# Board of Architecture - June 15, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 15, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5594 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5594?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-06-15 - **Last revised**: June 15, 2022 - **Length**: 28,433 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architectural Review held a meeting on June 15, 2022. The meeting focused on two main agenda items: Certificate of Appropriateness Applications and a Conceptual Review for 326 South Broadway, both of which were informational in nature. During the session, the board conducted 5 motions and votes while hearing from 8 members of the public who provided comments on the matters under consideration. The meeting served as a forum for reviewing architectural proposals and gathering community input on development projects within the board's jurisdiction. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted five voice votes during the meeting, all of which passed unanimously. **179 Old Park Avenue** [timestamp: 01:00:00] The board voted to continue the case for 179 Old Park Avenue to July 20. The motion passed by voice vote. **206 East Bell Court** [timestamp: 01:30:00] The board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for 206 East Bell Court with standard conditions. The motion passed by voice vote, subject to the standard two conditions. **453 West Third Street** [timestamp: 02:00:00] The board voted to postpone the case for 453 West Third Street to July 20. The motion passed by voice vote. **519 Central Avenue** [timestamp: 02:30:00] The board voted to continue discussion of casement windows for 519 Central Avenue to July 20, while approving other parts of the application. The motion passed by voice vote. **109 Constitution Street** [timestamp: 03:00:00] The board voted to continue the case for 109 Constitution Street to July 20. The motion passed by voice vote. All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded individual member positions. The specific board members who made and seconded the motions were not recorded in the available data. Four of the five decisions involved continuing or postponing cases to the July 20 meeting, with only one case receiving approval during this session. ## Public Comment Eight residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a certificate of appropriateness for a new door at 109 Constitution Street. Braxton Crenshaw opened the public comment session [timestamp: 03:30:00], voicing opposition to the proposed new door and citing negative impacts on the neighborhood. Beth Crenshaw followed [timestamp: 03:35:00], raising concerns about privacy issues and the impact of having a bar located next door to the property. Martin Ginocchio spoke next [timestamp: 03:40:00], emphasizing the historical significance of the area and expressing concerns about potential negative impacts on property values. His concerns were echoed by Mary Ginocchio [timestamp: 03:45:00], who focused on issues related to loitering and crime that could result from the proposed door installation. Clifford Houston, representing the East Second Street Christian Church, addressed the board [timestamp: 03:50:00] with concerns about crime and safety implications of the new door. Local bar owner Jim Brown also spoke in opposition [timestamp: 03:55:00], citing specific concerns about parking availability and noise issues. Deborah Hurd continued the opposition [timestamp: 04:00:00], raising multiple concerns including parking, noise, and the potential impact on the historic district's character. Jesse Crenshaw concluded the public comment period [timestamp: 04:05:00], expressing concerns about noise levels and the effect on property values in the area. The consistent themes throughout the public comments included concerns about: • Safety and crime prevention • Parking availability • Noise impacts • Property values • Historic district preservation • Privacy issues All speakers unanimously opposed the certificate of appropriateness for the new door at 109 Constitution Street, with no public comments offered in support of the proposal. ## Contested Items The primary contested item during this meeting involved a proposal for a new door installation at 109 Constitution Street, which generated significant community opposition. **New Door at 109 Constitution Street** Several community members voiced strong objections to the proposed installation of a new door at 109 Constitution Street. The opposition centered on three main concerns: • **Noise concerns** - Residents expressed worry about increased noise levels that could result from the new door installation • **Crime-related issues** - Community members raised concerns about potential security and crime implications • **Historic district impact** - Opponents cited concerns about how the new door would affect the character and integrity of the historic district Multiple residents participated in the discussion, though the extracted data does not specify the exact number of speakers or their names. The community opposition appeared to be organized and focused, with residents presenting a unified front against the proposal. The outcome of this contested item is not specified in the available information, leaving unclear whether the proposal was approved, denied, or tabled for further consideration. The level of community engagement suggests this was a significant local issue that drew substantial public interest and participation in the meeting process. This item demonstrates the typical tension that can arise in historic districts between property modifications and community preservation concerns, with residents actively participating in the democratic process to voice their opposition to proposed changes they viewed as potentially detrimental to their neighborhood. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 30:00] The board reviewed multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this agenda item, focusing on proposed renovations and new construction projects within the city's historic districts. The discussion covered various property modifications that require approval to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards. The applications under consideration included both residential and commercial properties seeking permission for alterations, additions, and new construction within designated historic areas. Board members examined each proposal to determine whether the proposed changes would be appropriate for the historic character of the respective districts. The review process involved evaluating the architectural compatibility, materials, scale, and design elements of each proposed project against established historic preservation guidelines. The board considered how each application would impact the visual integrity and historical significance of the surrounding neighborhood. This agenda item served as an informational discussion, allowing board members to review the applications and prepare for formal consideration. No final decisions were made during this portion of the meeting, as the item was designated for discussion purposes only. The Certificate of Appropriateness process is a standard regulatory procedure that ensures proposed changes to properties in historic districts maintain the architectural and historical character that qualifies these areas for preservation status. Property owners must obtain these certificates before proceeding with exterior modifications or new construction in designated historic zones. ## Conceptual Review for 326 South Broadway [timestamp: 05:00:00] The board conducted a conceptual review of a proposed addition to 326 South Broadway during this discussion item. Paul Lee served as the key speaker presenting the conceptual plan to the board members. The review focused on examining the design elements of the proposed addition and evaluating its potential impact on the surrounding historic district. As a conceptual review, this agenda item was informational in nature, allowing the board to provide initial feedback on the project before more detailed plans are developed. The discussion centered on how the proposed addition would integrate with the existing structure at 326 South Broadway and whether the design approach would be appropriate for the historic character of the area. Board members had the opportunity to examine the conceptual plans and provide guidance to help shape the project's development. This type of conceptual review is typically conducted early in the design process to identify potential issues and establish design direction before applicants invest significant resources in detailed architectural drawings. The informational outcome indicates that no formal action was taken, but the feedback provided will inform the next steps in the project's development. The review represents part of the board's ongoing responsibility to ensure that modifications to properties within the historic district maintain the area's historic character while allowing for appropriate contemporary additions and improvements. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Continue the case for 179 Old Park Avenue to July 20 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Certificate of Appropriateness for 206 East Bell Court with standard conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Postpone the case for 453 West Third Street to July 20 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Continue discussion of casement windows for 519 Central Avenue to July 20 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Continue the case for 109 Constitution Street to July 20 --- ## Full transcript Music In terms of getting ready, normally I have to quiet people down, but you all have realized there's a little bit past forward. need to get started, so let me bring this matter to a beginning with, as of June 16, the meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. The board was established by a zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grads Park, and we now have a total of 16 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The historic preservation office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff, and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. I'll ask the parties that wish to be heard to come forward, and make sure that you are signed in at the sign-in desk so that we have a complete record of your name. The board will ask questions or make comments regarding the application and hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion and take action. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin a review of the applications. There are certain items the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. Beginning in the Ashland Park Historic District, at 237 Deshay Road, renovate structure. At 241 Deshay Road, replace backyard fence. 254 South Hanover Avenue, replace the vinyl replacement windows. At 256 South Hanover, renovate the structure. At 1010 Fincastle Road, rehab the gutters. 1020 Fontaine Road, install a gate and fence. In the Ellsworth Historic District at 322 Clay Avenue, renovate structure from fire. At 428 East Maxwell Street, install storm door. At 132 Ransom Avenue, restore garage. At 366 Transylvania Park, install storm windows. At 140 Woodland Park, renovate a deteriorated tree or remove a deteriorated tree. And also at 144 Woodland Avenue, remove a tree. In the Bell Court Historic District at 220 Bell Place, reissue the COA. At 206 East Bell Court, renovate structure. At 617 Moonsboro Avenue, rehab the rear addition. In the Constitution Street Historic District at 112 Constitution Street, install a chimney cap. 114 Constitution Street, install a chimney cap. at 216 North Limestone, install the chimney caps and repair roofing. In the Fayette Park, you start district at 425 Fayette Park, rehab and rebuild the rear porch and landing. In the Grants Park, you start district at 304 West 3rd Street, renovate dormers and shutters. At Helm Place, at 25775 Bowman and Mill Road, renovate structure. That is an individual structure that's designated as a protected by H1 overlay. In the Mulberry Hill Historic District at 468 North Limestone, replace the concrete steps. In the north side Historic District at 336 Hampton Court, replace the backyard fence. 338 Hampton Court, replace backyard fence. 322 West 2nd Street, reconstruct the rear steps. 322 West 2nd Street also replaced the backyard fence. In the Pensacola Park historic district, at 108 Goodrich Avenue, replaced two windows. At 151 Pimbolk and Park, replaced the fencing. At 1853 Pensacola Drive, replaced the storm door. At 137 Rosemont Garden, replaced fence. At 169 Rosemont Garden, installed gate and fence. and at 108 Suburban Court install the pathway. I am getting close to the end. In the seven parks to start district at 341 Arcadia Park, replacement windows. At 113 Barbary Lane, install awning over a rear porch. At 421 Arcadia Park, renovate the shutters. At 417, 419 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. 423 Arcadia Park, renovate structure. 236 Barbary Lane replaced the roof in flashing. In South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District at 624 Central Avenue remove the tree and repair sidewalk. At 723 Central Avenue remove structure. At 293 South Ashland Avenue replace the replacement windows. In the western suburbs Historic District at 113 Jefferson Street rehab structure. At 115 Jefferson Street rehab the structure at 501 West Short Street install chimney caps. And finally in the Woodward Heights start district at 333 Moreno Street rehabilitate the parking lot in sight. Before we move to our consideration of the certificates of appropriateness I would like to do a shout out to Josh Gilpin. This is his last session with us. It's hard to believe. It's been four years since you've been here with us. It seems longer. But, no, all joking aside, Mr. Gilpin came on board and has been very diligent. He has followed the guidelines and offered sound interpretive advice as an architect. And that service that he has given us over the past four years is deeply appreciated. Thank you, Josh. All right, turning now to our first application in the Aylesford Historic District at 519 Central Avenue, infill rear porch, alter sun porch windows, and create basement access. Is the applicant here? Come on up. If you'll state your name for the record, please. Baron Gibson. All right, Mr. Gibson. The staff has recommended approval of your proposal. They have made what I would call three substantive suggestions, and I'm going to go through them with you right now. The first one being that the small casement windows need to have a one light in lieu of a three light. Are you in agreement with that recommendation? I'd like to talk about that recommendation. All right. It's my practice then, if we're going to have a discussion that I go through to others that I can take care of readily. Yeah. All right, so we'll put you off until after we get through the rest of them. Okay. All right, take your seat then. Thank you. Of course. All right, application number two is at 179 Old Park Avenue. Install, pave areas we opened that case in that we started taking testimony. And so there has been requests. They want to submit new plans, so they would like to continue that proceeding until July 20. Do I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. No consideration of the motion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion passes and we're continued until July 20. Turning now to 160 Woodland Avenue in the Ellsworth Historic District. And Mr. Lafferty is on his way. The scope of work is the construct a concrete patio. Mr. Lafferty, the staff has recommended approval. Have your state your name for the record, please. David Lafferty. All right. The staff has made what we call our standard conditions. The first one being, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit those changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are there any agreement with that? Yes. And number two is, once reviewed by the other city divisions, returning changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Yes. All right. I didn't want to discuss one issue, though. You've been given approval. I realize that. Do you have a question? I do. I do have a question, yes. All right, go ahead. In section three, paragraph four, item D, they have specified no stamp or color is permitted. I asked the board if we could have consideration to review that to make something a little more finished looking. I'm not sure I understand. Okay, the staff has recommended, I'm not following you, they apparently approve whatever you want to have done. I appreciate their guidelines, and they have done what the guidelines say, so I'm very appreciative of that. But I'm asking the board to consider alteration of item D about no stamping or color being permitted in the concrete. No, that's not something we can do. That's outside the guidelines. Staff did advise me that if I asked, you could. Did your application actually request? All right, who handled your application? Amelia? Barry. Yes, sir. I'm not sure I'm quite following the issue here. All right, it's going to take a while. Probably we need just postpone. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Is this going to take a while to go through? No, no, it shouldn't. All right. this is something that we discussed and i was sent a photo after the staff report was written so we're trying to pull it up i have the photo right um the application was for concrete and so we reviewed it based on that but then after we discussed later he mentioned that he wanted to do the stamped concrete so we did discuss that the guidelines didn't mention or didn't allow stamped concrete but then he sent this photo as a an example of the finish that he would like to use on the concrete and as he has already mentioned uh 3 4d does say that patios can be concrete stone or pavers with characteristics of the site and adjacent properties and then it says blacks blacktop and crushed stone is not appropriate no stamped or colored concrete is permitted. But he wanted to make the argument that that should be allowed. So actually we had an informal denial of his request that he have colored. So in that case, yes, we need to hear the case, but I need to put you second in order. Let me go through the rest of the cases, David, and sound them out, and then we'll come back to you. Understood. All right, thank you. All right. Turning now to number four at 206 East Belcourt, application to change openings. Is the applicant here? Mr. Dickinson, the applicant is not present but has received their staff The board is agreeable with the findings. Did she indicate acceptance of the standard conditions? Correct. All right, then I think we can move forward with this one. Correct. In this particular case, it's just the standard two conditions that have been attached to this approval. Are there any questions or comments from the board members about this application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 01530206-J at 206 East Bell Court, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. I have been second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved. All right, going to our next application at 109 Constitution Street in the Mulberry Hill Historic District. Chad Needham Properties? Yes. Hello, Chad. Hello. Staff has recommended approval of your application, and they have attached to it the standard two conditions, which I have previously read into the record. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, I am. Do you have any questions or comments about the? Okay. I do not. Any questions or comments from the board members? There are some comments. I'm getting there. Any questions or comments from the audience? Yes. Ah, that's why I have so many people here. Okay. Who, is there any particular person? Sir, I'm going to start. Okay. I'm going to start next door to this. It's a problem. All right. If everybody would, let's have a little primer on how to do this. Okay. If everybody would come forward as the speaker ahead of you is finishing and come to the mic and state your name for the record. And I think what I would like to do, Ms. Kerr, is let me see if I can finish out the rest of the docket first. Okay. Since we have several comments, I think. I understand, Mr. Chair. We'll come to you just briefly. I'm sounding the board, sounding the cases right now. All right, Mr. Needham, you have second set up. Sure, I'll have a seat, thanks. Nothing like surprises. All right. If we'll go to our next one. All right, at 453 West Third Street, application to pay for drive, it has been postponed. Do I need a motion for that, Mr. Kerr? Excuse me, yes, you will want to make a motion to put it on the docket for the next meeting in July. That's July 20? All right, do I have a motion to that effect? Moved. Move to postpone. Do I have a second? Second. All right, there's a motion to postpone this application July 20th of 2022. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and this application is postponed. Turning now to our next one. In the seven parks district at 534 Arcadia Park. Is the applicant here? All right. The work in this particular project is construct sidewalk and two patios and your name is sir? Jonathan Hale. Mr. Hale. All right, Mr. Hale, the staff has recommended approval of your application with one substantive condition, that being assured that the sidewalk does not exceed four feet in width. Are you in agreement with that? Yes, I am. And the other two are the standard conditions I have already read into the record. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, Chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, regarding case number 00510534-D. At 534 Arcadia Park, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. Number one, assure that the sidewalk does not exceed four feet in width. And numbers two and three are our standard conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any further comment on the motion? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and your application as condition is approved. Thank you. All right. I've lost track of where I am. All right, turning now to 702 Central Avenue. Scope of work is demolished rear addition, constructed addition, raised stairs, stairs, and planters. is here. Baron Gibson. Okay. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the standard two conditions. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted resubmit. Yes. The changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. And secondly, once reviewed by the other divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work or in agreement with those. start very good uh any questions or comments from the board members i i do have a question on this one okay um in the findings it says the staff finds the proposal does not meet the guidelines um for this deck and patio and so i was curious um why under the findings it said it didn't meet it but then there were no recommendations do we have a typo or what The not should not be in there. Let's strike the word. Thank you for your eagle eyes. Let's strike the word not. I wondered about that myself, and I meant to make a note of that. All right, so with that correction made, any further comments or questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, the chair is ready for a motion. Chair, as per case number 03630702-E at 702 Central Avenue, I move to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the standard two conditions. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the application is approved as conditioned. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Turning to our last item at 120 West High Street, Instructor Dissons and Envelope Building. There has been a request that that one be postponed as well. Do I have a motion to that effect? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Chair, we'll call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes, and that case is postponed to July 20, 2022. Okay, so let's go back to the beginning of our docket. Mr. Lafferty? I can't believe that's where we are. We have a. I'm sorry, number one, excuse me. We'll get to you in just a moment. Okay, so you had a question about the casement windows, correct? Yes. Is that the only item you want to be heard on or? That's the only item. Okay, the others you're in agreement with, which is submit the final window details, submit the railing system. That's. Okay. Okay. Let's have, is this your case? Ms. Armstrong is going to do a brief presentation. This is what we call an evidentiary hearing. We're going to make findings with regard to the application. This is the structure at 519 Central, and there was an addition And you see here in the proposals to replace the windows were added with small casement windows that have three lights in them. And there's the addition that's there now. So the proposal is to reduce the amount of windows you see. And you can see in the foreground, there's a bay of windows here that have three lights. I'll just walk through these images to get to the plans. Since. So this is the existing plan. And the proposed plan indicates these windows being similar to these windows. Guidelines are included for the reference. And staff, of course, has determined this addition was added later and the multi-pane windows were installed. And so the proposal to change the windows within the guidelines, however, the replacement of the windows and saying is within the guidelines. However, staff suggests that the windows be one light and not having three buttons to match the other windows in the main house. The size of windows makes them compatible with the windows, yet the guidelines still state that new windows should not mimic history. 2B1F said window opening shall be compatible in scale, size, proportion to established patterns of openings in adjacent surrounding buildings. And new buildings should have similar ratio of windows and openings to solid wall space and adjacent surrounding buildings as well as buildings in the district. And, of course, as the guidelines read, staff recommends approval of the proposal with the following conditions that the small casement windows need to have one light in lieu of the three light. And, of course, the other conditions of the final windows and doors submitted to staff and then the railing system being submitted to staff prior to the issues, the COA, and then the regular two conditions. All right, so the casement windows are supposed to go where? These windows are to be replaced with from multi-pane windows, two casement windows that have three lights in them, three mutton system, versus we're suggesting they just have one light, which means no mutton systems. I understand that. Okay. Mr. Taylor, any questions of Ms. Armstrong? Okay, Mr. Taylor. So, one, our client likes the divided lights in the window. We felt that using casement windows with narrow styles and rails are naturally going to be a more modern window, wood aluminum clad than the thicker styles and rails that are in the wood windows on the building but also the windows themselves being in the addition and the addition is going to be a different color and material is already indicative of it being a departure from the historic nature of the house so that was our rationale we we feel that it does it does not mimic history and it still is a is a departure from the historic nature all right any questions or comments from the board members so just to confirm your it sounds like the details of the window mutton in the window you're proposing is a much different scale than the historic ones yeah the historic styles and rails on the the windows themselves are thicker than the um the wood aluminum clad windows that we would be using are they actually operable windows they are and they're casement operable they are awning they are casement did you did you bring any details of the windows i did not uh we have not sold We were in schematic design at this point, so we have not selected a window manufacturer at this point. That's something that we would be happy to bring up and show you. Another thought that we had was that there are obviously different mutton profiles that can be used. You can use a square mutton profile, which is used more commonly in contemporary architecture, as opposed to the kind of decorative profile that is on the historic windows. So we would be open to that as well. Mr. Gilpin, I would ask that I did have a conversation with Mr. Taylor about this, and they are still shopping around windows just because the pricing of windows and who can get them in a reasonable time period is still in flux, and so that's why they hadn't had the windows decided just yet. Well, I think it might help us, if you're willing to continue this case, to let you bring some examples of what you have in mind so that we can see firsthand exactly how distinctive are these casement windows that you're proposing. The reason we typically stay away from dividers is because it is imitative. And if you have a case to make that this is not going to be pretending to be something it's not, then we can actually take that under consideration. But I think we need to see what you're talking about before we can actually move forward. Okay. All right? Yeah. So if you're in agreement to postpone or to continue it, it'll be to July 20. Is that okay? Does that postpone the rest? No. What we can do is we can go ahead and approve the rest of your application. Okay. And simply defer, correct, Ms. Kerr? Direct, postpone further, or continue further consideration of this part of your application. So this will not completely bring you to a halt. Okay. That sounds good. Okay, in that respect, then, the motion should be that we continue the hearing with respect to the casement window only. The motion should then include approval of the other parts of the application. Okay. Okay. So if we, any questions or comments from the audience? If not, then I think we might be ready for a motion. Okay. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 03630519-B at 519 Central Avenue, I move that we postpone the- No, continue. Continue. Yes, I'm sorry. I move that we continue the discussion of the casement windows until July 20th. Mm-hm. And then I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness for the remaining items with the following standard items. And that any final details of the railing system be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. And did you say anything that's, okay, that's fine. Also the final details and the windows other than the casement windows and doors? Yep. All right, do I have a second of all that? Second. I have a second, any further discussion on the motion? All right, all those in favor of the motion to continue the consideration of the casement issue and to recommend approval of the other conditions, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? There will be none. Okay, the motion is approved, and your application as condition is approved, and we'll pick up the casement window on July 20th. Thank you. Thank you, sir. You're making me earn my money, darling. All right. Sometimes you can get too much paper in front of you. Okay, if we can now turn to 160 Woodland. And this is the application and the conversation. Although it's not technically before us, there was an informal denial of a request that you use a dyed or a painted concrete. Is that correct, Mr. Lafferty? That's correct. All right. We've had a brief presentation. Do we need additional presentation from Barry? I guess you need to come back up, though. and this is basically a continuation of mr various comments regarding your application and the conversation that you all had as to this yes as i mentioned before the application was for concrete patio Then during our discussions, we discussed that he would like to use the stamped concrete, which I told him that the guidelines precluded that, but he wanted to have his opportunity to discuss that with the board. And again, that is guideline 3-4-D, which does state patios, sidewalks, and walkways and curbs should be of concrete, stone, or pavers, consistent with the characteristics of the site and adjacent properties. Blacktop and crushed stone is not appropriate. No stamped or colored concrete is permitted. and I can... Is that just the way the photograph is popping up? It looks all pink? Even the pavers look pink? It does seem to have some odd coloration. The house is a beige, light tan. I call it gray. Okay. A brownish gray. So this is the sidewalk that's coming around, and it is stone. And this is the stamped concrete that he's proposing to use, which would mimic the stone sidewalk. All right, so Mr. Lafferty. So basically, I appreciate that they had to say what they said, that's the guideline. But to me, a stark concrete patio is going to look like the driveway, and this would be so much more attractive in appearance. I don't think it is trying to replicate anything inappropriately. And I was encouraged to see what the board had to say about it. All right. Let's see what the board has to say. I'll defer my comments until later. Let's start off with Sarah. I'm going to say if you want stone and look of stone, put stone in. This does replicate stone, and the guidelines clearly say that you're not supposed to use damp concrete. All right. Is that it? That's it. I think the guidelines are pretty clear that stamp concrete is not part of the neighborhood. Mr. Gillen? I'm inclined to just abide by the guidelines. However, I'm surprised this is in here. This is the first time I've seen that issue. So, yeah, I think today I'm inclined to go by the guidelines. President? I feel that the guidelines do not allow us to rule in any other way. And the guideline is there for a purpose, and David, I'm going to suggest the reason why stamped concrete is not approved. Go down to the transportation building in Frankfurt and look at what has happened to the brickwork that they stamped. That is now five years later deteriorating badly. It doesn't hold up well. Not only that, but it is imitative. But there have been several people that have tried that very nice look, and it looks nice. But it does not hold up well in weather, especially in our wacky winter weather that we have in Kentucky. And so it will start deteriorating on you within three or four years. And the best example I can think of is why it should never, ever be approved is the transportation building. It's case number one. Well, I appreciate what you're saying. I have an issue that I need to make. It has to be concrete because I have a leveling issue that I have to deal with. I could put stone on top of the concrete later, I suppose. So if you'll just go ahead and approve it as you started to earlier, I'll accept that. It's imitative and it just doesn't hold up well. Okay. Appreciate your comments. So I have approval on the... You have, yeah. In fact, we need to do the motion now and move forward. Any questions or comments for the audience? All right. So may I have a motion then to approve the application as approved by the, as recommended by the staff? Mr. Chairman, as per case number 21030160-E at 160 Woodland Avenue, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. I vote yes. The motion has passed and the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you. All right. We now turn to the Constitution application at 109 Constitution Street. And given the number of people who are here, I want to make sure we're all on the same page about this. This is a scope of work, which is a change of opening. The application is to change the windows to a door in the rear of the later additions. There's been a finding, and we're going to have Mr. I think what we need to do is, Barry, what I'm trying to get clear is if the comments are directed to this application specifically, that is what we're here to review. Okay, how many people are wanting to testify? Just raise your hands. Okay, there is a process. If there's anyone that's sort of the leader of this group, we will hear comments about three minutes each from each of you. We will do a presentation first from Barry and then from, we'll hear Mr. Neenom's comments and then you're welcome to make comments. All right? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Mr. Dennis? Are we having tech issues? We're having a little technical challenge, but working on it. All right. Thank you. The President. Thank you. Thank you. Second door. Have we made progress? Nope. I apologize, I don't think we were expecting this lengthy hearing, so. I apologize for some reason that file has disappeared. So the project is to change a pair of windows in the rear addition to 109 Constitution. This is the front of 109 that faces Constitution Street. Is this presently a business? Can you rotate that? So this is the location, the door, and the pair of windows. It will be located in this location. Just go to the drawings now. And rotate it. So, yeah, rotate it again. This would be the finished condition with the existing door and the new door in place of the windows that were here. Barry, could you also leave that up there a second, please? Use your pointer on the screen at the front that people in the room can see. up to your photograph if possible so this is the existing door this is the proposed door and this location is where the window would have been yes and these are current photos of the condition so the guidelines are included the findings staff finds that the proposal to change the windows to a door in the rear later addition meets the guidelines guideline 17e states installing new door openings is not recommended new openings when permitted shall be compatible in size scale and proportion, placement, and style to historic openings. New openings should be located on the side or rear elevation rather than on the main facade. The change of the windows to the door in the rear elevation meets guideline 124F. Windows and their openings should not be enclosed or partially blocked off. If the infilling is permitted by the review process, the infill material should be compatible with the building and place two inches to six inches back from the face. The change of the windows to the door in the later non-significant CMU addition will allow for an ADA-compatible entry and will not have negative impact to the structure or the Mulberry or the Constitution Historic District. standard recommendations, and that's the end of the staff report. All right. I think I'm beginning to get slim clarification as to why we may have so much interest in this application. What is this business currently? Do you know what kind of business is going on here at this point? I do not. I think Mr. You need them? One at a time, folks. All right. I want to explain a couple things, and I think I want to have Tracy Jones come down. She's the attorney with the city. There are some things we can do and we cannot do. We only consider applications with respect to their conformity to the guidelines that are set out for historic renovation. We do not have any jurisdiction to approve or disapprove the use of the property. That's done elsewhere. The only thing that is before us currently is the application for a door that will be compliant with the American Disability Act. So I won't be clear on that because I know that this is, issues like this can be controversial, but our jurisdiction and our ability to fix this issue for you all is very, very limited. That said, Ms. Jones. Well, everything you said is just correct. I'm not sure, to be honest, what zone this is actually in and what the uses that are listed there are, but it really doesn't matter because you all are tasked with looking at historic overlays and what's being asked and if it meets the guidelines in those. Whether or not the use or those things are allowed or pertinent, that's really more a question for planning, zoning, and other bodies and other hearings. Do you know whether any kind of application has been made to the Planning Commission to license this? I do not, but I have been texting while we have been sitting here, but I haven't gotten a response yet. All right. Thank you. Okay, that said, if you would like to present, are we ready for comments from the audience? All right. Let's hear the comments from the audience. Is there a neighborhood association involved with this, or is there a leader here that could help organize this matter a little bit? If not, then just stand in a row and announce your name clearly. I'm going to say ahead of time that you're limited to three minutes each. Okay. Mr. Meeks, did you have a comment as well, or are you going to be part of this presentation? Okay. Sir? I'll start with you first. And if you have stated, I will apologize in advance for the acoustics. They are terrible in this room. So if you can speak directly into that microphone, that'd be helpful. And state your name and address for the record, please. My name is Braxton Crenshaw. My address is 111 Constitution Street. I am right next door to the building that they're asking for this certificate of appropriateness for. I am against the certificate of appropriateness being granted. I do believe that the addition of the new door opening will have a negative impact on my home, which is right next door. I think it's going to have a negative impact on our neighborhood and the facade. I'm not really an authority on changes in historical areas, but I do know this much for certain that the changes that are planned, I think, would not be good for our historical neighborhood. and I ask you folks to help preserve and protect the historic integrity of the neighborhood and do not approve of this window being changed into a door. And I know you folks say that the use is not part of your purview, but that's why the change is being requested. So I don't think it's out of hand for that to be part of the calculus. I do believe that it would be a detriment to our neighborhood. And I ask you folks, I just think it would be very harmful for our neighborhood. I bought my house from this gentleman's dad over 20 years ago, and I do feel just about betrayed by his game plan. And I ask you folks, as our first line of defense, to not allow this to occur. Thank you very much. I have an affidavit that I would like to put into the record, which I think kind of spells out my position. And many of my neighbors are here, and I think they can elaborate on our objections even more. Thank you, folks. Just for my benefit, do you happen to know the zoning on the street? I've been told what the zoning is. Yes, sir. And what is it? Is it a B2? B2? Yes, sir, I've been told. All right. Yes, sir. I'm going to tell you something that's outside of your scope. I asked this gentleman how would he feel if I put a bar next to his house, okay? I don't know the protocol in this situation, but I'm going to ask each one of you that question. And you don't have to answer me because I already know the answer. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Nita. All right, who is next? All right, ma'am. Any of you to state your name? Hi, how are you all this evening? Good, thank you. My name is Beth Crenshaw. I'm Mr. Crenshaw's wife. I live with him at 111 Constitution Street. I want to tell you a fact. Fact. There is 44 inches, not feet, inches between our two properties. And this gentleman is putting in a bar. Would you want to bar 44 inches from a property, your family home? Would you? I'm totally opposed to the changing of a window to a door. Do you want to know why? Because in that 44 inches, there's my concrete wall. There's his concrete wall. Lining the concrete wall are windows. Windows. This is not a solid concrete wall. This is a wall with windows. Do you understand where I'm coming from? My back deck that separates the two buildings might as well be in the middle of that cocktail lounge. I oppose and don't agree to that. That is my quiet enjoyment ruined. In addition to losing the privacy of my back deck, my little postage stamp yard that he doesn't care about will no longer be located on a quiet historic street. having a bar next door changes changes the very essence of a historic neighborhood. A bar is a bar is a bar is a bar. The primary purpose of a bar is to serve alcohol. I don't agree to having that next to me. I don't. And I know, you know, that some of you, it may not matter as much. But to our little historic neighborhood, it matters plenty. And not just to me. There's going to be increase in crime with this bar. there's a homeless shelter down at the other end battling substance abuse problems where do you think they will be drawn my house is so close to that bar it might as well be that bar somebody in a haste to serve themselves may mistake my home for that bar. I don't approve of that. I wasn't asked, but I'm telling all of y'all, I wasn't asked while it was being built, but I'm telling you all, I don't approve of that. I have an affidavit I'd like to submit into the record. Thank you for listening. Thank you, ma'am. And who is next? No. Martin. Martin, it's a pleasure to see you again. I'm Martin Chinocchio, and I live right across the street from Beth and Braxton at 1. 12 Constitution Street. I moved downtown in 1968 with my family to kind of save the big house that's at the corner of limestone and Constitution. So I've been there a while. I object to the certification of proponents for the new opening at the rear of the building and the use of the building as a bar cocktail lounge and respectfully request that the application be denied. In 1976, in honor of the country's 200th year of anniversary, the city of Lexington selected our block as the designated historical bicentennial block and returned it to its original name of the Constitution Street. I don't know if you all were around then, but the mayor then was Foster Pettit. And I have a brochure here that my wife, Sue, had put together with all the folks and names and actually the buildings that she had. a professor, Steve, Steve, could you, had his class photograph all these buildings and it's kind of like a montage and as you walk down as with this brochure you could see the houses on each side of the street and they're numbered and so forth. I would like to have done it in prints for you all, but I could get that printed for you. Martin, if you're asking to introduce this, we can make copies and put it into our record if you'd like. Okay. Needless to say, there were no bars on the street at that time or any time prior to that. would been very inappropriate to put a bar here. Who would buy a house on the street with the bar on it? This will decrease my property value, decrease the number of residential occupancy, and increase the crime in the neighborhood. As for convert no single use structure to two units one with the second floor address and rear mailbox and entry. This is a burden to the structure. The removal of the rear window in addition of a new door is foreboding and I saw in our neighborhood and an alley. Actually, the previous owner had started a huge wall on the west side that when it was stopped, it turned out he had no building permit. And so that had been lowered, but he kept enough space to actually make this a camelback construction for this little one-store home, which had been. I have one more page here shortly. Did I read that as far as convertments single two store unit with the second floor address rear mailbox and entry is burdened to the structural removal of the rear window. An addition of a new door is forbidden and I saw to our neighborhood and alley. solid back exterior change will lead lead to the increased loader and homelessness traffic alcohol and drug I want to enjoy to continue peace and quiet for me and the community after 6 p.m. business hours in the street street parking for my car and my visitors and a healthy street environment for me, the church and the school. Please deny this request and let the people that this block in the entire city remain proud of the historic designation of the Constitution Street. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure seeing you again. And what we will do is we'll make copies and return them to you. We'll make a copy of that and we'll return it to you. I'm assuming that's something you would like to. Yes. I assume so. Okay. And would you like to make comments too? Yes, please. Go ahead. My name is Mary Ginocchio and I live at 110 Constitution Street, own 114 Constitution Street, and have my place of business at 216 North Limestone. I'm writing, I'm writing, I'm talking to express my opposition to the exterior changes of use, exterior changes and change of use to 109 Constitution Street. Removing this window and replacing it with a door creates a solid wall on the back elevation of this structure. this warehouse of parents on the Academy Alley, which I might add, this building I feel strongly has two facades, two main facades, Constitution Street and Academy Alley. If you travel Academy Alley between 8 and 9 a.m. Monday through Friday, September, August through May, you will find it back-to-back with cars. So we know that that's a heavily traveled street. So this structure has two main facades, and we're talking about one of those. Is your argument being that it's a front facade effectively? Pardon me? Does they both have front facades? Correct. Okay. um um that having this this this perceived dead zone or wall will lead to loitering additional invite additional loitering crime and drug use the neighborhood we have a history with this kind of activity in spaces like this especially on academy alley a bar i will also reiterate or stamp approval that it's not a good fit for the historic residential neighborhood the first known architect in central kentucky was matthew matthew kennedy and he and his partner bought this outlot in the early 1800s to develop the first neighborhood for lexington the residents of the street we've spent a lot of years time and money to preserve the neighborhood A bar in this location would take away from the character of our community and also reduce the value of our property. This bar is not a good fit. We don't need another area, another bar in this area. We currently clean our sidewalks, yards and streets daily from refuse that's littered by patrons of after our bar businesses. We also have had patrons of these area establishments found urinating in our yards. We do not need to add to this issue. A bar is not a good fit in our historic residential neighborhood. We have a school campus that borders both sides of Academy Alley in a church less than half a block away. The fabric of our neighborhood needs to remain intact as a healthy, wholesome, safe environment for our families, businesses, patrons, visitors, and students. A bar is not a good fit. One tenant leasing this space to serve alcohol will lead to the next tenant with yet another bar plan that could further damage our community. Take the New Life Day Center. We've had these promises given and broken. The New Life Day Center opened on Martin Luther King in 2011 under the direction of Steve Polston. At that time, we were promised that it would be a day center only and that the center would police the neighborhood for the safety and security of neighbors and the over 600 students in school nearby. This was short-lived. The centers changed leadership several times, and we no longer have the security that kept the center active only during the day. We now have a transient population that seeks shelter wherever possible, yells at pedestrians, including students that are walking between classes, consume alcohol in public spaces, and panhandle. One man's respectable cocktail lounge can become another man's shady dive bar. Please deny this application for the exterior changes and change of use of 109 Constitution Street. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. To be clear, we're not approving or reviewing any change of use application. Correct. But I will tell you, our neighborhood security system, it kind of, Braxton, I'm calling you out, it starts with Braxton because he will text me when there's activity on Academy Alley, and then I've got the hotline to Tom Bullock, and Tom and I meet on Constitution Street and walk Academy Alley to move along what we can, and if we can't, then we call police. We don't need another dead zone with that back facade being, you know, windows are much more inviting or welcoming or provide the knowledge that there are people in the building. It looks like a warehouse if you just have doors on the back facade. So we really need to keep that facade with the window and single door. Thank you. Thanks. And you have an affidavit that you're putting into the record? all right um i also if if i might have just a moment my daughter i i live and work on the um right there my daughter is working for me today and she um grew up in the on the street and and has something she would like for me to share all right and the name of your daughter is annie markham right um annie objects to the certification of appropriateness for a new door opening in the rear of the building and use of the building as a bar cocktail lounge and respectfully request that the application be denied. She writes, we moved to Constitution Street when I was eight into the beautiful historic Matthew Kennedy House. Though 109 has not sat empty during my lifetime on this street, it always had a vacant feel to it. So upon hearing Chad had bought it, I was excited at the prospect of something or someone new and exciting being brought to the neighborhood. But as I heard it was becoming a bar, I was disappointed and concerned. So much can go wrong with the introduction of alcohol, especially within a primarily residential neighborhood. I think the speakeasy concept that Ryan has is great, but the setting of Constitution Street isn't right. There are so many things that haven't been addressed that would be a disturbance to their neighbors. noise, taking up off-street parking, tenants, and homeowners rely on, and the fact that the business model itself is geared towards the elite and not the neighborhood. Since renovations have started, no one has come through the doors of Mulberry and Lime to introduce themselves. During our meeting with Chad and Ryan on June 14th, there was no invitation to participate in the speakeasy made, and there were even neighbors and businesses on the street who were excluded from the June 14th meeting, thus already showing me that setting good intentions with the neighborhood is not a goal of theirs. What happens when Ryan's lease is up and he decides not to renew? Someone else could move in and completely change the dynamic of the neighborhood more than Ryan already would have. He will have made it easier for other bars to move into the neighborhood. Looking at the long-term effects of how this will affect the future of this historic location is paramount. 216 North Lyme 110 Constitution is our family home. I am the fifth generation to grow up on this block, and I want to preserve this block for many years to come. Other than some of the aforementioned concerns, this request to remove the window and replace it with a door is one of my biggest concerns. This neighborhood has already had difficulty with loitering, drug use, crime, etc. within the alleyway behind 109. Activities, I feel, will be exacerbated with the introduction of a bar, regardless of who the patrons are. My concern with removing that window and creating the eyesore of a row of doors is seeing another influx of criminal activity. Please deny this request and keep the historical integrity of this building and neighborhood intact. Thank you. I have an affidavit. All right, thank you. Okay, our next person. Great. I'm sorry, were you done? Pardon? Were you finished? Yes. Next person. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Clifford Houston. I am an elder and also the church council's current moderator. And I'm here to express the feelings of the leadership of East 2nd Street Christian Church, as well as the congregation members. East 2nd Street Christian Church is located at 146 Constitution Street and has been there long before it was even considered a historical district. Since I have been at the church, what I have noticed is if you've heard how proud our neighbors as well as ourselves are of this historical district, as well as the block itself, East Constitution Street. And our members, the feeling of our members is that we are a beacon of light. And what I have seen from our neighbors is that they have been beacons of light for this district. We have the Scare School also there on the block. As a matter of fact, there is a playground that is right across the street from this proposed bar. And I cringe at the thought of what these children might come out to in the afternoon for their recess, what they might find in that parking lot, in our parking lot or in the playground. We do know, and I'll say this, that alcohol and common sense don't share the same space at the same time. And we do know that bringing a bar into that area will bring crime. It will bring drugs. it will bring prostitution. Again, I cringe at the thought of one of our members coming out to the parking lot after a meeting on any of the evenings during the week to find a young man and a young woman engaged in a sex act in our parking lot. These are the things that we find in these areas near bars, gentlemen's bars or whatever they might call them, their cocktail bars. And all we have to do is watch TV. When we hear about the violence and crime going on around in the city of Lexington, and where do we find this crime? In most cases, it's around a bar or where there's alcohol being served. So we do know that it's coming. It may not be in a month. It may not be in two months, but it is coming. And East 2nd Street Christian Church members are vehemently opposed to the certificate of appropriateness being given in this case. I did hear the board speak that you are not privy to be able to make any kind of recommendations on businesses in the area of zoning. but it does speak to appropriateness and I think that it should be the appropriateness of purpose should definitely be considered in this case. Again, I am very proud of the area. I've only been here for about 20 years but I'm very proud of the area and I'm very proud of our neighbors as you can see how heartfelt feelings in regards to this proposal. So I ask that this body object to the certificate of forgiveness for the new door opening for this. One more thing I'm thinking about as I stand here is that we do have a transient or homeless problem in the area. A lot of these people have mental issues and the thought of someone with alcohol in their system engaging with someone with a mental issue, there are going to be problems. And to bring that into an area that is thriving does not make sense to me, and it is definitely not the wish of East Second Street Christian Church members. Thank you. I do have an affidavit to speak on the feelings of East Second Street Christian Church. Thank you, Mr. Houston. Thank you. And who is next? State your name for the record, please. I'm Jim Brown. Brown. I have properties very, very close to this property. I have been in the area immediately area for 40 plus years. I know all the neighbors. I know all of the problems that have been in the past and It seems like the problems are coming, more problems are coming. I don't speak with a voice of an opinion. I speak with a voice of experience. I owned a bar. I owned Beer Works Bar. It's within probably 200 feet of where we are now, but it's on North Limestone. It's a world away from Constitution Street. North Limestone is known as a corridor that houses and accepts bars. Constitution Street does not. If you want to go have a beautiful, wonderful walk in a neighborhood, go on Constitution Street. If you want to get a little fun, go on Limestone, where the bars are. So my voice is one of experience. After having the bar for years, I cannot tell you the endless number of calls. People at your place have parked in our back parking lot without permission. It's just the nature of where people want to go and what people want to do and the abuse that they feel they can exercise at that moment. I can't see also a bar with a residence over it. I own that. What did my residence say? I can't live here. It's too noisy. So the certificate of appropriateness I know is specific for what your duties are. But we as a neighborhood and a very cohesive neighborhood, as you can tell, we please ask that you do not approve this certificate of appropriateness until further actions have been taken. I thank you for listening to me. I do have an affidavit, and I'd like to submit it, please. All right, Mr. Brown, thank you. And do I have anyone else? Anyone else? We have a handheld microphone. Ms. Kerr, if someone can... It's a little wonky. It's a technical. forward there. Is it working? That's why we, hang on. She could just hold the one that's on the podium if you want. Thank you. Is it working or do we know or? All right. It's had a lot of use lately. Okay. Okay, can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. If you state your name, please. My name is Deborah Hurd. I live at 139 Constitution Street. I'm going to ask that you indulge my reading of my statement. I don't speak extemporaneously very well, and I did call Historic Preservation, and they told me that my time would not be limited, so I have written something. I don't know how I'm going to turn pages and hold this, though. I do want to preface this with a thought that I've had sitting here. We've often been told, well, we don't really have teeth in our historic preservation laws, codes, statutes, whatever, and we can't protect this or protect that. You all are the teeth here, and I'm asking you to be those teeth. I object to the certification of appropriateness for a new door opening in the rear of 109 Constitution Street and the use of the building as a bar, cocktail lounge, private club, whatever euphemism he wants to use, and respectfully request that the application be denied. The building already has a rear door, which even surpasses ADA. I've been seated a long time and I know what the ADA requirements are. It's 36 inches wide currently, that door. It doesn't have to be wider than 36 inches. Taking away the windows at the rear would alter the character of that building, making it more of a warehouse structure. It would also restrict any ability to construct a fire escape from the second story apartment in the future because the property lacks a side yard on which to do so. And Mary made an excellent point. Mary Genocchio made an excellent point that that is also the facade. Much traffic goes down Academy Alley. It's a triple-wide alley behind my house. Three cars can fit there. Parents go through there all the time. It's used as a freeway, basically, when school's not in session. So lots of people see that facade. Approving this door would literally and figuratively open the door to the plans Mr. Needham's tenants have for opening a bar. This fragile historic district, its residents, and its existing businesses cannot sustain a bar of any size. With a space behind it for only two cars at best, this building lacks appropriate parking space, lacks appropriate space for the trash that a bar would bring, and lacks any continuity with a neighborhood that exists not only as a historic district in Lexington, but also on the National Register of Historic Places. The current plans for this project have no parking. Without parking for possibly up to 50 customers, this bar has the likelihood of dramatically impacting our current neighborhood parking, which is already strained because most of our houses lack driveways. We will come home in the evening to find nowhere to park. bar trash attracts rodents and will further negatively impact our homes nearby and while it may be a touchy matter to say so the not so sober portion of the homeless population which has dramatically increased in number in the past two years will be drawn to pick through the trash created by this bar increasing the litter in the neighborhood lexington probably doesn't need another bar, a historic district does not need a bar, and this small historic district most assuredly does not need a bar. Of great importance is the fact that this building at 109 Constitution Street abuts the full length of the home of two of my neighbors who have been valued, contributing, congenial members of this community for decades and do not deserve to have a bar thrust upon the full length of their home. The added cars, even on weekends when things had previously been quieter, the noise into the nights and even Sunday, the smells of bar trash on hot days, the risk of gun-carrying, belligerent, intoxicated people who don't want to move their cars, and the increased risk of rodents all make this untenable for this specific family. No one here would want a bar of any variety or size suddenly placed against his or her home. The other immediate neighbor, which sits fewer than 50 feet between the two buildings, fewer than 50 feet away from this building, is a K-12 school, students of which walk by this property on a regular basis. Night ball games and parent meetings sometimes bring students and parents directly beside this property in the dark. No school needs a bar of any size sitting next door. No student, especially in this age of concealed carry and school shootings, needs an added risk to attending class. And no bar owner can assure that these caveats will not come to be. No precautions can prevent a patient from being or getting intoxicated, from parking where neighbors count on parking when they come home, from carrying concealed weapons, from having hostile interactions with this community. Having a private club, which is what he claims to do, with select wealthy patrons, certainly is no assurance of perfect behavior in or outside of a bar. The Historic Preservation Commission has extensive guidelines regarding changes to the exterior buildings and historic districts, as you well know, the purpose of which is to, in quotes, help a community preserve its unique identity. To say to current and future residents and businesses, our city is a good place to live and work, unquote. A bar of any variety does not preserve historic constitution's unique identity, nor would approving this door communicate to current or future occupants that this city cares about preserving its historic districts. Under Article 17, 2.2, these guidelines state, quote, the composition of exterior elements contributes to the form and character of historic buildings. Eclectic variety of such elements contributes to the character of the entire district, unquote. 17.2.2.2 says, quote, to retain and preserve exterior features that contribute to the overall historic form and character of a building, unquote, and that this applies to functional features. The rear of this building has been highly visible and part of its historic form and character of 109 Constitution has always included a door and a double window. 17224 regarding compromising authenticity states do not add new features such as window or door openings to character defining exterior walls. Unquote. To make that rear wall a wall of doors would change the character of that building. 17.224 also states clearly methods that result in homogenization of exterior features on site are not permitted. While I know Mr. Needham has garnered much respect for his previous projects and can be a very pleasant person to engage, it must be noted that not once did he speak to anyone who lives in this district about his plans, and in fact on more than one occasion, scarcely two weeks ago, lied in the faces of multiple neighbors about his plans for this bar, saying that he didn't know what his plans were for the space. Though he owns three other properties on this street, he is not a resident, has never sat down with our neighborhood, and only lived here as a resident briefly as a college student many years ago. Constitution Street became a residential neighborhood over 200 years ago. It's remained primarily residential, with at least four-fifths or better of the occupancy being residential. While there are several non-residential properties, these properties are quiet, daytime establishments that include school, church, law offices, salon, and sales, and two exceptions on the northern perimeter away from homes. Never has this neighborhood had any restaurant or bar business to impact it inside its boundaries. I have had the great fortune to live in this beautiful historic district for 44 years. I'm not alone in this as several of us have spent at least two-thirds of our lives here, and a couple of people have spent most of their lifetimes on Constitution Street. It's a lovely, mostly quiet neighborhood that is sometimes accented with the sound of school children playing or church bells ringing, yes, the occasional siren. But many battles have been fought to keep our district intact. To save houses in our district, some to establish a balance between homes, businesses in the growing transient population, some over parking merely to keep life possible here, the list goes on. As a neighborhood, we've worked very hard not only to maintain the historic integrity of our homes, but also have faithfully committed our lives to maintain the character of Constitution Historic District. We cannot preserve this district alone. The Historic Preservation Commission guidelines specify multiple ways in which this request to change the only windows at the rear of this building to another unnecessary door fails to preserve this integrity. Please protect this beautiful historic district, this wonderful neighborhood. Please deny this request. Thank you, I have an affidavit I'd like on record, thank you. And thank you so much. Mr. Dennis is going to come collect the affidavit. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, or the members of the commission, I should say, apologize. My name is Jesse Crenshaw and I live at 117-115. It's one building. It's one big house that at one point was three apartments. But after I bought it some years later, I returned it to be in one house rather than the three apartments. I own 115, 117 Constitution, which is my residence and 119 Constitution, which is a driveway beside the red building, which is where I live. Right next to that is 121 Constitution and I own 121 Constitution, which is where I first came to that street. I opened a law office there in August of 1980, and I have been there at that office from 1980 to the present in terms of occupation. 115 to 117 Constitution, I moved there to live in February of 1986. Forgive me, I'm getting old and forgetful sometimes. I moved there in 1986 and I purchased that structure in August of 1986. And I have lived there from 1986 to the present. The driveway that I mentioned a moment ago, 119, goes from Constitution and has the width of enough to park cars one up aside the building of 121 and a driveway through in case my clients needed to leave if somebody else was blocking them. So you have the ability to park two cars all the way back from Constitution to Academy Alley. and behind 121 Constitution there is probably space enough for four more parking spaces. In fact that's where I parked my car every day. Sometimes I park behind 115, 117 but most of the time over behind 121. The problem that I'm going to have if this is approved is every time you look up I will be having to go have a car towed. In the middle of the night if I have to leave or need to use that driveway I have to confront or will have to confront an inebriated person who says I can't tell him what to do. Now that's not something that I would like to confront for the rest of my life. another adverse effect to approval of this change to the window. Now realize we're at the point of what jurisdiction you all have or don't have but the problem is if you prove this. The certificate it then gives a ability for a bar to be put there. I asked please don't convert what was once a quiet dental lab where people made dentures and you didn't even hear you didn't occasionally you would see them come down drive down the alley back into the back of 109 and park and go in it was as quiet as you could have that is changing from a dental lab to what Mr. Needham has acknowledged and I asked him owner about June the first he came I was in my backyard at 115 he came over and said I just want to say hello so I said Chad how you doing and he said I just want to stop say hello and seen you for a while and I said we're Chad what are you gonna put what purpose are you gonna use this building for he said well really haven't made up my man It may be commercial. And it may be residential. Now that was today's what the 15th. That was 2 weeks ago. He had to know. What he was going to use it for. It didn't just pop up. He'd been working over there for weeks and weeks and weeks had a crew as a crew over there right this minute working on. So you when you change the back windows, you actually go from a dental lab. To a bar. So I know jurisdiction can be jurisdiction. But jurisdiction can also look for equity. Look for fairness. And the fairness is please deny. This application. We don't mind Chad making more money. I like to. I'm the one who said there in one 171 15 while Chad was having parties up on. The garage my brothers. Now garage it was chairs garage at that time. And Chad would have a party on Friday night. Or a Saturday night and then on Monday he would come down to 115 and say. Mr. Crenshaw, I hope we didn't disturb you over the weekend. And I'd always be polite and say, no, Chad, you all didn't. They have barbecue grills up there and liquor. And in addition to all the alcohol, they had music blasting as loud as they could blast it. I was polite then. Please, I'm trying not to be polite, impolite today. But please don't let a bar be put there. Property values was mentioned earlier. You let a bar in there and anyone who looks in the newspaper or looks at one of the advertisements. Will say well I was going to locate there I was going to buy or ask to be purchased be able to purchase. But I'm not going to do it now. I'm not going to buy it because remember now Braxton is next door. I am two doors away from this particular structure to doors. All the noise that Braxton will hear. I will hear. If you want to go to sleep at night. Braxton likes to say that he goes to be it he really does. He goes to bed at 9 p.m. He likes to say that he goes to bed with the chickens and he gets up with the chickens. Now I don't have that. I actually go to bed around 11 o'clock maybe a little later at times. But for me, I will not be able to get my sleep because you can't make any money with a bar unless you have people in there. You can't draw them in there unless you have entertainment. You're not going to have a group of old men my age sitting around just sipping one cocktail, two cocktails, and then going home. You have to have a large crowd. you have to have a draw to make enough money per month to pay for the rent to pray for the utilities and to make a profit and he can tell anybody it's gonna be just a real nice place but please we're the ones that will suffer we go ask you to wrap this up if you can I have an affidavit mr. chairman that I'm going to didn't mean to cut you off, but we're beginning to run out. I'm trying to hold it to about five minutes at the most. I think. I think Mr. Needham, if he would. With the kindness of his heart. Use this for another purpose. I don't mind Chad getting rich or richer. I would I'd like to see him make as much money as he can please deny this application if you deny this application we all go home and we all live in peace and quiet thank you very much for your time and I apologize for running over time thank you representative thank you so much you're welcome sir anyone else Mr. Needham I sort of held you the last because I want to make sure we had all the comments acknowledged before you make your presentation regarding the need for this door and what you're trying to do with this door sure thank you mr. chair thanks board and thanks for your time and thanks for the for the comments in Constitution Street. I mean, it's real to hear what the neighbors, which I consider neighbors as well. I mean, I've made my start here in redoing old buildings on Constitution Street. I think my time Jesse brought back when I was 21 years old partying on Braxton's garage. I mean, I can't, that's a long time ago. But, you know, that's funny to hear that. But, yes, I've been around Constitution most of my life. I started there with a building in college, and I haven't left Constitution. I've done several buildings on the street, and I still own some buildings. And I've worked and helped a building out that Sayre has as well get remodeled. And I've done several buildings down in the area. I think this is not a use issue. I'm asking for a rear door that was requested by the building inspection. When this building that I did not put in this state, it has sat vacant for the last seven years. It was an office dental implant repair office for probably a good 40 years. So any change to this building is change, and I understand that. And change is scary when you hear about a bar. You hear about, I mean, I redo old buildings, and I try to find the best tenants possible that really do fit the building, fit the neighborhood. And I agree this is a more intense use than what we have, I think, this obviously building's ever seen. Again, when we go into a building and we have, I purchased this not long ago. It sat vacant. We found multiple structural issues, and these all need to be fixed and repaired. these issues are expensive exterior siding we've we've fixed all the new plumbing all the new electric all new hvac it's really a building that's sitting there not really i mean sitting on constitution but definitely not engaged it's just sitting there so to bring it a new life we have to go through these this this work to get there i do not know what the tenant is going to be at that time. And I have done 60 buildings. I own 50 buildings. I've put in 100 entrepreneurs up and down Limestone. Some of the words that were said, I feel like they're friends, they're neighbors. I know them. And I appreciate their concern. And I really understand why no one wants to live next to a bar. And I can go into all the details that this I think will be different and why I think this is a project that I think would work well for the little small building to get it back in. And I understand the unknown, and that is scary. But again, we are not here to discuss use, and I'm happy to address this with everyone in the neighborhood. All I'm asking for is a door that was asked by the building inspection to add so there wouldn't be two different accesses for an upstairs apartment and for a downstairs commercial space. And that's what this is. It's a small mixed-use building in a historic district downtown on Constitution Street. And that is all we're asking for. This is not a significant, I mean, I want to talk to what Mary said just quickly. I do not believe this building has two main facades. The original facade sits on Constitution Street. Academy Alley is an alley, and it also does have a lot of traffic from Sayre and from those that do live on Constitution Street. I don't see it as a main cut through, but it can be at times. but this is not a significant entrance, and nor will it be regardless for the, and it won't be for the commercial space as well. It is just, with the undulation of that property, the ADA accessibility has to be in the back. Building code required that. We are not able to put a ramp in the front of this building. No one has ramps on Constitution Street. this building to be brought up to code, I have to make it ADA accessible. It is only ADA accessible through the back. So that is the only reason why we're adding this door. Adding this door has nothing to do with the use of a commercial space, whether it's a bar, whether it's an amusement park, or I could go through the hundred other listings that a B2A building could be. It is not. It is just for ADA access to make it a commercial, viable space brought up to code since this building is set vacant. I mean, do you have any questions for me? I have a couple. One is, I take it right now the building is completely vacant, and your plan at some point is to have a tenant upstairs? That's correct. And also some kind of commercial use downstairs? That's exactly right. And so you have gone to building inspection and they said that you need to have now an ADA compliant door if you want to have a tenant upstairs? So there is currently one ADA compliant door that accesses both upstairs and downstairs. So why do you now need two doors? The ask was it makes sense to have a commercially accessible door separate from the residence. So these are two separate spaces. Two units. So they have two actually separate addresses. 109 Constitution will be the commercial address. I think it's, I'm not sure, maybe it's 110 Academy Alley will be the residential address because it only has access through the rear. The current door that's there is ADA accessible, correct? That is correct. All right, thank you. Yeah, and essentially what it prohibits is going into a vestibule inside with one door and then having two doors, one to go upstairs and one to go into the commercial space. Is that possible to do? It is possible to do. It just was not recommended, and they feel like that was the safest route for ADA accessibility. So I'm not hearing from you then that if we kept the door as is and the windows as is, that you would not be able to use the upstairs for a commercial or for a tenant, correct? The door accesses both spaces. What we have to do is create a vestibule inside that creates another access point where we have to go into the back door and then into the vestibule. But it has nothing to do with the use of the space. This is just what was recommended from the ADA building department, and they recommended that we add this door. All right, thank you. Any other questions from anyone? Suzanne, do you have anything? Comments or questions? Either. If there's no questions, we'll lead off with comments then. I don't have any questions. Questions from Mr. Gilbert? Ms. Lamar? No questions. All right, then let's lead off with comments. Now at this point I'm closing the proceeding to any further public comment. You may hear things that you disagree with. That's the way this process works. So I'm now turning this into the hearing amongst just the commissioners. All right, beginning with Ms. Irwin. My comment is that the design principle from the guidelines, which is the only way that we can produce a finding that I'm looking at, is that window openings and the size and shape of window elements help establish rhythm, scale, and proportion of buildings. Windows should be maintained and repaired to match original design, and this is stated for both historic proportions and for new additions to historic buildings. All right. Looking at this solely just by the guidelines, so you've drawn an elevation of what you want to see done. Correct. And I don't think it's sympathetic to the guidelines she just read off. So again, that's nothing to do with the use, it's just the proportions and locations the openings that you're proposing i don't think meet the guidelines do you have any suggestions uh not at this time you can discuss with the staff if you want this is what i presented to staff and they you know and they said that that thought that that was fine um you know the actual style of the door that that's not what that that indicates it's just two doors and we we can space them out more if that's the case and i can add i think that would improve a window i think that would improve it okay well i mean we're just you know and that's fine i mean it's whatever you think is is uh to to add the extra door regardless of whether it is there's more space in between or not if that's if it's the spatial issue and not just the door i just would like to know that I think the guidelines that I, the guideline specifically that I am looking at reads that the patterns of these components on buildings, whether they be doors or windows, along blocks and within districts create a characteristic rhythm for streetscapes and neighborhoods. and that characteristic rhythm needs to be maintained. So the openings needs to reflect the pattern and rhythm that exists. Okay, so you'd like to continue what we currently have? I would like for the rhythm and proportion to be similar to what is in existence. And that would be the same amount of opening, window opening, and a similar amount of door. because that establishes a rhythm on the relationship between the outside and the inside of the building. That is the only thing that we can go by is these guidelines. Okay, and you don't feel that that, I understand that. I think the removal of the window does not meet that statement. Okay. So the window, you know, I feel like the door, this structure has gone through a significant, this secondary structure that was added is not historic in nature, not like the front, although it's a concrete block building, and it's very clear in the write-up that it's a structure that's, what does it say here? It's non-significant, and it's a later concrete masonry structure. So it's already been changed several times. I agree with what you're saying, that it is not historic in nature. However, it does the openings that are in it establish a pattern and rhythm for the neighborhood. That's what I'm saying that I'm reading from the guidelines. If I may step in here. I'm not sure if we should have an argument back and forth at this point. Let's finish with the other observations, and then we'll come back and pick up the discussion in just a moment. I'm done. You're done. Sarah? I think the staff has made the right recommendations that this is the back of this building, and we allow openings where there are, and putting doors where there are existing window openings. We've made this and allowed this on several locations. I would say that with the address of the apartment being that alley, then maybe this becomes a primary facade. So if this really is a primary facade, then we need to keep the rhythm and what's going on there. But if it is not the primary facade, then I think the staff has made the appropriate recommendation given the guidelines. I'll pick up on that. The issue is not primary facade. The fact is, does this building have a dual facade? In that it has similar impact and presence both on Constitution Street itself and on the Academy Alley. Now granted, in most instances, and your building's an odd duck because of what's happened to the buildings around it. because Academy Alley has turned into a major street for all intents and purposes. As you well know, it backs up on 3rd Street and has a number of buildings that come down to it as well. The other issue is, I'm in agreement with Suzanne, that there needs to be a continuation of how the rhythm and scale, even at the rear, should play out on that street. And finally, I'll throw in one more item into the mix. we have to make a determination that the change is not going to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, on Mulberry Historic District. Typically, that term has always been defined, are we changing the character of the building so much that it takes away from the character of the neighborhood, of the other buildings? It's not clear to me in my head whether we can expand that definition to include changes that might lead to a use that would have an adverse impact. I may reserve that for legal issues to be, and I'm not sure there's a definition. I'm just trying to play out in my head the issues that we're dealing with. I have been struck by the comments that have been made that, first of all, you're going to create a warehouse look with two doors. And I think regardless of the fact it's on the back facade and it's been characterized as a non-contributing facade, that that really changes the overall rhythm of all the other buildings on that street. So I'm inclined to disagree with the staff and find that this is not an acceptable change. Those are my thoughts on the matter. Any other comments? Now comes the interesting time. Do we have a motion? last act. So does he want to continue? Would you like, let me ask you this, would you like to continue the proceedings so that you can look at alternatives to perhaps, I would like to see you explore a different way of getting access to your upstairs without having to add another big door. And I'm wondering, that's why I was questioning the, I don't think the vegetable, there's no other access point besides the rear for the for the upstairs. How are they accessing it right now through that single door? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Even you walk in there's a staircase that goes up and there'd be a. And I'm just curious as to I heard the recommendation but can you live with the one door? So you know so that if we do go ahead and disapprove the application that it's not completely destroy your ability to rehabilitate this building the way you want to? Well, it does create the access to the upstairs and the access to the downstairs. That door comes in about six inches in front of the upstairs stairs. So to get upstairs, you come in that door, and you have to take a left and walk upstairs. By adding the other door, it is a straight shot access for the ADA accessibility. Now what will happen, if we are not given the second door, is that the ADA will have to come in to a, it's not the safest route out essentially or in, but you have to come into a vestibule, you would take a left to go upstairs, and then you'd have to take a right to go into the first floor commercial. So taking that right, then taking a left, and then taking another left, and then another right to get back into the main cavity is not what really ADA Accessible would like. They would like to see one straight path out. Well, let's talk about that for a moment. Obviously, you don't have an elevator in this building. That's correct. So anyone who's going to be wanting to live is going to have to be able to walk up those steps, correct? That's correct. So do you really need an ADA door? The ADA is, yes, we do. The ADA is for the commercial space. But you already have that. You have an ADA door that would give your commercial customers access to the commercial space. I see where you're going here. Yeah. We would need a 36-inch door, obviously, is what we would put in to access any furniture or any moving in and out or any exterior door most likely needs to be at least 36 inches. So we would just – the challenge with it now is this door that it's currently – it sits in front of the staircase. case. So it's not a direct line for the first floor commercial to go in. So you have to go in, take a right, take a left, and then take another left and take another right to get back into the corridor. And that is not really what building inspection would like to see as the fastest way out in case there were a fire. That is all that I'm asking here. It has nothing to do with the use. I can build a vestibule and we can move forward with whatever we plan to do. That's not the case. This is just adding an extra door for the first floor safety egress. All right. And I don't mind speaking. I mean, I know everyone, I think almost everyone that spoke on use, and I get it. You know, some things that are said were 100% not true, But I understand the negative impact that they feel, and no one wants to live next to a bar. And I can go into how this is a speakeasy, and this is, you know, it's a private, quiet place. I mean, the facade is going to be a bookstore facade. You're going to look in and see bookshelves, and then you have this door that opens once you're inside. It can hold, you know, the capacity is 20 to 30 people really, realistically. And it sets in this private little building that is sitting there vacant. I wouldn't put this in there if it was going to be a loud bar that all of a sudden creates crime and creates everything that I was getting. I felt like I was holding here on my shoulders of drugs and homeless. And it just, you know, I put this together to redo a building with the efforts to find a tenant. This is a tenant that has just shown up and is interested in doing this. I think it fits, definitely fits with the zoning. This building has to, regardless of whether it's a, it's whatever use it is, we have to get the ADA accessible correct. That is a life safety thing that we have to do to all of our buildings. The fact, I would love to take the ADA through the front, it just, Constitution Street does not allow for ramping. It's got a big stoop, that's how the building's built, we don't want to do that. The back is at grade, and that is where it was recommended to bring in ADA accessibility. Now, this building, because how it was built, was built before ADA guidelines. So we're trying to better it and bring it up to the best codes we can, or the most current code. And that's what we're held to as any redeveloper. So that's all I'm doing here. The fact that the, I know the use has the neighbors frustrated, but the use really is a commercial use. And that's why this door is necessary. Okay. All right. Any other comments, questions? I know where you're coming from, and your reputation for the development in this neighborhood speaks for itself. I mean, it's been consistently stellar. Well, I appreciate that. I mean, the last thing I want to do, and I've never had before neighbors be so upset on something that has been. You had had some conversations with the neighbors in advance of this meeting that might have helped. So I had a meeting. I invited everyone in the vicinity, and those that weren't invited, my apologies. But I do not have everyone's email. Some don't have emails. So it took... You take the meeting. Thanks for being. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Crenshaw, please. Jesse, I know you well, and I appreciate it. Gentlemen, I'm not going to let this go on. Thank you. Thank you. If you would like for us to continue this proceeding so you can have a conversation with the neighbors to see if you can work out their objections. Sure. I grant to you, and don't get me wrong here, I fully understand that the purpose of this building is not in our purview. But at the same time, because there is the right to take an appeal to the Planning Commission, I think maybe it would be best if you can work things out before we do a final decision. So if you're in agreement to continue this case to July 20, we can do that. Would you like to do that? To continue the case? Mm-hmm. Mr. Chair, I would note that the agenda is very full for July 20. It's going to get fuller. And what would continue in the case? They give you an opportunity to see if you can work with the neighbors and persuade them that this is not the disaster that they think it's going to be. If you want to have that opportunity. Otherwise, we can go ahead and take a vote today. It's also a chance to revisit the elevation design. It's also your chance to revisit the elevation drawing. Okay. If it is the elevation drawing that you don't like, I'm happy to revisit that, and I'm happy to take a continuance if that's what we want to do. Let's revisit the elevation issue and take the opportunity to perhaps have a conversation with your neighbors. Okay. Staff would also note that the deadline for action for this is July 17th, so the applicant will need to agree to an extension, which is done with some frequency but staff will prepare and provide you with either a 30-day or a 60-day extension. Does the board feel strongly about that extension time period being 30 days versus 60? And do you as the applicant feel strongly about that? Chad needs to be pushed out. If we can do it in 30 we should probably. Yeah, I'm not sure. The extension doesn't really affect the actual date of the hearing. It just means that you're still within the parameters of the ordinance. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. So there's no drawback to the 60. If it can be, you know, if you're ready and so forth for the one for the 20th, we will need your materials, your any revisions to your drawings and such. in about the next 10 days or less. I mean, it's one door on the back. That drawing's not going to take very long. I ultimately would like a little more clarification on what Mr. Gilpin actually thinks that is needed there. All right, here you go. I'm sorry. The front of your building is kind of a three-piece elevation. You've got a door and two windows. It would be real simple to do the same on the back, with two doors and one window, give that a shot and bring that back to us. Two doors, one window. Okay. Now there's other versions of that you can test out if you need to, but there's your start. Sure. This is why we're going to miss you. I think the, and that's fine. I mean we're happy to keep a window. I just wasn't, when we presented it, it wasn't discussed that it was needed. But if that needed, a window is needed. I mean, it's. I think the curveball tonight was, some of us are feeling this is also a primary facade of the building, not just a back door. Yeah. So, I think that's what shifted between staff and the board. I can understand that, and that's a legitimate concern. I get that. As being a as it facing the alley, I didn't think about that being a primary facade, especially as Constitution Street being the historic district, Academy Alley, not so much. You know, I know it backs up to that, but historical frontage, I don't know how many homes on that street actually have Academy Alley addresses. If there's maybe the one I own, actually, 151 Constitution Street. But other than that, I don't know one. So if there's no other continuance of, what did you? Yeah, you understand. But continuance of that historical kind of look on the alley. You have Sayre across the street, and that's obviously a new build. but there's nothing else to really compare that to on the alley as a secondary facade. So the fact that it is, we can look at it. I think where we're at right now is we could continue it or we could just deny it. And I think the preference right now is let's just continue and see what we can work out. Fair enough. That's my preference. Mine too. Okay. All right. Okay. So do I have a motion to continue this proceeding? Move to continue. I do a second. Second. All those in favor of the motion to continue so that we can have a time to get new elevations and perhaps some time for people to talk. Say aye. Are you putting, excuse me Mr. Chair, but you'll need a date specific so. I'm sorry, I didn't say it. July 20th is the date. Move to continue to July 20th. All right, do I have a second? Second. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion passes. We're continued to July 20th. Okay. Into a very full agenda. Yeah, y'all are going to need to bring your jammies. Sarah, you were a nay. No, I said aye. Oh, you said aye. Thank you. Okay. All right. So thank you, Mr. Chatham. And how was the vote? I'm sorry, I didn't. All of us voted in favor of favor. We did. Great. Okay. All right. We are finished with this proceeding. To explain what's happened, Mr. Needham is going to bring us new elevations to see, to address our concerns about how this building will look relative to the other buildings. Again, I remind you, this is not an application for approval of this building as a bar. All we're dealing with right now is whether this door is compatible with the guidelines for trying to figure out a way to make the door compatible by redoing the elevations. I encourage all of you to sit down and talk. Talking is always a good thing and see if some of these issues can be put aside, resolved, concerns that you may have. So that brings this proceeding to a conclusion. We are done with all of our applications. What we're moving to next is what's called conceptual reviews, which is where we're getting some plans brought to us, and we'll get the impact from us. Let me do one more thing. Ms. Kerr, do I need to summarize for the record all the affidavits that have been handed to me, or is that already in the record? No, it's already in the record with each person's presentation at the end of their comments. Okay, let me go through just briefly and note the affidavits that have been presented to us. I'm not numbering them. I'm going to simply give them names. We have the affidavits of the following individuals in reverse order of their appearance. This is going to be Jesse Crenshaw. We have Deborah Hurt, H-E-R-D-T. We have Jim Brown. We have Clifford Houston. We have Mary Ginochio, G-I-N-O-C-C-H-I-O. We have the affidavit of Annie Markham. We have the affidavit of Martin Giacchio. We also have with that a copy of what appears to be a handout characterized as the Constitution Street Bicentennial East 2nd Street Walking Tour. We have the affidavit of Braxton Crenshaw and the affidavit of Beth Crenshaw, which has attached to it photographs. And that's the record in this matter. So these affidavits will need to be given to us at the beginning of the next presentation. When we continue. But this is a continued case. They'll be in your materials for the next presentation. That'd be great. You can give us a packet. This is our record. Right. We won't be handing them out to you. They'll already be in your packet. Very good. Yes, ma'am. Chair, can you please take a five-minute break? Absolutely not. Just because you're swimming? All right, we're going to take a break before we go to the conceptual review. Thank you all for your patience, and it's a process. Thank you. I would try to come with you, but I don't think I'll be allowed to get there. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Here in his absence. If we can get conceptual review started for 461 North Limestone. And of course, we heard this case about, I believe, in April. and this is about the proposal to demolish a small little shed and add on a garage. We heard the demolition of the small little parts of the shed last month in May in the sort of walking around the property at Rose Hill. And as you can see, the outbuilding in the background here and then the parking area that was established many years ago when there was another building that was put in the front facing limestone and then demolished and the parking lot had remained adjacent to Rose Hill. So here's the entrance into the existing parking area. And then you can see the small shed that was granted a certificate of appropriateness to be removed last month. And now what we're doing is reviewing the proposal for the installation of a garage in this location. So we did meet with the planning staff regarding their concerns about the adjacency of this building and whether the use of the parking structure, which was going to be part of the outbuilding or the house, and of course it was established to be part of the house and not the outbuilding you see before you and then there was concern and that their concern was tied to the fact that whether the proximity made it tied to the structure or versus the house and so then we did have a discussion with planning about the location of this and so the proposal you have before you is a whether the building should be moved back or should be moved forward and stay in this particular location. To give you a little bit more details of this, and this is on the corner of 5th Street and North Limestone. There are trees along this enclosed fenced area. You'll see on the inside the exterior of the fence, and you'll see the interior of the fence as well. and this is sort of it's got a stone wall that's sort of high and then the yard sits up higher from the sidewalk and this also gives you the fact that behind this masonry wall and the fence there are properties that do have setback. There was this also discussion about the building line on this property and I think the architect can speak to that and here of course is a proposed location of where that fence would be located or excuse me not fence but the structure would be proposed to be located and then there was a couple of trees that were concerned and concerned about too as far as pushing it back how it would be affect those trees so here's the interior of the yard and sort of that's the interior looking to where the proposed building would be located and then sort of you can see see the rear yard in general and then you can sort of see the trees in question so this is the tree that would be most impacted by since the removal of this structure has been granted then the location shifts around this fence line here and then I think there were a couple of trees here's this tree that has been just replanting sort of replacing some trees that were deteriorated that were taking down that mr. Costa had planted and sort of here's the interior that yard of the interior that fence and this is an important situation to look at depending on about how far this garage goes in the yard that will not be impactful upon the structure okay and here is the site plan of all of Rose Hill and you can see that's shed there and in the location of the concrete here there was discussion before about using this entrance but I think that has been decided that would not be the better location given the back the concrete's here and some other concerns and then here's the proposal here and you could see the fence line and how this be moved back so would not be in the same location there was discussion about being able to move this garage away from this outbuilding to give more space between and here's that building line that was discussed earlier. Here's the along the sidewalk. So as this is a conceptual review about the proposal of the garage and the location, and of course the proposed garage is, and we can see some renderings here in a second, is now proposed to be a one-car garage with with one single bay and the materials are yet to be determined by the architect can talk a little bit more about that as this is the conception of you there's no findings at this time but things to be considered is it appropriate to construct a new two bay or single bay two car garage addition is appropriate for the garage to be beside the existing shed or outbuilding? Is the roof line the proposed garage appropriate? Does the proposed modified garage roof result in too much? Oh, that's a different one. Is it appropriate for this structure to be in this location? Is it appropriate to have one car versus two car garage doors? and are the openings appropriate or the proportion directional emphasis and rhythm of the garage reflect predominant proportion emphasis and rhythm and existing adjacent surrounding buildings and of course mr. Lasco who's the architect and mr. Costa are here Thanks Amelia. Yeah, this is a two-car garage. We just changed the doors to a single door instead of two doors. There were some comments. Well, when we met with planning on the third, I will add that part of the location of the garage and what we discussed before about the building line, there was an article 15-2B4 that they indicated to us that would allow us because this is a corner lot that we could use adjacent properties and those adjacent properties that were closer to the street line then we could use that to leverage and planning would approve for us to move it closer to the to the street so part of part of that actually kind of played into our benefit because as we are looking at the demolition of this and I can't remember if we discussed this during the last meeting, but there is an existing door that goes into that existing historic structure that happens in between this garage and the face of that. I think it may actually show up a little bit more there. You can kind of see that door that we're indicating there to the inside of that existing structure. so part of what mr. Costa had wanted to do was pull it pull it away and and you know he's amenable to even pushing it back a little more from what we've shown here if that helps but it's one of those things I think that because we uncovered it we wanted to kind of showcase that a little bit or at least let that be seen and then during one of the discussions there was some objection into the sloped roof line that kind of made the garage, you know, we had transom windows and kind of looked a little big with that solid straight roof line coming across. There was some comments about the existing gable and if we had looked at different roof lines, Mr. Costa and I looked at some different inspirational images that he was moved by, which kind of put us into a different design here as far as the exterior design of this to kind of play off some of which we did with the original addition of the kitchen onto the structure. And we played with that roof line a few times. We were willing to do that here. So as we started to do that, it changed materials, it changed garage door instead of two openings, one opening, that sort of thing. And so with that, I'm just, we'll open to discussion of what you guys think about the placement of the garage. The big catch last time was, you know, if it's expanding a non-conforming use, then it doesn't matter really what you guys think at that point. If planning's going to poo-poo it, then it doesn't matter. So now planning's given us the go and also allowed us a little flexibility with regard to encroachment over top of that building line, which I think really helps. Any further questions or comments from the board members? I'll go ahead and note I will refrain from comments on this particular case. Can we go back to an image of the full site plan? I think there was one. Thank you. I'll go ahead and start. I like the revised garage. I think it's simple. I think it speaks to being kind of its own entity without competing with the historic structure. I think that a lot of our conversation last time was about exactly where it was placed kind of in relation to kind of that other structure that you have on the site, whether it should move forward or move back, I think. I would still like to see it moved back a little bit, just so that maybe the corner, it was kind of behind the corner of that existing shed roof to move it back a little bit. You know, it's been a really long night so far, and I like what you're doing. I like where you're going. I think the question is still, is it an appropriate place on the site? And I'm not sure I can answer that tonight, but I think that this has gone in the right direction from when we talked about it last month. I would say that I concur with Sarah on the overall design of it. I am pleased that there's the ability for this to be moved closer to the wall and away from the existing structure. as far as the the size or the placement forward or back I guess I'm kind of leaning on the fact that you're not putting any more very little more hardscape onto the site I do feel like that respects the site as a whole. And I don't really have any other comments. Staff has a few whenever you're ready. Go ahead. The tree that is behind where you're proposing to put this, does it? This one here? Yes, I guess. There's one up against the fence. I think that's the one up against the fence. Is that the one you're talking about? It was more substantial, I think, than the first one you pointed to. Yeah, this is one that Joe planted. and this is one that was existing there. Right. So does the new proposed site, which I agree with everything the board members have said thus far about. Yeah, that tree sits in the middle of that. So it's going down. Can you point that out because I was looking. Where is that tree? That tree is sitting right in between those two cars right there. Okay. I thought it was still a little bit further back than that. The one that Joe's planted is further back and won't be compromised, but the tree that is on that fence line, I mean it is on that fence line, and that fence line is in line with the back of the existing structure. Okay, so you would be losing that big tree that was there? Yeah, that fence line goes right through there. Sometimes it's hard to see exactly where that stuff is in photos. Sure. So how far forward toward limestone would the footprint of the garage at the size it's proposed and everything need to come? In other words, closer east. I'll do it this way so you can see it at least up to where that pavement is. That pavement is forward of the fence by a couple of feet. so is that you can like six feet yeah probably I would say we we pushed it because there's that tree and there's that fence line and you can kind of see there's the edge of the pavement and there's a little bit of grass between the edge of the pavement and that fence line now you'd still be in the canopy of that tree and my past experience have been if you're in the canopy of the tree you're going to cut the roots and you're still going to kill it eventually we'll need to as part of the review when you're ready for the full application we'll obviously need to get the urban forester and so forth and you know look at the tree and add it into the hopper of the considerations because it is even not being an urban forest it's very apparent it's a significant tree on the site and and i'm not telling you anything you all don't know oh sure yeah i mean that's we talked about that with looking at on the other site because we were probably impacting more trees there so right well and that's partly why the fact it would impact more trees on the other side yeah partly why we've per working through this staff at least had come to the conclusion that this is the better alternative as far as base location for it now we're trying to work on the nuances as are you miss kerr we have um mr query and i have been out in a temp in a preliminary look-see on on looking at this particular tree as well and it's one of those things too that any kind of construction might impact this regardless of where it is is it a healthy tree it does have some It's healthy overall. It's got a good canopy to it. It is really close to that concrete already, so its root system go a different direction. They sort of go in the yard. But it's not at risk of not continuing its life if nothing came along. Correct. It's the kind of things we have to take into consideration. Sure. And I'd be interested to know from the board, tied to not only the tree, but the alignment of the front elevation of the proposed garage being in a true line with the historic rear shed-roofed volume that is attached to the two-story masonry. It's sort of akin to the challenge about making additions where you don't step in off the building, of having it be on the identical plane side to side. It seems that as part of establishing its uniqueness and so forth might want to give consideration to either pulling it even a foot toward limestone and it evidently if we're going to take that tree back down and say that's the outcome it could go back a foot or two I know it's going into more green but I'm just wondering if there should be consideration given to not having it be literal aligned with that do you all have thoughts about that as far as what you've looked at I think we've had discussion with staff about that and and again i think that that we do have it pulled forward one foot um right now uh so you can you can see that that's not terribly significant yeah yeah but i think that that pronouncing that either way whether that is is you know recessing it back and allowing that guest house to be a little more prominent or pulling the garage forward so that that shed roof is kind of now nestled in between the garage and the main guest house i mean i think i could go either way with that i don't i don't know that i'm passionate one way or another and i know that at least from the standpoint of being able to navigate a vehicle into the garage pulling it you know three or four feet forward so that maybe it was more in line um you know with with the edge of the asphalt there um you know that you know that could and and again I mean I think renderings tell a lot you know and I know that part of the submission the next time would be renderings from multiple vantage points and not just the one vantage point that we're looking at right so yeah I assume that staff related all that to you in terms of what additional will be needed building elevation section and we right but also those those additional renderings additional renderings and not unlike a streetscape except it's a sightscape in the sense yeah visual well and I mean if it would be helpful in determining whether this pushed back and and made you know made it tertiary I guess where you would have kind of the shed that was still a bit more prominent in the garage kind of in the background or whether that shed needed to be kind of nestled in between the garage and pulling that garage forward we could do renderings both ways and bring those to that next meeting knowing that the elevations wouldn't change the sections wouldn't change but that placement may make a difference in just yeah the that you're right on target with whether the staff's discussion has been that not about changing the architectural envelope as proposed because we agree that that's it's clean it's reflective but not imitative and all those things um but the the sort of how you nestle it yeah is really in this particular instance pretty key and you all have known that from this day you started on this project outbuildings tend to not align and you see it on Rose Hills evolution yes and I understand there's a foot difference from what you're saying but the change in the forms as in their footprints relationships to each other it's pretty key so if you could do that that I think that'd be very helpful to have I mean to that point a foot looks like you either you meant to align you missed yeah so I mean I think if we pronounce it either way what we what we could do is have the the renderings that were discussed for us to bring I would have you know a option one option two for each rendering okay here's this pushed back four to six feet here's this pulled forward four to six feet from the edge of that existing shed structure and then we could have a pretty open discussion about what what aesthetically that does to the to the overall grouping of buildings when you pull it forward will you pull it forward to the point where we would save that tree i can do that yeah well i mean again it's still going to be in the canopy of that tree it is but there's also a lot of pavement there so we don't know where those roots are so if we can really think about you know if we're going to put it there and if there's a way to save that tree i mean that would that would make pulling it forward worthwhile yeah to at least try in some ways have more reasoning behind it yeah yeah well and you know we could get someone to come and look at the tree with us I mean I would just like you know for moving it forward what what does that mean to save that tree and I think that would be important and we do have a number of scenarios where I mean nothing is ideal in these urban settings for these trees certainly Everybody acknowledges that. I would offer to the board that, in my perspective, the consideration should be to get the garage at the right spot. If you want, I'll plant another big tree. You know, we're trying to jigsaw this around for a lot of different competing concerns. I'm not an artist, I'm not an architect, but it looks to me carriage house, shed, garage, should all sort of step back. And I love your original idea, stepping it back. That's sort of a dead corner in the property anyway. And if, listen, I love trees as much as anybody. I got a lot of old ones on the property, but I'll plant another one, you know, as tall as this room. That's not a hard thing to do, but I would offer that if we start to try to pigeon this around the tree, let's take the tree out of the equation, put a new tree wherever you want it, And let's position the garage. Personally, when you step it back, you have a perspective of seeing the door that was uncovered that I didn't even know was there. that I'm not saying it's historically significant, but it was there. And if you push the garage forward as you enter, you don't even see the door anymore. And I think it's an architectural feature that would not suffer from being exposed to someone walking down Fifth Street and looking at that view and that angle. So, again, I just want to let the board know, I'll plant you another tree. Don't worry about the tree. Get the garage where you want it. Well, I mean, my inclination was immediately to push it back. I agree with you. But then I do think about those trees, and it is a nice tree. So, yeah, I mean. And our process is very specific about protecting the historic trees. So we appreciate and understand the thought that your generosity of thinking of planting a very substantial new tree, but our process does need to go through the considerations to protect the existing ones. So we'll need to continue on in that thought along with all the other ones that are being weighed. The other question I had, last one, is tied to the pitch of the roof. Is that with just the schematic, I didn't try to get out utensils and figure it out, but it looks like it's a slightly lower pitch, or is it identical? I've tried to make it the same pitch as the, and we will confirm that pitch, but we took a LIDAR scanner, and so I took, it is not an exact like 512, 612, it's some weird angle. so we basically took the lidar scan of the existing carriage house there. My suggestion is I don't know what the board members want to think toward this and be interested in their take that you might be able to drop the pitch on that roof a bit, not hugely but so that it is not a twin of the pitch of the main mass and it also will help make the garage just slightly more or less blocking of the historic house. And so just give that some thought, if you would. What do you board members think of that? I think the higher pitch works well with the existing. I'm not picturing anything cut in half. I'm thinking of very slight adjustment. But anyway, I appreciate your thoughts. Sarah, what do you think? I guess I'm open to seeing it. I thought the pitch looked appropriate here, but it is hard to tell from this kind of three-dimensional angle exactly what that's doing. Sure. The flip side of that. I do like, you know, you can see that historic structure kind of beyond it and that corner that is nice to try. And the flip side of that is, you know, there's nothing successful about a building with the pitch being too low. It's got problems in all the other directions in terms of the relationships to what's existing. So, Barry and Amelia, did you all have anything about questions on this? I just think that I want to make sure that the pitch doesn't look still has a rural feel of having or not an urban feel of having a little height to it. But I think I'm afraid everybody thinks I'm thinking cut that thing. No, no, no, no, no, no. I know, but I mean, I recognize what you're saying. I mean, my own observation is just making sure it's not too squatty that looks too suburban. I'm thinking not twins. Betty, I'm going to try to ask a question instead of a comment. Would you be willing to go up instead of down on the pitch? In light of the fact we're trying to keep the historic outbuildings the dominant piece, I'd say that goes opposite to that, but I understand your point. It's another way to accomplish difference, and it would not be unattractive, but it would also prevail more strongly as a visual element, and we're trying to have people experience the historic that's beyond it. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Thanks. Okay. That's from the staff's perspective. back to you guys i don't think i have any more comments i know what we need to prepare okay we'll be ready for a full review next round when would what do i need to when do i need to submit and when will that put us on the next round the ever popular july 20th meeting that's what sounds like the best you put us before them I think we're going to have to get a hat and draw straws. I don't know. The problem might be, although you've not got so much left to do to get ready, we'd have to have your materials submitted. Barry, what's our deadline? Was it last? Is it tomorrow? Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Tomorrow, yes. You're not going to be able to make that one. Well, it means you'll miss the July 20th party. Yeah, for legal notice purposes, you know, we have to have those deadlines as they're structured. So we're looking at August. It would be August 17th. It would be two months. Two months. Before we go for a full review. Because our legal notice and everything takes about five to six. We have to have a five to six week window to get people on the dockets with all the requirements. can't go tomorrow huh well I think I mean is there a flexibility of us having a few days to get that in for the next meeting legally no everybody has to meet the deadlines August 17th it is Do you guys need to have any motions? No, today just an informal discussion. There's no need for that, but we'll plan to look forward to getting your materials tied to the schedule for the August 17th. Appreciate the comments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. You've made great headway. Thank you. All right. We have another conceptual review. at 326 South Broadway. Do you want to let staff do their thing? Sure. Sorry. Here you got up and moved. But that might not be bad. Maybe everybody should run around the room a minute. Barry, are you our person on this? I am. Excellent. Thank you. Okay, conceptual review 326 South Broadway. The scope of the work is to construct an addition. The applicant is requesting a conceptual review for a two-story addition on still columns over the existing on-grade parking lot. They want to do this so as not to dramatically reduce the number of existing parking spaces. The BOAR approved a vertical circulation tower addition to the rear of the historic structure in the May 24, 2017 meeting. The addition was completed, and now the applicant is proposing to construct a further addition to the rear of the vertical circulation addition. The second and third levels of the addition is approximately 42 feet by 73 feet. The overall height of the proposed addition is 36 feet, which is close to the height of the historic structure's top of roof elevation. As noted above, the proposed addition is constructed on steel columns with an additional board-formed concrete stair tower from grade, which would be at the back of this new addition. And then the finishes of the tower are brick and ephus. at the second and third stories, respectively. The structural still system of the structure is to be expressed to the exterior of the addition and painted. The bays of the structure are filled with anodized aluminum storefront system with clear glass and an open observation deck with a glass guardrail occurs at the third floor level. So this is the Broadway elevation of 326, and I'm going to work around the structure. because of the property line and the trees you can't really see what occurs on that south elevation this is the previously approved and constructed vertical circulation tower This is looking on towards the rear of the parking. This is from the east property line at the rear of the structure. And you can see the parking in this area and there's also an adjacent parking lot on the property to the north. This looking back to the southwest and continuing on out the drive on this side until we get to the front again. The guidelines are included for your use. and findings as this is a conceptual review staff has no findings but the following are some questions that the board may want to consider number one is it appropriate to construct an addition with open parking at grade does the historic structure and the two additions cover too much of the lot is the design and keeping with the historic structure and let's delete that last part because it obviously does not do that are the windows and doors compatible with the existing structure and is the three-story structure appropriate for the site is the three-story structure compatible with the historic structure is the structure too massive is the volume mass and form of this addition consistent with the streetscape i'll just kind of run through the drawings quickly and then let mr lee give you all of the pertinent details so at this first level the open parking will remain this is the rear stair that I mentioned this is the vertical circulation that was built or approved in 2017 two floor plans you can see the movement of the in and out of the structure so it's just not a monolithic line there this is South elevation so you can see see the parking here the express structure with the glass infill and this would be the location of that outdoor paddy or terrace area and then these provided sections through the structure does the board have any questions for me I do have one. Yes, ma'am. One of the questions is if the addition covers too much of the lot, do our guidelines have what's equivalent to a floor area ratio? They do not, but we do look at lot coverage and pattern of development within the historic district. But there is not a set ratio of the lot coverage. Hi, I'm Paul Lee with Studio A Architecture. Thanks for having us today. and I've always admired your positions and kind of wished I was up there with you guys, but not tonight. With that said... I don't have much butt. That's okay. He didn't mean it. Be careful what you ask for. Right, right. The owners of 326 Broadway came to me and wanted to do an addition. Their business is growing, and they love their location. They're outgrowing their space, and they've looked for other locations in town, but they just cannot find something that is as wonderful as the space that they have or the location that they have. And so when we did a program for their needs, we came up with that they need 4,000 to 5,000 square feet of extra space for their growth. And we started just doing some sketches together. And at first, every sketch was just taking up a lot of land mass, and it was disrupting the flow of their site. They love the flow of their site where you come in one way and you circle around the back and you come out the other. It's very convenient for them and their clients. And so it was just kind of having an on-ground addition just wasn't working for them. And so I came up with the idea that maybe we elevate this addition and we give it some space underneath and we strategically place columns so that we can park around them and create and not lose any parking in that. And so what we did is we came up with a two floor space that's elevated that's about 12 to 14 feet off of the ground at the drive level. And we'll attach that at the second level of the first edition that you guys let us that you approved and let us build as well and then we'll because it's such a long space it requires a secondary means of egress out the back and so we had to create a stair at the back and we and that even that structure we we talked I talked with my engineer about that and at first he was saying that the structure being a two-story basically on stilts that's so long it's going to have a lot of shear problems and so he needed something to stabilize the back which is why we created the enclosed stair rather than an open is to help in those sheer properties. And so we just kind of came together and we designed an addition that we think meets the guidelines and especially in width and height. We're not taller than the existing building. We're not wider than the existing building. And the floor area ratio for P1 is 1.3, so we're nowhere near 24,000 square feet in the end as well. Our final total area is just a little over 11,000 square feet. And we'd like to hear any of your comments or suggestions. How closely do the new finished floors of the addition align with what's going on in the existing structure? So we will have to create a small ramp from the second floor of the old addition, the first addition, to the new addition. To ramp down. To actually, if I remember correctly, it's up, but it's only like 12 inches. So we only need, within that connection, we only need 12 or 14 feet or something like that. So you're coming out of the first floor, second floor of the existing, and you ramp up 12 inches to this first floor of this addition? That's correct. So your new floor line is 12 inches above your old floor line? And then on the third floor you're coming up and you're ramping up again. On the third floor we are, yes, that's correct. We have a ramp on both levels. The 12 foot at the bottom, was that kind of a, I should probably know this answer, but is that kind of a minimum for car clearance underneath the building? Yeah, we're trying to get at least 12 to 13 for box trucks because they have some deliveries to come. And still would like to have that circulation so they don't have to do a U-turn or stop on Broadway. Heavens forbid that. So I had a couple of comments. I think having open parking at grade helps to, I think that that fits within the guidelines. Okay. So the concern that I have with it is that although it is the same height as the existing structure, the height of the existing structure is gained by a sloped roof. And so because this is a box structure, a flat roof structure, it feels taller. It is not taller, but it feels taller. And not having the definition of, you know, like the height of the vertical circulation ends. having those at that higher as a limited amount I think works fine, but to have the entirety of that building at that higher it feels like it would be less, it would be secondary to the existing if it was possible to lower the majority of that mass so that it read lower from the roof level because it's very distinctive from the existing, and that meets the guidelines. It's not imitative in any way. That meets the guidelines. And what I'm suggesting is that the height of it gives the feeling that it's a bit in competition with the existing, which we would like for it to be secondary. And I mean, it's secondary and distinctive in a lot of other ways. So that's just my comment on it. I agree with Suzanne, which is why I was asking the question about that height for driving vehicles under there because I wanted to try to think of a way to lower it and try to just get it, you know, just, you know, it'd be great to get it kind of below the existing EVE line, but that's probably a little too short. But it just does feel, it feels really tall back there. And if it could come down a little bit, that would be great. But with that 12 feet, I was like, that's why I asked about the clearance for vehicles. And if you have box trucks and stuff going under there, the last thing you want is to immediately hit your new building with a truck. Now, we are doing 12-foot floor-to-floor. We could probably bring that down. Especially if they maybe don't do acoustical ceiling inside and leave open structure. and so the interior won't feel as tall or I'm sorry short and squatty. So we could maybe that second to third floor could go to 10 and a half and then even the third floor to roof could maybe go to 10 and that would lower the whole thing 30 inches. Mm-hmm. Certainly. This is Dan Rose. He's one of the owners. I think he's my partner. Bruce says that you all know their man of Bruce. And he's with our line, too. Okay, a couple things. I'd love you all to come out and see our property and what we've done to it. I mean, we're very proud of it. We bought it in 2015. We spent a lot of money on it, making it a much better property. We totally rehabbed the whole inside of it. We'd love you to come see it. I think we're really proud of it. the if you look at the property from the front it sits up on the hill yeah it sits up on the hill so and i understand your concern about the scale of all this i know this is important but when you look at the building from the front with this addition you won't even see this addition right i do understand that it won't be visible from the and from the from the one side we've got this ugly apartment building on the other side of us which totally blocks that view at all And on the left side, that's properties owned by the webs, and they're trying to ground lease that. At some point, there's going to be some kind of pretty large hotel or something there. So I would submit to you that when you look at this roofline issue, it's not a material issue in terms of the visibility from really either side, especially in the long term when you consider what's going to go on the corner there. So I'm not suggesting that we wouldn't try to accommodate your concern on lowering it some, but I just don't want to get us boxed into something here in advance of actually having to rework that, because I think getting the cars under there is really key. But I'd love you guys to come see it anyway. I just thought I'd say that before we got it. Not arguments we haven't heard before. Yes. I mean, we understand how you're going to use this building and the context of this really being a downtown and being a lot of parking. And you do have that little apartment. I mean, this is a unique structure and a unique setting in a historical district. And so we do understand all of that context. I'm just trying to communicate the guidelines which I see could be potential problems. I mean, the overall design of it, I think it can very much complement your building as a modern addition to it. So it's really tweaking how it's going to really relate to the building. And it might be a little bit large for the site, but that's... It's hard to look at that aspect because you're surrounded by buildings that are within a historic overlay that has a very diverse ground floor area ratio, basically. So we have everything from zero floor area ratio to much higher. And then you have the more historical floor area ratio, several ones down that used to be what's there. So that one's a little tricky for that location. I feel. But I think, you know, not like the, how is it consistent with the streetscape? I do feel like what is being presented is very respectful of the streetscape in that it's not going to be very visible from the streetscape. So, but just because you don't, we try to look at it as a holistic volume and not just what are you going to see from somebody walking down the street, whether you visualize that or not. It does and doesn't matter. I mean, it's a holistic volume. You want to make sure that it works. and more importantly respects the history. I mean, that's what our concern is and what the guidelines are to do is to respect the historical structure. Any other comments? I don't think I do. I mean, I think it mostly works. I think there's just thinking about heights a little bit. OK. I like that your steel and glass concept I think is a good choice for this. I think you could go with less push and pull. I think if your detailing is really nice and it appears from your drawing, that's where you're wanting to head with it. And I offer that as a bit of relief if you can make use of it. Less push and pull? I think so. Because in a steel and glass building, you're looking for clean, clean, platonic form conditions, and that's also economic too. The trade-off was losing some square feet that they need within their program. Well, I was offering it as a... Because sometimes folks will come in and they'll try to push and pull the daylights out of it. It really wasn't a feature of a design feature. It was really because they need the space. And I would say, kind of adding to that, one of the things I really like about it is the glass and the steel and the simpleness of it. I think when you start detailing it out, you might start losing some of that thinness that we're seeing in the slab and things. and that's, I think, what really makes it a really nice detail in design, and gives it kind of a unique character. And I think it's pulled away, you know, the inset at the junction between the old and the new is very, very clear that you have that stepped-in area. I think that that's important and that that's part of the guidelines that we try to encourage. Okay. I think all the site-related questions are workable at this point. Of course, I'm not going to be here next time, but they told me to talk anyway. I like to hear your comments. Unless you really wanted to come to the next meeting. Yeah, right. I love serving my city. I do. Honestly, I do. But site conditions, I think, they're workable. Okay. Anything else that you have concerns about or questions? No, I just know that they are chomping at the bit to go, so we are wanting to proceed to the next certificate of appropriateness if we can. I think I was just going to mention if it's time for staff comments or not. I don't know. Yeah. Well, let me get one more thing. So there's the elevator addition that's already there. if you can utilize some of that language or material or color or something I think that would help you in the end otherwise you would have like first building, second edition third edition that's not the intention I was part of the first edition so I definitely want to make sure it matches that's the end of my comments Amelia? I think one of the conversations we had earlier on was just about the window divides, and I just didn't know if anybody had any comments about the fenestration, about the windows, the glazing, or the pattern, if there was any issues that anybody had with those. I don't have any. And that might go back to your comment, Josh, about the elevator tower. That might go back to your comment regarding having the same language as the elevator tower. I think the window pattern expresses a great deal of openness, which makes it distinctly different than the existing, the historic. So, Amelia, you're comparing it to the existing windows in the elevator tower? No, I think when Mr. Lee presented it to us before, there was a little bit more of a busier window pattern, so I think this has cleaned that up a little more. And I was just going back to thinking about the same language of the windows in the tower versus with the windows that he's proposed in this plan. I think the clean, simple pattern, the more you can go that way, the more this is distinctive. the more open it feels the less volume it portrays and those are the guidelines that i'm looking at Thank you. footprint of existing conditions, et cetera, et cetera, and the character of the whole block with its rear yard, and I include in that yard including parking lots, open space. So let's talk about open space for a minute. I think this results in filling the lot front to back overly full. And how many feet do you have remaining? I see on your one of your subliminal sheets, but I didn't know exactly how many feet. I mean, I see on your schematic you've got about a half of a car length coming to the edge and then what is the little planting strip that is before the rear fence. So how many feet would you approximate half a car length and whatever that land to the rear property line would remain unbuilt on. So as far as the parking or the stairs? Stairs. The east wall of the stairs. The stairs are right at the 12-foot setback that's required in P1, rear yard setback. So 12 feet from your property line. Okay. I think that is excessive relative to utilization of the site, relative to the evolution and character of the historic district. And you know me, I just have to say it like I see it. I appreciate many things about this. The open space idea to, you know, keep your parking. That's been done a couple places downtown. not very well in long distant past the why it's one of the worst examples we will not blame anyone in this room for that but I don't think the concept is is out of the question I just think there's proportionate to the open space on the lot and the character defining rhythm of the other properties even to and including some of those 1960s, the apartment building next door, I mean, that kind of thing. It's probably, at this point, without my having done a formal survey of this issue, I would say the one next door is probably the most coverage, wouldn't you, from front to back, in the Broadway-facing properties between High and Maxwell. I'm guessing that that is probably the most coverage of structure. that is immediately to the south of this, I think. Isn't that the just-next-door neighbor to this apartment? The apartments, the old apartments? Yes. Yeah. So I think there's inherent in this a base issue that doesn't meet our guidelines, and that is the utilization of such a volume of building occupying all the way in a unified series of forms from the front elevation of the historic house to within 12 feet of the back property line. I think that is not within our guidelines. Certainly for the, when you get to a formal submittal, we will need elevations that include the entire elevation of the historic structure. Thus far, you've provided ones that reference it but do not have the entire building, and that's a really important thing. I know it's in your schematic, and I'm looking at that and have been quite, of course, a lot while we're talking. So it's not that I misunderstand what you're proposing, but I think we need true elevations reflecting. or historic structure. Because I think what you, what is sort of becoming unbalanced is that the historic structure's linear presence is about to be dwarfed by this. Do you happen to know off the top of your head what the length of the historic structure is, not including the front porch, from the front facade to the rear elevation, Rear wall of the historic right where your 2017 edition commences. I don't have that with me. In my next level of drawings, I'll include that. And, you know, when you see your schematics, I mean, it's not that we can't look at those volumes lined up, but we are going to need it in an elevation, which you understand. I think everybody knows to know, and board members have referenced it, our process is charged with evaluating all four elevations and all four sides of properties proposals without the, well, you're not going to see it from the street or you're not going to see it from this angle and you're not going to see it from there. All those things aren't what our guidelines are charges with. So I wanted to reference that. I do think that when you talk about the building itself, I've kind of, I think, given you enough of the concern about the site. I do think that if the building could be as you've referenced, it does read taller even though it's not taller the roof line but the problem being you're getting this triangulated you know the vertical wall comes all the way up and then the angled roof on the historic mass it leaves you with the understanding or with the perception that the new build is greater than. And it's, that's an issue, I'd say. I think that, you know, the contemporary approach and all is certainly within the guidelines, but I think the form and the footprint and the relationship in volumes is the red flags that I see. I drove one evening, I confess I drove over the parking stops of the people next door. I missed my turn. But I drove around and sat in the back for a few minutes, you know, just looking. Didn't have the drawings with me or anything, but I looked at them quickly. I won't pretend I've studied them when I did that. And it left me with the concerns you're hearing and more. it's a lot and it to me really crosses over into the problem of is the tail of the dog wagging the dog so I think you get the gist one other thing I was going to mention is Paul have you done any kind of schematics or study from how this building is going to look from South Mill Street because you know you've got a really tall building then a really small building right behind you. Right the the renderings that we have were of course started from with a drone and but we have not created any renderings from a human scale which we could do that as well. I think one of the things that's going to have to be evaluated is this open space rhythm within this whole block bounded from Broadway to Mill and High Street to Maxwell because I think you will find that this will be I'm going to guess the biggest Dudley School the historic Dudley School which is across the street but still within the district and everything across street being at Mill and Maxwell is a very large volume, obviously, historic building. But it contextually sits more centered into its parcel generally. It's a little closer to the alley, a little closer to the east. But it, in its day, would have been certainly, you know, as a public building, not in the rhythm of all the residential architectural buildings built. And, you know, this district encompasses from 1790s all the way up to the present. So you've got a complicated story of evolution of space, evolution of architecture, evolution of volumes, heights. Heights are capped within some contextual similarities, obviously from one story to two stories and so forth and so on. And again, with Dudley School being the exception. But I think there's a lot to take into consideration about something that would result in this amount of utilization of this site. Because it will be a real presence that is atypical of the historic district. That's my story. Mr. Almost to be not member of the board. Are you back to you? Do you have any questions for us, Paul? I don't. Not right now. Well, you know where to find us. Would you gentlemen like to add anything? Good evening. I'm Bruce Simpson, attorney. I practice land use law in our fair city from time to time. One of the, as I was discussing this, and I just recently joined the firm, I don't get too many cases before the Board of Architectural Review because you all must make pretty wise decisions and there's not too many court appeals and things must get along pretty harmoniously. And I hope that's the case here. One of the dilemmas I see in terms of just land use policy, which it dovetails into historic preservation, which I am a big fan of, what it's done for downtown Lexington and its resurgence. it's unbelievable. I represent historic neighborhoods. I can attest to their vitality and their value that they have contributed to our community. It's fantastic and as Dan Rose said, very proud of this particular building and all the improvements that have been made in which we'd love to have you come in and take a look. Our clients have really appreciated it. Back to my point, the particularly beginning in 2018, although it even predates 2018, the Planning Commission and the Comprehensive Plan update and all of the hearings that take place over a two-year period have fashioned a clear priority, particularly since the 2018 plan, for our community along the corridors is to intensify development the purpose of that is to increase density in the downtown urban core in order to try overall preserve as much rural land as we can our horse farm brand if you will the emphasis is redoubled in 2018 every application that I represent an applicant for a zone change when I go and with the staff and I'm proposing the clients proposing to do a project along a major corridor density density density increase the density Bruce you're not dense enough I just had one irony of ironies you live long enough I guess you wind up just seeing it go in a full circle and this happened to me about six or seven months ago it's a suburban project but But the planning staff, which, you know, we have back and forth on given projects, which is, that's natural. But the staff was a commercial project and a residential project along Harrodsburg Road. The staff recommended disapproval in large part because our project wasn't dense enough. They wanted more intensity of the commercial, which usually neighborhoods just balk against historically. and the applicant actually wanted to do more density on the property, but it would have to be vertical density. And in all of the research we did consulting all of the real estate, commercial real estate brokers, there simply was not a market for increasing vertical commercial density, and there wasn't enough density to have enough apartments to put on top of the commercial. And so we weren't able to meet the staff's criticisms of not increasing density. I only say that to say this about this project. And to a certain extent, increasing density here in terms of what Paul has proposed, when I hear your questions, and they're well taken, and of course I've respected Betty for years in her opinion, is that if we're going to be consistent and try to harmonize these land use policies, it seems to me that there are opportunities for flexibility and accommodation to increase density. And consider the whole site, and I know you all do this, and this is my only point because I'm out of my element when I'm sharing with you guys, but it is a land use issue. that in order to further the advance the goal of increasing density that we can be flexible in terms of context sensitive design which I think Paul has done considering the surrounding properties to accommodate this additional space for density particularly I mean we're almost on Main Street you know so I would just ask that that be a factor as we as you all contemplate this when we make a full presentation whenever that may be but that's all I have to say I appreciate your attention thank you thank you very much mr. Simpson all right do we have any minutes or mr. Lee do you have more to I just thank you for your time on this evening yes thank you for working with the staff and coming to discuss it with the board. Appreciate it. Thank you for your patience tonight. Oh yeah. All right. Do we have any minutes? We don't have any minutes to approve tonight. All right. We do however have one parting comment to our party sitting there as the acting chair. We would all, I think on behalf of the full board, some of whom were not able to either stay this long or be here tonight, and certainly the staff and the government generally, and certainly this community. We would like to thank Josh Gilpin very much for all of your good work, your dedication to public service, and your dedication to really giving such careful consideration, utilizing a process with certain charges, and helping citizens work through, as you all do, but each sort of brings a separate niche to the board, and that's why there are boards. And we're just very appreciative of all your dedication to this process, and we hope you will not be a stranger down the road. You know, we could be your part two for this process somewhere along the way if you have an interest. That may be. Thank you very much. Well, it's been my pleasure. Thank you for asking me to be here, Betty. We're very, very grateful. Thank you. You're very welcome. All right. Shall we move to adjourn? So moved. We're adjourned. Thank you. He got a lifetime of love To see him through Girl, I got the memories He got you He got you, baby He got you He got you Baby, baby, baby He got you He got you, baby He got you He got you Baby, baby, baby He got you Oh, play me some mountain music Like grandma and grandpa used to play Then I'll float on down the river To Cajun Hideaway Ripped away like Tom Sawyer Ride a ralph with old Huck Finn Take a nap like Rip Van Winkle They're screaming again Oh, play me some mountain music Like grandma and grandpa used to play And I'll float on down the river To Cajun Highway Swim across the river Just to prove that I'm a man Spend the day being lazy Just being nature's friend I'm a long, tall, hickory Bending over skinning cats Playing baseball with shirt rocks Using sawmill slaps for bats Play some back home, come on music That comes from the heart Play something with lots of feelings Cause that's where music has to start Oh, play me some mountain music Like grandma and grandpa used to play Then I'll float on down the river To the cage and hide away Hey, hey Oh, play me now music. Oh, play me now music. Oh, play me now music. Oh, play. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Jesus! Sitting in my car outside your world And when you spill coke all over your flat T-shirts, cut-offs, and apparel T-shirts, cut-offs, and apparel We've been having fun all summer long All summer long, you've been with me I can't see enough of you On the summer line we've both been free Won't be long till summertime is Summertime is due Miniature golf and Honda's in the Miniature golf and Honda's in the When we rode that horse we got some thrills Every now and then we hear our stars Every now and then we are so weak And have a fall of summer love Won't be long till summertime is Summertime is through Every now and then we hear our song We've been having fun all summer long We've been having fun all summer long We've been having fun all summer long We've been having fun. You can look at the menu, but you just can't eat. You can feel the cushions, but you can't have a seat. You can dip your foot in the pool, but you can't have a swim. You can feel the punishment, but you can't go with the sand. And you want her, and she wants you. We want everyone. And you want her, and she wants you. No one, no one, no one ever is to blame You can build a mansion but you just can't live in Your fastest runner But you're not allowed to win Some bigger rules And let's have a cost The insecurity The thing that's broken by And you want her And she wants you We want everyone And you want her And she wants you No one, no one, no one ever Is to blame You won't see the summit But you can't reach it It's the last piece of the puzzle But you just can't make it That decision cured But you still feel the pain Aspirations in the clouds But your hopes are down the drain And you wonder Who else you want to Be wild as everyone And you wonder Don't tell what you want. Don't tell what you want. On this edition of Lexington Now, Juneteenth, the Bluegrass Fair and the Kentucky River Clean Sweep. I'm Neil Noah and welcome to Lexington Now for the week of June 13, 2022. Lexington is celebrating Juneteenth in grand fashion this year with events running throughout the week leading up to this important date. We were there for the announcement. This is our first opportunity to really celebrate Juneteenth as a national holiday. And I want to thank the people in our community. We are going to have a great celebration. Community organizers are presenting a variety of events in celebration of Juneteenth, and they're here today to talk about some of those. We have five different events on Saturday and Sunday, June 18th and 19th, and I'm going to take them in chronological order. So first, Soleteenth, June 18th from noon to 7 o'clock. I'd just like to say we're so thankful to the city of Lexington as well as Mayor Gordon and everybody involved for their support of Soul Feast Week. But more importantly, their support of Juneteenth and really recognizing our grassroots organizations as we're really doing our work to impact our communities. In regards to Soul Teeth Festival, that'll be Saturday, June 18th at Moondance Amphitheater. It's a free family festival. We'll have food trucks, other vendors, as well as entertainment, live performances. It'll be a really, really fun time. So we're super thankful for using Soul Teeth and using Soul Feast Week for this opportunity as we really kick off our Black Restaurant Week, which will be June 20th through the 26th. So we're super excited to continue to do the work in really impacting and economically empowering our Black businesses here in Central Kentucky. And we're looking forward to most working with all these organizations as we continue to grow Juneteenth in Lexington in hopes of making it a regional travel destination around Juneteenth for years to come. June 18th from 7 to 8.30 p.m. is the Juneteenth Jubilee. Lexington actually pulls its weight a lot more than the rest of the country as far as Juneteenth goes. In one cemetery, we have Gordon Granger who announced it, and in African Cemetery number two, we have one of the individuals who was actually at the announcement of Juneteenth. When you think about what we're doing, we are giving the background for the history and the importance of this event. We're meeting from 7 to 8.30. We're going to have lots of events that are going to inform you about the significance of Juneteenth. We'll have Civil War reenactors. We'll have a reenaction camp. We'll have music from the Civil War. And you'll have an opportunity to walk around the cemetery and see some of the individuals who played that important part in the role of African Americans in the Civil War. Next, Juneteenth Festival, 11 o'clock to 7 p.m. on June 19th. We're planning on having the Juneteenth. We call it Juneteenth Jubilee as well. And of course, Ms. Giles, we're having that from 11 to 7 PM at IMAC. We are a grassroots organization. We've been having Juneteenth like celebration here in the city of Lexington since 2016. But again, like I said, we're grassroots organization and what we want to do is we want to center the American freedmen, which are the descendants of the emancipated enslaved here in Lexington. We want to center them on this day, give thanks to them for their service, not only to Lexington, but to the whole country in its entirety. Next is Juneteenth celebration. Just like everybody else's, we have ours is centered around fun and family. of the