# Courthouse Area Design Review Board - November 14, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 14, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4637 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4637?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-11-14 - **Last revised**: November 14, 2018 - **Length**: 15,788 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Courthouse Area Design Review Board convened on November 14, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the LFUCG Center. The meeting addressed three agenda items, all of which were approved by the board. The board took three votes during the session, covering the approval of previous meeting minutes from August 8, 2018, a design review case for City Center (previously known as Centre Pointe), and the adoption of the 2019 meeting schedule. No public comments were heard during this meeting, and no presentations were given to the board. ## Attendance **Present:** Jim Duncan, Graham **Absent:** None **Late:** None All expected attendees were present for the meeting on November 14, 2018. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three votes, all of which passed by voice vote. **Approval of August 8, 2018 Minutes** [timestamp: 00:30] The board approved the minutes from the August 8, 2018 meeting by voice vote. The motion passed without opposition. **Design Modification for City Center Hotel Partners II, LLC** [timestamp: 180:00] The board approved a design modification for City Center Hotel Partners II, LLC by voice vote. The approval included a specific condition requiring that "the corner of the proposed framing at the eighth floor be changed to match the conditions below the eighth floor in the element that has been called the tower." The motion passed with this condition attached. **2019 Meeting Schedule** [timestamp: 360:00] The board approved the 2019 meeting schedule by voice vote. The motion passed without opposition. All three votes were conducted as voice votes rather than roll call votes, so individual member voting records were not recorded. No motions failed during this meeting. ## Appointments The meeting included one appointment action during the proceedings. Graham was appointed to the Planning Commission. No additional details about Graham's background, qualifications, or the term length of the appointment were provided in the available meeting materials. The appointment represents the city's ongoing effort to maintain staffed volunteer boards and commissions that support municipal operations and community planning initiatives. *Note: Transcript timestamps were not available for this appointment action.* ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated substantial debate among participants. **Design Modification for City Center Hotel Partners II, LLC** A heated discussion emerged regarding proposed design changes for a project by City Center Hotel Partners II, LLC. The primary point of contention centered on modifications to the building's design, specifically the addition of a gable roof and its potential impact on the overall aesthetics of the structure. The debate was characterized as lengthy, indicating that multiple participants had strong opinions about the proposed changes. The discussion focused on whether the gable roof design would enhance or detract from the building's visual appeal and how it would fit within the surrounding architectural context. While the extracted data indicates this was a heated discussion that consumed considerable meeting time, the specific positions taken by individual participants, the detailed arguments presented by each side, and the ultimate resolution of the disagreement are not available in the provided materials. The nature of the debate suggests that design standards, aesthetic considerations, and possibly zoning or architectural review requirements were central to the disagreement. The involvement of City Center Hotel Partners II, LLC indicates this was likely a commercial development project requiring some form of municipal approval or review, though the specific approval process and the authority under which the design modifications were being considered is not specified in the available information. ## Approval of the August 8, 2018 minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The board reviewed and discussed the minutes from their August 8, 2018 meeting as part of their regular approval process. The minutes were presented for the board's consideration and approval. Following their review and discussion of the document, the board voted to approve the August 8, 2018 meeting minutes. The motion was approved, formally adopting the minutes into the official record. ## Case No. 4-2012 (City Center, previously Centre Pointe) [timestamp: 180:00] The board reviewed a design modification request for the City Center development, previously known as Centre Pointe. The proposed modification involves constructing a glass wall and glass roof structure on top of the 8th floor of the Residence Inn Building. Key speakers during the discussion included Michael, Dudley Webb, Ralph, and Kyle, who presented details about the architectural changes and addressed board questions regarding the design elements. The modification represents an addition to the existing approved plans for the mixed-use development. The glass structure would create an enclosed space on the building's top floor, utilizing transparent materials for both the wall and roofing components. Following discussion of the proposal's design specifications and review of the modification request, the board approved the design change. The approval allows the developer to proceed with construction of the glass wall and roof structure as presented. This case represents an ongoing review process for the City Center project, with the board continuing to evaluate design modifications as the development progresses through various phases of construction and implementation. ## Approval of 2019 Meeting Schedule [timestamp: 360:00] The board considered agenda item VI, the approval of the 2019 meeting schedule. The board discussed the proposed dates and timing for regular meetings throughout the upcoming year. Following their review of the proposed schedule, the board approved the 2019 meeting calendar. The item was resolved with board approval of the meeting dates as presented. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the August 8, 2018 minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the design modification for City Center Hotel Partners II, LLC - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the 2019 Meeting Schedule --- ## Full transcript music music music music music music Welcome back, it's promised, Salvation Army is here. Tom Hinesman, thank you for joining us. Nice to be here, thanks. Doug Alexander, you are a board member and quite a volunteer for Salvation Army and a lot of other places. One of many. We'll talk about that in a minute. Thanks for joining us. You and the previous guests touch a lot of people over the holidays. And between November and December, share some of the things that you've got going on to help those in our community that need some help. Yeah, right now we're doing our Christmas sign-ups And we have hundreds of families coming into our building signing up for the Christmas holiday season so that we can get their children signed up for toys and get the family signed up for some food. And last year we helped over 5,000 children with new toys. Oh, my gosh. And then besides all the toys that we provide for all those children, different agencies and Ginny Ramsey and her group and, of course, the Salvation Army. and we all do our own part so that we can maybe help. November 14th meeting of the Cordes Area Design Review Board. I'm hereby calling the meeting to order, and I would ask that all board members and all visitors sign the attendance sheet at the entrance to the room. And that's the first item on the agenda. second item on the agenda is approval of the august 8th 2018 minutes and can i get a motion to approve the minutes second it's all in favor of approving the minutes aye aye aye opposed motion passes item three on the agenda postponements and withdrawals are there any Any projects for postponements and withdrawals? There's none today. Thank you. And item four, applications for authorization permits. Are there any new applications? There's no new applications either. No new applications. Thank you. And we have item five, an amendment for an authorization permit. and case number 4-2o 1-2 City Center previously Center point at 150 West Main Street the applicant owner is City Center Hotel Partners 2 LLC the application is to review a design modification to construct a glass wall and a glass roof atop the eighth floor of the residence in building and if you would present the case we can get it rolling all right good afternoon board so the next item agenda is a case that we've been all familiar with and has come to the board multiple times and this time is a design change as Graham has indicated to construct a glass wall and a glass roof at top of the eighth floor of the residence scene it was previously noted as extended stay building it was to allow enclosure of the eighth floor restaurant in inclement and opening during good weather to permit year-round use of the rooftop restaurant as you see on the map, that's the location that we all know where it's located. And this is a snapshot where the addition for the design change is going to happen on top of the construction site. And this is a quick overview what's included in this design change. It's an additional rooftop with glass and metal framing on top. It's a retractable roof system that we explain later. So this case has a long history with our board. Since 2012, it has come to the board for approval eight times. It has also come to the staff for five times for approvals. So the last time the board has seen this case is in 2016 with the conceptual design at the time and then a lot of conditions on the height and the design of the building. And then today, 2018 November, is the ninth time this case has come to the board since staff view this design change is in close relation to one of the conditions set by the board in 2016, and it deserves a board review. And a quick reminder for all of us what happened in 2016 in November. The board approved the design modification and reinsurance of the authorization permit with a series of conditions in terms of the building heights for the hotel building, the extended stay building, and then the different options for the office building. and then with additional conditions first is in case any of the height has changed it needs to come back to the board and then the second is owners will work with the design review officer regarding final designs and then the condition number three is really one of the main reason that the staff view that this case needs to come to the board with regard to the extended state building today is the residence residence in building the corners at the top of the sixth level will be redesigned to be dominant and in the corners at the top of the building to be redesigned to be considerably subordinate regardless of the final height of eighth or seven or eight stories and the corner tower element will step up proportionally if the building is ultimately eight stories final design of these elements shall be reviewed and approved by staff and then condition number four was carried from from the previous meeting for all of the site works around this whole block, and then in coordination with town branch. So the five times just wants to give you all information that the five times they come to the staff for approval, first time in May in 2017, the office tower was approved for 12-story, which is rendered in this image. and with the top three stories as condos. And then in June of 2017, the residence inn, at the time where it was still extended stay building, was approved for seven stories in full height, and then there is a half-eighth story for the rooftop restaurant with a modified facade based on the board direction, which is shown in the middle picture. That was when it was approved by staff in June 2017. And then in February 2018, the hotel has a architectural building permit set submitted to building inspection. And then at that time, the hotel was approved for the 12-story height as a final design. And then the streetscape was also a part of the review and approval process that they have accommodated the town branch path and then all of the adjacent block designs on the site. And then number four, the fourth time they came to the staff is to add an additional of a walkway bridge. It's a tiny bridge connecting the lobby of the sixth level of the offices and to the residence in roof deck. It was approved in September 2018. As you see, it was for an internal connection up in the air. And then the fifth time they came to the staff was just last month in October. there's a design modification for aside furnishing color changes. So this is just an overview of what has happened since 2016. And this time they came to the board for this design change that the staff view, that the board needs to review this case. So this is what you all have seen in November 2016. Based on that design, it was seven-story with a pretty dominant kind of canopy on top. and then based on that design review, we came up with the condition number three to modify the facade and then in the final interpretation of the base from here to here and then the top of the six-story cornice to be dominant in order to have a more significant middle and then to redesign the top to have a more defined cap design. And this is the case that they brought to the staff based on your direction has been approved by staff in June 2017. As you see the design has finalized into seven story in the full height and then on the eighth story it has a significant setback from the main street just for their rooftop restaurant. And this cornice on top of the sixth level has been redesigned to be dormant. So the sequence of the base and the middle and cap was as directed from the board from the 2016 meeting. And today they present us this case to add down another layer on top of the previous cap. So it kind of changed the relationship slightly from the base, middle, and cap, and then have a redefinition what will be the, especially the middle and cap part. Based on the applicant's conversations, the intent of the additional glass roof is to enable the rooftop restaurant, outdoor seating area, to be used comfortably year round with the complimentary Lexington City views and the sky views. The retractable The structural roof system specified at a solar glide on the drawings will allow the flexibility for the outdoor seating area to be enclosed during increment weathers and open during good weathers. The rooftop space and the residence roof deck is intended to be open to the hotel users, the office tenants, condo owners, and then the general public. So it will become part of the public amenity as we see. And then the design modification has slightly altered the base middle cap relationship of the building. However, as we see, I can see more pictures. So this is a study that the staff look online what the solar glide system works. And then this is the plan that the applicant has provided where the roof system is going to cover on top of the eighth floor. And this is a rendering provided by the applicant. On the top is when it's closed, and the bottom is when it's open. And then a closer look from the top. They have been approved for a glass railing throughout from one of their permit set drawings, just for them to be able to use the rooftop deck. Now they come back with this retractable roof system, but they have kept the consistent glass railing on there just for them to be able to use when the whole roof system is open. So in staff review, the structural support of the metal frame are minimized to reduce impact on the overall facade, especially on the cap design. and the material of metal and glass and the frame color of beige or similar is consistent with the rest of the building. Therefore, the requested design modification has coordinated with the rest of the building into a single design concept and the new base-metal-cap relationship defined in the design modification is compatible with the historic context. As you see when we review the design guidelines, this is the page that's coming from the design guidelines. There are really different definitions from the base, middle, and cap, and sometimes they can have different proportions. There's no definite numbers on the design guidelines. guidelines. So in staff's review that this case, even though it does change a little bit of the relationship, but it didn't change dramatically of the story from to have the cornice on top of the sixth floor to be dominant to be the major definition of the middle part. So the design change didn't change exactly the base, middle, and cap relationship with the building. So the amendment to and a reinsurance of the authorization permit complies with the following design guidelines. The additional principles for the design and commercial buildings on page six use entire building front to establish a design impact. They have coordinated the rest of the building to do this addition. And then also design guidelines 2.4, a new building should incorporate a base, middle, and cap. In studying the case experts the planning staff has taken all factors into consideration and recommends the following to approve of the amendment to and a reinsurance of the Authorization permit for the design modification to construct a glass wall and glass roof atop of the eighth floor of the residence in Building as in submit the joint dated in November 8th 2018 is showing on the screen with only one conditions since it's still conceptual, the owners and then the applicant are still working on the final design and selections, that the conditions added as owners will work with the design review officer regarding the final design. That concludes the staff report. Thank you. Any questions for me for now? i don't have any questions anyone have questions so if the applicant could present their case members of the board to you and others in attendance i'm michael ladies in-house counsel for the project with me today here is Dudley Webb one of the developers Ralph Coldiron and Kyle Champion Ralph and Kyle are both involved in the design and actual construction of the project and in particular the rooftop system that's before you today I'd like to begin by thanking the board for hearing us for the ninth time starting in 2012 and for the staff for that we have worked with before the hearings and and for staff approvals we certainly believe that these hearings and and the approvals we've gotten have improved our project our project substantially we're bringing to you today really a unique concept that will be the only one like this in lexington and we feel it's going to be a a very strong and substantial benefit to the community both for tourists as well as lexintonians the glass wall and roof system that we've designed has the flexibility as key you mentioned of being a year-round facility we anticipate this restaurant to be open for lunch and for dinner seven days a week and will be a major addition to the downtown community. The vertical glass walls, the top two panels fold down inside the bottom panel and the bottom panel when during good weather of course will be open. The glass vertical walls as well as the roof are a clear glass. roof panels hold back up so a portion of the roof will be open doing good during good weather with that we'll be glad to entertain any questions that you have and we request your approval thank you do you have any anyone have questions dudley i don't know if this is a question for you or ralph but i can see how you would get to the top if you were in the residence end what's the connectivity over to the the marriott behind it is there a is is there a connection point up at that level or or what do you have to do the uh connectivity of the marriott really is at the ground level they're interconnected they'll be open pass through all the way from the main street access go straight into the marriott lobby so we have that check-in area for the residence ends at the ground level again interconnectivity with the courtyard main street and vine street and then up top we don't have connectivity marriott's a 12 stories obviously and this one's at eight but the good news was also we were able to add the connectivity to the office building at the sixth level The challenge there was that Marriott came back and they do not want the public having access to the hotel floors. So that's the reason we're at the rooftop. We have interconnectivity. It'll come across, go to the Sky Bar, as well as connect to the elevator that goes down to the second and first level, convention space and ground level. And then there's a side by side elevator there that'll take you down three levels of the parking garage. So in response largely to what you all talked about before, we really have four public elevator access points in the buildings. One we have four elevators in the office building go down to the garage. One at Jeff Ruby's for public access, one in the hotel for public access down for the Marriott, and then one that's on Main Street that will get access to not only the guests there but also 21C, the old courthouse. a lot of interest for parking needs from the adjoining neighbors so that's worked out well well the only other thing i'll add i mean i've sat here through several of those nine meetings not all of them but probably the vast majority probably more than anybody up here with the exception of jim duncan sitting way over there who's probably been through all of them in his role i really like this addition and i i think it adds a nice public amenity to this entire project and you mentioned whether you're looking out on the old courthouse that that's been renovated or just the view i think i think it's a nice addition to this project we were fortunate enough to find out about this system that had been used and they recommended we go to chicago and have a look and the owners flew up there and it was a game changer for another sky bar atopsis hotel It became year-round use. The biggest user was probably weddings and wedding receptions. But that just added another dimension to the tourism aspect of this project. The hotel is going to be great. The residence inn. The things I didn't know about the residence inn, the average stay there is about 13 days a year for the average guest. So it's really an extended day facility. But it worked well up there and we'd appreciate it if we could go and do that here. Are we seeing changes to the base of the building since our last approval, or is it the same base that we've always seen? It is the same base, same signage system, same awnings, everything that you all recommend before we've accommodated. And it's basically the same building. We just added that the additional system will just add expanded space up there on top. We also had the pool deck up there. There's a new pool and a lot of things that weren't in the original plans that now we were fortunate enough to be able to add. So it's the crowning touches I think you're seeing right now. So if there aren't any other questions from the board, I would ask if there's anyone here from the public who wishes to comment. Seeing no motion, I open the floor for discussion. Mr. Chair, I would make a motion that we approve the staff's recommendation as proposed before us. Second? I'll second that. And any discussion of the motion? I have some concerns. Isn't that a surprise? one of the conditions of the november 9th approval was that if the extended stay building was to be increased in height that the tower element would step up proportionately unfortunately the staff has approved a change that did not accomplish that that in fact the tower element stepped down proportionally there was in that previous approval there was the tower element had a roof element that was considerably raised above the cornice of the building and that's what we were trying to preserve so that the tower element would retain a sort of a an individual identity and not feel like it's just part of that larger mass because i think a lot of what's going on design wise with this building and and it's very commendable is the breakdown in scale where the pieces of the building are broken into vertical elements and it really helps to reduce the perceived scale of the building so what i would like to see here there's another change that's happened here that was not in that or that previous approval and that is that the uh so the cornice line of that corner tower element if you could get the rendering of that exhibit a the design rendering at main and upper street it would be helpful up on the screen so i think to remedy that I'm not objecting to what's being proposed generally speaking I think that this was something that we discussed and it's nothing it's absolutely within the anticipated height of the building that was a possibility when we were talking about this so there you can see that the the tower element had a very distinct quality and it it had its own language and it really helped to break down the perceived volume of that building in the in the new rendering that we're seeing that that cap that you're seeing on the tower and this rendering has gone away so if you can go to exhibit a in the image up there actually there you go so here that tower element really is just sort of blended in with the rest of the building most particularly with regard to the way the cornice is articulated as just another piece of the same stuff that's part of the other the part of the rest of the building I think this would be dramatically more successful if the design of the restaurant portion that is above the tower element were coincident with the with the vocabulary of the tower element so the tower element continues up and the cap of that element just is distinguished from the other elements that you're proposing I don't think it's a huge change from what you're proposing I think it's it eliminates that that strong cornice statement that's in this particular image and I don't think it would interfere with any of the of your intent with regard to transparency with regard to views with regard to use it's strictly a way of helping to maintain that intent that was expressed as a condition in that earlier authorization the only other thing I would add to that is that I think the gable expression on the end of that frame that you're showing in this image is really unfortunate and that it should not be allowed to stay and that what you should do there and it appears would be to create a hip condition so that from the perspective of someone standing in the courthouse plaza that would appear to be a flat roof and ideally it would have a an expression like we saw on that previous image where the where the roof at the tower element has a very distinct and generous generosity that's distinct from the rest of the roof on that piece so perhaps that that framework that's above that tower element would would have a more permanent roof not an opening roof where the rest of it would be as you were proposing please if we could back up the one slide to the prior version that was approved one more okay the I share your concerns but what you may not understand is and I think it's a function of the rendering being wrong that was shown to you that roof line or that cap up there on the building is still there the exact same location the only thing we're doing with the steel frame it'll go to the edge of that and then slope down for purposes of getting water off that glass that is clear so that roof line is still the same that outline is still the same it's just we're extending the glass it only comes five feet and then it goes vertical and that glass was part of the glass wall system that was previously approved when we had an open sky bar so the only thing we did was that steel frame really allows us to run a clear glass to come across and tie to the side wall and go down but the building cap is still there it did not change the parapet is still the same the cap on the building is still the same all that doing is that that steel is going down on the back edge of that lip up there and going to tie down and go all the way to the base and that's what we that becomes a sidewall of the glass curtain wall so I want to reassure you that the cap on the building is still the same if you go back two more slides up you'll see that it doesn't appear there that's the only difference they've left it off I guess I guess I'm confused I'm not understanding what you're saying okay let's go back then more time all right you see the cap that you're talking about that you like being up there over the tower the hard solid cap it's up above the sky bar for the tower for the tower element or the rest of the facade element the thing that made it taller up there right that's still there it's still the same all they did was come off that edge toward main street with a five-foot section of glass that comes down through there and those sections am i right kyle or you've been working on that one so why aren't we seeing that in the rendering you're what you're not seeing on the rendering that's later is the cap is gone if you go back up to the other it's not there it is there it's just this rendering didn't catch it maybe it's a different angle but the it's just a setback you can't see the cap but you can see it in the same view from the first slide but it's still there it's still the same one thing they did is attach to it and come off with the the steel metal system will carry the glass and it runs to the front of the pair but the glass does you i'm still i'm still confused i'm looking at an image that has a tower element that is perceptibly shorter than the tower element that was in that previous image and doesn't have a roof line over it that is any different from any other roof line up there so i i'm very confused by what Well, if you're sitting up there today and I showed you what's there, it's built. That tower is up there. It's there. They're building the system to accommodate the steel to attach to that now, but it's on the front of that cap up there that was on the tower that you're talking about. The only thing we did was attach a piece of steel across there. It'll carry the glass, and it runs to the front of the building. So the same tower is still there. just that we attach glass to it to try to capture that additional space out there and it'll be open the way it is the way it was shown before now it's the ability to close it with glass in the event of bad weather. I think one issue that the board may be having is that in this picture the perspective you have is someone as if they were standing on the courthouse lawn and from ground level and looking up and with this perspective you can't see that solid rooftop that is set back over the over the eighth floor you can see it on the prior slide because the perspective is higher up and a different angle you're down in front of the court you're at a different you're at a different angle and i and i think that's that's why you don't see it in the proposed uh i think the confusion comes from i mean i work in 3d models every day i render perspectives all the time this is not the same corner and so either somebody did an incorrect job rendering the building that is drawn and being constructed or there's a change to the way that top of the corner is being represented there's no change it's the perspective as mike said you're mid-block looking back at it now versus being on the corner of upper street looking at it up if you go forward you'll see what i'm talking about it's just near that's near so you've lost the view of the of the cap but the part of the tower that comes above the roof line is clearly going above changed i'm sure the board that it's not a it's not a trick of perspective Could I approach this question a little bit differently and ask you to respond to some questions and see if we can get to it that way? Okay. Because I don't want to get into a war about what was and what wasn't. to you know you know because the real problem is that what we're looking at is not what uh not nothing like what we uh were shooting for in that uh in that uh restriction that should the corner tower element um that this saying that the corner tile element will step up proportionally if the building is ultimately eight stories so looking looking at the rendering that that you're presenting to us um what if if we could look at exhibit a again for one second do i have control Okay, let's go back and explain. What this board last approved was the rendering that showed the cap. We could see that from the corner. That's that one. That hasn't changed. It was built according to the plans and specs. Nothing has changed. We later came up with the idea, after we'd awarded the contract, after it's underway, it's built now almost and we're proposing it would merely come off of the not sure how to point now am i wrong in in stating that that cap that we're looking at over the tower has a considerable projection beyond the face of the glass and the it does let's go back if we can to the slide with the floor plan you're going to see what we're talking about one more i'm sorry one more yes okay well that that's fine if you go over there to the left where the blue was right there where the clear is you can see the existing wall this the rooftop that was approved now the addition we're proposing is merely the squares or the checkerboarding or rectangles of glass that that we're proposing to add to that. So nothing changed with the construction of the building. Ralph, you built it. Yeah, Graham, the base structure that you're seeing, which is part of that rendering, that has not changed whatsoever. And as Dudley says, all we've done is add the glass facade so we can enclose the building and make it usable 24-7. I understand, but I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. If we go back to that rendering again, Exhibit A, what we're losing is we're losing a reading of the tower element being distinct from the rest of the volume. And why we're losing that is because there's now this cornice piece at the same elevation as the cornice of the rest of the building that wasn't there in the previous rendering. and that that we liked that previous rendering we like that aspect of the previous rendering because it allowed the tower element to be read as something distinct from the other portions of the building so um you know i guess my question to you is can you articulate the surface of that tower element so that it's continuous up to the top of the new frame that you're proposing so instead of it breaking at that corner so that it's continuous i'll reiterate graham what mike said earlier i think from the renderings perspective right here because we're not showing that cap and and how it hooks to that corner. Can we go back? Let me have your... Okay, go back. You're talking about this cap right here now. Go back to the next... And if you look at that again just for a second, you'll notice that the dominant cornice line of the elements to either side of the tower terminates at the tower and does not continue through the volume of the tower. That's a very important distinction. And I think you won't lose that from this perspective because if you're standing there. It's lost. I mean, if you look at that image, that is a big problem because that cornice is, in fact, continuing right through the tower. That's a huge change from what was being proposed before. Can we go back to the floor plan? yeah because you're talking about this area right here correct no this is the corner of that tire that you're talking about right there no it's not the corner in the prior rendering no the prior rendering was more projected towards the corner it was the corner that's the corner right there maybe if I could have the pointer I could I could be a little more clear about what I'm describing. Maybe not. If we could go back to the exhibit A. Thank you. How do I make this thing work? I'm describing this element right here. Can you see that? There was nothing above that on the prior plant. This element right here? Yeah. That cap did not come out to cover that rectangle in that corner. It was never there. It was open space. We're trying to cover it with glass to make it all. So you're telling me this thing is not going to be here? That's going to be there. The steel wouldn't be. If we built the plant we have approved, that steel wouldn't be there. That corner cap is still the same. but it's a it's a floor space that hasn't changed at all right what i'm what i'm getting at is that if this if this skin can you hear me okay if if if this skin were continuous right up to here right the skin on this tower right up to the top and not broken by that i would be happy with what you're proposing because unfortunately it's poor concrete it's in place that cap up there you're trying to take off and move up to the top is there it's built you're going to look at right now it's there And my only point is that whole rectangle on that corner that we're now trying to cover was open space under the old plan. And we just tried to put that under glass as well. And the slope on that glass you were talking about is merely for runoff purposes. That's what we have to have as a minimum drop to get the water off the glass on top or otherwise a little pond. And I assume the gable's there because of the system that was chosen. You can only go through lights of glass and you've got to do it in both directions. I don't know if you can do an operable system. That's if you have operable glass, but if it's fixed, presumably you could do a hip up there, right? But both the vertical, the vertical is, the glass is retractable, so it's open, and also the vertical part and the horizontal part both retract. The vertical drops down to make a glass wall, and the frequency improves, and that hasn't changed. The only difference is we've got that horizontal that goes back, that retracts and opens up the entire space. If you could, go back over to the floor plan, if we can get that back up. Okay, so what you see with, again, the rectangles is the addition. Everything else is already there. It's built, and that was approved. Nothing has changed. The cap on the building hasn't changed. The corners around the top has not changed. the only addition is that steel frame to let us these glass walls slide down and be covered and protected and i just don't know how you do that without going back and rebuilding the building or come back for another approval or something but i think the discussion of change is one of uh change with staff versus change of what we last saw here and so you're referring to a change that in your mind occurred and i think graham's reacting to a rendering that we once saw in this committee we didn't we haven't made any changes to the structure because this hadn't been approved yet we haven't signed a contract for yet it's an opportunity that's all but what Marty's saying is that the staff approval of the changes relative to the the previous staff approval I don't know I can't remember when that was I think what happened is that corner changed the rendering staff approval the rendering prior to this rendering uh to the rendering you're presenting today um we never had seen that rendering that was a staff approval and so that that's what's really disappointing to me because they i thought it was very clear that if the corner element stepped up that the tower that the um that if the building stepped up that the corner element would step up proportionally the building's not stepping up always an opportunity to cover part of it in glass but nothing on that bar which is covered by the hard surface of that rooftop up there nothing changed it's the same one it was always set back it was always sent back from the corner all we're trying to do is to cover and protect a part of the area can i add something i think there is a missing step that you all didn't see in 2017 that the staff has approved one of the the package you all submitted. That package does have, I mean, in 2016, November, your drawing only had seven stories. At that time, you were approved by giving the option of choosing either seven-story or eight-story. And then if it's eventually eight-story, there are some conditions you need to do for the extended state building. And I think in 2017, the staff approved as drawing showing the drawing in between the one that we're talking today from the 2016 one, that you do have a half eighth floor in 2017 on the package you submitted. That was the staff approved. And then today we're reviewing the design change is based on that approved design, not the 2016 one. What I'm saying is if you go down and inspect it right now, I think what you last approved is what we have built. And all we're asking for is to put a glass system up there so we can make it retractable and make it usable year-round. And if you don't want that, I understand. We don't have to do it, but it's just a lost opportunity if we don't. I was just trying to clarify. We're talking about two different things. I apologize then. I get lost. Because when you're saying there is no change, there is clearly a distinct change in that render. It's really different on that corner. in your process with staff that change is very old okay to us that change is very new i apologize for that so that's the only distinction the wall the curtain wall ever extended on up and any of the recent changes right to do anything because it was rooftop looking at this plan it's clear that that tower does not exist on that corner because you're trying to fill in the corner now with this glass system that's where the the gable roof now projects to the facade I don't recall there ever been anything on that corner. Before it was a rooftop, and then we had a skyboard proposal. In that prior rendering of 2017, there was a distinct roof element on top of a tower that projected above the rest of the corner slot. And that's what Graham is reacting to. It's the comparison of this and the stipulation that the tower has to move up vertically with the rest of the building to keep those proportions and relationships. and somehow that was lost in that last version. And so we're reacting to the prior statement of the board. Do we have the 2017? Well, whatever. Sorry, 2016. I misstated. I know, but I'm asking, do we have one from 2017 that was approved of staff? The next one is the back. So it changed there. That's a big change. There's no longer a tower. The corner shows up wrapping that corner. Well, I'm assuming how it was approved since this approval was a little bit before my time. I'm assuming that this was presented as a seven-story full height, so it's not an eight-story. The condition in 2016 that you all have directed that if it's ultimately becoming an eight-story building, the tower needs to set up more, so even like height taller than the eight-story. So in this presented package in 2017, I'm assuming is considered as a seven-story building, full height, and then only with an additional kind of a setback to the back. And there's not much impact for the eight-story on Main Street. And I guess at that time, the staff approved it based on it ultimately become a seven-story building instead of an eight-story building. extraordinary beauty can ask kind of invert the question in a way if you go back to the plan what's happening in that corner space on the roof because I'm wondering if I know the system itself doesn't allow you to really make a hip roof the system is three lights of glass that slide up in a track and you want to keep that flat to a flat edge but that produces the gable on the end And my question would be, if you look in plan, that's not a huge space there on the left side of the plan for me. I guess it's left side of the plan for you. That's not a huge space. If you were to move that gable back so that it aligned with the projection on Main Street, that projection out, just to move that face back and leave an open deck in that small area, does that radically alter the way you would use that space? Because it gets at least the steel on this corner away from the facade. Okay, look at the lower section down there. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about on the face of the building. Sorry, I've got a pointer. Okay. So, is this one? Yeah. So relative to this projection that shows up on Main Street, there's a strong line of projection, recess, projection, recess, projection, right? And those all have corresponding steel elements that come up above them. But when it hits here, you're getting three lights of glass that come off of this line that allow you to open it and then drain it back toward the building here. All I'm saying is, what if the steel stopped along that line so that this glass does not show up and you enclose the space here, leaving a little outdoor deck, but what that does is it moves that steel and that glass off of this facade so that from the courthouse, when we look up, it doesn't sit right on the facade. I mean, obviously you could do that, but what you're going to sacrifice it's that much table space and we only got 170 seats in there as it is that's what i was asking because proportionally it looks like you might get one or two tables in there yeah and so in the overall scheme of things it may be better in terms of the volume in the city than two tables you asked a very good question about this corner this corner right here looks directly at the new courthouse which is one of the most spectacular views of this rooftop we have a fireplace right here that we are a ventless fireplace and basically we have set this up as a major viewing area to look down upper street and look at the new courthouse so it's a very integral part of the ambiance that we're trying to present with the design and one thing that you want to keep that covered meaning that you want to keep that covered but the other the other thing is you have to recognize is that there's a if we just You just stay with what we have and don't build the cover. You're still going to have a six foot high section of glass out there that's a windbreak. So that's already there anyway. That's over at the billing line. And that was always contemplated. But again, we just hate to lose. It's a compact space up there as it is. And the more we shrink it, the less public we can serve. I understand where you're coming from. I understand the logic, but is it fatal? Is it something we want to lose the opportunity over? I feel like this is a huge failure of what we were trying to accomplish. That's what I think. I'm not sure it was not intentional in our point. And I don't think it's your fault. Honestly, I think the staff made a poor choice in approving that previous scheme and really undid one of our recommendations, one of our restrictions, And I'm very disappointed by that. And so I'm trying to digest that at the same time as digest the changes that you're proposing. I'm most disturbed. I agree with Marty that if you could eliminate that volume, it would go a long way toward achieving some idea that some aspect of the ideas that were inherent in that original restriction. But short of that, I think eliminating the gable is critical to me. I just can't see that being acceptable in any way. So that would suggest that the framing system over that particular piece of the eight-story edition would need to change and whether it is an opening roof or not is is would be up to your how you deal with it but um i just think that gable is completely foreign to everything else in the entire development and it's it's going to be very visible it's not going to just hide up there and i will point out that your renderings really don't tell the story because there's no glass in your renderings and the reality is that while you look at these renderings and it's it's it has a sort of sort of sexiness because you have this open frame up there the reality is that's not going to be what it looks like it's going to be a solid volume up there and just as solid as anything else that you're building and so and if you think about that and you think about the implications with regard to that gable it's significant and the gable cheapens the entire aesthetic dramatically so all i can say is we're spending 220 million dollars down there well you know what we fought through for the last five years to get to where we are it's a miracle this has happened and i just don't think we're imposing by ash forgiveness if that's the case if we made a mistake or staff made mistake i just think that you're going to have glass up there anywhere in that face because it's already in what we contemplate it's what's there we have six feet of glass as a windbreak all we're trying to do is put a steel frame on top of it a gap and let us run the glass on back to encapsulate so we can use it year-round and that's your own decision that's kind of where we are graham i just i i do want to point out i i know your frustration that you you've voiced i think we do need to keep in mind that since the proposal you're talking about to this one we've changed staff in that role as well so the current staff is working under under what they understood and basically inherited I just wanted to be clear about the staff thank you for that I just I would say because you mentioned is this a what was it game changer what was the term you used I forget okay is this a game changer and my reaction to that as someone who's on this board because of my deep design sensibilities you add these small non game changers up by a thousand and that's our urban environment and so the conversation we're having is about all of these little things that add up to be things that ultimately become the banality of what we live in. And our goal here is to react and cut some of that out before it occurs so that our design environment improves, right? And so I think relative to this broader conversation, that gable showing up on the end, I know why, sorry, as I move my head, I know why Graham's a little agitated about that, because in architecture, that gable has a symbolic nature to it, and now it's projected toward the front of the street when nothing else on this building has anything to do with that kind of language. And so when that shows up, it immediately becomes something that is so identifiable as a piece that your eye cannot avoid that element. And that's why I was saying if it was possible to simply move that off the facade, now the reading would totally change about that corner. And I think a lot of this would go away. But that's such a strong symbolic thing because we see it around the city everywhere, right? That's a traditional. And a lot of the things about this are not a traditional building. And so there's this strange conflict that's going on there just from an aesthetic standpoint. But I know that aesthetic is tied to then the system itself having these three things, right? so you're not going to produce a six light section that goes up on a single shed roof in order to resolve that corner and now's the time for us to decide it's a half million dollar expenditure and we just thought it was add to the desirability of what we're trying all trying to do downtown so I think it's you all have to decide when I don't do it yeah and and I still like the design i want to ask if you to graham and marty's points if you remove that one section that one section how many and i know that's where ralph said the fireplaces or fireplace was how many tables how many how much potential is on that section you know at rooftop there are about eight tables in that section. But I would point out to you after a ball game night, 11 o'clock at night, that's going to be standing room only. There are going to be bodies standing. That's what the fire marshal counts, is the ability to stand. And that's the bar area with the prime view. And I just hate to take that away, particularly for eight months of the year. Four months, you've got great weather. It's not an issue. We do it outside. But I just, after having seen what it did in Chicago and these other markets that we're in, I just, I was excited about it, but if you're not enthusiastic about it, I understand. So it's also true that I was just at one of those bars in Chicago, and on one of those roof decks, there's a whole area outside, which is the standing room only section, which allows you to view. And it was pretty cold, but there were fire pits on the outside, and that was the place to be, even though it was cold. You know what? You were at the same place we were, because they had that big outdoor terrace. And what they do in the winter months? They rent igloos. They have plastic igloos and they put them out there. You pay something like $100 and you and your party get to go in the igloo. We don't have that space up there. We're at $170. There are about $500 that you can do on that top floor up there that we saw. So it's economics, too. And the other thing this did for us, it allowed us to tie everything together. Because we brought that pedway over. We could tie this to be able to office to our user to come over to lunch. the condo owners can use the swimming pool just a lot of integrated things that happen other than just that one corner up there but again the glass will be there if we just stop where we are I know your concerns but it didn't extend up there but I hate to lose this guys I think the glass extending up is a different discussion the glass extending up doesn't have all the steel structure associated with it and so it becomes a really present thing on that corner and we press the contractor to try to design this thing as thin as possible but it's glass and there's wind yes i think the simplest solution is actually to move that corner piece back and produce an outdoor terrace there i agree we can't do that guys i'm sorry The bar is not that big. We just got a very limited bar space. Look at that floor plan that was back up there. You don't see how limited the space is. And I just don't think we're asking for anything. It's unreasonable. In some ways, what you're saying though, is we don't have a voice in the conversation. Oh, no, no, no. I think you do have a voice in your head. What's the way that happens? i mean it's like always it's your way or it doesn't happen that's no we're asking for a small change that would be but it's an economic one it's it drastically affects the economics of what we're trying to do you take about a fourth of the bar space out there put it outdoors then we don't get to have a big wedding reception or whatever we're trying to make this work uh and we quite frankly we can open it four months of the year and go back to what we have and it's just the way it is but it's not the best it could be mr chairman can we take a five minute break right quick so our group can confirm would that be possible i don't see why not any objections to that no objections so we'll take a five minute break We're assuming that the problem is the gable in this area gives this corner a different read. That's what you don't like, is that correct? So the question is, is there some way we can take the same wall that we have here, the same system, and we bring this up to where it's a greater slope, and we have a glass on the back of it that would raise it so that you eliminate the gable? a triangular shape up there that disturbed you i'm gathering of the steel it's only because the language of the main street facade are these projections and those elements on the roof become part of those projections and when it hits that corner it becomes something totally different and i think that goes back to the prior conversation that's already been approved which was that corner relationship to the two facades that once those two got glued together now the strangeness of that gluing at the roof becomes even more predominant because they're already glued together now with that corner salon right yeah the dispatch we have here is we're not structural people and we didn't design the system so what they could do with it or not do with it i don't know but i just don't feel that eliminating this area right here this of the sky bar would help us. I mean, it's going to greatly impact us adversely on the economic side. But whether or not we could structurally improve that so we'll eliminate that triangle that's above that up there is a different question. We could talk to the structural people and see. But again, I just don't think the economics would work if you take a quarter of our bar out of there. And that's about a quarter. Remember, the bar area only goes to here. The restrooms are here. So there's a covered area. the bars back here, you got standing room here, standing room out here, and that'll be an action bar at night, I think. And then for lunch, we just, you know, seats are everything. And this works four months of the year open. But we go beyond that. We're just, we're in the trap of not being able to justify the investment. And again, if I had known this were of concern, we wouldn't have come this far. We would have just stopped and given up on it. But again, the important thing to recognize is that this part right here is already there. That's poured, they're putting the roof on this. As a matter of fact, if you come up to the office, you can look at it. So the only question is what we do out here to try to improve the efficiency of the space as well as the year-round use of the space. I respect what you're talking about, the architectural integrity and what we're trying to do downtown, but this is huge. There are going to be other challenges like this in the future, and we just have to – it's It's about intelligent compromise to me. That's what I tell the Bluegrass Trust people from time to time. And my comments were about a compromise because you're proposing it as though it's an all or nothing. Like, if we don't extend this little piece over, that all of a sudden the entire ability to enclose the roof goes away. I don't think there's any question about that. I think that the prime spot in the whole bar would be right here. You know that. It's looking at 21C. It's looking back at the courthouses, looking back at, you know, the Fifth Third Pavilion, the things that go on down there so what we're going to do is take this out shut it off by is it wide open if we go outside a door to stand out there and 80 or 60 of the year when it's raining or intimate weather or cold we're not going to be able to use it so i mean i wish it weren't that way i mean i would just refer back to the reference we both agree on as an interesting reference which is the chicago bar oh i know and they have the same thing So somehow people in Chicago are not different. I'll show you what they had. They had a big bar over here that was all in the cover with retractable walls, and they had this big outdoor terrace out there. And that's where they had the igloos. They had chase lounges. They had old cabanas. They had some cabanas over there, too, that they rented out. We don't have that here. This is a very narrow space that we just try to be creative and put the pool up there. And this is about a $500,000 improvement that we have the opportunity to do. But again, if it doesn't work architecturally, we understand. I don't know who would complain about it. Professionally, I understand you may not like it, but you really look up there and say, hey, I don't like that one little piece of steel that comes across the top. It adds up. I know. And the aggregate maybe. All right. Are you going to say something? You're wanting to pull this back to the way. yeah do we have the uh this is the floor plan that's proposed we don't have a floor plan for the previous 2017 that was approved, I take it. I can pull them up. It's in the folder, but I can pull them up. Yeah, if you could, that would be great. I'd like to see the difference, just the difference. I think we'll see the floor plan is approved in 2017, take the rectangles out and nothing's changed. Yeah, so it's just the glass gabling system that you're putting over the top. But you're, now if I'm correct, correct me if I'm wrong though, you're saying there'll be six foot walls on the edge. The glass. Even if you don't do this system, there'll be six foot walls. Typically they're six feet and the reason for that, it's a windbreak. Yeah, I get it. But I mean, that'll be up there regardless. Yeah, it's going to have glass. It's just not going to happen. So what is the difference in from six feet to what you're proposing to do? meaning nothing except it's got a steel beam up or column up on top that supports the glass that's coming from the bar out very little steel support for the wind yeah i i understand that so we're talking about that on top of this it's got to be high tolerant or six foot but it'll come at an angle yeah it'll come at an angle give drainage so yeah i mean it's it proportionally completely different but it reminds me what's i guess over at the i always get them wrong the hyatt right that comes a lot like that angles down not that sharp no not that sharp but i i think that's what we're talking about so it'd be six foot so is it the edge is still six foot it's just we're talking about putting i'm just trying to get in in perspective for myself you all think very different than i do so from that perspective we'll have a metal strip and then we'll have the glass going up okay and then it extrudes across so so on that end it's flat so it will be taller on that end is what we're saying going up and evidence the purpose of that was to slope both ways is that what they did and my question there was could is there any way that we could just put it on the same plane as the other and it just goes higher in the back i i think the difficulty of that is the language of those two roof systems whether it's a gable or a shed it starts to show up on the roof and it starts to look like your backyard or a farm or something else and it sends the wrong message in the city to have that show up particularly when it's the steel with the glass right so I think while I the solution I like the attempt at the solution I don't think it changes really how that is expressed on that facade if that makes sense and i can see where your problem isn't planned because it looks like the fireplace was centered on the wall to the south which happens to be offline with any of the facade projections and so trying to make those two work out spatially is going up to the one yeah system outward wall heard them all Okay. So what I'm trying to do is to figure out how we can come out flat further and still get the same slope on the others as we have on the others. Would that work? Sorry, I missed that. Well, as I understood, what you're concerned about is this triangle piece up here and the effect of that. What I'm trying to do is figure out how to get the same slope that starts here and comes back and ends up in the same place as the other. Could that involve an expansion of the covered bar area to come out and meet that same plane as the rest of the frame is resting on? Remember that space up there in the corner is bigger. Go back to the floor plan. Okay, so I'm trying to figure out if it came to here and took it down, would that help you? I don't know that it does. If we fill that in, and you could build a space frame across there or something like that to encase that area. The good news is that at the 8th level of this building, it's at a plane that people never see it. it's what we're doing is leveling it there and then glass is coming down this way i'm understanding correctly i'd have to see it i don't know and would extend the hard surface of this to here and then we just do the slope from join the rest of it i'd like to propose an amendment to the motion net amendment would be to accept the portion of the framing and enclosure over the corner element articulated by the tower volume so what can you so the motion was to approve the application yeah with and the amendment is that the approval is for all of what the application is asking for except for the volume that is shown above the tower element. So essentially looking at the plan, it would not include the first two portions of the rectangles representing the roof system. What's the time? So let me just ask something else. Okay, before we get down that, I'd like to have a few questions. One is, what's the timetable on this? I mean, I know everything has to be ASAP, but if we're looking at a solution for that particular item that's been pointed out, that is something that we'd like to see what could potentially be done, right? You know, if you said to extend that, well, right now, there's no benefit of knowing what that's going to look like, right? so in terms of your timetable if you know everything's approved on that aspect except for this one this one item that we need to work out what I'm trying to say is is there an opportunity for you to go and say what can we do and come back with an alternative proposal and answer your question Bristol groups leaving this job the 18th of December okay they're doing this work and we got turn the sky loose with the steel system because you got there and and we're trying to buy the job out obviously yeah but um and it's critical that we're going to get the space planning done up on the sky bar i understand that i understand that i'm i'm trying to determine if we can have some other alternative even if it was in my opinion if it took coming back for a special even a special session or a special meeting so that we could could look at an alternative for you all and my question is Ram I guess the space here you have a problem with glass being in that area which area right here on the corner just the face of the building right that corner over to here only on the projection that goes to the upper, yeah. The west. That's the one that you don't like is the one to the west. That's what we've got to have. That's the problem. So I don't know that any amount of engineering could do anything about that. I don't know if this is useful. There's a thought. Yeah, we can project it so you can talk about it. Put it into public record. I'll apologize in advance from a terrible handwriting. So the issue seems to be the fireplace in the space that the fireplace produces. And my question would be, if you were to orient the fireplace so that it allowed for this kind of indoor-outdoor relationship, you could pull the glass off of that corner and actually provide a very unique experience on that corner that allows you to get out and look at the courthouse, which is exactly the Chicago experience, that would ultimately allow you a little more flexibility because people could go in and out as they wanted, but it wouldn't change that much of how the actual restaurant bar space works. because it seems like most of that is standing area if I'm not mistaken there are some tables there granted but if you sacrifice a couple of tables and allowed for another experience on that corner that actually works in terms of the volume of the building relative to the city you could produce a really unique environment here that actually becomes the place people want to hang out unfortunately it's not the business model but we'd lose you lose eight tables anywhere from probably four to six tops so 30 40 people your business and they're gone for eight months seven months of the year probably it's that work if you're counting on outdoor terraces to meet the needs here you know we this thing was stretched and every six we ever have our passage 170 132. I'm sorry. If you want to kill it, it's your priority. I understand. I've gotten battle fatigue from this thing. We've fought it for 10 years now. We're so close to the goal line. I'm not trying to kill it. I think the issue comes back to, I'm not trying to kill it. I'm proposing alternatives that would actually make a synthesis of these issues that would actually allow everybody to come to the table and say, this is we've solved it in a way that's useful but the comment back is always that it doesn't work in the business model or you want to kill it and so there's a kind of black and white conversation and i'm not trying to have a black and white conversation there are options and alternatives here that if we really think about it could probably work but i think the the issue is is that when that thing projects to the facade it looks like an entirely different project Martin, I'll be very candid with you. I had very little to do the design with this. We had one of the best hotel architects in the world that did it. HBA Interior Designs is laying it out up there on top. And then we went to Chicago at the invitation of the contractor and he said, this is what we're doing up here. Would you want to do that here? We said yes, we'd consider that. It's a $500,000 expenditure. We can live with or without it, but we'll lose the benefit of a year-round entertainment facility up there. I don't know why you would want to do that. I'll go back and say you don't lose the opportunity or the possibility of that if you just remove this small portion. That's your opinion. With all due respect, you do what you do, and I appreciate that. What I'm telling you is that from a business perspective, you wouldn't do this. And if you don't want it, we just need to know. It's just, you know, we've gone to a great deal of trouble to go through this exercise. We brought it here like we were supposed to. We talked to staff. We thought they approved it. And I'm sorry if there was miscommunication from 2016 to where we are today. But a lot has changed since then. And we didn't intentionally deceive you. I don't want you to think that. Can I try a little compromise? I guess we're all trying to find a compromise. Everybody pitching some ideas. So is it possible how much you lose if you have this as flat roof and then you still have these three panels is sloping down. So you may not have that pitch there, but you all, you can, you maintain all of your outdoor space closed. And that was, I mean, if you're aware of the previous proposal that they actually have this as covered roof and this sloping down. So there's only one angle added to this addition, um, may avoid that kind of a two angle in opposite direction with the pitch so this is just is that clear i don't know that that really resolves that condition at the facade but Because all the same steel will be there. I mean, I guess I would say this, you're not going to have this, right? No, you'll still have that. Because that's the lateral force of that corner. You're not going to have this above it, then? You just have that at an angle? No, this would come across and then hit that, is what they're suggesting. She's saying it would be flat to here. No, flat to there, where it hits the ridge for the rest of the roof. Uh huh. Which is actually further out. What if they, uh, what if they mirrored? Thank you. Let me know. public record yeah but so if they could not drastically slope it but i think that there's a way to deal with water there is a way to deal with water you can make a quarter inch per foot slope on it and you've got a little ponding on the glass but then that would be a non-retractable roof system gotcha so that glass would be there year round i think that's what they're looking at is they're trying not to do that they're trying to be able to open anything up well we can i mean we can talk to them they have to decide that i'd like to make the point that i think uh tell me if i'm wrong marty but um and i'm speaking to marty because um he and i are the architects on this on the board and and and tend to be more um more uh alert or maybe some people would say paranoid about design issues but i think where our concern is coming from is a concern that the corner volume the tower volume the tower element be articulated as something distinct from the rest of the uh the rest of the construction and so if we could find a solution that continued that the articulation of the tower volume up at that corner so that it didn't just look like it was another piece of that same enclosure that you're that you're continuing across the main street eight-story main street elevation there there may be a solution in that kind of a treatment as well is if that makes sense to you if you look at the let's what rendering is this I'll tell second to the last second to the last rendering in our packet in our packet yeah so what you're you're saying if you kind of replicated this up into here and it could be enclosed. If you were to continue the skin of the tower up at that corner element and perhaps even make a parapet condition, then you could do anything you wanted behind that parapet. Does that make sense to you? So if you look at the skin of the tower, there's a little piece of brick to the left of that window system Is there a chance to zoom in on that top picture a little bit more? Specifically right on the roof corner I don't know what he's got on, a pinch to zoom Yeah, that one right there Zoom us in a little ways, keep going in if you would one more time would be um that's another picture there we go yeah and slide us over a little bit all right i think we can have a good conversation on that there we go What if you get the front half of the gable and we dealt with the rear half of the gable and moved it over and just did a flat roof atop that? Would that help you? You see the sloping front part of the gable? You leave that, that'll be glass. And then on the backside rather than taking that glass down we just extend as a flat surface and tied to the rooftop It's already there. So so what I'm suggesting is that that the problem with this thing is not the gable is one part of it, but the problem is that you're you're confusing the vocabularies of two different pieces of the building by by smooshing the same stuff all the way across the top as if the tower element is not different from the rest of it and the tower element should be different from it has been through the design process and that's what we're trying to protect okay now so yeah yeah if we can see it right there yeah i understand i understand it pops off so so if so okay so let's that's what i'm getting at do we have the pointer if i have a pointer if i could borrow the pointer again maybe i can suggest an alternative i'm trying to get to a place where you're happy because you can enclose this, you know? So if you look at this skin that's on this tower, right, you have this thin band of brick that's the vertical band of brick here, and you have a thicker band over here, this vertical band, right? And then you have the rhythm of this glazing that continues up. So what I'm suggesting is what if this that continued up to a point above this point right here a little bit higher and actually wrapped as a parapet perhaps of that elevation right there. So this brick piece continues up here. This little brick piece continues up here. The glazing comes up in the same exact configuration that it is there and it meets a parapet that is not unlike this and that way whatever you have whatever happens behind the parapet you don't see it from the ground you can solve your roof problem that way handling the additional structure there something like that would be lightweight to well i mean i i think you just would want it to look like quality and not you know so it would be to be consistent with what's going on maybe i'm off base marty you might am i uh shooting ourselves in the foot here no i know what you're getting to you're trying to find a way to potentially and close the corner so that it feels like it's part of that corner but still works with a restaurant and so that yeah carry that so there no carry it all the way up yeah but i'm slightly like you said i think in the end it becomes a frankenstein with that well yeah because you've already got the corners below it and so it's already broken so it produces this little strange cap. I think we can do that. We just have to be slumped up in the chairs. We both have to take a break up. So that'd be the ideal solution. And then on the backside of that, it's open. And if the glass continues, of course, I'll set it to your seat. I think we'll have to do that. It'd be set to a standard roof or whatever. But I think we can make that work. Are you saying wrap a parapet around that roof, that structure? like as a false parapet are you asking yeah i mean that's what i was thinking that would allow them to do just so i'm on the same record make sure sorry just so i'm on the same page you're talking about allowing this to stay but this thing wraps right and this is now a glass that is like the tower below is that correct but it's really important that this be the same as what's below I think the brick would be critical. Cool. I think we found a... Yeah. Yeah. What Graham's trying to do is to allow that roof, the glass roof with the gable on it, to stay the way it is, but to bring parts of that facade around it and then to bring the glass up from the tower below so that you kind of stitch that corner together so that it feels like it's more part of the building and less the kind of steel structure on the roof it's a bit of a hybrid condition between the two the corner is with a corner being hybrid like that anyway it breaks it up i see what you're saying it actually becomes more of the upper street facade in some sense at that point right because the upper street wraps which gets back to that tower comment well you'll still see it it'll be clear because that glass glass roof yeah but it'll get you the ability to enclose the space which is what your desire is right I think that's a good compromise You match the cornice line of the upper street facade. So that corner is on the upper street. He's drawn it up right now. All right. All right. Seat of the pants designed the very worst kind. He said, could you stamp it? Oh, wow. In black and white, it looks like it's taken from 1950s We just went back three decades. So we would add a header up on top. Yeah, like a. Be from the dental material or close to it. And then. And windows carry up. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. to match the upper street facade, I think is the no, no, they're saying the corners of the upper street might be the same at that point. So this cornice line, drag that across and then around, and then allow the brick line that's below to come up so that it glues this whole portion. The material down below is the floor load. Is that concrete? Is it precast or is it floor? It's precast. No, it's not there yet. If we can match the color, if we have to go drive it something light, we can do that as well. So it's in mirrors. You okay with that? Say it again. Well, my question is, we're not looking at the structure to carry that. So if we try to use similar material, same look, with a header as well as a footer. Right, right. But if you have to go with a synthetic material, yeah, right. I'm sure you could find a material that would not put a big load on it, and that would work nicely. Yeah. you know um i'm not sure that you would want to match the cornice along from the upper street i think it should be its own it should be articulated in its own manner it might want to be the same color as the subdivisions in the window that's what i was going to say system exactly exactly so so if we look at that prior rendering down near the base at the entry, you could almost do a similar thing at the top, right? As you get the white spandrel and the white glass, you could almost do it with a... That's actually pretty cool. This thing. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. There. Take that up. Up there. Yeah, very cool. So, Marty, you want to... Mr. Chair. Yes. I would ask that should this turn into an amended motion, that the board be as specific as they want the results to be, including materials and or colors, so that it's crystal clear what the expectation is and that there is no discretion on this decision left to the staff. All right. Thank you. I would agree with that, and you may want to, once everyone in this room, if this happens, agrees, incorporate this picture with some kind of identification of those materials, because we wouldn't want, you know, Kiyu may be not the person, or she may be the person that's the staff person that gets this, so we avoid the issue. Yeah, I think that makes sense. we could do a call out with and write on there what what our notes said with what we're trying to do what another important aspect what he's talking about is we don't have to come back yeah we'd like to be yeah really yeah so this we can take this rendering if you can can you uh move that image so that we can see the bottom it's not the same okay go back to the second second from from the last render in our packet. Yeah. And Marty, I'll let you walk through since you're the one who was, well, you guys had brought it up, but identified it so it's perfectly clear for everybody here, including the public, that what we're trying to accomplish here. So do you want me to try to state an amendment? I don't want to do an amendment yet. What I want is for Marty just real quick to, so that for everybody's benefit. So what we were, oh, sorry, I just advanced. There you go. What we were describing is this line, in some ways, it doesn't matter, actually, if this is proud of that line. Ideally, it would be somewhat in line with this. But that the material transition across this line, sorry, I need to be on the mic. the material transition across this line might actually owe more of its materiality to this element than it would to that element and so if so if this say curtain wall detailing spandrel glass white aluminum painted whatever that is that's showing up down there can show up up here it starts to tie this corner element in and breaks this goes back to the early tower conversation actually it breaks this facade from this facade with that corner and it helps to resolve that roof condition allowing that roof piece to remain behind there right so now in terms of the existing cornice line and these renderings right here what what did you say about that graham i don't think we have i don't think we have any any that's fine i just wanted to make sure for us to clarify that so we don't have any conditions on that is that built i think we can is that have you determined the finish on that particular element at this point or is that something that would easily change i guess what i'm the reason i'm asking is because if we suggest that the parapet condition and the glazing if the parapet if the new parapet condition uh cornice line the new cornice line that we're proposing if that were to be a color match to your to your glazing system then it might make sense for that lower cornice element to be the same to also be a light or a white or whatever that color is. We could do that or we could leave it the same and just do the other white, the cap up on top thicker and do it in white. Would that be better? And I don't know where we stand with it. I know the job is bought out and the process of building it. The bricklayer will start next week on this one. I think for us what we're saying though is the major considerations here is if we can carry the glass up here i'll do it up here carry the glass up and then match up at the top for that room with what what you have down here system that similar system similar colors similar materials same same same okay same to the building going up to the till we yeah i mean essentially it's a continuation of that tower up okay just that portion and then yeah yep and the rest of it you know we're not have no no conditions on okay so based upon that discussion any any other uh we got no actually it's not quite i'm gonna look over at jim does that give you the the specific specifications you need actually i would ask he you if she understands that enough so that the minutes reflect what the what the potential motion may be well i i think i understand the intent about the continuous corner um but by this point when we're discussing even materials and changing well okay how about i can articulate it i can articulate an addendum to the motion that will clarify hopefully everything and if it doesn't someone can point it out to me and we'll go from there yeah that and and even afterwards graham if you just want to take your rendering and just put in a call out what is in the addendum so we've already made it part of the record this correlates to that this correlates to that just for historical sake that sounds bad and that can be included in the notes then as well okay the meeting notes all right if we're going to have a different amendment i might suggest you just withdraw your previous one yes i'll withdraw the motion do i have a second second all right and do we do we vote on withdrawals i haven't had to do that yet are we just okay perfect as long as the person that made it and the person that seconded agree to withdraw it it's fine that's fine perfect all right based upon that do i any other discussion before i close down and we move into defining the amendment all right basically at this point i'd ask i guess graham you want to define a new amendment for us or a new motion motion i'm sorry my bad so i move to approve the application with the following condition that the corner of the proposed new framing at the eighth floor be changed to match the conditions below the eighth floor in the element that in the element that has been called the tower so as an example above the cornice existing cornice line at the top of the seventh floor there would continue a vertical band of brick veneer to the facing the main street side to match that vertical band seen below the cornice and on the upper street side similarly another vertical band of brick above the cornice line at the top of the seventh floor and that the and the window system also continuing above that line to match the window system below those brick veneers and window system would be in the same plane as uh the existing uh brick veneer and window systems uh below that uh uh in on the seventh floor and below um that those systems would come up and meet a cornice uh that would act as a parapet that parapet would be would would be high enough to be proud of the new framing being proposed over the projecting volume facing main street so that it would be considerably above that top of the proposed framing over that volume that parapet element would be articulated in a manner that would be consistent with the color and tone of the window framing system and reflecting the nature of the framing system shown at the bottom of the tower around the door system and at the signage area above the door and finally that the the applicant consider modifying the finish on the cornice line shown at the top of the seventh floor to be consistent with the new finishes that are chosen for the parapet. All right. Any discussion on that motion? Do I have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion. Let's take a vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And so that closes out case number 4-2012. Looks like the next item on the agenda is approval of the 29 meeting schedule. I would ask if there's any discussion that needs to be had on that. All right. If not, I'll ask for somebody to put forth a motion. I move to approve the 2019 meeting schedule. Do I have a second? Second. All right. We'll take a vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion passes. Before we close out today, I would also like to say a special thank you for Kiyu for your service. I know that you're going to be moving up to Cincinnati is what I've heard. And I just wanted to thank you. Graham, I believe this is your last meeting as you move over to the planning commission, correct? And I want to just thank you for your service as well. You've been an extremely valuable commodity to this board and to myself in particular as being chairman. And I just can't thank you enough for that and for your contribution to the city and to the design excellence that we strive and want to have going forward. And I think, like myself, you walk around town, and it's a great feeling to know that you've had some contribution in all aspects of downtown. I mean, I was taking some family around. It was like, well, yeah, this happened here, this happened here, this happened here. And it's amazing to see it all just add up over time and that it's a big contribution. So I thank you very much for that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I think that concludes. So I need a motion to adjourn. So moved. And can I get a second? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. None. Any opposed? Motion passes. That closes out the November 14th, 2018.