# Board of Architectural Review - March 18, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · March 18, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6725 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6725?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-03-18 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: March 20, 2026 - **Length**: 14,773 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Architecture Review convened on March 18, 2026, to consider several matters related to architectural appropriateness and development review. The board addressed four agenda items during the meeting, taking a total of 3 votes and hearing 1 public comment. Two Certificates of Appropriateness were approved — one for 318 South Mill Street and one for 501 West Short Street — while the Port of Share project at 265 South Ashland Avenue was tabled. The board also received an informational conceptual review of a proposed development in the South Hill Historic District. ## Attendance The following members were present at the March 18, 2026 Board meeting: - Ms. Hill - Mr. Marquette - Ms. LaMere - Brack No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took three votes during the March 18, 2026 meeting, all of which passed by voice vote. No roll call votes were recorded, and individual vote counts were not captured. - **Certificate of Appropriateness – 318 South Mill Street** [timestamp: 0:19:17]: The Chair moved approval of the certificate of appropriateness for 318 South Mill Street. The motion passed by voice vote. The approval was granted with the condition that staff review with the owner the final details of the placement of the signage prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). - **Certificate of Appropriateness – 501 West Short Street** [timestamp: 0:22:13]: The Chair moved approval of the certificate of appropriateness for 501 West Short Street. The motion passed by voice vote. The approval was granted subject to the standard two conditions. - **Extension – Port of Share Project, 265 South Ashland Avenue** [timestamp: 0:59:35]: The Chair moved to grant an extension for the Port of Share project at 265 South Ashland Avenue. The motion passed by voice vote. The extension was granted to May 21st. In all three cases, the motions were made by the Chair and seconded by an unidentified member. No nays or abstentions were recorded for any of the votes. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Board during the public comment period of the March 18, 2026 meeting. - **Elizabeth Pitchford** of Ruggles Sign spoke regarding a signage application [timestamp: 12:30]. Pitchford described a proposal to lower a sign by 12 inches and also put forward an alternate solution that would involve moving the sign further back in the yard, rather than adjusting its height. ## Contested Items Two items generated notable disagreement during the March 18, 2026 Board meeting. - **Port of Share Project – 265 South Ashland Avenue:** This item prompted heated discussion among board members regarding the proposed location and design details of the Port of Share project at 265 South Ashland Avenue. Board members were divided over whether the proposed location and design were appropriate, though the specific points of contention between individual members are not detailed in the available record. No outcome or resolution is noted in the available data. - **Development at South Hill Historic District:** A proposal involving the potential demolition or relocation of a historic structure within the South Hill Historic District drew community opposition. Concerns centered on preserving the character of the historic district, with participants raising questions about the impact such changes could have on the area's historic integrity. As with the previous item, no final outcome is recorded in the available data. ## Certificate for Appropriateness for 318 South Mill Street [timestamp: 18:16] The Board took up agenda item 13150318-H, a Certificate for Appropriateness for the property at 318 South Mill Street. The discussion centered on the appropriateness of a proposed sign placement and its height. Key speakers during this item included the Chair and Elizabeth Pitchford. The Board examined whether the sign's proposed location and height met the applicable standards for appropriateness, with these elements forming the core of the debate. The Board ultimately **approved** the Certificate for Appropriateness, with the condition that staff review the final details of the sign placement and height before the project moves forward. This conditional approval allowed the Board to move ahead while ensuring that the specifics would receive additional scrutiny at the staff level. ## Certificate for Appropriateness for 501 West Short Street **Agenda Item:** 171-70501-GG [timestamp: 22:13] The board took up a Certificate of Appropriateness for 501 West Short Street, the site of St. Paul Roman Catholic Church. The discussion centered on a proposed redesign of a plaza at the property. The Chair led the discussion on this agenda item. The structured record does not detail specific concerns raised or the full scope of debate during the review, but the item was brought before the board as a discussion item prior to a decision being rendered. The board ultimately **approved** the Certificate of Appropriateness, subject to standard conditions. ## Port of Share project at 265 South Ashland Avenue [timestamp: 59:35] The Board held a discussion regarding the proposed Port of Share project located at 265 South Ashland Avenue. The conversation centered on the design and location of the Port of Share, with key contributions from the Chair and Mr. Gibson. During the discussion, the Board examined the specifics of the project's design and its proposed placement at the South Ashland Avenue site. Following the exchange, the Board determined that the proposal required further refinement before a final decision could be made. As a result, the Board voted to table the item, extending the discussion to allow time for design revisions to be completed. No final approval was granted at this meeting. ## Conceptual Review of Development at South Hill Historic District [timestamp: 1:08:03] The Board held a discussion regarding potential development of a site within the South Hill Historic District. The item was presented as a conceptual review, meaning no formal action was taken and the discussion was informational in nature. **Key Speaker:** Dudley Webb Dudley Webb was the primary speaker on this agenda item. The discussion centered on the possibility of developing a site located within the South Hill Historic District, with a notable point of consideration being the potential moving or demolition of a historic structure on or near the site. The item was framed as a conceptual review, indicating that the proposal is in an early stage and that the Board was being briefed on the general direction of the project rather than asked to approve any specific plans. The prospect of relocating or demolishing a historic structure would carry significant implications given the site's location within a designated historic district. **Outcome:** The discussion was informational. No formal decisions or votes were recorded as part of this agenda item. *Note: The available data for this agenda item is limited. Additional details regarding specific concerns raised by Board members, the identity of the historic structure in question, or the nature of the proposed development were not captured in the source materials.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the certificate for appropriateness for 318 South Mill Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the certificate for appropriateness for 501 West Short Street with conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Extension for the Port of Share project at 265 South Ashland Avenue --- ## Full transcript ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Come on up. Hello, my name is Elizabeth Pitchford. I'm with Ruggles Sign in Versailles, Kentucky. Staff has recommended approval of your application. They want you to lower the sign by 12 inches. Are you in agreement with that or do you want to be heard on that? We'd like to propose an alternate solution. All right. I'll tell you what then. I'm going to have... Is it a quick... I think so. I'm going to go ahead and take... Normally I don't do this, but I have two other lengthy discussions, I think, ahead of you. So I'm going to try to do the favor. We have to have a staff presentation first. Okay. Whose case is this? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and present the application. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is actually the location of where they would like to put the sign. The sign will be 6 by 7 approximately feet. The findings is that the proposal meets the guidelines to put the sign. Staff guidelines say that signs should be proposed to be appropriate to the building and relate to compliment and not overwhelm the site, building, and street, and avoid oversized signs. And signs should be relocated to a traditional sign and locations for the building and site. Staff does find the sign should not be too high and should be lowered by 12 inches. So staff recommends that the sign be lowered by 12 inches with the final details to come back to staff. So staff does suggest that the sign be lowered and the final details come back to staff. Okay. Madam? Ms. Ruggles? If I could. Sorry. These microphones are very weird, so you need to speak directly into them so we can hear you properly? Absolutely. Thank you. So when we reduce that height by 12 inches, we effectively block out the message on the sign so that all you can see is downtown doctors. You would not even be able to read brown. So therefore, we're not identifying the building so people can find it. That's all this is for. It was explained to me that because of the placement of the sign, it is blocking the view down the street. So therefore, we suggest, if it's all right with you all, that we just simply take the sign and move it back further in the yard so that it aligns with the building right behind it, the red house, so that the edge of the sign would effectively be at the edge of that house and bring it out of that sight line so it no longer impedes the beautiful view that you're looking for. Did you review that idea with the staff? Briefly, when I got here. And what was the reaction of the staff? Well, I mean, I think we hadn't really sort of placed it on the ground. I sort of was thinking about could it be moved back and it would still not block that. I sort of wanted to eyeball it a little bit more closely, but I think it would sort of be sufficient as far as not be blocking the streetscape as much. I think it would sort of meet that as far as not overwhelming that part. And I was thinking could it, and I understand that they are challenged because they do have the nice crenellated fencing in front. So I think that could be potentially a solution. Well, let me suggest then why don't we in principle approve the sign with final details and its location to be submitted to the staff for review. If they don't like it, you always can go back to us again. Is that a fair solution? Okay. All right. I think then we're ready for a motion. Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, then are we ready for a motion? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Chair, per case 13150318-H at 318 South Mill Street, I move that we approve the certificate for appropriateness with one substantive condition and the two standard conditions already read into the record. And the substantive condition be that the staff review with the owner the final details of the placement of the signage prior to the issuance of the COA. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Yes, go ahead. She said final placement. Could we also say and details in case there's a few more items the staff wants to address? Accepted. Done. Okay. Any other changes or amendments? Friendly amendments? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. And the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you, ma'am. I skipped over one I need to go to now. Where am I? Yes. 501 West Short Street. Scope of work is that's what's wrong with this one. This is the one with the plaza at the St. Paul Roman Catholic church. We had a mischaracterization of what the project was. I apologize. Yeah. My father couldn't make it. So I'm kind of his proxy today. So the staff has recommended approval of your application and the redesign of the plaza. Let me review those conditions with you just briefly. Yep. They are as follows. Once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit any changes to the board, staff or board for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Any agreement? Yep. Number two, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit those changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Any questions about this one? Any comments from the audience? If not, the chair is ready for a motion. And the what will be updated to reflect the actual work? The actual work is. Or do we have to amend the case? No, it will be updated. Okay. Amelia, whose case is this? This is, it is my case and I cannot hear what the question is. Briefly, what is the scope of work? It's characterized as construct port of share, which is wrong. Do we have to amend the case with the new description or does that get handled automatically with the motion? Mr. Chair? Yes. I can address that. That will be taken care of, that error will be corrected administratively. That's what I thought. And there's no need for the board to take any action toward that. We apologize for the somehow fine and inaccurate typo. Okay. That answers your question, right? All right. So am I ready for a motion? Chair, with regard to case 171-70501-GG at 501 West Short Street, I move that the certificate of appropriateness be granted to the applicant. Be granted as recommended with the standard two conditions. And do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the proposal, the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Now we'll turn to the Port of Share project. 265 South Ashland Avenue is the applicant here. Okay. Barron Gibson. Technically speaking, this is a continuation of the hearing we started last week or last month. If memory serves me correctly, we had made some suggestions to you, one of which is to push back the site of the Port of Share. However, I don't think the staff is in agreement with you, so I need for them to review their findings with us. Sure. And then we'll pick up with their findings and continue this hearing. Sounds good. Thank you. So 265 South Ashland Avenue, the scope of work is to construct a Port of Share. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a Port of Share. The Port of Share is proposed to be located on the west side elevation of the historic structure. The Port of Share is approximately 18 feet by 20 feet, single story with a low slope copper flat seam roof supported by wood columns on brick base. The board first heard a case with a similar Port of Share in the October 20, 2021 meeting. Other parts of the proposal were approved in that application and the Port of Share was withdrawn. Staff had suggested that the board allow the applicant to withdraw the Port of Share from the application to allow staff time to work with the applicant to come up with a better proposed location. That really never happened until just recently when the new case was submitted. The proposal was most recently in front of the board in the February 18, 2026 meeting, during which the proposal was continued to allow design revisions to be made and resubmitted. Staff, in the meantime, has performed a survey of the historic structures located on South Ashland Avenue to determine the number of historic structures which currently have Port of Co-Shares. The survey was completed using the Sanborn Insurance Company maps. There are five historic structures with a Port of Co-Share on South Ashland Avenue. One property at 262 South Ashland Avenue. The historic structure appears on the 1907 Sanborn Insurance Company maps, while the Port of Co-Share does not appear on the Sanborn maps until 1934. The Port of Co-Share being at least 92 years old, and possibly as old as 118 years, with the Port of Co-Share being constructed close in time to the remainder of the historic structure. In the case of 262, the Port of Co-Share addition was constructed in a time period in which the primary structure would not have been considered a historic structure. The primary structure and the Port of Co-Share have grown historic together. Findings. Staff finds the proposal to construct the Port of Co-Share requires additional discussion concerning its size location and to determine if the design replicates history. The proposal to construct the Port of Co-Share replicates non-existent history and covers or obscures the significant architectural features of the three windows and their fine detailing on the side of the house. I'm going to take the time now to kind of run you through this. You're pretty familiar with it, obviously, the front porch. I'm sorry, the front of the house with the front porch. This is looking from South Ashland. So in the previous case, there were some issues with this being covered with the Port of Co-Share located above it. So it has been changed in location now, although these windows are still going to be impact as far as the view of the historic structure. So these are the resubmitted drawings which were in your package. So you can see in these renderings, in this location, the Port of Co-Share has been moved towards the rear of the structure so it doesn't engulf the canopy and then the windows are above and under the Port of Co-Share. I'll let Mr. Gibson take you through the rest of the drawings. The guidelines do not have a section that speaks specifically to the design of the Port of Co-Share. Therefore, staff extrapolated the guideline section's overall philosophy regarding a proposed addition. Design principles help to develop the overall philosophy regarding a proposed addition's design, scale and character. The porch design principle. Porches are often prominent features of a building and help establish scale, proportion and a rhythm along the streetscapes. Construction of a porch on an existing building should be compatible in scale and materials with the principal structure in the adjacent and surrounding buildings and the districts. Porches should be in keeping with the principal structure's architectural style and not reflect an earlier period style. The room and wing addition design principle. 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. The rear of the building is the best location for the addition of rooms or wings. Guideline 2A-3C states, Porches that give a building an imitation historic appearance are not allowed. The location and detailing of the proposal of the guidelines 2A-4 and 2A-4E state respectively. Additions are most appropriately located at the rear of the building and additions should reflect characteristics of the current period in design and be compatible with the original building. Staff finds that the design of the portico chair does not comply with the guidelines. The location is not appropriate. The details of the portico chair have been copied from the historic structure. That along with the location on a prominent side of the historic structure and not at the roof. The proposal does not reflect characteristics of current period in design and it creates an imitation historic appearance, creates a false sense of history and should be denied. Staff recommends denial of the proposal to construct the portico chair. All right, Mr. Gibson. Okay, good afternoon. So wait until my PDF gets pulled up. And speak better into the microphone so we can hear you. Sure. Wait until my presentation gets pulled up. You can bring the microphone up to you. Thank you. There you go. One quick question. Other than shifting his location, you didn't change any of the other design details, did you? Yes. And I'll point those out. Oh, please. Okay, thank you. Okay. At our last meeting we received helpful feedback from the board, particularly regarding preserving the existing awning condition. We took that feedback seriously and revised the design accordingly. Today's proposal reflects those changes and our effort to respond directly to the concerns raised at our last meeting. This project has followed a thorough process starting in October of 2021 and continuing at a conceptual review in December and a follow-up review in February, and now here we are in March, to continue and hopefully conclude this design process. Our intent has been to work collaboratively with the board and staff to arrive at an appropriate solution. It was suggested that pushing the design further back might be better received. We have done that, as Mr. Dennis showed you all. Mr. Marquette's suggestion last meeting, which we completely agree with, was to align the eaves of the proposed side portico to the existing front porch. We have done that as well. I know that this view is pulled back, but this eave is directly corresponding with that eave. We tested Ms. Lemire's suggestion to freestand the portico in order to pull it away from the house. I have drawings that show that tested iteration, which I've also shared with staff. I'll go to that just quickly now that I'm talking about it. Our concern with that design proposal is that you can see in this iteration, in order to support this portico in this way, we're going to have to have structural columns closer to the house. The space is already limited, and this is going to further take away space, but it's also going to impede where we are going to arrive up onto the steps. Also, there will be water that comes between the proposed structure and the house. We do feel that attaching to the house is the best method to proceed with this design. Mr. Dennis said that the window covers important details of the windows. We've taken careful consideration to document the stone jack arches that are above those windows. Our portico intentionally misses all of those details. If I go to elevation, you'll see that I know it's faint, but there are jack arches drawn above those windows. This portico share obviously clears the bottom of this windowsill and clears the top of those jack arches and doesn't interfere with these windows in any way. The detailing, one issue is the detailing in the portico is the same as the rear cover porch that was approved in 2021, but we're now hearing from staff that these details are imitative and inappropriate, but that didn't seem to be the case when the rear porch was approved. At the previous hearing, the primary concern from staff seemed to be the relationship of the portico to the existing decorative awning over the side entry. We responded to that directly by revising the design so that the portico no longer obscures that feature. With these adjustments made, we were surprised to see the current staff recommendation shift towards a broader concern that no version of this proposal would be appropriate. Our intent is not to replicate history or create a false narrative, but to design something that is clearly secondary, compatible and consistent with the architectural language of the home. Similar to how the previous approved rear portico was approached. This is not a speculative or convenience-driven addition. The existing garage is not usable for modern vehicles, and the side entry already functions as the primary daily access point. The proposal is simply formalizing and improving an existing pattern of use. We remain open to refinement, whether in detailing or proportions or simplification. We've not received any suggestion other than the ones that I've named that we've responded to. If the board feels that that would improve compatibility, we'd be totally open to any other suggestions. Our goal is to arrive at a solution that works for both the house and the district. We believe this proposal reflects the board's prior feedback and addresses the functional realities of the property and aligns with the architectural character of the home and the street. We respectfully ask the board to consider that the process and revisions made in good faith are part of your decision. All right, questions from the board members? I do have one question, and it might be more for staff in looking at this revised plan. Is that an addition on the back side of the house? Was that added or is that original? Where it? I'm not sure where you're asking. That back, not the steps, but where it comes in, right there, that kind of back wing of the house. You're talking about in the very rear? Yeah, yeah. Because I could see how it kind of looks like an addition there. That is all new. It's not part of the original structure. That is part of the original. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Brack? Anything? No questions. Ms. Hill. So in response to several of the items, I do definitely appreciate the move toward the back of the house. A great improvement. And noting that the stair steps go back both from the portico chair and from the front of the house do seem more user friendly for the owner. The notation about the eave line and the kind of proportions of the front porch and this new proposed piece, the height of the columns are so much greater that it doesn't, and I think it has to do partly with the kind of framing and trim work that's related to the new piece as opposed to the porch. But one has to really kind of take a straight line and to actually see where it lines up, because those columns are considerably higher and taller than the ones on the front porch. So it has a lot more presence about it. Sure. Which is kind of counter to the intent of moving it back to have less presence. Sure. The concern about, so the second issue that had been raised by the board last time, having to do with looking at a more contemporary support system for the portico chair, rather than having the columns that look like they're imitating the front porch columns, as if it were built at a much previous date, to look at something that has a simpler, more contemporary feel. And the notion of water coming between the roof, if it butts up against the house, given that one would absolutely flash along just construction methodology, flash along that it should prevent any such water filtrating down between the new roof and the frame of the building. So that one is not a reason to me to anchor it into the house itself. And so I'm disappointed not to see more attempt to find thinner, simpler, non-imitative solutions to the support of this new portico chair. So just to clarify, you're referencing that if there was a space between the portico chair, that the flashing would extend over the roof to still prevent water from coming between the two structures? I'm not even suggesting that it doesn't need to butt against the building. I'm just saying if the existing historic wall is supporting it, then you're anchoring into that wall. But that's different than butting against it and then having flashing that's covering that joint, basically. Which is a simple enough detail. Sure. Okay. Any other, Ms. LaMere, did you have any other questions? Do I have any comments? Before we go into our closed session, do I have any comments from the audience? Okay, I just want, I just, do you or don't you? Okay. Let me make a couple comments and perhaps throw out a thought and see if we can get off square one. First of all, I want to compliment you for working with us. And second of all, I want to compliment you for moving it because you took our suggestions and you did move it as we have suggested. The problem is the design details are still too imitative. The other problem is the staff is just adamant about it not being on the side of this building. And I think we need to maybe bifurcate this proceeding a little bit and determine once and for all, is our majority of us in favor of the location setting aside the design details? And then we can move forward if we are. If we're not, then we're wasting our time. Sure. I'd like, in a way, just to take a test vote. Are we all, who of us are not in favor of the location? I am not. Two of you are not. Brack, you're not either? I'm not in favor of the moved back location. It's the purpose of the object. The purpose of the object is to allow access to the house out of the weather. It does none of that. It accomplishes none of the purpose, the main purpose, that I perceive that it's being proposed. So from my point of view, the original location of the structure, which covered the existing door, preserved the existing topper, is the option that actually allows the addition to serve the purpose it's intended for. Understood. Okay. Now, I thought when we agreed to move it that you were achieving that goal by changing the staircase. I think our clients, my clients found it acceptable to move it back, but I think ideally it would be over the awning if they had their preference. But I think they would be fine with moving it back because it does help in the event of a snow or weather. It's much better than having nothing right now. Okay. I'm not going to vote in all of this. Let me see how you three feel about not moving it, just putting it on the side in its original location as proposed. No. I've got a no. I've got a yes. I've got two no's. All right. We have progress. We need to move it. Let's then work on the details. Let me ask you this. If it were, basically I'm okay with the revised location. So I think we have three to one here at least. And so I think we can move forward. I think Mr. Marquette is not in agreement with the revised location. Are you? I think I'm leaning towards neither solution as presented as acceptable. Revised or not revised location. All right. Let me just get a show of hands. Can we approve this application at all? Let me just have a show of hands. Can I speak for myself? Absolutely. If the original proposed location is obviously not possible, then the revised second proposed location is better than nothing. Okay. I'm inclined to agree with you, Mr. Marquette. I think I had Ms. Hill's agreement. Now we're into the design details. The details are wrong, quite frankly. I wanted to get the first question out of the way so that we're not constantly fighting with the staff over its location. Sure. Rightly or wrongly, I think we can say that within the guidelines, by moving that location, we have stopped being imitative of other Port of Shares on the street. And so it is not as imitative as I think the staff may perceive it to be. Frankly, I think it's just a matter of timing, that it didn't come when it should have, when the house was being first built. I don't think we need to have to hold the homeowners' feet to the fire, that they can never have a side covered entrance of some sort. Sure. So that's my attitude. And I think the guidelines are flexible enough that we can do that. But we cannot have something that looks like all the other Port of Shares on the street. So I think Ms. Hill had a couple of ideas. Would you like to share those, Ms. Hill and Mr. Marquette? And then I'll let you get into it, Mr. Marquette. No, I was just looking at the other examples. Which one does this imitate? In its original location, by the side of the, directly over the door, it imitates everyone, all of them. I thought you were talking about the design of it. Well, it has the columns. The columns, all of that. Yeah. I mean, that's. Ms. Hill. So have you had any chance to look at what a simple steel structure on top of those bases would look like? And understanding both at the location of the outside bases, I'm comfortable with that. And that the location of the outside edge of the, that entry porch, I'll call it, with the steps that that lines up pretty nicely and could be done in such a way that it would not impede vehicular traffic, because the steps already do that. But that would allow very minor kind of cantilevering over to the edge against the face of the building. And still be able to perform the function that's trying to be accomplished by the owner. We could certainly, I could talk about that with our clients and see what we could come up with. But, you know, we'd certainly be open to producing to square columns and, you know, eliminating any type of moldings and anything like that, that would be perceived as imitative. I mean, at the end of the day, you know, columns and a flat roof is what we need structurally to cover the cars and vehicles. It's even the notion that there are dual columns, which once again are imitative of the front porch, that simplifying that, because the dual columns aren't really necessary structurally for a visual issue. But they do, once again, tie back into the historic front porch in a way that is very misleading. Sure. So reducing that down to a singular column at each of those points and still accomplishing the structural aspect you're thinking of. Sure. Or the needing to accomplish. That makes sense. Absolutely. Okay. When I write a report, I typically have to work through my issues and I think and resolve them one by one. I think relative finding, and I'm calling it that deliberately, we have tentatively made a finding that the location as proposed in your application is acceptable to the board. The details have to be worked on. Now, we have a deadline of March 20. Obviously we're going to have to have your client sign off on an extension. I noticed that your client walked away. Oh, you're back. Okay. All right. Can we have an extension to next month or do you need longer than 30 days? Can I? We do? Yeah. That would be fine. That would be, what's the date? April 18, maybe? Chair, could I suggest that we extend it 60 days just in case the client, the applicant needs it or the architect and give us a little bit of buffer room. That's not a bad idea. So that we're not always kind of fighting against that, but that we can get to a resolution. Sure. And they say it's the lawyers who are always paranoid. Okay. Yeah, let's look at May 20. May 20. For the next meeting and hopefully, maybe by then we'll have a design that we all can live with. I am going to, I'm sure I can instruct the staff to say, disregard the location, but we have concluded that. The staff can continue to be not happy about the location. But right now, they're going to focus, or we're going to focus on the design details. Sure. All right? Anything else? Yes. I mean, I do have some additional comments. Go for it. I 100% agree with Mrs. Hill. I just don't want to attach to the house. I think that's a bad idea for a lot of reasons. And I appreciate that you've tried to think about not attaching and separating, but I do think, you know, once you add that backstair, if you add a row of columns to help support that, there is room, especially if they're thinner and it's more modernized. I'd like the location of it being moved back a lot more than I liked it at the center. I think what I don't like about the current location that I'm struggling with, and maybe when you think about the details and they get a little bit smaller, is that when you look at it in plan, you know, it's touching the chimney and then it steps back and it touches that last part of the house. And then it steps back and touches the very last part of the house. You know, I feel like if you just kind of separated it from that chimney location so that it was kind of behind the chimney and we weren't engaging that chimney, I think that would be a better detail than trying to butt up to all three of those different planes. Understood. Yeah. Makes sense. Okay. Chair, may I provide another comment or two? Yes, Mr. Marquette. Go ahead. My observation is this is on the side of house that is already deeply set back from the street. The ability to observe even when walking down the street, some of these details that we're talking about would be very minimal. Very minimal. I don't share an interest in any of these changes that have been discussed further. It has, this is brought up in a point that has been troublesome for me since I joined this group. And that is that somehow making something uneventful and more typical of what exists is discouraged. I like your proposal because if someone were walking or driving past this house, they would not be inclined to think, why did they make it look like that? I think it's important in this particular neighborhood that things contribute to the balance that it already has. I'm anxious to see what design options you come up with. But I react to this as I have other projects, the same way I react to the new steeple that was put on the main building at the University of Kentucky when it burned. It seemed like there was much more interest in making a statement than there was in the architectural integrity of the structure. That's where I'm perhaps truly a lay person in this business. I don't have an architectural background or bent. I'm probably much more devoted to what contributes to the overall integrity and balance of the neighborhood in which the project exists. That's where I'm coming from. So I'm anxious to see what you're able to come up with that doesn't complement the structure such as this one does. And to sum up, that's the art in architecture. Good luck. Thank you very much. Okay. I would like to have these minutes done before our next meeting so that we can have a review of our comments. Yes, Mr. Chair. And the other thing to note is that a 60-day extension is not quite adequate because the May meeting is the 64th day. So is your motion to do the extension to the date of the May meeting? Yes. Okay. And that would be could we add one day to it so that that day is not questioned and have it be the date of? That would be May 21st? May the 21st, if you would. Absolutely. So that is 64 days to my count. All right. But we won't worry about the head count of the days. We'll just calendar specific what you just said. So long as we have a waiver, I don't think we have any issues. And I think they're going to give us the waiver we need. Okay. All right. And we'll just do the paperwork and get it signed by the chair, and then we'll send it to you all. All right. We will sign the paperwork before you leave today. There you go. Okay. All right. Let me have a motion that we continue our meeting to that we have a 64-day extension to and including May. Well, just an extension to May the 21st. 21st. All right. Chair, I move that we have an extension to May 21st. Do I have a second? Second. All those in favor of the motion? Aye. Aye. Motion passes, and we're extended. All right. And we'll have that ready for your signature, Mr. Chair, in just a few minutes. I have had a request for a five-minute break, and we're taking it. And we'll provide the applicant with the... Thank you. Conceptual review, you always get the break. So actually what we should do anymore is say, okay, we're now coming to break. We'll give you 15 minutes to get here. All right. Okay. There's actually none. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Sort of concise. He just handed this out to me before the meeting. But we were considering a parking garage. No, we're not considering a parking garage. We're considering a seven-story structure, like the demo with the potential of a construction of a structure. And he's proposed several different structures, a multi-story structure with a mixed use with a parking garage underneath. But I have to agree in that the description of the proposed work is flat out saying demolition of existing house. That is correct. That is an absolute non-starter. We're wasting our time. Well, that is his proposal and or moving the structure. So the original materials that we were given. That's not what the application says. He's got several different proposals on the table. All right. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Since this is a conceptual review and you all do those well, on this one particularly, not all of you have been on the board since a conceptual or formal review has happened on this parcel. I know that you, Mr. Chair, have been on the board. Too many. I've been on several of those different options. But I don't think of the other three of you, any of you. Susan, you were not. Brack and Sarah, neither. So as we have always done on conceptual reviews and all four of you are used to seeing this, essentially we've just given you some very base concept of the overall intent and then a list of the questions for consideration. And so I think the thing for the staff to do would be just to very closely follow, offering you those list of questions and then open it up to Mr. Webb to tell you what it is he's wanting to pursue. All right. Because I don't think the staff has any, the one with the true insight into what the goal here is, is Mr. Webb. Okay. So I will do that. I will actually show you some images of the site and the structure. I'm going to start off with some of the historic photos that are in the files first. And then we'll shoot to some of the older, these are 10-year-old photos, just because the photos I had to take this morning were pretty flat. And this was during an early iteration of a proposed demolition. And these are the back side of this. This, as you might remember, this is called the Luman Structure. It was built in, I believe, 1826. And it is designated as a, within the South Hill Historic District. And it also was called a long time the CMW Structure. CMW Structure. And these are a couple of the architectural features, noting the peg windows. This is sort of the site. This is taken actually from the 2005 proposal to demolish the structure. And these are current day photographs, walking the site. And walking up this today was the Suite 16. This was taken yesterday in the snowy days. And also the neighboring structure that Mr. Webb did own at one time and put an addition on. And walking up the street, see a parking right now, and sort of some of the walking up Broadway. Looking at the structures in the site today. Along Broadway. Up to, this is the corner of West Maxwell and Broadway. And then walking down on Mill Street. And this is looking back between two structures of, this is the building on Broadway that's actually within the historic district. And this is looking back between two structures of, this is the building on Broadway that's actually within the historic district. The apartment complex that's a high rise. Looking back at that corner and at the Hyatt in the background. And at the back side of the Lohman building. And looking, walking down. And then back at the site itself. Then I'll leave it there. And I'm going to go back to some of the questions. So since this is a conceptual review, staff has no finding at this time. However, items to be considered. Demolition or moving the structure. Does the historic structure have historic or architectural significance to the site, the South Hill Historic District? Is it appropriate to move the historic structure from its original location and context? Is it appropriate to demolish the historic structure? Does the removal alter or negatively impact the historic structure or the historic structure? Or the significance of the historic structure? Does the removal alter the historic character of the site and the streetscape of the South Hill Historic District? Does removal compromise the architectural significance of the structure and the streetscape of the South Hill Historic District? Will moving the historic house be potentially detrimental to the structural soundness of the building? Does the loss of the home place site feature, including the limestone stairs, plinths, and stone crenellated retaining wall, change the historic character of the setting and or the South Hill Historic District? Will the house retain its significance, historic architectural integrity once moved? New construction proposal. Is the new construction design appropriate for the site? Is the new commercial design compatible in design, shape, proportion, scale with the West High Street, South Hill, South Mill Street, and overall South Hill Historic District? Is the complexity of the proposed building form, shape, height, scale, and site utilization within the adjacent historic structure? Does the proposed commercial design negatively impact the residential character of the South Hill Historic District? Does the new proposal change the topography, vista, viewshed of the corner of South Hill Historic District, the effect of the streetscapes and the neighborhood? Does a new design overwhelm the site that result in total loss of green space? Is the proposed structure visually dominant? Are the trees with trunks greater than ten inches in diameter to be removed? Is the height of the design within 10% of the structure's average structure along the block, West High, South Mill, and South Broadway within the historic district? Does it create heavy massing that overwhelms the structures on West High, South Mill, and South Broadway? Does the boxy form, flat roof, and width of the design appear to be too massive and intrusive of the South Hill Historic Neighborhood? Are the elevations of the streetscape compatible with design, materials, rhythm within the character and historic district? Is the proposal to build out the edges or near edges of the property appropriate and or compatible with adjacent surrounding properties with the West High Street or South Broadway, West Mill Street setbacks? And does the proposed traffic patterns and driveways impact the historic properties on West High, South Broadway, or South Mill? And of course, within this packet, and Mr. Webb is here, you have some additional information. You have some history that's been prepared and some interior images. There's also a timeline of the structure of when it's been heard before the Board of Architecture Review. And the outcomes and the proposals and the review. And then these are some documents that Mr. Webb has provided and also an additional information that's just been provided today, so. May I offer- Yes. An apology. My reading of the materials focused on two things that were listed first. And that was parking garage and mixed use retail. I see here that the third element of residential units is included in the description. So I apologize for that. I thought we were looking at a garage proposal. Thank you. I wondered about that when you asked me that question, but I'm- Thank you. I just wanted to let you know. And the staff really hasn't had any information provided about the total use of the property in terms of, it'll all be residential condos, it'll be mixed use with some business, whatever. And at the end of the day, that's not what the H1 process is there to determine, as you're well aware. So at this time, we had a discussion with Mr. Webb, talked mostly about to start out bringing to the board the built volumes and location on the site, how it would be, where the parking garage would go, how, if it's possible, to accommodate the historic house. And so really looking at a bird's eye sort of beginning. So we're not asking of the board today any sort of thing about what its architectural identity should be. Whether it should be two stories tall or ten stories tall certainly is in your dialogue today or 20 stories tall or whatever. But we're really thinking of a very broad sweeping form that would reflect the function Mr. Webb has in mind, but we have not focused on function in our discussion. And that corner is still part of the historic district, right? That's correct. I saw a note that it was tried to be removed and I just wanted to make sure it was still there. Yeah, it's initially was included in the H1 overlay and continues to be so today. Okay, it is, thank you. Was it an Ashland station at the time it went into the H1 overlay? Was the Ashland station there? You saw by one of the vintage photographs that an Ashland gas station, which I remember, the Ashland gas station. But yes, I don't recall if it was an operational gas station at the time. It may have been a vacant corner with a gas station structure sitting on it. But it has not had a primary sought out architectural presence for a very long time on that express corner. It has a very cherished historic house on it. If you'll briefly introduce yourself, sir. Okay. I'm Dudley Webb with Webb Companies. And- Mr. Webb, I want to say it's a pleasure meeting you again. And also that we're doing a back to the future. If you remember correctly, we had the game day proposal before us. That was one of my very first cases. 20 years later, this may be one of my last cases. And we're not back to game day, believe me. And I appreciate the cooperation of the staff. And I initially called Betty to say we ought to be talking about that blog because there's been a lot of interest by way of background. We bought it from, I think, from the church. We bought it from CMW and a portion of that property. And they've been sitting on it kind of since. But we're trying to figure out what can be done with it. So I brought along this little book. It kind of cadets down all the stuff out of the volumes I've given you all to look at to kind of simplify it. But probably a third of this is merely what is today and looking at it. And then what could it be or what should it be or what could it be under the existing ordinances that we have and guidelines. So if you look inside the little book I gave, there's an aerial view of the rough lot and there's a third of this is in the back where studies that we've done in recent months. And then there's an additional package in there that describes what's proposed for the new high street lot that you're all already familiar with and has already been approved. And for your information, the high street lot should hopefully be underway in the next couple of months here. We're waiting on a major anchor tenant that we have, a major grocery that's coming, which who would have dreamed all these years later that we would actually get one. But it'll be another game changer for us. But the property at the city center obviously came by virtue of the fact that there's 17 acres of valuable urban land over there and they were trying to figure out what to do with it. So they invited proposals and we were one of five proponents including baseball stadium, soccer stadium and other type developments were there. At that point in time, I contacted friends that I had open an office in Dallas many years ago and my landlord was Lincoln Property Company. And Lincoln, by way of reference, is probably the third largest development company in the country today. And they do major, major projects, but they've really been intrigued by Lexington, wanted to get involved here, kept calling and asking us to do it. And all of a sudden, it's very much in vogue to be here and we're getting inquiries from department companies from Atlanta who'd ever thought that they would have an interest in looking at major projects here. And we try to explain to these folks on the front end that it's a lot of due diligence that has to be done, a lot of convincing. So this time, I called Betty and I said, let's start on the front of the scene, what we think it ought to be, what it could be. We're not here to stir up controversy. My first visit obviously is with the Neighborhood Association down there and I've been, I work with them on High Street up there on the upper street proposal. And then we're obviously working with the city now on the possibility of the BB&T building becoming a new city hall. So that's pretty exciting as well. But in any event, Lincoln expressed an interest in coming. I got them involved and they came back with a proposal. And it's got a universal buy-in. It's massive in size only from the standpoint of its large acreage. But one thing we did find after city center was a desire that we've got to either, if we're not going to go into the greenbelt, we're going to have to grow up or go up. And how much is too far up is another issue. So that's always something for conversation. And I'm not here today with a proposal. So don't be concerned that we're tearing the building down, moving the historic home, anything at this point in time. If you recall also that we came over here with a proposal by a theater group from Dallas that was going to do a theater on that site. And the conversation at that point in time was to move the house to a better site. And in fact, we had a location for it. It was down next to the Salvation Army on that corner down there. And it never got that far. So we looked at doing it. It was feasible to do it. But for other reasons, that theater group decided not to come. And then we got the one across the street. I will say that that neighborhood has changed. But the historic nature of South Hill hasn't changed. Our desire to keep the quality of life and the positive attributes and many things we love about Lexington as they are. But we're trying to figure out how to make intelligent decisions about infill. And so that's why I'm here today. And we thought, well, a pretty good place to start is first with the neighbors. And obviously with the thought about the regulations to see what we could do under the existing ordinances. So the first version of what I sent up here was some superimposed drawings that I did myself, not involving an architect, not involving engineers, anybody else, about what might work there. So the first focus was to try to preserve the home and to figure out where we might move it to that would make sense. One opportunity we looked at was the possibility of scooting it over next to what is now an Airbnb house that we had renovated for purposes. And then somebody bought it and they're making Airbnb use of it now. And try to squeeze it in there. But there's about an acre and a half there of prime urban land. And if you can resell or compromise, we can probably get something done there that would be beneficial for the community. And what we're also finding, there's great demand right now for housing of all types here, particularly in the downtown. We had great success with our condominiums at the Woodlands. We had great success with our condos at City Center Project. The one that's now being completed by Jeremy Delka across the street, they're all sold. We had 40 residential units that we did atop the hill back when we did that project. And all those worked well and the people love them. Many of them are second homes. Many of them are people in eastern Kentucky who just want a place to visit when they come here and all been very popular. So my primary focus was to look at the preference of the neighbors probably would be nothing commercial in that block except perhaps the corner. And that could be an entry on that corner next to the Hyatt or it could be a restaurant at one point in time, Jeff Ruby wanted to go there and put the restaurant there. And we came up with the other site for them and that worked out really well. So we're merely looking at the global block, that acre and a half, and try to figure out what is worthy of preservation, what we ought to be keeping, and then focus on what we can do with the rest of it. Well, we think, and to refresh your memory, and I think this is correct, the adversarial relationship over the game day was about the height of the building primarily. And the developer from Georgia that came up here wanted to do nine or ten stories and I think the neighbors were willing to and the city was prepared to accept maybe seven or eight. I can't remember exactly. But in any event, that deal didn't work. But that was in your package. Only was a ten point giving you a reference point about the history. So then came the use of the property by CMW. And if you recall, there was Andy Frain, the little building that was behind that back there, that was taken down. And then since then, all around the block has been fully developed. They've got the theater, the parking garage across the street, the condominium project down the street that's further down on Broadway. And the preferences that I heard were they didn't want anything taller than the existing structures around there. And I think it's either 11 or 12 stories in that condominium project on down on Broadway. So anyway, then we started looking at it. We asked the architects who were doing the big project for us just on the comment, if they would come, if they would look at it with us to see what could be the first thing they did with the studies, the mass studies, what could fit and that would impact the neighbors because everybody's concerned. What's it do to the sunlight? What's it do to traffic and all those type concerns? But the one premise that you've got to have there is to assume there's parking underneath it. It's not a parking garage. It would be above ground. It would be like the one at the Woodlands where you probably go down and then come back up for a couple of floors. And I think we can probably get 100 to 150 spaces there, which would probably suffice to meet the need. This is not a parking garage that's going to serve as a rubber arena by any means. And in fact, we're having to build 3,400 parking spaces across the street to accommodate the parking needs of 1,600 that they use now, as well as the additional elements that we're going to be bringing back in our master development plan, which includes apartment units, conventional apartment units, as well as the grocery, as well as probably another 300-room hotel. So that's all focused within that block. It really didn't have anything to do with this one except for the fact that I did put the latest rendition of what we're doing across the street on the back of your packet there so you can see what that's going to look like and be like. So we're excited at the fact that I think the Ohio has gotten a grant for the reinvention of that project over there. I think the Hilton has gotten some additional tourism monies, perhaps, for a renovation on that one. So everything's very positive right now. I think we're on a roll, and I think the quality of life has not been impaired. And the good things that have happened, the success of Victorian Square, I mean, it's just unbelievable it's there. We've kept the tenants that we have, and they've been very loyal. The other thing that's happened in recent years has been obviously with COVID has been the softness of the office market. And the financial center itself was 95 percent at the advent, dropped down to the low 70s. Now we're back up and approaching 90s again. And people are coming back. So it's good news. Also, we're also attracting people that wouldn't consider Lexington before they were coming here. Deloitte, relocation. Left our building about 20 years ago. Now they're back again and taking a full floor. And so great new opportunities for our young people. And our challenge in this community, I think, is to keep our young people here. And the tendency is they'll go away for five years, 10 years, and come back and raise their families here. But we really want to keep what we have here. And like it or not, we're the capital of the eastern half of Kentucky. That's the economic, educational, medical, all those facilities that are here. They're here for a reason. And people like the quality of life. But the thing I've noticed is that people weren't necessarily opposed to growth. They just didn't want change. And I understand that, too. And those of us in this room, most of us were around when you could almost fire a gun down Main Street and not hit anybody. It was that saw back in the late 60s and early 70s. But we're a viable community. It's a high quality of life. It's a desirable place to live and visit. And one of the things we've also found is that many of these out-of-town visitors that are even the horse farm owners, Mr. Kerkorkin owns the theater complex, has a horse farm for sale, lives on top of our condo project next door. But a lot of those absentee people want to be here. And they enjoy it here. So we're not necessarily, this is not necessarily about growth, but it's quality of the development that we're trying to figure out what to put there. And if we did residential, then our study has been, what would it look like? What would it be like? How do we deal with the historic building? How do we accommodate the needs of the neighbors? Conversations with the neighbors are, they're generally acceptable to what we're proposing, but obviously the height to be determined and also the density, also the parking, how we make sure we don't impact traffic. So we tried to come back with a vision, at least, to talk to you about at this point in time about what it might be. And then if there's pushback, I'm not interested in getting another 10-year fight over zoning here and nobody won. But the city won because I think it's a better project and it turned out pretty well for all of us. But the reality of this block, though, is the fact that there is no economic viability or reality to that property. We started out trying to rent that old building that CMW was in. Now we couldn't give it away. We put the Downtown Lexington Partnership in there gratuitously. They wouldn't stay. And it's decrepit, not from our neglect, but from years of neglect. The termites have eaten a lot of the basement out of it. There's a lot of problems. But again, our proposal was to give thought to possibly scooting it over, possibly going around the corner. There's a vacant lot next to the historic home that Mr. Campbell did. Maybe move it there. Or give it away to anybody that would take it or move it. We pay the moving costs for it. But it's not necessarily a vision to take it. But it's one that's occupying valuable real estate that could be income producing and create additional housing for the community. So again, I didn't come here today to argue for or against. It was merely to get your all's thoughts on it, to have a discussion that's amicable and figure out where we go from here. And as you all know, the demand for housing here, particularly student housing, is unbelievable. And you're seeing it all up and down Maxwell Street. We don't see that on this property. We do see that it could be mid, not necessarily high end or exclusive residential, but it could be one of 90 units like we have at the Woodlands where you have great quality and yet it's immediately accessible. We're upper end up and the people go to games, restaurants. We've got much to do down here now. So it's not like we're walking here today and saying we will take that building down or would you let us do it or to request anything like that. What we're trying to do is to share the vision of what's going on all around it and then talk about what could be on that property. Because we have an acre and a half, it's not income producing. We have a few parking, a little bit of parking income, doesn't pay the tax bill. But another test I think of the viability of anything in that block would have to be economic viability. And right now it's not income producing at all. So that was merely a point. So sooner or later something's going to happen there on the adjoining parcels if nothing else. But we just think it ought to be organized, it ought to be something that meets parking needs, meets safety, security needs, convenience, and something that's going to be flattering and complimentary to everything else that we're doing in the community. So that's my story. So that's why I'm here. Thank you. I'm not quite sure where to start. Partly because this whole discussion has kind of been a placeholder. I mean we don't really have any design plans to really look at. You're just showing. Don't even have a plan. You're just showing. Basically you're living up to the word. You're showing a concept. And not much more than that. As you well know, the restrictions on the article in terms of demolition or removal are pretty, pretty stringent. And I think you have to really put in a good faith effort to show that that building is completely impossible to use economically. I personally don't believe that. Yeah. That's not why I'm here. That building had a use for many, many years. And then it's been left abandoned. And here's the problem. We have neglect. You know, sometimes we have buildings destroyed by neglect. I hate to see this beautiful structure go in that direction. So I just want to be up front with you. Demolition and removal of that house is simply not an option for us to consider. But not to debate the issue. I don't think you can ever come up with the evidence. Well, but the evidence would be that the clapboard siding in the back back there, that was an addition. I mean, if we're talking about the addition, that's a whole different kettle of fish. I know. So again, that's why we're here also merely to figure out what it is. And Betty pointed out to me there's an extrusion on the back of the original house. Although that addition was put on when, Betty? Do you remember? Well, the one that's, the one done by the architects, yeah, that one's 25 or 30 years old at this point. But the rear, there is a masonry rear L of that house, which is what Mr. Webb's referencing, that I was reminding him and myself that it is part of the historic footprint of the house and evolution of that house. Quite early on. So I don't, I think that, you know, if a project came forward that just could keep the building sitting there or consideration of whatever else might be being put forward for discussion, there's nothing sacred within our guidelines about the 25 or 30 year old frame addition on the back. On the back. The balance of the building is what would have to have all the study done and all the criteria listed in the ordinance for the issues to be weighed for whatever is decided to pursue on it, whether to keep it sitting where it is, to relocate it within the territory of that corner or elsewhere or full demolition. Any and all of those options would be part of what I perceive Mr. Webb would be working through within the criteria of the ordinance to have weighed, tied to whatever else is the proposal for the whole parcel. You know, if you want to make that lot an income producing lot for you, you know, given its size, you could do some rather creative, smaller buildings and use the main building as a clubhouse or some kind of a central site and build around it a series of townhouses or a series of freestanding structures that I think would actually be compatible with the neighborhood and would actually give you a good economic return on that property. It certainly would not get you the battle. Well, no, and I'm not here to hear the battle or contemplate a battle, but my conversation with Betty was the difficulty is that you're going to have to park underneath that and it's when you get into that, cutting back into that bank and have to come back with the two structures of parking to accommodate whatever happens above and we're going to have parking issues down here because when the city hall takes the 300 spaces next door, it's really going to get tight. Our garages are pretty much full right now. We had 800 spaces across the street and everybody said, oh, you never fill it. Most days it's full or close to it. I think we're really, really, really far apart. Yeah, but anyway, I'm merely pointing that out. The question was whether or not we could perhaps scoot it over to the side and set it there and scoot it up just like it's part of the normal streetscape. Well, scoot sounds real easy. It's easier than moving it on a truck and taking it a mile away. Yeah, and given the fact it's been built in sections, I think, and it's, Lord, parts of that building has been there since the 1800s. The whole building is 1800s. Right, yeah. So early 1800s. But it is a full masonry building. I don't know instantly to tell you if any of it is a balloon frame or a veneer on that rear L. But I think the rear L, and we've got all this, the one thing in everybody's favor in this, we have got enough information to wallpaper from here to Florida about this corner and all of its both considerations, but also history of the significant historic building, evaluations about its architectural construction methodology and all that. Now, I think there'll need to be some structural engineer opinion tied to the material provided that the ordinance calls for and other things about what are going to be, uh, to repurpose it if, if Mr. Webb decides to put that forward, you know, what would that take versus if he puts forward to move it or demolish it or anything in between. And Mr. Webb and I speak rather plainly to each other. Yes, we do. But always politely, which I appreciate. And, um, I've told him that from the criteria of the historic district process, demolishing the entire structure versus moving the structure and relocating it even close by or elsewhere, both are equally, uh, contrary to the intent of the design guidelines. And I don't misunderstand that people say, well, isn't there any difference between total demolition and moving it elsewhere? Well, it depends on what, how you approach that, what the impact of that would be. But none of that list, and you know well enough to know, I can't, in my professional opinion, ever tell somebody, oh, well, moving it would be certainly an option. Well, it is an option, but it's got to all be made the case for and whatever tied to what they're going to work out to do with the whole parcel. Because if there's a spot to move it to, say it were decided both through this board's efforts and Mr. Webb's proposals, that it could not stay sitting where it is. Well, you'd have to first justify why that is. But then the second thing would be if you want to put forward to, but if we could scoot it over, we could accomplish X, Y, and Z. You know, it's like eating the elephant, you know, to go through those incantations. And this board is going to need that information in each segment of the considerations. Now, and that, though, is premature at this time because he's not got it, not to speak for you, Mr. Webb, but I don't believe, and I, that they have a determination of where they're going to go with this. And I think it's really important that they have come to us on this very front end to allow this process to have the dialogues through the way and not just have it presented as a here's what we're going to do, and you can do it thumbs up or down. That's not the way you nor I want this to evolve. And not your intent. I agree with what you said. Not your intent. And the, again, the thing that we were talking about, the possibility of scooting it over or scooting it over temporarily, and you go ahead and you get the double garage flat slab up there on top, you won't know the difference from when it, once it's restored and put the building back to where it's facing the street on like it is, but it might be scooted over 40 feet or whatever. To allow us to get the parking garage under there. Because that's the difficult, difficulty of it. Where would this parking garage exit? It would enter off of High Street and it would exit on the high. And on Broadway, it'll have to be right turn only when out on Broadway. You couldn't do a crossover. I don't see how you can exit. I don't see how a planning commission is going to approve a stream of traffic coming out of a parking garage straight into Broadway that close to a major light. Well, again, the game day design, all that had that shown on there. Game day did not propose a parking garage. It did. Yes. Did it? It was underneath, but again. I think we got so obsessed with the height that we never got into the garage issue. I'm assuming you get by that, then you can still, we're back to figuring out how to preserve something that's sacred in the community and you want to keep it. Yes. And we can talk, you know, we can have a cup of tea and talk about seven more impossible things. Yeah. But again, you know, the concept of residential and I just think it's, people want to live down here and it's really encouraging to me. My wife and I live up here and I enjoy watching the people on the streets anymore. I mean, they're here to find dine, whatever it is. Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to development downtown at all. In fact, I want development downtown. I live downtown. I've lived downtown my entire life. But I also appreciate the fact that downtown Lexington in many respects is unique for a city of its size that we still have as much residential character close to the downtown environments. That's what makes Lexington so livable. We don't want to disturb that and we want it to be human scale. This is why I'm trying to suggest to you, let's not do a big old high-rise. Let's find a better, more creative use for this property. It should be declared. Okay. No high-rises. And that's not what we're talking about here. All right. But just a couple of questions, if you don't mind. Sure. In your packet, the one that was delivered about five minutes before the meeting started, is this drawing. That was CMW's original plan. That's the game day, isn't it? The game day. And you put it in here because that reflects your interest as well? That was the history. The first part is the history of how we got to where we were. And then I just narrowed that down and I put that in there for reference. It shows the house in question here. So this is not your plan? Oh, no, no, no, no. Oh, okay. Well, let me ask you again. This document, the final master plan, Lexington High Street, what is the project, what is the calendar and where is this project currently? Now, the High Street project is one that we have to provide replacement parking for what's there. So that means literally we've got to build a thousand-car garage first, and that's going to be all the way down in the corner of Broadway down there, or excuse me, Maxwell Street. And then we'll build the first phase, which will probably either be the grocery or an apartment building there. The difference is you can't do condominiums on that property. It's a 99-year ground lease, and we don't think we can sell those. So those are going to be pure apartments, you know, long-term. But they're primarily a buffer unit between here and the original South Hill neighborhood over there, back in the back. So we stair-step it up. What's in this document is already approved by all agencies and is— We haven't gotten permits yet because we're waiting on the final design. But that's all on the Rupp Arena parking lot. Understood. I'm just trying to determine how is this still a conceptual thing, or how soon will the bulldozers be in to start this work? Okay, and I'll finish my program here. So it's already a three to three-and-a-half-year timeline. Thank you. So the first phase you're going to see is on the far end down there. We're going to come this way. And then the hotel will be up next to the—closer to the Hyatt. And one of the renderings that's in there shows the strollway that will go right down the middle as you come out the front door of the Hyatt. And you go out over to Maxwell Street, and you've got sidewalk cafes, restaurants. It's a really, really neat concept. And it costs the project about $500 million. And that's already arranged. So that's good news. Anything else? Yes, Ms. Hill. I really appreciate the chance for a conversation. Lexington is a fabulous place to be. And it is a place that many people are talking about. And how we handle change and growth and keep the character is really interesting. And that corner in what its architectural identity. So we talk about massing. We talk about usage. We talk about the South Hill neighborhood. But we're also in the 21st century. So having—protecting, respecting, honoring the context in which it is. But also having a piece of land that's about a new century. It's a really interesting challenge and opportunity. And I—so I'm going to—I've spoken with our chair some about this. And I know I'm probably an outlier on this. And I have no idea. I'm sure there are restrictions. But is—rather than the density of the massing at a lower scale building. Of thinning out some of that massing to have a taller building. That would give more relief to particularly the scale of the historic residential neighborhood adjacent to it. I agree with you. I mean—and the footprint is obviously can grow or shrink. Either way you want to do that. And go up. But if we're going to start talking height limitations. And you say you don't want to do five. Then you get maybe 20 units in there. And that doesn't have much impact. We've got—I think the price on that property now is that lot is about almost $2 million. We paid almost that for it. We've been just waiting on it for the right thing to come. And I'm not saying right now is the time. I just think that it's an opportunity that we—but we need to better understand what we can do legally and not do legally. Because I don't want to get back into another fight over that one. So—and I appreciate you listening. You can look at that and toss it if you want to, those paper things. But the interesting, I thought, that you would see was the second part was this study of what could be, the mass studies. And you start to see, if you get on top of those people on Mill Street, I don't think Judge Kaufman is going to like looking up at a 40-story building as her next-door neighbor. But if it's set back, if the focus would be on the Broadway side and we get the parking underneath, then there's something that could happen there that could be meaningful. And it's just an exciting time to be here. And I'd love—our family loves Lexington. Many people don't believe that. But on Victorian Square, when Scotty called and we put that deal together, and it was a godsend. Worthy of salvation. We ended up buying it back, and it's very successful today. But it's part of the quality of life that we enjoy here. So it's important. OK. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you all for listening. Appreciate it. OK. All right, time for a couple of policy questions regarding this kind of thing. Or should that come at some other time? Well, bear in mind, we're not in a meeting, per se. So if there's policy questions, give me an idea what you're trying to get at. Does this board have any—is our attorney still here? Ah, OK. Does this board have any authority, influence whatsoever in prohibiting a building being left to ruin as a reason for its being destroyed? That is a strategy that's been used in this town for years to move structures out of the way to get lots open for new purposes. We have a house here that's in the Historic District, which I think most of the things I'm remembering were not. We have a house here in the Historic District where the photographs to prove its deterioration and lack of usefulness are already produced. And likelihood to continue in that vein will grow the longer it sits there uninhabited. Do we have any ability at all to help prevent intentional deterioration of a structure like this in a Historic District? Brack, I think you're asking a question that's more directed at City Council than ourselves. That is partially a zoning question, that is partly an ordinance question, but the simple answer is no, we don't. Well, the court— And I bring it up because I think it's the issue. It's one of the issues. It has been for years. Yes, Ms. Ucker. The core answer, though, is that any and every building in Lexington and Fayette County is under the code of ordinances for what is the minimum maintenance codes and such. And so nothing in the historic overlays is empowered to enhance that sort of enforcement, but it only is empowered to steer the manner in which repairs are made when they are cited by code enforcement, which is within your zoning ordinances. So the local Historic District doesn't inhibit in any way properties being cited that need work, but it does have the capability of being sure that they can't just, you know, put a tarp on the roof and call it fixed. It has to be done in a manner both architecturally appropriate, but also built into that is physically appropriate way to repair something. Now, it can't—the H-1 overlay cannot tell you your property, your 1820 house would be wonderful with a copper standing seam roof on it versus an asphalt shingle, dimensional shingle. As long as a property owner says, this is the means by which I'm going to weathertight this house, and it's a legitimate building solution, and as I say, it's not a tarp or something that, you know, you can't approve that. So it's a minimum maintenance code is what I'm getting to, but it doesn't— it would be for H-1 overlay, and some communities do have built into their H-1 type designations. Some—Charleston, South Carolina, for example, has some basic maintenance codes built in, but to have the empowerment to do that and continue to successfully have your community pursue additional historic districts that bring with it the protections that it is empowered to do can sometimes turn into a circular problem. So sometimes you wish for certain things that aren't always—in some situations, they'd be very tempting to be a solution, and in some other situations, they might not be so tempting. So there's no one solution is what I'm saying, but this particular house, I haven't been in it in probably 20 years, maybe 15, and so I'm not familiar with on its cellar situation and things like that, but at the same time, it has been occupied, I'd say, up within the last five to eight years with some business tendencies kind of thing. So it's not an abandoned building by any means. Does it need some repairs? I'm sure we'll learn it needs whatever repairs are the case, but I don't think that alters—it's not going to need the level of repairs that tells you there's no solution but to tear it down. This is not a—you know, there are certain properties that you know are well past being able— you can make the financial argument. I don't believe that this is one of them. Now, I haven't been in it for quite a while, and we'll see what is put forward and all the things the ordinance demands. The ordinance has got very good teeth about the type of information that must be provided for consideration of a demolition of a significant historic building and including some additional study that this board will have the opportunity to ask for if it's felt necessary. Follow-up question. So based on the evidence that Mr. Webb has presented of interior deterioration, does this board have any ability to recommend that the appropriate city agencies inspect the building and require that it be brought into safe condition? That's something that you as board members can weigh and make a determination. Brack, you're one step ahead of me. I was just wondering what the code enforcement record is on this house, if there is one. Again, the board can make an inquiry to code enforcement for records or whatever. Can we direct the staff to make that inquiry? I'm sorry? Can we direct the staff to make that inquiry of code enforcement to see what the citation is? You can. I think that—I would suggest that we're trying to enter into a collegial— is that the word I want? But anyway, a work together to come to good solutions for this property outcome. I don't know that sending code enforcement over the very first moment is the most politic solution. No, I'm not saying that. I'm just wondering if there's any outstanding code enforcement currently that the Webb— Oh, that's open public record and that inquiry can be made— We'll check on it. —by the staff on your all's behalf. I'm thinking in terms of if they want to justify a demolition of the house based on its condition and they have received citations and they have not fixed those citations, that to me mitigates against the demolition. Well, that'll be part of what will be provided as part of an application for demolition for the H1 process. But you can ask for it tomorrow if you would like to have it. But I do think we've made a good start on what is going to be a very complicated process. I've been around for almost all of the ones on this corner, I think, and maybe not since the gas station demo, whenever that happened. That predates me. But I think we have an opportunity for this process to have a very important role in working toward best opportunities outcome. If I could jump in for a second. I believe the ordinance, section 13-7, goes through three situations in which you all can approve a COA for demolition. And those three are just, if it's for a portion of a building or an accessory structure which is not significant to the principal structure, site, landmark, or district. The second option is if it's for demolition of a portion of a building which does not contribute to the character of and will not adversely affect the character of the property. And then the third option is if there's no reasonable economic return that can be realized from the property. Well, the third question is what we'll get into in terms of their wanting to justify a percent proof there's no reasonable economic return. That brings up another issue, but I want to discuss that off record. So at this point, if there's nothing further. One more. One more question. Okay. Based on what Mr. Webb said, you know, the possibility of the house being moved temporarily and then set back on top of a garage and made to look nearly like its original condition is much more than I ever expected to hear. To do that, though, you have to have a structure that isn't tumbling down. And it cannot be justified as a demolition prospect. So in my opinion, that would be at least a compromise that would retain the structure, maybe not in its most preferred situation, rather than having it dismembered from the community, from the neighborhood. From the neighborhood. And I would say time is of the essence in order to achieve that kind of compromise that he proposed. Because you have to have a structurally capable building to be able to do that with, to move it twice. Okay. Let's not lose sight of the fact we're at a conceptual review. You're getting way, you're getting way heavy. And I'm raising questions about where we go from here. Because just saying no is not effective, in my opinion, based on prior history in this community. I think we've got to help provide an avenue forward. I'm finished. Thank you. Well, and that's what today's meeting was all about, was for the conceptual review, was to have Mr. Webb, and he's who approached us, wanting to come and have an open dialogue with the process. And I think we need to continue to row that boat together and not necessarily instantly say, we're sending code enforcement over to Mark. It's never my suggestion. We need to all be rowing the canoe together. We've been through several go-rounds on this property with a long history of contention. And we're trying to not have that be the way this one works. All right. Anything else? Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. We actually didn't do minutes, and we actually have minutes to approve. You won't let me adjourn. I'm sorry, but we actually have minutes to approve. I did not get the chance to read those meetings. I know they were emailed out, but I did not have a spare time. Okay. Yes. I'm sorry, Brack. I should have texted you the minutes to approve. Sorry. No, sorry. We can get to it next time. Thank you. All right. So moved. Without objection. What are we doing? We're adjourning, right? We're adjourning. Without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you.