# Board of Architectural Review - February 26, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · February 26, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3265 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3265?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-02-26 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: February 19, 2026 - **Length**: 21,445 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 convened on February 26, 2014, at 101 East Vine Street, room 220, with Mr. Chair presiding over the session. The board addressed two primary agenda items during the meeting, focusing on architectural review matters within the city's historic districts and design guidelines. The board accomplished several key tasks during the session, including the approval of Certificates of Appropriateness and conducting a conceptual review for properties at 316 West High Street and 740 West Short Street. The Certificates of Appropriateness agenda item resulted in approved outcomes, while the conceptual review served an informational purpose to provide guidance to property owners and developers on proposed architectural changes. Throughout the meeting, the board heard from three members of the public who provided comments on the matters under consideration. The board conducted two formal votes on various motions related to the agenda items, demonstrating active deliberation on the architectural review matters before them. The meeting provided a forum for both administrative approvals and preliminary discussions about future development projects, fulfilling the board's role in preserving the architectural character and historic integrity of designated areas within the city. ## Attendance **Present:** Mr. Chair, Amelia, Chris Westover, Brian Hill, Tony Plesko, Chuck Stille, Ron Jackson, Graham, Sarah, Victor Trujillo, Hayward Wilkerson, Tom McDowell **Absent:** Mr. Pohl **Late:** None The board meeting proceeded with twelve members in attendance and one absence. ## Votes and Decisions The Board considered two applications during the meeting, both of which received approval with specific conditions. **Application 170172010-A - 109 Shawnee Place** [timestamp: 10:00] The Board voted to approve the staff recommendation for 109 Shawnee Place with a modification to the proposed casement design. The motion passed by voice vote, with the condition that the casement design be of a single light versus multi-pane light configuration. The motion was made and seconded by unnamed board members. **Application 30620147-K - 147 Old Georgetown Street** [timestamp: 20:00] The Board approved the application for 147 Old Georgetown Street following the staff recommendation, also by voice vote. The approval included a specific condition requiring that door openings be eliminated by being clapboarded over in lieu of using shutters. The motion was made and seconded by unnamed board members. Both votes were conducted as voice votes rather than formal roll call votes, so individual member voting records were not recorded. No opposition or abstentions were noted for either application. The conditions attached to both approvals reflect the Board's attention to specific architectural details that align with historic preservation standards for the respective properties. ## Public Comment Three community members addressed the Board during the public comment period, presenting differing perspectives on a proposed development involving a historic structure. **Hayward Wilkerson** spoke in opposition to moving the historic structure [timestamp: 180:00]. Wilkerson expressed concern about the proposed relocation and emphasized the critical importance of H1 zoning guidelines in protecting the integrity of the South Hill district. He highlighted how these zoning protections serve as safeguards for the area's historic character. **Tom McDowell** followed with additional concerns about preserving the South Hill district [timestamp: 185:00]. Drawing from his personal experience as a South Hill resident, McDowell shared his perspective on the potential impacts of the proposed changes. He specifically expressed worry about the loss of historic context that could result if the house is relocated from its current site, emphasizing how the structure's original location contributes to the area's historical significance. **Victor Trujillo** presented a contrasting viewpoint, speaking in support of the proposed development [timestamp: 190:00]. Trujillo praised what he characterized as responsible design elements in the proposal. He noted that the development plan demonstrates thoughtful consideration for both privacy concerns and aesthetic impacts on the surrounding area. The public comments reflected the community's divided opinions on balancing historic preservation with new development. While Wilkerson and McDowell focused on protecting the South Hill district's historic integrity through existing zoning protections and maintaining structures in their original locations, Trujillo emphasized the merits of the proposed development's design approach. These comments provided the Board with direct community input representing both preservation and development perspectives on the matter under consideration. ## Contested Items The Board addressed one significant contested item during the meeting regarding a proposal for relocation of a historic structure and new construction. **Relocation of Historic Structure and New Construction** The primary point of contention centered on a proposal to relocate an existing historic structure to make way for the construction of a new IMAX theater. The proposal generated substantial opposition from multiple stakeholders, including both community members and Board members themselves. The opposition stemmed from concerns about the potential negative impact such changes would have on the surrounding historic district. Community members expressed worry that moving the historic structure and introducing new modern construction could compromise the historical integrity and character of the area. Board members shared similar concerns, questioning whether the proposed development was appropriate for the historic district setting. The debate highlighted tensions between modernization efforts and historic preservation priorities. The disagreement involved community stakeholders who attended the meeting to voice their opposition, as well as Board members who expressed reservations about approving the proposal as presented. The opposition appeared to focus on preserving the historic nature of the district while questioning the compatibility of the proposed IMAX theater construction with the area's historical character. The outcome of this contested item was not specified in the available meeting materials, though the significant level of opposition from both community members and Board members suggests the proposal faced substantial challenges in gaining approval. ## Certificates of Appropriateness [timestamp: 10:00] The Board reviewed applications for certificates of appropriateness during this agenda item, with Mr. Chair leading the discussion. Two specific cases were considered during the review: • **109 Shawnee Place** - The Board examined an application for this property, though specific details of the proposed work were not provided in the available materials. • **147 Old Georgetown Street** - A second application was reviewed for this Georgetown Street location. The certificates of appropriateness process allows the Board to review proposed changes to properties within historic districts to ensure they comply with preservation standards and maintain the historic character of the area. Following their review of the applications, the Board approved the certificates of appropriateness for the cases presented. The discussion appears to have proceeded without significant debate or concerns raised, as evidenced by the approval outcome. However, specific details about the nature of the proposed work, any conditions attached to the approvals, or the reasoning behind the Board's decisions were not captured in the available meeting materials. ## Conceptual Review for 316 West High Street and 740 West Short Street [timestamp: 30:00] The board reviewed a conceptual proposal for development at 316 West High Street and 740 West Short Street involving the relocation of a historic structure and construction of an IMAX theater and restaurant complex. **Key Speakers:** - Chris Westover - Brian Hill - Chuck Stille **Proposal Details:** The development plan includes moving an existing historic structure to accommodate the construction of a new IMAX theater and restaurant complex on the properties. **Concerns Raised:** Board members expressed concerns about the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding historic district. The discussion focused on how the new construction and the relocation of the historic building would affect the character and integrity of the area. **Board Discussion:** The speakers addressed various aspects of the proposal, including the feasibility of moving the historic structure and the appropriateness of the proposed IMAX theater and restaurant complex within the historic district context. **Outcome:** This was an informational discussion item. No formal action was taken by the board, as this was a conceptual review to gather initial feedback and identify potential issues before more detailed plans are developed. The discussion provided the applicant with guidance on board concerns regarding the historic district impact and the proposed development approach. The review serves as an early step in the development process, allowing the board to provide input on the conceptual design before significant resources are invested in detailed planning and formal applications. --- ## Decisions - **170172010-A** — passed (0-0): Approval of staff recommendation for 109 Shawnee Place with condition on casement design - **30620147-K** — passed (0-0): Approval of application for 147 Old Georgetown Street with staff recommendation --- ## Full transcript ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Good evening. I would like to welcome you to the February 26, 2014 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The Board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958 and our first historic district was Gratz Park. 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 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 and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we will have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the Board, please come to the microphone, state your name and address for 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'd 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 applications to appear before the Board. There are a total of four approved applications noted on today's agenda. In the South Ashland Historic District at 247 South Ashland Avenue, renovate structure. In the Constitution Historic District at 163 East 3rd Street, that's to reissue a COA to change front entry and construction addition as well as to renovate the structure. Reissue a separate COA to renovate the structure. And then at 347 South Mill Street, repoint structure. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for certificates of approval. The first item on the agenda this evening is at 109 Shawnee Place, install openings. Is that applicant here this evening? The applicant is not present but has received a copy of the staff report. Thank you very much. The recommendation from the staff for this case is pretty favorable with one recommendation that we make on most cases like these. I'm comfortable in making a motion even though the applicant is absent at this time if it suits the board. Are there any comments or questions from board members? Is there anybody in the audience to speak to this case? Again this is 109 Shawnee Place. Seeing no action from the audience, no further comments from anybody up here, I would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 170172010 dash A, I move that we accept the staff recommendation with the addition that this case would result in a single life versus a multi-paying life. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I hate to tell you this, your microphone is not on. Can you hear me now? Yes, that's better but I must ask you to rephrase your motion. I apologize for not remembering to turn on the microphone. Mr. Chair, with respect to case number 1701720 109 dash A, I move that we accept the staff recommendation of approval with the one condition that I lost my place, that the casement design be of a single light versus multi-paying light. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? And the motion passes with that recommendation. Next case on the agenda this evening is at 147 Old Georgetown. That application is to install shutters. Is that applicant here this evening? Hello, if you'd like to come forward and introduce yourself. I'm Carolyn Loof. Good to see you. Have you had a chance to review the staff's findings or recommendations at this time? I have. Are you in agreement with those recommendations? Principally, this actually was our original intent was to put the wood in place and remove those doors and then we thought the louvered shutters might be a little more cost effective and in talking to staff we thought that might be a viable option but we're not in agreement with that. We're not in agreement with the intent to do either. I don't know if cost is a factor, if that's something that you consider or if this is something you really don't think is historically we want to do is to maintain the historical integrity of the home so we'll do that. So I just thought I'd toss that out there. Appreciate what you're saying there. Are there any questions or comments Let me be clear. Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying you accept the staff's recommendations? Well, in fact, that was our original thought was to do that but then we, in evaluating it, we thought aesthetically we thought the louvered doors would be attractive but I know that's not the point. If it's more cost effective to do that, that was another issue. If it's six of one, half dozen of the other, then we're fine with your recommendation. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board at this time? I tend to agree with the staff's recommendations but I haven't heard anyone on the board say otherwise. The guidelines are pretty clear about adding shutters and I would think that the only way in which it would make sense to me that we might consider approving this would be if, in fact, the shutters were intended to preserve the door openings so that you could open them in the future but that's not the intent. No, we're drywalling the interior. Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience this evening to speak to this case? Again, we're discussing 147 Old Georgetown Street. Seeing no action from the audience and hearing no further comment from the board, I would entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 306 20147-K 147 Old Georgetown Street, I move to approve the application with a recommendation of the staff which is to require the door openings be eliminated by being clapboard over in lieu of shutters being placed over the openings. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? Second. Any further discussion of the motion at this time? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And the motion passes with the staff recommendations. Thank you very much. That concludes our certificates of appropriateness. The next item on our agenda this evening is a conceptual review concerning 316 West High Street as well as 740 West Short Street, the relocation of a historic structure and the construction of an IMAX theater and restaurant complex. Mr. Chair, could staff make one interruption, and that is it might be a good business to go ahead and take care of your minutes action before we swing into the conceptual review so that that's resolved and now we have one member that needs to leave. So it's your choice, but could the staff suggest you consider taking care of your housekeeping in the minutes? Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. If the other board members have had a chance to review the minutes and don't have any corrections or have comments to make, you know, let's discuss those now. Well, I have one comment, and I think it's the use of the letter capital L as opposed to E-L-L in our conversations about the attachment to the building, and that should be changed. I'm sorry, I was checking. Throughout the narrative of the minutes, the L was being symbolized with the letter capital L as opposed to E-L-L. Oh, no, it should be E-L-L. Right, and I'm simply pointing that out for the minutes that need to be corrected. Thank you. We will make that correction throughout. What? That's the danger of phonics. Yes, I think that the magic of computerization has gotten us yet again. Thank you. Are there any other comments or corrections to note at this time? That being the case, I would entertain a motion to adopt the minutes as they've been written and amended in this conversation. Mr. Chair, so moved. As amended. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And we'll note that Mr. Pohl was not present and did not vote to adopt one way or the other. Thanks for taking care of that. Sure thing. I'll mention that we have received a few letters or e-mails concerning this case. Generally speaking, all three e-mails are in opposition to what has been discussed up till now, even though there's no formal application made at this time. One e-mail did state that they are I'll just read one sentence that catches it because there's a partial support and partial unsupport. I oppose this particular location for Look Theater Project. I believe that this type of development could be a very positive part of the ongoing redevelopment of the core of downtown Lexington. So that's sort of the gist of that e-mail, stating that they're in favor of this type of project, but not this location. But overall, all three e-mails spoke in opposition. Now if you'd like to proceed, Amelia, I'm sorry. Thank you. Mr. Chair, do you want to talk just briefly about conceptual reviews and what they constitute and don't? If now is the time to do that, I don't mind. It's your choice, of course, when you'd like that done, but it might be helpful. Sure. So, sorry, Amelia. We do have a larger than normal audience this evening, and just to make it clear, typically a conceptual review is a less formal portion of the meeting where we do meet with the applicant and we have a conversation about what they would like to propose, some ideas they're considering, and while not making a ruling or any official statement that is binding, we do have the opportunity to discuss with an applicant ideas that we see as possible red flags that they may want to avoid, not to mention provide encouragement for things that might need to be built upon or ideas they should be encouraged. We don't often have as many interested parties in the audience, and I'm sure we'll have some comments from the audience members this evening, which is fine. I would remind those that would like to speak, and I believe there is a sign-up sheet going around for people who would like to speak, that there is no actual motion being made tonight. There's no voting that will occur this evening. What we're discussing are the positives and negatives of the project as discussed and presented before us this evening, and it gives time for the applicant to take those thoughts and ideas away from here and reconsider their ideas before they make their formal application, regardless of how the comments go. Keep that in mind. I believe we'll be limiting the time for comment per commenter this evening to some number of minutes. I'll see what that is appropriate to set out once I see the list of how many people would like to comment. And I think that's it, roughly. Have I anything to think of? Sounds good to me. Okay. Thank you. Well, without further ado, Amelia. So this is a conceptual review for 316 West High Street and 742-750 West Short Street. The scope of work is to move the historic structure, construct and install the historic structure in another historic district, and construct an IMAX slash movie theater. And I'll first walk you through the site and the block of the proposed location that's in question, which is 316 West High Street. And this is bordered by West High, South Broadway, and South Mill. And this is in the South Hill Historic District. This is actually on West High Street, facing west. This is looking back southeast. This is the block of West High Street. This is the structure at 316 West High Street. This is looking east. This is looking northeast at the site in question. Again, another view of east as it walks up South Broadway. Again, another view of South Broadway to orient you to the whole site. This is the edge of the property in this location. This is looking back towards the northeast or north. And this is standing in the middle of that property core, looking north. This is looking at the rear of the properties on Mill Street and the property itself. This is looking north onto Mill Street. Again, looking west on Mill Street. And looking northwest on Mill Street. And again, this is 316 West High Street, the historic property proposed to be relocated. Sort of orient you to this specific property. Here's the rear of the structure. This is the rear L. In addition, in a rear L addition. And this is the side bay. And this is looking west at the property. This is the location at 742, 750 West High Street. This is the site. And this is bordered by Short Street in Newtown Pike. This is the property where the site of the proposed property will be located. And this is walking along the street. This is West Short Street. Lending towards the west side. This is the proposal in question. This is the property in question. And this is the actual property. This is standing in the back of the property looking north. This is the proposed property here. And then another view of that property. This is the proposal for the look theater that gives you sort of the site plan. And this is the northeast elevation. The northwest elevation. The southwest elevation. And the southeast. The guidelines are included for your reference. And as this is a conceptual view, there are no findings at this time. However, there are items to be further studied and discussed. This is setting up regarding moving the structure. First question, does the historic structure have the historic and architectural significance to the site in the South Hill Historic District? Is it appropriate to move the historic structure from its original location and context? Does the removal alter or negatively impact the historic significance of the historic structure? Does the removal alter the historic character of the site in the streetscape of the South Hill Historic District? Does the removal compromise the architectural significance of the structure and the streetscape of the South Hill Historic District? Will moving the house be potentially detrimental to the structural soundness of the building? Does the loss of the home place site features include limestone stairs, plinths, and stone-crenelated retaining walls change the historic character and of the setting and or the South Hill Historic District? Referencing the new location of the West Short Street, is it appropriate to move the existing circa 1808 historic house to the western suburb historic district that was developed during the 1930s to the circa 1900s? Is the historic structure appropriate and compatible with the district's architectural character through design time period, height, scale, materials setting, and placement on the lot? Does the proposal to relocate the moved house to this property on the West Short Street result in creating a false sense of history? Is the building appropriately scaled for the site? Is the height of the 1808 proposed to be within 10% of the height of the adjacent historic houses on West Short Street? Will the moved structure overwhelm the site and streetscape of the western suburbs? Is the proposed setback compatible with the other historic structures? Is the open space that adjoins the street developed in scale, use, and character with the neighborhood? Are trees with trunks greater than 10 inches in diameter to be removed? Regarding the new construction proposal, question 17 is the new construction design appropriate for this site? Is the new commercial design compatible in design, shape, proportion, and scale with the West High Street, South Broadway, South Mill Street, and overall South Hill District? Is the complexity of the proposed buildings form, shape, height, scale, and site utilization compatible with adjacent historic structures? Does the proposed commercial design negatively impact the residential character of the South Hill Historic Neighborhood? Does the new proposal change the topography, vista, viewshed of the corner of the South Hill Historic District and affect the streetscapes of the neighborhood? Does the new design overwhelm the site and result in total loss of green space? Is the proposed structure visually dominant? Are trees with trunks greater than 10 inches in diameter to be removed? Is the height of the design within 10% of the structure's average height along West High Street, South Mill, South Broadway, and within the historic district? Does it create a heavy massing that overwhelms the structures on West High, South Mill, and South Broadway? Does the boxy form, flat roof, and or width of design appear to be too massive attrusive for the historic South Hill Neighborhood? Are the proposed materials for the new construction appropriate and compatible with the character of the historic district? And is the proposal to build out to the edges or near the edges of the property appropriate or compatible with the adjacent surrounding properties on West High Street, South Broadway, and South Mill setback? Does the design have an appropriate opening to solid ratio that is comparable to the structures within the South Hill Historic District? Is the signage in accordance with the design guidelines? Are the mechanical systems placed in a manner in which they have least impact to the properties that also about this parcel and they will be properly screened and buffered to reduce the noise? Does the proposed traffic pattern driveways impact the historic properties on West High, South Broadway, and South Mill? Are the elevations of the street compatible in design, materials, and rhythm within the character of the historic district? And finally, will the historic house retain significant historic and architectural integrity once moved? Recommendations, none at this time, and there's no deadline for board action. The applicant will expand upon their drawings and renderings, and they are here. Thank you. Thank you very much, Amelia, before you sit down. Are there any additional questions or comments for Amelia before she? Thank you very much. So just to remind everybody before we continue with the applicant's presentation, or the presenter's presentation, the sign-up sheet to speak is by the door, and if you'd like to speak, you should sign up on there. I think there's another sign-in sheet going in just for attendance. There are separate lists, so if you intend to speak, get a hold of the list. Thank you very much. If we could have the presenter's presentation at this time, that would be great. Good evening. I'm Chris Westover. I'm the attorney for Look Theaters. With me tonight is Brian Hill, who is the local architect. Tony Plesko was the architect who did the designs. There is a family illness. He is not here. He will be here for when we go to the next step, however. And in addition is Chuck Stille. He is the president of development for Look Theaters. Mr. Stille has over 30 years of experience in developing movie theaters, and it's important for him to be here tonight to address some of the specific questions you all may have about the design of the movie theater complex. I don't have too much to add. I do want to point out, though, that this lot is really a challenge for anybody to develop. It is zoned for an intensive downtown zone. It's B2B that on its own, without the H1 overlay, has no height limits, setback limits. It's just a wide open sort of thing. Then it has the H1 on it, and so it's a real challenge to try to balance the full economically viable use of the property with the dictates of the H1 overlay. What we are trying very hard to do is to balance the two to come up with something that would be acceptable to the community, as well as meet the H1 guidelines. Finally, there has been discussion, and I know that you all may be aware, that across South Broadway is what I'll call the high street lot for Rupp in the Lexington Convention Center, and with the idea could this theater not go there? Sadly, the answer is no, because that lot is at least two, probably three, if not longer, years away from development, because what the Rupp Arts and Entertainment District needs to do is put out an RFP, get a master developer to take into consideration the entire lot. They are not going to develop this lot piecemeal. That process is a very long and painstaking process. Funding with all of the overall project is an issue, as you all know. That lot is just not an option, and there just are not any other lots in downtown Lexington that are available. The look theater people are ready to go now. Let me turn this over to Chuck Stille to talk about why he chose this lot. It's important for you to understand the concept for this. Thank you, Chris. Glad to be back in Lexington. I've been coming here for about two years now. My job in the partnership is to find locations for the Look Cinema Complex, which most people refer to it as IMAX and a theater, and it's actually a major restaurant component also. It's a concept that truly didn't exist two years ago that we've developed. Very unique and different from the megaplex theaters that you have here in Lexington. Like Chris said, I look for sites for AMC theaters for 30 years, and I promise I do not look for historic districts to build theaters in. Lexington was on the radar of IMAX, which is the big theater film company headquartered in Canada. There's business reasons why they're not in about 17 markets in the United States, and they actually came to us and said please help us go to these markets. We need IMAX theaters there. IMAX is a licensing agreement. You can kind of look at it as an exclusive. Whoever gets IMAX in Lexington, they have it and nobody else will have it. And Look Cinemas has that license agreement with IMAX. I came here, as I said, two years ago, and I reviewed the market, and it led me to downtown. Number one, that's how the film plays out. You can imagine that in the old days when the Kentucky theater was very viable, that was probably the first theater here, and then the suburban theaters came. There used to be a strong three-run film market, and now it's two with the theaters would that be out north or south? The Fayette Mall. South. South. And then of course the Regal Theater also. It became quite obvious that I wanted to locate downtown. You have a wonderful city. Most cities have let them go because of suburban flight, and it is a wonderful area. You've done a great job protecting the city, and it makes it very viable, and of course with downtown residential and the university and the commercial business, it is a great place for what we'd like to do. As far as sites, the site is what I literally call Main and Main. That's an iconic site. I'm a huge basketball fan even though I'm from Kansas. Rupp Arena is just something that everybody in the state of Kentucky knows exactly where it is. Broadway and High Street is somewhat famous. The corner is high energy. I have been here on game night and walked it. There's so many comparisons for an intersection like that. It's historical. It truly is. There's a lot of plans for the future. Chris mentioned that. One of the things with IMAX is they want these sites done now. They don't want them done in three to five years. I would love to be part of a new development. That's always an exciting thing to do. Usually the movie theater is the engine. Treat it like an anchor to a project. In this case, I think it truly will be an anchor to the future developments that go across Broadway into what I would call the Rupp parking lot now. We have looked at other sites for many reasons. Usually parking. They have not worked out. This site has all the components that I look at. That's why we landed there and the rest of it. What we're here about tonight is how it affects the community. I can promise you we love being part of the community. When you look at the building, it is a movie theater. We didn't try to design it like a historic house. That's not what it is. We did want to embrace the neighborhood. We want to be a good neighbor. The neighbors are consumers. Everybody needs to work together and play together. A lot of consideration has gone into the design of that. That's pretty much why we're here. I'll take questions whenever they are ready for them. I just wanted to mention quickly that when we filed this certificate this conceptual review, we were looking at the lot on East Short Street. We have only very recently found out that there are one or two lots in the South Hill Historic District that might be available to accept the relocated house. We just found out about it and we have had a discussion with the owner about that. Although the packet and all your information is about Short Street, which we want you to listen to, we want you to know that there is another option out there. I think that Brian will be able to show you that, but it won't be the full scale presentation. The staff doesn't know about it. We just, as I said, found out about it. I think that would be relevant for your discussion because if we can relocate the house within the South Hill Historic Area, it's not leaving the historic neighborhood. I think Brian will touch on that during his presentation. Good evening. Mr. Hill, if you would, throughout the meeting you'll need to keep the movable mic and the chair may suggest you state your name and address for the record. Well, maybe not since it's conceptual. You can be incognito, actually. We've got you figured out, so it's going to be okay either way. Again, for the record, my name is Brian Hill with CMW Architects. I'm actually a landscape architect and the president of CMW. Our involvement in this project is the site development. I'm here on behalf of Tony Plesko Architects out of Los Angeles this evening to present the site plans, the relocation, as well as the actual building components. I don't want to be too redundant here in terms of what Amelia was saying. You see above kind of an aerial. I think it's important. It's a large track of land. It's been vacant with the exception of the home in question this evening and the small sort of 60s building if you will in the middle of the block there for many, many, many, many, many years now. Our firm actually owned this property for a long time and sold it to First United Methodist Church. They tried to develop it, couldn't, and so on. I just want to kind of point out the context of the reason for the relocation of the home, as you can see, is a weird site. Had it been on one end or the other, perhaps it would have been able to stay. But it just, with the program that Lick wants to do, the template on the site, it just absolutely doesn't accommodate the building program as they're proposing. So with that, we can go to the next frame if you would. Well, your alls is different there, so I don't want to get too far ahead. Hang on just a second. One of the requirements for the submittal was to sort of photograph the existing condition, and you can see, as Amelia showed in some of the other frames as well a while ago, kind of what the context now of the home kind of sits up, you know, 10, 12 feet off High Street. You had the gas station on the corner down here. There's the block wall, and then of course the stone wall in the front. This is a vacant lot here with the steps that go up. So it's basically, it's kind of surrounded by a sea of pavement and lawn, and it's just kind of an island unto itself. There's, in my opinion, there's really no context to this home relative to the other structures other than the fact that it's been there for a long time, and we all understand and acknowledge that. The proposed location on Short Street that Amelia referred to is, and if you want to put that one back up, is the actual track that abuts the lot here on Main, but it's the rear lot on Short Street, and we did sort of went through the exercise of does the house physically fit on the lot? Does it meet the setback requirements? And I think, again, if you'll go ahead and advance that, you can see that it does. It's an I-1 zone. The use perhaps a zone change would be required there with respect to keeping it a residential purpose. If it were an office building or what have you, it would not. That's how it's being used now. I think the intent would be residential, and you can see its relationship to the homes on down. Now, the next two or three homes are lower, low-rise bungalows if you will, as you go on down Mill Street, or excuse me, on Short Street. There's some height, and I know one of the questions that was raised a little bit earlier a while ago was the 10% compatibility and the relationship. So we would have to do the calculation as it relates to that entire street and feel like as we go on further down the street that we would be able to achieve that 10% relationship. But that shows the context. There's enough setback on the side between the appendage of the home and the property line to actually get a driveway coming off Short Street to the rear so that it could be a detached garage if that was so desired there. And then, you all don't have it, but we prepared kind of an elevation study that would show kind of what it would look like, and I realize it's difficult to see kind of where you're sitting there, but you can see the relationship. This would be the home relative to the bungalows next to it, but as I said, as you go on down Short Street, there's actually some additional height. Then on the corner of Newtown and Short, you can see the relationship and sort of the side of the home there to what it would look like. But again, I realize you're kind of far back and may not be able to see those. There you go. Just to interject there, the board was given the last page you were showing. So we have that here. Thank you. And then Chris was just referring to sort of something that just we very, very recently became aware of and we were asked to look at here's Dudley's on Maxwell Street and this is the Dudley's parking lot across the street. You've got Mill Street here, Maxwell Street here, Lawrence Street here. Yes, it's the parking lot that services Dudley's, but we understand that there was maybe perhaps a desire from the owner of Dudley's for us to look at a possible location. And I think he was thinking if it were located here, it could become kind of a boutique, kind of an art scenario, shops, those kinds of things. So again, you can see that it actually fits on the parking lot. There's plenty of side yard. This has always been one of my very favorite homes in this whole South Hill area next to it. And it would kind of serve as kind of a contextual home, if you will, relative to that home being next to the parking lot. And then an alternative location that the same owner of Dudley's has made available for consideration is the parking lot across Dudley's here on South Mill Street. And it's interesting, there's actually three different zonings. There's a business zone and two different residential zones. So we kind of staggered the setbacks there. And again, I realize it's difficult to see, but here's the main part of the house in the L that Amelia referred to. And you can see there would be plenty of room to actually get a driveway and there could be a detached garage or what have you in the back as well. So that's just reacting to one of the items that came up in the report as to staying in the neighborhood, staying in the South Hill neighborhood as opposed to going to the West neighborhood. So I understand that what I'm going to do is sort of go through the relocation so that then to also discuss the proposed new look theater project and then sort of come back to whatever questions you may have. This particular graphic shows you know this this part of downtown and you can see Rupp Arena, the Hyatt, the Hilton parking garage parking structures and surface parking what-have-you. And here's South Hill, here's the subject corner. I just want you to visually you know we get it as to the letter of the law and the h1 overlay but I think it's important to attempt to acknowledge this particular corner in Lexington is unique and and it's a b2b zone as Chris has said with an h1 overlay but it happens to be a gateway into downtown Lexington. It happens to be caddy corner to the Hyatt to Rupp Arena to the parking garage across the street as this continues to develop. So it's certainly a unique situation. There's about a 12-foot grade differential from the top part of the site on Broadway as you drop down to High Street and the whole project has been designed with sensitivity to the neighborhood. There have been two different neighborhood meetings to try to get input and I'm going to attempt to show you all that there's been a tremendous effort of being able to acknowledge again those relationships to step back the building to be aware of the heights and sun patterns and and and shade and and and all the different things that come into play. An enlargement of that shows this area here again is the corner. The lighter white that you see is the first tier and I'll get into more detail here in just a moment but this is the area that actually abuts the the rear yards there on Mill Street and the height the height of this part of the building would only be about 13 feet and then you see the white and you see the tan there you you traverse the white then it pops back up about another 12 13 feet where you see the buff color and then the larger block in white is the two-story theater and then the gray is the IMAX and then I'll get into that in a little bit more detail but again the idea is to step it back from the neighborhood and I'll be specific here in a minute in terms of the materials and the green wall and and and trying to soften the materials but I just want to show the context of again this corner and the surrounding neighborhood and then again you can see what's across the street with the seven-story parking structure, Rupp Arena, Kincaid Tower and so on. Mr. Hill would you like a pointer a red pointer to? Sure. Would that help you? Amelia do you mind? Let me let me I think it's important to kind of revisit what I just said in terms of okay here the rear yards along Mill Street this edge right here would only be in this location about 13 feet high so it almost serve as sort of a rear yard courtyard privacy wall obviously as it makes its way down to High Street because of the grade changes it's going to be higher down here then there's a side yard setback relative to the the structure here that's currently being renovated and trying to be sensitive and not have the the new building right up next to it so this would be in green space if you will here but it was our understanding and Mr. Trujillo is here actually this evening that the idea of kind of having that that privacy wall in the backyard there could be some articulation in that wall becomes again kind of a self-contained rear courtyard area then the buff area there's another 13 foot roughly step up for this location here so the height and the mass of the building is is is is focused on Broadway and High Street so so the elevations you're going to see the perspectives you're going to see the heights you're going to see the relationship we tried to the architects tried to sort of transition if you will to the taller buildings at the intersection and again be sensitive to the neighbors along Mill Street as well as all of South Hill you don't have the interior layout but just so you understand that the workings if you will of of kind of what's being planned what's being proposed the top here is Broadway this location here is High Street you've got the rear wall I mentioned just a moment ago where you see the gray is that 13 foot zone there's offices you know restrooms those kinds of things for the staff no windows back in that location no windows whatsoever on this face so that from a privacy standpoint there's not going to be light intrusion there's not going to be the ability for folks at higher elevation to be able to look down in the backyard we think that's what one thing unique about this project as opposed to if it were a multi-story residential building or an office building or what have you certainly there's going to be a privacy invasion that doesn't exist today and again that's something that we think is unique another thing that's very unique is all of the pedestrian access to this building other than emergency egress will be confined to Broadway so they actually come off the sidewalk on Broadway come up steps or go up an elevator to the main level and then the main level has the dining there's there's a bar area the restaurant a lounge and then you can see there's seven theaters within these are the dining theaters that Chuck can get into more detail later if you'd like these are more the sort of conventional theaters if you will here in this location and then you see the escalators then that go up to the next level but this space here and you'll sit in the elevation there's actually openings windows doors for outdoor seating along High Street and a little bit here on Broadway then I mentioned going up to that second level via the escalators then you've got a three sort of larger theaters you've got the IMAX theater access up here so actually come in at the upper level and then go down the steps into that theaters location here again Broadway High Street so the mass of the building the height is out on on the on the roads this is the first step down that I mentioned much lower than this and then this is the other step down this location here so at this point right here where my finger is again it's only 13 feet above the ground plane at this point it's only about 26 feet above the ground plane so here were the residents are in the homes the way it's positioned on the lot will not allow pedestrian cut through traffic everything will have to be confined out onto the streets and the beauty of the parking across is this Chuck mentioned is folks wouldn't you know park in the Civic Center parking lot walk across the intersection of Broadway and you're right there at the door to come on up then you all have seen and if you want to put this up what's important you know again is is the relate the height relationships the massing and what have you this is the Victorian home office building the height of the building this is that that two-story theater if you will this is the IMAX obviously this is roughly about 60 64 feet above grade at this point down here it's it's in that 68 foot zone if you will now it's going to be a little bit taller at High Street because again the great drop so you can add about another 10 feet there but relative to for example the Kincaid Tower again we view this as a transition zone you've got the neighborhood you've got the step ups you've got the intersection and then the taller buildings across the street this would be the sort of the cement shingled sort of facing if you will to kind of give us some articulation the idea on the IMAX would be kind of a charcoal I know the descriptions are black but the architects saying it would be more of a buff charcoal kind of a granular modular pieces to kind of soften the feel of that and the idea is the fact that yes this is meant to be a contemporary look he wants a deviation if you will from some of the other some of the other colors and materials but certainly want to work with you all to kind of you know work through the logistics of that then one thing that that's extremely it doesn't show up really well in this particular one it will in a moment that's being introduced is a vertical green wall or a green garden this panel here anywhere you see green and I'm going to point that out in just a moment the idea is that they're going to be vertical walls with vegetation not necessarily the entire face of the walls being vegetated but to soften the plane and to kind of to kind of introduce if you will a garden feel and and to kind of again being in blending with the surroundings this particular elevation you get a feel I think what's really important here is the relationship again of the height of this building relative to this is the parking structure across Broadway this being Broadway here so you're looking at sort of the high Street side I'd mentioned a little bit earlier as you come in off Broadway you go up the steps or the elevator the main level is elevated above the ground plane on High Street so there's excitement with some of the seating that would actually expand out on a deck area if you will kind of just above the sidewalk then the architect has proposed a window that protrudes actually through the corner of the building so at the intersection of of high and Broadway you're actually seeing activity and that's that's in relationship to where you're getting ready to actually go into the IMAX theater itself so there's a vitality there's there's liveliness sort of going on with it with that corner but again again what what I really I'm trying to point out here is the height of this building relative to the surroundings and we think that it's extremely compatible and again sort of this transition element if you will going into downtown being that gateway corner then if you're for example looking north you can see beyond again the Kincaid Tower you've got the Hilton Hotel and the Radisson what-have-you again the relationship of this building relative to the Victorian home the parking structure the Hyatt again kind of a transitional building is as you're making your way into town heading north on Broadway I mentioned a while ago anywhere you seen green the idea again would be so this articulated vegetated wall and there's there's it represents itself in many many ways on three sides of the building and then one more elevation here and this would be obviously from the Mill Street side looking sort of toward Broadway you see the homes here the structure at the corner of Mill and High Street you see the relationship again of the IMAX beyond on Broadway the two-story theater then on the other side of Broadway you see the parking structure and then again the Kincaid Tower so again context a relationship trying to be sensitive to the surroundings what is difficult to see where you're sitting and I'll point it out I mentioned earlier this is Mill Street kind of dark but the homes in here Mr. Trujillo's home this wall this first wall that you see right there so that charcoal wall that can be any color is only about 13 feet high as you go on back this would be about 26 feet high and then of course it steps up for the for the theater and the IMAX beyond here's that vertical green wall that separates these two components I failed to mention on the on the and I need to go back to it because it's important this is this is meant to be glass and and and I spoke earlier about the elevators and the idea is the elevator from the base of the elevator to the to the top and vice versa this will be kind of open and you'll actually be able to see sort of the people moving you know to the different levels within the building so as folks are driving down Broadway as folks are you know crossing the streets and those kinds of things from the parking lot getting ready to go over to this there'll be just a lot of excitement a lot of activity going on in this zone again with respect to being able to see the people inside the building and the lighting and and all the all the activity you know going on with that so I wanted to point that out and then finally here for my part of it right now is some perspectives fingers going here this of course being the intersection of High Street and Broadway I mentioned while ago sort of the the protrusion of the window if you will this is a good vantage point of being able to see again folks up in here the elevated seating area for the for the outdoor dining that you see the elevation on Broadway the green wall separating wall if you will between these two elements of the building and then the green wall that actually makes its way here and then down around all the vehicular access will be confined to High Street the service there's about 80 parking spaces down underneath that will all be coming in and out on High Street so there won't be you know any any disruption if you will on Broadway no other no other vehicular locations the trash removal via compactors those kinds of things again will all be housed underneath of these areas so you come in off High Street and actually drop down a few feet for that understory and that's the reason there's some elevation here with that first floor the first floor you actually again have to be elevated off the street but approximately 80 parking spaces underneath in addition to the ones that are going to be needed again across the street the elevation here you can see looking down High Street this is the corner again the transition up you see the home the homes here the structures the the corner down here the green wall that I've referred to here and then looking up Mill Street that direction there and there's one more and this again being from Mill Street sort of looking looking back the other way and again difficult to see but where my finger is represents sort of that first tier wall then this green wall is beyond and then again you see the the the larger two-story theater as well as the IMAX beyond so hopefully these renderings these perspectives are trying to give you a sense that this is yes it's a large building but it's broken up it's terraced the focus of the building is on the corner of Broadway and high the positioning of everything will not invite cut through traffic it will service as a buffer to the neighborhood there won't be light intrusion there won't be privacy intrusion Chuck has assured me it'll be so quiet I mean you won't hear any sound whatsoever so it really I think we think becomes something that could be a major asset and as the Rupp district redevelops as that parking area redevelops in time again this becomes kind of again perhaps an opportunity to be sensitive and again be that buffer from the neighborhood to you know the Rupp district so with that we're happy to answer any questions that you all may have thank you thank you very much for your presentation before we get going too far into things I think there's a certain you know sort of a chronology of events right we need maybe we can focus our conversation in in three pieces and kind of take them on in order you know I'd be pleased if we started our discussion with the idea of moving the structure the existing structure that's there and then also after that discuss the new structures location not just the site that's in our packet of information but the two new sites just for conversation's sake and then I think I'd like to discuss the new construction sort of after those two issues have been vetted out so with all that being said board members like to start want to start at that in there Ron Jackson I mean obviously for this project to go forward the house has to be moved with the two new sites that have been introduced tonight I'd you know I still even though it's staying in the historical neighborhood I still feel that the siting of this house is very unique to the property you know it is elevated on a hill and even though you are trying to keep it within the historical neighborhood that it is currently I still think that we are going to lose a tremendous amount of the care for this building you know does that outweigh the possibility of developing this you know I don't know I'm not sure how other board members feel about it but you know I don't know how you all can move this building anywhere else in downtown and actually retain what the way this building was built and you know the way it's cited currently so you know right now that's a real big sticking point as far as moving the structure in my opinion are you all looking to leave the 1970s addition on there you're looking to taking that off if you all move the structure can you talked about that yeah we've talked about it a great deal um I think we're amenable to to making that part of it if that was the decision I think there's yes I mean that's that's that's kind of a it's it's really not a major component of of just the big the logistics of the movie if you will so because you know to me that's also part of the history of the house even though maybe it's built in 1970 you know obviously it talks about the history of the house you know and we had a huge discussion a couple weeks ago about what is significant and you know obviously in my eyes you know anything that deals with the history of a building over time even before it became a historical district is you know the history and is significant to the house so you know but that's pretty you know that's pretty much all I have to say about the about the moving of the house right now one thing that and I said it earlier is is I mean nobody's wanting to just move the house for the sake of moving the house but it's the fact that there's this this major gateway corner you know in the downtown Lexington and and for anybody to really do any significant development that constitutes the worthiness of this corner short of you know somebody coming back and building a few more homes or something the positioning of this house just makes it difficult and that's why you know we're proposing that it be relocated and I know it's philosophical and I guess we could all you know have our own opinion on it but it this I mean this used to be a gas station the home here is is is removed there's there's parking here there's parking here there's parking behind it would it be more appropriate perhaps somewhere else and that's for all of us to debate I guess but well I mean for me to me if you moved it one lot over to me would allow to keep more of the character than put it on the flat lot that you are proposing or moving it to the other historic district like I said you know that doesn't really help you out that much but I mean it's at least to me I think the house would retain more of the character and next door than versus moving it somewhere else and my other board members may feel completely different so I just this is my opinion have you had any discussions with a moving company who specializes in this we actually we actually and I say we Chris's firm and and and and what-have-you there the bids have been secured actually to relocate the house to the short street location not not Maxwell Street and the numbers were reasonable I mean and they've seen the site and they understand they did an analysis they came and actually broke down they broke it into two different components of moving just the the main front part of the house not realizing that necessarily we had to do the wing or the or the L and then they actually did another component for that so there's a there's a combined bid to move the entire house yes and would they have to separate the wing from the main house in order to yes yes and then it would be reassembled reattached can you talk a little bit more about about why the company cannot wait until the parking lot area of Rupp Arena is is set up for development yes the as I mentioned before there's 17 different markets that IMAX wants into it's kind of like as soon as the sites are ready they want to do the theater there so it's kind of like right now Lexington is literally either number one or two and if you wait three to five years it may not be here it's it's just not our assignment so if if the answer is wherever a site is you're gonna have to wait five years we would probably move away from Lexington and go develop other markets ahead of it and then come back you know later in life and see how that that works so it's it's really IMAX pressure and the other thing is other things can happen in a market in that time which are out of our control so you know the opportunity it just may go away period of course that's your risk right but we are dealing with just about our oldest residential neighborhood in the center part of the city and it has been gnawed on for since the 60s and with each little piece given up like citing that gas station and changing the grade there at the corner it has weakened the boundary of that neighborhood to the point that a developer such as yourself sees that and sees the vulnerability of it but we're looking at a 200 year old house that has a distinct history in in the community that row along High Street some of the wealthiest most successful people 200 150 years ago 100 years ago built their homes and the building that we're talking about is dates to 1808 very few buildings left of that age and I'm I'm I don't think the scale of it is appropriate for the western suburbs I don't rule out other sites but what I have the most difficulty with in this whole proposal is that it further weakens the edge of that neighborhood and I don't agree that with particularly with the redevelopment of the arena area that that has to be such a gateway corner it's a very congested corner right now I don't think that that's a real selling point to me at all that you occupied that corner to make a strong gateway I think the reconfiguration of that whole area is going to change and I don't think it has to affect the corner of this particular side of it I think there's a time you have to just say stop this neighborhood is not going to be infringed on anymore so I'm sorry that look theaters wouldn't like to come back to Lexington in five years when another property is available that would probably probably since it's already been flattened probably be easier to develop I'm so that's not my problem but you know we are the Board of Architectural Review for historic property so you can kind of see where my problem is I am I am most respectful of that I developed the theater on 42nd Street in New York City we actually built it where the old Amsterdam theater was there was 42nd Street was known for deterioration at the time it was drugs and pornographic theaters all along there and we actually built the theater using the Presidium arch of the old theater which we had to working with the state we had to move it a half a block down so we got railroad ties and greased them and actually slid it down so hey you know it it all works together somehow time changes things but I just want you to know I'm very respectful of your opinion and yeah and it's it's part of my heart too well I want you to know that I like the design of the building I like it a lot I just don't like it on this property no it's better than the gas station you know well it's an improvement it doesn't have to be an either-or no I know I know but you know it's it's I think what Brian talked about it is it is a transition type thing I don't think you're going to you have a corner there that needs to be dealt with you have a high energy intersection whether you like it or not it's only going to improve in the future improve with traffic and everything else it's it's going to become more than it is and how you deal with the neighborhood and that future is really important and contrasting you know the theater which does not have windows as opposed to the apartment complex that could go there it is not going to be noisy which again I think residential could bring a lot of noise it's just coincidentally I think actually is a good transition property and that's not necessarily what I would call a selling point is you know I'm kind of part of this whole process too I picked the site and then realized it's in the historical district but as you know we've tried to design something that that works it actually makes a lot of sense as a transition property so anyway thank you for your comment I agree with Sarah's comments I appreciate the amount of work that you've put into the amount of thought that you've put into the proposed new building but for me the the idea of eroding that neighborhood just just doesn't work for me the fact that that house has been there for 206 years suggests that the community would be wise to be willing to wait for three or five or ten or fifteen years to find a site that's appropriate for that kind of development of development of that scale and type I also agree with Sarah's comment that it's that she likes the architecture of the building I like what I like the look of it I just don't think it's right in that location I think it's overscaled you know I just I think you know you're hurt by the fact that right across Broadway is this ideal place and if you think about what's going to be happening in the to the area where Rupp and Convention Center are now the notion of a theater complex being across High Street from that makes perfect sense and contextually speaking it's an ideal place and the problem is contextually speaking this is not an ideal place I don't think moving a house like this if you I mean did that another thing is if you look at the guidelines of which I'm sure you have there is nothing in the guidelines that can support it every single guideline it contravenes everything that we are asked to do in our roles and protecting historic districts so you know while we do or we are charged with making decisions that sometimes don't comply perfectly with the guidelines usually there are really powerful mitigating circumstances and really powerful arguments and those and those exceptions are generally speaking pretty minor pretty subtle this is not subtle this is in your face you know right down to the signage look you know so I'll take that as a compliment the look part you know I mean I I like what's going on down there I like the proposals for the for the arena I think that and I think that what you're proposing here has the same sort of energetic visionary quality that that we're seeing in other parts of the downtown and and would fit but not at that corner thank you and I you know I'll just wrap up and again this is I think the first part and has bled into a bit of the second part about the new location of the structure I agree with most of what's been said by the other board members I think that you know to Sarah's comments about the degradation of the name the edge of the neighborhood and having the edge is eaten away at with development or with this project that it would give away edges of the neighborhood and you know I I like this corner for development I think it's a good thing and I think the way that it would relate to downtown and the work that's forthcoming in downtown and just the gateway nature of this intersection because I think there is something happening here and with the future work at Rupp Arena so nearby and the Rupp Arena district I think I think this is prime real estate to do something I don't think it has to be giant and take up the whole corner and I as far as the development I'm excited about you know you your statement earlier was that the house would have to be moved for any significant development to happen here and I disagree in that there's a lot of room for infill development between the historic structures that would have to come in at a smaller scale obviously a smaller footprint and I think the development is necessary to maintain the edge of this neighborhood because as it sits now we have empty lots on a corner and we have a parking lot at a corner and to me those make weak corners and weak edges so for development to come into this location I think is great for the neighborhood and I think it's great for downtown and great for this intersection and and the future growth of our downtown area I don't think it should be at the detriment of this home that's right smack in the middle of it and I know that's a problem for your footprint and for what you're proposing here if there were another way it would be great to have this this building at the corner I think you have like Graham pointed out I think there are some pretty clear black and white guidelines that you're up against for the removal of this home or the relocation of this home I was wondering you know he Graham stated he assumed that you guys were familiar with the guidelines and I'm wondering if in your work that you've done so far have you identified guidelines that you think would allow for the moving of this building are there guidelines that you'd like to discuss in particular that you feel like give you the footing you need to push this conversation forward as far as the removal of this home this building has anybody thought to that up to this point yes we've been looking at the guidelines for I guess the better part of a year now and we are in the process of formulating that but we are not prepared to do that tonight because tonight it was our understanding it was sure to hear what your comments were so we could listen and then go back so we can formulate our formal application and I don't mean to put you on the spot or even say you know you're wrong if you haven't done this by any means I just wanted to poke around there and see if you'd found something that you felt gave you the gumption to push forward and I'm having trouble seeing it myself but that doesn't mean that you haven't found a creative interpretation that we can discuss but as I see it and as I think you've heard the other board members state there's not a lot of room that we see for for picking up this structure moving it elsewhere well in terms of the guidelines the guidelines tend to be written in terms of sheds their their directory and not mandatory and I think that any sort of legislation needs to be read in context with the larger community and from our perspective this fronts on High Street it faces the downtown it's cat a corner to rep arena and I understand very well that your role is to look at this in the context of the h1 neighborhood and basically not peer beyond that but it's absolute absolutely essential to see this in the context of the larger area and it doesn't it doesn't make any sense to look at this only in the context of that particular neighborhood in the larger sense and so those are the kinds of things that that we are looking at this is a very difficult very challenging lot because I went through the history of the zoning of this area and I know when for example in the early 70s when this area was first designated for h1 it was first out that one block and then later on the the rest of it was designated for the h1 overlay and that came up in the context of all the demolition on the old High Street lot there and there was a desire on the part of the neighborhood to protect that neighborhood from that sort of demolition and at the same time on the same heels there like in the mid 70s there was going through the Planning Commission in the Urban County Council the B to B text amendment to rezone the properties to be to be and they came together very close in time in the mid 70s and almost all of the High Street neighborhood is residential but the B to B zoning allows residential it allows convention centers movie theaters banks hotels you name it and so I think there's some incongruity there with the the heart of the neighborhood which is truly residential with residential structures then some of these properties are zoned with one of the most intensive downtown zone so it's very difficult to try to figure out something that will work on the site that will be economically viable will be an asset to the neighborhood but will also be something that relates to the downtown and the underlying zoning because technically the h1 overlay does not regulate use and so if you look at the uses that are permitted in the B to B zoning then you put the h1 overlay on it's it is not an easy task and I think that's the reason why this the lot is slightly over one acre why it remains really undeveloped to this day why and with the topographical differences I think it could be used as a PhD test question for architects on what's the best use for this lot that balances all of these competing interests so long way of saying but yes we are looking at that very closely and your answer was was just what I was looking forward to though to understand the angle of your approach as far as why you thought that it should be moved and and I hope this board to will consider I know I personally will be considering not just to the corner I mean that's that's our purview is up to the corner that's the h1 district but I I think we're all also cognizant of what's across the street in all directions because I think that is also part of the fabric I can't insist that you relate to what's across the street outside of the h1 district but I certainly am rooting for that in some way as an architect and as a designer that that people are designing in the fabric so I appreciate what you're saying there and I understand the intent I just don't know that I certainly understand that the building is in the way of the type and size of development that you propose I see that perfectly that the the scale and the shape of it just doesn't work well in a c-shape or a donut shape that would go around the house but at the same time you know if there's not a way for what you're proposing to fit on the site with the house as it is with the allotted free space it may not be the appropriate site for such a large building and I you know it's a bummer to say out loud because I you know I I like the program of the building I'd like the location of the building is a downtown er myself and and liking to be downtown and liking to be in in Lexington you know it's the kind of thing I want around downtown Lexington but given our charge as board members I'm also not comfortable with granting permission to move that house with what we've discussed so far so that I think that's a challenge and I think that's something you're gonna have to really come back with in your certificate of appropriateness application and and really make that case obviously that's that step number that's you know pin number one to fall so I think we've talked about this portion quite a bit if if no one on the board has anything to add to the removal of the building I think we can start talking about the new location of the building anything else to add to this portion before we move on yeah I'd like to clarify a little bit my comment that I like the architecture just not in that location I'm putting aside for for now the fact that you have to move a 260 year old house to do this and let's just assume that wasn't happening because for me that's just a non-starter and it's not gonna change my attitude about that it's based on the guidelines it's based on a sense that it sets a terrible precedent for every historic district in town so I can't see that being arguable so but putting that aside looking at your your northeast elevation the high street elevation if that were really to be the proposal for that location I think that design design would need to change in such a way that the rhythm and texture of the existing buildings on that block were reflected in some way in the architecture of the new work so what you have right now is a while I well I see that this scale of the elements closest to those houses has been stepped down so that it's respectful and and not inconsistent with the scale of the those houses still it's this monolithic block it's this undifferentiated plane that's that's that's very insistent and and not rhythmic in any way and I think it would be far more successful if that were broken into segments in such a way that the rhythm and the texture of the rest of the block were picked up in the rhythm and texture of the new building so I just thought I should clarify that and I you know that kind of thinking I think would be applicable and I apologize if that's sudden come out right because I do build movie theaters better than I answer some questions like that but but I did understand that one thing we don't want to do is emulate the existing historical residential neighborhood that's not what I'm suggesting are you talking about breaking up the architecture into pieces yeah I'm talking about it could be as simple as as making some vertical reveals in that facade that have a rhythm and that break that thing up in such a way that it's not just this monolithic mass that faces High Street I got you okay I mean I'm not at all I would not want to see this change from a contemporary idea to something else I think it's absolutely appropriate language of the building is appropriate I'm just I'm just reflecting on the the need for it to be cognizant of the context that it's addressing understand thank you for the comment I was gonna say to follow up on grams I mean I really feel like this elevation really kind of turns his back on the pedestrian because you know you have this elevated plane but you know to me if you're talking about getting people from the hotels and stuff of that nature you're really kind of disregarding that traffic coming up to this side of the property and I feel like you know your wall is I mean there's no human scale to this side of the of the building because it is all elevated you don't you got a drive that pedestrians would have to cross as people come into the property which I think could be a safety issue can we would you mind if we discuss this further elaborated more on the design of the building after we discussed the future relocation of the building that'd be okay sure I thought we were going I'm sorry I know Graham I started the rules I like to break rules Let's talk about the new location of the structure and then we'll come back to the to the building and we can talk about that further if you don't mind, I'm sorry to interrupt but I feel like if we Lose our way we could be here till midnight pretty easy You are the chair So The first site and the site that we as the board I think are most familiar with is the one that we're seeing on the screen now and that's what was included in our pack of information in preparation of this meeting And I think we do have a series of photographs that give a little more information on the streetscape that that the neighbors neighboring structures would be I think to have those kind of Upfront here is pretty relevant. And again, I You know, let's just start with the guidelines. I think it's pretty clear that this proposed site we have some problems as far as the relationship of the existing context and I believe it's been made clear that a Relocated structure when the structure lands is falls into the guidelines of new construction So we have to consider how it relates as a new building in an existing context and so I will just gather the board's comments and thoughts on that and go down the row again and Talk back and forth a bit So if you want to start sir, it's tired I'll just you know, I'll piggyback on kind of what Sarah said as far as the site And that this house definitely is not to the scale of The houses relative to where you're gonna locate would have liked to locate the house You know the small bungalows and then I mean even the photographs as you show You know this this house really dominates those other structures and And You know as the other board members have stated, you know, it's very clear in our guidelines That while we just don't I don't personally see any wiggle room of that house locating there You know as far as the other locations Before I could really comment on it. I would like to probably see a little bit more detail in those areas But going back to my original comment I just feel like moving it to either one of those sites or any three of those sites. It really loses its architectural context From where it currently sits One thing about just And I acknowledge that the immediate homes, you know are lower but across the street It's it's just a different feel So again, if you look at in the context of all of Short Street, not just the two or three homes right next to it There's a scale that's more compatible than than what you see this rendering and I mean and that may be the case, but I Mean Rowland and you can are really taking the consideration The few that are going to be next to it or across the street from it. I mean that's gonna be its context It's the one that's not gonna be the you know, the other end of the street that right, you know When you're standing there looking down the street, what do you really see? But and I'm just saying that them the homes across the street are actually two-story taller taller structure and I'll just I'll jump line here Because my my thoughts and comments Dovetail right into the end of what you guys are saying here I I can't say definitively with what we're seeing right now in front of us that This is a good site for You know assuming that we've allowed let's just pretend for a bit here we've allowed the removal of the structure Assuming that that's okay. Now. We're into this part of Where does it land? With this image alone. I'm not convinced that this is a Good home a good place for the building to land And and I'll just tell you what you're up against and I agree completely with what Ron has said about, you know while the overall You know streetscape of the entire street might include two-story buildings that are closer to what? We're adding to the neighborhood That's at the other end of street and so if that's gonna be your argument I need to see how how far down the street we're talking and If your argument is it's not so far away that it's out of context then you need to prove that to us in your application Same thing with across the street if there are homes that are more relative to the structure you're proposing to add to the site across the street and show that to us and really make your case and And build it up and convince us because that's what it's going to take Knowing the site From from living in Lexington and being there You know going beyond what you're showing us. I'm not sure it's a good fit at this location But if you're gonna make that argument if that's what you want to convince us of I'm warning you That those are the types of convincing pieces you need to bring to the table that say This does meet context because and you need to look through the guideline and check off You know how it meets the guidelines and how it relates to the neighborhood as it's discussed in the guideline and and granted There's some lead way as was mentioned earlier There's a lot of should in the guidelines and and if it were all black and white there wouldn't be a board so there are latitudes that we find here and there but For us to get on board with what you're proposing You have to give us a lot of good argument behind it that we can say well, okay This doesn't meet the guideline exactly however, we see what you're going towards and we see how it relates and sometimes we can overlook one should for another should in the Guidelines if that makes sense But no, I'm not I'm not promoting this site. I'm just saying you're gonna have to do more to convince me that this site is appropriate and I'll also echo Ron said that the other two sites may be more interesting and more appropriate Just based off of my own knowledge of the areas and the time I've spent in the that area of town But I can't I can't say that with any certainty with what I've got in front of us this evening Well, I was just gonna just follow up, you know looking at the aerial that you provided us You know, you do talk about a two-story brick house across the street. And if you were gonna locate this Building it's almost like it would've been better to be located on that side of the street next to Where this big open area is between these two residents and this corner piece Just saying conceptually, you know, I don't know if that would be available But to me that would have been a stronger argument that you'd have these multi-story buildings and this one land in between it I'm just curious. I have a question back to moving it Since that intersection down on Main Street with the bridge coming across was redone all of the Traffic lights are on the Caliburn arms How do they manage that because the house is taller than those arms Give you the the answer I'm you know, there are there are some challenges to getting from point a to point B but again, the the moving Contractor has looked at everything And certainly things are going to have to be temporarily Disassembled put back all those some of those things are going to have to be put back in order to be able to be able to Have to be temporarily Disassembled put back all those some of those things are going to have to come into play not necessarily the traffic arm But certain utility lines and those kinds of things so the city would have to do it and and charge the Developer well, I think that can I have to look at that particular example again, sir The I think there's ways to stagger through there. It's just there are some power lines that are going to have to To temporarily be disconnected and reconnected Well, and you know, obviously if If relocating the structure were permissible, you know There are guidelines concerning not hurting the house or the building in transit and how that's a that's a requirement So, you know all these things have to be taken to account and details to be worked out surely It might help To Describe a little bit about what we Experience when we're dealing with a new Proposal for a new building in a in an existing historic zone Because this is how we would have to consider this is you know the the fact that it's An old building Would have no bearing on our decisions with regard to its suitability for the site And so we would look at it as if it were a new construction The beauty of new construction is when someone comes in here and talks with us about it we can say, you know that roof pitch is too steep or you know this Ridge line needs to drop a few feet and it would look a lot better and and you can look at it and people can Go. Oh, yeah, you know Well, we can't do that with this. It's just gonna have to work where you put it and I can tell you that looking at that elevation, you know that photo montage that It would get a lot of criticism from the board it would not be approved If it were a new build on that location at that scale with that context But as as as other board members have said if there's additional context that would That would argue more strongly for that location. That would be very helpful I'm just again in the for what it's worth category. I understand, you know with with the symmetry and and compatibility of but If if if if all structures were bam bam bam same height same height same height and then Sometimes I mean in some of the older neighborhoods I mean you you can go in south hill right now and you'll see a bungalow and right next to you'll see a two-story and next to you'll see another bungalow and then you'll see a cottage home and So isn't there something to be said for variation and and just to mix it up a little bit? Yeah I agree. I agree and in some neighborhoods That very argument is completely appropriate Uh, and the fact that this would be a corner a corner lot It's almost like a bookend if you will And the side elevation from from new town kind of gives it a nice context as to what's on down short street versus just something kind of lost on that corner, so again, just another Point to be said right and and that idea is not lost on me I I hear what you're saying about making a corner and and book into the street um As well as variety and context, you know Sometimes that is the context of the neighborhood and we recognize that And if that's the argument you're going to take you need to bring something that says it because so far that photograph shows me Two and a third house next door and so far the context is The houses on the street are very similar. You need to see a rhythm So if that's going to be your argument, you got to tell me the whole story and say see how they're different We want to be different too So I that's that's not lost on us and and of course we're you know, we know there's a temp The height rule is within 10 Percent Again that that's a should and Sometimes we can see our way around that if the proper argument is made and the contest can be proved With what's showing to us right now. We're not seeing a whole lot of variety you know, we understand there's more down the street and across the street, but Like I said if that's going to be What you're aiming for you've got to really prove it to us Right Anything else on well, yeah one more thing, you know, one of the one of the challenges for us is that um a guideline that is very important to us on in in many many of Projects that we review is the guideline that you are not to create a false sense of history and That really applies here in a big way because you're putting a 200 year old house in a spot where Most people would look at and say wow that house must have been there 100 years 120 years before those other houses and And it's so it's creating it it's making you sort of make conjectures about what Happened here that are completely based on nothing um, so It it would argue for placing that house in a location where it's more Um consistent with the history of the place I suppose Any other comments on new home for the the building in question Anything that you guys want to add to this portion of the conversation? Uh, that being the case let's talk about the actual design of the building, uh, and again this this goes on the assumption that The existing structure could be moved and That you know, this is our chance to let you know what we think about the design as presented to us And that if by some means and future proposal that it were approved to be in this location This is our chance to let you know what we think of the way it looks right now I have a kind of a tangential question was moving the house To the adjacent lot to its left, uh on high street on the high street elevation. Was that ever considered? Was that ever looked at? It was And and uh don't have enough microphone, please I'm sure You have to understand we did consider it and we could not operationally Design a building that worked. I mean that that was an obvious thing that we tried to do. I mean that To Yes, the answer is yes It was considered in the lost corner was just too much to bear in the footprint. Is that what I understand? Yeah, I mean you know we have a concept that has many pieces that all work together and um it took a long time to get what we have done and it just You know, there were there really wasn't 10 square feet you could take out of it So, thank you for that clarification So, uh Mr. Jackson, I believe you had some comments and thoughts about the uh, the elevation of the building That you may have started to express earlier this year but just to go back on the on the north east elevation um You know As traffic especially pedestrian traffic if this was located here I see a lot of kids from like from the university coming down and and being here And a lot of them travel up high street They come across and they come up high street because that's the edge of downtown and You know, i'm a little shocked that you all have the entry to the parking garage kind of like square in the middle of this elevation where I would think it Personally, I think it would be even better if it had been on broad street on the back side of the building where you Where you actually have pedestrians that could get into the building off that elevation as well as the broadway elevation Like I said, it's just kind of my personal opinion and then also elevating that Restaurant or that eating area You know, I really think To me kind of segregates the people who are down in the city versus the people that are in the movie theater and to me I just um You're talking about bringing, you know, this liveliness and stuff of that nature i'm surprised that's not down on the street level where you do kind of have that interaction between the people outside and the people inside and this um I mean that I just I'm just a little surprised that that wasn't more of a consideration um You know, and I agree with graham too There's not really any kind of human scale as pedestrians walk by this thing, it's like You hit that corner and you've got a 29 foot Well started a set, you know a 17 foot wall and and it's just a blank wall and you know, I really feel like There needs to be a some kind of human scale to that On on the broadway side as well as the high street side That is a lot more inviting to the pedestrian. Who's who's engaging this building? um You know, you know, I some of the positives, I mean, I I appreciate the green wall and I you know, I think the The charcoal gray box as far as the imax is nice and I and I do Appreciate the kind of contemporary feel you are trying to give to the to the imax because it you know It does kind of talk about technology but I I do feel like there's There's a loss of this interaction of the pedestrian to this building um, just by the way, it's elevated and and uh, you know, I I think it'd be nice to have you all kind of go back and look at see if there's a way that you all can you all can Maybe work on that I guess the other thing and I I don't know if you could pull up the floor plan, but Can you explain why there's such a gap between the imax and the and the rest of the theaters in the background? We the elmo we can't put it on elmo Um have it come up because we don't have that drawing So it can just be viewed As mr. Hill is getting ready to show you so So it's basically actually flip to the next page So that's basically set up because of the way the theaters were work And then this is the other point down below is just the dining so it's it's That's the link if you will Where you've got you've got the dining and the loungers and all that and all that Here I can't turn on my mic to tell you you need your mic, thank you Sorry folks. We have a excuse me, too. Sorry and just to clarify too. I mean we have a devoted Viewership at home on tv and the meeting is recorded. So we do have to use the microphone all the time Sorry, um Yeah, I was just saying that that the main the main plane the lower plane Is where the lounge areas are the the dining the bars and what have you? And so it becomes kind of a plaza area and then as you go up you've got whoops you've got Um The upper theaters and the imac so so down below is is again sort of the link that that connects the The two large theater areas. So basically that's a roof that is between those two Objects the two theaters, right The white space in between is actually roof correct Right, right, right And then there's the green wall separation that you saw that sort of bisects the two that kind of softens it right and and ties These two together Correct. Okay, and the reason i'm asking that is is Going back to the whole idea about the drive being on the back side Because I was wondering if there's a way that y'all could Somehow compact those two masses closer to allow you to get some Some kind of entrance into that Underneath side instead of it being on high street because like I said, I mean You know going to uk games and seeing all the people, you know walking up and down high street Uh, you know college kids going to bars at night and that kind of stuff You know, I feel like high street is a very pedestrian oriented road and for y'all to put the drive in there that Pedestrians have to stop to allow cars to come in and come out um You know, there's no pedestrian access on that side. I just to me I think would be something that should be looked at so um and let me ask it this way and I understand what you're saying, but Okay now now take aside the idea for a moment just for the moment of Game night and there's a ball game or or something going on On that side of high street. There's not that much pedestrian traffic It's on the other side of high street because folks get over and walk toward rough on that side of high street There's not that much pedestrian traffic There is more pedestrian traffic on broadway The idea was to try to minimize congestion on broadway And because you've got you've got high street as a one-way Street we didn't want the cross-turning of left turns and right turns trying to get in To the site versus high street. I mean that was all intentional to try to minimize congestion And granted during the ball game and everybody exiting rupp arena or going to the game You're right. There's a lot of traffic on high street. But I mean, I think if this theater is set at this corner I think you would draw Right as those pedestrians downtown through that through the high street side That's kind of what my point is is that if this was here You know the college kids would come down through rose street and stuff and come across I mean, I think that would be To me just a just something you should think about sure it's traffic engineering looked at this as far as uh putting a Entryway exit way for 80 cars This close to the intersection as an in and out There's already they're already curb cuts out there for that parking lot. Just just just And I don't know how that would i'm looking to and I see the curb cuts and that occurs to me But I don't know how many cars fit in that parking lot Uh, and I don't know if they would have an opinion or not versus the you know 80 cars coming out at one time or However, however many you would expect for you know, right before or right after a movie starts, right? Uh, it's just something to consider I just didn't know if traffic engineering had Discussed the distance from the corner hasn't gone to traffic engineering yet But I will tell you again is that The congestion the fact that this is one way there'll be a lot less Um Conflict With this scenario than any thought of trying to make left turns or left turns out on the broadway There's there's well, I think you could restrict that though. You could only have them You know, you have them all over you have another place in town where you're only required you're only allowed to turn a certain way because of The congestion that would be caused so to me anybody who would leave would make a right turn on the broadway and they can circle back up through Mill or Or go down there, you know and come up another way. So that well and the other thing too I I just just so people don't lose sight of I mean the majority of the folks are going to be parking here And the idea is they're going to come across at this intersection and going in this being the entrance down here so in terms of In terms of people coming to this facility There'll be zero conflict created by access in and out of the site from high street So again, that was well, I mean, I know and I don't mind the entry point on broadway, but I think the fact that you Made no access on high street to me I know it seems To me a little strange that you wouldn't allow some kind of pedestrian access on that side So, I mean it's just like I said, it's my opinion we'll go back and take a look at that the other thing is just real quick is that and um You know as far as the program, you know y'all Is there any way to reduce? I mean, this is another personal opinion. You have the four smaller kind of dining theaters closest to the To mill street and of course, I know I don't know what the program is or how many people you are looking to come to this facility, but To me it's like if you could Lose one of those theaters and and kind of rework the program Would there not be enough room? That's Set that house in there The house, you know the house the house now is here And you know y'all keep saying, you know It would lose, you know, at least two theaters here and then the parking underneath and etc, etc So that okay, I didn't think about that I think that's just food for thought and and any idea like that to be considered, you know I I would assume as as good architects and designers you would You know not just attempt to take away the three Rectangles in the lower right hand corner to make it fit you'd have to do some redesign and shuffling around to to make that fit uh so I I don't I don't want to go too far down that road this evening, but It's it's something that has come up a couple times and and if you guys can think about it or come back with the future Proposal that tells us exactly why you don't want to do it that way. That's a good idea Uh Anyway, I i'm i'm pretty much done. I I just want to finish up with saying I do appreciate the work you all have done and yeah, and hopefully, you know You know, no matter how this board, you know votes on this Um application or whatever I do hope that You know, there is a imax theater In downtown lexington because I know my family would go to it. So I appreciate it Thank you I'm going to disagree with one of ron's Comments i'm not so sure about the plinth. Um The raised plinth being a bad idea I think that it could perhaps Have a visual relationship to the rest of that block. Um I'm not I can't tell from your drawings whether that's the case but I think that that could you help you make a case for that feature if in fact there was a continuation of that horizontal datum that ultimately becomes the Elevation at which the historic properties sit further to the east on that block That's what it looks like in the in the elevation I think I think there's a real possibility for that to be a nice. Um a nice treatment One one other thought that you've probably considered but in your comment about moving the house You talked about having to have the parking for it and so on but It would seem to me that the ideal scenario would be that the house would be a part of your Complex and would actually perhaps you'd have dining in the house or you'd have some other kinds of facilities that would be integrated with your development and Make it a part of the development and not a separate and distinct operation I just throw that out Thank you I'll uh I'll just say one quick thing about the parking situation Since we've already covered so many angles of it. I don't have a problem with the Patron parking coming off of the street the way you've shown it What concerns me is that if that same? Insurance is used for service vehicles and deliveries and trash Removal as you mentioned It seems like that openings can get really big Uh, so I I don't mind the opening there for patrons, but I would like uh more consideration given to service being On the rear and if some deal can be struck with access through the parking or other means for for dumpster or trash removal at that location, then that solves a lot of problems for me as far as the Parking entrance goes and let me let me just so you visualize this Yeah, and you say really big you're talking about the height clearance to get the dumpster trucks in and that kind of thing The idea is that these would be actually tractored out to high street at off hours and loaded on high street and then wheel back in with with the The tractors they're pulled out And pushed back. It's not the truck. It's not that the physically that the physical garbage dumpster trucks go down into the right It's the long flat everything's pulled out the wheels out or was pulled out Right. That sounds like quite an ordeal and I understand it's sort of a thing that happens at three o'clock in the morning in some places, right, um still My point is i'd like that opening to be minimized. I don't mind it being there. I understand the practicality I don't have the problem with it being You know left turn in and left turn out that all fits Well, as long as traffic is happy with the distance from the corner I just don't want the opening to be any larger than it has to be and interrupt Become this I don't want it to be the building on top of the garage when we're all said and done as far as size and scale goes, I don't want that to be the The emphasized design element on that elevation. So that that's that's all I have to say about the design of the garage Can I ask one question on the traffic pattern pavement situation? Is it possible to have a parking garage on the east side of the building? Of course you can Well, the only thing is, um, I haven't heard you comment tonight about The other driveway exit the one that was unless you've changed your plans from what we have Right adjacent to the house the residential house on the eastern Both they're both they're both on high street if we're saying the same thing No, I understand. But isn't there a driveway egress from your garage literally on your east property line at high street? You had referenced it as green space tonight, but we were informed it's a driveway it's staff The the two garage entrances are on high street. No, I understand that i'm saying That there is a space on your east property line That looks to be about 14 to 18 feet wide that is a There it is with the red dot Line right to your eastern terminus Is that a driveway or is that green space? That's a setback. That's great. Yeah. Yeah, this yeah, this is a setback here This this is just an offset of the building to respect the side yard of So that's changed to be green space that's green space. Um, yeah at the neighborhood meeting it was announced to be a driveway There was a misunderstanding there somewhere but the two I think what you're actually start with The only thing that I betted that i'm thinking I remember one of the questions came came up about this side and Proximity of the building to the side yard setback And we said because there's there's going to be an egress door needed over here. There would need to be kind of a Kind of a quarter if you will a lawn Quarter to be able to get over to broadway, but honestly, I never recall any discussion about a driveway whatsoever the two access points You know roughly somewhere in here and somewhere in here the idea is that you go in you go into the parking area and you come out It's kind of what's going on there. Yeah. Well, I just wanted to get clarification I just remembered there being discussion about maybe putting in some small tree wells To help buffer that residential house next door, but that that would function as a drive And so as long as as everybody's clear on what it is, and i've gotten Clarified tonight, that's very helpful. Thank you. Yeah, the the actual what you may with the way it was before was a diagonal line came down from the property there and after meeting with the Residents in the neighborhood they asked us if we could square it off which created those Angles, which looks like a driveway, but it was never ever intended to be a driveway Thank you Is just one more comment on I agree with you. Mr. Paul about the the fact that this being elevated. I think will be just more inviting because there are some intersections that are conducive to To an extension of dining if you will out to the sidewalk and plaza areas But with the congestion And the noise and the activity at this intersection Uh, it was intentional on the architect's part to get that elevated for safety reasons and just for comfort reasons so and and you're trying to make the point that Just kind of the elevation of just being able to to be in the context of what's across the street also comes into play so that as as As a patron you don't feel like you're being dwarfed by those buildings. You're actually up and and and kind of um have more of a Kind of a sight line of those surroundings and I I agree with that Because that took me completely no surprise Um, so Yeah, I I tend to agree with the separation at the sidewalk at the corner I I guess what I would hope gets special attention and just you know I I can see from the rendering that something has happened there. There are some lines and there is a texture uh, but I you know, I would like to see at least the details of and hopefully the care and design of that human scale relationship between that harsh wall and your day-to-day pedestrian on the street not just the people coming and going to this Location, but the people using that intersection and people going to rub and everything else Uh, so I I feel like that Needs some special care um And it's not to say you haven't done it It's just to say that I I can't tell exactly what's being done in the scale of the rendering we have in front of us Um, I I like the separation. I don't like people Looking over my shoulder while I eat outdoor terrace. So I think this accomplishes a great deal to help the program uh the height separation Um there's You know a couple other things I noticed and we'll just hit real quickly and run along the I'm, not real jazzed about the relationship between the building The relationship to 326 south broadway, I think it's rather stark compared to the efforts you made On the high street side to relate to those properties that back up to your proposed project Where it stepped down and the the 13 feet steps And then on the other side, you know in a similar distance of separation from the other buildings While there is a an alleyway maintained there. It's it's to me. It's you know, very sheer vertical wall uh, and you know, the pattern is pretty repetitious, I I think it's It's not quite the same effort to relate to the building next to it that was seen on the high street side. So if That might need to be addressed Or explained in a future proposal The The scale of the signage I think is something we haven't really talked about I mean, it's it's striking and it's large and bold and I think a lit sign does a lot in downtown area And i'm i'm for that Uh to to a degree It's sort of a double-edged sword I think the scale that we see in the rendering here does a lot to kind of bring down the bulk of your building But the double-edged sword nature of it is that it dwarfs It dwarfs the little brick house next door and that the l is, you know, almost three-fourths as tall as the house next to it, so There's a scale game there that that hurts you and helps you I would just encourage uh More development on that. I mean, I understand logo recognition and and all of those things in advertisement and I I I like it, but I think it Doesn't help your neighbor house out very well. And if you're trying to fit into the neighborhood, that's it's not going to help Um Those are my bigger comments and and I think most of the other bigger issues have been hit by By ron and and graham so far. So i'll stop there I like I like what you've proposed if it weren't for that historic building that's right in the middle of it Uh up to this point, so I think it's nice design work and I think You know if it can find a place in downtown, lexington, i'm really excited about that Anything to add Sarah stands on everything she said so far Do you folks have anything else for us If not I understand we have had some interested. Yes Where is the sign-in sheet? Is it in the audience still or is it traveled to do you is if I could If I could have it That would be helpful. It seems There's one one labeled people signing up to speak Versus telling us that you were nice enough to come tonight So Thank you very much So we have three folks that have signed up to speak, uh this evening, which is is good. I mean we welcome of course participation from from our Concerned folks and people in the neighborhood and people who have something to add to this process. So i'm glad you guys have signed up Before I call the first person up, you know, i'd like to set a time limit to maybe four minutes Plus or minus a few seconds and just to just to keep things concise and to the point I'd also like to remind everybody that there's no there's no formal proposal here I mean we see their intent and we see what they'd like to discuss with us and I think you've heard their comments and our feedback, so uh You know, just just keep that in mind when you make your comments so the first person signed up this evening is uh Thank you hayward wilkerson if you'd like to come forward and speak And we'll just Hi, i'm hayward wilkerson, we're one second, please. Um, we're trying to reset the clock Um, it is currently working at three minutes Let's see. We might make it yet. I won't take three minutes. We're on 10 hours right now That doesn't we only had three people sign up. So I thought okay. How about a cell phone? We can ron is the time ron can be the official timekeeper. Please sir. Will that work fair by that'll work for me Tell me when to start don't don't be shy and maybe give a 10 second warning I'm, hayward wilkerson. I live at 361 south upper street. I will be Extremely brief recognizing that if we are back here in the future I will beg your indulgence because I won't be so brief You've covered almost everything. I think the staff did a wonderful job of outlining all the issues I think there were some 34 questions related to this project Um South hill has been pointed out as a Is one of our oldest most historic districts both in terms of the architecture the value of the architecture In terms of the history that's embodied in that architecture. It's also a very fragile district and a small district. We are Pressured from the university side and we are pressured from downtown um, we have one thing really that protects us as a As a historic district that has this fairly delicate balance of residential use and low intensity commercial use and that's you And that's the h1 zoning guidelines, but that's that's all we have to protect us When we come back if we come back We will present evidence and I don't really want to get into that today But I just want to say that we will present evidence that will show you that this fails in many many many ways to meet The guidelines chris is correct Some of the guidelines are shoulds and some of the guidelines are shalls And the shalls are really relevant in this particular case and we will bring in architectural historians historians archaeologists That I believe will demonstrate to you clearly that this fails to meet the standard simply on the relocation alone and without the relocation The rest of this becomes moot But I agree with many of the things you've said about the building. I think in and of itself It's an interesting piece of architecture I would love to see it somewhere else in lexington I would do whatever I could do to try to persuade the powers that be to move this into the arena district I recognize these are not easy things, but they are decisions just made by people like us subject to persuasion um And I think that there would be a strong groundswell in lexington to see them reconsider that decision Especially when you consider that the arena needs 310 million dollars of investment And you have someone that is already ready to start doing some spending money in lexington So, you know, that's sort of neither here nor there. Anyway, that's really all I wanted to say I promised i'd be brief. I won't be so brief the next time we all get together. Thank you very much Thank you for your comments The next person on the list this evening is tom mcdowell You Hello, i'm tom mcdowell and um I have actually lived in south hill since 1969 before it was a historic district. I've spent time in other cities during that period of time including historic districts in san francisco, california, washington dc Philadelphia jacksonville, florida and in other places But I always come back to south hill because it's such a very easy place to live The current location i'm at i've lived there since 1979 with a brief interlude of 15 years to washington dc where I was an historic preservation officer and fine arts officer for national capital region of gsa where we looked at lots of proposals for enormous projects In federally owned historic properties all over washington maryland and parts of virginia I think that i'm a huge fan of imax theaters, by the way And I can never forget the time I first took my daughter to one At the smithsonian it was a wonderful experience and i'll never forget it so i'm hoping that we can have one here sometime, but I feel that by removing one of the historic properties And in the preservation world removal and demolition are not too far apart So we've lost all the historic context once the house is removed and there are other reasons for that But they're not dissimilar from demolition and Losing one of those resources Is going to be an enormous loss for the district a national register historic district It's unfortunate that across broadway where the parking lot is now and I remember this distinctly because I was living in south hill then Before it was a historic district There were many many historic houses similar to the properties on marino today That were demolished for that parking lot and I think there's some of us here that probably remember that sarah. I know you you do Uh, so I I don't want to see The periphery of south hill start to be nibbled away because once one of them falls. It's just a matter of Time before the rest of them all the p1 properties on broadway And all the other b2b properties going down high street or will be in jeopardy Thank you Thank you for your comments Last person on the list to speak this evening is victor trujillo if you'd like to come forward and speak Hi, my name is victor trujillo and I live at 315 south mill street And I just want to say that whatever happens You know I know that there are people who have more experience than me and have an appreciation for things In a way that I may not and I will support it and I don't live in this neighborhood by myself So I'll support my neighbors as well On the other hand i've lived on that spot for 15 years now and i've tried to visualize I'm, the only person who lives there 100% of the time that will border this project And so i've tried to visualize in good ways and nightmares it's about what what's going to happen there Uh, my greatest nightmare is that it could be a commercial building that has a horrible Uh gray back that faces us which happens all over the place Or that it can be a high density residential area where our privacy will be entirely taken away So just from my own personal view as somebody who lives there I feel like other than the fact that the house has been moved and other than i'm really concerned about the parking Situation on mill street that mill street doesn't become a parking lot for this project I like it because I feel like the developers have put in thought. I feel like they have taken the time to to Not make it a big gigantic box, but to separate it up so that it actually looks like numerous places on one area They put in a green wall They've taken in consideration the height of the wall that would give my property privacy and something that's aesthetically and architecturally pleasing I have a brother who's an architect who used to live here I've talked to him about it and he feels like this is One of the most responsible developments that he's heard of for that project because he has been consulted for that project When he lived here and he said nothing like this has ever been brought up So just speaking as a resident that's going to be bordering it myself I'm comfortable with it and um other than the house being moved in the parking situation I i'm relieved that it's not what it could have been and what it may be in the future And I i'm glad to see that you all are so concerned and so particular about it That makes me feel good that if this doesn't happen That the next one isn't something that's going to be that we're going to wish that this was something that happened So that's all I have to say. Thank you Thank you for your comments Um Any other comments to stay in closing that that's it for the audience participants who? Signed up to speak this evening. Um I think the board has said all we can say for this evening The applicants have certainly made a good presentation and I appreciate the effort as it was said a few times we we understand the work that's gone into this presentation and the research that's been done so far and I I hope you understand we don't discount that in any way and and that we Hope that your you know Your application can be one that can be put together that we can all agree on and and see your project move forward successfully because we are You know excited to see See new things happen. We just have to make sure that happens in a way that we can support And that fit in with the guidelines I Would just like to say thank you very much for listening and we really appreciate the opportunity To come to you We've been working with the neighborhood and we appreciate their efforts as well to talk to us. It's been a very civil conversation about a delicate issue and I applaud the neighbors and the staff and everybody for For being so professional about it and thank you very much Well with all of that being said Uh, and all of the items like the agenda having already taken place. I would entertain a motion to adjourn so moved second All those in favor, please say aye And we're adjourned Do You