Baker Hunt project tabled after vigorous debate over new construction; board wants more information

By Greg Paeth
NKyTribune Reporter

Covington’s Urban Design Review Board has decided it needs more information from the Baker Hunt Art and Cultural Center and its architect before it makes any decision about the plans for a $3 million overhaul and new construction on the center’s Greenup Street campus.

After a hearing and public comment period that lasted about 2½ hours – just part of a four-hour meeting — the board voted 6-1 Monday to table a proposal to build a 1,500-square-foot glass box classroom that would front on Greenup between the original Baker Hunt Mansion, which dates to about 1840, and what is commonly referred to as the Scudder Building, which was built about 1880.

Broad member Will Yokel cast the only vote against the motion to table plans for the new building.

The Baker Hunt property spans about a half block of frontage from 604 to 632 Greenup.

The board also voted to table an equally controversial proposal to carve into the stone retaining wall that runs along the Greenup Street sidewalk to create an easily accessible walkway into the Baker Hunt property.

Both the new building and the sidewalk construction plan are expected to be on the agenda for the board’s next meeting in July.

Four other elements of the plan were approved without much debate. They include restoration work and upgrades for the mansion, the Scudder building, the studio building and the auditorium.

If audience members who attended the meeting had voted on the plan for the new building, it would have been beaten by an overwhelming margin.

Of the 15 people who spoke during the public comment period, only Ray Kingsbury, the executive director of Baker Hunt, pushed for approval of the entire package of improvements and expansions for one of the city’s most beloved institutions.

Kingsbury stressed that the old buildings are badly in need of renovation and restoration work and that some of the work, including the addition of classroom space, may help make Baker Hunt financially sustainable. The striking new building as well as the walkway into the Baker Hunt grounds also are designed to increase the center’s visibility along Greenup.

“I’ve had people ask me, ‘Where is it? I’ve lived there a long time and I’ve never even seen it’,” Kingsbury told the board. “The whole idea is visibility and accessibility and making it ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant.”

Earlier in the meeting, Baker Hunt board member Liz Grubow, also made it clear that she strongly supported the plan when she introduced Chad Burke, an architect with Cincinnati’s GBBN, which is handling the Baker Hunt project.

But even longtime volunteers and supporters of Baker Hunt – including residents who are recognized as neighborhood leaders — Virginia Kerst, Gina Estes, Lisa Gillham, Sue Puffenberger and Dennis Fangman – all made it clear that they had serious concerns about the project and its long-term impact on the Licking Riverside neighborhood and the city as a whole.

“This project could change the face of Greenup Street and set a dangerous precedent for Licking Riverside and all of the other historic neighborhoods in the city,” said Gillham, who recalled that her mother had been a member of a group that supported Baker Hunt.

Kerst, a long-time volunteer at Baker Hunt, and several other speakers were alarmed about parking problems that could arise if new classes bring more students into a neighborhood where parking can be difficult to find.

“This proposed building is new construction and should be required to have additional parking,” Kerst said. “This building fills in a space between two historic buildings and it should be handled as infill construction.”

Before the public comment period began and again an hour after Kerst offered her comments, board member Chris Meyer, who is an architect, questioned whether the new building should be considered infill construction. He eventually made the motion to hold off on a decision until the city staff could evaluate whether it would be proper to consider the building as infill rather than as an “accessory building.”

Board chair Vic Canfield also made it clear that he wanted the board to table the new building and the sidewalk plans until more information was available.

Opponents of the plan argued that the “accessory building” label usually covers garages and storage sheds, not a new classroom building that will have high visibility on one of the city’s major thoroughfares.

Late in the debate, architect Burke stressed that he and his clients at Baker Hunt believe that they attached the right label to the new building.

“We feel it is an accessory structure,” Burke said. “It’s not a building that would exist on its own (outside of the campus setting).”

Lisa Sauer, a Second Street resident who heads Covington’s Progress With Preservation organization, disagreed sharply with those who characterized the glass box as an accessory building and said that no effort was made to make the building blend in with the 19th Century architecture along Greenup Street. “It was purposely designed to shout out, ‘I am different,’” Sauer said.

Paul Muller, executive director of the Cincinnati Preservation Association, and Margo Warminski, the organization’s preservation director, also spoke out against the new building plans.