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.