# Board of Architectural Review Meeting - January 15, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 15, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3210 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3210?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-01-15 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 5,313 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review met on January 15, 2014. During this meeting, the board considered 19 agenda items and took 5 motions and votes. The board heard 3 public comments. Of the items reviewed, 14 received approval, including projects such as window sash repair and reinstallation at 250 South Hanover Avenue; wall rehabilitation at 298 South Ashland Avenue; structure renovations at 630 Central Avenue, 256 Clay Avenue, 608 East High Street, and 359 South Upper Street; front column renovation at 466 East High Street; paving installation at 127 Ransom Avenue; roof renovation at 314 Transylvania Avenue; door opening and front porch renovation at 515 North Broadway; fencing replacement at 611 Arcadia Park; opening changes at 256 Clay Avenue; garage design changes at 513 South Mill Street; and an addition construction at 436 West 3rd Street. Two items were postponed: the demolition and construction of an addition at 461 North Limestone and the construction of a single-family residence with attached garage at 437 Lawrence Street. Additionally, the board heard an informational presentation on a conceptual review for 500 West Short Street and reviewed the minutes from the November 13, 2013 Board of Architectural Review meeting. ## Attendance **Present:** - Amelia - Jack Ballard - Hugh Bloomfield - Nathan Billings - Joe Costa - Joey Lasca - Ram - Mr. Pohl **Absent:** - Mr. Dickinson **Late:** - None ## Votes and Decisions The Board of Architectural Review approved three Certificates of Appropriateness and postponed two applications. **256 Clay Avenue** [timestamp: 0:21:57] The board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness by voice vote. The motion was made by Mr. Chair. Approval is conditional on submission of one final location detail and two final details of the window surround to staff. **513 South Mill Street** [timestamp: 0:24:06] The board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness by voice vote. The motion was made by Mr. Bauer. Approval is conditional on review and return to staff of any changes from other LFUCG divisions. **436 West 3rd Street** [timestamp: 0:26:19] The board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness by voice vote. The motion was made by Mr. Chair. Approval is conditional on submission of final details of doors and windows prior to purchase, and review by other LFUCG divisions with results returned to staff. **461 North Limestone** [timestamp: 0:52:20] The board postponed the Certificate of Appropriateness application to February 12, 2015 by voice vote. The motion was made by Mr. Chair and seconded. The owner is to address the board for 3–4 minutes at the next meeting. Staff is to deliver a CD with supporting materials by the next morning. **437 Lawrence Street** [timestamp: 0:53:01] The board postponed the Certificate of Appropriateness application to February 12, 2015 by voice vote. The motion was made by Mr. Chair and seconded. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the Board regarding the proposed demolition and reconstruction of 461 North Limestone. **Joe Costa** [timestamp: 0:33:34] Joe Costa, owner of Rose Hill, spoke in support of the demolition project. He expressed deep appreciation for the historic significance of the property and emphasized his role as a caretaker of history. Costa argued that the structure is uninhabitable and poorly conceived, and contended that demolition and reconstruction would better preserve the original architecture for future generations. **Mr. Cole** [timestamp: 0:38:27] Mr. Cole strongly opposed the demolition of the 1812 structure. He asserted that the building is historically significant and that tearing it down undermines the development of a culture that values design. Cole questioned several aspects of the demolition proposal, including the structural assessment, cost estimates, and the necessity of total demolition. He suggested that alternative stabilization methods should be considered before proceeding with demolition. **Joey Lasca** [timestamp: 0:48:17] Joey Lasca, identified as one of the design professionals, presented evidence supporting the need for demolition. He documented severe structural damage to the building, including foundation movement, masonry cracks, and daylighting through walls. Lasca emphasized that the building is beyond repair and noted that the damage was worse than initially believed during the assessment process. ## Contested Items **Demolition of 461 North Limestone** The board engaged in a heated discussion regarding the proposed demolition of the structure at 461 North Limestone, which was built in 1812. The board members were deeply divided on whether to approve the demolition. Board members supporting preservation argued that the structure was historically significant and should be preserved as part of the community's historic fabric. Those favoring demolition cited concerns about the building's structural unsoundness and the costs associated with rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance. The discussion encompassed several key points of contention: - **Structural integrity**: Disagreement over the actual condition of the structure and whether it could be safely rehabilitated - **Cost estimates**: Debate over the financial implications of preservation versus demolition - **Historic preservation**: Conflicting views on the cultural and historical importance of maintaining the 1812-era building The meeting record does not indicate a final resolution or outcome regarding the board's decision on this demolition proposal. ## 250 South Hanover Avenue: Repair/Re-install window sash [timestamp: 00:15:55] Staff presented a proposal for the repair and re-installation of window sash at 250 South Hanover Avenue, located in the Ashland Park Historic District. Amelia presented the item to the board. The proposal received staff approval. No board discussion or vote was required for this agenda item. **Outcome:** Approved ## 298 South Ashland Avenue: Rehabilitate southeast wall; reissue COA [timestamp: 00:15:55] Staff presented a proposal for the rehabilitation of the southeast wall at 298 South Ashland Avenue, located in the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, and the reissuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness for this work. Amelia presented the staff recommendation for this agenda item. The proposal was approved by staff, and no board discussion or vote was required for this matter. **Outcome:** The rehabilitation of the southeast wall and reissuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness for 298 South Ashland Avenue was approved. ## 630 Central Avenue: Renovate structure [timestamp: 00:15:55] Staff presented a proposal to renovate the structure at 630 Central Avenue, located in the Ellsford Historical District. Amelia presented the item to the board. The renovation proposal received staff approval. No board discussion or vote was required for this agenda item, as the matter was handled through the staff approval process. The proposal was approved. ## 256 Clay Avenue: Renovate structure The Board of Architectural Review considered a proposal to renovate the structure at 256 Clay Avenue, located in the Ellsford Historic District. [timestamp: 00:15:55] Amelia presented the staff recommendation regarding this renovation project. The proposal received staff approval, and no board discussion or vote was required for this agenda item. The renovation was approved as presented. ## 466 East High Street: Renovate front columns [timestamp: 00:15:55] Staff presented a proposal to renovate the front columns at 466 East High Street, located in the Ellsford Historic District. Amelia presented the item to the board. The renovation project received staff approval. No board discussion or vote was required for this agenda item, as the matter was handled through the staff approval process. The project was approved. ## 608 East High Street: Renovate structure [timestamp: 00:15:55] The Board of Architectural Review considered a proposal to renovate the structure at 608 East High Street, located in the Ellsford Historic District. Amelia presented the staff recommendation regarding this renovation project. The staff had reviewed the proposal and determined it met the necessary requirements for approval. No discussion or vote from the full board was required for this agenda item, as the renovation received staff approval. The project was approved and moved forward without additional board deliberation. ## 127 Ransom Avenue: Install paving [timestamp: 00:15:55] Staff approved the installation of paving at 127 Ransom Avenue, located in the Ellsford Historic District. Amelia presented this item to the Board of Architectural Review. No board discussion or vote was required for this agenda item, as the proposal was approved at the staff level. The installation of paving proceeded without additional deliberation from the full board. **Outcome:** Approved ## 314 Transylvania Avenue: Renovate roof [timestamp: 00:15:55] Staff approved the roof renovation project at 314 Transylvania Avenue, located in the Ellsford Historic District. Amelia presented the item to the board. No board discussion or vote was required for this agenda item, as the project had already received staff approval. **Outcome:** Approved ## 515 North Broadway: Renovate door openings [timestamp: 00:15:55] Staff presented a proposal to renovate door openings at 515 North Broadway, located in the Northside Historic District. Amelia presented this item to the Board of Architectural Review. The renovation of door openings was approved by staff prior to the board meeting. No board discussion or vote was required for this agenda item, as the project had already received staff approval. **Outcome:** Approved ## 515 North Broadway: Renovate front porch [timestamp: 00:15:55] The Board of Architectural Review considered a proposal to renovate the front porch at 515 North Broadway, located in the Northside Historic District. Amelia presented the staff recommendation for this project. The renovation was approved by staff, and no board discussion or vote was required for this agenda item. **Outcome:** The front porch renovation at 515 North Broadway was approved. ## 611 Arcadia Park: Replace/install new fencing [timestamp: 00:15:55] Staff presented a proposal for the replacement and installation of new fencing at 611 Arcadia Park, located in the Seven Parks Historic District. Amelia addressed the board on this matter. The proposal received staff approval, and no board discussion or vote was required for this agenda item. The fencing project was approved through the staff approval process. ## 359 South Upper Street: Renovate site [timestamp: 00:15:55] Staff presented a site renovation proposal for 359 South Upper Street, located in the South Hills Historic District. Amelia provided the staff presentation on this agenda item. The renovation project received staff approval. No board discussion or vote was required for this item, as it fell under staff approval authority. **Outcome:** The site renovation at 359 South Upper Street was approved. ## 256 Clay Avenue: Change openings [timestamp: 00:17:39] The Board of Architectural Review considered a certificate of appropriateness for a change of window openings at 256 Clay Avenue. **Discussion and Considerations** The board discussed the proposed window modifications, with particular attention to the height and alignment of the windows in relation to the existing door. A key point of deliberation centered on the appropriate height for the windows, with the board recommending that a window be lowered to 36 inches to achieve better proportional alignment with the door. **Conditions of Approval** The board approved the change of window openings subject to the following conditions: - Submission of final location details to staff - Submission of window surround details to staff **Outcome** The application was approved. The board's recommendation to lower the window to 36 inches was made as part of the approval process, with the understanding that final details would be reviewed by staff before implementation. ## 513 South Mill Street: Change garage design [timestamp: 23:01] The Board of Architectural Review considered a certificate of appropriateness for a change in garage design at 513 South Mill Street. **Presentation and Discussion** Jack Ballard and Amelia presented the proposed garage design change to the board. The applicant agreed with the staff recommendation regarding the project. **Outcome** The board approved the change in garage design as submitted. The approval included a condition that any changes from other Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) divisions must be reviewed and returned to staff before implementation. ## 436 West 3rd Street: Construct addition [timestamp: 0:24:39] The Board of Architectural Review considered a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an addition at 436 West 3rd Street. Hugh Bloomfield and Amelia presented the proposal to the board. During the review, updated plans were presented that eliminated one previously identified condition. The board approved the construction of the addition, subject to conditions. Prior to purchase, the applicant must submit final details for doors and windows. These details will be reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review as well as other LFUCG (Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government) divisions before proceeding. ## 461 North Limestone: Demolish addition; construct addition The Board of Architectural Review considered a certificate of appropriateness application for the demolition of an existing addition and construction of a new addition at 461 North Limestone [timestamp: 0:26:57]. **Presentation and Discussion** The applicant, represented by key speakers including Nathan Billings, Joe Costa, Mr. Cole, and Joey Lasca, submitted a detailed letter and presentation to support the proposal. The board engaged with the applicant regarding the scope and nature of the proposed work. **Board Concerns** The board expressed concerns about the building's historical significance and its structural integrity in relation to the proposed demolition and reconstruction of the addition. **Outcome** The board postponed the hearing to allow for further consideration and discussion. The hearing is scheduled to resume on February 12, 2015, at which time the owner will speak before the board. ## 437 Lawrence Street: Construct single-family residence and attached garage **Application Type:** Certificate of Appropriateness **Project Description:** Construction of a single-family residence and attached garage at 437 Lawrence Street. **Discussion and Action:** The Board of Architectural Review considered the application for 437 Lawrence Street during this meeting [timestamp: 0:53:01]. The applicant requested a postponement of the application to allow for further review of the project. Mr. Chair presided over the discussion. The board agreed to the postponement request without further discussion. **Outcome:** The application was postponed to February 12, 2015. No additional concerns or conditions were noted in the board's decision. ## 500 West Short Street: Conceptual Review The Board of Architectural Review acknowledged the conceptual review for 500 West Short Street during the meeting [timestamp: 00:54:01]. Mr. Pohl was the key speaker on this agenda item. The board noted the conceptual review as pending, with no substantive discussion or formal vote taking place at this time. The item was presented for informational purposes only, allowing the board to acknowledge its receipt and status without proceeding to detailed deliberation or decision-making. ## Review of November 13, 2013 BOAR minutes The Board of Architectural Review reviewed the minutes from the November 13, 2013 meeting. No action was taken on this item. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 256 Clay Avenue with conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 513 South Mill Street with condition - **Motion** — passed: Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 436 West 3rd Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Certificate of Appropriateness for 461 North Limestone to February 12, 2015 - **Motion** — passed: Postponement of Certificate of Appropriateness for 437 Lawrence Street to February 12, 2015 --- ## Full transcript Don't worry, baby Everything will turn out alright Don't worry, baby Don't worry, baby Don't worry, baby Everything will turn out alright Don't worry, baby Don't worry, baby Don't worry, baby Hey, Jude Don't make it bad Take a sad song and make it better Remember to let her into your heart Then you can start to make it better Hey Jude, don't be afraid You were made to go out and get her The minute you let her under your skin Then you begin to make it better And anytime you feel the pain Hey Jude, refrain Don't carry the world up on your shoulder Oh well you know that it's a fool who plays it cool I'm making this world a little colder Na na na na na Na na na na Hey June Don't let me down You have found her Now go and get her Remember Hey June Let her into your heart Oh. And so, I was like, I said, sit with me. Yes, I'm not. I was basically. And then I rented a house. And I'm like. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. review. We appreciate those in attendance today. The board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Gratz Park, and we now have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages you and recommends that applicants use them as a resource this sort preservation office located at 101 east vine street room 202 it is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed in our agenda in each case we will have a presentation by the staff and we will hear any additional comments from the applicant the board will then ask questions or make comments regarding an application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 12 approved applications noted on today's agenda. The staff approvals are in Ashland Park Historic District, 205 South Hanover Avenue, repair and reinstall window sash. South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District 298 South Ashland Avenue rehabilitates southeast wall reissued COA. Ellsford Historical District 630 Central Avenue renovate structure. Ellsford Historic District 256 Clay Avenue renovate structure. Ellsford Historic District 466 East High Street renovate front columns. Ellsford Historic District, 608 High Street, renovate structure. Ellsford Historic District, 127 Ransom Avenue, install paving. Ellsford Historic District, 314 Transylvania Avenue, renovate roof. Northside Historic District, 515 North Broadway, renovate door openings. Northside Historic District, 515 North Broadway, renovate front porch. Seven Parks Historic District, 611 Arcadia Park, replace and install new fencing. South Hills Historic District, 359 South Upper Street, renovate site. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for a certificate of appropriateness. The first one will be 256 Clay Avenue, change openings. Is that applicant here today? Hello. Unfortunately, the applicants are not able to be here today, but they have reviewed the application and are agreeable with the staff's findings. Thank you very much, Amelia. As far as the application is to change openings, the staff recommends approval of the openings with two conditions. Any comments from the board? No. Would the board like to make a motion regarding this? I had a comment. Okay. I think it's important that the changed window and the new window match one another. I think that I also am unconvinced that raising the window substantially is a detriment to the exterior of the house. I think that the interior elevation that was provided is it's really hard to tell what's going on with that house because of all the deck and stair and railing and stuff that you're looking through to see that wall but raising the window is going to make it higher than the head of the door regardless and so I'm not convinced that the ideal configuration of the window couldn't be driven by the interior condition that's indicated in the interior elevation. The idea is that eventually they remove that duct system which is something that has been considered in the future. how that, if they did review that deck system once they've completed everything, how that the relationship between those innuendos would look against that door. Yeah, and that's why I think it's important that they speak to each other, that they're at the same height and at the same elevation in the wall, because I think they will establish a rhythm and a scale of their own. And as you noted in your notes, that rear wall has been changed so substantially so many times through history that I think the best we can do is to give them guidance and try to help them to come to a good solution. Amelia, you might pass this on to them. And when I was in practice, I had this situation in a number of projects. And one thing they can do, since they've got a continuous counter going across there, is lower the window so that the countertop can be cut in and function as the sill. So you can get that down to a sash height of 36 inches. So that will bring it down some. Six inches. Right. When they do that, if you will agree, we'll just adjust it to the six inches. That's what they'll have to do anyway. Okay. Okay. Any other comments? Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case? If not, I'd like to have a motion. Mr. Chair, I move relative to case number 04150256A at 256 Clay Avenue to approve the request for certificate with the following conditions. One final location detail submitted and two final details of the window surround be submitted to the staff. Is there a second to the motion? I second it. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. We get you to pull your mic down. Thank you so much. I was noticing it was straight up. All right. Next case is 513 South Mill Street. Change garage design. Is that applicant here today? Would you like to come up and state your name? Any address? Jack Ballard, 513 South Mill Street, Lexington. Have you had a chance to look at the findings from the staff? Yes, sir. And do you agree with the staff recommendations? I do. All right. Obviously, it just says they approve your application, so is there any comments from the board on this case? Hearing none, does staff have any comments on the case? Thank you. Hearing no questions or further discussion, I would hear a motion. Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 131-505-13-8, I move that we accept the staff recommendation that the application be approved as submitted with the condition that, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes come back to the staff. Is there a second to motion? Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much, Mr. Bauer. Thank you. Good to see you. All right. Third case on the docket night is 436 West 3rd Street, Construct Edition. Is that applicant here today? Please come up. State your name and address for the record. Hugh Bloomfield, 1202 DeLong Place. Have you had a chance to review the staff? Yes. Are you in agreement with those recommendations? Yes. All right. Hold on here. I've lost your paperwork here. Just a second. What, man? Yeah. Thank you. Looks like the recommendations are favorable. Are there any questions from the board for the applicant? Mr. Chair, the staff does have one update relative to that, if you don't mind. You all have received updated plans, revised drawings. Yes. That eliminates number one of the conditions. The Neewall was corrected. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Amelia. No further discussion on the case? I'd like to hear a motion. Can I hear a motion on this case? Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 18800436-F, I move that the Board accept the staff recommendations of approval subject to the condition that the final details of the doors and windows be submitted prior to purchase and that once reviewed by the other divisions of LFUCG that the final details come back to the staff. Can I hear a second? Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Opposed. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. The third or the fourth application is 461 North Limestone, demolish Old Kitchen, construct addition. I assume the applicant is here. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm one of the presenters tonight for the applicant. We have an opportunity to review the staff report. We submitted a letter in opposition to that, so of course we disagree with the staff report and would request a hearing. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Before we get into this case very far, and I may be out of line of protocol, I need to, since I'm kind of new at this, we did receive a letter from Mr. Billings at, I received it about 20 until 2 today, and it's pretty substantial. I have not had a chance to review the letter, and the contents in it. And personally, I would like to have time to review that before we actually hear the case. Certainly. And anticipating that, we actually have a PowerPoint during our presentation, which will actually sort of go through the letter, the points, the arguments, the photographs, the drawings, so that understanding that it's sort of hard to digest a 20-some page letter and about 80 pages of supportive evidence in a couple of hours. anticipating that we put it into a PowerPoint that has about 180 slides with photographs, with the evidence, with the bullet points, so that if you haven't had that chance, the same stuff will be presented up on the screens for your consideration as well. Well, I'm going to have to chime in with the same concern. I mean, a letter is not a fair characterization of what you have deposited with us this afternoon. And, Nathan, I will congratulate you for pulling together a very well-written document. But I'm wondering, since we have to February 17, if it might not be a more expedient direction to take for us to maybe postpone this to the next meeting so that we can actually review your documentation, review the criteria for whether or not a demolition is even an appropriate step to take. Given the importance of this structure to Lexington, I would hate for anyone to criticize us of being a rush to judgment, if you will, if we do any kind of action that might have an adverse impact on the property. So if you would be willing to consent, perhaps, to a postponement, I think that might be the appropriate way to go. Certainly, and I do apologize that the letter was circulated around, I guess, 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock today. We did receive the staff report yesterday about 11 a.m. So we have done the best we can. I think staff actually sent it Monday night, but they sent it to an old e-mail address. So when we realized it Tuesday, they corrected that. And you have put your finger on a problem that we've had for some time. There is a concern by the development community that they want to move these things quickly at the same time, and then you don't get much notice at all of what the decision is. So I think if you don't have any objections, and maybe if I'm reading the board's sentiment correctly, and I'm not trying to step into your place at all, I would like to suggest that we postpone this. If you wouldn't mind, let me just maybe confer with the owner and the architectural staff. I want to make sure that would be acceptable to them, and two, that the calendaring would allow for that. Okay. And Mr. Billings, everybody's on the same page about schedules. February the 12th is the next meeting date of course 5 p.m. because people are well aware I'm sorry I'm so used to running a conference that I do this that'll work that'll work Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that opportunity to talk to my client and our design professionals who are here. And this wasn't unexpected, but I just wanted to make sure that it was still agreeable. We have no problem agreeing to continue the hearing until the February 12th meeting. I would ask this. Our owner will not be present on February 12th, so I'd actually just like him to be able to address the board for three or four minutes. What he would have said tonight during the hearing is sort of the introduction to what will be the full hearing, since this is a continuance and not going to be a new application. Otherwise, he won't be here on the 12th because it will have to be out of state, and I'd hate for him to not have the opportunity to address you all if you all would grant us that consideration. I would grant that, yes. I don't know if the staff wants to address it beforehand or no. It's at the board's choice, but if the owner's comments don't need to have had the board already see all the photographs and drawings and such, the staff is comfortable with holding off and having all that occur at the 12th, if you all are. Yeah, I don't think you'll find the owners going to be extremely detailed with the stuff that I'm going to speak about or our design professionals are going to speak about. So it's the board's call if they would like a staff presentation or not. I would call it an introduction or an overview more than anything. Okay. I think procedurally what we can do is simply take his comments into the record, if you will, without going through a full presentation and just taking into consideration when we get to the full hearing. We appreciate that. All right. With that, I'll call Mr. Jocasta up to speak to the board about his perspective as the owner and the background of this project. Thank you, members of the board, for allowing me an opportunity to speak. If you wouldn't mind, just for the record, state your name and your name. Okay. My name is Joe Costa, C-O-S-T-A. I'm the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Red Mile, and I'm the owner of 461 North Limestone, which is known as Rose Hill. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you. I will not be able to be here on the 12th. I'll be out of town on business. But I just wanted to get an opportunity to express my appreciation for that home. And I understand and agree with Mr. Dickinson how significant it is to this town. And the decisions you make, you will not be making lightly. I believe that on the 12th, and you get an opportunity to read Nathan's report, as you roll up your sleeves, I think you'll find out that the structure that we're suggesting should be demolished. I think you'll find that it's uninhabitable, number one. And number two, wasn't the best thought out project when it was built in the first place. And I think when you get into that stuff, I think we have a real opportunity here to help Rose Hill, to accentuate for future generations the original architecture as it was intended. And it's my intention to assist that house as much as I can. And I think of myself less as an owner and more of a caretaker of a piece of history. So I want to let you know that when I lived in New Jersey, I lived right around Princeton. We're familiar with historical institutions and buildings. And, you know, I chose to live downtown. I didn't have to buy downtown when I came to town. But I'm a believer in Lexington. I think Lexington is a fabulous city. and growing in leaps and bounds in interest. I'm a very poor student of new urbanism, but I appreciate the concepts and read when I can on it and see how it affects what's happening before us in this community. So I just wanted to take the opportunity to at least emphasize my care for the home. And what we'll be requesting from the board is something that we truly believe will accentuate the history of the home and provide for it long term, then maybe staff has taken the opportunity to consider. But I want to thank you for your time. I didn't prepare any speeches, so I appreciate if my comments weren't too clumsy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand we're going to continue the hearing to February 12th. You'll also note in the letter that referenced a CD, the original which was provided to staff, but not a copy in your packets. I understand you wouldn't have probably the technology to maybe look at it on the fly like you would the actual things. What I'd like to do with the board and the staff's permission is actually submit copies to staff of that CD so that way they can distribute them to you all so they don't have to have this expense. Also, in our PowerPoint, there's some photographs that are referenced in here that will be presented tonight. But to assist you in advance, I'll put them on the same CD. And they're basically of other types of shed roofs or similar designs in several different places so that you can have that evidence as well. I'll submit it on the same CD to staff. I'll flip the copies to you all. Then you all can circulate them. Sure. And when do you think you might deliver those? Wednesday, Thursday, something like that? Oh, you'll probably have them by 9 in the morning. Oh, okay. I mean, they're all burned electronically. They just might have to tell my staff to run into your office. Bring them on. We'll be there. Thank you. It won't take. You'll have it might do tomorrow for sure. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I want to chime in one additional thought with the postponement, that this is giving you an opportunity to perhaps, now that you've had an opportunity to review what the staff has reported, I know that you pulled something together in a hurry and it's argumentative, But this is an opportunity for you to sit down with the staff and perhaps maybe craft a different design that perhaps everyone would be happier with. I think that's an excellent suggestion. And I know I don't want to really get too far ahead of this, but I know one thing we've already talked about on our side, we've talked about changing, I think, to help accomplish one of the staff things that would have come out tonight. But that may be one of those things that you're talking about. Okay. All right. We'll see if we can arrange that. Okay. Anything else from the board for us? I am not going to be here for the next meeting either, so I'd like an opportunity to make a statement for the record as well. And I have reviewed Mr. Billings' document, not word by word, but fairly carefully. um but having not seen your presentation i feel like that you know i just want to express my opinions at this point for the other members of the board more than anything uh since i won't be here next week and and since i i think this may be the most important case that we ever hear in my in my time on the board. So my reaction to the arguments in your letter, Mr. Billings, are that I don't agree that the structure is not significant, and that's just a fundamental disagreement. I think that a structure built in 1812 as part of a larger development, regardless of how poorly conceived, is a very significant manifestation of a time. And I was discussing this in the office today with a staff member who doesn't agree with me about its importance. And I told him this story that maybe helps to give some perspective. I started architecture in Florence, Italy, for four months, and I was really struck by the culture in Italy and how they support design, how design is important in Italy and how it is not important here. and I asked a number of Italian architects who were our faculty members there why they thought that was, and they said, well, it's because you don't have any history. And that was widely, that was the answer. You don't have any history. And, you know, that's a profound observation if you think about it because from their standpoint, they're surrounded by history that stretches back thousands of years, and it changes their awareness. And in this country, we tear things down, so we don't have any history. And so even though this little piece of this property seems insignificant and seems almost to disrespect the main volume of the House in some ways, it represents a time and a behavior that we have no other way of knowing about other than through the experience of something like that. And without that, we can't develop that sense of history. And without developing that sense of history, we will never develop a culture that gives a crap about design. And so that's my concern. Now that I'm done with that little story, I'd like to hit on a couple other points. I don't agree with the staff's pretty harsh criticism of the architecture of the proposed new piece. I'm inclined to think that it's headed in the right direction. I would like to see it more overtly modernist. I think it could be described as contemporary, but it looks like something that could have been designed 20 years ago in a contemporary style. And I think that it would really help to bring it into a more serious, if it's going to stay in that, if it's going to follow that direction that it seems to be following, I think it needs to be pushed further. I think it needs to be more carefully considered and have an even stronger contrast in the way that it responds to the existing structure so that it is very, very clear about what it is. And I think it's a mistake for the chimney to try to look a little bit like the old chimneys. I think it's a mistake. I agree with the staff that the stone on the chimney is problematic. I do think the brick is more appropriate than a metal pipe. The other aspect of the discussion that I wanted to reflect on is the issue of the integrity of the existing building. I think in light of its importance, I think it deserves more study. I am unconvinced, frankly, that it can't be stabilized in a reasonable way for a reasonable sum. I also am unconvinced of the estimate for the new work. I think it's low by a factor of about 25%. And, of course, that depends on many things. It depends on flooring materials, windows, finishes. But just looking at the drawings, doing some rough calculations of area, I put what I consider to be a low number on it and came up with a higher number than what's suggested as the cost of the new work. So those are my observations and concerns. Of course, that causes a problem for the contractor to give that number now, doesn't it, too? Well, you know, I've never seen a contractor underpricing ever in my life. I can't believe that would have happened. But I would be willing to stake a big chunk on it. Sorry. Oh, that's good. I'm just trying to bring a little of you to it. That's your problem. So anyway, that's all I really wanted to say. I appreciate your patience. Thank you, Mr. Cole. Any other comments from the board? If not, I'll hear a motion to postpone. I may have one. If I may, one other comment. I don't think that the idea that the only way to save this building is to totally demolish it. and rebuild it from the bottom up. I've had some experience with a similar situation in several buildings here in Kentucky. And the process that was used was that just a, I'm going to give you a number, say, four-foot section of the foundation was shored and supported, pulled out, rebuilt, and then moved to the next floor. And it was actually the structural engineer who gave you the letter saying it should be demolished is the structural engineer on both of these projects. and throughout the country when you're dealing with such a significant building, these procedures are known. And so I would encourage you not to use that as a reason for taking a building down, because it doesn't have to happen. Come on up here. Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Tate. Thank you, sir. No further comments from the board. I'd like to hear a motion. Can I make one comment? Mr. Chairman, this is Joey Lasca, one of the design professionals. I believe you all heard from it, the conceptual review back in December, on December 11th. Very, very quickly, Graham, just because you're not going to be here, I'd like you to look and take the CD because I'd like you to see the pictures. We've been able to go in there and remove some of the cabinetry because after we talked with the conceptual review, we went back to kind of look at this structure again and revisit it and think about ways that we could. And there's quite a bit more damage that was uncovered as we got through. So there's holes that daylight are coming through the masonry walls and very large cracks in there. And the foundations are six inches of movement in either direction. So there's substantial, and I understand, and I've worked with Hogue on many occasions to go back and shore existing buildings. I mean, we've worked on historic churches and Christ the King, and, I mean, we've definitely done that before where there's a structure that we know that we want to be able to save. And, you know, I know that Chris and Miles and myself included because we looked at some options after conceptual meeting to try to figure out how to keep one or two portions of these walls. I think the north wall, it's impossible to keep that wall. The west wall is the one that is the worst foundation situation. The north wall is the one that's the worst brick situation. So we're kind of fighting a losing battle. And then as we continue to try to uncover the sea and do more exploration, we've taken a bunch of pictures. And I'd really encourage you to look at those pictures because some of them are astounding. I mean, we took, you know, quarters and dollars, and we took measurement devices so that you can get some kind of idea to the extent of the damage that's happening in this building. I will do that, and I'll communicate with my fellow board members. Could you also state your name and just address for the record, please? Joe in Alaska with Integrity Architecture. I'm the architect. And your address? 2414 Palumbo Drive. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. Now, before I make a motion, I would just like to ask a question of counsel, if I will. Ram, are you going to be accessible by phone at the time of this hearing on the 12th? And are you shaking your head because that's just not a, we just can't do it that way. That's correct. The Open Meetings Act would only permit you to have a teleconference, which would mean that Mr. Pohl would be available via camera, and all of you would be able to see, he would be able to see all of you, you would be able to see him, and the entire meeting would be? Is Skype technology beyond our capabilities? I don't know, but otherwise you can't, you can listen telephonically, but you can't be part of the board telephonically. okay i thought i just raised the idea okay i do know some other boards and commissions are beginning to move towards a telephonic uh skype type conferencing and i don't know that this i don't think this room has that capability but it's certainly something your staff could check on during the intervening time to see of course there's the other end of this potential issue as well and whether or not you're actually available but we can certainly talk about it outside of i just want to raise the suggestion okay yes the staff will be glad to work with law and channel three and whoever to find out facts and then we'll get back to the chair and if it's a possibility then it will go on through and i can be available if it if the technology's there okay thank you we'll work on on that. All right. Ready. Mr. Chairman, with respect to case 11660461-8H, I would like to move that we postponed. Is that the terminology I should be using? Continue. I would like for us to make a motion to continue this proceeding to February 12, 2014. We're going to second? I second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Aye. Motion passes. Mr. Chairman and Board, thank you very much. We'll deliver the CD to staff tomorrow and reach out to them regarding a subsequent meeting between us and design professionals regarding Mr. Dickinson's comments. Thank you for your time tonight. We'll see you in a couple weeks. all right moving on to our final application which is 437 Lawrence Street construct a single family residence and an attached garage it looks like they want to postpone it until the 12th February 12, 2014 meeting. Any discussion from the board? Can I hear a motion for this case? So moved. Second? Second. All in play. Favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. we have two more items on the agenda it looks like conceptual review for 500 West Short Street and I believe Mr. Pohl is Thank you.