[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6629584,"mediaKeyId","2703535-d28da54addd46a69716ca471aae79c5d","parentId",2703535,"title","Board asks for more context on proposed house and garage behind 438 Fayette Park","audioSeconds",1831,"startMs",4580000,"endMs",6411000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2703535-d28da54addd46a69716ca471aae79c5d&start=4580&end=6411","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2703535-d28da54addd46a69716ca471aae79c5d/thumbnail_4580000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6629584/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Board-asks-for-more-context-on-proposed-house-and-garage-behind-438-Fayette-Park","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629584-f1bb2c716849ae8941b6ce43184af7c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145659&Signature=F-SWffS7zkbuk-gaRic8wz7uZ~omPY0G1Fi6E-6Ot3E~YgtArZxEqkbye1Ilc3zD97jJYzwVFyHpKrhXRejPxy3bLzQzDwop2P9lJpD3~KdmwViN37cG7Ow0-zZUr7kMKsKfuaufWu-zmuExtr1SJH-boLbUqZEqsqRBw6mdhBZEDSIVbXzuwoS7P1SYNHbxwkSZGHmqhND-XgglhY7GkGF4aG4IzYWJhdKQgpHHXP~1dic2EZDnWkH-edMbvdOkvMH9yLKlLiYQrmgYBw4of-~3JhKogOYIoTcAbn4OWb2goGCMUdVwktZySnDz4RrpMr5udocMJvUZ17EAnFZ4Og__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lexington","date","2025-03-19T00:00:00Z","article","The Lexington Board of Architectural Review reviewed a conceptual proposal for a new single-family dwelling proposed on a parcel behind 438 Fayette Park and advised the applicants to provide additional context drawings and elevations showing how the new house and two-car garage with a living unit above would relate to existing adjacent properties.

Staff said the parcel has been legally separated and given a street address (either 493 West Fifth Street or 445 Willie Street), but that a deed restriction requires it remain owned with 438 Fayette Park in perpetuity. The applicants presented a concept that places a two-story garage with two ground-floor parking spaces and living space above in the middle of a large lot; staff and board questioned how that volume would affect the park frontage, nearby cottages, and the lot's vegetation.

Why it matters: the lot sits at a prominent corner of Fayette Park and the introduction of a taller, freestanding house/garage could change open-space views, tree canopy and the character of the park edge.

Key issues raised

Board members and staff asked for clearer context: scaled elevations, three-dimensional massing, the relationship to the existing historic house (438 Fayette Park), and streetscape context facing Willie Street and Fifth Street. Several board members said the proposed building in the photographs looked larger than most accessory structures in the area and asked the applicants to show comparable existing buildings and the effect on green space.

Applicants\u0000response and intended use

An applicant representative said the owners intend the new building to function as a single-family residence and garage for family use (a guest house/garage) and emphasized they are not seeking to subdivide and sell the parcel. The design team said they were treating the parcel as a new freestanding residence and noted there are existing curb cuts and historic carriage-house footprints in the block that informed the concept.

Process and next steps

Board members requested the applicant return with a small-scale context map showing the parcel in relation to Fayette Park and adjacent Historic District buildings, elevations that place the new building next to neighboring facades, and clarification about whether the structure will present to Willie Street or Fifth Street. The board took no formal action at the conceptual stage and encouraged additional study of trees, circulation and the site's relationship to the park and neighborhood.

No vote

Because the discussion was conceptual the board did not issue findings or a vote. Staff and board members encouraged the applicants to return with more detailed context drawings and a plan that demonstrates how the new building would preserve the park edge and neighborhood character.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lexington - Board of Architectural Review - Mar 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A conceptual review considered a proposed freestanding single-family residence with garage behind 438 Fayette Park (possible addresses 493 W. Fifth or 445 Willie Street). Board members asked for more site and streetscape context, elevations, and clarity about how the parcel will relate to the principal house.","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},6629588,"Panel raises scale and streetscape concerns for proposed infill at 320 Hampton Court",1201,3145000,4346000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2703535-d28da54addd46a69716ca471aae79c5d&start=3145&end=4346","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2703535-d28da54addd46a69716ca471aae79c5d/thumbnail_3145000.jpg","/articles/6629588/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Panel-raises-scale-and-streetscape-concerns-for-proposed-infill-at-320-Hampton-Court","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629588-00c6c31e3717128df4aaede62c1e6a74/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145659&Signature=JWLGBUiTnQx0c5ZgjzaHdPL33ym3~9hrEKxoiesRHkLB6fu5-dbf6To7nkqAA7lbvFlROf9X5ohYz-Bzf9fX~ZeZtD~QrAOSPwIukL0g7eyuyqWZbbfKjk1-gjQ39CMujeO0hhf2yieed4AOPRFfdk~7OzduqoP~poNcfuTdOVr7Qvf97Rfd0i9aEUOEWR~j8kvHB7L4~52209TCBPP1SQq9wGOkDQg7EgEzJws6NdaXHfJ7tg-QozK9gNA4m9RzjoY8fZeRm4JGjtbyHcj6tVMWyME1eZpK3yGtgZZ9fBABSF72j-gh5XnUBD7mi4IIxU3XC5YY9mZwDef2aPE~IQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lexington Board of Architectural Review held a conceptual review of a proposed two-story infill for 320 Hampton Court and advised the applicant to gather more contextual information before submitting a formal Certificate of Appropriateness application.

Staff described the existing property as a modest 1920s cottage set back from the street with an existing drive leading to a secondary structure at the rear. The concept presented calls for a new two-story building with an attached, enclosed garage and a courtyard, set between the cottage and neighboring houses. The applicant said the proposal would keep the existing small house and build a new structure forward on the lot connected by a breezeway.

Why it matters: board members said the streetscape and the cottage's setting are central to whether a new building in that foreground position is appropriate. The case is conceptual only; no formal action was required or taken.

Board concerns and staff questions

Staff asked whether the proposed building would be compatible with the block's rhythm, roof shapes, and proportion; whether an attached garage is appropriate in that location; and whether the new building would block or overwhelm the historic cottage. Board members repeatedly raised scale and massing as the primary concerns. One member said the proposal \"is a lot bigger than what's next to it\" and urged the applicant to present more images showing the new building in context with adjacent facades and heights.

Applicant response and next steps

John Cheatham, the applicant, said the review was intentionally conceptual and that he wanted guidance about whether to pursue a formal COA application. \"Just really want to get the question answered of should we even apply for a COA on this?\" Cheatham said. He told the board he would work with staff and provide additional views and scaled elevations, including a street-level streetscape and 3-D massing, if the board wanted to see them.

Staff and board members suggested the applicant include facade elevations that show the proposed building alongside neighboring houses, a topographic or site survey view, and the effect on the mature tree near the site. The board did not vote on the concept; the applicant agreed to continue design work and to consult staff on the preparation of a formal application.

No formal action

Because the item was a conceptual review, the board did not make findings or file a formal determination. The board and staff encouraged the applicant to return with more context and refined visuals before filing a formal COA application.","At a conceptual review the board questioned whether a proposed two-story infill at 320 Hampton Court would overwhelm a modest 1920s cottage on the lot and asked the applicant to provide additional context, streetscape views and scaled elevations before filing a formal Certificate of Appropriateness application.",{"_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},6629593,"Board continues review of unpermitted rear addition at 115 Pen Mocha Park",3044,25000,3069000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2703535-d28da54addd46a69716ca471aae79c5d&start=25&end=3069","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2703535-d28da54addd46a69716ca471aae79c5d/thumbnail_25000.jpg","/articles/6629593/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Board-continues-review-of-unpermitted-rear-addition-at-115-Pen-Mocha-Park","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6629593-6b507a7687fccad56fb1890ab5cbaca6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771145659&Signature=WZOOs4EXZSn4Hsjczj61SP7gCetbHGE50JkZXJ65nMZIMu6HAeh7VCWGu123XfNi9cFFsH6-lq4JcAxk9Q7jUok2Sl65QE9gWl4mWT57uP7bQs4kd-9Lxtn1MRPU-1pClx3pJXu-msCtxAxCqRJbq~5PPY75u-kpQ3H5YG0p1eJU8WbuBNQj6FRtHvT1Vd3xvf4aV6~El65Pvxg8OvlNVPG1cskS4Ob7HQDE9SpkOlkJC7owHKi8Y4B0keKhP7MDqbvQpnQZutsWsa1Jee118JI1xLHNxHGzhzZl8kX0RbfJc2iYXIWV3HNfExDuZFGM3g73FMVzmaSH4zwDL2YDOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lexington Board of Architectural Review on a vote continued consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness application for 115 Pen Mocha Park to the board's April 16 meeting after staff said a rear addition and an enclosed porch were built without permits and do not comply with the district's design guidelines.

Staff told the board the addition extends the house into a single, uninterrupted 64-foot run that fails the guideline requirement that additions step back from existing walls and roofs so the original roofline remains evident. Staff also said the enclosure uses vinyl siding and vinyl windows rather than the horizontal wood siding and wood- or anodized-aluminum windows preferred in the guidelines. The addition was already constructed when building inspectors and staff visited, the record shows.

Why it matters: the built work is currently in violation of local design rules and building-permit requirements. Board members and staff said the violation limits the board's ability to resolve the matter on paper; bringing the structure into compliance could require substantial changes to the addition's length, massing or materials, and possible action by code enforcement if a new plan is not approved.

Staff summary and options

Amelia, a planning staff member who presented the case, said staff re-advertised the application after learning the screened porch had been enclosed as part of the unpermitted work. “We\u0000\u0000\u0000we've never allowed a situation like this to occur,” Amelia said, noting the guidelines require additions to step in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building and to avoid creating an indistinguishable, continuous roof and wall line. Staff recommended against the application as constructed.

Applicant and owner statements

Paul Gomenick, who said he represents the property owner, told the board the owner, Diane Lowe, purchased the house a few months ago and that a contractor built the addition between Christmas and New Year's without pulling permits. Gomenick said the owner\u0000wants the porch enclosed to keep cats from escaping and to house a large quilting machine.

Board discussion and next steps

Board members discussed limited options for keeping the work as built. Staff and members said modest changes such as a dormer would not solve the fundamental problem, the continuous 64-foot wall run. Staff told the applicant the building would likely need a substantial redesign to read as an addition rather than a single long volume; during discussion a staff member also recited possible dimensional targets mentioned in the hearing: “If you make it 58 feet, it'll be within the guidelines. Or if you make it that the whole building's length is 48 feet, it's within the guidelines.”

The board recommended the applicant obtain rapid design assistance and meet with staff. Staff said any revised submittal to be considered for the next available hearing would need a very short turnaround (staff recommended no more than two weeks to allow notice and review). The board also reviewed the enforcement and appeal timeline: an owner has 30 days to file an appeal of a board action; if an appeal is filed the planning commission may place it on its docket and the matter can remain in place while the appeal proceeds.

Formal action

A motion to continue the Certificate of Appropriateness application for review at the April 16 meeting passed. The motion was made and seconded on the record and approved by voice vote; the board recorded the motion as continued to the April meeting.

What happens next

Staff advised the owner to secure design help to produce revised plans that would reduce the continuous wall run and change materials and detailing to meet the design principles. The board noted that if the owner cannot or will not produce a sufficiently different application, enforcement action and fines remain possible under local code enforcement procedures.","The Lexington Board of Architectural Review continued an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness after staff said a recently built rear addition and enclosed porch at 115 Pen Mocha Park were constructed without permits and do not meet the board's design guidelines.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board asks for more context on proposed house and garage behind 438 Fayette Park

Panel raises scale and streetscape concerns for proposed infill at 320 Hampton Court

Board continues review of unpermitted rear addition at 115 Pen Mocha Park