# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - April 24, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 24, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3341 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3341?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-04-24 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 31,216 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on April 24, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included four agenda items and resulted in eight motions and votes. The Commission approved the minutes from the March 27, 2014 meeting and heard four public comments during the session. The Commission addressed four substantive matters. The initiation of a zoning map amendment for South End Park was deferred for further consideration. Two Board of Adjustment and Review (BOAR) appeals were considered: the appeal of a denial for an elevator at 458 W. 3rd Street was denied, while the appeal of a denial for kitchen demolition at 461 N. Limestone was approved. ## Attendance **Present (22 people):** - Will Berkley - Mike Cravens - Karen Mundy - Mike Owens - Frank Penn - Carolyn Plumlee - Joseph Smith - Bill Wilson - Chris King - Bill Sallee - Barbara Rackers - Jim Duncan - Traci Wade - Tom Martin - David Jarman - Stephanie Cunningham - Tracy Jones - Casey Kaucher - Bettie Kerr - Amelia Armstrong - Captain Greg Lengal - Lieutenant Joshua Thiel **Absent (3 people):** - Carla Blanton - Patrick Brewer - David Drake ## Votes and Decisions All motions were decided by voice vote and passed unanimously with all eight board members voting in favor. **MARV 2014-7** [timestamp: 01:16:20] — Approval of zone map amendment from R-4 to B-1 for 508 West Second Street and related development plan and variances. Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Karen Mundy. Passed. Approval is subject to Urban County Council rezoning to B-1, development per approved plan, a note on the plan indicating variances, a Zoning Compliance Permit requirement, hedge landscaping completion before occupancy, and a note added for future redevelopment. **MARV 2014-7 (variance)** [timestamp: 01:16:51] — Approval of requested landscape variances for zone-to-zone screening along northwest and southwest property lines. Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Passed. Approval is contingent on B-1 rezoning, development per approved plan, a note on the plan, a Zoning Compliance Permit, a continuous 3-foot hedge, and a note for future landscaping review. **ZDP 2014-28** [timestamp: 01:17:23] — Approval of Zoning Development Plan for Mary Swift, et al. Property, Lot 3. Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Karen Mundy. Passed. The approval includes 10 conditions requiring acceptance and approval from the Urban County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Building Inspection, Addressing Office, Urban Forester, Bike & Pedestrian Planner, Fire & Water Control, and Waste Management, as well as Capacity Assurance Program compliance, resolution of off-site parking, and maintenance of open space and detention basin. **MARV 2014-8** [timestamp: 01:47:12] — Approval of zone map amendment from R1D to R4 for Burley Avenue and Stillwell Avenue properties. Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Joseph Smith. Passed. Approval is contingent on R4 rezoning, development per approved plan, a note on the plan, and a minimum 5-foot buffer with 3-foot hedge on the northeast line. **MARV 2014-8 (variance)** [timestamp: 01:47:46] — Approval of dimensional variances for Burley Partners, LLC. Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Joseph Smith. Passed. Approval is contingent on R4 rezoning, development per approved plan, a note on the plan, and a 5-foot buffer with 3-foot hedge on the northeast line. **ZDP 2014-29** [timestamp: 01:48:17] — Approval of revised Zoning Development Plan for Burley Condominiums with condition 10 deleted. Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Joseph Smith. Passed. **BOAR 2014-1** [timestamp: 02:42:54] — Uphold Board of Architectural Review denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for elevator at 458 W. 3rd Street. Motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Frank Penn. Passed. **BOAR 2014-2** [timestamp: 04:20:09] — Issue Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of kitchen at 461 N. Limestone and approve new construction. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Will Berkley. Passed. Demolition is approved under code enforcement, and new construction will be reviewed by BOAR for compliance with design guidelines. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the meeting with comments on three separate matters. **Burley Partners Development** Jenny Daly spoke in support of the Burley Partners project [timestamp: 01:43:48]. She noted the developer's responsiveness to neighborhood concerns, particularly regarding parking, waste management, and stormwater management. She commended the parking plan and landscaping adjustments made by the developer. **Elevator at 458 W. 3rd Street** Two speakers addressed a proposed elevator at 458 W. 3rd Street, which had been previously denied. Joe Clark argued in favor of the elevator application [timestamp: 02:10:08]. He stated the proposed elevator is appropriate for the location at the rear of the property and is necessary for accessibility. He emphasized the historical significance of the trees on the property and noted the impracticality of relocating the elevator. Steve Bale also supported the elevator application [timestamp: 02:26:42]. He stated the elevator would set a positive precedent for accessibility on the Northside and would not harm the historic character of the neighborhood. **Kitchen Demolition at 461 N. Limestone** Joe Costa appealed a denial of a kitchen demolition request at 461 N. Limestone [timestamp: 04:10:41]. He argued for common sense in the decision, stating the kitchen is structurally unsound and cannot be restored. He requested approval to demolish and rebuild the kitchen to ensure safety and functionality. ## Appointments **Eunice Beatty** resigned from the Urban County Planning Commission. ## Contested Items **Demolition of Kitchen at 461 N. Limestone** A heated discussion arose regarding the proposed demolition of a kitchen addition at 461 N. Limestone. The core disagreement centered on whether the kitchen addition held historical significance and how to balance preservation concerns against code enforcement safety issues. The applicant argued that the structure was unsafe and irreparable, making demolition the appropriate course of action. However, staff members and preservationists contended that the kitchen was historically significant and should be restored rather than removed. This fundamental disagreement about the building's historical value and the feasibility of restoration drove the contentious debate. **Elevator Location at 458 W. 3rd Street** Commission members were divided on the appropriateness of a proposed elevator location at 458 W. 3rd Street, resulting in a split vote. Some commissioners supported the Board of Architectural Review's decision, citing concerns about the visual impact of the proposed location. Other commissioners believed the applicant had identified a reasonable compromise position for the elevator placement. The disagreement reflected differing priorities regarding architectural aesthetics and practical accommodation of building accessibility needs. ## Approval of Minutes from March 27, 2014 The minutes from the March 27, 2014 meeting were presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:53:22] Mike Cravens made a motion to approve the minutes, and Karen Mundy seconded the motion. The minutes were approved without objection. ## Initiation of Zoning Map Amendment for South End Park [timestamp: 01:54:25] Staff presented a request for the Commission to initiate a zoning map amendment related to the South End Park redevelopment project. Mike Owens was the key speaker on this agenda item. The Commission did not take immediate action on the zoning map amendment request. Instead, the Commission deferred the matter, determining that additional information and discussion would be beneficial before moving forward with initiation of the amendment process. Staff was directed to provide an update on this item at a future work session, allowing for further review and consideration of the zoning map amendment proposal before the Commission takes formal action. ## BOAR 2014-1: Appeal of Denial for Elevator at 458 W. 3rd Street [timestamp: 02:42:54] The Commission considered an appeal of the Board of Architectural Review's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a two-story exterior elevator proposed at 458 W. 3rd Street. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Barb Rackers, Amelia Armstrong, and Joe Clark. **Decision** The Commission upheld the Board of Architectural Review's denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. The appeal was denied. **Basis for Denial** The Commission cited two primary concerns with the proposed elevator: - **Visual intrusion**: The two-story exterior elevator would create a visual intrusion at the location - **Design guideline violation**: The proposal violated applicable design guidelines for the area ## BOAR 2014-2: Appeal of Denial for Kitchen Demolition at 461 N. Limestone [timestamp: 04:20:09] The Commission considered an appeal regarding the denial of a kitchen demolition at 461 N. Limestone. The discussion involved Barb Rackers, Betty Kerr, Nathan Billings, Jason Huber, Preston Worley, Nick Wiley, and Joe Costa. The Commission approved the demolition of the kitchen addition at the property and allowed new construction to proceed. The approval was based on code enforcement safety concerns and the determination that the structural restoration of the existing kitchen addition was not feasible. The outcome represents a reversal of the initial denial, with the Commission finding that demolition and new construction presented a more viable path forward than attempting to preserve or restore the existing kitchen addition. --- ## Decisions - **MARV 2014-7** — passed: Approval of zone map amendment from R-4 to B-1 for 508 West Second Street and related development plan and variances - **MARV 2014-7 (variance)** — passed: Approval of requested landscape variances for zone-to-zone screening along northwest and southwest property lines - **ZDP 2014-28** — passed: Approval of Zoning Development Plan for Mary Swift, et al. Property, Lot 3 - **MARV 2014-8** — passed: Approval of zone map amendment from R1D to R4 for Burley Avenue and Stillwell Avenue properties - **MARV 2014-8 (variance)** — passed: Approval of dimensional variances for Burley Partners, LLC - **ZDP 2014-29** — passed: Approval of revised Zoning Development Plan for Burley Condominiums with condition 10 deleted - **BOAR 2014-1** — passed: Uphold Board of Architectural Review denial of Certificate of Appropriateness for elevator at 458 W. 3rd Street - **BOAR 2014-2** — passed: Issue Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of kitchen at 461 N. Limestone and approve new construction --- ## Full transcript No, I won't stop loving you. Why should I be here by the show? I'll always be here by your side. I never wanted to see you by the way. I'll always see you if you change, change your mind. So you're leaving in the morning on the early train Well I could say everything's alright And I could pretend and say goodbye But that would be lying Because I can't stop loving you Can't stop loving you I can't stop loving you Don't stop loving you Stop loving you Why I'm missing out I'm missing out Because I can't stop loving you Can't stop loving you I can't stop loving you. That's all I can do. I can't stop loving you. Why should I? Why should I? Why should I? Don't know. Why should I? Even try. Thank you. Thank you. There were no angry words at all As we carried boxes down the hall One by one we put them in your car Nothing much for us to say One last goodbye and you drove away I watched your taillights as they faded in the dark I couldn't face the night in that lonely bed So I laid down on the couch instead Last night I prayed to love my soul to keep And I cried myself to sleep So sure life wouldn't go on without you But oh, the sun is blinding me As it wakes me from the dark I guess the world can stop From my broken heart I'm still ticking, life goes on Radio still plays a song As I try to put my scattered thoughts in place And it takes all the strength I've got To stumble to the coffee pot The first of many lonely mornings I have to face You call to see if I'm okay I look out the window and I just say Last night I prayed to learn my soul to keep And then I cried myself to sleep So sure life wouldn't go on without you Lord, the sun is blinding me As it wakes me from the dark I guess the world ain't gonna stop Oh, my broken heart Oh, I guess the world ain't gonna stop Oh, my broken heart I'm sorry. guitar solo Raised on promises She couldn't have thinking That there was a little more light Somewhere else After all it was a great big world With lots of places to run to Yeah, did she have to die Trying to cheat I wonder why she was gonna kill Oh yeah Alright Take it easy baby Make it last, take it last tonight She was An American girl Well it was kinda cold that night She stood alone Over the balcony Yeah She could hear the cars roll by At 0441, like waves crashing on the beach. At the one desperate moment, they'll be cracked back in a memory. God, it's so painful for something that's so close. There's still some more to reach. Oh, yeah. All right. Take it easy, baby. Make it last all the night She was an American girl guitar solo Thank you. My love, there's only you in my life The only thing that's right My first love, your every breath that I have Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Good afternoon. I will call this meeting for April 24, 2014 to order. and with the commission's approval, I'd like to take a couple of items out of order as far as the agenda. The first would be recognition of a planning commission member that has retired from us, stepped down. And if I may, let me come out front and I'll ask the commission members to join me. I also asked Dr. Beatty to come forward. Let me say first, Dr. Beatty has been with us two years, three years, almost four years. and during that time she's been very conscientious as far as anything that we saw heard and always loved the input that she provided. Let me read this for Eunice Beatty. whereas we the members of Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and its staff acknowledge the resignation of Eunice Beatty from the Planning Commission and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Dr. Beatty for her valuable service to the commission from June 24, 2010 to February 7, 2014. having heard on the Commission Subdivision Committee for the entirety of her Planning Commission term, and whereas Dr. Beatty has been influential in the formation of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, including its adopted goals and objectives in the text amendments, encouraging and facilitating infill and redevelopment, and whereas Dr. Beatty has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Lexington Fayette County as reflected in her decisions regarding land use and development proposals reviewed by this Commission and whereas the members of this Commission and the staff feel that the service and guidance contributed by Dr. Beatty will be greatly missed by this body. Now therefore be it resolved we the members of the Commission and its staff to hereby express our gratitude to Dr. Beatty for her service to this Commission and to the citizens of Lexington Fayette County And we believe, and we, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, to hereby wish for Dr. Beatty much happiness and continued success, and ask that she continue to provide valuable guidance, and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Dr. Beatty and also spread upon the minute book of this body, dated Lexington, Kentucky, this 24th day of April 2014. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you. First of all, I would really like to thank the commission members and definitely the staff for the government for allowing me an opportunity to even serve in this way for our community and Lexington. I have to think back and sort of flashback to when I first started and Bill and Barbara were given all of these instructions as a new commission member, and the learning curve was great. And as we went through that whole process and each week, each month, seemed as if we were learning more, and certainly being on the commission doing the comprehensive plan, revision, and update. All of those things really took its learning curve. So I really think back and think about how much I've learned and grown just serving on the planning commission. I can't think of another board, and I've served on a lot of boards and committees, I can't think of another board that I've served on that has probably been as important as serving on the Planning Commission, shaping the properties, shaping the way we want the city to look, shaping development of the city. So I can't think of anything more important than serving on this committee. So again, I thank you all and wish you the very best. Thank you. Thank you. I thought it was interesting. Mr. Wilson did say we had a couple of extra seats up here today and she just smiled and kept on walking. At this point, I'm going to stay off the agenda and take another item out of order. We do have a presenter here that has a conflict later in the day and therefore at this point in time we're going to go into a closed session hopefully briefly and at that with that i'd ask for everyone to go outside for a few moments Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. I love you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Oh, I'm sure it was. I guarantee you. I'd like to thank everyone for their patience. I will call this meeting back to order. And at this time, we do have minutes for approval. Minutes from March 27, 2014. They have been emailed to the commission members. I have not heard of any changes. If there's any changes at this point, please let it be known. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the minutes of March 27th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Mundy. All those in favor, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Seeing none, I'll ask Mr. Sal Lee to sound the agenda for any possible abbreviated hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. Both items may qualify for abbreviated hearing. The first begins at the top of page two of today's agenda. This is MARV 2014-7, a zone change request by Collins Wathen Properties, LLC. The request is to rezone from an R4 high-density apartment zone to a B1 neighborhood business zone for property with an address of 508 West 2nd Street. At this time, the staff would ask if anyone present here today wishes to discuss or to object to this proposed zone change on West 2nd Street. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this item can be heard in abbreviated fashion. Thank you. And it will be our first item. The other may also qualify. It appears on the bottom of page 3 and mostly carries over to page 4 and 5. This is MARV 2014-8, a zone change request by Burley Partners, LLC for rezoning from a single-family residential R1D zone to a high-density apartment R4 zone. These properties have an address of 201 and 205 Burley Avenue and 1107, 1109, and 1111 Stilwell Avenue. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak to this zone change proposed on Burley and Stilwell Avenues? Okay. That'll be our second item then, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So first would be at the top of page 2, Collins-Wathen Properties, LLC. We have a zone map amendment and Mary Swift et al. property lot 3, Zoning Development Plan, MARV 2014-7. We do have requested variances with this as well as a Zoning Development Plan 2014-28. We'll let staff set up for this abbreviated hearing. Thank you. Yes, ma'am, Ms. White. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the commission. Again, this is on page two of your agenda at the top of the page. And it's also in tab one in your notebooks if there's additional information you're looking for about this application. The petitioner has requested a zone change from a high-density apartment zone, which is our R4 zone, to a neighborhood business B1 zone for property at 508 West 2nd Street. and flip to the next sheet and come over here to the easel and just give you some reference to the subject property. Jefferson Street is only about 60 feet from the frontage of the subject property along West 2nd, so the intersection of Jefferson and 2nd Street is just to the west of the subject property. I'm sorry, east of the subject property. you'll notice that B1 zoning is predominant along Jefferson in this area and there also is a large piece of property zoned B1 across 2nd Street from the subject property which is the West Jefferson Place building which houses mostly offices but is zoned B1 other zoning within the area is mostly multifamily residential R4 to the southeast and to the I guess north and west and then R5 adjacent in the Ballard Griffith Bower towers just adjacent to the subject property and further out we have some single-family residential and and R2 along, I believe that's Maryland Avenue, to the northeast. Again, the applicant is asking for B1, which is compatible with the adjacent B1 zone in this area. Also in the vicinity is Harrison Elementary School, which is on Bruce Street across Jefferson. and mostly newer resident are new a few new residential units and then mostly restaurants and i guess entertainment venues along jefferson have been popping up as of late in the last few years the petitioner is asking to rezone the subject property in order to reuse the building for several uses office on our on the third floor residential on the second and third floor and retail and a restaurant on the first floor there is already parking lot developed on the subject property this is an aerial looking to the north and you can see the griffith ballard towers are up to predominant structures in the area. And the subject property, which has frontage on 2nd Street, but also a little bit of frontage along Tower Plaza as well, which is the entrance to the multifamily to the rear of their site. The existing structure on the property was, in the past, a single-family residence. But in the 1970s, Planned Parenthood purchased the property, and they were granted permission by the Board of Adjustment to occupy that location as a community center. They did the large addition on the back of the property after they located there, and they have since sold the property to the applicant and have moved elsewhere within the community. So the property is completely developed, and the applicant is not proposing to really make very many changes to the subject property. In terms of one other item, since this is a MARV, there's variants requested, two variances, I believe, requested with the application, which Mr. Sally will address after the development plan presentation. In terms of the comprehensive plan, the petitioner is arguing that the B1 zone is in agreement with our 2013 comprehensive plan, specifically citing several goals and objectives, which are furthered if the property is rezoned and adaptively reused. The staff found that at least five goals and objectives were applicable to the requested zone change related to identifying opportunities for infill and redevelopment and adaptive reuse of property, providing for well-designed neighborhoods and communities, providing entertainment and other quality of life opportunities within the community, encouraging the renovation, restoration, and rehabilitation of historic structures, and then also encouraging mixed-use and sustainable development within the urban service boundary. The staff believes these are all relevant to the requested zone change application and are furthered by the requested rezoning and their proposed reuse of the property. In addition, the mixed-use development at this location, the staff believes is appropriate in terms of a land-use transition between B1 along Jefferson Street, which is all restaurants and a parking lot, and then the multifamily to the other side of the subject property at Tower Plaza. The staff and the zoning committee are both recommending approval of the rezoning, and that is because of its agreement with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, and specifically it's supported by the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and its appropriateness. And the staff would just point the commission to the agenda and the staff report in terms of the more detailed findings for this approval. And as usual, the recommendation is made subject to approval and certification of the zoning development plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning. Any questions for Ms. Wade? No? Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the development plan that is associated with this zone change is on page three of your agenda. It is ZDP 2014-28, Mary Swift and others, property lot three. This is a final development plan. Here you have your West 2nd Street frontage of the property, Jefferson Street, in this location with intervening properties, the Great Goose areas. Here we have the Lexington Housing Authority property, again, with Tower Plaza in this location. This is an existing three-story structure, an older structure, an old house originally. We have an addition, a three-story addition in this location. There's a two-story connecting building, you might say, or part of the addition, two stories that connects these two. It's a little over 8,000 square feet total. The restaurant's going to occupy a little over 2,200 square feet. Residential, the apartments, they're going to have apartments above, second- and third-story apartments in both structures. They're going to occupy a little over 4,000 feet of the property. The only actual physical change that you're being presented with today is this area right in here. This is going to be added onto the property, and this is a walk-in cooler for the restaurant. The solid waste receptacle area, this is where they're going to park their Herbies. They don't have room for a dumpster. It's not uncommon in the Jefferson Street area for businesses to utilize Herbie service. They have permission to do that. They will access it along this walkway and be able to bring them out to the curb. This is your existing parking. There are 23 spaces. That is what they're required under the ordinance. They have taken advantage of the transit stop deduction. There is a transit stop approximately in this location with a covered bench with a bus stop, which allows them to take a deduction. Areas that you see here, crosshatching and green, were areas of open space where they're demonstrating the open space for the property, the required due to the residential component. There are balconies, which also assist in the open space. Here we outlined a detention basin. You can see it is on both properties, this adjoining property as well as the subject property. There was some initial concern about utilizing that as part of the open space, which they are counting this area that you can see here. As staff has reported to the Planning Commission, we're not adverse to detention basins being utilized at open space, but we think it ought to be on a case-by-case basis. And in this situation, after much review and discussion, we are comfortable. This is a relatively small and shallow detention basin. The property is fully developed at this point. So there's not, again, with the exception of this small addition, there's not a concern about a lot of additional runoff being created and no need to modify this. It will be maintained by each property owner. That's how our ordinance, not your zoning ordinance, but the stormwater ordinance and manuals that govern detention basin maintenance requires each property owner to maintain their part of the basin. you can see that your subdivision committee did recommend approval subject to several sign-offs standard sign-offs including the division of water quality capacity assurance among others that are standard but you'll see that we have two condition resolve off-site parking Over the years, this lot has been utilized for other businesses in the area for parking. Staff has received information that those leases are no longer in effect. This property does meet their required parking on site. It's 23, and they have 23. So they've addressed that issue. And I just discussed with you the required open space and the maintenance of the detention basin, which is item number 12. And again, they are required to maintain the basin, which is on their property, as will the adjoining property owner. And staff is comfortable with that small amount of open space is applicable in this instance. So if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer. Mr. Martin, with 11 and 12, it sounds like both of those have been resolved. Do we need to leave those on as conditions? I believe they have been resolved based on the information and conversations we've had. Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? I've got one. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin, Nick, Gray Goose across the street has been used in that. Has they made other arrangements, or does that just? It is our understanding there are no longer any current leases on the property for off-site parking. All right, because that's been their holdover. Yes, sir. But parking, again, the reason for that condition was staff's concern about parking in the area. Any other questions? If not, thank you, sir. Mr. Sally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This item appears on page 2 and extends onto page 3. It is item B on your agenda, the variance portion of MARV 2014-7. The variance requested for the subject property is twofold. It's to basically reduce the required landscaping between a business zone and a residential zone in two fashions. First, the variance seeks to reduce the width from 15 feet to 5 feet in width, since no fence will be utilized as part of the screening. And secondly, to eliminate the requirement for a double-rowed, 6-foot-high hedge, with a three-foot high hedge. The zone-to-zone screening is required on two sides of the property, the northwest line and the southwest line, where it abuts residential zoning. As you can tell from the photograph that was up earlier, though, we do have parking lots on both of those property boundaries and in the case of the southwest property line, Tower Plaza itself, that even provides a further separation from the nearest property line there. The staff in our report that we presented to your zoning committee three weeks ago pointed that out as a unique circumstance to this property that does warrant some justification for a variance in the landscaping. This request of the applicants was reviewed by the Landscape Review Committee at their meeting on March 18th. They did not have a quorum at that meeting. They were one member short of a quorum. But the members present did express general agreement that the best sort of landscaping along these two property edges is more akin to that for a parking lot than for a traditional business to residential orientation where you have buildings in close proximity. In essence, that is the basis of the applicant's justification. The staff has reviewed that justification and agrees with that justification. There is existing landscaping material there already since we do have a parking lot along a property line. And the two members of the Landscape Review Committee that did review this application recommended that that material be maintained. I can also tell you from at least one of the phone calls that the staff has received, Some of the residents of this area found that very comforting, since a landscape variance was requested, that at least the existing material that's there would be maintained. Your staff is recommending approval of the variance for the five reasons listed in the report and on the agenda. They are that, first, granting the requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Secondly, that granting the variances will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. Thirdly, there are special circumstances that apply to this property since two sides of the property are abutted not by residential homes per se, but more like by parking lots rather than residential dwellings. Fourthly, strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship to the applicant because there already is screening in existence along the property line. And then fifth, the circumstances surrounding the variance are due to the proposed zone change, and the property is not likely to be any more intensely developed than it currently is. There are six conditions recommended by the staff in our report in conjunction with this variance. First is provided the property is rezoned to be one. Otherwise, any approval of this variance would be null and void. Secondly, should the property be rezoned, it should be developed in accordance with the development plan that's before you today. Thirdly, that a note be placed on this plan should the Planning Commission grant these variances. Fourthly, the applicant is required to obtain a zoning compliance permit from the Division of Planning. Fifthly, the vehicular use area should be screened with a continuous three-foot-high hedge, as generally required by the zoning ordinance for a parking lot type of screening. And then lastly, that a note be added to the development plan stating that, should the uses change from the subject property in the event of redevelopment, that the need for additional landscaping along these two lines be revisited at that time. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Planning Commission about our recommendation on the variance portion of this application. Any questions for Mr. Salley? Thank you, Mr. Salley. Applicant? Good afternoon. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy, representing the applicant, Collins-Wathen Properties, and Stephen Wathen is with me today, back in the back, along with Tony Barrett, our designer. Stephen's company has owned this property for about six months. They purchased it from Planned Parenthood. Even though it was zoned R4, it was not a residential use. As Ms. Wade mentioned, it was being used for Planned Parenthood as a community center, which was approved as a conditional use back in the 1970s. So ironically, we are going to what I call the original mixed-use zone, which is B1, but we will have four residential units in this property, even after it's zone B1, where there are not today. It's mixed-use. It will have restaurant and retail on the first floor, residential on the second floor, the third in the back, and then the third floor in the front will be a little office, which will be the office for the restaurant that will be in the property. As you may know, Don Wathen is the father of Stephen Wathen, and the initial plans are that Don Wathen will open a restaurant on the first floor of this building. He operates the Nick Ryan's, which is a very successful establishment right in the area. Of course, that will stay open, and we feel this will be just as successful. And we do agree with the staff conditions for approval. reasons for approval and the development plan and the variance. I would point out on the variance, we are not doing this to change the site. We're asking for the variance to keep the site the way it is. If we were to have to meet the landscape requirement along the northwest property line there, you can see it would cut through and would eliminate a large percentage of our parking through there. We just want to keep the parking the way it is today, and we'll keep the landscaping the way it is today as well on that. So we appreciate your consideration of this, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Any questions, Mr. Murphy? Nope. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I don't believe anyone else is in the audience to speak. Am I correct on that? Anyone? No. Very good. if there's no yes sir are you ready for a motion yes sir that's where i was headed i've got i've got three elements do you want to take yes separately that's what i thought you would uh i would move for approval of marv 2014-7 collins and wathom properties with the conditions are provided by staff thank you motion's been made and seconded by miss mundy for approval of MARV 2014-7 for the reasons listed about the staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I also like to move approval of the requested landscape variances with the conditions approved by staff, along with that with the recommendations of approval made subject to the conditions. Also made the six. Let me restate that. I want to do the approval of the requested landscape variances with the conditions outlined by staff. And the second part of that, I was going to put in the recommendation of the approvals are contingent upon the conditions also established by staff. Does that make any sense? Yes, sir. Yes. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the requested variances with the conditions listed. It was seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes Mr. Wilson one more yes an approval of ZDP 2014-28 Mary Swift now properties locked the development plan for the conditions outlined by staff I believe if you're willing we can delete 11 and 12 oh yes excuse me you're right with the limit it's actually 10 conditions okay thank you motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Mundy for approval of ZDP 2014-28 with the now 10 conditions to leave in 11 and 12. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Next, we will move to the bottom of page 3. It's Burley Properties, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment and Land Grove Edition, Lot 8 through 17, Burley Condominium Zone and Development Plan. it's MARV 2014-8 you do have requested variants with this and a supplemental staff report that's behind tab 2 in your folder on a pan sheet of paper and then also there's revised staff recommendations for the ZDP on a yellow sheet that should be before you as well Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the commission. Our next item is the request by Burley Partners, LLC. And I do have one item to enter into the record of support, and I believe Mr. Martin gave everyone a copy of that as well. subject property is located on the northern corner of the intersection of burley avenue and stillwell avenue within the america well lynn grove edition subdivision with my pointer i'll show it on the overhead burley avenue and then stillwell avenue Burley Avenue and Stillwell Avenue. The nearby major roadways include Virginia Avenue to the northeast, South Broadway to the northwest, Waller to the south, and then further Nicholasville Road and South Limestone. The subject property does have frontage both along Burley Avenue and Stillwell Avenue, and the development they're proposing brings townhouses and a few multifamily units up onto the street for both of those frontages. Within the zoning, zoning within the area includes single-family residential, mostly on the other side of Burley Avenue, but it does continue along this same frontage for two more blocks before it changes down towards the railroad track to an R1T zone also our four zoning is adjacent to the north west as well as to the kind of east of the subject property which leaves a small pocket of single-family residential before we get to simpson avenue for four single-family resident residences and then a larger warehouse and wholesale tract and there is a warehouse located there on simpson avenue so the adjacent zoning is single family r1d r and then an r4 to two sides and then just at that corner b4 within the vicinity i know the planning commission has considered several zone changes but also a development plan for the adjacent property for the burley condominiums and collectively those plans and changes redevelopment within the area have densified and started to change the character of the neighborhood so that is certainly a consideration when the staff reviewed the requested zone change they're proposing to have 14 dwelling units on the subject property which at at 0.9 acres is 15, just slightly over 15 and a half dwelling units per acre. And Tom will get into the details of the types of units and where they're located, but there are several dimensional variances also being requested, which again Mr. Selle will address after the development plan is presented. The applicant contends that their requested rezoning is in agreement with the comprehensive plan at this location, but in reviewing well just to go back to some of the past comprehensive plans the land use recommendation in this area was for medium density residential which generally this is slightly above that recommendation or five units above excuse me in reviewing the pros rezoning and development in relation to the 2013 comprehensive plan the staff did find that several of the goals and objectives were furthered by this proposed rezoning and redevelopment related to the proposed zone rezoning the comprehensive plan recommends expanded housing choices supporting infill and redevelopment as a strategic component of growth specifically including compact and contiguous growth providing for well-designed neighborhoods and can and communities improving the desirable our desirable communities by working to achieve effective and comprehensive transportation systems and then lastly the staff reviewed specifically chapter 7 of the comprehensive plan which discusses infill and develop in infill and redevelopment strategies and has some specific recommendations for infill and redevelopment this proposed development since it does provide two different kinds of housing types and then knowing that there's single-family residential and also multi-family residential within the near immediate area the staff believes that that meets or furthers the goal of encouraging various housing types and having expanded housing options especially within the immediate area in addition the corollary development plan depicts dwelling units that are oriented towards the street and puts the parking to the rear which are recommendations of the chapter seven of the comprehensive plan and then although this proposal is not quite as dense as some of the other developments that the planning commission has considered in this area it does add add density on the property and in it does so in a compact and contiguous form which is specifically recommended by our goals and objectives in designing the redevelopment the applicant has attempted to respect the character in terms of the scale of the neighborhood by proposing units that are only two stories tall that have entrances on the street and also have sloped roofs these are some of the specific recommendations for infill and redevelopment from chapter 7. Chapter 7 also includes consideration of multimodal transportation and open space and also respecting the context and character of a neighborhood. The staff noted in our report how important we felt that the road improvements or street improvements along Burley and Stillwell would be, specifically in terms of pedestrian accommodations because there are no sidewalks along the frontages of those of the subject property, and that that would go towards meeting theme D, goal 1, related to having a comprehensive transportation system in the area. And that's specifically important just because of the nature of the student activity and living and walking in the area. Lastly, the R4 zone is proposed, as proposed, is compatible with the existing R4 on either side of the subject property. and the staff took into consideration recent zone changes in the neighborhood and the gradual densification of the area and felt that Burley Avenue appears to be the most logical physical boundary for land use separation between single family to the southwest and toward American Avenue and multifamily between Burley and Virginia Avenue, which can preserve the lower density character of the rest of the neighborhood. in the future. So the staff and the zoning committee both recommend approval of the requested rezoning and there are generally because it is furthering the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan but also because of its compatibility with the adjacent R4 zoning in the area. And again the development plan would have to be approved and and certified within the two weeks of the commission's action. I can answer any questions about this proposed rezoning. Any questions for Ms. Wade? No? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the development plan that is associated with this change It starts at the bottom of page 4 and continues on to page 5. ZDP 2014-29 Lynn Grove Edition, lots 8 through 17. This is a preliminary development plan. There are revised conditions that have been passed out to the commission on a yellow piece of paper. You can see that the property is located at the intersection of Burley Avenue and Stillwell Avenue. Here are the two frontages for the property. They're proposing a bank of units in this location and separate units in this location. There are 14 total. There are townhouses here and here that are two-story townhouses. In this location, with this unpleasant color where we tried to highlight it and the ink blended with the color, but in these three units, you'll have a bottom dwelling unit and a second-story dwelling unit. So you'll have actual separate dwelling units in this location on the second story. So you have 14 dwelling units total. Here is the parking that is associated with it with access off of Stillwell. They are required 40 parking spaces, and that's based on their bedroom total. There are 44 bedrooms being proposed, so there's a mix of bedrooms within the various units. They are providing 46 parking spaces, so they're slightly over that. The green area that you see highlights just what that is. It's the green that exists on the property or will exist. They are meeting their open space primarily through these small areas. And then here in the rear, which provides access to the units, is open space. Sidewalks and landings and areas like that that they're utilizing to meet their open space. There are some balconies being proposed as well. Well, the variances that are associated that Mr. Sally is going to present to you are associated virtually exclusively with the boundary of the property in these areas. And you can see that they've moved the units up close to the street. We tried to highlight for you in red the five-foot building line. So you can see they're going to have a very urban presentation to the street. The total square footage is 11,600 square feet for the buildings. The lot coverage, and that's the key here, is 29.5%. The zone that they're requesting allows 30. So they've just about maxed out their lot coverage, and that'll be an important factor and virtually lock this development in. The FAR that they're proposing is 0.58%, and they are allowed 0.7. But again, with lot coverage and height restrictions of 35 feet, it's unlikely that you would see any additional intense development on this property. The plan has undergone several revisions. You can see from your handout that initially there were a large number of conditions. It has been cleaned up very nicely. and we are now down to various just a few simple cleanup conditions along with your standard preliminary development plan sign-offs of engineering and traffic and urban forester they need to clean it up by removing the the recording stamp box from the plan these plans are not recorded what actually is done is that a land use certificate is recorded per state requirements. They need to revise a note where they've attempted to address a concern from our environmental planner. There has been some geotech done on the property. A couple of years ago, there's a report that was investigated by your environmental folks about a possible sinkhole opening up on the property. So we want to be absolutely sure that when development's ready to take place, that the environmental planner is notified and can investigate as appropriate. And again, that will be something that will be carried over and addressed on a final development plan. They need to correct their cross section on Stillwell Avenue. They have agreed to the request that improvements be done, which are curb, gutter, and sidewalk and extension of pavement. They'll need to correct that cross section to reflect that appropriately. And then they just need to clean up some utility information. And then, of course, as I stated before, provided the Planning Commission grants the requested variances on this plan. And Mr. Salley will be going over those with you shortly. If you have any questions for me, I'll be glad to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, let me ask you one thing. Yes, sir. With condition number 10 having historically seen, as with the last plan where we took the variance request before the development plan, if by chance the variances are approved here, will we still need this 10th condition? No, sir. Okay. Assuming you do grant them. Just curious. Yeah. Yes, sir. Just curious. The variances are so integral to the development. Since you were here, I thought I'd ask. So, okay, any other questions? Mr. Salate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My portion of the staff presentation appears on page 4, item B of your meeting agenda, the variance portion of MARV 2014-8. there are five requested dimensional variances associated with the development plan that mr martin has described in the zone change ms wade has described to you i'd like to use the development plan just to orient you specifically to those five variances the first is we've listed in our staff report which is at tab two in your notebook directly behind the zoning report that ms wade presented earlier is to reduce the front setback along burleigh avenue to five feet that is this setback because this is a group residential project the setback for these buildings is ordinarily 20 feet these buildings were they connected in a townhouse style that reduction could be down to 10 feet so obviously these are closer than either of those the second setback is very similarly associated with stillwell avenue also a front setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for those units as well the third is project's exterior yard variance from a minimum of 20 feet to 5 feet again because these buildings are not connected here and are not all townhouses with the three units here that are up down dwelling units a project exterior yard of 20 feet is ordinarily required for those types of developments. Fourth variance is a property perimeter landscape variance adjacent to a residential zone from 6 feet to 2 1⁄2 feet. Along this property line, because it is adjacent to remaining R1D zoning, ordinarily the ordinance requires a minimum of 6 feet. The applicant has asked that that be reduced to 2 1⁄2 feet on this plan, and there is a note that there would still be three-foot high shrubs planted along that boundary. There is currently a chain-link fence and a few trees along that boundary, and presumably those are either close enough to the line or on the adjoining property where staff expectation is that those will remain. The final variance is adjacent to a business zone, which only incorporates this portion of the site. It is adjacent to a B4 zone on another property, and the ordinance, as we discussed in the last case there, requires a 15-foot buffer with double row hedge or fence use. That portion of the property is already landscaped and the applicant has asked for a variance to that provision as well. The staff at your zoning committee meeting three weeks ago recommended postponement of consideration of these variances. The staff did not feel that property justification had been submitted to review it at that time. In the intervening three weeks, we have received a justification from the applicant, and that is also at tab two in your notebooks, to which the staff has reviewed. Primarily, we have identified that justification in the supplemental staff report on the cream-colored sheet, which we also emailed to the members yesterday. The primary justification for these variances is twofold. First, the petitioner is asking that this project be reviewed more like a standard townhouse type of development than the mixture of townhouse and up-and-down duplex units that you see on the development plan. And therefore, the setbacks should more mimic what you would expect for a townhouse development than a standard, say, apartment type of development, which group residential is primarily oriented to. Secondly, there is a desire by the petitioner after speaking with neighborhood representatives and as Mr. Martin mentioned in his presentation, to maximize the amount of off-street parking that is available for this development. That is somewhat of an unusual circumstance that we found with a number of the other redevelopment proposals over the past three or four years in this general area. Those two things do provide, in the staff's opinion, the necessary justification for the approval of most of the dimensional variances that are proposed. Like the previous case, because the landscape variances involved, this application also was reviewed by the Landscape Review Committee. They had a recommendation for a modification to the variance along one of the property lines. again they did not have a quorum they did not vote the members present felt that a two and a half foot setback here adjacent to existing single family residential was too narrow of a buffer and their recommendation that was that a more substantial buffer be provided there the staff recommendation on this is that the variance only be granted one foot meaning a variance from six feet to five feet be in that location, and that the hedge material that's noted on the plan also be provided in that buffer area. The staff has recommended in our supplemental report approval of most of the requested variances with the alteration of the one along the northeastern property line adjacent to single-family zoning for the reasons in our staff report. They are first that granting the requested variances as modified along the one property line will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it alter the character of the general vicinity or cause a hazard or nuisance to the public. Secondly, granting these variances will not result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. Thirdly, there are special circumstances that apply to this property that are not generally present to other land in the general vicinity. The fourth finding from the staff is that strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant. And then finally, the circumstances surrounding the variances are not a result of the prior actions taken by this applicant as no construction and no building demolition has begun on the subject property, which, of course, we have a photo of on the overhead. There are four recommended conditions with the approval of this variance. The first three are very similar to the ones we saw in the previous case, provided the council rezones the property, in this case to R4. Otherwise, approval of the variance is null and void. Secondly, should the property be rezoned, that it be developed in accordance with the development plan that you're also reviewing at today's hearing. Thirdly, that a note be placed on the zoning development plan should the commission grant the variances, just identifying that fact. And then finally, the unusual condition for this one is that the minimum landscape buffer width of five feet be maintained on the northeastern property line with three-foot hedge material provided and trees planted, if they're necessary, at 40-foot centers. I thank you for allowing us to present all three staff reports to you today, and I'll be glad to answer any questions about this report or any of the others that have been presented today. Any questions for Mr. Sally on the? Barron's or anything else? No? Okay. Thank you very much. Is the applicant here? Yes. Okay. They represent him, yeah. Okay. Very good. Come forward. Good afternoon. My name is Abby Jones with Abby Jones Consulting, representing the client today. And the developer has worked with the property owners, the church, that has become very small and unable to maintain the property. and they are very excited about this project and hope that it will move forward quickly. We have the support of the neighbors, and I believe we have one present, and that is the author of the letter that you have in your folders, I believe. And another neighborhood leader has been involved in opposing some of the other projects in the area. It is noticeably absent today, and we believe that is as positive a statement as we can possibly have. he is not speaking in opposition to this project. He believed this is the best situation to move forward. So we believe that by working with the neighbors, we have come up with a solution for a very positive project for this area. In speaking to just a few of the items that staff has reported on, with the density, we have come up with a unique mix of the town home and the apartment style units that have an up and down component. And so that is somewhat unique and not specifically covered by your existing codes. And so we believe that that is one of the big justifications for all of the different variances. This is much more similar to a townhouse style than a big box apartment, which has been approved across the street. With the open space, we have used the reduction for proximity adjacent to a park, and so that while we do not have a tremendous amount of the open space on our property, we are across the street from Burley Park, and that is one of the allowable reductions within your regulations. and the neighbor setback recommended five foot instead of the two and a half foot that we had requested some of those properties have also been submitting plans for additional density i don't believe that they've come before this board yet but they have been submitted by others the developer finds the updated staff recommendation for all of the variances with the one item being five foot acceptable and we hope that the board will approve this project as presented. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Jones? And you are okay with the change from six feet to five feet on the one foot variance? We are willing to work with that. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you, Ms. Jones. Others that would like to speak? Yes, ma'am. Hi. My name is Jenny Daly, and I live at 136 Burley Avenue, about five houses up from where this project's going in. Thank you for allowing me to speak. And I felt it was important to come in support, since you usually hear me complain about the projects going on in my neighborhood. while this isn't the development that myself or others would have preferred, this developer has reached out to the neighborhood and is willing to hear a lot of our concerns and grievances about these large-scale density going on in our neighborhood. This developer's been open and honest about the economics of the project, what can be modified, what can't. And as a result, this process has allowed us to focus on sort of the critical items, what really means the most to the neighborhood, like parking, waste management, sidewalks, what happens with the stormwater runoff, and how it actually fits within the current neighborhood with traffic flows and design. The biggest issue is the parking plan and the potential for on-street parking. which happens with all of these projects. There's never enough for the residents, and when their friends come over, it just clogs the streets. You can't get down them. I think the parking plan in this is commendable. It's all moved out of sight. It's in the back. They're offering more parking than any other developer will in our neighborhood, and I think that the variances which push the housing out to the street and minimize the landscaping buffers really are so that this parking can happen. And hopefully it will alleviate some of the on-street parking because Stilwell is a cut-through street, and once you get sidewalks going down both sides, I don't think it's going to be able to accommodate any on-street parking. There's going to be a bit of a problem there. So I like what they're doing with the parking. Same thing with the landscaping buffers. I think they've been very sensitive to the existing boundaries and working in conjunction with that. So although we prefer not to have a high density added to our neighborhood, this development plan does address the density issues that we face as best as it can. So I'm glad to be in support of that and all the variances that have been proposed. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Daly. Anyone else that would like to speak in regards to this plan? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing. unless commission has any questions for anyone yes sir no i make a motion i'm ready uh mr chair i'll make a recommendation of approval of the mar the 2014-8 with the we'll do the variance separate right yeah okay for the reasons provided by staff yes for the reasons provided by staff thank you motion has been made and seconded for the approval of burley properties marv 2014-8 uh was seconded by mr wilson please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And I'll make a recommendation of the five requested variances changing. Number four to read reduce the property perimeter landscape buffer from an adjacent residential zone from six feet to five feet. Okay and that's pretty much covered in the conditions, but with conditions provided by the staff? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the variance, MARV 2014-8. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And now revised staff recommendation. I'm sorry, zoning development plan. Yeah. And recommendation of approval of ZDP 2014-29, deleting item 10. Did you say deleting number 10? Yeah. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of revised staff recommendations, deleting number 10. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Commission would like a brief recess? Five-minute recess, and then we'll resume. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. I will call this meeting back to order. Appreciate everyone's patience. and let me suggest and ask. We do have time constraints tonight with council meeting, so I would ask everyone to be efficient and concise. So to start with that, we will... Oh, Mr. Salee, I believe initiation of zone map amendment under first commission item, I believe we're bypassing that today. Yes, sir. The staff would ask that you not take action on that today. We'll give you an update at a future work session on that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Move on to BOAR 2014-1, Joseph H. Clark and Joseph P. Clark. It's a property located at 451 West 3rd Street. And Barb Rackers. Ms. Rackers. Good afternoon. We have two BOAR appeals today, and I have a letter that was sent by Ms. Winn Meeker that applies to both of them. It's a letter of opposition that she has sent in reference to both of these appeals. The first one is on page 5 of your agenda, item B, and it is BOAR 2014-1. It's an appeal made by Mr. Joseph H. Clark and Mr. Joseph P. Clark, who are father and son. The property is located at 458 West 3rd Street, and it's on the south side of the street. This is the property right here. There's 3rd Street here. It's east of Jefferson Street, which is right here. And it's within the Northside Historic District. And then if you could just put the area bill, please. The property is zoned H2 and it has an H1 overlay. It's two-family residential. And it's really difficult to see. This is the property right here. It contains about 31,000 square feet. It's one of the larger properties on the street. The residence itself is a two-story brick. It has an attic and basement. It contains a little over 4,900 square feet. And if you could put the photo up of the house, please. The PVA records, according to PVA records, it was built in 1880. You've got the house and the, this is the front of the house, and then the elevator is proposed to be on that side of the house. There aren't any other photos in PVA records of the house, so I can't really show you what that looks like, but I'm sure that they have pictures that will show you the side of the house and what the elevator extension is going to look like. But they're appealing a BOAR decision to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for a second story or a two-story exterior elevator, and it'll be near the rear of the residence, but it'll be in front of a kitchen addition that was put on the house in 1907. They went through two conceptual reviews, one in May and one in September, and the BOAR at both of those recommended that they either put the elevator interior to the house or in the back, and that they do a more contemporary design so that it wouldn't be imitating history or giving a false sense of history. So the applicant at the BOAR hearing, who was the owner's son, he redesigned the elevator extension to be more contemporary in design, but it was still put in front of the kitchen, it was still located there. And it was finally heard as an application for a certificate of appropriateness in December of 2013, and that was when it was denied by the BOAR. According to the aerial, well, it looks like on the aerial that the kitchen is at a zero foot setback. If you could put the next one up there, please. This is the house right here. Here is the kitchen extension, and this is the house next door. So it looks like, you can't see the property line on there, but it looks like the kitchen extension is just right up against the property line at a zero-foot setback. And I'm not sure if that's the case or not because our measurements on geosync are kind of rough sometimes, but it does look like it's at a zero-foot setback. And the elevator is proposed to align with that kitchen addition and extend forward about 11 feet. And in the staff report, it says that it would be about 19 feet from the front property line. That's a misstatement. It would be more like 59 feet from the property line. I don't know if it was the measurements that I did on geosync or what, but apparently I can't use geosync to measure. But anyway, it's actually about 59 feet from the property line and about 30 feet from the front of the house. In the staff's presentation to the BOAR, they said that the more contemporary design is in keeping with the design guidelines. when there is new construction, they encourage contemporary design as opposed to trying to imitate what the original structure is. But the location, which is highly visible to the front of the property, is too visually intrusive and it results in a loss of the historic material of the structure. Apparently you can't see a lot of the architectural detail of the house with the elevator extension on there. So it doesn't meet the intent of the design guidelines and they recommended disapproval and the Board upheld that. There were several design guidelines that were referenced in the report, as well as the design principle for room additions. The design principle states that when planning additions, the best approach is to place the additions where they will have the least impact on the building's form and plan. The rear of buildings is the best location for the addition of rooms or wings. And then two particularly applicable design guidelines, 2A4A and 2A4F, Those state, additions are most appropriately located at the rear of buildings, and additions should be built in a manner that avoids substantive removal or loss of historic materials, and which does not damage or destroy the main architectural features of the building. There was a lot of discussion between the applicant and the board, and most of it centered around the location of the elevator. They said the concept of the elevator wasn't an issue. It was just dislocation along the side property line. and being so close, the existing kitchen being so close to the property line and to the property, the house next door, this was going to exacerbate an already not too great situation. That was what was problematic about it. They asked him to look, to try to place it at the rear of the property, not the rear of the property, but the rear of the house. And he said that that was problematic and that the utilities and the plumbing for the kitchen are in that area where they requested that he put the elevator. And that would be problematic to them. And it would also result in the loss of two healthy trees. And I'm assuming that it's probably these trees right here. and one board member in their discussion said that it's probably better to maintain the integrity of the house and in order to do that it would probably be better to sacrifice the trees the board agreed unanimously that the elevator location isn't appropriate and it's not appropriate to the house or the neighborhood and partially because it's so close to the neighboring property and i don't know yeah you can see i think that little bit of red right there that is this is the kitchen addition, and this would be, that little bit of red right there would be the elevator extension, going out 11 feet. They urged him to explore more options and to locate the, like I said, locate it at the rear of the house, try to work around the plumbing and the utility lines, and make it interior to the house. And in response to that, he said that they believe that they're in keeping with the house and the streetscape by putting it where they're putting it, and that it didn't attract from either the historic structure or the streetscape. And he said that he had made a specific effort to work the architecture into the space and to create a unity within the space as well as the architectural details of the house. So after a long discussion between the board and the applicant, the board did deny it, and they have appealed it. And the reasons that they've given for the appeal is that it does meet the intent of the design guidelines. And any exception to the design guidelines was done in the interest of the house, the best interest of the house and the surroundings. things. The location required by the board would have a more detrimental effect on the house and the property, and the design guidelines that were cited are at odds with the unique development of the property. And they believe that they were denied without substantive reason and adequate reason wasn't given for their denial. Well the Board of Architectural Review, like I said, had two conceptual reviews of this, and they did all along recommend that they put the elevator either in the back of the house or interior to the house so it's been consistent throughout the process and they have also been consistent in their interpretation and application of the design guidelines and in reviewing this case we can't see that they either they or the staff erred in their interpretation or their application of the design guidelines they assess the situation correctly and they applied the design guidelines appropriately with regarding the elevator location can appreciate mr. Clark concerns about disrupting the utilities and the plumbing in the trees, but the board's denial was consistent with their charge in interpreting and applying the design guidelines, and we have recommended that you uphold the board's decision for that reason. That reason is listed on your agenda in your staff report. And if you have any questions about that, I'd be glad to try to answer them. Mr. Clark and Mr. Clark are both here, and Ms. Kerr and Ms. Armstrong are here from Historic Preservation, and Mr. Ron Jackson is here from the Board of Architectural Review if you have any other questions. Thank you, Barb. Any questions for Barb? One question, Barb. The 11 feet, I think I know, but for clarification, is that width of the elevator? Length from the back to the front. Okay. Depth of it? 4'11". 4'11". Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hello. My name is Amelia Armstrong. Of course, I'm with the Historic Preservation Office. and I will walk you through and familiarize you with the project and the plans itself. Ms. Kerr is passing out the staff report and also would like to enter the record to Pesley. She's also passing out a full copy of the record and a copy of the design guidelines. And this is sort of a similar image to what you saw before of 458 West 3rd Street. and this is sort of looking southwest. This is along downside the house and this is the location in question of where the elevator addition was proposed to be located. And this is on the west side of the house. This is a closer image of the location, so there is an existing addition in the proposal. It proposes to attach to the existing structure and to come forward 11 feet and then turn and truncate into the, terminate into the masonry wall. and this is a view looking from the back between the neighboring property and this property towards the area where the proposed elevator was supposed to be located or proposed to be located And again, this is another view of the proposed area for the proposed elevator addition. This is the first floor plan, and to show you on plan where this would be located, it's proposed to be in that location. This is the plan, of course, the first floor plan, you can see the existing and the proposed. This is the second floor plan because this is a two-story addition. This is the existing and the proposed. This is looking south but facing the north direction. And here's the proposed elevator addition. This is the neighboring structure, and this is the proposed addition piece. So it's going to be a two-story, proposed to be a two-story structure, having similar materials as the existing addition, with a second story made up of tempered glass and fiber cement treatment. This is the west elevation. Again, a tempered glass window, fiber mitts, siding, stone foundation, glazing, and a second story. In the south elevation. he proposes to have a door that would walk out onto the what is the first floor kitchen addition. And this is sort of the rear of the structure. That tree that was mentioned previously. The staff has met with the applicant on several occasions during this process, and we've attempted to work with them on several occasions, met with them trying to accommodate the elevator addition while staying within the guidelines. and in many different situations there was there were no other location was proposed by the applicants they did entertain this location but not they've never put forth a plan for any other location and so the board felt that they denied this case and we're asking for the this body to uphold the BOR's decision. Thank you. And Ms. Kerr and I are both here. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Armstrong at this point? No. Ms. Kerr, do you have anything to add at this point? No. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Clark. Thank you. Thank you all for taking your time today. My name is Joe Clark. I'm representing my father, Joe Clark, at 458 West 3rd Street, who's here today. My presentation might be a little redundant on what we just saw, but I'm going to go through it anyway because I think it's important to how we're viewing those guidelines and specifically the two guidelines that were cited by the Preservation Office and the Planning Commission staff report to be upheld. This is the view from across the street of the main body of the building. The 458 West 3rd Street. If you go to the next slide, we'll travel around to the east. All those, what you see in this picture is additions from original two-story townhouse. The front wrap around porch is 1907 followed by the bay window of 1907 and then in the rear, if you go to the next slide, you can see the addition of 1930 sunrooms. This is the main architectural massing of the house and has basically 90% of all the architectural daily tailing to it. If you keep going to the next slide, you can see a better view of the main body of the house. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. We're going to wrap around behind the sunrooms to the corner that the preservation office had originally proposed alongside the kitchen addition of 1907 and the sunroom or the main body of the house. We can go to the next slide. This is a better view of that house. The trees in question would have to be damaged or destroyed given that it was built in that corner. is a 35-year magnolia tree planted on an axis between the windows of the kitchen and a 35-year-old crape myrtle planted on axis with the entrance to the house. Both of those my father planted in 1980 when he bought the house, and they are significant in the overarching structure of the house and what's happened to the property since then. You can go to the next slide. Going back around to the west, we see the basic original structure on the right of the two-story townhouse. If you go to the next slide, we start seeing the corridor that opens up to the kitchen addition. Go to the next slide. We come closer. The kitchen addition is sitting at the rear of an unadorned, a completely unadorned brick wall that has never been embellished by any architectural element or ornament. If you go to the next slide, here you can see where it sits in relationship to the street. The current siting is 67 feet from the front property line. And you can see as it sits, it sits about six feet in front of the rear, the true rear of the property at the end of the original brick mason reconstruction. It projects six feet out from that and then sits four feet 11 from that original volume. And the property line is four inches off that building. Go to the next slide. This is the development diagram where you can see it moves from a townhouse. The property develops over a 50-year period to the east where all the architectural ornament faces the east. You can go to the next slide. This is the volume addition, just a simple diagram showing us the basic volume that's added and then the vertical circulation chamber to get to the second floor from the kitchen. If you go to the next slide. This is the site plan. I don't know if it's turning up on yours. It's not reading correctly, but there should be a dashed in mark, that sort of is, where there's the 11 feet towards the bottom of the drawing. You can see the relationship between the neighboring bay window, the sidewalk, the existing condition, and then the existing or proposed addition. It's 11 feet by 5 feet roughly, which is approximately 55 feet. The overall building square footage of the footprint is 2,200 square feet, so it's about 2.5% addition to the overall mass of the structure. If you go to the next slide. These are all the elevations aligned we've seen in place. A lot of these elevations were made after the second conceptual review. The chair of the board had stated that the plan was ideal for this property and that he felt that it was strong, but just as in order to get the certificate of appropriateness we should return with drawings that were demonstrative of being aware of our neighbor. So to that end we refit the drawing and the project is detailed basically to make a formal elegant approach which takes an otherwise undeveloped and underutilized space which is basically a leftover from the kitchen addition when it moved outside the house and try to make something very nice. If we have any questions about the details. I don't want to go through it. The window, the new window that you see in the middle elevation takes, is in front of the older window, which still allows visibility. The sills at the finish floor below that are at the same level as the sills of the adjacent property. That creates a nice confined courtyard space, and same with the layer of brick above the foundation wall. And the material palette is very devised in order to respond to that tight space. When the project was turned down, you know, I stated our reasons for this appeal, that there was no substantive reason for the denial. The board agreed that it was too close, but proximity itself has no value. And I feel we both worked very hard to make, despite that proximity, make a very strong project. You can go to the next slide. These were the renderings we return to after those comments by the board. You can see the existing condition rendered, the relationship to the kitchen, and the proposed relationship. Go to the next slide. Again, looking up the existing relationship on the left, the proposed addition on the right. Next slide. And that's where I'll stop. I want to talk briefly now just about the site, guidelines that were cited as reasons for denying it and just our fundamental thinking on this issue and why we're here today. And again, thank you for your time. So 2A, 4A, additions are most appropriately located at the rear of buildings. Fundamentally, this is the rear of the building. It is not directly behind the house, but its location is directly opposite all the main architectural features of the house. The development of this property was to the east, with the natural growth of its architectural features facing east. Like many of the larger properties on 3rd Street, the building has an asymmetric form relationship to the street, where the structure's strongest architectural features are viewed on the approach from the west, coming from the architectural promenade of Broadway. The site that we picked is an unadorned brick wall that has no real bearing on any architectural aspects of the main body of the house. The front edge is 56 feet from the curb. That's with the addition. The front edge of the addition, our proposed addition, is 56 feet from the property, and symmetric with the last additions of 1930. We feel that this is not the front of the property and that the guideline is not appropriate for this project. Second, additions should be built in a manner that avoids substantive removal or loss of historic materials and which does not damage or destroy the main architectural features of the building. In no way are we destroying any main architectural feature of the building. The kitchen volume viewed from the west is the least defined element of the entire structure and we are taking an under-utilized, underdeveloped auxiliary structure and making it better. The kitchen addition where our proposal is located is a basic poured concrete foundation governing clabbered siding with off-the-shelf decorative elements. The building was built cheaply and is the only point in the entire structure where this material pallet occurs. On the east side, where we saw the proposal for the Historic Preservation Office's initial proposal to put the thing, the elevator tower, the same volume has been faced with 13-inch limestone foundation, and a double-wide brick wall. It was basically formalized in the 30s the same time the last addition was made to create an outdoor room. This formality has not been found on the west side of the building, and this project seeks to improve what is currently an impoverished building in regard to the main structure. Our proposal brings the current north facade of the building 11 feet. It's going to be cleaned, renovated. The brick removed for the entrance on the second floor will be used in the foundation of the project. All the existing windows on that side of the wall, the only detail and architectural features of that wall are maintained and incorporated into the project. No existing visible material is destroyed or lost. The suggestions by the preservation office to place the elevator in the rear corner of the east wall of the kitchen would destroy three historic windows and necessitate the removal of two 35-year-old trees, which we've already talked about. These are irreplaceable trees, however. The elevator placed to the east would disrupt an otherwise intentionally developed and specific exterior space of the house. The project is detailed to improve the space and create a more formal and elegant setting than the current condition provides and make a stronger relationship with the neighboring building despite its proximity. The guidelines state that additions should have the least impact on the building's form and plan, and that is absolutely true of this project, and that we hope our understanding of these guidelines are true and understood in the light of the architecture of this house. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Let me ask, are there others in the audience who wish to speak on this? Yes. Yes, a couple others. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Clark at this point? No? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clark, let me ask you this one thing. Did I understand you right? the what you're saying is kitchen addition or the proposed elevator would be four inches off the property line. Is that what I heard? What did you say as far as four inches? The current edge of the kitchen addition the west wall of the collaborative siding is four inches off. We're staying within that boundary line moving forward. Are you doing any other work besides the elevator? Any interior renovation or anything? No, there won't be. Just beyond the moving of the facade. Okay. There's other repairs to the house that need to be done, but they don't require the Board of Architectural Review. Right. I'm just curious as to, you know, how extensive of the renovation interior you might be doing. Yeah. I mean, that was a big problem was that the places on the interior requires the removal and moving of a furnace system. And I didn't go much into the plan, but we had a very extensive hour-long conversation during the second review, the second conceptual review, about the compactness of this plan and the series of additions. You know, as utilities and everything became available and the neighborhood developed, those things were sort of slap-shotted on after the fact. And so you have a house with a lot of competing systems that really, if you were to put it anywhere without damaging two rooms or just trying to make something good, it starts to go into a full-scale renovation of the house, which doesn't seem feasible considering the occupant still wants to live there. Okay. Did you have a question, Mr. Cravens? On these, I was just looking at the house next door. On these plans, is that bay window in the correct location? Yes, it is. on these? The bay window is 39 inches from the existing bay of the kitchen from the top, and then 26 inches from the projection of the cornice. So it's already very close, but as you see, the face of that bay window is blind, so there's not actually an impact on the visual side of things, because you're still looking out down and up and down the court. And what is that? Is that a side entrance into that house? Yeah, but since it was a, for the past 20 years, it was used as a multifamily apartment complex, which that side entrance was used. But since being renovated and now rented as a single family, it's never used. And then you're being four inches from the property line. I mean, are you going to be able to meet the fire code on that? Yeah. The use of tempered glass and the hardy plank fiber cement was thought out. And, you know, as far as engineering goes, this is basically a still schematic design that will be engineered to meet fire code and meet all the appropriate requirements of building inspection and everything else. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Thank you. Yes, sir. Who's next? There's a couple. Come forward. You want to hear me over for protesters? Any in favor of this? Okay. Any in opposition? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Jay Farmer, who owns the property next door 462. This is our copy of our letter in opposition before the Board of Architectural Review. I think that the staff report by Ms. Rackers and the succinct summary by Stork Preservations has adequately captured the essence of our presentation. I'll provide a copy of this for the record today. Some of them don't have much other to add. Our letter accurately reflects that we oppose this. The primary reason is the location of it and the adjacency next to that bay window. All this does is further compound the problem that currently exists. I don't know that it's fair to say that that side entrance is never used. It is an entrance to the house that has changed since it went from multifamily to single family about 18 or 24 months ago with the renovation. that, interestingly, had to come before historic preservation and got approval to do at that time. So for the reason to say in our letter and to save you all time, we'd submit this in opposition to the appeal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brilocks. Others? Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Commissioner. My name is Ron Jackson. I'm the vice chair for the Board of Architecture Review. I would like to thank you for this opportunity to just speak in front of you and just reiterate a few comments that were made during the staff presentation. You know, we did two conceptual reviews on this, and we very much talked to the applicant about the location of this proposed project. project. And, you know, we felt like, you know, we spent multiple hours talking to him about it. During the conceptual and formal reviews, you know, we strongly encouraged him to look at the other locations. We understand the trees are important to him and his father, but as far as being neighborly and upholding the guidelines, we felt like the trees could be something that may be sacrificed for the point of the elevator. We do, as a board, agree that the property owner should have an elevator, and we try to work diligently with him to that end, and we provided, we thought, some solutions to the problem. As you saw in his presentation, Mr. Clark's presentation, the space is extremely tight and that we feel like the location is not at the rear of the property per the guidelines. So just in closing, we would like for the Planning Commission to uphold our decision and deny the proposed elevator project. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Sir. Hold on one second. Hold on. We'll give you a chance. Yes, sir. I'm Steve Bale. I live at 466 West Third Street. That's two houses west of Mr. Clark's home. And my wife and I have resided there for over 30 years. And I'm here today to express my support for your staff's recommendation of disapproval of this application. and i empathize with mr clark because our bedrooms are on the second floor of our home as well and in fact that's a dominant characteristic of the homes on the historic north side and it's an issue that we all face and so the solution is not elevators and the thing that i have not heard mentioned or read in any of the material when it came before the board of architectural review nor here today is the undesirable precedent that this will set if this application is approved because elevators all over the north side are not going to be desirable. Thank you. Yes sir. Mr. Bell hold on one second. So Mr. Bell it's my understanding that even if the elevator was at the back of the house you'd still be opposed to it? I would, but it still would probably be approved by the Board of Architectural Review. And so under those circumstances, it would be more an issue of, it would not appeal to me, but it would still be suitable under the historic guidelines. Thank you. Anyone else I'd like to speak? Mr. Clark. Here, I can stand for a short amount of time. It hasn't been mentioned, but you're probably aware that maybe you're not aware, but I am now using a walker, and if I continue to get worse, I'll be in a wheelchair. And I don't look forward to that. But and what we've tried to do here is find the best location for the house, for the neighborhood. And I sincerely believe we've done that. Now, I got the Mr. Billings here, I think, was really hired by Pete Cassidy, who wrote a letter regarding all of this. And he even suggested that we put it on the east side, which my son has already explained. That's really the most attractive part of the entire house. And the difficulty of putting it in the back in that corner with the kitchen and the main house is not the trees. We can get it in there. I'm confident that we can get it back there we could get it back there without without touching it we could save the trees probably but the most unfortunate thing about it is that it compromises our kitchen and that it would remove we would have to remove one of the windows which we only have two on that side and one on the other side in that room and then one looking out to the street but we would have to to remove that window and so we have no view or no light coming into the kitchen or very little from the from the east side it is not a very good choice because it It does make it difficult because of the utilities, but the main thing is that we've got a better site on the west side where we can simply, we're just extending that room. And on the east side, there's two volumes of the house that are extended several feet, at least that much probably, from the main house. So we're not doing anything to really seriously affect the looks of the house. And besides that, it's set so far back from the street, and that's a very narrow passage between the two houses that you barely see it. And all I have to do is add one more evergreen, and you won't see it from the street. But what we're trying to do is make it a more attractive thing to look at to begin with, because at the present time, you've got that little extension, which I call the panhandle of the kitchen, wrapping around the west side, and it's not a very attractive thing to look at. Now, the neighbor's house was built in 1882, and the kitchen addition on our house wasn't put there until 1907. So there must not have been any difficulty with placing that kitchen so close to the property line. It doesn't seem to have bothered anyone. And besides that, the neighbor's window is only, I think Joe said, 30 inches from the cornice. so i think we've we've we've solved all the problems and i disagree very much with anyone saying that we don't need elevators there are natural changes that a lot of people want to make and when they buy a house they they look at the house and think well we can we can enlarge this part or we can extend it or we can improve it but that's one of the problems with this historical overlay, if it's used incorrectly, which I think it is being used incorrectly, that it prohibits anyone from having any leeway as to what he can do with his own property. Now, I know you've heard that before, and a lot of people don't like to hear that, But I bought the house in 78. I've been in Lexington now since after I graduated from Illinois and got my degree in landscape architecture. I've been here since 1957. And I've lived in three parts of the north side. I lived for three years at 402 North Limestone, which is between 4th and 5th, and there are three historical houses down there. And then I lived in Mrs. Grant's little house behind hers, which was a servant's quarters. It was never a carriage house. And I lived there for 11 years. and now my wife and I, Maria Braden, who's deceased, unfortunately, we've tried to not only improve the house but improve the site. I planted about 60 trees around it in the backyard to make it a more beautiful place. unfortunately the two ice storms we had took out so many trees i'm having a hard time keeping even with that but again i don't believe that this is is going to harm anyone it's going to be a much more attractive piece of architecture than what we have there now and the other thing that's very important to us. We may have a big house with lots of rooms, but they're not very big. And there's not, we've, I've looked at this thing for two years or three years now, but after my accident in 2013 in February, I'm just prohibited from going up steps. I can only go up there occasionally. Well, I have to go up there more than occasionally because that's the only shower we have in the house. The one in the bathroom downstairs doesn't have a shower. But the reason why we went outside with it, and my son came up with this idea, and he continued on working on the development of it, and we didn't want to impose something that large in any of the rooms because it simply ruined their use. Unfortunately, when they built that house, I don't know whether in those days it was saving money or what, there are no closets. There are very few closets in that house. and so you know there's there's a certain purity to the rooms that's I shouldn't use words like that but anyway the rooms are very nice as they are and it would compromise them the house the interior of the house if we were have to try to put it inside it simply doesn't work so I've tried to point out the things that that are wrong with putting it back in the corner there it simply doesn't doesn't give it is not a good solution to the problem I think we found a good solution to the problem and I would appreciate your consideration on it thank you thank you Mr. Clark anyone else that would like to speak on this request questions from the planning commission for anyone? Yes, ma'am. Joe, could I ask you a question? Sure. In looking at this floor plan, there appears to be two sets of stairs. Yes. Is there a possibility of using one of those stairwells for an elevator? We've looked at that, but the landings on the stairs and the location of them don't work, especially in consideration of the basement steps when you go down follow that into the basement. That's the only access point into the basement. May I ask you to the other stairway? Well, I don't... Take the microphone to him. I don't think you'd want to mess with that. It looks like it's a very elegant, gorgeous stairway in the front of the house and probably very historic. But I was looking at this other elevator, I mean, this other stairwell back there, and, I mean, you know, in my mind, That would be a good location because when you look at where it comes out up on the second floor, it comes right out in the hallway upstairs. It's simply too tight. Okay. And also goes up to the elevator. And I believe, based on the size of the house, that another stairway would have to be put in place somewhere else, given that that one we're taking out in code for reconstruction. I'm not sure on that point, but that was, if we were to take out one stair, whether we could get a building permit, or whether there's, if that size house needs legally two exits, stairways in the front of the back, square footage. But despite that, it's still not a good. I mean, we first presented this as a conceptual review last May, and I think at any point along the line, if we felt comfortable building this elevator inside, we would have done so by now. You know, it's been about a year in the process, but fundamentally, if it could have happened already, it would have, and we don't feel comfortable. And so we've still pursued the same plan and strategy. Any other questions from the Planning Commission? If not, thank you, Mr. Clark. Thank you. I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Anyone? I normally don't start, but I will in this situation, I guess, since others are contemplating. Yeah, my chief concern is the close, very close proximity to the building line where the proposed location is. you know, 1907, I don't think there were much in the way of regulations or governance going on at that time, but I don't think any of us were around at that time. But, you know, today we do have it, and we're looking at trying to take care of everybody concerned. and whether there is or is not an elevator I don't think is the issue, it's just the location of it. Personally, I'm sorry to say I would have a hard time approving it at the proposed location. I think there, you know, it sounds like there are, there is the possibility of it going in the back. may be some difficulties involved there but to me that would be the best location as far as i'm concerned yes mr cravens yeah um yeah i don't i don't mind what it does to the applicant's house i think it looks fine but i don't like the relation to this bay window and this this house next door and you know I think you could you could it sounds like you've looked at a lot of different ways to do it I mean there's even glass tubes elevators have you looked at those unfortunately they don't fit with the chairs yeah you have to be able to stand up but that's kind of where I'm at I don't know how I'm going to vote others? Mr. Penn I don't like to turn the BOAR over when they've looked at this as hard as they've looked at it, unless I can find some significant reason to do it. And I'm struggling with the fact to find a significant reason to do it other than appropriateness or its easiest place to put it. And when you live in an H-1, the easiest is not always the best way to do it for the rest of the neighborhood. So I'm inclined to support the staff recommendation because I believe it can be done in the back, and I know there's tradeoffs for everything that you do. For every good, there's a bad, and for every bad, there's a good. But I'm kind of like Mr. Cravens here. I just don't think there is the best place to put it, and there is remedies. and so I would have to support the staff recommendation anyone else if not I'll entertain a motion yes ma'am mr. chair I move to uphold the opinion of the BOAR and the 2014-1 Joseph Clark appeal. Thank you. The motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Mundy to uphold the decision of the BOAR for BOAR 2014-1 Joseph H. Clark and Joseph P. Clark at 458 West 3rd Street. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. motion passes I vote yay as well I've got a conflict on my screen so motion passes though sorry I hope that there are alternatives on this or alternatives can be found We have another BOAR appeal. It's BOAR 2014-2, Joe Costa, for property located 461 North Limestone. As you said, this property is 461 North Limestone, and it's an appeal made by Mr. Joe Costa for the denial of a certificate of appropriateness to demolish a kitchen and to do totally new construction in its place. The property is this little square right there. It's at the corner of West 5th Street and Limestone. We've got 5th Street here and Limestone here, and it's part of the Mulberry Hill Historic District. The property is zoned R3, and it has the H1 overlay. It's planned neighborhood residential, and it's surrounded by residential uses, mostly single-family, but there are several apartment complexes in the neighborhood, too. Rose Hill, which is the name of the property, has a large residential structure, one-story brick, and if you could put that photo up, please. It was used as a bed and breakfast in the 1990s. The Board of Adjustment approved it for a bed and breakfast in 1994 and then reapproved it again in 1999 for different property owners. And I'm not sure how long it was a bed and breakfast after the 1999 reapproval, but it was a bed and breakfast for several years. The residence contains 3,964 square feet, according to PVA records, and that includes the 16 by 19 kitchen. It's about 304 square feet, and that is what is proposed for demolition. It's not exactly, it is a part of the house, but it's not a part of the house. It's connected by a hallway. It's not within the shell of the house itself, but it's connected by a hallway to the house. So it is technically a part of the house, but it's kind of an outbuilding. It's an attached outbuilding. There are also two other outbuildings on the property. And if you could put the aerial up. This is a better picture. You can see the addition right there, the kitchen addition is this piece of the property right there. But the next one, the aerial. I'm not sure if you can. There you go. Nope, still upside down. Okay. This is the main body of the house. The kitchen comes out like this. I believe this is the two-story outbuilding that was the original slave quarters and kitchen. And then there is a smokehouse that is in that area somewhere else that's also an outbuilding. But those two buildings were original to the property. They were built in 1812 when the house was. And the kitchen, the structure that is proposed for demolition was built about 80 or 100 years after that, so it's not as old as the original construction. Mr. Costa wants to demolish the kitchen structure, and then it is in severe disrepair, and then replace it with totally new construction. And the new construction will be a 33 by 20 foot kitchen, 660 square feet of contemporary architecture. In Historic Preservation's presentation to the Board of Architecture Review, they said that Rose Hill is a very significant piece of property, both architecturally and historically, and it's maintained its significance over its 200-year history. It's typical of 19th century sites as far as use and design, and it's also typical of central Kentucky urban estates. And at most, according to PBA records and according to what was stated in the history, it's only had six owners over its over 200-year history. And for the first 175 years, it only had two families owning the property, which is one of the reasons it's been able to maintain its architectural integrity. It's an anchor in the neighborhood, and it has been largely unchanged over the years, and it attained National Register of Historic Preservation or Historic Places status in December of 1974. And according to the record of the board hearing, both the staff and the applicant consult a Miles Miller, who was an historic masonry expert regarding the condition of the structure. And the primary question, as far as the staff was concerned, was whether it would be possible to retain the building, take out two of the walls that were in the worst shape because the foundation is severely bowed, and you'll probably see pictures of that, but the foundation is severely bowed. The walls are severely cracked on two walls, on the north wall and the west wall. And then retain the south wall and the east wall, and the east wall is what is attached to the house and then stabilize the building in the process and then just totally renovate the structure and keep it as an historic structure that it is. Mr. Miller said that that was possible, but the south wall and the east wall would also need to be partially removed and rebuilt. And that's due to the condition of the foundation, which is in really poor shape, and the walls. and the staff in their presentation said that although the kitchen is not as old as the house, its relationship to the main building is important, and it's important to Rose Hill's history, it's important to its evolution over time, and it's important to its social and architectural context. And they recommended to the board that it be retained. It's integral to the complex itself, to the entire property, and its loss, even with its structural problems, would harm the history of the house as well as the entire property. Then again, they recommended that it be repaired and renovated and made into a new kitchen within the shell of the old building, rather than be totally demolished and removed from the property. That is what is being requested, is that it be demolished and taken away from the property and then replaced totally with new construction. They're going to have to bring it up to code anyway. So one of the things that was recommended was that they put concrete footers in, take out the limestone because it is in such bad shape, and then put concrete footers in, and then it would be possible to replace the structure as far as what's existing now, put the structure back using some of the brick that was taken out. And they wouldn't have to use all of the brick, But as long as it was done back in the footprint and the design of the building now, then that would be considered rehabilitation or restoring the building. And again, if they were just to demolish it, it would be totally taking it off of the property, taking it down, taking it off the property, and putting something else up in its place. That is what was discouraged. That's what's discouraged by the design guidelines, by the staff and by the board. they all recommended that it be redone in the manner that it is now. There were three design guidelines that supported this position, 6A, 6B, and 6C, and basically they say to avoid demolition if at all possible, and if demolition is allowed, then it not be to a detriment of the property or to the structure itself. There were several photos presented on behalf of the appellant at the Board of Architectural Hearing and that showed the condition of the structure. And when you see these, you can't argue that it's in really, really bad shape because it is. You can see light coming through some of the cracks in the walls. And like I said, the foundation is bowed out maybe 18 inches from the edge. It's really in poor shape. But there was a consulting structural engineer and there was a consulting architect that came to the board meeting that testified to the condition of the structure. They said that it probably could be brought back to what it is now, but it would have to be brought up to code. But it's obviously easier, less costly, and more practical when you're bringing something up to code to do new construction, total new construction, because you've got new materials, and it's a lot easier to do that. In their presentation, the staff acknowledged the fact that it was possible that the board would approve the demolition. And so they said in the event that that happened, that the design, the proposed design of the new kitchen needed further refinement. It lacked architectural details, and it didn't exactly relate to the structure on the property. So they would need to go back to the Board of Architectural Review to get that revised and approved if the board had approved demolition, which they didn't. But it would be very unfortunate if the building was demolished, and they strongly urged the board not to allow the demolition because it would be contrary to the design guidelines, and it would also be in violation of one of the sections of Article 13, which is historic preservation. In all, there were 37 design guidelines that were referenced in the staff report and the written staff report, and then 10 are particularly applicable, and they're cited in historic Preservations Report to the Board, and they're on pages 2 and 3 of your staff report. The section of the zoning ordinance that applies to this, section 13-7 C1, it states that the Board can approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of a structure only if one of the following conditions are determined to exist, and those three conditions are on page 3. That would be A, the application is for demolition of an addition for a portion of a building or for an accessory structure which is not significant to the principal structure, site, landmark, or district, and the approval of the application would not adversely affect those parts of a building, site, landmark, or the historic district which are significant. B, the application is for the demolition or moving of a building or portion of a building which does not contribute to the character of and will not adversely affect the character of the property in a zone protected by an H-1 overlay, or C, no reasonable economic return can be realized from the property, and the denial of the application would result in the taking of the property without just compensation. In the discussion between the board and the applicant's attorney, the attorney said that they were specifically not making a takings argument, so item C does not apply in this case. Items A and B do, though, and there was a great deal of discussion between the board members and between the board and the attorney based on A and B. and because of the section of Article 13, which I just read to you, Mr. Costa's attorney stated numerous times and in several ways, gave several reasons why he thought the building was not significant in an effort to persuade the board that it was okay to demolish it. And those reasons were the age of the building as relates to the original construction. It's about 80 or 100 years younger than the original construction. It's not specifically mentioned in the written history of Rose Hill. The age, being over 100 years old, does not necessarily make render a building significant, which that is an opinion that one side would have and a different opinion that the other side would have, I think. And because it was added later, it's only accessory to the main house. And because it's accessory, it's not significant. Well, the original kitchen was in an accessory structure. It was in the building that is in the back of the property in the northwest corner of the property. That's an accessory structure, and that was original to the property. And it's a detached accessory structure, whereas what they have now is actually attached to the house. They never have had a kitchen. They still don't have a kitchen in the main part of the house other than the kitchen that is on the back. So it's always been an accessory structure, and whether it was in a wing of the house, an accessory wing, or whether it was in a detached accessory structure, it's never been inside the shell of the house. It's always been in an outbuilding. And so this insignificant structure, as they call it, was the location, has been the location for 100 years, of a significant part of the house, which is the kitchen, and that was served as the kitchen for the residents of the house as well as the guests of the house, especially when it was a bed and breakfast. And so you can't say that it was an insignificant part of the house. regarding the argument presented to the board about it being accessory and therefore not significant so that they should be able to demolish it and replace it um all of the outbuildings whether they're attached or not are accessory to the primary structure so if you follow that logic at least in my mind if you follow that logic if you say that they're all accessory therefore you can say that they're all insignificant and if you can say that they're all insignificant then you can say that they can be demolished, and that's not the case. They cannot be demolished because they are all significant. They contribute to the history of the property. They contribute to the overall layout of the property. And they're integral to the history and the layout of the property. The board had a long, long, long discussion, lots of questions about this. And they finally determined unanimously that the structure was significant, as contrary to the arguments made by the appellant's attorney. and that the building could not be demolished, should not be demolished. They didn't even get to the part of the new construction because they didn't get past the part about demolition. So in this past week, we received in planning the condemnation notice from code enforcement, which was dated March 6th, and that was sent from the attorney's office, and stating that the building is in enough disrepair to be condemned for human occupancy, and the owner had 30 days in which to make repairs or else to get a structural engineer's analysis to see what repairs could be made. They found it to be dangerous to the life, health, and safety of the occupants and said it's likely to collapse, but apparently it hasn't been used as a kitchen for several months, so that's a fact, but it's not necessarily something that, I mean, you know, you have to consider code enforcement's assessment of this, but since it's not been used as a kitchen, it's probably not in danger of collapsing on a person unless they go in for whatever reason. There were pictures taken. Cabinets were taken out of the kitchen, and so it's not been used as a kitchen for a long time. In the board's discussion, one board member said, and she has worked with similar situations and similar structures, She said that demolition is not a foregone conclusion. You can redo these structures. She's done it several times. And, of course, it has to be brought up to code, and there are ways to do this. And she did note that the structural engineer and the architect did say that there were ways to do this, but it's not easy, and it's more costly than just total demolition and replacement. We looked at this and didn't see any flaws in either the staffs or the board's review, either in their interpretation or the application of the design guidelines, as well as their interpretation of what it states in Article 13 regarding demolition and significance of a structure. We are recommending disapproval and that you uphold the board for the three reasons that are on the staff report, one being that it's consistent with their charge, their denial is consistent with their charge in determining appropriateness of the requested exterior change to the property. Second is that although the original construction did not include the kitchen that is on the property right now, it is still over 100 years old, and it was determined by the board to be a significant structure. It's significant to the overall layout of the property, the overall use of the property. It was the kitchen that was used for the bed and breakfast for all those years that it was a bed and breakfast. And the third reason, there is no kitchen within the shell of the primary structure, and according to the project architect, there never has been. Historically, the only kitchen for the residents has been in this building or in the two-story outbuilding that was the original servant's quarters. Based on the appellants and his attorney's argument that the subject building is not significant because it is only accessory to the primary structure and should therefore be demolished due to its poor condition, it would logically follow that the two-story outbuilding and the smokehouse, which by zoning ordinance definition are accessory buildings, are not significant, although they are in good condition. Following this line of thought, either the two-story detached outbuilding or the smokehouse, original to the property could therefore be approved by the board for demolition if requested depending on circumstances. And that would be according to Article 13 of the zoning ordinance. And this is not the case. Two of the accessory buildings, whether original to the property or not, and whether attached to the main structure or not, have provided space for a significant use, i.e. kitchen, for the residents and guests of the property, particularly during the time it was used as a bed and breakfast. Additionally, both accessory structures as well as the smokehouse have contributed to the history of the primary structure and the property as they've evolved over time. So we ask you to uphold the BOAR's recommendation of disapproval. And again, Ms. Curry and Ms. Armstrong are here, and Mr. Jackson is here, and Mr. Billings is here, and Mr. Costa is here, and probably more people. Do you have any other questions? Any questions, Ms. Rackert? Not at this point. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Ms. Kerr? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Planning Commission members. I'm Betty Kerr, Director of the Division of Historic Preservation. And Rose Hill is, as has been mentioned, truly an exquisitely significant property here in our Lexington Fayette County. We don't have many like this one. We brought, of course, photographs, and if we could, are we ready to go with switchover? We're almost ready. Ms. Rackers, of course, has done her usual excellent job on presenting all the issues to do with this case and written a very well-presented staff report on your all's behalf. We would submit for the record the materials relative to this case, including, of course, Article 13, the design guidelines for Lexington Fayette County, and then, of course, the record specific to meeting minutes and applications and all the drawings, et cetera, et cetera. Rose Hill, let's back up. We shouldn't be, wow, how did we get all that way back? No, we're elsewhere. Well, anyway, we'll go on and work on the images in a moment. Rose Hill is truly one of the most intact urban houses with its historic outbuildings in central Kentucky. And that's not an exaggeration. This building and its other outbuildings and its setting and its placement has partly because of that ownership that Ms. Rackers mentioned, the longevity of the first two owners covering 170-something years of this property's history, stayed so intact. And then the more recent owners, those who have used it as the bed and breakfast, and the current owners today have been very respectful of this jewel that they have come to be associated with. We're still working. I would note that the property is on the National Register of Historic Places. Barb mentioned that. It's also, of course, in the local historic district, that being Mulberry Hill. It's truly one of the anchors of the districts in that sense. but it's also one of the most significant, regardless of in-town or even country houses, of those within Fayette County and central Kentucky. The staff and the board have reviewed and given a very substantial discussion on a number of occasions and considerations to this proposal in accordance with the Article 13 ordinance and with the design review guidelines that we're charged with utilizing in reviewing and acting on all these decisions. To walk you briefly around the property, this is a wonderful 1934 photograph of Rose Hill taken when it was documented by the Historic American Building Survey, which was a federal program that documented very significant pieces of architecture, both residential and some commercial and so forth and so on, across the nation. And so the fact that this house was selected by the HABs documentation process is quite indicative of its significance in and of itself. Here's a picture of it today, not quite today. You can see it was taken when there was still snow on the street in the time when we were hearing this before the design review board. But you can see that its setting is still wonderfully intact, rising there above Limestone Street as it does. As you have had demonstrated to you, it's at the corner with Fifth Street. This is the rear L, referred to as the kitchen L, that is in question with its side porch coming out over that entrance door. The main mass of the house is there, of course, for your all's orientation. Look at this. This is the main mass of the rear of the house, and then this is the segment that is proposed for demolition. This is the rear elevation of that same rear L. So Fifth Street is to that direction of the footprint of the house, and limestone, of course, is on the far side. And so here's your rear L. The bow, while we've got a bit of an orientation of the structure in a big picture sense, the bow in the foundation is on this wall, particularly in the foundation area. And there is some possibility that this foundation survives from an earlier structure use above it and has been reused when this kitchen was done in the late 19th century. So we know for sure that this rear L is here by 1907, according to the Sandburn fire insurance maps. In terms of the construction methodology, it is probably 1880s to 1890-ish in terms of just what we can learn from that. So we don't have an exact date, but it certainly has been a significant addition to this house for a very long time. You can see on this the double doors that are here. They have a counterpart. This house is what we call a five-bay, five-segment plan, your center with then smaller indentations and then the wings out at the far ends. And there are a pair of these, the flanking, the doors you see in here. The wing on the other end has counterpart double doors just like it. And when the kitchen was added, they retained that double door rhythm in the functioning of the house and put this kitchen addition right against the rear wall of the historic 1812 section, and then in the 1880s, 90s when they do this, making it as much a part of the house as any almost outbuilding that is abutting it can be. The rhythm of the outbuildings, or the fact that there are these outbuildings, is part of the magic of this spot. We weren't going to focus on those today, because that's not what we're here for, but they really are quite significant. This is your elevation that's to the south. You can see the brickwork. It would help if I looked at this. You can see the moisture problems and the brickwork problems here. I want to be very clear. There is no one working with this situation who thinks this building doesn't have serious structural issues and needs serious repairs. So it's not any question at all about, you know, does this need work? It absolutely needs work and has for a number of years. We know of 10 years ago when this was looked at and would have been an existing condition at the time that this gentleman who owns it today would have purchased the house. This foundation issue has gone on for a very long time. To my knowledge, it hasn't been used as a working kitchen in the last several years, that being the last eight or ten years perhaps, but I don't have specific knowledge of that. But there certainly was no evidence of that when we saw it more recently. This is the side that you would see from the south looking toward the front. The little door is toward what would be Limestone Street side. And then this is seeing those double doors and what is the north elevation a little closer. And here's the same side of that with some of your wicking problems with moisture and water and so forth coming up. you can see where the masonry is moving out and the foundation is moving in and that the repairs that can be done with this will necessitate this wall coming all the way down and then doing your foundation work and going back up there are a couple of the walls as miss record mentioned that will be able to be stabilized and work be done with them in situ. This is the foundation in the interior cellar area. And you can see a lot of it is holding, certainly. And then the one that has the bow, it's hard to get. This is the one showing you the bow. And the bow is anywhere from 10 to 12 inches, perhaps a little more. It varies along the way, but I think, honestly, it's a testament to the hardiness or the sturdiness of this building, that it has held its own and hasn't folded itself up long before this in light of its foundation challenge, specifically on that bowed wall. But it is, of course, solid masonry construction, as you would well know. And final shot, showing you the rear elevation with that L that is proposed for demolition on the right-hand side, and then, of course, looking across the rest of the rear. Ms. Rikers has mentioned the design guidelines. I will not take your time to go into the specifics of that, but know that they've been very carefully considered in this application, both relative to the demolition that is proposed and in consideration of the proposed new construction as well. The demolition guidelines, she went through rather closely about things that if it is indeed a character-defining element of the historic building, that it should not be removed, and this indeed is that. And so I think that's enough said on that. Unless you have further questions, we can do that. On the new construction, to jump ahead to that for just a second, it's very important that new construction, if it were to come about, be compatible with the historic structure and the scale and volume and roof forms and placement on the site, the materials, the window to wall and wall treatments, et cetera. As proposed, this new construction, and I'm setting aside for a second the topic of the potential consideration about teardown, but as designed, this new construction proposal does not meet the guidelines. the window openings and the roof shape and the relationships of the openings to the historic buildings rhythm of openings and its cornice and so forth and so on a lot of detail work still needs to be done with with any new building considered for this and the roof form is particularly problematic. It is a shed roof you will be seeing in your materials. We'll look at this in a second. But the basic approach of contemporary is certainly not inappropriate. But the articulation of how this is at this stage yet designed is problematic within the design guidelines and could not be approved. I do have for you the plans. I think it's a little difficult to tell a whole lot from these on screen. So you have these materials in your packages, and so if you have questions, we can certainly discuss that. This is the new proposed footprint with the patio being the larger grid that you're seeing. And here are the double doors to give you some orientation. Those are the double doors that I mentioned. And then this is, of course, the rear kitchen L footprint right in here. And then the new proposal comes out this way. The shed roof has the high point on this side toward what is the center core of the rear of the house elevation. And then the lower end of the shed roof goes to the south. Here you see it in plan. and you can see the one of the things discussed by the board was first it was to be large plate glass windows or big single lights and then one of the things rose hill is the 1812 house and all of its character defining elements one of its signatures is how beautifully detailed this building is on the exterior as well as the interior it's a very finely detailed building almost, if you will, in an architectural sense, delicately detailed. And one of the concerns about the new construction proposal has been that it's rather industrial in its feel. It's a little heavy-handed, if you will, and not articulated with that attention to fineness and elegance that is part of the signature of Rose Hill. So here you see it in schematics, and I'll leave for the applicant to talk more about what it is they're proposing, but I think you can see the concept certainly from here. And then we can just go back and finish with general view. So if you have more questions about the new construction and or certainly the demolition relative to the desired guidelines, please, of course, ask me, but I will not take more time today. In conclusion, Rose Hill's history and its architectural significance has been recognized by a great many people, scholars and lay people alike, including, as I mentioned, having been documented by Habs in 1934, and that's kind of the feather in your cap kind of thing in terms of the historic acknowledgments that can come to properties over the years. The proposed demolition will be detrimental to this historic site were it to occur to this building and its site. And the new construction, as proposed, is not appropriate nor in accordance with the design guidelines. So the staff would respectfully request that the Planning Commission uphold the Board of Architectural Review's decision and deny this application for appeal as it has been submitted. And certainly, we're available for questions. Thank you very much. Any questions at this point? No? Thank you. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're going to pass out a couple things to commission members. My name again is Nathan Billings. I'm with Billings Law Firm. I represent Mr. Costa, the owner of 461. I presented both at the original hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, along with other people. Today you'll hear from myself. You'll hear from Jason Huber, who is a professional engineer regarding the building. You'll also hear from our architect, and you'll hear from Mr. Worley, who's with McBrayer-McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, who's passing out to you two things. One is a copy of our letter submitted in support of the application with exhibits, and two, the PowerPoint presentation we presented at the hearing before. We have a couple additional materials we'll submit. Mr. Chairman, I know it's 431, and I want to be sensitive to the time today. Do you have an idea of what you want us to constrain our comments to so we can fit that within? What graciousness you'll give us knowing what hour it is? One, I don't know if I'm going to be able to stay around to finish this, but I'd said earlier about 30 minutes. I'm not sure what all, you know, I just ask that you be concise. We will complete it. Let's not be repetitive. Jeff, let's, you know, and, you know, we know the history of the building, so let's get to the issue at hand. Sure. For purposes of being concise today, I'm not going to go through the entire PowerPoint presentation we submitted to the Board of Architectural Review. Instead, I'm going to let you have it and look through it while I talk today or other presenters talk. Today, there's two issues before the Planning Commission. The first issue is very simple. Is it appropriate to demolish the structure? The second question, is the new proposed addition appropriate under the guidelines? It's a separate question, but it's part of the application. In other words, there's two legal questions. Is it appropriate to demolish? Yes or no. And that question is totally separate from, is the new addition appropriate? Clearly, if it's not appropriate to demolish, the second question is answered. But the first question to demolish, maybe it's okay to demolish, but the addition may not be appropriate, if that makes sense for everyone. Mr. Penn, you said something at the hearing a minute ago that I think was very, very important, and that is I'm inclined to follow what the Board of Architecture review, or I'm paraphrasing, has done before unless there's a significant reason to overturn it. Under Article 13-8, the standard before you is a de novo review of the record. That means you make findings today that are brand new, that depending on what happens here, would be appealed up as if you all hear this case fresh. That is why you hear from planning commission staff, you hear from the Board of Architectural staff, Historic Preservation staff, and you may hear from Mr. Jackson on behalf of the board. If you would turn to page two of my letter, you'll see very clearly in front of you the two legal standards by which demolition is appropriate. it. Going down about two-thirds of the page, 13-7C1A, it's indented for you, and the second one, 13-7C1B. Succinctly put, it is appropriate to demolish this structure if either, one, it is not significant to the principal structure, or two, it does not contribute to the character of the structure. It may not be possible, but I'll tell you the PowerPoint follows the letter exactly so you can use either one of those to follow along with my comments. Specifically, we believe that the addition is not significant. My role as attorney with clients before courts or administrative bodies, I believe is very simple. You have facts, you have law, and you apply facts to law. You don't do speculation, you don't do conjecture, you don't do hopes, you don't do hypotheticals, you look at the facts and you apply the law. In this case, the facts that I'm going to tell you about today are unrefuted. There is no countervailing evidence that planning commission staff, historic preservation staff, or the board of architectural review will tell you. What they're telling you or what they've given you is their opinion on things. They are not telling you the facts. If you want to turn beginning to page four of my letter, I'm going to walk you through the facts. This is the house as it was originally constructed. You will see where I'm highlighting. This area here is where this current kitchen is. Originally, there were slave quarters in a similar location, although it was perpendicular, or sorry, parallel to limestone instead of perpendicular. You'll see the slave quarters here. It was connected with the porch, which was replicated on the other side of the building. There was also an ice house. Currently, the main residence still exists as then. This was labeled slave quarters existed, and the smokehouse existed. I'm going to make reference later on, but Ms. Kerr mentioned something that I want to point out at this point. She said that shed roofs aren't appropriate. Ironically, when this house was built, that's a shed roof from the original structure. That right there is a shed roof to the original structure. Remember I said that facts are important and not opinion? When the very property we're dealing with has two shed roofs, it is unbelievable that somebody would say a new shed roof is not appropriate. When the very historic structure we're talking about has two shed roofs as originally constructed. I'll come back to that. So on page four, what I want to point out is that the kitchen as it exists today, if you go to the next slide or to the next paper, this, if you would rotate it around. There we go. That's the kitchen as it exists today. This is a picture of what's called a Sanborn map. Sanborn maps were developed basically to allow insurance companies to track insurance rates from the late 1800s through the mid-1900s. This right here is the only, the only historical document that we found, that Planning Commission found, or that Historic Preservation found, which reflects the kitchen as it is today. The only one. That's going to be important when I come back because I do it with facts. So the first point is the existing kitchen is not original to the property. Second, if you turn to page 5 of my letter, we've located six different historical treaties. They're identified there for you in bullet points on page 5 under the heading number 2. All of these detail the history of the property. For your convenience, attached to my letter, I'm sorry, attached to the staff report today is a copy of all those historical documents. It's a 1934 survey of the historic American building, what was then owned by the Buckner family. There's an article in regional architecture. There's a nomination for the National Register for Historic Places. The very document that put this on the National Register doesn't document the existing kitchen. There's an article in the Antebellum House. There's an undated survey of Rose Hill that we think is about 1936. And then there's the Sanborn maps. If you look through these documents, what you find is, if you would go back to the first photo, all of them relate back to the original history. And the Sanborn map, the one photo I showed you, out of the six Sanborn maps we have, only one of them shows this. Why is that important? Well, let's go on. If you go to page 6, little a, you'll see that that's the only document that depicts, that one sandworm map that depicts this. If there was another document, I am sure that staff would have showed it to you. Next, we've talked about all these other documents. All the other documents show a number of other things that are significant, that are important. These include the principal structure, what's labeled as residence. The original two-story kitchen, which was on this side. You'll see it says original kitchen right here. The smokehouse, which is here, still standing. The slave quarters, which is over here, which is no longer in existence. And the ice house, which was here. Ms. Rackers, in her report, made a comment that under our argument, any of these ancillary buildings would be appropriate for demolition. I suggest that's a red herring to you. One, we're not asking to demolish those. But two, if you listen to our argument, it wouldn't be appropriate to demolish those as they are today because they were laid back to the original house. And they are documented by the six historical documents, not the kitchen. Follow my argument. It's the kitchen we're talking about, not the other three or four ancillary. And two of those have been demolished. If you go on to page 7, you'll actually see a photograph of this diagram in my letter, as well as an aerial illustration. All of these documents, in addition to photographic evidence, discuss in editorial editions or descriptions the house and the structures. If you read through pages 8 and 9 of my letter, what you'll see is that all of these discuss the other elements of the property in significant detail. None of them, not a one of them discuss this kitchen. What they do is reference this kitchen here, and there's a reference that at some point appears a kitchen was built in the main structure, but historically we don't know when or where that was, and it probably doesn't matter for what we're doing today. We just know that in all of these descriptions, not just the photographs or the illustrations, nothing talks about the kitchen. Next is if you look on page 9, what you'll see is that the existing kitchen, if you could put the additional, the other view back up. it is the only it is the only thing that is attached to the main structure all of the other ancillary structures are detached in nature this is the only one that was attached when you look back at the historical view again you can look at page eight or sorry page seven of my letter you will see that there was a porch connector from the original house to the slave quarters. The new proposed addition is intended to reference back to that original porch with a narrow walkway from the main structure back to the kitchen, instead of it being made adjacent, which is right here. One of the issues that we're going to deal with in a second regarding the status and the repair of the kitchen is that because the main house wall serves as one of the four walls for this, the repair issues that exist in the kitchen today pose significant risk to the structural integrity of that wall of the main structure because it's attached to it. You can move along with me to page 10. You will see that we are proposing, if you put the other drawing back up, sir. this tie-in be recreated. Ms. Kerr talked earlier about the double doors that exist and how they relate back to the double doors here, relate to the ones here, although she didn't have a photo of it. We're suggesting that what happened when they built this kitchen on is it actually, we think, negatively affected the value of the principal structure. What we intend to do is to help recreate a similar but not the same relationship by a portico that walks from here to the new kitchen, which would be here, in a way that illuminates the original layout and not what happened about 110 years ago. Five on page 10 you'll see is we don't believe that this kitchen, if it was brought before the Board of Architectural Review today under our current guidelines, would be approved. for a couple of reasons. One is when it was built, there was a window right here. That window was torn out and made a doorway for the new kitchen to be placed in there. That's one of the reasons why it wouldn't exist. So when I come to deal with all of these facts with respect to demolition, There is no evidence that historic preservation staff, that planning staff, or the BOAR can present to you that reflects that this kitchen has any historical value, except that it's old. And except for the one Sanborn map, which all it does is trace the outline of the building for insurance purposes. Conversely, what we have shown you is all of the historical documents that any of us were able to find ignores this kitchen. We don't believe there's any better fact than the absence of a highlight of this kitchen to show that it is not significant to the property. Next, Ms. Rackers referenced that since the hearing in February, additional things have occurred. Specifically, in early March, code enforcement issued two notices. I'm going to staple them together for the board. In response to that, we need you back at the microphone. This is a copy of the code enforcement citation that I received last week. I sent it to Ms. Rackers. Specifically, the city code enforcement has found that this structure should be condemned. That it is no longer fit for human habitation. because the issues in it are so bad. If you could put the PowerPoint presentation up. This is one exterior view of the wall. You can see from where it is flush with the board, then at the bottom, the gapping. These are similar to the photos you saw earlier. That's a gapping of the wall. What's effectively happening is the walls are bowing at the inside in the basement, which I'll show you a picture of in a second, and out at the top, which is creating a cantilever effect, and the whole thing is going to come down. You see the gapping there. You see it again here. It's briefly here and here. You see the cracking in the brick. This is one of the basement walls that is folding inward. That's the distance that that thing is bowing. That right there. Nick, what was the measurement at the top? Six inches. Six inches at the top. What was at the bottom? Like five and a half. So five and a half to six inches on both ends. You can see the problem. Staff asked us to get expert reports regarding this issue. We went and talked to Miles Miller. I'm not sure. I would say I take exception to the reference that staff conferred with Mr. Miller. I think what happened is staff asked us to get an opinion from Mr. Miller, and we did, and they called him after we got an opinion from him. The second thing is we got a report from Chris Kelly that they also asked us to do. We got that. We now have the code enforcement letter. They asked us to get a letter as well from Mr. Huber. With that, I'd like to ask Mr. Huber to come up and give you his opinion as a professional engineer regarding the structural integrity and to answer the code enforcement question of what the status of this wall is. If you could go up. Excuse me one moment. I'm going to have to leave, so I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Craven's vice chairman. I'm just going to let Mr. Huber talk for a minute about his findings about the structure. Good afternoon. My name is Jason Huber, and I'm with Brown and Kubican Engineers. Yes, we saw pretty much what everybody else visually observed with the structure. As a matter of practicality, it's our opinion that the structure cannot be saved without complete removal or demolition of the exterior walls that include the foundations, since they are bearing walls and they are also bearing on the foundations. Also, not only is the north foundation wall an issue, the south foundation wall is also problematic, as well as the West Foundation Wall also had some slight bowing inward or deflection to it that we observed. I don't – do you have any questions regarding the structure? Okay. Thank you. Here's one of the things I think is important. I talked earlier about facts. It's really easy for people to stand at this podium and say things like, oh, it can be repaired. Or for Ms. Tate, who sits on the Board of Architects for Review and no doubt has incredible experience in historic preservation efforts. It's really easy to say things like, oh, we can repair that. Oh, you can do this stuff. Those are hypotheticals in a vacuum. But when people aren't professional engineers who actually go and inspect the site and look at the materials and see the damage, it's just not believable that they can offer testimony and what we have in this case is no evidence on behalf of historic preservation staff or the BOAR or the planning staff that counterdicts Mr. Huber's testimony or Chris's testimony or Miles Miller's testimony is submitted in the letters that are already in your staff board. With respect to code enforcement violation, I'm now going to call up Preston Worley from McBrier to address that issue as a legal matter. Thank you, members of the commission. I want to address just a few things generally, as well as the code enforcement issue. What we've heard here from the preservation staff and from your own staff is trying to fill a void of things that we don't know, things that we can't know, trying to tell a story that isn't there. And with all due respect to all of them, they are wrong. Throughout your staff report, which references their report, it talks about this structure possibly telling a story of the evolution of Rose Hill, that some possible story might be out there. But the reality is there is no story. No one knows the story. The building itself is an empty vessel. But first off, a possible story that might be out there is not the standard. It's not the standard. For it to be significant, there has to be some story. There has to be some reason why it's significant, and that's not there. The building itself, we don't know the exact age of. It's a guess. It was built anywhere between 1890 and 1910, something like that. We have no idea exactly when it was built. We don't know what it was built for. We don't know what it was used for. Staff said that it was used for a kitchen for some amount of time. We don't know how long. We just know that right before its recent condemnation, it was designed as a kitchen but was uninhabitable. So the structure itself is an entire empty vessel. It has no story and cannot be significant. If it had a story, these histories of Rose Hill would have mentioned it. They would have said, let me tell you the story of this edition, why it was done, what it was used for. But they didn't. It doesn't have a story in and of itself, and it doesn't add to the story of Rose Hill for the same reason. If it did, those documents, those histories would have told that story. the only thing as miss billings told you that depicts it is the sanborn map the purpose of the sanborn map was only to say what is what is it doesn't say what what for why it just says this is what is there for the purpose of fire insurance and the standard is also not what is or what is old. That does not make something significant. In trying to create this story for an illusion of significance, the Board of Architecture Review and Historic Preservation staff continues to say all of the things that they think might have happened there. In fact, they misquote history. In the Board of Architecture Review staff meeting, Ms. Tate said that she believes that since this was built sometime between 1890 and 1910, and because we had less slaves available to landowners, that it was possibly used for a domestic servant quarters. And that is not only unknown about this, it's a misquotation of history. This is 30, 40 years after the Civil War. They're adding things in history that don't even match up. and they in doing this they ignore that this structure has no story of its own and it's not even architecturally significant at best it's a poor imitation of what is there and as Mr. Billings said would not be approved today as it imitates history I think Mr. Billings has proven that this structure has no story and doesn't contribute to the story, but what he actually called me up here to talk about is the condemnation. And I would say then the story that this structure could ultimately tell is likely going to be one of tragedy if it doesn't come down. Mr. Penn, your significant reason, safety. Safety, absolutely 100% human safety and the safety of one of the most iconic homes in Lexington, Rose Hill. You have a building that is literally falling down on itself, that is attached to this iconic structure. And what's going to happen is it's either going to fall in on itself and destroy Rose Hill, that portion of Rose Hill, or it's going to fall in on itself and injure or kill someone. There is no more compelling reason than that. You can read the exact language in the condemnation letter. all or part has been found to be dangerous to life, health, or safety of its occupants because it is so structurally unsafe. The engineers that have looked at this, first Chris Kelly at Poga Engineering, before we went to the Board of Architecture to review, he says it cannot be restored without demolishing. Now, they can say that it's going to demolish this wall, then this wall, and possibly this wall, but Miles Miller and Chris Kelly both said in order to any form of restoration, the thing has to come down. All four walls and foundations in some form or fashion, if not entirely, have to come down. Members of the Commission, I put to you that we're playing semantics here. That is demolition. Even for the purposes of some form of restoration, that is demolition. The walls are coming down. So prior to the Board of Architecture review, the engineers say that it cannot be done. It absolutely cannot be done. They put a question to Chris Kelly that can't this type of thing be done generally, and he said yes, but to this particular structure he held that it was not economically feasible to try it here and would likely not be able to be done at all. Now you have Mr. Huber here that after the city sends us a condemnation notice and says, go get an engineer, we get another engineer. Mr. Huber comes here and says he doesn't believe it can be done at all. What is being asked of Mr. Costa is to do something that is impossible, to restore a structure that cannot be restored, or to endure a structure that you can't live in. The reason that it's not been used as a kitchen for some months is that you can't, it's uninhabitable. You can't get in there. and try as he may, as much as he would want, it is impossible to restore that structure. And what Mr. Costell wants to do is restore Rose Hill. He wants to continue to be the caretaker of Rose Hill. And in order to do that, he needs a kitchen that is safe, and he needs a kitchen that contributes to the character of that district. In closing, I would again just say to Mr. Penn's question of a significant reason, safety. Let's protect Rose Hill, the iconic principal structure, and let's protect the safety of its inhabitants and its caretakers. Thank you. Thanks, Preston. So with respect to the end of the demolition issue, the question is, is it significant? or will demolition contribute or the demolition will not adversely affect the character of the building. What we believe is the documents show very clearly that it is not significant and it will not adversely affect. But even if there's a finding that it does, another division of Lexington Fayette Urban County government has now said, this building is no longer safe, and applicant, you go get a letter from a structural engineer about whether it can be repaired or replaced, which we did. And he said, you can't repair this anymore. The foundations are so bad, you have to take the walls down, which is demolition. So with respect to the first question, we respectfully submit that the commission can make findings today that it is not significant, and therefore demolition is appropriate, or that under the code enforcement order, even if it is significant, it still has to come down because life safety health issues trump any effect to historically preserve. With respect to that issue, we would ask you to issue findings and a conclusion today that allows a demolition permit to be issued. With respect to the addition, I'm not going to call Nick Wiley, our architect, up, and he was going to go over the new addition slides. Nick. Good afternoon. Nick Wiley of Integrity Architecture. You know, anytime you get an opportunity to approach something of this significance, you know, you really have to be thoughtful. It's an honor to be a part of a design for something. You know, and we respect the, you know, history of Rose Hill and the delicacy and the beauty of it. So, you know, our proposal here is, you know, replacing something that's dangerous and insufficient as a kitchen. We're proposing a similar configuration, and we're drawing cues from Rose Hill. So we're taking lines from the existing windows, sills, foundations. We're taking proportions of the windows. The delicacy of the window mullions themselves are a historic aluminum window system that is used in a lot of historic preservation projects. So we are attempting to really think about what we're doing, use materials that are appropriate, you know, and a contemporary design, which the Board of Architectural Review actually encourages. As you can see from the interior, you know, it is a contemporary design. You know, some of the hallmarks of modern architecture, which we were encouraged to chase a modern appearance. Some of the hallmarks of modern design is glass, exposed structure, materials such as the windows, the steel that we're using as columns that will, as you can see here these columns are articulated with base connections, capital connections that reference the columns on the front of the house. This is not a design that we have not thought about as or would have you believe. As we go through the site plan here, you know, We're locating it in a similar position as the existing. We are carrying on the tradition of the courtyard here. We think that the glass and the transparency, the reflectivity the glass brings, will help that facade that faces the courtyard not only reflect Rose Hill itself, but the transparency will allow it to, in a way, disappear. and allow Rose Hill, the principal building of Rose Hill, take center stage. So you've seen this image before. You know, we are proposing a similar configuration to the existing kitchen as an imprint of the memory of it, trying to, you know, think about the history of the site, think about what can we do to help encourage the memory of that. The floor plan, as you... What happened here? So another thought we had was, you know, as you move around this space, you are moving from kind of a private courtyard space, you know, which would be this facade, which is mostly glass, opens to the courtyard, gives you views of Rose Hill, reflects Rose Hill. And then as you move around to the street frontage, you begin to kind of close off and become more private. And we think the face that it shows to the street and the more public aspect of the site is one that is in keeping with the original kitchen, with the original intent of the building, and Rose Hill as a whole. So as said before, you know, I think we're trying to play with the ideas of modernism. We're trying to reflect Rose Hill. We're trying to really make the principal building of Rose Hill take center stage, have the memory of the existing kitchen still there and create a useful space for Mr. Costa. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. As I referenced earlier. Pretty close. Two minutes. As I referenced earlier. There is a, you're going to have to work out on that. I referenced earlier that the shed roofs were not appropriate. This is photographs of Henry Clay's estate, two shed roofs that are found on that estate, which date about the same time as this structure. As I pointed out earlier, there are two on this structure. If you would respectfully look in the PowerPoint that I passed out to you, beginning on page 23, you will actually see new construction shed roofs approved in the north side and the Mulberry Hill Historic District. That's on page 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 of the PowerPoint. Shed roofs that are found in the north side of Mulberry Hill that are either historic in nature or new construction that was approved by the Board of Architectural Review. If you then look, beginning on page 29, you will see references to the shed roof on this structure for shed roof. I've proposed findings within the PowerPoint in my letter with respect to why the new structure is appropriate under the guidelines. The Board of Architects Review did not have discussion regarding the new proposal. They only made the finding regarding demolition and didn't address it. So therefore, I think commission staff, historic preservation staff, and us today have tried to address that in more detail than was done at the BOAR today. Any further questions? It's a minute 50, Mr. Berkeley. I don't see any. Okay, are you done? Any other questions, sir? I have one. On this, I don't know who this is from. What's this drawing here? It shows a hip roof on that. What document are you, I'm not sure which document. I guess it's from your architect. Oh, that's the actual staff report, I think. he's referring to so i would need to just you may approach asking about this hip roof drawn on this edition okay wait i'm not sure what you're doing oh let me see I just wondered why that was drawn there. Oh, this is on, okay, this is on. I've got so many documents up here. I understand. Mr. Chairman, you're referencing a question that was included in the staff report for today, which showed in our PowerPoint presentation a comparison drawing of a proposed addition with a hip roof as opposed to one with a shed drawing. That was done for conceptual purposes at the staff discussion stage so that we could discuss what did different structures look like. Do you want us to imitate history into a shed roof like the existing kitchen? Or do you want us to do a new contemporary design which says, hey, this isn't history at all? We want it to, at one level, reflect elements of historical design, but not try to imitate the existing structure. And so that's why there was a conceptual drawing of a hip design roof with, as you'll see there, there's four drawings and one with a shed roof. Okay, thank you. All right, I guess we need some rebuttal. Staff rebuttal first. Okay, Ms. Kerr also has some rebuttal remarks, but I have what you would call a rough transcript of the meeting of the BOAR hearing. I watched the video. to get all the details. What Chris Kelly said was not that it couldn't be done. He said it would be difficult. He said it would be very difficult to shore up the roof and then take the walls out one by one and redo them. But it's not impossible. He said he thought about different ways, and he's restored a lot of historic buildings himself and has been involved in a lot of structural engineering on projects to restore them. And from that perspective, he looked at the feasibility of shoring it up, of rebuilding it, and putting it in a new foundation system, felt that it would be more economical to take it down and reconstruct it than to go through the process of holding it up temporarily and doing all that. And that's where his position, that's what his position was. As far as the red herring goes, based on the argument that they gave that this building was built later and so it's accessory and so it's not significant, And if you take that to the next step, whether these other buildings are significant or not, they're also accessory. And so the accessory building argument does not stand as far as significance goes. And you don't have to have a story for a building to be significant. Age is an important factor. The layout of the property is an important factor. What it was used for is an important factor. It's been the kitchen for over 100 years. It was the kitchen when it was a bed and breakfast. That was the only kitchen that was in the house. I called the architect, not the gentleman that's here today, but the architect that was at the Board of Architecture Review Earing, and asked him if the house has ever had a kitchen, and he said no. The only kitchen that has ever been was in the detached accessory structure or in this building right here. So that in itself makes it significant. Whether it's a significant structure or of significant use, it's a significant use. It may not be what they would consider significant because it was built later, but yes, it is a significant building to the property. It was a use very integral to the property for the residents and for the guests of the bed and breakfast. And I'll leave the rest to Ms. Carr. She can explain the difference between demolition and rehabilitation and restoration and all of that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be brief. Where Ms. Rackers left off, the difference in restoration and demolition and so forth, There are historic buildings that, as they are being restored or renovated, restored being most closely to what the existing historic structure is, renovation being putting in some mod cons like plumbing and that kind of thing. It's not uncommon to see buildings have to have part of a wall taken down and laid back up and so forth and so on. This one needs more than might traditionally be. You know, you're not going to be able to take down just one segment. You're going to have to take down a couple big segments. But these projects are done all over the country. I've been an architectural historian working in this business for 35-plus years now, longer than I like to think. And we've seen this successfully be done in a number of projects around the country, and we've seen it happen here in Fayette County. Over on Miller Street, for example, there was a project done by the Northside Neighborhood Association that comes to my mind that brick, small cottage. Anyway, they had to take down a substantial amount of the walls, held up the roof, did the foundation work, so forth and so on. And that work was done by Miles Miller, the preservation-trained, wonderful brick mason, very talented. And our office works with Miles Miller quite a bit on a lot of different projects for technical assistance and for actually out in the field observing what he's doing and doing the permit process that goes with his work. And so we have a lot of communication with him. We've learned a great deal from him over the years. And he fully understands, in talking specifically about this project, ourselves as staff with him, And, you know, that that is an option on this building is to repair it in place with some very substantial amount of repair. There's no question of that. So I just cannot suggest that it is accurate to say this can't be done. It not only can be, it's been done all over the place. And I'm glad nobody told Colonial Williamsburg, for example, that you can't do this kind of thing because there are a number of examples of it. It was mentioned about Sarah Tate being on the Board of Architecture Review and suggesting she might or might not have a real valid opinion. I would just for the record note that Ms. Tate is a licensed architect who has practiced for well over 40 years and has excellent credentials and is most knowledgeable. And she's been involved with renovation projects of the nature of what we're talking about. And so it was from her professional experience that she was making some of her comments as a board member. They raise the point that the wall that is the main wall of the house, that this rear L connects to, that being the kitchen L, that it endangers that by having this situation. Well, it's certainly not a good situation, but it's not something that's going to drag down that house with it. If it's let fold up and crash within itself, that would not be desirable. But there is a responsibility on this project and this property owner's part to rectify this situation in whatever manner is able to be approved by this process and all the things that need to come with that. And so I don't believe that there is a substantial threat. If this were ignored and let go on forever and finally collapse on itself, that would be a bad outcome. And it might do some damage to the main mass. But that is not where anybody is trying to get with this project. We're trying to retain something that is very important to this property. The last thing on code enforcement, I've talked specifically myself to the director of code enforcement, David Jarvis, about this notice violation, notice order on this property, and they are very open from code enforcement's charge to have the solution to this situation be to renovate it and repair it. They just need a solution. They just can't have this existing condition continue. They need it either renovated or torn down. But renovation is as much on the table as a possibility from code enforcement's perspective as is just to clear it away and walk away from it. On the new building, the shed roof discussion, kind of much ado about perhaps some misunderstanding of architecture and architectural history. The two outbuildings at Rose Hill have their primary roofs are gable roofs, and they have a shed roof as an adjunct roof to them. So that is not the primary roof line you stand there and see in profile. You see a gable roof with these lower profile sheds coming off of it. Similar thing to Ashland, as it was referenced. I won't go into all that. I used to be the director of Ashland, Henry Clay State. And I can tell you with great confirmation that the shed roof here is a 1920s garage added to an 1830s smokehouse, which is in its core. And the roof is done that way so that it sublimates to the pyramidal roof of the ice house. And the last thing I would mention is Mr. Billings made a lot of note of what these archival resources that they have looked into and that we as staff have put forward as well, what they mean, what they tell you. And it's not real black and white on all this. You think, oh, well, this assures you that nothing else is important if it's not shown on this site plan. Well, that's not necessarily the case. a number of the materials that he referenced, what those documents in an archival sense are doing is depicting the map he kept showing you, the site plan. It is depicting it as the house was constructed in 1812 and what the site consisted of in its early era. They are not intended to show you the changes over time. And so they are in Clay Lancaster's work that shows the property. And when the Habs documentation was done in 1934, it doesn't surprise me they didn't document the Kitchen L, because at that time, if you think about the 1930s, this edition was 40, 45, 50 years old. And anything less than 50 years old has never been measured as being of historic significance. Well, you know, 70-plus more years have passed, and the evolution of time and the significance of changes over time to historic properties, that continuum keeps moving, and people's understanding of these changes through the years and all people's perspective perhaps changes a bit. So I don't think you can take any of these research documents that become a large array of archives as any one tells you everything and all that kind of thing. As an architectural historian, I can tell you it's like putting a puzzle together. And you don't find all the answers in one place, and sometimes you don't find the answers. But this is not a particularly mysterious situation. And to finish, Ms. Rackers noted about, in reference to, it was suggested this building doesn't, or the kitchen L doesn't have a story to tell. Well, I won't even grace that with comments, quite honestly. It doesn't merit addressing. I found it all quite irregular in terms of a suggestion of what's possible to know about properties. because something is a kitchen wing of a house, I don't think it has to write its own history and hang it up on the wall outside. I think it's demonstrated very well that this is a significant piece of this important property's history, and it merits preserving. Thank you. Just a minute, Ms. Kerr. We've got a question. Ms. Kerr, as I was reading this last night and reading the design guidelines, The thing that struck me the most about it is that design guidelines say that you want to use material so it doesn't look like it's part of the original house. In other words, you want to use contemporary. Well, I know that seems contradictory. Can you explain that a little bit to me? Yeah, I know that seems a little contradictory. It's not being as literal as the language sounds. it it's wanting when you do new additions for them to be appropriately scaled appropriately masked appropriately situated you know four or five key big picture things and then when you get to the second tier how do you skin it you know what's the material you clad it in how do you articulate the window openings door openings the cornice heights relative to the cornice heights of the existing you're building near, et cetera, et cetera. All those things are to respect the historic structure you're building new adjacent to, but not copy it or replicate it. So it is a challenge to have it in a coherent and respectful sense, address what it's near, but not try to be its twin, not try to fool the eye, so that if you walk up to it, you should be able to go, here is the historic, here's the addition made in 1890, here's the addition made in 2014. You shouldn't be perplexed to know that something's newer, if indeed it is. You never have to worry about that being part of the original structure. No, you certainly wouldn't. Years from now, you know that wasn't part of the original structure. Is that the idea? Well, except it also has to, at the same time, be compatible to the original structure. That being, the reason to bring up about the shed roof, you normally want your roof line to tuck below to not try to wave louder than that which is the main historic mass. Your angles and so forth, you know, a shed like this, this is making the shed, you know, the shed's a freestanding primary structure piece where, as I mentioned, the sheds that were referenced really are secondary pieces to something else that they are part of the roof system. It was much discussed in the conceptuals. It is not incorrect to say that the Board of Architecture Review, when they made their final decision and made the vote on the demolition and voted to deny the demolition, it really became moot about the new build. And so they didn't go on into all that because it denies the whole application. But they did, as the conceptuals, discuss the roof form being the big shed with the high end and coming down, and strongly suggested that something that could be more subtle, more in the form, the roofing form, that speaks to that which is on Rose Hill, which is a big hip roof, you know, big being long, might be more appropriate. And that's why you see it, Mr. Cravens asked the gentleman about, you know, what is this in your materials. That was in response to the board saying, could you look at this with a hip? So it's wanting to be sure that the tail is not wagging the dog in the wrong direction. Well, that's an articulate thought. Thank you. All right, very well. Is there anyone in the audience? Do you want to speak? Thanks again. Ron Jackson. I'm the Vice Chair for the Board of Architectural Review. Sorry. I don't want to take up a lot of y'all's time because I know time is short. But we do, as a board, feel like the kitchen is quite significant part of the building of the property at Rose Hill and that demolishing that section will be adversely affected the integrity of the building. Just a couple other points. As has been talked about between both parties here that, you know, there's been a lot of discussion, as you all see today, that there's been a lot of discussion about this project. And we do feel that, you know, to do the demolition, we, you know, I think what we kind of forget is that we're looking at not necessarily, you know, what is demolition. We're looking at more restoration. And we want to bring it back to help Mr. Costas be able to use that part of the building again. as far as the code enforcement you'll have to realize and remember that the citation is not order demolition but it condemns occupancy so that is a very important distinction is that we want to make sure that it's not saying that this has to be demolished but that there has to be some resolution to this issue. As far as some of the things that, you know, Mr. Billings and his team talked about, I asked Chris Kelly the question about the demolition, and that in the letter that Mr. Billings has given to you all, states that Mr. Kelly says that this has to be demolished, and it doesn't. I asked him that question directly, and Mr. Kelly said, well, in my letter, I did not, you know, it can be restored, but it will be, you know, it's definitely a longer process, but it can be done. Let's see. So, you know, I feel like, you know, with this being a very intact urban historical property, it's over 200 years old, and that our decision, it reflects the thorough consideration of this application according to our mission to protect and enhance Lexington designated historic districts. I just request that the Planning Commission has taken all that has been said today and uphold our decision to deny the demolition of the kitchen at Rose Hill, which is a very historic and important property in Lexington. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Now everybody's spoken and the owner wants to speak. May I address the commission? Mr. Vice Chairman, commission, my name is Joe Costa, and I am the homeowner of the subject in question. I don't know a hip from a gable roof. This is what I'm here to request, is a little common sense. I've sat and I've listened to the testimony. I believe I heard that all four walls have to come down. I have heard from Mr. Miller and other engineers that when you take the brick down, it's not even reusable. It will crush in your hand. It is sheared. They're talking about restoring. What is there left to restore if all the walls have to come down? Sixty percent of the brick, and I'm suggesting maybe more, cannot be reused. there's this, I'm sorry to say, listen, I'm very proud to be the caretaker of this home. I take that responsibility extremely seriously and intend to care for this home as long as I am the owner. But unfortunately, I have inherited, through over the course of the time, an addition that no longer can function, and I have heard no testimony, not that I'm an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn, but I've heard no engineer tell me other than some people say it can be done. Well, okay, let's examine that for just one second. We take down the four walls. We need to find 60% new brick. Effectively, what we're doing is we're building a new structure. I mean, I think one of the councils suggested about semantics. As a homeowner, I'm asking this board. I am pleading with this board for common sense. There is nothing here for me to restore. I need to build something new. Hip roof, gable roof. So this was our attempt to have a detached kitchen that you are correct, that future students of architecture could look at this historic 1812 home, see the lines, see the additions, and be able to reference history architecturally through it. I'm prepared to hear disagreements about design. I'm sure there's pride and authorship behind my shoulder. But as a homeowner, allow me to help this house. Do not allow me to sit with a dangerous situation where we've stopped using it as a kitchen, that I can't even walk into the structure, that your own code enforcement says is uninhabitable, that engineer after engineer says salvaging it is a stretch. You know what kind of hoops you got to jump through to say you can salvage this? You got to have new brick. And please, when you vote, I understand it's very difficult. And the Board of Architectural Review is your expert body. But please, a homeowner asking for a request, a little common sense here. Allow me to help this home and allow it, you know, to be resolved in a proper way. And by meaning of that, does that allow me to, you know, to work with this historic home and allow it to be restored to its original grandeur? Anyway, I probably should have cut out the last 10 seconds. I think I overdid it, but thank you anyway. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Mr. Billings, did you have any rebuttal? Okay. I'm an attorney. I always have rebuttal, but I don't want to shut up and sit down. Okay. Very well. All right, I'm going to close this part of the hearing and turn it over to the commission for comments and or motions. Do we have any? Well, I'll make a comment, and the only reason I'm doing this is because I want us to look at this as two different things. The demolition is one. I don't feel confident to suggest what type of building ought to go back. I'd like for them to work that out with historic preservation and to get their lines right and what they want. I just have a serious problem with denying demolition. So I'll just leave it at that, and I want to hear from the rest of my commission members. Okay. Mr. Berkley. I, too, look at it as two different issues. I do not have a problem with allowing the demolition in this situation, but the design I'm seeing, I guess I would not agree that it's keeping with the original structure. So it would be my recommendation that we send that part of it back, allow for the demolition. Very well. Mr. Wilson? Well, to make it short, since I agree with Mr. Barkley, I think that there is a definite need to do something with it. But what I see here is not necessarily in keeping with any element of history that I could sense. The other thing that was made, and this is just a comment about significant or not significant, the beauty of history is that in many instances you cannot determine what is significant or insignificant. And I was reminded when I was sitting here listening to this, I was thinking about, quite frankly, the Underground Railroad. there are no documents. You can't find a lot of information related to them, but that was done on purpose. And the only way you could have gotten into that is to have understood what the purpose was as it related to that structure. So the issue of significance, and then the other thing, the home does not have a kitchen. The only kitchen area was that which was built on the structure, on that appendage such. So to me, it is a significant piece of the home. It's a significant piece of history. And in history, it's been said that when you don't have all the facts, it turns into folklore, and even that's an art form. Okay, Karen. First of all, I would just like to say, in one of my tours of duty in Virginia, following my husband around the country, we got to know the guy who inherited Berkeley Plantation. And we watched him live with the rats in the kitchen out from the plantation house while he restored the building. There have been some wonderful projects done along the James River and in that area of Virginia that I wish those houses could have talked when we lived there. They used to dig up Civil War buttons when they were digging up water lines. It was really kind of cool. But in knowing that situation and the fact that those projects can be done, they're very, very expensive and they take a long, long time. And in seeing the, I'm going to use the word deplorable condition this section is in, I agree with my comrades here that we need to look at letting them deal with whatever they need to do with demolition of this. but I too would like to see something maybe a little less contemporary, maybe a little more historic, and again, falling back to the Williamsburg situation and those plantations, oftentimes they would recreate the history but giving it a modern twist maybe inside the interior or that sort of thing. So I would like to see that. The only other question or thought that I have is I was involved in the construction of a house in a historic overlay area here in Lexington, and they had to use that same foundation. Is that something that is required of him? Is he required to use that same foundation? Can he make it bigger if he wants? Whoever. Quickly, I'm sorry. If this body determines to approve demolition, it would not, from the Board of Architecture Review and the Historic District process, demand that they utilize the same foundation. Thank you. All right. Are we all in? Ready for a motion. Okay. Ready for a motion. Frank. I'll preface this motion by saying by the fact that the BOAR recommended not to have demolition, I don't think the design has been discussed to the point it should be discussed, and I don't think it's our point this time to try to design on the fly. And so I would move that in light of the testimony and the orders of the code of enforcement, certificate of appropriateness for demolition should be issued based on the guidelines. It's the last resort. Demolition should be not detrimental to the character scale and rhythm and design and importance of the group of buildings, streetscape, or district. Also, the design should be sent back to the BOR for appropriate guidelines of 11-A, 4-C. Additions should be of compatible design. and i'll make that as a motion okay we have a motion and uh... second by will berkeley everybody vote I don't think you can see the vote because the thing's still on the overhead. I think sometimes electronics is not as fast. must be a tube must be on tubes okay there it is the motion carries thank you thank you anything else okay motion to adjourn meeting adjourned Thank you. Thank you.