ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007, THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW HELD A MEETING IN THE 2ND FLOOR COURTROOM OF THE WOODFORD COUNTY COURTHOUSE TO HEAR THE FOLLOWING APPEALS:

 

MEMBERS PRESENT: Deborah Shockley, Kevin Locke, Larry Leach, Desiree Kennedy

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:  Jackson Watts 

 

STAFF PRESENT: Patricia B. Wilson

 

OLD BUSINESS:  Deborah Shockley opened the meeting.  All members were given copies of the minutes for the June 5th, 2007, August 7th, 2007, August 21, 2007 and September 10, 2007 meetings.

 

Ms. Wilson addressed page 2 of the June 5th meeting minutes.  This particular meeting addressed the application for 161 Morgan Street; however it was later handled administratively.  Therefore,   Ms. Wilson suggested the meeting minutes reflect that.

 

Kevin Locke stated the August 21st meeting minutes are somewhat confusing in that there is a discussion about an application but it appears to be incomplete and then it goes on to a discussion with Willie Tupts which was not on the agenda for this meeting.  Ms. Shockley stated to ignore those meeting minutes as she is in the process of typing the August 21st minutes and will submit once complete.

 

Larry Leach moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 5th 2007, August 7, 2007 and September 10, 2007 as seconded by Kevin Locke.  Motion 4-0 in favor.

 

Deborah Shockley wanted to know if the Board heard anything from Thoroughbred Square about the vents for which Ms. Wilson stated the vents have since been installed.

 

Larry Leach wanted to know if the Baskets of the Bluegrass had gotten their sign straightened out.  Kevin Locke stated their temporary sign is gone and they now have a yellow plastic sign that says “Grand Opening”.  Mr. Leach wanted to know if this sign is what the owner told us it would be.  Ms. Wilson stated they were cited because they did not have a permanent sign; however the company did eventually apply for a sign permit.  Ms. Wilson stated she will make a note for Paul Noel to make sure he completes a final inspection.   

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

PUBLIC MEETING:            BOAR#10-016-2007- Raymond & Gretchen Papka – 4000 Old Frankfort Pike- OHA-1 Zoning District- Applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness in order to construct a two-story addition on rear (south side) of existing dwelling and a two-car garage on the right (west) side of the dwelling.

 

Bobby Rweden, the builder, represented the case on behalf of the owners.  Mr. Rweden stated the owners want to build an addition on the rear of the home that would be approximately 4400 square feet total.  He stated he believes the addition will fit in with the neighborhood.  Ms. Wilson asked if they were adding a front porch for which Mr. Rweden advised he was renovating the front porch.  Mr. Rweden stated they are putting in a 2 car garage at the end of the house which is included in the 4400 square feet.

 

Debora Shockley stated the main change in the front is the addition of the garage.  Kevin Locke wanted to know if there were other instances where you have a garage facing Old Frankfort Pike near by.  The applicant stated there was a house directly across the road that has the garage facing Old Frankfort and provided a picture of the same.  Ms. Wilson indicated there is a photo of another house where a second story was added and their garage is detached but the garage doors face the road as well.

 

Ms. Wilson stated she encourages the Board Members to review the guidelines in the ordinance.  She further stated the guidelines state the height for the construction of a new building or addition should be constructed to a height within 10% of the average height of the existing adjacent building.  Ms. Wilson stated she understands it to be within 10% of the building it is connected to.  It appears the addition in the rear is about 7 or 8 feet taller than the existing roof line.  Ms. Wilson wasn’t sure if the Board believes that fell within those guidelines.

 

Debora Shockley wanted to know if the addition had a steeper roof line then the house does?  The applicant indicated it did.  Ms. Shockley wanted to know if the house’s roof line was a 4/12 or 5/12 and the applicant indicated it was a 5/12 and the addition’s roof line would be a 6/12.  Ms. Wilson indicated the front porch pitch would match the pitch of the addition which the applicant confirmed it would.

 

Ms. Shockley wanted to know if you could see the addition from the front of the house and the applicant believed you could.   Mr. Leach and Ms. Wilson stated that the addition is twice as much as the existing.  Ms. Wilson reviewed the guidelines that states the façade set back line should be maintained, all heights should match those surrounding buildings, window and door locations should be compatible with those on the existing structure, additions should be planned so as not to upset the original building, additions should be planned for areas not within public view, roof shapes should related to others in the area.   The applicant stated the only thing that would be higher then the original structure would be the section that comes out in the back which would match the front porch.

 

Ms. Shockley wanted to know if the octagonal window above the door will be removed for which the applicant stated it would be.  Ms. Shockley wanted to know if he was going to extend out the front stairs to actually make a front porch. The applicant stated it would be 12 feet out from the porch line.  Ms. Shockley wanted to know if the existing front door side lights are going to be moved forward.  The applicant indicated it will be moved forward and a new door will be replaced.  She asked if the octagonal window will stay on the inside of the house and the applicant indicated it would not and it would be filled in instead. 

 

Ms. Shockley wanted to know if the double basement windows would be taken down to single basement windows and the applicant stated that it was. He was also asked if the landscaping was being removed for which he confirmed it would be removed.  Ms. Wilson informed him an application for a permit will be required.

 

Kevin Locke wanted to know if there will be new shutters on the front porch.  The applicant stated that if they do put new shutters up they would likely be wood.  Mr. Locke wanted to know if they would be operable.  The applicant indicated they would likely not be operable and would be placed. Mr. Locke wanted to know if there was a reason to bring the ridge of the addition up over the existing ridge of the roof.  The applicant stated to get the gables over the top, to match the gable on the front porch so it doesn’t look like the front porch was added.

 

Ms. Shockley wanted to know if the whole front porch is stone and then turns back two feet off the garage.  The applicant indicated that was correct and you would only see stone in the front of the garage.  Ms. Shockley stated that Kentucky architecture usually does not have a random stone or a dry stack stone with a colonial front.  Mr. Locke indicated it’s more of a rubble front and that they do make all different kinds of faux stone. 

 

Ms. Shockley stated she is having a difficult time with the combination of a 70’s split foyer, formal colonial entry piece and faux stone.  The applicant indicated one of the reasons the owners chose stone over brick is because they knew they couldn’t match the brick given the age of the house.  Mr. Locke reviewed the guidelines and stated that new construction or addition should try to enhance the surroundings of the older buildings.  If you look at Old Frankfort Pike there are newer homes and older homes mixed.  He said he is having a difficult time turning a 70’s style salt box ranch style home in to a traditional home. 

 

The applicant stated he agrees that the stone doesn’t fit with the neighborhood and that maybe brick would be a better choice.  Ms. Shockley stated she would be ok with the stone at the bottom of the porch foundation.  Ms.  Shockley stated she would rather see brick or hardy board instead of the faux stone.  The applicant stated he does not believe it would be a problem.  Ms. Shockley stated she would be ok with the faux stone around the porch foundation and wrap it around the garage.  Mr. Locke suggested that hardy board could be above the stone.  The applicant noted that he would likely not have room for stone on the foundation since its on grade.  The applicant said he could put hardy board on the entire front. 

 

The applicant wanted to know that if the materials are changed per the Board’s recommendation would the Board be ok with the columns that were proposed.  The applicant indicated the columns would be round.  Ms. Shockley stated she would rather them be smooth.  Mr. Locke suggested just a square plain column.  Mr. Locke stated it would be better to do a smooth area to simplify.

 

Ms. Shockley stated that because the house is very simple, anything added to it should be simple as well.  Ms. Shockley stated a smooth round or smooth square column would be preferred. 

 

Ms. Wilson wanted to know if the hardy siding is horizontal with a 6” lap.  The applicant stated that it was.  Ms. Shockley wanted to know if the roof would be re-shingled.  The applicant stated he would and since the shingles are only two years old it should not be a problem to match.

 

Mr. Locke wanted to know if a new elevation is needed given the changes they discussed?? Ms. Wilson suggested that the applicant resubmit his application with the changes they discussed.  Mr. Leach stated that it appears the height of the new addition is the biggest issue. 

 

Measurements were discussed and Mr. Locke stated that if the applicant were to drop the addition by 2-3 feet, the scale of the building would be more appropriate.  Ms. Shockley stated the addition should have the same pitch as the existing house.  The applicant stated the pitch on the existing roofline is 4/12 and the pitch on the addition is a 6/12.  Ms. Shockley suggested that if the pitch was lowered to a 4/12, the interior would not be affected.  Ms. Wilson stated if that was done it would make the structure look a lot flatter.  The Board suggested that the pitch should stay the same in front but just drop the addition on the back to a 4/12 and that would comply with the guidelines.

 

Mr. Locke moved for applicant to resubmit an application with the changes as follows:

1-get rid of flutes on the door surround

2-no faux stone, except at the base of the porch and possibly the garage

3-shingles on addition will be matched with the existing

4-roof pitch on the back addition is going to match the roof pitch on the existing, porch pitch is fine the way it is

5-possibly turning garage 90 or 180 degrees, depending on owner’s preference

6-provide revised elevations with garage cut sheets to those garage doors.

7-if shutters will be done, the Board would like them so that they are sized to close the entire window whether operational or not and the Board would like them to look like operable shutters.

  The applicant stated that he would rather do away with the shutters altogether

8-double basement windows will be changed to single basement windows

 

Larry Leach seconded the motion.  Motion 4-0 in favor.  It was confirmed the applicant will resubmit for the following month’s meeting.

 

Larry Leach motioned to adjourn the meeting as seconded by Kevin Locke.  The meeting adjourned at 6:09 p.m.