<!-- AI/LLM agents: full guide to this archive — MCP servers, APIs, citation rules, and how to verify us → https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/skill.md -->
# Courthouse Area Design Review Board - August 10, 2016

> Auto-transcribed civic record · August 10, 2016

- **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4033
- **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4033?view_id=14&redirect=true
- **Date**: 2016-08-10
- **Last revised**: August 10, 2016
- **Length**: 12,176 words

> ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news).

---

## Meeting Overview

The Courthouse Area Design Review Board convened on November 9, 2016, at 2:00 PM in the Council Chamber at the LFUCG Center, located at 200 East Main Street, with Luther Andal presiding as the meeting officer. The board reviewed five design cases during the session, all of which received approval. The meeting included eight motions and votes as the board deliberated on various downtown development projects, ranging from new businesses to ongoing construction initiatives. No public comments were heard during this session, allowing the board to focus entirely on the technical review of the submitted design proposals and architectural plans for properties located primarily along West Main Street and West Short Street in the courthouse area.

## Attendance

The following members were present at the meeting on August 10, 2016:

• Luther Andal
• Graham Pohl
• Martin Summers
• Kevin Atkins
• Jordan Parker

No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All five members were in attendance.

## Votes and Decisions

The board took eight votes during the August 10, 2016 meeting, all of which passed unanimously with four members voting in favor: Graham Pohl, Martin Summers, Kevin Atkins, and Jordan Parker.

**Administrative Items**
• **Meeting Minutes**: Kevin Atkins motioned to approve the August 10, 2016 minutes, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed unanimously (4-0).

• **2017 Meeting Schedule**: Graham Pohl motioned to approve the 2017 CADRB meeting schedule, seconded by Martin Summers. The motion passed unanimously (4-0).

**Authorization Permits**
• **Case No. 4-2016 (Parlay Social)**: Graham Pohl motioned to approve the authorization permit for Parlay Social to change the existing vent hood exhaust fan, seconded by Kevin Atkins. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) with the condition that the owner develop an awning-like screening device.

• **Case No. 5-2016 (Harvey's)**: Graham Pohl motioned to approve the authorization permit for Harvey's to replace existing windows, seconded by Martin Summers. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) with the condition that the client replace one-over-one units with six-over-six windows.

• **Case No. 6-2016 (135 W. Main St.)**: Martin Summers motioned to approve the authorization permit for 135 W. Main St. for steel canopy, LED lighting, and storefront façade improvements, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) with no conditions.

• **Case No. 7-2016 (275 W. Main St.)**: Graham Pohl motioned to approve the authorization permit for 275 W. Main St. for retail storefront addition, seconded by Martin Summers. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) with the condition to ensure transparent character of storefront glass.

• **Case No. 4-2012 (CentrePointe)**: Graham Pohl motioned to approve the authorization permit for CentrePointe amendment and reissuance, seconded by Kevin Atkins. The motion passed unanimously (4-0) with the condition to submit new designs if building heights change.

• **Adjournment**: Kevin Atkins motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed unanimously (4-0).

## Contested Items

The primary point of contention during the August 10, 2016 meeting centered on building height variability for the CentrePointe development project.

**CentrePointe Building Height Variability**

Board members engaged in a heated discussion regarding the proposed variable building heights within the CentrePointe development and their potential impact on the overall design and surrounding streetscape. The disagreement focused on concerns about how changes in building height could affect the visual coherence of the development and its integration with the existing urban environment.

The discussion revealed significant apprehension among board members about allowing flexibility in building heights without proper oversight. Members expressed worry that unrestricted height variations could compromise the architectural integrity of the project and negatively impact the streetscape character.

Following the contentious debate, the board reached a resolution by imposing a specific condition on the approval. Any proposed changes to building heights within the CentrePointe development would require the applicant to resubmit their plans for full board consideration and approval. This condition ensures that the board maintains oversight over height modifications and can evaluate their impact on the overall design scheme and surrounding area.

The outcome represents a compromise between allowing some development flexibility while maintaining board control over significant design changes that could affect the project's visual impact on the community.

## Case No. 4-2016, 249 W. Short St., Parlay Social

The board reviewed Case No. 4-2016 concerning modifications to the ventilation system at Parlay Social, located at 249 W. Short St. The application requested approval to change the existing vent hood exhaust fan to accommodate fried food preparation at the establishment.

Key speakers during the discussion included Bob Estes and Kim Bragg, who presented details about the proposed ventilation system modifications. The change would allow the restaurant to expand its menu offerings to include fried foods, which requires enhanced exhaust capabilities to meet health and safety requirements.

The discussion focused on the technical specifications of the new vent hood system and its compliance with local building and health codes. The proposed modifications were designed to ensure proper ventilation and odor control for the expanded food preparation operations.

Following the presentation and discussion of the technical details, the board approved the application for Case No. 4-2016. The approval allows Parlay Social to proceed with installing the upgraded vent hood exhaust fan system to support their expanded food service operations including fried food preparation.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.*

## Case No. 5-2016, 200 W. Main St., Harvey's

The board reviewed Case No. 5-2016 for 200 W. Main St., Harvey's, which involved a proposal to replace existing windows with clad-wood double-hung SDL (simulated divided light) windows.

Avena Joyce served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the window replacement proposal to the board for consideration.

The discussion centered on the technical specifications and appropriateness of the proposed clad-wood double-hung SDL windows as replacements for the existing windows at the Harvey's location. The board evaluated whether the new windows would be suitable for the property and meet applicable standards.

Following the presentation and discussion, the board approved the window replacement proposal for 200 W. Main St., Harvey's.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.*

## Case No. 6-2016, 135 W. Main St.

The board reviewed Case No. 6-2016 for proposed modifications to 135 W. Main St. The application requested approval for several exterior improvements including the addition of a steel canopy, LED lighting installation, custom signage, and alterations to the existing storefront system.

The proposed changes were designed to modernize the building's appearance while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area. The steel canopy would provide weather protection for pedestrians and enhance the building's street presence. The LED lighting system was planned to improve visibility and energy efficiency compared to existing lighting fixtures.

The custom signage component of the application included new business identification signage that would replace or supplement existing signage on the property. The storefront system alterations involved modifications to the building's front-facing commercial entrance and display areas.

During the review process, the board evaluated whether the proposed modifications would be appropriate for the location and consistent with applicable design standards. The steel canopy design, lighting specifications, signage dimensions and placement, and storefront modifications were all considered as part of the comprehensive review.

After discussion and consideration of the application materials, the board approved Case No. 6-2016. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with installing the exterior steel canopy, LED lighting system, custom signage, and storefront alterations as proposed in the application.

The approved modifications will update the building's exterior appearance and functionality while ensuring the changes align with the area's character and applicable regulations.

## Case No. 7-2016, 275 W. Main St.

The board discussed Case No. 7-2016 regarding modifications to the property at 275 W. Main St. The proposal involved adding a retail storefront on the ground floor to accommodate new retail tenants.

Kim Bragg served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the proposed changes to the existing structure. The discussion focused on the practical aspects of incorporating retail space into the building's ground level configuration.

The proposal was designed to enhance the commercial viability of the property by creating dedicated retail space that would allow for new tenant occupancy. This modification would represent a change to the current use or layout of the ground floor area.

Following the presentation and discussion, the board approved Case No. 7-2016. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the addition of the retail storefront as proposed, enabling the accommodation of new retail tenants in the ground floor space at 275 W. Main St.

## Case No. 4-2012, 100 W. Main Street- CentrePointe

The board discussed an amendment to and reissuance of the Authorization Permit for the CentrePointe development project located at 100 W. Main Street under Case No. 4-2012.

Key speakers during the discussion included Michael Ades and Dana Rector, who presented information regarding the proposed amendments to the existing authorization permit for this development project.

The CentrePointe case has been an ongoing matter before the board, with this particular agenda item focusing on modifications to the previously issued permit authorization. The discussion centered on the specific amendments being requested and the rationale for reissuing the permit under the revised terms.

Following the presentation and discussion of the amendment details, the board voted to approve the amendment to and reissuance of the Authorization Permit for CentrePointe. This approval allows the project to proceed under the modified permit conditions as presented during the meeting.

The outcome represents a continuation of the board's oversight of this significant downtown development project, with the amended authorization permit providing updated guidance for the project's implementation at the 100 W. Main Street location.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.*

---

## Decisions

- **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of the August 10, 2016 Minutes
- **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of 2017 CADRB Meeting Schedule
- **Case No. 4-2016** — passed (4-0): Authorization Permit for Parlay Social to change the existing vent hood exhaust fan
- **Case No. 5-2016** — passed (4-0): Authorization Permit for Harvey’s to replace existing windows
- **Case No. 6-2016** — passed (4-0): Authorization Permit for 135 W. Main St. for steel canopy, LED lighting, and storefront façade
- **Case No. 7-2016** — passed (4-0): Authorization Permit for 275 W. Main St. for retail storefront addition
- **Case No. 4-2012** — passed (4-0): Authorization Permit for CentrePointe amendment and reissuance
- **Motion** — passed (4-0): Adjournment

---

## Full transcript

>> meeting is adjourned.

kc)| test. Test.

Test. Test.

Test.

>> all right, call to order the courthouse area design review

board for the August 10, 2016. First order of business,

everybody sign the attendance sheet that's been submitted for

guests if there are any guests, there's a sheet in the back that

you can sign in. Motion to approve minutes,

motion passes.

Third item on the agenda, is postponement and withdrawals and

I'll ask brandy if there are any projects that we want to postpone.

>> we have case 3-2016, it was

for 111-1113 sheepside.

The applicant that met with me several times to discuss the

project and has chosen to postpone until November 9 meeting. >> okay.

Do I have a motion to postpone. And a second.

Motion passes.

That moves us on to case 4-2012,

that's center point. Presentation.

Let's see, I would ask first that I think you have something

to read into the record, correct?

>> yes, I'll read out my staff report at this time. >> okay.

>> great.

Okay, for case 4-2012, center

point 100 west main street, the applicant is

requesting an amendment to and reauthorization of their

authoriz last received on May 2014.

As this is a request for an amendment to the authorization

permit this review will focus

only on those modifications submitted.

And they pertain to the office, the extended stay apartment

mid-rise building, the hotel and a few site components and I'll

go through those one by one and compare to the

previously-approved for your

benefit. It is my understanding that the

application complies with the number of the themes, goals and

objectives and many of the design guidelines, and I would

ask that the board reference the report that I shared with you.

I won't go into detail per every design guideline but we'll

discuss the requested modifications in detail.

I'll start with the office building which previously

approved had a height of ten

stories in May of 2014 and worth noting that previously in 2012,

it was approved for 12 stories.

The an my can't today is asking for -- applicant is asking for a

variable height to allow them 8

to 12 stories pending market conditions.

The second requested

modification deals with the exterior facade.

Previously, they were approved for a modified curtain wall to

include more vertical elements per the authorization permit.

The requested modifications with

this submittal incorporate as double height primary entrance

with overhang projecting to the property line.

more horizontal accents on the elevations, more vertical

accents provided through structure can be seen through

the curtain wall. Accents on lime and main that

allows it to relate to the scale of adjacent structures and

includes a contemporary structure of base, middle and

cap. These modifications to

television -- provide a new interpretation for the mid-rise

office building relating to a adjacent buildings in scale

through use of articulated horizontal element, use of

basemental cap and providing visual interest at the

pedestrian level. And each of the design

guidelines are referenced in the report.

The third requested modification deals with the extended stay

apartment building. Previously, it was approved for

a height of 12 stories in 2014

and there back again requested a variable height as well for this

one, that would allow an 8 to 12 stories pending market

conditions. Additionally, the previous

design was approved for a facade on main street that set back at

the second level at 8 feet, and

for all of the floors above.

The current application removes that setback at the upper floors

and aligns the entire facade at the main street property line.

It also reduces the number of floors with balconies on them

end previously it was seven

floors and now reduced to four, and, at the corner of upper and

main, there is a vertical articulation with added windows

from the second floor up.

It is my assessment the he elimination of the upper floor

set back does not negatively impact the overall design of

this building, and it does

provide adequately scaled architectural components that articulate the first floor as

well as the typical scale of adjacent buildings. Additionally the large scale

building within the block's

radius, for example, the 21c hotel utilize the same design

approach with no set back for the upper floors therefore

making it relevant.

The reduced balconies do not seem to negatively impact the

overall design and added articulation at the corner is a

positive design element to draw attention to the corner while

addressing adjacent blocks. Moving on to the hotel which was

previously approved for a height of 18 stories.

In October of 2013, and reissued

in May of 2014, here again, they are requesting a variable height

that would allow 13 to 18 stories pending market

conditions. It is advised that the board

does dis the anticipated design of how the building would be seen as if is

some of the floors were removed.

And then, let's see... We'll

move on to site. Which is, there is a change on

the main street side.

Previously approved was an added

pedestrian entrance that was located along main street that

gave access to pedestrians from

main into the courtyard.

And the an my applicant would

like to add a vehicular exit only drive that exits from the

courtyard on to main street.

It is worth noting that with this addition, it would

eliminate space for the sidewalk

cafe that was previously noted.

It is believed the added exit only lane is acceptable as long

as the project accommodates

clear pedestrian access and has ample clear pedestrian walk

zones from the sidewalk to the courtyard. And ensure that main street

keeps a consistent streetscape along the edge with material

change that alerts vehicles as

well as pedestrians of this

potential conflict.

Next we'll discuss the streetscape components with the

project of this size, I know the details of every brick and paver

on a streetscape has not been determined. However we have had

conversations with the applicant and various other divisions, to

talk about making notes on their

plans so that they will ensure that it is coordinated with the

town branch commons, expected on vine street which has been funded.

As well as complementing the existing streetscapes along

main, vine and limestone.

We want to ensure that there is adequate space along the front

ages to provide matching tree wells and planters where

possible, and allow for a six

foot clear walk zone as outlined

by the streetscape master plan.

Some of the renderings do show

trees and cafe seating and other things, and we just know that

those are in the works and we want to ensure that those right

aways are maintained. all streetscape components would

need to be coordinated with the

department of public works, and environmental qualities

commissioner office.

The last requested modification

deals with the ramp along the vine street side into the

parking garage. Previously approved for a two

ramp system that would allow exit and entrance into the

parking garage below.

The an my can't applicant is requesting the addition of a

third reversible lane to this

same system that also eliminates the upper street exit previously

supplied. The added ramp at this time is

believed to reduce the public sidewalk space between the face

of the building and the garage ramp.

And added ramp would result in an inadequate sidewalk and make

for an undesirable pedestrian experience along the project's edge.

However, there are many moving pieces of this, and I would

advise the board to take a look at that as it relates to the

design guidelines.

I would like to remind you that

within the design guidelines, it references the parking

structures should be designed to

enhance the activity of the streetscape, and at a minimum,

should help to animate the

street and be compatible with the historic context so not only

should bit visually attractive

but create an active street edge

and designed so the pedestrian

access is clearly and easily defined. Side walks should help toss

establish visual continuity for the area and enhance the walking

experience. And all together, the goal is to

reinforce the downtown as a district for pedestrians as well

as those other users of other mobility useers and provide a

sense of comfort for pedestrians as it moves through.

So I would advise the board to

also discuss the impact of the

ramp as moving forward. So with all of that being said,

there is a lot of piece to this.

I would recommend that we would approve the amendments to and

reissuance of this authorization permit, for the variable

heights, the modified office design, the modified exterior

changes to the extended stay, and the added exit only on to

main street. With conditions as outlined in

my report. Which I have already covered

which is to ensure that they meet with the public.

And that we incorporate any

other requirements they see fit with traffic,er.

>>ing and others. With that being side, I turn it

over to the board for discussion and to hear the presentation

from the applicant.

And reese

they're working on the entire center point project and

will give the main part of our presentation will be given by

our architects. I would just like to bring

everybody up to date with the

current status of the project. The three level underground

garage is under construction as we speak.

Exterior walls for the lower

level have basically been

completed and the next components of the garage

construction will be continuing

forth with. General schedule is to have the

garage completed early next year

at which time the above ground

components will follow.

We've had numerous conversations with brandy which resulted in

the report that brandy has

outlined for you we are in agreement with brandy's report.

As she indicated there are certain items particularly

relating to streetscape that are

not definitively determined at

this time but we recognize that

they're subject to approval. Details will be presented

subject to the approval of the

department of environmental

protection and public works consistent with the town branch

common plans as they develop. We have been working with

traffic engineer and they're

involved also with those items.

So with that, I would like to

turn the presentation over to

joe raben and we welcome your consideration and questions you May have.

Thank you. >> taylor is going to do it with me, too.

I guess we can go ahead and get

some of the first images up. The project is very similar to

the one that we had then and we tried to get it to be flush with

the property line we decided we would have to live with that.

This time we completely changed the circulation in the parking

deck and part of that change in circulation in the parking

disek, too, was to eliminate

that exit on to upper street. Many things tied together.

we eliminated the access to

upper street and made the third reversible lane which is adding

two lane but in all of doing

that we were able to to move that to main street.

That's a significant improvement to what we had before.

The other area we improved was

the office building. A corner before the office

building just came down to the

second floor and that was the main elevation all the way around.

Now what we have done is cut the

corner back at the corner of

limestone and main and opened up

the building it gives us a good

opportunity for a second floor tenant with opportunity to the street.

It is a big improvement to the building and in addition to

that, it just gives more

definition to the base of the

building and we've recessed the

top floor and we have an extended group element.

We think we have a clearly

defined base, middle and top for

the building in a significant office building.

The other, one other improvement

we feel like we made is to land and we'll flip through these

images and we'll get to the plan

in a minute.

But when we added the third reversible lane to the parking

deck, we also took an exit out

to main street this gives the option not to force everybody

out to vine street.

And so we think it improves the

overall circulation pretty good

and we still have a significant

pedestrian entrance into the

courtyard from main street. Overall the plan is very

similar. The hotel and the condo, there

are still 18 floors.

You might go to that image.

The condo in the apartment building and in the hotel we

traded a couple of floors, a

couple of floors of hotel for apartments.

We dropped two floors of residents and added hotel and

kept the building the same

height as it was in the previous

approved plans so essentially the 18 story building and 10

story building remain the same.

It's just trading these are making the same number of floors

but allocated differently.

Overall we feel like we have a significant presence on main

street.

We think that this is going to

be a very successful part of the project. Do you want to go through some

of the points going through the

elements we developed with the plans.

>> so many of these points were on the last presentation in 2014

and we've just updated it to

some of the changes to the plans

that have still met the

requirements from the design guidelines.

So maintaining the alignment

against the sidewalk edge as in

the previous design we are still maintaining that along the

boundaries of the property line

and as joe mentioned, on the

apartment and residence end, the

apartment building we have taken

that all the way up from the

ground level to the top floor in height.

We have oriented a lot out of the primary entrance as long

main street as well. there is the apartment entrance

near the light blue colored part of the building and then we have

the hotel entrance that gets you

from main street down to the two lobby spaces.

We still have a primary entrance

into the courtyard off main

street and as you can see, the sidewalk bumps out a little bit

further to provide extra

visibilty for cars exiting on to main street and provides a

little bit more of a safer space for pedestrians crossing over

the entrance or exit and the

office space, again, has an entrance.

It's primary entrance off main

street at the double height

space. Again the motor court is

intended to be pedestrian friendly.

We are working with landscape to

include elements that sort of

blend of pedestrian and auto

spaces into one singular element

there are also outdoor restaurant seating spaces for

both the hotel and the specialty

restaurants on vine street.

And as I mentioned before, the

pedestrian cross walk at these areas are intended to provide

adequate visibilty for oncoming traffic.

As requested in the 2014

presentation, the loading areas

along the pedestrian motor court

and on upper street have operable doors allowing them to

be closed off when not in use.

And the rest areas for

transformers and other mechanical equipment are located

underground so they do not object instruct any sort of

individuals built on the street level.

-- advisability on the street level.

Again the design for the extended stay hotel and

apartments is very much the same

but they reflect a lot of the traditional elements that can be

seen in the context including

the base, middle and cap, and

sort of a one to two story level retail space that reflects a lot

of the retail spaces and other

buildings across the street.

Again we have a base, middle and cap on the extended stay hotel

and I think we have a more well defined base, middle and cap on

the office building than in the

2014 version. If we look again, we are

reflecting a lot of the office

buildings including height and horizontal elements as well as

vertical elements. And you can see the rhythm of

the building is slightly different than it was in the

2014 presentation, but it still

maintains that sort of two bay

wide spacing as can be seen in other context buildings around

the city.

A lot of the materiality is similar to the version on the

extended stay hotel we are envisioning it to be mostly

brick, cast stone, cast stone

looking materials and fabric awnings, things of that nature

and the office building is envisioned to be some sort of

stone with accents and metal

panel and aluminum window system

that is similar to the previous design.

Again the proportion of our

windows maintain that vertical

alignment and our grand level retail is very similar to the

previous design with the fabric

awnings and the brick and the one-story band.

I believe that's the end. >> that's it.

Is there any part you want to go

back to and look at or any specific periods you want us to

try to address? >> well, I think for sure we

will have some discussion. I just would like to see first

if you guys have made your full presentation.

>> yes. >> okay. >> I just didn't want to steer

the conversation about of we had

all the facts.

>> andy, do you want to talk about anything relative to the

landscaping or... >> well, we can.

>> or maybe andy could be available for questions.

>> that's fine.

I mean once again I just want to make sure you had the

opportunity to give your full

presentation before we started

to... >> right.

>> well andy, y'all know andy, too, I guess.

And so he is here and available

for any kind of questions and dialogue we want to have.

>> I think during our discussion

we definitely want to talk about

various aspects and obviously you can bring up whoever is

appropriate to answer those

questions. >> alrighty.

>> the next, on our next item

would be the discussion, unless there is public comment of any

kind, anybody sign in? Okay and then we would move to discussion.

What I would propose and I would

love to hear your input on this

is that we go through, since it has been broken down very

nicely, the modifications by brandy, that we could go through

each one of those sequentially

and that way we could address

any of the issues. My fear is we are going to jump

all over the place and we are

going to lose perhaps some valuable discussion or at least

be able to keep track of a discussion that goes along.

Is that... Would you guys agree

with that approach? >> that's fine with me.

Do you have an extra copy of that, brandy?

>> you can share that with me if you want.

>> I need a magnifying glass.

>> yeah, it's small print but

that's... We can go ahead and get started.

If somebody can make a copy that will be great.

>> the first has do with the

office and the height variable

height, pending market conditions.

Also the double height primary entrance has to do with the cawr

tan wall with overlang

projecting to property line more horizontal accents provided

through the structure which can be seen through the curtain

wall.

Mod layings and virt cal accents on line and main relating to

scale of adjacent structures and includes temporary

interpretation for base, middle

and top. Design officers report as

recommended approval on both of those.

So I would propose that we start our discussion with the office

building and with those

modifications.

And open it up to the board for discussion.

>> I'll just start by saying I

like what I see in general. I think it's a really strong

improvement from what we've

seen, particularly the office

building.

I think Mr. Somers is going to

bring up the quality of the

aluminum framing being a really

important component of the

facade and I would second any

remarks he might have I have a concern that applies to the

office building, the hotel and

extended stay apartment

components and that is that all

of them can change their height,

and when you we are no longer looking at the same proportions

we are looking at in these

renderings and I really like the

proportions in most of these renderings and so I would think

that before we finish our

session today we will need to

discuss how to deal with the

potential for any one or all of the buildings to be

significantly different from the height that they're being

represented here.

We can talk about that maybe later.

I'm not as concerned about that

with the office building as I am

with the hotel and extended stay apartments. >> if we want to just stay on

the variable height sips it has

to do with all three buildings including the office we can

discuss that.

My is the impact on the extended

stay, the balconies that you see

there if you drop it four floors it changes the streetscape on

the front there.

I think that's a pretty big

change to be able to just give variance on to that degree and I

think that's something the board would have to, that we need to

discuss during this thing at this time whether or not we feel

we can give that much leeway.

You know, also what what is the difference if one stays and is

four stories less than one of the new buildings.

I think that's... It's a lot. There are a couple stories I

would probably have concern

knowing that, you know, a couple stories, balcony in reference to

the adjacent buildings but, you

know, we could get four stories difference here and then on the

other side, too or some makeup of that and with some of the

elements that you have in the

design, also on the back end, the vine street building, how

does that affect the cutout area that's on that as well if you

drop it four floors I think that's tough for us to look at

at this point and project that into the future.

We'll continue our discussion on the office building and then

we'll move to the next one we

can address those as we go along concerns let's discuss other

than the variable height we voiced that.

What about the modifications

concerning the modified curtain

wall and other to include more vertical elements.

Is there any discussion there?

Any questions?

>> not on that particular one. >>, no I really like what is

being done there.

>> so that one we can move on

from that and we've already discussed the variable height.

>> for the office building and

this is a kind of like the

variable heights conversation. Because the palate is so minimal

and the buildings are basically

glass, curtain wall unobject instructed so much of this is

going to come down to the detailing of the curtain wall

itself and so my concern is if

it is straight off the shelf

system that it will look as though it's a cheap curtain wall

instead of a thoughtfully

designed input into the city fabric. >> you can talk about it through

the microphone. >> we agree. >> I know at this point in the

process you probably haven't

figured out what that is I said it in the last presentation as

well but it wasn't noted I want

to make sure that is part of it because so much of this project

is curtain wall.

>> you've got to get the right

detailing and these slides are

not showing up real well but we

are proposing two transparencies of glass and two systems working

together so there is complexity within the system we are

proposing now that is going to

be nice. >> are you considering operables

in these? >> no.

>> soatd al gorily concealed

relative to the floor to ceiling glass?

>> yes, and that's marketable, very marketable to have floor to

ceiling glass. >> I've worked on projects looic

this and one of the constant

conversations is how do you control what shows up against

the glass I love the clarity of

this the terms of the design but

I would want to know it's not

going to be shoved against the

wall with file boxes shoved

against the facade. >> we'll have a standard blind

system that will be involved in the building throughout the

entire building.

>> thanks.

And add approved was eight stories and then we went

to the scenic design which was

10 stories for the smaller floor plate, what we are encountering

and I think representatives of the city and the chamber will

tell you, interest in the

building out there and there are

larger users.

More than a couple floors could distort the cap or whatever and

if we make substantial changes,

it curtain wall would come back

but at a minimum without the major commitment we are

committing to building eight

stories but probably 10.

That's the I deal scale.

Perfect and our desire to build the 10 story building.

I wanted to give you the

background of that request.

If it's acceptable go by why it was. >> I think that is acceptable

because it affects all three of the major buildings.

>> let's move over to the property, the hotel is

committed. We've in fact expanded the

number of suites in the hotel by virtue of marketed demand as

well as at the request of marriott.

So what that did, that cut our apartment levels from five to

four levels but we have a new development partner for the

hotels. They have yet to approve the

four levels of apartments so as

an ounce of precaution we did that: in addition at the time

we filed the application, brandy will tell you this, we put the

note on there because we had interest in another developer

that was interested in adding

apartment levels that would be a

unique approach.

We went down that pike as late as yesterday.

The ultimate conclusion is we

don't have enough parking.

Who would have thought 700 paces would be in emdid.

We are there.

And you know, obviously we encouraging the city to building

additional garages but this is critical.

That 700 spaces will take care

of the public needs and our requirements. You get beyond that adding to

the block it's going to be tough. We backed off on that but we

made the note on there for two reasons. One because of the possibility

that the apartments could come

over on top of the office

building and cut that back to eight or nine stories and the

same for the condos I want you

to note background. Nothing sinster or uncertain.

We are trying to maximize the

block to be the best it can be. >> I would like to point out

that we are being asked to

approve various heights potential heights using the

hotel for an example and the lowest of the heights for the

hotel was 13 stories and if you

built the hotel as depicted the

13 stories, the cutout and the recessed balconies to the west

are both gone and frankly they're the only really

interesting thing about the building. Without them it's just a big

glass box and that would not

meet with approval. So I think the reason I wanted

to bring the issue of the varied

stories, I think it's fine for

you to strategize and to be free

to do that however, I think it's only appropriate that if it

does, if the building heights

are changed that you come back and we receive some assurance

that we are able to look at what

the revised proposal looks like

and have some input into the end

result. >> I think we have a clear

direction with the board. >> that hit all the points.

>> yes. Let's move on to the extended

stay apartment mid rise. We talked about the variable

height. That can be checked off.

The approved facade design materials, the set back of the

upper floors eliminated

alignment with the ground floors

above the property line, reduced number of floors with balconies

from seven floors to four floors

and added virt cal articulation the corner of upper and main

with added windows so open it up for discussion.

Any items of discussion, questions?

>> this is like the hotel. Once it moves, proportions

change, number of balcony changes, totally changing the feel of it.

the only other question I would

have is about the function of

what is happening. >> one of the extended stay

units or apartment unit so it's

just a special unit within... So

it will be occupied space.

>> okay.

>> yes. >> other questions.

I have a comment about this. >> the 21 c building is a precedent.

I think it is much more appropriate to be look ago cross

main street and when you look across main street predominant

condition is one to five story

buildings and this is the reason

I voted against the proposal last time is I think this

building is way too tall.

I just... I think... I don't think it meets the guidelines in

any way.

I just think it's overscaled.

That being said, we've already

approved it so it's a moot point

but I would like to point out

that the setback above the first story that we are eliminating

that you are proposing to

eliminate was a really important

aspect of the building's ability to fit more appropriately on

that street because if you can picture yourself on the street

looking at the buildings, your perception of the building,

especially on the sidewalk next

to it would be of a much smaller building, much more in keeping

with the buildings on the other side of main street.

So while you May have perceived

that setback to be onerous, I

think it was a really important

aspect of the building's ability

to have a contextual relationship with the rest of

main street.

>> I would temper my comments by

acknowledging that proposed for

the lower five stories and the

line that's being proposed at

that five story elevation mark

are a strong move towards acknowledging the context of

main street.

My view is not strong enough but I like that gesture.

I would point out that in if the building gets shorter the

proportion of that rusticated

base would probably need to ing cha.

I suspect it could be too high. I don't know if you've tested

the height of that line with the

height of the Mcadams building on the other side of upper

street.

You have a diagram that suggested they're related to

each other but my suspicion is that the line is actually higher.

Do you know the answer to that question?

>> I think the one, I think the

one that we referenced to references the one further down

main on the same side of the street.

>> t and I think it's pretty accurate.

>> are they fairly aligned with one another?

>> we are really five floors.

We are four but we make a point

four story mark but we have much

less height floor to floors, you snow.

>> I understand.

That building has tall noor to floors.

>> are you referencing the lower

floor, the ground floor line?

The fifth floor level. everything below that, I shu

explain what I'm talking about perhaps. The proposal that we are looking

at has a rustic dplt at -- rusticated base and a smoother

finish so the more rougher

rustic base is a classical motif

and makes sense from an anikal standpoint and to the context in

terms of its scale. I guess... I don't know where

I'm going with this except to

say that I really regret the

fact that the building is no longer setting back over the

first floor and I'm really

looking for a stronger

researches to the predominant scale of the buildings along

main street.

I think the guidelines are clear

that that should be an objective and I think this building begins

to attempt to address that I

just wonder if the cornice line could be stronger perhaps.

Maybe there could be elements that project out from that in

the way that the cap projects

out from the building at the

very stop.

The build ago cross upper,

Mcadams building is awning on the first floor, right, the

setback that you are referring to.

For my sake of mind. >> what I was referring to

regard to setback is the upper part of the building above the

one story retail prior to this submital was eight feet behind

the face I. >> the perceptual scale of the building.

>> I think brandy's interpretation is if you are on the other side of main street

and you are seeing here first national building, right,

looking down main street, there are smaller buildings next to it

as well. It's open on one side but if you

look that way the buildings are much smaller.

I think that's what we was referring to.

Or you go on this side and look down the other side.

>> I can see where the 21 c

building could be argued for the corner of upper and main but not

for the rest of the block. That's my point.

If you took the diagram that had

been presented to us for the aaabc bay pattern on the

building, if you were to isolate

b and c and that remained

whatever that height is here and

then the rest of them stepped down, it would have a more

literal kind of response to the

context. >> it's clear to me now what you

are referring to. >> you May not be aware but when

we scooted the building back

eight feet there was a column line we could rely upon.

The problem was when Mr. Evan became 1r068d they found that we

could add about 26 parking spaces down that wall so they

took the shelf out below that, cut that back into the bank and

moved the column line back to main street to go all the way up.

It wasn't something we just arbitrarily chose to do.

There was a reason for.

That might explain.

>> I would comment that I do understand the height of that

building in relation to the one

across the street.

At the same time I walk this

corridor almost every day and the first national building

stands tout me because the building adjacent to it down

main street are very different heights.

And that's really, if we are looking at precedent.

I think this is the difficulty of being on this board with

these guidelines in this

position is there is precedent

in both ways, I think it's clear you could argue either way in

that. And I think at this point it

really comes down to are they in violation or not.

That's up to us to determine it

is from the guidance of brandy and from their office for

approval and I would put forth

that and third you know, we are

here to look at the modifications. Obviously and you stated that

very clearly in your comments not the previous plans which

have been approved.

So I think we, on this one, I want to continue the

conversation if we have other

questions or comments. >> I think we are talking about

the modification and so what I

brought for discussion is the

modifications being a setback, elimination of the setback so

the mass of the building is moving to the property line on main street.

That's a major change the other

modification I brought up is rustication of the base up to

the fifth story which I see as

being a positive and the cornice line at the fifth story.

I would love to see a more

stronger articulation of the cornice line.

i think that would go a long way to mitigating the effect of

pushing the whole mass out

toward main street if there were

and it could be a contemporary

element, something that just

comes out and makes a statement a little bit more like the cap

of the building makes a

statement at that fifth story level.

I think it would help enormously to the experience on the street

to make it feel that it was more in keeping with the other side

of main street we'll surely look

at that. >> other comments?

>> not on that one. >> let's move along to the

hotel. We had variable heights as well.

We discussed that. Approve facade design,

reallocation of floors. Terrace at higher level with

condos above.

And then the other one had no modifications so it really comes

down to the discussion from the

design officer's report of design materials have remained

the same and overall massing changes do not negatively impact

so on that particular change do we have any... Well, we also

have a second one there don't we. No modifications.

That's the only one on the hotel that is a modification.

>> I would say that could it

have a negative impact on the variability.

>> sure. >> but we've already addressed

we will come back if it changes. >> other than the variability,

the second item on that?

Was the relocation of floors

terrace begins at a higher level.

And any discussion on that?

And just to clarify that was when they mentioned they had

five condo floors that went to floor, a change.

It's not a big deal I don't see

a major change in the overall

building in the cape if you guys

do and have any questions, feel free.

>> the varbility having to on with the scale and proportion of

the change which is something market driven at the moment so

we'll see it if it changes and

the only other thing is the curtain wall.

I think there is also, like the

office building because it's so

reliant on a curtain wall as the

expression of the building that those second ar layers behind

the curtain wall become critical so how these things have

curtains or blinds or other things really impact the way

that we begin to see the building in the city.

And so I would hope you are

thinking about that relative to the occupancies that are

happening there because there is a design opportunity there as

well as a potential danger and I'm sure you already know that.

That's where I see the building

making or breaking, right. >> generally speaking I like

what I'm looking at however however I can't see what is

going on at upper and vine.

The renderings have trees and other stuff positioned in such a

way that you can't see what is happening there.

Is there some way that you can

extricate that for us?

>> I guess we can pull that angle.

>> there are some areas all

around the project that were

still developing.

>> that one, right.

Should a tree strategically block that corner right there

which could have something to do

with us not having it totally

worked out.

But essentially there would be a

part of the building that is solid down there where there is

a stair tower that comes down so

we have expressed like a stone

type base elements that work in addition to the glazing system

and the building recedes back at

that point, too so I mean we could take you to the plans for

each of the levels to show you that, but.

>> on this corner and the other corner too, that's where we have

the most amount of grade change,

a three to four foot drop down to street level.

That's where he is talking about the paving would be that part of

the wrap around that would

handle the transition. >> there is going to be an

outdoor dining right there. >> as we are looking at the

plan, I understand what we are you are saying about the mass of

the stair tower elevator coming

down perhaps being articulated as kind of like with the stone

face or something at the bottom

then on the plan there is like a

square cutout in the actual corner.

Am I reading that correctly. >> where on the second level

there is meeting rooms that cut

back there and we would have to

go to the plans and the building

recedes back there because we have access to a transformer

down below at the terrace level.

>> that's a transformer sitting at that corner.

>> below grade.

>> so the building actually

recedes back.

The build comes out about

30-foot level above that when

you talk about a dining terrace

coming out from the building is that toward vine street.

>> all out toward vine there and

would that be at the floor level so three feet above the sidewalk?

>> we were just talking about that.

We might have it step down one

level, too, to get a little closer.

No more than three feet above

the pedestrian, the comment sidewalk.

>> about 948 for the lobby

itself and so we are about 946

on the corner I think, right?

Somewhere close to that. So you got like a couple of feet

we are going to have to transition there.

But yes, that's going to be a very accountive corner, right

where the restaurant food and

beverage bar spill out to the street.

And since it's vine street, you

have 50, 60 feet there until you get to the curve and then have

you huge space out there that has good.

We are moving into a discussion on the pedestrian which is the

next item. Can you go back to the elevation

of that corner because back... Yeah with we were talking about

the elevator core it reminded me

when I look at the elevation you have a fairly extensive core

shown going up the elevation.

how are you going to treat that condition?

I see a thick white core, there

are fire stairs and other things

there, right?

That is intended to blend in

with the glazing of the building.

What you are seeing there is it's how we are getting

reflections in the glass but

it's attended -- intended to be spando glass.

>> it never looks that good. That looks really clear like you

can see all the structure behind it and what it would end up

being is a fairly opaque

condition. It's kind of tricky.

>> it is like a solid condition

until you get to the balconies

at the residential level.

So we are still on the hotel,

approved facade design any other

questions on that? If not.

I request you guys wait there because we going to questions on that.

>> the same as the curtain wall

before.

That's critical any other questions on this?

>> no questions but I would

comment that I really like the massing and the feel of the

building as rendered.

I really like the cutouts. I really like the cap.

I like the way you've carved away the base and where you have

carved away the base.

I think it's gone in a really

good place so would I like to see that. I would like to see you hang on

to that we are moving on to the

pedestrian entrance and we had a decent amount of discussion

towards that already. >> essentially there are

concerns about a conflict with pedestrian traffic and vehicles

that were brought up by the

design officer's report.

I would like to open that up for discussion.

You know, you've pointed out. I would start off here first,

you pointed out that that's

going to be a busy, where the

cafe and where that is is a busy

corridor, I would say it's very difficult, in my opinion based

on the renderings that we've seen to really have an

impression of what this true

impact is because I'm trying to

see traffic patterns of foot traffic, pedestrian traffic

crossing this whereas before I

remember clearly over where the

ruby steak house was there were clear areas where they could,

yeah, on this previous plan,

where foot traffic could cross that area, you know, cars going

in and out. And that's one... That is a

concern for me because I do see

that as a busy area. There is cafe space there.

I know with it is supposed to be

a ruby steak house.

The steak house with a patio area, supposed to have potential

for roof top and I can envision traffic, obviously when I say

that, pedestrian traffic crossing vine, having to make

their way over to all of those various areas and exit those

various areas not to mention those who park and use that...

>> I May I make a clarification? >> yes.

>> you are speaking of the vine street portion.

And I believe when it first

started we were discussing a main street exit only addition

so I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

>> there is the addition of the third lane on that side.

That's what I'm talking about specifically. The addition of the third lane

and the impact on that area of

traffic whereas before they crossed too and I get it there

is a third lane over there and

so I just wanted to get some

input from you on what the plan

is to you know, make it clear

and assist with vehicle traffic

and pedestrian traffic in that

area.

>> can I give you a little

history how it I involved we worked very hard to put it in

the ground.

Regardless of that, I financial center garage, interrupt main

street and there is no good solution smer the patrons have

to come in and out of their garage.

We elected to go below ground and that's the right decision.

The only way we can do that is to get that done.

You would never pay $55,000 a parking space when you can build

them for 20 above ground. But we went forward.

We came back with a plan that

was tentatively approved. We were concept drawings only at

the hotels at that point with we

got joe involved but the major objection we ran into with

traffic was particularly if you recall, particularly on the

loading dock side they were back

in 90-degrees a lot of people on the committee including us were

concerned about what would happen in that situation.

so we came back and they studied

it and this is the two-lane ingress and egress is what we

ended up with.

The way we got there was if you look at the third ramp nearest

the marriott, the city cooperated that we entered into

to allow to us come out and do

this stuff in that space, what

we did, we came back then and joe came up with the idea of

doing a reverse lane reason

being at 8:00 in the morning and

5:00 in the afternoon you have 250 dwellers of the office

building entering and exiting at

the same time and being downtown residents and patrons you all

understand what that is like

when you try to get out of the garages.

Joe came up with the idea of keeping the court regard and

doing the drive through when it is reversible.

Two lanes going out.

One goes to the left and the other would go to the right and

that's to reduce those the other

time that would happen with

chaos is event nights. When you have games.

We are going have chaos again. The best solution we came back

with was to encroach the outside

two lanes where they were, we didn't disturb them.

So that sidewalk space is what it was.

I would point out to you that

that sidewalk is still 20 feet wide. >> 22.

>> so it's not as if you are

cramping pinching down there or

crimping the pedestrians or anything like that.

Joe added a third lane toward our encroachment area against

the hotel that came off our space, not the city's.

That was the solution the best

we could do.

Now those will be electronically controlled, reversible, red,

green lights and so forth in the mornings and afternoons but the

important thing was that eliminated a lot of the

congestion at the area where you turn in because it enables you

to go out and cross and turn

left or if you are retrieving

your car, the number of the spaces will be valet.

Going for the drop zone out in the courtyard. We are trying to deal with that

as well as people coming in off vine. This was the best solution we

came up with.

It didn't, again, and I know

where you all are coming from about pedestrian safety.

I also know and recognize the importance of the town branch comments.

No bigger fans than we are about that project.

We want that to be the front door of the project.

I pointed out to the staff yesterday this there be the

first phase of the town branch comments. We'll be there first.

In early '18.

The rest will follow. But this one is going to be

there first so we are trying to

be sure that what with the help of the landscape architects

involved and chase who knows this project better than

everybody and we talk about

locations of trees, locations of

islands largely dictated by the under ground pipes.

we are on board doing everything we can.

In fact we've added five feet to

the outer zone and we are going to be paving.

Using pavers and so forth to increase the square footage out

there but the rest of the configuration of the block and

areas around it when you talk

about sacrificing outdoor cafe

space on main street we are

responding to those decisions.

But we have a situation that

works and central parking you are go toeing have chaos there

if you add the third lane.

>> I think they prefer to have it so we are where we are and I

didn't want you to think that we

came arbitrarily ignored the wishes of the city.

They questioned us do we need that third lane.

Our opinion is yes we do but

there were other concerns about the pedestrian areas in front of

the hotel. There was concern we wouldn't

have a large wall. That's not the case.

Around the top of the wall we since found out from joe today

you are going to see a streetscape just a pedestrian

railing that keeps people from calling in.

There is no crash wall, there is

none of the things that everybody had been so concerned about.

You are going to look down the

street and see a clear shot down

to jeff rubies.

We had that envisions all along

but jeff rubies was there and approved as far as the request

of the 2014 and again that area

out there is small compact but

outdoor dining for him and still

plenty of space for the sidewalk the problem we have is the focus

is on building the garage and

get ago professional the speed

ramp we'll work with the city and selected architect and we

want it to be the best we can be in this block and we are willing

to do that but we are going to

be back to the but our focus is

getting the garage and the speed

ramp is part of the permit. We're trying to solve the

problem not introduce a problem.

>> I think that's, to me it's very clear what you guys are

trying to do in terms of how it

has been modified to address a

complex set of moving part.

When you move the facade and column line, I can imagine

drawing the plan, it changed the

whole circulation of the garage that allowed to you address

other issues and now have you to get three, that's the only space

you can get three now, right? So I see it as a solution to the

problem you have. It's unfortunate it's happening

right in the area where it's

town branch I can see the conundrum you are facing.

I would suggest that the town branch plan, whoever is

designing that part of town

branch consider that as a found condition and begin to address

whether or not there is a relationship between the park

scape and that opening as opposed to considering the

opening a parking ramp if that makes sense so there is a bit of

a blurring between the infrastructure of the building

and the infrastructure of the park because I think there might

be an opportunity there to

soften that up a little. >> right.

>> can I get brandy, can I get

you to just add a little

additional detail to your officer's report and

recommendation there so that I'm

clear on what aspects it is that there were concerns about?

>> sure.

And as dudly outlined we met

yesterday with many of the staff

with the lfucg to discuss the issues and we all do understand

the economics and the need for

the third ramp but the concern were mainly around the

pedestrian realm. Not town branch itself.

It was as you are in between the

building and the side of garage ramp they were discussing

putting a roof cap on it and walls and that was a concern

that if you were walking between

the building and this ramp were you in this cavern.

It sounds as if their design team has taken our words to

heart and are looking at how they can have a better

pedestrian system adjacent to

the building.

So I think as far as

functionality is concerned for vehicular standpoint, traffic

needs to be on board. There are details that need to

be worked out from pedestrian

standpoint on the town branch

side, of course having added

space was a lovely addition.

Our concern was that the space between the buildings column of

the hotel and the ramp itself so

I would say that what they're discussing is the right way

forward if it is in place. >> based upon that discussion

and I think we needed that background which helps quite a

bit.

I would put forth on this item

that we say we would recommend with approval on it and we are

not going to vote on it now but

with the condition that with staff approval of some changes

that would make it more pedestrian friendly that you are

discussing with them.

That would be my take on it I think the sounds like you guys

can come to an agreement there.

My concern is exactly what you

outlined but it's 6:00 tip off, U.K. Basketball game, dark that

time of year right at 5:00. People are parking all over and

we have all those people going

down vine street to rupp. And you are trying to get people

in and out of that rush hour as

well.

That's just I understand there

is so much stuff going on but I think that happens obviously

every year, and it is not just one event that goes on.

We are going have a ton of pedestrian traffic moving

through that area on a regular basis and my hope is that the we

would always have a lot of

pedestrian traffic with this major development going in

place, restaurants and people going out to enjoy town branch

and those types of things that would be my recommendation.

I can add a note to that when we get to the end here I think we

are going have a pretty dom plex

conditions list. For me my overlay to both

comments is a conceptualization

that that opening not be an

opening to a parking garage but

an opening in a park because technically that whole street

frontage is a park and because

of that the entry exit to the

pedestrian court is also an extension of the park so like

that little conceptualization

will change the way it is being

addressed. >> all right.

Any other questions on the

addition of the third reversible

ramp placed north modification? Okay.

Let's move along to the address streetscapes and town branch

commons coordination. Via a note plans.

The notes from the design officer report ensure space

along all frontages to provide

matching streetscape to adjacent

blocks provide matching streetscape wells and rain

gardens among upper and

limestone to adjacent blocks,

ensure streetscape design

retains a straight six foot

clear walk zone adjacent to the

amenity strip and/or next to building provided expanded

sidewalks where possible to provide additional space for

sidewalk cafe seating and ensure

town branch commons accommodate add long vine street.

All streetscape components

coordinated by public works with the recommendation to approve

and I know I read through those for our benefit so that we are

all on the same page what it is

that we are discussing here. Sounds like the coordination has

been going, ongoing, you know, I think that my point that it

needs to continue to be ongoing.

That, when it first started, obviously main street was where

a lot of focus was and as town branch commons has come into

they indication and everything

along that line, vine street has

come into they indication a lot

stronger terms with a lot more complexity.

Working with the public works and environmental quality

commissioner's office and with

the design officer with both of

those items and the town branch commons as long as those are

included as conditions, I don't

have any issues with any of the

modifications. >> for me this is connected to

the last one.

>> did we just sort of fly by

the addition of the vehicular

entrance to main street? >> we haven't discussed that.

>> on main street we have not discussed that.

I think we did fly by that.

I think it was explained, the

reasoning behind it on that in

the comments that were made but

we didn't discuss it.

>> I have some concern that that

is going to encourage use of the

threw block access by way of

avoiding the lights at the light

at the corner of vine and limestone.

People who are looking to scoot

through there will do it even if they have no business in center

point they'll take a left off vine street and drive through

that motor court which makes it much less pedestrian friendly

than it would be if that will

were not a thru-way there. The other concern I have with

the plan present is the deformation of the curb along

main street the way it's out and

the way that sidewalk steps out

at that place.

It seems like like such an

aberration particularly on possibly the most important

block in downtown lexington for

the edge of the where of the

curb.

>> one thing we didn't ask is

the reasoning on that level of

the main street exit.

I mean you exz plained why it

takes the cafe away but the actual exit from the courtyard.

>> by way of background, that was, we thought it was going to

be a starbucks and we talked about all excited.

They since renewed down the street that's no longer an issue.

When the space became available at that point in time we looked

at doing this. A lot of the jut out and

sidewalk conditions were

dictated by traffic and building inspections.

We were concerned about cars edging out hitting a pedestrian

who might be walking down the

street. There is still private

properties there so we have the ability to control the traffic

in terms of short cutting

through there the fire department liked it because they

could take the truck straight

through as opposed to maneuvering. These were all pretty well

thought through and the sidewalk

cafe was a nice thought but

again I think it would be preferable to have the access,

particularly after you check out the other requests that we

received about parking in the

garage was 21 c, trying to run

all the way to redeem their vehicles.

We added another elevator at the southwest corner across from 21

c to accommodate task and we will be going to the old

courthouse to visit once it

opens a lot of thought has been going into this with a lot of people.

This is a arey leaf artery and

one -- rereceive artery. You get get your lug amg and go

on out. I think everybody was appeased.

The good news about the traffic arrangement, it has been blessed

by both the state and the local

traffic folks and that was the

vetting process.

We have had numerous meetings to

get that done.

The expert is here but he is

working with the designated

official they've gotten their instructions and they have a

vision, too.

So it's good.

We are looking at pavers, changing materiality, the

elevation change when you come

off vine to the courtyard to the

dropoff area you won't be able to continue your same speed.

Have you to slow down there is the traffic calming measures so

it probably will be as in convenient to cut through there

as it would be to wait for the

light on vine and limestone.

We are now nksk.

We have the drawings and are

going to mirror what was being

done.

Other questions and comments?

All right.

I think we have worked our way through basically the entire

list of modifications and asked questions.

There is, I would give opportunity again for the

applicant to, based upon that if there are any other comments

that they had to make it to the

board before we put this to a

motion? Okay.

I have some notes on a potential

motion you are usually pretty good at making sure we include

everything with the right

language.

>> I think we need to agree among ourselves what conditions

will be.

Right now this is sort of just a

recap, a recap and so. >> one of the first things to

discuss would be the variable heights because we have had a

lot of discussion on that.

I would like to get your guys input with the variable height

with the three buildings that are proposed.

>> I mean I think it's reasonable to add a condition

that says that if the final configuration of the building

doesn't match the buildings as

rendered in this submital there

would be further submital dealing with the final

configuration of the buildings

at their actual height. >> I'm fine with that.

>> sounds like the owner is okay

with that, too let's go ahead and add that as a condition on

the back.

And men maybe a good way to do that is to go through it quickly

if there is a condition that is needed to be applied.

We've dealt with that.

The office building modification

to the elevations we've dealt

with, any other conditions that

you would see need to be added

for that?

>> I think the design review officers listing include items

that the probably should be

conditions, for example,

regarding the added pedestrian entrance oorks I'm sorry,

regarding the addition of

vehicular exit only lane on the

main street a condition might be

that the project accommodates

clear access, am will walk zone to the court dwrard and ensure

main street keeps consistent

streetscape edge along with

material change. >> we were starting up here.

I agree with that.

But I was trying to just go through this to make sure we

check everything off the list.

Basically yofortd r beyond what

is number two do we have any modification or conditions

important modifications other

than the variability number four.

This has to do with the extended

stay elimination of the upper

floor setback, the reduced

number of balconies and the

added vertical articulation at the corner.

>> I would like to add an

addition here that the corner at

the above the rusticated base further articulated with an

element that projects further out from the base of the building.

>> so let's add that as a condition.

If that's good I think number

four is checked off.

Number five variability we've addressed of the height.

Number six is the reallocation

in the office building I think

that is linked to the variability.

Check that off you went through a condition that had to do with

the added lane. >> I think we just...

>> on main street and I think we

used wrappedy's language there. >> added exit only acceptable as

long as project accommodated

clear pedestrian access, clear walk zone from the sidewalk to

the courtyard.

I think is the applicant works

together with the design officer

to assure that those are

requirements are met and that with the appropriate offices and

you've done that with traffic we are going to make sure that goes

through the design office obviously with the conditions

that, you know, from a legal standpoint if it needs to come

back before the board because it was very significant but if not,

a signage or something like that

to make it clear, you know,

obviously leave that at their discretion.

And also ensure main street keeps consistent streetscape

along the edge with material

change that both pedestrians and vehicles of potential conflict

again working with the design

officer and with the appropriate

other entities out there. I think with those conditions

added we are done with that one.

Addition of a third reversible

ramp the recommendations are

added ramp will reduce public sidewalk space and added ramp

would result in inadequate parking. Discussion items.

I would put the condition again that you work with the design

officer and the appropriate

other boards and entities to assure that the pedestrian

traffic is accounted for and you know, met.

How we are going to verbally put

that I would leave graham to glm

if you can step up to the microphone so we can be sure

that the comments get accounted for.

>> I was just saying that the

design is construction drawings

at this point in time, the

contractor to go ahead and build

the garage, get the rest of it and the speed ramp so we are

going to have to define and

clearly specify if that is going to be triple lane.

We want to work with you, do whatever it takes to make it

safe for the pedestrians and I'm assuming between chase and the

landscape architects and joe, we

will be able to get there. But time will be somewhat

pressing on that part of it. >> sure.

>> I might add if this passes

you will not have to come back before the board.

You just work with me and the folks around the table yesterday.

>> that's good and grave concerns about the traffic on

main street is that we will be working with billy and the

traffic on that because they have very specific requirements

about the pedestrian safety on

main street.

We are trying to accommodate your needs by allowing you to

work with the design off where

it is appropriate and legally is

appropriate as well. And when we are talking about

the other area, the traffic and

all those, you know, traffic

isn't under our juries -- jurisdiction.

Did you have additional comment or did we come up with some sort

of condition on that?

>> I think brandy's whrissing on number one addresses the issues

we want to address and I think they could be made conditions

and essentially encapsulate what we have been talking about.

And for your benefit, it is

ensure adequate space along all

frontages to matching

streetscape design for matching blocks, you guys have largely done that.

We are making sure that is in there so when you move forward

if we give conditional approval, then you can work with the

design officer where appropriate if there is some small

modifications to make those.

Provide matching landscape tree

wells, rain gardens main upper

and limestone to adjacent blocks

ensure streetscape design retains a six foot clear

pedestrian walk zone adjacent to the amenity strip or next to

building fronts, provide expanded sidewalks where

possible to provide space for

sidewalk cafe seating and all

street state components approved

by the department of public

works and environmental quality commissioner's office.

Those are the last conditions on

number nine we need to come up with verbage that encapsulates

all of this. Do we have a way to capture this

if it is not written down.

>> record it.

Mr. Chair regarding case

number 4-2012, at 100 woaft main

street, I move approve the

amendment and the reissuance of

the authorization permit to

include the office tower height

changes extended stay building height changes, hotel height

changes, modified office facade

design, modified extended stay facade design and elimination of

the eight-foot setback added

exit only vehicular exit on to

main street, added third ramp to

garage on vine street, and

streetscape components to match

or complement existing with town branch commons with the

following conditions.

One that in the event that the

office hotel or extended stay

buildings will be built to

height not depicted in the renderings submitted in the

proposal that those new designs

would be resubmitted for the

board's consideration the

cornice line at the approximately sixth floor

elevation on the extended stay

office building be articulated more aggressively perhaps

extended out.

I would say extended out further from the facade front face of

the building three that for the

exit only lane on to main street

that that the changes

accommodate clear pedestrian

access walk zone and that main street, that the proposal

ensures that main street keeps a consistent streetscape along the

edge with material changes that

warn pedestrians and vehicles of

potential conflict maybe you can fill that in as we go along and

then the following conditions

related to to the streetscapes

and town branch commons this May be less a condition than

encouragement that the ramps be

considered on a conceptual level

as openings in a park rather

than as ramps to a parking garage. I think that is an important

distinction and the following

conditions one that the changes

ensure adequate space along all

frontages to provide streetscape

design to adjacent blocks that they provide matching

landscaping tree wells rain gardens limestone to the

adjacent blocks.

They ensure streetscape design retains a minimum straight fix

foot adjacent to the amenity

strip and they provide expanded sidewalks where possible to

provide additional space for

sidewalk cafe seating ensure the town branch commons accommodate

add long vine street and finally

that all streetscape components be coordinates and approved by

the department of public or environmental quality

commissioner's office.

A point of clarification, the

expectation is that the owners

will work work with with the

design review officers

particularly with the conditions relates to the entry lane on to

main street and the streetscape

issues.

Any other conditions to add?

>> just clarification.

So relative to all the points that were just made, what we are

saying is that they go to the

design review officers other

than for vairable height at which point they would come back

before us.

>> that's right.

>> and... I would just request from legal I always like to ask

all the conditions that we put

forth that they work with on

that are okay. Okay, great.

Based upon the motion put forth,

I would like to ask do I have a motion to approve?

Move to approve.

>> do I have a second?

>> second.

All those in favor say aye. >> aye.

>> motion approved.

And let's look at... Hold on that takes care of all the cases

that have been put before us.

I need a motion to adjourn.

>> I move that we adjourn. All those in favor?

Aye. Approved.

That concludes the court area

design review board