Every stitch, and I told them all the story Mama told me why she sewed And how my coat of many colors Was worth more than all their clothes But they didn't understand Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we're going to bring to order the November 15, 2017 Courthouse Area Design Review Board. First item on the agenda is to make sure that everybody signed in on the attendance. If there's any guests, there is a sheet in the back. Please make sure that you sign in on that sheet. All board members have already signed the sheet. Second item is the approval of the August 9th, 2017 minutes. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Motion passes. Third item is the postponements and withdrawals. Brandy, can you let us know any projects that are postponed or withdrawn? Yeah, we have none today. Okay, perfect. That brings us to the fourth item, applications for authorization permits. It looks like we have a case number 3-2017 for 125 Cheapside. cheap side i would ask brandy to present the case please hello board i'm i'm saddened to say today is my last time i'll stand before you and present so i'll be passing the torch to key you who is here with us today and she will be the new staff member for the courthouse area design review board. So I know I've made introductions to each of you as she walked in, and I just want to welcome her and wish her the best with taking on these new roles. And I also told her, because I'm doing two jobs right now, to not use me as an example for today because I feel very ill-prepared, so I apologize. Okay, so we're at 125 Cheapside. And so this is the existing elevation, the John G. King Insurance Building. It's adjacent to cheap side bar and grill, just to give you a frame of reference. The applicant has submitted to review a request to alter the ground floor storefront. So they have indicated that anything above this line is to not be touched. It's everything from that space and below, just so we can be oriented. So their scope of work is to review an application to replace wood trim on the storefront with updated design and paint and replace the signage. I will point out to you guys that painting and signage is not part of the Courthouse Area Design Review Board approval processes, but I appreciate their efforts in illustrating that in their application. So let's talk about what we have going on. The building, which is hard to see in this image, but it is in your packet, the existing conditions for the brickwork on the storefront today, the brick is pulling away from that facade, So the applicant, this is what instigated this application, was it's just a time to maintain and replace what is happening here so that there's no pull away and so that it's structurally sound. And so their proposal, and this is included in your packet as well, is to update the storefront in a manner that is really, it retains the existing framing and glass, and it replaces the trim of the storefront exterior. And they have been historically sensitive to what has been there. They followed the same alignment, the same transition there at the entryway. And so all the proportions are really the same. They have also retained a lot of the key features. All of this was to remain as the original brick where possible and replace with anything that is very similar if need be, if bricks are broken. So in my mind, that's really just a maintenance item on that side. So the item that really needed to be reviewed today was the storefront system that they're proposing. So the storefront, and this is from their application, and they will probably speak more eloquently about their application than I will, but the intent is to update and improve the look of the storefront while retaining its historical elements is what they have identified. The new design will be sunken panel details in the lower portion of the storefront. So this is here. And below the doors and windows. Sorry, I messed up my point here. The ceiling of the entry area will receive stained Douglas fir beadboard with crown molding. And the sign area above would be pushed back to be flush with the masonry on both sides. but retains its current dimensions and verticality and horizontality that it is today. They have also proposed the design to include lighting above the sign, which is currently not there. And, oh, I didn't include that, but it's in your packet. And so there are some gooseneck lights that they have proposed as well. The light fixture in the entryway will be cleaned and painted black or replaced with a new fixture of similar design. And so you can see that in their design renderings here. They also made clear when I went on site and also in their packet that in regards to the masonry and tile, I've already said that their intention is to retain this as much as possible, but the same is true for the tile at the entryway. to restore that, clean it, and not to remove that where possible. So the last here is the dimensions. And when you compare this to the existing, it is very, very similar to what is there today. And so the proposed alterations are in support of several guidelines that are indicated in your packet. They retain pedestrian interest as the current storefront does today. Character-defining features are maintained and still put in place to ensure that they are preserved. Such as those are character-defining elements like display windows, kick plates, and the entry. The storefront, per the guidelines, is required to see components that are traditionally found in these commercial buildings, and as their design is very similar to what was in place and what was historically there, the design does give you a contemporary interpretation of that traditional storefront. So, in essence, I feel like this is one that was fairly simple, and I applaud the applicant who submitted this document because it was very well explained. All of the documents were in there, and I have had some good conversations with the owner as well. And so with that being said, as this does preserve character-defining features and they're replacing features that are beyond repair and being sensitive to the historic context, the staff recommends approval of the authorization permit to replace wood trim on the storefront with the updated design. And then as noted before, paint and signage is not required per this authorization permit. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to ask the applicant to come up and present their case. Hello, my name is Scott Nelson. I'm with Anderson and Rogers Construction here representing J. King and J. G. King Properties, the owner of the building. I don't have a whole lot to add. I think Brandi pretty much said it all. The only thing that's going to be a little bit different, and she doesn't know about this, We've actually pulled that off, and I want to have that sign flush. It's not actually going to be possible. It's going to be out a couple inches just because of the brick that's behind there. So other than that, the design should be exactly what's in the proposal there. Don't see any other changes. The brickwork is actually being repaired. Now it's starting to pull away more. So the building's been shored up. The brickwork will be repaired by the end of the week, and we'll start with the trim work. I don't know if you have any questions. I don't have anything else to add other than that. Any questions for the applicant? You're going to be able to match mortar color, do you think? Very close. Yeah, we're actually reusing the bricks, and the mason had some bricks that he thought were the closest match possible. He only used those on the pieces that are a different length, so you can't tell. it's going to look spot on pretty much and not be pulling away from the building it actually pulled away more it was there was a large gap it looked like maybe it only had a couple more weeks left so other questions i would just say i'm very happy to see this uh updated i i obviously it's in a core corridor of our downtown and it has been there and it just needed it and so you know I applaud the fact that it's being updated and brought up to contemporary standards thank you I want to ask and open up is there any public comment did anybody sign in for comment on this okay great mr. chairman member of the board my name is Mike Moyzer I'm here in my capacity as counsel for the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. I'm also a former member of this board and its chair. I'm here because our organization has asked me to express our concern and our disappointment with what we see as an abandonment of the proper processes here. The building in question had the historic corbels and cornice removed last week before this came before you for consideration. The guidelines in this case are very clear. You are not to remove historic architectural features of the building. In fact, you are encouraged, even when they are damaged, to repair them. And you can see from the photographs that were submitted to you that they were very much intact, and they were forcefully removed from the building last week. Now, your staff officer ironically has cited guidelines that have to do with replacing missing historical features. And I say ironically because the only reason they are missing is because the applicant removed them last week. We have a very orderly process under this ordinance and these guidelines for you to review and decide whether changes are appropriate. And when you allow applicants to undertake alterations or remove historic features from buildings before an application comes before you, you create an undermining situation in two respects. Number one, you're not treating fairly those people who comply with this process and these regulations. And that includes everyone who's come before us. Those of you who have been on this board for a while or have witnessed what's taken place in this corridor know that we've had multiple buildings where all we had was photographic evidence of historic features that were restored. The best example is the vault on Main Street. But the other reason it undermines is it encourages applicants to undertake work without a permit, and that's what happened here. Obviously, my comments to you today are an indirect reflection on this application, because the damage is already done. But it is your responsibility as the board to ensure that this doesn't happen, and we intend to monitor carefully what happens in the future and to do whatever is necessary to make sure this ordinance and these guidelines are followed. Thank you. I'd like to open up to the board. Do you have any questions based on the comments? Yeah, Mike, I value your expertise in this. Can you suggest an appropriate action by the board to have the effect that you're encouraging? Well, this happens on the BOAR. How you manage it internally with your staff is for you to deal with on that level. But as far as what's happened to this individual building, I think if you look at what's been submitted, their proposal alters the historic corbels and substitutes a modern-looking, less ornate, larger corbel. You're the architects. You have that expertise. I think they should be required to restore this building as closely as possible to what it was last week. And the reason we know it hasn't changed is we had the historic Chin photograph collection from the 1920s. And those corbels and that cornice were there. I would ask from your perspective, given that we have to work with staff, and I would ask for staff to actually make a comment on this. You know, we are presented with a case here with the facts in the case. and so you've you've sort of served a chairman before and you are wanting to hold this board accountable which I I am behind I have no problem with that however how how would you envision working with with staff to make sure that the facts that are presented or if you're saying it's a couple days ago for instance, right, I haven't been by there in a couple days, so how are you proposing or envisioning that the board would be up to speed on something like that taking place? Well, I know that when I was on the board, our staff at that time erred on the side of caution about permitting work to proceed before something came before you. You can usually get an application before this board in 30 days basically. So the fact that you might have to wait to undertake something on the building until you actually come before you and have that process is not a great inconvenience. Mr. King has apparently owned this building for many, many years. And what was most frustrating to the Bluegrass Trust at a meeting where we discussed this on Monday is that when our preservation specialist Tim Kondo contacted your staff he was told this work could proceed because it involved maintenance and signage well that just ignored all the other guidelines under the ordinance so I think the the word of caution for the staff is you must tell these people when they apply because you usually go to the site and have a discussion with them don't do any work until this goes before the board. And if you intend to do any work, you need to tell us what it is and why it's being done. If it's truly maintenance or a repair, then it's permitted. But the process has to be consistent, because if it breaks down, that's when we begin to have these causative effects on other people. Other questions, staff, any comments? I appreciate you coming and making your statement and it takes people like you to keep an eye on things that are moving around on within our boundary because we're not out on site every day when I meant went to meet the applicant everything was in place we did talk about the process and the meeting was to be held last Wednesday unfortunately we were not to have a board quorum and so the applicant did reach out to me and say we already had plans for the signage to begin and I said you're not supposed to do anything but if it's a maintenance or repair and it deals with signage and you have your permits then I don't know that I can stop you and so maybe that's where the disconnect was and so because of the timing alteration of the board meeting and because there was some confusion that may be what has happened but when I went on site everything was in place and when I did receive that photograph I was looking at it in a way of just looking at the storefront piece which he and I had spoken about and not with everything else so I if I missed that I apologize but that's what happened okay all right thank you for your time thank you I'd like a clarification, actually. Maybe, Randy, maybe you can do this. If not, maybe Mike can come back up. But Mike says that the cornice is being removed. I'm unsure about what that has been removed, and I'm unsure about what that means, what the cornice. I can see the corbels that you're talking about, but I don't understand what the cornice is you're describing. I may recommend if the applicant could come and speak to this because I have not been on site. And when I was on site and spoke to the owner, I said the cornice should remain in place and should not be altered. So if it has been, they should speak to that. Yes, the corvilles and the cornice has been removed. It was removed last Wednesday evening. The corvilles were beyond, once they were removed, it was clear they were beyond repair. The cornice was a metal, like a break metal with kind of a, I guess you call it egg and dart, like detail across the bottom. It was in rough shape. It was also full of debris. And it was also removed. i was under the impression that i was okay to go ahead and pull stuff off the building we were going ahead with the masonry work which we had had scheduled for three or four months now and i wasn't going to have another window with the mason that we had chosen he was the one who had the bricks so we went ahead with the demo demoed everything that was going to come off put in the shoring post and proceeded with the masonry so all right questions you know the dilemma that we have is it if the materials are removed, we have to take your word for it that they were unable to be restored. And the guidelines clearly favor restoration over replacement. So that's a problem for us. I guess the technical challenge that I see for you is replacing that brake metal in such a way that it's properly engaging the masonry and provides the flashing that's going to be required at that juncture below the limestone sill elements. Are you intending to saw cut a joint there, or how do you intend to do that? Yes. and we're going to run the crown across with a flat piece on top and then a piece of brake metal on top of that that overlaps it is flashing there's going to be a reglet in the masonry yes one thing that i think that comes to my mind on this excuse me is it is the responsibility of the staff and the board but the staff also i think there's ambiguity in what can and can't be done And that's really what I think is the crux of what's going on right now. And we've heard that from a number of applicants. There's ambiguity in interpretation, and those type of things are, well, in this instance, destructive, to be precise. I think it would be very helpful for us to define what is the, if an applicant is allowed to begin for maintenance or for, has to take action because of a building that's, you know, obviously brickwork that's coming down, masonry that's coming down, that type of stuff. What is outlined of what is acceptable? because at this point when you say that one person thinks obviously these actions which I don't think there's anything malicious in intent obviously it was more and when I say this just ignorance not knowing what you could or couldn't do and some important details were missed in in the middle of this as Mike has pointed out so I think it would be very helpful if we could to have staff clarify that going forward on what's allowed and permitted based upon the guidelines. And then we probably have to have somebody follow up on that. We can't still, and I know that's tough on staff too, but they're probably gonna have to make sure that they go on site at that point and tell them exactly what is permitted too and seek the guidance of historic preservation other entities should there be any questions about that chair i i agree with what you're saying i think it's this is something that is putting a spotlight on part of the issue with the courthouse area process and so i know that we discussed this at length when there was discussion of a new process coming on board but since that is no longer on the table i would advise that this board make an effort to review the guidelines which have not been updated in a very long time and the process which has not been updated in a very long time and i know we had talked about doing that this year but we did not get around to that in this calendar year but it is worth uh worthwhile for the board to take a deeper dive into what this process needs in order to have the securities in place because as staff, I'll say it is very ambiguous at times. And so you kind of read it and you move with what you think is most appropriate. So more clarity would be helpful to staff as well. All right. Other questions, comments? I think the outcome of our decision is not going to be significantly influenced by further discussion, but I'd like to bring up some elements in the guidelines and some technical issues that may inform how this project moves forward, too. So the guidelines clearly state that features should only be reconstructed if they are beyond repair. So here we're seeing a situation where the entire storefront is being replaced. Do we know that the entire storefront is beyond repair? for example and then another guideline dg 3.4 says that for commercial storefront building a rehab project should preserve these character defining elements and it specifically says windows transom kick plate entry upper story windows and cornice molding so um uh here we're replacing all those elements and so my question to the staff is do we know that they're beyond repair when i met with the owner on site, he explained to me that the glass itself would be reutilized, be used in place, that the storefront, the wood around that is rotting. And when I looked at that, it is in really poor shape. So I'm no construction expert. Can't tell you if that would have been repaired or not. But for it to be a, this to me needs an update. If you go look at that facade or remember what it looked like last week, it was in poor shape so the fact that the applicant was coming in and giving us an alternative that is very similar to what is there today and it is doing it in a sensitive way it's not blowing all of this out putting in a totally contemporary storefront this is something where they said you know what we want to be here for another 50 years they've already been there a very long time and this is a way to still celebrate that historic storefront in in a new contemporary way. So I felt as if they were doing this in the proper way and that the replacement was appropriate. Other questions, comments? I'd like to make one more. I'm sorry I'm dragging this out. That's all right. I'd like to, this is, the applicant is proposing to use boral in place of wood. And the staff of the Historic Preservation staff recently did an extensive study of borel, the success of borel in various preservation treatments nationwide, actually. And while the manufacturers of Boral make some pretty amazing claims about the longevity and the integrity of that material over time, the jury's really out on that. And so there's some fear in the community that, in the preservation community, that this may be one of those products that is seen as kind of a silver bullet. And 15 years down the line, we find that it's shrinking or it's delaminating or something else is happening to it. And so a lot of owners are moving toward this product thinking that they're going to get rid of the problems of maintaining wood. And so I'm just bringing that up because I think it's good for people to know that that's not necessarily a given. All right. Any other comments or questions? I would finish with saying this, that the integrity of the decisions that are made by this board are contingent upon the facts that are placed before it. And it is absolutely vital that those facts remain facts. and so given that we need to make changes to the process or we have outlined that we do, I think this is an absolute requirement of us as board members to work with staff to make sure that there is a process in place. I think it's time to do a review of that process so that when the facts move in front of this board that we can depend that they are accurate, and that when we make decisions based upon them, then integrity is intact of those decisions. I will endeavor to work with new staff to accomplish that, and I would ask that my fellow board members would join me as well. Now, based upon case number 3-2017, that's been put forth before the board. I think the comments and questions have been completed. Is that correct? Okay. At this point, I would ask for a motion to approve. Do I have a motion to approve? Now remember, we can make a motion to approve with... Guidance, as we have in the past as well, should we deem necessary. I'd be willing to make a motion to approve contingent upon staff working with the applicant to ensure that each of the elements described in guideline EDG 3.4 are, in fact, beyond repair before they're replaced. That may be a little more digging for the staff, but I feel comfortable leaving it in the staffs as a staff responsibility. I think also that's another aspect of the process that needs to be evaluated as well. that we need to have probably a cooperation of historical and also, I would say, some form of commercial that would together make the determination or at least present the case of the determination going forward. Because it is becoming more and more relevant, and whether it can be restored or not, And I think that there's two points to that, whether it can be restored and whether it's actually economically feasible that it's possible for it to be restored. Because businesses also have the ability to be able to restore it at some form of function that is economical to their business as well. So I think that's another item that I would bring up. I think we're going to have a number of those going throughout the rest of the year. So let's add that item also on how we can adjust the guidelines so that we have a process for review for whether it's feasible for something to be replaced and can be versus, when I say replaced, restored, and whether it needs to be replaced. All right, based on Graham's added requirement that staff evaluate condition with appropriate parties, based on that motion, you want to state that again just so that it's clear if you're putting that forth. And then we can see if we have a second. I move to approve contingent upon staff working with the applicant and with appropriate advisory personnel to ensure that those elements listed in guideline EDG 3.4 are, in fact, beyond repair. All right. Within a financial reason, how does that sound? Based upon that motion, do I have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion approved. Thank you very much. Moving along, we have an amendment for authorization permit For case number 4-2014, which is the 100 West Main Street Center Point project, I'd ask Brandy to present the case, please. Thank you. Okay, so today, Center Point is back before us. As you know, we approved their design a few months back for all of their site and building elements. What has been requested today is not an official amendment of the authorization permit. The applicant requested to come before you today to discuss one element that they are exploring, which is an elevated pedway to add to their building. And so what is submitted to you is in your packet, which are two renderings illustrating the location and the intent of an elevated pedway. I believe the applicant is here today with more design details and renderings to share with you because it's been developed in more detail since then. But I will just explain what I do know and then we'll have the applicant come before you to have this open dialogue. If the applicant after today decides that they do want to officially explore this for an amendment, an official amendment will have to be filed and will have to come back before the board for approval. but today they requested an exploratory dialogue with the board, which is allowed because of the location within the boundary and because an authorization permit already exists. So Center Point is on, of course, we know on the center portion of downtown. This is Upper Street, and so this is the McAdams and Morford building, so Harvey's and Hugo's is located there, and they have proposed an elevated pedway here at the second level. Granted, this is more like the third level because of the height of that entryway for services there. This is looking at it from the other direction, upper here. This is center point on the right with the McAdams Morford building to the left. And you can see that it bisects the back, the rear portion of their property, which today is utilized as a service patio, a bar area for the tenants on that ground floor. I do not have an official staff report. I just wanted to present to you what had been brought before us. And then also I gave to you guys a few guidelines that I pulled from the design guidelines that are in reference to some of the principles for the courthouse area design review board to ensure that enhancement of the street level is inviting for pedestrians. that we ensure that we relate to our traditional buildings in the area, and to ensure that if additions like this are to be immediately adjacent to historic structures, that we keep that into consideration. I will say that one of the guidelines does say that in regards to security and circulation, it is often requested or suggested to provide direct connection between parking structures and its supporting businesses, if desirable. But I will just reiterate that, as we all know, this is the center point structure, hotel and amenities on that level. Parking structure is below. Adjacent to the McAdams Morford Building is another parking structure, which today has, I believe, Proof Fitness on the top and is adjacent to the Fifth Third Bank Tower. so that that just gives you a relation understand the relationships of what all these massings are with one another and where this pedway is connecting to and from so again today is just an open dialogue and discussing how acceptable this element may be to the board in regards to the guidelines so I would welcome mr. Webb to to step up and I believe he has some things in hand to share. All right, thank you Brandi. Thank you. And I would ask the applicant to present their case. I'm Dudley Webb of the Webb Companies for the developer of the CenterPoint Project, and thank Thank you all for taking the time to hear us out this morning. This was an opportunity that came up. We thought about it some time ago. We tried to figure out how to do it. And I'd like to have a conversation with this morning, both, very particularly with you, about the philosophy of pedways versus no pedways, the traditional arguments for and against. And we've been 20 years as debate's gone on about whether or not they're worthwhile or justifiable justifiable or they work. Let me start with the history of the first headway, and I was largely involved in that one. That connected the Hyatt with the Central Bank, and we kind of helped sponsor that one. And then it was very viable, and then when we built the Hilton, we obviously added a second one there, got the state involved, paid for those that's maintained them since. And then the next one occurred connecting the Victorian Square garage with Victorian Square in 1986 when we rehabbed Victorian Square. And the biggest problem that we have is that much like the experience of the major cities, that sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. In Cincinnati, I think they removed some of them as part of their rehabilitation plan up there. But my recent research has indicated that cities like Los Angeles, where they have good weather, Minneapolis where they don't, Chicago, these are major focal points now, and they're encouraging them whenever possible. So philosophically, we have to kind of decide where we are and where we land on this matter, but I can tell you why I think they're important. For example, the average user in an office building will not walk. Their employees do not like to walk, and most employers will not walk more than two blocks to access their job. That's a major problem for us. For whatever reason, our parking authority has not kept up with the demand, and we are suffering here. That's why we had to go on our own and go down and build 700 cars in this project here. Even that's not going to be enough. That's what's really gotten interesting. The demand for these spaces is such that we're now having to deal with the old courthouse renovation. no parking 21c first call we received they need parking adjoining property owners across the street all around us there are about 5,000 people that inhabit this area night and day and that's bigger than about 90% of the towns of Kentucky so we're faced with a very unique situation here we have 15,000 people live within walking distance of the center core these are all good and And I'm not complaining. Downtown Lexington is more viable today, better looking today than it has been in 50 years. I was here when you could fire a shot down Main Street and not hit anybody. And I've seen the things that have evolved. Well, these things that did evolve, and I appreciate the hard work that you all do and that the Bluegrass Trust and the preservationists are all concerned about. By the same token, we also have to – a lot of this involves intelligent compromise. So I'll give you an example of the people in the financial center. The thing that saves us, we built a 600-car garage there. We own it. And it services the building, but it's not enough. And so what we're able to do is probably service the needs of the management people or the department heads or whatever, but the rank and file have to go elsewhere. A large number of those are on the 2,000 spaces that are up at the high street lot up there at Rubberina that they own and control. And thank goodness they've made them available at very affordable rates. Well, these people, when they come in in the mornings, if it's pouring the rain, They get in the pedway system. If it's a beautiful day and it's sunny, they're going to be down on the street. The same thing is true of the hotel guests. The same thing is true of most of our tenants or the residents who live down here. They want to be on the street. So the old argument about, well, you're discouraging people from being on the street and putting them up in elevated environmentally controlled pedways doesn't really hold up except for the fact that maybe on event days or event nights. I would venture to say there's 3,000 to 5,000 people who use those on event nights. I would also venture to say that the interconnectivity of these parking garages is critical. The folks from Central Parking have been with us the whole time. They can tell you about the needs and the wants and how important these things are to people. But, again, the interconnectivity between the financial center, the financial center garage, the Vine Center, we are so under-parked at the Vine Center, it's frightening. The hotel is basically using all the spaces now, And we're trying to meet those needs. So part of our plan is the interconnectivity of these garages, just for the very reason mentioned in the guidelines. So the next step is we're trying to be sure that we have viable retail. Some decisions were made, Graham, largely to your advice, that the perimeter of this block is so important to us at street level that we're trying to do it right. We had a bank that was going to be in the corner of Main Street and Limestone. the key corner in the city, the corner of Main and Main, and we put them somewhere else to create retail. And it's critical that our downtown be alive at night. Banks are great. They're great tenants. They pay rent. But they close at five. No reflection on the banks that are here. We love them. But I'm just saying that you've got to give the appearance of viability, and we agree with it. It's critical you have people on the street. But the way you get people on the street down here is not only during the day. We don't have that problem during the day. It's at night. And a large part of that is going to be future parking and future needs, and that will involve housing. We've got to do more. And, again, with working with the courthouse overlay folks, the city, and the Wuggerice Trust and so forth, we've got to make intelligent use of these infill lots. And that's going to involve dense housing, like it or not. We had a proposal last summer for a 17-story residential tower in place of the office building. Well, that didn't work for us for two reasons. One is office was the need. We needed it. We're 97% leased in the financial center. We're at 91% leased in the Vine Center. Langley is 90% leased next door. The retail in this area is strong, but also the office building is strong. But we also, if you're going to have a drugstore and if you're going to have a grocery store, you're going to have to have parking, but you've got to have shoppers, which comes first. So we think housing is going to have to come first, and we're proposing three or four sites right now that we're going to bring back to you for their infill. And we're going to have to address those opportunities when they come, but the demand is there for them. I can assure you right now that's the case. So anyway, to bring you up to date, we're proceeding well. The steel will be on the site in the next two weeks where the office building is going to go up. It will top out in March. The concrete structure for the hotels will be in. It's coming precast from Bristol Group. That will be in probably March or April. This thing is going to fly up. Now, the reality also is that by the end of the year, those buildings will be closed in. And another 90 days to open the hotel for you have to install the furniture, pictures, and equipment. And then go through employee training. So all this is on track. So we never had better momentum. than we've had right now in the downtown and things are going well. We want to keep it well. So I got a call about three months ago, I guess, from the guys at the state, and we worked very closely with them through the years on the Pedway system. And they're staunch supporters, big believers, but they want to get out of the Pedway business. And I know the state's under a budget crunch and so forth, and they don't want to maintain them. They don't want to be involved in them. It's just not an asset that they do. The same thing was true of the parking garages. The two that were here that they owned, they sold to the private sector, and life has gone on, because they didn't want to be in that business. That's not a state function. So we had a meeting, and four folks, I think, from the city administration were there, the LAPCG representatives, the property owners surrounding, the Hilton folks, Victorian Square was represented, the Lexington Center, Kincaid, and then Howard Renters as we came east. And the discussion was from the state, we need to decide what we're going to do with them. We believe in them. We want to keep them. But we're going to have to make a separate arrangement. So the representatives of the city there, they wholly endorsed the concept of the pedways. They believe in them. They recognize what they do. And we're very supportive. But the city's in the same budget crunch as everybody else is. So they were looking to the private sector to take them, and we've agreed to do so. So we're going to take over the pedways. So we're taking over the maintenance. Some of the documents have already been signed. Some have been conveyed. And we have the largest interest down there because we own four of those big blocks in that area. But so if you are trying to deal with parking, we've got to find a way to do that. And we're trying to take care of the needs of the tenants. That's what keeps them here. That's what keeps them happy. So we're very hard to do that. So the interconnectivity of these buildings has been really important. It will be equally as important when we open these new two hotels, the 350 hotel rooms are going to be here. You're going to have 1,200 people working in that block, and we don't have enough parking in the underground garage. We know that already, too, because they've been earmarked for the various uses. So we're trying to solve a bigger problem. So the thought occurred to us that the interconnectivity of the Marriott and the Residence Inn and the 600-car garage we have at the Financial Center A lot of those uses are complementary. Nights, weekends for events, weddings, whatever, the peak demand days on Saturday and Sunday for the hotels are a little bit different than the office user. So during the day, our needs are going to be met, but we have spaces begging for use at night. So again, the interconnectivity of this would be important. So we looked at the feasibility of connecting the Financial Center Garage and going all the way through to RUB and connecting into the Marriott. The logical place to hit that was on the second level where the ballrooms are of the new hotels. That's going to be the nicest spot to hit. That also allowed us to go turn the Pedway, once it got inside the building, you're in a big open foyer area, then you turn left and you go to the Main Street frontage. And there we added an elevator that will go through the garage, come up to ground level, and all the way to the second level. level, and the reason being was to help meet the needs of 21C and the other businesses across Main Street, and there are businesses in the office building and in the retail center. So that's part of the reason that we're here. So the next challenge was to figure out where we could do it. The reality is that we can go 60 feet south of what you see up there, and this was a placeholder. I apologize to you. That rendering, as I explained, that was like the one one that runs from Festival Market over to, or Victoria Square, and Triangle over to Hilton. So the latest renderings that came this morning are clear glass. They're all, just about all glass. They've got a flat slab they'll sit on. But it's, we just think it's more architecturally appeasing, I think, to those who might be critics of PEDWAYS. But anyway, it complements what's there. And remember that we went to great lengths throughout this entire project to meet the needs and expectations and the guidelines of this group. We debated it many times. We finally got it right. And so what we want to do is complete it right. Now, that's an interior shot of the all-glass pathway. It's contemporary. These hotels are contemporaries, though. We're trying to meet the needs and wants of the area. So the next question was, where could we put it that will be acceptable? The reality is, as I said, we go 60 feet south, you're in an area where the Joe Rosenberg building was and the old Mia's restaurant space was. That's not in the overlay. So if we want to scoot south, we can do it there without having to come here. But the logical place for that to hit is across that vacant alley back there and to come in and hit that ballroom space up there. So that's the reason I bring this back to you for consideration and discussion. So the next question was, we don't own the McAdams and Warford building. We don't own the alley. What we do own is the alley that runs north and south along the McAdams and Moorford building between the garage and McAdams and Moorford. So we talk to the owners of the McAdams and Moorford building, and we talk to the businesses that are affected by this about what can we do here to make this an iconic pedway but also make it something that's complementary to your uses. This is still evolving. The reason we don't have a plan is we don't have it yet, and we've got to go back to the property owners. So the discussion was at some point in time, I think, that the property owners of McAdams and Morford want to build in the alley. So could we make this a part of that? So there's a 60-foot connection in reality that comes across from the hotel and goes to the back of McAdams and Morford. At that point in time, at our expense, we'll build that part of it as an add-on in a backpack there. They can utilize the ground-level expansion space for their improvements. They would close up that alley, but it's still a functional space that fits them. Equally as important, that gives them pedway access to the parking garage, the hotels, and the back of the McAdams and Morford space, which makes their second and third level much more rentable. So these are all part of the compromises that we're talking about in this process, but it's one that we've got the one opportunity to do this, and if we don't, so be it. We'll just have to live without it. People have to go outside or whatever. But also think about it from the perspective of the 21C user. You have ladies who come in and sit at the hotel at 11 o'clock at night. They've gone to the convention center to a ballgame or a meeting or an event or whatever, the new convention centers say, and they're walking back on a rainy, cold night in February. Are they going to be down on Vine Street? They don't want to be, but they would have to be in that light. Same thing on Main Street. We're not trying to take life off Main Street or Vine. We're merely trying to enhance the experience of the guests who come here and that we're going to be entertaining. So the reality is we have to weigh viability at the street level, streetscape, and we're trying our darnedest to make that more viable. We have a restaurant at the corner of Upper and Main, a new one. That's 3,500 square feet. We've got two restaurants that will go in the middle, and we have, by virtue of being a Marriott franchisee, we're entitled to a Starbucks license. So we intend to put one of the new Starbucks stores 3,500 square feet. It'll be state-of-the-art. And that's the plan for the corner where the bank was. I just think it's the right steps. It's the right thing to do. And, of course, with Jeff Ruby on Vine Street, that's going to be that much more of a new addition. 10,000 square feet, biggest story he's done yet. spending $4 million in city space. It's just going to change the dynamic that we have here. And some people may be opposed to change, but we've got to do it to stay on top of things. So in any event, the Pedway system is alive and well. We're going to be redecorating those. We've got to modernize them. We know that. So that's a commitment that's been made by the private sector. And the city has told us that they're on board with the Pedway systems. They haven't looked at this particular plan or blessed it, but it's one in concept that we think we satisfy the neighbors. They've got a vested interest in it. We're meeting the needs of the parking folks downtown. We're giving people access to go all the way from the square back up to the Marriott and all the way to Rupp Arena until the new convention center is in place. So that's my spiel. I throw it out to you for discussion. We can talk about it. If it's yay, then we want to pursue it. If not, we understand. All right, thank you. And I'll open it up for the discussion. Questions and comments? One thing I'd point out to you, if people say they don't use them, they're not down there. You see it, they're responsible for cleaning them, so they don't know how many people do to use them. And again, it's not on the pretty days, the sunny days, the all-weather days. We want people on the street, but we're trying to deal with their needs when it's not. Mr. Webb, there was a time in the process that you've been through with this board, when there was a pedestrian walkway proposed more or less in this location, and then it dropped out of the application. Can you address that, why it dropped out? I was advised to take it off. It was too controversial at the time, and we'd deal with it later. So we're back. And at the time, the main thing was to get the thing we approved that we could do. This is a $200 million investment. There's $80 million in our money and Phil Greer's money in this deal now. And it's a substantial commitment. And believe me, the partners in this deal want to do it right. They're here for a reason. Nobody in their right mind would come down here and invest $80 million in the downtown election as it's proven by the fact that it hadn't happened in 30 years. I mean, I'm just appreciative that the Kings are willing to do what they're doing. That's a step in the right direction. Living within the constraints of what we have, and we've all tried to do that. You all know that. So we're trying to get it right, and it's just an opportunity, and I think the community needs to decide whether or not they want to entertain it. Well, I'm going to be transparent about my attitude toward this. I read it on Facebook. Did you see that? Yes. You know, I didn't know that this was going to be coming up. And then David posted that. You called it an abomination, I think. So what happened was someone posted a picture of the Victorian Square block, a historic photo, and then a sort of a before and after photo. And the after photo has the pedestrian walkway that, in my view, completely destroys the view of that block. And so I made a comment on it, and there was an extensive discussion on Facebook. This was just a few days ago. And then the next day I get an email from someone saying, did you know that you're going to be discussing this issue? I said I had no idea. It didn't bother me. I'm here to get everybody's opinion and to get everybody's input, which I do the right thing. Woodford chimed in, which was good. That was good. So I'm of the firm belief that pedestrian overpasses are really bad for cities. And for two main reasons. One, that they do remove pedestrians from the street level, which is clearly not a good thing. I don't care how you paint it. It's not a good thing. Cities are safer and more inviting when there are people on the streets. And the second reason being, and for me the primary reason personally, is that they really destroy view corridors in the street. So there's an image that you have of the placeholder walkway, as you say, looking in the other direction. And if you could switch to the other rendering looking northward, to me this is case in point. I don't care what the pedestrians. How much you can do to that, that's not what we're proposing. I understand that. Now there's a building over there across the street. And I appreciate the one that you're proposing now is clearly architecturally very superior. But picture if the owners of the McAdams and Morphill building expand their building in back, fill the alley, and we tie to that. It's a different concept entirely. It's a 60-foot pedway, then we go inside the new space and we'll work with that. But completely aside from what it looks like and what the experience of it is, When you look at this image, first of all, the image does not have the courthouse or the 21C building in it, and you would discover that that walkway is going to obscure views as you're walking down Upper Street, that its effect would be very unfortunate with regard to what your experience would be as a pedestrian moving northward on Upper Street. furthermore it's terribly disrespectful of mcadams morford building so i would i would you know if i were to visualize an alternative in this location i would say why not build a street level access where there's a canopy that protects people as they move out toward the street a a an activated pedestrian crossing at the street you'd have to work with the city on that and so on so so there i mean something that would be in scale with the mcadams more for building and doesn't disrespect it so intensely um but putting that aside and completely um separate from my personal feelings about this i'm going to go through the guidelines that relate to this and um i i would point out that um of the uh principles and guidelines that relate to this there there's one that supports your argument and that is that um there should be we should provide a direct connection between a parking structure and its surrounding businesses or it says that's desirable and I would agree with that but the but the rest of the guidelines clearly argue against it principle two is to enhance the street level as an inviting place for pedestrians this clearly works against that principle three is to encourage to relate to traditional buildings in the area and to contribute to visual continuity it's obvious that this is not happening here if the building is historic structure then respect its earlier character and this is important because because of the relationship between that the pedway and the McAdams Morford building we go on to pedestrian interest the guideline is that existing pedestrian route should be enhanced and that the ground level ground floor level of project should be developed to encourage pedestrian activity this this doesn't help in that regard and finally at a minimum a parking structure should help to animate the street and be compatible with the surrounding historic contracts so so the bulk of our guidelines that we are charged with, from which we need to make our decision, are arguing against the proposal. Let me point out to you, Graham, first of all, in terms of the historic significance of the Mechanism Morpher, there's no question that facade is beautiful, that building is beautiful, it's fine. I would point out to you that the back of that building is a concrete block. That was rebuilt. Of all the areas that it's least offensive, it's probably the location where we would proposed to put this. The back of that building has been modified, and they're trying to figure out what to do with it and how to deal with it and so forth. I'd also point out to you, in terms of the retail presence or the street-level presence across the street from that, where we hit the Marriott, that's above the loading dock door. There's nothing new to make that scenic. It just doesn't happen. But of all the places to put it, but also the view from that location of the courthouse is minimal and 21C that's minimal. But I also point out to you that when we fought the battle before about the taking down the buildings, the corner of Upper Street and Main where the old Buster's was, that they talked of taking down that historic building and so forth and so on. I have a picture of that in 1955 and that building wasn't there. That was totally built new in 1955. It showed it flattened. So, again, we can move 60 feet away from this further south and do it without coming to ask. Do we want to do that? No. I think it ought to be where it needs to naturally fall. Let me tell you what happens here. That pedway goes across, turns right to the other side of McAdams and Moorford, goes north toward Main Street, and gets the end of the parking garage from the second level. Only by doing that can we tie this into the pedway system. We'll do what we did at the Hilton where we put the glass enclosure along Main Street. It's enclosed, protected, and those pedestrians or guests can go right straight through there, turn right, turn left, turn right, get back into the pedway system, the elevators. There's about 2,500 feet of elevators. You know, we spent almost $10 million on those to do them, and I don't think anybody wants to throw them away. The question is, do we go one more 60 feet and do something that's going to service people, or do we forget it? And the second part of it is when you leave the hotel guest or you leave 21C, you've got to go all the way down next to the financial center building, go down that alleyway to get in the elevator system to get up to the pedway. And that's a major inconvenience. This way we're making it accessible. But, again, I'm here to listen and hopefully we can all work together and figure out what we're going to do here and keep moving. The good news is the project is on site. We've added, with your all's approval, we went back to the 12-story hotel, which is great news. We have picked up another five suites up there on the top level, executive suites. We picked up another level of residence-in rooms and suites, and we picked up a sky bar and a new rooftop pool. It's going to be phenomenal, all this overlooking the old courthouse. So it's just going to create lots of viability and interest, and we're excited and ready to get it open. So that's my speed. Other questions and comments? Probably not surprising, but I'm in a similar position to Graham. And I think the versions of PEDWAYs you described at kind of what are international cities, the pressure on the urban environment is very different than downtown Lexington. And so I know that Los Angeles has a series of these. They're probably adding more just because of the number of people who are on top of each other down there. But Los Angeles has really struggled for many years to get people on the streets and downtown. I'm not quite sure they've fully overcome that because there are areas where the pedways are that tend to be really dead on the streets. And so I can imagine in a major city where you have a much higher density of people, that you've got more people choosing to walk the street as opposed to the pedways. I think here the conversation that you described, which is a fact of life here, which is people want to literally get out of their car and walk in the door, that's part of urban life. And I think adding a pedway like this to increase that convenience negatively impacts the street life. But I understand the reason for it because people are generally lazy and they would prefer to literally walk out their door, right? I think the location you've chosen for the Pedway, other than crossing that, what's really one of the more interesting spaces of kind of public restaurants in downtown, the Harvey's Bar in the back there, other than crossing that, I think it's probably the best location based on the criteria you've set forth. But I just think generally it causes problems in the urban environment to produce more of these. The biggest problem we have is parking. And the parking authority has looked at a number of sites standing here. You can't get them or they're not available or there's just limited sites for parking. And this six or seven block concentrated area down there, we've got to have more parking. And you either go build something or you've got to interconnect that which we have. And that's what we're talking about doing here. Any other questions, sir? I'm going to go a little on the crazy side of things and ask you if you've thought much about the impact of autonomous vehicles on parking needs. Because I think in 20 years, the parking needs are going to diminish by an enormous percentage because people are going to start using autonomous vehicles. You know, that's something we're still trying to figure out. That's a challenge for these guys because you think about it. You know, we're going to self-driving cars, three or four years. They talk about the number that will be on the roads. What do they do when they get inside our garage underground? And the satellite signal is not up there for them to refer to. There will be services like Uber that will be self-driving cars that you will get on your phone and you'll order one, and it will show up at your door in five minutes, take you to work, drop you off. You won't have to own a car. This is going to happen. It's going to happen in the next 20 years. I mean, huge numbers of people are going to be using services like that. I agree with you. What was really interesting about this exercise for me is we had to go through an immersion program, which all of us did up in Bethesda, Maryland, with Marriott. And they had some amazing stats they talked to us about because they're designing for the millennials. And the average age of the average business traveler today would be, what would you guess, 20, 30, 40? I said 40. It's 26. The sex of the average business traveler today is female, 70%. So it just tells you about how their focus is changing to reality and how our world is changing. You know, it's a new time, and we've got to adjust for it. But this was just a convenience factor here, and the greatest impact will probably be on the office users that we're all trying to attract and keep down here. So they're the big daytime users for us. And in the future, we're going to have lots of residences down here, too, and we need a couple of big residential developments. I think Phoenix Park's doing great. I mean, they're full and great rates, and it's an indication of viability for downtown. And I compliment you all. A lot of this is the hard work that you all do and the sacrifices you make, because I know that you don't get paid a whole lot of money to be up here listening to me. I'm glad Graham brought up the autonomous vehicles, because this is stuff we're talking about right now at the college, thinking about master planning projects and how that's going to impact the future of cities. And I think it will. It will very much change parking demand all over. And you'll find that a lot of those sites become actually viable investment options for no cars, right, to bring more people back into the spaces. Because my guess is you'll have much denser parking conditions that go more vertical that can be called up fairly quickly. And people will start to rely less on the cars. I mean, that's kind of the world is urbanizing, you know, generally. I think it's about 2050, 2060, 70% of the world's population will be in urban centers. This is just coming, and so I agree with that. If we look out 20 to 30 years in the future, the pedway will be not very useful, and it'll become a kind of scar on the city to some degree. One of the problems that we have also is we're competing with the suburbs. And it's great that Tony's, we were talking this morning about the fact that we're, I would never believe that you get $8 or $9 for valet parking for a restaurant. But they're doing it. But they're providing unique service. But it really puts us, these smaller restauranteurs here, at a competitive disadvantage. And we can get more for parking, we've made more money, but we're not in the garage business for a profit. It's just a loss leader. We know that going in. We spent $43 million on this garage over here, and it's worth maybe $10 million when it opens. So, again, you've got to have it. It's a necessary evil. What was interesting is that we talked about the comprehensive plan here, the downtown master plan. We were encouraged in 2007 to go underground, and the impact of master plan called for all future garages to be underground. The reason being, you didn't want to bifurcate the buildings in the middle of the street and have these wide expanses of parking garages. Well, that's great, and it's going to work well here. But it comes with a tremendous load that you've got to carry, and we've got to figure out creative ways to do it. Thank goodness we had the TIF because that's what made this possible. Anyway, anything else that we have? Other questions? I would just add for myself that I use the Pedways this time of year every day. But I prefer to be outside. As you said, I'm exactly that type of user. I walk the streets, if it's raining, snowing, freezing cold, and it allows me to go a lot further from, as I'd probably stay within a block or two radius as you pointed out, and I end up four or five blocks away eating at the restaurant of my choice because of that. And conditions do dictate that. I am sensitive to streetscape and foot traffic and all these things. I just don't happen to be one of those people who thinks it is an either or. I also am sensitive to views, and I do think it does have an impact. And I think that's absolutely where we need to, you know, think about and contemplate. However, I think Graham put it well. Setting my personal feelings aside, it really comes down for us as a board. We are dictated to vote based upon the guidelines and to make decisions based upon these guidelines, as you know, and there are some clear guidelines that I think are at conflict with this being at that position as much as I would love to see it there. And I think that's really the crux of this discussion. And I think you've, I appreciate your candor, appreciated the board's candor on the topic, but I think that that's really the discussion point on this, is going forward, these principles and the guidelines and where this is positioned in relation to those principles and guidelines. I recognize that. I appreciate your opinion. The challenge for us is not only to work with the various stakeholders here, including the property owners, to get what they want, and then number two would be if we come back, to bring you something to be compliant. So That will get there. Other questions? So do we actually, Brandy, do we actually have a vote on this, because I saw that and I didn't think so. I thought this was just a discussion. Appreciate your time. Also, is there any public comment? I should have opened it up. Is there any public comment at this point on this? Great. My name is Laith Ross. I'm representing the owner, Jim Ross, of the McAdams Morford building, a portion that's not owned by Joe Rosenberg. As Dudley said, he had spoken to us. His designer or his team has spoken to us. We're not against it. We think it could be beneficial to all the parties involved if done correctly, but it would have to be done correctly in our opinion. It does have an impact to our building. However, as Dudley said, the parking issue and the lack of access to parking is a major crux for us in the rental of that building. We have had a very sketchy rental for the second and third floor of that building for the past 10 years simply because parking is not available. So we do see some benefit, but only if it's done correctly. So I just wanted to give that input. All right. Any questions? All right. Thank you very much. I think that concludes our discussion on case number four dash. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. My name is Ben Steffen. I'm the senior manager of Recipe Plus, formerly Central Parking here in Lexington. We operate the Financial Center Garage. we're hoping that will be installed as the operator at CenterPoint as well. We used to operate the Vine Center Garage. That was actually one of my projects back when I was first starting out. I can tell you that it was a huge, huge benefit to have those two garages interconnected by the pedway. Nights when the ballroom had functions going on at Hilton, we were able to overflow into the Financial Center Garage. We couldn't have gotten through some nights, ballgame nights, big event nights, like Dudley was talking about, weddings, those types of things. without that connectivity. Parking is all about perception. And the perception of a building being separated from another building causes people not to want to park there. So we need that connectivity to push through to be able to utilize both these garages together to make sure we meet all the needs of all the buildings in this area. Any questions or comments? Thank you very much. All right, anything else? I think that does conclude case number 4-2012. We have another last item on the agenda is the approval of the 2018 meeting schedule. The dates are February 14th, May 9th, August 8th, and November 14th. Obviously subject to availability and review. can I have a motion to approve those the meeting schedule for 2018? So moved. And a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes. I would like to conclude this meeting first with saying thank you very much Brandy for your service. You have a very tough position and And I know that that is going to be moving on and say welcome as well, but it's, you know, given the discussion that we had today, I understand the difficulty in trying to serve all the parties, trying to keep up with all the guidelines, make on-site visits, and wearing so many hats. And I really appreciate your service, and it's been very beneficial for us as a board, so thank you very much. And at this point, I'd like to adjourn the November 5, 2017 Courthouse Area Design Review Board meeting. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. And a second. Second. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes and we are adjourned. Thank you.