# Board of Architectural Review - September 10, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · September 10, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/593 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/593?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-09-10 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 2, 2026 - **Length**: 8,639 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architecture Review convened on September 10, 2008, at 101 East Vine Street, Suite 220, with Derek Wingfield presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed six agenda items during the session, focusing primarily on architectural review applications for various properties throughout the city. The meeting resulted in a productive session with five project approvals out of the six items considered. The board took six votes total during the proceedings, with all development proposals receiving favorable decisions. Projects reviewed included properties at 319 North Broadway, 220 Miller Street, 121-131 Forest Avenue, 435 North Limestone, and 431 North Limestone, all of which were approved by the board. Additionally, the meeting included an informational presentation on staff approvals. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, allowing the board to focus entirely on the technical review of the architectural proposals before them. The session demonstrated efficient processing of multiple development applications, with the board successfully moving forward five separate projects that had been submitted for architectural review and approval. ## Attendance The following Board members were present for the meeting: • Derek Wingfield • Jim Dickinson • Nathan Billings No Board members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took six votes during the meeting, all of which passed unanimously with three members present: Derek Wingfield, Jim Dickinson, and Nathan Billings. **Certificate of Appropriateness Applications:** • **02500319-C** [timestamp: 08:00]: Jim Dickinson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 319 North Broadway, seconded by Nathan Billings. The motion passed 3-0 with three recommended conditions as made by the staff. • **13200220-B** [timestamp: 12:00]: Jim Dickinson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 220 Miller Street, seconded by Nathan Billings. The motion passed 3-0 with no conditions. • **07-280121-F** [timestamp: 16:00]: Jim Dickinson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for 121-131 Forest Avenue, seconded by Nathan Billings. The motion passed 3-0 with the condition that final details be submitted to staff for review and approval. • **11660435-A** [timestamp: 20:00]: Jim Dickinson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for demolition of lean-to at 435 North Limestone, seconded by Nathan Billings. The motion passed 3-0 with no conditions. • **11660431-G** [timestamp: 24:00]: Jim Dickinson moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness for construction of a two-story outbuilding at 431 North Limestone, seconded by Nathan Billings. The motion passed 3-0 with conditions that the height be reduced by at least eight inches and final plans be submitted to staff. **Administrative Business:** • [timestamp: 120:00]: The Board approved the minutes from the August 27, 2008 hearing by voice vote, passing 3-0. All votes were conducted by voice vote with no roll call votes taken. No motions failed and there were no abstentions recorded during the meeting. ## Contested Items The Board engaged in a heated discussion regarding the construction of a two-story outbuilding at 431 North Limestone. The primary point of contention centered on the mass and scale of the proposed structure, with board members expressing concerns about whether the building's size was appropriate given its proximity to the alley and neighboring structures. The disagreement focused on the relationship between the proposed outbuilding's dimensions and the surrounding built environment. Board members debated whether the structure's scale would be compatible with existing buildings in the area and whether its positioning relative to the alley would create adverse impacts on the neighborhood character. *Note: Specific participant names, voting outcomes, and transcript timestamps were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Staff Approvals [timestamp: 04:00] Acting Chair Derek Wingfield provided an informational update on staff-approved applications that did not require board review. Wingfield noted that eight applications had been processed and approved by staff during the reporting period. This agenda item was presented as an informational briefing only, with no discussion or board action required. The staff approvals represent routine applications that fall within the authority of administrative staff to process without requiring full board consideration. No additional details were provided regarding the specific nature or types of applications that were approved, and no board members raised questions or concerns about the staff-approved items during this portion of the meeting. ## 319 North Broadway [timestamp: 08:00] The Board reviewed application 02500319-C for 319 North Broadway, which requested changes to the stoop and stair designs for the property. Joy Cocournot served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the Board during the discussion period. The application focused on modifications to the existing stoop and stair configuration at the North Broadway address. While the specific details of the proposed design changes were not elaborated in the available materials, the item was categorized as a design modification requiring Board approval. Following the presentation and Board discussion, the application was approved with conditions. The Board's decision allows the applicant to proceed with the requested stoop and stair design changes, though the specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the summary materials. The approval of application 02500319-C represents the Board's acceptance of the proposed modifications to the property's entrance features, subject to the stipulated conditions that will govern the implementation of the design changes. ## 220 Miller Street [timestamp: 12:00] The Board reviewed application 13200220-B for 220 Miller Street, which requested approval for site work installation and changes to the window design. Jim Dickinson presented the application to the Board during the discussion period. The proposal involved modifications to the existing building's exterior elements, specifically focusing on updated window configurations and associated site improvements. The Board considered the technical aspects of the proposed changes and their impact on the property. The application materials detailed the scope of work for both the site improvements and the window design alterations. Following the presentation and Board discussion, the application was approved, allowing the applicant to proceed with the requested site work and window design changes at 220 Miller Street. ## 121-131 Forest Avenue [timestamp: 16:00] The Board reviewed application 07-280121-F for 121-131 Forest Avenue, which requested a change to the roof design of the property. Lee Dorsey presented the application to the Board. The discussion focused on modifications to the existing roof design plans for the Forest Avenue property. Following the presentation and Board discussion, the application was approved with a condition. The specific details of the condition were not detailed in the available materials, but the Board determined that the roof design change could move forward subject to this requirement. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with the modified roof design at 121-131 Forest Avenue, contingent upon meeting the Board's specified condition. ## 435 North Limestone [timestamp: 20:00] The Board reviewed application 11660435-A for 435 North Limestone, which requested permission to demolish a lean-to shed on the property. John DeHart presented the application to the Board during the discussion period. The application involved the removal of an existing lean-to shed structure located at the North Limestone address. Following the presentation and Board discussion, the application was approved, allowing the property owner to proceed with the demolition of the lean-to shed as requested. ## 431 North Limestone [timestamp: 24:00] The Board reviewed application 11660431-G for 431 North Limestone, which proposed the construction of a two-story outbuilding on the property. John DeHart presented the application to the Board during the discussion phase. The proposal involved adding a new two-story accessory structure to the existing property. During the review process, concerns were raised about the proposed height of the outbuilding. The Board determined that the structure as originally designed would be too tall for the site and neighborhood context. Following discussion of the application details and consideration of the height concerns, the Board reached a decision to approve the project with modifications. The approval was granted with the specific condition that the height of the proposed two-story outbuilding be reduced from its original specifications. The conditional approval allows the applicant to proceed with construction of the outbuilding at 431 North Limestone, provided they comply with the Board's requirement to lower the overall height of the structure. This modification addresses the Board's concerns while still permitting the property owner to add the desired accessory building to their site. --- ## Decisions - **02500319-C** — passed (3-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 319 North Broadway - **13200220-B** — passed (3-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 220 Miller Street - **07-280121-F** — passed (3-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 121-131 Forest Avenue - **11660435-A** — passed (3-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for demolition of lean-to at 435 North Limestone - **11660431-G** — passed (3-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for construction of a two-story outbuilding at 431 North Limestone - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of minutes from the 27 August 2008 hearing --- ## Full transcript Good evening. I would like to welcome you all to the September 10th, 2008 public hearing of the Board of Architecture Review. We appreciate all of you in attendance here this evening. My name is Derek Wingfield. I'm the acting chair and I'd like the other members of the board to introduce themselves tonight please. Hi, Jim Dickinson. Nathan Billings. Thank you, gentlemen. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park and we now have a total of 14 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and conferred by the Urban County Council is part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The 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 Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, Suite 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 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 would also ask that you please write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information may 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. Tonight, there are a total of eight approved applications noted on today's agenda and I'll read those quickly into the public record. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District at 284 South Ashland Avenue, replace windows and solar tubes. In the Aylesford Historic District, there are two staff-approved COAs, 323 Clay Avenue, renovate structure and at 321 Linden Walk, replace roof and repair soffit. Two in the Bell Court Historic District, 221 Bell Place, replace deteriorated tree and at 257 Bell Place, replace a deteriorated tree. In the South Hill Historic District, at 215 South Limestone, renovate rear retaining wall and two more in the Western Suburbs, 719 West Main Street, renovate structure and at 727 West Main Street, repair chimney. We'll now proceed with the certificate of appropriateness applications. The first case is in the Northside Historic District at 319 North Broadway, change stoop and stair designs. Is that applicant present? Ma'am, if you'd like to come forward and give us your name and address, please. My name's Joy Cocournot, K-O-K-E-R-N-O-T. I live at 1616 Vercelles Road and I own the property at 319 North Broadway. Thank you very much. Have you had an opportunity to read the staff's findings and recommendations regarding the case? Yes. Are you in agreement with them? Yes. Oh, excellent. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this case? Does anyone on the board have any questions for the applicant? I have one small question. Sure, absolutely. I talked to Greg Hosfield, who's designed them and the carpenter suggested just using one more support under the stairs, of course made out of treated lumber and it's not aesthetically, doesn't change the design. Sure, sure, I think a structural addition like that would be absolutely fine. Yes, okay. The chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 02500319-C, 319 North Broadway, I move that we accept the staff recommendations and issue the certificate of appropriateness with the three recommended conditions as made by the staff. Thank you, Mr. Digginson. Is there a second? Second the motion. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. The next case this evening is also in the Northside District at 220 Miller Street. It's install site work and change window design. Is the applicant present? The applicant is not present but has received the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Gianacchio. Staff is recommending approval as submitted. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this case this evening? Anyone on the board have any questions or comments? Chair would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 13200220-B, 220 Miller Street, I move that we accept the staff recommendation of approval for the issuance of the COA. Thank you, Mr. Digginson. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. The next application is in the Belcourt Historic District at 121-131 Forest Avenue, change roof design. Is that applicant present? If you would come forward, please. My name is Lee Dorsey. I reside at 3309 Riggs Court here in Lexington. And the application is I'm the owner of 121-131 Forest Avenue. Thank you, sir. Have you had an opportunity to read the staff's findings and recommendation? I have. Staff's recommending approval as submitted with just a single condition that final details be submitted. Are you in agreement with that? I am. Excellent, glad to hear that. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this case? Does anyone on the board have any questions for the applicant? None. Chair, to entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 07-280121-F, 121-131 Forest Avenue, I move that we accept the staff recommendation for the issuance of the COA subject to the condition that all final details be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Thank you, Mr. Dickinson. Is there a second? Second the motion. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next case is in the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 435 North Limestone. Demolish a lean-to shed. Is that applicant present? Yes. Good evening, I'm John DeHart with Thought Space Architects. I live at 431 North Limestone. I'm here representing the owner at 435. Thank you, sir. Have you had an opportunity to read the staff's findings and recommendation? Yes. Staff is recommending approval is submitted. Are you in agreement with that? Absolutely. Very good. Doesn't get much better. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this case this evening? Any questions from the board? Chair to entertain a motion. The only question I had was, I know in one from two weeks ago, you all wanted 30 days to take pictures and study the site of a demolished garage. Do you all want that with respect to this lean-to? No, this is a simple shed on the site. That's what I thought, but I wanted to ask. Yeah, the documentation is on there. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, good. Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Chairman. If I could make one comment on that garage, though. This structure, the original carriage house, is one of the few surviving, and it's really a beautiful structure that is on its way out. And I don't know if there's the capacity for the staff to document it sometime in the near future, but I look at it every day, and I'm concerned that tomorrow it's not gonna be there, given the way it's leaning over the alley. So I don't know if that's something staff might consider in the near future, but I'll be advantageous. Encourage you to, either after the meeting tonight or at some point in the near future, call them and make an appointment, and I'm sure they'll be able to set something up with you. Are you talking about the carriage house itself? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, the shed's just a small, four-foot-wide, one-story little piece that was added much later onto the shed, but onto the carriage house. But the carriage house itself is a early 1800s, mid-1800s carriage house. Yeah, I think it would be a good idea to have it documented in some way. Okay, any more questions or comments? No. Chair would entertain a motion. Are you ready to make your maiden motion? Ha ha, why don't you do one more? All right. Mr. Chair, with respect to 11660435-A 435 North Limestone, I move that we accept the staff recommendation of approval of the COA and demolition of the lean-to of this particular structure. Thank you, Mr. Dickinson. Is there a second? Second the motion. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. The final case this evening is also in the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 431 North Limestone, and it's to construct a two-story outbuilding. Mr. DeHart, if you would reintroduce yourself to us, please. I'm John DeHart. I reside at 431 North Limestone. Thank you, sir. Have you had an opportunity to read the staff's findings and recommendations? Yes, I have. Are you in agreement with them? No, I'm not. I think it would behoove us all to have a full presentation on this, and if that's okay with you, I think we'll proceed with that and have the staff run through, and then we'll call you back up for your comments. Thank you. This is the case at 431 North Limestone, and it's to construct a two-story outbuilding. It really doesn't. Can you manually hit the buttons? Okay. 431 North Limestone, this is the house. Here's the rear of the structure. The applicant has been under, has gone before the process several times for many things. One is the porch you see now, and also has proposed and been approved for the construction of a two-story outbuilding. Has proposed and been approved for the deck you see with a wood boardwalk and a small pond and so forth in the backyard. And this picture has been taken at the rear of the property. This is taken from the porch looking towards the yard. At this time, he proposes to construct a two-story garage. This is some material left over from a previous garage that it will be reused within the garage itself, within the proposed garage. These flags outline walkways that were proposed and will be built in the near future. Martin, if we could go to the slides, the photographs, I mean the plans, please. Thank you. The owners are now interested in constructing a garage in the rear of the yard. The garage will be 44, approximately 45 feet by 25 feet with a height of 22.6 and will have two 18-foot bays, really four bays with windows on either side. So here is the structure. Here is the deck that we saw. The deck we saw in the photographs. And then the garage. The garage will be set back 10 feet from the alley and then we'll have one foot, six inches on either side of the property line. And these are the boardwalk areas that will lead to the garage and back to the area. Each garage bay will be 18 feet and have a pedestrian door with an auxiliary door here for entrance inside the interior of the yard. The garage will be a contemporary design with casement-type windows, slid vertical and horizontal and the doors are to be flat panel, two-panel design. The owner conveys in his goals in an email that he would like to have a two-panel design for the garage. The owner conveys in his goals in an email that this project presents the building skin as an opportunity to express an overlap of three pragmatic elements, external function of expression, external enclosure, and external finished material. The owner again expresses his statements about the garage saying the interaction and play of the elements allows for the introduction of an expression of siding of garage houses and tobacco barns while allowing a straightforward representation of functional expressionism. This is a simple box of windows displaying the functional arrangements of interior spaces. It is wrapped in smooth cementous board as a weatherproof membrane, rough saw, wood siding, and green screen are used as finished materials while other elements, cementous board and windows, are slightly exposed. This allows for the transformation of historic scale and materiality to the form. New paving is proposed for the 10-foot length of the driveway in the front of the garage. Guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to create a boardwalk system close to the grade level is found appropriate in accordance with guideline 13-3. New boundary definers should not be visually dominant and intrusive or suggest a false sense of history. The concept of constructing a contemporary garage, an outbuilding along the rear of this alley, is within the guidelines. However, the size, mass, and scale of the garage requires further discussion. The proposed garage is found to be too massive for the site and the alley in the Mulberry Hill Historic District. While placing a secondary structure along the alley edge is not inconsistent with the rhythm of the alley and the yards, the height, the scale, and the mass of the proposed structure as designed is too massive and intrusive for the site and the alley. The proposed garage is described by the owner as a simple box, and the shape of the box, as designed, creates a large scale and mass than other secondary buildings along the alley. Guidelines 18-4 and 35-4 state, respectively, new principal structures should be appropriate to the site which they are located, and the complexity of building form and shape should be compatible with adjacent buildings. It should be noted that there is a one-and-a-half-story carriage house outbuilding on the neighboring property that has an undulating roofline that softens the volume of the building along the alley. The proposed four-car garage guest house is higher than the existing carriage house and outbuilding. In addition, as proposed, the garage creates a large vertical mass that is not appropriately scaled for a secondary structure such as a garage. Guidelines 35-3 and 35-7 state, respectively, new outbuildings should have the same number of stories or be within 10% of the average height in an adjacent building. The proportioned directional emphasis and rhythm of new buildings should reflect the predominant proportioned emphasis and rhythm of adjacent surrounding buildings. The loss of green and open space necessitated by the proposals within the guidelines. The proposal would eliminate green space. However, the yard will still have ample amount left for the proposed plan. Guidelines 12-2 and 14-4, respectively, state new site elements and alterations to existing site elements should be compatible with the surrounding historic properties and principal accessory structures and properties, and historic green areas and space of the site should be maintained. Materials of the proposed plan calls for a layered effect of cemented siding and using elements of barn, garage, and house materials. This creates a contemporary effect that picks up elements of the other historic outbuildings on the alley. You can go to the next slide. As proposed, the concept is when the guidelines are appropriate for the site. Guidelines 41-1, 41-2, and 41-3, respectively, state installation of materials should give a building an imitation historic appearance and should not be allowed. Materials should be in scale with the building in which they are located and should be compatible with the materials on the adjacent surrounding buildings. In areas where strong continuity of materials, texture, and material color is a factor, the continued use of the material is strongly recommended. Recommendation, staff recommends disapproval of the garage outbuilding as designed. Staff recommends approval of the wood boardwalk. You should note there are four letters of support that each board member should have received. And the applicant is present. Thank you, Ms. Armstrong. Mr. Hart, if you would care to... You guys thought you were getting home early, didn't you? I guess there's a couple different levels that I want to talk to this about. There's a few images just to share with you kind of where I was thinking when we first started sketching and talking about this. It's really kind of a guest quarters and a four-car garage below. Could you show those kind of barn photographs, please? Since coming to Kentucky, I had childhood connections here, but I moved here formally 11 years ago, and I've always been fascinated with this image you see here. It's not such a great photograph. It's kind of difficult to get. But it is the sort of iconic Kentucky barns, either horse barns or that first one was a tobacco barn. I've always been struck by this image, which is completely functionally pragmatic design of having these slits, the little louvers that open up on a tobacco barn. And in times when the tobacco barn, before it's been harvested and the little slits are open, you can kind of see sky through the barn. I've always been struck by this image of these striations, of sort of understanding the function and at the same time understanding the materiality and practicality of those barns. And that's something that kind of floats around in my head a lot in thinking about indigenous architecture and what it means to do architecture as a part of the landscape here. So that's one aspect in thinking about this was this sort of verticality and these slits of sort of understanding something that lies behind. So when we started sketching on this project, some things seemed to be very logical, both in terms of function and in terms of understanding the history of the fabric or what happens on alleys. Most of the carriage houses, as I mentioned earlier, very few are surviving, but most of them did go property line to property line. They filled the back of the house, and that was sort of this boundary line for the back property. So when we first started doing it, we said we would do that. And we did, in fact, coincidentally, just a couple years ago, you approved a carriage house we did across the street for Mr. Barr that did the same thing. At that point, we had 18-inch setbacks that we had to ask for a variance. Interestingly enough, now that 18-inch variance is not required in our zoning district. 18 inches is appropriate within the zoning code. So we don't have to ask for any variances within the zoning in terms of height, in terms of width, or in terms of size. It fits on our property within the zoning requirements. In our mind, in designing it, as I mentioned, we feel like it fits into the sort of conceptual layout of how carriage houses work during that time. Yes, it does have living space on the second floor in the form of a guest suite as opposed to a haloff. And the bottom floor is the new modern interpretation of the carriage, right? I mean, that's where we're going to park cars, although I do have a Mustang, so I think that counts for something. The car, but you have to have a horse car, right, to park in a carriage house. The long spiel of, I won't get in too far, other than to say that we started out with this idea of the very simplest form that we could come up with this box and started thinking about the envelope having multiple functions, not that they had to be loaded into one material. So the box has windows that relate directly to the function of what's going on. You know, there's a small window where there's a desk space. There's a small slit window where there's stairwells. There's a large window in the living space. There's a slightly smaller but still large window in the sleeping space. So there's a sort of pragmatism about displaying the contents in that way. And then in the same way, thinking about how we're wrapping the building. So it's wrapped first, primarily, with cementitious board, just smooth panels. So the thing starts out as a sort of smooth box with punched openings where we need them. And then from there, we said, let's take a transformation of what's happening on the outside of barns, for example. And sort of play with those materials as just applications. So they're no longer really treated as a rain screen. They're not a pragmatic element for keeping water out of the building or controlling it. They're more a matter of image and how we want to sort of perceive the way that the skin happens. So that's what I'm talking about. The skin gets broken down in different ways. So that's kind of the conceptual basis of where it comes from. In terms of the mass, again, I reiterate, it fits within zoning requirements. In fact, until just recently, last adoption of zoning laws, it had to go to the midline of the main structure. So outbuildings had to be within the midline of the roof of the main structure, which we could have this, if you went by that mentality, this garage could actually be 32-and-a-half feet in height, which obviously is amazing. In the new adopted zoning regs, it has to be within 10% of the height of the main structure. So it's not a zoning issue in terms of the mass of this. It can only be seen as an aesthetic issue. And I'd like to show you images of the garage that this board approved just a couple years ago. Would you run through those with Bill Bars? Oh, yeah. Sorry. Okay. Just for point of reference, this is the carriage house next door that I was talking about. So you see it is, in fact, it goes about three feet onto my property. So these things were meant to go property line to property line. This is amazingly, the main part of this amazingly beautiful carriage house. John, is that further north, further down the street? Yeah, that's on the north boundary line of our property. Now, how high is that, or do you know? You know, I didn't measure that. It's a full story and a half of the hayloft, but then you have peaks that go above that. So if I had to guess, that's probably an 8-foot door, 12, another 6, maybe 17 or 18 feet. 17 feet, okay. That would be my guess on it. I meant to do that. I forgot. I had meant to walk that alley, and I didn't get a chance to do it today. There's not significant, other significant buildings that front onto this alley. Did I give you the one down a little bit further? This is across the alley, which isn't in a historic district. The Mulberry Hill stops at the center line of the alley. But this is what my backyard looks onto on north upper. So they're very large, two-story houses. There are no carriage houses on that side. The lots are much shallower. They're not nearly as deep as they are on our side of the street, and so it's questionable whether they ever had carriage houses on that side. Bill Bars. You can just run through these images. These are all images of the carriage house that we did at 404 North Limestone a couple years ago. A very, very similar concept, a little bit different take on the skin of how the building works. Our garage we are proposing is a full bay wider. It's, I think, 20 inches taller than this one. But as you can see from this, this carriage house works really well, I think, for this piece of property, and it is taller than other adjacent garages on that alley. The courtyard side of this, the interior side of it, this lot is considerably smaller than our property is, so it makes a much more intimate space. We're blessed to have a much deeper lot, so we'll still be able to have significant green space and a pretty good-sized pond that will be along that deck you saw earlier. I'm sorry? Is this your personal property? This one or the one we're applying for? The one you're applying for. Yes, this is where I live. Okay. And you're saying the garage you're proposing is 20 inches higher than the bar property? Yeah, I think it's 20 inches higher than the bar property. Almost two feet? Yeah. Okay. This property was actually a real squeeze because, at that time, the zoning required it be within the midline. His house is not nearly as tall as our house, so we had to squeeze every inch out of this thing, and it caused some structural gymnastics to do that in order to make it happen. I would like to avoid that with mine. So, I guess, do you have questions about the design intent or the massing of it? Let's see if the Board does. Mr. Dickinson? John, to be honest with you, when I first looked at it, it struck me, and it's bad black-and-white photos that are given to you, and I wanted to get a chance to walk the property, and I apologize for not having done that because sometimes just actually being out there and seeing the scale of the buildings and the scale of the alley is of assistance. My initial impression was it struck me as being too large, that it tended, notwithstanding the amount of distance you had from your back deck to where you're building the structure, it looked like it overwhelmed the yard and that you were building almost a second house as opposed to a garage or an outbuilding. And I'm still not entirely convinced that it's not too massive for the overall scope of the alley. I think it might have the effect, and this is where I wish sometimes I were an architect and I'm not, it might, to my eye, look like it might be overwhelming the carriage house as well next door to it. And this is the supporting letters that you received make a good point, that we need to accommodate these alleyways to modern living. And I'm trying to balance that desire versus the fact that the alley should still be an alley. It's not a main street. And as always, I'm very cognizant and aware of precedent that we may be setting, and if we do something like this for one alley, we may be setting up a precedent later on that can be used or misused by other applicants. The fact that this building seems to be about two feet higher than the one across the street bothers me a little bit. And I'm just wondering, I had two questions. One is normally you bring things to us for a conceptual review. Did we go through a conceptual review on this one? No. The kind of background behind this is my father died a few weeks ago, and I'm trying to accommodate some needs of my mom for a place to live. And so we've kind of rushed the entire process. And, in fact, in negotiations with Amelia, she asked if I would consider a three-bay garage. And I just can't. It doesn't, you know, I need enough bedroom and living room space for her to live there comfortably. So it kind of sets the size, and it's a make or break. Either I do this or I don't do it at all at this point because a three-car garage will not meet the needs. And could there be a little bit of compression? You know, we can get every inch out of it. And as we now proceed to size some of the structural members, I can look at trying to lower the height a little bit. I'm less concerned by its width as opposed to its height because every now and then we have wound up approving buildings And when I go and look at them, I'm saying, my God, what did we approve in terms of its height? So you're more concerned about height? I'm more concerned about the height than the width. I don't have a problem necessarily because you're right. I mean, these carriage houses did stretch along. In fact, they were sort of a barrier from the alley, if you will, for the property itself. I don't have a problem with that. It's the height of the building that troubles me. When you look at your pictures, and I'm not – I don't envision well three-dimensionally, but it looked like the building is a wall. And even though you have broken it up and you have the slats in it, I think it still may be to a later purchaser that may be not as attractive a feature as you think it might be. Well, I could potentially get some inches out of it. I can't get two feet out of it. It's not going to work structurally for me to do that. And I find it curious that Emilia – typically Emilia said let's just table this thing. I mean, in this case she's just recommending disapproval altogether, which I find interesting. And we may have Emilia talk about that. Again, part of it is compression of schedule. If I don't get approval, I can't get the garage constructed before fall so that I can't get footings in, which means I have to look at other living accommodations, and so it's kind of pointless. Tabling it is pointless. Tabling is the same thing as denying it in this case. Okay. Well, I wasn't – normally the table is sort of a signal to us saying it can be worked with, and I'm not seeing that right now. Can you take – how much can you take off of it? I was just looking at the section while you were talking, trying to sort of play through my mind. I think I could maybe get eight inches, I think, out of it pretty easily. More than that might be a tough sell, but, you know, I could work on it. I think a foot would help if you could do it, roughly. And, you know, I'm just one person. Derek may love it, and I'm not dead set against it by any means. It just struck me as being too massive. Thank you, Mr. Dickinson. Mr. Darling? Mr. Dart, you'll have to pardon me if my questions are simple, but this is only my second meeting with the BOAR, so I'm still getting caught up to speed, so they may say. So some of my questions may be asked an artful of either you or the staff, and that will belie my own ignorance as I continue to learn the guidelines and struggle with balancing lots of shoulds instead of musts. Let me ask the staff a question. If I understand correctly, the only objection is the mass of the building. Is that correct? From the staff report, you've gathered that the mass and the scale is too large within our guidelines. Okay, but that's the only objection you all have. You don't have any problems with using the green space up. I know you set a lot of guidelines in here, and I don't see any problems with that. I just want to make sure that I focus my questions on the areas of concern. Is my understanding correct? That is correct. Okay. You said you were sort of guesstimating. I've walked this alley I don't know how many times. I live right around the corner on 4th Street, and I'm familiar with the carriage house next to it. Do you know the top of the steeple in the center of that carriage house? No. I wish I had struck a tape on it today. Well, I wouldn't get on the roof, number one. But I meant to actually put a tape on it this afternoon to see what the gable end is. So I can't give you an accurate of what that is. My recollection, even from this morning's that that alleyway is on a rise going from your property to the north side. Do you know the drop from what I would call, let's say, the north side of that carriage house to the bottom of your lot, what the drop is? Yeah, it's actually interesting you bring that up. It's old Mulberry Hill, which terminated on the property at the end of the street that borders on 5th and Lyme. And over the years, that has sort of terraced, and those lines still move around. Even in the last five or six years, I've noticed the grades still kind of shift a little bit. There's about, we have rounded it off. There was two full cross ties when we bought the property, railroad cross ties, that acted as a small retaining wall to the property on the north of us. So I would say those things are 6 or 8 inches. So it's a foot to 16 inches probably was what the differential is between the property on our north and what our backyard is. The, just for conceptual purposes, how tall is your house? Do you know? Yep, I do know that. Yep, I do know that. From ground to the ridge is 40 feet, 32 1⁄2 and 7 1⁄2, 40 feet. From ground to the eave is 25 feet. So this will still be below the bottom of your eaves in the front? Yes. Can you put the picture of the front of their house back up? And I guess, thinking about your comments, just to interrupt you for a second, about, obviously it is a wall. I mean, it's very strongly a wall at the back of the yard. But if it works, and it is a little bit taller than Bill Barr's garage, but if it works as his, where you are anywhere from two foot away from the garage wall to, at the most, 25 feet away from it, where in my backyard you're actually 75 or 80 feet away from that wall, it's a radically different proportion to think about how looming that mass might be when you've got that vantage of distance. Yeah, and I keep forgetting how deep that yard is that you have. That's almost like my yard over in Transylvania. It's a very deep yard. Would a pitched roof help soften that look? The problem is going to be it hurts me. That might actually resemble more the barn that you're trying to create. Yeah, and we started out sketching it that way. And the problem is that you kind of have, if you add up heights you need for a garage, structure height, heights you need for a ceiling inside, anything in a pitched roof is just adding more mass to it. And when we looked at those renderings initially, we were just kind of like, whoa, that really looks too big. And the problem, again, is perspective. From the alley, you could never appreciate the pitch because you couldn't get far enough away from it to ever see it. So it's really a matter of what's it look like from the interior, which I think that it's probably better keeping it as low as possible. I didn't mean to step in on your question. It's Nathan. Let me ask one question. Why don't you go ahead? Oh, absolutely. I actually think this is actually quite successful. I'm a big fan of good contemporary design, and I think that the layering that you've done on the exterior, cladding if you would, adds quite a bit of interest and depth and relief that we're not seeing. There's going to be shadow play that doesn't come through in the renderings, and it doesn't come in in two dimensions. I think that if you can bring it down eight inches, that's great. If I could put the staff on the spot, Ms. Armstrong, would you say that you were more concerned with a particular dimension or just overall? Are you more concerned with the horizontal? I would say the design presently is too massive and I think couldn't respond to one particular dimension. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. I was trying to think of some, I guess, compromise that would help soften the application, I suppose. Have you given any consideration to moving the stairwell from the short wall and bringing it in slightly and rotating it to like the, so it would be running parallel with the short lot line, if I'm making myself clear? Yes. Well, yes and no. The problem with doing that is I've got a certain width of stairwell that's required by code, and then I've added a little bit of width for a chair lift to get my mom up and down the stairs easily. And so my stairwell is kind of a lock. The width of it is wider than a typical residential three-foot between handrail and stair. And if I take that out of the garage bay, then it means I have to make the garage deeper because you've got to have minimum distance to park a truck inside of it. So it just, it actually confounds things more. I would rather not encroach on the yard more, given it seems historically accurate to have it go to close proximity to the property line. Well, I agree completely. I think it would complicate things more and actually think that the structure as a boundary definer, the way you have it designed, again, is quite successful. I was just sort of throwing it on the floor to see if you can consider it and whether the other board members. We tried to skin this cat a number of ways. I imagine so. Might have come up with any alternative solutions. Please come. Thanks for putting that out there, Amelia. This isn't scientific because you said you don't have any actual measurements, but it would appear to me that if the structure next to it is approximately 18 feet or so, and it's probably another two feet up to the gable of that barn weather vane, I don't know what you call it, on the very peak of it, even assuming you just come down to the regular roof line, looking at the rise of the land, these don't seem like the roof lines are going to be off very much at all by maybe a foot or two foot at most. Is that a fair statement? Yes, I think that is. And that's what I'm envisioning in my mind, that if you actually look at them eye level, you're not going to see a 22-foot structure over an 18-foot structure. You're actually going to see, counting the rise, about a 20-foot structure and a 22-foot structure. Is that fair? Yeah. Amelia, is that how you? I mean, you've been out there to the site, too. Do you think that's a fair assessment? I would say that's an accurate statement. Okay. Also, the guidelines require, or at least they don't require, they say that new buildings should have the same number of stories. The practical problem today is who builds a one-and-a-half-story structure anymore? It's not practical for much of anything. We don't have haylofts anymore because I guess we could maybe put some type of gasoline storage. Fuel tanks for the Mustang, yeah. But I'm not sure the federal government would like us doing that. Anyway, I see some functional problems with trying to have a requirement that you have to do the same number of stories because a one-and-a-half-story structure is just not functional in the world as today. It might have been 100 years ago. It might be 10 years from now, but not today. So I think that's why the guidelines say should instead of must. The guidelines aren't, you know, it's not about whether I like it or not. It's about whether you think it meets the guidelines, and I think it does. I think it's close. Personally, I really like the building. I think it's great, but I've got to look at the guidelines. And I think that it falls within 35.3, which is what we seem to be talking about. I don't have a problem with that. Thank you. Mr. Dinkins, do you have any further questions? Well, that raises a question. Where are we on the 10 percent, Amelia? Is this structure more than 10 percent or not? Currently in the design now, the height of the garage is 22.8. And if we've established within the statement that the garage next door is 18 feet plus. 22.6, sorry. Pardon? 22.6. 22.6, sorry. And if we've established that the carriage house next door is 18 feet plus the steeple, which would be two more feet, so that's about 20 feet. We're going to need that foot. So if you take even at 18 feet, 10 percent of that is 1.8 feet. So that's almost, I'm almost dead on right there. Yeah. Amelia, your problem with this, is it just because of the overall density of the structure or exactly? When you say it's too massive in scale and mass. Within the guidelines, if you're looking at a structure that your measurement of the square footage is roughly 2,000 square feet, top and bottom, first floor and second floor. And besides the mass and scale, I mean, typically even with the garage in the past, we've actually asked for that to be tabled. And we at staff level did not approve the garage across the street. We actually asked for it to be tabled because we were at that point concerned with the mass and scale. And if you're looking at installing a 2,000 square foot structure in the rear of the yard, while the SS has an ample yard, that's where we're coming from. You know, given the fact that we know roughly that there's, you know, given the house size and so forth, and just what kind of secondary structure in the presence on the alley, what it creates. And that's our issue with the directional emphasis and the proportion ratio and that kind of thing. That's within the guidelines what we're looking at. I can sort of understand that, I guess, architecturally. I mean, all these things kind of have to come into play together. But if I had a 2,000 square foot house and I was adding that or 3,000, but I've got a 42 or 4,400 square foot house that's massive. I mean, it's a really tall house. So I can certainly understand this wanting to be a secondary building. How big was the bar garage? Do you know? Square feet. It was 890 for the top floor, so. It was 26 by 36 in size. So that's about 2,000. Yeah, it's a little over 800 square feet, so it's 1,600 square feet. And that house is a smaller house, isn't it? A smaller lot. Yeah. How did we, I remember some of that. Did you all table that and we overrode you on that one? Is that not from you? I believe that was the outcome. I think that's what happened, yes. You're always a problem, John. Can you show the picture of the next door garage again? I think that alley one is a better picture. I actually have pictures of it from the other slideshow. If I could ask the audience, is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this case this evening? I think we should know for the record there are several supportive letters from Linda Carroll and her son, Patrick Morgan, as well as. Mr. Barr and the adjacent property. Right. What I'm trying to look at is how far back is the current carriage house on the northern lot, 435? My recollection is it's a foot or two off of the property line. Yeah, it's right on the alley. Or maybe even right on it, yeah. Yeah, it's about, it might be easier than that. From the asphalt to the face of that, it's about 18 inches, maybe two foot. It's right there. So we're sitting back. How deep is that carriage house? I would just be guessing. I know the car fits in it just barely. So it must be about 16 1⁄2 feet, 17 feet. It's the same depth as the shed. The same depth as the shed. Okay. Six foot, 17 foot. It's a 16 foot eight. You know, that's a massive structure when you look at it. Yeah, it's a large structure. I'm sorry? When you look at the carriage house, that's a pretty massive structure, too, when you look at it. It's cool. All the bridles are still hanging there, all the stalls. It's a neat building. Do you think it's 18 feet to the roof line or 18 feet to the top of the spire? I think it's 18 feet to the roof line. And that was just looking at images and knowing that that door is about an eight foot door. So 17 or 18 foot to the ridge and then plus the cupola. My guess is that's going to be 22 to 23 feet if you count it as spire. I know that may not be an actual structure, but as far as the actual total height of the building. If that building is only six foot eight, your planned carriage house garage will be actually set back 10 feet. So you're actually behind this as you're looking at it from the alley. Yes. Is that correct? So it's not going to be one facade all the way across. No, because you've got to have, well, first of all, there's a zoning requirement of a 10 foot setback, but you also have to have a skirt in order to be able to make the turn off the alley to get into the garage door. So it's actually going to reduce the massive structure as well, because visually it's behind. Yeah, from the alley side. Behind the back carriage. Gentlemen, anything else? All right. Staff has recommended. Mr. DeHart, do you have anything else? No, I'm good. Thank you very much for your time this evening. Sorry to keep you so late. No, that's all right. Staff, do you all have any other points? I know we've asked him a lot of questions, but I don't want to miss anything if you all have something more. Not at this time. Okay. No one from the audience wishes to speak, so the chair will entertain a motion. Okay, Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 11660431-G, 431 North Limestone, I move that we reject the staff's recommendation of disapproval and that we go ahead and propose or accept the applicant's proposal. John, were you in agreement to reduce it by eight inches or so? If we could say reduce it by eight inches and I'll try to get more. Okay. But I don't want to be restricted to try and get 12 inches or whatever it is. That the proposal be accepted as is, but the height be reduced by at least eight inches, if not more, if possible. In making this motion, I'm looking at the guidelines and I find, based on the testimony and the presentation of the evidence at this hearing, that under guideline 35-3, this building has the same number of stories or approximately the same number of stories and is within 10% of the average height of the adjacent building, that being the story and a half carriage house. That the complexity of the building is, in fact, compatible with the adjacent buildings and that its scale and mass is not so overwhelming in relation to the main principal structure on this property that it is proportionate to the approximately 4,000 square foot house that is on 431 North Limestone. I further find that the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of the new building does, in fact, reflect the predominant proportion, emphasis, and rhythm of the adjacent and surrounding buildings. That its openings are, in fact, compatible in scale and size. Anything else I need to add? I think you have it covered, Mr. Dickinson. Okay. That's my motion. Can we also ask for the details and final plans to come back to staff? And final drawings be resubmitted to COA, or to the board, or to the staff rather. I'll get it out in a moment. Anything else? Did I cover it all, Rochelle? Okay. Thank you. Is there a second to the motion? Second the motion. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Any discussion of the motion? Yeah, I want to add a couple of comments. One is I don't like overruling the staff. They do a lot of hard work, and I can understand their concerns. We have tussled extensively with how to deal with infilling projects along alleyways. And I will just state, and I probably don't want to ever look at my comments again, but I keep saying these things have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with a goal that we not be arbitrary and capricious in our determinations that the staff recommendation be rejected. I'm favoring the motion. I'm making the motion because I believe with respect to this particular property, given the size of the lot, given the size of the principal structure, and given the contemporary architecture, which we do like to encourage, I think this particular building does actually work relative to the alley and relative to the main mass. Unlike some other proposals we have seen, which didn't work and which crowded in too much building on too little lot. Mr. Dingeson, I thank you for those comments and concur with them completely. I think that we can only, you know, look at these on a case-by-case basis because every lot's different, every design's different, and certainly keeping the guidelines as our foundation, which guides us in making these determinations, we always need to be mindful of those. But I concur with your statements completely. Looking at Guidelines 35-3, 35-4, 35-7, and having heard the evidence presented by both the staff and Mr. DeHart in this case, I concur with Mr. Dickinson that examining the secondary structure in light of the neighboring carriage house, the lot in question, the setback off the rear alley, and the mass of the principal structure, as well as the surrounding principal structures, I find that the proposed garage, as amended here today, falls in compliance with the guidelines. Thank you, Mr. Benson. Any more discussion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time. We have one final item of business this evening. Approval of the minutes from the 27 August 2008 hearing. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. Chair and entertain a motion for adjournment. Motion to adjourn. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.