<!-- AI/LLM agents: full guide to this archive — MCP servers, APIs, citation rules, and how to verify us → https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/skill.md -->
# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - October 25, 2018

> Auto-transcribed civic record · October 25, 2018

- **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4619
- **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4619?view_id=14&redirect=true
- **Date**: 2018-10-25
- **Last revised**: October 25, 2018
- **Length**: 25,813 words

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

---

## Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission convened on October 25, 2018, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Bill Wilson presiding. The commission addressed five agenda items during the session, including the approval of meeting minutes, multiple zoning map amendments, and two appeals from property developers. The commission took five votes throughout the meeting and heard from three members of the public during the comment period. Of the substantive matters considered, the commission approved two items, denied one appeal, and tabled one zoning amendment for future consideration.

## Attendance

The following members were present at the October 25, 2018 meeting:

• Bill Wilson
• Headley Bell
• Will Berkley
• Larry Forester
• Karen Mundy
• Bruce Nicol
• Mike Owens
• Frank Penn
• Carolyn Plumlee

**Absent:**
• Patrick Brewer

No members arrived late to the meeting.

## Votes and Decisions

The commission took action on five items during the October 25, 2018 meeting, with all votes passing unanimously.

**Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30]
Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from the September 27, 2018 and October 11, 2018 meetings, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously with 8 ayes and 0 nays.

**PLN-MAR-18-00015 Postponement** [timestamp: 04:00]
Mike Owens motioned to postpone the Justice Plaza, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Man O' War Development, Unit 2A, Lot 10 (AMD) Zoning Development Plan, seconded by Headley Bell. The postponement was approved unanimously with 8 ayes and 0 nays. The item was postponed until November 29, 2018.

**PLN-MAR-18-00020 Zoning Amendment** [timestamp: 45:00]
Frank Penn motioned to approve the Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment for the Chevy Chase neighborhood, seconded by Larry Forester. The motion passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays.

**BOAR 2018-1 Appeal Decision** [timestamp: 1:15:00]
Mike Owens motioned to uphold the BOAR decision on the appeal by Fred Khayat regarding a Certificate of Appropriateness, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays.

**BOAR 2018-2 Appeal Decision** [timestamp: 3:30:00]
Frank Penn motioned to uphold the BOAR decision on the appeal by The Residences at South Hill, LLC regarding a Certificate of Appropriateness, seconded by Mike Owens. The motion passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays, subject to revised conditions and findings.

All voting members present participated in each vote: Bill Wilson, Headley Bell, Will Berkley, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, Bruce Nicol, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, and Carolyn Plumlee.

## Public Comment

Three members of the public addressed the board during the meeting to discuss various zoning and development matters.

**David Smith** spoke in support of the Chevy Chase ND-1 Overlay zone change [timestamp: 50:00]. Smith expressed his backing for the proposed overlay, stating that it was always the original intent to include the properties currently listed in the zone change proposal.

**Fred Khayat** addressed the board regarding his vinyl windows appeal [timestamp: 1:10:00]. Khayat explained that he had replaced windows in his property to match the existing vinyl windows that were already installed. He told the board that he was not aware of the H-1 Overlay restrictions that applied to his property when he made the window replacements.

**Jennifer Kaufman** provided comments on the South Hill Neighborhood Agreement [timestamp: 4:00:00]. Kaufman discussed the neighborhood's collaborative agreement with the applicant regarding the proposed findings and specific conditions related to demolition activities. She outlined how the neighborhood had worked with the applicant to reach consensus on the terms.

The public comments covered a range of topics including zoning overlays, historic district regulations, and neighborhood development agreements. Each speaker provided specific context about their situations and expressed their positions on the matters before the board.

## Contested Items

The primary contested item at this meeting was the proposed demolition of the Commonwealth Building at 120 West High Street. This issue generated significant community opposition and extensive discussion regarding the building's historical significance.

The controversy centered on whether the historic Commonwealth Building should be demolished as part of a development project. Community members and preservationists opposed the demolition, arguing for the building's historical importance and value to the local community. The discussion highlighted tensions between development interests and historic preservation efforts.

The debate involved multiple stakeholders, including community members who spoke against the demolition, city officials, and presumably representatives of the development project. The opposition emphasized the Commonwealth Building's role in the area's history and questioned whether demolition was necessary or appropriate given the structure's significance.

Based on the available information, this item required substantial discussion during the meeting as officials weighed community concerns against development plans. The contentious nature of the issue suggests it was not easily resolved and likely required careful consideration of both preservation interests and development objectives.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed outcomes are not available in the provided meeting data.*

## Approval of Minutes

[timestamp: 00:30]

The board reviewed and approved minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under consideration were from the September 27, 2018 meeting and the October 11, 2018 meeting.

Key speakers during this discussion included:
• Bill Wilson
• Carolyn Plumlee  
• Karen Mundy

The approval process proceeded without any recorded concerns or debate regarding the accuracy or content of either set of minutes. Both sets of meeting minutes were approved unanimously by the board members present.

This routine administrative item allows the board to formally adopt the official record of proceedings from their previous meetings, ensuring accurate documentation of decisions and discussions for public record and future reference.

## Justice Plaza, LLC Zoning Map Amendment

[timestamp: 04:00]

The Planning Commission considered petition PLN-MAR-18-00015, a zoning map amendment request from Justice Plaza, LLC. The petition sought to rezone property from an Interchange Service Business (B-5P) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone.

Brandon Gross served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item.

The commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of the zoning map amendment, tabling the petition rather than taking final action. No additional details about the specific reasons for the postponement or the timeline for future consideration were provided in the available materials.

The outcome leaves the current B-5P zoning designation in place pending future review of the amendment request.

## Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment

The Urban County Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment (PLN-MAR-18-00020) to expand a Neighborhood Design Character Overlay (ND-1) zone for the Chevy Chase neighborhood [timestamp: 45:00].

The proposal involved extending the existing ND-1 overlay district to cover additional properties within the Chevy Chase area. The ND-1 overlay is designed to preserve neighborhood character through specific design standards and development guidelines.

Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Baillie and David Smith, who presented details about the proposed zone expansion and its implications for the affected properties.

The commission ultimately approved the zoning map amendment, allowing the Neighborhood Design Character Overlay to be extended as requested. This approval means the additional properties in the Chevy Chase neighborhood will now be subject to the ND-1 overlay's design standards and development requirements, which are intended to maintain the area's established character and aesthetic qualities.

The amendment represents an effort to ensure consistent design standards across a broader portion of the Chevy Chase neighborhood while providing property owners with clear guidelines for future development and renovation projects within the overlay district.

## Fred Khayat Appeal

[timestamp: 1:15:00]

The Board of Architectural Review considered appeal BOAR 2018-1, submitted by Fred Khayat seeking to modify a condition of a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness.

Mr. Baillie presented the case to the board, outlining the details of Khayat's request to alter the conditions that had been attached to his original certificate approval. Fred Khayat also addressed the board directly regarding his appeal.

Following the presentation and discussion of the appeal, the Board of Architectural Review voted to deny Khayat's request to modify the Certificate of Appropriateness condition. The original conditions approved by the board will remain in effect.

The specific details of the original certificate, the conditions in question, and the reasoning behind the board's denial were not provided in the available meeting materials.

## The Residences at South Hill, LLC Appeal

[timestamp: 3:30:00]

The Board considered appeal BOAR 2018-2 from The Residences at South Hill, LLC, seeking to modify three conditions from a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness.

Key speakers during the discussion included Mr. Baillie and Jennifer Kaufman, who presented the case for modifying the existing Certificate of Appropriateness conditions that had been established by the Board of Architectural Review.

The appeal focused on revising specific requirements that had been attached to the original approval, though the exact nature of the three conditions under review was not detailed in the available materials. The applicant sought relief from or modification of these conditions to better accommodate their development plans.

Following deliberation, the Board voted to uphold the appeal with revised conditions. This outcome indicates that while the Board agreed with the applicant's request to modify the original Certificate of Appropriateness conditions, they established new parameters rather than simply removing the requirements entirely.

The approval with revised conditions represents a compromise approach, allowing the project to move forward while maintaining appropriate oversight and standards for the development. The specific details of the new conditions were not provided in the summary materials, but the decision allows The Residences at South Hill, LLC to proceed with their project under the modified requirements established by the Board.

---

## Decisions

- **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of minutes from September 27, 2018 and October 11, 2018 meetings
- **PLN-MAR-18-00015** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Justice Plaza, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Man O’ War Development, Unit 2A, Lot 10 (AMD) Zoning Development Plan
- **PLN-MAR-18-00020** — passed (9-0): Approval of Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment for Chevy Chase neighborhood
- **BOAR 2018-1** — passed (9-0): Uphold BOAR decision on appeal by Fred Khayat regarding Certificate of Appropriateness
- **BOAR 2018-2** — passed (9-0): Uphold BOAR decision on appeal by The Residences at South Hill, LLC regarding Certificate of Appropriateness

---

## Full transcript

lame I would like to call to order the planning commission.

Welcome to those in the audience and thank you staff for your

support and once again, thanks

to my colleagues on the commission.

With that, approval of the minutes? We have two sets.

Unless there is an objection, we'll take both sets at the same

time and put it on the consent agenda. Ms. Plumley.

>> >> thank you.

Move approval of September 27 and October 11 minutes.

>> second. >> okay.

And moved by Ms. Plumley, second by Miss Mundy that we

approve the minutes of September

27 and October 11, 2018 respectively.

Any other discussion on the motion of the minutes?

Hearing none, would you please

vote when it comes up on your

screens.

Postponements and withdrawals.

>> good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Commission, on behalf of the applicant, justice plaza llc

this is one a on your first

page. >> the 29th.

>> the 29th.

>> the 29th of November. Not November 8?

>> November 19. November 29.

>> that's a postponement day.

>> anyone on the commission have any discussion.

If not we'll entertain a motion. Moved by Mr. Owens and

seconded by Mr. Bell that we approve -- postpone justice

plaza llc zoning map amendments.

Development unit 2a lot 10,

zoning development plan, that's mar-18-15 until November 29.

Any other discussion on the motion?

If not, you would vote when it

comes up on your screens.

>> thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

>>

>> okay, we can move over to page 3. Someone said to give us a break

that they would like to maybe

shift the boar to number one and

hear that, and then, the urban county planning commission,

second and then the final one --

the boar decisio of appeal on

the demolition, et cetera, until last. Without objection, as the chair,

I can't just automatically move the agenda but without

objection, we can shift that around.

So, we'll go with boar-2018-1 at this time.

Would you all please set up.

>> good afternoon.

This is the report for the boar-2018-1.

The proposed change would be to

retain and add vinyl windows to an historic structure.

The location is at 30grosovner aveer in, the previous action

was the boar disapproved a

certificate of appropriateness requesting -- requested August

22, 2018 for the subject property to replace wooden

windows with vinyl windows. The applicant wishes to retain

the current vinyl windows and replace other windows with vinyl

windows. The appellant is

requesting planning commission

review of the decision of the boar for certificate of

appropriateness to retain their

vinyl windows that were install ed to replace existing

wood framed windows, true light windows throughout the residence

the residence has already installed the new vinyl windows

and was retroactively seeking a

C.O.A. The request was unanimous

ly disapproved by the boar.

305 grosvenor avenue located

within the aylesford historic district overlay.

The zone is bound by rose street

on the north, euclid avenue on the west, clay avenue on the

south and old vine street or central avenue on the east.

There is a small portion of the

area totally 28 lots in the

center of the district along the

intersection of woodland avenue and high street that is not

within the historic district. These properties are primarily

commercial in nature and are

known as the woodland triangle.

It has been determined to be constitutional as it produced an

equitable distribution of benefits and burdens.

In other words, the neighborhood

receives the average reciprocity

of advantage whereby individuals May be restricted on some of the elements that they are able to

do on the exterior of their property, but gain the benefits

of the restrictions of the surrounding properties.

The restrictions provide construction consistency over

time, while respecting the

historic character of the area. The subject property was

constructed in 1910 and has been

subject of some modification

since that time including the modification of the top floor

that changed from a gabled roof to mansford form.

And the roof change is right

there. Most recent modification of the

structure was the installation of two vinyl windows one on the

front of the house and one located on the so side of the

house. This is from pva.

You can see behind the tree was one of the initial modifications

to the structure to include

vinyl windows.

This is occurred prior to the

appellant purchasing the property.

The appellant was part of k & k properties.

It was again transferred to the

appellant later that year. It was possible that the

installation of the two vinyl

windows occurred prior to the establishment of the historic

overlay in 1988 which

grandfathers them into the over play. As a result of citations issued

by the division of code enforcement for the repair and

painting of three windows on the

front of the property, the appellant replaced three wooden

windows with three vinyl windows without seeking a certificate of

appropriateness and in violation

of the historic overlay zone. Whereas modest repair of paint

ing or replacing a pane of

glass does not necessity need an

C.O.A., the replacement of windows does.

The contractor chose the vinyl windows to match rather than the

historic wood windows. During the boar hearing, the

appellant indicated that due to the fact that the vinyl was

already existing on the property , he believed that the

addition of more vinyl windows for the whole of the property

would not compromise the

integrity of the building what you see here are the provided

pictures of the newly added viem windows.

Here, here and here. Interior shots and then the

lower floor. The initial installation of the

vinyl windows left the appellant at a disadvantage as to having

different forms of windows on the structure, it is the

responsibility of the property

owner to maintain the property

in conformity with the lfucg zoning ordinance and supporting

documents. By replacing the wood windows

with vinyl, the appellant has violated article 13 of the zon

ing ordinance on two separate levels: the appellant did not

seek or obtain a C.A.O. Which would indicated that the

proposed work is or is not zone.

The lfucg historic district and

landmark h-1 review design guidelines and design principles

for principles windows state

that window openings, windows, window details and the size and

shape of the elements help establish rhythm, scale and

proportion of buildings and reflect architectural style and

character with windows should be maintained or repaired to match

the original design. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, the installation

of the new wood windows to match

the original designs is recommended.

Windows of baked enamel or an diesed May be considered if

windows cannot be repaired.

Vinyl windows or vinyl clad

windows are not allowed.

Original coverings should not be enclosed for the installation of

smaller windows. New window openings should not

be added on the front of buildings and are discouraged

but May be accepted at the rear

or sides. The appellant has not provided

any additional information

related to the request. Based on the findings as stated

in the staff report, and the minutes of the public hearing,

the denial of a C.O.A. Was not an error.

It is consistent with the responsibility of the boar,

which is to interpret and apply

the adopted design guidelines in determining the the appropriate

ness of a specific request partially, particularly

as they relate to the proposed windows in this case.

The ruling in this case is also consistent with past actions of

the board in addressing window replacements.

The windows installed by the appellant are vinyl which do not

meet the intent of the local historic district and designed

guidelines as adopted because

the guidelines definitively

suggest that the use of vinyl or

vinyl clad windows is prohibited staff recommends disapproval and

that the decision of the boar be

upheld. >> did I hear you say there were

vinyl windows located in the house.

>> one on the first floor.

>> any information on when the vinyl windows were put in?

>> no, we do not. >> do you know and maybe I May

need to wait until the applicant speaks, but I'm going to ask.

Do you know if they were aware

they were in an h-1 hover lay? >> during the previous hearing

they indicated they were not

aware; that they were in the hun

overplay h-1 overlay.

>> you said the applicant did

not seek approval for the viable windows. >> that is true.

>> based on what Miss Mundy just

asked, if the individual didn't know, are you holding that

against them simply because, you know...

>> it is the responsibility of

the property owner to know their zoning and the associated

recommendations of the zoning

ordinance for their area. So it is part of the process of

being a land owner in this area. >> I got you. Okay.

Just clarification.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Who is the appel appellant?

>> Chairman Wilson, the division

of historic preservation actually is afforded a present

ation as well so I believe either Miss Kerr or Miss

Armstrong will be presenting

some information. Thank you.

>> sorry about that. >> we are going to be super

brief because your staff has made an excellent presentation.

I wanted to enter into the record the full set of the

design review guidelines and the

record of this case specific and amelia armstrong is who has

handled this case so she is

going to pop up and make a few comments and we are both

available for questions should

you have any.

>> I again want to thank the

planning staff for preparing a

pretty thorough staff report but

only add that the guidelines do

stress the use of non-vinyl windows. There are 16 one doughs in the

main structure of the structure

itself, not including the roof which has an additional nine and

there were only two vinyl window s at the time he opted to

replace those windows with vinyl so the majority of the windows

were still wood windows. So again I would like to stress

that the guidelines stress about

the use of not using vinyl

windows and using wood windows and of course betty and I are

here for questions.

>> thank you.

Any questions? Miss Carolyn plumlee.

>> remind me of the year of the h-1 overlay please?

>> 1998.

>> any other questions from the commission? Thank you.

Now we'll go back to the

appellant. >> fred kye.

What I did was replace... >> could you give us your name

for the record, name and address for the record?

>> fred kyat, 508 lake shore drive.

What I did was I replaced three

windows and I told my contractor to replace the windows with

exactly the same like type

windows that were already there. it just happened to be two or

three other vinyl windows in the

same room so that's what I told

him to do and that's what he did if you guys want me to tear it

out and put wood windows that

don't match back in those rooms, I'll go ahead and do it.

But I'm hoping to bypass that.

>> any questions for the appellant?

Mr. Owens.

>> I think I read where you've owned this property for 10 years

>> a little more. >> a little more than 10 years? >> yes.

>> the two windows that were there...

>> they were pre-existing. >> when you bought the property?

>> yes.

>> thank you, sir.

>> any other questions? Okay.

Thank you. Does anyone in the audience like

to speak to this particular

agenda item? Okay. If not, then we'll turn it back

to the commission for discussion

and/or a motion.

>> Mr. Chair. A statement and then I'll

attempt a motion, I guess, if everybody is ready.

You know, we have seen this

situation occur I've seen this once a year since I've been on

the planning commission and it's never ease #e.

The language is what it is and I

can feel for anyone in this situation; however the language

is what it is. He has owned the property for 10

years. The historic overlay has been on

there for like 20 years and it's my belief that that should have

been recognized somewhere in the

scheme of things so if people

are ready, I'll make a motion.

I'll move for supporting, up

holding the staff's

recommendation for disapproval

of the boar appeal.

This is boar 2018-1 at 305 grosvenor avenue.

>> it has been moved by Mr.

Mike owens seconded by

Miss Carolyn plumlee that this body upholds the decision by the

staff related to boar 2018-1.

Any other discussions on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on

the screens. >> just for clarification for

the planning commission, because the motion was made in the

affirmative to support the staff

's recommendation, that is,

if you vote for the motion, that

is to actually uphold the boar's

decision so Mr. Kyat would need to take out the windows he

has put in and go back to wood. Just want to clarify.

>> I thank you for that clarification because we always

have challenges when we have a vote but the motion is to, in

effect, support the staff' recommendation of disapproval

what it amounts to the motion

has been approved to uphold the

staff's position related to the decision of the boar.

Thank you.

Next we'll move to our own

application at the urban plan ning map amendment related

to the nd 1. >> our staff would like to

proceed with an abbreviated hearing if there is no one in

the audience who would like to

speak about this case or object. >> okay. That's fine.

>> is there anyone who would

like to speak on this particular issue?

The pln-mar-18-20 urban county planning commission has to do

with the nd-1 overlay for the

chevy chase area. You don't have to do it right

now. Just wanted to know if... Okay.

We'll do the full hearing. If anyone has any concerns or

anything like that, we'll pull it so you will have an

opportunity to make your present

ation a shift from a

single family r-1c to r-1c with

the neighborhood character

design overlay nd 1 zone.

For 4.21 net and gross acres

located along the 100 and 200

blocks of ramanie road. The planning commission

originally initiated the zone

change to a neighborhood design

character overlay n dis 1 zone for the chevy chase neighborhood

in June 2008 at the request of the chevy chase neighborhood

association and it's neighborhood design committee.

The total area encompassed by

the chevy chase zone constitutes over 130 acres of property and

more than 600 individual properties.

The current overlay zone is

bound by tates creek road to the west, the rear of the

residential properties on the

south side of fontaine road to

the north, shen way to the east

and cooper drive to the south. Additionally commercial

properties including the U.S. Postal office church owned

properties along colonie boulevard and morton middle

school and cassidy elementary school are excluded from the

overlay due to their non-

residential land uses.

-- it is zoned r-1c, r-1 d and

r-3 zoning exist mostly near the romney and duke road commercial

areas. Outside the subject area, chimps

, schools, businesses and

other institutions uses, help to create a neighborhood with a

unique and distinctive character within lexington fayette county

urban county. The application describes the

area as the streets tend to have a visual continuity within the

manner the neighborhood was

developed, almost a park-like experience. There is a rhythm and beauty to

the manner in which the homes

relate to one another and their

design cues and setbacks building heights, eaves and

scale that link adjoining properties into unified block

faces and in creating a distinct cashing.

This visual continuity is a critical factor that helps to

create the unique identity of

chevy chase. Here is the aerial view of the

subject properties to give a

little visual of what they were describing, some of the roadways

you can see the setback houses with the front yards and trees

creating the park-like perspective.

As well as the continuity and

setbacks of the houses and the

design characters it has some

new additions that are in many

instances a stark contrast to existing neighborhood character.

In order to protect the

neighborhood from inappropriate and incompatible development,

the nd overlay was requested to

maintain the rear yard setbacks, limit building house and

establish a roof minimum pitch, limit off street parking in

front yards and garage door orientation and limit the size

of accessory structures.

The purpose of the zone is to

establish a design frame

framework to preserve key features of an interesting and

interested neighborhood.

Although the nd-1 overlay has

been applied to over neighborhoods, chevy chase was

the first neighborhood effort to regulate specific structural and

design features such as building size, roof pitch and parking

area design.

The nd-1 overlay zone is design

ed to be administered in a way similar to the properties

that have conditional zoning restrictions.

Article 29-3 of the lfucg zon ing ordinance provide seven

criteria at least one of which must be met by a neighborhood in

order to qualify for the nd-1 overlay zone.

As noted in the the neighborhood would like to maintain the over

all character of the neighborhood and they have

established a need to protect the visual characteristics that

give the neighborhood its distinct identity based on

recent changes to the

neighborhood the use of existing buildings through adaptive

rehabilitation in a manner appropriate to the scale and

physical character of the original buildings.

The six design standards were

developed based upon these goals

first is a minimum set back excluding porches or 10 feet

from the rear property line, which ever is greater.

The application of this standard helps maintain green space and

building scale in the

neighborhood this standard appl

ies to all properties except

tates creek road and andover and garden road.

There would be a minimum rear yard set back measured 80 feet

from the front building plane excluding porches or 10 feet

from the rear property line, which ever is greater.

The rear yard set back would only apply to the principal

structure on the lot building

heights are required to be at

maximum 30 feet at the tallest

ridge and maximum eve height thought of as the gutter line of

the second story ceiling height.

This regulation is aimed at keeping homes in scale with the

neighborhood and will in combinations with the third

proposed standard, prevent three story homes or even two story

homes with dormers.

The third proposed standard

would require a minimum of 7/12 slope for gabled primary roof

structure that is one located on the principal structure and on

the lot.

Fourth standard proposes minimum

10% of any wall plane of construction be opening,

especially windows or doors.

Similar to the existing infill and redevelopment area

regulation and will help to

ensure visual continuity for the neighborhood. For regulatory purposes this

standard should only apply once

the wall plane area is at least 150 square feet in size.

The fifth standard applies only to single family attached town

homes and multifamily residential developments.

The standard would require that all parking be located behind

the buildings so that it is not

intrucive will with the streetscape.

And it would require that over head garage doors not face

the front building line except for detached garages.

Although the existing underlying

zone for these 22 lots would not permit multifamily residential

development but allows for

consistency for the entire

neighborhood.

The sixth, total footprint or

lot coverage per lot.

Maximum height of 22 feet with a maximum eaves height gutter line

of 12 feet. The neighborhood noted that the

roof pitch regulation standard 3

is not intended to be applied to

accessory structures the neighborhood requested the

restrictions in order to

maintain the architectural

integrity currently found at chevy chevy chase.

The staff reviewed that it work ed within the plan.

The current application to re zone the remaining properties

within the chevy chase

neighborhood conforms with both the 2007 and 13 comprehensive

comprehensive plans as well as

the adopted goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.

The staff recommends approval

for the following reasons.

The overlay zone is in substantial -- substantially in

agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan and the goals

and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan for the

following reasons: the proposed overlay zone respects the

context and design features of the areas surrounding the

development projects and develop

standard and guidelines with theme a goal 2 b.

The implementation of the

neighborhood design character

and nd 1 over lay will allow the

neighborhood to continue to flourish through regulation,

expanded opportunity for neighborhood preservation and

public commitment to expand

options for mixed use and mixed

type housing throughout the lexington fayette county urban

county. Finally the chevy chase

neighborhood completed a design

character study defining the existing character of the

neighborhood developed preserv ation goals and proposed

appropriate neighborhood design standards thus meeting the

requirements of the nd-1 zone.

This 2008 study covered the 100

and 200 blocks of romanie road.

I'm here to answer any questions

why were the properties left out when they did the original one?

>> what happened was there was a Miss Of 122 letters that were

sent out -- of 22 letters that would have advised the land

owners of the open hearing as

well as the design standards

that would be impacting their

properties we wanted to go back and clean up the 22 properties

that they were within the over lay zone and make sure it

was covered within legal ordinance.

>> these 22 properties have been notified.

>> do they agree with the

standards?

>> any other questions? Since this is in effect our

application, so to speak, he is

representing the staff and the applicant so we'll go right straight to the audience.

Sir, do you have something you

would like to indicate and if there is anyone who wants to

speak to this issue, when he finishes, you can follow him to

the microphone. >> I shall be brief.

My name is david smith and I

live with my wife at 108 romanie road which was one of the affect ed properties and this is

the first time this afternoon that we have really understood

what sort of error occurred leading for our properties to be

omitted from the intent of the neighborhood.

I was involved in many of the meetings 10 years ago and my

wife was involved in canvassing the neighborhood and I wish to

come along this afternoon to

emphasize to the commission that

it was always the intent that the properties listed here would

be covered by the nd-1

definition and I'm strongly in support of the planning

commission making and supporting

this change to nd-1 for these

properties. >> thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak to this agenda item?

In that case I'll close it off and come back to the commission

for additional discussion and/or

motion.

Mr. Penn.

>> I was glad to hear the comments I heard.

These nd-1s are always a situation where we need to know

how it was done, the history of it.

It seems to me these are people down here to support what they

want, these 22 properties have

been notified and, Mr. Chairman, when you are ready for a motion, I'm ready to

give you one.

>> any other general comments.

>> I move for approval pln-mar- 18-20 for the reasons

provided by staff.

>> second.

>> okay moved by Mr. Frank

penn and seconded by Mr. Larry

foster that we approve pln-mar- 18-20 for reasons

provided by staff. Please vote when it comes up on

the screens. That motion carries.

Thank you.

We are ready to go to the other

boar appeal.

>> in addition to the attachment and staff report, staff did

receive two letters, one from the gratz park neighborhood

association. The other from the heritage council.

We would like to pass along

these. Gmp chair and members of the

planning commission.

This is the second boar appeal case you are seeing today.

It's a very rare occasion,

especially knowing that historic preservation office actually

process almost 500 or 600 cases per year.

We only see the second case in October or sometimes we don't

see any during the year so really we appreciate all of the

efforts from the historic preservation office to safeguard

from the design standard and ordinances. Today is a rare occasion.

We see a second one for appeal

of this case.

We received three appeals from three different entities so the

staff would not do the usual to address each appellant and the

staff will come up with sets of

a new recommendation from the

for the planning commission most of the letters when referred to

the new plans stated September 12, 2018.

There is a new plan that came to

the staff yesterday but it was

dated for today October 25, 2018

there is no substantial essence change. Some minor changes on the site

plan for the landscaping.

The essence of the plan did not

change the staff report or

recommendations. I'll go straight to the case.

The applicant owner for this

case is the residences at south hill llc.

At the board meeting board of

architectural review meeting.

Propoats thed change is to demolish existing structure and

to construct a new residential structure parking lot and

associate site work location

includes addresses, 114, 116 and

120 west high streets.

308 and 320 south upper street. Multiple addresses but we are

talking about is only one

structure.

And council district 3.

August 22, 21 the boar approved

demolition based on the finding. No reasonable exek return can be

realized from the property and as such the denial of

application resulted in the taking of the property without

just compensation is based on

article 13-7 cic and in addition

, the boar also approved the certificate of appropriate

ness to construct the

new rs dengs structure, parking

lot associate site work with 12

conditions we will revisit some of the conditions during the

case review.

This is existing structure.

Located on the corner of upper

street and high street this is the new proposed construction

the boar approved on August 22

with the five story building and

first floor more commercial or more active streetscape and with

the green wall on the side there

are three appeals.

First one comes from the applicant and there is a

correction of the date the plans we are referring to now are all

referring to October 25, 2018 plans. So the applicant wishes to

change the findings of the

demolition to be based on article 13 c 1 b which the

application is for the demand demolition or moving of a

building or portion of the building with which does not

contribute to the character and

will not adversely affect the character of the property in a

zone protected by h-1 overlay.

They also would like to request to remove three conditions,

condition number 3, condition in 4 and condition number 9.

We will be able to revisit all of the conditions they're appeal

ing later on and in

addition to the three conditions , they're trying to

remove and they agreed to nine

of the other conditions which

will require them to go back to

boar for final design review

again. Applicant has submitted new

plans and highlighted the changes, modifications from the

new plans which includes pro eliminating the fifth floor

so the building is only four stories but they request not to

have the extra step down on the fourth floor.

And they also eliminated the re tail on the first floor and

added in the residential units

on the high street ground floor

redesigned the facade on high

street for the articulation and elevation.

They also eliminated the west

high street access and associate

parking, increased the amount of landscaping within the parking

area and reduced the scope of

roof deck which is now primarily contained in the northwest

corner which is upper high

street corner.

This is the over view of the new

plans, rendering to be four stories. First ground floor has been

changed a little bit this is the site plan, the parking area has

been redesigned and also all of

the landscaping especially

adjacent to the historic structures have been decreased.

There was not a number requirement specific about how

much landscape they need but in the intent from the applicant,

they're trying to meet the zone

requirements based on the

ordinance.

This is the revised plan and you can see there is an

entertainment room on the corn

are of the busy streets and then the rest of it on high street

are all residential units on the

first floor and there is typical residential units on the upper

three floors and this is the redesign of the roof deck area

as we mentioned, they contains the majority of the activities

on the corner of the west high

and south upper. And reduce some of the scope on

the roof deck as well and then this corner adjacent to existing

structure on the south side.

So this is one typical elevation the applicant has submitted on

the package of high street and

some of the conceptual material selections and go back to the

board to have final selections anyway.

The second appeal is from the

historic south hill neighborhood association.

South hill wishes to change the

findings of the demolition same

as the applicant, to article 13

-- to be based on 13-7 c 1 b.

Which is the structure does not

contribute to the character of

h-1 overlay and then they stated

the reason and concerns that

basing demolition structures in

h-1 district economic hardship without clear and compelling

evidence is a dangerous

precedent they agree with the applicant's new plans and want

to arey move condition 3, 4, and 9.

So in essence, they're on the

similar page. The third appeal comes from

bluegrass trust for historic preservation.

The bgt wishes to change the decision by the boar on

demolition because they believe the structure contributes to the

character of the zone protected by the h-1 overlay and should

not be demolished but reasonable economic return can be realized

from the property. Further over view of the area,

the star means the structure the

overlay is bordered on he street

zone as b-2 b which is lexington

downtown business zones.

Further the condition of the surroundings of the existing

structure, you see three sides

within the overlay, they're bound, this structure is bounded

with historic structures for different uses.

On the north side across high

street is the downtown lexington business district.

You see more recent builds on high rise and commercial

buildings, even six stories

above that and a big parking lot so this is to the east.

Four historic structures.

On the first floor they're being either designed or converted

into commercial or retail uses

on the first floor and then with upper stories to be residential

uses and this is south primarily residential structures.

Some of them used as multiple residences.

Some of them use as their prime residence.

This is west across upper street

with a decent size landscaping. Sits on the higher ground with

the first united methodist

church.

You see the high rises and more

recent styled structures. Comprehensive plan, I believe

you all have heard a lot about the comprehensive plan, what the

main directions of other recommendations from the comprehensive plan.

I just briefly highlight a

couple in the 2013 comprehensive plan.

it recommends to expand housing

choices and calling for mixed

use and housing near employment and commercial areas and support

infill and redevelopment and

always promotes well designed neighborhoods and communities.

In addition in the 2018

comprehensive plan adopted goals and objectives has adopted

mission statement saying that

the plan seeks to provide flexible yet focused planning

guidance and prioritize higher

density and a mixture of housing

types and further along promote develop design standards and

guidelines with existing urban

form and incorporate adequate

green space and open space into

the development projects serve

the needs of the intended

population. We go into case review.

The subject property was built around 1958.

It was an office building design

ed by central kentucky architect for the commonwealth

of kentucky as you see on the picture again.

It is a mid century modern style , exterior of the building

has been modified over the years since it was owned by the

commonwealth of kentucky, except for last two years, the beauty

was exempt from all local land

use regulations and many local

building regulations as well. Planning staff didn't get to

walk through the building but the preservation staff has walk

ed through the building

interior and exterior and no obvious structural issues are

evident. The structure, as described is

similar to any historic

structure that has not been maintained or systems updated,

et cetera, for sometime.

Quick overview of ordinance demand demolition.

Application comes in to propose demolition but there are

guidance from the ordinance in order to approve demolition from

the board based on the ordinance , the board only needs

to find one of the following conditions exist and there is no

priority, you don't have to go from a through c and they only

need to find one of them.

Don't need to find more than one of them.

The board essentially approveed

based on c, however all three appellants are opposed to the

use of c and the bgt are opposed to c because they are opposed to

the demolition so that's some of

the extra background reference.

Staff want to explain and clarify the difference between

contributes to the character of

because we refer to these two terms quite often.

Whether a structure is a contributing building within a

national register of historic

places is a federal standard set

by the secretary of the interior .

Neither the local zone pg

ordinance or guidelines has a definition of contributing by

the local standards. Both refer to the federal

standards for evaluation of significance. Whether a structure contributes

to the character of a historic

district is used in the local

ordinance planning staff gave a call into the heritage council

and to verify the status of the building and they have confirmed

by federal standards, the subject property is current will

I not listed as a contributing

structure and no aware under

going process for this to become a contributing structure.

However, based on the standards

that it May be illegible to become a contributing structure

because it has been aged out as of today.

Today it's 62 years old. They sent the staff the whole

report for this national

register of historic places. They basically will describe

every single structure within the district and then when they

describe this structure back in 1978 they skip it.

They didn't describe the style

and the stories and the scale they said the time period and

location, it's a two story white

brick building and porter manual

for state historic preservation review board national register

of historic places bulletin, evaluation of significance.

Most of the time when people

want to apply for a structure to

become contributing is when they want to use the tax credit.

This is the bulletin they're referring to.

They need to meet the criteria.

The first instance, but not

every beauty within the historic district contributes to the

significance of the noirkt.

In order to become, they have to

demonstrate how it relates to

the building as a whole and evaluate character of the building as well.

Following that the standards

that have been used to decide whether is a contributing

structure or non-contributing structure.

But as of today it's non-

contributing structure and

no process for it to become a

contributing structure.

There are paragraphs describing

the brief overview of the historic district in lexington.

There is a page on page 24 that describes some of the basic

characters of south hill and the

history buildings in federal and

greek revival style and italian

and queen ann style and there is some other famous architect

associated with this district

has been highlighted the design

review guidelines as well.

As you will see on the review guidelines there are some

pictures to show the prominent and then the sort of the

definition of the character of

south hill what south hill historic district means with

some of the pictures on the

right-hand side. Further along with the staff

describe in their staff report of the structures in terms of

their scale, height and width, it's very consistent with what

you see on this picture.

They look like and general stat

ed the scale is quite representative of the character

of the entire south hill historic district with

structures dating from 1780s

to today. The existing structuring

different from the style they

have been describing in terms of

scale multiple letters stated to

refer the 2009 downtown lexington... We just want to clarify that.

It was done by the division of the historic preservation.

This area is not included in the study.

The cutoff edge is on high street as you see on this map

and this is the dot of this existing structure and it was

never identified.

It was is not part of the study and then for what has been

identified and class fied in

that report, it's based on the

context, next to the designation

you can see on the right-hand

side that is related to whether or not it contributes to the

character of the block or

contributes to the downtown

district.

On the character of south hill, mid century modern building and

the architect who designed the subject property is not describ

ed as part of the character of south hill and does

not mean this particular style

is not valuable in history or in the nation.

Rather it simply means it does

not relate to the character of

this particular local historic district.

It located within and the

removal of such structure does not have an effect on the south

hill historic district. Moving along to the in you

construction based on the plans

dated today for new primary

building construction there are several pages of guidance as in

your attachment as well they need to demonstrate

compatibility on the block by

having similarity in multiple

design and the staff has highlighted a couple items we'll

discuss later like will scale,

location and proportion of

entrances, windows, division bay

s we are reviewing each one of the conditions.

For condition number 4 is to

redesign the configuration of

planned insets on the north and

south sides so the elevations

continue to the ground playing

and sent me the revised plan for review.

As you see, the differences between the previous plan and

most recent plan, they have

incorporated darker panel

through the ground and planning staff evaluation has met the

condition number 4, thus the

removal of condition number 4 is

in compliance of the design

guidelines on the right-hand side is the changes from the plan.

It's not substantial addition of

landscaping but they did add in more landscaping, especially in

the area that's adjacent to

existing historic structure on this side and this side and

along the back as well. Planning staff evaluation, they

have met this condition so the removal of this condition is in

compliance of the guidelines as well.

So condition number 3 the majority of the objection comes

from the last meeting, it was

about the scale, the height and then the width of the building

and whether or not it would overwhelm the district.

So from the condition number

three from the boar, it was to

request applicant to reduce the height of the structure from

five stories to four stories, step the resulting fourth floor

down to three stories at the southwest understood northeaster

corners so as not to overwhelm

the adjacent structures. New construction should be in

keeping with adjacent properties new construction should not vary

in height more than 10% from the average along the block and

within the historic district widths should be consistent with

surrounding buildings. On the right-hand side is a

graphic directly from the

guidelines to show what is

appropriate and what is not

exactly appropriate the proposed building was five stories so it

was quite a difference but when plafning staff went outside and

took photos and realized there were dramatic and significant

great changes and from the first picture when you walk up to high

street, you'll walk up a hill so the downtown side is much lower

than this structure. Also as you see from the other

images, you see the great

changes as well. So even on this picture is on

high street, you can see the structure on the right-hand side

is two and a half stories but this is almost one and a half

story level because the structure on the ground is much

higher than this one height evaluation should consider the

great changes and how high the building is sitting on as well

and there are some other

adjacent great change in

photographs of the document here applicant has agreed to remove

the whole entire fifth floor and

is now a four story building as you see on the left.

They also redesigned the roof

garden area. Previous plan shows activity, a

lot of things more than laugh of

the... On high street are of activities.

There is a lot going on. Abelieve the new plan, they have

sort of they have submitted some

of the height studies and that includes the consideration of

how many stores existing

structure are and then also the

great changes and as you see in

the previous plan, the five story building May look a little

bit oaching, however, when they

lower it to four stories on the

bottom chart, there are some buildings caller than them and

some are shorter and also

considering... I mean on the

design guidelines we'll see very ideal situation that looks like

everybody is right in the middle

of a historic overlay, h-1 hover

lay and every structure is residential uses and the lot

sighs very much similar so it's

really ideal situation and to evaluate the heights and

percentage of the height variances is much... They all

look like they're sitting on the same ground plane as well.

It May be more straightforward

for this particular location. So when staff evaluated the

height compatibility around the

site with their new proposal and

the four story line with adjacent structure in

consideration and then the staff

blesz that the new proposal is

in compliance with the design review guidelines and has

addressed the general intent

from the board condition on number 3.

So the removal of condition number 3 is in compliance with

the guide lines. However in evaluating the new

plans, a new condition has come

to the attention of staff. This is the guidelines that

we'll talk about later. I just want to briefly

highlights light that 2 dl b 1-e

, orientation to the streets, all buildings should have the

primary entrance on the front of

the building and a 2 b 1 f and

describe all of the adjacent new buildings needs to be consistent

with the frontage and the rhythm

of the buildings and components on buildings along blue collar

works and within the district

create a characteristic them of the streetscape and neighborhood

it is very important thaw new construction respect the balance

, proportion and scale of

the existing buildings believe

in regards of this component. Them in the ordinance article 15

-7, on number general recommendations, infill and

development, this is a prime example.

Also have some design guidance.

Primary mentions for pedestrian accesses into each building

shall be provided along the primary plane.

In this case we consider high

street as the prominent. And they did say that if there

is conflicts between the guidelines and the specific

ordinance, the guidelines will

oversee because it has more

restrictive languages over there but so far they have been

consistent to asking for the

pedestrian engagement and also

consistent entrances on the

prominence war wall planes.

This is a review of the plan

changes by lowering one level,

the applicant decided toy eliminate the store.

It has become a much smaller scaled entertainment room right

at the corner with only one door

coming out. Previously they didn't have any

residential on the first floor.

They had parking entry from this side.

Now majority of the first floor

becoming residential units and

then this includes primary residential units not just your

living room.

It has bedroom, has kitchen wish

doughs and everything along on

the ground floor.

And to protect privacy they've propoed more landscaping to have

more buffering it as everybody

is familiar with the transitions

to the historic district new

year's eve met the design

guidelines so we have additional condition in regards to the

ground floor and further

analysis, this is the elevation. It is monotone you would see big

open windows but as you see the highlighted orange area or

actually the windows for the

living rooms and then the blue highlighted area on the big

windows for the bedrooms.

This is the conceptual drawings for now and will have chances to

modify it. We all know in common sense we

understand that eventually the windows May become much smaller

or taller than the ground level especially on high street with

so much traffic and you would expect they would be covered

with blackout curtains all year

long staff studied adjacent compatible buildings in the

district and these are all the

very close by buildings and the one on high street on the upper

level, you see that whatever use s they are using the

structure, they all have the prime entrance fronting to the

prime street on their prime wall plane which is high street on

this case.

The lower level you see this structure primarily residential

structures even on upper street

and they all have the front door

s or front entrances we think it is consistent with the

guidelines considered in this proposal as well.

So from all of the foregoing

case reviews and then the staff

recommends in summary over here

that recommends first to uphold

the boar decision on approving demolition but change the

findings to be based on article

13-7 c-1-b that it is for the demolition or a portion which

does not contribute to the character of and would not

affect the character of the

property in a zone protected...

The hufn overlay, the following reasons described in the

previous study.

In essence for these reasons the subject property does not relate

to the character of this

particular local historic

district would not have adverse effect on the south hill

historic district.

Number two, to uphold the boar decision on approving the

certificate of appropriateness for the proposed new

construction of a four story

building based on the August 25,

2018 plans for the following

reasons. Stated in the case review as

well and we described additional condition in condition number 10

and then following this one is the subject to the following

revised cnsz.

So the first nine conditions has been agreed by the applicant

which includes they need to submit dimension drawings and

then sections and final material

selections and final door or

window details. They agreed to go back to the board for those conditions to be reviewed.

The only additional we added was condition number 10.

Wre design the ground floor plan

elevation to provide compatible free scape in order to engage

pedestrian interest along west

shy street these can be achieved by option 8 with at least 50% of

the frontage to be public

pedestrian oriented or option b, incorporate at least one front

entrance for the residences on

west high street or c that concludes this report and I'm

here for any questions.

>> any questions?

We May have to dumb back -- to come back to you.

We'll continue to push on.

Historic preservation.

>> good afternoon again betty kerr. Historic preservation.

I would start by again entering

into the record papers and minutes and provided the design

review guidelines that came with the previous case.

We didn't think we needed to

kill more trees in order to make

that possible I would make a few

short clarifications tied to the

staff recommendation specific to item 1 a as the property not

listed as a contributing

structure within the south hill. It has been determined eligible

and earlier on there was some discussion with the state

historic preservation office who keeps the records of the

national register of historic

places for the state of kentucky that the it was contributing.

So I will not go down that path because it's a very specific

detailed thing. But we have with us today in the

room and I believe she is plan

ning to stay I believe the best thick would be to let her

address the matter about the status of this building's

national register eligibility or

being a contributing building or

anything in addition to that I was perplexed why it is a

condition offered in the actions

considered this 120 west high

was not included in the 2009 historic or structures building

inventory done by historic preservation at the request of

the then mayor the boundary and

I have a copy of the map that also highlights where 120 west

high is which I think everybody

can figure out it's not relevant

to reference that at all as it is outside.

No information about any

building on the south side of high street was part of the

charge of that study.

Somehow there seems to be an implication that it means the

building is somehow lacking or isn't significant or anything in

between but it just flat out was - not part of the studied area so

there is no comment either way

about anything on it.

Number c, 1-c about being,

starts out based on the h-1 design guidelines that the

description of the south hill

area on page 24 of our design guidelines, that the description

of the south hill that is a two

or three or four paragraph summary of the overall south

hill area does not mention this building nor it's design or

architect and again I don't know that that is any reflection at

all. I can tell you because I was

involved in writing those descriptions and our design

guidelines.

Yes, I have been at this a long

time in terms of overthe years and having that involvement in

that time period. No mention of any particular

building or architects or anything in between is to the

reflective of anything building importance.

I don't think that has significance as a sentence to

weigh anything on.

The last entry I would note is item d talking about within the

staff report that was prepared

by our staff for this hearing in

August on this application, it was stated the subject property

is very different from the other

properties within the south hill neighborhood. And that is absolutely correct.

But I would suggest to you to be

aware that that is in no way a reflection that there is

something problematic or less

important or more important about this building.

All of our districts democracy I

go nateed h-1 have a wide range

of architectural types,

architectural identities, and different commercial buildings,

more broadly with the higher

number are residential in their character so over 200 years

they've evolved with all sorts of different looks.

So there is nothing wrong with

being different as architecture

and a piece of the community revolution -- evolution.

That was my general maybe

specific comments tied to the

staff recommendations. we appreciate all the work the

staff does, but particularly to

this designation they have done a lot of due diligence and we

are appreciative and 9 community

I would introduce barry dennis

who has some very brief remarks specific to the case itself as

far as the applicants and appellant's different request for your hearing.

And then we'll both be available

for comments or questions afterwards.

Any questions at the moment?

>> any questions from... I have

a couple but I'll wait. >> good afternoon.

We appreciate the work that plan

ning staff put into this

appeal we have a few differences

as you might expect. The board heard this August 22.

I won't go into what the appeals are.

Main will I we'll touch on three

conditions the board put into place.

The most important one is the

height of the structure number 3

reduce the height of the structure from five stories to four stories and then step the

resulting fourth floor down the

reason for that is on both corners there are historic

structures that are somewhere in

the 25 to 30 feet height within about 20 feet of where the new

building will be located on the south across the driveway and to

the east again very close.

That is our main concern. As far as number 4 and number 9,

we do agree that the applicant

or the appellant in this case

has met those recommendations by the board.

They need to run in place so that the building won't be

changed to get away from those requirements.

That is the parking and the

building's insets. Back to the height.

When the staff reviewed that, it

was based on conditions from the

following guidelines.

2 b, 1 b scale, height and width , new construction should

be in keeping with the adjacent properties in height and width

in general new construction should not be vary in height

more than 10% from the average along the block and within the

historic district. Width should be consistent with

the surrounding buildings and

buildings throughout the

district.

Aside from across the building,

it's only about eight feet, so even then you would still be

greater than the 10% average and

that's air plus or minus.

The location and entrances, that again deals with the rhythm

scale and proportion that she

brought forward. That's why we think the step

downs should be kept in place as

well as the three requirements

board of architectural review's

approval of the demolition was

inconsistent with staff's

recommendation of denial of the demolition based on the criteria

set forth in the design review guidelines and on the handout

you received, those guidelines

which she also based on the guidelines, comments from the

historic preservation staff, the

staff determined the mid 20th structure is significant and

adds to the character of the south hill historic district.

The structure is characteristic

of a sadly under appreciated and

disappearing mid century style

of historic architecture it was designed to fit comfortably

within and not overwhelm,

getting back to the height and

mass is mainly residential

character of the district. Architects and designers realiz

ed that the massing and

proportions needed to fit in

with local community as far as the condition of the structure,

we did a couple of times get to walk through the building.

Obviously we didn't do any destructive investigation.

But we saw no rehabilitation

needs that would suggest reason

to demolish the structure.

There was some crackig on the brick veneer but structural it's

a solid building. The demolition will adversely

affect the south hill historic

district and the staff by itser,

peerns with other projects strongly believes it is possible

to renovate the structure within parameters that would result in

a viable economic return.

Federal and state historic tax credits are available to the

property owner as part of the accomplishing renovation of the

historic structure should they choose.

The lack of demonstrated interest in the lease is that

the structure has haddings to no maintenance improvements in the

last soaferl years and the board

did vet 3-1 with one abstension

from that or one dissent, I'm

sorry. That's all I have unless you

have questions for me. >> I have a question.

You keep talking about the step back on what is now the fourth

floor. >> yes ma'am. >> but yet in the illustration we saw, because of the lay of

the land, it goes down.

I'm just trying to justify in my

mind that the step back. If the property is going down

hill, why that step back is necessary?

>> to reduce the effective height of the building you are

speaking about along high street

to the east of the proposed

building 23 you have a four story building 40 to 50 feet

high and you have buildings than the shadow of that that are

maximum of 30 feet high, there

needs to be some type of movement so they're not overwhelmed.

It's like putting a cliff up next to a building.

>> in my mind I'm reflecting

back on the illustration that was shown, so you are saying in

that particular area, it's more

level the ground is more level?

>> yes, it's definitely more

level there in the north-south access of the building, there is

only a change in grade of about eight feet.

I don't really believe that the

grade change is that significant

>> I have one quick question for clarification. What is historic about that

building? >> well, historic about it is

that it is a mid century modern building that as far as down

tawn lexington there are very few of them.

As you go farther out into lexington, you will see more

based on the pattern of

development over time it doesn't

have a lot of ornamentation that

what people think of high style architecture but if you look

closely at it, the surrounds

around the windows are honed

granite and on the west side on

high street, there is kind of a

double band of a great and a brown gran it.

So after the war, things were

becoming more simple and again

not so much ornamentation as

came back in the 80s with post

modern architecture. I'm familiar with other

properties in the area that

potentially had historical sense

and it has been demolished right across the treat from that

building was an african-american

church and it's gone.

All up and down limestone, all of that has been renovated and

what have you. And I guess the fundamental

issue is why do we wait until

the very last minute to make applications for these things if

they're important, why don't we do that up front and get it take

especially care of or designated in such a way that we can work

on the preservation of those activities until someone comes along.

>> I think Miss Kerr has a good answer. >> I think you know where I'm going.

>> I have an answer, I don't know if you will think it is a

good one. >> I'll tell you.

>> I'm counting on that. These neighborhoods are

community everywhere reflects

different, in every decade as things evolve from, in lexington

in the 1780s up to the present, there are different

architectural tools utilized, you know.

you get the federal in the early days. You are well aware of the

evolutions of different types of architecture.

And so this commercial building number one is a commercial build

ing in design, not residential so that in itself

makes it stand out from the south hill.

But secondly reflective of the time period, the architecture

that is in vogue which has been alluded to if not specifically

stated and it was by barry

dennis. But more importantly in the

business of preservation and people working with design, it's

referred to as change over time

architecturally but also telling

a story of the changes happening

in terms of the changes the

neighborhood and the people

living there they're wanting to walk to store and to work.

These things are a combination

of what is the manmade built buildings and the history going

on simultaneously to do with who is living in the neighborhoods,

what is it they do for livings. Where do they go to work.

Where do they shop, all that stuff?

It all is a puzzle that fits together. So you've probably heard enough

about the architecture piece.

To answer your query about why

do we wait so long to protect

these resources and steer their future,it's important to note

that the city government, the urban county government and many

other governments, they don't go out and tell neighborhoods this

is a great neighborhood, so significant to the history of

our community.

A lot does get lost before these

areas are accomplished their designations but it's built from

the owners up so the request to become designated comes from the

property owners at whatever time it is they band together and

decide they want to pursue a

local designation.

Or a national register designation for that matter.

The process responds to the request of the property owners

and the people who live in those neighborhoods at whatever time

that comes forward in a planning sense in an ideal world, we

would have a map that shows this pocket, that pocket, east end

neighborhood is sadly in need of

having protections put into place.

There is a great deal of change looming for the east end and

it's starting to happen.

Much of which will be very good.

But though one in that area yet has banded together to come and

say hey, we want to have a

process by which it can be an nd -1 or h-1, any of these

different tools.

So the timing is driven, as you are gathering, from the property owners.

>> okay.

>> if I aqieshed a piece of property unless I knew the

historied of the property going in, I wouldn't know to apply for

the designation but I understand what you are saying and I

appreciate that from a historical perspective.

Let's move on to the applicant

if we could. Of the three architects, two of

the three felt it was not a contributing structure.

they deadlocked two to two because one of the architects,

the lawyer, chair felt like it

was contributing.

Then they got to... After they

dealt with issues about

demolition in considering the certificate of appropriateness,

graham poll who voiced the opinion it was not a contribut

ing structure, felt like it should stay five stories

but should have significant reductions on the top floors so

he proposed significant

reductions to the top floor which were accepted by the other

board but then the marnght of

the board said well let's not it down a floor.

So what happened was they carved back the top floor and reduced

the top floor from 5-4. Net effect of that was to

essentially remove almost a

third of the proposed

residential units and that's why

we have ended up filing the appeal you have before you with

the specifics that we are asking for.

Essentially what we are now ask

ing for is a full four

stories with some relatively minor carve backs on a couple of

the corners to meet the desires

of the neighbor. Since that decision was made, we

continued to work with the south

hill neighbors and when I say continued, we had had several

meetings with them and conversations with them before

we got to the board of

architectural review.

After that, we continued those

discussions and as a result, in

addition to meeting with the

staff, we modified our proposed plans and worked out an

agreement of the type that I know in virtually every planning

decision you love to see between

a property owner developer and the surrounding neighborhood.

And that's what was presented to you and nick will go into this

in greater detail.

But in agreement with them we proposed to set aside any

findings related to the

economics and to focus on the basis for demolition in this

case, which is the building is

not a contributing structure

those findings talk about the builting age which is radically

different from the south hill

historic area in reference was

made earlier today to the national historic register

presentation, the great write-up about south hill. I went through it the other day

with a yellow marker and all I did was highlight every date

that was listed in it. I got two-thirds of the way

through past this building, look

ed at the others, all of the

dates highlighted run from the early 1800s, the latest date

that's in there that I could

find was about 1910 or 1907.

That's the age we are talking about.

Building architecture is another

distinguishing feature.

Building modifications as was

pointed out by graham and

mentioned elsewhere in the meeting, this is not even the

building what you see on the exterior is not the building

that was put there in 1956. In fact as nick will show you,

we managed to dig through the "herald-leader" archives, found

a picture of it that was taken

at the time it opened and there

are even more mod if I days now that you look at the picture

this than we had in the findings

the notion that this was carefully calculated to be in

this position and in this design is far fetched.

The state of kentucky in the mid 1950s needed a building to

house unemployment services and

a couple other agencies in or near downtown lexington.

They hired an architect by whatever means they used and

that's from betweens betweens when this came and the state own

ed it until a couple of years ago and one of the reasons

notwithstanding the fact that it was in the historic zone that

changes was made is that the

state is not subject to local zoning regulations and not

subject to many regulations at all. The last thing mentioned in the

findings that we submitted is

the zoning, the lexington fayette urban county government

has made more than one decision

as relates to this property. They made the decision it should

be b 2 b.

Very few south hill properties that are b-2 b.

That's the civic center frame zone.

It has no height limitation at all.

So imposing the height limit

ation that has been suggest ed on this building does

make a difference as a

commercial structure, it is not occupied at night as is true and

many neighborhoods would say they prefer not to have

buildings that are empty at night.

This building will add life,

will add residence, will add

people to the south hill

neighborhood in a way that the

other building never did in

terms of residents.

We can't always see the future unless we look at the past.

I'll give you a couple of examples.

Hanover towers is nine stories tall.

I don't think anybody in the lexington today would suggest

that it has gone violence to another great historic

neighborhood ashland park.

The woodlands is nine stories tall.

It sits a short distance away,

it May not be within a historic district but another historic

area of lexington central avenue I don't think anybody would

argue it has done violence to the area.

It is of consequence in both

cases that they're on the edge

just like this one is on the edge.

They're al ubl additions to the neighborhood like we think this

will be a valuable addition.

Two other things quick.

One, guidelines. Anything that we respectfully

believe that we comply with all of them.

Guidelines are not requirements. Sometimes I think there are some

people that think they are.

One of the conditions imposed by

the boar that said we need to comply with the requirements of

the guidelines that is a contradictions in terms legally

and in the queen's english. The last thing I will tell you

and this does relate to some of the arguments I know you are go

toeing hear about how we ought

to preserve this building.

The notion of infallibility. The suggestion that a building

that was not considered in any

way when this district was adopted.

It was 16 years old and the

notion that we were infallible and however many years ago that

was and we could predict for all

time that was going to be viewed gives our planning, no offense,

gives our planning authority

council and community too much

credit. Not every single building in

every single historic district

that we've adopted is worthy of keeping in perpetuity.

It's just not. That's what we have in front of

us today. >> good afternoon.

My kind of portion of this presentation just relates to the

demolition aspect of our

application. And has become very clear, we

are not arguing in any way what

the board of architectural review found that we are justify

ing this demolition on

the economic viability of this project in joint with the

neighborhood, we are requesting that you uphold the board's

decision to approve the demolition but we are asking you

to change the justification of

that to it being a non- contributing structure whose

demolition will not be detriment

al to the district. It should not surprise you when

you read the ordinance on what justifies a demolition, the

first word that pops up, it must

be a non-contributing structure. So what is that?

What does the ordinance say about a non-contributing

structure and contributing structure?

I figured this would be like a non-crm conforming use.

There would be a definition that made it clear if we are putting

this as a standard, there should be a definition.

We are not that lucky today. But as was pointed out and I'm

going to reiterate, a lot of

what she said that everybody is

in unison on a lot of the points

we are talking about today. The federal government provides

very clear definitions on what justifies a contributing and

non-contributing structure.

So I'm about to read two legal definitions and I apologize in

advance. You know I try not to speak too

much legalese in these hearings but while I'm reading these

definitions I want you all to think about this building that

exists today that you all have seen pictures and I want you to

think about what you think about when you hear the name south

hill historic district. A contributing structure is one

which, by its location, design, setting, workmanship, feeling

and association adds to the

district's sense of time, place

and historical development. A non-contributing structure has

two different definitions either of which fits.

One is basically just the opposite.

It's one that does not add to

the district's sense of time,

place and historic development

or one where the location,

design, setting, materials, work manship, feeling and

association have been so altered

or have so deteriorated that the overall integrity of the

building has been lost.

We fully feel that we fit both

aspects of this non-contributing definition that the federal

government has provided if you

think of the district's time place and development.

A governmental building built in

the 50s that has been altered substantially offer time without

any heeding to our design guide lines.

It's not a building from the late 1700s.

Rarely do I correct Mr. Leer.

But the design guidelines and the national registry, they talk

about buildings from the 1700s

not just the 1800s.

So we have buildings from the 1700s to post-civil war ear a.

That's the time period we are talking about.

In our own design guidelines and national registry application,

it talks about the architectural styles.

What matters to this district is 19th century federal and greek

revival styles and late 19th

century and early 20th italian

and queen ann styles.

I don't see any way, shape or

form you could say that this 1950s governmental building

which has been altered would fit into either of those categories.

And I do have to push back on

this concept that these mid

century modern buildings are disappearing in lexington.

Obviously these folks have not

been driving our arterials. They haven't been driving on

southland drive or new circle.

Even the bluegrass trust pointed out double digit numbers

downtown itself.

this is not a disappearing breed

of buildings.

Not just the code much federal

regulations, the national park systems does. They ask three questions when

they are looking and evaluating what makes a contributing structure.

It asks very similar questions to the code of federal

regulations, the first one is was this building present during

the period of time where the

district achieved its significance?

The answer to that is no.

Does it relate to the documented significance of the district?

Again we've heard people talking about it substantially.

The answer is no.

This type of building is not talked about in the design guide

lines when it talks about what the south hill neighborhood is.

In this 50 plus page application

that governs what the

neighborhood considers special

about its neighborhood, it goes into substantial amounts of

details for pages and pages as it walks throughout the strisk

talking about what makes this

historic who lived here and how

do the shingles matter in comparison to the other

buildings in the neighborhood. Literally identifies them in

paragraph form, walks down the

street talking about building a

1 means this, a 2 means this.

When it got to west high street,

it talked about e 1, e 2, e 3 e 4 and e 5.

And then it talks about this

wonderful church on e 7 it skips right over us.

If that is not evidence of a non-contributory building, i don't know what could.

The final question the national park service asks is whether or

not it possesses historical

integrity capable of information relevant to the significance of

the district. Not the significance of a single

building or architectural type. To the significance of the

district. And as I've repeated several

times, what makes south hill

special is not this mid century

governmental building. Next actor is whether or not the

demolition will be detrimental to the district.

Wholeheartedly I can stand here and say absolutely not.

If anything, it's continued existence is a detriment to the

neighborhood.

It deinteracts -- detracts having

from the truly historic

buildings right next door to this at the key entree triway

from the central business district to this preserved

historic neighborhood, you have a worn down governmental

building that's basically shun ned any type of design

guidelines any type of reference to the historic district itself f f f

f f f f f f f f f

f f f f f f f if we try to build that building today, I can't imagine what betty kerr would say if we

brought it into this property.

Now, if we have a non-contribut

ing building and we feel that it is not detrimental

to the neighborhood, we have to

look at why we should approve this.

On the first tab of the packet I

is pad out, we have our proposed findings. These are jointly submitted by

the neighborhood and the applicant. And as bill kind of went through

each of these factors, there is

a reason why we went into such detail.

It's to assure all the folks that live in historic districts

including myself all the people

that live in south hill, all the

people that is involved with the preservation of historic

structures in any citizen of

lexington that cares can look at

these findings and definitively

say that this doesn't set a

precedent to take down other historic buildings or like this

building, not a historic

building inside a historic district. We talk about the things about

the building age. It is built well outside of the

time period. It's built in a style that has

nothing to do with the key core

reasons why the district is preserved you have a government

al building modified

without the design guide

eyewitness and ---- guidelines

and the underlying zoning matters.

This is a b-2 b zone.

That's almost as intense as it gets.

Again there is no height

restriction whatsoever. So we really ask you to adopt

our findings because we want to

make sure that it's very clear

that just because this one is appropriate for demolition that

others are. I'm going to introduce elizabeth

hunt to make sure you all

understand kind of first and foremost all of the alterations

that have taken place to this

building since it basically was built.

You heard talk about the changes

I want an expert to describe them to you.

I did include basically on tab 5 or 4 and 5, the pictures that

bill referred to about what this

building originally looked like in the "herald-leader" in 1956

when it was originally establish ed and then I tried to

mimic that picture as best I

could today elizabeth is going to talk about why we want you to

approve the conditions we submit ted. They're in complete agreement

with the staff beside the new finding number 10.

We believe that with submittal that occurred yesterday, we've

already adequately addressed item number 10 and liz beth is

go for example to go into detail about that.

If aren't any questions for me, ... Yes, sir, I had a feeling you had one.

>> I was going to ask my colleagues first of all, do you

have any questions?%

I do have one clarification. Just to cut right to the chase here.

The staff's recommendations are on the blue sheet. >> yes.

>> you've given us some new find ings as such.

The staff hasn't had a chance, have you had a chance to review

what they've given us?

>> yes, staff has reviewed their

findings but basically their findings are based on what they

have available information wise.

Staff did not have much of the information, how much it has

been altered and the exact kind

of other series of findings so

the staff were basing recommendation on the like what

we have available as information

wise are you in agreement with the findings coming from the

applicant here?

Having said that, I want to know , they've indicated they've

worked with the community and we are definitely as a commission

interested in people working with the community.

So I want to know also, you

might be asking, I want you, if you all are in consensus with

this particular agreement?

>> I just wanted to say that we did submit these with our

original appeal letter so everyone has had a long time to

vet these the end result of both findings is basically the exact

same.

We just wanted to make sure

there is a scheer description

why this is different. Number 10 because the staff gave

you several options, a, b and c. Which one are y'all.

>> we went with option a and we are going have, elizabeth is

going to go over the new floor plans and new elevation so you can see.

We think this fully complies with that condition and so we

would ask that...

>> I didn't mean to slow down

the proceeding. >> I'm elizabeth hunt.

I have a presentation coming. I just have to say I quick thank

you to planning staff and bill

and nick because they have made my job a little easier.

They made my points for me so I'm just going to reiterate a

little bit and give you guys a

visual.

So again revisiting the non-

contributing definition with

regards to the language and

fabric of the south hill

neighborhood this is more so I think what everybody thinks of

when you think of south hill than the mid century modern

building. I know everybody has talked

about some of the other styles

19th and early 20th century

queen anne and federal and greek revival nowhere has it been

mentioned the mid century modern

is a contributing style to this

specific neighborhood.

In looking at the changes of the character defining building, we

have a few to point out.

That while the existing window openings themselves are in tact,

all of the existing windows

have been replaced with more

contemporary store front windows

they were a much lighter metal color.

,000 now a dark, I believe black store front system.

The original entrance here off

of upper street, while it does still have the granite surround

at the entrance, the entrance

itself has been modified. The original doors are gone.

It's just one door with side lights.

The railings have been modified panels between the first and

second stories have been removed

and replaced with a more contemporary metal panel store

front system.

The original stone window sills

and brick in places the brick is cracked.

Window sills need to be cleaned

and repaired, which May not be a significant effort but just in

looking at all of what would be

considered character defining features to make sure we cover

them all and then the interior

character is fairly devoid of defining features due to the

changes made throughout the

years of the different tenants

and then there has also been an

addition of the A.D.A. Ramp at the rear of the building and

stair off of the east side of the building that was not there

originally.

It is not associated with any development or significant role

with the history of lexington. No known significant works by

the building architect that we could find.%

there are no known significant people associated with the

property. As I've just reviewed, the

significant and distinctive features of a mid century modern

building have been previously

modified and there is no significant historical

information that han or likely

will be yielded from the

building moving on to review construction, a brief overview,

most of which you've already

heard n. Looking at the existing

site, right now it's bordered by essentially nothing.

There are no buffers.

It sits right up against other properties.

The market of it is a parking lot.

Parking is not screened. The building is set back from

the street but doesn't engage it

we wanted to change that.

We've sited the proposed building where the existing

building is currently located but we wanted to activate the

street more.

We created... We created more of a streetscape along both upper

and high street put active space here on the corner.

We did remove the high street

especially transto the parking a

buffer between the other

properties. The rest is planned to be

residential and then we do still

have a few parking spaces that

are under kind of a partial

podium level in looking at the mass of our building again it's

very similar to the methodist

church across the street as well

as... Oops we are at rfly a 502-3509 height that fits within

the street and the district. This is just another look at our

height study and looking at how our building interacts with the

other properties adjacent and across the street and along the

street in both directions on

upper and high. This is a view of the building

as you are walking down the

street from the neighborhood.

As I mentioned, we reduced the height from five stories down to

four and we did significantly pull back the fourth story on

the corner where it is adjacent to other residential properties.

I would say that's probably pull

ed back at least 12 feet if

not more from this edge of the building.

So it creates a patio up there and also helps to pull the

building back from the house that is adjacent.

There is also the access drive

right here so there is 24 feet

and I think we have a five feet landscape buffer and however

many more feet to the next house

I. Is pulled back quite a distance from the house.

We've' done the same thing on

the southeast corner where it is

adjacent to a residential style

property.

To really engage downtown not impede on the neighborhood, not

be overwhelming to the

neighborhood still give a nice planting area to the east.

This is the building itself help break up the mass of the building.

We have taken a look at all of

the conditions set by the board

of architectural review so to address those quickly with

condition number 9, additional landscaped areas have been added

around the parking lot so the

top image is what was submitted

to the board and the bottom

image is where we stand right

now so we have added a significant buffer on the east

side and we have done what we

can to pull the buffer out as

much into the property and away

from the property line finally

with condition number 4, the vertical articulations continue

down to the ground plane. the image on top was submitted

to the board and the image on the bottom is where we stand

today so you can see that these vertical articulations continue

all the way down to the ground,

so in our mind that does comply with those three conditions as

set forth by the board of architectural review and then

finally taking a look at plan ning staff condition number 10.

We went with option a to take a look at that and see how we can

make that work.

The top image here the revised

plan, we added a flex place on

the corner, nearly 1800 choir foot flex spates that could be

office, retail, something similar.

We have moved the building

entrance lobby and kind of community room to the middle,

the more accept location in the mid building.

It has also been opened up back here so it's open to the

building this allows for more

than 50% of the frontage to be

public use. Essentially from here all the

was I down and across has larger

windows, a more active and are

enbaijing feel to the building

and this corner could have a

market or some other retail

presence that could really help

to activate the street.

That is my quick and hopefully easy explanation. Any questions?

>> any questions for architects? Thank you but stand by.

We might have somethng going on later on.

Commission members, let me just ask you, do you want a five

minute break and what we'll do is take a five minute break and

come back and give south hill a chance to make a comment.

Bluegrass trust, are you all here?

And we'll give you a chance to make your presentation.

We'll go to public comment after that and see if we can move

along from there.

Thank you and we'll be back in

please be back promptly in five. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

We'll now hear from south hill. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman and

members of the commission.

I'm jennifer kaufman currently serving as the President Of the

historic south hill neighborhood

association first let me begin at the beginning.

I do thank the applicant for

continuing to work with us. We constituent submit agreed

proposed findings so the finding s that the applicant

submitted are exactly what we submitted.

We have a signed agreement and basically settled the case.

Now I do want to focus on just a

few things briefly from the neighborhood's perspective.

First with regard to demolition.

Those agreed findings were a big

concern for us because our major concern about demolition was

setting a precedent with regard to economics which was the

foundation for the finding at

the boar we had great concerns. We were concerned that economic

findings require highly

particularized findings findings that I didn't see by the boar

and secondly we thought finding

of economic circumstance to support demolition would

encourage neglect of a building

and make it not economically feasible.

We agreed after much discussion

we agreed that the best

precedent here was to base demolition for non-contributing

character.

And that's the basis for the findings, findings that are

probably more subjective than

but we thought it very important to focus on the unique

characteristics of this building

in the neighborhood that has

houses like mine built before

1840 and houses even older than mine and we didn't think this

building contributed to that character. That's with regard to demolition

and our concern.

Secondly with regard to height and mass. We are not architects.

We have some architects on our board and in our neighborhood

but I'm not an architect.

I didn't diddy sign if building.

I didn't call Mr. Web and say your building needs to look like this.

Well maybe I did a couple times, but...

[Laughter]

We were concerned about height. We know about the guideline that

it shouldn't be 10% higher than the average surrounding

buildings in the district we were concerned about mass, we

voiced those concerns and what has developed is a compromise.

We want to work with developers. We did work with this developer

and we have reached a compromise is it perfect?

I don't think so. They probably don't think so but

it's a good compromise and it's

a good answer I want to address the date of the plans.

we were careful in our agreement

to reference the September 12

plans and only the September 12

plans our board has not address

ed the October plans. I was just talking with the

architect about it just now,

that puts that flexible space on

the corner and enlarges it.

It moves the major entrance to

the middle and and it makes 50%

of the frontage on high street public use.

We were concerned that the

facility should actively engage

the street and it does. I do not think that the addition

of the or the revision October

25 revision of the plans

compromises our agreement in any

way any questions?

>> what is your last name? >> kaufman.

>> any questions for me? >> I have to correct myself.

I indicated that limestone was

called maxbury, it was mullbury.

Bluegrass trust.

>> my nape is jessica winters. Local attorney and I represent

the bluegrass trust for historic preservation.

I'm here today to present our

appeal regarding the boar finding that 120 west high

street should be demolished.

We refer to 120 west high street

as the commonwealth building. I have been informed I have 30

minutes and would I like to

state for the record that we

incorporate the lengthy appeal letter which we'll refer to as

our appeal brief that we submit ted to the planning

commission on September 21 and it should be a part of the

administrative record. I'm assuming it will be since it

was submitted toward the end of september.

I have a copy of it if it is needed. In addition the materials handed

out to you right now include a printout of the powerpoint

presentation that I will be

giving and then bluegrass trust

proposed findings for dis approval of the certificate

of appropriateness for the

demolition and then an addendum we hope you will include if you

do vote the demolition in accord ance with the proposed

findings submitted by the applicant and the neighborhood.

We would request that you also

include the adenied dumb that addendum that we submitted just now.

I'll get to those in more detail

towards the end of the present

ation. Historic preservation advocacy

group that provides a voice for historic structures within our community.

It is not a fringe fanatical

group that seeks to oppose all development efforts within this

community.

In fact, the bgt supports urban

infill and adaptive reuse of historic structures.

Unfortunately this appeal May be characterized as a few tile

effort to frustrate progress and a continuation of the age old

battle of preservationists versus developers. It is important for this

commission to recognize that

such conflicts have forged a

substantial body of case law and

regulation meant to balance the competing interests for the

public good because of some of

these fights within our own community, policy determinations

have been made by our elected officials to bless areas of our

city with regulatory protection against eradication.

Within our zoning ordinance, you

start with the b-2 br zone on this commonwealth building at

120 west high street.

But then it must be recognized

that there is an h-1 overlay on that building and in that

neighborhood and that this

h-1 overlay which automatically entitles it to special

protection from demolition. I would like to give you guys

background from the boar hearing

the August 22, 2018 boar hearing regarding the application at

issue lasted almost four hours.

During this time, the historic preservation office staff

presented its report recommending denial of the

requested certificate of

appropriateness seeking demolition.

Numerous residents, south hill historic neighborhood

association, bgt and jake

against, the gibbs, the third council district person who is

district includes the historic south hill neighborhood also

spoke in opposition to the application.

No one other than the applicant, the applicant's architect and

attorneys spoke in favor of

either the demolition or the proposal.

During the applicant's present

ation it became clear

that the figures sporlting the applicant's argument were in accurate.

The applicant was also unable to answer several key questions

going to the accuracy of the

numbers provided boar chairperson jim dickinson repeat

edly stated on the record

that he did not believe the boar

was in possession of sufficient

information to evaluate the applicant's argument that no

reasonable economic return could be obtained from this the

structure. Wriel the applicant objected to

any continuance in connection with the addition a fact gather

ing, the city's legal

staff pointed to the specific

zoning ordinance provision

section 13.7 c 2 that would authorize the boar to postpone

action for a reasonable period

to conduct studies, surveys

and/or gather information

concerning economic return. Chairperson dickinson sought a

motion to postpone action on

this basis but none was made.

Following the objections made presented to the boar, the

applicant and rebuttal, the boar

attempted to reach a consensus regarding the contributing

nature of the commonwealth building.

It became evident after

discussion that no such consensus could be reached.

Realizing no consensus could be

reached on this issue the boar

moved to aa a brief consideration of whether

reasonable economic return could

be realized from the structure. Chairperson dickinson stated on

the record that he believed no decision on this issue could be

made until the boar had the opportunity to review additional

financial information. Mr. Graham poll made a motion

to approve the applicant egos request for demolition of the

structure conditional on the

satisfaction of the articulate and approved conditions that you

learned about today on the

grounds that no reasonable economic return could be made from the property such that

denial would result in a taking

without just compensation.

The motion was seconded carried

by 3-1 note and chairperson dickinson voted against noting

for the record that the

application did not contain sufficient financial information

to permit the boar to make a reasoned or informed decision on

the economic return issue. Bgt has appealed this vote and

ruling that no reasonable economic return can be made from

the property such that a denial of the demolition permit would

result in a taking without

justice compensation manies appeals on the basis that it

believes that the structure at 120 west high street known as

the commonwealth buildingings a contributing member of the south

hill neighborhood.

Again the h-1 overlay as a legislative recognition that

certain properties are entitled

to additional protections from

demolition h-1 overlay design guidelines which are the

guidelines that apply here state

demolition of historic buildings permanently alters the character

of the individual site, building

or grouping, importantly the governing principle regarding

demolition and h-1 overlay zones

is a demolition of buildings and historic district should only be

an action of last resort. Demolition should only occur

after all other avenues to

protect buildings and structures have been exhausted.

and demolition of any original feature or part of a historic

building should be avoided. Historic building in that

context means a building within

an h-1 overlay district.

Which the comol building at is 2

is west high street certainly

falls within the h-1 overlay. This commission must find

neither that the application is for demolition of a building

that does not contribute to the

character of the property

protected by h-1 or that no reasonable economic return to be

realized from the property such that denial of the application

will result in a taking without

just compensation in order to approve the application seeking

a demolition permit.

The applicant is wrong based on

the lfucg zoning ordinance every

building in an h-1 overlay zone

is protected from demolition

unless one of these two

enumerated circumstance exist. The h-1 overlay is a recognition

that every building in that zone

is protected from demolition

unless the first question.

Does this structure contribute to the historic district south

hill neighborhood?

As Mr. Nicholson so aptly pointed out, we don't have a

definition of what contributing

means within this context.

We do have, however, experted to

help us lay people with a determination of whether a

structure contributes to the

structure of an h-1 overlay zone

and the exert pes the first

expert we have at our disposal

is the lfucg preservation office these experts have concluded

that the commonwealth building

at 120 west high street is a contributing member of the

historic south hill neighborhood

they have found "the structure

at 120 west high is by design purposefully not antique in

appearance and successfully demonstrates that through its in

tact architectural mid 20th

century design, mid century simplicity, scale and mass is

compatible with other historic buildings and the streetscape in

the south hill historic district

the historic preservation office

also found that the commonwealth

building reflects a sadly under

appreciated and disappearing mid

20th century style of historic architecture.

The structure was designed to " fit comfortably within and not

overwhelm the other structures and the neighborhood."

it is worth noting that even though the building has been

modified and is not subject to

zoning regulation is the historic preservation staff

after review of the building as

it is today found it is still a strong example of mid century

architecture.

They found the use of both brick and combinations clean lines and

grouped windows are new elements of office building design of the

19 if it is much the use of these elements tells the story

of change from pre-and post

world war ii office construction

the second expert at our disposal is the state historic

preservation office. There will be a letter that will

be presented to the commission

later on today that depend

straighters it's historic

because it is not -- it is 62

years old also south hill historic denomination said it is

significant because of its rich architectural variety and its

strategic location styles which

represent in bricks and mortar lexington's history.

The state historic preservation

office also concluded that the building has distinctive

characteristics of design that speak to mid century modern

style in which it was designed. There are a few other mid

century commercial structures sprinkled throughout the south

hill neighborhood and these are

also protected and each of these also contributes to the diverse

array of architectural styles that is the hall plark of the

south hill neighborhood.

These are buildings at 340 south

broadway, 316 pine, 205 south limestone, 289 south limestone,

3 5 south mill, and 217 cedar.

Commonwealth building is a stronger example of mid century

architecture than the ones I just listed.

I wanted to point out to you there has been a lot of

reference today to the south hill neighborhood association

national register application

from early 19th to early 20th century, early log frame

and clapboard houses, federal

and greek revival townhouses,

victorian cottages and mansions co-exist with chusmsz, neighbor

ing school now closed, modern commercial buildings,

vacant lots and apartments. Modern commercial buildings were

considered to be part of the unique architectural blend that

existed within the south hill neighborhood at the time that

the application seeking national

register nomination was filed.

We have some non-experts here the south hill neighborhood

association states that the age, use, ownership and architecture

of the building set it apart from other buildings in south

hill even though it recognizes that 120 west high is simply one

of a kind structure. The planning commission staff states that when describing the

adjacent structure, scale and style, it was stated that the

subject property is very

different di. Does not mean non- contributing. This is a mixed use neighborhood

known for a diverse array of architectural styles.

Mid century modern buildings are sprinkled flew the neighborhood

and do contribute. Lexington has very few examples

of well designed and well constructed modern buildings

from the 50s to the 60s. Unfortunately the people's bank

building was not protected by an h-1 overlay.

The commonwealth building is protected and this protection

May well serve its function in allowing the preservation of

this important element of lexington's architectural

evolution. It simply cannot be disputed

that mid century modern architecture contributes to our

community's sense of time, place

and historical development one of the reasons given by the plan

ning commission staff for approving the demolition and

finding the building is not contributing within its

neighborhood is the subject

property was not included in the

2009 downtown lexington building

negotiate it is not listed on the national register

application because an inventory of every building within the

neighborhood was not required at the time that application was

filed.

But I still do think that the

2009 downtown lexington building

inventory can be helpful to our consideration today because we

can look at some of the examples

of mid century modern architecture that are on that

inventory and are listed as contributing.

As you all know, our downtown

area is a mix of architectural styles, some of which date back

to the early 1800s, all the way

up through modern buildings. Mid century modern buildings are

part of this architectural landscape and you can see from

these pictures that our comol building at 120 west high is

similar to the buildings listed

as contributing in our downtown.

This is a building at 10 quality

street.

106 north upper street.

12150 north limestone street.

145-153 market street. And 190 spruce street.

These are all examples of mid century modern buildings in our

downtown area that have been

listed as at least contributing

to the overall mixture of architectural styles in the downtown neighborhood and then

we have this building 120 west

high street, the commonwealth building.

It is not so vastly different as the buildings that are listed as

contributing in the downtown

negotiate.

And it is a good example of good

modern architecture within our

town planning commission staff in addition at the time the

nomination was filed, the

building was only 16 years old, a building does not qualify

until it is 50 years old; therefore, it would not have

been listed, buildings age into national register protections.

They're eligible to age in when they hit 50 years old and at the

time the application was filed,

this building was only 16 years old. Neighbohoods grow and change

and buildings age and they

become eligible for and worthy of protection.

I know that the proposed finding s submitted by the

applicant and the neighborhood association are based upon their

agreement that the building is non-contributing; however, the

boar decision was based on the fact that denial of the

demolition amounted to taking without just compensation and

the bluegrass trust appeal is asking you to overturn that

determination and make a de no vo fiebtding that taking

without just compensation would

not occur from a denial of the

demolition permit. On this ground the bluegrass

trust for historic preservation appeal.

Believes the denial of demolition would constitute a

taking without compensation was

not based upon substantial or

compelling evidence. The board's finding is a

conclusion without reference to

specific facts or testimony south hill is concerned that

base is demolition of structures on economic hardship without

clear and compelling evidence

sets a dangerous precedent.

United states supreme court in

drming whether -- in determining

whether a taking has occurred considers factors such as the

character of the government action, economic impact of

government regulation on the

property owner an the owner's

reasonable investment backed expectations.

The question of the severity of the impact requires a careful

assessment of the impact of the regulation on the property,

including weather application of

landmark laws interfered in any

way with the owner's uses of the

property at the time of the

designation. In kentucky.

A property owner only suffers a

taking when he loses all the economically beneficial uses of

his property. When the owner of real property

has been called upon to sacrifice all economically

beneficial uses in the name of

the common good, that is to

leave his property economically

idle, he has suffered a taking.

Materials submitted to the boar

by the applicant do not support

a finding that no reasonable economic return can be obtained

from the structure.

The applicant in asserting that

it needed to realize a rental

rate of 27.80 per square foot to

obtain a quote reasonable economic return asserted that it

was entitled to a 10% investor

return each year.

Anything less, according to the

applicant than a 10% investor return on this investment would

be considered a taking and to

get that 10 bers investor return

each year, they needed to charge $27.80 per square foot to rent

the building.

the applicant did not submit any documentation to support its

assertions regarding the

renovation costs, the estimated

fit up allowance, the estimated

annual expenses or rent factor

for vacancy. The applicant did not present

the boar with any evidence regarding the manner in which

the structure has been marketed, what the price per square foot

asking price was or the offers

to rent that have been received. States the structure was used as

an education facility by the

bluegrass community college. The documentation that was

submitted by the applicant on the other hand actually supports

a conclusion that a reasonable economic return can be realized

from the existing historic

structure at 120 west high street.

The applicant submitted as part

of the package to the boar an appraisal. The appraisal which was of

course performed by disinterest

ed third party are the appraisal concludes the I

heeft and best use of the structure is an office building

and the owner operator should realize an annual profit in the

amount of $133,443 per year quite clearly a reasonable

economic return.

Using figures utilized by the appraisal, we reworked the

figures and arrived at a rental

rate of $16 per square foot

would be what was necessary to

obtain a 6% per year investor return on this building.

So a 6% investor return per year

using the various numbers that

were also used in the appraisal

results a rental rate of $16 per square into.

The market rates for lexington

are 10 to 17 per square foot. The commission should consider

the timing of the h-1 overlay in connection with the applicant's

purchase of the property to

determine whether it had quote

reasonable investment backed

expectation that would have been

so thwarted by the denial of the demand demolition permit to

constitute a taking here we have an experienced applicant that

purchased the structure with full knowledge of the condition

of the structure the variables in the downtown office rental

market and most importantly the

h-1 overlay designation and restrictions on demolition and

development the applicant could

therefore not have had a legitimate investment backed

expectation that its activities

would be unregulated the applicant should not are be

permitted to successfully argue that denial of the demolition

permit amounts to a taking because it is not able to make a

profit on the building as office space when that inability is

based on its own failure to either accurately forecast

office rent article did emin the

market or accurately estimate

renovation costs prior to

purchasing the structure. The bluegrass trust has submit

ted proposed findings call ing for the disapproval of

the certificate of appropriate ness for the

demolition of the existing

structure at 120 west high street. Proposed findings that have been

submitted to you are in line with the presentation I just

gave you and also with our appeal letter previously submit

ted to the commission

which includes a much more

detailed analysis findings do

comply with the goabs of the

comprehensive plan require subsequent purchaser to develop

a creative adaptive reuse plan

for this historic building. Adaptive reuse of the building

would do the same thing as a new development in that it would add

life, commercial use and

activity in much the same way as

the revised historic courthouse

does in our downtown core.

The outcome would meet several goals and objectives of the

comprehensive plan.

First theme a growing successful neighborhoods and expanding

housing choices an adaptive re use of the historic structure

could expand housing choices within the neighborhood.

Number 2, support infill and re development.

Adaptive reuse of historic

structures is redevelopment as a

strategic component of growth reduce the carbon foot

fringerprint. Adaptive reuse and historic

preservation is more environmentally friendly than

demolition and new construction.

A typical adaptive reuse project creates more skilled jobs and

keeps more money in the local economy than a typical new

construction project of the same size.

Retaining historic buildings and

district's sense of place maintains authenticity and

greater attraction as a heritage and tourism destination.

Goal 3.

Protect and enhance the natural and cultural landscapes that

give lexington its unique

identity and image and objective

s stated.

Protect historic resources. Incentivize development and

maintenance of historic

residential and commercial structures.

Develop incentives to retain,

restore, preserve and continue

use of historic sites and structures rural settlements in

rural and urban neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and

attention I would also like to note that to whatever extent

there are some lingering questions whether the building

at 120 west high is a contribut ing structure in the

eyes of the national register program.

Lisa thompson who is the director in kentucky of our

national register program for the state historic preservation

office is here and has indicated a willingness to answer

questions on that precise point should you so desire.

Anyone have any questions?

>> I do have a question.

You kept referring to this as a taking.

How is this a taking?

A taking is usually an action of

emnebt domain? >> yes ma'am I referenced that

if a building is within an h-1

overlay it cannot be demolished

unless it is either non-

contributing or, two, no

economic return can be obtained from the structure such that

denial of the demolition permit

admits to a taking without just compensation.

It is the applicant's position

that denial of the demolition

permit will result in a taking without just compensation under

the law. All I can say ladies and

gentlemen if I get into trouble,

I'm calling aall you lawyers because you have all made compel

ling arguments about your particular case which means I

can't wait for the rebuttal with

that said, it's now time for the

community to weigh inning anyone here from the community? Yes, sir.

Come forward.

You have three minutes if you could are you for or against.

Give us your name?

I live at 170 old georgetown street.

I move to lexington. I'm against the demolition.

I moved to lexington kentucky in 1977 right after I got out of

college and I was impressed with

the stale of the city the first

gifts I was given was barton's

battle book published in the bicentennial, pictures of lexington and on the back cover

it has a cover of lexington then

and lexington now lct then was

the block house, lexington now's

spoat was photo was taken from

the 21 c hotel building looking towards rupp arena and today

only one building that was shown in that photograph taken from

the top floor is still in

existence I was privileged to be

part of the historic commission with gloria martin that helped

write the guidelines. I have been on the board of the

bluegrass trust and several historic neighborhood

associations downtown and since 1977 I have only lived in

downtown lexington and I also have purchased a house that was

meant to be demolished and I

managed to save it across the

street from my property, holly

restored a piece of property and built the condominiums.

There are 32 apartment across from my home and from the street

you cannot tell that the very back part of the building is a

two story to two 234568 story building on top of a parking

garage. It was done with light studies

it was done with a lot of arc tech ect -- architects from

louisville to make the

architectural project very

unique I strongly oppose the demolition. I was on the historic commission

that wrote the guidelines, the fact that the building is

contributing now the scale, I would be concerned if I lived in

south hill and my occupation as

a realtor, I work for soth by's

now and I specialize in downtown historic homes.

I don't think there is anyone outside of becky reinhold who

has sold more properties down town.

The scale of the building will ruin the light for a number of

the houses on upper street and

mill street that I've sold and I

would be concerned if there is a four story building such as that

, it is going to dramatic ally change the live

ability of the houses that a good example of what happened on

high street. I chair the historic preserv

ation commission for the lfucg.

I've done so for about the last two years.

I've served on the commission since 2011.

i am also like some of the other

folks in the room, a resident of h-1 neighborhood.

At our regular meeting on monday , the commission did

discuss this appeal and the

surrounding subject matter and after that discussion concluded

that we would like to make a

brief written commune kay to

this body.

I'm going to read the communique which is very brief.

Dear Chairman Wilson as I'm sure

you are aware, the lfucg preiv ation commission is charged

in the zoning ordinance with

providing guidance to all matters relating to historic

preservation and maintenance of

historic districts at the October 22, 2018 meeting of the

hpc, the pending appeal was discussed by means of this

letter, hpc would like to expand on a few issues we believe the

planning commission should be

aware of in reviewing the appeal the south hill h-1 district was

created in 1972 and expanded in 1976.

The approval of h-1 overlay is

no the accomplished in an arbitrary fashion.

Once established it is required to be protected against and I'm

quoting from the ordinance, destruction, degradation,

encroachment in article 13-1 c 1

the lfucg in carrying out the zoning ordinance is required to

encourage the use of existing

building through adaptive rehabilitation to enhance the

interest of the county. The protection of these required

in the interest of the economic well-being, propeter, health,

safety and general welfare of the people.

and that's what the council has taught us about how this is

supposed to work. The building which is in

question under the appeal is

within the south hill h-1

district expanded in 1976 and

the building was included for a

reason as part of the district

it contributes proposed demolition requires careful

consideration of the article 13 requirement prior to approval by

the boar and also by this body

as part of the appeal to determine if the required

elements were met.

Article 13 of the lfucg zoning

ordinance addresses appeals for

projects within h-1 overlay zone s. States the planning commission

shall give due consideration to

the decision of the board and findings and conclusions reflect

ed in the board's record and apply the guidelines by the

commission.

The local historic district and

landmark h-1 designation review guidelines have been formulated

and adopted by the hpc after extensive citizen participation

these guidelines are periodic ally updated by the hpc

with additional public input. The board of architectural

review determined the height and massing should be reduced to

four floors with the additional requirement to step down the ends of the center you are to

three stories.

Additional height reductions

were put in place so it would

not overwhelm the structures

those are reasonable.

The h-1 overlay outlined in

article 13 of the lfucg zoning

ordinance ebb tended to be more restrictive subject to the

district and landmark guidelines

than the zoning regulations and

zoning map which are of a more

broad brush and big picture view of allowable projects.

We thank you for considering your our comments during the deliberation.

The commission is sure will you

come to the more decision for the community at large regarding

the appeal before you.

That concludes my remarks. >> I'm blake hall.

I'm here in support of the project.

I'm here because I'm an advocate

for urbanism and good infill development and I think you

would be hard pressed to find a

brert example of solid infill

development that takes an under

performing property on an active downtown street and turns it

into homes for potentially

dozens much people part of the comprehensive plan was brought

up and one of the big components

of that is infill people need a place to stay.

I done believing that the

current building is contributing in any historical manner because

it doesn't apply to the rest of

the 19th century styling and

if, why does the first rule

exist asking if a building is

non-conforming if any building can suddenly become conforming

once it hits 50. You are just going to have

buildings that are torn down at

49 years old there has been a

lot said about press depth and I

believe that's true if you were to vote against this, I believe

that you would be setting a precedent that this commission

is not full or does not agree with the comprehensive plan or

infill development in any

serious manner and that would have extreme consequences for

the future of our city. Thank you.

>> thank you. >> hello.

My name is janey and I live at

and own 308 south hanover avenue

which is the most recent h-1

overlay approved and granted. So first I would like to thank

you for your vote earlier this

afternoon about the windows. I personally just spent

thousands of dollars reclaiming

and refinishing our windows and

so thank you those guidelines are there for real reasons and I

appreciate that decision.

I am President Of the ashland

park neighborhood association.

I have unanimous approval of the ashland park neighborhood

association board to speak on

their behalf in opposition of

demolition I was part of the

core group that worked for years

to obtain that zoning approval.

We literally spent thousands of

hours working with the neighbors , the property owners,

educating them about what the

provisions were, what their responsibilities were and what

they would gain by getting this

overlay approved.

Because of that and as part of

that process, we looked and work

ed with the historic preservation office on what

those boundaries should be and

interestingly, the hanover tower

s condominium building was

discuss felt it should be included.

It is mid century modern it

added a lot of extra work.

There are 100 units there so it

took a lot of with the owners of the property to get the

consensus and buy in for that

could be included and we were all thrilled and continue to be

thrilled that it is it has been

... It's beautified, fits in

nicely with our older properties

most of our properties are in

the earm 20s, 1990s 20s so it looks lovely.

It's compatible.

It's cohesive obviously it is of

a different screenage and architectural style but I think

anybody would think it looks nice.

In our opinion, an approval of

demolition of 120 west high

street completely undermines the

h-1 zoning protections I'm still

tired from the effort we went

through and I know many of us in

the neighborhood are so I can

imagine that other historic

districts would be very, very disheartened if that building

goes down. But the current owners knew it

was ant h-1 overlay building

when they bought it so I could have said gosh these windows are

awfully expensive. Maybe I should just tear my

house down. That wasn't really an option but

I just I think it's not fair to say oops.

I know they knew what they were getting.

I know they knew what the property is worth.

I know they know what it costs

to rehab and we have seen beautiful, beautiful examples of

adaptive reuse.

I lo wof to see an addition on that building and I think it

could be a very attractive apartments just like what

they're wanting to do but not with tearing it down.

Let's make use of what is there

and add and enhance thank you

for the work you do.

I know it's challenging please

don't let that be torn down.

>> thank you. >> could we get the clock

working again, too, please so

everybody can keep up I have a handout. >> what is your name and address

, ploo snes. >> that's in the handout.

Let me give you the handout first.

Okay, good.

I'm bill johnston I live at 2700 man o' war boulevard.

I lived in the historic western

suburb for 32 years and the

north side for 14 years before. I own several properties

downtown in the historic western

suburb the historic western

suburb is h-1 making it

lexington's third oldest locally designated shoirkd.

I'm President Of the historic historic district.

We lie between the opera house

and new town pike and main street and west second.

And it includes part of the jefferson street where the

jefferson street revival began

10 plus years ago. Historic western suburbs shares

crktics with the south hill neighborhood.

Among these that are that we both have commercial buildigs

from the mid 20th century that don't match the 19th century

styles that people were focused

on when these areas became h-1

overlays 40 plus years ago. These now 60 and 70-year-old

buildings were not considered

historic when they were included in the because they were quite

new. Since time has passed, they're

now old enough to qual qualify

as historic. They represent an era that will

never return. History is not static.

It changes and expands constant ly. Represents a distinctive era

that will not return. It has many variations but in

total it is a unique architecture and very first that

didn't are eli on architectural styles of the past it blossoms

in the middle of the 20th century accelerated by the

economic needs resulting from

world war ii. The influences are still present

I've heard it said that we have

many examples of mid century architecture around so what is

the big deal if we lose this one

that's like saying why keep as

many horse farms as we do since there are so many around.

For those who remember 50, 60,

70 years ago, we thought very

poorly of our 19th century

buildings as we do of the mid century buildings.

Perception change. We are quite horrified about all

that can happen in our historic

areas if we allow the proposed

demolition on kir. Increased land utilization is

the basis for much of the justification given for tearing

down this perfectly good

building that is in a designated

historic overlay and that is now eligible for inclusion on the

national register.

The logic being that since it wasn't historic and contributing

40 years ago it isn't contribut ing now.

Following that logic it can never be contributing even 100

years from now since it will

never be historic in 1972. This is not the only building

that was not historic when the h-1 overlay in which it resides

was created but that occur currently old enough now to qa

you will phi one can identify

such structures in the places

that have the same characteristic. Are we going to tear these

buildings down so we can replace them with nicer looking, at

least by current stand standards , bigger and more

efficient buildings. Once the decision is made to

tear down a building that is use

able but not historic enough,

there is no reason to not

continue with other tracts of

h-1 land that could be more efficiently utilized.

Then the next logical

progression will be to eliminate

structures that were contribut ing when the district

was created but in a lesser way.

This will destroy our historic

district's and eliminate the future of lexington's unique

treasures one of lexington's

unique treasures is historic districts is in your hands.

Thank you.

>> thank you. You all received this letter in

the packet yesterday signed by our board President John hack

there the worth who could not be here today.

The gratz park neighborhood association respectfully asks

that the planning commission overturn the boar's decision

with respect to demolition of the 120 west high street and up

hold the intent of our historic districts to protect

the irreplaceable resources within them.

The gpna values the critical role that the local historic

districts and their review processes play in enhancing our

community's quality of life by maintaining the integrity and

the character of our historic

buildings and our neighborhoods.

We were establishing in 19358.

The gpna is troubled by the

failure of those processes as

seen in the boar decision on

August 22, 2018 to demolish the modernist building at 120 west

high street and subsequently approve a four story mixed use

building for that site. Approving the demolition on the

grounds that retaining the building cannot yield a

reasonable economic return sets

a very dangerous precedent.

The applicant knew full well the

regulations that come with own

ing a build in a historic district and failed to properly

demand demonstrate that it would amount to a taking.

The city's historic preservation office staff assessed the

building and note the it was in good enough repair to be put

into use again even the applicant's own appraisals stat

ed the building is economically viable.

Our residents and businesses invest considerable time and

money into our properties.

We do this gladly we know it benefits no the only our

properties but also for the greater good of our city.

We are concerned the same claim of economic hardship could be

made in our historic

neighborhood and the same lax

interpretation of the ordinance

could end in other buildings being demolished.

Demolition is final.

Though it May not seem like much to lose one building here, one

building there, it does matter. It erodes the character of a

district. To approve the demolition on the

grounds that the building does

not contribute to the district

is erroneous.

Bluegrass trust for historic preservation lfucg preservation

office and the kentucky heritag

council, the state historic preservation office have stated

and they're the experts that the building, although a departure

in style and a different state of construction from much of the

rest of south hill, it, nevertheless, contributes to the

district because of its screenage. It being a local representative

of the modernist style of

architecture and its combat

bility -- compatibility of

material form 69 neighborhood.

In preservation taste should not  -- should not discriminate

based on taste. We are concerned that approving

demolition because the building

is non-contributing invites others to seek demolition for

buildings because of preferences

of taste this is a mistake which played out over the years May

prove to be costly with the ir replaceable loss of a building

or type that is ununder valued

now but May be appreciated by posterity as owners of business

es and oams in historic district, we are held to a

certain standard we simply ask

that the same standards be applied across the BOOrd to

all property owners individuals

and businesses and that the pro social security that govern

our individual historic district

are faithfully adhered to again

we respectfully urge the plan ning commission to overturn

the boar's decision to approve demolition of the historic

building at 120 west high street

thank you so much.

>> good afternoon, I'm the

President Of the north side neighborhood association.

And I represent myself because we did not have time to have a

consensus of our board to make the statement but I will just

state that we have a number of our members who have been

strongly concerned about this

proposal and I am in opposition

as I think are many of my

colleagues and neighborhood association.

We feel that the the integrity

of the h-1 overlay is crucial a

number of historic areas that we include gratz park and

transylvaniania and we are under , we have had a number of

concerns about the intrusion and the integrity of our

neighborhood association and

this is one more threat to us

that I think will be more prevalent and increase in the

near future so I urge you to

overturn this decision.

>> good afternoon. I reside at 659 cardinal lane.

I have a few additional comments

about the buildings's contribut%

ing status and I incorporate some of the division

of historic preservation's comments on the same subject

that haven't been covered yet today. South hill historic district

includes a significant collection of architectural

styles reflecting over 200 years of lexington's architectural

historic evolution and one of lexington's oldest neighborhoods

south hill has a diverse and

fascinating history as well as an architectural record.

It can't be distilled into one

or two snapshots of the pioneer

days of lexington or antibell um

or the area or the era just

after the civil war it represent s a broad range and

some of the buildings are important because of their

historical associations maybe

because the mar can I de

lafayette visited there or a freeman built that particular building.

Others are important because of the architectural style and era

in which they came from. And with the commonwealth

building, you have a building that is historic because it

represents the mode of building

in a particular time in america,

particularly after world war ii. Although it is not as old as

some of the other historical subjects, it nonetheless

important to the american story

and the story of lexington the loss of the commonwealth build

ing would have an aadverse

effect of the character and property.

The building's design and intent

was not to look antique and it successfully demonstrates that

through its in tactd

architectural mid 20th century design.

simplicity scale and mass are

compatible with other buildings and streetscape.

It is of its time and of its

place reflecting prevailing architectural trends and

evolution of south hill in the

mid 20th century as well as respecting the surrounding completion.

The use of buff brick in

combination of simple ornament ation were new elements

of office building design of the 50s.

The use of these el ems tells

the story of change in american

architecture reflected locally from pre-and post-world war ii

office construction. The importance of construction

expressed in the design elements and materials were features of

mid century construction throughout the united states and

are the character defining features of a mid century modern

building. Building esthetics were not

about being pretty with added ornamentation but expressing

function through design and believe material.

This building is a combination

of brick, concrete and steel and the combination of concrete and

steel joists as well as suspended ceilings.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is jackson osbourne.

I reside at 276 lexington avenue lexington, kentucky.

I'm here to read a letter on

behalf of the state historic

preservation office penned by craig pots.

I believ you received it in the packet yesterday.

It has come to our attention that the building at 120 west

high street will be discussed at the urban county planning

commission on October 25, 2018. The kentucky heritage council

submitting this letter to assure

our determination of eligibility for 120 west high street for the

inclusion of the national

register of historic places is taken into consideration during

the meeting.

As stated in the national

historic preservation act of

1966 and influencing res layings part 800 the minimum requirement

for a building to be listed on

the national register is at it

is 50 years old or older.

Therefore when the south hill historic neighborhood district

was listed on June 13 1978, the minimum requirement would have

meant that only buildings

considered as contributing and non-contributing to the historic

district were built prior to 1929 the nomination states that

the building located at 120 west

high street was built prior to 1958; however, due to the design

of the building, it is clear the building could not have been

built prior to 1929. Therefore the eligibility status

of the building at 120 west high street was not considered at the

time of the nomination however since the minimum requirements

of 50 years of age changes every year, today the eligibility

status of the building built

prior to 1968 must be taken into

consideration. Trr several reasons why it is

eligible as a contributing member of the south hill

district. Number 1: 120 west high street

falls within the physical boundary of the south hill

district. Number 2: the south hill

district nomination states the district is significant because

of its historic value to the community, its rich

architectural variety and

strategic location; therefore

120 west high street adds to the significance of the historic

district as a contributor to the blend of the architectural style

which represents the bricks and mortar of lexington's history.

The building has a distinctive physical characteristic of

design that speaks to the mid

modern century and adds to the significance of the districta

tech tur of the nrph. Due to the reasons listed above,

we determined that the 120 west

high is eligible for inclusion on the national register of

historic places as a contribut ing resource of the

south hill historic district.

If you have any questions, as betty kerr and jessica winters

have pointed out, lisa thompson

is here and could answer foam

this for you. Ladies and gentlemen, we are in

a position where we have to vacate these premises by 5:30

because the council is coming in

so we are going to move to the

phoenix building. >> unless the chair thinks we

can finish it in 30 minutes.

>> do we have... We up until

5:30.

The eligibility for national register.

50 years of age is the standard for eligibility and you know as

well as I do, the percentage of the properties in fayette county

that meet that standard that is not dispositive of what we are

considering here today. Just as an aside, I was delight

ed to hear that a nine story building that was built at

a different timeframe is

valuable and contributing to the ashland park neighborhood.

I think I said something like that at the outset.

I believe it to be true of them and I believe it will be true of

this building.

As far as I'm concerned you can essentially dismiss everything

that was said today about rebut ting an economic based

argument for demolition.

We did argue that below you did

not hear me argue that today. We reached an agreement with the

neighborhood not to base our

case on that but what we submit

is, Jr. Justifiable which is the non-contributing nature of the

building and that is was we presented.

This is a de novo proceeding

meaning that everything you are considering is as if it is heard

for the same time.

It comes up as if it is an appeal but it's not an appeal on

the record made below I was appreciative that opposing

council mentioned the comprehensive plan.

And that is because the historic

district, the guidelines the clear balance of the direction

of this comprehensive plan in

support of redevelopment,

particularly in and around the

downtown area weighs in favor of

what we are proposing today.

There is some comment about experts versus lay people and I

think that goes to the heart of this proceeding.

You in your capacity hear from experts all the time.

The nature of this body is that it is not intended to be made up

of experts but rather people drawn from the community

generally who can hear from

experts we do not make zoning decisions by expers.

We make it from citizens who hear from experts and you've

heard from experts on both sides but we are here today asking you

to use your judgment, listen to

the arguments and apply your judgment and not say that we are

going to forfeit the decision to

this expert or that expert. Two of the three architects on

the boar said this was non-can't contributing. We didn't rely on that.

We gave you the arguments which

compel a decision that it is not contributing.

Whatever else you say, the south

hill historic district is there not because of buildings like

this but because of the

residences that were built and a

few other older buildings built as mentioned when it was applied

for and mentioned in the historic preservation study that

was done I want to mention one

other thing I think is among the most significant things. You have the owner of the

property here before you you've got the board of architectural

review that voted demolition and

for a significant new structure you've got the neighborhood, the

people who live here who know best the character of the

neighborhood who live there

every day saying we want you to

approve the demolition make these findings.

We want you to approve the new

structure as is presented. every single part of the

opposition comes from third

parties people who don't live

here people who don't walk past

that building every day, and the views we submit that are the

most critical are of thos who are in the neighborhood and who

are represented to the extent

that people say well don't let that building tower over them.

The people in the neighborhood

over which the building supposed

ly will tower are here saying they support was we propose.

At this point what I would like

to do is conclude by saying that the evidence supports the fact

that this is not a contributing

structure and we respectfully request your concurrence and on

the findings we presented I know the staff said they didn't like

one of them relating to the b-2

b zoning and I believe judge kaufman can tell you and the

neighborhood's position is we

would like all of those accepted

and with regard to your point number 10 where the three

options were presented, we would request you to approve what we

have presented as compliant and remove that condition so that we

don't have to go back to the board of architectural review

with nothing more than the three options and frankly another jump

ball about what might or might not be allowed in the

construction of this building. >> just a couple of points.

Number one, as to economic

circumstances, I do not believe

demolition should be allowed for economic reasons.

As I indicated earlier I think

such a finding would require highly particularized findings

and I think we agree with the

bluegrass trust it was not made below.

Demolition though, and you can

see how much opinion there is on this topic and I appreciate all that.

We have talked about it so much in our neighborhood.

We do believe demolition should

be allowed but not be allowed to

set a precedent and for that reasons, that's why you have our

high highly specific findings we do urge the approval of those

findings. That's not to say that I would

exclude the findings by your

staff but we agreed, my board

agreed with the applicant on on those particular findings.

That's one point. The other point I want to make

is that I have been asked a

question about a change to the plans.

Our settlement agreement made

specific reference to the plans

of September 12 I mentioned the

plans on October 25 that adds the other door in the middle of

the building and expands the

flexible area the functional equivalent of what we saw I

believe that comes within our

agreement. Staff has pointed out another

change made on October 16 that actually adds some green space

to the parking area we are not

going to object to more green

space. Those two changes do not affect

our settlement agreement and I

believe they come within the

area of the September plans. >> thank you.

Bluegrass trust. >> zoning ordinance controls in

this circumstance. this building is within an h-1

overlay. To approve the demolition have

you to find either that the

building is not contributing or that denial of the demolition

permit will amount to a taking

no provision of law lets a party settle. This body has the independent

responsibility to conduct a de

novo hearing and render a

finding based upon facts.

The applicant states it is not

appealing on the basis of the

boar relating to a taking.

The appeal letter which is in the record of the proceeding

states that in the event that the boar's approval of the

demolition permit is appealed by

another party, applicant will demonstrate the issuance of the

permit is warned both on the

basis determined by boar; that is that there has been a taking,

and also because the application is for demolition of a building

which does not contribute to the

character of the district applicant specifically stated it

is appealing on both grounds smed the bluegrass trust through

its materials has presented

argument on both grounds.

Here we have an applicant who bought a property in an h-1 over

lay.

It had two options to find a

creative reuse for it or demolish it.

Adaptive reuse is redevelopment. Adaptive reuse is in keeping

with infill principles and re

vitalizing our city's core, it

is redevelopment.

There is no guarantee that the construction proposed here today will actually take place.

We have a perfectly sound historic building within an h-1

overlay district that they're seeking to demolish to make way

for a proposed development that May never materialize.

It is possible that if you approve the demolition, we might

be left with a vacant lot for a

number of months there is no requirement that they build the

presented development. >>-for-the citizens part, Miss

Kerr, would you like a final word? >> I don't technically have

anything to rebut.

I think a great deal has been

said that addresses this important issue.

The one thing I would perhaps

ask is a procedural question is

concept are they requiring the

applicant to not come back to

the board of architectural review.

That's within your purview as a concept. I understand that but I'm

uncertain about the applicant's

appeal was based on three specific conditions of the 12

conditions placed by the board of architectural review and

their approval.

Or their actions, 3, 4 and 9.

Conditions from the boar action numbers 3, 4, and 9.

So my question is just to have in your considerations and

perhaps with some intersection

from law -- with assistance from law, what if indeed the planning

commission's action will be

limited to those three

conditions if you want to consider not having the

applicant come back to the board

or amicable to all 12 --

applicable to all 12 conditions. I don't know the answer but i

wanted to put this as part of

your deliberations if we might. >> you raise a very interesting

point. I think that's a really good

point and I'm interested in hearing how that goes, too, as

well.

>> thank you for your

consideration.

>> okay, staff. >> the staff does not have an

objection to the findings that

the applicant provided with the

exception of item e which while factual that the zoning is

different at this location than

the rest of the district, it isn't really relevant to the

question of whether the

structure is contributing or not

it is a fact that it is in a different zone than most of the

other district but doesn't build the case for whether the

building is contributing or not. We ask that the planning

commission strike under the

findings that the applicant has

provided 1-e from the list and summary paragraph it says

because of the foregoing five factors, we would encourage to

you modify that to four and then under item two that they've

asked the commission to consider , it is really very

similar to the staff's

recommendation with the exception of condition number 10

and what they're asking the plan nings commission to consider today is this revision they

submitted to our staff yesterday

would meet condition number 10 obviously that's the planning

commission's decision but the recommendation of our staff is

that it does meet condition number 10 today so if that is

relevant to you all in terms of making your decision, we would

offer that. Is there anything else that the

we need to clarify? >> just for your all's reference

, in you, the information they gave you that

is in this folder, under tab one are the findings that tracey is

talking to you about in case you

need those for reference.

>> and to clarify Miss Kerr's question about going back to the

board of architectural review, our understanding and our

assumption is that the applicant

was agreeable to go back for the

conditions or the items listed in the findings.

They're agreeing to go back for submit floor plans, building sections final brick selections,

stone selection, panel, the

final detail of the plan but not

for further design review.

They will need to go back to the board of architectural review

but that wouldn't include a re

consideration of the entire building.

Their hope is that the this a stresses what the staff brought

forward today.

>> you said omit e which is okay change 5 to 4 but let's go back

to what you said earlier. They would agree to go back but

do they have to go back? >> yes. >> it's a requirement.

It is not an if, it's a when. >> okay.

Anything else from the staff.

In that case I will close this

hearing and bring it back to the commission for additional

discussion and in that instances if you have questions of any of

the people, you can do so as

well. Mr. Penn.

>> yes, I've learned a lot in this three hour discussion or

whatever it has been.

I'm going to say to the

commission members, I very much

support the overlay concept but

I also lean on the people who live in the h-1 overlays to

determine what's best for them. I understand where you are com

ing from for precedent but I don't think the press precedent

should be that you can't take

down any building that is in an h-1 overlay.

I think it has to be done with the approval of the people in

the neighborhood, the people who live there the people who did

the work to get the h-1 overlay in their communities.

So therefore personally I'm

going to support the staff's

recommendations here but I want to hear from the rest of the

commission members before we go

forward.

>> Mr. Penn opened it up for us.

>> as I just said, I'm not shy.

You know, we've heard compelling arguments but the most compel ling was from the young

man who said we have been charg

ed with providing homes for

people that are coming into our community that May be here now

that are trying to have homes

here and the comprehensive plan

has pretty much or goashes of

that, we haven't finished the

plan have charged us with infill

to me the community is happy

with it that this is going on in their community they're happy

with the product that has been brought to them and this is

exactly what we have been charg

ed with is infill taking

maybe a blighted property and maybe that's a harsh word to use

for this property but an under utilized property and

turning it into a useful place

that can be homes for the future so I'm going to have to support

this as well.

>> anyone else? Speak now.

>> if we are ready to make a motion.

>> well, not quite yet I guess. I'm letting things ruminate for

a second. Let me just ask one quick

question here because I hear what my colleagues are saying

and I agree, one thing that

bothers me just a little bit and I heard both attorneys approach

it but I'm confused about the

non-contributing activity. And I don't know how to ask the

question but one of the concerns that says the applicant did not

submit any documentation to support its assertion regarding

the renovation cost... Let me ask Mr. Leer, was that

necessary?

Did you all have to do that? >> the ordinance allows us to

prove one of two things. Either there is no reasonable

economic return or that the

structure in question is not a

contributing structure. When we heard the case below we

presented evidence on both. We did include that statement in

sour appeal but as I said, this

is a de novo hearing and we presented no evidence today on

the economic basis, only on the

non-contributing basis.

That's what we rest on.

We'll entertain a motion of some

kind. >> Mr. Chairman, I would like

to move that we uphold the boar

decision with the staff's recommendation also doing away

with number 13 or whatever that

is.

Number e in the applicant's we

focus on September 12 and October 16 agreements that they

have based on those findings.

And that we use option a on the staff's number 10.

>> Mr. Penn, I think just for

clarification, you were, when

you said striking number or letter e from the findings of

the applicant, I think... You

are pace basing the motion to up

hold the decision of the imoor boar on the applicant's finding.

I think you said the staff and the staff don't...

>> I was referring to some of

these is what I was referring to are you finding under condition

number 10 that that can be removed? >> yes, it can be.

>> because do you all believe

that it was... They met it today >> I misspoke.

>> and as I understand it, the neighborhood, what they've

agreed to is up to September 12

so they can still they still

have the purview over those two

new plans.

I said the two changes are the functionally equivalent of what

we saw in the September 12 plan. >> and the other thing is that

we are changing the five factors

to the four factors.

>> what about the October 16?

>> that's the green space. >> Mr. Penn, I would suggest

using the drawings that were

submitted today as a full set because... >> I'm trying to get everything

in the motion here that pitch

pork didn't train me for. >> we have a motion and a second

that we approve staff's

recommendation to uphold the

boar decision on approving demolition as well as uphold the

boar decision on approving the

certificate of appropriateness we are using as a matter of

record the findings from the applicant with the exclusion of

e and changing 5 to 4.

Suggestions of using both reports September 12 and October 16 which deals with the

green space and to strike or

delete item 10. >> we would prefer you use the

collection of drawings from

today's hearings because the

earlier drawings did not reflect ... >> okay.

Where would I assert that?

So instead of the September date

s we want to use October 25. >> collection of today's hargs

and drawings please vote when it

comes up on the screens. Unanimous.

Thank you very much. One other thing before we close

out, we still have the filings,

schedule for 2019. >> yes, please.

We need one more motion to approve the schedule.

>> Miss Mundy has...

>> so moved.

>> moved and seconded.

Please vote on that, please. I had some other business to

attend to but not today. Mr. Duncan do you want to...

>> Mr. Chair, at this point rather than dragging everyone to

the phoenix building let's give the update next week at each

committee meeting. We will be happy to do that.

the staff could come to both committee meetings and work with