# Board of Architectural Review - January 22, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · January 22, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6322 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6322?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-01-22 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 27, 2026 - **Length**: 25,490 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 January 22, 2023, at 101 East Fine Street, Room 220. The meeting's agenda consisted of one item — Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness — which was approved. Over the course of the meeting, the Board took 7 votes and heard no public comments. No presiding officer or meeting start time is recorded in the available meeting data. ## Attendance The following 10 members were present at the January 22, 2025 Board meeting: - Deborah Pfister - John Shepard - Nancy Johnson - Matt Schaefer - Darren Taylor - Jessica Winters - Jonathan Hemby - William Wood - Amanda Meier - Albert Fetters No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on seven Certificates of Appropriateness during the January 22, 2025 meeting. All seven motions passed by voice vote. Individual vote counts and the names of members making or seconding motions were not recorded in the available data. - **03630638-G** — Certificate of Appropriateness for **638 Central Avenue**: Passed by voice vote. Subject to the standard two conditions as read into the record. [timestamp: 0:06:03] - **041-50236-H** — Certificate of Appropriateness for **236 Clay Avenue**: Passed by voice vote. Subject to the standard two conditions as read into the record. [timestamp: 0:07:39] - **054-50241-I** — Certificate of Appropriateness for **241 Delmar Avenue**: Passed by voice vote. Subject to the standard two conditions as acknowledged. [timestamp: 0:10:04] - **02500555-L** — Certificate of Appropriateness for **555 North Broadway**: Passed by voice vote. Subject to the standard two conditions as noted and accepted. [timestamp: 0:13:50] - **08-15010** — Certificate of Appropriateness for **106 Goodrich Avenue**: Passed by voice vote. Subject to four conditions and recommendations made by staff. [timestamp: 0:15:36] - **041-50236-F** — Certificate of Appropriateness for **121 Lackawanna Road**: Passed by voice vote. Subject to two standard conditions plus one additional condition requiring the demolition area to be finish graded. [timestamp: 0:17:53] - **02500247-Q** — Certificate of Appropriateness for **247 North Broadway and 202 Morrow Place**: Passed by voice vote. Subject to the condition that the glass connector shall step down so as not to encapsulate the rake board of the original building. [timestamp: 1:23:47] ## Contested Items - **Connector and Garage Design at 247 North Broadway** [timestamp: 1:23:47] A heated discussion arose regarding the proposed design of a glass connector and garage addition at 247 North Broadway. The debate centered on concerns about architectural integrity and whether the proposed design aligned with applicable architectural guidelines. Board members engaged in detailed examination of the connector and garage elements, with the discussion reflecting differing views on how the addition would relate to the existing structure and surrounding context. The extracted record does not specify the individual board members or applicants by name in relation to their respective positions, nor does it indicate a final vote tally or definitive outcome from this portion of the meeting. Readers seeking the full details of who raised specific objections, what modifications may have been requested, and how the matter was ultimately resolved are encouraged to consult the meeting video beginning at approximately 1:23:47. ## Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness [timestamp: 01:03] The board reviewed multiple applications for Certificates of Appropriateness, discussing conditions and recommendations for each property under consideration. The agenda item involved a broad group of participants, with key speakers including Deborah Pfister, John Shepard, Nancy Johnson, Matt Schaefer, Darren Taylor, Jessica Winters, Jonathan Hemby, William Wood, Amanda Meier, and Albert Fetters. The discussion covered the specifics of each application, including any conditions attached to approvals and the board's recommendations regarding the proposed work on the respective properties. The board ultimately approved the applications reviewed during this portion of the meeting. No additional detail regarding the specific properties, addresses, proposed work, concerns raised, or individual vote counts is available in the provided record. --- ## Decisions - **03630638-G** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 638 Central Avenue - **041-50236-H** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 236 Clay Avenue - **054-50241-I** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 241 Delmar Avenue - **02500555-L** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 555 North Broadway - **08-15010** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 106 Goodrich Avenue - **041-50236-F** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 121 Lackawanna Road - **02500247-Q** — passed (0-0): Certificate of Appropriateness for 247 North Broadway and 202 Morrow Place --- ## Full transcript Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome you to the January 22nd meeting of the board of architecture review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district is the Grants Park. We now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The HPO 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 Fine 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'll 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 hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating necessity of all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 22 applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 1016 Fontaine Street, renovate the structure. In the Ellsworth Historic District at 236 Clay Avenue, renovate the structure. At 257 Clay Avenue, renovate the structure. At 461 Euclid Avenue, replace the attic windows. At 729 East High Street, renovate the structure. At 318 Lafayette Park, replace the roof. At 396 Linden Walk, renovate the structure. At 9 Preston Court, remove the remainder of a tree. And at 340 Transylvania Park, replace and install the driveway gate and radon pipe. In the Bellcourt Historic District at 154 East Bell Street, replace fence and gates, repair deck. At 609 Russell Avenue, renovate the structure. At 602 Sayre Avenue, renew the COA. In the Constitution Historic District at 135 Constitution Street, replace the gutters. At 145 Constitution Street, install black aluminum fence. And at 151 Constitution Street, install the black aluminum fence. In the Ellsworth Park Historic District at 631 Ellsworth Park, replace the roof. In the Fayette Park Historic District at 435 Fayette Park, renovate the structure. At 422 Fayette Park, renovate the site. At 444 Fayette Park, renovate the site. In the Grants Park Historic District at 201 North Middle Street, rebuild the porch. And 201 North Middle Street, replace and repair the gutters. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 353 North Limestone, renew the COA to construct the garage. At 408 North Limestone, replace the roof. In the Northside Historic District at 468 West 6th Street, rebuild the wall due to a structure failure. At 419 West 6th Street, replace the roof and gutters. At 420 West 6th Street, replace the fence and gates. In the 7th Park Historic District at 110 Arcadia Park, reconstruct the structure due to damage. At 133 Shawnee Place, rebuild deteriorate walls for the addition. And finally, in the Pensacola Park at 127 Lackawanna Road, renovate the structure resulting from storm damage. We will now move on to our applications. The first being at 638 Central Avenue, change and install new openings on rear wall is the applicant here. Come on up. All right. I'm sorry, to the podium. I said come on up. I know I did. That's fine. You did. You're good. Okay. State your name for the record, please. Deborah Pfister. Ms. Pfister, how are you today? Good. Good. Ms. Pfister, the staff has recommended, I believe, approval of your application subject to what I refer to in past meetings as our standard two conditions. Let me read them to you. The first one being is once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with that? Yes, sir. And number two, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are you in agreement with that? Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from the board members about this one? Any questions or comments from the audience? Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 03630638-G at 638 Central Avenue, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions as have been read into the record. All right. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the CLA is conditioned as approved. Good luck with your project. Thanks. Thank you. Turning now to 236 Clay Avenue. Is the applicant here? Come on up. The scope of work in this one is change the design and location of the garage, driveway, and parkway. Please state your name for the record. John Shepard. Mr. Shepard, I think you've been here before. I have indeed. All right. So the staff has reviewed your application that you have revised considerably and they recommend approval subject to the standard two conditions. Yes. Yes. All right. Let me read those into the record. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit any changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Yes. Accepted. And number two, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit those changes to the staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board? Questions or comments from the audience? Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 041-50236-H at 236 Clay Avenue, I move we approve the application for the Certificate of Appropriateness with the standard two conditions as have been read into the record. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the CLA has conditions approved. Thank you, Mr. Schepper. Turning now to our next case at 153 West Belcourt. Is the applicant here? Scope of work is change openings. If you would state your name for the record. Nancy Johnson. Ms. Johnson, how are you today? Very well, thank you. I'm doing well. Staff has made a recommended approval. They have one, they have one, what I'll call one substantive condition, that being that the rear window match the size of the other window so as to provide a better opening to assault ratio with the final details to come back to staff. Are we in agreement with that? You are not. No. What we had was an interior door was installed as an exterior door. Okay, I think what we're going to have to do, Ms. Johnson, at this point, let me go through the rest of my docket. Sure. And let me come back, we'll pick this one first up. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. All right. Going now to 241 Delmar Avenue. The applicant here? Or is it Delmar? Delmar. Delmar, I thought so. State your name for the record, please. Matt Schaefer. All right. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions. Have you heard me read those previously? Uh-huh, yes. Are you in agreement with them? I am, yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the staff members, our board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, I think we're ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 054-50241-I at 241 Delmar Avenue, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the standard two conditions that have been acknowledged. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the CLA as conditioned is approved. All right, thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Turning now to 417 Fayette Park Avenue. Come on up. Scope of work in this one is construct addition with a raised patio, construct garage and parking, and there was a construct swimming pool but it has now since been withdrawn. State your name for the record, please. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. Okay, this has been a bit of a moving target for all of us. Yeah, indeed. I am also missing an architect. I'm wondering would you be interested in letting this be converted into a conceptual review? Yes. That would be fine, yeah, and I think given the nature of some of the comments on the garage and some of the elements with the addition, I think getting some feedback would be good. Okay, and I will note that the deadline for approval is now March 15th. Great. All right, we'll come back to you. You'll be the first conceptual review up. All right. Turning now, I have so much paper in front of me, sometimes I have to keep myself straight. Turning now to 247 North Broadway and 202 Morrow Place. Is the applicant here? Jessica Winters here on behalf of the applicant. Let's get you to the microphone first. Okay. And bring it down so you can be heard. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. State your name. Jessica Winters here on behalf of the applicant. Okay. I think they have really worked on the sound system a lot better. It was a good tip to move it down here, but we do have a disagreement, a slight disagreement with the staff's recommendations, and so we were hoping to address those through a presentation. And my practice is I like to go through the entire docket so people don't have to wait if they just have standard approvals. We'll come back to you. You'll be second case up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Turning now to 555 North Broadway, Construct Garage. Applicant here? Good afternoon. State your name for the record, please. Jonathan Hemby. And you're accompanied by? Ryan Bayshore. All right. Mr. Preserver, Mr. Hemby, I think staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions. Have you heard me read them into the record before? Let me read them again. The standard conditions are if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes of staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement with that position? And number two, what's reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement? All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case 02500555-L at 555 North Broadway, I move to that we approve this application for a certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions as noted and accepted. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries and the COA as conditioned is approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, turning to our next application at 106 Goodrich Avenue in the Pensacola Park Avenue Historic District. Scope of work is construct a one-story rear addition applicant. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. William Wood in the homeowner. Mr. Wood. David Westneat. Mr. Westneat. Staff has recommended approval but they've had a couple of what I call substantive conditions. Let me read those into the record. The first one is that all the fosters and soffits shall be furnished in either wood or cemented this board and submit those proposed materials to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Are we in agreement with that? Yes. All right. Number two, provide the final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Yes. All right. And the other two are the standard two conditions. You heard me read them previously. Are we in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board? Questions or comments from my audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, with regard to case number 08-15010 at 106 Goodrich Avenue, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted with the four conditions and recommendations that were made by staff. The first two which were just read into the record and the second two being the standard conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair calls to question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you. Thank you so much. Turning to 121 Lackawanna Road in the Pensacola Park Historic District. Scope of work is demolition outbuilding and extend fence. Good afternoon. State your name. Amanda Meier. Ms. Meier. Staff has recommended, I believe, approval subject to what I call the standard two conditions and also a substantive condition of finish that you need to finish grading the demolition area and see the demolition area to grow new turf. Are you in agreement with that one? Yes. I do believe that there's no slab underneath the garage. I don't know until we start tearing it up, but that is my understanding. But regardless, you will? Yes. Okay. And the other two are what I call the standard two conditions. Let me read them into the record. The first one being once reviewed by the other divisions, resubmitting change to staff for board for approval and approval for review and approval prior to the start of work. Are you in agreement with that? Yes, sir. The second one, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Yes, sir. And the other two are the standard conditions, which I previously read. Any questions or comments about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case 041-50236-F at 121 Lackawanna Road, I move that we approve the application for the certificate of appropriateness as reviewed with the two standard conditions and the one additional condition to finish grade the demolition area and see the demolition area to grow new turf. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. All right. Turning now, returning back to 153 West Belcourt, Ms. Johnson. And what we're going to do, well, let's get up there. Ms. Johnson, what we're going to do is start a, what I call a hearing. And we start that hearing off with Ms. Armstrong giving a review of the staff review of your application and their recommendations. And then I want to hear from you. Okay. This is 153 West Belcourt. So this is the property at 153 West Belcourt. And I'm noting the fact that there are stained glass windows flanking the front door. These are from the Zillow sale that happened a couple of years ago. And if you'll note in the background, this is a picture of the backyard also taken for that time. Obviously not now. And you can see that in the foreground there is a screened in porch with an upper story deck. And the applicant was having some work done to the kitchen and they noted that the screened porch needed some repairs. And the applicant would like to take this time also to reduce or remove the upper story deck. And also this is sort of from the second story, which is a frame addition. There's an addition onto the rear of the structure. And this is the door leading out onto that upper story balcony. And you can see to the side here, oops, there we go. Trying to get this. Oh, there we go. There's the stained glass piece that they would like to use in place of the existing door that's there now. And you can see this is the upper story deck that they want to remove the upper story deck and not have access to the second floor from this deck and just return it to a low slope membrane roof that's above the screened porch. And they would like to put the upper story deck in the screen that stained glass window where the side light and the door is. And this is the second floor. This is the first floor of that deck. And then if you can see, this is a closer look at that porch system. And there's a square door window here. And then the door with the side light and they want to remove the door and put a tall skinny window in that particular location. And here is the site plan that shows that. The only work that's going on really is the repair of the porch and then the replacement of this window. And you can see in the plans the window and then the door and the side light and to remove this piece. This is the existing and this is what they would like to proposals to put back. And then this is sort of a footprint of that. Guidelines are included for your reference. Staff finds the proposal to change the door to the stained glass window requires further consideration. This addition was added and the window and the door were added at the same time. The proposal to change the openings is within the guidelines of 2B1F, which state entrances should be compatible in scale, size, proportion to established patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings. Staff finds the opening should match the size of the existing opening to create a better opening to solid ratio. After further review, the skinny opening does not balance the rear addition and leaves too much siding. The replacement of the screen patio is within the guidelines. Proposal to rebuild the deck and without the upper story deck is within the guidelines. Guidelines 2A, 1A, and B respectively states decks should be located in the rear of the buildings and should be stained or painted to achieve the finished appearance. Staff recommends approval of the construction and the proposal with the following conditions. The rear window match the size of the other window to provide a better opening to solid ratio with final details come back to staff. And the standard 2 conditions. And obviously the applicant is present. Okay, Ms. Armstrong. Any questions for Ms. Armstrong? Ms. Johnson? Here's the issue, and it probably maybe wasn't clear from my application. We had a kitchen that was older than me, and we had to redo it. And when they started gutting it, they realized that the window, the door up above had been leaking for decades. And so we had a whole rotted back wall. I've had that problem. And all the supporting beams to that second story porch, which was very rickety, were rotted. So all of that had to come down. The existing door was an interior door that had been shortened and modified. It's barely seven feet tall. And it's inside of our closet. So the builder, who is V-Mont, said that our contractor said, there is not enough room for a full-size door up there. We can't put in a short door like that because if you look, I mean, the header is right up there, and we can't get the proper slope. It had a very cockeyed gutter, some kind of a thing where we had all kinds of rot. And so it wasn't our choice to lose this deck. We have the deck. We don't have the covered porch. But we just want to put the covered porch back and put the, I tried every which way from Sunday to get my balcony back. And I can't by normal building standards. He said it won't pass code. So. And I'll say, I'll have to acknowledge you have a very handsome looking house. Thank you. It's very nice looking. Thank you. Comments from the board members? Ms. Hill? We're just trying to put back the stained glass. We're trying to put it back and cut that door out because it was a bad door. So this may end up being a staff question. If I'm reading correctly, the windows and doors were added on the second floor at the same time that the addition was added. So this whole back piece, and you can see this line here, this piece coming down this way to this way is actually a frame addition that pops out. So those, I believe that that was all added at the same time because it was sort of, if you can think about, you know, I think that was added at the same time they did the upper story deck. It's very old. It was the original kitchen from back before. Ms. Johnson, you go ahead and speak into the mic. Well, but I think we're saying the same thing in the sense that this addition has been on here for a long time and they added the second story addition onto it and then added those windows with that coming out on that deck at the same time. But that was done prior to the H1 overlay and probably, you know, probably in the 70s or 80s because the way the door construction is. So that door that's in discussion about being changed, being either deleted entirely or being a window that matches the other double hung window, that door is not original. No. Well, original being, as Ms. Johnson said, not great construction because it is sort of, if you look back at the photograph, it is a sort of a truncated door. It's not full scale because you can see the opening. And if you think of this railing height being probably 36 inch rail, that's not a standard door. So what we're suggesting is, and you can see the window that was there now, and you can see, if you can sort of see the window construction is sort of a squatter window. We're not opposed to, within the guidelines, her losing the door window scenario. We're just thinking that maybe it needs to have a, because now there's going to be a lot more fans of citing that that window should be a smaller window matching the existing size of what's there now versus the long, skinny stained glass piece. Or she could add the stained glass piece with the window in the same configurations now. And you're shaking your head, Ms. Johnson, because? That's our closet. So we don't really need a window where we're taking, I mean, I'm sorry. It's our closet. And so a full length window there would be kind of not helpful. It's a very small closet. Is there any way that we could construct something on the outside that makes the appearance of a window without necessarily being a window? Just to give the, what they're looking for is a balance between the solid openings, the solid openings. And so right now that narrow window is looking, quite frankly, a little odd. And so I think what she's trying to come up with is a solution that will give you that appearance again. Not necessarily have an operational window, but some kind of an opening or what looks like an opening to thought. Ms. Kerr? Mic thing. It's always hiding under the apparatuses over here. You could certainly do whatever scale, size, dimensioned opening you wanted to create, even within your closet vicinity, and just have it have like a pair of blind shutters, closed shutters set in it. And it would, from the inside, be your closet, and from the outside there would be this shuttered window. But one quick question I had, and it's not my role, the board's in the midst of their questions, but if the board would be getting clarification and perhaps, are you trying to find a home for the stained glass? The stained glass has been there for 60 years, and it's the exact same size as the stained glass at the front door. The medallion in the center of that is highlighted in our national, our historic, because it was last made in the 20s. So for some, that piece of stained glass has been with that house since the 20s. So it's not like I'm trying to introduce anything new. I'm just trying to move it over. I would still get light in through that, and if we could highlight it around, I just don't see, visually I don't see a window with a long side light dropping down like a tail. That seems silly too. So if I have to make a whole door and put fake shutters up there, I suppose. But I really don't think, I think if you look at it again, there is a little bit of a, I don't think it has to be symmetrical balance. Sometimes you can be asymmetrical, and if we center it correctly and trim around it, better than even it's done there. Because that, I mean, those are pretty, I mean, they don't look that great. We could fix it. You could, of course, just take the opening and fill it with shutters or panels, or we'd have to work that through. But you could leave the actual dimensional situation and just take the door out. Yeah. And a reasonable accommodation to how to close over. And one answer, obviously, well, the staff would be glad to work with you to try to resolve that in whatever manner the board determines would be the way to go. You can see we can't really, yeah, we can't get a door in there. And that's why we have to go to this membrane roof, because. So do we just go back to the planning board and try to come up with some new design? Staff. With staff? Yeah. Ms. Hill, I'm sorry. Ms. Hill, did you? I do. I have a couple more questions here. The stained glass is, when I look at the existing rear elevation and I look at the long, what looks like a side light, is that where the stained glass is going, starting at that edge, opening and over, or is the stained glass actually moving? The stained glass is in there, and it's, as you can see in this picture, photo, it's off on the left side of that door. Right. We could center it with the opening. The opening is still held there. Still got pieces. I mean, you saw from, did you show the, you showed the picture, and you can see, well, that was from before, but right now I have plywood up there. Very cold. So. I'm just wondering if there is a simpler solution than a kind of fake door, but, because there is going to have to be some siding rework. Correct. And that there be a pattern with the siding that creates that kind of scale that we're looking for without pretending there's something there that's being useful. It's really not. There is no siding down below. There is no siding down below because of the rotted wall. They had to pull it all off. So right now it's just Tyvek, and we're waiting on what we're going to do up there before we move forward. And it's hardy board. It's not vinyl. Staff, please. The stained glass certainly should be retained in the house and everything, no question of that. And it's a parlor windows transom, obviously, that would have been running across the top of a first floor parlor window. Well, it's a good question because you didn't miss the picture before where I showed the interior pictures of, this is from the Zillow where they've highlighted the stained glass pieces here. And it's exactly like that. Unless they put it. It can't go horizontal. Yeah. It's too long is what you're saying. Yeah, there could have been. My only thought would be if there was a door on the side leaning out onto the driveway. There's no way. That did occur one time or something that did occur one time. Well, I think instead of trying to resolve this amongst many, if the board wants to give us some direction, the staff would be glad to work with you to get something that will work for you worked out. Okay, well, I'll have to agree with the overall impression. I think that the. The. The. Stain glass opening by itself. It's just too small or too thin. And we need to figure out a way to get a better balance on that backs of elevation. Let me suggest that we continue this case and let you all come up with some other designs. Okay. If we're. Proving the removal of the door or change of the door on the back. Then we could work with her on another proposal. Since she's sort of imminently needing to put signing back up. That won't happen until they put the Johnson. So that's what I was going to say. She's sort of suggesting you have time. You've got time. Okay. Except we do have a deadline for action of February 2nd. Now, you could also just sign an extension with us. All right. Let's do that. It's a no expense on here. We'll work with you. Extension. Thank you. And I'll get a waiver. All right. I have another issue when I say where we're at is we're going to continue this case for further details and then bring it back to whatever meeting is appropriate? Right. It would be the February meeting or? Well, we'll do a 60-day extension to give her the two options of February or March, not because it needs to be March, but just for the sake of good paperwork. Okay. Let's continue it 60 days to roughly March. What is that date? It would be the 18th. March 18th. Is that 19 or 18? Well, it'll be the extension will be from February 2nd. February 2nd. Trust us. We'll take care of that. 60 days. Well, I need a date for my motion. Extend it 60 days from February 2nd. Okay. We'll do it. Ms. Johnson, thank you for working with us. All right. I think we're ready for a motion. I'm sorry. Any questions or comments from the audience? All right. I think we're ready for a motion. To extend the deadline for Board of Architectural Review action. Actually, the motion should be simply to continue this case 60 days. Continue the case for 60 days. Contingent upon her signing a waiver of the deadline. Contingent upon working with the staff to find a resolution. Contingent upon her signing a waiver of the deadline. So moved. All right. Do I have a second? Brack, do I have a second? Brack. Reluctantly second. All right. Thank you, Brack. Any discussion on the motion? Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? I'll say aye for the record. Motion passes. Brack, I take it you're abstaining. Correct. All right. All right. So by a vote of two favorables and one abstention, the motion is passed and we will continue this case for 60 days. All right. Turning now to let's go to 247 Broadway. Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon. State your name again for the record, please. Thank you. Yes. I'm Jessica Winters. I'm an attorney here in Lexington. Which is fine. And I'm here on behalf of my clients, Michael Tuttle and Vito Mikauskas, to provide you with additional information in support of their request. And, Ms. Winters, I'm going to stop you right there. Okay. A normal procedure, as you know, is let me have the staff do the presentation. I'll let you make your opening statement after that. Okay. Sure. Thank you, Ms. Winters. Thanks. So this is the front of 247 North Broadway. And it has an additional address now of 202 Memorial Place. And we'll go through some photos. This is obviously taken on a less snowy day. And this is the back of 247 that Mr. Tuttle has been working to remodel and is in use. And this is the carriage house. We've had conceptual view already on this and some other discussions. And this just sort of reminds you of this carriage house. According to the sandboard's maps, it has an era of 1870. I'll give you a little bit more detail here. So this is the front facing Broadway. And then this is the side facing the driveway coming into that. Oops. Gone too far. Hold on. And then you can see it's got masonry with these engaged pilasters, the engaged chimney. And then this is the back. This address now is 202 Memorial Place. And as you can see, the important bit to remember is that there's this concrete sort of divot right here that creates some water issues that they're addressing. And while we're on the subject there, this area here was open. This was the original carriage door. And you can sort of see the modeling detail of the change in brick where this is sort of one of the proposals now. And then sort of looking down El Morro Alley, looking at 247 North Broadway plus the carriage house. And some more detail. This is the proposal, the garage door that has been closed in, that's proposed to be opened up. And then this has been, of course, a lot of parking already in place. And the proposal for this new addition will be going on top of the existing asphalt. And there will be a connector. And the important bit here is the fact that there are two engaged pilasters on the door. And then this window right here will change from a window into a door. And you can see the rake line in this door scenario. Because this will be the proposed attachment piece to the garage apartment structure. So, again, here's a site plan to see here. And then this is the existing paving. This is a proposal with the connector and the proposed garage. This is sort of a side view of the heights of everything. I would make note that this number here is now 20. The new proposal has been brought down to 20 and not 22. And then here's another site plan where the green is all along this stretch. And then this is the new proposal. And then this is the north elevation. It shows the connector, the glass connector with a low-pitched roof. And then the roof here with the two balconies. Again, side lights, balcony. This is a garage door for a two-car garage door and a pedestrian man door. In this particular location and in this location. And then this is the elevation, the proposed east elevation that faces the structure. And so the ‑‑ and we'll look at a section here. The roof closest to the connector will be a 612 roof. And then this changes down to a lower slope roof with a little bit of a parapet here. And then this is actually on the second floor a balcony as well as this balcony jutting out. And this roof sort of has now an asymmetric gable with the north side being a 612 and then part of the other side being a 312 and a 612. And then an important note over here. Oops, let me go back. This opening we talked about when we looked at the masonry structure, this is now a jutted out base. They did not bring this all the way down due to the water issue. And this will be panels below with windows above with a little eyebrow roof in this particular location. And above you can sort of see the existing locations or the existing structure. This is the first floor plan that shows the connector and then the garage below. Again, this is the second floor plan. And so it notes that there's a suspension bridge, you know, so the vestibule will be the two‑story glass connector with the vestibule walkway. There's an apartment below and then a den space with the two balconies and the stairs leading down to that pedestrian door we saw on the south elevation. And then, again, this is just the second floor and the first floor of the existing carriage house. This is sort of a footing foundation plan. And then it's important to look at these sections. So this would be the connector piece in this particular location. And if you can see, there's engaged pilasters here. And so our concern is the connector piece that would attach to the rake line and help us encapsulate all of this masonry, including the door and the entrance below. And then this is the section through the 612 roof line and the asymmetric roof line. And this shows the section of the apartments with the little parapet here and the balcony over top of that with a two‑car garage. And the framing plan. And then this is a roof plan that sort of gives you a better location of all of these different challenges. So you have along this stretch, the 612, this being a one‑fourth over 12 because this is the low pitch over the balcony and this also being a 612 pitch and this being going back to a 312 on this side for the gable. And the guidelines are included for your reference. The proposal to construct a glass connector, two‑car, two‑story garage addition to an existing historic structure house or carriage house requires more discussion. The main issue is with the proposal that doesn't meet the guidelines. It's the connector to the garage addition to the main carriage house. The proposal calls for a glass enclosure that envelops the center elevation of the historic carriage house from the floor to the eave line to the main gable roof and the existing gage pilasters flanking the main structure. With the attachment, the proposed connector does not provide, it does provide an area void. The glass connector encompasses approximately 12 by 12. It consumes the architectural features in the main entrance. And the design principles state architectural detail is a major component in defining a building's character and style. Historic architectural detail should be preserved and maintained. The glass connector should be reduced to the width of the door and not to encompass the engaged pilasters. In addition, the glass connector is proposed to attach to the breakboard of the cornice. It should step below the cornice and not to encapsulate the breakboard, which is part of the original fabric of the structure. In addition, retro addition staff finds proposed construction of the two‑story carriage house additions within the guidelines. The new roof line is much more compatible. It does not overwhelm the original carriage house or the structure. The design principle of the outbuilding states design principles and accessory buildings serve as a variety of proposals, and many include but not limited to garages, carports, and sheds. New accessory buildings should be compatible in design, shape, materials, roof shape with other secondary buildings along the block and within the historic district. New accessory buildings should be simpler in design and smaller in scale and the principal buildings should be appropriate and not overwhelm the site. The carriage house was built in the 1870s and has the significance as its main structure, and any addition should not overwhelm the structure or the design and give a building character and scale. Details should be appropriately scaled for the proposed structure and other adjacent buildings and districts. Installation of ornament building of imitation history and appearance is not allowed. I think I've seen something. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the following condition. The glass connector should step in on the north and south sides not to encapsulate all of the masonry elements around the door. Also, the glass connector should step down not to encapsulate the break board. The original building with the final details being brought back to staff or board and once reviewed by other LPC divisions. And, of course, these are standard two conditions. So does anybody have any questions? Okay. Go ahead. Is the overall size, and that is footprint height of the addition, the same as it was on the first proposal that we saw? No. Has it been changed? The size is about the same as far as the footprint, but the scale of the structure has been brought down quite a bit. Before, if you remember, there was sort of a tootch that sort of rose up closest to the building. Correct. And now what we've done is everything is now at a lower scale at its same height as existing, so it doesn't overwhelm. And before, I think the glass connector roof was a little higher. They've brought that down. So now you sort of have a telescope structure that's sort of skinnier than, of course, the proposed garage addition, and then that's been brought down. So the scale is everything is much smaller than it was once you saw it before. Is this one residence or two? I'm going to let Mr. Tuttle or Ms. Winters answer that question. Okay. I believe it actually is one structure. All right. With regard to any new design, does the board staff have any review of new construction With regard to windows and light, I'm noticing that the new structure has no windows on one side at all. Right. So do you all have any purview over that or review of that? We do actually have purview over that. And I believe, I think the one reason that we didn't address a lot of that is because we're also looking at the opening to solid void of the structure and the push and play of the wall system. And I believe we're looking at the north side you're having discussion about. And if you're looking at the overall new construction of the vestibule, which is all glass, to the new structure, we do find that there is enough glass in that particular area. If this is the elevation you're concerned with that has little windows. Right. The front end, the back, but that's fine. Thank you. Yes. I mean, obviously, if the board feels they need to have more windows, then certainly they can talk to the applicants about that. Thank you. Okay. One quick question. I'm just curious. With this being a glass enclosure, would not the architectural features still be visible? They would be. Okay. But once it's enclosed, that means they can do whatever they want inside. And so these people may not want to remove those architectural elements, but future down the road, if they decide to sell it, then there's no control for staff to have any control. Once we can see it, they still can take all those elements out. So your concern is that jurisdictionally you would lose the ability to prevent any subsequent owner from removing those filesters, right? That's correct. Is that your concern? Okay. So the remedy is to make it narrower so that the pilasters are not incorporated? Correct. All right. And also bringing off that roof line. Yeah, I understand that. That's a different issue. Right. Okay. Ms. Hill, anything? Just one quick question. Is there no concern that those pilasters actually have, given the height of this brick structure, that they have some structural requirements, and thus they wouldn't tend to be touched because they're incorporated into that wall already? Right. But I think we're always just concerned about losing any kind of architectural elements. And, of course, people could put in, you know, metal I-beams and stuff like that and float that roof over there and obliterate some of those kinds of things. So we're always thinking ahead of time. All right. Okay. Anything else, Ms. Hill? All right. Ms. Winters, thank you for your patience, but this is our normal procedure. Staff's presentation and all their hard work on this case. I just want to ñ I have a little PowerPoint presentation for you guys. I hope you don't mind. Not at all. And is this the little circle button on here, Amelia? Is that the one for the spotlight? I've never ñ okay. Thank you. I've never used that feature. Now, let me point out to you, if she shows there, we'll show back there. Yep. Oh, will we? Oh, my goodness. We've improved. Okay. I feel like there's a different pointer every time I come in here. I hope I know how to use it correctly. All right. Okay. As I already introduced myself, I'm Jessica Winters. I'm here on behalf of Michael and Vito on this application. And they're basically asking for a COA to construct an addition and some bay windows on the carriage house at 202 Morrow Place, which is located at the rear of the historic property at 247 North Broadway. I want to say thank you again to the staff for their excellent presentation and for working with us as we've worked together quite a good deal in the past few months to get this application to a place where the staff is by and large in support. So we don't really have that much to talk about today. But I wanted to introduce you guys to Michael and Vito because they have worked tirelessly in Lexington over several decades with regard to historic preservation. And he's renovated and preserved historic structures here throughout the years beginning, I think, in the 80s. He was recognized back then by the Herald-Leader and the Kentucky Secretary of State for his historic preservation efforts. And his projects have been featured in the Herald-Leader and in Southern Living. Michael and Vito lived elsewhere for some time, but they've returned to Lexington to make it their home once more. And in doing so, I think it's really important to consider that they've continued to purchase, renovate, and preserve historic structures in our downtown neighborhoods. They currently own properties at 247 North Broadway. Oh, I'm just going to let you see that. 255 North Broadway, 412 West 3rd, which was actually previously neglected and in need of serious repair. And they have saved that house. 633 West Main, and then 603 Morrow Place that you can see there, is another historic carriage house on the same street as 202 Morrow Place, which we'll be discussing today. And I just wanted to highlight their efforts with historic preservation and renovation so that you can see from these photos that their preservation work is context sensitive and is not destructive of the historical characteristics or integrity of these significant structures. In fact, they've never had to be here before. And that is the reason. You've seen this project before, and we're going to talk about that in a minute. But the reason I'm here is because once they realized that they were going to need to go through quite a significant administrative process to get their final approval for this project, they asked me to help them through the process, which is what I've been doing for the last little bit. So we're not here in an adversarial role, but just so I can more eloquently, or I don't know about that. But attempt to more eloquently explain the process and what we've been doing to work on this project. Mike and Vito are very heavily invested in this community and deeply value preserving our historic places. And we are here today to talk about the property at 247 North Broadway, which just looks so pretty in the snow. And specifically the carriage house at its rear. You've seen this project before, as I just mentioned, in a prior application that was brought to you in 2024. At that time, the property was split zoned with 247 North Broadway was zoned R4. And the carriage house behind it was zoned R2. And when you previously considered it, there were concerns that the zoning of the property was not appropriate for the project. And so you recommended that Mike and Vito work with the division of planning to obtain the necessary approvals and variances that might be necessary from that division and the board of adjustment. And that's where I came in to help them with that process. We worked closely with the planning staff, and on September 9th, 2024, they obtained staff and BOA approval to extend the regulations of the R4 zoned portion of the lot belonging to the main house back to the carriage house. And they also obtained a variance to reduce the required project exterior yard from 20 feet to zero feet just along Morrow Place. So we're now R4 throughout the entire property? Yes, sir. Exactly. And as a result, this property comes back to you with appropriate R4 zoning, extending to the carriage house, and with the approved exterior yard allowances. But an important piece of that is that in extending the R4 zoning to the carriage house, the BOA said that that project, with the addition on the carriage house, had to include two residential units to have the R4 extend back. So I think previously, maybe the project only called for one apartment, but they were told by the BOA to get the zoning that they needed that they had to incorporate two residential units. So then, we were back to the drawing board with historic preservation. This is another picture of 247. And the next step was for Mike Vito to work with staff in the office of historic preservation to obtain a recommendation of approval for their project. And the staff expressed discomfort with the original height and roof line of the proposed addition to the carriage house. And actually issued a staff report recommending denial of the project, which was originally set to be heard by this board on November 20th. And when we found out about these concerns, rather than moving forward with the application in spite of their concerns, we decided to postpone the application and the board's consideration of the project so we could continue working with the staff to find a mutually acceptable resolution. And so I met with the staff, Mike and Vito, I've had conversations with the staff. We've submitted several revised plans, we've made significant changes to the project based on staff input. And we ended up actually submitting a new application for the project in December. Just because of the amount of time all that negotiation and discussion took. And the significant changes to the roof line and the height and the scale, as Amelia was indicating. So the new application actually reflects a design that lowers the height of the addition, changes the roof line shape entirely to reflect a design that the historic preservation staff was more comfortable. Would fit in with the architectural style of nearby properties and other similar carriage house renovations in the area. It's actually very similar to one that's just a couple doors down. And so we obtained the staff report on the project yesterday and we're thrilled that the staff can now recommend approval of the project with a few conditions. My clients have invested a significant amount of time and financial resources into this project. And have worked hard to understand and adjust to the concerns of staff and their feedback in the division of planning. And this project now, as you see it today, reflects the result of that work and the multiple compromises and adjustments that were made along the way. While my clients are in agreement with a portion of the conditions recommended by staff, I'm here today to discuss with you the one item where we're asking for something that's slightly different than what's being suggested by staff. To orient you on this particular property, we just saw the pictures of 247 North Broadway. And that building here, just to back up, sir, wrong way. Hang on, I don't know what I'm doing, sorry. It never fails. I'm trying to get to the slide that shows just the picture of the house. Thank you, I don't know, I got backward here. Thank you. Okay, yeah, that's it. Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay, and it used to house a law office. It was constructed as a residence and then it was used as a law office. Mike and Vito have actually taken this back to our residential use, and it now has five residential units. So that's really helping with our need for housing in the downtown core, and it's a project that involves infill for residents. So, and then the carriage house actually fronts Morrow Place. This is the side of the carriage house that faces the back of 247 North Broadway. It was built in the 1870s, it's one and a half stories. And it has dimensions, and this is important because you can't really tell from this picture, of 52 feet by 32 feet. So it's quite large, it has an apartment already, and the former entrance to the carriage house is off of Morrow Alley. And that's where the carriage house doors were, where the carriages would come in. And as Amelia previously mentioned, that was actually bricked in by a prior owner. So it is right now just an old carriage door that's been bricked in and turned into some windows there. And over the years, this structure has been used as residential and retail. And so this slide, I like this slide here because you can see the pilasters, or pilasters. You see the door, and then the pilasters are directly on either side of the door there, okay? But what's important to note is that those actually continue around the entire perimeter of the carriage house. We counted them, and there are 16 of those around the perimeter. So, and we'll get to this in a minute, but if the glass atrium encloses these two, there are still 14 of those around the perimeter of the house that will show the architectural element of the carriage house, and will not be enclosed or removed in connection with the project. They're going to construct, they've asked to construct a connector and a garage on the east side of the outbuilding, and to construct a bay of windows on the west side of the carriage building. Which you can see here, the atrium and the addition. In this, I like this image because it shows the scale of the addition in relation to both the main house and then the carriage house itself. And you can see the carriage house is the large block in the rear there, and then the addition you can see is about half the size of that carriage house. And maybe a third or fourth of the size of the initial main residence there. It'll be located in an existing parking area, so we're not taking up green space on the site with this project. And you can visualize from this image the size and scale in relation to the main residence. The staff report finds that the construction of the two car garage addition is actually within the guidelines. So that's a good place to be here. And that the proposed new roof line is compatible with the guidelines and doesn't overwhelm the original carriage house structure. So with regard to the bay windows along Morrow Alley, which you can see those right there. So that's just transforming that bricked up former carriage door to this bay window that kind of harkens back to some of the architectural elements you might see in carriage house doors. That was the intention with this bay window. And the staff finds that it will restore architectural detail that will help establish balance, rhythm, and emphasis in the structure in keeping with other historic structures in the nearby vicinity of the carriage house. And the staff has recommended approval of that portion of the project as well. The only area of disagreement between the staff and the clients relates to the proposed glassed vestibule connecting the addition to the carriage house. The staff suggests that the 12 by 12 vestibule step down so as not to encapsulate the rate board of the original building. And staff also suggests that the vestibule step in on the north and south side, as in making it more narrow, so that it doesn't encapsulate the masonry pilasters near the door at the rear of the structure. And the clients are actually in agreement with the staff's suggestion that the step down should occur. So we are happy to comply with that condition. Mike and Vito are willing to step down the vestibule's roof line and will agree to bring it down so as not to encapsulate the rake board of the original building. What we're requesting, however, is that the board approve their project with the original dimensions of the proposed glass atrium connector. Which will encapsulate only two of the 16 masonry pilasters on the structure. In other words, there would be over a dozen remaining pilasters around the perimeter of the building. And we're here to talk to you today about why we want to ask for this as our one area where we're asking you to do something slightly different than the staff. We respect their work and their recommendation on the case, but since we reached a point where we couldn't reach an agreement on this issue with staff after much conversation, we all decided that it would be best just to bring it to the board and let you all decide what we should do here. And as you can see on the picture I previously highlighted to you, they're very near to the door. And bringing in the atrium so that the pilasters are exposed will actually result in a significant narrowing of the connector that would essentially obliterate the connected feeling of the project and would render the proposed floating bridge connecting the upper floors of the carriage house an impossibility or something that is much more difficult to do. It's important to bear in mind that although the plans called for encapsulating the pilasters with the glass atrium as you pointed out earlier, the plans don't call for removing them. In fact, the pilasters are by definition structural masonry components of the building and removing them would be impossible, they are a part of the structure. Why do you say that? Well, they're a part of the structure and so removing them would involve a structural change to the building that is not possible within the confines of this current project and is not planned with the current project. Do you have any documentation for that other than what seems to be common sense? Oh, I'm looking at the definition of- They're built into the masonry. Okay. Yes. They're like buttresses. Yes. They're not going anywhere. So if the removal of the buttresses would actually affect the overall integrity of the building, correct? Exactly. Thank you. And I found that, I believe- They've never been proposing to remove any of the- Well, I think you weren't in the room when we got into the conversation about visibility and the concern that the staff had that those pilasters could be changed or altered if they were in the enclosure. At one point, there was dialogue about the fact that once something becomes an interior- Right, exactly. Element, that it is no longer in the purview of this process. But in this instance, short of them, and they could, I guess you could make other structural arrangements by putting a big piece of steel or something across the top and- Why would you? Blow out this opening to drive your 18-wheeler through. But it, and yes, it would be outside of our jurisdiction, ours being the H1 overlay process. So that was the only justification I was hearing for why we were concerned about why we were trying to leave them outside. Is there any other reason why we're wanting to narrow it? Well, mostly, I don't mean to interrupt your presentation. You're not at all. Well, I did, so let me- No, that's why you're here. Well, he's the chair, and I'm not. The key thing is to have the connection to the building be as less intrusive as possible. And by narrowing it and leaving those architectural elements in their experience of still being outside and experienced from the outside versus inside a glassed-in space, it just has more integrity in the protection of the architectural character of the building. Now that we got clarification, we'll come back to that issue later. Ms. Winter, as long as you continue. Okay, thank you, and thank you for your insight. And we, guidelines definitely state that architectural detailing is a major component of a building's character and style and should be preserved, and we agree. And we are submitting to you that the glass atrium that still allows the pilasters to be seen from the outside, and that the plan doesn't incorporate any effort to remove them, is a nice compromise there. That still allows the glass atrium to be wide enough to be used in connection with the project. I think a telling statistic, if you will, to me, is the fact that the exterior of the carriage house consists of a total of 170 linear feet. If you count up the distance of each side of the building, there's 170 linear feet. The glass atrium, as planned, is only 12 feet wide. It's less than 10% of the exterior of the historic structure and its glass. And if you look at some of the other additions that the board has approved over the years in H1, and I know those are not precedent and can't be used as authority here before you, but it highlights the fact that, yes, and this shows what a small percentage that the atrium is on the overall linear exterior of the carriage house, which is on the left. And then you see the little atrium there. Think about what that would look like if that was narrowed by another six feet. It would basically just be this super skinny, three foot wide hallway to the addition that would really interfere with the cohesive nature of the plans for this. The nature of, and here's another example of a glass atrium that was actually used on a project on Mill Street, right near my office. This atrium was used to connect two historic buildings. And in the atrium, it's the width of the house, or at least a significant width of the house. And there's a kitchen constructed in this middle space that you can see as you're walking down the road. And the, mm-hm. That's on South Broadway, isn't it? It's on Mill Street, actually, but it is on South Broadway, like on the South Broadway. I think it would be part of the South Hill Historic Neighborhood. I pass by it every day on my way to work, and it actually looks great. It does allow a lot of the original architectural features of the house to continue to be seen from the sidewalk. The project, just as a reminder, is an addition to the Carriage House, okay? By the very nature of building an addition onto a structure, some portion of its exterior is going to be obscured, okay? In other projects in each one district, additions to historic structures have obscured entire elevations and exterior walls of the structure, like this one here. Also in an H1 overlay, as you can see, this addition obscures the entire rear wall of the historic structure such that none of the architectural details on the rear wall of that building remain. This plan calls for obscuring less than 10%. Here's another example where a significant portion of the rear of a historic structure was obscured. We want to preserve the architectural details. We're just looking for a compromise that allows them to have an overall flow for the project that makes sense and that actually maintains a pleasant eye appeal. And so the current plans with the connector at its current 12-foot width creates a cohesive feel for the project without overwhelming the original structure. And bringing the atrium in by several feet on either side would destroy the visual flow for the project. So we ask that you approve it as recommended by the staff. But allowing for the connecting glass atrium to remain at its planned 12-foot width. And my clients are also in agreement and willing to comply with the other kind of- So do you have any suggested findings that we should make with respect to not accepting the staff recommendation? Yes, actually- I figured you might. I should have distributed these to you. Yes, that would have been helpful. We are in line with the staff recommendation. So the motion could be to approve the application in accordance with the staff recommendation. But then when you're looking at the staff report, do you all have the staff report with you there? You would just eliminate the first condition. So it would be, well actually not even the full first condition. Yeah, the first sentence of the first condition would just be stricken and the rest of the recommendation would be as it's written. And what I'm getting at, Ms. Winter, is if we decide to strike that condition, do you have a finding for why we're saying it does not conform to the guidelines? Sure, I think an appropriate finding would be that the glass atrium as proposed still allows visually for the preservation of architectural elements. And that there are a significant number of the same architectural element around the exterior of the building that are all being preserved. So we're not fully eliminating a particular architectural element of the carriage house. All right, thank you. Thank you. Any questions for, hang on, Ms. Winter? I'm sorry. Any questions? Okay, I'm sorry, I thought Ms. Hill had a question. I do. Go ahead. First of all, thank you. And your client for their staying with this process. I think the volume of the addition has gotten much better, the scale of it, the relationship on the site. And you've done a masterful job of going through how we've gotten to where we are right now. And so my comments are probably both in response to your presentation, but they're also to the staff. And it is, there's nowhere that I know of that specifically states you enclose things to prevent, that you don't allow things to be enclosed to prevent them from being, in some deep future we don't know about, them being changed. And given that they are integral structural pilasters, it seems highly unlikely that that would ever occur. And so my interest is actually in protecting those historic features. And in some ways, to enclose them, given their age, gives more long-term protection to them from weather, from ice, from what we've all endured the last two and a half weeks. And it is a question about that kind of visual clarity as you look through the connector piece of, it appears to me that the reason for where that glass storefront is, is kind of just between the edge of the pilaster and the edge of the window. It's kind of halfway in between. So there, and getting it, it potentially could be moved in a little bit. I don't know that there's anything, except that means that it moves off of the addition itself, then it steps in off of that corner of the addition, which is probably certainly not an architectural feature that I think anyone's concerned about. So I, both for the protection of the historic feature and to give those pilasters the visual and physical separation to highlight those features, I'm comfortable with the removal of that initial sentence in item number one. Any questions? No. I've struggled, you may say, I've struggled with this one a little bit and I was actually wondering if we needed to have some kind of a covenant built into the, a restrictive covenant put into the deed that may be stating the obvious that, you know, you can't remove those pilasters. This is lawyer talk. So, you know, I'm not a property attorney per se, so I'm not sure, but I think you just, if we're really concerned about this, we possibly could add a condition as adding in a request that you do a restrictive covenant. We have no problem with that. After going through the BOA and what we had to go through with them regarding the project. I understand. That's not a problem. Well, I'm not sure I want to add that as a condition, but I think that's certainly, Ms. Winters, something that you could easily draft and be an easy restricted covenant that simply says to any subsequent owner, the pilasters, you can't muck with them. I know that's a good legal term there, but. No, and I wish that those types of restrictive covenants were used more in the area of historic preservation. And I can certainly help draft that if the board would like to see that happen. We're not going to add it as a formal condition, but I want to take your word for it, ma'am. Hearing my reactions to it, especially why I asked the question about the visual losing it, that you're not losing it because you do have the glass wall. Frankly, even though they're now encapsulated, the structure still reads as a carriage house. I mean, we've not lost any architectural. Do you disagree with me on that? We have not lost any architectural significance with the enclosure of these two pilasters. So I'm also in agreement that I think we can go ahead and strike that first sentence. I think the finding is basically that the concern is the covering of these pilasters is not a violation of the design guideline that we're in charge to enforce. So that's my last comment on it. Is there any further comments? Any comments from the audience? I believe we're ready for a motion. Ms. Hill, I'm going to let you take the lead, please. Ms. Winter, thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your patience. All right. All right, try for it. Chair, per case 02500247-Q at 247 North Broadway and 202 Morrow Place, I move that we approve the application for the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. One is that the glass connector shall step down to not encapsulate the rake board of the original building and to submit the final details to the staffer board for review and approval. And number two and three, the standard two conditions. With respect to your suggested finding or the condition, would it read better shall step down so as not to encapsulate? I don't know why that's been bothering me, but it bothers me that we don't have that little proposition. And I need a finding from you as to why we're taking out that first condition or changing it. So removing as part of the first condition that the glass connector shall step in on the north and south sides not to encapsulate all of the masonry elements around the door. The enclosure of these pilasters is not in violation of our guidelines. All right. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion passes as conditioned. And thank you for your presentation. All right. And again, we have come a long way. So I really do want to thank both of you for the cooperation that you have shown and the dedication you have shown in past projects to historic preservation in Lexington. It's much appreciated. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to rearrange the schedule just a hair. I would like to go ahead and pick up attachment B, the 1851 Nicholasville Road. Mr. Gibson's got both of the other two conceptual reviews. Darren, if you don't mind, I'm going to change the agenda a little bit. Okay. Mr. Fetters, come on up. All right. We're going to take a five-minute break. Sorry. We're old men. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 1851 Nicholasville Road. Okay. I'm going to, Mr. Edwards is able to bring up the plans. Here we go. I'm going to orient you a little bit because this is a very interesting structure and property. So this structure sits pretty far back from the road. These are taken from Zillow. So you can see this is actually off of Nicholasville Road between Pinmochan and Wabash. And I'm just walking down the drive. This is the front of the structure. And we are not quite sure how the bay of windows received paneling below, but it has. And the entrance to this structure is actually where this porch is right here. The entrance is sort of on the side. And this is sort of walking around, showing that there's quite a bit of concrete back here. You can sort of see the additions that are here. We've got one way back here. We've got this part of the main structure. And this is a corner of the side of the structure. And then sort of a garage that's got a hodgepodge of board and batten and paneling and more modern garage doors. And sort of in the back of the structure, you can sort of see the garage where you have sort of more modern material on the sides. There is this sort of quasi-retaining wall back here. And then again... Is the garage original to the property? It is original to the property, but I think it's been expanded a little bit. What shape is it in? Huh? What shape is it in? It's a little rough. I'm not going to say it's not. Because it does have... It unfortunately receives some paneling on the sides. It's sort of wicked up and sort of it's deteriorating from the sides. The front looks a little better than the sides do. This is actually the entrance to the structure. Really? Which is sort of on the side. And there's sort of a chimney. Has that been changed from its original, or has that always been the original opening? I think we're not quite sure about that, but it's been the entrance for a very long time. All right. And then in this little add-on room that actually I think looks like it's been original or actually been filled in, we have this chimney, which is the main focal point of that structure inside. And then on the back side, you have glass block here and then a side entrance. But a lot of that is, I think, original, and I think some of it has just sort of been filled in many, many, many years ago. And then this is the back side of the structure. You can sort of see the glass block, but you can also see this little tooch to enter into the structure. So it looks like maybe it was used as multiple apartments or maybe another apartment at one time or a second entrance. And then also a little utility closet. And then this addition is added on, but it protrudes past sort of going south beyond the plane of the structure. A little bit more of those. And then you can sort of see the mixed material here on the garage. And you can sort of see how this addition we just looked at sort of protrudes back. So part of what we'll see, just note that part of the proposal would be have an addition sort of come closer, but not all the way to fill in this void on this side. Here again is an addition. You can sort of see the character of the structure being very sort of lower to the ground, not extremely high structure. And this is sort of looking towards the front, towards Nicholson Road, and again looking back at that structure. And then the proposed plans, when you read this, up here, this is actually Nicholson Road. At the top, this is the existing kitchen addition that we just looked at. It has a bath, and then we looked at this angle here with the two windows here and that little, the door entering into the existing structure here. And this is the second floor plan. And then the existing front elevation. And again, and then this is the proposed addition. Again, up here is the front of the structure. And then the proposal would be to bring this forward and also keep this piece back here, where this is original right here, of the later addition structure, I would say, and then to widen this out on the first floor, and the second floor doing the same, coming out and bringing up, putting additional three bedrooms and a bath upstairs. And these aren't showing as clearly on the screen, but you have them at your place at the front elevation and then the back elevation, inside, and then the opposite side. Guidelines are included for your reference. As this is a conceptual review, there's no findings at this time, but there's some questions to be asked. Is the proposed new addition compatible with the characteristics of the Pensacola Park Historic District? Does the addition overwhelm the existing structure? Does the historic structure and the two additions, meaning the one in the back and the one on the side, cover too much lot? Does the roof form of the proposed addition relate in form, pitch materials to the roofs of the historic structure, adjacent and surrounding buildings? Is the proposed addition roof compatible with the existing structure? Are the openings of the proposed addition compatible in scale, size, proportion to establish patterns of openings in adjacent and surrounding buildings? Are the proposed materials and details compatible with the existing structure and adjacent structures? Is the design in keeping the historic structure? Does it create a false sense of history? Are the windows and doors compatible with the existing structure? Is the volume mass form of the addition consistent with the streetscape? And of course, there's no recommendations and there's no deadline for production. And Mr. Fetters is here to answer questions. Okay, Mr. Fetters, tell us about your project. I appreciate you guys moving me around and appreciate what you guys do. My name's Albert Fetters. I'm a general contractor in northern Kentucky and Newport, Kentucky, so a little north of you guys. I've been doing this for about 30 years. I've done a lot of historical reservations in Cincinnati and Covington, Newport, Bellevue, downtown Cincinnati, OTR and whatnot. I went to school in the U.K. So the nice thing about this property, as Amelia said, is it sits way off the road on Nicholsville. It's a pretty sizable lot, which is nice. Trying to do all your guidelines and not making the house overwhelm the structure, the one reason why we brought that. I don't know if I should be able to go back. Your pictures are at the beginning. You can see the front here. I'm going to try this. The reason we brought this up is to try to do symmetrical to this side, is to try to bring that. That back addition, whoever put that on, it's pretty poor construction. The floor is really wavy and whatnot. I will bring up another here. If you look at this, somebody came in and cut down all the trees. This tree here, which is probably good they tore it down, that room has a big bow in the wall. The tree was growing into the wall and it's bowed. Just to cut to chase, would it be easier just to take off that addition and build a new? Or are you trying to work with that existing addition? I'm trying to work on your guidelines. Amelia helped me with your guidelines a little bit. Originally we didn't have it bumped out up to the front. We just used that addition in the back. I think Amelia and I both decided, hey, let's bring it symmetrical to the front so it's sitting there. What I'm trying to do is get the space in the house without hurting the house. Does that make sense? Yes. We talked about materials and whatnot. We talked about, I usually use, I got sun windows. I have a heritage that built windows for me. I have two carpenters can. I forget the name of the windows you and I decided on when we were there. I forget, but it's written on the plans. But plan on putting historical windows in, treating it historically. The front door, you asked that question earlier. I think that's probably where it was. It's not the original front door. I will look at trying to find a historical front door to kind of match this era. I did not, shame on me, Ms. Before, I should have brought some pictures of some projects I have. I've done a couple of projects with this yellow brick. When I put that addition on, I could take some of that off and reuse it elsewhere to try to do that. Because it would be encapsulated. I did it down at Covington. So I just did a major renovation down there that a historical house burnt down and put back. Same sort of architecture outside. A little different, a little flair, but the same color brick. Almost identical brick, which is kind of crazy. But to your point, the front door, not sure. This little sunroom here, we plan on keeping. Not trying to change. I'm going to go in there and, you know, baseboards are going to match the baseboards. Try to keep everything the same. Hardwood throughout. But the roof line was a little issue. We had, you know, roof line. I'm trying to keep it a foot below the existing roof so you don't see it in the back when you're looking at Nicholsville. But I needed to do a flat roof because of the height. I think I got that worked out with the eyebrows and stuff we put on the, when I go to the drawings here. This isn't as good as it. But you can see here how we kind of brought this down. This is a little fake, like a little eyebrow here. And then we did little eyebrows over the windows just to break that up. So we wanted to get some character, I guess you could say, instead of having a flat. But we struggled with that because of the height and the height of the windows and whatnot. It was a little bit of a challenge. But I think we have a pretty good plan. But I think my goal tonight is to see if this is possible. See if you guys, you know, it doesn't say, you know, the footprint, you know, what size. You know, you can't double the, you know, what's the percentage. I will say the lot is, I don't think the building, if you go back to the original picture, the building structure I'm adding on the back is less than the concrete outside where that little retaining wall was. If you go to that, if you measure that, I'm really, I'm about a foot away from that where that retaining wall. So I'm not, again, I'm not taking any green space. It's going to there. I am fine with keeping the little shed if you want it out back. But, you know, the little garage. As Amelia said, it's in pretty rough shape. So we plan on taking it down. Is it a shed or a garage? It was an old, I guess I call it a shed because it's just almost like a pole barn, the framing inside. Okay. It's, you know, it's not built like a garage, but it does have a garage door on it. It's in pretty good shape. But it probably was an old, might have been an old carriage house or an old garage, what have you, back in the day. I think it was on the, I think you said it was on the sandboard map. Do you know the age of this house? When was it built? I don't know the exact year. I apologize for that. I don't know if you know that. I'm guessing 1950s, but. I'm sorry? I'm guessing 1950s. Yeah, somewhere around there. Okay. Jim, you've got the survey form in your. Say what? You've got the survey form with you. One more time. The survey form that tells the date. I believe it's earlier than that. Okay, thank you. That's right. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I see what you're saying. Yeah, you're right. Okay. Yeah, I am not. Unfortunately, Amelia has worked pretty hard with me. This property came about in probably, I want to say late November, sometime in November. So I rushed to get some sort of conceptual drawings done. So I could get on this docket to get here. What I'm trying to do is make sure this is feasible before I purchase the property. I haven't purchased the property. Oh, okay. What I don't want to do is purchase the property and say, hey, I want to go forward and this is what I want to do. That's my goal here is to say, hey, conceptually, do you. I mean, obviously we've got a lot of things to work out material wise and stuff like that. But conceptually, do you guys see any issues with it? You know, if you do see issues, what issues do you see that I can have, maybe I can have remedy before your next meeting so I can go and I can have drawings done and say here's what I want to do. But this is obviously a conceptual review. But it gives you pretty much what I want to do. So I've done, if you look at my firm, we've done a lot of historical reservations. To putting, I own a 1800, I own a Newport car barn. It was the old trolley car, street cars in northern Kentucky. I've been converting that. I just got a historical preservation award for 722 Scott Street in Covington. But I did a monarch building. I put two stories on top of an 1800 building and a four story next to it. And right by the suspension bridge. So I've done a mixture. I did the flat iron building at the top of Sycamore and Cincinnati. But I've done, so I'm used to this. I have 30 carpenters in-house. So we do a lot of self-performing work. Like I said, there's a lot of issues inside. The windows, you know, the existing windows I plan on reusing. But there's a lot of work to do. Two or three of them are not even, you know, there's gaps. You saw from the picture. She has, there's gutters. It's hanging down. I don't know how long the house has been sitting vacant. I did not do my research on that. But there's issues, like I said, that one room, the walls, if you go in there, when I measured, it was. Is your intent to make this rental? Yeah, it is intent to make it rental for my son goes to UK. Okay. My oldest son is 19 years old. He's a sophomore, but he's going to be here for a little while. I have a second son that is 16 that plan on coming here. We're diehard UK fans. I'm glad to hear. I'm in the business. My son currently lives at the hub. I don't know if you know where the hub is. Yeah, we do. It's conveniently located, but they're paying a lot of money for a little space. I don't like. My son's big in Young Life. I don't know. He's helping Young Life get started at Bryan Station. He became a leader at Young Life, and he's helping get that started at Bryan Station. Okay. I have a feeling that he's going to stay in Lexington when he graduates. That's fine. Why don't we turn to the applications? Ms. Hill, do you have any questions or comments? Sure. The houses, the existing house presents itself so beautifully, and it's a big piece of property. Huge piece of property, yeah. Yeah. So I think one of the things that works against you a little bit is the existing floor plan. Trying to figure out what exists and what's new. If the floor plans were all at the same scale, I used markers and figured out what was new and what wasn't. Sorry. Yeah. Would you like me to show you here? On this drawing here, this is the line of basically this is all existing. And then this is new, but that's where the kitchen is, that addition. But the interesting part, which we were able to do upstairs, this is basically the line. We are not really changing anything on the second floor. We're just adding on the back, if that makes sense. So that stairwell wall is the existing wall. Sorry about that. No, I did figure that out. But I think even if the drawings were at the same scale on the different pages, then it would have been a little easier to relate. So I think my other kind of initial questions have to do on the proposed back elevation. So hang on. Does your guy's printouts turn out better, like you can't see a lot of those lines? No. The printout's good. Your printout's good. All right. It's just it fails on the overhead. Is it? All right. Yeah. But everybody else sees it pretty well. It just kind of washes out. So the windows is what I'm kind of the balance of windows. When I look at the proposed front elevation, the kind of balance feels there to solid and windows. The proposed right elevation has a similar kind of nice balance. The back elevation and the proposed left elevation both have a lot more solid wall. And the back elevation particularly is kind of a surprise because you have that deep lot that I'm sure at some point, if you move forward with this project, you're going to do something with that. So having more kind of visual connection to it seems like might be a real opportunity. So it's really about the windows on those two elevations that seem proportionate to the wall. So the back elevation and the left elevation, which must be. The left elevation in the back where there's that line there, the reason there's not a window there is that's kind of the kitchen. Okay. That's the cabinets in the kitchens. So I kind of put, trying not to interfere with upper cabinets. The thing upstairs is the same thing. There's a shower there, which I could pull with the interior layout and maybe figure out a way to add two windows up there and spread them out. But there's a window there. Yeah. And I know that that's part of what you're going to be struggling with is the space inside and what's going on on the outside. I tried to, to your point on the left elevation, like I tried to make those symmetric to the front and you have that line in the back. The back I can kind of do. I didn't know if you guys liked the glass block or I don't know what error that was. I don't know that. You know, I'm fine with the glass block. It doesn't bother me. Tells the story of the house a little bit. I always like to tell a story. But over on the other side, there's the other two windows. You know, I could do something to mimic that. It's not like I want to, but those windows kind of give it a little bit symmetrical. Upstairs, I think you need to add a third window. Is that what I'm hearing? Well, suggesting that you look at the scale of the window and it actually in looking back at the floor plan, I realized that part of it is the living room space. And those look like solid doors. And you can't be thinking of them as solid doors. Yeah. The number four is going to be glass. It's going to be like a glass. Yeah, so I think that even if that part of the wall, because that's going to be a fabulous space to be in, looking out through that back lot. So just thinking about living in those spaces and what you want to be able to see out versus being contained within this volume, I think is kind of the next step. I almost drew it on there because, unfortunately, as a contractor, I have leftover materials. We have what we call like a nano wall, you know, where the whole door opens, you know what I mean, a bifold. We did two houses and a home show in northern Kentucky. And the first doors, they came in 6'8". I didn't like how, because those ceilings were 10 foot. I was like, these can't be 6'8 doors. So we have those. I talked about using their 6'8 by 9' wide, and that's, you know, you can have a man door. You can accord him all the way open and open that. You can also, even if they're just the 6'8 doors, you can think about doing a clerestory, a transom. Transom, right. Simply over the top of them, and then that pops it up, too. Everything I'm hearing you talk about seems like you're really thinking about it. It's really, for me, it's the windows in proportion of solid wall that just need to be expressed a little further. Okay. I'm going to have to move this along a little bit. Mr. Marquette, do you have any questions or comments? No, thanks. All right. The only concern is just make sure that the ratio of the addition does not overwhelm the house. And sometimes I can't get a feel for that until I see the final plans. It looks like you're on the right track. It looks like you have the experience. Just make sure you double check with the staff and the guidelines in terms of what you're trying to do. It's a wonky little house. It's a wonky little house. It's a little quirky. My wife and I were down here, and we fell in love with the property more so than anything. The property, if you've never driven by it, I think Amelia said it's a unique piece of property. It sits way back there. It's a little hard to get in off Nicholsville. I'm a little concerned about that. The entrance is a little narrow. But you pass it up. I've come down many times now, and I've passed it up. But to your fact, I think what we did was we left the roof line a foot below the existing roof line. And we actually came in, I think, a foot and a half or two feet on each side versus a one foot. And with Amelia's help, we shortened it. It was one of her concerns originally. We shortened the building, I think, five feet from the original design. So we took five feet off, which has made us about seven feet, six feet, I think. No, I think we're about five to seven feet shorter than the existing house, the addition is. But, again, the lot is massive. The lot is pretty massive. And then the nice thing is I went out and looked at it. I was like, huh, I wanted to see how far back it went. On that slab that's existing there, you're basically encapsulating that existing slab. Well, I think you've seen enough of our process that you know. we will work with you in terms of coming up with something that fits the guidelines and it accommodates your concerns as well. No, I appreciate that. I appreciate it's a little different than what we do up there. And I appreciate you guys working back and forth. And it was a pleasure watching. I had a hard time keeping my mouth shut because I wanted to add some things that I do design build. So some of the things I love the window, like I did something similar to what you said, like a fake window and just closed shutters. So I love what I do. I'm very fortunate. I have good clients. I have good workers. And I love what I do. But my big thing for you guys is in, it sounds like you guys are willing to work with me. I just want to make sure this is a possibility before I close on the house. As long as I can get close to that size of where I'm at and then the materials and the different things I can work with you guys. My biggest concern is the next steps. The next steps. I heard that I have to have things submitted by February 2nd. Is that correct to get on the February docket? Is that? That sounds about right. Yes. Actually it would be earlier than that. We have to have. It actually is today is the deadline for the February meeting date or tomorrow is. But I think I would also be looking at the deadline not for the February meeting, but the March meeting. And that's my one big concern. Typically we meet the third Wednesday of every month. Third Wednesday of every month. And our process with the legal notice and all the things that go with it has to be about five weeks out. So we've got a chart that's online. We can also email it to you. Amelia's emailed it to me. I have that. We'll have that. Date specific, the deadline dates for submittals. Okay, Mr. Fetters, thank you so much. Yeah, one last, I'll ask Amelia. My big question is, so March deadline, if I had everything together for that March deadline, I could get, one of my concerns is about building time. So March, I get that approval, then I go to the zoning. Or is that, do I come to another meeting after March? More than likely. With you guys. Well, once you get, you know, you could, you can, I think, I don't know if you'll need to go to, you'll need to go to building inspection, but I don't think you'll need to go to planning. Yeah. All right, that's right. Yeah, they said it was over. Unless you're doing anything that requires going before the Board of Adjustment. No. So. I would encourage you to check in with us in intervals along the way. So that you're really, what you submit will have everything we need and all that good stuff. Because without that, it's not a complete application. And that will add more time. Yeah. So, but staff's glad to work with you on that. And we can chat or email about scheduling and what you got and what you don't, what you have yet to get and that kind of stuff. Well, and I also just want to say real quick on the record that I would encourage you to sort of try to get that tighter. Because it's still about, just really, the new addition is about the same size as the existing structure. So we still don't want the tail wagging the dog. Folks, I really would like for us to move on. All right. Thank you. I appreciate you guys' time. All right, Mr. Gibson. Thank you. And Darren, I'm not sure what your time frame is. I'm hoping we'll get done by seven, if not before. On your all's schedule. I won't give you the time that you need. Just fine. But I give conceptuals typically about 30 minutes each. It's just fine, yeah. All right, so we are now at 417 Fayette Park. Very well. By agreement by the applicant. And thank you, Mr. Gibson. We are having, instead of a, I'm not opening the case. We're actually going to have a conceptual review. And we will bring this back up with any revisions that you may have at the next meeting. Darren, I'm going to let Mr. Berry go ahead and do his presentation. This is 417 Fayette Park. Thank you. Well, this will be interesting, since I haven't written a report for conceptual. So I'll try to just go through. Well, just take us through your findings and areas of concern and the recommendations that you're making. The whole, the entire proposal is open. So just go through your proposed findings. It's not conceptual. OK, I'll do that. So 417 Fayette Park, the scope of work is demolish a screen porch, construct addition with raised patio, construct garage and parking, construct a swimming pool or a pool with pool deck. Deadline, we don't need to worry about. The applicant is requesting a conceptual review to demolish the recently constructed screen porch, construct a rear addition with a raised deck and planters. The addition is proposed to be two stories. That includes the second floor deck of approximately 23 by 24 feet. Siding is noted to be cementitious lap siding with smooth face exposed and a metal parapet cap. But the drawings seem to indicate a different cementitious board pattern. Constructed a garage. The garage is a one story garage of approximately 24 by 36 feet. The proposed siding is the same as the addition. The swimming pool and deck have not been withdrawn from this application. But you could go ahead and discuss that since it's conceptual. Chair? Yes. I would suggest, given how long this meeting's gone on, that we may or may not wish to discuss the conceptual design of the garage and the pool. That's a jurisprudence. The pool has been withdrawn, so we're not even discussing that. The garage is the most important, or one of the most important parts. I think that's where we're trying to give Darren some guidance as to that garage. So yeah, that is part of the discussion. So the findings, to demolish the screen porch, staff finds that the demolition of the screen porch meets guidelines 6C2 and 6D. You can read the actual guide. While you're talking, we're just going to rotate some pictures through. OK. Number two is to construct a rear addition with a raised patio and planters. And the staff found that the color and texture of the brick and cementitious siding construction of the addition are compatible with the historic structure and do not create an imitation sense of history. It meets the guidelines B1J. I'm not going to read them all. Follow these guidelines. That's what I'm doing. It also meets 2, 4C, 2, 4D. Don't need that? OK. It generically meets the guidelines. Let's talk about the raised patio. I'm sorry? The raised patio, I think there are some issues with that. Yes. Well, those would be our questions, which I think I can turn this in to. So did you have some concerns about how that planter arrangement was supposed to be done? Well, I think on that, let's get Mr. Taylor to just do an orientation through his practice. OK. Yeah. So I'm finished. Oh, well, in that case, thank you. But I think what you're all yearning for is to hear from Mr. Taylor about what's where on this planter. All right. And Mr. Taylor, I'll try to orient you as to where I think we are at. So come on up. I think we're not having a real problem with the addition. I think Ms. Hill has a couple ideas as to how we can work with that planter system that you're setting up and not have such a long wall and an open skirt. The other issue, obviously, is the garage. Probably the garage is going to need a fundamental redesign based on what you're seeing in the findings is that's where the focus is. And there's just a lot of issues with how the location and orientation of that garage is in terms of where it is located on the property. I know that your client probably would like to have it more centered, closer to the house. They do. We had it actually pulled back beyond the pool in the original iteration. And their thought was, let's gather things up a little bit more to make it not so sprawled out on the site. Part of the problem, of course, is you know that historically, those neighborhoods have garages located back in the corner. Yeah, more towards the rear of the house, exactly. And my sort of thought with that is to even push it back closer to almost on axis with the pool. And it was actually beyond that originally. But that may be an idea to move it back. And I think we can look at that in site plan and understand maybe some thoughts around where that appropriate location is for that garage, where it wants to be. I think the one question I kind of a little bit want some guidance on is, as you can tell, aesthetically, the garage and the addition speak to each other. We've scaled the garage down. It originally was a little bit taller. We had some clerestory windows that were a little bit more prevalent. But we've scaled it down, moved it a little bit closer to the house. Is more of the form making of that structure? I see that's one of the big notes about kind of redefining maybe the form making of that as it presents from the park, what that looks like. Is that a little bit more of a gabled roof? Is that an introduction of an element maybe at the front that is a more vernacular shape than just a rectangular box? I think that's the kind of ideas and input that I would want to hear a little bit about that from you all. I have my own ideas. But I'd love to hear from you all and kind of see that. So yeah, I think that's the idea on the garage. On the planters, the concept with that terrace is obviously you egress out of the addition, which is a large open living space. You come out on this raised terrace. We're stepping down with the planter to not have to have guardrails up there. So there's a little bit of an unfettered view. We soften that with some planters, step it in brick. We originally had that all as board form concrete. A little too contemporary for the owner. I mean, this is a very contemporary addition or very contemporary themed. But the cost was also becoming astronomical. So we kind of scaled it back to a brick clad wall up there. So yeah, Betty, there was an idea in here. I know you mentioned before about kind of a pierced brick base there. I was thinking about that as I was reading this a minute ago. And with that being a planter, I wonder if that's, in these images, maybe just a little bit dark to really see exactly what's going on. But I kind of want to hear some feedback on that. Ms. Hill? So. By the way, Ms. Hill will not be participating in the, this is one reason why we're doing conceptual review, is to give her an opportunity to, with your agreement. Yes, no, I think that's fine. I appreciate that. I always look forward to Ms. Hill's input on any design projects. Mr. Taylor, we have a lot more of all the materials able to be shown on the screen. So you can rotate through some of that. Betty, your microphone. She wants me to kind of peel through that. Betty, speak into your microphone. Can't hear you. Sorry. I was just telling Mr. Taylor that we have got available for him to show on the screen pretty much all of his materials. So he can zip through them and make his points. Yeah, my only thought was that our 3D imagery just is presenting a little dark by the nature of the color of it. And so those are a little hard to tell what's going on with that planter. But the elevation there kind of speaks to it. You can see it on both the rear and the side elevation as to how that kind of presents. And so it sounds like the emphasis there is to kind of break that up, not only horizontally, but vertically a little bit as well. And maybe that's the best plan. But Ms. Hill, you were. So I have a slightly different take on it. And that's understanding that you're trying to avoid a guardrail there, which makes total sense to me. And so it has to do with the maximum distance from the paving surface of the terrace as it drops down no more than 30 inches for a certain distance out from that. And it's that zone that if, in fact, the planters dropped, say, 24 inches from the edge of the sitting surface of the terrace, then it would, in fact, reduce the kind of heaviness of how broad that is compared. The addition is really beautiful. But the planters at 4 and 1 1⁄2 feet at the same basic elevation as the terrace then just make the scale of that so vast. Cut those down and lower the half. If it just dropped to stay shorter than that code requirement and then went out the distance that was required, and that's where the planter happened, then you have this really nice kind of stepping effect. We've done that. It works really well from both standpoints of aesthetics and from reading the code. Massive, 100%. And then it puts the terrace in this really beautiful spot of seeing this green kind of die off away from the edges. Makes perfect sense to me. OK. You still may need some kind of a handrail at the stairs when that happens, but that can be really simple. Very simple, yeah. We've usually just done it down the middle, a very simple handrail, and it kind of disappears. So, yeah. That would make me much more comfortable with this. That's great. It would not overshadow the addition piece itself, which is really nice. Thank you. So, great. And that might also tie in to the material that forms the vertical from grade up. That's going to give it a whole different experience, because you're not going to see all of that mass at one time. And this vegetative growth that's up over there. And so that kind of maybe negates the need for a more transparent, from the load of the porch down to grade. Because it's not such a tall element then at that point. It will just be disappearing with this. That's exactly right. I call that a stair step idea. Sounds fine to me. But I think that, so one of the things that I was trying to, in my suggestions in it, go after was that it was such a massive presence when you're seeing it just standing back some. And I was trying to soften that. But I think what Ms. Hills just suggested would eradicate much of those concerns. You're basically terracing that patio with what you're doing and with vegetation, which would really soften it up. We've done that in this exact same iteration to really step it down. So we're very familiar with that. And I think it would, frankly, be a lot more attractive and, I think, usable to your clients. Yeah, totally. Let's turn to the garage then, if we can. Let's try to figure out. I don't know that the staff is recommending, consistent with the guidelines, that that garage be moved to the northeast corner of the property and that it be further pushed back to give you a turnaround and not have to back into that alley. Can you work with that idea and put that into your plans? Yeah, I think the question for me will be, and I think this can be something where we can work with staff, if that's OK, to understand exactly where that wants to be. Where does that live and that sort of access back along the alley side? But in looking at the garage here, right now the idea is you can slip out and come right up into the house. Moving it back is obviously fine. I guess the idea is that we're moving it back this way and this way. Is that the concept? Somewhat about the, really the thought is to get it as far back toward the rear property line, which I know you'll want to discuss with your client. But people, they've gotten used to their suburban idea of you get out of your car and you're in your kitchen in about a moment and a half. Not in our historic districts. It's a tough move with that. And of course, with this house having a port cochere on the opposite side, that was originally come in and go off, which is losing the code, as it says, because it's for a carriage height. Yeah, you hopped out and with high steps went up. Unload the car and then go ahead and park it in the garage. But you know what? I bet you five years from now that garage will be full of junk that they won't be able to get anything in the garage anyway. So the staff's intent was to suggest that it go pretty close to the, near the back. But John, you've got those big trees. I mean, there are other things. You can't just shove it all the way to the back. Exactly, there are some trees. Before, when we had it pushed back, we kind of threaded the needle between a series of trees where it set back, our apron came in, and we had enough spot for a vehicle on the apron. Were you able to reverse? The reason we're suggesting about the space to reverse, you'd be surprised how much traffic. Well, you knowing downtown would not be surprised. But that alley's traveled a good bit. It's busy. And we also had that other application on today's docket that you saw that uses that same alley. They're doing a garage, et cetera, et cetera. It had the L-shaped garage. So that was one thing about our comments was not only to get it pushed back on the site to be more respective of the development pattern of the neighborhood, of the individual properties and cumulatively of the neighborhood, and to honor that rhythm, and then also to have it go to the west enough that you get the turnaround situation. And so it's not that we have thrown a dart and got to get it within 20 feet of this. But those philosophies is what we're suggesting be considered. There's also a six foot privacy fence there. So if you've pulled into the garage when you're backing out, it's blind. So that's why we thought you needed the hammerhead to push in a little bit, go into the street. And just so that I can ask this question of you all, because I know that I'm going to be asked this question, if something up closer towards the house, and I'm not saying as close as we have it, but maybe something more in line with the pool, if there was a more transparent type structure, like a kind of carport slash pool house element that was up there, is that something that might feel better up closer? Forgetting the parking side, the access side of it aside, but if there was a more of a kind of transparent type parking structure where it wasn't such a formal garage volume that disappeared a little bit. There's a property on Third Street that has sort of a pavilion, I would call it, that is off the alley and provides a car spot. And we've had some variations, the people that have worked out for people somewhat, but they're not anywhere as close to the house as what the pool area is still really close to the house. Yeah, I guess I was sort of saying that if you were thinking in this area-ish, where you could park here and still have some pool house, indoor, outdoor space, and then back of it. Board members, what do you? I have a completely different kind of suggestion to make, and I can kind of argue both sides in my head. But basically, the garage is exactly the same size as a swimming pool, right? It appears to be as the kind of upper edge of the cut. And if kind of the historic house, the new addition, the pool, and then the garage, if one thought of them as these kind of pieces that go back into this deep lot. Could kind of be on axis. Exactly. And then on the west side of the new addition, that's a pretty blank wall. If there were a connector piece that went from the garage to that existing entrance that comes off the portico, that could be a really handsome kind of trellis, vine-covered, simple, kind of like Knox and Matt have between their two pieces. But to connect those, you know, we kind of look at it and we think, oh, it's so far away. Well, having our little carriage house on the, just off of 5th Street, I love coming through the backyard, and we don't have a trellis. That's how I do. I have a very short distance to go, but that's what I do. I'm not connecting. I don't want that. Because part of it is coming into the park and seeing that kind of what you'll get by pushing the garage back basically kind of parallel as another piece. Kind of is what you're saying, is sort of putting it as a focal, like there's an axis coming off of this to the pool. And so, because that's how we have the circulation set up as you come down those stairs. And so that would reside here, and then you would slip back here to get into there along that backside. Just make something really nice along that back edge that the pool could benefit from also. We might could push the pool up just a touch to allow that to really be like a hard edge with the building, be that circulation path, and then you could slip up. So I know that you've drawn the pool, but you're going to submit new plans on that as well? Yeah, we kind of place-held the pool right now, and I think we place-held it really until we worked out all of these discussions with the addition and got some approval or buy-in with it, so. So you're saying conceptually where that pool is going to be so that we can locate the garage relative to- Yeah, I think the sounds like the play here is we're going to make some changes to the things on the addition, that the planter wall and some of the things, but that we really need to come back with the garage as a resubmittal with that as a formal element and the pool, and the pool, you know, it's going to master plan as we work. Darren, you've read my mind. If we could basically just get the addition done along with the planter idea and bring back the garage and the pool later, could we do that? I mean, those are the elements aren't going to come on until later anyway. I mean, if they were going to start construction tomorrow, we'd be nine months from now before we're even talking about those elements. So that's completely appropriate. We're also in a pricing stage right now. We're getting contractor feedback and getting numbers in. So we're in discovery phase right now, and that's okay. And you may need to educate your client exactly as to just take them around the neighborhoods and show them where garages are located in historic districts, as opposed to being right next to the house and whatever. Can we also just real quick talk about the form making on that? Yes, sir. Yeah, right. I'm going to step away for about a minute or two. This is a very naive question. Hold it. It is? It is, because I'm not- Microphone on? I'm not- Can you turn your microphone on? Oh, you want to hear this. This is a very naive question. And I preface it that way, because if any of you giggle, I want to feel comfortable with that. Sure. And at the same time, I don't know enough of the guideline structure and whatnot. So I don't know the answer to this question. But is there anything that would prevent putting the garage under the addition? Anything in our work? Well, I'm- Also, usually the petter development would make it, we would want the garage not attached to an addition. I mean, the elevation change to get down to it would probably be our biggest issue with that. Well, you're having to raise the addition so high anyway to put it on level with the rest of the house. We're probably digging out, you know. And I just thought that as a, since it's nothing special, it's just a garage, to have it buried would be an asset, I think. But it was just a question. Sure. Part of the impetus for this structure being out there and adjacent to the pool is that if you'll look at this, is they can pull vehicles out and open it up and be able to, if they were having a gathering in the yard and have a little pool house, because we talked about doing a pool house. And that got, they didn't want all these structures dotting the thing, so we said, let's just make it so we have in the plan, there's two cars of parking and then there's bicycle storage and things. That can open up and you can have people inside and outside. So that's the desire for this as a doubled structure, if you will. But to answer my question, is there anything in the guidelines or the formulas that we work under that would prevent that? Well, it's- Guidelines say that the garage is not supposed to be close to or attached to the historic structure. Okay. Jim's locked himself out of the room. Well, that we could discuss that some other day, but I just- I've never been presented with that from a client to ask that, other than we've dug out insides of basements and dug deeper to make more space for them. Rec rooms and so forth. There are philosophically some rather, probably problematic concepts wrapped up in there. But to think broadly about things, there may also be some positives that just need to be thought about. But it's more of a 1960s forward sort of characterization with a house, with anything automotive near it, under it, adjacent to it, that kind of thing. This Victorian house is using this specific example. It's probably one of the best in Lexington, if not further afield. It is a very significant historic Victorian house and a very intact architecturally, both exterior, but also none of our business, but also the interior. And my immediate reaction is that is asking for trouble that is not compatible with the property to do that. But I think we always want to think about things. So I would also offer, having been involved in a school project in the East end of Lexington, and where we hit stone could just be a huge impediment with the kind of depth you'd have to go put it under, which creates all kinds of other things. I do love the idea that it being a quasi pool house also makes that kind of sequence on an axis even more interesting to investigate. And in that condition, I don't quite frankly mind the fairly box kind of form of it. It's in its current location. It just doesn't work as a box. It's closed up like that. Something felt a little off to me about it in its location. You always look at your client's requests and try to meet them with a level. And my response to it, and I don't know that it's visible in these elements, but because we don't have the garage drawings in here, or whether they are, I tried to basically replicate the scale of these openings and the idea in that, so that there was kind of just a rhythm to like punched opening. But its prominence being so far forward is really the kind of issue with it. That was working against you. Yeah, yeah. Okay, I'm gonna play timekeeper here. Can we start wrapping up this discussion so we move to the next one? Or is there anything else that we need to add at this point? I think it's important to talk a second about the idea of a flat roof, and it's tied expressly to where you just ended. If it's more of a pavilion, it does lend itself to potentially being more successful with a flat roof. But if the form of it is to truly speak as an outbuilding, I think the flat roof is not compatible with the character of either this property or with the evolution of the development pattern in the Fayette Park neighborhood. So from a- I have to amplify that point. Darren, there is so much architecturally significant movement in the house itself. Just to build a box next to it's just not gonna, a flat box especially, it's just not gonna work. And so, yeah, that's what you struggle with. The house is doing so many things. Yeah, right. It was sort of like let's mute ourselves a little bit with a different language, but with that volume as close, that's the struggle. And so, are you saying with it even being pushed back to the rear of the site, we want to investigate? Well, that's what I think is a little different from where we've been weighing, thinking we were gonna have a formal hearing. I think the door does, pardon the pun, open a bit myself, but I'd be helpful with the board sitting here talking with us to get your all's take of, is there any scenario that you think you would consider a flat roof? Where if it's, my staff's comment to you is what I just said about if it's a garage, it needs just a garage, it needs to have a shape that is more representative of an outbuilding of a property of this nature that's not quite as contemporary in shape, I think I'm saying, roof form expressly. But if it's, if they're pushing it away from the house, that A is, will be solved all sorts of problems. And it becomes something that is a multi-purpose, like can the doors open up wide and it becomes a pavilion, and it is rhythmically far enough from the main house, and also integrated into something that has unity, that this following a line out the back of the new addition and continuing on, I think that changes the dialogue. I think so too, and the kind of extended roof sunscreen that happens on the addition that's against the house has some interesting potential with a pavilion piece that also has out, that's a garage, but has outdoor space that's related to the pool to be able to make the language of those pieces form kind of a whole piece almost. In which case, that kind of articulation of the building as opposed to such a cardboard box could be much more interesting in the same way that the addition. And it could be that a gable roof or a hip roof back there at that point under what you just described would actually not be an asset. Exactly. And last thing I'd say about the, I think it's safe to say we're all in agreement the garage does not belong up near the house like this. Is that safe? I think we have that agreement from you as well, hopefully. Okay. Yeah, no, I mean, I agree with that. I think hearing you guys, that's a strong point to this. I think that's our biggest move that we need to rethink where that resides. I just want to be sure the board is on board with that too. Right, now I would like to move on to our next one if we could. Anything else? One more sentence about the, I do think it would be a real asset not only with the removal of proposing the garage where you've presently got it, to then focus on something that results when you stand out in the front yard of this house and you experience the big Victorian house and this beautiful land, that you would have that land stay open way back. And that might go more with putting the garage pavilion in the linear sense of what Ms. Hill's been describing. You would see all of those pieces. I mean, they would become really architectural pieces, not just a view block, but really architectural pieces. Because there's basically right here, with the edge of the house, however you want to treat the porch, there's a plane, an imagined plane. And so through that is this kind of green space. And then the addition pool structure are on an axis and they live in that. And it leaves the contextual site, which is a very important part of this property, intact, to be fully experienced versus kind of blop here and a blop over there and a blop over here. Anyway, thank you, that's, yeah. All right, I am playing timekeeper here. Let's bring this one to an end. Let's move now to 232 East Belcourt. This is an actual formal conceptual review, styled as such. So. All right, just to walk you through this. This, of course, is 232 East Belcourt. It's a corner lot at the corner of East Bel and Boonesboro. And this is sort of looking from the back addition, these are taken from Zillow, to the existing garage that's there now with the tree and stairs leading from an existing house. And you can see the interior of the garage doors or the gate doors. And this is Boonesboro right here. And this garage is not the original garage. This garage was built probably later, probably the, I would say 60s, 70s. It is a two car garage. And this is sort of also looking at the interior yard. You could sort of see the property line of this being the neighbor's, this being the Brott's, Goodall Brott's. And then sort of looking back at that location. You could see this existing stuccoed addition here. This piece was, is, been, I guess was sort of added onto or sort of worked on in the 80s and 90s. And then you could sort of see the back where you have sort of the wood steps leaning into. And they have the existing addition, which you know has sort of been altered because it has the roof coming right underneath the dormer windows and leaning down. And of course, this is a concrete block garage. I'm sorry, how big a lot is this? It's got a little extra tooch at the end, so it's not as tight. So it's got this little green space here. So you've got this little green space, if you think of sort of segments, then the garage, and then another little section before you hit the house. Okay. All of those properties have modest lots. Mm-hmm. Go ahead. Wait, I'm looking for my button again. Sorry. All of those properties are modest sized lots. Right, that's what I thought. Okay. And then you could sort of see, this is a concrete block garage that's been stuccoed. And here's the entrance into the garage, now with the doors open. And you could see the addition in the background there. And give you, this is sort of, and so the proposal would be to add on to that second floor. Here you could sort of see that. Add on to the second floor of the garage and or take it down. I put both in the staff report. Depending on the construction details, if that could be built upon or not. And then the bigger thing is also the connector that's there. So the actual, there's no, the change, you could sort of see here, this part will be the part that we saw that was sort of the void, would be filled in a little bit. This would just be added on top. This would be added, but the footprint of the garage would stay the same. And sort of give you some more of these elevations here of the existing. And then I'm gonna go back to the, just sort of the renderings here that shows the massing, which you can tell it's sort of in a different color, the more the tan color. Thank you. As this is a conceptual review, there are no findings, but the question is, does this proposal call for too much building on the site? Does the rear addition expansion overwhelm the existing structure? Does the new garage have the same number of stories or within 10% of the average height of existing adjacent garages? Does the architectural details and articulation of new construction relate in scale, rhythm, proportion, and to the texture of existing and adjacent surrounding buildings? Do the proportion, directional emphasis, and rhythm of the new building reflect predominant proportion, emphasis and rhythm of the existing and adjacent surrounding buildings? Does the roof of the new building relate in shape, pitch, materials of the roof so that it exists in adjacent surrounding buildings? Are the openings compatible in scale, size, proportion to establish patterns of openings? And in the existing adjacent surrounding buildings, are there materials in scale to the building in which they are located and compatible with the materials of the existing adjacent surrounding buildings? Is it appropriate to have a connector from the garage to the main structure? Does proposed design disrupt the historic pattern of the neighborhood? Are the accessory buildings located in the character with the secondary building for the street, alley, or the rear of the property not close to or attached to a primary building? Is the complexity of the building form, shape, compatible with the existing adjacent buildings? I would say that there is a house that does have one connector that's in the H1 overlay in Belcourt, and that's the one at Forest and Sayre, and that was sort of in a different scenario because this house is a duplex with a top story of the house, had no other entrance out, and there was an existing garage, so they made it so the owners of the structure rented out the bottom because the bottom was already converted into a apartment, and they were able to use that connector to walk to another studio of the garage. All right. Mr. Taylor. May I ask a quick question? In one of the very early images, there is a really striking tree on that property between, and it doesn't show up on. Yeah, it's not there. It's, I'm trying to think, you can see part of it. I think it may, I'm not aware of it now. I don't know that it's there. I think it got hit with a storm. I think something happened to it at some point. I don't remember. Yeah, this was, yeah. We talked a little bit about that, but I don't think this. Yeah, here it is. There it is. Yeah, and it was here, yeah. But I think it did actually have some severe storm damage due to the IV. So that tree is gone now? Is that what you're saying? Okay, yes. Mr. Taylor. I'll give you kind of just a quick walkthrough of our design concept. I think the idea here is fairly clear in a way that what we're trying to do is, in a way, maximize the site and build up and not build out. You know, the existing garage is there as a volume, as Amelia said. The idea, if structurally we can keep it, is to keep it and build above it and just increase the interior height, increase the structural for the second floor and leave that. It's a block building. It's been parged. Nothing special, but it's there presently and potentially for cost savings and just its placement on the site, we'd leave it. But the idea for this is, you know, the owners come from another very urban environment and this is a very urban condition for them and is how do we get more space, not take up as much of the groundscape, leave the yard. They like their yard, what they have of it they like, and then get more space for their family. These bungalow houses are concise. The second floor only has three bedrooms and one bathroom. They want to add, renovate another bathroom and then add this room at the back for their girls to have a space. And then the real desire here with the element above the garage is to have an in-law suite for the grandparents to live there, help take care of the children, which then leads to the concept of the bridge connecting it is that they can get across easily and move to the house and vice versa, children back over there as well. And so that's the real design idea here behind what they're wanting to do, what they're looking to achieve. Architecturally, of course, we're trying to strike a line with a contemporary language, you know, some in keeping materials, you know, we're thinking of cedar, lap cedar and some things that maybe pull in some sort of, you know, craftsman geared material type detailing to speak to the house. And then of course, there's some stucco elements on those additions that speak to the stucco on the house. So that's really the driver behind it. You know, there's different ways to make form. The roof is obviously a large element on the main house. It's got some pretty heavy eaves. We just kind of figured we would carry that volume up on the back of the house, cap that, match the garage to that and then bring it to the ground at the rear. So from a, you know, an aesthetic standpoint, you can obviously see these 3D images of what it's doing, but, you know, a lot of glazing to sort of get some transparency and understand that this is a new element, not anything that's sort of a copy or a mimic of the kind of craftsman of the house, but pull ourselves away and allow it to strike a new line. So. Syl? Always go to the architect first. So some of the questions under findings, which had to do with, is there too much building on the site, which has to do with density. I'm sure you've looked at that already. Speak up just a hair. Yeah, I mean, we've done some FAR calculations on that. And I think that we would probably be seeking a variance for that just by the nature of the site. And I don't have that in front of me, I have it at the office. There are things about that the existing property is, even with this addition would be some nonconformities. So we would be seeking that and we've already kind of discussed that. So the next question, does the rear addition overwhelm the existing structure? And I must say that the garage, the second floor of the garage and the second floor of the back piece of the existing house have much more of an architectural relationship. The house seems not to be part of the architectural language. And so I think the piece that I tend to wanna focus on is to then understand how it can inform the garage is the change in the roof lines of the second floor of the addition on the original house, how to make that more integrated so that it doesn't, that that second floor doesn't feel like it's part of the garage as opposed to the primary residence on that property. And so you're sort of saying bring some, let the existing house maybe inform the addition of the house a little bit more and maybe there's a material and window relationship that then translates to the garage and then that speaks that language. And I think it starts with the roof line. I think it just has to start with the way that that upper dormer roof line intersects and how that translates into the roof of the addition. That it's just not, it's just not working. And I think, to put it more bluntly, that poor little locomotive is pulling that great big caboose. And frankly, from just a visual point, it just doesn't work, I'm sorry. I feel like I'm back in architecture school. I like this, this is good. Well, I think Ms. Hill really put her hands right on the point. The two nude structures speak beautifully to each other. Where's the house? And I think, and I know what your problem is. You're trying to create headroom in the upper story. And so that's why you're swallowing up those dormers, but it's, it just, I'm sorry, it's too much. But the dormers can actually be clues as to how to redo that roof line. I made three sketches myself, because that's what we architects do. We don't think, we draw. And so I know you can figure that one out and headroom not be a problem. Is the height of the garage roof at or already over the ridge line of the door? No, these two, the addition to the main structure and the garage are in the same plane, basically. Okay, so this sits down at the sort of eave line of this rear dormer, and then the garage is about that height. We wanted to keep that in a plane. So if you look back at, and these are not showing up fabulous on the screen, but we tried to keep a line there across that. So, you know, of course you never see anything in tree elevation, but looking from the side street, you would find that line connect, and then it would pick up that eave line. Again, you're getting a very uneducated, architecturally uneducated reaction, but I think there's an opportunity with the way that that door, I'm sorry. It seems to me that there's an opportunity with that particular dormer and its shape that if that were somehow duplicated, continued onto the other two buildings, it's almost like what a fascinator does in terms of the British royal family. That little fascinator could make the other two hats not look quite as abrupt, and I don't know what that would do on top of them, but it would mirror and give some continuity and perhaps make them seem less radical. And I think to that end, you would not be imitative. I mean, it would just be a variation of the theme. That was the other part of it, but I think that little dormer roof gives you an opportunity to do that. But just an opinion. But I don't know how that's gonna work with your headroom inside, and that may be your issue. Well, added to the top of the square, not reducing any of the head space in those two additions, but just adding some element to the top of them. That's gonna take it above the bridge line, isn't it? Well, it might, but I'm just saying to make them seem complementary of one another, that they're part of a trio. Anyway, just an idea. It may well be that when the roof form on the house addition is revised, including the scale of those windows, I mean, the scale of those windows is so out of proportion to the rest. They swallow the house, even though it's a modest addition. The scale of those openings don't have any relationship with the house. I also don't mind the connector piece. I think it's much more about connecting two pieces that are really different times, different periods, and they need to distinctly reflect that. And I think solving the problem of the roof on the main house for that addition, and all of the fenestration of that addition, I think will make the rest of it fall into place, really do. I don't have a problem with the bridge. Go ahead now, I'm sorry. I don't have a problem with the bridge. Right, I mean, no, the bridge is a cool concept. It's just the way that box sort of takes up the entire back of that house, it just. Yeah, I think we're all responding to that and can't get past it, so. All right, anything else that we need to add? So it's really the kind of the fenestration, the scale, and the roof line of the addition, and then with that change, however that comes to pass, we'll inform a little bit of that garage with some of that, potentially roof planes, we're not sure yet, but something. Yeah, I think it will. Okay. You've had better ideas, frankly. Again, this feels like architecture school. This is great. I know, I know. I used to have a professor who said, you're all very, you're very, very smart, but don't ever do that again. I have always liked your work. I think you've always done a nice job blending modern and historic elements. This is not one of your better iterations, I'm sorry. Thank you, I appreciate that. It's a great start. Yeah, there you go, that's right, well, it kind of is. Come back next semester. I see it from the neighbors being able to understand why. Sure, yeah. And I think that's critically important. What we do strikes a balance of some kind. And they're interested in that, too. This isn't done in a vacuum. You know, they've talked to their neighbors. They want their neighbors to be involved. They don't want to do something that they feel like is not going to feel appropriate to where it is. Well, you're in that stony ground where you're trying to create new adaptations and ADUs. I love the idea that you embrace the notion of going up as opposed to going out. So that's a great place to start. It's just that the addition itself is not working. I don't have a problem with a garage in the second story. It's the way you're trying to tie it into the house. That's great feedback, that's why we're here. All right. Thank you. Can staff generally make one comment that is not really limited to this site? Absolutely. I think the walkways connecting second floors are going to become frequently brought up. And I think we need to, as a program, get some handle on is that, for the most part, going to be if you find the right way to do it, it's fine, or whatever. Because I think a lot of residents in the neighborhoods may not be as tolerant of there being this pedestrian walkway stretching along parallel to their backyards next door. So I'm just guessing about that. But some of these things will not be so much about design as about how it's gonna be utilized and people's sense of place within their neighbors and their neighborhood. So just chew on that. There's no question in this. It's just sort of a, once we open the gate to doing connections, particularly flying connections versus covered at grade, just know it's gonna pop up a lot and need to know that we have the answers to fairly take care of each application. And one more piece to that, that even if you all deem this an acceptable scenario, building inspection and planning and zoning, look at that differently. Because once you connect that structure to the house, it becomes part of the house. And they look at that in different ways. So we've dealt with that. Square footages, your FARs, and all that change. It becomes an attached structure. So while I like to come to you all first to understand the design aesthetics, because I can manage that with math and with requests and however you wanna put it, this is more about design discussion and the aesthetics behind how that connection works. So we've run into that in a lot of different cases. I hadn't even thought about that. That's an interesting and helpful thing to know. Thank you. All right, anything else? Thank you all, as always. Thank you, Darren. I appreciate your work. Appreciate you. Okay, so do we have minutes to approve or not? No. All right. The short answer to that is no. All right, so if there's no further business, then I think we're ready for a motion to adjourn. Why don't we? So moved. Do I have a second? Yes. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you all. When were more interesting meetings? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.