Preservation consultant urges denial of large addition at 1 Alexander Circle; applicant presents revisions

A preservation consultant told the Fort Thomas Design Review Board on Jan. 2 that a proposed large-scale addition at 1 Alexander Circle fails to meet preservation standards set out in a memorandum of agreement tied to the property and recommended denial, while the applicant presented a revised design the team said reduces visibility and respects existing openings.

The consultant, identified in the record as Wes, opened by addressing earlier questions about his credentials and said he contacted the state historic preservation office. "I do not hold this certification only because such a certification does not exist," he said, and noted he provided a letter from the state historic preservation officer Craig Potts confirming that, "based on my experience, education, and knowledge, I meet or exceed the professional standards for the disciplines of architectural history and history." The letter and the consultant’s CV were entered into the record.

Wes summarized his review of the project and the memorandum of agreement (MOA) connected with the property, saying the proposed design runs afoul of three preservation principles in the MOA: new additions should not destroy historic materials or alter the public perception of the property; additions should be removable without impairing the historic form; and new construction should be differentiated from but compatible with the historic building. He said the proposal would "irrevocably alter the form of the historic building" and recommended denial.

Applicant Brady Jolley and Enzweiler Design described four primary changes made after the prior meeting: substantially reducing visibility from the public right of way, respecting existing facades and openings, making the addition complement the existing structure in massing and materials, and adjusting roof pitch to meet a minimum 8:12 pitch. "We greatly reduced" visibility from the public right of way and have "taken very seriously" the board’s prior feedback, Jolley said.

The applicants showed revised site and floor plans and explained that most new construction is placed behind the existing shell, with only two limited deviations that they described as necessary and lower in profile. They said they also offset the addition from the existing shell by about two feet to preserve a sense of the original wall and openings.

The board asked detailed questions about which openings would remain, what would be demolished and the scale of the addition; applicants noted some earlier non-original elements (a 2021 expansion) would be removed and that historic fabric they identify as original would be preserved. The consultant emphasized the addition’s footprint is roughly double the historic building’s and that certain materials and massing proposed are incompatible.

No final vote occurred during the transcripted portion of the meeting; the board continued its review after hearing both the consultant’s recommendation and the applicants’ revisions.

Next steps: the board will continue deliberations and may request additional material samples, measured elevations, or further revisions to address the consultant’s preservation concerns.