Music I would like to welcome you to the July 20, 2022 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review. We appreciate those of you who are in attendance today. I apologize for being just a little breathy, but I have allergies. I would like to take a moment before we actually start our proceedings by acknowledging the fact that over the past two or three months, we have lost two of our stalwart promoters of historic preservation. Mr. Chair, is your mic on? Yes, ma'am, it is. Can you lean in it or something? I am leaning into it, I think. It's just a little soft, a little hard to hear you. Well, I'm a little breathy today, too. Is that better? Yes, just as they say in the movie, speak out, Louise. All right. Never had that problem before. Anyway, on May 30, Dick DeCamp, age 90, passed away after a lengthy illness, and more recently, Clyde Carpenter, age 88, also died. Both men were well known to anyone who was involved in historic preservation. In the classical sense of the word, they were truly titans, in that they were both men who exhibit great strength and intelligence in advocating the protection of the important historic sections of Lexington. Very briefly, Dick DeCamp should be recognized for the fact that he was the first director of the Bluegrass Trust, and he founded the BGT plaque program to call attention to historic homes as an educational tool. His legacy lives on in the fact that you can see the oval markers all over town on the front face of the historic structures. In addition, he headed up the Bicentennial Commission starting about 1973, which eventually evolved into the Historic Preservation Commission, of which he was the director until it was merged in today what is known as the LFUCG Historic Preservation Office. While he headed up the Historic Preservation Program, he spearheaded several historic surveys, which proved useful in establishing many of the historic districts that we have today. Clyde Carpenter was a contemporary of Dick LeCamp, and they both would spar from time to time because they were both passionate men that sometimes had differing views about historic reservation, but they worked together and served together for many, many years. I don't have enough time to discuss all the numerous awards that Clyde Carpenter was awarded of the fact that he was a true mentor of many of the young architectural students who are now middle-aged men and women. For a more detailed review, you must read the obituary that was prepared by the Bluegrass Trust, of which he, like Dick, was a longtime member and leader. Clyde was an instrumental leader of BOAR, in which he was its chair for over 25 years. I first met Clyde when I joined the board in 2010, or 2002. I took a departure and came back, I've not been on the board for 20 some odd years, but Clyde was still going strong several years into the 2000s. I know from personal experience how important he was to the work of this organization, and I take guidance from him in terms of how I had to direct the meeting. So in closing, on the behalf of the board members and staff, and for all of us who love historic preservation, I dedicate this meeting to the memory of Dick DeCamp and Clyde Carpenter. Thank you. They would appreciate that. All right, starting into our regular agenda today, the board was established by zoning ordinance in 1958. Our first historic district was Grants Park, and we now have a total of 15 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. The Board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The Historic Preservation Office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in order in which they're listed on our agenda with slight deviations. In each case, we'll have a presentation staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that this information can be recorded correctly. i would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review of the applications there are certain items that the staff can approve eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board there are a total of 31 applications have been approved by the staff they are as follows beginning in the ashland park start district at 240 to sherry road replace roof at 307 to share road installed new handrails at 1003 fontaine road remove uh deteriorated trees 141 south hanover avenue remove damage tree in the ellsford historic district at 622 central avenue remove deteriorated tree at 601 east high street remove deteriorated tree at 722 east high street rebuild rebuild and replace front porch and box cutters at 365 transylvania park reissue the coa to resume structure in the bell court history district at 154 east belcourt renovate the french uh for porch at 155 west bell court renovate front porch and reconstruct rear fence at 601 russell avenue prepare for painting in the grounds park historic district at 340 new street shore and rebuild the masonry wall at 243 north mill street replace the replacement door at 250 at west third street remove dead trees in the north side historic district at 426 north broadway replace the sidewalks and walkways at 429 north broadway install landscape plan at 429 north broadway renovate structure at 437 west 2nd street repair repave driveway at 438 west 2nd street remove deteriorated trees at 445 west 2nd street replace trees and at 444 west 3rd street renovate the front structure in the pensacola historic district at 150 pinmoken road replace the roof at 137 rosemont garden repair rear staircase and deck in the seven parts historic district at 546 arcadia park remove declining tree at 623 nicholasville road replaced driveway at 623 nicholas rail road also replaced the fencing in the south upper historic district at 346 south upper street replace roof in the western suburbs historic district at 511 west short street install fencing in the interior property at 622 west main street replace deteriorate materials and basement access doors at 706 west mextro street renovate the structure and finally in the woodward heights district and 314 Reno Street renovate structure. We will now begin the review of the applications, beginning first with 519 Central Avenue replace and modify windows. Is the applicant here? Yes, Darren. Good afternoon. I'm going to have to apologize, Darren. I got things out of order a little bit. You're fine. Here we go. Well, here we go. It's coming, I think. Darren, I believe the staff has recommended approval of your application? Yes, sir. With what we call the standard conditions? Yes, Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. Apologies. please. The staff has recommended approval of the application subject to what I call the standard conditions. I'll read them into the record. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Secondly, once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement with those conditions yes sir m all right do i have any questions or comments from the board members any questions or comments from the audience hearing none i believe we're ready for a motion chair as per case number 03630519-b at 519 central 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. Those nay, the motion passes and the application as conditioned is approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you much. All right. We have two applications pertaining to 179 Oak Park Avenue, one of which I believe you would like to be heard on. Is that correct? All right. Can I say that again? With 179 Old Park Avenue, there's a disapproval on one of them. Do you want to be heard on that application? Is that the pavement one? Yes, it is. Yes. So my name is Jason Zavala, by the way, representing Fernando Perez. I'm going to stop you right there. If you don't mind, my practice is the sound of the entire docket, and then circle back to the cases where we need to have a factual finding. Oh, okay. Sorry. So I'll be back to you hopefully in a few minutes. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, number three, or number four actually, at 624 Sarah Avenue. Is the applicant here? If you'll state your name for the record. My name is Daniel Thornberry. I'm representing the owner of 624 Sarah Avenue. Okay. The scope of work is demolished solarium, garage and site work, instruct the addition garage driveway curb cut and stone patio i believe the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to i get to it got the subject to the standard conditions which i just previously read into the record of are you in agreement with those conditions i am all right any questions or Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, hearing none, Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 16780624F at 624 Sarah Avenue, I move that we approve this certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion in 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 as conditioned. Thank you. All right. Next on the agenda is 109, Constitution Street which is in the Mulberry Hill historic district. Mr. Neal, I know that you want to be heard on this. I know there are probably people who would like to comment. Let me finish sounding the docket and I'll come back to you. Thank you. Going to our next item on the agenda at 426 North Broadway. The applicant is LP Investments. Scope of work is replace walks, construct concrete parking. State your name for the record, please. Chaz Lentz. All right. Mr. Lentz, I believe the staff has recommended approval of your application. Subject to what I've been calling the standard conditions, and I read those into the record. Are you in agreement with those conditions? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none. The chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 02500426-L at 426 North Broadway, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. The chair is ready for a motion. Hearing no discussion on the motion, is there? Chair is ready to call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Okay, the motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Can I borrow the next one from someone I got down here without the full application? Thank you. All right. This is 612 North Broadway in the Northside Historic District. Construct pool, paving, and privacy fence. Is the applicant here? Applicant? No applicant? The applicant is not present. The applicant is not present. Have you consulted with him the conditions that you have discussed? There are three conditions. One is provide the staff with a patio final paver selection. Correct. COA. Yes. Did he agree with that? I have not spoken with him. Okay, I think I'm not comfortable moving forward without some kind of a, at least telephonic communication from him that he's in agreement. I'll put this off to the end and see whether he gets here. Okay. It sounds good. All right. All right. Turning now to 444 West 3rd Street. Scope of work is construct covered porch. Applicant is here. This is good. Yes, sir, I am. Good afternoon. Carol Martin, owner of 444 West 3rd Street. Okay, Ms. Martin. The staff has recommended approval of your application subject to the two standard conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir, I am. All right, do I have any questions or comments from the... I believe she's also supposed to provide curbing to prevent mitigation of the gravel to new areas. Okay, did I not get that? This is 444 West 3rd Street. Oh, wait, I have this one twice. Never mind. The back had got sort of wonky this time. Okay, are we in agreement that we have two conditions? Yes, sir, I did. Okay, are you agreeing with those? Yes, sir. Okay, do I have any questions or comments from the board members? Sorry, I'm way out of order, so I'm trying to figure out where I am. This is attachment number eight. I'll give you a moment to catch up. This is the constructed covered porch. I can share with you mine. I think I actually handed you part of my attachment number eight is what happened when I handed you the other one. Sorry. All right. Sorry about that. Okay. So we're all on the same page? Yes, we are all on the same page. Okay. All right. Any questions or comments from the board? Hearing none. Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none. Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 188-00444-C at 444 West 3rd Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? I second. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Turning now to 1801 through 1803, Nicholasville Road. The application is by the Kauffman Brothers. Is the applicant here? Do we have a representative here? Staff has recommended approval, but this also has a quasi-substantive condition. Has anyone talked to anyone from Kauffman Brothers? Of course, earlier on we did when they made application. They have received a copy of their staff report. Okay. i'm going to take a gamble that we're just going to move forward with this one since he had an opportunity and was given notice of the meeting the application has the standard two conditions along with the provide curbing to prevent migration of gravel to new areas that's pretty standard so if there's objection we can postpone it Okay. All right, then I believe we can move forward. Is there any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, hearing none, then the chair will ask for a motion. Chair, per case number 1397-1801 and 1397-1803 at 1801 and 1803 Nicholasville Road, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions plus the following condition. Provide curbing to prevent the migration of gravel to new areas. Do I have a second to that motion? Second. 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 as conditioned. I realize our next item on the agenda is 114, 116, and 120 West High Street. I know that we're going to have a discussion of that one, so I'm moving forward to the next item, which is 584 West 3rd Street in the western suburbs, CISAR District. Application, applicants here? Stage your name for the record, please. My name's Kevin McGuire. I'm owner and resident. Mr. McGuire. The scope of work is reside, reside addition, and change the openings. I believe the staff has recommended approval subject to the library calling the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Charlie. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right. Hearing none, I'm ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 17170584-F at 584 West Short Street, I move that we approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the standard two conditions. I want your microphone. That's the best one I've heard in here. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Okay. There being a second, any discussion about the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. All right, the motion passes, and the certificate of appropriateness as condition is approved. Thank you, sir. Okay. All right, so... I'm going to get my ducks back in a row. So let's return now to... I won't shoot. Well, I've lost my agenda. Let's return now to 179 Old Park Avenue. Hello. Yes. We have actually two applications on the street. Yes. One is restore the front porch, construct the side porch, rear additions, and stoop, enlarge the basement opening. I believe the staff has recommended approval of that application subject to the standard two conditions. Yes. Are you in agreement with those? Yes. All right, so is there any board comments? I believe we're then, any comments from the audience? I believe then we're ready for a motion. for case number 32204-79-H at 179-4 Mark Avenue. I believe that's not true. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Chair, we'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. And that COA is approved as conditioned. Okay, great. Now, turning to the other one, this is the one that has the install paving. I believe you want to be heard on that because the staff has recommended disapproval of the additional paving. And I believe Ms. Armstrong is ready to make a presentation. Our normal procedure is for her to do a presentation to us, and then we may ask her some questions, and then you can do your presentation as to why you believe it should be approved. Okay. Okay. Ms. Armstrong? I'll be brief about this since we heard this a couple of months ago. Of course, this is the structure we're talking about, and if you've seen your plans, they are proposing to remove this porch and restore the porch that was there before. And the particular issue in question is, which is very difficult to see, this piece right here, part of this project means that Mr. Perez, instead of going up to create spaces in the attic, he's actually going down and restoring and putting living units in the basement and living space in the basement. When he paved to mitigate for water, he paved this section to mitigate water. I think the conversation was that the board wanted to postpone this to see what this would look like with the front porch and this bit of paving here. And then this is the window that's in question. And of course they went ahead and paid the drive, which was gravel, but none of the board members seemed to have issues with that. And neither did staff, nor the paving of this section, which was a porch that will be restored to a porch, so there'll be a landing that would walk out onto this area. But the question, and this is a previous picture prior to Mr. Perez buying the structure. Oops. And this is also a picture. But the area that's most in question is just the additional paving, which we don't usually pave areas in the front yard in this particular area. So, Ms. Armstrong, just a quick question. Were they more or less trying to put in a footer for that air conditioning unit? No. This is simply a water mitigation issue. and Mr. Savala and Mr. Perez can talk. It's a water mitigation issue. They were having pooling in this area and they're trying to create living space in the basement so it's a way to drain the water away from this particular area. So the concrete was actually, in their opinion, facilitating keeping the water away from the building? That's what they're proposing. However, he does have a COA to repair the box gutters and put new gutter systems in, and we did talk on site about trying to get water off a pyramidal structure and putting in more downspouts to sort of get water out that corner. But he was saying in the yard, in this particular area, there's a lot of water that pools. And so because of creating living spaces, he's proposing he put in the concrete to help shed the water away from the structure. Okay. All right. Thank you. But, Mr. Chair, you note that the staff's recommendation is not to say that is not a solution. I agree. Correct. And so the guidelines are in question. And Sam finds the proposal to pave the driveway in the area to the north of the house is in the guidelines. And the proposal does meet guidelines 3, 5A, and C, which states' driveways and parking lots should be maintained. It should be of concrete or asphalt. The proposal to install the paving on the other side of the house between the house and the neighboring driveway is not in accordance with the guidelines because the excess paving is visually dominant in accordance with guidelines 3.5.B. Which states that driveways that should be or parking lots should be new should be located in the side or the rear of the building and not be visually dominant. and staff does recommend disapproving of the extra paving in the front yard between the structure and the neighboring drive. Staff recommends approval of the parking area and the side paving with the standard two conditions. And as I mentioned, we did discuss, Mr. Perez and I did discuss, the restoration of the box gutter because he'd already received a certificate appropriateness for that and adding additional downspouts to help get the water away. And then there was a discussion potentially once he puts in the porch, if he was able to get approval for the porch, then he can regrade the land to shed that water away from the front of the structure and that area of the structure. Did the board members have any questions for Ms. Armstrong? All right. Yeah, so one addition thing, just say once we get the porch in, we're going to be birming up the grade, so you won't be seeing that piece of concrete as much from the front as well. So if it's becoming a visual distraction, the porch will hide it. If you're birming up the grade to hide that, are you just putting more water in that corner? That seems like a bad solution. It's going to go down and then come back out around the side of it. So just to be clear, you were trying to divert the water away from the house, and your solution was to go ahead and just fill that in with concrete, correct? Well, that's what's there, correct, yes. That's what you installed? Well, Mr. Perez installed it, yes. Yes, but it was installed currently as part of their work. Right, okay. Any other comments from the... I think my only question is the visual dominance issue. And the porch, certainly by projecting off the front of the house, is going to make it less visible. Is it also just the nature of concrete? If it had some kind of pavers on it or something so that it was clearly separate from not a parking area. but clearly separate from the neighbor's driveway, would that be an acceptable approach? I'm not sure how you would do that. Well, I guess just putting a different type of paver on top, perhaps, or along the edging of it, just to indicate that it would not be for parking for the house next door, if that's also a concern. So in other words, break it up and then put papers in? Is that what you're... Well, I would almost see like a, I don't want to say a wall, but some papers along the edge almost to differentiate the driveway at the house next door to this pad. That might break it up. Yeah, I actually wasn't suggesting any kind of little raised wall, But more that the issue is that to minimize that visual nature of it seeming to be part of the driveway in the parking. And if there were a different surface put on it that clearly visually separated it from the neighbor's driveway, it might minimize its appearance. All right. Any reaction from the staff members to that idea? As you have seen, the staff's recommendation is to remove the concrete and return it to an earthen condition. Because usually what seems to happen is that this just accumulates more water and it has nowhere to go but in the foundation. So we think it is not a healthy outcome for the structure. And this isn't as much, it is equally about aesthetics, I guess I'd say, but it is really more about doing right by the health of the building. And returning it to earth with a proper pitch that turns the water away from the foundation of the house is the staff's recommendation. And this is why we have a process, so that we can sort these issues out before it happens, as opposed to after the fact. Any other comments? My question would be, how high is the sill of that basement window? How much higher is that from the adjacent, the neighboring driveway? Is there a height? A height difference? It's great. So it's about an inch from the sill to that pad there. An inch from the sill to that pad. And then it slopes down. I don't have those exact numbers of what it slopes down at. But there is the ability to slope from the base of that window outward. Yes. Yes. And is the pad also sloped from the part of the house that juts back out towards the front of the house? I believe so, is that correct? The pad, it slopes from that other window back to the front? Yes. I agree that it's visually dominant, and I don't think this is a good way to mitigate water getting there. You should think about sloping away with grade and putting in perf pipe or something to properly get the water back there, especially the way that you just described, you know, building that up in front for the new porch. you're just going to end up trapping that water there even with the sidewalk there. So I think it may be temporarily working, but I don't think it's going to be a long-term solution for keeping water out, especially if you get any more water in that direction. I also don't think you release a pot. Well, I would just say that. I'm going to stop there. All right. So any other comments? My only other comment has to do with the gutter more than the downspouts, so adding downspouts will definitely help. But you do with that valley that comes in at the corner where you can see all of the water that's really being reflected in the dampness on the foundation. some kind of that gutter corner is going to need to be more than just a standard corner. It's going to need to be able to manage the water coming down through that valley because it's going to splash right over the gutter. And you're going to be right back where you are now. That's exactly what it was doing. Well, I appreciate the fact that you're bringing the porch back. I mean, it's going to look a lot better, and it already is. Unfortunately, I think you just have a hiccup, maybe more than a hiccup, but the paving is just too visually dominant. And frankly, I think it's not going to result in the, it's going to have a negative impact on the House. So I don't think there's any further discussion. Any questions or comments from the audience? If there's no further discussion, I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 322-00179-G at 179 Old Park Avenue, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness for the areas, the other areas mentioned in the submittal, but reject the certificate of appropriateness for the extra paving in the front yard between the structure and the neighboring drive? I think we can make that easier. I think we can simply approve these COAs, read the two conditions, and then we also accept the staff's recommendation of disapproval of the application. If it's two. Because we're approving part of it and rejecting part of it. We're approving, we're accepting the entire staff recommendation. It has two parts. One is the two standard conditions, and the other is the disapproval of that section, that infill next to the house. Yeah, the disapproval of the area at the front between the house and the drive. Okay, so I'll accept all that. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. As restated, the motion is to approve conditions 1 and 2 of the COA and to also approve the staff's recommendation of disapproval of the paved-in area from the driveway to the edge of the house. As restated, is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and your COA has conditions approved, but you do not have any approval to take that concrete out. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time and cooperation with the process. Thank you. All right. Okay, turning now to 109 Constitution Street in the Mulberry Hill, Hissar District. Mr. Needham. Hello, Mr. Chair. Hi, Borg. I believe the staff has recommended approval of your application. I believe there will be some comments from the audience, and I want to make a couple of comments about that first. First and even before that, could you put your name in there? My name is Chad Needham. I'm sorry, I don't know why I'm jumping past that normal. Yes, if you put your name into the record, please. Chad Needham, 109 Constitution Street is the application. 230 Henry Clay Boulevard is my home residence. Okay, Mr. Needham, thank you very much. And then I have, you can go ahead, I just have a few, just a summary of my proposal. I'll take those remarks in just a moment. I want to make sure we're on the same page about how this process is going to work today. We had a fairly, this is a continuation of the hearing that we had last month. So we have already in the record the affidavits and the comments. If there is anyone here that wants to comment that has not been previously heard, I would like for those persons to go first. And with respect to anyone else who may have additional comments, I would like for those comments, if possible, to be a new comment as opposed to a reiteration of what's already been said. With those guidelines, I hope that we can facilitate making sure that everyone can be heard and that we can be as reasonably efficient as possible. This can even your passing out something. I believe this you have another you guys presentations already in the packet but you have it okay great to get a sure. It's a fresh copy. All right go go. And that it looks good. Thanks. Could I just put this? Mr. Needham, you tend to speak rather quickly, so try to... I'll try to slow it down. Thank you. Okay. All right. So this is 109 Constitution Street. Obviously, it consists of two adjoining structures that were built in the 40s. The one-story structure that actually faces Constitution Street is brick with a distinctive stone facade. This facade consists of a central door, small flanking windows, all with arched tops. It's very hard to see in that picture. It looks like there's a shadow. The image the board sees behind you is usually the crisper image, lighter image. The step up to the front door of about seven inches from the sidewalk, it slopes down to the west as Constitution approached limestone. Now, it's almost two parts. There's a two-story CMU addition that was added. We think about the 40s, and this new roof or the two-story addition at the rear was constructed of CMU. The new roof was added to the rear structure in 2018 with dormers. The two structures have different floor levels. The rear CMU structure finished floor is about 14 inches higher than the brick structure's finished floor. So there's a step up in the middle here. But what I'm getting at is the stairway to the second floor is in the northeast corner of the rear addition. The existing building has a number of existing conditions that prevent it from being in compliance with the current building codes. And that's what essentially I'm trying to do. To address these deficiencies and bring the building back into use, I had white pollard local architects complete a pretty lengthy performance compliance process. We did this as we were going through the building inspection. And this is of the Chapter 14 of the International Building Code, and it refers to all life safety. And that's essentially what we're trying to do is bring this building into good code compliance for egress and fire. Part of bringing the existing building into compliance with current fire and building codes is the modification to the rear elevation of the building. Where the original design attempted to avoid altering any facades, the existing stairway encroaches on the required clear floor space for the second means of egress. And I'd like to show that. So this is, let me show you. There is a pointer if you would like to use it on the screen for the board. Great. So this is obviously our existing CMU structure. It's been, it was, the roof line was approved in this. Dad, could you, I believe one audience member can't see you. Sure. It's very dark up here. This is the existing structure as it sits. There's a door. There's a large window as well. This addition was approved back on this board in 2018, and that is not what we're here today for. All we're asking is to take this odd-sized window and actually make that part of a second egress door and actually take, which we learned in last month, is we will take the remaining area and leave that a window. So essentially we'd have just a, this is a mixed use two commercial space downstairs, residential up above. And the reason why we're asking for this is what we found was that As you'll see, the existing interior staircase actually encroaches into the actual egress for this first floor. And so it became pretty clear that this is an existing condition. And so to really deal with this egress, we thought that adding a second door is what was asked by a building inspection and fire safety and fire department. If we could add the second door to actually give a more proper form of egress for each unit. And that is all we're asking here today. The majority of the structures on Constitution Street from the rear facade have all sorts of different egress access points, and I can demonstrate and show you all those if I need to. Essentially what we found in the appropriateness of the alteration is that the 18-foot-wide rear CMU elevation contains one door and one window on the first floor and a single centrally placed opening on the second floor. Making alterations or additions to the structures in this area is common on Academy Alley, which lacks a cohesive street front identity and consists of garages, fences, backyards, parking spaces, accessibility ramps. The proposed alterations to the rear elevation of 109 Constitutionalty utilize the existing window opening, which is, as we saw, next to the door, and a new egress ADA compliant door on the same style and size as the existing door. And let me go back to that. So this is what we propose, and it's adding this second door. So taking the, what was the proposed window, or what is the existing window, adding a second door that will create really nice, easy access for egress for the first floor commercial and leaving the existing door for the access to the second floor apartment. And the existing window and remainder of the existing CMU opening will stay. We will add the same height as well as just taking out a few block that would enable this to happen. And then the new ADA emergency egress door could be added. I think it's very little change to the look of the rear elevation. And it's not something that has not been asked and done before on many levels. We do not have the opportunity to put and make this AD accessible from the front on Constitution Street. We did that study. A ramp going in would encroach well beyond what would be advisable. I've also done this exact thing with the ramp on two other structures, two other properties that I own on Constitution in the rear. So that is really all we're asking today. The board, it's obviously under your purview, but the staff has recommended it for approval. Because it's a later built CMU structure, making change to that makes sense, and we haven't really affected any of the original front of this structure at all. We can maintain that integrity. All right. Any questions from the board members? Hearing none, any questions or comments from the audience? Yes. All right. As I said, this is a continuation of the hearing, so comments that have already been made are duly recorded and noted, but additional comments are welcomed, subject to a three-minute rule. So who would like to go first? Off seat. Mr. Needham, just take a seat. I will again comment for purposes of this proceeding today, we are limited to the guidelines. We do not take into consideration the use of the building or its intended use. What we're solely concerned with, for better or for ill, is the design guidelines and how it applies to this historic neighborhood. Now, if you'll state your name for the records. My name is Braxton Crenshaw. Mr. McChair, President. I reside at 111 Constitution Street, which is adjacent to 109. And I'm asking that Mr. Needham's request be denied. I am asking that the board protect the historic integrity of the neighborhood and does not approve the window being changed into a door. And I think it's very disingenuous for it to be characterized as such by Mr. Needham because I'm gonna tell you folks, he's wanting to change that door to roll liquor in out of the back door. That door, that entrance is already ADA compliant. And I don't think that he is being completely candid with the board. I think the sketches that he's provided do not show all of the existing conditions that, and therefore don't represent or show the faulty conditions, I believe, on purpose. he's trying to essentially say that what he's doing is, I don't know, trying to be handicapped accessible. I think it's already that there are all kinds of issues with roof water pouring onto my property, which are not being addressed. And I've got a zero property line with him. And I believe that the design, the rhythm, and so forth would be deteriorated by what he's proposing. And I think that these changes are emblematic of, I think, the shortcomings and the lack of concern about the historic nature of our neighborhood. And I'm asking you folks, I've provided a previous affidavit opposing what's being done, and I would like to ask you folks again to not allow the changes that he's proposing. And I know you folks have advised that use is not an issue here, but I believe there are certain uses that can deteriorate a historic neighborhood. And I don't know where that comes in into the equation, but I'm asking you folks to deny Mr. Needham's request. Thank you, sir. Next up. If you'll state your name for record, please. Mary Ginocchio and my daughter Annie Markham and my father Martin Ginocchio. Mr. Ginocchio, it's good to see you again. Good to see you, Mr. We would like to thank the board for letting us be heard our concerns about the property at 109 Constitution Street. There are some things that have transpired since our last meeting in June, and I just thought I'd like to share those. We'd like to present those. And also, one thing I had not noted, but we did make a trip down to building inspection and spoke with Mr. Bryant there, and we were told that that door meets ADA needs for the structure. So saying that it doesn't meet needs, the building has been a single-use building. It has not had a CO to be a mixed-use building since single-use. So whatever he's doing in there, maybe that's what he's trying to do is accommodate mixed-use. And that's why he's wanting that. But I'm not as concerned about the inside as I am. We're concerned about the outside of the building. We would like to oppose the change proposed to 109 Constitution Street to add a second door and reduce the window. As we've mentioned before, there's a history of loitering drug use, crime, etc. Reducing the size of that window to a third of the current size does not give a good street view for people wandering the alley. Debbie Hurt said the other night, this is a district because we've minded it. The people who live on this street 24-7, 365 days of the year, generations past and generations yet to come, keep the area safe and communal. Many of us and our neighbors have spent a lot of time, energy and money on the historic houses that we've come to call home. Martin owns and has put work into the Matthew Kennedy House, and he moved 112 Constitution Street. I own and have put work into 114 Constitution, 215, 217, and 219 North Limestone. Jesse Crenshaw owns and has put work into 115 and 121 Constitution. Braxton and Beth Crenshaw own and have put work into 111. Debbie Hurt moved and has put work into 139 Constitution Street. Zach Berkshire owns and has put work into 155 Constitution. And yes, Chad Needham has helped save buildings on our street. And yes, he has even lived on our street. However, we struggle to consider him a neighbor after watching the way he's decided to treat us and our neighbors. Here is just a brief list of some of the encounters that we've had with Chad. Continuous lack of transparency. I'm pleased to see this drawing because you did ask in June that he meet with the neighbors and he didn't. This is our first view. actually I went down to historic press this week and I did see it. This is my first view. This is my first view. Low to minimal effort contacting neighbors, keeping neighbors in the loop, not meeting that request to meet with the neighbors to discuss the changes, trespassing on a neighbor's property, and then in total Karen-like fashion calling the police on said neighbor. In our first meeting with Chad, June 14th, regarding 109 Constitution, he said, and I quote, he, referring to Martin Gianocchio, introduced me to really, you know what it meant to be a property owner in the historic district. That was a huge kind of meeting your dad and then being on this street was probably a real foundation for what I ended up doing in life. Well, here's Martin Giannacchio, who worked as an architect for historic preservation for 19 years. Here's Martin Giannacchio, who saved a building, his current home, by physically having it moved down the street to its current location. Martin Giannacchio grew up on this block, raised his kids and grandchildren here to appreciate history and architecture in the district. and inspired and continues to inspire others, Chad included, to appreciate the historic integrity of the town. He's asking you to oppose the change. We are asking you to oppose the change of 109 Constitution Street to add a second door. The existing door already meets the requirements. It's not necessary for ADA. the door opening is 36 inches so we ask that you deny. Finally, we are fully aware that this meeting today is not to discuss the proposed use of 109 Constitution Street. However, the reasoning behind the addition of a second tour has to do with the prospective use of the building. You saw that with an interior shot that Chad presented. In this reasoning alone, we think it is unjust for the BOAR to ignore use. Under the intent and purpose section of H-1 design review guidelines, it states, design guidelines assist property owners in maintaining and enhancing the appearance of their properties, keeping up property values, and improving the livability of historic areas. Page three. This statement further promotes our belief that the use should be considered by the BOAR, particularly in this case, where the enhancement of appearance of our district, our property values, and improvement to the livability of our historic area are threatened. At the core of this process is the reinforcement of community. This building has seen enough changes already, changes that many of the neighbors would oppose if they were brought forth today. We're not here to discuss the past. We're here about the future, the future of the fate of this historic district. Standing before you as three generations that have lived in this neighborhood, please do not allow the proposed changes of this window into a second door and smaller window. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Will you need them eyes? I think she can reach it. Can you? Nope, she's got it. My name is Deborah Hurd. I live at 139 Constitution Street. I'm going to do my best to go through this and not repeat something I said the last time, but when I was here the last time, the drawing appeared as a double door, so I have addressed this as a double door because I see that it could end up being a double door yet. This building, well, I object to the certificate 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, and respectfully request that the application be denied. This building already has an ADA compliant rear entrance. The current rear door is 36 inches wide with a flush to floor threshold. It's wonderfully accessible. And I know this from having been through it on my mobility device. ADA requires a minimum width of 32 inches and maximum width of 48 inches. The current door width is 36 inches. and it meets those requirements. Creating a double door does nothing to enhance accessibility for the disabled. Disabled people don't open two doors to enter a building. Making this request under the aegis of the ADA is beyond disingenuous and flies in the face of the purpose of ADA. Approval of this request would be a misuse of the ADA. It should also be noted that a double door at the rear of the building would greatly enhance a bar's deliveries, but Mr. Needham has not requested the door for this purpose, but inexplicably for the purpose of making an already accessible door accessible for the disabled. Most of us here are familiar with Mr. Needham's incredible restoration of the Grayline Station. This project is exciting and has given new life and purpose to North Limestone District, and I applaud him for the work and for his vision and respect him for taking on that project. But not every idea that a creative person has is a great idea. While a speakeasy concept may be popular now, placing a bar of any size or variety in this small historic district is not even a good idea, as so many of the residents of historic constitution have expressed to the BOER. Speakeasy, cocktail lounge, a bar by any other name would still smell like a terrible idea in historic constitution. A bar within 50 feet, wall to wall, of a K-12 school. A bar flush against the full length of a family's home. A bar with no parking, even though it would sit adjacent to a business district already stressed for parking. A bar in an area with a growing transient population, often drunk. I could go on and on. How someone with the vision of the Gray Line Station could think this is respectful of the district he claims to care about, or even prudent escapes me. While you may be familiar with Mr. Needham because of his recent projects, you may not be familiar with those of us here objecting to this request. And I'd like to take a moment to tell you about some of us. and Mary has done some of that, but I'd like to repeat a little bit of it, because we're not just people who heard the word bar and had a knee-jerk reaction. While living in and loving our historic district for decades, we too have been contributing to our community at large. The Genagios have been here since the late 60s, restoring not only the enormous and enormously significant Matthew Kennedy house, but also moving and restoring one of the oldest homes in Lexington to save it from demolition. Architect Martin Giannacchio worked on the historic preservation staff for at least two decades. Mary Giannacchio, who grew up on Constitution Street, has created a thriving retail business that greatly contributes to the limestone corridor, North Lime Corridor, and has raised a wonderful daughter who is contributing to preservation in her own vintage home. Attorney Jesse Crenshaw moved to Constitution Street along with his law practice in the late 70s. In addition to practicing law, he taught at Kentucky State University, served 22 years as a member of the Kentucky State House of Representatives for our 77th district, and undertook a number of large projects that can be seen around our city and which have made Lexington a better place to live for many people. His brother, Attorney Braxton Crenshaw, moved to Constitution Street in the 90s. Braxton and his wife Beth maintain a busy law practice that serves our community well. I moved to Constitution Street in 1978 and was a 31 year old Fayette County English teacher. When I took on the responsibility of acquiring and moving the house I had been renting to save it from demolition. Having to learn to be my own general contractor on the fly. It's not easy for me to be here today as I've been receiving daily radiation treatments for over a month and I don't tell you this for pity or to guilt you into any action but because I want you to know how much I believe this is critically important to the health of historic constitution. We are all here, we are all here, have stayed here so long because we love this little historic district sitting on the edge of downtown Lexington and we know its fragility and what impacts it negatively. It's our lives. We've not only invested financially but also have invested much of our lives maintaining and preserving this district. We've protected it over the decades in multitudes of ways. The businesses that exist within our district are daytime businesses and we're the overnight watchmen of these businesses and for our neighbors alike. Had this district lacked residents, this is the historic nature of Constitution would have been lost years ago. We're here today because we know we know the huge impact that this project of Mr. Needham will have no matter how small and genteel he expect it to be. We have no desire to harm Mr. Needham or to deprive the potential renter from creating a niche bar. When the Grayline project was created, though, much community input was sought and voices of that community heard. No input was ever asked for here, either during planning stage or after the B.L.A.R. last month explicitly tasked Mr. Needham with meeting with neighbors to work on the problems his project poses. He garnered much good will with the Grayline Station, but should not be given a free pass to walk into a historic district and alter its character. The board does not owe any debt to Mr. Needham because of his previous projects. He has expressed to you that he has had more work and expense on this building than he ever anticipated. This board is not responsible for his expenses. All of us who live in historic properties know the costs involved in restoring and maintaining these properties and how many unforeseen issues arise along the way. We all know the pain of having far more work and expense on our buildings than we ever anticipated and the dreaded mushroom effect that usually happens. He is certainly not the only person who owns property in the district who has been surprised at what is required to get a project done. At minimum, the change to the rear of the building will violate several of the articles within the Historic Preservation Commission's guidelines, which the BOAR's mission is to uphold. Guidelines, particularly in subsets of Article 17, which state very clearly how this change of window-to-door would violate that mission. While you may not have direct responsibility to determine use of the building, you do have... Oh, I lost my page. I'm sorry. Direct responsibility to preserve the unique identity of our historic districts, according to the mission of the Historic Preservation Commission. Denying this request is not a denial of use, but a decision to maintain the existing facade of a building in a historic district, to maintain the eclectic nature of our district to avoid homogeneity of features as the preservation guidelines state. You are the teeth that we're often told are lacking to completely protect our historic districts and the properties within them. Please be the teeth that are needed here and deny this unnecessary request. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Any other comments? I can just sit down. Jed. Thank you. Mr. Dickinson, I would note that all the previous affidavits are included in the packet, as well as two additional letters from neighbors that are in the packet. Thank you, and I believe there's some letters from Mr. Needham himself in the packet as well. All right, this ends the public comment period from the audience. Mr. Needham, do you have any rebuttal? Thank you. Just a couple rebuttals. You know, I know everyone well. this is not easy. I take it personally when things are said that are just blatantly untrue. I ask permission to fix this property with the immediate neighbors with the thought that I would do right by this building with my history. I am repairing this building so it is able to continue in this historic district. If I were putting in anything besides this proposed speakeasy, which is private by design, no one would be here to object this second door egress. the existing condition on the interior staircase is what has necessitated this that is it the use of this building by right is can have many things much worse than what is being put in all we are here to talk about is the door for a second form of egress that is for the first floor When we did this lengthy performance compliance review, it was very clear because of the existing condition of the internal staircase, where it sat, it did not make egress easy once you're inside this building. Exterior, you're right. It's a 36-inch exterior door. But that minute you walk in, the staircase impedes safe travel. That is the only reason. Now, the use, regardless of what I do or put in as a tenant for this building, has nothing to do, again, with this door. I'm only adding the door for safe forms of ADA compliance and fire egress. That is it. It's frustrating when I've lived in historic districts. I do business in historic districts. I redo buildings in historic districts. I'm well aware of the process. I have utmost respect for Martin, his family, the neighbors, and I never intended to have this much kickback from them. two days after we had our last meeting, I sent everyone a letter stating what our intentions were, and I had another letter attached, which is included in your packets, to explain what is happening. And so we can go through that. But again, I just, I'm a little frustrated by just the personal attacks and the fact that this is all based on what the use is going to be. Mr. Crenshaw was 100% copacetic with us repairing this building, which has sat vacant for seven years and needs work. It needs gutters. It needed the T111 siding, you know, repaired. It needed new fascia and soffit. All of this is what we're doing. The minute after this meeting that we had this bar as a possible use, he denied my right to enter his yard to put any gutter, repair the fascia board, or repair the stucco or paint the stucco. I still have not finished that project. asking for him being reasonable, regardless of what the use is, we still need to repair our building. And he said, please get off my property. Ten minutes earlier, I had full approval to repair this building from his side. Now, the neighbors from the other side, they are not here tonight. They are fine with us repairing the building from that side, which we have done, and I can show numerous pictures. But I want to be very clear that I have been, And this is not a use issue. This is frustrating from when I hear all of the kickback based on use. It's not why I'm here. This use will happen regardless of whether we have the door or not. This is a safety feature that was asked to be put in. And the fact that they have called down to planning, which I was told from planning that they are trying to rezone the property now because they don't like the fact that the zone allows by right this. I mean, that's a frustrating call to get. And that's, I mean, that's a little bit an extension of, I think, being neighborly. I mean, I'm repairing this building. I shouldn't need to ask you to focus on the application. Yeah, I know. It's frustrating. So that's what I'm asking is for a second floor egress. We do have an existing door. It's impeded by the internal staircase. This is the only way to add a new emergency egress door that will access in a safe way the internal flow. Obviously, the design principle, the staff has recommended for us to approve it. We have an existing CMU structure. We are doing nothing to the front, nothing to the historical integrity of this building. I think without a use that they don't particularly like, this again, in my eyes, we have not asked for anything different than anyone else would ask for in this situation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any further comments from the board members? All right, again, I will say the process that we're dealing with today is whether the application itself conforms to the guidelines that have been set forth. There are other processes with regard to the use of the building that can be heard in other public forums. is presumably there will be an application for an ABC license that is handled through chapter 243 where the director has the discretion to consider objections from the audience from the neighbors and also from any neighboring schools but that's not the process we have here for us. If there's no further yes Ms. Hill. Just a brief statement. I applaud the neighborhood's passion and commitment to their community. Community is what makes Lexington who we are, our neighborhoods, and folks talking to each other and working through these differences. The zoning use that we kind of address, the ADA compliance was a specific study done to look at the entire building and what that ADA compliance. And that's really what we're addressing here is that one door for the ADA compliance. Thank you. Mr. Needham, I think I failed to ask you, did you agree to the two standard conditions? Yes. All right, thank you. If there's no further discussion, I believe we're ready for a motion. Do I have a motion? Chair, in regards to case number 04600109-F at 109 Constitution Street, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. do i have a second second any further discussion on the motion before we close out i also want to compliment and applaud the audience for their participation and making very cogent and very direct comments but that's part of the process and thank you all for being here that said the chairs ready to call the motion all those in favor of the motion say aye Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes. The COA is approved as conditioned. Thank you so much. All right, turning now to our next case at 114, 116, and 120 West Side Street. And don't let me forget we have a postponement we need to do. Yes, ma'am. Do we need a break? The case at 612 North Broadway. I was just mentioning that. Don't let me forget that one. I don't believe he ever showed up, so we'll just go ahead and do this. Do we need to take a break? I'm okay. Okay, we're good. All right, so let me call. If you will, while you're doing a little housekeeping. I'm looking at the agenda. Did you all take action on the number 9, 1801, 1803, Nicholasville? Yes. Yes, we did. I must have been wrapped up on something else. Okay. Okay. Just wanted to be sure. So we'll just keep the thought about- All right. I'm sorry. I'm going to take a five minute break. Okay. Okay. We're going for a minute. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. so Thank you. So I'm calling to order now 114, 116, and 120 Westside Street at 308 and 320 South Upper. Is the applicant here? We all are. All right. I got in trouble last time for speaking first. I was trying to sit down until it's my turn. That's fine. But for the record, introduce yourself, and then I'll tell you to sit down. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Adrian Mendiano. I'm a partner with Morgan & Morgan, the proposed occupant of the building and the applicant in this case. Okay, thank you. As you know, our procedure is to have, you want to be heard of the denial of your application, so our procedure is to have the staff do a presentation. Yes. So now you may sit down. I'll put Mr. Graves. We're going to introduce himself so that you can hear. Mr. Graves? Steve Graves. I'm architect for the project. All right, Steve. Thank you so much. You may proceed. Thank you. As you noted, the address is, the building is only on 120, so we're mainly talking about 120 South or West High Street. And the scope of work is construct additions, parking lot, and associated site work. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a third floor at the current roof level and other multi-floor additions. The board held a conceptual review for this proposal twice, beginning in March, and the applicant has submitted revised architectural drawings for this review, which were included in your package. The proposal for construction of a third floor at the current roof level and other multi-floor additions from grade to the circa 1956 office building designed by Central Kentucky architect Thomas Page Edwards for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The historic structures design reflects the streamlined style representative of mid-20th century architecture. design based on it with its clean lines and minimal simple ornamentation. The structure, which is a good example of its type, has a rectilinear plan and cubic massing of the two stories with the second floor extending over the entry courtyard and flanked by a concrete cap stone wall where it fronts on West High Street. It has a structure of steel and concrete skin with a buff brick veneer laid in running bond pattern. Prominent details of the exterior are grouped windows with concrete sills on the north, south, and east elevations. The original window openings are present throughout, although the windows themselves have been replaced with aluminum ones. Along upper street, a large two-story opening in the brick veneers filled with aluminum glass with an aluminum glass window system and smooth metal panels. Picture framed with brown honed granite. The front central entrance on upper street has a center has a center stair rising to the aluminum glass entry framed with honed gray granite. Originally a seal of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was above the front entrance. Because of the upward slope of south, the upward slope to the south of Upper Street, the first floor windows on this elevation occur mainly below grade within a stone walled window well. Entry doors along the West High Street are picture framed with home gray granite and open out onto ground level. The three proposed additions at grade are located on the upper street, which is the west or right elevations, high street, which is the north or front elevation, and east, the left elevation. Editions are proposed to have an external skin made up of curtain wall or storefront glass and spandrels. The proposed floor addition incorporates similar materials and covers approximately 90% of the roof. If there is a proposed rooftop deck on the north face of the structure, guardrails for the deck are located above the historic structure's perimeter on the north. The applicant has stated that there is no intent to change or rebuild the parking lot for this proposal. That takes in the additional lots that I mentioned previously. although the construction of the new grade level addition there will obviously be site work that will be required the site work may consist of walks parking and landscaping the guidelines are included for your use findings The South Hill Historic District includes a significant collection of historic architectural styles reflecting almost 225 years of Lexington's architectural, historic, and neighborhood evolution and is one of Lexington's oldest neighborhoods. In addition, in the last 30 years or so, a number of new structures have been constructed in the district, reviewed and approved by the design review process in accordance with the design guidelines, and all are compatible with the character of the site they are built on and the adjacent structures in the neighborhood. The structure at 120 West High Street is by design purposely not antique in appearance, and it successfully demonstrates that through its intact architectural mid-century commercial design, its mid-century modern simplicity scale and mass is compatible with the other historic buildings and the streetscape in the South Hill Historic District. The South Hill neighborhood is recognized by both the Federal National Register of Historic Places designation June 13, 1978, and as a local historic district, H1 Overlay, designated 1972 and expanded in 1976. The distinction between the two processes relative to the criteria by which designations occur should be noted. The Federal National Register of Historic Places utilizes 50 years or older as a threshold for listing in the National Register for contributing buildings within a National Register district. buildings not 50 years old may be added to the National Register District as time moves forward and the building becomes eligible. The structure at 120 West High Street has been demonstrated to have crossed the 50-year-old or older threshold in the State Historic Preservation Office. the Kentucky Heritage Council records reflect that this site at 120-136 West High has been determined in the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing structure in the South Hill Historic District. It should be noted that the local historic district H-1 process does not include age structures as criteria, but is based on a number of criteria enumerated in Article 13 of the Fayette County Zoning Ordinance. All properties in a designated local historic district, H1, whether structures, sites, or 200-plus-year-old or recently built, outbuilding, landscape, or proposed new construction fall under the design review process and are reviewed on the design review guidelines and permits accordingly. Both local and federal designated historic districts possess or process share many similar historic preservation standards and with a national, state, and local goal of preserving historic resources. The structure at 120 West High reflects a sadly underappreciated and disappearing mid-20th century style of historic architecture. This circa 1956 commercial building was designed to fit comfortably within and not overwhelm in either mass or height, the mainly residential character of the South Hill Historic District. The use of the buff brick and combination of simple ornamentation, clean lines, grouped windows were new elements of office building design of the 1950s. The use of these elements tells the story of change from pre- and post-World War II office construction. The importance of construction being expressed in the design elements and materials were featured in the mid-century construction throughout the United States. Building aesthetics were not about being pretty, but added ornamentation and features expressing function through design and material. According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, the building is a combination of brick, concrete, and steel. Staff finds that the proposal to alter and add additions to this two-story mid-century modern 1956 brick commercial building is not within the design guidelines. Staff does walk through the interior spaces of the structure as well as evaluated the exterior of the building with no obvious structural issues evident. Although there is some cosmetic non-structural cracking in the exterior brick veneer, the renovation work that is needed to put this back into a viable use appears no different from that of any historic structure that has not been maintained, had systems updated, etc. for some time. I want to apologize for my voice. The staff finds that this proposal to construct new additions and add a second floor to the existing historic building at the corner of High and South Upper within the South Hill Historic District is not in accordance with the design review guidelines noted in this report. The proposed alterations change to the context and character of this mid-century structure. The design principle for roof and wing additions states, In planning additions, the best approach is to place the additions where they will have the least impact on the building's overall form and plan. addition's roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so the existing roof remains evident. Enlarging a property through adding stories is not appropriate. The design principles for commercial buildings state, new commercial buildings should be designed to be compatible in design, shape, proportion, and scale with other commercial buildings along the street and within the district. New commercial buildings should maintain the historic relationship of large storefront windows to smaller windows and door openings on upper floors. New commercial buildings should be representative of their period and be compatible with adjacent buildings in scale, height, materials, orientation, shape, placement of rhythm, and proportion of openings. The design principle requires looking at buildings within the historic district and evaluating any proposed renovations or new construction relative to the buildings in the neighborhood's context. Next, as proposed, the construction of the addition and additional floor will adversely affect the character of the existing structure and the alterations will become the dominant identity of the structure, permanently compromising the period identity of this historic structure in the South Hill District. Guidelines for rehabilitation states 1, 1A, and C, architectural details and features shall be maintained, retained, and shall not be removed or changed if original to the building. In addition, guidelines 1, 3A, and N states, brick materials original to the building should be preserved and maintained, and bricks should not be obscured, covered, or removed if original. The additions on the front facade cover too much of the original wall system and its fabric. The design of this existing historic structure is purposely minimal and reflective of its mid-century time period. Per the proposal to add a second floor to this historic structure, the guidelines for new construction, specifically guidelines 2B, 4A, C, and F on room and wing additions, respectively. Additions should be compatible in design and keeping with the original building's design, shape, materials, and color. Color and location of window, door, and corner sizes. and should reflect characteristics of the current period and design but be compatible with the original building. Should be built in a manner that avoids substantial removal or loss of historic materials, which does not damage or destroy the main architectural features of the building. The proposal results in the loss of much of the identity of the original fabric, massing, and overall original design. Per the guidelines for commercial structures, the proposed plan for additions and adding a floor to the historic structure is not in keeping with guideline 2B, 3B, D, and G. Commercial structures should be compatible in design, shape, and proportion, proportion and scale to other commercial buildings along the street and within the historic districts. Commercial structures should maintain the front plane of the building, and commercial structures should be compatible with the adjacent buildings in scale, height, materials, orientation, shape, placement, and proportion of openings, doors, and windows. The proposal to remove the original front entrance and steps of the historic front facade and alter existing and create new entrances and openings is illustrative of the significant elements that will be inappropriately altered. obscuring of the mass and form of the exterior elevations of the existing building, essentially boxing it in, boxing in large segments is totally contrary to the intent of the design guidelines. The construction of an additional floor covering the footprint of the entire existing structure and extending to cover proposed additions will eradicate any understanding of the scale of the historic structure. Overall, the project, if constructed, is not in accordance with the design guidelines. It would obscure, alter, and adversely affect the integrity of the historic structure. Recommendations. The staff recommends denial of the proposed application. And that's the end of the staff report. But I will take you... through some of the photos. I'm sure you all are familiar with this. This is the High Street elevation along with the East elevation. This is looking down into the lower floor entrance. again along High Street. This is looking along Upper Street at the West Elevation. In this area you can see the glass within the openings and you can't really see the granite, but you can see the granite here around the entrance. If the applicants want to hop up and turn around so that you can see this other screen, he uses the pointer so the board members can see it. But don't hesitate to move around. West elevation. This shot, you can see the black honed granite, or brown actually, and then the gray granite. This is the south elevation that has an entrance off of Upper Street. And again, back to the east elevation. These are some shots of the adjacent structure, the setting. These two structures are just to the east of the proposed renovations across the parking lot. This is looking to the southwest. This is the church just across the street. This is looking to the northwest and the bank building. This is looking to the northeast. Again, church historic structures, and this is the adjacent historic structure just across the upper street entrance. this is looking from the back parking lot at those two structures that I mentioned earlier this is floor plan So this notes the entrance change, the addition on the east elevation and on the west elevation. Elevations. So that is all I have unless the board has questions for me. I will note just for the record that we've had a couple conceptual reviews where we have gone through different iterations. One question, is this substantially different from what the original conceptual review brought to us? I don't believe it is, is it? It's not substantially different. The applicants have made some concessions as far as on the corners and on the roof. Okay. One other question I want to make sure. The front entrance for this building is truly off Upper Street, correct? Historically, it was, yes. Historically. I mean, that's where the orientation of the building was meant to be initially, correct? Yes. Historically and architecturally, the primary entrance and the front elevation of this historic building is upper street. So that's the front plane of the building? That's correct. But you'll see in their drawings their proposal eradicates that front entrance and builds a different one. I would also add that the high street fronting the street would also be considered a facade of this historic structure. Yeah, it's like any corner lot. It has two front elevations, so to speak. Two front yards. But it's primary entrance for visitors. Well, and that's proven by the fact they had the government seal over the front door. It's statement entrances on upper. And then I'm sure people working in the building used the high street entrance quite a bit. The one at grade. Nothing. architecturally its focal point is meant to be Upper Street. Questions or comments from the board members at this time? So is the applicant not going to? The applicant is going to speak. I was just wondering if you want to make sure there's any questions or clarification first. Okay. And any other clarifying questions? Not yet. Not yet. All right. Thank you. Hey, this is DeAndo again for the applicant. And I believe we have some members of the public that want to speak afterwards as well. But I do want to say I think actually we did make, from my last appearance here in front of the conceptual review, we tried to do everything that we talked about. And I don't know if we succeeded, but as far as we completely changed the way the addition sat on the building, We lowered everything on the high street side so that you could see all the windows. We took everything off the corners, and then we completely removed the enclosure on the front of the building so that that entire granite structure is not only not covered but completely open air. And we also offset the back so that it moved to the middle so that there's nothing that touches the edges of the building on any side. So we presented that, and we asked staff if we could come back for another conceptual review to review that with you, and we're told that the board wasn't interested in having another review of that type, so we just went ahead and submitted it. But I think we did make substantial changes to address those very specific things that we talked about. Obviously, if I failed to get them all, I'm happy to keep talking about them. But there's that. I brought with me, and I'd like to add to the record on this, minutes of the planning and zonings hearing on October 25, 2018 addressing this building because I think that the staff's report does a disservice by not including the history of this building. And its present state right now and what findings have been made with respect to the building, its historic character, its use, and what's going to happen to it. And that has to be part of this record. I don't know if I brought copies. I have multiple. I can just hand them here. Just give them this way and we'll give them all out in the back. Do you want to sum up? I'm going to talk about that. I'm not asking you to read 22 pages of minutes from a planning and zoning meeting, but there's some interesting stuff, including some stuff that was talked about today. For example, those stairs on the front. One of the things that was talked about at the planning and zoning meeting is that those are not original to the building. The Commonwealth of Kentucky owned this building for most of its lifetime, and they're not bound by any historic designation, and they made changes to it whenever they felt like it. And that was very significant to planning and zoning when they reviewed this building and when they approved it for demolition. because they found that it had been changed multiple times, including the addition of that stairwell. That is not the initial or original way that the building was accessed. And so I think that's important. I don't know if that was the original front door, but that stair and that entry that we're asking to remove is not original to the building. I'm only reading from the minutes. And so I'm just saying that's what planning and zoning discussed and found in their determination. I'm sorry, yes, go ahead. I don't want to interrupt your presentation, but I would note that the planning commission was not weighing whether or not it was appropriate to tear the building down. That is the role of this body. And so they were not taking action to allow its demolition. Well, I think that's, I'll have to disagree. I'm going to have to ask you not to get into a back and forth. I'm going to allow you to finish your presentation. If the staff has a rebuttal, they can do a rebuttal. Sure. Absolutely. So going back to that, this meeting occurred on October 25th, 2018. Prior to that meeting, this board had found that there was no viable economic use of the building and therefore approved its demolition. That determination also approved building a new four story structure on the site with a step down from the fourth floor to the third floor that would have changed the angles a little bit. and I don't think I know enough about that to say anymore. But it was a four-story, new construction, mixed-use residential retail that was going to go in place of this building. That was appealed to planning and zoning by multiple people, including the neighborhood, the actual applicant, and the Bluegrass Trust for historic preservation. The planning and zoning then held the hearing on October 25, 2018. I attached the minutes. I'm not going to read all of it, but I do want to read into the record the findings of fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission made when it made its determination. And please reference the page number of that. Yes, sir. Page 19. All right, thank you. Includes the proposed findings that were ultimately adopted by the vote of the board. It begins at the very bottom. It says the demolition. So the board approved demolition based on it lacking economic use. When the parties went before the planning and zoning, I think based on an agreement between the developer and the neighborhood, they proposed that demolition was appropriate because it did not contribute to the historic significance of the neighborhood. It would help the board. I'm recognizing what this is. This is the appeal of our board, our Board of Architecture Reviews action that granted the demolition of the building. So I now have better clarity and you are absolutely correct. They were discussing demolition. they were the appellant review. So thank you, and I will be quiet. But I thought it would help you as a board. For context, and I know that you sort of jumped straight into it, I was present for that meeting. The context is there was an appeal of a demolition approval by this board meeting. Yes, that was appealed to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission basically affirmed. They affirmed on different grounds than on what this board found, and they made specific findings of fact with respect to this building, and they approved a demolition permit that is still active today. It's on appeal before the Kentucky Court of Appeals, but it is still the present state, the status quo of this project is that there is an active approval of a demolition permit. I'm going to let you finish your presentation. I'll make one quick observation, and I'll shut up, that this was the findings of facts that pertain to their approval of the demolition of the building. Yes, and their approval of, they modified slightly the new construction that they approved on the property. Right, which is not before us today. Well, I don't think demolition is before us today either. I would say that I believe, and this is why it's important, because with demolition having been approved, one, it's significant because we're talking about an alternative of building not existing at all, And two, I think it's legally significant because really what we should be talking about is do we fit within the new construction of a building, not is this going back and pretending like that demolition. But I'll get to that. If I may, I want to just talk about what the board found because it is contrary to what is being presented with respect to the characteristics of the building. The board found that demolition was approved because the subject building is non-contributing. found that demolition will not adversely affect the character of the South Hill District and will not set a precedent for future demolitions for the following reasons. Building age. The age of the subject building differs dramatically from the age of buildings that formed the basis for the creation of the South Hill Historic District. In fact, the subject building was only 18 years old when the district was established. As described in the National Register of Historic Places nomination form, the report, which was the rationale for establishing the district, the relevant historic structures were constructed from early 19th to early 20th centuries. Building architecture. The architecture of the subject building is dramatically different from that of buildings which form the basis for the creation of the South Hill District. In fact, the report simply describes the building as a government building built in 1958. The architectural styles of those buildings, as described in the rationale for establishing the district, are predominantly federal and Greek revival. This factor, in combination with the age of the building, means that this building played no part in the justification for the establishment of the South Hill Historic Overlay Zone and was not considered as contributing to the character of the district. Building modifications. The exterior of the subject building has been modified over the years in ways which materially and negatively impact its value for preservation. The modifications include replacement of all the windows, the addition of stairs, and the removal of railings. It is therefore not even an intact example of the architecture of the period in which it was constructed. Building ownership. The subject building was constructed and owned throughout all but the last two years of its life by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which is exempt from local land use regulations and many local building regulations. As such, the property and the structure were changed in multiple ways, internally and externally, over a period of many years with no oversight or import from the Board of Architectural Review and Board staff. Because of the foregoing four factors, the building does not add to the district's sense of time and place or historical development. The building, because of its age, architecture, location, and use, was never effectively part of the Southville neighborhood. The building is simply a one-of-a-kind structure built and operated by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which has had no influence on other buildings or development within the district. Then the board goes on to approve new construction of a four-story building, which it found was consistent with the character of the neighborhood. And that's where we are today. That's the groundwork for where we are. Of course, that was appealed from that point by the Bluegrass Trust, which opposed demolition at all stages. and our role and I've gone over this y'all need to hear me say it all over again but very briefly we got involved with this project when we're looking for space and this building's vacant we contact the owner and we learn about its history and I said can I go talk to the Bluegrass Trust and see if I can work with them and find something that might be a compromise can we do something with this building that they would like that is economically viable because the board was right when it said you can't use it in its current state. It does not work in its current state. It's not economically viable. But can we do something that would work? And what we brought was our first idea and then our second idea and then today our third idea of how we can do that, all of which we continuously send back to the Bluegrass Trust, which I believe is going to talk to you today about why this is such a better alternative than demolition. But with respect to the with respect to the guidelines and with respect to the new construction guidelines, one of the issues we take with staff's determination is the question shouldn't be, does this construction, this adaptive reuse on a building that's slated for demolition, change the character of that building? The question is, does it fit within the character of the neighborhood? If a four-story building is not of such height and scale that it fits within the character, then this smaller, essentially two and a half, one story mostly underground, two stories above that, should clearly fit within the scale of the neighborhood. And in fact, if our building were put in line with the other, even the house that's next door to it, it's shorter than the house and it's smaller than the church. It's a smaller scale development than what's already been approved by planning and zoning for this property. So I say the thing I said before, I cannot make it not be a third story edition or a second story edition, whichever you call it. I can't change that. And I respect this board's decision. whatever it decides with respect to this building. But the reality of this building is it's slated for demolition, and I don't want to do that. And I don't think the guidelines require me to tear down a building just to put in a new building. I think I'm allowed to use the old building as part of my new building, and that's essentially what we're asking for. And we're doing it that way because we think that's what the city wants, what the community wants, what the neighborhood wants. and I find it somewhat baffling that demolition would be a preferred alternative and I don't think the guidelines are so strict that they require a building be torn down just because it can't be used in its current state. I think obviously the preference would be great. We could use it as we can. This board's found we can't and the planning and zoning is found we shouldn't. but we found a way to use what we have and to add on to it and essentially create new construction that gets us most of the way there. And that's what we're asking to do. And any questions I can answer about the building, particularly the changes we made or really anything, talk to me and I'm here to answer those questions. Okay, starting with Sarah. We'll work from this. No, wait. So, I feel like this legislation from where we were last time that you did pay attention to our comments about maintaining the corners and keeping the sides. And you've done that and I think it's an improvement and takes into a lot of the consideration of what we had said previously. I think there's still a lot of details to be worked out in terms of what the railing looks like, what the detail is that allows you to kind of create that glass box over the area wells. You know, I think that, I don't, I think this is really hard because it doesn't meet the guidance. I mean, I think that. Could you turn your mic on? I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. I usually talk so loud. I don't notice that it's not on. Thank you. Never happened to me. It will. I mean, I think it doesn't meet the guidelines of the historic structure, and the staff has demonstrated that. But I think just losing the building completely and putting up a four-story building is a worse fate for this corner. And so I agree with you on that. But I think there's still a lot of details that would need to be ironed out before I could give full approval of a certificate of appropriateness. For example, like the signage size and the railing details I mentioned and just understanding those further. There's a lot I can't speak to. I am certain that our intention with signage is to put the largest sign that is permitted under the city's signage guidelines. And I don't want to sugarcoat that. I told that to the Bluegrass Trust when I first met with them. in all candor one of the reasons that our firm wants our own building is because for some reason other law firms don't want to be in a building with our sign on it and you know i i get it uh but we i don't want to pretend for a moment our intention would be to use the whatever's permitted now i know there's rules about that but as big as that sign's allowed to be is what we would ask for and i'm not saying you shouldn't ask for that but i'm just saying we don't know those details yet given what is submitted in front of us. I got you. And I, okay. I don't have any more answers. Steve may have some more information, although I suspect that we kind of. What's shown on the illustrations are the largest that the city will approve to the square footage. On both elevations. Well, what the city approves and what we approve consistent with guidelines or two different things. And that's the dilemma that we're dealing with this entire application, but that's another story. Sarah, go ahead. I don't think I have anything else to add. Okay. Suzanne? You all have variations of the same name. It just hit me. Suzanne, anything? I don't think I have any further comments to add. Sue? I was really disappointed at our second conceptually, because I felt like our comments just hadn't been listened to. I feel like almost all of them have been addressed at this point. I feel like the historic commercial building reads very clearly. We've got all four corners, the materiality of it, the maintaining of the window openings on the high street side, the loosening up and making more airy for the visibility on the upper street side of the government public entrance. I think that's an improvement. So there are one of the notations in the staff's findings is that this around 1956 commercial building was designed to fit comfortably within and not overwhelm the mainly residential character of the South Hill Historic District. And this building, though it does sit at the edge and is included in that South Hill historic district, is clearly on a commercial corridor. And our community faces the issue of density and talking about how do we balance protecting our historic fabric and understanding that if we also want to protect our green space, that density. We have to find a way for that balance to live together. And I feel like this current reiteration is heading in the absolute right direction that both clearly identifies the volume and the materials of the historic building, no ambiguity about what's been added, about what's part of the 21st century. So I thank you. I thank you for that. And I do, I think I said this then and at Belle Willing and I apologize that we came to that second review without having addressed those. I think we frankly misunderstood. And of course there was a switch of people here too. I wasn't here the first time. So whether it fixes things or not, we did go back and we talked about why we did things certain ways, and it comes back to that same thing. If we could pull off that front box and have the things that we need to make it safe for the uses that we're using, we would. But it just to have both our firm and its unique, that the work we do and the number of people that come in and out of the firm, the way we sit so close to the street right there, it's not safe to have that deep opening where people could congregate and have it accessible. And so the box is there for light and safety, not because we particularly like it there. I mean, I actually put it up high the first time because I thought it looked better myself. But then we heard what you said. And so we tried to, that's the least amount that is above the windows, right? And it allows the light in. Both to make it smaller and to pull it away from the corner. It's to the very edge of the, we didn't want to change any existing window box because, you know, I know the windows aren't original, but the boxes are. And I will say that one issue I had with the – or one issue is not fair. A disagreement that we have with staff, which is fair. We're here to disagree, is with respect to the historical features that are identified, things like those lines of windows, things like the granite around the front of the building and how you see that, I think this really leaves all of those in place. The only place we cover substantial brick, for example, is on the back on the non-forward-facing side. We've left as much brick open with this new iteration as we could. It's all the original brick. It's all the same lines. And even though the box is a completely different structure, and it's very obvious it's a different structure, it's also a square, and I think that kind of works. But I don't know if that's the right way to say it. I think it works a lot better than the previous iterations. I've been handicapped all evening by being almost laryngitis, so I apologize for my voice. It's just the allergies and everything else, so if I'm hoarse, I am. This is the equivalent of trying to square a circle. and I have wrestled with this for some time. I know exactly where the staff is coming from. I'm not unsympathetic to them at all. In fact, I was the one and only one, I think, that voted against the demolition of the building because I thought the building had an important contribution to make to the neighborhood once it had been there for nearly 70 years. If that building had been proposed with existing guidelines, it would have never been approved. But it's there, and it's part of the neighborhood. It's part of the – it's how the neighborhood reads. And the question is, can we approve something that is so utterly different from the way the building initially appeared to be that I think we're actually having a – it would be almost the equivalent of raising the building and building a new one. and then we wouldn't have to worry about whether we're destroying the guidelines in the process. And that's my problem. Because as Sarah has candidly pointed out, this building does not meet the guidelines. It's a good building, it's a good design, but it doesn't meet the guidelines. And at some point, if we don't adhere to the guidelines, what do we have left? and I've always been someone that has prided himself on trying to think outside the box and I'm just having some problems getting around the box that we have sort of put this I respect what you've done. You really have opened up a lot of it but you still have a new floor which violates the guidelines. We can argue about the historicness of the two sides, but you eradicated completely what had been, in my view, the principal entrance for this building on Upper Street. It doesn't really fit any of the guidelines for commercial development. I am very concerned about what this building is going to look like at night in terms of the lighting. If we somehow got to a process where we try to improve something. I don't want this building being lit up like a giant carnival ship at night because that would not be in keeping with the integrity of the North Hill Association. And finally, as I mentioned, I am really bothered that we have lost the front plane completely. if I'm counting noses correctly I think though I have three noses that's probably going to be in favor and if they are then we need to have a discussion a process where we're overriding the staff's disapproval but we don't really have I think we still want changes and I need we'll have to figure out how to facilitate how those changes get done so it Maybe basically it's going to be a vote saying we disagree with the staff, that we think it should be approved, take this plan back to staff with that guidance and see what other changes they would like to make, accepting the reality that their disapproval is not going to be acceptable by us. Did we have anyone else in the audience that needed to comment? I'm getting there. Thank you for reminding me. I just want to tell you, I understand what you're saying about that front entrance. From our practical perspective, it's because that entrance is essentially to the second floor. I know. And so it's a pure safety question there. We could not use that one. We have to use the ground one. Well, you may be making safety too paramount a concern. I understand why you're concerned, but this is Lexington. This is not New York. Or any other big story. And I certainly agree there. In fact, I withdraw that comment altogether. And I think, I don't know if you spell it, but the way all our new offices are designed is there's an entrance that does not allow access to other areas of the building. It's not safety just like someone might come in and shoot us up. It's confidential client files, materials, things locked down. And so it's kind of a, we have to have one entrance and out, and it's really, everything flows from there. But this is the reality of, though, that you have to accommodate being in the historic district, and that's all I'm going to say. I understand. Okay, I just wanted to explain it. I don't want to get in a favor with you. I totally understand where you're coming from. I do want to give Ms. Winters an opportunity to comment. Now that I've gotten off my soapbox. I think something that may be overlooked here is the design in the box. We're trying to preserve the brick. We're trying to put a glass frame around the brick so you see the existing thing. Especially on the east side or the southeast side, that's on there because the building is functionally obsolete. The systems are deleted. There's no elevator in the building. Life safety has got issues. So we had to do something within the framework of coming out on grade somewhere that would allow this to bring the thing into some sort of functionality. All right, Mr. Green, thank you. I'm glad I obviously can work with anybody, anywhere, anytime. If you have some suggestions on how we can further the process, I got the patience. Okay. Ms. Winters? I know you by name, but if you put your name into the record, please. Yes, sir. My name is Jessica Winters. I live at 421 West 2nd Street. I'm an attorney here in town, and I represent the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. I represented them all throughout the process initially involving this building. And I can tell you that where things stand right now is without this project, that building is very likely to be demolished. That is the current order from this board and then also the Planning Commission, which, by the way, conducted a de novo hearing on the application. Okay? Now I represent the Bluegrass Trust, and we appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the COA for demolition that was initially approved by this board to the Fayette Circuit Court. The Fayette Circuit Court said, affirm, meaning the demolition permit is okay under the law. We appealed that again to the Court of Appeals, and that appeal is pending now. If we lose the appeal, which unfortunately is likely to happen based on the standard of review, the building will be torn down. And you are now faced today with an infill and redevelopment project, adaptive reuse, all things that our comprehensive plan promotes and says that the bodies of our government should facilitate due to the pressures on Lexington to accommodate growth and commercial prospects. We have a large law firm that is looking to locate here and bring business to this corner of the neighborhood that has been abandoned for many years. The building is currently a derelict eyesore, which is part of the reason why demolition was approved. This will create a vibrant new space on this corner. The proposed design showcases, protects, and reuses an abandoned historic building. You can still see the original building materials, the original window openings, the original elevation of the building. And our comp plan says that these types of projects should be encouraged in our community. Morgan & Morgan is also a very responsible corporate actor in this circumstance, knowing that the Bluegrass Trust had appealed the approval of the demolition permit to the Court of Appeals. Before they even began thinking about this project, they reached out to us. They had multiple meetings to see what sort of design elements in the building the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation believed should be preserved in connection with any adaptive reuse. We talked about plans, exchanged drawings, gave input, which they listened to, and we came to an agreement. If this project is approved, we will end up dismissing our appeal because we no longer have to fight the demolition permit that is currently in effect for this building. The demolition has been put on hold during the pendency of the appeal for legal reasons, but as soon as the appeal is resolved, demolition can occur at any time. This is your chance to save this historic building. Thank you. Let me ask you a question. Is the demolition conditioned upon the approval of the plans that was to build the replacement building? I don't believe so. They're separate independent? Yes. So if the building were demolished, presumably one or two things could happen. Either they could move forward with the plans that they had submitted back two and a half years ago. Are new plans going to be submitted to the board for further review, correct? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Thank you. That's all I have. All right, thank you, Ms. Winters. Any questions? Any questions? Okay. All right, thank you. Sorry, I've got one thing. Sure. No, no, you're fine. You asked about the lighting of the building, and I just had mentioned this in our conceptual review. Because this is a commercial office space, I think one of the advantages of that for the residential neighborhood is that we're a, you know, eight to six business. And yeah, some people will be there at night, but this is not a nightclub or bar. And I know use, of course, doesn't. I heard that. I get it now. Use isn't important. But I think it's important to the neighborhood. We have sent all our drawings to the neighborhood. I've sent them all to the president of the neighborhood and asked. And I assume from their lack of appearance here, nobody objects. I tried to get them to come say, yay, go for it. I think they're just frankly tired of hearing about it. But it is a commercial space, and so with lighting, and also I guess with the signage, we can't do the big internally lit sign. We understand in a historic office, so we get that as well. All right. Any comments from the staff? Well, needless to say, the staff has been well aware that this building has been approved for demolition and that a proposal like this is an alternative to that. But our process is charged with evaluating proposals on a case-by-case basis based on the guidelines. and we are charged with protecting the existing character and architectural integrity and all the things that I don't need to tell you all of whatever is standing on the parcel. And this proposal in the staff's review and in our write-up reflects in the staff's opinion you're neither fish nor fowl. You're taking an existing building and imposing upon it a system of additions that basically kind of wrap it up and stick it in a box. And so our process is charged with not turning the appearance of an existing situation into a totally different appearance because a series of people might, quote, like it better. Everybody's got their own idea of what they think are cherished, iconic buildings in the community, and this building may not be in that list. Or it might be. People who are very interested in mid-20th century architecture, you'd be surprised how much they like this building. It has legitimacy. It is reflective of what it originally was built as and continues to have that design and presence with integrity. And our process is charged with seeing to it that that is not lost to imposing a 2022 look on it, that doesn't result in either outcome, where you haven't protected the integrity of the existing element and you haven't had a clean slate on a parcel of land to put forward an architectural statement of 2022 that would meet the design guidelines and be a complement to the neighborhood and the streetscape and this property specific. Facadectomies come to mind with this because what really happens with this is that you're left to read a portion of the building's exterior skin, but with a lot of additions on it to the point that it's kind of enveloped the real identity of this structure. and that kind of brings us right back around to being neither fish nor fowl. And it is not a condemnation of design. You know, if you were going to start to design a new structure of today to meet our design guidelines and head a vacant piece of property, you would probably design a kind of different building from what you've designed working with this existing condition. And I don't think you've complimented either one. I don't think the guidelines intent has been reflected and successfully accomplished for either preservation of the existing historic structure, nor of a good, what would become over time, potentially a significant historic, or in the future, a historic building built in 2022 or 2023 or whatever. So in trying to be all things to all needs, I think we have a problem relative to what our process is in place to help steer. And, you know, in my work with this process for all these years, we speak very plainly. And we have the same set of tools and interpretive philosophies that we apply to every project that comes along. And I think that the fact staff recommended disapproval when this building was proposed for total demolition. It was the board's choice, and we fully respect the board's choice in every application they review on a split vote, as has been referenced, to grant a permit for that building to be demolished. And then, of course, it went to the appeal process, as is already discussed. The staff continues on both this project and any other to be charged with the same thing every time, which is evaluate the proposal using those design guidelines in a fair and consistent manner, reflective of what the mission is of our local historic district process. And you see that reflected in our staff report. I'm glad to invite his questions to respond. Okay. I think, is there any further comments we made? So it is an interesting dilemma that you raise in the 21st century as our city grows and goes from a community. When this building was built, there were 55,000 people in Lexington, and now there are 341,000. So what the next 20 to 30 years will be for our urban center is a challenging position that we face. So to be neither fish nor fowl, does that put us in the position that if it can't be made useful, that we will see historic buildings demolished then to create new buildings that meet the larger need for density? This building is unique in that it may be related to the South Hill neighborhood, but it's really on the commercial edge, and that's how it's been used. So it really is, it does raise an interesting question about our charge. Well, and I think it's one that our community and other communities around the nation are already well set to cope with successfully, including this process. I think that, of course, she would just, just like we're doing now, look at every individual scenario as they come forward, different properties and so forth. But on this one specifically, there are other alternatives to how to keep this historic building and get some additional square footage and have the building be viable in today's time. Nobody in the historic preservation world, whether they're working with a government process or private sector or not-for-profits or anything, ever has a goal of having a building sit that isn't being put to good use. That's anathema to what we're about. Preservation is about having things move forward and live and thrive while respecting the past and moving to the future. I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but had the park, for example, on this one, it's always been that the parking is sacrosanct and that it can't have additions that eat up any of the parking. Well, there are solutions to accomplishing increasing the footprint of structures while also accommodating parking needs. To my knowledge, in our discussions with the applicant and their architect, anytime there was, well, could you go out the side to the south or go whatever? Nope, can't do anything that takes up parking place. So I only use that as a subset example where I don't think this is the only way to have this existing historic structure have a future, this proposal. I think this historic structure could have a future with some additional square footage in a very different manner and very likely meet the guidelines. But it would take a different approach and more open to looking more broadly at options, I would suggest. Anything else? I'll ask as a matter of form, have you all looked at a different approach in terms of using more of the parking lot? First, our initial approach to the building was can we use it as an existing square footage? And we had an entire plan drawn up, offices, cubicles. The entire building as it was had it mapped in a 3D map to see is there any way to fit within it as it is if we could not. We need essentially an entire new 7,000 square feet. This is a 14,000, maybe 15,000 square foot building. We need 7,000 additional square feet to make it work. Otherwise, we have to build a second office somewhere else, and that's not something that we're willing to do. I mean, we can't invest the money. So for 7,000 square feet means building another building of this same footprint if we're going to build off to the side. We're literally doubling the size of the building. That's neither consistent with the guidelines, and it would not take up one or two parking spaces. It would take up the entire parking lot, and that lot is, frankly, a large part of the appeal of this building. People come to our building a lot. We have a lot of trouble with parking in our current place, and one of the reasons we're willing to invest the money that we're willing to invest in making this happen is because it will solve our parking problem. That's a big part of our problem. So we have looked at it. We've talked about that each time we've been here. We tried to find a way to do this without. I mean, the cheaper thing and the easier thing would have been if we didn't have to add anything to it. We cannot. We don't have enough room. And then we looked at it. It's also because it's half underground. If this building had 14,000 square feet in that box already and we only had 7,000 more, you can see that might be good. But it's the exact same footprint building we would need to add the footage that we need. Okay. I think we have reached the end of the process of commenting. Is there anybody else in the audience wants to comment? We have a couple more folks. We were just here in case Jessica came in. Okay. So we have no comments? We're here observing, correct? Okay. All right, so where are we? Are we ready for a motion to do what? Let me just take an informal poll. Is there any support for the staff recommendation of disapproval? All right. That's my informal poll. The question then is how do we craft the motion in such a way that it makes sense to the staff and can be followed by the staff? I am thinking aloud at this point. I'm wondering if we should simply make a motion to reject the disapproval, accept in principle the presentation, your application, subject to further details being provided to staff for review and approval. If you don't have enough, we can't have process-wise something approved in principle. I'm sorry, what? We can't process-wise have something approved in principle. It has to be an approval of architectural drawings that reach a certain pretty high ratio of reflective of what's being approved with a punch list of the things yet to be decided. Well, you had an application pending before you, which you have disapproved. We could flip it around and simply say that application is now stands approved, subject to? Yes, you could do something like that. You'd have to enumerate a list of categories of items to be further studied and come back to the board or the staff at your determination. Okay. If I may, I think if it's a matter of materials and that, perhaps if there could be an approval as to the form, as in that the physical structure addition that we've proposed is approved, but we need to come back to staff and this board for permission on specific materials. I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at, but if that's the question is that there's questions about these specific materials, signage, things like that, then an enumerated list of items that has to be subsequently approved. Okay. Well, let me do another informal polling. The designs that have been submitted to us, are we comfortable with these designs to approve them? I can comment on the way that I interpret this design as being able to fit within the guidelines that were specifically commented as being part of the disapproval. If we want to have that kind of motion, we can start trying to frame it up. Okay. Okay. So I think that it does meet the guidelines in the spirit that the original building is visible and readable. that the addition is secondary in visual weight and visual impact because of the materials proposed that are in contrast with the heavy material of the original building. that the addition, although it is a new story, is stepped back from the plane of the original building, both in the front and in the back, or I should say the high street side and the parking lot side. And that it allows the upper street elevation to be open air and readable. And in that vein, it does allow the building to remain intact as possible. And based on those determinations, it is your recommendation that we find that guidelines number 2B, 3B, D, and G have been properly satisfied? Okay. Yes. All right. Would you repeat those guidelines? I'm looking at Roman numeral 2, capital B, period 3B, D, and G. Those are specifically the guidelines pertaining to commercial buildings. Got it. Okay. Ms. Hill, did you have something that you... This is a working process and how this comes out of motion. So the thing I would add is that the end partly was addressed with the open air addition on west side, north side, whatever one wants to call it. It's really northwest side along upper. but is that on both of the street elevations, the original openings in the masonry wall are maintained. All right. And that's consistent with the guidelines as well, in our opinion. All right. To all that, do we need to add in that if there are the standard two conditions, Do we also need to add in that materials to be used on the building are to be presented to the staff for review and approval prior to construction? I would like to add that in. I would like to see final details of the glazing panels, the canopy, the railings, the parapets, signage. I think all of those need final details that really are going to tell us more about what this is. This is very schematic, and we think we see in this, I think I see a very kind of glass box. But until those details are figured out and how thick that parapet is and how deep the spandrel that they're proposing at the top is, we don't really know that it is a glass box that isn't covering more, that there just needs to be more details provided. Does that, I mean, do we need to say that what those details need to, the detail specifically to support a clear glass box? I don't know how to say that. I can start listing things that I'm thinking of. So can one, and this is kind of a hybrid, but because there are a lot of things that are being asked for. And if it goes back to the staff, we're the ones that want to look at it. Why don't we do it this way? We're doing the one thing I hate doing, which is a design on the fly. Let's try this. let's go ahead and tell the staff we recommend disapproval of their recommendation. We do not accept the recommendation of disapproval. We want you, we're going to continue this proposal, this meeting, to a date in August. And you will submit to the staff for its review and approval more detailed plans that are going to be approved subject to tweaking. if you will. I don't know any other way how to move this thing forward and make sense of it. But does that allow us to see those details? Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at. I would suggest, given the complexity of this, that it needs to be for your September meeting, because the August deadline is nine days from now. All right, September, can you leave with that? September meeting. We can't tell you, but I just want to make sure, big surprise to you all, there's another step of expense that we're going to go through. Well, we sort of have a conceptual review plus, for lack of a better word. And I understand that, and I'm okay with that. Again, we want to work with the board and not... Yeah, if we have a plan that we're saying we can live with, what you need to do is tweak the plan and give us the details. Okay, but... And get a copy of these minutes so that you know what we're looking for. The one thing I just didn't want to do was put a bunch of detail in and then come back and have a new discussion of well, no, actually the third floor doesn't work or something, and I don't know, maybe Maybe there's just no way to make that binding until the final vote is held. But that stresses me out because the reason we don't have those details is because it's a layer of expense above what we've already expended to this point. And we didn't want to do it until we knew that we could, in fact, do it. If we've said, if I'm understanding, is that the guideline about not, the guideline that is against adding new stories, that we feel that because this is stepped back and because it is glass in opposition to the heavy masonry, that not having an additional story is okay? The additional story can be accommodated and does not violate the guidelines because it's more lightweight and it's not as heavy as the masonry of the wall. So what I'm trying to get at, sir, you have your findings. Okay. This may be the longest motion we have ever done. Understood. But you have your findings, and from those findings, we are going to work the details out of this approved structure. That's something that we can live with. Steve will be glad for us to. He looked at me, he said, that's a lot of work, Adrian. I said, okay, well. So the findings imply then, and maybe we can be more intentional in the comment, The findings imply that the conceptual design with the volumes as shown on your submittal are accepted. That what we're asking for is more understanding of the development of the details of this conceptual design. I wish I could practice architecture as well as you just practiced law. Yeah. It's just not within our purview to approve things in concept. So I'm hearing everything you're saying. Yes, concept has to, you know, we'll come up with euphemisms for concept. So can we say that we accept the design in volume and placement of that volume in relationship to the original building? I think you can't take a motion and take action on any of that idea of something so vague. So I think what you're doing. We could approve the form of the development subject to agreement on the materials, all of the materials, essentially. And if we can't agree on the materials, that's a condition that you can impose on it. But if the form's okay, which is the thing we need to know before we go step, the three-dimensional form, that could be approved subject to the condition of you have to then approve all the materials to be used throughout any new addition change to the building. And that, because the form is what it is, and that's not going to change. But then the question I hear you're saying is, what are we talking about here? And sometimes I ask those questions. But I think the board can make that approval, that this is the form. This is the drawing and the design, the layout that we've agreed to that's approved. Then the question is, or the condition that's imposed on that is, we have to come back and get approval through staff and then through the board on every material that's going to be. Do we want the material submitted to us or to the staff? Us. To you all. Okay. A project of this magnitude will come back to the board until you get to a point that the punch list of the details left needed is extremely minimal. modest. And that's a typical process for a project to this scale. Quite frankly, I've not been on the board with a project to this scale. This is a first for all of us. Keep in mind that it's not just this project that can't be approved in concept with a formal motion and taking a vote. But it's any project. Think about all the residential stuff you see where people go back to come up with the details of their box gutter, cornices, and so forth and so on. It's the same exact principles. It's just that this one's on steroids. And so, I mean, I think you all have had a very forthright conversation with the applicant about where you're coming from on this. And I think there's going to need to be some leap of faith on both parties to knowing that you can't make a formal motion with the level of punch list that would allow you to vote on it. I think you're going to, if I would suggest to the applicants, take on good faith what you're hearing this group of people telling you. Well, this is why we're bringing it back to us. And does our attorney have any suggestions on this? You're all with the board, so whatever is said at the end of the day is what we'll walk out of here with. I just, I do want to note, I don't agree that we can't have a vote on approving the structure that was proposed. All right, let me see if I can frame up the motion and then someone can say you adopted or whatever. May we get some input from our attorney? Sure. Mr. Horne, do you have any ideas? I really think it's up to you all. I don't see an issue with proceeding the way that Adrian has recommended to you, if you're comfortable proceeding that way, recognizing that they're coming back to you with the details of what this is going to look like. as Adrian said, subject to your approval of those details. And that's kind of the leap of faith that Ms. Kerr is talking about because you're both assuming that the details that come in are going to be what you're looking for or that you'll be able to work that out at your next September meeting. But I would be aware that the level of detail that you're willing to not have will affect every application coming forward? I don't think so. I think this is such a unique circumstance involving a, as you said, fish nor fowl critter. Let me say this much. I think the motion can be styled as based on the findings that have been previously articulated, which can be summarized by the staff. the motion should be that the board accepts the architectural drawings as submitted today in terms of its depiction of the form and volume that that is approved subject to additional specifications and details being submitted to the board for its review and approval, including specifications as to the materials and details as to how this building will be fitted out, if you will, on the outside. Yes, and subject to the board actually approving that. Okay, I can't say that a second time. Can someone just adopt it? Well, it's relative to construction details being provided, really. Right, construction details. Yeah, right. We're needing base construction details and the extras of railings and that sort of thing. But we're needing both. I think basic construction details kind of would incorporate all of those things that I want to see. Okay. Okay. So the nature of this would occur if we, on that site, had an entirely new building, the same sequence of process would be occurring. Well, and I think that's very true, because essentially you're accepting the existing building as a form of a mass that's sitting there that, by and large, it's going to be new construction guidelines steering what's coming. with some construction that is going to impact the historic structure. But this is obviously going to be led by new construction guidelines, because what's being weighed for the nuances is the new construction. So, I think we're, it's not that it's not able to get there, but I'm very cautious and even-handed in how we approach what's required of one project project for base information to be provided, for details of information to be provided, what constitutes a complete application, it's got to be consistent. We can't ebb and flow because this project's bigger and more complicated, but your project's not that many square feet. It doesn't work like that if we're going to be able to have a consistent process that we can defend. Okay, I understand your long-term concerns. Right now, I'm just trying to get this baby to bed, if I can. Yes, Mr. Graves. I'm just going to let go. No, I can add to the process. We're in schematic design. You guys know about schematic design. The next move would be design development, right? If I can get the design development to you guys, then we can go to them. we may even not even need to come back with full construction documents because we're dealing with structural, mechanical, electrical, and how it all works together. So, I mean, that's kind of what I'm hearing is we can come back to you with design development and go further. Right now, we need to get the motion said somehow. Okay. So, let me try it one more time without, hopefully, any interruptions. Yes, Suzanne? Okay, so one other comment. We've said approving this in form and placement of that form, but also in the concept of the materials proposed. Because the concept of the material for the addition essentially is a clear glass box. And I think that that is very relevant to our findings that this is a secondary, lighter structure which does not overpower the existing building. All right. So if I understand it correctly, the board is ready to approve a motion that would say that we, based on the guidelines and our findings previously stated, that we accept the architectural drawings submitted to us in terms of its form and volume and concept of materials proposed, subject to construction plan details being submitted to us at the next board meeting in September. Submitted and approved by you. Submitted and be submitted and approved by the board. Right. Yeah. Not just submitted, but approved. Okay. Yes. Yeah. And you're not disagreeing with that? I'm not disagreeing at all. No, that's exactly what I understood. I was actually going to chime in. And I heard you say that earlier. You know, you get it about the approved part. Right. I just don't want to have the outcome of this be something that treats others unfairly. I don't think so because I think that this whole process has taken into account an enormous amount of realistic, the reality of what's happening here. And it's very unique. And I think that that's what the board is charged to do, is to take that in conjunction with the guidelines and consolidate that into a decision on a case-by-case basis. Oh, I agree. I'm just talking about thresholds and process measures and even-handed methodologies by which people go through the hearings. And it's just vital that it's 100% identical method, not the design outcomes or the design considerations or the details. but we cannot ask of one applicant something that isn't asked of all applicants and vice versa. We'll just give everybody your all's phone numbers. It'll be no problem. Are we ever, not that I'm trying to be impatient here, but we keep losing the thread of the motion. As stated, the motion is as follows. that we, based on the findings that we have previously articulated with respect to the guidelines, that we accept the form and volume of the proposal submitted to us along with the materials proposed subject to our approval at our next meeting of the details of the construction plan by which this building is going to be constructed. Do I have someone agreeing with me or saying that for me, please? Adopting it, if you will. Can someone adopt that statement? So moved. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? Sarah, was that you? Yeah. I wasn't looking up. Yeah. Okay. Any further discussion? So I think the only kind of language piece maybe is construction drawings because it does have a legal terminology, and there's no way that Steve's going to generate construction drawings. We don't design development drawings. We don't need construction drawings. We need design development drawings. Yeah, that's right. Yep, that's right. So with the exception that what will be submitted to us will be design development level. Thank you. Design development. That's correct. All right. That's substituted then for our construction plans. All right. This is always the problem. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Chair calls the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes. Our next meeting, by the way, is September 21st. Add that into the motion. And Mr. Chair, did you vote with the majority? Yes, I did. Thank you. Informally, if Steve's slow, I'm not saying he is, but he's got a lot to do. And if he can't get it done, obviously we can't do anything without your approval. But is it okay? Can we just basically say we'll come back in October or we'll come back whenever we get done? Yeah, sure. I mean, no, no. If you don't, I'm sorry. You're being paranoid. If you miss the September 21, everything's gone. No, it doesn't work that way. I'm going to go back and say, guys, we need to write a big check and do a lot of work. And so I just. But that does raise an issue. Do I need to sign a waiver on the postponements? Well, you just took action. You took action. You've made a motion and voted on it. So it's within 60 days, so no waiver. The deadline for it actually was July 23rd, so now that you've approved it, there's no need. We'll get with you all about kind of a cycle of lead time. So no matter what month it is, my copy of that last one. We talked about the next meeting, but I know that things are due well before, and I'm about to disappear for two weeks. We'll get with y'all in the next few days about a, okay, whatever month you want to come, back it up to need these times. We'll try to do it as quick as we can, but I want to give it all and not do some kind of thing. It's to your advantage and ours to have you get the time you need to get it all thoroughly. Jim, we still have an outstanding case. I know. I'm trying to do it. Thank you. I keep stealing problems from... We need to go back to 612 North Broadway. And I don't know what I've done with it. If someone would share with me... That's the one you didn't have before. If someone would share with me the 612 application. Here. Thank you. All right. So staff has recommended approval. This is 612 North Broadway in the north side of historic district. Scope of work is construct pool, paving, and privacy fence. Staff has recommended approval of installation of the pool, patio, and fence with the following conditions. provides staff with a patio final paver selection prior to issuance of COA and the standard two conditions. Do I have a motion to that effect? So moved. You meet her by now. I'll second. I'll second Sue. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. And the motion was made by Suzanne. Is anyone here keeping track of our work? Okay. Any discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. We have one housekeeping item to two housekeeping items. We have a kind of strange, weird situation. There was a staff approval of an application for 453 West 3rd Street. There was an appeal by a neighbor of that staff approval. That appeal has since been withdrawn. And so I need a motion that we accept the withdrawal of the appeal. So moved. Do you have a second? Second. I know that made absolutely no sense, but it took me a while to figure this out. All right. Chair, we'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes. We have the minutes of, I believe, February 16th. Is that right? Mr. Chair, I would note those minutes are of the May 18th meeting, please. And we'll just fix the entry on the agenda to reflect the same. It's on the agenda incorrectly, isn't it? That's correct. So we're looking at approval of the May 18th minutes. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay the motion passes any other business for us to consider now that we have wrecked havoc all over downtown lexington all right so do i have a motion to adjourn so moved all right second we stand adjourned thank you Thank you. Don't try to tell me your thing It's all physical It goes much deeper than that You ought to know It's an affair of a heart It's an affair of a heart Into the fair of the heart Into the fair of the heart Yeah, I know it's in the fair of the heart Into the fair of the heart Yeah, I know it's in the fair of the heart Into the fair of the heart Baby, into the fair of the heart Into the fair of the heart To the fair of the heart To the fair of the heart