# Courthouse Area Design Review Board - November 9, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 9, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4109 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4109?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-11-09 - **Last revised**: November 9, 2016 - **Length**: 16,314 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 Courthouse Area Design Review Board convened on November 9, 2016, at 2:00 PM in the Council Chamber at the LFUCG Center, 200 East Main Street, with Luther Andal presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed seven agenda items during the session, including administrative matters and multiple design review cases for downtown Lexington properties. All seven items brought before the board were approved, with the board taking seven votes throughout the meeting. The session included one public comment period, allowing community input on the matters under consideration. The meeting's business encompassed both routine administrative tasks and substantive design review cases. The board first handled procedural matters by approving the minutes from their August 10, 2016 meeting and establishing their 2017 meeting schedule. The majority of the session focused on reviewing design proposals for various downtown properties, including cases for Parlay Social at 249 W. Short Street, Harvey's at 200 W. Main Street, and properties at 135 W. Main Street and 275 W. Main Street. Notably, the board also revisited Case No. 4-2012 concerning the CentrePointe development at 100 W. Main Street, indicating ongoing oversight of this significant downtown project. The unanimous approval of all agenda items suggests the design proposals met the board's standards for the courthouse area's architectural and aesthetic requirements. The meeting demonstrated the board's active role in maintaining design standards within Lexington's historic downtown core, balancing new development and renovation projects with preservation of the area's character. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on November 9, 2016: **Present:** • Luther Andal • Graham Pohl • Martin Summers • Kevin Atkins • Jordan Parker • Brandi L. Peacher • Tracey Jones • Jim Duncan • Donna Lewis • Michael Ades • Dudley Webb • Ralph Coldiron • Taylor French • Dana Rector • Kim Bragg • Bob Estes • Avena Joyce • Jackson Osborne • Caren Caton All 19 members were present for the meeting. No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted seven votes during the meeting, all of which passed unanimously with four members present: Graham Pohl, Martin Summers, Kevin Atkins, and Jordan Parker. **Administrative Items** [timestamp: 00:30] The board approved the August 10, 2016 minutes on a motion by Kevin Atkins, seconded by Graham Pohl. The vote was 4-0. [timestamp: 01:30] Graham Pohl moved to approve the 2017 CADRB Meeting Schedule, with Martin Summers providing the second. The motion passed 4-0. **Authorization Permits** [timestamp: 20:00] **Case No. 4-2016** for 249 W. Short St (Parlay Social) was approved on a motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Kevin Atkins. The 4-0 approval included the condition that the owner develop an awning-like screening device for the exhaust fan. [timestamp: 40:00] **Case No. 5-2016** for 200 W. Main St (Harvey's) passed 4-0 on Graham Pohl's motion, seconded by Martin Summers. The approval required the client to replace one-over-one window units with six-over-six units to match remaining windows. [timestamp: 60:00] **Case No. 6-2016** for 135 W. Main St was approved without conditions. Martin Summers made the motion, Graham Pohl seconded, and the vote was 4-0. [timestamp: 80:00] **Case No. 7-2016** for 275 W. Main St passed 4-0 on Graham Pohl's motion, seconded by Martin Summers. The approval included the condition to ensure the transparent character of storefront glass is retained. [timestamp: 100:00] **Case No. 4-2012** for 100 W. Main Street (CentrePointe) was approved 4-0 on Graham Pohl's motion, seconded by Kevin Atkins. The condition required owners to work with the Design Review Officer regarding final designs. All votes were unanimous with the same four board members voting in favor on each motion. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the board during the public comment period. Kim Bragg spoke regarding the exhaust fan at Parlay Social [timestamp: 30:00]. Bragg suggested disguising the appearance of the exhaust fan through the use of artwork as a potential solution to address its visual impact. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated heated discussion among participants. **Exhaust Fan Installation at Parlay Social** A substantial debate arose regarding the proposed exhaust fan installation at Parlay Social on Market Street. The discussion centered on concerns about both the visual and noise impact the installation would have on the surrounding area. Participants engaged in significant discussion about how the exhaust fan would affect the streetscape and whether the noise generated by the equipment would create disturbances for nearby businesses and residents. The visual impact on Market Street's appearance was also a key point of contention during the deliberations. The extracted data does not specify the particular individuals involved in the debate or the final outcome of the discussion regarding this exhaust fan installation proposal. ## Approval of the August 10, 2016 minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The board reviewed the minutes from their August 10, 2016 meeting for approval. Kevin Atkins and Graham Pohl participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The minutes were presented to the board members for their review and consideration. Following their examination of the document, the board moved to approve the minutes as presented. The minutes from the August 10, 2016 meeting were approved by the board. ## Approval of 2017 CADRB Meeting Schedule [timestamp: 01:30] The board reviewed and approved the proposed meeting schedule for 2017 during this agenda item. Graham Pohl and Martin Summers served as the key speakers for this discussion. The board examined the proposed dates and timing for CADRB meetings throughout the upcoming year. The meeting schedule represents an important administrative function that ensures regular board operations and compliance with meeting requirements. Following the presentation and review of the 2017 meeting calendar, the board voted to approve the proposed schedule. The resolution passed, establishing the official meeting dates for the California Architectural Design Review Board for 2017. This approval allows the board to proceed with scheduling and planning for the upcoming year's activities and ensures that all stakeholders have advance notice of when meetings will be held. ## Case No. 4-2016, 249 W. Short St, Parlay Social [timestamp: 20:00] The commission reviewed Case No. 4-2016, an application for modifications at 249 W. Short St for Parlay Social. The request involved changing the existing vent hood exhaust fan to accommodate fried food preparation at the establishment. Key speakers during the discussion included Bob Estes and Graham Pohl, who presented details about the proposed ventilation system modifications. The application focused specifically on upgrading the exhaust capabilities to meet requirements for preparing fried foods, which would require enhanced ventilation compared to the current setup. The commission evaluated the technical specifications of the proposed vent hood changes and their compliance with applicable codes and regulations. The discussion centered on ensuring the new exhaust system would adequately handle the increased demands of fried food preparation while maintaining proper ventilation standards for the building and surrounding area. Following review of the application materials and discussion of the proposed modifications, the commission approved Case No. 4-2016. The approval allows Parlay Social to proceed with the vent hood exhaust fan changes necessary to expand their food preparation capabilities to include fried items. ## Case No. 5-2016, 200 W. Main St, Harvey's [timestamp: 40:00] The board reviewed Case No. 5-2016, an application for 200 W. Main St, Harvey's, to replace existing windows with clad-wood SDL (simulated divided light) windows. Key speakers during the discussion included Avena Joyce and Graham Pohl, who presented details about the proposed window replacement project. The application involved replacing the current windows at Harvey's restaurant location with new clad-wood windows featuring simulated divided light patterns. The board examined the specifications and design of the proposed replacement windows to ensure they would be appropriate for the historic character of the building and surrounding area. The clad-wood SDL windows were evaluated for their compatibility with the existing architectural style and their compliance with applicable preservation standards. Following the presentation and discussion of the application details, the board approved Case No. 5-2016, allowing the property owner to proceed with the window replacement project as proposed. The approval permits the installation of the clad-wood SDL windows at the 200 W. Main St location. ## Case No. 6-2016, 135 W. Main St [timestamp: 60:00] The board reviewed Case No. 6-2016 for 135 W. Main St, which involved an application for the addition of an exterior steel canopy, LED lighting, and custom signage to the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Chris Wilson and Graham Pohl, who presented details about the proposed modifications to the building's exterior. The application encompassed three main components: the installation of a steel canopy structure, the addition of LED lighting elements, and the placement of custom signage. The board examined the proposed changes to determine their compliance with local regulations and design standards. The discussion focused on how these exterior modifications would impact the building's appearance and integration with the surrounding area along West Main Street. Following their review and discussion of the application materials and presentations, the board approved Case No. 6-2016. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the installation of the exterior steel canopy, LED lighting system, and custom signage as outlined in their application. ## Case No. 7-2016, 275 W. Main St [timestamp: 80:00] The board reviewed Case No. 7-2016 for 275 W. Main St, which involved an application for the addition of a retail storefront on the ground floor of the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Kim Bragg and Graham Pohl, who presented details about the proposed retail addition. The application focused on modifying the existing structure to accommodate commercial retail space at street level. The board ultimately approved the application for the retail storefront addition at 275 W. Main St. *Note: Additional details about specific concerns raised, design elements discussed, or conditions of approval were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## Case No. 4-2012, 100 W. Main Street, CentrePointe [timestamp: 100:00] The council reviewed Case No. 4-2012 concerning an application for amendment to and re-issuance of the Authorization Permit for the CentrePointe development at 100 W. Main Street. The application sought approval to alter building heights and facade designs for the project. Key speakers during the discussion included Michael Ades and Dana Rector, who presented details regarding the proposed modifications to the existing permit. The case involved changes to the architectural specifications that had been previously approved for the CentrePointe development. The council considered the application for amendments to the Authorization Permit, which would allow for alterations to both the building heights and facade designs from what was originally approved. These modifications represented updates to the development plans for the prominent downtown location. Following the presentation and discussion of the proposed changes, the council approved the application. The approval allows for the re-issuance of the Authorization Permit with the requested amendments to building heights and facade designs for the CentrePointe project at 100 W. Main Street. --- ## 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): Approval of Authorization Permit for 249 W. Short St, Parlay Social - **Case No. 5-2016** — passed (4-0): Approval of Authorization Permit for 200 W. Main St, Harvey’s - **Case No. 6-2016** — passed (4-0): Approval of Authorization Permit for 135 W. Main St - **Case No. 7-2016** — passed (4-0): Approval of Authorization Permit for 275 W. Main St - **Case No. 4-2012** — passed (4-0): Approval of Authorization Permit for 100 W. Main Street, CentrePointe --- ## Full transcript anyone I hadn't done much and Lynn talked to me and offered me a seat on the board. So that was very special to me that, you know, frankly, before I had done anything, really met hardly anyone, you know, that Lynn saw something and asked me to be on the board. So for starters, I mean, it'll always be near and dear to me, no matter what the next day is, next step is. But being part of this capital campaign and then as I've seen with other investments or even with certain things at the ballpark, when you get a chance to see Everything from the, hey, what if phase to the literally seeing the kids there and everything going up and the first storefront that's going to be put up there and the first bus that takes kids there. You know, I mean, it really is incredibly special to see that and to envision what it will be like, because when you talk about legacy, that's for all of Lexington. I mean, that's for all of all of the kids that are going to be going to this because it genuinely is. It's a life lesson. And it's going to make our community stronger that these young kids, I mean, to talk to kids anymore that are in the early grades that are taking math that we were taking in high school and college, I mean, it's crazy what these kids are being exposed to so early. And the evolution of JA has gone from, you may not remember this, making things at night, making items, and then going out and selling them. Okay. And that's... A little business. It was crazy that that happened. And then volunteers would come in, but that's still going to be happening this day? Oh, it's still going to be going on. Yeah, because it's only for fifth and eighth grade to come to the facility. So we'll still have volunteers going to the classroom at the younger level, still maybe at the seventh grade level to teach financial literacy, and then on the high school level to get into more career development and workforce development. And how many volunteers do you need every year in Fayette County? We usually have, and this is total, but we usually have around 375 to 400 volunteers who do things. That's a lot of people that are giving their time, unplugging from work for an hour, and to come in to help these kids. To get volunteers, do you want to give your website and maybe the phone number if people want to contact you to help out? Sure. It's www.jalexington.org. And then the phone number is 219-2423. In the last couple of minutes, what are the biggest challenges that you need help with right now? Well, one of the things we did want to mention is we've got our bowl-a-thon coming up. Oh, good. The end of October. That's a big deal. Yeah, and Andy usually has a couple of teams and does great on his own. But we love people. You have your own ball. What's the point of bowling if you're not going to win, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, but it's a great fundraiser for us. We have companies who they'll have teams of five. It's fun, yeah. It's a lot. You've done it. Yeah, you've done it before. And so when people go check out the website, we'd like them to also check out and see our bowl of five is 28th and 29th. Of October. Of October. And it's fun. Yeah. And we've got like a three to five and a seven to nine on Friday. and then a 3 to 5 time frame on, I'm sorry, Friday and then Saturday. And it's at Southland Lanes? Southland, yeah, on Southland Drive. And let's get the website again because that's a big deal. We want people to come out and bowl. Sure, jalexington.org. Okay, and you want to give the phone number for that as well? Sure, 219-2423. Gosh, I memorized that phone number for me. Many, many years is dialing in automatically. Well, thank you for heading this project up. It sounds really fun. But in and of itself, what JA does to go into the classrooms to prepare kids for financial literacy is a big deal. To take it to the next step and put it into practice, these kids must be excited as anything to be doing that. I think so. Linda, great to see you again. Thank you, Paul. Appreciate it. And Andy, thank you for your five kids and for all you've done for JA. Thank you. Appreciate that, Paul. Thanks. I'm Paul Chartier. We'll be right back on Heart of Gold. Thank you. Music Music Music Music Music Music Hi, welcome back. I'm Paul Chartier. The Curious Edge, Kimberly Hudson and Olivia Brewer. Welcome. Thank you. Two lovely ladies. Thank you. We're going to talk about a serious topic and Kimberly, if you want to start kind of lay the groundwork about what we're going to talk about tonight. We're going to talk about dyslexia, which affects one in five people, which is a pretty astounding statistic. And our students have an average to above average IQ, but they don't learn like their peers do, so they often fall through the cracks in the schools because they don't qualify for special ed services, and they shouldn't, but they also are struggling, and their teachers usually are thinking there's something that just doesn't quite work, but I can't put my finger on it. I've tried everything in my bag of tricks. They're hard workers. They're very compliant, and they want to get the job done, but they just need tools to be able to do that a little differently. You can't see it. There's no bandages involved. But one out of five is an astounding number. It is astounding. There are red flags, thankfully. So we have markers and we have ways to be able to allow teachers to know just simple things for parents. If a child's struggling to learn to tie their shoes, if they're struggling with right versus left, if they struggle memorizing the alphabet, spelling their name, writing the letters of the alphabet, getting that on paper, struggle memorizing their address. Those are really early indicators. Olivia, you're brave to come on and talk about this. Is this something that you normally do share with people that you've got dyslexia and you are okay to talk about it? Yeah, I feel like as I've learned about the issues that I struggle with, I feel like I want to be very open with other people because it's not something to be ashamed of. Good for you. I mean, because like she said, the majority of people who have dyslexia are very, very smart people. It's just that our brains work in a different way. I think that that's something that a lot of people need to be able to understand. What I'd like to do is to talk a little bit about how you grew up and how you kind of struggled and then discovered that something was going on because there will be people watching that are thinking, that's me, that's what I have, I need to get some help. So talk about what happened to you. So growing up, I always knew that there was something a little bit off about the way that I learned. I had to work three or four times harder than my peers did to do the exact same task, which was really frustrating for me in elementary school and middle school because it made me very under-motivated as a student because I knew that things were going to be more difficult for me, so I would choose not to do them, which caused me to fall behind in schoolwork. But my grades never really suffered for the most part, but it was really, really frustrating for me. And then as I got into high school, the work became a lot more difficult, and so I wasn't able to compensate for my issue. And so then I decided to talk to my parents. And there had been a couple of signs that my parents had noticed and teachers had noticed, but nothing really significant or that anyone really thought was that would lead to a larger issue or that was a sign for a larger issue. And so then I talked to my parents about it, and we decided to go talk to my pediatrician. And what grade was this? My junior year of high school. So I was in 11th grade. So this was just last year. And so we opened a dialogue with my pediatrician to figure out what our next steps could be to find a solution for the problems that I was dealing with. So I was unable to spell words correctly because I couldn't hear different sounds or individual sounds. And I wasn't able to read as quickly as other people. I was a very slow reader. And just issues of that nature. And so then we talked to my pediatrician who recommended a psychologist who then tested me for dyslexia and ADHD and those sorts of issues. And then I found out that I was dyslexic. And then she recommended the Curious Edge where I started doing programs like Brain Boost and IM, which is a program that plays these different kinds of sounds and rhythms and beats where you have to coordinate the motions of your body to the beat that you hear so it connects your brain to your hands and your feet to sort of open that pathway. So we did those sorts of programs, which really, really helps me a lot. When you were growing up, you were probably very frustrated and you didn't know what was going on. Other than the schoolwork and maybe spelling and reading, did it manifest itself in other ways? I feel like it did. I overall felt very self-conscious if I had to talk in front of other people. I think it made me a little bit more reserved and introverted because I was worried about how I would appear to other people. because I just doubted myself and how articulate I was and that sort of thing because I couldn't process information as quickly as I thought that I should, and so my mouth would just move a lot faster than my brain would. And so I felt very self-conscious in front of other people. What flipped the switch to enable you to be you? I definitely think the programs at the Curious Edge really helped me. And also, they helped me with my issues, but also they allowed me to become more confident and understand that this is an issue that I struggle with, but it's not something that I should be ashamed of. It's not an issue. It's just a part of me. And so then I could embrace that and understand that that's just another aspect of me. and then I could, you know, then be myself in front of other people and just understand, okay, I might not process things as quickly, but that doesn't mean that I don't know. Everybody has their issues. Everybody. You can't tell by looking at people what's going on, and yours happens to be that. And you know what? So what? You're working hard and you're overcoming it, so good for you. Thank you. So what happens at the Curious Edge? Well, we are able to work with the students. we can do a diagnosis, which that needs to be a medical doctor, a psychologist, or a speech-language pathologist. And that's really important to have that certified specialist to be able to do that diagnosis because you're really looking at neurologically what's going on with them. They are very bright, but you need to be able to see what are their discrepancies, where are the gaps, so that you can give them those tools. If they don't know the sound that a letter makes to be able to, I call it, program that code so that they're able to do that and they can connect the dots because they are really bright. They're lacking some tools in their toolbox. And it affects so many areas of their life, like she said, their confidence. It spills over into other areas, and we want to be able to build that esteem. And as they gain confidence in their academic abilities, you see that confidence just in there, the way they articulate and communicate with others. How many students that you work with? Do you work with adults as well? We work with students. We work with adults. Adults, the literacy rates are just staggering when you really know how many adults in the United States are unable to read. And we have nearly one in five high school graduates that graduate that cannot read. and if they're not reading proficiently by third or fourth grade the likelihood of them dropping out of school just skyrockets and and that's that's a huge issue but but we do work with adults as well the foundation was just to be able to take what we were doing in our clinic and get it out to the public take it to the public schools take it to organizations that were working with students so that we could empower them and and help them to do something that was more effective than what they were trying to do. How many students do you work with on an annual basis? We have a couple hundred that we work with within our office, but then we've been able to expand that since the foundation started to take that out to the schools, and hopefully we'll see a ripple effect in that. Let's give your website and phone number so people can contact you. Sure. It is www.thecuriousedge.com, And our phone number is 859-899-3343. And there it is. Do you expect people just to knock on your door and walk into your office, or do you want them to call? I mean, do people just walk in? We have some people that walk in. A lot of parents call. I encourage moms. The common thread that I see with lots of moms is they had a gut feeling. Their intuition said early on, there's something that's not right with my child. and they were begging for information and they didn't know what it was. We would love to see students earlier than Olivia because she did have to work so hard. And so if we can get them before their high school years, we can help give them those tools. But we can also help make sure they get accommodations, which will help them in high school and help them when they're taking the ACT and going on into college. You're a senior at Lafayette. How are you doing? I'm doing really well. I'm a lot more confident in myself and in the school work that I'm doing. I'm taking the ACT prep classes at the Curious Edge to prepare me for the college that I want to go to. I'm really excited about it. To ask a young person what they want to major in, it's unfair, but some people kind of have an idea. Do you have an idea? I really would like to major in biology. And do what with that? I would love to, well I want to go to college and then I would love to go to medical school. to become a gynecologist and then I'd really love to work with Doctors Without Borders to work with women's health education. There is something wrong with you. What kid wants to do that? That's great. Any colleges in mind right now? I'm looking at Ole Miss, so that's my number one college right now. And Kimberly, what provisions do colleges have when kids come in with dyslexia? What can they do for them? As long as they have that diagnosis, they can provide them accommodations. They can give them extended time on testing, help them get their notes, help them be able to get their textbooks and have that read aloud to them. So it's just an extension of what's provided in high school if they know what's going on. You talked about your confidence. what were you like before with with school work and your friends and what what is it like right now um i feel like before i um learned that i had dyslexia i think that i was a lot more introverted than i am now and that could have been just lack of maturity being younger than i am now but um i also feel like i was just so there was something about me that i couldn't quite figure out what it what it was there's something that I knew wasn't quite right and I couldn't put my finger on it and I think that was really um frustrating and upsetting for me especially being a lot younger when there was just something that you couldn't figure out and so now that I know what that is I'm able to you know be myself 100% that I know you know everything there is to know about me and I think that really makes me feel um really good so yeah is dyslexia because I know you have a little sister, is it hereditary or how does it... It is. It's genetic. There are genetic markers and so if a student is dyslexic, their mom or dad one is dyslexic. Okay. We just know how to identify it better now than we did a generation ago. In the last couple minutes, put a plea out to families about maybe what things to look for and don't be shy about calling your phone number. Well, the big thing is I often hear parents of younger kids say, well, my child's reading okay, but by the third or the fourth grade, their comprehension just drops. Well, it's dropping because they're working so hard to decode the word. They don't have the extra energy to be able to comprehend at the same time. And so if you have that worry that there's, or you just watch your child working really hard, they spend hours working to study for their spelling test or just study for a test, but the outcome does not at all reflect the time put in, make a call because it could be they just need some tools. Let's give the phone number again. 859-899-3343. What my takeaway is that you've got nothing to be ashamed of. She's amazing. You can overcome it. Get over the barrier, accept who you are, and you'll be a freer, happier, more confident person with the world at your tail. You can do whatever you want to do. Olivia, thank you for your bravery in coming on and sharing this because it will have an impact on other people in Fayette County, and all it does, it makes people better. So thank you for doing that. And Kimberly, thank you for corralling Olivia and finding her and making this a better city as well. Thank you. I'm Paul Chartier. Get on the website. If you think your child has a problem, it's nothing to be ashamed of. You could do something about it. Thanks for watching Heart of Gold. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. of business is to ask about an approval of the August 10, 2016 minutes. And if the board can take a look at that, and then when somebody is ready, if we can get a motion to approve those minutes. All right, we have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. All All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Motion passes. Third item on the agenda is the 2017 Court Area Design Review Board meeting schedule. That is included in your packet. There were four meeting dates, February 8th, May 10th, August 9th, November 8th. Once the board is ready, if I could get a motion to approve unless there was discussion that was needed. All right. I'll move to approve the meeting dates for 2017. All right. So we have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Motion approved. All right, so we have no postponements or withdrawals. Okay, so that is item four on your agenda. We can mark that one off. So, wow, four items knocked off one in a row. That brings us then to the application of authorization permits. So the first item underneath the applications for authorization permits is case number 4, 2016. And I would ask Brandi if you can go ahead and just give us a summary. That would be great. Sorry about that. So we're looking at case number 4, 2016, which is for 249 West Short Street. The applicant is Bob Estes. and the applicant has indicated the desire to replace the existing exhaust fan with an up-blast wall-mounted exhaust ventilator facing out onto Market Street. He has indicated that this type is required for the preparation of fried foods, which is desired to expand their menu for their bar and restaurant. The design submitted looking at the International Mechanical Code meets the minimum requirements that are set before us of 10 feet horizontal clearance from any air intake openings into any building, 10 feet vertical clearance from the sidewalk. So I've included in your design packet a little diagram that explains the typical, just a standard application, just so you can understand there are requirements. However, there's a lot more that needs to be thought through on applications like this. The placement of the exhaust ventilator on Market Street, I met with the applicant and we discussed it's not necessarily the preferred location as Market Street is a highly active corridor with pedestrians. You have a pavilion adjacent to this. It is also trafficked due to a historic neighborhood immediately adjacent to the Gratz Park area. And the design itself does project out into that right-of-way, so you do see it from all of those points of view and walking by. Additionally, we do understand from experiencing these in other places is that you do get smells and grease sometimes, but if maintained properly, that should not be an issue as far as its appearance goes from a maintenance standpoint. However, I think that we agree that the pedestrian experience on Market Street would be affected by something like this, and the preferred alternative would be to go to the roof or to the side of the building. But speaking with the applicant, he identified some key issues and constraints that have allowed him to come to this conclusion for the application you have before you. So I'll go over those quickly. And the roof installation would require roof access for the exhaust fan through a fire-rated chase, which does not exist today. So that would have to penetrate through the office on the second floor and through a residential unit on the third floor and then through the membrane of the rooftop. So this system, this approach was physically and budget-wise a constraint for the applicant that we addressed. The other alternative is a side and rear wall installation. So there is an alley that is shared behind the building. I think Dudley's has some mechanical equipment back there and Parley Social has all of their mechanical equipment today on that rear facade in the alley. And so there are some pictures in the design review packet that illustrate where that's located, and it's very heavily utilized right now with other mechanical systems. And so due to the need to have a make-up air unit, that would be the placement of the make-up air unit on this side of the wall, adjacent to the other mechanical units that are in place. So the applicant has identified this as a constraint due to the fact that the air exhaust, you would kind of defeat the purpose with air exhaust immediately adjacent to the air intake, and with a limited square footage on the elevation posed a constraint, therefore leading to what they've submitted for their application. So with these site constraints in mind, the submitted application shows the preferred location from the applicant's standpoint. So speaking to the guidelines, as far as its location, it does not necessarily go along with Guidelines 215, which is to develop the ground floor as a pedestrian activity zone, as it would deter from that. And the Guidelines 2.22 recommends minimizing the visual impact by placing them away from the public right away. But since the constraints were identified by the applicant and this is the approach that they are pursuing, it does meet two of the guidelines that I've listed in the report, which is 2.23, which is to minimize the visual impacts of the utility connections by locating them on a secondary wall. So Market Street is the secondary wall for this facility. Short Street would be the primary facade. And so they have at least placed it to the rear or the far end of that secondary wall. Secondly, design guideline 2.24, it says to locate service equipment as to not damage the historic facade. And so cutting channels or holes like this for ventilation, if there's a way to utilize existing openings, then that is preferred because you're not damaging the facade any farther. And there already exists an exhaust fan, and they're utilizing that same location for the new proposal. So I would offer the board to discuss this further, but I would recommend approval for this authorization permit as stated by the applicant. Thank you. I'd like to ask the applicant at this time to go ahead and present their case. I want to use this to go through your presentation. I can. Chris, can this go to full screen so it's getting everything? Is this a presentation within the PDF? Yes, it's that one. No, that's it. If you go up, that's the beginning of the presentation. Thank you. This is an overview page. My name is Bob Estes. I'm the owner of 249 West Short Street and the applicant. We came to this board four or five years ago, five years ago now, to gain access for the existing exhaust fan, which is for heat and steam, and actually blows more onto the sidewalk area than this will. So due to a change that we'd like to make, we'd like to include fried food in our menu, which necessitates this new exhaust fan. It's pretty much an industry standard, and it's similar to many in the area and around town. I have asked the building department to come out and verify the location that we have now that if it would suit for the new fan and they came out, Bob Carpenter came out and said yes, we could go in the same spot. The advantage to going in the same location is existing penetration, so we would replace the exhaust fan we have now with this one. You can see in this first picture, you know, it is an area that's traveled, but there is a little bit of industrial touch to it with the light pole there and those power lines that come into the building. It is tucked over that window you can see there towards the back. This is just a close-up to show you the vent. It's above the window there. This is the proposed. Let's see. I don't know if we're in between slides there. Can you move that one up a little bit? Can you slide that one up a bit? You know, I've got one addition to make to the package. I was going to talk about it on the drawing, but we can talk about it here. The existing fan is actually at 10 feet above the sidewalk, so the bottom where the penetration comes out of the wall there, That is actually 10 foot 3. I measured it today. So what I've attempted to do by including the 45 degree canter up is to add additional space beyond the 10 feet to try to provide as much space as I can to the pedestrian walk area there. This is one that's down the street at the Lexington Diner. I think they've been grandfathered in quite a while. they don't make the 10 feet but they have a plate below there I'm just showing that to show some other installations this one is wines on vine they canter levered it up as well to get the 10 feet we didn't have to do that to meet the 10 feet but I thought it would be something that we could do so the modification of this drawing would be the 10 feet would actually be at the lower penetration of the brick walls as described there in this drawing done by Brian Sheetmetal, who is probably the benchmark in installing these systems in the central Kentucky area, will be doing the work. And that's all I have. Any questions? All right. Okay. I'd like to also ask, is there any public comment at this point? Anybody like to make a public comment? Okay. And with that, then, we get to open the floor for discussion from the board. One point of clarification for you, and I'll just go ahead and ask this one real quick. That drawing says 10 feet to the cantilevered 45 degree. You're saying it's 10 feet to where that opening is currently? Yes, to the bottom of that opening. To the bottom of that. So that drawing, just for the sake of our discussion, is actually 10 feet would be to the bottom where it actually opens out through that wall. Correct. 10 foot 3, actually. Okay. Great. So we're exceeding the 10 foot clearance. Okay. I have a couple questions. Is the exterior-mounted fan a necessary feature of this kind of installation, or is there an option for a fan motor unit being to the interior? No, and I've asked that question. And from an airflow and functionality of the, what is it, the, I can't remember now, the measurement of airflow. Cubic feet per minute. CFM, yes, thank you. This is the standard, and to put something inside would create a negative exhaust event into the building. So this is pretty much the standard, and there are really variations to this across the country, across the world probably, on how this is actually accomplished. So presumably if you had one to the interior, you would have to provide some sort of exterior air source to make up the difference so that it didn't create that negative pressure? Well, it's not even that. We have make-up air anyway. I mean, we have to provide make-up air for this. It's just if the exhaust is not exterior of the building and doesn't function, it's more of a pull than it is a push. What I'm asking is not whether the exhaust could be, what I'm asking is whether the motor, which is in that large housing on the exterior, can be placed on the interior of the building with the exhaust going to the exterior. There's currently not a design. the motor is close to the fan system, and that's all mounted in the exterior. The other question I have is what is the challenge or the difficulty of reversing the exhaust with the supply? You've got a supply coming in from another location. Yes, the alley. I'll call it the alley side. the western side of that building. The challenge there, it's about a 10-foot wall, and it's populated now with seven air conditioner outdoor units, a walk-in cooler outdoor unit, and an ice machine outdoor unit. Those are going to have to be rearranged just to get the make-up air unit on it. So footprint-wise, to put the exhaust there, One, I would be immediately below the patio at Dudley's. Two, I would be so much proximity to equipment, I think I would have to relocate all those units somehow. It's just the landscape there has been populated, I think, the most efficient way I can. The makeup air is there now. For the type of Vennwood that I have, we use an opening there. That's going to have to be modified because the makeup air requirement for this is greater. So we'll have to put about a $5,000 piece of equipment over there to take care of that. Can the vent for the makeup air be seen in these photographs that we have of the alley? I haven't seen the pictures you have of the alley. It won't be. Did you provide those, Brandy? You know I didn't. It will be, but it will be on an existing grid that's there for the outdoor air conditioning units. Graham, here's another view standing underneath it. And is that the makeup area? Yeah, and so it would be taking up this entire space. This alley is really beyond an alley. It's more of an entrance to the back of my building as well as the common area to Dudley's. Can I ask a parallel question? Sure. So rather than flipping the two systems, is it possible to just duct through the alley and go up the external wall to the roof? Because the issue of going up internally is the fire rating shaft, right, through two properties. Yes. So is it possible to go up since you're going to rearrange the mechanical on the exterior anyway? There's not a lot of rearrangement. It's basically just moving two pieces of equipment that are this big over about a foot or two to put another piece on. I would have to take, I would have to disassemble and remove. The way it's populated now, it's from over the door all the way to the corner on two rows, which pretty much takes up all the mezzanine area in that floor. So, of course, anything's doable, but, you know, it would be relocating an outdoor unit. adding a lot of distance and cost. It's pretty much the same. I run up against the same problem with going through the building and interior floors. You know, it would still be quite a bit of cost. And honestly, I'm not sure which one would be easier. Both pose a lot of difficulties because of the outdoor equipment and then penetrating through the floors is pretty much a balance of complexity. I would imagine not going through the floors is the easier version. What's that? I would imagine not going through the floors is the easier version because it's a duct out. Well, you would think that. I don't know until you think about moving equipment, which have condensation lines and electrical power and all that. I don't really assess that. It's not a viable option for me. That's just not a viable option. So I think that one point of clarification that I just got is that even if you reverse those units according to the plans here, you're going to end up with a pretty good projection from the building regardless, at least according to those plans right there. So I think that needed to be specified as well. So it isn't just that reversing them, you just have a flush-mounted vent, right? Correct. There's actually a project. I mean, I'm going off of your plan, I mean, off of one of your plans, or diagram, sorry. And it shows a projection from the building for the air unit, the intake. Yes. So there's a projection. This is not the intake. This is the exhaust. Okay. The intake. Go ahead. Go ahead. So what Luther is referring to is in the design report that I supplied, and it's just a standard diagram that illustrates what a typical unit would have to have. And it's my understanding with talking with Bob that the current intake is just very small, but in order to supply enough intake for the new system, it will be a larger unit. The intake will be a larger unit placed on the alley side, correct? Yes. So it's not something that... In the same location as the existing one? Correct, but it will be larger. What I have now is about five feet of space on an existing I-beam structure. And you're underneath the air conditioner, right? There's one right over the top. And the existing opening for the return air is in the wall with a flat grill. It has a small motor on it because the requirement for makeup air is much less than what I have now. So the unit that goes in is at least these four chairs, at least this wide, and at least this tall. So it's going to be a snug fit to put in that opening there, which will require me to move a piece of equipment down. It's bigger than the exhaust fan. It has a heating system as well as a motor system that pulls the air in and pushes the air in as opposed to pulling it out. Hey, Chris, can we have you pull up, go up a couple pages, a few pages, a second page, essentially, of this document? Yeah, up. So that's his document. Okay, so does he have your document? Yes, keep going. Oh, keep going up. There you go. Do you want me to drive? They're up in the beginning of the document here. Okay. Okay. I don't know. What are they? Is there another drawing? I'll be happy to address it. Well, I just I can give you a copy to take a look at. I just wanted to make sure this is similar to what we're... I don't understand why you can't come out here and go up. I don't understand why you can't come out here. It's right over that. I mean, if you ducked across, we're coming out that and going out that way. We can't share it. You've got a door opening right there. I think he's right. You'd have to move some of this quick. I got you. So can you go ahead and just make those comments that you made up here because it wasn't on the mic just so that we have them on the record when you were making this drawing. So you've changed the drawing configuration slightly. which we can show. The only changes I made to the package that I submitted is to further define the 10-foot location. The makeup error was not part of the package. It's in a back alleyway and wasn't requested, so that's not been an issue. If the thought is to put that on the outside and reverse the system, it's much more egregious. in... I would say it's much more egregious in its aesthetics than what we proposed here. It's much more industrial and bigger. It would require an additional structure to hold it at that level. It's not something that can be mounted to the wall like this. This is a typical installation here. Okay. I think we're going to get a quick look so we have it on the record. Has anyone taken a look at decibel levels of noise of this relative to the existing unit? No. This will have no more decibel impact than any other units around it. But if nothing else, I would assume it would be less because it's a new unit. I think the difference in this case is it's a public sidewalk. as opposed to a kind of alley or edge building condition. So that's kind of a major street. And that's my concern about having it poking out the facade, and that's why I was asking if it's not simpler to duct it across and up to get it out of the air, the intake airflow, to get it above the roof line, because that's the ideal condition, right? That way you get 360 airflow on the unit and it's ejecting upwards. But as I understand what you're saying, Mr. Essies, the intake is actually a larger device than the... I'm not saying switch two systems. I'm saying allow both to go out the same wall, which is the alley, and allow the exhaust to go up the facade above the roof, which is ducting up and out as opposed to producing a fire-rated shaft in the interior, because that would solve two problems, right? It would get you the airflow you need at an additional cost of the extra run of the pipe, but it would also take a huge element off the main public street that's also going to produce noise and grease. I don't have a problem with the air intake at all, the way I have it as the plan to put it in. On the exhaust side, if you want to talk about that, I have an existing exhaust that has a motor inside the building that's three feet away. probably the sound is probably not going to be much different. As far as taking the exhaust out the back and up the wall to the roof, this building was built in 1889. Any penetrations I make are just another challenge as it goes. That would create two penetrations, one to a load-bearing three-brick wall interior and then to the back exterior wall. Right now, I don't have room to make that penetration through. Also, attachments through the back of the brick and up to the roof. And I don't know, we'd probably have to do another engineering study on the required motor to draw air for... Yeah. You're talking about an additional, let's see, 47, 30, 70, at least 70 feet of ductwork is what you're talking about adding there. That's what that equates to. With a 90 in it, which would add to it again. I mean, this will be a new unit to design and build to the newest standards. I can only imagine that the decibels and efficiencies are included in any of these designs. for manufacturers so this let's see this location on short street neighboring example that's Courtyard Deli you said that was uh that's a Lexington Diner which is on Short Street yep they're across from uh the old shorties yep so that that is an existing installation that is not projected upward um well it is it's not projected over they have that bottom plate on it to help it yeah This exhaust, I would estimate, would probably be, that unit is 25 inches from the base to the opening at the top of that bell. So at 10 feet plus a cantilever, you're talking about, I would estimate, 13 to 14 feet above the sidewalk where it exhausts and where the noise would be. All right. Other questions? So, Bob, to Graham and Marty's point, would you be willing to go back and look at pushing it to the interior alley? I won't do that. I'm not going to be able to spend the money it's going to take to do that. I know what that impact will be. So my answer is no. I'll stay with what I have if that's what it comes down to. which this is the impact of that. So we constantly are asked, do you have hamburgers? Do you have French fries? Do you guys cook steak? And we answer no because we have a low-impact grease operation. In addition to this vent and this exhaust system, I have another $8,000 in grease trap that will go along with this improvement. The concept is to develop Parley's reputation more on a food level than it is now. and to hopefully open for lunch, which is something we tried in the past but didn't have the menu that seemed to satisfy the customer. So the economic impact of something like this is obviously more revenue, more taxes, and another shift, which is more employees and overall growth of a business in the downtown. Let me have a public comment. Go ahead and come to the podium. In the spirit of... Go ahead, please state your name. Hi, I'm Kim Bragg. I'm an architect here in Lexington. In the spirit of if you can't fix it, feature it, could this be something that, along with all the other wall art downtown, that it could be painted to be something more sculptural? Well, I think that's a good question, as well as I would defer a little bit of that conversation to the board, and especially those with the expertise. Is there a way to, and I know with a fan you need air for it. It's pushing out, but is there a way to encapsulate it in such a way that it isn't as visible or it is visible, but it also enhances? Well, that was my first reaction to the document, was is there a way to maybe blend it in so that it becomes like the canopies adjacent to it, but the problem is airflow. And I think the more you do that, the more attention you call to it, which is the opposite problem. That's why I was trying to push it off the facade altogether because while I agree with the potential fiscal impact of this, the other problem is if this happens a thousand times in the city, then we're left with back alleys everywhere, and I'm not trying to put that on your project. I'm just asking the opposite question, which is as a public space, and we're trying to improve cityscape, that having this thing out there, even though there are others in the area, I just have a concern about it. My preference would be that it gets out of the way. Everybody starts to get them out of the way, right? Same way with the power lines, right? If we could get rid of those, that would be fantastic. Absolutely. And I'm in a project now to remove the light pole in front of Parley and go underground with power, and I'm paying for the pole myself. So I'm all about that. It's just in this situation, you know, there's a couple of things. We've already got one there. Not that that gives you a grandfather in or anything, but it's really restrictive to try to do it any other way. And as far as painting or creating art out of it, I'm all for that. Everybody knows that I would support that. Maybe there's a way to paint it to disappear. I don't know. I'd be more than happy to take that on. And Silver? Yeah. All right. Well, my concern is, from a visual standpoint, we're spending a lot of money at the courthouse right now. Long term, we don't know that that's going to be, for lack of a better term, a side street or an alley. I mean, that lot at some point most likely will be something, and then we would want it to be an active city street. So I would like to possibly take a look. Could it be made art somehow? But I don't know how we can make that decision today if we haven't seen the possibilities. I might make a proposal on that. We could make it a project for LexArts and have them organize some sort of a competition or use it as a group effort to come up with a design that could be brought back to this board for approval at some time in the future for a paint scheme. Unless there's another art organization in town, I'm all for help on that. Thank you. The only concern for that is it just draws more attention to it. Right. I have commissioned artists before to make things disappear, to make a building disappear into the background. And so that's a thought. I'm sure we can find that color paint and texture. I think there's a possibility that you could place an awning-like device immediately below it at the 10-foot elevation that would come out perpendicular to the facade and that would be supported on sort of raked fin-like elements on the sides of it. would have the effect of screening it visually, which is one of the guidelines specifically says that we should try to screen equipment. And so, you know, it seems like there probably would be a solution like that. You may still be able to see it when you're looking for it, but it wouldn't be, you know, the more obvious visual effect would be something that you're familiar with as being a protective device. Right. And, you know, I've seen in this picture that's up now kind of has an idea of that, with a metal plate below. I think they did that to meet less than 10 feet requirement, but obviously a metal like that could be used to maybe have wings on the side. It's just a matter of the airflow, and if it's up and out, putting wings around it would be. I mean, it's another thing. Does it draw more attention or not? Obviously, I understand that when you see it, it doesn't look like an exhaust fan then. I'm fine with that, and I think we could design that with the existing contractor and put some panels around it that would be the material that wouldn't pose a hazard with the grease or the function of the exhaust fan. And then we could try to paint those or not. I don't know. Randy, I have a question about that. Would it be feasible for us to approve the application conditional upon him? Mr. Estes is working with you to assess the feasibility of a screening-like awning device. and should you find that there is a solution that mitigates the visual effect that meets the requirements of the equipment and the owner and that you find to be acceptable. Is that something that we could do, legally speaking? I'm looking at our legal counsel here, but I believe that is correct. As long as you clearly state that in the motion, say it is a condition, it would be a part of that authorization permit process. Tracy, is there anything else you want to add? Would that be acceptable to you, Mr. Tracy? Absolutely. We may make it a design element of some sort. I'd like to think and work on that, yeah. Other questions? All right. Are we ready to make a motion? And would you like to... I'll make an effort at it. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 4-2016 at 249 West Short Street, I move to approve the application to change the existing vent hood exhaust fan as indicated in the submittal materials with the condition that the owner develop a screening device, an awning-like screening device that will mitigate the appearance of the piece of equipment from the standpoint of pedestrians and that once the owner has a proposal that's comfortable to him that he work with the design review officer to come to an agreement with regard to that particular solution. I guess that's it. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All right, I have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, unanimous. Motion approved. Thank you. All right, that brings us to case number 5-2016. Brandy, if I can get you to give us a summary. Case number 5-2016 is for 200 West Main Street, Harvey's. The applicant is Avena Joyce. The applicant has indicated a desire to enhance the building's window system, to provide a more aesthetically pleasing facade, and to ensure the building's windows are operable and provide the necessary insulation for interior use as she's looking to renovate the upper floors, moving on in the future, possibly. Original conversations with the applicant indicated that only the arched windows on the front facade would be rehabbed, but after multiple conversations with the applicant, as well as with historic preservation coming on site and advising on the condition of the existing windows, The applicant has agreed that all windows, double hung as well as the arched windows on the front facade, would be part of the rehabilitation process. The additional windows that are facing Upper Street and the rear onto their public parking area and the Hugo's bar area, the applicant has indicated that they would like to replace those windows. historic preservation came as well as an advice that many of those were replacement windows already or in such despair that it was okay to remove and replace those. However, those windows should be aluminum-clad wood windows using the SDL system, so simulated divided lights so that it is similar to the historic nature of the original windows. The applicant has agreed to use that approach, and I believe I did hear back from Historic Preservation this morning regarding one additional piece that's not in the design report that they had indicated. There is some documentation showing that previous historic windows have a variation on that upper facade where you would have a one over one, one light over one light and then some of them are six lights over six lights. So I think that's a point of discussion for the board because the applicant had indicated that they would like all of them to be consistent with six lights, over six lights on all double-hung windows. So that is something that the board should discuss. But this particular application does meet the following guidelines. You are preserving the character-defining features that are intact, and they're willing to repair those features that are damaged, and also replacing those that are in such beyond repair or are missing. So there are several windows missing as well as just beyond repair. So with that being said and with having input from historic preservation on this particular property and with continued discussion with the applicant, I move to approve, or not move, I can't move, I recommend approval of an authorization permit to replace the existing double-hung windows with the clad wood double-hung utilizing the SDL windows on Upper Street and the rear facade and to replace the transom window over the Upper Street door utilizing the existing window openings. I will note that there is no authorization permit required for those that she intends to restore. So those on the front facade as well as the ones that wrap just onto Upper Street as part of that system do not require an authorization permit, only those that she's seeking to replace. All right. This time I'd like to ask the applicant to go ahead and present, please. My name is Avina Joyce, and as Brandy has pointed out, pretty much everything there I'd like to do and I'm willing to talk to staff if there's any other things we need to change but basically rehab everything on main street on the second and third floor and like slightly wrapping around on upper street and then replace all the ones on upper street with SDL type six pane upper and lower unless you think the building would look better with just a single pane up on top. Okay. Do we have any public comment? All right. Go ahead and open up for the board to ask questions. I'm a little bit confused. And this might be for Brandy. I'm not sure. I had spoken with Historic Preservation about this project. and right before I came down here I got an email about the status of the various windows. And the only concern that I have about this is that they indicate that the three windows in the middle of the wall, that being the east wall the second floor it says that the three windows in the middle of the wall consist of six over six panes and the upper sashes of these windows are 19th century they have finely crafted muntins and hence are quite significant the lower sashes of these windows have machine made mid to late 20th century muttons and sash. Unfortunately, the fine upper sashes as well as the more modern lower half have all suffered from lack of maintenance. Therefore, it's recommended that new wood sashes with muttons carefully crafted to match the dimensions and profiles of the 19th century upper sashes be installed in the upper and lower sashes. Is that consistent with the applicant's request? Yes, it is. Okay. And we've discussed these details. Okay. Okay. Thank you. The only outlying question I think as far as what historic preservation recommended that I'd like you all's input on, which is if you look at the upper street facade, two windows are missing, so we assume based on photographs as well as those adjacent to it that they are the 6 over 6. If you look at the lower windows on the second floor on Upper Street, the two closest to Main Street are just a 1 over 1. And a photo, I believe, from the 1930s indicates that that was in place then. So the question then is, should they replace all of them with a 6 over 6 to be consistent? Or do we require those two windows to remain as a 1 over 1 and the additional windows as 6 over 6. Because the applicant had indicated a desire to do all 6 over 6 and that was what I had recommended for approval, but that was before I had heard this back from Historic Preservation. And the 1 over 1 windows are not included in the windows that are identified as being original to the building, right? They're sort of circa 1930s? Correct. My personal feeling is that it makes sense to, since we are asking the owner to go to the trouble of replicating the profiles of the original 6 over 6 units, that we should honor their request to keep it consistent because the historic significance of the 1930s units is nothing compared to the significance of the other ones. And it makes sense that all the units at one time were probably the same. Any other questions for the board? So is that the question on the table, though? The desire is to move everything to a 6 over 6 to match the historic character per the historic preservation. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. If we don't have other questions, I would ask, do we have a motion? to approve. I could do that. I'd like to, before I do that, I'd like to thank Historic Preservation for the really excellent assistance that they've given on this. So, Mr. Chair, regarding case number 6-2016, I move to approve the application with the understanding that the client will be replacing the one-over-one units on the east facade with six-over-six to match the remaining six-over-six, and that the remaining six-over-six will be carefully configured to match the profiles and sight lines of the historic units. All right. Do I have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye, please. Aye. Anonymous motion passes. Right, that brings us to case number 6, 2016. And I would ask Brandy to present a summary of the case, please. Great. Chris, if you wouldn't mind scrolling on down, this one we'll have to zoom into because it was a large 24 by 36 drawing they submitted. a couple more. This one. So if you wouldn't mind, Paul is just zooming into that corner right that's the perspective. That might give a good visual. There we go. So as he works on that, I'll go ahead and get started. Case number 6, 2016, is for 135 West Main Street. The applicant is Chris Wilson, and the applicant has indicated a desire to alter the existing storefront system to allow for a door placement to complement a new interior program. Additionally, the storefront system has been described as being a more transparent option to provide more sight lines in and out of the first floor space that will encourage an engaging pedestrian Street Front. That's the next project, so we'll need to go back. The applicant has also indicated a desire for projecting signage and a possible mural, but it is to note to the board that no authorization permit is required from this board for public art or for the signage, as that goes before the standard permitting process. So with that being said, the other piece is that they have requested an addition of a still canopy with LED uplighting. And this is requested on the main street facade, as you see from the rendering. And it has distinct architectural components to address the main street facade. The canopy would project approximately about 6'8 into the right-of-way, which, when looking at the Main Street sidewalk, that's about half of what the dedicated pedestrian path is on Main Street. So with that assessment, the canopy should not appear with any streetlights or trees as currently designed. It is worth noting the current front elevation of this building has no historically significant components intact due to previous building renovations. So with this in consideration, the proposed alterations from the front facade, including the modified storefront, the added canopy, and the lighting, it complies with design guideline principle number two of the design guidelines to enhance the street level as an inviting place for pedestrians, as well as principle number three, which relates to traditional buildings in the area. So enhancing a storefront system like this is more reminiscent of what a historic Main Street once was before that was renovated. So you can see in the design report I've listed several design guidelines that this has complied with. And I won't go through each one of those. But I feel as if the storefront, as well as the lighting and the canopy, all help to reinforce those design guidelines that I just mentioned, the principles. And I would like to then just make a recommendation that this authorization permit be approved as submitted. And that they, the condition, not that there's a condition, I just want to be clear that they must obtain additional permitting for the signage outside of this board. Right, do we have any, first I'd like the applicant to come up and make any comments that they want. If the applicant is present. It doesn't look like the applicant is present. Okay. Any public comment? All right. Then I'll open the floor for the board for discussion. My only question is regarding the water. it shows that they're draining to the back, and I don't see a way that that's coming off. So is that washing the wall as it comes off? I would just ask that they consider how the water's getting removed because it also shows in this section the vertical fins that seem to break it up, and so you've got an area of water that gets trapped in the middle that I'm sure they haven't detailed yet. I was feeling like I saw a downspout. I feel like we had discussed a downspout. Let me see if that drawing. I don't see it. Oh. Oh, that might be it. Thank you. So we have identified on their drawing that they have noted a metal downspout three inch in diameter to deal with the drainage as the board member has identified. Other comments? I would just like to comment for the record that the facade above this first-story facade is one of the very few Art Deco facades in the city, and that has interest. I don't feel that what's being proposed is inappropriate. I think it is respectful, and I think it's somewhat innovative. and so maybe in that regard is kind of in keeping with the Deco original. Okay. Any other comments? Questions? All right. With that being said, do I have a motion to approve? Move to approve. All right. Second? All right. I'm sorry. Do I have a second? Yes, I'm seconding it. Okay. It was not clear. When I said second, you said second. So it was unclear who seconded. So for the record. All right. I have a second. And all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. motion is unanimous and approved. All right, moving along. Yeah, I got it. There you go. All right, that brings us to Case 7-2016, and I would ask Brandi to give us another summary, please. Great, thank you. So Case 7-2016 is for 275 West Main Street, and the applicant is 275 West Main LLC. The scope of work is to add a retail storefront on the ground floor at Main and Mill Street, and just to give you guys a few, it's the current probation office, just to bring you to where that location is. The applicant has indicated a desire to alter both the Main and the Mill Street ground floor facades to incorporate a storefront system, which does not exist today. You can see in some of the photographs of the existing versus proposed. The addition of this feature would provide additional transparency to the ground floor tenants and promote pedestrian activity along the streets to complement the adjacent downtown context. So this three-story multi-brick commercial building was remodeled in the 1970s, and it was wrapped at that time in the earlier building, leaving no significant historical architectural features intact. So there's not too much to discuss as far as how it relates to the historic context, since nothing was really left in place. And so with the applicant's desire in our conversations of wanting to add a storefront system on both sides, this proposal does comply with the design guidelines principle number two, to enhance the street level as an inviting place for pedestrians, and principle number three, to relate to traditional buildings in the area. So there's a number of design guidelines that I have noted in the design report that it also complies with, that it takes cue from historic storefront systems, and that it offers opportunities to engage the pedestrian right-of-way, as I've already discussed. The fixed metal canopy that they've also proposed seems to be appropriate in this case as well. I would also like to note that they have identified in their application a desire to do a painting scheme for the entire building, but this board does not review and give permits for painting, but I do appreciate them showing us the entire project as a whole. And so with all of the considerations and the drawings that you have before you, the storefronts that are proposed for Main Street as well as Mill Street, along with the replacement of the two doors that access to additional units above, I would recommend approval for an authorization permit to alter both of these facades, to add an aluminum storefront system, a steel canopy, and recessed lighting, and the replacement of the doors as submitted. I would ask that the Board consider conditions to ensure that there's a transparent character of the storefront glass as they work toward their final design, and that they would coordinate with staff for those additional details. It's also worth noting with them as well, as we did with the previous one, that any signage or banners shall require a signage permit from building inspection, which is not required from this board. All right. At this time, I would ask the applicant to please come and make any comments. Hi, my name is Kim Bragg. I have no additional comments if you have questions, though. All right. I would ask if there's any public comments. Doesn't look like any. So I'll open it up to the board for discussion. Just for clarification, is the Jimmy John's on Main Street or is it on Mill Street? The client was originally wanting them to move into the front space, but they decided after these renderings were done that they wanted the side space, so they will be moving into Mill Street. Thank you. I assume that you're removing the shutters. Yes. I think what you're doing is great. I really like it. I think it is really a huge improvement to the building. Thank you. I would agree. My only thought would be the coining on the corner and the attention to that, where right now the building is kind of a mass, and breaking up that corner seems like a... For me, it takes away from the cleanliness of the rest of the building, but I think the rest of it is fantastic. Other comments? Questions? I would just say as somebody who's right across the street and used to have the building on the other side, that this space has been sorely lacking, and it's something that I walk by every day, and it's in such a heavily traveled corridor, especially from those visiting our city, that this is a fantastic upgrade. So I would really look forward to it from that regard. It's just a building that is a great location, and I think this is just a great addition to downtown, and I look forward to seeing what you do with it. There are some items, it looks like, that as we make a motion that we need to take into account. some of the items that have been recommended to us with the approval that I wanted to make sure there wasn't any discussion on that as well. Take into account. All right. I would, if there's no other questions or comment, I would ask if we have a motion to approve case 7-2016. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 7-2016 at 275 West Main, I move to approve the application for the authorization permit with the following conditions. Number one, the applicant ensure that the transparent character of the storefront's glass is retained. Number two, that final storefront designs be coordinated with the staff for a final authorization permit. And number three, that any signage or banners shall require a signage permit from building inspections separate from this authorization permit process. All right. Do I have a second on that motion that's been put forth? Second. All right, I have a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, it's unanimous. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. And that brings us to case number 4-2012. And Brandi, I would ask for a summary, please. Case number 4-2012 is for 100 West Main Street, applicant at Centerpoint, LLC. The applicant has requested an amendment to and reissuance of an authorization permit that you guys saw at the last meeting. If you'll remember, this design was approved, and it was requested by the board that if the heights change, that they should come back before the board. So that's what we will be discussing today with this reissuance of the authorization permit. So to discuss what the applicant has requested, there are several options that are before you. The height of the hotel building, which previously was, I believe, 18 stories, is requested to be at 11 or 12, depending on market conditions. So what has happened here is that the five stories of condominiums have been removed. The second piece of this is the extended stay building will be at seven or eight stories. This is the one at Upper and Main Street. And previously, there were four stories of apartments above this extended stay that have been removed to require this height change. And then the third piece of this is the office building. If you'll remember the last time, we did discuss variable heights on this, but the designs were not submitted to you to see what those were. So I believe the applicant will be going over those here in just a second. and so they have requested several options. So they have looked at for the office tower to either be an 8-story, 10-story, or 12-story building that is office only. They have also requested options that would be 10 or 12 stories with a modified facade showing balconies on the upper floors, upper two or three floors, as depicted in the drawings that have been submitted. So, after reviewing the options submitted and based on the discussion of the design last time, I would make a recommendation for approval for the amendment to and reassurance of the authorization permit to modify the previously approved plans and for those to be, for you to consider including all of the options as submitted. speaking with legal, as long as we have the drawing and we have it noted which option is which, if they adhere to one of the options approved, then that should suffice for an approval process and authorization permit. However, you guys can discuss if the design were to change yet again for another height that they may come back or that it can be staff approved pending your determination. All right, thank you very much. This time I'd like to ask the applicant to go ahead and make their presentation. I am Michael Leidy, special counsel for the applicant. Also here today is Dana Rector, architect who will be doing the presentation, Taylor French, another architect, Dudley Webb and Ralph Coldiron who are with the development. I'm going to let Dana make the presentation, but I just want to express our appreciation to the board. We've been here several times before. The project is, I think, in its final stages of resolution of its character and components. and we appreciate your all's patience and willingness to let us present options for our program to you. Dana? All right. Thank you for your time today. As Brandy mentioned, we were here before, and you'd ask if we made any changes in the height to come back for a new submission. Since then, as the development has gotten more solidified and looking at different options, it was determined that the condominiums that were on top of the hotel and the apartments that were on top of the limited-stay hotel were best, the apartments were best taken away from the project, and the condominiums moved to the top of the office building. So those are some of the options we're looking at right now. Of the options that we've got listed as the five different versions that we've been looking at, The option B right now is the preferred option that we have been looking at, which is the nine-story office building with three levels of condominiums on top. We were out today. We had an OAC meeting. The parking garage is under construction, so we threw that slide up there just for everybody to kind of see where we are. We have gone through with our structural design to make sure that any of these options will work with what we're putting in the ground right now. So it's an exciting opportunity to be working on a project that we're currently designing while it's under construction. So it's quite an adventure, but we think we've got all our bases covered. I'll have Taylor flip through some of the images here, and I'm going to go through where we are. As we moved forward on the design, we took into account all of the comments that you all had made previously on the design of the building. So we hope that everything we've done moving forward still fits within the guidelines and with your recommendations that you've given us previously. The image there is just the office building. The design of the office building really stays pretty similar to what we had before. This option is the one then that shows the three levels of condominiums up top that we would have balconies for on that view. You can just kind of scroll through. There's another view coming down Main Street of the office building. Again, very similar to what we had before. You can go ahead and flip to the next one. This would be the limited-stay hotel. Again, very similar to what we had before, but we did drop the four levels of apartments from the top of this. So we've brought it down in scale. This version that we're showing here is seven stories. One of the things that we are asking for is to be allowed to be eight or seven stories. We feel that changing from 7 to 8 on this would not be a significant change in the design. So it would be strictly just adding another typical floor level to this. But we can go through. Then the back of the office building, relatively similar to what we had before. And then probably the biggest change on here would be the hotel design and not having the condominiums. It's a much shorter building. We've removed kind of the vertical element that was on the building to the east and put something similar, but that was a vertical element that is now on the south of the building. And then again, there's the Vine Street elevation of that building. In plan, we're virtually the same in plan. The hotel plan does not change really much at all. The only items that really change in there would be the elimination of the condo elevators in the hotel, and we are keeping one elevator within the hotel that was condo before as a parking access elevator. Residents Inn, again, or the limited service hotel plan is virtually the same as it was before. Not many changes there other than the apartment lobby has gone there to the northwest corner. The other side, northwest corner there. that used to be the apartment lobby would now just become a retail space. So instead of having the apartments with the apartment elevators there, we'd have a retail space in that corner. All the other plans, parts of the project are pretty much the same on this level. With the one addition on the office building, we would have the condo lobby on there, which is kind of the purple area below the office lobby. We'll have a condominium lobby there. We'll flip through, again, same elements that we've discussed before on that. This is the limited service on that corner, and again, that corner there would be retail then instead of an apartment lobby. Elevation studies, so this would be the option A that we were looking at, which would just be a 12-story office building. We would have some type of a penthouse level on that, but it would be all office on option A. Option B, again, this is the preferred option that we're looking at right now, which would be nine levels of office and three levels of condominiums. And then C would be only a 10-story office building. Again, we keep a penthouse element on there, but it would all be office. Option D would be a 10-story office building, but it would be eight stories of office, and then the upper two floors would be condominium, again, having a penthouse, and then balconies for the condominium levels. And then the last option would be strictly an eight-story office building with, again, a penthouse level, but it would be all offices. Anything else on the revenue? Yeah, and everything, again, back to the design elements and kind of adhering to the guidelines and the recommendations that we received before. We try to incorporate all of those same elements into the new design that we've got here. The material palette stays the same as what we've previously discussed. And the proportioning is still the same as what we had previously discussed. All right. I would ask at this time, is there any public comments? All right. And with no public comments, I'll go ahead and open it up to the board for any questions or comments. I'm not personally I don't find the suggestions with regard to the office building problematic makes sense to me what's being proposed and I think the design is consistent with what we've seen before and I think the variations are perfectly acceptable maybe even preferable. I'd like to talk about the extended stay building a little bit. There was in the previous submittal a cornice line that picked up on the datum of the top of the McAdams-Morford building on the other side of Upper Street, and that was something that we discussed at some length last time, and that is no longer in the, that's been eliminated from the design. And however, that element had the effect of reducing the apparent scale of the building to some extent. So I think that what you're proposing by dropping the scale, the actual scale of the building, mitigates that, and I guess I'm okay with seeing that element go away. However, I would like to suggest that the cornice line that you're showing at the top of the sixth floor should be the dominant cornice line, not the one at the very top of the building. I think the building would be much more successful if that lower cornice line were the much more dominant of those two. And the beauty of that also would be that regardless of whether you end up with six or seven stories, that line would stay where it is at the top of the sixth story and would establish a scale that is much more in keeping with the scale of the Main Street elevations on the other side of Main Street. So I think I'm going to propose in our, you know, once we get ready to make a motion on this, I think I'm going to propose something like that unless you guys have a paramount objection to that. No, I understand your comment on that, and I think that's a reasonable comment. Do we have the elevation that we used to have the slide that showed the building aside and the wall in the street? It showed the building adjacent. I think we dropped a slide that we once had that showed that relationship more closely. Yeah, you're right. In that discussion before, we had another slide that we had once showed that did show direct lines across between that building next door. So this is the closest one we have now that shows that. But I understand that comment. And I think that, and we had talked about actually making that more prominent. That was part of the agreement. So that's now completely gone away. Right. And so I'm looking at a way to ensure that the scale of the building is visually as consistent with the elevations on the other side of Main Street as we can get it. And to me, the best way to do that without really messing with what you're trying to do is to make that cornice line at the top of the sixth level the dominant cornice line. And the one at the very top could almost go away. I mean, I think that could be quite nice for it to read that way. So that's my suggestion. And I think that the other point I would make is that if the building were to, in fact, be eight stories, you're showing seven, right? So if the building were to be eight stories, presumably you would also bring that corner tower up proportionally so that it maintains its differentiation from the rest of the building. Yeah. Okay. That's all I have about that, the extended stay building. I guess unless somebody else on the board wants to dive into the extended stay building, I guess I think we should talk a little bit about the hotel because the hotel is really completely different from what we've seen before. And I guess I'm a little bit concerned that it's not that I have a problem with it, But I'm a little bit concerned that the information we have is not maybe as thorough as what we had previously, particularly the information regarding the upper street facade of the hotel. It's a little hard to tell what's going on. Do we have any additional? I was just looking to see if we have some additional slides that maybe aren't available here. Yeah, the upper street. We don't have much more on that side. I think what you've done, I like the fact that you have that vertical separation that makes the volume feel like it's two more vertically proportioned volumes. So I think that's appropriate considering Lexington and the way Lexington feels. I guess if you can fill in a little bit of information for us about how that upper street elevation works and what's going on there. It would be helpful. It's really, you know, that corner as it turns, there's not really anything specific to that side that we've done different than what is on that corner. it just continues that around to the other side. Do we have the front side that shows how that turns the corner? I apologize that we don't have more options here on the view. Was that this? No, it's still on there. It is? Mm-hmm. That kicks back. It still is. Or it appears to be. Oh, yeah. I think that's still in this one. What do you think about the hotel? Are you good with it? I think the thing that's different is that prior there were two with it equally. I was asking a lot of questions. because they were neutral, and this is the least distinct in the scale of our system. And we were looking to pop that one up there. I guess one of the questions that we would have would be if that, presumably the curtain wall wraps that corner and continues to the next corner. Yeah, he's trying to pull up the image there and see if we can zoom in on it, You can see there from the back that it really is that curtain wall system that wraps the corner. Then it becomes that north facade of the building. So should we assume that the Vine Street facade flips to the courtyard side as well so it's a mirror? Yes. What's happening at the floor slabs? Is one a spandrel condition and then one exposes the slide edge? The glazing system on the office building is actually a window wall system. So there's an aluminum slab edge cover, and so then the glazing goes from slab to slab, but then there's a piece of aluminum that covers that edge. So it's not a true curtain wall. The office building would be a true curtain wall. The hotel is a window wall system. And it appears one is flush and the other allows the slab edge to slightly reveal. Yeah. I think the comments last time were, I remember raising the question about the transparency and your awareness of the fact that the building was becoming all curtain wall and it becomes critical how that's detailed. i think that still holds but what what has changed and maybe in a positive way is that relative to grand's comments the scale of this building and that vertical cut allows it to be a little more in a little more contextual and i think the shift from this building not being exactly like the office building really helps because prior it was getting really muddy yeah and that's where i was getting really concerned about the distinction because now you're down to those details. But it feels like it's an assembly of accretional buildings as opposed to a big project that's coming in that's all one thing, which I think contextually helps the project. Yeah, I think this breaks the scale down definitely to something more to the scale of the buildings that are around there. I mean, we're still a larger building, but we're not a giant building now. I think it's important, too, that you have that roof form that seems to relate to one volume but not the other. I think that really helps a lot. Yeah, I think my only two questions, and I don't know if it's part of this, go back. I notice there's a thing that says you're coordinating with Town Branch. Has there been any movement on that relative to those entries? Because I know that was a big point of discussion last time. Yeah, we've been working with Andy Knight at MSK. MKSK, with the landscape architecture. I know that the city right now is that that process is moving, so we're somewhat held back on our ability to get moving. Meeting scheduled Monday at 10 a.m. on Town Branch. He's just telling me Monday at 10 a.m. we're scheduled to have that meeting with Town Branch. But until some of those decisions are made with Town Branch, we're a little bit stuck on what we can do. We're going to be an integral part of that, but we don't know what the rules are yet that we have to follow. I know that before you had made some comments about the entrance to the parking garage really being a part of that and trying to make sure that that entrance isn't just a hole in the ground that we're trying. We are looking at some options to try to make that entrance feel like a feature of whatever that park becomes. And the only other comment I would have about the pedestrian level is the loading dock, because we can never really see that, and so I just have a concern about what that ends up being. I know it's a loading dock, and I'm totally comfortable with urban environments and loading docks in cities. Right. It's just we haven't seen it. Right. It's a necessary evil, I guess, that we have to have. It will have a door that will close off, and it will be an acceptable-looking facade. As far as the elevations that we had to choose from, not that Upper Street is necessarily the lesser of any of the four streets, But to some degree, that's the street that we felt was the best option for coming off with that access. We have added, for the office building, from the original design, there is a separate loading dock access from the courtyard for the office building. So the loading dock now for the hotels only serves the hotels. So it's not quite the loading dock that it once was. It's a little bit smaller. i would also note that one of the appealing um characteristics of what you're doing is you're you're paying attention to the streetscape and there's definitely a uh a gesture to pedestrian scale with uh um with this horizontal element that that sort of suggests the seating area out there on the corner of Upper and Vine. And those kinds of gestures, I think, are really important to the feel of the building and will be very important to people who are walking by and driving by. And this corner especially is actually the low spot on the site. We've got a lot of challenges. We've got a pretty good grade change right there that we'll work through. So there's some steps that are going to work through there. There's the bike path that's going through there as well. So there's a lot happening on this corner with pedestrians, bikes, cars. And then the dining terrace from the restaurant is also of the hotel restaurant will be there as well. Have you looked at whether or not that lower condition projects any further out from the facade where that seating area is? How far this projection is coming? The canopy? Yeah. Right now we've got it like maybe two or three feet. Yeah, right now it's basically just a couple of feet that it's coming out. It's not actually the true canopy that you would seek cover under. I only ask because relative to Graham's comment of the kind of pedestrian scale of the street, that it seems like something could be, that that could become a little more spatial, but that's a suggestion. Yeah, and it's hard right now where we are on the renter. We're actually working on the grades, the gradients about the hardest thing that we have to figure out here. That corner, part of the step in the building, that corner is there's the power requirement that they have to access those vaults. We have to provide overhead clearance for those. We also have to allow for a truck to be able to drive up there to access those vaults. So there's a lot going on with the grading that we've got to make that happen and also with the building and stepping that up to allow the truck access there as well. Gotcha. Oh, yeah, I see that on the plan. Other questions or comments? I think it gets better every time we see it. We've worked on it a few times. I would say the same thing. I would concur and say that this is a great step forward. Obviously, being the size of the project it is, the difficulties and everything, but as important as it is to Lexington, this is good to see, good movement forward. The last question I have is, and I'm just doing it for the sake of clarity, we've talked about the three other buildings. The fourth building, I take it there's no real change in that, and the restaurant. It is part of the office. I think the last time we were here we discussed that the rooftop terrace was gone from that, and so we proceeded with that. There's no longer a roof terrace over the restaurant. That's too bad. I think it's something we all really wanted, but it wasn't something that was working out too well. So it's all right. Okay. Well, there's a lot of options on here. So as we consider a motion, I would point out that rather than sit here, do we have to read under the record every one, or can we make a motion to approve based upon the modifications that were listed, that we approve the modifications that were listed? Sorry, I can't do it. Based on my recommendation. Based on staff recommendation, okay. I do have one question, if I could. But when we discuss the limited service hotel and making some adjustments to that upper level, how would we address that with the board? Or is that something that we could go through, Brandy, with updating an image of that? They're talking about your comments. On the extended state building? Right. I was thinking that I would include reference to that as one of the conditions. But what he's asking is, can they work through staff to basically get that? I don't see why not. And I think that's fine. I'd ask legal. We've done that, it seems like, in the past, obviously. That would be our preference. Really? You don't like to see us. You're a great board. I enjoy being there. As I mentioned, the building is under construction, so we're drawing fast. Here I thought we were developing a rapport or something like that. That sounds great. Any other questions? Last time, I'll ask for questions, comments. All right. If not, do I have a motion? Does somebody want to put forth a motion to approve? Yeah. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 4-2012 at 100 West Main Street, I move to approve the application for the Amendment 2 and the reissuance of the authorization permit, conditional upon the following items. One, in the event that the office hotel and or the extended state buildings wish to build to a height not depicted in the submitted renderings, and the applicant must resubmit the new designs for the Board's consideration. Two, that owners will work with the design review officer regarding final designs. Three, that with regard to the extended stay building, the cornice at the top of the sixth level will be redesigned to be dominant, with the cornice at the top of the building considerably subordinate, regardless of whether the building ends up at seven or eight stories. and that the corner tower element will step up proportionately if the building is ultimately eight stories. With the understanding that the owners' representatives will meet with the staff to approve the final design of those elements. All right. We have a second, yes? All right, so Kevin second. All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All right. Thank you. Motion approved. That concludes our cases and applicants. And at this point, I need a motion to adjourn. Moved to adjourn. All right, second. Second. All right, we get a second. at this point. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion approved. That concludes the Court Area Design Review Board meeting November 9, 2016. Thank you.