Twig and Leaf: Fate Uncertain

 

“We didn’t see it as a huge deal,” remembers Kennedy. “It was a pretty good report. We had twice as many signatures as we needed. We didn’t imagine that it would turn out to be a problem, but it turned out that it was.”

 

It turned out that the only naysayers were the property’s owners, the E. Sloane Graff Trust and PNC Bank. The group hired attorney Glenn A. Price Jr., of Frost Brown Todd, to oppose the Individual Landmark designation. In a presentation that took more than two hours, Price argued that the landmark designation was unnecessary because the building was already protected as part of the Bardstown Road Overlay District (BROD) – created in 1990 to protect the neighborhood character and economic vitality of the Baxter Avenue/Bardstown Road corridor. The BROD is administered by the Metro Planning and Design Services/Urban Design Division, with input from a citizen-review panel. Therefore, Price argued, a landmark designation would unfairly subject the property owners to two levels of review – the BROD and the Landmarks Commission. He also added that the landmark designation does not necessarily lead to good adaptive reuse of the property, because it protects the facade of the building but not the interior.

 

“Some of the commissioners seemed confused by the whole thing,” says Maas of the presentation. The Landmarks Commission deferred the decision until March 17, 2011. Now, the three women at the heart of the campaign to landmark the building are afraid the commission will vote against a proposal they thought was a no-brainer.

 

“Landmarking is a strange thing, because people look at it the wrong way,” Nitsche explains. “Instead of looking at it as a positive thing, they look at it as a restriction. But the reason people live in this neighborhood is because of the character. And the character is what we are trying to landmark, because the buildings give the character of the neighborhood.”

 

In a recent interview with The Highlander, Price, representing the property owners, says Nitsche and her cohorts are diluting the importance of landmarking in this case. “It seems to be a question of overkill without much public benefit besides the idea of preserving a roadhouse,” he says. “At the end of the day, I don’t think it is in any danger of being knocked down. I don’t see the building being demolished.”

 

Nitsche points out that the landmarking campaign started because of a proposal to tear down the Twig and Leaf property and the buildings around it. In May 2010, the BROD committee met with representatives from the Zaremba Group, a national real estate development firm that wanted to build a CVS on the corner of Douglass Boulevard and Bardstown Road. The Zaremba Group abandoned their plans due to negative community feedback, but the idea energized Maas, Kennedy and Nitsche individually.  

 

Maas, an architectural historian, and Kennedy, executive director of Preservation Kentucky, were already acquainted with one another at the time. The two women figured that landmarking would provide the only true protection for the Twig and Leaf structure because the BROD deals with preserving neighborhood character but not individual buildings. Demolition of a building is still possible if the developer can show that their project is good for the community. Landmarking would make demolition impossible.* 

 

After Kennedy and Maas started gathering signatures for the landmarking requirement, they encountered Nitsche, who sits on the Highland-Douglass Neighborhood Association board. Although Twig and Leaf is in the Deer Park Neighborhood, Nitsche considers the restaurant an important meeting place for the Belknap and Highlands-Douglass neighborhoods as well, and she had begun gathering signatures for a landmarking petition on her own. The three women joined forces and collected more signatures than they needed for the application and raised the $500 application fee through donations.

 

Nitsche wants the public to understand that the landmarking campaign is to save the structure housing Twig and Leaf, not the business itself. The building was built in 1961 on the site of a former gas station. The restaurant began operating there in 1962. Kennedy, who once worked for the state landmarks commission,** said there is a national trend toward saving neighborhood commercial sites like the Twig and Leaf building. In fact, the Kentucky Heritage Council deemed the building eligible for landmark status years ago.***

 

“It’s a building that we (the state landmarks commission**) featured in a tour we did in 2004, when the National Trust for Historic Preservation was here in Louisville,” Kennedy says. “We highlighted that because it’s an interesting example of commercial vernacular architecture. I think it is really important because it represents both the development of a building type to serve as a diner as well as a community landmark.”

 

Price concedes that the building is an important local gathering place, but he does not believe that it warrants landmark status. “This is a very tiny piece of property,” Price says. “There is no reason to knock this building down, because it could be reused. Buildings have changed their occupancy over time. These shops will always morph and be sold.”

 

However, Kennedy says the very idea that Price is involved in the case gives her pause to worry about the building. “I think it’s really interesting that (the property owners) would hire an attorney of that magnitude to represent you in something like this,” Kennedy says. “They argued that you would have the same protections with the BROD, but if you really believe that, why go out and hire an attorney and a consultant? I don’t think you do that for no reason.”

 

Kennedy, Maas and Nitsche are hoping for a big turnout of supporters at the March 17 meeting and, in honor of St. Patrick’s Day, will hand out green ribbons to supporters of the landmark designation. “As we understand it, there may not be new testimony at this meeting,” says Kennedy. “It may be that they just vote on it, but we still want people to come out because there may be testimony. Even if there isn’t, people should show support by showing up. I think the commission will find that appealing.” 

 

---