Board continues decision on kitchen exhaust and EIFS at 509 East Main; approves masonry screen and tree planting

LEXINGTON — The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board of Architectural Review on a motion approved partial changes at 509 East Main Street and continued two elements of the application for 60 days to allow the applicant and staff to produce more detailed architectural screening and EIFS remediation plans.

At the May meeting, the board voted to approve replacing a previously proposed louvered screen with a masonry wall around the mechanical makeup-air and handling equipment and to accept a landscaping change replacing bamboo with columnar sweetgum trees along the building’s southeast parking lot. The board continued consideration of the kitchen exhaust extension (ductwork/vent) and the use of an installed EIFS (synthetic stucco) over the existing masonry, giving the applicant a 60-day extension to submit detailed screening drawings and product specifications.

The items matter to nearby residents because the ductwork installed to serve a commercial kitchen sits on a rear wall adjacent to an occupiable roof terrace and private parking; neighbors testified they can both see and hear the exhaust equipment from their homes. Historic-preservation staff had recommended disapproval of the extended exhaust piece and the EIFS-over-block because, staff wrote, the ductwork “is large and highly visible” and the added synthetic finish reduces the visual definition of the building’s datum trim. Staff recommended approval, however, of replacing louvers with a masonry enclosure for fire-rating reasons, and of a landscaped screen (columnar trees) in place of bamboo in certain locations.

Acting Chair Susan Hill opened the agenda item by summarizing staff findings and the board’s procedures. Historic preservation staff explained that the original October approvals covered a smaller exhaust element and plantings; the recent on-site construction added a larger duct assembly and a concrete-block stucco enclosure that staff said should have been returned to the board for review. Staff said the ductwork “does not meet the guidelines” (Guideline 3.3a) because mechanical systems should be located and screened so they are “least visible and intrusive.” Staff also cited guidelines on landscape compatibility (Guideline 6B/C) and on original material treatment (Guidelines 2B/2J) in recommending disapproval of the extended vent and the EIFS over the garage/kitchen walls.

Applicant representatives said they had worked with city mechanical inspectors and historic‑preservation staff on-site and that some solutions proposed by staff conflicted with mechanical- and fire-code constraints. The applicant said the duct’s angled routing followed advice from the mechanical inspector to keep grease and combustion away from occupiable roof areas and that a vertical chimney would require a much taller structure that could remove terrace seating and still might not meet code clearances. The applicant proposed electrostatic painting of the exposed ductwork as a durable finish and said screening solutions had been explored but no single design had achieved consensus between mechanical staff, preservation staff, and the applicant.

Neighbors described the duct’s visibility and noise from their homes. “I can hear it in almost every room of my house,” neighbor Marcy Deaton said, adding she feared grease-laden vapors and a drop in property values. Another neighbor, Tyler Bromigen, said bamboo plantings had been installed and would provide screening as they mature; the development plan discussed a 15-foot planting buffer but participants disagreed on whether that is a minimum or maximum requirement and staff said the approved development plan would be referenced for clarification.

Faced with a May 31 administrative deadline for enforcement, the board offered two paths: act that night or accept an applicant-signed extension. The applicant agreed to a 60-day extension. The board’s motion to continue the hearing for 60 days included explicit direction that, during that window, the applicant would work with staff on schematic architectural screening proposals for the exhaust and provide product/specification sheets for the EIFS so the board could review concrete proposals at the next meeting.

On a separate motion, the board granted the certificate of appropriateness for the masonry enclosure in place of louvers and for the change from bamboo to columnar sweetgum trees along the southeast parking lot wall, with standard staff conditions and the expectation that the applicant will return with the requested drawings for the continued items.

The decision leaves open the most contested items — the visible angled ductwork and the existing synthetic stucco application — until staff and applicant return with specific, illustrated options the board can evaluate.

Board members and staff said they expect the applicant to supply drawings and material specifications so the review will focus on concrete architectural solutions rather than verbal descriptions.

The board set a 60-day continuance; the applicant agreed. The board’s approval of the masonry wall and tree planting will be documented in the COA issuance once staff confirms the standard conditions are met.