to that because I know like Airbnbs and all that stuff is a big... It's kind of a warm topic at the moment. It really is. We want to be cognizant of that, but I know it. But we've kind of already outgrown our house in that sense. And, you know, there's things we want to do. So it's like, oh, we're trying to keep a small footprint, kind of keep within the ratios of what we need to do. It's just how do we get there? Right. Exactly. And that's exactly what this process is charged with is, you know, the physical, what's proposed to what will be the end product and how will it work within the site, within the neighborhood, within the district. And if there are any examples that, you know, I would love to see some. Well, you're not going to find two-story examples within the H1s that have been approved within after they've become an H1. A story and a half. Yes, a story and a half is half. The one thing that may confuse everybody, it's not just yourselves, any time an area becomes a historic district, certain things already exist at the time and they just are what they are. But the process doesn't use those as, oh, therefore you can make more of those because the process's charge is to do things appropriate to the integrity of the historic structures, et cetera, et cetera. I guess, when does the history become history? Well, actually, an H1 overlay is not something that is trying to replicate the past by any means. It is actually within the guidelines trying very carefully to not do that and have things recognizable as built in the era they're built. But the real secret are the five key things about scale and height and mass and volume and so forth and so on. We can give you the whole 101 when you want it. I'm still fine with the scale and the form of this thing and the roof pitch that's on it. I think they've got the perimeter wall at 7 feet. They've got their garage as considerably low as you'd want to go. You don't have the one- to three-foot step up onto the porch like you would on the main house with this structure, so you know you're a little lower than that. It's not as deep as the main structure, so you know your ridge is going to be a little lower. And I think if you made it a more shallow roof slope, it would lose its proportional value, frankly. I think it's really smart to do the carport thing. I think that helped you not look like that dude down the street, which we would not approve. I don't know how that got approved. It was a pre-existing thing. I think it's a pre-existing situation. See, this is a relatively young H-1. Well, those are my thoughts. Anything else? Yes, sir. So just a couple of things I would just like to make perfect clarification on. The term kitchen has been thrown out here. There is no kitchen proposed, nor has there ever been any discussion. I was just talking kind of with a punch list of generic. Sure, and of course, we appreciate everything that you guys do with helping with the H-1 overlays. I mean, this isn't the first time we've obviously been down here with some plans. So we want to make sure we keep everything within the guidelines. I promise you this is not a situation of, hey, let's try to slip something in here. Not at all. It's what Mr. Clifton here wants to construct and what we've worked together to try to propose. As far as beyond this point and then what would be approved, I'm pretty sure that we've stuck within planning and zoning guidelines as far as height restrictions, square footage in relation to the principal dwelling. I think we're good there. We're within the 50% of the square footage of the primary dwelling, 20 feet to mid-gable as far as the height restriction is concerned with an accessory structure. So those things, you never know. There's always something new that kind of bumps up from time to time. But I think we're good there. I just want to make sure that folks know we're not trying to slip anything else in on this other than literally what it is. You mentioned, Mrs. Hill, the wall section obviously earlier. And that's a point that I was going to bring out. We cut that wall down on purpose so as not to exceed that height. So there's a seven-foot wall there. There are things we could do with that dormer which we would need to discuss, of course, and come back. Everybody has an opinion, of course. My opinion of the dormer is that it's not overbearing by any means. It's a very small dormer on only one side of this roof line. But if that is something that we would need to tweak, we most certainly could tweak that. I don't want to speak, of course, out of turn. I agree with you. If you look at the drawings, it's not very obtrusive. And it's on the side interior of the yard, which you probably wouldn't even be able to see from the street anyway. If we had to lower that wall section, we could maybe play with that, too, if need be. I think looking at the wall section, for me, it's much the ridge line. It's quite a steep roof. And I think that would also have a positive impact on what the scale of the dormer as it's currently drawn. I think it would help us be proportionately to the rest of the tall roof. For me, it's really the ridge line. It's the ridge line. The ridge is 80 inches above the plate at 10 and 12, and it's an 8-foot run. If you dropped it to 6, that would bring it to 48, which would bring the ridge height down to around 21 or so, as opposed to 24. Would that keep the interior walkable so you don't have to hunch over? Yes, you wouldn't change the interior at all. It would only be the roof plates. Mr. Gilpin obviously thinks that it's okay like this, so that would be something that the board would have to come to an agreement upon. And I would just like to ask if the dormer, just for consideration for us to talk about, if the dormer went away, would that help with some of this scale-binding chance, in your opinion? I know this is a nice round table, so we're talking about potential overall height to the ridge or not. Is this a combination of all of these factors, or is one of these design elements more… I don't know what's the word I'm looking for. Prominent. More faux pas, if you will. That's probably the wrong way to use that, I'm sorry. Because whatever we bring back, we just don't want to continue to go round and round. We obviously want to propose something that will have a measure of success of being approved. Well, my personal view is I think it's probably the height that's the biggest concern that we have. So if we can do something to get that height down, I think the rest of it will fall into place and be approvable. I think staff would agree with that. The dormer is the way that the story and a half works. Well, the dormer, if you drop the height of your roof pitch, it's going to affect your dormer, and so you would not just stick that same exact dormer scale right on it. They would go hand-in-glove, what you're working to adjust. And, you know, this isn't exactly paint by numbers, so it's not the board pick out, well, if you'll fix this part, and then you do X. You have to do it. You do it all the time. You have to munch it together to solve that. But so from the staff, what the staff's hearing of the board and what the staff's concerns are relative to it not meeting the guidelines at the moment, not meeting the guidelines at the moment from the staff's interpretation, not to take away from some of the board members' perspectives and thoughts on this, but it would get closer to meeting the guidelines if you can get the pitch of that roof line down and get the ridge pole to be lower, and that will affect the dormer and just study those two things together. Barry, what else do you, from a staff's perspective, suggest about what to look at? I'm not sure that it's according to how far down the ridge comes. I wasn't saying 6-12 as a definite thing. It might be 8. But I don't think that's going to have an impact on the dormer if you look at it. I'm just suggesting you just need to look at the thing altogether. I think the length of the dormer is probably appropriate. I think it's mainly the vertical scale. And you see it looking at the elevation with the dormer. Because the porch almost disappears and you're just seeing this almost tower. So I think it's a relatively simple fix. I think, unless there's more, Barry? No. From the staff's perspective, that's where we would suggest you focus. Overall height, then, is what I'm hearing. And then you've heard the board's comments, and Mr. Chair, you may have other things to say. I'm done. A few other housekeeping sort of process comments that I just want to be sure everybody's reminded of. You had made reference to the fact that the dormer is on the inside side of the property and you don't see much of it from the street. I just want to be sure everybody's clear that whether you see something from the street or not is not really pertinent to how the guidelines are structured. So that is not a measure of whether it makes something work or not work. It has to work in all four elevations and within the context it's being built, et cetera, et cetera. And then the only other thing I think I've lost track of. All right. Anything else? All right. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you all. We appreciate your working with us on it. Absolutely. Do we need an extension? What's your deadline for action, Barry, on this case? Well, we didn't open it, so we've continued it. This is a conceptual review. We need to make a motion to continue this case. I'm sorry. You lost me. I thought this was a conceptual review. Well, it was on your docket until we had to do the staff reports. So we took it off your docket. So I guess we technically don't need a motion. You don't need a motion. Nope. I think I've come full circle and hit myself once on my way by. I think we're good. Thank you. All right. I'm just characterizing the agenda as the conceptual review, so there's no deadline on it. I think you've got it in hand and I don't. Thank you. All right. I take it we have no minutes? No. I want to discuss that with you. I want to suggest a template to you, and I want to send you something that may save you all a bunch of time in terms of preparing the minutes. We can talk about it separately. We can talk about that privately. Anything else to discuss? We've completed the case with this gentleman. Yes. We're done with the conceptual review. I'm sorry. Excuse me. I thought you knew that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you both. All right. There being no minutes, there's no other business. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. We stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Good will to men and peace on earth. Oh, Christmas tree. Oh, Christmas tree. Thou has a wondrous message. Oh, Christmas tree. Oh, Christmas tree. Thou has a wondrous message. Oh, Christmas tree. Oh, Christmas tree. Snowflakes falling down on every little town. Oh, Christmas tree. Oh, Christmas tree. Oh, Christmas tree. Oh, Christmas tree.