[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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],{"_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",6485403,"mediaKeyId","5778162-f055d5f619f555ccc8a053b7fc371ff1","parentId",5778162,"title","Votes at a glance: Board of Architectural Review actions on Sept. 17, 2025","audioSeconds",1791,"startMs",414000,"endMs",2205000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5778162-f055d5f619f555ccc8a053b7fc371ff1&start=414&end=2205","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5778162-f055d5f619f555ccc8a053b7fc371ff1/thumbnail_414000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6485403/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Votes-at-a-glance-Board-of-Architectural-Review-actions-on-Sept-17-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6485403-42982467563d4c50ec06fa8e22e3712f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141731&Signature=bhaQclbmecTwWtabxwoHa2omhNBdWvH0n2eDrIElSOVBCie9YjVKdTRATZqlmhE5i6wdQ6tHmYmjh11Gr0ijBAZGV~iyvcmIp0g6ZfLMgNPQj7OCnq2GWeLjkfjCYeG2kNQUcDuPgFqOqPH8UobSAv8B4rpypCzBfim62bgmI6dhJ0U038qAMmyfNLB0eNriaUZAU6KtIoZXvR5cBgeyPelt1qa9ogNJ6DMxtuso2NtqcLYJdHsLW2gFEm8DMIlKH6mwgN1IO5p34b0ZgGO9rv5~xbs4OWgqyLRPjseFIDIad9j7GTu4-sffxPkicgzEoQU4CgGiy9HaC4H3BdW6MA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lexington","date","2025-09-17T00:00:00Z","article","At its Sept. 17 meeting the Lexington City Board of Architectural Review completed a number of routine and contested items. The board read 26 staff approvals into the record and approved multiple Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs). Where noted in the record, approvals were subject to the board's standard conditions (resubmission to staff/board if changes occur) and, in some cases, site‑specific additional conditions. A summary of formal actions recorded in the meeting follows.

Key approved COAs (case number, address, outcome):

- Case 09290316-J, 316 East High Street — COA granted (construct carport) as conditioned by staff; motion passed.
- Case 09290426-B, 426 East High Street — COA granted (window changes) with standard conditions; motion passed.
- Case 17310424-N, 424 West Sixth Street — COA granted (platform lift) with standard conditions; motion passed.
- Case 02500612-KF, 612 North Broadway — COA granted (two‑story addition) with standard conditions; motion passed.
- Case 18130135, 135 Suburban Court — COA granted (rear addition) with standard conditions plus an additional condition requiring the addition be set back one foot from the side walls of the historic structure; motion passed.
- Case 03630702-N, 702 Central Avenue — COA granted (garage) with standard conditions plus staff review for window muntin patterns and removal of shutters (see separate article); motion passed.
- Case 09300200-BB, 200 West High Street (First United Methodist Church) — COA granted (dumpster enclosure) with standard conditions; motion passed.
- Case 122700608F, 608 West Main Street (Main Street Baptist Church sign) — COA granted with condition that signpost not exceed 4.5 feet; motion passed.
- Case 09300722-E, 722 West High Street — COA granted with conditions requiring code‑compliant resubmission for the west‑side fence and related adjustments per building inspection; motion passed.
- Case 1220032-D, 312 Madison Place — COA granted (brick piers for gates) with standard conditions; motion passed.
- Case 11670287-S, 287 South Limestone — COA granted for rear deck (applicant built deck without prior COA); board approved with standard conditions and left building/zoning modifications to other city divisions (see separate article); motion passed.

Other routine approvals: 26 staff approvals were read into the record at the start of the meeting and acted on by voice vote without individual presentation. Several items were continued or set aside for further staff follow‑up (notably the East Bell Court connector, continued to Oct. 15, 2025). The board also approved the minutes for July 23 and Aug. 20, 2025 and adjourned.

Why it matters: The votes update property owners and contractors on which projects cleared board review and identify items that require additional work, permits, or appeals. Approved COAs permit applicants to pursue building permits, subject to additional departmental approvals where indicated.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lexington - Board of Architectural Review","oneSentenceSummary","The Lexington City Board of Architectural Review read 26 staff approvals into the record and approved multiple certificates of appropriateness (COAs) for individual properties; several cases were continued or required follow-up with other city divisions.","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},6485407,"Board approves COA for garage at 702 Central Avenue with conditions on shutters and window details; pool to be handled separately",524,1021000,1545000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5778162-f055d5f619f555ccc8a053b7fc371ff1&start=1021&end=1545","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5778162-f055d5f619f555ccc8a053b7fc371ff1/thumbnail_1021000.jpg","/articles/6485407/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Board-approves-COA-for-garage-at-702-Central-Avenue-with-conditions-on-shutters-and-window-details-pool-to-be-handled-separately","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6485407-1a8ed0e92cc78281db9409f9e284efd6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141731&Signature=Kkigm6AgLTvb1UM4wNZEmv80YC0NA2wz~MNDYKT-uFHn5dTUuTmiL1R9Uh2v06IpBJow-NWT8j~ZeZfaP1yGnmO6~13zk~gx38-akicwnhOKFvcRn4Or50MUZW4KBk5NhbJ4o0uGZUecH7WjTs1OQu~bSrqMXwQpldztzuDlT9I~e8YjzmZ1IWR98P2ArRXRqjuPBYNc-YigGzbqjC-Xw1F0DzgmJbxlpLqcZcjQ9~XqA9XbzTk~w2HdYqXrlvlQYchC4oJoCuowu6xmVuW5hb14ECMdimgaOQMpPAlfG9kq3a7k4j96cMYOEtlPPTOvOpmxTfqvIsAGGOyG6~3qZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lexington City Board of Architectural Review approved a certificate of appropriateness for a proposed garage at 702 Central Avenue on Sept. 17, with additional conditions that details on shutters and divided‑light windows return to staff for review prior to issuance of a COA.

Applicant Darren Taylor, representing the owners, acknowledged staff's standard two conditions and discussed aesthetic choices including shutters and divided‑light windows. Board members raised concerns that the shutters and traditional divided‑light windows made the garage appear more \"historic\" than appropriate for the building's context; one board member said the garage's current garage‑door detail looked \"awfully rustic and country\" and suggested a simpler design. Taylor and his team said they were willing to consider removing shutters for cost and aesthetic reasons and testing different muntin patterns for the windows.

Staff and the board also addressed drawings related to an in‑ground pool adjacent to the garage. The chair noted the pool was not included in the advertised scope of work and that the staff did not have complete drawings at the time of finalizing the staff report. The chair directed that the pool be handled as a separate COA application (staff indicated it could end up being a staff approval) and that because the site had already been advertised, re‑advertising might not be required if supplemental materials were filed for the October meeting.

Following discussion, a motion passed to approve the COA for the garage with the standard two conditions plus the additional direction that staff review window muntin patterns (no divided lights) and removal of shutters prior to issuance of the COA. The applicant agreed and the motion carried.

Why it matters: The board's conditions reflect its role in shaping appearance and materials in historic districts; technical site elements (pool, fence) require separate permitting and may be approved by staff if within staff authority.

Next steps: Applicant to provide final window/shutter details to staff before COA issuance. Pool and other site work must be submitted as separate COA application materials for staff review and possible staff approval; if advertised, staff said it could produce a staff report for the October packet.","A COA for a garage at 702 Central Avenue was approved with standard conditions plus direction that shutters be removed and window muntin patterns be reviewed by staff; the in-ground pool was not part of the advertised application and must be submitted as a separate COA.",{"_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},6485412,"Board grants COA for rear deck at 287 South Limestone; other agency approvals still required",2178,3008000,5186000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5778162-f055d5f619f555ccc8a053b7fc371ff1&start=3008&end=5186","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5778162-f055d5f619f555ccc8a053b7fc371ff1/thumbnail_3008000.jpg","/articles/6485412/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Board-grants-COA-for-rear-deck-at-287-South-Limestone-other-agency-approvals-still-required","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6485412-92fcf657101a5e4a34614c6978026077/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141731&Signature=AsqAyYYVrD6QbI-HmBBRGMcUu~LO9GlTCpZypbl6G7i5q0g3koemWY2oxkItZJtrlOaXEGW3Xj5Wx4k84gjsqH1Dxx0Epb5W7OVo2VBhpqmWI5ZzLt1UBjNr7pkuS~VEWQnbBg6mDUh0CIyuF4jjY5lGCmJXd40zOBvBMbEsX6PjzzpTw8Dlk~d4rQQ6hgroW-FxY3jebktU8n2J81D8boyA3SWULmNN3WxjgSCPLczwKvgrb5vqmwuR9ahBAL7USRpx-bm7UGtFm1AjizSnEa12Vu2nnkfpFInzT7nxN7xRGDUs6dsCwwtw9IhIIW1~6inOlOw2ch2mg5nC~fVS2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lexington City Board of Architectural Review on Sept. 17 approved a certificate of appropriateness (COA) for a rear deck at 287 South Limestone that had been constructed without prior board approval. The board approved the COA with the board's standard conditions and removed an additional staff-proposed requirement that the deck be cut back five feet from the Maxwell Street sidewalk, leaving technical compliance to building inspection and other city divisions.

Historic preservation staff said they discovered the deck after it had been built and noted that building inspection and planning staff advised the board that vertical combustible construction cannot be placed that close to the sidewalk under zoning/building rules. The staff presentation recommended approval only if the deck were cut back to a minimum of five feet from the back of the Maxwell Street sidewalk to comply with LFUCG zoning regulations.

Neighbor Austin Mayer, who identified himself as owner of Condominium Unit 305 at 275 South Limestone and whose bedroom window overlooks the property, told the board he and other condo residents were concerned about noise and encroachment. Mayer said the deck had been constructed without approval and that a property survey provided to the city showed the deck encroached 8 to 12 inches onto the condominium association's property line; he also referenced prior land-use restrictions prohibiting outdoor live entertainment. \"He's built the deck without approval,\" Mayer said, and condo residents reported noise complaints during construction and after the deck opened.

The applicant, Genghis Akhmete, representing the property at 287 South Limestone, told the board the deck was for outdoor seating associated with the business and that construction had just been completed. He acknowledged the board's standard conditions and said he would pursue any required city permits.

Board members debated whether to impose the five-foot cutback as an explicit board condition or to rely on the COA's standard conditions that tie subsequent work to other agency approvals. One board member moved to grant the COA with the staff's two standard conditions but to delete the staff's proposed additional cutback condition; another board member seconded the amendment. \"Just because we're saying the COA's okay with us, doesn't mean that you can't have it. You still may need a building permit,\" a board member said, explaining that separate building‑code review could require changes.

The board voted to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard conditions and with the staff-suggested cutback deleted; the applicant was advised to contact building inspection and to consult with neighbors. Staff cautioned that the approval does not waive other agencies' authority; building inspection or code enforcement could still require modifications or deny a building permit.

Why it matters: The case highlights how COAs interact with building code and zoning requirements: a board approval for compatibility with historic‑district guidelines does not override building code or zoning limits. Neighbors raised concerns about noise and alleged encroachment on private property; the board encouraged applicant-neighbor communication and made clear the approval remains subject to building inspection and other city reviews.

Next steps: The applicant will pursue permits with Building Inspection and may need to alter the deck if those divisions require changes. The board record indicates the 30-day appeal window for prior staff approvals has passed for earlier elements of the property, but other enforcement avenues and permitting reviews remain.","The Board of Architectural Review approved a certificate of appropriateness for a rear deck built without prior approval at 287 South Limestone but left agency compliance (building inspection/zoning) to determine required modifications.",{"_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},6485417,"Board continues hearing on proposed connector at East Bell Court after debate over historic impact",1486,2277000,3763000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5778162-f055d5f619f555ccc8a053b7fc371ff1&start=2277&end=3763","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5778162-f055d5f619f555ccc8a053b7fc371ff1/thumbnail_2277000.jpg","/articles/6485417/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Board-continues-hearing-on-proposed-connector-at-East-Bell-Court-after-debate-over-historic-impact","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6485417-8ae3eac91ed4afda6a3506302ee46007/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141731&Signature=GRzyj4i-kSgoA-Zxo-dEZQkYI-QmdHTtUHRL-0dMfZAwE55~JYaT2YYisgXGqvdDkGlmI2zlu7idFXlsDI8cQy-iDsjvb6pP4~ZPskuvZ0KJN7A7-VTzWQrVK6KUxfEGyR16K~TiWCE8e363-zLZkWb7CLSnmkDNgpTbTC1J7HYkP1yu8J7yzDg7tlWqE~y6-2B7FDCYSnkIJVP1Zr7FkbfS5QJKI-gS2GzJUNjs6HbFMgwHFnNFbB-tl4cc69zMAPSyF9j~CM9IlGeNCZrBGKy9FzZQiTBhTMGSmoxEfl7SEqJ6AyL84ZpaKT5GKSOiew~KrNg-dCrtV3PMISLQMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lexington City Board of Architectural Review on Sept. 17 continued a hearing on a proposal to connect a two-story dwelling to a new garage on East Bell Court until Oct. 15, 2025, after extensive discussion on whether the connector would conflict with the East Bell Court Historic District guidelines.

Staff presented the application and recommended disapproval of the connector under the district guidelines (cited as 2B1C), saying \"the proposed attachment is not within the guidelines and staff recommends disapproval of the connector.\" The recommendation noted that connecting the primary house directly to an accessory building is inconsistent with the established pattern on the block.

Applicant Darren Taylor, who is representing the property owner and whose address was given as 239 North Mill Street, told the board his design team had developed multiple structural options (pressure-treated LVLs or steel tube sections) and that building inspection had indicated technical concerns could be resolved. Taylor said the team had prepared three or four options and, after discussions with building inspection, received an email indicating the inspectors were \"comfortable with this proposal.\" Taylor asked the board how to test the revised design and requested additional time to provide drawings.

Board member Miss Hill urged an approach that treats the connector as a separate \"third structure\" that spans between the two buildings on its own supports rather than becoming a structural extension of either building. Hill recommended columns or a light steel column system so the connector could be removed or repaired in the future without affecting the two main structures. \"Let's not make it a physical, structural link,\" Hill said, arguing a freestanding bridge would simplify water management and lessen long-term structural risk.

Other board members, including Mr. Dickinson, agreed that a column-supported bridge could provide a pathway to meet the board's design concerns while still allowing the owner's programmatic goals (additional access and living space). Staff reiterated that they were not comfortable writing an approval without seeing revised drawings.

Because the board's deadline for action was the next day, the applicant agreed on the record to sign a waiver to extend the hearing. The board voted to continue the case to Oct. 15, 2025, and instructed the applicant to submit revised drawings for staff and board review. The continuance was recorded after a motion to continue was moved and seconded and passed unanimously.

Why it matters: The board's decision will affect precedent in the East Bell Court Historic District for permitting connective structures between primary and accessory buildings. Staff cited guidelines intended to preserve block rhythm and setbacks; board members balanced that regulatory aim with the owner's stated goal of enabling continued occupancy and functional access.

What happens next: The applicant will produce revised drawings reflecting a non-structurally-attached bridge option (columns or cantilever/steel options were discussed) and provide them to staff in time for the board's October 15 meeting. Staff and building inspection will continue to coordinate on technical review before any final board action.

Context and process notes: Staff repeatedly referenced guideline 2B1C (setbacks and pattern of development) in recommending disapproval. Board members asked for technical details about where potential columns would fall in relation to existing doors, eaves and stairs and requested drawings illustrating the bridge as an independent structure. The applicant asked the board for procedural guidance on how to present revised details and was told to submit drawings for the October packet by the staff's filing deadline.","The Lexington City Board of Architectural Review continued a contested application for a connector between a house and a new garage at East Bell Court to Oct. 15, 2025, after staff recommended disapproval and applicants proposed a revised bridge design.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Board of Architectural Review actions on Sept. 17, 2025

Board approves COA for garage at 702 Central Avenue with conditions on shutters and window details; pool to be handled separately

Board grants COA for rear deck at 287 South Limestone; other agency approvals still required

Board continues hearing on proposed connector at East Bell Court after debate over historic impact