[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6627472,"mediaKeyId","2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f","parentId",2727567,"title","Board reviews two conceptual infill proposals at 320 Hampton Court and 438 Fayette Park; members ask for more context drawings","audioSeconds",1595,"startMs",7451000,"endMs",9046000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f&start=7451&end=9046","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f/thumbnail_7451000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6627472/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Board-reviews-two-conceptual-infill-proposals-at-320-Hampton-Court-and-438-Fayette-Park-members-ask-for-more-context-drawings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627472-2983d15d58280e3a1c08b35c317bc2dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141694&Signature=LW1EVBOK0P1OTN1ZwkA1JCxBHmD7MsZUi8fWwNCbtyH79TGYX1EYEb6K2ADv1nJYg-ofyy6aWXYAxRPE3TNt0XBx-1HUjWRPx9n82jpBBaU3G-k7tuoKyAvg5fZnKX1Wk~lY4OQSCRnju5dtkViBWiBd7CzJqDoopIplhRWq4BXxGNoMOU67303dbYsBWdzwOOufTvu3s1d~YnjEhlXEABr3OCd0b2l8u8LwAI1Di94VwUU3WrC~wJL7YWOJKmJiwlXdTpDnqB5ErzXXYFMpxtpXq5dl0kZ~zzHvnXadeuOsWxGejvg0-9SoWbB-zAI8Pv4hA0jEf-KcwTrSywGbqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lexington","date","2025-03-21T00:00:00Z","article","The Lexington Historic Preservation Board conducted conceptual reviews of two infill proposals and provided guidance focused on context, massing and streetscape relationships rather than detailed architectural decisions.

320 Hampton Court: Applicant John Cheatham presented a conceptual design for a two-story house set forward of a modest 1920s cottage on the lot. Staff asked whether the proposed building\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s height and massing were compatible with the block and whether an attached garage and courtyard arrangement would alter the streetscape. Board members expressed concern the new building appeared substantially larger than adjacent houses and asked for additional context imagery and a streetscape view showing neighboring facades to judge scale, setback and rooflines. The applicant said he would work with staff and provide additional views and revised massing options.

438 Fayette Park (rear infill parcel): The board reviewed a conceptual single-family residence proposed for a rear parcel historically associated with 438 Fayette Park. The parcel has an existing curb cut and was historically used for carriage houses; it was deed-restricted to remain with 438. The applicants presented a two-story residence over a garage with a modern material palette. Board members asked for clearer context showing adjacent Fayette Park frontage, nearby accessory structures and the park edge, and recommended showing volumes of adjacent buildings on the same view so the board could better judge scale and compatibility. Staff and members also noted site-tree locations and the importance of preserving existing vegetation where feasible.

In both conceptual reviews board members emphasized that applicants should return with: (1) street-level context views that show adjacent facades and heights; (2) clearer massing options that reduce perceived dominant bulk; and (3) site plans showing trees and site features. The reviews were conceptual only; no formal action or vote was required.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lexington - B.O.A.R. 3-19-25 - Mar 21, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At conceptual review the board gave preliminary feedback on a proposed two-story infill at 320 Hampton Court and a proposed new single-family structure in the rear lot at 438 Fayette Park, asking applicants to provide additional streetscape and context views and to reduce perceived bulk or adjust massing.","taxTitle","Lexington City, Fayette County, Kentucky","taxId",5707,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6627478,"Board continues review of unpermitted addition at 115 Penmoken Park after lengthy discussion; applicant told to return with revised plans",2992,4389000,7381000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f&start=4389&end=7381","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f/thumbnail_4389000.jpg","/articles/6627478/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Board-continues-review-of-unpermitted-addition-at-115-Penmoken-Park-after-lengthy-discussion-applicant-told-to-return-with-revised-plans","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627478-cc0c2703472e01d5036b032d1cf02b9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141694&Signature=jSA1f4fxzNGnjtgYloPW2tPFOvP32vAO2rDj31cQiIprLp-aMB0GAMD8FVyTLirZUZb21tKQBSbDDeja1Wyg8btjlEDDbz4HDdlsv41uBc2dcR9Bw1AA7NIHUFgPvt857F39Og2Xh7T0Lt-35ILc3BGGFP-s9Wo7VnJ08EAFO7RlaavBZXFUMxV3Tk2s3QaqwgqIPRb6a6zYnVZKh3IXrm5FiVtM3Rw~xyUmhZS~v2mENzGJsXSwzbEG4Kq86rP5OFCSbGQxXrNC742HRxfdKFQCnpeQ-ZlHu9CHS7VVIUsBf04K5UrDwEPv--eWLULXVO9EP7izRvb9Pj6J7vPRLg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The board continued a contentious application for 115 Penmoken Park after staff found the owner\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s constructed rear addition and enclosed porch do not meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.

Staff reported that the addition and enclosed porch were built without permits between Christmas and New Year's and that the long, unbroken 64-foot rear wall and flush roofline conflict with guideline language which recommends that additions \"step in a minimum of 12 inches\" and avoid a continuous roof line so the original roof remains evident. Staff recommended denial as constructed but said the enclosed porch finish materials (hardiplank proposed) could meet materials guidelines if details were adjusted.

Applicant representatives said the owner, Diane Lowe, recently purchased the home and the contractor who built the addition had left the project. The owner's representative asked the board for options and said the owner had already taken some steps: a structural engineer inspection, a survey, and contact with building inspection to begin the permitting process.

Board members and staff said the primary problem is the scale and uninterrupted length of the new wall and that modest surface changes would not be sufficient to bring the structure into compliance. Several board members suggested the owner obtain professional design assistance and return with significant revisions that break up the massing and roofline, such as projecting bays, dormers or reconfigured roof steps. Staff recommended the applicant produce revised drawings and meet with staff quickly if they wished to pursue compliance.

A motion to continue the application to the board\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s April 16 meeting was made and passed by voice vote. Staff advised that any revised submission should be provided to staff with a short turnaround to meet legal-notice timelines for subsequent hearings. Board members cautioned that enforcement and code departments may still pursue citations while an appeal or revised application is pending, and that bringing the project into compliance could require substantial change or removal of built elements.","The board continued review of a completed, unpermitted rear addition and enclosed porch at 115 Penmoken Park to the April meeting and advised the owner to work with a designer to develop alternatives that reduce the long unbroken rear wall and better meet preservation guidelines.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6627482,"Board approves rear addition and garage at 608 Ellesmere Park, directs fence be returned to originally approved configuration",182,4129000,4311000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f&start=4129&end=4311","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f/thumbnail_4129000.jpg","/articles/6627482/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Board-approves-rear-addition-and-garage-at-608-Ellesmere-Park-directs-fence-be-returned-to-originally-approved-configuration","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627482-c2edf6601712f883593fa1985a674dfb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141694&Signature=KnYEUr5SXstok9ODlDVsJ0xhc7ejTLKRCwcnYxDXdWmKn7Wiwv9-zo~8dQJUmmglMMHYzLERn4IIl98UFX33QUDFAS9AmLKugQ6wAgqryVR1clicgjboJs29QKKSWj5AVLkSNLUmkWTKU9CzOZYgj~a3qPCXjuGK5PTma6BuJd8EwsriTnX6TrHtQDq3KfNbe-9Mw6WkrhDNWi4Y20BFDKCB1Tp3QOyjZgXyxt8GZdwnfram3cXfwq0tGbM1-6zN~WzNIoS2vOMgu2kncgadZn92WeUpoq-ru1pj59V6Yc0eUK~rNLQ3t7GTxf~PyiWB3uumEiBvO~AUd6r4OZNrdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lexington Historic Preservation Board approved a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a rear addition and a garage at 608 Ellesmere Park and resolved a separate fence violation at the site.

At the meeting staff and the applicant confirmed agreement on staff recommendations for the addition and garage, including submission of final door and window details and the preservation office\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s standard two conditions: resubmission to staff after review by other LFUCG divisions and resubmission if changes alter the information before work begins.

The board approved items A (rear addition) and B (garage and driveway) with those conditions. For item C (the fence), the parties agreed the constructed fence did not match the previously approved plan and the board directed that the front and primary elevation fence be returned to the previously approved configuration: a 4-foot solid fence from the front corner to approximately the midpoint of the historic house elevation, where it would step up to 6 feet and continue to the rear. Board members and staff clarified that the fence topper shown on some drawings would not create a total height above 6 feet, and that the 4-foot front section should remain solid without a topper unless it met other requirements.

The board also reminded applicants to include trees and site imagery on future site plans. A board member had warned staff not to accept plans that omit tree locations in the future.

A motion to approve items A and B and to leave C to the previously approved fence arrangement passed by voice vote; the board added that the midpoint step-up to 6 feet should be worked out in consultation with staff.","The board approved a certificate of appropriateness for a rear addition and garage at 608 Ellesmere Park with standard staff conditions and resolved a fence violation by directing the front fence be restored to the previously approved 4-foot height to a midpoint and 6-foot beyond.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6627485,"Historic board issues multiple COAs for local properties including 417 Fayette Park, 340 New Street and 324 Arcadia Park",224,814000,1038000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f&start=814&end=1038","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f/thumbnail_814000.jpg","/articles/6627485/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Historic-board-issues-multiple-COAs-for-local-properties-including-417-Fayette-Park-340-New-Street-and-324-Arcadia-Park","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627485-baa39d1c3751037283b8b4e8b29b091a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141694&Signature=ajuC2F~T9jD6ErOBjAF7Hb00BMWRxsa9C~tcwFuLaB5oKNbnpxty74VCs4suO8sDxXTK3Gef~NX9Xu9Df8st25ifoAPnYx9hqgiAdAjxSDMeSQmbbxu04bbOGBYkLJPK-hrdVlQdKzTB7uezTHToQi3woVLV~AUlnG-~vVV7EHtbpxm~ONS4LB5uCxEhnpJFXHPQJtgm-r88upan7pyjr6HYye4sLw9GLwuyBqBy0Zn~Qz-zFj8K5YFqhiLUzQtLBNoSq5rgkz6vk~fZUsZLdaUZF7hLU50jCYNnfSLEoz6UOozlmOhEHYotcv3saJ4j~1tzOB0HuHynlByrZAbhBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its meeting the Lexington Historic Preservation Board approved certificates of appropriateness for multiple routine projects, including significant conditions that final material and window details be submitted to staff before COAs are issued.

For 417 Fayette Park (case referenced in the staff report) the board approved the COA with five conditions requiring final exterior siding and door/window specifications, patio flooring details and resubmission to staff if other Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) divisions require changes. A board member moved approval and the motion passed by voice vote.

At 340 New Street the applicant was not present. Staff reported the applicant received the staff report and recommendations; the board approved the COA with conditions that final window details and specifications be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to issuance.

At 324 Arcadia Park the owner present agreed to staff recommendations. The board moved to approve the COA with the standard two staff conditions and the motion passed by voice vote.

In each case the board relied on the preservation office\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s standard conditions: (1) resubmit any changes after review by other LFUCG divisions; and (2) resubmit if any changes alter the information previously submitted, prior to the start of work and COA issuance.

Board members and staff said these routine approvals require applicants to provide final construction details to staff before work starts so that the office can verify compliance with the district guidelines.

The votes were taken by voice; no roll-call tallies were recorded in the meeting transcript.","The board approved certificates of appropriateness for three properties (417 Fayette Park, 340 New Street, 324 Arcadia Park) subject to standard staff review conditions and submission of final door, window and siding details to staff prior to issuance.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6627489,"Historic board approves COA for 153 West Bell Court, drops requirement to move stained-glass window",0,2644000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f&start=2644&end=2644","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2727567-7ce4f27a2e4d924fe2d3ec6a27dba65f/thumbnail_2644000.jpg","/articles/6627489/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Historic-board-approves-COA-for-153-West-Bell-Court-drops-requirement-to-move-stained-glass-window","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6627489-afc7227574c38d127a4b071de17e5ce3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141694&Signature=DSjECp6AEs0PUKaiJ~b4~QQ~yU00Ttiyeu~Gbd3oaXskmmxOP-qbN77Kst5jP-0hgjMejQYXKKxMUGlg~G2ZqN6TQgl~ra4e73ZgmUg7uL~bUlCZaJDtYhaX99JXWlmO1OlkQNAVnHBIWkP1H1KjVYs5H4lyam7B2aqgYoLHHwOoHxB1j9xEqddCbzmBcGdVYYysts86ggyhzfdayJev8r4DJzKTGUxrWyBF-kpCJZEAd5imKM23s0woPdONITM3LfR4GtFGci2HM9Dwb-XKZd8P0VZFk9Y0WUQwlthc4Mh6m5Hjl3zj97NwaAL1v6OlTnkfvmJn-kf9qgcmimVjxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lexington Historic Preservation Board voted to approve a certificate of appropriateness for work at 153 West Bell Court, including retaining a second-floor stained-glass window in its current location and requiring the window casing to match the other second-floor windows.

Board members heard staff findings that \"the stained glass window needs to be shifted so it is centered above the lower window and casing should be similar to the other windows,\" but the owner, Nancy Johnson, said moving the window would risk further water intrusion and substantial additional cost. Johnson described extensive prior water damage and structural repairs to the rear elevation and said the stained glass is being stored and would be reinstalled where it originally sat.

SANDRA DAY, Historic Preservation staff, summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the rear addition, screened porch work and replacement siding subject to the standard staff conditions (resubmission to staff after review by other city divisions and resubmission if changed). DAY also recommended the casing around the stained glass match the opposite Second Floor window to increase the \"fullness of the stained glass opening.\"

After discussion the board adopted a motion to issue the COA with the standard two staff conditions and an additional condition that \"the casing of the Second Floor windows must match,\" and specifically deleted the portion of the staff recommendation that required moving the stained-glass window.

The board recorded the vote by voice; members present voted in favor and the motion passed.

The owner and contractor representatives said they will provide final casing and window details to staff for review prior to issuance of the COA and will work with staff to ensure consistency on the rear elevation as siding and trim work proceeds.

The board noted that the rear elevation has been altered over time and that some integrity of the original opening has been lost, but approved the proposed work with the specified conditions.

The COA decision resolves the immediate permit request but leaves the owner responsible for returning final details to staff before work begins.","The Lexington Historic Preservation Board approved a certificate of appropriateness for 153 West Bell Court with conditions requiring matching casing for a second-floor stained-glass opening and standard staff reviews; the board removed staff\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000s recommendation to shift the stained glass.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board reviews two conceptual infill proposals at 320 Hampton Court and 438 Fayette Park; members ask for more context drawings

Board continues review of unpermitted addition at 115 Penmoken Park after lengthy discussion; applicant told to return with revised plans

Board approves rear addition and garage at 608 Ellesmere Park, directs fence be returned to originally approved configuration

Historic board issues multiple COAs for local properties including 417 Fayette Park, 340 New Street and 324 Arcadia Park

Historic board approves COA for 153 West Bell Court, drops requirement to move stained-glass window