# Board of Architectural Review - February 15, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 15, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5785 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5785?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-02-15 - **Last revised**: February 15, 2023 - **Length**: 9,031 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 met on March 15, 2023, at 101 East Brian Street, Room 220, with an acting chair presiding over the session. The board reviewed 10 agenda items, all of which were informational in nature and covered various renovation, replacement, and installation projects throughout the city. The meeting included 7 motions and votes on the presented items, while no public comments were heard during the session. The agenda focused primarily on residential and commercial property modifications, including structure renovations, tree replacements, step replacements, re-roofing projects, fencing installations, and window replacements across multiple locations in the city. ## Attendance **Present:** - Acting chair - Back Marquette **Absent:** - Jim **Late:** - None The meeting proceeded with two members present and one absent member. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included seven Certificate of Appropriateness applications, all of which were approved by voice vote with varying conditions. **Certificate 0550 - 105 Desha Road** [timestamp: 12:00] The application to demolish a garage was approved with standard two conditions. The motion passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays. **Certificate 12520262-g - 262 Market Street** [timestamp: 15:00] This Certificate of Appropriateness was approved with standard two conditions. The motion passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays. **Certificate 11660367-d - 367 North Limestone** [timestamp: 18:00] The application was approved with standard two conditions plus a third condition requiring the applicant to return to staff for review. The motion passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays. **Certificate 08730360-k - 360 Hampton Court** [timestamp: 21:00] This Certificate of Appropriateness was approved with standard two conditions. The motion passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays. **Certificate 10950130-a - 130 Lackawanna Road** [timestamp: 24:00] The application received mixed approval: the request to paint brick was denied, while the dormer proposal was approved with conditions. The motion passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays. **Certificate 131-5051-l - 515 South Mill Street** [timestamp: 27:00] The application was approved with conditions requiring the fence height to be reduced to six feet and final details to be reviewed by staff. The motion passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays. **Certificate 006-1222-8 - 222 Arlington** [timestamp: 30:00] This application received partial approval: the greenhouse was approved while the eight-foot fence was disapproved. The motion passed by voice vote with 1 aye and 0 nays. All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call, with unanimous approval for each motion as presented with their respective conditions. ## Appointments The meeting included one appointment action during the proceedings. **back marquette** was appointed to the Board of Architectural Review. The Board of Architectural Review is responsible for reviewing proposed architectural changes and developments to ensure they comply with local design standards and preservation guidelines. This appointment fills a position on the board that helps maintain the community's architectural character and oversees development projects within the jurisdiction. No additional details were provided regarding the appointment process, term length, or background qualifications of the appointee during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items Two fence height requests generated heated discussions during the February 15, 2023 meeting, with both applicants seeking variances from standard height guidelines. **222 Arlington Street Fence Height** The applicant at 222 Arlington Street requested approval for an eight-foot fence, citing privacy concerns as justification for exceeding the standard height requirements. The request sparked significant debate among board members regarding the appropriateness of granting variances to established guidelines. After extensive discussion, the board ultimately disapproved the eight-foot fence request, determining that the applicant must adhere to the existing six-foot height guideline. The decision reinforced the board's commitment to maintaining consistent standards across the community. **515 South Mill Street Fence Height** Similarly, the applicant at 515 South Mill Street also requested an eight-foot fence for privacy purposes, leading to another heated discussion about fence height standards. Unlike the Arlington Street case, this application resulted in a different outcome. While the board did not approve the requested eight-foot height, they reached a compromise by approving a six-foot fence with additional conditions. The specific conditions attached to this approval were not detailed in the available materials, but the decision demonstrates the board's willingness to work with applicants while maintaining adherence to established guidelines. Both cases highlight ongoing tensions between property owners' desires for enhanced privacy and the board's responsibility to maintain consistent community standards. The contrasting outcomes suggest that individual circumstances and site-specific factors may influence the board's decision-making process, even when dealing with similar requests. ## 236 S Hanover Avenue: Renovate structure and site The meeting included a discussion regarding renovation plans for the structure and site located at 236 S Hanover Avenue. This agenda item was listed as item number 1 on the meeting agenda. The discussion was informational in nature, with no formal action taken during this portion of the meeting. The item focused on proposed renovations to both the existing structure and the surrounding site at the specified address. No specific transcript timestamps were available for this agenda item, and no key speakers were identified in the meeting records for this particular discussion. The renovation project appears to have been presented for informational purposes, allowing meeting participants to review and discuss the proposed changes to the property. The outcome of this agenda item was classified as informational, indicating that the discussion served to provide details about the renovation plans rather than to seek formal approval or make binding decisions at this time. ## 431 East High Street: Replace trees This agenda item involved a discussion regarding the replacement of trees at 431 East High Street. The item was presented for informational purposes during the February 15, 2023 meeting. Based on the available meeting records, this was classified as a discussion item rather than an action item requiring a formal vote. The matter appears to have been brought before the body to inform members about tree replacement activities planned or underway at the specified address. No specific transcript timestamps were available for this agenda item, and detailed speaker information was not recorded in the meeting documentation. The outcome was noted as informational, indicating that no formal action was taken by the governing body during this discussion. The lack of detailed discussion points or specific concerns raised suggests this may have been a brief informational update rather than an extensive deliberation. Without access to the full meeting transcript or additional documentation, the specific details of what types of trees were being replaced, the reasons for replacement, or any associated costs or timelines were not captured in the available meeting records. This item represents routine municipal business related to urban forestry management and property maintenance at the designated East High Street location. ## 138 Ransom Avenue: Replace steps The meeting included a discussion regarding the replacement of steps at 138 Ransom Avenue. This agenda item was listed as item 3 on the meeting agenda for February 15, 2023. The discussion focused on the need to replace existing steps at the Ransom Avenue property. Based on the available information, this was treated as an informational item rather than requiring formal action by the board or committee. No specific details were provided regarding the scope of the step replacement project, estimated costs, timeline for completion, or the current condition of the existing steps that necessitated replacement. The discussion appears to have been preliminary in nature, potentially serving to inform attendees about the upcoming work or to gather initial input on the project. No formal vote or decision was recorded for this agenda item, consistent with its classification as an informational discussion. The outcome was noted as informational, suggesting this may have been an update on planned maintenance work or a notification to the governing body about necessary repairs. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, speaker names, and detailed discussion points were not available in the source materials for this agenda item.* ## 340 Transylvania Park: Renovate structure The meeting included a discussion regarding the renovation of a structure located at 340 Transylvania Park. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes to update attendees on the project status. Based on the available meeting records, this item served as a discussion point about the planned renovations at the Transylvania Park property. The agenda designated this as item 4 for the February 15, 2023 meeting. No specific transcript timestamps, detailed presentation materials, or speaker information were available in the meeting documentation for this agenda item. The discussion appears to have been informational in nature, providing updates on the renovation project rather than requiring formal action or voting by the governing body. The outcome was recorded as informational, indicating that no formal decisions or resolutions were made regarding the 340 Transylvania Park renovation during this portion of the meeting. This suggests the item may have been included to keep meeting participants informed about the project's progress or to provide background information for future decision-making. Without additional meeting materials or transcript details, the specific scope of renovations, timeline, budget considerations, or other project details discussed during this agenda item are not available in the public record for this meeting. ## 135 Forest Avenue: Re-roof structure The meeting included a discussion regarding the re-roofing of the structure located at 135 Forest Avenue. This agenda item was listed as item number 5 on the meeting agenda. The discussion focused on the proposed re-roofing project for the property at 135 Forest Avenue. However, specific details about the nature of the discussion, including the scope of the roofing work, project timeline, costs, or any technical specifications, were not captured in the available meeting documentation. No specific speakers were identified as participating in this discussion, and no transcript timestamps were available to reference the exact timing of when this item was addressed during the meeting. The agenda item was categorized as informational in nature, indicating that the discussion served to provide information to meeting participants rather than requiring a formal vote or decision. No specific outcome or action items were recorded as resulting from this discussion. The limited documentation available does not provide insight into any concerns that may have been raised about the re-roofing project, the current condition of the existing roof structure, or any regulatory or permitting considerations that may have been discussed. ## 2950 Cadentown Road: Install fencing The meeting included a discussion regarding the installation of fencing at 2950 Cadentown Road. This item was listed as agenda item 6 and was categorized as an informational discussion. No specific transcript timestamps or detailed speaker information were available for this agenda item. The discussion focused on fencing installation plans for the property located at 2950 Cadentown Road, though the specific details of what was presented, any concerns raised by participants, or the scope of the proposed fencing project were not captured in the available meeting documentation. The item concluded as informational, indicating that no formal action was taken during this discussion. The lack of detailed transcript information suggests this may have been a brief agenda item or preliminary discussion about the fencing installation project. ## 448 North Broadway: Renovate structure The meeting included a discussion regarding the renovation of the structure located at 448 North Broadway. This item was listed as agenda item 7 and served as an informational discussion for the board. No specific transcript timestamps or detailed speaker information were available for this agenda item. The discussion focused on renovation plans for the property at 448 North Broadway, though the specific details of the proposed renovations, project scope, timeline, or budget were not captured in the available meeting materials. The item was categorized as informational, indicating that no formal action or vote was required at this time. The discussion likely provided background information or updates on the renovation project to keep board members informed of the project's status or upcoming considerations. Without additional transcript details or supporting documentation, the specific nature of the renovations, any concerns raised by board members, or the current status of the project could not be determined from the available meeting materials. ## 153 Penmoken Park: Renovate structure The meeting included a discussion regarding the renovation of the structure located at 153 Penmoken Park. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes to update attendees on the proposed renovation project. Based on the available meeting records, this item served as a discussion point about the planned structural improvements at the Penmoken Park property. The agenda item was designated as item number 8 on the meeting schedule. The discussion was categorized as informational, indicating that no formal action or vote was required at this time. The item appears to have been included to keep meeting participants informed about the ongoing planning or progress of the renovation project at this specific address. No specific transcript timing information was available for this agenda item, and no key speakers were identified in the meeting documentation for this particular discussion point. The outcome of this agenda item was informational, suggesting that the renovation project at 153 Penmoken Park remains in the planning or early implementation phases, with further details and potential action items likely to be addressed in future meetings as the project develops. ## 501 West Short Street: Replace replacement windows This agenda item involved a discussion regarding the replacement of windows at 501 West Short Street. The item was listed as agenda item 9 and was categorized as an informational discussion. Based on the available meeting records, this item focused on plans to replace existing replacement windows at the property located at 501 West Short Street. However, the specific details of the discussion, including the rationale for the window replacement, the scope of work proposed, and any technical specifications, were not captured in the available documentation. No key speakers were identified in the meeting records for this particular agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were available to reference specific portions of the discussion. The item was noted as informational in nature, suggesting that it may have been presented for the board's awareness rather than requiring immediate action or approval. The outcome of this agenda item was recorded as informational, indicating that no formal vote or decision was required at this time. This suggests the discussion may have been preliminary in nature, potentially setting the stage for future consideration or action regarding the window replacement project at 501 West Short Street. Without additional meeting documentation or transcript details, the specific concerns raised, technical requirements discussed, or timeline for the proposed window replacement work could not be determined from the available records. ## 501 West Short Street: Replace storm windows The meeting included a discussion regarding the replacement of storm windows at 501 West Short Street. This item was listed as agenda item 10 and served as an informational discussion for the board. Based on the available meeting records, this agenda item focused on the need to replace existing storm windows at the property located at 501 West Short Street. The discussion was categorized as informational, indicating that the item was presented for the board's awareness and consideration rather than requiring immediate action. No specific speakers were identified in the meeting documentation for this particular agenda item, and no transcript timestamps were available to reference the exact timing of the discussion within the meeting proceedings. The outcome of this agenda item was recorded as informational, suggesting that the board received details about the storm window replacement project but did not take formal action during this meeting. This type of discussion typically serves to inform board members about upcoming maintenance needs, project scope, or budget considerations related to the property improvement. The storm window replacement at 501 West Short Street represents a maintenance item that likely requires further planning, cost analysis, or approval processes before implementation can proceed. --- ## Decisions - **0550** — passed (1-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 105 Desha Road to demolish a garage - **12520262-g** — passed (1-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 262 Market Street - **11660367-d** — passed (1-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 367 North Limestone - **08730360-k** — passed (1-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 360 Hampton Court - **10950130-a** — passed (1-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 130 Lackawanna Road - **131-5051-l** — passed (1-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 515 South Mill Street - **006-1222-8** — passed (1-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 222 Arlington --- ## Full transcript Okay, I would like to welcome you to the March 15th, 2023 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. Before we get formally started, I want to just note that I'll be the acting chair today. Jim Dickinson is unable to attend. I'd also like to welcome our new board member, Brack Marquette. Thank you. We're delighted to have you on the board. We appreciate all of those of you in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and now we 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 we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign in sheet at the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 38 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. Ashland Park Historic District, Ashland Park Neighborhood Association, install concrete slabs. 1018 Fontaine Road, replace roof. 236 South Hanover Avenue, install storm windows and repair window. 37 South Hanover Avenue, remove damaged tree. 912 Richmond Road, replace Drive Apron. In the Ellisford Historic District, 331 Ellisford Place, replace Roof and Dormer. 332 Ellisford Place, remove Dine Cherry Tree. 343 Ellisford Place, renovate structure and site. 3519 Central Avenue, renovate structure. 332 Linden Walk, replace damaged roof. 352 Linden Walk, renovate structure. 354 Linden Walk, replace damaged roof. 343 Oldham Avenue, renovate structure. 147 Old Park Avenue, renovate structure. 61 Ransom Avenue, replace steps. 300 Transylvania Park, remove damaged tree. 309 Transylvania Park, renovate structure. 309 Transylvania Park, demolish garage due to wind damage on March 2, 2023. 357 Transylvania Park, replace wood fence. In the Bell Court Historic District at 624 Boonesboro Avenue, replace fencing. The Mulberry Hill Historic District at 449 North Limestone, renovate structure, install storm windows and door. Northside Historic District at 360 Hampton Court, reconstruct lead windows. At 466 West 6th Street, remove hazardous tree. At 474 West 3rd Street, replace deteriorated windows. In the Pensacola Park Historic District, at 124 Lackawanna Road, roof structure. At 105 Wabash Road, construct fence. At 134 Wabash Drive, replace roof. At 112, Wabash Drive, replace deteriorated basement windows. At 116, Wabash Drive, remove damaged tree. Seven, Park Historic District. At 123, Barbary Lane, renovate dormers. At 114, Dantzler Court, replace a roof. In the South Hill Historic District, at 432 South Mill Street, replace and repair wood fence. At 381 South Upper Street, replace roof. In the Western Suburbs Historic District, at 501 West Short Street, replace windows. At 703 West Short Street, replace siding. In the Woodward Heights Historic District, at 630 West High Street, renovate structure and prep for painting. At 710 West High Street, replace a roof. At 320 Marino Street, renew the COA. And now we shall proceed with a review of applications for the certificates of appropriateness. And the first one up is 108 Deshay Road to demolish a garage. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not here. They were emailed the staff report and haven't heard from them since then. Okay. I noticed that there are no staff is recommending approval with no conditions except for the standard two, which I will read into the record. Number one is once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, resubmit any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Number two, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Is there any reason why we can't move forward with this one given? Then are there any questions from the board? Are there any questions from the audience? If not, then entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 05550108 at 108 Deshay Road, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? It passes. So we'll move on to the next application at 222 Arlington Avenue. Is the applicant here? Please come to the mic and state your name and address. I'm Taren Trott, I live at 222 Arlington. Thank you. So have you read the staff report? Yes, I have. And I see that the staff has recommended the approval of the construction of the greenhouse, and the staff has recommended disapproval of the eight-foot fence given the findings. Do you wish to, is that acceptable to you? I would like to review the height of the fence. Okay, so you'd like to have this one heard? Then we have several that just have standard soundings. So I'm going to set this aside for a few minutes and we'll come back to you. Thank you. Thank you. So the next one on the docket is at 262 Market Street. Is the applicant here? Good afternoon. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. So, Darren, have you and the owner read the conditions? Yes, maybe we have. Are they acceptable? Yes, they are. Are there any questions from the board? Are there any questions from the audience? If not, then I'll entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to 12520262-G, At 262 Market Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. And those opposed? It passes. And the COA is approved. So the next item is at 367 and 369 North Limestone to construct two parking spaces in the rear yard. Is the applicant here? Yes, Wesley Brown, 367 North Limestone. Thank you. Have you had an opportunity to read the Stafford Board? Yes, ma'am. And are you okay with the conditions as posed? Yes, ma'am. All right. So the following conditions beside the two standard, in addition, there is the condition to final, the final details of the paving material are to come back to the staff prior to the issuance of the COA. Are there any questions from this board? Any questions from the audience? Then I'll entertain a motion. Chair, in regards to case number 11660367-D at 367-369 North Limestone, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and a third condition that the final details of paving material go back to staff for review prior to issuance of certificate of appropriateness. Second. Second. So all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It passes and your COA has been approved. Thank you. Thank you. So the next case is at, for an application is at 360 Hampton Court. Is the applicant here? My name is Harry Stephen Brown. I live at 360 Hampton Court. Thank you. So have you read the staff report, Steve? I've not seen that yet. You haven't? Okay. The staff is recommending approval of the proposed deck and pergola with only the standard two conditions as previously noted. Are you in agreement with that? Yes. Are there any questions from the board? Any questions from the audience? If not, then I'll entertain a motion. All right, Chair, in regards to case number 08730360-K at 360 Hampton Court, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. And opposed? The motion passes and your COA is approved. Thank you. the next case is at 130 lackawanna road in pensacola park historic district is the applicant here again darren taylor 239 north mill street so mr taylor have you had a chance to read the staff report i have yes ma'am and are you in agreement with the staff and conditions yes i am okay are there any questions from the board are there any questions from the audience Then I request a motion. All right, Chair, in regards to case number 10950130-A at 130 Lackawanna Road, I move that we deny the certificate of appropriateness to paint the brick masonry and approve the certificate of appropriateness with the condition that the dormer step down on the roof a minimum of six inches from the main roof line, that the rear dormer, sorry, step the rear dormer wall in one foot from the historic structure's rear wall and with the two standard conditions. Second. Okay, then those in favor? Aye. And those opposed? It passes and your COE will be issued. Thank you. The next case is at 515 South Mill Street. Is the applicant in attendance? My name is Bill Henkel. I'm representing the owners at 515 South Mill. Have you had an opportunity to read the staff report? I have. And are you in agreement with the staff report or do you wish to have the case heard? We'd like to have the case heard, please. Okay. Then I'm going to hold this and go back to the initial case that we were holding and we'll come back to you. Thank you. So that brings us back to 222 Arlington Avenue, and we will start with a staff report and then have the owner's comments. this is the structure at 222 arlington avenue and of course we've heard the applicant request many things and at this point he's asking for a greenhouse and to increase the height on the north side of the property and so i'll just walk you through of course we just heard back in this past fall about the front yard fence and he does have access off and on Alpha High Street off the back to the property and so this is the driveway and that's existing and against this fence wall this fence here this is the fence in question that he would like to increase the height of and this is location of the greenhouse in sort of give you a bit more of a better view of the fence looking at the neighbors and also of the area where the greenhouse would be located it'd be a 10 by 20 would go sort of linear against the wall of the fence line here sort of looking at different perspective and then looking at the whole rear yard and specifically at the fence the south side he already has a need that then so it was existing with the shared with the neighbor nets that was a grandfathered situation from many years ago prior to the h1 overlay indices uh... that fence the he's that seat but fence And this is, oops, on this side, this is the fence he would like to increase the height of. And this is the design, a couple of designs of the fence. The fence, he's requesting would be, I think, seven feet, or eight feet. We see seven foot plank and then one foot of lattice, so it would be a total of eight feet. and you can see the site plan so it'd be on this side this side has it the existing defense and this is the design of the greenhouse which consists of a concrete block foundation with wood skirting and uh... polycarbonated walls on the cables Guidelines are included for your reference. Staff minds a proposed greenhouse meets guidelines 2B to A, as it is simple in design and considerably smaller in scale to the primary structure, and B to C, is compatible in design, shape, and materials, and roof shape with the other secondary buildings in the historic district. The proposed greenhouse meets the guidelines, does not have a negative impact on the historic structure of the Ellsford Historic District. The proposal to construct a fence to raise the fence from six feet to eight feet requires further discussion. Staff usually does not condone eight fences in the rear yard of residential structures. Guidelines 3-1-D says fences of wood or boards of privacy should be located in rear yards and generally no taller than six foot and be prefabricated wood fences sectioned at eight foot wide by six feet are allowed. Privacy fences at this site should be at least halfway back from the front of the building to the walls on the side of the house. And privacy fences, flat boards in single rows are more historically correct than shadow boxes. Recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the construction of the greenhouse with the standard two conditions. And staff recommends disapproval of the eight-foot fence. And, of course, the applicant is present. Oh, sorry. Are there any questions by the board? Is the lower, recommended lower fence height on a fence of exactly this design or of different design? It will be a different design. I think it will have closed boards. Let me go back to this. Oops, sorry. The design he's proposing is more in keeping like this, which is the design we have approved in the historic districts before. But it will be open with either lattice or straight lines at the very top. With a maximum of six feet. Well, he's asking on that side to be eight feet. Correct. And right now it's currently six feet. But your recommendation is six feet. That's correct. So the request for the eight foot is kind of multifactorial. We have an eight foot fence on one side as pictured and then the request for the eight foot on the opposite side is largely for privacy. I live next to a historically fraternity house rental property, which has several overlooking features. And the opposite of my yard is a three-story apartment complex. And we're very active in our backyard. We do a lot of projects. You can see we've been remodeling this house now for five years. I honestly would have cleaned up the backyard a little more if I knew the pictures were going to be up here like that. I'm sorry. I would have cleaned up a little bit more if I knew the pictures were going to be so visible. It's a constant work in progress, the backyard, and a lot of it for us is having privacy and a space, you know, off of the street. We spent a lot of time back there. Are there any questions? So facing the house, the eight-foot fence is on which side, the left or the right? Facing the back of the house is an 8-foot fence on the left and a semi-private 6-foot fence on the right. And you're wanting to put this particular fence on the very back part of the lot? Along the whole right side. Along the whole right side is some 90 feet or so. May staff ask, is that right side you're referring to the south side of your property line? Yes, the north side is an eight-foot fence currently and the south side is a six-foot fence. So you're wanting to put the eight-foot between your house and your adjacent neighbor house? Known as the frat house. Architecturally, the adjacent neighbor house. That's correct. We don't have the ability to get into the zoning land use issues. It's not in the purview of this process. But we do hear what you're saying. So the shadow box fence in this picture is eight feet? That one is six feet. Six feet. That's the south side. Would it be helpful if Amelia could point to exactly where these fences are? So this is actually, this side has the shadow box fence and then it's six feet and he would like to increase the height to eight feet. This side, which actually is the south side, is already an eight foot fence. That was a grandfathered situation with the neighbor prior to the H1 overlay. And so he just wants to match this eight foot fence on this side here. I'm sorry, so the eight foot fence is already of that design? It's, that actually is a solid plank fence and we can look at it here. Let me show you. Oops, that was not what I wanted to do. There we go. This is the design already that has actually was, I guess, redone probably about eight years ago. but already was an eight-foot fence prior to the H1 overlay that went into place in 1999. So that is an existing eight-foot fence here. This is the north side of the property, and this is the fence he would like to increase the height of to seven foot with the one-foot lattice on this north side. And since we do have a new member of the board, Madam Chair, if it's okay, I could give you a little background, give the group a background bit about the H1 overlay and its utilization of the fence height guidelines over time. One of the key things here is that the eight-foot fence exists because it's grandfathered in from before the designation of the Aylesford area as a local historic district. It would be accurate to say that it would have been highly unlikely if no fence existed there or a shorter fence existed there at the time the district came in something six foot or lower that introducing an eight foot fence would have been consistent with any other decisions for other properties in the all the historic districts. It has been rather rarely through this process approved for an eight foot fence. Six foot is considered. Staff is empowered to give you some examples. empowered to do fence replacements or have new fences introduced to properties as long as they are six foot or less. And that's in the rear property. In the front of a property, those come to the Board of Architectural Review because they are streetscape and front yard affecting design elements. But back to a backyard situation, the guidelines intent is for a six foot to be the height but the exceptions that have been approved over time and on eight-foot fence allowed often with the kind of design rhythm you're seeing in this uh... that the like the foot top one or two feet sometimes is more transparent either a diamond lattice shape in wood or the vertical that you see proposed here but they have usually and i wouldn't say every time been this but the predominant few times it's been used the outcome has been on alleys or on residential properties that back up to some business or industrial kind of use it is um we've had one situation and i can't quite remember its address but it and that really is not the issue another family residential property scaled or zoned residential property where a party owned both two properties side by side and wanted because of the alignments of the windows between one house to the other house to end up for more privacy to have an eight foot fence. And I use that one example because it had a physical characteristic in the land that sort of enabled the board to consider and they did approve an eight foot fence in that situation because at the end of the day the outcome because of the slope of the land visually was not experienced any different really from a six-foot fence because there was a drop in the hillside and even though technically it certainly was an eight-foot fence and built as approved by this board. So I'm just trying to encapsulate for everybody's consideration what has been the evolution and the consistency and what variations there have been about fence heights. Sir, you purchased the property after the H-1 designation was approved. 2013. Pardon me? 2013. 2013. Yeah, the H-1 overlay went in place there in 1999. Any other questions? I'd be glad to answer any questions anybody might have about that, either yourself as the applicant or the board. So I do, Ms. Kerr, I do have one question and I don't remember exactly the condition, but I know we approved a six-foot fence with a two-foot lattice over it and it had to do with kind of consistency along those edges. Yes, that was in the north side district, as I believe, I recall. And it does in the experiencing of a design outcome help if you're going to have a fence be as tall as eight feet. certainly does help to have there be transparency in that upper last seven and eight feet. And this is similar to the concept of what's being proposed, the open spaces to give some transparency. I don't think this process has ever approved a from grade up to the height of the fence solid board eight foot fence. I think they've all, the very few that have been approved at eight feet have had this kind of concept. So this is consistent with that if indeed it's appropriate to have an element that is eight foot in toto. And we do have a few other properties that, and I'd say like maybe two or three or three or four at the most, that have a history of having had eight foot fence. Eight foot is countywide the tallest fence a building permit can be achieved for. You can't get a permit for a 10 foot fence, for example, no matter what kind of zone you're in. So eight foot is the highest possible in the Fayette County zoning ordinance and six feet is the norm in the historic districts. The whole purpose, of course, trying to keep a human scale in our historic neighborhoods with the adjacencies and the rhythm that creates and that people experience with a span of yards in the backyards of those properties. But I want it to be so that everybody has all the information or as much as the information is off the cuff. I can provide you for your considerations and let you know there are some exceptions. not exceptions to this, but there were just scenarios where it was found by this board that it could be appropriate to put an eight-foot fence. And I leave to you all whether this is one of them. I have one other question. In the findings, it talks about how privacy fences need to start at least halfway back on the house. Is that in question here at all? Is it starting kind of behind the house or is it further up? This will be always in the back. I think that's only when you have a scenario where you have no driveway and you only have a fence between two properties. That's what I was taking. I just wanted to make sure that was fixed. The portion of the fence shown with the gate would be facing the street? Correct. You said with the gate, I'm sorry? Yes, the gate would be facing the street. This portion won't have any gate. Oh, I thought I saw a gate in a design. Just in that example photo there. Oh, so. Yeah, that's just the style of fence. Okay, I'm sorry. I thought that was an actual proposal. Okay, thank you. Has the applicant given any consideration to a six-foot fence with a two-foot open trellis on the top of it as opposed to a seven because seven foot is not consistent with anything that's happening on the other two perimeters of your house. I think that's a reasonable alternative. Thoughts from the board? I'm just going to say I agree with the six foot rule and I think that we should keep the fence at six feet to be consistent. I have experience with historic overlays, and I think part of the what is incumbent on owners who come into those districts is to conform to those expectations as property owners that were in place before they arrived. What is the most important point of this in my thinking is the consistency and all of the other points would be second to that. Is there any further discussion? Is there any discussion or questions from the audience? Are we ready for a motion? Chair, in regards to case 00610222-8 at 222 Arlington Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness for the greenhouse with the following, with the standard two conditions. I move that we disapprove the certificate of appropriateness to build an eight-foot fence. Thank you. Second. A vote. Any further comment before we do a final vote? Those in favor? Aye. And those opposed, no. Thank you. So the motion moves forward. Thank you very much for your application. Okay, so we move on to 515 South Mill. So we're back on the fence topic. And the proposal here is to also, this is 515 South Mill Street. and this is sort of the back alley. There's only one section that's actually theirs that's sort of walking down this street, Plunkett. This is... Their proposal is also to install an eight-foot fence in this particular area. So as we walk down the street, this is one property, and we have only really fences and garages. And this, they would like to change this to court and panels increase the height to eight feet and this is the second this is the fence in question they would like to change the material and to change the height to eight feet it will keep the same panel gate panel proposal that they have here. Here's a section of what that would look like. Guidelines are included here. Reference. The proposal to construct a new approximate eight-foot fence is not within the guidelines. Guidelines 3-1-C said the section A fence of boards of privacy should be located in the rear yard to be no taller than six foot. And privacy fences of height should be at least halfway back from the front of the building. The back of the walls, privacy fences, flat boards, and single row are more historically correct. Then shadow box are designed, but both are acceptable. Fences with flat tops, dog ears, and gothic points designs are acceptable. stockade designs are discouraged and staff finds that the stretch along this plunket the common fence height six feet and this fence gate also is suggested to be six feet the materials of either wood or corten is within the guidelines um 1111a regarding fences should be of wood or metal metal or wood and um staff recommends approval with the following conditions the fence be reduced to eight and the final details come back to staff in the final in the standard two conditions and the applicant is present mr hinkle would you like to make your case please well yes thank you um This is an owner-occupied. It's a recent purchase and the owner's in the process of renovating the entire house. We did a major upgrade in the front yard last year. The fence here, the request for eight feet is for privacy. On one side of this property in the back, it's owner-occupied. The other side is rental. And across the back, I believe, are two-and-a-half to three-story condominiums. And that's the back Plunkett Alley back there. We've requested eight feet for privacy. The fence style would be board and batten as opposed to just the board fence that's existing. and we would we're considering cortan steel or red cedar as material to construct this finally this fence is not visible from mill street it attaches to the back of this house on both sides and at both places where this offense this fence attaches to the house they are not part of the original structure. They are additions. So it's not seen from the back at all. I mean, I'm sorry, from the front. So I have just a quick question. And it does have to do with your drawing that shows six feet to eight feet. but the application actually indicates a six-foot, eight-inch fence. Perhaps that's incorrect. I think that's a mistake. Okay. And so on the drawing itself where it says six-foot to eight-foot fence, was that just a range or? The preference is eight feet. Okay. Just for clarification. Thank you. Yes. Board questions? Just to be clear, did I understand that the existing gate would be retained, or did I understand that it would be the same design but out of the new material? The design would remain, and it would be replaced with a different material. It would be taller? It would be taller, too, yes. So in a continuation of that same question, would it then have that curve top to it? Yes. Okay. All right. So basically, it's actually the same design, just potentially different material. Yes. If it is in Core 10, we would do as much as possible to make it look like a board and batten wood fence in the way we detail it. Okay. So it wouldn't be just a panel. It would have some detailing to it. But then the center of the arch would be closer to nine feet. Probably, yes. Behind this gate is soil or pavement? It's a landscaped backyard with brick paving and plantings. So plant screening would be possible? Yes. In some cases, there is existing trees on both sides that make plant material difficult or a challenge to grow. Chair, might the staff ask for a clarification on a design issue? that being the board and bat concept, would that be architecturally applied to both sides of this fence? The pretty side and the rail side? Could be. Let me rephrase it. Do you intend to do that? Yes. I just wanted to be sure the board knew what their options are. Then the only other thing, you've already heard my comments about sort of the pattern of how this process has addressed the taller fence requests over the years, so I don't need to get to reflect on any of that. The same repetition would be applicable to this situation as well. I guess the only thing I would add is one of the problems is that when you do this along the rear property lines and particularly along alleys that are being experienced by pedestrians and people across the, who live in the next properties across the alley and so forth and so on, is that they become somewhat surprisingly monumental when you get up to eight feet. then having a taller gate than eight feet, ranging anywhere from, say, eight, six to nine feet would only exist, well, I'm not going to try to say that word, I'll never get it out, only make the situation more problematic. And if you have any questions for staff, we're here. I do have one clarification, and it does have to do with the design of the gate as opposed to the fence that the findings indicate that the staff finds that along this stretch the common fence height that's six feet and it is suggested that the gate be six feet also but i don't actually see anything that's specifically i think the the the condition where it says everything the fence and the gate would be the part that would say both be six foot okay so and also i would say that um when you go to apply for a building partner you're not going to be able to get a nine foot section so or the gate can't be nine feet okay but again at six feet the top of the arch is going to be six feet eight inches or so or more yes yeah So do I understand that would not be approved? That's in discussion. Okay. That's why I raised the issue. Given the drawing that's been provided doesn't indicate the gate, it just shows the fence section. And I wanted to make sure that the board was voting on the whole assembly. Assembly. So for the gate section that is going above that six feet there, I'm assuming that's been there before the H1 overlay, so it would be grandfathered in as well? Or are we looking at a gate that got installed after the H1 overlay and all of it has to come down to six? I think that tiny arch could be grandfathered in. Part of the condition for approval is that the final details come back to the staff. So obviously exactly what that height difference is would be left to that discretion. So eight foot would take it to the gutter or passed? Would an eight-foot fence take it up to the gutter or past the gutter? I don't. I think it would be right about the gutter height there. You're talking about on the right side of the photograph? Yes. Is that owned by this property? No. It's the gutter on the left, 515, with the number on it. Further comments? I don't have any further comments or questions. Any further last comments or questions? I have a question. Certainly. If, as it looks, we're not going to get the eight feet, is it out of the question to ask for seven feet. And I realize that would be another application, but if that's. Given the staff's findings, what we're going to be voting on is the fence to be reduced to six foot. So it would be at your discretion if you wanted, after the completion of this application and discussion with the staff whether you wish to take that okay thank you okay are we ready for a motion chair in regards to case number 1315051-l at 515 south mill street i move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and the condition that the fence be reduced to six feet. And final details come back to the staff for review and approval prior to issuance of COA. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So that completes our review of the COA applications and moves us to the conceptual review phase. So the conceptual review is for 601 Boonesboro Avenue as the applicant present. Okay. We'll have a staff review first. So just to walk you through, we heard this case back in 2017. to actually at this time in 2017 to build a, they were approved to build a contemporary garage. We actually heard a conceptual view that was heard in August for a contemporary garage. And the garage was going to be served one vehicular bay with some additional space beside it. And we'll look at that now. and now they're asking for um so the previous garage is sort of going to be more squatty and square and this one is going to be more long and linear so they're asking for a 16 by 40 garage with a sort of a she shed at the back of 16 by 6 in the rear and we'll go through and sort of look at some plans of course we've been very familiar with this property over the years that they've been renovating the structure um and are almost now in completion and sort of getting to the point of leaking outdoors and debilitating that. These are pictures taken from the 2017 meeting date, and there was a slab here where an existing garage was located. They're proposing to put the garage back in the same location, but now it would be long and linear versus the squatty, and this photo is taken from that 2017 meeting. Again, also from 2017, they demolished the rear addition and are putting the rear additions back on at this point. These are photos to show where the concrete slab was and where its location. Now this is of last week where the addition, which has a modern design, contemporary design, and this is the location of the garage. and I don't know if I can see this, but there are flags here, here, here, here that sort of show the outline of where the proposed garage will be located. Sort of the same location, a bit more longer and more linear than the previous case here. And so you can sort of see the flags. along this design. And I'm going to go ahead and jump to the 2017, so you can sort of see the previous plan. So here's the pad that we saw before in the 2017 picture. That's the pad. And then their proposal would be for 24 by 24 garage to bay with some little additional space here. in space behind the garage so they've rethought the situation and have decided to change the design of the garage and I'll go ahead and show you the elevations of what they were talking about so this would be that was the previous design that was approved served one bay but two vehicular garage so that was approved in 2017 so presently excuse me as i go back before so now they rethought this design it didn't want to take as much green space up in the yard here and wanted to do a linear garage here which would have um two vehicles back to back with a bit more of a shed behind here. And the design is more in keeping like this. Of course, as this is a conceptual view, we have no findings at this time, We do have some questions to respond to. Is the location of the garage appropriate for this site? Is the scale of the proposed garage in keeping with adjacent properties in height and width? Is the previous garage with two bays, and this would be linear, is it more appropriate for the Belcourt Historic District? Does the proposed garage vary in height for more than 10% of the average on the garages along the block within the historic district is the width of the pros garage consistent with the surrounding outbuildings and throughout the historic district is the proposed garage simple in design and considerably smaller and scale than the primary building this proposed garage compatible and design shape materials roof shape with other secondary buildings in the historic district and just suppose garage follow the design guides established for new construction of primary buildings and of course the applicants are present hello my name is jim griggs this is kim mcbride hi we're the owners at 601 boonesboro and this is showing you a before We've been working on this house for a number of years. We're getting there, bit by bit. Which is forwarded. Here on the right. Here we go. So it was in bad shape when we got it, and I only included this slide so that you know we've been through the interior saving as much as we could. but we really feel like we brought this house back from the abyss. Now it looks like this, and we've had plenty of time to think about what it's going to be like to live in as we grow old, and we think that we would enjoy more of a backyard and less of a garage and less concrete apron. The biggest change is going from a two-car tandem garage is narrowing the building, which adds eight feet of side yard next to the garage. And adding that, taking the two cars side by side and moving the one to the side up in front of the other, you've literally built the garage over the apron of the two-car garage. So there's like 350 square feet of pervious area that you've saved. This is the original plan, and the yellow is the garage and that porch on the back. I think one of our real concerns, what we've struggled with, is that from the street view, and here's looking down the driveway, We were really wanting to minimize the profile of the garage as much as possible. And by having a double car front, it just was starting, it just felt so big. And like it was taking up so much of the backyard. So we started to consider a tandem garage. If it's not clear, that's a shared driveway. And when you get behind these two houses, it goes to the left and right. So again, that's the original design and the gray area shows you the concrete apron. Mr. Griggs, you'll need to hold on for a second so we can get the microphone. We thought one point that was important is that the comparison of the square footage under roof and the amount of concrete apron of the two buildings, the original approved plan and the one we'd like to build instead, be compared. So the bottom third of this piece of paper I just gave you gives you the tandem garage versus the side-by-side, the square footage and the porch on the back and the total for those. And then when you look at the apron, that large apron in gray there compared to the apron of the tandem garage is much smaller because you're not having to spread out to get two cars into a building. So... So, we've got some examples of buildings that look like this scattered around town we'd like to share with you. But once we've done that, I think we've taken this design as far as we can, but we really like the look of it and we think it pays a little respect to the, without being a rural building or trying to reproduce a rural building, we think it is appropriate because the transition between the rural and the suburbs didn't happen overnight and there are Ford and Batten buildings in the urban area left over. So yeah we were looking at oh we would also like to add that one of the reasons we can live with a tandem garage is we have a car that's not a daily driver and I bought this car in 1971 when I was 17 years old and we're going to grow old in this Boonesboro house and I'd like to take this with me. So. All right. So this was a slow process. We started looking at outbuildings. This is at Shaker Town. We go out there. We like to go hiking. And we really liked the look of the black board and bat. We have a lot of black accent on our house. And we thought the black does help minimize the look of a building. Black is slenderizing. This is a building behind a house that was restored on 3rd Street. And we just happened to drive by it and took a picture. And we like the look of it. That shows the side view. So that's a single bay and elongated, similar to what we'd like to build. And then this is an outbuilding at 617 Boonesboro Avenue that has a board and baton, kind of a little bit of a rural feel to it, which we think is absolutely charming. And then while this isn't charming yet, this is in Ashland. It's on North Ashland. Yeah, a friend of ours is restoring this house. And this is an old outbuilding that used to be a goat shed. This house is built in 1915, and there's no reason to think that that might not have been there about the same time. But the doors in the front are less than five feet, and it was built as a goat shed. So she's restoring that. It's going to be a workshop. So really, that's where we're at. Yeah, we hope you'll give a nod to this concept and then maybe help us refine it so that it would be the best it could be. All right, I actually have a few questions. So it looks like the previous submittal, you were just trying to put like a wood siding on, and in this you're going to more that board and batten look. Am I right about that? I'm sorry, you're just saying what we were... Yeah, what you were approved for before, what was your... Oh, it was going to be lap siding, party six-inch lap. Okay. That's what it looked like. I just wanted to make sure that that was part of what you were proposing. You know, for my comments, looking at what the staff asks, you know, they ask a lot about scale and in proportion. and one of these that is 10%, vary in height more than 10% from the average garage along that area. I don't really know the answer to that for all the garages you have there. What I would say is I actually really like the look of minimizing the face of this garage from the street and making it that single story or single bay garage. it makes it look even more in scale to me with your house and with the neighborhood. I like the idea that maybe the side of the garage is being used for another purpose, and it gives you that bigger yard. And I think that is completely in keeping with the intent of the historic district, as I would read that. What I don't know is it is starting to get really long, and that's where I'm wondering, you know, if we're really keeping within the tent because of that length, But overall, I think you have a really nice start on reimagining how you would use that garage in your backyard. Well, thank you. And I could mention that as far as the height, I drew that as a 10-12 pitch because that's the pitch on the house that we're restoring in front of it. But it could be made an 8-12 or a 7-12. But I think maybe having that higher angle makes it look more vernacular. I will say that my main concern was not of a design factor. I was more concerned, Ms. Kerr, if this committee needed to be worried about any kind of domestic problems that would arise from that kind of garage parking. I'm glad you showed us the old car that resolved that worry. I think that my question would be, would on the linear part of the garage, would some addition, some change in the roof line, a gable, a dormer, resolve some of your concerns about that long stretch? I think the long stretch I'm concerned about just is that it's really long going into the backyard. I think the simple design of it doesn't bother me at all without gables or dormers. I don't think it needs that. Okay. You don't think a design change would help it appear not to be so long? I don't think so. I think that would just add more mass to it. I like the simplicity of it. And I'm not saying that I think it is too long. That's where I would question if it meets the guidelines, is that length. What we did as far as the length goes is we just put the contents inside the garage and tried to have room to walk between the cars and the front and back. And those aren't 59 Cadillacs. Those are a 2000 Camry that are 16 feet long, and the Rio is 16 feet, and it ends up being 40 feet. And that shed on the back, not shed, but that covered porch or she shed, is a gardening spot that we thought would be wonderful. It's sort of underneath or getting under the canopy of that bur oak that's in the backyard, and it makes for kind of a private spot at the back. So that actually, that portion of the roof, given that the footprint underneath it has such a different application, might be a way to shorten the length of that long roof to be able to step that roof that's over the open porch, step that down would help. Change the profile just a little bit. That would help. If I understand you're right, you mean let the 912 pitch be over the garage proper and put some kind of a shallow pitch shed roof over the shed? Right, to define it differently. I still, in thinking, certainly the only garage that's in my mind's eye now is the one of your neighbor because the photograph we were looking at. And I would say that that's much lower to the ridgeline of that garage than what you're proposing here. That one is probably a 412, and it's 20 feet wide, so I don't know what that would get you, five foot maybe. It's a concrete block garage built a long time ago at minimum cost. It's a starter garage, I guess you would call it. I basically thought this was very clever. Well, thank you. Ms. Chair, can staff ask a question or make a comment or both? Please. I think the roof height is your biggest challenge, even more than the length. The length from the street obviously is not really apparent, but from your next door neighbor, they're gonna be the closest to be affected by the volume of the length. So what would you think of considering a hip roof for this that would have a slightly lower pitch in the main run, get your ridge pole down maybe a foot or eight inches to a foot, and then turn it into a hip on both ends Because I think that would help the volume of the building become visually reduced. It would do that, and we looked at that, and we would take it if we had to, and we should think about it harder, but the look of a rural board and baton, they never built them with a hip roof. Actually, they did. Well, actually, they did. Yes. And I think you're not going to be in a rural area. You're in an urban area. So, you know, in our guidelines, talk about not necessarily repeating everything and making things look contemporary. We don't want to be trying to reproduce a tobacco barn. We're open to these suggestions. I understand it would soften that roof and bring it down to an 812 or a 712 and put a hip on it. It would serve the same purpose to us. Well, the hip would, although it would not be my first preference, I think it's a great suggestion, and it would somewhat mimic the middle of the front of the house, the roof line of the middle of the house. Our 601 Boonesboro is a hip roof with three gable ends on it. So, yes, it would follow that. So what I'm hearing is that the length that having the end to end cars is not. I will note that the length of the main dwelling from the front wall to the backyard wall is 59 feet. So the 40 feet of this one is not as long as the house. But it is the roof that clearly is creating some concerns about the kind of sense of volume, the monolithic volume of it. If we came back with this as a hip roof and a 7 or 8 pitch, 7 or 8, 12 pitch, and even in addition to that, make a shed roof over the potting area, we could be optimistic about a nod. It would give us a next step in conversation. We could try it several ways. There are several board members missing today. And so you have the benefit of the three of us in this conversation. Well, I'm encouraged, and I wonder if we should do a second planning meeting before we come forth with finished drawings. If you're willing to do that, I think it would serve the process really well. I think that's a splendid idea. Well, you would laugh if we said we were in a big hurry. Okay, well, we really appreciate your openness to a very free-flowing conversation, and we think it's kind of a wonderful next step. Let's see where you go with this. Well, thank you for your time. We appreciate it. Any other comments? I would just say I kind of like the gable end, and so maybe if you can find a way to bring it down, you know, without necessarily going to a hip roof. I'm not saying that that's what you have to do. I'd like to see you explore that for sure, but I like what you've done, and I think if we can reduce the impact of that roof in some way, it would be great we'll try several variations that sounds that sounds excellent thanks so much thank you so much okay that is the conclusion of the agenda i have is there anything else that i'm missing not that we know of thank you all right excellent then i think we are facing adjournment do i I have a motion. So moved. Second. Then we are adjourned. Thank you all. I was more concerned about who would decide to go in the garage first. Thank you. Thank you.