# Board of Architectural Review - January 20, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 20, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5277 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5277?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-01-20 - **Last revised**: January 20, 2021 - **Length**: 8,803 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 held a teleconference meeting on January 20, 2021, presided over by James Dickinson. The board considered six agenda items related to properties in various historic districts and took five motions to a vote. The meeting included one public comment. Five of the six properties reviewed—139 Ransom Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District, 276 Clay Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District, 230 DeShay Road in the Ashland Park Historic District, 175 Rosemont Garden in the Pensacola Park Historic District, and 340 South Broadway in the South Hill Historic District—were approved. One item, 363 Transylvania Park in the Aylesford Historic District, was presented for informational purposes. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on January 20, 2021: * James Dickinson * Barry * Suzanne Irwin * Josh Gulpin * Ms. Hill No attendees were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included five votes on certificates of appropriateness, all conducted by voice vote and all passed. **139 Ransom Avenue** [timestamp: 0:13:05] A certificate of appropriateness was approved with two standard conditions. The motion was made by Mr. Chair. **276 Clay Avenue** [timestamp: 0:15:34] A certificate of appropriateness was approved with two standard conditions. The motion was made by Chair. **230 DeShay Road** [timestamp: 0:17:58] A certificate of appropriateness was approved with three conditions, including submission of final door and window details. The motion was made by Mr. Chairman. **175 Rosemont Garden** [timestamp: 0:20:37] A certificate of appropriateness was approved with two standard conditions. The motion was made by Mr. Chair. **340 South Broadway** [timestamp: 0:24:45] A certificate of appropriateness was approved with two standard conditions. The motion was made by Chair. ## Public Comment Karen Patrone addressed the board regarding concerns about a proposed addition to 363 Transylvania Park [timestamp: 1:01:54]. Her comments focused on three main areas: * **Size of the addition** — Ms. Patrone expressed concerns about the scale of the proposed addition and its appropriateness for the site. * **Neighborhood character** — She raised concerns about how the addition would impact the overall character of the neighborhood. * **Green space** — Ms. Patrone expressed concerns about the amount of green space that would remain on the property following the addition. ## Contested Items **363 Transylvania Park Addition** Community members raised concerns about a proposed addition to the property at 363 Transylvania Park. The primary points of contention centered on three aspects of the project: - **Size and mass of the addition** — Neighbors expressed concerns about the scale of the proposed structure and its physical footprint. - **Neighborhood character** — Community members worried about how the addition would affect the overall character and aesthetic of the neighborhood. - **Green space impact** — Concerns were raised regarding the amount of green space that would remain on the property following the addition. The opposition came from neighbors in the surrounding area who attended the meeting to voice their objections to the proposal. ## 139 Ransom Avenue (Aylesford Historic District) An application to install a storage shed at 139 Ransom Avenue within the Aylesford Historic District was discussed and approved during this meeting. [timestamp: 10:53] James Dickinson presented the matter to the board. The application was approved with standard conditions applied to the project. The outcome of this agenda item was approval of the storage shed installation. ## 276 Clay Avenue (Aylesford Historic District) An application to construct a covered patio at 276 Clay Avenue within the Aylesford Historic District was discussed and approved by the board. [timestamp: 0:13:39] James Dickinson presented the application to the board. The proposal was approved with standard conditions applied to the project. ## 230 DeShay Road (Ashland Park Historic District) An application to construct a garage at 230 DeShay Road was discussed and approved by the board. [timestamp: 00:16:09] **Key Speaker** James Dickinson presented on this agenda item. **Outcome** The application was approved with conditions. As part of the approval, the applicant is required to submit final door and window details for the proposed garage. ## 175 Rosemont Garden (Pensacola Park Historic District) An application to construct an addition and fence at 175 Rosemont Garden in the Pensacola Park Historic District was discussed and approved during this meeting. [timestamp: 0:19:02] James Dickinson presented on this agenda item. The application was approved with standard conditions. ## 340 South Broadway (South Hill Historic District) [timestamp: 21:53] An application for alterations at 340 South Broadway in the South Hill Historic District was presented and discussed. The proposal included three main components: altering openings, constructing interior outdoor rooms, and constructing exterior stairs. James Dickinson presented the item to the board. The application was approved with standard conditions applied to the project. ## 363 Transylvania Park (Aylesford Historic District) This agenda item presented a conceptual review of a proposed addition to a historic structure located at 363 Transylvania Park in the Aylesford Historic District, along with a front door replacement [timestamp: 1:00:00]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Barry, Patrick Nall, and Karen Patrone. **Presentation and Discussion** The meeting addressed a conceptual design proposal for modifications to the historic property. The review covered both the proposed addition to the existing structure and plans for replacing the front door. **Concerns Raised** Participants expressed concerns regarding the size and mass of the proposed addition. These dimensional and volumetric aspects of the design were identified as issues requiring further consideration. **Outcome** The item was treated as informational in nature, with no final decision rendered at this time. The conceptual review provided an opportunity to discuss the proposal and identify key concerns that would likely need to be addressed in future submissions or revisions. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 139 Ransom Avenue - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 276 Clay Avenue - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 230 DeShay Road - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 175 Rosemont Garden - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 340 South Broadway --- ## Full transcript Thank you. My name is James Dickinson. I'm the chair of the BOAR. I would like to welcome you to the July 20th special meeting with the Board of Architectural Review. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference presented to Senate Bill 150 and Attorney General Opinion 20-05 and in accordance with KRS 61826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. This board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 16 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. It is our procedure to consider the applications in the order in which they're listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. I will ask parties that wish to be heard regarding an application to raise their digital hand in order to be allowed to comment as an applicant or a citizen making public comment. Please keep your microphone muted until you cannot speak. And as you start your comments, state your name and address for the public record. Upon conclusion of the specific application you're addressing, you'll be returned to the regular attendee status, and you're, of course, welcome to keep observing the meeting. The Board will ask questions and make comments regarding the application and hear comments from any other interested parties. The Chair will then ask the Board or members to enter a motion and take final action. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. These applicants are as follows, and we have 11 approved applications by the staff. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District, 122 South Hanover Avenue, replace garage doors and replace trees. In the Ellsford Historic District, at 242 Arlington Avenue, remove trees. 365 Linden Walk, replace railing and steps. In the Fayette Park Historic District, 416 Fayette Park, renovate the structure. In the Dance Park Historic District, 231 South Mill Street, renovate structure. In the Pensacola Park Historic District at 125 Lackawanna Road, renovate structure. In the Seven Parks Historic District at 570 Arcadia Park, replace fence. 611 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. and 225 Dantzler Court Renovationary. In the Western Suburbs Historic District at 606 West Short Street, replace the replacement windows. In Woodward Heights Historic District at 370 Moreno Street, replace the replacement windows. And that concludes the staff approvals. We will now go to our regular agenda. The first item on our submission is 139 Ransom Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District install a storage shed. Is the applicant here? Do we have an applicant? I do not see John Tackett on the list, sir. All right. Thank you. It appears, excuse me, it appears that the application has been, the staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what we've always characterized as their standard conditions, unless there's an objection otherwise. Barry, have you heard from Mr. Tackett as to whether he's seen the approval or not? Yes, I have. He's in court this afternoon and didn't know cases would be finished yet, and he agrees with the recommendation. Well, it would be truthful. Since they're the standard conditions, I don't think he would have any objections to those. I don't think we need to continue. now we emailed back and forth today okay let me add your microphone for whatever reason breaking up I'm not sure what's going on with it is this any better somewhat okay maybe it was just well part of it yeah it's a it's clitzy for me anyway the standard condition is just to get them into the record is if any changes are made that alter the information submitted it resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work and the other condition is once removed by the other lfucg divisions returning changes the staff or board for review and approval prior to start at work as i said this is an application for the construction of a storage shed or install a storage shed any questions or comments from the board members okay any questions or comments from my virtual audience i'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Don't be shy. Mr. Chair, in the case number 15740139-G at 139 Ransom Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard recommendations. Our conditions, yes. Do I have a second? Got a second? All right. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. All right. Turning to application number two, 276 Clay Avenue, Ailsford Historic District. The scope of work is to construct a covered patio. Grant Mills is the applicant. Is he present? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm bringing him in now. All right. Thank you. We're here. Mr. Mills and the Mills family. Hello, how are you doing today? Great. All right. The staff has reviewed your application and has recommended its approval subject to what I've been characterizing as our standard two conditions. Did you hear me recite those into the record? um yes might be good to just reiterate those if you don't mind not at all uh they are as follows condition number one 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 work the second condition is once reviewed by the other divisions any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start the work are you in agreement with those conditions yes sir all All right. This application is for the construction of a covered patio. Any questions or concerns for the board members? All right. Do we have any no? Yes. All right. Do I have any questions or concerns from the virtual audience? I'll give it a count of 10. Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 041-502-76-N at 276 Clay Avenue, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved, disconditioned. Congratulations Mills and I hope you enjoy your patio. Thank you very much. Looks like a fun project. Yes, it will be fun. Thank you. All right, turning now to attachment number three, 230 DeShay Road. Scope of work is constructor roge is mr blair here he is mr chairman i'll bring him in right now thank you mr blair if you want to turn on your camera and your microphone you're in the meeting there you are mr blair how are you service welcome back you need to unmute your stuff sir i'm fine thank you all right uh first of all i want to thank you for working with staff regarding the what we've been characterizing is the mature tree and the staff it looks like it's recommended approval subject to three conditions one being somewhat substantive that is submit the final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA and the other two are the standard conditions that I have previously recited. Are you in agreement with those recommendations? Sure. All right. Are there any questions or concerns from the staff members? I'm sorry from the board members? Hearing none. Any questions or comments from the virtual audience? All right, hearing none, I'm ready for the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 05550230-D at 230 DeShay Road, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the three following conditions. Number one, submit final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA. And numbers two and three are standard conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. motion carries and the coa as conditioned is approved thank you mr blair and again thank you for working with the staff on this tree issue thank you they were very helpful okay very good take care all right turning now to number uh attachment number four which is 175 rosemont garden in the pensacola park and start district scoable work is construct addition and fence. The applicant is Michael Cooper. Is he present? He is coming now, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Cooper, if you would turn your camera on. There you go. Thank you. Your audio. Mr. Cooper, and there are two Coopers, I think. Which one's Michael? All right. Thank you for being with us. I assume the older man is Michael? all right okay the staff has reviewed your application has recommended approval subject to what i've been characterizing the standard two conditions i'll read them into the record for you 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 once reviewed by the other divisions any changes shall be returned to the city or board for review and approval prior to start of work Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Any questions or concerns from the board members? No, sir. All right. Any questions or concerns from my virtual audience? I'll give it a count of ten. Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair in the case number 16370175 at 175 Rosemont Garden I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions all right do I have a second second all right uh before i call the motion i will mention for the record that the work on this project began prior to you getting a coa i recognize that pensapel is a relatively brand new historic district and so i just want to let you understand that these things can happen i hope that you'll tell your neighbors that you sort of got dinged and that your neighbors will make Okay, that's you make sure your neighbors will file applications. There's a lot of work going on in what I think is a very lovely neighborhood. And we're proud to have it as part of the historic district family. All right, I will now call for them. A second, please. Second. Okay, I will then have any further discussion on the motion. If not, then the chair will call the motion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries and the certificate of wrote witness as condition is approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Okay, turning to attachment number five at 340 South Broadway in the South Hill Historic District. School of work is alter openings, construct interior outdoor rooms and construct exterior stairs. The applicant is, I believe, Daniel Ware of EOP. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. How are you, sir? Hello. Good to see you. I remember this building well. I've known many people from the Kentucky Coal Association. All right. Well, we're excited for this project, and we have read through your staff report. Do have one question on the recommendations. to say once reviewed by the other LFUCG divisions that we will resubmit changes to the staff. Is that any changes to this current, what you're seeing here, that is, if there are changes? Yeah, okay. If it goes back, if it goes through the review process and they decide something, well, I can have a good answer to the question. She may be in a better position to do. Ms. Armstrong? That's right. Mr. Ware, if you go through other processes and they ask for changes, then we need to see those changes prior to, you know, once you've seen that. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you for agreement. That's only because sometimes the Planning Commission is not quite in sync with what the historic guidelines are. And so we need just to give it a second look to make sure they haven't inadvertently approved something that would be contradictory to the guidelines. But I want to comment that, you know, this is a 1950s era building, a 60s era. I am delighted to see you doing a constructive readaption of it. We've been having this issue discussed in other parts of that neighborhood. and so I want to commend you for taking this building and turning it into what I think is going to be a cool set of apartments well thank you we're very excited for it all right any questions or concerns from the board members anything okay any questions or concerns from the virtual audience I'll give it a count of ten all right hearing none The chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 02510340 at 340 South Broadway, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. All right. any discussion on the motion hearing none the chair will call the question all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed nay all right the motion is uh passes and the certificate of brokenness as conditions is approved thank you mr weir thank you very much thank you all thank you Good luck with your project. Nice project. Okay. This brings us to the conclusion of the approved applications. We'll now move to the conceptual review phase of the proceedings. Let me explain how that's going to happen. We're going to have a presentation initially by the staff. We will then have comments and a discussion by the board members with the applicant regarding this application. We will then take comments from the audience, such as they may, concerning this application. Depending on the number of people who would like to comment on the application, we may have to limit the presentation to three to four minutes each, with the exception of any neighborhood representative we may have. so if we're ready to begin with the conceptual review and i believe the applicant is joseph properties but i don't have a name rakel joseph and she's on that i see her on the list here i'm on hello and i'm seeing is steven carico is he an attorney representing you or is he involved with your project steve is the contractor contractor okay all right okay who all would you like me to bring on sir I'm sorry I didn't hear you the only name I have is Patrick Nall so who else would you like me to bring on sir in terms of watching the presentation there may be some other people from I believe the Transylvania Neighborhood Association they may they can what they'll do is the procedure is once we finish the summary of this project and our questions, they can raise their blue hand and make comments. I want to be noted that I am within the notification area of this particular property. Although I will continue to chair this meeting, I want to refrain from making any comments concerning it, and I will not be participating in the vote if this application comes up for a submission. Barry I assume that you're the one in charge of this one would you like to begin the conceptual review please and you need to unmute yourself how is that very good 363 Transylvania Park as you know it's a conceptual review. The applicant is requesting a conceptual review for the proposed addition to the historic structure and a front door replacement. The addition is proposed to extend a previous one-story addition to the historic structure, 12 feet to the rear, and add a second floor on top of the existing addition plus the extension, um which will then the roof will obviously extend over that the full area the wall siding is proposed to be cementous cementitious board siding windows are aluminum clad and the door is fiberglass the roofing is proposed to be dimensional shingles cornices and corbels are proposed to match the existing and then the existing front door as i mentioned is well, is to be replaced with a new fiberglass door. So I'll take you through the photos of the site and the drawings first, and then go on to the rest of the staff report. All right. Why is it always the women that can get the technology down? Go ahead. Thank you, Miguel. or is it being glitchy today you have to do that first yeah all right there we go So this is front elevation of the house. The door that's proposed to be replaced is this front door. Now this is looking from Transylvania to the west along the driveway. This is the north side of the addition that will be engulfed. I should note that this carport is to be demolished. So this is looking from about the carport back towards the one-story addition in the rear of the historic structure. and if you might note these corbels they're mentioned in the questions so now into the drawings this site plan you can see the red without the hatch is the original historic structure. The red with the hatch is the existing addition. And then this outline with the hatch would be the extent of the old addition plus the new. You know how the structure continues tight along this property line. There's no indentation as required. So this floor plan of the existing. This is the proposed floor plan, first and second floor. The roof plan, this is the historic structure back to this double line. And this would be the complete new second floor under this roof. And then these are the elevations. So again, the front elevation, what is the north, northeast elevation? The south and the west or rear. Thank you. approval of the size and the setbacks and should also note that the h1 requirements may be more restrictive than the board of adjustment might approve so there are no findings because this is a conceptual review but there are a few questions that you might want to consider that the staff has put together. One, is it appropriate to replace the front door with a new fiberglass door? Is it appropriate to demolish the carport? Is it appropriate to demolish or to engulf the existing addition and turn it into a two-story addition? Does the new addition create too much mass and overwhelm the existing structure and the site and also is would it be appropriate for the elsewhere neighborhood as far as it's massive does the mass of the proposed structure overwhelm the adjacent structure to the south should the south wall of the addition be stepped to the north away from the south property line should the proposed roof ridge be lower than the existing roof ridge does the new addition of the structure and the existing hardscape leave an appropriate amount of green space on the property is the lot coverage appropriate for the h1 should the soffit and cornice be designed so as not to totally engulf the existing cornice and soffit is it appropriate to add corbels to the new addition and if it is should the new corbels match the existing or do they create a false sense of history are the windows in the indoors in the new addition appropriately placed there's no deadline for board action at this time and that's the conclusion of the staff report okay a couple of questions uh barry a couple questions just to make sure i understand or that everyone understand what's going on how much green space would be left did you actually do a measurement of how what the size of that backyard is and what's going to be left after the additions added to it well no um we do not in our guidelines have a ratio it's more by the feel and so if i can and go back here. I guess what I'm trying to get at is we can tell the existing dimensions, I guess, from the plans, but if you can tell us, it would be helpful. I have that information if you would like me to convey that. Okay, we'll ask you that in just a moment, then, sir. So you can see in the photos, even once the carport is gone, The concrete there is proposed to remain, and that would be parking. Then the addition is going to come 12 feet off of this addition. So it's going to leave, if we look at the site plan, a very minuscule L-shaped area in the rear yard, which I would estimate is probably 30 by 40 and probably 15, 20. So compared to the other historic structures in the H1, you can see there's quite a bit of open space that's not filled up on the south side and the north side of this property. with regard to the garage is that carport an extension of an existing garage or is that whole is that whole building a new structure that carport is uh relatively new um yes it's built by 2006 yes and it's to be demolished okay so just the slab will remain for you what i was trying to get it's not an extension of the what was a garage on that property is the whole structure is new yes it's a new story all right all right that's all i want to okay before we go into questions from these any questions from the staff member from the board members of Mr. Dennis. I have a question. On the elevations, it seems to show on the stair that is in the historic part of the building that is that a new part where that stair is protruding out in the elevation, in the south side elevation, that tower? Yes, that's existing. Oh, that's existing. Yes. Because the floor plans don't show that? Am I reading that? Yes, the only new would be the frame portions from the direct historic structure back. That's the only addition. Can I ask another question? Sure. From the looking at the notes that you included from the board proceedings in 2006, when this what is currently there, the addition was decided upon. am I understanding that the addition that is there now was built upon existing foundations was there an existing was there an addition there with foundations that did not have a setback and is that why the the addition that is there now doesn't have any setback from what would have been considered the original home. I was not here at the time. Amelia, do you have any? I'm trying to remember. If you note on the, let's go to this. There is actually an indentation. There is a setback. if you could see this juncture right here on the second on the south side correct but on this the driveway side there is nothing because there was an existing scenario okay so the so all all of the additions have been built upon existing foundation lines is that why they are where they are um i'm just guessing from the comments that were in those meeting minutes i believe so that is correct right we'll just have to review the plans again and and i will note this is not this is not an application for approval this is simply a conceptual review right it's subject is subject refinement sure I mean I was just sort of understand trying to understand it's a big house it is the way it is now so all right any other questions for the board members I see a hand coming up we're gonna hold comments until we've had a presentation from the applicant and then we'll take comments. Jim? Yes. As Suzanne has noted, there are some things on the drawing that just need to be updated and corrected and so on the existing second floor plan there should be showing a step out where that stair occurs. Okay. But I think it does. On the drawing that's in front of us right now, you see it on the elevation, but I don't see it on the floor plan. Ah, okay. Yeah, you're right. It doesn't. That would need to be revised. It is difficult without going back and forth and back and forth between the drawings to understand where the current building is and where the new building is being added on. It would be helpful to have some kind of shading or line designation or something to be able to see that distinction. Okay. That's a suggestion to the applicant. Any other questions or concerns at this point? that we're not anywhere near dumb. I just want to make sure that we don't have any preliminary questions. At this point, then, I think we're ready for the presentation. Yes. Yes, Josh. I'll just ask real quick. Is there a point where we might just go through the 12 recommended questions? Yes, once we get through with what the applicant has to say. Okay. and Barry could you take down the uh the screenshot so that we see each other sure thank you all right I believe we're ready for a presentation by the applicant and the either the owner or the uh well the owner is actually Joseph Properties I'm assuming that Raquel Joseph is the owner or the LZ manager that's correct um but I was I was going to address the question. Patrick Knoll, 716 East Market Street, Kentucky 40202. I was going to address the questions that were just presented kind of one by one. So are you the architect or the representative? Yes, I'm the architect representative, yes. All right, very good. Move forward then. All right, the first question was about the replacing the front door. That was just a miscommunication between the owner and us when we submitted those drawings. The cut sheet for that door that was submitted is for the new rear door on the house. The front door is not being replaced. So hopefully that's a non-issue. All right. The carport, as was mentioned earlier, was, you know, is it appropriate to demolish the carport? The carport is really not a historic building. It was built, like you said, in 2006. And it was built by the owner of the house prior to Joseph Properties purchasing the house. And what they're actually planning on doing in demolishing the carport is there's like a tool shed area beyond where the cars park. And they were planning on returning that to green space and landscaped area. So the actual, there will actually be an increase. And I think there was a question on the change in green space and site coverage. The square footage of footprint that's increased over what's there today is 477 square feet. And then we're going to be adding back 120 square feet of green space by demolishing the tool shed that's adjacent to the carport, which brings a grand total of 357 square feet of added, you know, footprint, if you will, or hard surface area on the site. The third question, is it appropriate to construct the addition around the existing addition? This is largely a functional thing. Part of the project involves adding bathrooms to the bedrooms on the second floor. So, you know, it's really the only feasible way to do that. And that really kind of addresses question four, is it appropriate to add to the existing addition? You know, the idea there being trying to minimize the footprint with only a negative 357 square feet, we felt like that was the best you know functional anesthetic solution to the project. Does the addition create too much mass and overwhelm the existing structure and site? There's actually a two-story addition similar to our project on the house to the north. When you look at the site plan it's not in that aerial photograph so it must be relatively new. So it seems to be in keeping with the neighborhood, in our opinion. Should the south wall of the addition be stepped into the north away from the property line? It actually is stepped in eight inches. And it's sticking in. We've, you know, if we did not keep the second floor in alignment with the first floor, there would be kind of a strange looking bump out in the south wall of the building. So that seemed to be the best aesthetic solution is to keeping the second floor exterior wall aligned with the existing first floor exterior wall along that south property line. Should the proposed roof ridge be lower than the existing? Question 8. We think it should, and that's what we showed on the elevations, because what that does is it makes a massing differentiation between the historic structure and the addition. So we've stepped that down slightly from the original, I think the original proposed concept that was presented to Amelia showed a continuous ridge. So that may be where that comment came from. So to answer that question, we are planning on stepping that down. We also stepped down the feng shah and got our line to show a differentiation between the addition and the existing house as well. I think we weren't aware of the BOZA requirements, so I guess that's a good thing to know about. which you want to wear of the what the BOZA restrictions that we'd have to go to BOZA to get the setback. Board of adjustments. Board of adjustments, sorry. To get the setback on the south property line adjusted. Is that correct? That is correct. For every foot over 50 feet of the structure you have to set back one inch so and that's rather complicated there is a worksheet that building inspection has that you can work through when it's submitted i have a copy of that and i think it would be helpful if if our board got a copy of it when you make your application whether or not you've been in front of VOA or not at that point. Can you send me a copy of that as well? I will email it to you. Ms. Carr says you need to go on to Acela and get it there and submit it. And then talk to Elizabeth Arrington, who does that review. Okay. And given the fact, since this is a R1 property, is there any kind of restrictions on how large an addition can be? Is there a 25% limit for any existing structures? They have not, building inspection is not mentioned anything like that. We're only increasing the score footage of the house by 11%. All right. It seems greater than that, but I'll take your word for it. Well, there's an existing one-story addition there. So what I'm talking about is the added score footage over what exists today. Okay, Ms. Kerr? Yes, since the discussion at the moment is going into issues to do with both building and board of adjustment and zoning regulations, I would strongly suggest that you representing the applicant get with the Division of Building Inspection, as has been referenced, a member of their staff, Elizabeth, and also get with the Division of Planning relative to your land use zoning and what restrictions that brings with it tied to these dimensional and other issues. Our office may not be the conduit for all that. It's better to go directly to the mouth of the horse. And there's one other issue that you may need to be concerned with and that is your parking issue because it is for your information that is a restricted parking area which I believe is restricted to two permits per house and two visitor permits. I don't believe that there's on street parking. Raquel could probably speak to the parking. I don't know what I don't think that it's technically not part of our Ryu Prostos, I'm just trying to be helpful in that there are other... Thank you. Yeah, we have no... Can they hear me? Can anyone hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Oh, okay. Yeah, we have no need for more than the parking in our driveway. That's it. It'll just be my daughter and I in the house. It's owner-occupied. And I am currently purchasing a business in Lexington. And I will be in Lexington two out of the seven days per week. so um we won't need any extra so you're not planning to all right there's so the concern was coming up i think from some neighbors that this might be turned into a rental property and again that's not part of the bore application process so no sir it's owner occupied it will be my daughter myself and i have four children so they will come and stay and visit when games and things like that. So it's absolutely a family home. And so I was going to say all that, but didn't have the opportunity. Well, I'll give you an opportunity to speak in just a moment. Okay. Any working through the questions? Anything else, Mr. O? Yes, sir. Is it all or you can't tell? Yes, no. Just a few more. I wanted to go ahead and address the other questions that were raised as best we can. I already mentioned the green space that we're adding. And then number 10, should the soffit and cornice be designed so as not to totally engulf the existing cornice and soffit? Once again, it's a practical issue. If we dropped the ceiling height inside the building below that existing cornice, it would be below seven feet. So, you know, we're trying to keep usable living space on that second level. So it's really a practical issue for the most part. And then on the issue of whether the corbels should be there or they create a false sense of history, I can see where it might be perceived that they, you know, present a false sense of history. but the owner's intent there was just to try to make the addition blend in with the existing structure as best we can um trying to keep it in character with the neighborhood so that was just an intent um it was a as a it was a good intent i guess is the best way to present it if it's objectionable to the board they can you know they the owner doesn't have a problem removing those it's not a big issue. And then on number 12, are the windows and doors of the addition appropriately placed? You know, I don't really know how to address that issue. I guess that's really kind of a subjective thing. If there's someone that thinks they're not, maybe we should have a discussion about that. Well, I think what they're doing through, by raising these questions. They're not raising necessarily objections. They're simply making sure it's kind of a punch list of things and considerations they want to go through. And of course, as you all know, as an architect, the spacing and overall system of the windows can be important to the design of the building itself. All right. I think we're ready now for comments from the board members regarding this application. Any concerns and questions you may have or suggestions? I'll start with Suzanne Irwin first. um i think um most of my concerns or my questions were uh addressed um other than the fact that it does take up with the two stories it it is large along that south elevation um and so the overall coverage of the lot seems a little much but that's my only concern all right uh josh mr gulpin uh yes um i do think the the corbels on the new addition are problematic i also feel like the south elevation is uh very broad and does not does not at all sort of relate to uh the rhythm that you would find on the existing house um we of course do not want to mimic the detailing of the historic portion, but I think it is appropriate to at least relate to some of that rhythm, some of that proportion. And so this would also be in regards to the windows that are there. I think at least increasing the number of windows may help this, but also finding a way to break up this long facade, even as kind of the original structure is taking advantage of that staircase to kind of break up the volume of the main house. So I think that would improve that side of the project. Otherwise, it is a very large addition. that is kind of hard to get behind to start with. So if we could find a way to articulate this facade and break down the scale of it, I think that would help the project a lot. I think that's all I had noted. I didn't find much problem with the other questions. Yeah, that would be all. All right, Ms. Hill? I would say that my issues have been verbalized. The volume and scale of that edition is, for me, the biggest thing. And both the kind of rhythm of the windows and also just the sighting material, that horizontal siding material that continues without any break or in the pattern of it in any kind of a way. I'm not convinced how much that would change the sense of the volume, but it certainly just in visually looking at it would give a little relief to the length of it. it exaggerates the length in some ways to have such continuousness to that horizontal siding. All right. I think we're ready then for questions and comments from anyone who might be in the virtual audience. If you'll start. We've never done this before quite this way on a Zoom proceeding. I know when someone raises their hand, I'll say, come up to the podium and talk. So I guess what you're going to have to do is just whoever beats, raise their blue hand first will be admitted into the, into our lobby so that you can address your comments. I'll remind you to please state your name for the record and also try to limit your comments to three to four minutes each. Whoever's first. Is there anyone in the virtual audience? Yes, sir. All right. Ms. Patrone, bring her in. She is brought in. Thank you. There, if you'll state your name for the record, please. My name is Karen Patrone and I was just elected the president of the Transylvania Park Neighborhood Association. And I also happen to live at 361 Transylvania Park. So the, there are several questions in the, in the staff questionnaire that I think the neighbors do feel the answer is yes to. And, you know, that is the size of the addition, the two, the two main issues being the size of the edition and uh what the character of the the other editions are I was um I'm not sure which two-story I wasn't sure whether you were making reference to my two-story edition uh which is tiny uh compare you know it was only a few feet past the house it is not you know this isn't going to be 12 feet past the already existing edition so you're talking about 20 or you know 20 feet past the original house. I do have a two-story edition that has a screened-in porch on the second floor, but I don't think it is in any way like the edition that you're talking about. So I do question whether the two-story edition is in the character of the neighborhood. I also question the, you know, the sheer size of it in terms of the historic structures that are, that's surrounded on either side. And then the third thing is the amount of green space, you know, especially, you know, the carport, if the carport is gone, that's still hard concrete. And it does seem like maybe 357 square feet is not that much, but it does seem like it takes up pretty much the whole of the yard and leaving practically no green space. And I understand what you're saying that it's not, that it doesn't seem like, the number doesn't seem much, but in terms of the character of the yard, those are things that the neighbors are concerned about. Okay. Anyone else? Any questions for Ms. Patron? Anyone else who would like to be heard? I can't tell from my screen if I have anyone there or not. So, I do not say it's for you. All right. I think in summary, Mr. Nall, I believe you're hearing a consensus from the board members and probably from your neighbors as well that this addition may be a little overwhelming. Bearing in mind, it originally started out being a two-story brick building with the addition being constructed in 2006. I recognize that you're trying to build off of that and not extend too much further on the second floor. But I do have a similar concern that it looks more like a barrack, has a feel of barracks as opposed to a building or a housing structure. So you may just want to keep the aesthetics of the building in mind as you move forward with your application. this is the purpose of the conceptual review to give to give you a preliminary feel for how the board members are looking at this application okay well we appreciate the feedback okay and yes Suzanne to make a clarifying comment and I know that the statement is that the the amount of additional square footage seems relatively low, but the addition that is currently there being a single story and the roof slopes away from the house, and it kind of minimizes that volume. And that is very, very different the way the proposed two-story addition reads and feels on the site. So even though if we talk strict numbers, it may not seem to be that much of an addition square footage wise, the volume change is very large and is a concern of fitting into, you know, the rest of the neighborhood. so I just wanted to clarify that thank you thank you uh miss joseph i think at one point you wanted to make a comment or two do you still wish well i just really wanted to introduce myself so that there were um everybody had a clear understanding so even though the property is in joseph properties everything i own goes into an llc but it is my private home and my daughter and i will live there. So I want to make sure everybody knows this. And the reason I'm doing the addition is the front two bedrooms are very small. They have no closets. And so I'm going to make an office for myself off the master and the second, a den. And that leaves me with only two bedrooms in the home and I have four children. So I, I need to add the bedrooms, which is, you know, and I want everybody to understand that. And as far as the aesthetics go, I'm happy to change the exterior to make it look however anybody would like it to look. If it flows better, if it looks better, I'm happy to live in a house that looks better. So I would not want to fight that. And I also, that carport, I feel like that needs to come down so that I can add the green space because I would like to have a backyard with beautiful grass and nice trees to hide the fence that's there and maybe put in some sort of garden. So the carport stops me from doing that. And there is, you know, about, I guess, 120 feet, Pat, I'm not sure, behind that carport where there's storage that when that building comes down, it will open it up immensely. And I'll have beautiful space to put landscaping and a garden and some chairs and, you know, just a place to sit and enjoy the backyard but as it sits right now I cannot so um you know that was my thinking for that structure and why I wanted to take it down and I wanted to add the green space because I completely agree that that's what it needs to match the front because the front of the house is beautifully landscaped and I think the back needs to match it and currently it does not it it it's not landscaped at all in the back. So that's all. I just want everybody to understand maybe a little bit about me and where I was thinking and that, you know, I'm on board and I want it to look good too. And I want the neighborhood to reflect everything it should. May I suggest, Ms. Joseph, that you share with Karen your email address and contact information so that she can reach out to and talk to you? Yes, sir. I will. Okay. All right. Anything else? Any other comments from the audience? I'll give it a count of ten. Yes, Ms. Irwin. Another question? I don't know if we actually talked about what conceptually what we felt about the demolition of the existing carport. Is that an issue for anyone? It is, but it isn't. It's not a historic it's not a very, am I assuming that it's not a historic structure, so there's not a concern with respect to it's being demolished? It is not a historic structure, but as you know, any demolition in the H-1 has to be approved by the board. Right. but a factor into consideration of that is whether it's a hysterically significant structure. That is correct. Okay. Okay, does that answer your question, Suzanne? And you do remember that at least what we were told, the drawings do not show that part of the part of the concrete is going to be removed. So some of that concrete will be remaining for parking. So we would need some type of documentation to show exactly what will remain and what will be green space if the board is taken down. And to that end, probably there might be a need for parking stops to keep the yard from being intruded upon? we ask for those a lot of times in commercial not so much in the residential or if it's student housing if this is going to be a residential that's less of a concern and I would mention also the zoning is for a single family well one comment I do want to make is that it has a gate the home has a gate so I would like enough concrete to park my car and have the gate close behind the car so that, I mean, I just want to be, pull in and close the gate and go into the back of the house and not have to be subject to just security, really. Yeah, that's understandable. We understand that. I think what I was trying to get across is that the application needs to show exactly what will be there after the project is complete. So how much concrete, how much green space, you know, all of those issues need to be documented in the application. Okay. All right. Anything else? I do think a review by the owner with the Board of Adjustments to understand their perspective on what's going on is really important. and also in looking at those the kind of mass and volume of that addition whether there are ways to introduce some transparency that helps to break that up I think it's going to take more than just changing the pattern of the materials it's it's the solidness of it that accentuates the large volume. Okay. This is the chicken and an egg problem that you're having, Mr. Nol. Part of it, you know, in terms of what kind of application you give to the Board of Adjustments, they may make some changes that you're going to have to take to us for approval. I'm not sure who you go to first. Will you go to us first and then get some kind of approval if there is approval and subject to the standard? They're standard conditions, but they're important conditions in that if you have to make changes because of the Board of Adjustments, you won't have to bring them back to us. Right. Okay. All right. Anything further? Yes, Ms. Kerr. I would just say, talking about the Board of Adjustments, be again reminded, I know that Mr. Dennis has mentioned it, but that even if the Board of Adjustments decision is to allow X and Y, keep in mind that the historic district process is more restrictive of the two and would prevail. Well, that's good to know. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that. Oh, yes, absolutely. I mean, that is a significant consideration. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. It's an interesting first start. Yes, Ms. Irvin. So to kind of go a little further from what Ms. Hill has indicated about the mass of the building or the solid nature of it, is that it, and I know that the roof structure and that, you know, there's an effort to try to blend in to the historic district, but it almost seems like if it went in a more contemporary style, if the windows were larger, if something it needs to have I think a differentiation from the existing in order for it to read as not so massive it it just seems so box-like and so large with that roof and I know the roof is lower than the existing roof line but even with that it feels really heavy and really big and and I know it seems counterintuitive but we do not advocate editions looking historic so it it you know the blending of it needs to be in the volume in the shape in the setbacks those sorts of things need to be appropriate for historic but the actual style of it doesn't need to look like it was built in 1920. It shouldn't. So. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? If any of the board members have anything to add or. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? All right. We have reached the end of the conceptual review. Mr. and I'll thank you for your patience in working with us. Thank you. We look forward to the next iteration. All right. Thanks for all your comments. You're welcome. Okay. I don't believe, looking at our minutes or the agenda, I don't believe we have any minutes for approval. Is that correct? Not that I'm trying to guilt anyone. Nope. There's no minutes. Our meeting will be the third Wednesday of February. Is that correct? I believe that's correct. And we'll be meeting again on the 17th of February, hopefully. I wish you all a good evening and you all stay healthy and well. We're working our way through the pandemic slowly with your own. All right. Thank you all for your time and attention. And I thank those of the audience that were participating in today's proceedings. I need a motion to adjourn. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. The motion is non-debatable. We stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you.