# Board of Architectural Review - August 22, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 22, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4580 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4580?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-08-22 - **Last revised**: August 22, 2018 - **Length**: 27,496 words - **Speakers**: Chad > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review convened on August 22, 2018, to review Certificate of Appropriateness applications. The meeting focused on a single agenda item addressing multiple Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, with outcomes varying by individual application. During the session, the board conducted four motions and votes on the various applications under consideration. The meeting included three public comments from community members regarding the proposed projects. The board's deliberations resulted in mixed outcomes for the applications, with some receiving approval and others facing different determinations based on the specific merits and compliance requirements of each proposal. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 22, 2018: **Present:** • Christopher MacDonald • Grant Mills • Fred • Dudley Webb • Woodford Webb • Elizabeth Hunt • Nick Nicholson • Bill Lear No absences or late arrivals were recorded for this meeting. All eight attendees were present for the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted four votes during the meeting, all by voice vote. **Certificate of Appropriateness - 152 Old Park Avenue** [timestamp: 00:00] The board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for 152 Old Park Avenue by a vote of 4-0. The approval included two standard conditions as read into the record. **Certificate of Appropriateness - 276 Clay Avenue** [timestamp: 00:00] A Certificate of Appropriateness for 276 Clay Avenue was approved unanimously 4-0. The approval came with three conditions, including a requirement to paint the CMU foundation. **Window Replacement Application - 305 Grosvenor Avenue** [timestamp: 00:00] The board voted 4-0 to disapprove an application to replace windows with vinyl at 305 Grosvenor Avenue. No conditions were attached to this denial. **Demolition Approval - 120 West High Street** [timestamp: 00:00] The most contentious vote involved the demolition of 120 West High Street. Graham Pohl made the motion to approve the demolition based on no reasonable economic return. The motion passed 3-1, with three board members voting in favor including Pohl, and one member voting against. The approval was subject to conditions previously read into the record. All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than formal roll call, with specific individual vote positions only recorded for the demolition decision where Graham Pohl was identified as the motion maker. ## Public Comment Three community members spoke during the public comment period, all addressing concerns related to a proposed demolition and development at 120 West High Street. **Mary Campbell** [timestamp: 00:00] expressed opposition to the demolition of 120 West High Street. Campbell raised concerns about the precedent that approving such demolition would set and emphasized the importance of preserving historic structures in the community. **Jake Gibbs** [timestamp: 00:00] focused his comments on concerns about the height of the proposed new building that would replace the existing structure. Gibbs specifically cited the potential negative impact that a taller building would have on the surrounding historic district. **Tim Condo** [timestamp: 00:00] argued for the historical significance of the building located at 120 West High Street. Condo contended that due to this historical importance, the structure should not be demolished. All three speakers shared a common theme of preservation concerns, whether focused on the specific building's historic value, the broader implications for historic district character, or the precedent that demolition approval might establish for future development decisions. ## Contested Items The board faced a significant division over the proposed demolition of the building located at 120 West High Street. This item generated substantial debate among board members, resulting in a split vote that highlighted competing priorities between historical preservation and economic considerations. The disagreement centered on whether to approve the demolition request for the property at 120 West High Street. Board members expressed conflicting views regarding the building's historical significance and its current economic viability. Some members advocated for preserving the structure due to its potential historical value, while others supported the demolition based on economic factors and practical considerations for the property's future use. The contentious nature of this item was evident in the board's inability to reach a clear consensus, ultimately resulting in a split vote. The division among board members reflected broader community tensions between development interests and historic preservation efforts. *Note: Specific vote tallies, individual board member positions, and the final outcome of this contested item were not available in the provided meeting materials. Transcript timestamps could not be included as the source audio/video was not accessible for this meeting.* ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this meeting, with various outcomes for different projects. The discussion involved several key participants including Christopher MacDonald, Grant Mills, Fred, Dudley Webb, Woodford Webb, Elizabeth Hunt, Nick Nicholson, and Bill Lear. The applications under consideration covered a range of construction and renovation projects. Among the projects discussed were: • Construction of a pergola • Addition of a rear dormer • Demolition and new construction at 120 West High Street The board engaged in detailed discussions about each application, examining the proposed work against historic preservation standards and district guidelines. Multiple speakers presented information and perspectives on the various projects, indicating thorough consideration of each application's merits and potential impacts on the historic character of the area. The outcomes varied across the different applications, suggesting that each project was evaluated on its individual characteristics and compliance with preservation requirements. Some applications may have received approval while others required modifications or faced different determinations based on the board's assessment of their appropriateness for the historic district. The varied nature of the outcomes reflects the board's careful consideration of each project's unique circumstances and adherence to historic preservation standards. The presence of multiple speakers and stakeholders demonstrates the collaborative approach taken in reviewing these applications and ensuring proper oversight of changes within the historic district. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 152 Old Park Avenue - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for 276 Clay Avenue - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Disapproval of application to replace windows with vinyl at 305 Grosvenor Avenue - **Motion** — passed (3-1): Approval of demolition of 120 West High Street based on no reasonable economic return --- ## Full transcript we are adjourned. I would like to welcome you to the August 22, 2018 meeting of the board of architectural review. We appreciate those of you in attendance today. The board was established by a zoning ordinance in 1958. We have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the urban county council, is part of the historic preservation office. The historic preservation office maintains full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends applicants use them as a resource. The historic preservation office is located 101 east vine street room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they're listed on the agenda. In each case we have a presentation by the staff and hear additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions and make comments and hear comments from any interested parties. The chair will ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to take notice of the following staff approvals before we begin our review applications. There are certain items the staff can approve eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 17 approved applications on today's agenda. In the ashland historic district at 274 south hanover avenue, remove dying tree. In the south ashland central ash land historic district at 280 south ashland, renovate garage. From the aylesford historic district, install fencing. At 11 preston court replace damage tree. At 325 park avenue construct fence and large patio. Bell court historic district 146 east bell court install hand rail. The gratz park historic district 201 north mill street, repair damaged... I'm not sure what that is. In the northside historic district at 510 north broadway remove dying tree. In the seven parks historic district at 601 arcadia park replace dying tree. At 1605 elizabeth street renovate garage. At 130 shawnee place replace three windows. In the south hill historic district at 407 south mill street reissue certificate of appropriateness. At 563 west short street reissue c. On. A. In the woodward heights historic district 318 madison place install gas meter. 332 and 331 madison place install gas meter. We'll turn our attention to the first application, which is at 152 old park avenue in the aylesford historic district. Scope of work is construct pergola. Is the applicant here? State your name for the record. >> christopher macdonald. >> I believe the staff has reviewed your application and has recommended approval subject to what we call our standard conditions. >> okay. >> we'll read those into the record. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work and once reviewed by other lfucg divisions resubmit changes to staff or board prior to the start of work if any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work and once reviewed by other lfucg divisions resubmit changes to staff or board prior to the start of work are you in agreement? >> I am. >> any questions or comments from the board members? From the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. >> Mr. Chair regarding case number 32200152-m at 152 old park avenue, move to approve the application for certificate of appropriateness. With the two standard conditions as read into the record earlier. >> do I have a is ekd? >> I second. >> any other questions? All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes. The C.O.A. Is issued and approv ed. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. 76 aylesford historic district. >> grant mills. >> Mr. Mills, how are you today? >> good. >> I believe the staff has reviewed and recommended approval of your application. There are three conditions. The first one being that the cmu foundation be painted? Last two conditions are the standard conditions previously read into the record. Are you in agreement with the conditions? >> yes, sir. >> any questions or concerns from the board members? >> no. >> any questions or comments from the audience? If not the chair is ready for a motion. >> Mr. Chairman, relative to case number 04150276-c at 276 clay avenue, I move that we approve this application for certificate of appropriateness for the work proposed in the submittal and reviewed and approved by the staff with the following conditions: cmu foundation be parched or painted once reviewed by the lfucg divisions, any changes come back to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work and if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Chair calls the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes. And the certificate of appropriateness is approved. >> great. Thank you all. All right, turning now to attach ment number 3. >> Mr. Chairman,. >> yes ma'am. Is it possible for us to go right to attachment number 4 which shouldn't take long? >> all right. And then come back to number 3. >> I think it got lost. >> here's mine. >> May I have yours. This one May require some debate but I'll go ahead and call it. This is 305 grosvenor avenue. To put in window. The staff has recommended dis approval. Would you like to be heard on this... First of all state your name for the record. >> fred. >> would you like to be heard on this application? >> yes. >> let's have a staff present ation then. >> this is a property at 305 grosvenor and this property was cited by code enforcement and many of the repairs were in the process of being worked on when staff met with code enforcement officers and the owners at the site. One of them was the replacement of windows. >> there have been plea windows that were replaced. This one this one, this one and this one and this window, in a side window have already been replaced with viable so the owner went ahead and replaced the windows with vinyl windows in lieu of wood or aluminum clad windows. So here is a little bit more detailed image of the windows this window is hidden by this giant bush but is the existing window that was replaced many years ago. And this is one of the windows replaced. >> the storm systems are in front of these but these are replacement windows behind there were two replacement rin doughs that were existing situations and the owner put in three new minor replacement windows. This is a very large building and it has many windows. Upstairs is missing and has the roof with all replacement window s at the very pop. -- at the top. These are just sort of images of existing window systems that are wood. The owner has made clear that any additional replacement of windows needs to be addressed individually and not necessarily calling staff versus going ahead and replacing them. This is the building... Oops. This is an existing window and these two have been recently replaced. Guidelines included for your reference. This proposal requires careful consideration prior to the replacing the windows staff requires review of the windows to determine if they're candidate for replacement. However staff was not able to review the windows because they were replaced without a coa permit. The windows were already replaced. Do sign guideline principles state detail size and shape of elements help establish rhythm scale and proportion and reflect architectural style and character. Windows should be maintained or repaired to match the original design. If deteriorated beyond repair, the installation of new wood windows to match old windows is recommended. Aluminum clad and an onized can be considered if original window s cannot be repaired. Vinyl are not allowed. Staff finds it should match in material size and design and should remain aluminum or wood windows vinyl windows is not within the guidelines. Staff recommended disapproval of the application to replace windows in vinyl and of course the applicant is present. >> did the applicant make any effort to contact you prior to the replacement of the windows? >> no, he did not. >> thank you. >> there were three windows that needed replacement I told my guy to replace it with what was existing. He matched it up with what was there. >> were you aware that you were in a historic district. >> I didn't realize it at the time. >> how long have you owned property? >> 10 years. >> long time to go without knowing you are in a historic district. >> any questions? >> I was under constraint of time as well for code enforcement. I had to act fairly quickly. They gave me two months. >> your windows were cited by code enforcement and you were trying to comply with the code enforcement directive? >> yes. >> is my memory correct that code enforcement usually denotes when a house is in a historic district or not? >> that's always been our understanding and that seems to have been working pretty well, but I can't suggest that we know that they always do that. They've had a number of change overs in their staff, so that May have added to any possibilities for somebody not knowing to say to an owner as a side bar reminder that they're in a historic district. But I'm not privy how they handled this. >> May I suggest have someone from staff check with code enforcement and see if it is being done. It might not hurt to have them highlight it. >> it's in the system, on the computer of course but there are many opportunities for these things to be missed. Thank you. >> any questions from the other board members. Comments? Go ahead, sarah. >> we have never allowed somebody to put vinyl windows in because it's, they generally don't have the details that the original window did and they also don't last very long. And... >> I think they last longer than wood from my understanding. >> well most people are doing wood with outside aluminum over it so that on the inside you have the wood. >> it had one existing on the first floor and two existing vinyl windows on the second floor. So I just matched them up. >> I'm really sorry. If we approve one, it weakens our position with every... >> all right. So tear them down? >> and sir, if this helps any, you are not the first person to have done this, which is why we keep trying to cooperate with code enforcement and make sure that people are put on notice that they're in the historic district. I hate to sound brutal about this but have you an obligation to be aware of any zoning restrictions that might be in place I'm not going to beat you up anymore. I realize it is going to cost you money. I appreciate your cooperation in trying to work with us if code enforcement, if you need additional time, you can probably have it. >> I'll probably need at least two or three months. They're custom windows. Eight weeks for custom windows. >> that's fine. >> do I have a motion? Do I have any questions or comments from the audience? Do I have a motion? >> Mr. Chair regarding case 085-3030 at 305 grosvenor avenue , I move to disapprove the application to replace the windows with viable. Do I have a second? >> any questions or comments% about the motion if not the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. And the certificate of appropriateness is disapproved. Okay. Now turning to attachment number 3 and this is going to be 114, 116, 120 west hynes street and 305 west upper street. I have a couple of comments I want to make regarding tonight's process. I apologize, it's allergy season so I'm a little out of breath. In looking at the regulation which is set out in the ordinance at 13-7-c-sub-1. It's a three-step process in my view and in order to accommodate the audience and in order to make this process as efficient as possible, I would like for us to make this... I would like to adhere to the following process and I need your consent if you agree. First of all we must take make a determination that the building is hoicial significant and then must determine whether no reasonable economic return can be realized from the property. I will note that the issue we can postpone consideration of the application for up to a year for additional studies if needed we also must determine if the building is historically significant. If we find the building is not historically significant, the inquiry ends there and will then proceed to consider the condo building application. If we determine there is sufficient evidence that a reasonable rate of return cannot be realized, we must approve the demolition request and mof on to -- move on to consideration of the site plans. If we are not satisfied that we have enough evidence as to the reasonable expectation of the economic return, we can discuss a timetable by which we request assistance in helping us evaluate the proposal adhering to the following process: one, a full presentation by the staff considering the application to demolish and replace it with a condominium. Staff will take any questions that the board members May have. Secondly, so that the applicant can hear the citizens concerns first, we will anow any interest ed individuals to present their comments. If there is a spokesperson for an organization, please identify yourself. We will give a spokesperson about five minutes to make a presentation. Individuals May be limited to three minutes, depending on time thirdly,the applicant will make its presentation and take questions from the board members if there are additional comments or rebuttal from the audience, we will then hear them. After the conclusion of the hearing, the board will then debate the measure and take up each step in accordance with the regulation itself. >> Mr. Dickens, before you move forward, I understand and I apologize because this micro phone May get hot real quick. I understand the process as far as the staff application or staff presenting, getting comments and then having the applicant, but I think your first steps that you mentioned as the determinations, I'm not sure those are laid out. >> I started in the wrong place on my page. The first step is to make the determination whether it's hoicially significant. >> well, I think that the way it states if it is not significant to the principal structure and then also if moving it does not contribute to the character of or will not adversely affect the character in the h-1 and then thirdly the reasonable economic return. Am I in a different place? >> I am thinking there is no need to make an economic determination if we make a determination it is not historically significant. >> I guess I'm trying to see exactly where you see that stat ed. So everyone is clear. >> unfortunately, you know, the regulation says if one of the following conditions is determined to exist first being application for demolition or accessory structure which is not significant or the application will not adversely affect the building site, landmark or historic district which are significant. Removing a portion of the building which does not contribute to the character of and will not adversely affect the character of the property. That's the first determination. >> and I guess what I'm saying is I don't believe it's a determination. I think you can go under any of those. So if they only present under c, no reasonable economic return, they don't have to determine whether it's historically significant. >> I disagree with you. >> think that's the law department... That's our belief on how this is written. >> have you ever written an opinion on this before? >> well, this is not come up as far as the demolition. We have gone through the procedures and the way it says is the board shall hear evidence concerning the application at a public hearing and May approve only if one of the following is determined to exist. So if no reasonable economic return exist, the board can decide to demolish the building. If the board determines it's not historically significant, it's not a first determination if that makes sense. The. >> if we make a determination that there is no reasonable economic return, is it your interpretation that ends the inquiry Miss Kerr? >> I don't think I'm lawyered up enough to have an opinion about this. >> I think it's clear that she's right. The council is correct on this. It's any one of those conditions can be met. There is no requirement that any one go before any other. I agree with your process in that if we eliminate the first one, it makes the rest of them moot. >> if you decide to go with the first one, that's fine. However if they don't present that type of evidence and they're only presenting evidence as to no economic return, and that's what's before you, and you determine under that basis, that's perfectly acceptable as well. But it's... It did us not... It is not in order. Only one of these conditions have to be met is how this ordinance is written. It says only if one of the following conditions is determined to exist. >> so if I hear everybody, you are suggesting that if the applicant demonstrates they meet one, there is no need to hear any other no matter which one they demonstrate they meet. Is that what you are saying? >> yes, but I think any strong applicant is going to present all of the information they have >> which they're welcome to do. >> I have to apologize for the delay. Upon riding this more carefully, the fact that we have laid out all the conditions, I think led me to believing it is a series of determinations but having seen... It's not... I've never seen a regulation quite written this way without the semicolons and/or. In this respect we'll still have a presentation from the staff as to conditions b and c. Because it has been laid out in the presentation and the applicant can stake his flag on whatever ground he wants to stake it. >> I think the question for the board currently is Mr. Dickens was changing the order, the respect of having the staff presentation, then hearing from the audience and then have the applicant... >> I'm doing that only to have the applicant get the opportunity to deal with the objections being made, if any and that gives you an opportunity to hear them before we get into, rather than going back and forth. Do I have an agreement with this process? Do I need a motion? >> you don't need a motion. >> I think I have a consensus. I'll note that the applicant is present residence of south hill. >> I thought I would go through the photos first, get everyone oriented on to the property and the proposal. This is the state marker that notes that the building was erected in 1956 by the commonwealth of kentucky. This is a view from an upper floor done across street looking south at the north elevation. Another overall site, this is the building in question. These are the additional lots that will be affected. This is entry off of upper to these back lots. Those back lots are 308 and 320 south upper street. This is another view. This is more panoramic looking towards the southeast. This would be the corner of limestone and high street three or four adjacent historic buildings. The building in question. This is looking towards the southwest, the first methodist church this is back to upper street. Again the historic buildings, I'm sorry high street. Looking towards the southwest again at the church this is looking northwest at the adjacent commercial buildings and again to the north. This is looking from the driveway that I pointed out in the aerial photo. This is the entry in looking at the church again, this location and buildings associated with the church, some town homes on upper street. This is looking, again, into that driveway on the south side of the structure and then these are some internal photos of the upper street addresses showing where the parking will be locat ed. Now we are back to the building in question for demolition. This is looking towards the southwest at the corner of the building. More a center view of the courtyard that exists at the front. And then we are going to work our way around the building. This is looking to the southeast and elevation view of the building. You should note the granite framing around the opening and the brick masonry and then there is a different granite around the entry. And then some details of that elevation. This is the rear of the building with the disabled ramp and entry in. This would be the east elevation more of the parking lot photos here. This is looking towards the south looking back towards the northeast now we have a fairly long staff report for your entertainment. So again this is the residence at south hill. The scope of work is demolish structure. Construct a residential structure, parking lot and associated site work. The background. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the following work. The structure, which is a good example of this type and cubic massing of two stories. The second floor extending over the entry courtyard concrete capstone wall where it fronts on high street with both brick veneer raid laid in a running pattern. Prominent details found on the exterior are grouped windows with concrete sills on the north and east, north, south and east elevations. The original window openings are present throughout although the windows themselves have been replaced with a contemporary and alum aluminum system. Along upper street, large two story opening in the brick veneer filled with aluminum glass window system and smooth panels picture frame with brown honed granite. The front central entrance on upper street has a center stair rising to an aluminum glass entry frame with homed granite. Originally a seal of the commonwealth of kentucky was above the front entrance. Because of the upward slope to the south of upper street, the first floor window on this elevation occur mainly below grade within a stone walled window well entry doors are picture framed with granite and on to ground level. The second portion of the application is to construct a five-story building with parking at the partial first floor level under the second floor and roof top deck projecting bays rising to a roof with functional space designed for tenant use. Exterior stand imiption of metal panels brick and stone. At the first floor along the balcony is on the third and fourth floors. Proposed site work parking landscaping over the complete site. Staff's findings. South hill historic district includes a significant collection of historic architectural styles reflecting 225 years of lexington's architectural neighborhood evolution. And is one of lekd's oldest neighborhoods. In addition in the last 25 years or so, a number of new structure s have been constructed in the district,ry viewed and approved by the design review process in accordance with the design guidelines and all are compatible with the character of the site they're built on. The adjacent structures, the site they're built on, the adjacent structures and the neighborhood. One notable exception to these reviews and approvals is a condominium building now located at 355 south broadway. the record reflects that the boa r, board of architectural review chose not to take action on that coa application within the 90 days for action to be taken allowed at the time where a permit was approved wul formal action. Without action in April 1984. The permit language noting the board had not acted within the time period and no exz tension -- extension was agreed upon. The document reflects a building permit was to be issued by building inspection. The record reflects that the boa r members reviewed and discussed the application in considerable detail at several board meetings prior to the outcome. The structure at 120 west high is, by design, purposely not antique in appearance and successfully demonstrates that through its in tact architectural mid century commercial design. Mid century modern simplicity scale and mass is compatible with other buildings in the streetscape in the south hill historic district. The south hill neighborhood is recognized with both federal national register of historic places designation June 13, 1978 , and is a local historic district 1 --- had-1 overlay December designated 1972 and expanded 1976. The distinction between the two processes relative to the criteria by which designations should occur should be noted. The federal national register of historic places utilize 50 years old or older as threshold for listing in the national register for contributing buildings within a national register district. Buildings not yet 50 years old May be added to the national register district as time moves forward and the building becomes eligible. This structure at 120 west high street has been demonstrated to have crossed that 50 year -year-old or older threshold records records reflect that this site, 120 to 136 west high street has been determined to be listed in the national register of historic places as a contributing structure in the south hill historic district. It should be noted that the local historic district h-1 process does not include age structures criteria but based on a number of criteria enumerated in article 13 of the fayette county zoning ordinance. All properties in a designated local historic district whether structures, sites, 200 years old or recently built, outbidding buildings, landscaped or proposed new construction fall under the design review process and reviewed based on the design review guidelines and permits issued accordingly. Both local and federal designated historic district processes share many similar standards and with the national, state and local goal of preserv ing historic resources this structure reflects a sadly underappreciated and disappearing mid 20th century historic district siel of architecture, the circa 1956 commercial building was designed to fit comfortably with and not overwhelm in either mass nor height the mainly residential character of the south hill historic district. The use of buff brick in combination of simple owner am ation and clean lines were new elements of office building design of the 1950s. The use of these elements tells the story of change from pre-and post world war ii office construction. The importance of construction being expressed in the design and materials were features of mid century construction throughout the united states. Building esthetics were not about being pretty with added ornamentation and features but expressing function through design and material. Staff finds that the proposal to demolish this two story mid century circa 1956 brick commercial office building is neither within the design guidelines nor in compliance with article 13 of the lexington fayette county on ordinance. Demolition of historic buildings permanently alters the character of the individual site, streetscape building and district grouping. Demolition of a building should only be taken as an action of last resort demolition is not on historic sites unless certain conditions are demonstrated demolition guideline 6-c states demolition of buildings within a locally designated historic district is not permitted unless one of the following conditions exist. The demolition request is for an inappropriate addition, non- significant portion of the building or non-significant accessory structure provided that the demolition will not adversely affect those parts of the building or buildings that are significant as determined by the boar. The demolition request is for a non-contributing building and the demolition will not adverse ly affect the character of the district and number three , the property owner proves that no reasonable economic return May be gained from the property through a process designated in article 13 section 7-c. See appendix a for that while the condition of the building has been suggested to be beyond cost effective renovation by the applicant. Historic preservation staff has been presented with no demonstrated rehabilitation needs that would suggest a reason to demolish the structure taf has walked through the interior space of the structure and evaluated the exterior of the building and no obvious structural issues are evident although there are some cosmetic non-structural tracking in the exterior brick veneer. Renovation work needed to put this back into viable use appear s no different than any historic structure that has not been maintained, systems updated for sometime. The concept is noted in section 6 c 3 and 13-7 c of the lfucg zoning ordinance. The demolition of this historic building will adversely effect the south hill historic district and the staff, by its experience and with other projects, strongly believes that it is possible to renovate the structure within parameters that would rught in a viable economic return. Federal and state historic state tax credits are available as part of accomplishing renovation s should they so choose. The current owner purchased the property for $1 million. Because of the recent purchase and the fact that a tax exempt entity owned the property prior to the May 9, 2017 date, the financial records provided by the applicant only go back one year. The height, mass and scale of the proposed structure are in direct conflict with the context and character of the south hill historic district overall and its individual properties. The design principle for new primary buildings states in part : new primary buildings should be designed to be compatible with adjacent historic buildings and those along the block compatibility is demonstrated by having similar orientation roof form, materials , window, door sizes and placement. Porch size and location, and foundation heights as adjacent buildings. Design principle requires looking at buildings within the historic district and evaluating any proposed renovation or construction within that context as proposed, the height, mass, scale and placement on the site of the structure will visually overwhelm and dominate the individual historic districts in the south hill district and the district as a whole the proposed five story structure does not relate to the character, scale or mass of the properties in the district. The structure will loom above the as gentleman ent properties, the block and much of the historic district negatively compromising the architectural significance and character of the adjacent properties in the district. The streetscape of those two blocks and the historic district as a whole. The streetscapes of both the 100 block of west high and 300 block south of upper street are very significant and define elements of the south hill historic district. It is important any new construction introduced into this prominent corner be in accordance with design guidelines and compatible with the streetscapes. The proposed new construction does not meet guideline 2-a, 1-b as it is not in keeping with adjacent properties in height and in width. The new construction varies in height more than 10% from the average along the block and within the historic district width should also be consistent with surrounding buildings and buildings throughout the building. The height of the proposed structure is 62 feet to the top of the building parapet plus an additional 42 inches for metal hand rails, two vertical circulation pebt houses are centered on the east and west elevations for a total structure height of 73 feet eight inches. The adjacent historic structures vary from one to two and one half stories with a maximum height of approximately 30 feet. Additionally the width of the proposed new structure at approximately 172 feet is much greater than the width of adjacent historic structures and is not consistent with surround ing buildings and buildings throughout the district adjacent structures usually vary. This scale is representative of the character of the entire south hill historic district with structures dating from the 17ation until today. The largest scaled historic structures in the historic district include the approximate ly four story, 39- foot high dudly school and 18 ation building that anchors the corner of mill and maxwell street and the first methodist church at 49 feet. Although there are a few historic structures in the south hill district that are taller, there are none as high as the propoatsed proj. The proposed new structure is much taller than 10% of the tall est building in the historic district. The proposed new construction does meet guideline 2 a-1 c as the proposed new structure set back is consistent with set backs or distances of buildings from the street and adjacent buildings. That help convey a pattern and since of rhythm along a block or historic district. The placement on the lot is consistent with that of adjacent surrounding buildings along the block and within the historic district this includes frond and side yard setbacks. Staff finds the proposal does not meet the proposed entrances are not compatible in scale, size and proportion to establish ed patterns of opening and adjacent and surrounding buildings. As noted in the guidelines, the divisional bays of new construction should be compatible with the balance and proportion of the divisional bay s in existing buildings on the block and within the district. The bays in the proposed structure are not deep enough to provide a rhythm consistent with the structures within the historic district resulting in long monolitdzic sections of horizontal building surface. Proposed windows are not in scale. Additionally, the new proposed building does not have a similar ratio of window openings to solid wall as adjacent surround ing buildings as well as buildings in the district driveways and parking lots should not be visually guideline guideline 53.D said it should have the parking areas located in rear yards and screened with hedges, shrubs or fences as appropriate. In the proposed design, almost the entirety is included in this proposal are to be covered by parking lot. Proposed screening on the park ing lot perimeter is minimal resulting in parking that will have an add version impact on jace ent historic structures. Some of the parking lot proposal is what was historically the rear yards of historic houses at 108 and 112 west high street. Any parking reconstruction needs to allow a planning buffer for the rear of the houses as the behaving will abut the rear wall of the historic structures. The east, south and weft edge of the construction parking lot and rare property lines of historic properties and substantial landscaping is required. Recommendations. The staff recommends denial of the proposed demolition of the building on 120 west high street if the architectural B.P.I about the board of architectural review does determine that the demolition and new construction is appropriate, the staff recommends the following conditions for the new construction be met. Submit dimension floor plans to the board for review and approval prior to the issuance of certificate of appropriate ness. Submit building sections to board for review and approval. Reduce the height of the structure from five story to four stories and step the resulting fourth floor to three stories at the southwest and northwest corners as not to overwhelm the adjacent historic structures and submit revised design to the board for review and approval prior to the issu ance of a certificate of appropriateness. Increase the depth and vary the width of the planned insets of the north and south elevations to closely reflect the width and rhythm of the structures in the historic district and submit the revised design for the board -- for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. Provide final brick selection to the board. All of these are for review and approval so I'll just hit the high points. Provide final stone selection, provide final metal panel specifications and details. Provide final green walls xz redesign the parking and landscape design to provide park ing screening as required by the guidelines and submit to the board for review and approval provide final door and window specifications and details. Resubmit changes to the staff or the board for review and approval prior to the start of affected work and once reviewed by other lfucg divisions, re submit changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Deadline for board action is August 27. The guidelines are included for your use. That's the end of the staff report. >> thank you very much. I will note for the record we have some letters that have been filed into the record as objections. The first being from the residence at south hill 120 west high street. This is from jennifer b. Kaufman who is the President Of the historic south hill neighborhood association we also have a letter from renee jackson shepherd with respect to the, objecting to the proposal to the proposed plan itself. And we also have abemail from diane kerr objecting to the application. Now, I take that back. Actually, this is supportive. Of the application. We are ready now for comments from anyone in the audience are there any comments from the audience? Come on up. Do we have a representative from the south hill? Come on up. I'm wondering if there is a spokesperson from the south hill neighborhood association. Let that person speak first then if you'll state your name for the record. ,. >> mary campbell. Long time resident and former board President Of the historic south hill neighborhood association and I would just like to be on record representing our smart growth subcommittee of the historic neighborhood concurring with the findings of the board of architectural review for the reasons they have stated and to also thank them for such a comprehensive and exhaustive explanation of why this project should be objected to. Thank you very much. >> I believe council member gibbs is here as well. >> I'm jake gibbs I live at 220 del mar avenue in historic district bell court neighborhood the council member for the third district which includes the historic south hill neighborhood and I'm very familiar with this area for several years I lived at 327 south upper street which is directly done across street from the property in question. in my couple work and even before I was on council I have been committed to holding the line on the urban service boundary and advocating for in fill. This, of course always leads to challenges in respecting the integrity of established neighborhoods. This proposal presents a special challenge because it is not adjacent to an h-1 area as you well know. It is in an h-1 area. We need infill but h-1 is sacred the demolition of any building within the h-1 area deeply concerns me. Should you choose to decide on demolition, I would agree with many of the south hill residents who I have spoken with who are willing to accept a four-story development. In their opinion and mine, there are too many floors in the building in this new building. It will be adjacent as we've heard from barry's staff report, to much smaller 19th century structures on two sides of it. I respectfully ask to you limit this building to four stories should you decide for the development to go on. Thank you. >> thank you, Mr. Gibbs. Anyone else? Ladies first. >> my name is janey I live at 308 south hanover avenue which is in the most recent approved had-1 neighborhoods. I'm here speaking on behalf of our ashland neighborhood park neighborhood association board. We ask you all to be very, very cautious as you evaluate this the demolition we spent thousands of hours educating every one of our property owners about what the benefits were, the val you auto of h-1, what the requirements are what our responsibilities are and we are so concerned about any precedent setting of demolition. This is one of the reasons we spent and I was personally involved in that process many of the board was so we are very, very concerned that this demolition would be entertained. We fully appreciate adaptive re use we know it has been done very creatively, many places in this beautiful metropolitan area and we would encourage the developers to really consider that. We support the opinions of the professional historic preserv ation staff employed by the urban county government and certainly we appreciate the work you all do and have advised and helped us all through the processes of evaluating changes. Thank you for your real careful consideration what have this precedent could set if demolition was approved. I'm also here as President Of the bluegrass trust for historic preservation. And if I have any remaining time , I would like that it be given to Mr. Tim condo. He is going to be speaking as well and he is employed as our historic preservation specialist >> I will let you yield the floor to Mr. Condo. >> good evening board members. I'm tim condo with the bluegrass trust. We have several of our board members here present as well as staff and I'll be speaking on behalf of the organization. Mr. Chair, to be clear, are my comments only directed toward the demolition? >> it's directed to the entire proposal. >> okay. Okay. Thank you. Demolition of the existing 1956 office building at 120 west high street does not conform to the criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance nor does it meet the design guidelines for demolition therefore we respectfully urge you to deny the request. The design guidelines clearly state the demolition should be avoided and only occur as a last resort after all other avenues of preservation have been exhausted. The applicants have not adequate ly demonstrated this. The guidelines incorporate article 137-c 1 stating demolition within a locally designated district is not permitted unless... The application is for the demolition or moving of a building or portion of a building which does not contribute to the charactr of and will not aversely affect the character of the property in a zone protected by an h-1 overlay and no reasonable economic return can be realized from the property. The denial of the application would result in the taking of the property without just compensation. The loss of the existing building would have an adverse effect on the character of the property and the district although the mid 20th century building was too new to be considered historic at the time of designating the national register district and h-1 district in the ensuing years, tough time has -- sufficient time has passed. Division of historic preserv ation staff noted in their findings, 9 state historic preservation office has determined that 120 west high street is a contributing building to the south hill district. The mid century modern building is of its time and of its place, reflecting prevailing architectural trends and the evolution of south hill in the mid 20th century as well as respecting the surrounding context with compatible height, scale, mass and materials. As to the question of whether the property can make reasonable economic return without demolition, there have been many buildings in far worse shape that have been repurposed cost effectively. That has property is within the south hill national register district, it is eligible for tax credits that can offset some of the cost of rehabilitation. Additionally, division of historic preservation staff rightly note that a portion of the $750,000 rehabilitation estimate which the applicant site as prohibiting reuse of the building would come in the form of environmental remediation and site improvements. Costs incurs in any scenario. If demolition is tied to future development of the property, future development should be compatible in scale, size and use with existing zoning and existing characteristics. It is not compatible in size and scale relative to adjacent historic properties. This is evident when the proposal is weighed against the guidelines for new construction of primary buildings. And just to be clear, procedure is compelling me to speak on the new construction but we are very much against the demand demolition it is not compatible in scale and size relative to adjacent historic properties. This is evident when weighed against the guidelines of new primary buildings. The guidelines state that new primary buildings should maintain not disrupt the exist ing pattern of surrounding buildings, streetscape and historic district. South hill consists of small scale building which create a rhythm and impart much of the character of the district. Large are buildings such as united methodist church and dud ly school have greater set backs which lessens their perceived mass and height and less imposing compared to other buildings. The ro posed building is much more massive and has a minimal set back. It is out of scale with and visually dominates the block on the south side of high street and the building south of it in the 300 block of south upper. Efforts have been made to reduce the mass by recessing and proceed truing certain bays of facade but they're not substantial enough. Material changes have also been employed as a way to disguise mass but they only create a busy facade. The guidelines are clear that new construction should not vary more than 10% from the average on the block and within the district. The height study, the applicants have chosen for comparison, properties not in the district or on the same block as the subject property. At five stories, the proposed building deviates greater than 10% of the average within the block and within the district. Because it does not meet the guidelines we respectfully ask that should you hear the proposal for new could be instruction, that you deny the request for certificate of appropriateness. The same program could be achieved in two or more building s which would be more compatible with the height, scale and mass of the district and the development pattern of south hill. Thank you for your time and consideration and I will be submitting these letters for the record. Thank you. >> I don't think it's appropriate for that corner of upper street. Also there is, from what I understand there is a commercial component to the build little. Does anyone know? They have never realized the potential as well as centrepointe on centre court and all the properties are under utilized. I feel that that is going to be the same situation there. so... For what that is worth. Thank you. >> any other comments or questions? Any further comments? Going once, going twice. Okay. The applicant your turn now. >> staff note one fixing of words in the staff report for the record I believe in all the saving of writings in the computer that it lost one of the saves because on page 25 in the middle of the page, the second full paragraph the sentence starts at the very end of the second line, even looking at the two taller structures individually it is and it is missing right there, the word historic and then it p continues structure and should be plural structures. Please. Thank you. Correction is so noted. Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I'm going to do a regards brief -- a rather brief introduction and then nick is going to address in greater detail the bases for our application and then elizabeth hunt who is here is the principle architect on this. Stan harvey could not be here today. You know that stan was with us when we attended before. Dudly webb, woodford webb principals through the webb companies, the residents of south hill are here and they can speak in respect. To answer the question that you've been asking yourself and wondering about, this is the result of shoulder surgery last thursday. I did everybody the favor of not taking my pain meds today. >> now we know you timed that surgery just to get our sympathy >> I expect none. But have your understanding would be useful and helpful. [Laughter] I do want to say this is the second time you've heard about this project. We did a preview for you before. This project comes to you with a good amount of planning, meeting with neighbors and attempting to do something with this property that would work and would be effective and would not be detrimental, in fact would be positive to the south hill neighborhood and to the downtown area that that neighborhood a butts. Numerous meetings were held with the neighborhood association the building was originally taller and was originally a story tall er than it was reduced in respect of neighbor concerns about the height. Dudly webb is here and can tell you that that one of the neighborhood meetings, that several of the board members at tended there was only one vote against demolition within the neighborhood and I think if people would be honest with you, there is no love lost for that building within the south hill neighborhood including the south hill historic district. Nick is going to address the issue whether this is a contributing structure. There has been no determination as you would think of it by the state office that this is a contributing structure. it is verified back and forth between nick and betty kerr since that statement appeared in the report. It has aged into that status. It is aged into the status because it passed the 50 year mark within the confines of an historic district but if you think of there being an investigation, a determination according to what we now understand that has not occurred at the state office so seeing that in the report could lead you to conclusions that the we think are inappropriate. Nick is also going to address the issue of economic return. What I want to do at the outset here is just mention four, five, six, lawyers can never don't when -- can never count. Overriding principles. That I think are important and many were not mentioned in the staff report. You all know this. Sometimes we lose sight. This board is part of the over all planning and zoning mechanism in fayette county and that carries with it and whole set of policies and principles, one of which Mr. Gibbs made reference to. Among of the most predominant of those in the life of our county is that we are trying to grow up , not out especially in downtown. I've heard many people including those in the south hill historic district and the south hill neighborhood, which is a little broader and I'll mention that in a second, say we need more people living downtown. There is not a huge number of sites that are of the size and location that you can go up and add a significant many of people if you want more people downtown and you are not going to do it in any cost effective way in two story buildings. You are just not. All cities have recognized that and we should be no different by the way, this is downtown. I had a couple of pictures I wanted to show you that is taken from the front steps of the next building as you are going out of town on upper street. The next door building. You can't stand there and think you are not downtown. The next picture from inside the building looking right done across street. This property, unlike the vast market of south hill including the south hill historic district is zoned b 2 b not r-2 or anything like most of the district. It's b 2 b and it has been b 2 b for a long time. Civic center frame zone. There is no height limitation in the b-2 b zone. In the r-2 zone there is a height limation I think of 35 feet. So that means something in your view. That zoning has been there for a long time. Speaking of that picture that I showed you, the first one, on the left is the church I want to make something really clear. This building is not as big as the church it is not as deep as the church. It is not as wide as the church. It is essentially one story shorter than the church but the church has more mass and those who suggest that this would block the view of downtown, walk down max alley and tell me how much of downtown you can see. You can't see any of it because the church blocks all of the alley and everything on the other side from us of upper street. It is not the tallest building. Whether it is the result of the board not able to adegree with the residents across broadway or not, the fact is that it was approved as a matter of law by the boar and there are zoning I've written some of them into statute myself. Basically to keep bodies from sitting on things and not taking action; for example, if the plan ning commission makes a recommendation to the council and the council doesn't act on the recommendation within a certain period of time, if it's a recommendation of approval, the zoning goes into effect by operation of law and that's what happened in this case so it's not the tallest building. Not the biggest building in south hill. Now the south hill neighborhood, yes it includes the south hill district but the south hill neighborhood ones to boliver street, to broadway and over to sections of upper in some cases and time zone it includes centre court and south hill crossing which is a new development it includes the center city apartments done across way mid rise apartments and condos, includes a car wash. It is a vibrant neighborhood. I'm certainly not... I would be the last one to contest that. It is a historic neighborhood but it's not historic because of this building. That's the next thing I want to mention. (Weird noises) That's just sabotage. Kidding. I think you all know that when this district was created it was designated as a historic district, not because of this building. In fact the only reference made that May apply to this building is one that says there are newer commercial buildings on on the periphery. Nothing about this building that was deemed historical significant. It has aged into the 50 year category. That is it. This building I dare say the bluegrass trust for historic preservation is not going to go out and slap a burch of signs on buildings of this size and age in lexington like they have on residences in south hill, some of which I used to own through various companies. I understand the statement that some buildings are disappearing. But all you have to do goes out to alexandria drive, to south land, eastland, to the earliest part of new circle road that was built before we understood the concept limited access and you will see a huge number of these mid century buildings, I don't want to offend anybody's sense blilts -- sensibilities. I look at what was kincade towers now central bank every day. I look down on it and there are buildings like it in many, many parts of lexington and I would suggest to you from my experience that that particular type of building is not an en dangered suppose nis fayette county. It's not near to extinction and it's not likely to be probably in any of our lifetime precedent the neighbors when we have talk ed about and one of the other folks talked about precedent. , the precedent of one zoning decision in another case is a very limited viability. I will tell you that in 40 something years, I handled my first zoning case in 1976, I can only think of two occasions where a governmental entity turn ed down something and that decision to turn it down was overturned because of precedent and in both cases it was a property completely sowrned by something different. To my knowledge and frankly in my opinion, there would be zero precedent value for another demolition, particularly demolition of a truly historic structure in another historic district or in this historic district by allowing the demolition ever that building. The last thing I will say and then turn it over to nick is to remind you all again there are two parts of this application. Demolition and new construction and I appreciate what you said, Mr. Chairman at the outside set. I think it would be very important to take those in that fashion because while reask for your approval of both parts of this, opinions can differ about new construction. They also do. but we can think of no rational basis for denying demolition of this building based upon the criteria which are set out in the ordinance. And now I'll turn to nick toy elaborate on those. Thank you. As we had the educational conversation we had at the beginning our demolition request is based on two of the factors the zoning ordinance provides, any one of which, if found, can lead to approval of this demolition. The first factor is that this is not a contributing building and the demolition of this will not adversely affect the character of the south hill historic neighborhood. The second is that there is not reasonable economic return available and a denial of this demolition permit would result in basically a taking without just compensation. The first factor is where I'm going to spend the majority of the time I'm granted here talking about and it really comes down to a contributing building versus a non-contribut ing building. Lexington does not have a definition in our zoning ordinance. In the subdivision regulations or design guidelines on what is a contributing building and what is not a contributing building. As such, as lawyers are want to do, I turn to other regulations. I went to the federal rules because the federal rules have detailed information on historic properties, historic preserv ation as was mentioned about historic tax credits and what not and luckily there are definitions for what is a contributing building and what is not a contributing building. Specifically the code of federal regulations provides a contributing building is one which, by its location, design, setting, workmanship, feeling and association adds to the district's sense of time, place and historical development. >> is that definition framed in the context of approving a historic district and whether certain buildings should be included within a historic district. >> it is within the code of federal regulations. >> for what purpose? You weren't expecting questions, were you? >> it's okay. We have a hot panel. That's why I bring backup information. Szs that at least is why I thought I brought backup information. I know I have the citation for you. >> let me have that 36 cfr section 67.5-a. However, that code section does go on to discuss a non- contributing building and it is two fold. The first negative of what a contributing building is and that is one that does not add to a district's sense of time, place or historical development but it also goes on to say that it's one where the location, the design, setting materials, work manship, feeling or association have been so altered or deteriorated to which the overall integrity of the building has been lost. We think we fall very clearly in both aspects of that non-exhibit ing building when someone thinks about the south hill neighborhood, when you think of the sense of place, the sense of time of the south hill historical neighborhood, this is not the building anyone would think of. In fact if we showed this to a bunch of folks around toin, I have a feeling the last thing they would say is God this feels like the south hill historic district. It just wouldn't occur. It certainly is not the sense of time. The south hill historic district is focused on residential houses that are from the end of the 1700s to the post civil war era. This is not that sense now I also went further to look to see how different federal regulation s or federal agencies have been interpreting that regulation. The national park service developed a list of characteristics that it looks at when it is looking at whether an archeological site meets their idea of contributing site and puts out whether that site was present during the period of time the district achieved its significance. This building was certainly not around at the time that the district achieved its significance. That it relates to the documented significance of this district. Mr. Leer pointed out earlier when the neighborhood actually submitted its application to the national registry, it included a lot of information about a lot of different buildings. In paragraph form it walks down each street talking about the different aspects of each building. It gets to west high street it starts walking down that street and jumps from e 6 to e 8. Guess what? We are e 7. It did not even deem it worthy to discuss when it was documenting it's own historical significance. I can think of no greater evidence to point to a non- contributing structure than the fact their own documentation does not even mention it. The last circlic is that it possesses historical integrity yielding information relative to `the significance of this district this building does not give important information about what makes south hil the historic district that we want to protect it is well outside of the range we are trying to ensure people feel protected and people feel that sense of place. The demolition of this would not be detrimental in fact we submit it would be a great benefit to the neighborhood in order to take, as someone said, one of the less prominent while coming up upper street, coming up the gateway in order to eliminate what is an eye sore and quite frankly has become a place where some transient folks hang out throughout the day that May be the only thing that is historic. The reason why I really wanted to stress this contributing versus non-contributing factors is what bill alluded to earlier when we were talking about precedent. We very much under the concern -- understand the concern that you all have, neighborhoods have and other historic districts have about the precedent of demolish ing structures inside of a historic district. Bill said there is not real precedent when it comes to land use planning every piece of property is unique. Every application that becomes before you all is unique. In broad swaths, this building is so easy to differentiate from anything else that is going to come before this body in the historic district. Why? Step one, it's a government building that has never abided by any of the design guidelines. It has never had to. It's owned by the commonwealth of kentucky. Has gone through several mod ifications, both interior, both exterior. None of which has ever come before this body none of which would comply with the design guidelines this upper street side right here, almost all of that is non-original. Entirely replaguesed -- replaced. The main side you've going through the district entirely replaced. So that right there tells me that this is differentiated. The fact that this is built entirely out of the time period with which the historic district was kind of created for that stylistically stands out so much from the type of architecture that is stressed by the south hill that what makes them historic, the greek and federal styles, even the queen ann cottages that is discussed so much by the historic south hill neighborhood this doesn't represent this. Finally we also don't believe that this can economically, that this is, that this is economically viable. While the staff indicated that we have not submitted any information we have submitted almost 200 pages of information about the economic viability. The zoning ordinance is very clear what is required to make a finding and what downpayment ation must be had to make the finding. I'm not going to walk you through 200 pages. I'm going to do something that makes this as simple as it can be. This is why this is not economically viable. In order to restore it, to get it to code not to get it to class a office space. To get it to code. We are talking about $725 to $ 750,000. Yes some of that involves re mediation. That money has to be spent for a renovation so that money does count in that regard. It has to be spent but that is not more than to bring this up to class a. That is just to make it inhabitable and the way that we calculated this, the typical office kind of rental rates right now, especially in downtown, you are looking at 13 to $19 a square foot. If we complete this renovation we would have to require rent of $35 per square foot. There is nothing like that in lexington. There might not be anything like that in kentucky. And this is not any type of puff ery because we had expert analysis look at this. We had folks look at what exact exactly this could be leased for that information is provided and they determined that just the top floor of this could probably rent for around $14. That doesn't include the bottom floor, which, as you all know, is subtrainian -- subterranean. Here is the look you would have outside one the office spaces. A fabulous grate looking up into a parking lot. That is a window in an office. That could not rent for $35 a square foot. That could not rent for $14 a square foot. It is simply not economically viable to require this renovation to go forward one of the tenants we approached is the body you represent, lfucg. We are talking about putting a police substation in. They took one look at the building, they walked away because this would not be a feasible renovation with which hich they could do. If the public body looks at something and says, you know, I just don't think that renovation makes sense, I don't know how you could look at a private citizen that is trying to basically bring life back to an area and say we are going to force you to do what your own city would not do. i'm now going to turn this over to elizabeth... Yes. >> I think there might be some economies about your economic analysis and let's have those questions if there are any. I've got a question about analysis. You've got building and land costs listed as $2,115,325,000. Can you help me understand the difference between what you listed there and the million dollar number the property was purchased for. >> the one million was not all of the property that was purchased and it's not all the property that is before the body today. There is the existing parking proposed to serve the property. I know that lays into it. I don't have the economic analysis. >> why would you add that into the rental cost of the building itself? The parking is different. >> righted, that was just... >> surcharge for the parking. >> how many other parcels were there? >> I think there was a total of five parcels.: 308 and 320 south upper, it was also 1214 and 116 and 120 west high street are the five total parcels that are involved with this application. >> one other thing I would add, you can eliminate those and use what was paid for the building and you still end up with a rent al rate of between $28 and $ 29 a foot. If you throw those out, you are% still at a rental rate that is twice what would you get for a venerated space of this type in the downtown frame area. Even if you throw that out because I asked the same question myself. I said let's take the 1-4 that was just for this and add the renovation, the cost, the fit up costs, the things that have been detailed. What is the rental rate need to be then. Is it even close to the 14 or sa afoot and it comes out 28 something. It's not as much as the 35 but it's still in the range of not feasible how many are required by the proposal that you present ed, the parking spaces? We wanted to make sure that we basically at the very minimum had a parking space for every single unit. We are well above that. I think it's 44 units and 61 spaces and so we overparked substantially after talking to the south hill neighborhood. We though their concerns about other developments that came in recently. We wanted to make sure we were overparked but technically b-2 b zone doesn't have a parking generator. We are over parked substantially regardless if there was a park ing generator. It is a space for every unit. >> one space per unit? >> a lot of parking generators are that way, yes. Basically there are two different kinds of ways to do it there is per unit. There is, I think apartments are just per unit. If there is a mixed use component to it. If there is mixed use involved, you have different parking generators and you get discounts based on how much commercial square footage is there versus how many units, knowing that not everyone will be parked there at once we are 44 units, 61 spaces right now. So you know, we are almost double. At least half of the units. But I do understand that the neighborhood can be impacted. That is why we made sure to be over parked based on what normal apartment generators are and we. >> that question came up in our first meeting with the neighborhood association. We acquired those. We are more than over parked in terms of the requirements but practical purposes a block away that we are building right now somebody needed them but the concern I think the neighbors the acquisition of the properties protecting. And... The property line comes up right to the back of those so we made two spaces available for those people so they were able to rent their units and I think they'll tell you that. In fact they told us they were appreciative we had done that. I can only say the last thing in the world I want to do is come in and argue about this and I hope we never do it again but this opportunity came up and one of the things that we found in our both in our studies we come back and we talk about infill and everybody kind of agreed that we were growing to have to make intelligent use of the properties that we have both in the downtown and suburban for in fill purposes. but what you also find is you can't pay $200 a square foot and make residential work. We have to look at the opportunities when they come. This one came up and when we met with the neighborhood association we said we don't have to do this but we would like to do it and it was cordial we never had a cross word with these people.% they were very cooperative and we tried to respond to all the criteria and the things that the staff has talked about and, that the they had concerns about and things like parking was the first one. Second was massing. And we actually had seven floors that we showed them the first go round and I'll bet you we went through 30 iterations until we came to one that they liked and we achieved that cooperation by stepping the tops back. Cutting off units off the top. Took a floor off. Working where the parking is, configuring the building they did a number of iterations and studies on that. We've had the property listed for almost two years. Had no takers. As bill said. The one party that did come, they talked about a police sub station up there and their conclusion was it cannot be done or adapted for useful purpose at that point in time. So subsequently we made a decision to go ahead and go this route. The consensus was and I think the neighborhood association will tell you this they wanted somewhere between south hill development and the wood lands. That's the challenge we went back to elizabeth and her group and said let's try to hit that. They were introduced as ideas to make it different of in to where it would not be confused with the historic building the other things were verticality. Back to the vertical issues trying to segregate it and break it up. And this building has been studied to death. Some of the objection people don't want to change. It's filled with mildew and asbestos and it wasn't intentional neglect. We didn't own it. The state did for years. And there are a number of un desirable people living there and we tried to police that as best we can trying to deal with that as well. We just felt this was an the unit to create housing. It's a transition from urban high rises and mid rises right done across street. First building we did was first federal. We had abundant parking, a nice site. We thought it would transition. Elizabeth was in washington D.C. And specialized in projects like this. I apologize if it is combative but it's not confrontational by any means. Obviously there are differences of opinion office space? I just don't think it was there in terms of the building. We've offered the property to for sale to anyone who steps up and wants to take it and give us our base back in it but there has been no takers, there. I think it is going to involve intelligent compromise by you all, the neighborhood group and the developers. That's where we are. I did want to say one thing since I had time to look through my file. I was able to see where the language from the cfr is. It's quoted in the kentucky administrative realitiation tax credits and specifically it says the standards in a property located within a historic district listed in the national register of historic places shall be evaluated for contribution to the historic significance of that district by applying those following standards that I listed. >> thank you. I do have another question. I'm curious on your... Cost sheet. You've estimated your annual expenses at $7 a square foot. In the appraisal, with respect to it being appraised as an office building, the appraisal was more like $3 something a square foot. Can you explain the discrepancy to me? >> the difference between monitoring the residential versus commercial when it comes to office management. >> actually I'm looking at your analysis as to why it's not economically feasible and you have an estimated cost if you rehab the building at $7 a square foot. For whatever reason the appraisal is saying expenses for the subject equates to we can very easily prove that. have I no problems with that whatsoever. You can't really see here but there is an A.D.A. Ramp right here. Every time it rains that goes right into a door. Water basically treats that as a funneling point that goes right into the lobby: the lobby every winter isis over inside. You heard me. And so it is a significant mold problem. The back rear part that we had shown that has standing water in any type of serious storm effect or any type of serious storm there is a significant amount mold. We believe there is as bess asbestos material. I don't want to say there is a significant amount because I'm not going to ever put that on the record. But it has been determined that there are those issues. >> I just confirmed with dudly. That's consistent in what they're seeing in buildings throughout the downtown. I can tell from you my own experience, centre court has been mentioned. That's about what the it is there. >> thank you. >> one last question. Your ap praise allieses 120 and 116 west high street as well as 308 and 320 south upper street. Under your one million number and then the additional lot was only one additional lot for 160 ,000. >> I was not involved in the transactional level to the extent that others were. I can say that properties were purchased from the commonwealth of kentucky. I believe 116 and 120 are tied together. I'm not sure about 308 and 316 south upper. It's... It's on your realty research appraisal. >> right. And... >> what page? >> if the staff could, since this discussion has been going on, a staff member has been on p va and the pva currently reflects that 114 west high is separate from the deed at the price of $160,000 and that 116, 120 west high and 300, 320 south upper are listed on the same deed as 120, the corner, all for a sum total those properties all those addresses I just read for the one million 40,000. So the only thing pva is reflecting that about all these parcels together is pieces of real estate, the pva reflects that there is 160,000 above the million 40. Just reporting the news of pva total cost of the million two that runs the same math and it gets to about $28 a foot. I didn't realize it was not in the filing with the other one but I would say that gets at the one point you were asking in terms of if you see the base, see the base building cost in there is at, I think it's 1.2. >> okay, thank you. >> I think nicki, you had one more person to do a presentation >> to discuss the actual new building that we are here to discuss. >> I think what we need to do at this juncture, perhaps we need to go ahead and discuss how we want to move forward with this discussion in terms of do we want to make a determination of if we want to move forward with a question as to whether or not this is historically significant or do we have enough information to make a determination about economic return or should we move forward and hear her presentation with respect to the design specks of the building itself? >> I would like to discuss the existing building and what, you know,. >> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you Miss Tate, but we need to hear the whole thing because regardless if you make a determination about just the demolition part the entire application including the building will go up to the plan ning commission if it is appealed so it needs to be taken as a whole. I'm going to suggest a five minute break. We have been at this for two hours. We need to take a five minute break. And I believe we are now ready for the presentation about the plan itself. And I think probably given some of the comments that have been made that we are going to allow a little rebuttal to occur before we go it into a discussion among ourselves. This is the attorney in me, this is the way I've always do my evidence gathering if you will so let's hear from you with respect to the building itself elizabeth hunt. We have been working with this project for sometime and I will try to make this sort sweet and to the point because we've talk ed about some of these points anyway so I'll just put a visual to what we discussed. In looking at this project, three main goals for the new construction would be to activate the street. Break down the mass and scale of the building and look at design compatibility and sensitivity to the neighborhood soy with respect to those, with the exist ing building and existing street views, there is not much are of a streetscape. That was one thing we wanted to address with the proposed building looking at the existing site conditions, we obviously have the two existing access points, one off of high street and one off of upper street and the majority of the site is currently parking that is not buffered at all. So that was another thing that we wanted to address with the proposed building. We have sited the new building in nearly the same spot as the existing building for two reasons. It's a very strong... >> could you use this mic? What we wanted to do is pull the building slightly closer to high street and allow us to pull the parking down a little bit so we could provide a larger buffer here to the back. Currently there is no buffer anywhere around the entire park ing area we've tried to increase it to a good depth and we also left the pawrk parking at the rear of the adjacent historic buildings to provide parking for them. we tried to designate where the entries are, look at a combination of both landscape and hard scape to designate where there are softer areas versus pedestrian areas. You can really see this in order to help activate the street looking at a small retail portion right here on the corner and then having the community or entertainment room for the residents also right off the street it really activates this corner, designates the important areas and starts to soften the landscape as you head back toward the neighborhood the site plan begin just trying to buffer the dumpster areas, the parking and everything else just to try to soften it as much but maximize the parking. We talked about the parking a little bit before. 61 spaces, 44 units. 60 bedrooms, so we have one space per bedroom if there is a concern about that. The next goal in looking at the mass and scale of the building, the overall mass here of the building in looking overlay over the methodist church done across street and dudley square a few blocks away, it's very similar in overall building mass. In looking at the height, while the majority of the buildings in the district are residential in looking at some of the other type of buildings like the church, like dudley square that are taller, we are closer to that height and then in looking at not just one side of the street but along high street, looking at both sides, where downtown is right done across street and you have a lot of taller buildings, the average height and I'll take central bank out of that because it's taller than all the other ones, but all of the other buildings across the street, you have an average of roughly 90 feet. -- roughly 80 feet. Looking at our building at 62 feet and five stories, it makes a good transition between downtown and the neighborhood. >> what is the average within the historic district itself in terms of height. >> the average within the historic district itself, with regards to the more residential properties, I believe is 30 to 35 feet and I May be incorrect. >> rough roughly the building is twice the height. >> just for the residential structures. That excludes dudley square and methodist church and center city there are lots of centers and cities and courts... >> it's called centre court. >> the one on broadway right here which is technically within the historic district is much taller. Center city, I believe. >> call it an anomaly. >> there are lots of them. And then just looking at the street itself, what we have tried to do to respond to to the issue of height, we know it has been an issue. Where the building starts to reach back towards the neighborhood we have stepped it back. It goes back on the fourth floor and then again on the fifth floor to step back to more so fit with the scale and proportion of the neighborhood itself it does this on both sides where there are adjacent historic residential buildings ment so right here along upper street and then actually this corner overhere on high street does the same thing. It steps back on the fifth floor to try to help with the scale and proportion of the adjacent buildingses us the top floor itself is set back to help with the rhythm and proportion of the building itself. We did not want to mimic the historic nature of the neighborhood but what we wanted to do was look to the neighborhood for inspiration, look at it for materials and the rhythm of openings and a style or concept and apply that with a contemporary twist. One thing we have looked at is the proposed roof deck, we've held everything to the front of the building which is along high street so that there is a buffer to the neighborhood side so that it did us not look down on the neighborhood and is not imposing on the neighborhood. We have also at the front edge held that edge back so here along the edge is really more like a green roof, a low green roof and then the railing would not start until you got further back here so what that does is, as you are on the street, you don't even see the railings so you don't have that 62-foot height plus nearly four foot tall railing, you just have the height because the railing are not visible from the street level. That was just another method of trying to be sensitive to the size and scale of the buildings. and just looking at the building itself taking cues from the rest of the neighborhood and kind of concepts and trying to eliminate or, I guess alleviate the massive of the building. We have a defined base we have a series of vertical undulations where the building pushes and pulls in and out. The depth of those recesses was really set on the streetscape. Trying to provide a nice open area here to help activate the street and engage the street and then in trying to, you know, play to that and building site location and the access drive and the back trying to maintain both existing access points, that really set what that recess would be. And then the other stylistic cue we took from the neighborhood is looking at the residential style windows for the majority of the building. We've left the corners with more glass to be the dominant feature of the building but we've looked at using flower boxes and stone headers and residential style windows not to mimic what you would find in the neighborhood but to play homage to the concept that you find in the homes done across neighborhood. I believe that is hit. Hopefully that was short and sweet enough. >> are there any questions? At this point I think there might be rebuttal from concerned citizens? If there is, come forward please >> also while they're coming forward, when you are ready, the staff has some rebuttal comments or whatever the right word for them. i don't know if they're rebuttal >> clarification. >> I'm noticing the deadline for board action is August 27. Is that right. >> correct if tied to tradition al 60 days to take action on an application. However this application because it involves demolition, there is a section of the ordinance that addresses that and states that there process could take up to a year based on if there is additional information needed, further studies, et cetera and all that is in article 13 in in section... 13.7 c 1-c 3. Okay. Go ahead. >> I've got three. >> tim condo with the bluegrass trust. I just want to touch on the idea that this building significance should be discounted because it wasn't referred to as being contributory in the national register nomination of course that building was only 20 years old or less at the time that that district was formed. And we are looking at that document today and that document remains static but the district continues to be an evolving thing and it's not uncommon for national register districts to be reassessed for their geographic boundaries to be extended, for their periods of significance to be reevaluated. So that a building could later become contributory is not un heard of and this building certainly contributes to the district now because it is a later evolution of that district you know, when the historic preservation movement first started, there were a lot of folks who didn't regard victor rian architecture as all that worthwhile. But as time moved on, the significance of those buildings was able to be reevaluated and they're more appreciated and appreciated for their representation changing of our culture and what we value and how we build. From that standpoint, I don't thinkwe should be too caught up in how it was referred to in the national register district. >> any other comments? State your name for the record. >> sheila ferrell with the bluegrass trust historic preservation residing at 41 henry clay boulevard. One of the comments made was that there was no love lost for this building. A lot of people didn't come out and called it ugly but they called it everything else. Historic preservation is not a beauty contest. It's really basically simple. The ugliest girl in the room gets the same protection as the prettiest girl f. I was standing here in a room with chris tee brinkley and kim kardashian and halle berry, other beautiful women, I would still get the same protections they do. It's not a beauty contest. And I love mid century modern. It's my time. I was born in 1959 just a few years after this building. I think that it makes it even more unique and important in this neighborhood. It is a part of it and it deserves to be there. It's in great shape. it is in lovely shape. And he commented that he daughterred the bluegrass trust wanted to slap a trust on it. We don't slap plaques but if the webbs would like to. Stop by and we'll be happy to put a plag. >> along with a donation, I assume. >> of course very much so. I know that tim addressed that it is of its time and it's true to its architectural style. I think it is important and I fear that if we keep going in this direction, so many properties of this age are going to be gone and the next generation, my daughter's generation, is going to wonder, gosh, what happened to all the cool buildings built in your time because people are not appreciating them and people want to demo them and it deserve s to be here. One other comment that I want to address. Dudley made a comment that people don't want to change. I don't know if he was referring to us but the bluegrass trust does believe in adaptive reuse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Euse. Think we've got a wonderful example just done across street in the historic courthouse. Wow what a great job they did and it was only two or three years ago that a lot of people were saying that building should come down. There wasn't any use for it. I think that it does and it did. Thank you. >> anyone else? >> restate your name for the record. >> mary campbell, 328 south hill >> we would like to ask for a continuance of this discussion and a transcript of some of the comments made because we feel the need and we are not prepared to do it today, of course, to review the numbers and I think a couple of you all had some questions about the numbers that were given about rehab and so on and also some comments. The characterization of the comments about the neighborhood board and neighbors how they feel about this project. So I don't have that at my disposal right now but I think a continuance would make a lot of sense. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you very much for considering. >> I believe there is some staff rebuttal? >> yes, please. Clarification and rebuttal. I think the topic of whether or not the language is quite clear in the staff report and that is reported exactly as is accurate in conjunction and reflectist of kentucky her task council records nick and I had a rather warm dialogue about what all that really states. But the thing to keep our eyes on is that the evaluation is not limited to because the building has gotten older. It is reflective that it meets those basic standards that Mr. Nicholson has presented as the national register criteria. It's a cut and dried thing demonstrated and recorded at the kentucky heritage council as being a contributing building in the south hill national register district and I would note this question about, I missed my statement on article 13's melissa was trying to straighten me up and I was speaking at the same time. It's secretary 13-7 c 2 that is where the ordinance addresses if the board has reason to consider postponing taking action and out lines the scenario of that, essentially it says the board May skip actions relative for a reasonable period of time to approve or deny an appeal for a demolition for a period not to exceed one your from the filing date of application which would be late June. I don't remember the number off the top of my head. But that we have that information, of course. It would be... Is it the 2th the ordinance would allow for a extending through study and so forth for a period of June 28 for up to but not exceed one year. That's all addressed in the ordinance. Relative to the architectural integrity of the building. Upper street side of the building is not in tact and has been totally changed and that is not correct. Upper street side and high street side and all four sides retain by and large all of its historic fabric with the exception of the windows having been changed out throughout the stur to an aluminum window system but they are situated in the exact same placement in the building masonry and stone surrounds that frame those open ings are in tact. All the front entrance way, high street entrance way, all is in tact. The only thick missing from the upper street facade is the seal of the commonwealth of kentucky at some point was popped off the structure. >> and steps and the railings. >> and the railings. That's right. So hopefully that will be helpful information to you. When staff toured the historic building it was dry and I'm not saying there couldn't be water events happening somewhere, but it wasn't a building that there was evidence of wet. It wasn't a building with standing water anywhere or little pools of water where you stepped over it because somewhere along the line water had gotten in so that was the staff's experience and again we've referenced this is a building that doesn't have any unusual sorts of renovation needs and seems structurally quite sound and we've seen many much worse is what I'm suggesting to you. The last thing I had really a question tied to the applicants' linear sheets that have the reflection of the building heights. This is tied to the buildings that have, that are on the north side of high street outside of the historic district but since the applicant has chosen to but the buildings in and scaled them accordingly in the streetscape, our question is if the height measurement being depicted in numbers are measured from grade on the high street side or if they're measured from grade on the front elevation of the buildings on vine street? They seem the numbers seem tall? >> who can answer that question? >> go ahead. >> can you hear me okay? I believe the market of those were taken from a meadeian... Was not taken from vine street or high street but a medium between the two midway up the hill. >> yes. >> I believe that's what we did. We would appreciate a verification. Thank you. >> one similar question. Your 62, 63 height for your project, this is to the roof deck or the roof of the stairs or. >> 62 feet is to the roof deck and then the stairs are 72, I believe. The two stair towers. From the high street side they're measured at 72 feet. As due to the slope of the site as you go back toward the neighborhood it slopes up about six to eight feet so it's roughly a half story. Once it gets to the back of the building on the neighborhood side it's four and a half stories whereas it's five stories on the high street side. >> is this wood frame podium, steel? >> it was planned for initial plans the building part of the first floor, since it's partially building and partial podium is masonry construction with podium level over the park ing and then everything abo of that is wood frame. >> I will note for the record we have basically a new exhibit given to us at the last minute that has now been, we have a blowup of it that we will admit to the record as a supplemental exhibit from the applicant. I will note that it shows a slightly different analysis in that it shows the total rent required per square foot as being $27.80 as opposed to the third somed on some odd. >> 35 as opposed to 28. And if I could just to clarify the two million dollars why I was so confused that was a state appraisal prior to the actual public auction that occurred. It was not an appraise al that we -- an appraisal that we had done the ordinance when you are claiming demolition, it requires any appraisals done on the property going back several years so we had that and submit ted that as well. That was not an appraisal we had done. That's what my confusion was on where the two million dollars number was coming from. That's what the state said the property was worth. The auction proved otherwise. >> we cooperate hear you. >> -- we couldn't hear you. >> the second one is based on the actual purchase price. >> that should answer the question about that. >> I'd like to point out that the diswrawings show the building heights taken from the first floor level which is the high street elevation so they're not at the mid block but actually at the low end of the block according to the drawings. I want to hand out proposed findings if you disagree with the staff and agree with the applicant that you all can consider. >> that's the end of our present ation. I think I want to... Thank you. These aren't findings. They're conclusions. >> that's what findings are. I don't know. I'm sorry. I was making a small joke. >> we have before us a suggestion from the neighborhood association that they would like some more time to study the numbers the numbers have been a bit, with all due respect and I appreciate your leer trying to be cand candid with us but the numbers have been a bit of a moving target on us. To be honest with you, I'm wondering if we could get some outside help that could independently evaluate these numbers for us. That could perhaps take a look and give us some kind of an appraisal pardon the pun, of the numbers. >> I think the staff could make that request of our commissioner to see if there are some professional services fund money available for such assistance. >> assuming there were funds, about how long do you think it would take them to do an analysis? >> that I don't know. >> it would depend on the cost of it because if it's over a certain amount. >> it's over a certain amount, have to do an rfp process ashed all of that for professional services. I'm some you are we have somebody on for rfq that we can enlist. I was hoping there might be someone in house that could do this. It depends on what you are wanting them to do. If you make the request, we can see but I mean we have, of course our finance department but I don't... And regardless I think south hill would like an opportunity to be able to rebut some of the numbers as well. >> May I speak to that? >> sure, Mr. Leer. >> I want to speak to that and speak to the language of the ordinance because there would appear to be some internal conflict. Number one this matter has been on for public hearing. When it's on for public hearing, notice has to go out. Everybody who has an interest is entitled to be there in all my years of planning and zoning I've never heard a neighborhood association come up after notice and meeting with the developer and say, we want you to continue the hearing I think it's a bad precedent to set to attempt to do that. The second thing is I want to read you just so everybody is clear. The board of architectural review shall vote to approve or disapprove all or part of the application within 60 days after the completed application is filed. There is also a section failure of the board to act. To take final action, now I understand there is another section there that says maybe you can take up to a year. I think I know where that came from but without knowing for sure and I don't know why that conflict is in there but it says upon the failure of the board of architectural review to take final action upon any action has been filed unless a mutual written agreement wen the board of architectural review and the applicant has been made for extension of time, the application shall be deemed to be approved and certain of appropriateness et cetera shall issue. So to my knowledge, now I I haven't practiced as much in front of this board as I have other planning and zoning boards , but to my knowledge nobody has ever taken advantage of this we need a year or up to a year to get more information. We understand we have the burden to demonstrate the existence of one of the predicates. We provided the information to the staff. There is, as required, typically in the area of land use planning , there is interaction f the staff doesn't understand, there is opportunity to go back and forth and clarify. That was not done. I'm not blaming the staff. It May not be their practice do that and it May be that they're not accustomed to too many of these kinds of applications. nevertheless we did provide the information we came today to be heard and we do object to a continuance. And I will tell you it will be fraught with peril to try to postpone it for more information under that section that was read because it is in direct conflict onflict onflict onflict onflict onflict onfl >> if you want to push the issue we can also say that you've presented to us insufficient evidence and we cannot make that determination that you are ask ing for. >> and I understand, Mr. Leer, but I do believe it does say notwithstanding any other provision after the hearing of the evidence the board May vote to postpone it to get more information on the economic hard ship so they're within their purview if it is only to study that particular provision the and would I say as a matter of statutory construction, you can take that position but it is not clear because there is an internal conflict because final action means final action. And a postponement is not final action so that's why I'm suggesting that it would be. >> I think due difference has to be given to how the legal department wants to... And all parts of the statute has to be given full consideration and construction and third of all, this sets up a predicate if we really want to to get into it for writ of mandamus to compel the issuance of the coa. i don't think the coa stands issued if the board believes it has a good basis for not moving forward. Now, that said, and I don't want to be really hard ball about this, it's a complicated proposal. It is a proposal that you May not think is precedent cial but it is to us with the exception of one other building where there was not a coa given for it , there has never been a demolition within the district little. The numbers are confusing to me. I don't have any comparison numbers to work with in terms of the other buildings and I think it's not unreasonable for us before we make a determination that this is going to be an economic hardship for you not to give you the demolition permit that we need to be sure of that so right now as far as I'm concerned, the evidence is even but it's not 51%. Now, it's up to the board if they want to move forward we can move forward or we can ask for a continuance so that we can study this matter further. I would like to hear the other board members. I don't have a motion yet. Do I have a motion to that effect and any discussion? >> what are you looking for a motion for? >> to continue the proceeding to at least September 26. >> I'm not sympathetic to that idea. If the board is not... All right in that case then let's take under consideration, I guess the question of whether or not they have shown an economic hardship that would warrant approving their request for demolition. >> maybe we could discuss the issue of whether it's a contributing structure, which is entirely separate from that discussion. >> there are two different questions. We can pick that one up first. Let's do the contributing structure issue first. >> I'm torn about that issue; however, I will start by saying that I don't agree with the applicant's contention that the building does not contribute to the district's historical development. The quote that is made, the building not contributing to the historic significance of the district is one which does not add to the district's sense of time and place in historical development. Or one where the location design setting materials workman ship feeling have so deteriorating that the overall has been lost. I think this building does, in fact contribute to the district 's historical development. Sense of historical development because it represents it's an unusual piece of architecture mid century modern architecture and that tells a story about one piece of the district. However, my sense of the building is that it is so... Well, it's difficult to put this delicately, but many. The original building was not of a high calibur to begin with and the loss of windows, railings, steps, stairs, hardware, is so damaging to the building that I seriously doubt that it can be restored into a place where it could be considered to be contributing. To the district. So I think I'm falling on the side of feeling the building is not actually a contributing building. >> that's a hard thing to determine and a lot to ask of that building because one of the reasons the mid century modern that the a lot of the building contractors after the second world war brought experience with them. They were in germany and holland but I think that is where all of the good work in modern architecture began. And they did see things that are still today considered treasures and it showed another way to make buildings very simply that weren't so costly. The people in lexington kentucky were not ready for that but that's what economics sort of dictated. And it's happened you know, the thing that I think is loveable about this building is it's very clean. The geometries are clean, everything is very straightforward straightforward and well proportioned and it is a good example of how we got from the victorian houses to the building that you have designed. It changed what architecture was going to look like. After spending two years of trying to save the people's bank right around the corner with great help from the national trust and the state preservation ists because they, too, were realizing that mid modern buildings were being torn down all over this country. And they're very, very important step to architectural step to be able to love and appreciate the kind of building that you are designing. So I don't take will elimination of that building real warmly. It's hard because I really like your building I like what you have proposed for there. But there comes a time and I think lexington is at that time that we need to have some examples of transition from traditional architecture to modern architecture. And posted modern and so I can love that building in a way that you all can't. And the bluegrass trust is, that's what they do, is to try to save a good example of each type of architecture that exists in this town. And this is a really hard one because there is probably a need for what you are doing and I know the economics of it if we start whittling away at it, it won't take make any sense to try to do the project. I don't want to do that. It's really a hard thing to kind of struggle with. And I just keep wishing that we had seen this earlier before you had gone that far so we could express that we really would have a hard time letting go of that building so that you could have really tried to do a project that incorp rated it. But here we are. I don't want to say no. But I don't want to say yes. And I'm kind of stuck. And I also would like to say, if this does go forward, I do hope you can eliminate a floor. i think it would help the scale of it enormously to take one floor out of it. >> any comments? >> this site has incredible potential and there is some history to the building that's there. But given the numbers and and given the identity of that neighborhood, I don't think this particular building reinforces that identity. >> I'm going to probably be having lots of arguments after we get through this discussion, but I've given this proposal a great deal of thought as well and I have a great deal of respect for it and I notice that our architects are somewhat split in opinion. It is, as Miss Farrell pointed out, a hard building to love it ain't pretty. It sort of sits there, but on the other hand, it has been a well over 50 to 60 years now and that fact alone deserves respect it is a building that is low in style. It does not intrude into the neighborhood. The parking lots do but the building itself does not. And I am guided principally by the notion that is set out in the preamble of the historic preservation ordinance that this board is to encourage the use of existing buildings through adapt ive rehabilitation. That is the primary goal of historic preservation. Demolition is something that should occur as a last resort. In orderly we get orderly we get into an economic analysis. We get into the analysis when we have a severely deteriorated building that there is no hope of rehabilitation. In this respect, I think this building can be rehabilitated. And this is where I'm... And we can go into that issue later if we need to, but I don't think the numbers are so daunting that there cannot be a way that this - building couldn't be restructur ed and reclassed as either, probably as an office building in that area. So for that reason, and I'm sure people are going to say how could you possibly vote to save that ugly building, I'm inclined to say because it's been there, because it has been, it is a right on the corner of upper and high. That building should not be demolished as not being a contributing structure. I can't be in favor of that. We don't have a motion in front of us at this point. And we can take... Somebody can make a motion and we can see how we will vote on it but that's how I feel about the issue. Do I have a motion of any kind? >> well, I have a question. Two of us are opposed to demolition on the basis that two of us believe the building is a contributing structure so that is not a basis for demolition. I don't agree with that. Josh, your argument was about numbers, not so much about whether it's a contributing -- or was it about the issue. >> you're correct. >> I misheard you then. >> you did mention that but your emphasis is on the numbers. I'm unsure about how you feel about... >> well, do we want to postpone consideration and move to the numbers and talk about them for a moment? >> I don't feel this particular building holds historic consequence. >> okay. Assuming there is a divided vote here, I'm assuming if we are divided then that application cannot be approved; correct, Miss Murphy? Let me suggest that we move to a consideration of the numbers and I will once again iterate I think we need more information. I May be wrong about that and we can take that under consideration as well. >> I guess what troubles me with regard to the numbers is not so much the package that was presented but I would like to have seen a more thorough examination of other options and there was a very, very loose examination of a remod ale option with hand drawn diagrams of potential plans, but this is a huge site. It seems like there are many way s to think about it. And I didn't see evidence that that happened. >> the biggest obstacle in the building is that half the building is subterranean virtually having the building is underground and he showed you the views from the windows and so forth. You would be lucky to get six to $7 a square foot. Now by way of comparison to give you assurances, we saved 17 historic buildings. We were involved with others who were great support erts of the of the historic vision when we talk about things like the square. We did that and made a great sacrifice and reinvented that project twice. The office space in that building by way of comparison that we rent for $12 to $13. No more. But subterrain subterranean space, you wouldn't get only six to 7. And to bring it up to code it was $750,000. But today, in today's environment, you are an attorney you so you can attest to, this have you to spend 50 to $60 a square foot to make it habitable to rent to a law firm or someone like that. And we tried everything. We tried 30 iterations of drawings to make that package work. But it didn't. The second concern that you run into up there is parking. That was a big one. We were able to acquire the lot next door and we now can park on the site. It's self sustaining but again it proved to be economically un feasible and I wish it would work because that would have been easy. We bought it with the intention of trying to find a user to go in there. It has been two years. We've had no nibbles. >> I think we're -- where the problem with the presentation is what you are giving is an anecdotal discussion. >> it's testimony. I'm here to testify. >> I understand you are testify ing. >> nobody knows more about it than I do what we can rent for. You have been in the community. You know the rental rates. But when you spend the kind of dollars it takes to rehab the building, there is no way the numbers work and tax credits won't hip you help ow that one. You have to make the analysis on the basis of reality, what the true costs are. We didn't order that submittal appraise will. The state came back after receiving the bids and took our bid, which was the lowest and I think there was one other that was interested and they backed out. So if there was great demand, great interest, great belief in the potential of the site or the opportunity, they would have been there at the auction. But nowite been two years and we are still trying to reinvent it and what we try to do is look at the realities of this deal here and we need housing. We don't need more professional office space. I think all of you recognize that. We are about to have more vacancy down here it looks like. So we are trying to deal with the reality of it. And we try to respect the rights obviously of the neighborhood, but I don't think there is anyone in the community that has spent more money on historic reservation than we have. Victorian square and another building on 304 west high street , a neighbor there and that place is a showcase. So we believe. But we'd like to be able to do what's best and make the best use for the property and yet respect the rights of the neighbors. We have been cooperative. We're not the enemy and I don't want it to be perceived that we are. We are not critical of bluegrass trust. But we want do what we believe is in the best interest of the community. We are not going to retire on that project but it was one that we thought should be dorn and ought to be done. Little did we know did we would get the push back because the first meetings were very positive and supportive. What the thing ought to look like is another question. We tried to satisfy that. We engaged the best and this young lady back here has been tremendous. I wouldn't have necessarily made it look like that. I'm more classical. But as you know, you can't imitate history. So we have to try to work with what is best and meeting contem contemporary standards. We adusted to that. For the critics who don't like the look of the new project, at least it coincides with the expectation of the regulations. I don't mean to belabor the point. There is more to it than the numbers that have been submitted the operating expenses are what they are. $7 a square foot. The rental rates are what they are and historic buildings in the own town, I don't think you will get $12. But we thought we could make it work and we haven't found a ton of prospects or anyone interested in the building, including the city as bill said. We think residential is there. We have 142 prospects for 14 condos on top of the new project it gives you some idea of the demand. Everybody knows that, I think or at least we all do and respect that the neighbors have found the secret of living in lexington and we think it's in the urban environment. We just think the future is here we have done everything we can to encourage residential development but we've got to make intelligent uses of the plots available, in particular the infill sites. >> could I ask you a question? What happens to the number if you lose the top floor? >> it penalizes the return. We are below at 6% cash on cash return for the new investment as it is. >> but you need make that so I understand what you are talking about? >> you take the rents that we project and we would hope would be better but then we look at the prevailing rents in the community and for the cash that's going to require for us to put into this investment to make it work and be what we proposed which is 44 units, there is a 6 perfects return on the investment -- a 6% return. We were prepared to do that in the hopes that we could stimulate additional residential development and there is lots of interest. i mean ours were condos on top of the project down here and the prices are, it's higher end, but affordable housing is important. >> pardon my ignorance. If you eliminate the units at the top,. >> you are dropping the returns. >> or you are raising your rent and you can only raise the rent a certain amount. >> we are at the top of the market. >> let's not talk over each other. Let him finish his question. >> that's okay. I'm just trying to... P. >> we had talked about the quality of construction. We talked about wood. We talked about concrete. Precast forms like we use on the new marriott down here, all of which are alternatives and we build for the long haul. We haven't sold virtually anything down here. We are in it for the long haul, in it for a practical investment we want something that will endure but something that will compliment the neighborhood and our properties down here. This is a transition space. It's not invasist of the historic district we don't think it's around the corner. It's a transition from the urban and mid rise and high rise buildings to the delicate nature of the historic neighborhood. >> so I guess I'm, you know, I like the proposal. I like the design. I think it's got a lot going for it. I think it's too high but I think there are ways to mitigate that. so the real question here is how do we get to a comfort level with regard to the argument that if we don't approve demolition, it's a taking. >> to answer that question, I would like to have more analysis to give me comfort that the numbers the that are being given to us are consistent with what you're saying, Mr. Webb. >> my only point there is that there are nothing in the numbers that were given to you that would be inconsistent with my statement or testimony that the rents are $12 and it takes $28 a square foot to redo. >> but there are other adaptive uses for the building other than , I don't think you have given sufficient consideration to. >> we would welcome any ideas. And believe me we have surveyed, looked at every possibility including restaurants and night clubs. We were approached by several who wanted to do night clubs there. I doe -- I don't think that's an appropriate use but the rents at $14 to $15 for retail won't justify it. I would also point out that there was concern about the re tail space on the ground level we have a reception area there that could be recreational or reception. And someone suggested, from the neighborhood that perhaps we ought to look for a drugstore there or some, a pharmacy. Something like that that would be complementary to the neighborhood. So we have them change the reception area to retail as a potential user. Again. That's not going to make a difference in the economics of the project. But we thought it would add viability to high street. But if that's not wanted, we can certainly give on that as well. We're trying to make it work economically but yet deliver something everybody is going to like. >> thank you. >> I am more comfortable with the numbers now that we've got this revised sheet. I'm not sure why that wasn't in there in the first place. I think I can look through what you got laid out and they seem to align with the market. >> that was with the application >> no, the $2 million one was with the application. >> am I hearing any kind of a motion at this point? >> I'm sorry. Yes, you did wave at me several times and then I... Go ahead. >> I could ask for equal time, but I won't. I just want to make a couple of comments. Mr. Webb, with all his expertise and experience in real estate bought that property knowing it was considered in an historic district knowing it was defined as a contributable building he underestimates his own abilities he, not long ago, at least in a meeting I was in in my recollection, he said we have a building on high street and I don't know the number of it. >> 304. >> and he said it's falling down you get to respond. And termites, it can't be saved. well, I would invite you to drive by 304. It's beautiful and he did a great job. And I expect he could do a great job here, so I think at the least this needs... It's very complex. There are a lot of different way s to it, but I'm like you all and the neighborhood is too, I think. I wiesh we could come up with some solution buttite not an easy case. >> I've been dying to add something to this conversation, not as lawyer but as somebody who knows more about building in this neighborhood than anybody. I've built $40 million of projects in south hill neighborhood in the last 15 years and still own a bunch of them. I've done an adaptive rehab. You all approved it. It's called cigar flatts. It took an old warehouse build ing that frankly didn't have nearly the rehab that this has and turned it into residential units. I will tell you under oath at a loss of several hundred thousand dollars. You have to... You can do like dudley did and woodford did with that house, and that was four units, folks. Four units. You can do like they did out of love or devotion to an old, neat property like I did out of devotion to an old property and I fell in love with the name. It was the bluegrass cigar company and I thought it was cool to call it flatts because they were critically acclaimed like the movie that's critically acclaimed that nobody watches. So it took a long time to sell. My point is that this is not... This is really not that kind of building. Irrespective of whether there are those within the bluegrass trust that might fall in love with it. Use it is not. And at the end of the day, those rents, we are in class a office space. I'm in the central bank building and I look down on it. And our space, and if you want to see it, it is really fitted out beautifully, it's several dollars a square foot less than what they would have to have in this building to break even. And we would never go and even pay several dollars less and go into a building like that. We do rent space in the basement of our building, which is not unlike the space here. And I don't know what it is today. But a few years ago it was $6 a foot. I took that picture of the window well, I took it with my iphone so y'all could see what it looked like in the back half of the building looking out. This is the economics of doing this are daunting and dudley would tell you that the building that mary just talked about, they have done an incredible job with it. The return on it is negative because you know, if you really want to do it, you do it out of love you don't do it out of economics. This one is an economics issue. >> one last comment then we need to move on with this proposal. >> three things. I am thrilled to hear that the webbs explored other options. What are they? I'd love to see evidence of them I'd like to hear some details. I liked graham's question a lot. A lot of people keep referring to this potential new development as condos. I believe they're rentals. There is a difference. And the last thing is the gentleman at 305 grosvenor avenue was in the historic district and he has to abide by the rules. I think you all made the right decision. He knew when he bought or should have known it was an historic district. The webbs knew it was in an historic district when they bought it. Calf yet emptor. If you lose one, it's a slippery slope. I fear for lexington's 15 historic districts if this one is lost. Thank you. Caveat >> where are we, other than sitting in a cold room? Do I have a to make a determination that that it should be granted based on unreasonable economic expectations? >> are you asking if we are ready to vote? >> I'm looking for how I ought to move forward. We are divided on the significance issue and I'm not sure if we have... Personally I don't see enough evidence for us to make that determination that it would be no reasonable economic return can be expected. Unless somebody wants to make a contrary possession, I think we are going to have to deny the application. If we approve the demolition, then we have to move forward and consider the adequacy of the building itself. >> I agree that that's how it is written but I would say that you all probably want to discuss the building itself as well because regardless, it's all going up. Do I I I. >> I don't see a need to get into a discussion about the building. >> you have lots of conditions that staff have placed in there, so if it goes on to the planning commission, if it is appealed, which I assume that it will be if you all deny, then those different things that the staff has said or recommendations don't go. >> what are you saying to me there? >> because the staff has looked through and they said the building that has several conditions. >> in my review of that, it needs to go back because further because there are so many questions about the application itself, I don't think we can make a determination. >> and that's fine as well. I just believe that if it goes to the planning commission, without you all having any discussion on it, it potentially could just be reviewed demolition can happen and they can build as is. If you would like to have a say so, honestly this is just... okay. >> I understand what you are say ing. I would have thought that if they decided we were wrong on the issue of the demolition, that the application would be returned to us for further consideration? >> it will not because it is one full application, demolition and the building.% it is all going up together? >> and it's all one application and it's important per the historic district's charge that if this parcel of land is available, taking out of the formula for a minute, the exist ing structure, if the parcel of land is available for a new building to be considered, the staff thinks it's very important that this process participate as it is charged with evaluating that proposed new construction. And that's why you see the report reflecting an evaluate in -- evaluation. >> and additionally why we have the full report including the architect's design. >> okay. All right. In which case then I'm still stuck on procedure at this point do we want to move forward with a consideration of the application itself in terms of the rental building or whatever it's going to be? And can we have comments from the board members about that? And this is where I'm puzzled. Did we also make conditions and findings with respect to those ... >> I just think that you need to be able to answer what the staff 's report and the staff's report as it is written is denial of the demolition; however, it says if or if there is a building to be built, these are the conditions that they would believe would fall within the guidelines. If those are not addressed, they will not come back to you to be addressed. >> gotcha. All right then. Mr. Poll. Do you have any comments with respect to the application itself? >> I'll go through... I've spent many, many hours with this over the last few days and and so I'm going to go through, what I think, should happen to this, the conditions I think should be included. I'm sure other board members have different opinions. I think that the staff's recommendation of taking an entire floor off the building is unnecessary; however, I think that the proposal as submitted did not adequately address the issue of scale where it abuts adjacent properties. And so what I would like to see happen is for the southwest corner and northeast corner to be reduced by a floor further back. If were you to look at if you look at the floor plans, the fourth floor plan and fifth floor plan... I don't know if you want to follow along with me here, but where it steps down to two stories off the west side there just on that one little block. I would recommend that that step -down would continue done across brick portion adjacent to that exactly so that the elevation of the brick portion would only be two stories and the adjacent metal panel element adjacent to that, would step down to exactly to the current height of the brick, the way the brick is shown. And to me, that would be respect ful of the adjacent properties. And if were you to look at the floor plan, you can see that there's a I'll just go through this and then... >> I'm just going to help point. >> okay. And if we go to the looking at the west elevation, I think that step down where you see the rail ing, at the top of the corner, that could continue over to the elevator tower so that that entire volume trt corner back to the elevator tower would be step down to that elevation it's a little hard to see but that same strategy would happen. If you look you can see the other railing behind it and that that step back would also on -- also occur back to the elevator tower. Because I think without those stepping backs substantially, the gesture to the adjacent property is just inadequate. It's just not going to make a difference. So those are pretty substantial reductions in the volumes on those corners. The other aspects of the design that are troubling to me are the way in which the high street north elevation and the east elevation are open to the park ing because I think that viewing parked cars along high street would be very unfortunate and while, when you look at this elevation, it doesn't really tell the story that the plan tells. And it appears that that more or less corresponds with the width of the brick volume above it. You see the cars pull into the opening, the cars pull into would be that on both sides of that, that stone tile pam would continue in the plane of the mass of the base. And would continue to the open ing and the opening would be a discreet opening in a solid mass and that that would turn the corner as well from the east elevation so that this similar, similar thing happens with the east elevation. The building volume, it comes down to the ground. Doesn't float up above and reveal the cars right there at the edge. >> and I think just to respond to that, if I May, the initial thought would be to screen that with landscaping but I don't know that we would be opposed to showing, you know, having the building mass come down so that it's more, like you said, a discreet opening in the building >> the the land landscaping is not shown on the elevation. But I believe, and I can double check on the site plan, I think the intent was to look at a landscape option to screen those openings so that it wasn't quite so massive it it feels like. >> in the neighborhood, a building on stilts doesn't really happen. It would have to be landscaped very thick or would you have to come up with more of an envelope there and I know you have to ventilate an that's a challenge but I think the stilts are definitely a problem. >> that was my take. I agree with everything the staff, all of the staff's other recommendation -- conditions. I thought there was a way of accommodating more units but also respecting the neighborhood by seriously dropping those two corners and so that was the intent. >> Miss Tate, do you have any comments or suggestions? >> no. >> graham, would you, from what you described in the heights on the corners, would that add up to what might be a whole unit or a room? >> I did... The architect would ned to assess the implications of that. I did rough it out on my floor lance to get a sense for it. It would definitely mean losing several units. I'm not exactly sure how many but there would need to be a re jig linning there and I'm guessing it would mean losing -- rejiggling and it May mean losing three units. Hard for me to say. Rejiggleing because you would lose a certain type of unit and then May end up with another one that is a larger unit and it May not be the ideal mix for you but I think it's really worth looking at. >> this is going to be a little unorthodox but while these thoughts are still fresh in your head, why don't we go ahead and make our recommendations with respect to assuming that we, working hypothetically we approve the demolition, what are the conditions that we want to suggest that the staff impose on the coa if it is approved. And I want to hear more specific terms of the set back. I realize it's complicated, but that's where we are. >> for clarification, Mr. Chair, you're suggesting that what are the additional or which of the conditions that staff has in the recommendations... >> right. >> you are asking for it to be sorted out if you all concur that x, y and z. >> right now I'm going to work on the assumption that we've tabled the motion to demolish and right now we are trying to figure out what the certificate of appropriateness would look like if we approved the demand -- demolition. >> my suggestion is that, as you are used to doing, that you would... Ask for a motion. >> no, no, no, I'm not saying about that. But the specifics to the conditions? >> right. >> if you would do as you always do, in the process which is to note anything that you disagree with in the recommendation, you know, and then add but you are saying they need to be, I think I'm hearing that you are saying that they need to add whatever conditions are not covered by the staff. >> I'm not sure if it is a motion or put into the record what we think the conditions should be, if you will. >> you are suggesting prior to making a motion. >> I understand. >> right. >> thank you. >> I wanted to do it while the thought was still fresh. So Mr. Pol, can you help us out? >> are you wanting me to make a motion with the conditions? That would be the easiest thing to do, describing what I've just described is going to be... I could try do that. >> let's make it as a motion and we can put the two motions together, if you will. >> before I do that, can I ask the staff to clarify something for me? >> certainly. I'm unsure about what is being sought in condition number 4. Increase the depth and vary the width of the plans of sets of the north and south elevation to more closely reflect width and rhythm of the structure of the historic district. >> basically, berry has worked closely with this. Let me direct that do -- direct that to him. >> the reason for that, it goes back to in the background or the findings where we talked about the average width of the structures in the neighborhood where 25 to 38 feet. So and then you are -- you have driveways and lawns between those. Since they vary, we can look at the floor plan. All of these are consistent widths and consistent depths. So we were looking at being able to more closely... I don't want to say mimic, but have the rhythm that occurs within the neighborhood, with voids and positive areas. Does that answer that? >> does that help you? >> yeah, but my brain is trying to work through the rationale of it 3, you know, the thinking. My sense is that the building is an abstraction and that those vertical deef deviations are as much symbolic as they are representational and the important thing is that they do actually mitigate the sense of the mass of the building and they do create predominant vertical volume ups volumes. What do you think, sarah? This is probably the best presentation we've ever gotten just in terms of covering the information with the possible exception of the financial section, which maybe could have been made a little more digest ible, but... Irguess I'm curious about what you're envisioning in terms of how to make that more representational. >> well, again, you know, without designing it, it's hard to say exactly. I'm not sure the best place to show it, but it just seems like, compared to the way the street works, except for a few location s where there are townhouses against the sidewalk, that there are more negative space that creates the rhythm along the street and how it would be designed, obviously, we have not tried to redesign their work. >> when you say negative space, you are talking about the set back being greater, for example? >> yes. >> where the brickell empties are, for example? >> yes, that's what we were trying to get toings -- get to, is if the who are sobtal widths and depths were somewhat different, it would be more in the character of south hill. To have the ins and outs that are volumes, divisions be more reflective of what is not a big box on the corner. I mean and I'm not meaning that in a negative way, but just a wall envelope situation. >> that would affect every single unit. Depending on how far you take it , that would affect every single unit. One other issue, this condition is not enforceable as written. Once you adopt something with a condition, it needs to be something that could be administratively enforced and something that says increase the depth and vary the widths without any difficult mentions or any objective standard rend ers is unenforceable, which is not obviously the intent but I'm just telling you as a matter of legal enforcement under the laws, this would fail. >> as a condition in terms of obtaining your coa, what they're trying to say is that the they need to see a change as per condition 4. I recognize it's sort of vague, other than them drawing up a new plan for you to have, there no, sir other way they can do it. >> I'm going to propose a re wording of this that... >> that's what I was trying to ask to you do. >> I still think that it will require a redesign and that re design will need to be review ed. It could be reviewed by the staff. but m rewarding would be -- re word wording would be that the design be revised to better articulate the continuation of the vertical subdivisions of the facade to the street level so that the base is also reflective of those vertical subdivisions. As it appears now, the base is continuous and it... I think that that is daking the intent of the subdivisions -- it is damaging the intent of the subdivisions. Does that make sense to staff? >> yes, thank you. I'm going to make a motion. Are we good to go? >> hypothetical motion. You put me into this pickle. I don't know how to get out of it. >> I understand but I think that the motion should be if you all were approving demolition, these would be the conditions. But I don't know... Every decision is up to you all. I don't know where you all stand on demolition. >> let's do it this way. Style the motion this way and we'll sort of merge them together when we get done. The motion is if we approve the demolition, the recommendation should be as follows and our normal way of doing things. >> before I do that, nobody has chimed in on the board about my about my unilateral dissing of the staff's recommendation and redousing the height of the building by a floor. Is everyone comfortable with what I was suggesting? >> not totally. >> I. >> I want to know what you think >> it seems like a lot of this conversation has to do with reimbursing a very successful business person, real estate person on his investment and I would like to remind everyone that the neighbors in our neighborhood, the hundreds of people, we are concerned about their investments. And know one is asking... We are not asking you to consider reimbursing us or making sure our investments were correct. We believe they were. We think they were such a good investment we've created the neighborhood that is the neighborhood these successful people want to be in and live in and have not condos by the way, but rental units. So I would like for you to consider that as well as I think the height is incredibly important. If you choose to demolish because all you have to do is drive down south upper in the 400 block and look at what only two of the five-story building of the hub, how that looms over and overwhelms all the historic buildings right done across street. And furthermore, we are already getting requests, additional requests, not Mr. Webb's to change zoning from residential to business uses. >> this has a huge impact. >> I think the building should be lowered. I recognize that's easier said than done in terms of making it phenomenonly work. So... >> I'm laughing because May I suggest to staff that all of you lean closer to your mics, including the chair, please. >> sorry. Thank you. Shame on me for sure. Thank you. [Laughter] It's getting late in the evening can we move forward with a suggested motion at least to what the conditions should read like? >> I would like to hear other board members' opinions about this. I'm not comfortable making that motion without knowing what you all think about it. >> it's hard for me to really make a decision because I think it's the first time we've had something put in front of us that was a done deal that we either have to say it's fine, we really like it, go ahead with it so I'm really conflicted about it because I would like to see it one less floor. I think it is too big for the neighborhood. Look at the drawings of both the plan, looking down at it and the one that shows the elevation of your building and the elevations of the houses there. It's too tall for the neighborhood and at the very least I'd like to see one floor removed. And I'm really uncomfortable with the fact that we're present ed with the final design. If we had had this conversation six months ago before you start ed or whenever you did, we could have thrashed that out and you could have before you had this well developed. It's going to be hard for me to vote for it because of that. T. And I'm really unhappy because i like the project but I'm not convinced it couldn't be better and that's all I can say. >> I also feel this is too tall and I've heard the arguments about what's done across street -- of what's done across street. I think there is some potential. I also know how setting up rents and units and floor plans and fire stairs and all that gets real tricky, too. And as far as the ins and outs and push and pull and the negative space, I think that's a struggle of this is like a -- how many units are in here? >> 44. 44 units that we are trying to get to fit in with single family homes. They're large homes luckily. So I think my most clear holdup is the height. I would suggest coming down a whole floor. As I look at the high street street elevation that you've got , just looking at the little house on the left, that guy is shaking in his boots. So,... Well, that's what I got for mu. >> procedurally, Miss Murphy, can we actually break this down into sections and do it step by step? Or recommendation by recommendation and tray to get consensus that way -- and try to get generals that way? It's -- concentral us. Consense us -- >> you think the height is correct with some tinkering? And I think the rest of us are thinking one floor too tall. If you are not comfortable making that particular recommendation, we can separate that one out from the rest of the application and just deal with that issue. Does that make sense to you? So the chair is now looking for a motion as to condition number 3. I'm separating that one out and then we can add the other ones in later.% do I have a motion that we accept the recommendation from the staff that we reduce the height of the structure from five stories to four stories, four floors down to three at the southwest and northeast corners not to overwhelm the adjacent historic structures and submit revised design to the board prior to issuance of the coa? Do I have a motion to that effect? I'm asking do I have a motion to that effect as read? >> I've lost the case number, guys. >> we'll do all nat a moment. >> Mr. Chairperson, I move to... >> I'm just looking now for a motion to condition number 4 with respect to case, good heavens to the application 114, 116, 120, west high street and 38 west upper street. >> I move... >> you so move? >> I so move. >> do I have a second? Miss Murphy, will this work, I hope? >> it does, but I guess can we just discuss this or do you have to make a motion on each one of them? >> I think we are in consensus where someone can read the rest of the conditions, that I think graham wants to add in a couple thoughts that are unique to him. So I'm trying to let him run that particular aspect of the train. >> I guess the question... As 1- 12 are presented as conditions , are those, beside the height, are those that want to change the ones that are 1-12 I know graham wants to add additional ones, potentially, maybe. >> I'll tell you what. I've got three board members who are going to go for the staff's recommendation of reducing the height of the building to three stories and just for the sake of making this easy, I'll just include that in my motion and I'll just... >> your motion dies for lack of a second. >> so your plan, graham -- Mr. Poll is to go through all of them all together? >> so. >> on the case number, if you just want to state the property addresses and just say the case number as noted above, we'll be. Chad: to take care of that. >> so regarding 114, 116 and 120 west high street and 308 and 320 south upper street, in the south hill historic district case numbers noted above in the staff report, I move to recommend the following conditions should demolition be approved. Is that the r50eu9 language? >> graham, that was beautiful. >> number one, submit dimension floor plans to the board prior to the issuance. Submit building sections prior to the issuance of certain of appropriateness. Reduce the height of the structure from five stories to four stories, the fourth floor down to three stories at the southwest and northwest corner to not overwhelm the historic structures and submit a revised did the see into the board prior to the issue of certificate of appropriateness. Number 4 increas the depth and vary the width -- I'm going to re word this one. Number 4: redesign the con figuration of the plan insets on the north and south elevation s such that the vertical articulation of those elevations more closely reflect the width and rhythm of the structures in the historic district. And continue to the ground plane and submit the revised design to the board prior to the issuance of certificate of appropriate ness. Number 5: provide final brick selection to the board for review and approval. Number 6 provide final stone selection to the board for review and approval prior to the issue answer of certain of appropriate nis. >> and panels. Redesign the parking and land shkane and provide parking screening as provided by the guidelines prior the to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. Final door and window specifics to the board for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. And number 11 and 12 are the standard cnsz read into the record earlier and and just to clarify, on number 4, I think I need to reword number 4 a little bit. Because I think I said something about more closely reflecting the width and rhythm of the structure in the historic district and I think I would like to strike the words from the motion. >> before you say anything, let me have a second. >> I second. >> just in the interest of the board knowing what you are doing , by both reducing a floor and keeping the corner step down s you eliminate a third of the units. >> all right. Thank you. >> and could staff ask for one clarification from Mr. Pol tied to number 4? I missed confirmation that you want to row move the words, if I believe I'm correct, reflect the width and rids I am. -- rhythm of the structures in the historic district. >> so starting with more closely >> right. >> and the two. So in other words that whole run okay. Thank you. >> any further discussion on the motion recognizing Mr. Leer has pointed out that we have really reduced the size of the building any further discussion? All right the chair will call for a vote on this hypothetical motion so to speak. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Subject to what we do with the next step of this proceeding. Now do I have a motion to approve the request for demolition or alternatively do i have a motion to drea with the staff's recommendation that it be denied. >> do I have a motion to agree with the staff eats recommendation that the application for demolition be denied? Or do I have a motion that it be granted based on the condition ... >> I would suggest that it be conditions that are specifically stated in the ordinance under those procedures a, b or c. >> I agree. >> as set forth in b and c. Or b or c. I think we divided on the issue of whether or not it was a contributing, that we don't have a consensus but we are not will ing to determine it is not contributing to the neighborhood or to the historic character of the neighborhood. So we are at either making a motion saying we agree with the finding being presented by Mr. Nichol son that there is no reasonable economic return can be realized from the property or alternatively the motion would read that we accept the staff recommendation of disapproval of the application for demolition. >> staff would just note that we have some concerns about some portions of the material provid ed by the applicant for your consideration for the find ings to go with that. So we would request the board consider very closely those details in that material. >> okay. >> what did we need another - motion for? >> we have two parts before us. one part is the application to demolish and we've not voted on that yet. >> well it's kind of like, since we voted on the other, it's kind of like... >> that's what I was concerned about. >> that's the reason Mr. Poll started his motion with if demolition, so now we would ask that you all decide. And if you are deciding that you want to demolish this building, then you are deciding that because you believe the follow ing conditions exist. Either the application for demolition of addition for a portion of the building accessory which is not significant to the portion and the approval of the application would not adversely affect those parts of the building landmark or historic district which are significant. Or the application is for the demolition or moving of the building or portion of the building which does not contribute to the character of and will not adversely affect the character of the property in a zone protected by h-1 overlay. Or no reasonable economic return can be realized from the property and the denial of the application would result of the taking of the property without just compensation. Those are your three options of why you would approve the demolition. >> or alternatively we can simply accept the staff recommendation that we not approve the application. Let's try it that way first. Do I have a motion to that effect? All right. Do I have a motion that we approve the demolition of the building and give me one of the three conditions. >> just to get this rolling, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the application for demolition because there is no reasonable economic -- because no reasonable economic return can be realized on the property and as such the denial of the application would result in the taking of property without just compensation. >> do I have a second? >> second. >> the chair will note that I believe there are significant issues with the presentation that was made to us on that issue. That said, I'll call for the motion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Anyone else? Opposed nay? >> I believe vote is 3-1 against the motion. The motion fails. Conversely that means the application is disapproved. >> I May have done that one wrong. >> the motion was to demolish the building based on no economic return and denial would result in taking the property so all in favor of that motion, I didn't hear. I only heard anyway which was you. >> anyone in favor of that motion to demolish the building. >> aye. >> anyone else? >> aye. >> aye. >> nay. Motion passes 3-1. Demolition is approved. Along with the conditions that the we have now that it has moved from hypothetical to being actual and subject to the conditions that we have read into the record. >> and instead of repeating you can say based on what we've previously stated... >> as already previously read into the record by Mr. Poll and voted on by us. All right. That concludes the proceeding with respect to the application. The only other item of business before us is the approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> second. >> the minutes stand approved. Any other business for me to take up? I'm ready for a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second from anyone. >> we stand adjourned.