The Board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other parties, any other interested parties. The Chair will then ask the Board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the Board, please come to the microphone and state your name and your address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a list of 22 approved applications noted on today's agenda. I'm sorry, there are 26 approved applications noted on today's agenda and I'll go ahead and quickly read through those At 303 Deshaies Road, replace front walkway At 121-123 South Hanover Avenue, renovate structure At 322 Clay Avenue, replace windows damaged by fire At 722 East High Street, renovate structure At 339 Oldham Avenue, replace roof. At 122 Ransom Avenue, install gas meter. And the same goes for 134 and 137 Ransom Avenue. At 127 Woodland Avenue, replace roof gutters. At 601 Russell Avenue, re-roof structure. At 530 Sayre Avenue, renovate structure and repair driveway. At 109 Constitution Street, re-issue COA and replace siding. At 128 East 3rd Street, replace rooftop deck. At 435 North Limestone, renovate Carriage House. At 99 Goodrich Avenue, renovate structure. At 122 Goodrich Avenue, replace concrete walk and steps. At 203 Lackawanna Road, replace roof. At 115 Wabash Drive, replace roof. At 203 Arcadia Park, replace driveway with concrete. At 317 Dansler Avenue, replace windows, replace garage windows. I'm sorry, repair windows and replace garage windows. At 293 South Ashland Avenue, restore chimneys. At 293 South Ashland Avenue, replace storm doors, replace white pine. At 315 South Mill Street, replace roof. At 708 West Short Street, replace windows. At 341 Madison Place, replace patio material. At 341 Merino Street, reissue COA and remove hazardous tree. We shall now proceed with the review of applications for the certificates of appropriateness. The first one we'll review is in regards to the Ellsworth Historic District at address 179 Old Park Avenue, install paving. Is the applicant here? I believe the only staff recommendations on this case were our typical two standard recommendations. They were disapproval of the front yard. Thank you. All right. Amelia, what? Oh, I'm sorry. Come right on up. Please just state your name and your address for the record to begin with. I'm speaking for Fernando Perez at 179 Old Park Avenue. We wanted to request a COA for the paving on the side of the house. We placed it there because the water was getting into the basement and it was causing a lot of damage. So we thought it was necessary. Okay. And I think on here I was reading that the driveway is not. So what we'll do is we'll allow our staff to make a presentation on the case. And then we'll ask you for further comments and what you'd like to speak about the project. Okay. it so uh... this is a structure one seventy nine old park avenue that uh... mister his presence taking over uh... restoring and as you can see this is that picture taken from the pv a that shows the driveway here and uh... it said that part has been paid to see pictures of that that and this is keeping from the other side in the area in question is that little bit right there which is sort of a four by seventeen area that was paid as well mister president make application to restore structure and and remove some of the deteriorated trees that the men staff stop by to uh... check out what's going on and notice that the pv had that that we've been paid and as well as this uh... area as well and uh... the driveway was gravel and uh... and we've taken pictures through the years and this is sort of a little bit more closer look at that paved area uh... went on site uh... mr president i met last week on site he explained that what was happening is there was water going in the basement and he's uh... restoring the basement for usable space and staff did talk to him about other ways of building up the grade, but that was sort of the paving that had already been accomplished. And this is sort of that window right beside that area, as you can see, that's pretty low to the ground. And this is the drive that was paved. He will be coming back for additional work of a new porch and a side stoop and a rear addition. This is sort of an area too here. This is an area that's sort of between those two projecting bays that did have a porch at one time and he's going to be restoring a stoop porch in this back location. This is taken from Street View in 2017, again in 2016 I believe. to show you the images. Just go back to this image. Guidelines are included for your reference. Staff finds a proposal to pave the driveway in the area to the north of the house is within the guidelines for the driveway in the proposal. Does meet guidelines 3, 5A, and see which states driveways and parking lots should be maintained and should it should be of asphalt or concrete staff does find the proposal to install that and paving on that other side of the house against the neighboring driveway not in accordance with the guidelines because it's paving is to is visually dominant in accordance with guidelines three five being uh... recommendations effort minces for the extra paving in the front yard between the structure in the neighboring drive uh... and does recommend approval of the paving of the parking area with the additional paving for the stoop with the two standard conditions. And of course, Mr. Perez is here as well as his daughter. I have a question, if you could clarify. So are there three sections of paving that we're talking about? Well, the driveway led into that side stoop and the side stoop area, which is on this other side. Okay, so that's the driveway that, that with the car is the driveway. That's the driveway. That we're talking about. Right. And the area, this area is not the problem either. Is that towards the back of the house? That's right. Okay. It's this area here that was paved next to the neighboring driveway. Okay, so that driveway belongs to the pink house. Right. This driveway is the neighboring driveway. It's this little extra paving here that was done is the concern. And that's what you're referring to as the pave an area on the north side? Mm-hmm. That's what that... Or it should be the east side, yeah. The southeast side is probably what it is. Sorry. And is it that small section is what is being recommended for disapproval? That's correct. Okay, thank you, Amelia. Any other questions? I'd love to hear from the applicant. If not, please come and go ahead and speak to why you would like to keep the piece that's on your neighbor's driveway. Well, like Ms. Amelia was saying before, without it, the water gets into the basement, which makes it really, well, it damages it. It's not good for the house. And I think she mentioned once being able to replace that with dirt, but we don't think that would be really helpful. it's just it's it's safer for the house as well it's it'll provide more I don't see anything wrong with it I don't think it's something that should be removed but it's possible to take it off if it's necessary okay how long has the pavement been done completed um it's been there for about maybe a little less than a month. Have you found that it has solved the water issue? Yes, it definitely has. It used to be really, really humid in the basement, and now it's a lot better. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So I had a question for staff. The section that we're talking about, is that the four foot by 17? That's four foot by 17 feet. It actually goes the whole length of that whole projecting bay. Okay. And so Mr. Perez has gotten a certificate of appropriateness to repair the gutters. So, you know, there's no gutter right there at that corner of that valley coming down. So when staff and I talked, he and I talked last week, my thought would be if you could build up that grade, then it could shed the water. Because what's happening, as he explained it, is the water is not, that's not really the issue as much as the water is pooling in the front yard and then pouring back in. because he mentioned at the edge of that concrete, there's still water sort of coming, pooling. From the front edge? Yeah. Oops. In this area, and he mentioned there's water coming in about right here because in some ways, you know, it's just sloping back down. Okay. But he is also proposing to come back with potentially a new front porch. So there could be some grading issues that happen at the same time as when the porch is put in with the construction of that because the porch did go, as you can see, the ghosting on the front of the house. The ghosting does come across. So some of the grading issues could be addressed at the same time the porch is installed. Any further questions or comments from the board? Chair? Maybe Amelia, maybe this is a question I need to ask you. Is it possible on the removal of that extra paving to suspend that decision until the additional work is done and see whether that, it seems like that there are two things that are kind of working against each other right now that we don't know what the outcome is going to be. I hate to make a decision on an isolated piece that may feel different when the additional work gets done. You could postpone that case or that situation. I think Mr. Perez and his architect met Monday. So the addition, the front porch would be coming together fairly soon. So you could postpone that, that part of the application if you'd like for a couple, you know, to a different time period, maybe a different date. maybe that consider at the same time Would anyone be willing to enter a motion to, well, I should ask the applicant first, would you be interested in postponing? Yeah, it's fine. Okay. I'll leave it to the board to enter a motion. Chair, per case number 322-00179-G at 179 Old Park Avenue, I move to postpone a final vote on this application until it does actually have to need to have a particular date so it needs to be within let me get to my may 18th may 18th So is it possible for us to make a motion to approve the portion that staff does recommend and postpone this portion? Yes. Okay. Do we want to break it into two parts given that we're recommending? That's all I was trying to do was not to complicate it more than necessary. Spend the whole thing because staff is fine with them leaving what's on the other side. So my motion just needs to include to move review of this application until the May 18th deadline for board action as currently noted on the coa for that extra paving correct and we can get a waiver signed if that becomes longer okay so would it is it preferable to go ahead and break these into two parts i was just gonna I was just going to leave it as one application since the other portion has been recommended for approval. Okay. So do I need to restate this or does everyone understand what I've stated? It would probably need to be continued and not postponed. Okay. So let me start all over again. Per case number 322-001-79-G at 179 Old Park Avenue, I move to continue the review of this application until the deadline for board action, which is May the 18th, 2022. Is there a second? Second. All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. The application has been continued. We'll see you again next month. Thank you. Thank you. All right, our next application is located at 602 North Broadway. The applicant is Leithen Properties. Is the applicant here? Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Tara Schroeder for Lethan Properties. Thank you. And your address, please? 602 North Broadway. Thank you. I believe staff has recommended approval of your application only with our two standard conditions. Did you read those, and are you in agreement with those? Yes, that's fine. Well, I will leave it to the board to enter a motion. And in this first instance, please read through our standard two conditions completely. Chair, in case number 02500602-K at 602 North Broadway, I move that we approve the application for certificate of appropriateness with the following two conditions. One, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. And two, once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Is there a second? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness is approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next application is at 1831 Nicholasville Road. The applicant is Brandon Catherine Griffiths. Are the applicants here? Thank you. Please just state your name and address for the record. Both 1831 and 1835 Nicholasville Road. Okay. I believe staff is recommending denial of the gravel parking space in the front yard. Of 1831. Okay, we're going to hear the 1831 in this first case, and then we'll move on to that one after this one. All right, so denial of the gravel parking space in the front yard, and they have at least two other recommendations. Have you read those, and would you agree to those or disagree? That they want us to contain the driveway with pavers down the sides? Yes. Is one, and that it's okay to refresh my gravel is the second? Yeah, I'll go ahead and read those. Remove the gravel from the front yard so as only the area that was previously graveled has gravel. and the next one is provide gravel retention by the use of a brick or another gravel containment be installed around the perimeter of the driveway parking area and the other ones on the list are standard conditions right okay and is that an agreement to those conditions yes all right okay any questions or comments from the board or from the audience all right I'm just slightly confused that these are two cases, that what's the difference between the two? Shared driveway. Okay. Right. So the difference is 1831, which is the south-facing property, which is the stone structure, that actually, she initially proposed to put paving in the front of that. structure. And so staff is saying no to that one, but she can refresh the gravel with the shared drive. But on 1835, there was an existing spot that she's going to change the gravel to brick. And that is permissible. Right, right, but brick and a little gravel. And so she's allowed to go back with that. So the whole idea is they can refresh the gravel and change up the material of 1835 and freshen it up and then if that's clear. We had major flooding. We had to take up the sewer line and things and it made everything sink back down so when it rains we have a mud pit everywhere. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 13971831-B, 1831 Nicholasville Road, I move that we deny the application to add a gravel parking space in the front yard. yard and approve the certificate of appropriateness for the other areas with the following conditions. One, remove the gravel from the front yard so only the area that was previously graveled has gravel. Two, provide gravel retention by the use of bricks or another gravel containment to be installed around the perimeter of the driveway and parking area. And three and four are the standard two conditions. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The motion is approved. Your application for certificate of appropriateness is approved with those conditions. Thank you. And we'll keep you right there. Separate action has to be taken at 1835. Yes. Yes. And our next case is at 1835, Nicholasville Road, with applicants Brandon and Catherine Griffith. Please state your name and address for the record once again. Catherine Griffith. Brandon Griffith, 1835, Nicholsville Road. Thank you. Staff is recommending approval of refreshing the gravel parking area with the following conditions. Number one, replacement of gravel with brick pavers for one brick parking spot in the front yard so as only the area that was previous graveled has brick and final plan come back to staff. Number two, provide gravel retention by the use of a brick or another gravel containment be installed around the perimeter of the driveway parking area. And three and four are standard conditions. Are you in agreement with these conditions? Okay. Any questions or comments from the staff or the board? All right. Is anyone willing to enter a motion? Chair, in case number 13971835-A at 1835 Nicholasville Road, I make a motion to approve the application for the certificate of appropriateness with the condition number one, replacement of gravel with brick pavers for one brick parking spot in the front yard. So as only the area that was previously graveled has brick and that the final plan come back to staff, And two, provide gravel retention by use of brick or other gravel containment, be installed around the perimeter of the driveway and parking area, and three and four are our two standard conditions. I have a second. Second. I don't know if it matters, but it was brick before. I just, it had caved in. Okay. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion is passed. Your application for certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you very much. Thanks. Our next case is at 417 and 419 Arcadia Park. The applicants Lee and Karen Sims are the applicants here. Mr. Sims is on his way, so if we could put this to the end of the meeting docket, he has emailed that he is running late. All right. Thank you, Amelia. Our next application is at 293 South Ashland Avenue. Applicant Nellie Ramsey is the applicant here. Thank you, sir. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Hi, I'm Zach Ramsey. I live at 293 South Ashland. My wife Nellie started the application. Thank you, sir. One and the same. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval with their two standard conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Are there any questions from board members or audience? All right. Does anyone want to answer a motion? Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 00710293-T, 293 South Ashland Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the two standard conditions. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The motion is passed. Your application is approved as conditioned. Thank you. The next application is at 728 West Short Street, applicants Bennett Clark. Is the applicant here? Mr. Clark is not present but has received his staff report. Okay. Is it appropriate that we move, go ahead and move forward with this one as it's- I believe so. Only our standard conditions? Are there any questions from the board members or the audience? Please enter a motion. Chair, per case number 17170728-A at 728 West Short Street, I move that we approve the specific appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. The motion is passed and the application is approved as conditioned. Our next case is at 644 Ballard Street, applicants Sally and Bill Johnson. Are the applicants here? Please state your name and address for the record. I'm Brock Smith, representing the Solar Titan USA, who's going to be doing the install of the solar panels for Mr. Johnson. Thank you. And I'm Bill Johnston, 171 over Georgetown Street. Thank you, sir. Mr. Johnson, the staff has recommended approval just with our standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those two? I am. Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments from the board members? Nope. Or the audience? All right, I'll hear a motion. Chair, per case number 01110644 at 644 Ballard Street, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness with standard two conditions. Second. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The application, the motion is passed and the application is approved as condition. Thank you very much. Our next case is at 817 West Maxwell Street. The applicant is John Karloftis. Is the applicant here? He is unable to attend but has received his staff report and is agreeable with the findings. All right. Would there be any questions or comments from the board or from the audience? We'll look to hear a motion. All right. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 12680817-E, 817 West Maxwell Street, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the Standard 2 conditions. Is there a second? Second. All right. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The motion is passed and the application is approved as conditioned. Let's go back to we have a case at 417-419 Arcadia Park. The applicant is Lee and Karen Sims. That's the applicant here. I want orders from Karen to take care of this, so I want to pressure. Please state your name and address for the record, sir. Lee Sims. And you are at what address? Is it 417? We're renovating 417, 419 into a single family. Okay, thank you. Looking through this application, staff is recommending disapproval of the garage as proposed. And they have recommended a couple conditions. I'll read through those really quick. The window on the side should be, this is in terms of the main structure. This is the house, right? Not the garage. Correct. The garage is recommended disapproval. and regarding the house, the conditions are the window on the side should be retained from the outside and enclosing from the inside. Number two is the rear windows be recessed two to six inches per the guidelines. And there are a third and a fourth condition, but those are our standard conditions. Are you in agreement with these conditions? Or would you disagree? Let me get to your notes. Hang on just a minute. I just left a meeting that was... This would be on page 32, I believe. All right. So, I'm going to... This is... Thank you. She's wonderful. I know you know that. She's absolutely a life saver. Okay, where are we? The window on the side should be retained from that side. That's fine. to find number three, find building inspections working over the plans pretty good. So those will be corrected. Okay. Not a problem. Now, that condition is referring to bringing those plans back to our staff, Amelia and the others. Can I use the portal? Do I have to come down here? She'll explain. She'll help you with that. Okay. Those need to come back to us, not the portal. But then you submit whatever the portal is. Okay. That's fine. So that's three. You've mentioned four. And number four was once reviewed by the other LFUC divisions, resubmit any changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of the work. That's fine and understood. Okay. Do you have any objection to the garage being denied? Do I have any objections to the garage being denied? No. I knew it was coming, and based on size, I think there's some misconceptions between building code, historic preservation, infill, and rehabilitation. There's three items trying to match. Yes. It's very confusing, and this is what I do for a living, or did for a living for years. So I understood it, saw it coming. She is wonderful to explain things, has a lot of patience, a lot of knowledge. So a real asset. So I want to thank you in front of everybody. Agreed. So I know it's got to get smaller, and I think I can figure out the formula based on what building inspections sent me. So I don't want to appear confused, but it is a confusing process. I was told in a meeting in August that my deal would be I'd be a guinea pig. So we've been guinea pigs our whole lives, I think, in practice. So I'm fine with making the changes. It's just if I can agree to agree on the square footage before I redraw everything, can you work with me on that to make sure I'm following the directions as listed? Because you understand. So it sounds like you would like to have a garage. Oh, yeah. You'll have to make some changes. I can't move over there. There's a whole reason to go there. Okay. Well, should we continue this application or postpone it, or what do you think we should do, Amelia? That's a good question. I was thinking we'd have a bit more discussion about the garage, and that would be a little easier to have feedback from you all. But, so in essence, the confusion to let you know for Mr. Sims is the fact that typically a garage wouldn't be able to be built in this area because of the infill and redevelopment and you can't build a garage that's more than half the size of the physical structure. And what they're doing though is they're counting his proposed addition with that, which means yes, he could have a sizable addition of a garage based on those numbers. However, within our H1 overlay, we would like the garage not to necessarily overwhelm the site. Well, should we hear the case? Should we go ahead and hear the case? Sure. That might be helpful for Mr. Sims. Can I interject just briefly? Sure. We've owned the property for 40-plus years, and it's a duplex going to single family. It's got a huge yard, I want to downsize and move in there. The yard's huge, got a great view, so we're opening the back of the house up so we can see it. Watch the garden, play in the garden, watch the grandkids and enjoy green space. Being a farm boy, it's hard to do that in Lexington, enjoy green space. So I would like to be able to start on the house as far as demo and get started. Then the garage, I understand I've got to shrink it, and I've been talked through how the formulas work. I thought I had it figured out, but so I'm willing to shrink the garage, meet what building inspection wants as far as structural wall panels, this, that, and the other. That's easy to do. But getting the size is the trick, and can I save the lines and still have the potential for using it upstairs someday, the attic of the garage? I know that ADUs, Grand Flats, what have you, you can't do detach. If they're not related, they can't live there. Well, I understand that's being rewritten in July, August, hopefully. So I'm trying to build this garage as a shop, greenhouse, storage, that type of thing. So that's why it's so big. Okay. Amelia? So I think we could have this case heard or you could move ahead with the screen porch addition and withdraw the garage and come back with that. Okay, that sounds appropriate. I wasn't sure if that was potential or not. And that gives him the option to come back in a couple months with a garage design and go ahead and move forward. I'd do a couple months. Well, whenever you need. I don't want you to be stuck for a year from now. That's what I'm trying to look out for you on. Thank you. I thought you would go back at your pleasure to a million worth. Thank you. The question, the building inspection is saying it's a separate permit, separate submittal. So to come here first. Okay, so I come here and that takes care of historic and infill overlay? No, the infill will be building. Building inspection, okay. So I get squared away here first, based on square footage. then go to a building inspection and submit there. Okay. Didn't understand. I was trying to do both at the same time. All right. I think, again, being told it was a guinea pig, it kind of thought like, well, how's that work? So I think I understand. All right. Well, if I understood correctly, you were okay with the conditions on the house, with the windows and such that we read through? If that's it, that's an easy fix. Well, let's see if we can enter a motion that would withdraw the garage portion of the application and discuss the rest. I just, this may not be an issue, but I don't quite understand it. Is the second condition, the rear windows be recessed two to six inches? Yeah, sorry, I should have opened you. So the guidelines talk about if you're going to brick in windows, that the windows need to be recessed to show the openings. To show that they were there at some point? So the guideline, that's actually a guideline about that. It's an index of what it used to be. Okay. Were there any other questions? I'm sorry I jumped ahead there. Or from the audience. All right. We'll hear a motion. So I have a question first, and that is the two parts of this application. Should we do these as separate motions since one we're going to approve and one we're going to continue? Does he want to continue or do you want to withdraw? If you continue, that means you'll come back with new plans by May 18th. Well, I'm used to dealing with building. inspection only. So I've got two permits, two submittals separate already. So I guess if we've separated, you tell me what's the way to- Withdraw would give you the most flexibility. Withdraw would give you the most flexibility. So then, okay. Thank you. There you go. That answers your question. Okay, per case number 00510417-A at 417-419 Arcadia Park, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness for the screen porch and the openings with the following two requirements. The windows on the side shall be retained from the outside and enclosing from the inside. The rear windows, number two, the rear windows shall be recessed two to six inches per the guideline. Number three and four are the standard two conditions. And the request for review and approval of the garage has been withdrawn by the applicant. Is there a second? Second. All right. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion is approved. Your application for a certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned and also as the garage has been withdrawn. Thank you very much, sir. Good to see you. All right. I think that concludes all the applications to this point, but we do have a couple of conceptual reviews to look at. And the first one of those on the docket is at 461 North Limestone, owner Joe Costa, applicant Joey Nolasco. And I will go ahead and mention that I will refrain from any comments in this particular case due to my relationship with the applicant. Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record. Joe in Alaska with Integrity Architecture, 2414 Plumbo Drive. Joe Costa, owner 461 and 463 North Limestone. Thank you. All right, well, yes, we'd like to, I'll give this over to Amelia to get us started here. So I'm just going to go through some quick pictures to show you the site. Of course, this is 461 North Limestone, Rose Hill. And just to walk you through, this is for the Limestone side. And this actually is the corner of Limestone and 5th Street. And you can see there's an existing paved scenario area here. And this is the guest house with that lean-to, two parts of the lean-to. So one side of this has brick to it, the closest side to the guest house. And then there's the other portion, which sort of has a hodgepodge of Borden-Badden on it. And that part, Mr. Acosta is really interested in removing because of the deterioration level of it and having to rebuild it. But also, the proposal would be that would be removed. They were considering putting the garage, a new garage in this location. Sort of walk you a little bit closer. And so, and this is sort of from 5th Street, looking at that lean to garage. And as you can see, there's a backyard of this. It's got the stone retaining wall, then the fence on the back. And this is sort of on the opposite side because it backs up to Soup Perkins Alley that goes along the back side. And this is indicating that rear entrance with the kitchen that you could see in the background that went before this board to be constructed. You can sort of see the backyard of Rose Hill as well. And then I will some more images of that. And then I wanted to show you, this is sort of the whole site to give you better, this was from a 2017 plan that came before us. So this is the parking area. And you can see the two parts of the shed lean-to. and then you can see this is the alley side that I showed in this last image in the backyard and the front yard and in fact this is already existing paving but then yet you have another entrance and then this is the proposal for and this shows sort of the building line and then if the little lean-to was removed, the most recent lean-to. And here's some schematics of that plan. So is this a conceptual review? There's no findings or recommendations at this time. However, questions to be asked. Is it appropriate to demolish the one-story shed addition? Is it appropriate to construct a new two-bay garage addition? Is it appropriate to connect the garage to the existing shed? Should the garage be located in another area? Is attaching the garage to the historic guest house appropriate? Should the garage be located off of Superhickens Alley? Is the roof line of the garage appropriate? Are the openings compatible in scale, size, proportion, to establish patterns of openings of adjacent and surrounding buildings? And do the proportion of directional emphasis and rhythm of the new garage reflect the predominant portion emphasis and rhythm of the existing adjacent surrounding buildings? And of course, the applicants are present. All right, we would love to hear from you guys about what you're doing in regards to the guidelines. I guess just before we get started on the garage design and placement, I would like you guys to know that the demolition is not contingent on the garage placement. We would like to have the demolition of the small portion of that structure approved. There's no intent to build anything back with that. It doesn't have a foundation. It doesn't have a slab. It's just sitting on gravel. so the intent would be to go ahead and get that torn down regardless of whether any approval for the location or design of the garage is in place. So there's kind of the demolition, the design, and then the location. And I don't know whether you want to talk about the design or the location first. I will let you know that I've had discussion with planning, and Stephanie Cunningham has been working with us on the placement of this garage and its proximity to the existing carriage house. The existing carriage house isn't non-conforming right now. An increase in area by connecting this to the carriage house would increase a non-conforming structure already. So we only have a foot between the edge of our plan and the building line, and this is about as narrow as you can build a two-car garage to begin with. Our question to planning and zoning was, well, would you allow us to encroach three feet into the building line since if you go up and down Fifth Street, there are many, many buildings that are built right up to the edge of the sidewalk. Their feeling, at least to this point, has been because that would at least give us a four-foot passageway you know where we could possibly put a gate and some lighting. This is a pretty active area and an area that's in transition and Mr. Costa has had people eluding police officers use his property as a hiding place. So the idea to begin with was well let's prohibit any little small you know 12 inch areas where somebody could slide back in there and hide. But knowing that that the further a way that this structure is the more likely it is planning and zoning might approve it our comment was well there's plenty of structures that are closer to the road than this there's a 20-foot setback would you allow us to encroach three feet that would give us a four feet passageway where we could put a gate and actually be able to walk from the driveway back into the backyard their feeling with that was that because of the proximity again to the carriage house regardless of pulling it four feet off would still give it the feeling of being an accessory to the carriage house thus increasing the non-conformity of the carriage house so i'm still in talks with them but i just want to out of transparency tell you that we've been having that discussion with them and i've not settled the the discussion with them on with regard to the location of whether they would approve this as it would appear to increase to the non-conformity of the carriage house um so i'm kind of asking a question because i'm getting a little confused with your site plan so this is the guest house and the carriage house is the smaller structure that's behind it yeah so you can kind of see we've got it which one of these you can see we've got it pulled right up to But so our ask was to be able to encroach out past the building line three feet to create an alleyway instead of having it abutting the carriage house. But you're calling the carriage house the larger of those two existing. Yeah, that's a building. Because it's called a guest house someplace else. And so I'm trying to make sure I understand that. Yeah. You're not proposing a different location just trying to encroach on the size of the building. I'm going to move it further away, it's non-conforming in size. You couldn't build this on this property at this size as a separate building if you tried to build it today. So what they're calling it is a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Am I correct in that? That's correct, and I would say the guest house, the carriage house are all the same structure. Okay. The two story. It was just there was that other building on there, and so I didn't. Right, that little guy is a smoke house. Okay, gotcha. I've included the historic reference so you can see that historic map on there. So the first idea was move it to the building line, give us a 12-inch separation, but obviously moving it three feet past the building line and encroaching and getting a variance would allow us maybe to get like a breezeway in between there, put a gate, and actually provide separation between them. And it's the perception, and perception is reality, that if this is that close to that building, that they believe that it would be perceptively increasing the nonconformity of that. In other words, that parking in that garage is not for Rose Hill proper. It's for the carriage house, thus making it more nonconforming. And that's an argument that we have to have with planning and zoning, should you guys agree that this is an appropriate location for the garage. So there's demo, location, and design. Those are kind of the three things that we're talking about with regard to this garage. That dark line on the side is the existing stone wall that separates the interior drive and parking area. It's a pretty decent-sized parking area. It's all asphalt right now. That stone wall is right up against the sidewalk line and then you get onto the street. That building line setback is 20 feet from the street back. So I have a question that has to do with the roof lines of the existing buildings that are shown to remain and what your thinking is with the perspective that you've shown with the new roof line. If the buildings are butting up together, and I understand that's in discussion, but if they are, it seems like you're creating a massive water problem for the new building. So help me understand why this roof line. What is it responding to? We do have a cricket and scuppers that are between these two buildings to mitigate that. I guess one of the ideas of this is introducing light in on this side, but also allowing us to not be mimicking the gable structure and trying to do something that just was not the same as the carriage house. And that was just the general intent. Now, you know, there's a mansard roof that's on a kitchen addition that we did on to Rose Hill some years ago. And we played around with, you know, possibly introducing that. I think any time that, well, at least the last two times that we've had discussion over design with regard to adding on to Rose Hill, I think the roof lines have always been the point of contention and we've always kind of been flexible to come back with alternatives. So I don't want to say that we're fixed on shed. You know, we did want to get the water away from the front of the entrance of the garage and try not to look like we were doing a roof that looked like the carriage house roof. So my other question would be to talk about the issue of the location and placement of the garage as opposed to coming off the alley and removing the conflict with the historic structures that are shown. I'll let Mr. Costa address that. He lives there and he's... Well, the thought process is we are the caretakers of an historic property that on the corner has a six-car parking lot that was there when we purchased the house, I guess, about 17 years ago, 20 years ago. And when we think about alternatives to a garage, you take into consideration other locations besides this one. but that's going to require asphalting, green space, and everywhere you twist and turn, you run into mature growth in terms of trees. And then if you place it in a certain way, the turning radius, the way we have this designed is you can come in and easily back out and go out again. On the other location, on Soup, whatever they call it, Soup Alley. Perkins. Perkins, Soup, Perkins. You come in, and when we first purchased the house, I used to park in there because I thought it was pretty cool to push a button and have a gate open up. So I said, man, this is living. But truth of the matter, it was a total nightmare. You had to do like seven or eight different jockeys just to get the car around. and then to finally get back out again. And so, I mean, I could make an argument that the Soup Perkins Alley is, since the owner of the Rose Hill, which is me, is going to be using the garage, you could argue maybe that's a better location, but it's a nightmare in terms of you will be taking a significant percentage of the yard and paving it. You will have to find a location for a garage, and then you're going to have to figure out where that location doesn't encroach on a mature tree. And also, it provides you with a big enough asphalt that you can somehow back around and jiggle your way back out again. So living there, I can tell you that the Soup Perkins Alley, in theory, sounds nice, but in practicality and living there and trying to use it in the past, it really doesn't work. And so our thoughts were, we already have this asphalt parking lot on the corner. If we can stick a garage over there and utilize a garage, it would be helpful to the property as a whole. Now, my original thought and expression to Mr. Nilesco was that it would be great if we could butt it up against the demolition of the shed. I can appreciate that that is problematic to historical influences. And so now we would talk about not butting up. Let's create a gap there. And so the question is, how far will planning and zoning allow us to push out? because there's plenty of room on the asphalt footprint to push out. The question is, is then we get into zoning and planning with an encroachment on a, what kind of line is that? Is that a side line? Building setback line. Setback line. And so that was the thought process, is that the other side really doesn't practically work real well. Why are we going to pay over some green space? you know we have raised beds over there right now it's a south facing you can grow things pretty well in that location and and you know personally our thought was is if you have this parking lot why create another one you know but i can tell you i'm exceptionally sensitive i love the building i love the house i love the responsibility that comes with it And we're not going to do anything that wouldn't look appropriate and actually increase the postcard that it presents right now. And we think we've done a pretty good job on the North Limestone face. So that's what we're here to discuss. We would love it if you'd let us take down the shed, which is collapsing. And if we could build it on that side, then we'll have to move over to zoning and planning to see once we separate it from the existing carriage house, how far will they let us separate it over? Because Joey tells me we got about one foot of wiggle room to comply. And that's not going to make it look nice. If we're going to push the garage, I would like to have a nice landscaped area on that side of the house and, you know, make it look what I think the house deserves. So anyway, that's our layman's thoughts as to the problems that we face. Joey, do you have any expert advice that you want to offer? No, that was a good sign. That's good enough? Okay. Well, thank you. Can you point out the alleyway entrance on that site plan? It is right there. Okay. And is it coming from the top or coming from the? You're coming into the property. The gate line is along here. Okay. Am I right with that, Jill? Yeah, you're right. Makes it feel. Yeah, it does. and goes over to upper. Sort of an L-shape. Okay. I just didn't know where the gate was that went into the property. Is it plan north or is it plan east? The gate faces south. So if you were driving up Soup Perkins Alley, you would go directly into the property. You would not make a turn. You would only turn once you got on to the property. So the gate is actually functioning sort of as a fence line across that face. So you would come in, then you'd have to make a right, and then you'd have to navigate what you've constructed, designed, and laid out. And I can tell you from experience, it's not real easy to navigate that side of the property. At one point it had a pea gravel lot. We just let grass come back in. We sort of like it as green space. It looks like from the site plan there's two, are those tree trunks? There's a tree line along that fence line. There's trees all the way down that fence line. Do you have a picture of that? Yes. And if you were to try to face the garage, so this is entering. If they're entering the garage on the west, there is a giant tree facing you. So really it becomes a problem going in that way because that tree I don't think is, I don't think I have, anybody has the words to talk about. Do you have a picture of that? No, you don't. So if you pulled in and made a right, you very quickly end up on a big, beautiful, got to be 200-year-old tree. And we don't want to put the garage in the middle of the backyard. And so we have a paved lot. Why don't we just use it for what it's been used for, which is parking? That's our thought. If a portion of the garage was not enclosed, if it was just a covered parking area, is that allowed to be in the building set back? area if it's just a covered space. I think if it has a roof over it, it cannot be in the building line. I mean, that's a good thought, though. I was thinking you were going the other direction to put the carport on the carriage house side so it felt more open. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the secondary shed roof that's in bad shape, is that original? That looks like it's added on and is probably past saving? That's correct. We have talked in office quite a bit about that and given the historic information that has been included in your packet, it does look like it's been there quite some time. However, of course, it's lost some integrity in the fact of having to rebuild. And some of the battens and wall systems have changed that the loss of that is not going to be as detrimental in the staff size. Yeah, just the picture you showed, I was like, I don't know. I think I'm okay with losing that as kind of the first question. I think the garage is a different question. But I think just item number one, getting rid of that shed roof is okay, which you want to do no matter what. Yes. So then the other thought is that wasn't totally brought up in the questions is would the installation of any garage take away from the two-story guest house? Yeah, I think that's the harder question is if you put it there, what it does to the approach of that guest house. That's correct. And it's kind of on the side of the house as opposed to the back of the house. Well, the guest house faces the court. so the front door is on the other side of the carriage house so the garage addition we're proposing would go here this is that shed that's kind of sitting on gravel this structure here is actually brick and and shows up on the original yeah and and so you actually have to come through this gate and around actually really far around you actually enter in over on this side of the carriage house. You walk into the courtyard and then you come down a few steps and then you go into a door kind of into this bottom section on the other side of this. So originally this was shown as the kitchen that slaves used. There was a slave house on the other side that was demolished many, many, many moons ago. So, I'm not sure where that site plan was. Yeah, so you're entering in on this side in between the smokehouse and the carriage house. The door's in that corner between the little square. That's kind of the front door. so functionally it acts as the back of that house but on the site it's it's as a side of the site it appears as the side of rose hill proper right but is actually the back of the carriage house yeah so an additional question on placement of the garage in its current location was there any conversation about allowing it to slip west some so that the original brick piece that's between the larger volume and the shed, so that the garage has kind of a continued step and doesn't cover over the historic piece that is – Kind of push it back more. To push it back more so that it reveals that piece of it because right now you're really covering it up. Yeah. I mean, we talked about pushing it more toward the backyard. Yeah, but wasn't the thought process you're running pretty quickly to a tree? There's a tree pretty quickly. I mean, there's a tree everywhere. We picked the only spot that there aren't any trees is where that parking lot is. And it's an old property, so you can imagine it has old, mature trees. It's a property I walk by every day on my morning walk, so I'm very familiar with it. And I do appreciate how important it is to our part of town deeply. Yeah, we feel the same way. Saturday morning my task is to walk the corner of the property and pick up all the trash that the people have not learned how to find a pail somewhere from. And it's simply because we want the memory of the neighborhood and the people who walk by to not think of it as, well, there's trash on the ground. That gives me permission to throw more trash. so we've done and we will continue to try to be good stewards of that location and be good owners of the north side and of the hill and so we have a shed that we need to take down, we would love it if you'd let us do so and we'd like to place a garage on that side of the property if you'll allow us to do so and with permission of planning and zoning which will be another nightmare I guess but not that this is a nightmare. I would prefer that this is a nightmare. I would just note that we would need to know what planning and zoning say about that planning because we're not going to be able to, if you are not able to put that on there if there's any issue as far as, we can't accept an application that can't be heard or can't be approved by another division. And is it within your authority that we can go to zoning and planning with a subject to that the historical society or or Historical Preservation Board has conceptually agreed in the event that zoning and planning would agree, because I know what's going to happen. You get the zoning and planning, and they say, well, you're coming up here with something that Historical Board hasn't signed off on yet, and you end up being a tennis ball. Well, Mr. Costa, Mr. Malesko and I have already had discussions. but he's brought to before zoning even prior to this meeting about the issues with this garage. So there has already been discussion with staff. I love a coordinated effort. I mean, we have a problem we've hopefully we can solve. Where does that leave us, though, with regard to talking planning? Do you want us to talk to them first and then come back here? Well, I guess it really depends upon the location and what their discussion is as far as the building line. If your proposal still is to be within the building line and a foot off of that property. well and that's it's funny because that was a bit of a catch-22 because she still believes that regardless if we pull that off putting it beside the carriage house implies even if it's four feet off the carriage house that it is increasing or part of the carriage house thus increasing the non-conformative carriage house so this location is problematic towards their in their eyes as well well just of the non-con yeah how far where do i have to put it adjacent to that carriage house that would allow them to say that it's not supporting a parking space for someone in the carriage house which i think is what their the perception is that this location even though it is for the owner of rose hill and if you're putting a garage on a property Obviously, it's going to be for the owner of the main residence, but the proximity beside the carriage house implies that it could be for the carriage house, thus increasing the nonconformity of the carriage house. She has not said that that is a final decision of planning and zoning. She has said they looked at it from 12 inches away and said, no, that that doesn't do it. They talked about, and I don't know where they got the idea of a breezeway, except for the fact that we connected the kitchen to Rose Hill with a breezeway. But they said that it couldn't be connected by a breezeway. I didn't introduce that, they just said that. And neither. But I said, if you would allow us to move it far enough into the building line, obviously there's buildings that are right up to the sidewalk. We don't even need to be, we can be still probably 12, 13 feet away from the sidewalk and provide a four or five foot walkway. You know, to completely separate the garage. And today, before the meeting, I still didn't get a complete, that'd be okay. So what they're saying is the fact that this area is increasing that nonconformity. By its adjacency. Vice adjacency no matter where it is in proximity. Not the connectivity, just the adjacent. So this area is problematic with them as well as us. Yeah, well, is it problematic with- I would say with staff. Yes. You know, at some point, you like to step back and try to untangle yourself from all of these different thought processes. But what I'm hearing is, is if I took the garage and put it on the corner of North Limestone and Fifth, where there used to be a house which would totally, in my opinion, destroy the vista of that North Limestone view, But it would conform to everything, and everybody would be fine with that. No, not necessarily. We would still not find that appropriate. That's not a reasonable assumption. It wouldn't be near the carriage house. It would be closer to the main house. I mean, how close does it have to be the main house until it's not close to the carriage house? Is the carriage house part of the main house? When does it become its own identity, and when is it part of Rose Hill? I mean, I'm trying to do the best for this house. And I'm trying to utilize an asphalt footprint that already exists. I'm trying to remove a shed that was added on at a certain point in time and done horribly and has now collapsed. And all we're asking is to go fight the next fight with zoning and planning. You know, maybe they're going to turn around and they're going to argue about this and that, about proximity. But at what point, you know, there's a lot of competing considerations. Okay? And if proximity is the consideration that wins, I mean, that's a shame. That's a shame because the other considerations I would think are far more important into this piece of property, this North Hill location, this neighborhood. would. But well, and again, I think it's I think it's demolition design and location. So the design can be manipulated to diminish the impact of the garage aesthetically on the carriage house. I mean, there's many things that I could do with that roof line besides make it so pronounced that it diminishes. So yeah, so so let's let's take away what it looks like in a rendering and let's let's look at what it looks like on a site plan and if planning and zoning is is okay with that then let's work on the design that makes it such that it is not competitive aesthetically with the carriage house i mean that that that we're totally fine with that i mean he wants to be able to park cars inside so you know as far as the design I'll bring five options in on the design that I think maybe is more applicable to the diminishing or more addressing that concern that this building is going to take away from because of its design, not its location. From my perspective, I think the location is the issue. Like the design that you provided in the garage, I mean, yeah, it can be tweaked, it can be reworked. I don't think the design of the garage is terrible, but I am trying to understand the location in regards to that carriage house and how it connects to that piece of the carriage house that's going to remain in place at that location. That's what I'm struggling with. But how far do you pull it away from the carriage house so that that doesn't become a problem? I mean, is it four feet? Is it five feet? Because we've got... Well, I kind of was going towards pushing it back further on the property, but with the large trees there, I don't like that idea either. I don't want to cut down trees. We can push it some back. We can go beyond that fence line some, and I don't know whether that's five feet or what, but we could look at the survey and look at the location because the further back we push that, the furthermore it helps me address a design that would help diminish the the aesthetic impact of this on the carriage house so again i mean it's if it's four feet off and four feet back and i can get that without hurting a tree or doing something damaging if that seems that it's more palpable then i'm willing to look at design options that can address the aesthetic impact on that to the the carriage house because i think by proximity and location and by design we could figure out a way if planning is okay with just its adjacency and not its connectivity because to me those are two things that i'm battling with them okay it's connected it's adding two well i'll disconnect it that's still adjacent well that doesn't mean it's adding two because the homeowner wants to use this and he owns the smokehouse, he owns the carriage house, he owns the main house, he's sleeping in the main house and parking in the garage. So we have to have that conversation with them. But, I mean, and let's not say the location we're saying, but a general location of, hey, is it four feet again over, four feet again back? And by doing that, along with addressing, again, the design of the garage so that the footprint's not going to change because I can't get it any smaller. I mean, it won't happen to be able to park a vehicle in it. But I'll stop because I think I've said enough. I think the discomfort of it from a historical and the guidelines aspect, I mean, it's not our opinions. It's kind of trying to cull out of the guidelines how that applies to this, is that it's attached, it feels attached, whether it is or not, to the historic structure. And from a site plan aspect, it's not, from a site plan, it's on the back of that carriage house, but it's the overall site plan, it's very visible. And it feels like, I mean, from historically, Things like stables or garages need to be removed from being, you know, they didn't have attached garages. They didn't, you know, but that's, I don't know. I think the location of it needs to be further removed from that. But the difficulty with the building line, I totally understand that dilemma because the building line is a modern overlay onto this property. So the stable was right up against the wall. So that's where I'd put the garage, but we can't do that. Well, I mean, I think, again, if you're talking with planning and zoning, it's how far over and how far back to make it feel the most removed. And again, I mean, it's can I get there with you guys? That's probably the question that needs to be answered before I go to planning and zoning. Fight a fight that really at the end doesn't matter. if I get them to approve something and then I'm going to spend a lot of hours doing that before I come here and spend hours showing you the location again. I mean, I think I can fight for six feet over six feet back. I mean, the question is, will it ever be enough on this side of Rose Hill adjacent to this carriage house in the proximity of where we are? That can be a no. Well, I mean, if we look at the guidelines that are being given to us and talk about what our comments on are as during a conceptual design, like what are we basing what we agree with or don't agree with, I think the shape is fine. The scale is appropriate. If anybody discrees, speak up. The setback seems to be the issue. To help to convey the pattern and sense of rhythm along within this property. and we're kind of looking at this as a standalone property even though it's part of a district you know we don't we don't even have what are on the adjacent properties so we're not the setbacks for this house are not similar to the setbacks of the other properties. No, they're right on the edge of the sidewalk. So we're not looking at that for along the whole block. We're looking at this property and the site itself. The roof shape, it doesn't imitate. It could probably be a little less. Yes. Tone it down. Again, for me the design of the garage, the size of the garage isn't the problem. The problem really is that location on the side, which is the same problem you're having with zoning and such. If it went behind, and that takes up yard, that takes up, it may run into trees. But if it weren't right beside it, but behind, what we say is behind, so that's plan east. Yeah, you're essentially talking about, oops. Putting it plan east, yeah. There's a fairly good grade change from that driveway down into that backyard. And, I mean, that back bottom of that yard is phenomenal. I mean, it's gorgeous. It's very pretty. Very well maintained. You know, these are hard, too, because we understand why you're making the argument that you're making. Yeah. You know, but we can't make it fit what we feel the guidelines are telling us to do here. So the problem is more if I'm along Lime and I'm looking at Rose Hill and I look to the right hand side that I'm going to see a garage period. I think when you're looking at this particular area, it's really all Rose Hill and I think the concern is how you separate out the historic from the non-historic and is this going to be muddy that waters in some ways. But I think that staff could work with you on, and maybe have a meeting with planning and look at this location a bit further about how far back that needs to be back. it would separate that and not make that look like it's increasing the nonconformity of the guest house. And encourage you to look at pushing that back further in that space. Because I think that area would be something that we could look at further together. Well, and I agree. I think the further, even if the garage doors are facing the current parking area, the further you push that back and expose even that brick corner now that we, when we pull that structure off, we're going to be seeing that original structure. Right. So I guess what I would like to do maybe is go down the path of meeting with staff and planning and zoning and looking at something that may be acceptable both in the separation to create something that would appease the Historic Preservation Board, but also a separation that wouldn't be increasing the nonconformity. I mean, I think both of those things have to be moving it further away and further back to make that happen. And maybe manipulating the design of the roof a bit. I get what you're saying. I know where you're going with that. Okay. Okay. I'm good with that. So how soon do we address the demolition? We just laid it. Very well. Next. Okay. We're done? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for taking care of this important piece of property. Well, one thing that I don't, and I shared this with Amelia, but one thing that you all need to know is Joe has also invested a ton of money on the inside of this house that you don't see. I mean, it would be great to take a tour of it at some point in time because as you know, it was a bed and breakfast. They had gone into the original hallways and put bathrooms in there. Joe has since removed those and restored the plan almost back to the original footprint. You know, inside, especially in the center of the house and the center of the hallways and stuff. There's been a lot of work on the inside exterior. It was funny because looking at pictures from when we originally started with the addition of the kitchen, And it's unbelievable how much of just the ivy and stuff pulled off and the front, what he's talking about along limestone, you know, the gate and getting selective demolition of trees and things that have really increased the face value on the outside. But the floor plan coming back to that original, because when I first walked in there and saw what they did with those, shoving them inside those beautiful hallways, I mean, it was just, it was terrifying to look at. And over the years, he's slowly done one project at a time to keep restoring everything back to and adding on to in a respective manner to this to this property. And knowing the history of it and kind of the story of the fellow that built this house and his relationship with Henry Clay. And I mean, I've just learned a lot of history about Lexington to working with him over, gosh, a decade. You know, we love the house. We want to care for it. We think it needs a garage. We want to find a place to put a garage that suits your interests and at the same time meets the considerations of what we would think the homeowner would require. And I think on the other side of the property it becomes problematic. if we can find a way to utilize an existing parking lot maybe you're right, push it back, push it over I'm a little lost as to what gets you to not compatibility gets you divorced from the carriage house but gets you the utilization of that existing parking That's what you're paying me for Well, then why am I doing all the talk? Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Take your consideration. Thank you. Our next conceptual review is 114, 16, and 120 West High Street with Central Dealers and Steve Graves. And if you guys can go ahead and come on up, I'll go ahead and speak real briefly. I've got to leave. I'm coaching a little league team. So I got to, unfortunately, have to leave. But being on this board, there are very few times you get a chance to fix a mistake that you've made as a board member. So I'm going to do that right now real quick before I leave. Last time you guys came, I spoke to your project very liberally in regards to the guidelines and how they apply to your project. I also spoke to how I would be very comfortable seeing that building demolished and the property being improved otherwise. But I've since learned that you guys have some pretty, you have complications in that situation. So, back to your project and your proposal. Just looking through the guidelines, they are just very cut and dry of not putting an addition on a street front. and not putting an addition by an extra story. I think the guidelines are very clear on that. So that's where I need to correct my mistake from the last time. If there was a loophole of any kind that you could find, I would anticipate it would be in the third story. situation more than the street front situations and I've got two minutes if you have a question real quick for me and then I got to go sure so and my name is Adrian Mendiando I would have been here last time except that I was in Atlanta for mediation I just couldn't be here I've been the person at our firm that's been meeting the most I've been the one communicating with the South Hill Neighborhood Association and just trying to get everybody involved to see how they felt about the plan because it's not just what I think this commission feels but you know are we doing what other stakeholders in the community want to do with this property so I wish I could have been here before John Rabinowitz who was here wishes he could be here he's also the chairman of the Kentucky Horse Raising Commission and this is not a time of year when he gets to this stuff so he's out with people right now that he absolutely has to be with you know I will just I would say to that very issue, this whole historic preservation process has really three components to it. There's a staff level review, a commission level or a board level review, and frankly, a city council review above that, and they kind of play different roles. And the way I've understood that breakdown, I'll explain to people is the staff's a technical compliance kind of issue. And there are things that are cut and dry, the exceptions can't be made, and the staff says yes or no. And they have absolute discretion to make those decisions. That's why things can be approved without coming to the commission. And the board is an aesthetic board. I mean, at the end of the day, it takes guidelines that are guidelines that say throughout those guidelines should, could, would like, preferred, and never shall, must, need, have to. And there's a reason for that. It's because, one, nothing meets every guideline. That's just not a thing that exists. There's no project that can meet them all. And two, guidelines can't be written for every situation. And if there's ever a situation that calls for looking at a project as a whole and what it does for the community and what it does for the neighborhood and how it benefits the area, versus trying to find a strict compliance with guidelines that do not mandate strict compliance, this is the project. It also is kind of a project that fits, and I'm talking fast because I know you've got to run. Yeah, I'm actually going to go ahead, and I will turn this over to Ms. Hill to carry you guys on through. Sure, thank you. Thank you guys, and I apologize. No, I get it. Literally, it's important to you. So, and I just, this is not either a new construction, nor is it a renovation. It's a little bit of both, and it doesn't fit neatly within those. The alternative to this building, at the end of the day, is it will be demolished once the long-term appeals and all that process are headed out. That's not what we want for the building. We came into this project with the idea of could we make this, could we take what's there, And make it something that works for us. That the people who live in the neighborhood, who live in the city, who drive by, would appreciate and respect. It doesn't take away from them. And it also meets, it shows what was there in the past. It preserves the idea of the building without it being a strict preservation of the building. It is not. I mean, this is clearly different at the end than it was in the beginning. It would be well within the considerations if it were a new construction, as far as the scale and the scope and where it sits on that property and the use and how it would be used. It's well within what the neighborhood, the residential side of the neighborhood would appreciate. It's not something that's eight stories tall as was once proposed or four stories tall as had been essentially approved for the demolition permit that's on appeal. It's a commercial use, but not a commercial restaurant bar, nightclub use, which is also appropriate for this area, but which brings a much different aspect. It takes that building in its shape, and we worked so hard. And we met with the Bluegrass Trust and talked about this. And I know that the trust in the board, I didn't know this actually five years ago, but I recognize the trust in the board are not the same. Y'all don't even see that all the time. I get that. But that's another group of people who is terribly concerned about preservation, about preserving the value of not just a single building, but also a neighborhood and an area. And so we just look to see what could we do that would make this building work that we thought we could get the support of all the individual stakeholders in. And it really kind of still shows, I mean, everything we tried to do mirrors how we want that building to feel. That idea of this mid-century modern architecture with its really square shapes and those lines along it, which it really, I mean, the staff will probably disagree with me, but the two characteristics of the building that I think give it the most value and that highlight it are the lines, the very parallel lines along with the windows and the understory and the upper story. The problems with the building are that it does not work for that modern street. A commercial building in downtown Lexington on that street where half the building is underground with those wells around it is not feasible. And so if we can't find a way to make a building that works, we get it. We're not going to fight. We're not going to take this up to the Court of Appeals. We'll ask you all to look at it and to give us permission. And if you say no, we'll go to the city. And they have a political decision. I never got to get to my three steps. There's that staff review that's just pure rules-based. There's this review that's really aesthetic-based. And there's the city's review, and that's a political decision. And they get to decide, well, do the voters want this or not? And they can throw the whole thing out the window and say whatever they want at the city council level. We're not asking them to do that. If we wanted that, we wouldn't have come with this. There's nothing about doing this that's cheaper or more efficient for our purposes. The economical thing to do is to just sit back for 12 months, 18 months, once everything gets decided by the Court of Appeals and let what happens, happens, and come back and say to the owners, hey, do you want to talk again? But we're trying to step in the middle of it and essentially prevent this building that we like from being destroyed and finding a way to use it for our purposes. But everything we've done here is really what we need. And I'm here to talk about all those things with you. And I wasn't expecting to start with someone telling me there's just no way this is going to work. But so be it. It wouldn't be the worst thing anyone's ever said to me. So I'm here. Any questions you all have that I can answer, I can speak for the firm. And I think you all know this already, but maybe not for anyone who doesn't. We don't own any piece of this building today. but we have an agreement with web companies, the owners, I know it's a different entity, but the same developer, that we will joint venture with this project if we can get it approved, and we will be owners of the building, and we will also be the sole tenant of the building, which also I think adds a lot of value to the neighborhood, the residential neighborhood, to know that this is a building that will be owner-occupied. We have a substantial interest in preserving it and using it the exact way it is in doing these things. We're not trying to sell this to somebody else. We're not trying to lease it to somebody else or make the most money out of it. There's nothing about this building that's efficient for us except that we love where it is. We really, really like the building, and we think this design would be amazing and would look awesome. So I'll step in. Yes. Thank you for those comments. This is not an aesthetic review by the board. We have guidelines in place that we have legal parameters that we have to work within. So it's not a group of architects who just bring all of our ideas to it. We have legal bindings. So that's number one, just as a correction to the record. The second one is that I would like, perhaps the architect would be the best one to speak to this, but I've scoured the drawings you submitted last month, and this one, please explain to me what response to our comments last month are reflected in this new set of drawings. We looked at Upper Street, and to simplify, quote-unquote, simplify the curtain wall parameters, parameters and if you if you uh the the one of the aspects of the building is is the entrance and the and the honed granite over the top of the uh the the i'm sorry the the upper street side and we wanted to present that we wanted to put a little bubble around it and present that and where the Where the glass stops now is on the outside of the last window, and it's symmetrically on the outside of the window on that second floor. So when I said before we could do that, we really can't from an architectural standpoint now. If that was something that said, hey, we'll let you do this, if you'll do that, then we'd end up with the windows on the outside of the building. Part of the window is on the outside, part of the window is on the inside, and it wouldn't support what we're trying to do. The other thing we talked about was separation on the upper side, on the back side of the building, to separate the difference between the brick and the new bubble that we're trying to put over the top of the existing structure. I think the point is we're not trying to add to the historic structure. We're trying to put a bubble over there and mitigate the issue that they need a certain amount of square feet to make the building work for them. If the drawing can be put up, I can show you where that issue is. I think one of the things that had been asked about was trying to narrow that front glass so that it was more consistent with the glass that was coming over the top. Am I getting that right? And I wasn't here, I'm sorry, but I spoke to Steve and John afterwards, and I think that was one of the two questions that the board had asked about. Could that be narrowed? Is that what you're talking about? On the high street side, on that, what I'm going to call the north corner of the building, is the only place that the original building doesn't have its own presence. And so that had been one of the conversations with the board last time. Do we have that, Ms. Hill? Yes. I'd like to point out that we typically do a staff presentation first before we get into the. Thank you. Thank you. So we will step back and have a staff presentation first. And I will keep it brief since I believe all three of you were here last month. Okay. Okay, so basically we are talking about the multiple addresses on West High and South Upper in the South Hill District. This is, I'll kind of skip a lot of this background since you have heard it before. None of that has changed. It's still a 1956 mid-century modern building that the proposal is to completely change the character of it. A couple of things that were brought out prior to the staff report or the presentation is, just for your information, projects that come through this do not go to the council. The next appeal would be the planning commission and then district court. So the council really has nothing to do with how this works. So a technical detail, but I just wanted you to be aware of it. So if we look at this building, I would agree that the primary architectural design of this is based on the recessed glass. This is the upper street elevation. It has these honed granite surrounds on the doors. So the glass and the storefront is new. It's not original to the building, but the massing and character of the structure is still there. staff still has the same basic questions about the applicability of this design to the guidelines, which are on page 58. and I think if you go through those you will see staff you will be able to interpret staff's feeling of how this matches with the guidelines. One thing I do want to add is there's a lot of discussion about keeping the exterior design of the building and then I think the quote was a fish bowl over it. Is that what you said? Or fish tank? I'm sorry. Okay. So the board also needs to understand that once an addition is done, any of the exterior that is encased within that addition is now interior, and the board or the guidelines have no control over them at that point. So once it becomes interior, the next week it could be completely blown out. The whole interior could be gutted. So just be aware of that. And again, we talked about the site planning. They've clarified that they're going to keep the parking as is, So we do not need to worry about any landscaping or anything like that unless it in the future would become, if this project was approved, if it would need to be modified in order to meet the guidelines if a lot of the parking is torn up or anything for that like that. So, again, here's a close-up of the storefront and the granite, two different types, a dark around the main, and then this lighter around just the doors. And I'll just run around the building again. And this, I believe this elevation is not getting any revisions other than the floor above that would come off of this perimeter wall. And then this would be the east end that would face south limestone. and this is where the one of the proposed additions are going or is proposed to be located and this this property is just to the east across the parking lot from the old state building this is the corner of high and upper and then the church across the street and then these are the corners to the north across High Street. This is a building just to the south. And then we'll... And so then I will let, unless the board has any questions for me, I'll let Mr. Graves go ahead and answer any design questions that you might have. I don't think I have any questions. I feel like we talked about this a lot at the last time, and if we go down the list of questions, I mean, clearly this doesn't meet the guidelines that we are supposed to interpret. So I don't know that I have anything productive to add to the conversation. And again, this has nothing to do with whether or not you're doing the right thing by the neighborhood, the right thing by the association, the right thing by this building. We have a set of guidelines about how to address historic buildings, and this does not meet that. And I wouldn't sit here and try to argue with you that it meets all of us. I don't think that we could disagree about the extent to which there's no version design principles. Yeah. I hear you. There's a lot that it doesn't get. There's many I think it does, and it was never intended to be that. So certainly, if you want to ask about the specific, because I can see it now, and at least I can address that specific question, because I didn't want you to think we just ignored it. I don't know how to point it the right way here. But essentially the problem here is that this line right here runs parallel to the very outside of that granite. And when we met with Bluegrass Trust, went over this building with them. That granite was at point emphasis. And what can we do to preserve this? That's always that area of taste. And with the window well right here, it runs to that area too. So window wells and the commercial use are just, you've got to get the light underneath, but you can't have an open window straight into the interior of the office space like that underground. It presents a safety and other concerns. So this is our compromise, and this is the reason it's there. We would love it to just go straight up and down right there. We just physically can't do it. Sorry to interrupt, but you used this thing. I'm loud. I will. So the first person's ever given me a microphone. So, and then the same with the front, the reason that this extends exactly where it is, is specifically to cover that window well that's in the front side. Understand completely why you're asking, wouldn't it be better? Could we do more to do it differently? And if we could, we would. But this was the most we could do with the character and the structure of it, at the same time eliminating those window wells and preserving and not cutting through that big granite block in the front. I mean, I see that, but again, the guidelines say no additions on the fronts and the primary sides. And I do, I mean, I respect that and I hear you, but they say that, again, it's all should and preferred and suggests not. There is no rule that says specifically it cannot be done. And if someone's suggesting that, I'd really like to have a conversation with them about that issue because that's not the way the guidelines are written. That's not the way the statute's written. It is not a mandatory, this must be done one certain way, anything that doesn't comply can't be approved. I guess what we're saying is that we feel that those are important enough guidelines to say that we feel that it's important that we follow them. Sure, and that's a decision that absolutely the commission has a right to make or the board. I say commission, I get that back because I don't make any disrespect by that. The board absolutely has the discretion to say just that. And my only response to that can be a balancing of the interest here, and that is the preservation of this building that's currently slated for demolition. Well, and some of the comments that we made, I mean, one, we did feel like those were issues that were very important, and that's why we said that. But on the second side of that is the design of that doesn't create a really strong direction in kind of this bubble concept of enclosing those front things. when you step that third floor back, then you kind of have all of these different glass pieces hooking onto it, rather than it being a complete glass box that aligns on the front or on the upper street side, goes up to the third, goes across, and comes down. You've got a lot of back and forth, and so it does not read as a bubble. It doesn't read as a really strong element. So then it looks like we're just sticking storefront on the upper street side, and then you're sticking a third floor on top, and you're sticking a storefront on the front. So, tech. So basically we're saying the guidelines of not adding a third floor and not adding additions to the primary street frontage. As we talked about before, the lower level where it goes down into the ground is very problematic in terms of agency. I agree with you. And they have people that have to work late there and that kind of thing. Oh, I agree. That's an issue. I can understand that. And it's been there for 70 years, and the water distribution system taking it out is shot, and it's causing problems. Yep. And the idea was to put a glass bubble around this brick, and it solved those problems. I know it created other problems. The issue here is the dichotomy between a historic preservation guideline and a substantial rehab, which is what basically this is. And we have to balance the issues. It's a fair point. I mean, that's exactly right. There is no, I wish the building sat two stories above ground without window wells, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But then again, it wouldn't be this building. and who knows what use it would be, and if that's in fact what the building was. It just simply isn't. It's a building that is one story above ground, sort of raised a little bit, and then one story underground. And, yeah, I wish it was different. Can't fix it. Can only talk about how to change it and make it work. So I hear what you're saying, and I'm not considering to tell you there's not a second chunk on the front that we put on there. We tried to make it symmetrical as we could and leave as much of it open where the grade, and that's sort of the difference is where the grade comes up, and we're allowed to do it. But without those sections added on, it just doesn't allow the use for that commercial office space. But, you know, again, that's I we can disagree all we want about how much discretion the board has. But if the boards, whether it feels it's exercising it or not, chooses to say, no, we don't want this. I'm not going to try to convince you that you want or could want something that you don't. I want you to know that we put a lot of thought and work into this. And we feel that we have the support of both the neighborhood that lives around it and the Bluegrass Trust that's currently litigating over it in a way that we thought was a really great way. We still think is a really great way to preserve this building. And. But, you know, we're we're not developers. We're just here trying to find a place that we can put our office that would really enjoy. This is not the only building downtown. It's just one that we really liked and we saw a unique opportunity. and so we wanted to present this to you all and I wanted really to answer questions, I thought there was going to be questions more about why we could or couldn't do certain things and since I was so involved in the process from the very beginning and a lot of things on the building are because the Bluegrass Trust was very much about what they want, again I know they don't make decisions but they do hold up the litigation at this point in time on the current building so we've worked to address everything we can. Again, I'm happy to answer any other questions you have about why or how, but I certainly can't sit here and tell you the guidelines. If this was a perfect building that fit perfectly in the guidelines, I guess we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. We're looking for a compromise that hits as much as we can and still allows it to happen. And if it can't happen, then we can respect that. One of the questions that had been posed was the change in the elevations both on High Street and on Upper by adding the glass box. And I do understand the water issues related to the upper street side. And the high street side sounds more like it's security and vandalism issues. Is that what I'm hearing or not? So the worst water is actually right here. This is the low point of the, I don't know what you call it. Every time Steve and I talk on the phone, we get an argument because I can't say my word right. I don't know what building the world is called. But the below ground well, where it goes from here, you can sort of walk down and an APA ram is suggested in there to get APA access. As it goes this way, the ground gets higher and the building gets lower and the well gets steeper. And so all the water eventually began to pool at the very bottom of that wall. So it really includes two problems. One was, again, we need every last inch of this building to make it work. So it's square footage as well as? This doesn't really add square footage. It just allows us to use the interior square footage without a window well that abuts on the space. So to have an open to the street, eight foot or six foot deep window well that right now is covered in graffiti and people sleeping down there, we can't have that with an office. It's got to be both secure and have staff working late at night with lights on. We just can't do it. And so it's to keep the water out of that area. But the square footage of these two, I think the square footage comes from the addition of all of them. The back side is for the elevator shaft, because you can't go inside, and it's got ADA access. The front side and the side here, these two, these are both, these are window walls that we're seeking to bring the light in downstairs, because you can't lose the basement, because again, we need every last foot in the building. And so the light coming in was crucial to make it so we don't have people jammed into a basement office. But how do you keep the light that's coming into the underground floor while simultaneously keeping people from being able to be right next to the office windows? So one comment that I would have on that, if we're just talking about the high street side, is that you have lined that glass box up with the outer edge of the historic, the masonry. So it's flush. The masonry and the glass are flush. Yes. And so it doesn't look like it's two separate things anymore. So it looks like you've got just a masonry panel there next to a curtain wall, which is the glass. If that box, if that glass box was stepped in on the side, so it isn't flush there, but it's stepped in, So that you see the corner of the original building there, and you see the top of the original building there, then it would look like you have a glass box attached to an older building. You could see the outline of the older building. Okay. How much? And I ask that because I know right now the well goes. Yeah, I know. I know. But so, listen, I'm all for going back and saying, how could we do this better? So how much of an offset back would improve that issue? Well, you've got, I don't know, maybe two feet until you come to the window opening of the original window opening. Okay. That's the original edge of the building on the... No, I understand, but I also understand what... I'm just sorry I was I didn't want to say I said it wrong so I understand Steve but the question then is I mean yeah can we I don't know can we push that back and allow that corner to exist more is the one thing we talked about and then it was just we're trying to do less was actually having this go up and try to like wrap over so it looked like i don't know and then but then that's i would say step it down very recently i mean i would say you could step it down and i know you have a balcony up there you have a deck up there but the deck could be two levels but if you could step it down so that it reads as a separate have it be just the light box to the first floor to the what's essentially the first floor second floor it's hard again because of the kind of one and a half nature of it but what you're saying is step it down so that it was half of essentially what it is not necessarily i think she's saying step it down two feet and two feet and you know so it's it has a different roof line than the top roof line so that you're seeing that corner of the original building okay oh so you're like maybe step it in both directions kind of symmetrically and allow the corner of the building to pronounce itself there? Yes. Okay. So this was talked about at great length, this exact corner, at our last conceptual review, about the fact that at all the other locations there had been real intent to give a clear view of the edge, corner edge of the original building. And in this location, that did not occur. And that's part of the conversation that's going on. So it feels like we're saying the same things that we said last week. Right. But the thing that you're saying, at least from my perspective, none of that impacts the function. I can see how that could work, and all the things that my firm's concerned about it doing still work. So that's something I can go back and say, okay, how can we make that work? Steve's going to tell me I'm crazy. But I know we can. I mean, it being two stories and that balcony coming over, neither one of those were because it had to be that way for the building to work. Those were because we thought, when we talked to people, looked at it, we thought that's what looked best. But if we're told that we're missing some other piece, that's what we want to hear about. So going back and trying to find a way to bring that corner and highlight that corner, maybe so you could see it all the way across and down. Yes. I get that. Okay. I think Steve's original was actually, it was a shed roof here, but I thought that looked terrible, so I made him change it. And it showed a lot more. We put this model together so you could actually see what, and make comments. Yeah. I mean, I can visualize what's happening. I'm just probably not explaining well what. Well, it's been slow. We don't need to mess with it. You guys don't want to have to work on that. Well, unless you do, in which case, what am I telling you what you want to do? But so that's a thing that I have 100% no idea how, but I'm 100% sure that we can figure it out. Ms. Hill, I have. Yes. I wanted to kind of build on your all's comments. The reason for those step backs that are in the guidelines, it says a foot minimum, although I think that the idea of moving it further helps substantially. The concept is to be able to read where the historic building was originally and not think that there was that glass box built right on the corner originally. So we need to be able to follow the evolution of the historic structure through time. And then I think kind of one effect of building on the top and building around the corners, in this case, and then building with the glass, it is not a whole lot different than the approved demolition. The board is going to have to decide on that, is keeping this not resulting in a technical demolition of the historic structure by adding the modern additions to it. Thank you. Board, are there other questions? I don't have any questions. I understand what you want to do. I even like what you want to do in some ways, maybe. But I think the historic structure and those guidelines, I mean, I'm here because I believe in preserving the historic structure and following those guidelines. And this is just a conceptual review. So this is an approval or disapproval? Well, no, but it's important for that very purpose. So you're not hurting our feelings. Again, we're asking, could this work? And if... Well, wait a minute, you're hurting mine a little bit. Our question is just that, could this work? And if the answer is no, it cannot, that's one answer. If the answer is maybe it could with these other changes, that's a different answer. I don't want to waste your all's time or ours coming back for another conceptual review, just changing that front box in a way that highlights the building and then be told that's great, but really you've missed so many other things. You've not really hit. If there's 100 issues and we fix one and the 99 are still the real issues, then we can go through our process and agree to disagree about where the levels of review are for the different things that can be requested. I think, I don't think we're up here to design anything. So we could, all three of us are architects. We could all start putting our design on it, but you're working with an architect. And so. He doesn't have a vote, though, is a problem. So, you know, I think that front entry piece that we've already talked about is something that, you know, in exposing that corner, I still think that you know where that area well is and I wanted to see it connect and not step back because that just doesn't feel You know and I see why you did it for the windows, but me I'm not I was that can you just tell me exactly where you're just so I don't misunderstand the area well facing yeah right there Okay, we talked about continuing that and I get the scene where those interior windows are now I see why you couldn't do that, but then maybe the solution is is doing something else there. Maybe the front third floor comes forward to create that continuous box, or maybe that box there becomes something different and so that the language of the bubble reads different. I mean, there's a million different ways to address it than just doing the same thing that we saw last time. That would, you know... And it's the thing that bothers me is always that it's the fact that it goes here and then in and then up. That's what we're talking about the same thing, right? Exactly. Well, at least we can hate the same thing, whether we can get past it or not. It's not a matter of hating. It's a matter of trying to say, how is it reading the most clearly? And, I mean, that's the way I look at it. it's not a like or a dislike thing. Is it following the concept clearly? And the intent of the guidelines. Yes. And our job is to say, does it follow the intent of the guidelines? I mean, it's not an aesthetic view from our point. I didn't mean to be fair about it. That's what I was trying to get to, is I could think about how I want that to look, and I could think about how I could fix all of the different, you know, here, here, here, and here. But my bigger problem is that if you do all of that and you fix all the things that I think would make it look like this really perfect building and I don't think it looks like a bad building, it's still not going to meet the intent of the guidelines is what my fear is. I think there's, you know, the guidelines are written in such a way to try to not just preserve the historic building, but to be able to clearly read the historic building into the future. And to understand what's historic and what was added later. This muddies the waters because it covers up the edges of the original building. And you're working with two separate goals. Our goal is that you read the historic building. The problem with this building is the historic building has some problems that need to be covered up to be useful. you're trying to fix those things but that then goes against what we're trying to follow with the guidelines so struggling that's a good summary of the limit if I may ask the board if we found a way I want to say specific things because I don't want you to feel like I'm asking you to hold yourself to anything and I'm not at all. I understand that nothing you tell me today makes a difference down the road in regards to, so please, I'm not trying to exact a promise, but the third story is something that we have to have to make the project feasible. It's not something that we desire. Right, I understand that. One of the first things I think I heard today was the third floor doesn't work, or doesn't fit the guidelines. Is that an insurmountable thing in and of itself to where all the other changes aren't going to make a difference, or is there a way that third story, despite the fact that it is a third story, I mean, it just is. There's no, I can't call it anything differently. I'd love to find a different word for it, but we're talking about adding a story onto this building. Is there a way to add that story if we address all the other things about showing the building underneath it that could meet the guidelines sufficiently to allow approval? Potentially. Because I can work on that. Okay. Right. And I'm being asked that very sincerely because it's a question of is it worth going back to work on and really, I can understand all these things that you're telling me. And I understand what you're saying about the corners and the shape of the building. And we'll go back to the drawing board a little bit and we'll. So may I make one other observation? Please. And it is once again because of the relationship of this north corner. that we keep coming back to and was certainly a big part of the discussion last time, that as the additional Long High Street is stepped back to reveal clearly in the same way that at all other three corners it occurs. and so you have this glass box that's on the upper street across the third floor and a down on the parking lot side. Is the rendering of that high street elevation, which now is in many ways disconnected from the glass box, Is there a modern rendering of it that's clearly, as it shrinks down, that's clearly a contemporary 21st century rendering, but allows that glass box that goes over the original building that would then allow that historic building to really read by not also having just a purely glass box on the front of High Street? Am I making myself clear or not? Here's what I've understood. I'm saying this wrong. I'm going to try to refurbate. I think what you're asking me is, can you see the building? Can you look at the building from High Street with whatever we're proposing to deal with the window well issue and all that issue, where you can still see without question the entire historic building of High Street. You can say, there's the building, whereas the way this goes up and blends over, it asks the question of, wait, was that? And we try to differentiate that in materials, but if I'm- But they, I mean, those kind of materials, those could have been done in the 1950s. Okay. But it's got to be very, very clear that you can see that. And it doesn't have to, if that's a window well, it also doesn't have to have that spandrel panel in it. I mean, it can be a visual. The spandrel panel is the mirrored. I think that was done. Steve had that today. I was like, why is that there? And it was, I think, done to try to bring the character of the windows that are already there. The band. But we want to see the band, the original band. Okay. And I understand. And this is why I shouldn't be allowed to make decisions like this. I'm looking at it saying what's really neat about the building, one of my favorite things about it is that line. I love the line across. And so I hear what you're saying. But, I mean, there can be a line somewhere else. Yeah. But if that's showing us the original building from High Street, we need to read the original building. We don't need any other lines in there. Again, I mean, that goes back to design, but the guidelines are saying we've got to be able to see the historic building. And we can do so much work on that happily, and that's why I wanted to ask that question about if the third story just says no, no matter what, I respect it, and we're just stuck. If there's any flexibility where that's a thing, but we can work on all the rest with everything you've told me, let's go back and try again, and we'll come back with a new, more changed up design if we can come up with one and do that. And I'm not asking you to commit. I get that you can't do that. I'm not suggesting you can. But I do think it would be fair if you're telling me, look, I don't care what you come back with. We can't allow a third story. I can respect it. I just can't fix it because I can't build, and I know that was a question, can you build an addition on the parking lot? I can't. We need every last parking spot and frankly 50 more. Parking is our, we have clients that come in, enormous volume of clients. We have staff that parks there. That's one of the reasons that this, we're willing to spend the money on this is to have the parking for our people there. Also, just the height of it, we would have to build such a large thing to make up for that square footage. Any comments from the board on that question? Do you have any thoughts on the third floor? May I just make an observation? I think the board needs to be careful, given that this is conceptual review and we're not making absolute statements. We're listening to your comments. we're asking questions to give you feedback on yours, and that the question that you're posing in many ways is part of the actual submittal, and then that question gets fully answered. And I respect that. I just think it would be helpful to us to know as part of the design, I mean, if the real issue, the biggest issue is the third floor, telling me that would be very helpful. If the biggest issue is the visibility of the building shape and the old building from High Street and the sort of incongruity of that upper street side, which I agree completely on it. I don't know how to fix it, but I've got smart guys here who know how. not high street I don't want to say it's easy but like we don't want that box there we just couldn't come up with another way to look clean to protect that window well so that we've got a hundred ideas on that the upper street side it's a different issue but we can work on that too the third story I just I can't even begin to I can change the shape of it but I can't make it go away so I just didn't know how big an issue that work from a headline perspective? It's a big issue. It's something we have to really struggle with to say, is it, I mean, we totally understand programmatically, site-wise, why that, why you've proposed it. But to allow an additional story is a hard decision to make. If we were going to say no, absolutely, we would have said no an hour ago or last time. I didn't know it was silly, and I'm sorry. No, I just mean we are. It's hard to think about this one. And we understand a lot of the complexities. And we want to see the building survive and see that building. And so we can't promise that a third floor isn't a deal killer. But we also wouldn't still be talking about it if we knew it absolutely was. And that's very clear. Again, I was trying to be very clear. I'm not asking you guys to make a commitment. I just kind of want to know what. Because we can't. I know. Yeah, I know. We're not making a. I don't take it as one. I'm not asking you to. I appreciate it. Thank you for your time. I love you. Any final comments? I don't think I have any final comments. Okay. Any final comments? Thank you both very much. I really do. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. For struggling through this process. I think staff actually had a problem. Okay. We understand how hard the board works and we want to make sure that the applicant gets everything they can within the guidelines. But staff's internal discussions, this amount of change on the high street and upper street corner, it completely changes the historic integrity of this structure. So we think that that needs to be thought about very strongly. And that is why the staff asked those questions. Has there been any thought? I know the parking is very important, but is there a way to get an addition on the ground on the south or the east corners? And then work from there. it would make it much more easy to come up with a design that does meet the guidelines. I don't want to answer from back there because I know you kept... Yes, please use the microphone. I wish I could say there was. The building is, I want to say, 14,000 square feet, almost 15,000 square feet in one story and below. about 7,500 each. Literally, we're talking about adding about 7,500 square feet of usable square footage. It's a little weird because of the setbacks, but it's a whole other building of equal size to go above ground to have the same square footage. Because, so it, I don't know how else to say it. There is no room on the property to put that much square footage that wouldn't essentially encompass the rest of the property that we have for parking. And then we can't use the buildings. And it doesn't solve the problems of the window wells, which is how we got to these boxes in the first place, which is how we, I mean, those things on the front and the side and the back, as far as allowing the elevator access on one side, the AD access on the back, the separate exit, and then blocking the window wells on the high street and upper street. they don't change even if we don't put anything on the top of the building. Right. No, I understand that. I think, I don't know if it would meet the guidelines or not, but there might be a way to do a lower glass addition over those window wells that could be like an outdoor pavilion type. Not outdoor, but it could be kind of a gathering space. But keep it low and not impact the whole north and west elevations. So you mentioned a shed roof earlier. Possibly a shed glass enclosure that doesn't go up to the second floor but is much lower. So you kind of still see the building around and above it. Yeah, I mean, it doesn't fix the square footage on the top. I know. And so- I'm trying to just think of one issue at a time. Yeah, no, and I get it. And we've, again, I don't know how to say it except that this is not the most efficient way to add the footage that we need. It's the only- Definitely not. Right, like it's not, I mean, economically, if there's no building there, a new building's cheaper than what we're talking about doing here. But that's just not what we want to get. I mean, that's not what we're asking. I'm just saying that to explain that we don't come to this lightly. No, and we don't assume that in any way. And we appreciate, you know, when I say we appreciate you struggling through this, I mean that you've done a very good faith effort in struggling through it. We're all kind of trying to put the pieces together. And we do appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this. We have looked at any way to do this without it being up. Because our initial discussion, frankly, with the Bluegrass Trust was, we looked at this, could we just do the building as it is? That was our initial plan. And it was only in getting a full measurement. Steve hired someone to come out and do all the 3D renderings. We planned out all the spaces. And we learned doing it that we just, essentially, we'd have to build this office and then build another one somewhere else, which defeats the whole purpose of building your primary office space. So then it was, can we put a second thing somewhere else so we don't have to ask for this? And we can't. I mean, we really couldn't find a way to make it work. But you know, I mean, because the two issues, again, are we're not able to read the original building on that corner it's really being hidden so we have a concern with that that's a very important guideline and balancing that also with the third floor it's it's those two things juggling those two things we're going to fix the reading of the building we're going to find a way to make that work we're going to try and i will respect that that still may not solve the problem but i appreciate you give me the chance to try to find a way to do it and so we can have this conversation again and hopefully um hopefully it'll be better and it's still not going to be i'm still going to be telling you the same thing which i know i'm asking for a third story um and i still understand if at the end of the day you tell me it's just we can't approve it uh but i appreciate you taking the time with me and i will i understand i think now better than i did before what you mean when you say reading the whole building and so there's some designs in here that literally came from me again it's a terrible idea I get that but it happened and so it didn't always look exactly like that and we can do a lot I'm sure we could do a lot so we're gonna do that I feel at least encouraged enough to go back and not just throw up my hands and say forget it Steve we quit so we're gonna not quit and try it again good thank you so much appreciate it we really I do appreciate it. Thank you. So is there any board and... Am I good? You're good. Thank you. So staff and board, are there any remaining business for us to take care of? Do I hear a move to adjourn? Second. Thank you. The board's now adjourned. Thank you. you