Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh That's true, that's true And I'm gonna save you But I don't really love you And I don't really love you That's true, that's true And I'm gonna save you But I don't really love you And I don't really love you But I don't really love you And I don't really love you Thank you. Once in every life Someone comes along And you came to me It was almost like a song You were in my arms Right where you belong And we were so in love It was almost like a song January through December We had such a perfect year Then the flame became a dying ember All at once you weren't here Now my broken heart cries for you each night. And it's almost like a song, but it's much too sad to write. Now my broken heart Christ for you each night And it's almost like a song But it's much too sad to write It's too sad to write Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I need a lover to give me The kind of love that lasts always I need somebody I'm lifting To take me away, baby Oh yeah, yeah I want a lover who knows me What you really need is an old and old. The the February 8, 2017 session to order. First, I'm going to ask the board members and all visitors, well, the visitors, if you want to speak, you need to sign in. There's a sheet in the back. Please sign in. Yeah, so please sign in. Yep. Oh, no. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the November 9, 2016 session. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Do you have a second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Unanimous? Looks like item number three is postponements and withdrawals. and I'll ask Brandy to comment. We have none this time. Thank you. That brings us to the applications for authorization permits. The first one looks like case number 1-2017, which is 249 West Short Street. I would ask Brandy to go ahead and make her comments. Thank you. We had an application from Bob Estes, the applicant at 249 West Short Street. As stated, it's case number 1-2017. The scope of work was to install a decorative light at the corner of West Short Street and Market Street. And the reasoning for this, the applicant identified that they wished to enhance the aesthetics of the area and create a better lighting solution for pedestrians at that corner. So knowing that this area is currently under a lot of review as it relates to the old courthouse design, I did reach out to the design team that is working on that through the CAO's office, and they have indicated that they do not have a lighting package identified just yet for the old courthouse. But as stated in the design guidelines of the Courthouse Area Review Board, all streetscape designs for downtown and for the area should help to establish a sense of visual continuity while still expressing unique qualities of the region. So with that being said, what that means is we would like for the design of the light that is going in at the corner of market and short to be complementary or along the same package that is anticipated for the old courthouse. Unfortunately, the timeline didn't work out just right. The old courthouse design team is meeting on February 15th, so that's next week, and they will have a better understanding of that lighting package at that time. So I do have to say that the applicant did identify and do his due diligence to the point that he could. The proposal was a light that was of the same brand and similar specs that we see on Vine and Main. He worked with our traffic engineering folks to identify encroachment permit requirements and anything else that went along with that. And at that time, who he spoke to within traffic was not aware of the old courthouse lighting design requirements or the study that was going on right now. However, I would just like to say that the streetlights that are being proposed are a welcome addition to our public streets. This reinforces the corridor as a welcoming pedestrian district. And as our guidelines state, Lexington has the opportunity to reinforce downtown as a distinct pedestrian precinct. Paramount, however, should be providing a sense of comfort for pedestrians, and this includes ensuring that the sidewalks are designed to facilitate walking and that public spaces are created with a lively and inviting environment. And I think that what the applicant is trying to do is along those lines. The applicant has already, you can see through the design that they've submitted, as well as some photos that I put along with it. There used to be a wood utility pole that has been removed. The sidewalk has been redeveloped there so that it's not such a high curb and a large step-off. It's now ADA compliant, so the applicant has done a good job at working at that corner already. The electric has already been run to the location, and there is some protective barriers right now there to keep pedestrians away from it. So I do know that time is of the essence to get something on that corner. So that's why I wanted to recommend as staff to go ahead and approve their authorization permit to install a light at this corner of short and market, but with the following conditions, that they should confirm their light design and specifications with LFUCG's old courthouse design and development team to ensure that that streetscape is consistent along Short Street. And so then once that light has been determined, they would resubmit to the design review officer for final authorization permit, therefore requiring them only to get staff approval for the final authorization permit and not have to come back before the board. And that's the end of my report. For clarification purposes, when you say the old courthouse, you're talking about the remodel. I just want to make sure that everybody's in for the public record what we're referring. Yes, thank you. That's the talk internally all the time is the old courthouse. But it's the historic courthouse on Main Street and Upper, and it also has a frontage onto Cheapside Park and Short Street. Yes, thank you. All right. At this point, I would like to ask the applicant to present their case. My name is Steve Albert. I'm representing Bob Estes. Brandy did a good job of stating her case. My question is, because we've submitted a light pole and a light pole design, are you saying that that light pole design is not approved until the courthouse? Is that what your recommendation? Not that it's not approved until the courthouse is completely constructed, but until they have a lighting package determined for what's going on Short Street, because it's immediately across the street, so that those amenities, streetlights, should be of similar specifications. So I'm recommending that the authorization permit is, yes, it is for installing a light, but the design specifications are still to be determined with collaboration with that design team for the courthouse. Okay. Are you saying that our new light pole would have to match? I don't know. No, I don't want to state specifically if it should match verbatim, but they should be complementary. And until I know what they have. And do you know when they will? I know that you said they were meeting next week, but. That's all the information that I have is that they're meeting on February 15th and that we'll have more guidance at that point. So it could be months. I would hope not. But I can't speak for them. No. Okay. Okay, because in our packet we've included a design, and we were hoping that the design that we submitted would get approved today. I would say just in response to that, if we choose that it matches up, and I think it makes a lot of sense that it does, But then, yes, that would need to go. And at that point, it would be a collaboration with the remodel and restructure of the old courthouse. Or concern on the timeline. I understand. Okay. Yep. I just wanted to look out for the applicant's best. I understand. So I would hate for Mr. Estes to install a light. And then he's invested and it's up. And then a year from now, the old courthouse says, we want a totally different design scheme of lighting. and they take it down and maybe they replace it in kind, but he's been out that money. I would just hate for us to go through those hoops when it could all be done seamlessly. Oh, so the courthouse design team could replace the light on his corner? I don't know. Oh. I can't say. That's what we'll learn at the February 15th meeting. Okay. All right. Do you guys have any more comments to make other than that? No, other than we would like you to approve this once the week. Go ahead and do the work. All right. If you could just step back for a moment. I'm going to ask if there's any public comments from anybody in attendance. Looks like there's not. And the reason I wanted you to just step back is so that if the board has questions, that they could pose questions to you as well. So at this point, I'll open the floor to the board for any questions or comments. I don't have any questions, Mr. Chair. I think that the staff's recommendation is right on the nose and support that recommendation. Okay. Okay. Anybody, any other questions for the applicant or comments? Unfortunately, we don't have the ability to look at what they're doing at the old courthouse at this point. And so that really isn't under the purview of this board. I would say what you're doing is great. I'm really excited. With my office right there, I'm there in that corridor every day. And that pull that was there before was an absolute eyesore. And to have that replaced with something, I just think that's a great thing for a business to do and to think ahead of not only their patrons but also being a part of downtown. And so from that perspective, very supportive from my comments. I do think it's very important also that we have consistency being right across from a large investment that's being made by this city to restore a courthouse. And also you know the rest of that pavilion and block and its significance with Thursday Night Live, other events, and the amount of traffic that goes through there. So I also agree that it's a definitely want them to work and collaborate. My hope would be this, that they could give you some feedback and input that you could decide on basically a light pole and lighting and everything that matches up. I would ask, is this something that we can put in some verbiage to give to staff to also collaborate on our behalf? To say as long as it lines up with what the courthouse is trying to do, that they could come back and get staff approval at that point. And I'd like to have the board's thoughts on that. So that if at that February 15th meeting they sit down and in short order thereafter get very good feedback and they work together, they come up with maybe what they have or some variation of it that works for both parties and that both parties are happy that they can come back to staff and staff could collaborate with both of those. And then on our behalf, we pass with staff's approval that the old courthouse, I'm not even sure how to refer to them at this point, but the design and development team, you know, approves then at that point that we've given our approval. And feedback from you guys on that. No, I think that's the staff's comments are right on. We need to make sure that the consistency of the street is maintained and the difficulty for you as a client at the moment is that timeline. But it's also a difficulty that if you put it in and then it doesn't match up, that it will become a bigger difficulty later on, and that's what we're trying to prevent. So a little bit of coordination at the beginning. What I would ask is relative to staff's ability to work in this action, if there's a way to, before the 15th meeting, make contact and say this is pending what happens in the 15th meeting so that they're aware that there's something on the boards that's going to be affected by their decisions on that date so that ideally that discussion doesn't become something that drags out and then puts them in a bat, or else there's a way to deal with the temporary, so they install a light pole, and then it gets replaced at some point, but then it's not theirs to replace, right? To me, it's trying to find a balance for you guys that you get what you want, but it's also trying to keep the street character as best. Will staff be in attendance at the February 15th meeting? Yes. And just so you guys know the history of this, when this application came in, I prompted an email chain with everyone involved with the courthouse project, and it's kind of sped up their timeline already to talk about the lighting package, and they're aware that this is awaiting. So I think that with me being there and saying, guys, this is important, we need to move this forward, we'll get something, whether it be temporary or the final solution. Okay. Thank you. All right. So are we good with the motion proceeding with a motion to approve, but based upon staff's recommendation that they work with the old courthouse design and development team and collaborate with them to find a good, I don't want to say compromise, but something that works in continuity with what they're doing? Yeah, and I think we can modify the language just a little bit to clarify that the staff would be involved with that process. Perfect. So if we are ready, I'd ask Graham to go ahead and put forth a motion. I'd be happy to. So regarding case number 1-20017 at 249 West Short Street Parley Social, an application to install a decorative light pole at Short and Market Street, I move to approve the application for an authorization permit with the following conditions. One, that the applicant work with staff to confirm light design and specification in coordination with the LFUCG Old Courthouse Design and Development Team to ensure streetscape consistency along Short Street. and, two, that once a solution, once a light solution has been determined to resubmit to the design review officer for final authorization permit. Second. All right. I have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Thank you. All right, that brings us to our next case, which is case number 3-2016 for 111-113 Cheapside, also known as Centro. And I'm going to ask Brandy to present the case, please. Thank you. Bear with me. This one has quite a bit of detail that we're going to share with you today. Again, this is case number 3-2016 for 111-113 Cheapside, applicants Lola Hospitality LLC, also known as Centro. The scope of this work is to update the window function on the second and third floors of this building, to replace the windows on the third floor utilizing existing window openings, and replace windows on the second floor altering the existing window openings. And I'll go into more detail about that in just a second. The purpose of the work from the applicant was stated to develop a more open airspace to allow for connectivity to the Courthouse Square, downtown entertainment area, and the Fifth Third Pavilion from all levels. Just to give you a bit of background, I have worked with this applicant over the past few months. They originally were to come before us, I want to say in our August meeting, if I have the date correct. But after conversations, the applicant decided to postpone, and so they're coming back to us today with a different design that is a little more sensitive to the historic nature of this building. So the findings. We've already stated that the bar is on the ground floor and that they are wanting to do some alterations to the second and third floor. So if we look at the third floor and work our way down, the third floor has existing windows. they would like to remove the existing windows, do not remain, or no, sorry, to remove the existing windows and replace the double hung windows with casement windows. I think we need to have recuse. Oh, yeah. Just making sure. Yes. At this point, you need to step out. Oh, I'm sorry. So we need to pause for just a second. Yeah. Yeah, you need to step out. No, you need to. Okay. So I have to recuse myself because of a former interaction with the applicant on this project. Sorry. Thank you for that reminder. So on the third floor, there are four existing double-hung windows, and the applicant is looking to replace those with casement windows, utilizing the existing window openings. The function then would be to open them out so as to allow air and indoor-outdoor space on the third floor. The applicant has also requested on the second floor to do the similar alteration, taking out the double hungs and replacing with casement on both the far right and the far left of the second floor. Their application that you see before us was to then eliminate that structural component between the two other windows, remove the sills and make the openings larger so that they went to the floor on the second level to allow for the same kind of operable windows and bifold doors that you see on the ground floor. And I'll let the applicant speak to this, but we spoke right before the meeting and said that they have identified this as possibly problematic and looking to leave the seals in place in the original opening. So I'll let them speak more to that since I don't have many details as to that piece right now. But in your packet with the design report, you will see a diagram that identifies how that would be from the interior. So the seals are removed, but I don't feel that's what they're proposing at this time. Let's see here. In preparation for this, I also met with the Historic Preservation Group several months ago to talk about the nature of this building and the significance of it. And based on that, I found several things out that I put into the report, understanding that this was an 1890 building known as the Fayette Safety Vault and Trust Company building. It is a part of a significant row of mid-1800s to early 20th century historic structures, which are a significant collection of buildings. The building was categorized in the 2009 Downtown Historic Building Inventory as outstanding, and so this means it is a property of extreme importance architecturally and historically, and buildings with that designation have undergone relatively little alterations since they were built, or the alterations themselves have gained significance. The building was noted as contributing to the character of the block and contributes to the character of downtown. And details include three-story, four-bay stone facade, high Victorian commercial structure with a very fine, high-decorated facade with little alteration above the storefront. So if you'll remember, this particular project came before the board several years ago, or it was before my time, so I don't know exactly the date, to allow the bifold doors in the new storefront on the ground floor. The Courthouse Review Board guidelines state a basic tenet is to minimize intervention with the historic building fabric, and therefore in the treatment of a historic building it is best to preserve those features that remain in good condition. When replacement is necessary, it should be done in a manner similar to that seen historically. Due to these findings, at the time when the application was to alter the existing openings, it was of staff's opinion that the modifications on the second floor to provide operable folding glass doors would require an invasive process and jeopardize the integrity of the building's materials and overall facade. And additionally, the requested expanded openings for the other windows on the second floor would endanger the historic facade. So therefore, staff had identified that as not an appropriate way to alter the existing window openings for the second floor. However, staff, after discussion, agreed the installation of new energy-efficient casement windows using existing window openings on the second and third floors while saving the historic stained glass transoms may be an acceptable modification to consider and provide a new interpretation of the historic structure's windows. So you can see that the alterations would be in line. we feel, staff, that the Courthouse Design Review Board underlying policies to promote economic development while enhancing the image of the area and reusing historic resources. Additionally, this alteration aligns with the Courthouse Area basic design principles to enhance street level as an inviting place for pedestrians and relate to traditional buildings in the area while respecting its earlier character. However, I do want to expand on that since this staff report was written, I did have an extended meeting with Historic Preservation, and they have outlined several additional concerns as it relates to the historic significance of this building. And so I asked Historic Preservation staff to come and speak to those to you today so that we can have a full understanding of the project before us. So, Betty, would you like to join us? Thank you. Mr. Chair and members of the board, Brandy, thank you very much. Thank you. I'm Betty Kerr. I'm the Historic Preservation Officer for the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, otherwise known as LaFug. And appreciate the opportunity to talk to you a bit about how significant this historic building is. This structure, and if we can switch over to photographs, we're working on it. Thank you. This structure is a true jewel in our downtown. Pam, and are you playing? Why don't you turn the light down, if you would. Thank you. I know everybody's very familiar with this building. It is such a wonderful eye-catcher in terms of its design and its presence in the row and on the street. As Brandy has said, built in 1890 to 1891. designed by a prominent architect at the time, Herman Rowe, R-O-W-E, and it is in the high Victorian style, as has been referenced. The thing I think is particularly important to keep in mind while weighing this application is how amazingly and incredibly intact this building is architecturally. There probably are five or less historic commercial buildings in our downtown that has this level of integrity of original fabric of the building and its architectural design. And so that's why I particularly wanted to point some of those features out and make that further known to you. This historic photograph was taken around 1906 to 1908 and, of course, shows the safety vault building, having stood there at that point roughly 15 years. And its next-door neighbor, obviously, the Old Bank of Commerce, is under construction. The wonderful three-story, very vertically driven design is one that when you see it, just the whole thing is meant to lift the eye down to and including putting this pedimented culmination peak at its top. But as you can see, everything is very attenuated. It all goes up, obviously, with each floor. The highest is, of course, first floor. Second floor is a little bit less, and third floor is slightly less. But all the architectural elements, well, it's pilasters and all are meant to draw the eye totally up. And then, of course, still honoring the rhythm of dividing your floor spaces with the horizontal members as well. The windows and their articulations are really the eyes, if you will, of this building, if you think about it as a person or as a painting or anything like that, as a portrait. They are wonderfully intact. The wood on these are very sound on these sashes. These sashes are 120-plus years old, and they're in really good condition. They can use a little paint and a little caulking here and there, but in terms of being sound, they are remarkably intact, and you don't see that that often in historic structures of this era, at least surviving. So the proposal to remove these windows, taking separate from that the topic of whether to change that would be possible to pull out any of the stone work, the proposal to remove the windows directly contradicts what the guidelines call for, which is to protect and retain the historic fabric of these buildings. And in this instance, the only time you would really consider that to remove those sashes is if they were failing and not able to be worked with and repaired, although these don't need much repair. But that's the first step always, of course, is to repair as needed and retain the historic fabric, retain the historic sashes, and so forth. In this particular instance, with the one-over-ones, they've got the beautiful transoms, which, of course, they are not being proposed to be removed, the transoms here with the stained glass. The other transom has been lost over time, unfortunately, with the stained glass there. And then on your upper third floor, you've got the one-over-ones with the beautiful arch tops, and then, of course, the incredibly lovely details of the upper sashes of this. And they are really one of the key identifiers of the architecture of this system of windows and openings. So to lose these, no matter how much the applicant might intend to do beautiful work with new construction, I think the first challenge to cross is, is it appropriate to let these historic elements be removed from this property? And as your preservation officer for the city, I would strongly urge you that that is not appropriate and not within the guidelines of the courthouse district. The other, show you the details. This, of course, is your second floor. You're familiar with it. But you can see the horizontal divides of your one-over-one sashes play a distinct role in the identity of how these windows relate with their sort of three-part system, versus if you put encasements that would have a vertical line up this way and eradicate that rhythm. Third floor, again, you get the lifting arch with all of it, and also, though, still keeping a rhythm of having a horizontal representation. It keys in to your horizontal representations of the banding in the stonework, and of course relative to what becomes your cornice bands at the top. I don't think I can overemphasize really what nice shape these windows are in. We don't often have the opportunity to have that be the report on old windows. They are made of, of course, first-growth wood. You'll never put anything back in this building that will rival that material. And they have a lot of life left in them, in a physical sense, in addition to their significance in a design sense. And then the solution to facilitate, everybody fully understands and wants to further get energy efficiency. It's very important for all of our historic structures across the community. And so one of the really positive solutions to that, while keeping the historic fabric of this building intact, keeping those window sashes and so forth, is to put storms on this building. And the sample you see here, these have storms. Whoops, come back here. That you don't really read them as storms, per se. The only thing you see on this is that horizontal bar right there. but they have very well-articulated metal surrounds that are very slender and provide a very close ratio of energy efficiencies by doing this that you can accomplish with thermal paints. There have been a number of studies about this. I don't have to take your all's time to tell you, but same kind of thing on this structure where this building had a little heavier muntin system in first place and vertical uprights, and so it was able to utilize a little thicker kind of outcome in terms of the storms. But there are a couple of companies in our area, one's in Cincinnati, that do incredible storm work, and it's very cost effective. So there's also an alternative of interior storms, if that's an issue that you wanted to pursue. And I'm not missing that this would result in them not having windows that open out and people able to stand and look out with an open no glass between them. But I think the significance of what all I've been mentioning to you must be taken into really high consideration in light of this. I'm always conscious that buildings are in their long lifespans. They get different owners. They get different uses decades after decades after decades. And so I think it's so important that we look at any proposals with an eye for the long haul about these projects and the life of these historic structures. And what might suit the needs of the present party with their, I think, very well-intentioned use of this building and welcome contribution to downtown. I think 15 years from now, 25 years from now, as time moves on, uses will change. And to let this building lose its historic fabric and its articulation that is so significant on this facade to allow for a change that, as time moves on, might not even be something people are very anxious to have would be a very, very sad loss for this building and for this community. The last thing I wanted to mention is about the potential for the proposal of the removal of stone. And you can see, of course, where that's proposed. Well, two things would be. One would be to, and this is, of course, reflected in their current proposal, not as they may be amending it today. But they wanted to, in their proposal, take these sills out, bring it on down, as you well understand. And, of course, it would, in addition to the loss of the fabric and everything we've discussed, it would change the design ratio considerably to have those become floor-length windows, inappropriately, I would add. Buildings, of course, as you well know, are made up of a ratio of solids to voids, and that's an important part of the beautiful stonework to the scale of the windows. So it's a design relationship between the fabric of stone to openings, stone to openings. The other piece that's being proposed under the current submittal is to remove this, which is a very significant part of this building, not to mention structurally very important to this building, and result in what would be one unified opening with vertical divisions. and I think you've already gathered from what I said that would be extremely inappropriate for this building and detrimental to its integrity and, frankly, to its future, I think, in terms of things. So this building is unusually special, and I'd be glad to answer questions if you have them, and I just wanted to share with you how unique this building is and how important it is in itself and to the streetscape and to this community. When people come down to the courthouse square, their eyes are directed at a lot of things, but particularly you'll hear people talking about this building and its magic. So I thank you for your considerations, and I'm certainly glad to answer any questions if I can be of help. Thank you. Thank you, Betty. So just to wrap up the staff portion of this, I want to remind everyone that the applicant came to me with this application to say this was a conceptual review and that they did not provide. I know I had a couple of folks ask me, we need more detail, we need more elevations, we need to understand this a little better. But that's why they wanted to come here for this conceptual review. instead of investing so much time and effort and money into developing all those details before they know if it is an approved approach or not. So I just wanted to reiterate where we stand with this project before we move forward to their presentation. Thank you. Does that complete your comment? Yes. Okay, great. At this point, I'd like to ask the applicant to go ahead and come up and present their case. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. I first want to start out by saying the presentation by the Historic Preservation Board, I find that I really appreciate that. And it's really refreshing to find someone else that has as much passion about this building as I do. And all of us have been connected to it far. That is one of our major goals here with this application process. As Brandy's mentioned, this is something we've been going through. It's been a collaborative process. It's been a long time coming. We first initially started with installing a balcony on the front face of the building and then decided that's just too invasive. And where we've landed today is an even more modest approach than what we've previously submitted to Brandy when our timeline was due. So if you'll just bear with me for one second, I just want to kind of mention why we were going down this road at this time. We've been very energized by the growth of downtown. down seeing other bars and restaurants have expanded and there's more slated to open in our opening. The square is now fully opened and 21C is open since we last opened Central and we're here before the board in the past. I've presented some photos here to show the last time that I stood before this board two years ago to seek approval for the front store face on the first floor. You can probably see more clearly in the photos that I gave you the difference. That storefront was kind of falling apart. It had some old wood there to hold up the windows that were existing. And so we had asked for approval to rip all of that out and create a new storefront, which we did. And what we're looking for today is far less invasive and far less dramatic, we believe. Some of our neighbors have expanded. Standing in our patio, we can see, for example, Bell's has created a rooftop bar. Harvey's has done a door system that's similar to ours. Carson's restaurant has opened down the street, and their whole front face is garage doors. And the point that I'm making with bringing these things up is the city really responds to this kind of open-air connectivity feel. As evidenced in every single restaurant that is downtown, there's a patio on the sidewalk. Even if it's four tables at a restaurant, whatever space that they can utilize to connect. Where we are at the Fifth Third Pavilion is overlooking not only the Fifth Third Pavilion and Main Street and the surrounding area, but also the city's massive courthouse restoration renovation project that's almost complete. So our building is very vertical, and we do need to continue taking care of the vertical exterior of the building. Right now, as I will show. Right now there's just a drastic difference between the first floor and the top two floors. One of the main elements we want to do is to replace that window system to have a more modern window system on the second and third floor. And I've got Angela Forsey here with Graystein Restoration, which we've done a lot of collaboration with, and she's going to speak to the detail of the design that we're working with. But we can recreate the horizontal line sashes that you see on those existing windows and create new color schemes that match the limestone to carry those vertical lines and also have something new and modern in those windows to mimic what's on the first floor. To kind of show the open-air feel that we have, we've got another photo I want to show you. Now this is a photo of a bar in Ottawa, Canada. It's very cold in Canada. They don't get a lot of nice days, and when they do, you can see that they are just like us here in Lexington. You can find photos of examples like this all around the country. Basically, this photo just represents a two-story entertainment venue that's connecting to the exterior. Obviously, ours is much more gorgeous, and what we're trying to do is far more subtle. But this is just trying to highlight the example that there's people on the top floor. They're connecting with the outside. It's this open area type of vibe. In order to justify the expense that this renovation is going to cost us, to make the economic math add up, we really have to do this open air concept. The city clearly demands that and what the community responds to, to all the popular venues that are out. And so we've already driven a lot of tax revenue to the city with Centro being opened. If anyone has been to Thursday Night Live or any of the other city festivals that occur throughout the summer or even to Farmers Market, you can see where Centro being open and contributing to that vibrancy has really been an added benefit to the city. So seeing how successful that has been, we really want to continue that and move vertically into our building. and do the same type of style there. So through our extensive collaboration with staff, we have landed on this new, more modest approach that meets our needs economically to justify investing into the building, investing into the city, and also respecting this building that we love and cherish so much. I agree completely. This is one of the jewels of downtown. I could not be more proud to be a part of this building. And it is a very vertical building. And to ignore those top two floors when we've only addressed the bottom floor, I think it's time for us to go ahead and make that step into moving up a little bit. As a side note, I don't know when historic preservation has been last out to the site. I know in 2014 someone came out and helped us with the first floor workings that we were doing. I know sometime after that we discovered that the building wasn't structurally sound. It was in jeopardy of collapsing. So we went through and did some extensive structural support work in the basement to ensure that the building does remain standing. But before I start talking into construction speak, this is not what I do. I just assess other things. I'm going to turn the floor over to Angela Forsey with Greystone Restoration to answer some of those questions you all might have. Good afternoon. In relation to my history in Lexington, Greystone's been specified primarily in the world of restoration work and the historic neighborhoods in downtown Lexington. So like Amy and certainly Betty and the staff at the historic board, a big passion for the restoration of not just the buildings but the homes in downtown Lexington. And as a citizen of this community for my entire life, part of the restoration of downtown Lexington has started on this ground floor level and now is forcing that growth upwards. And although there was certainly an intent for that building when it was originally developed, the use and the conversion of this space is something that Amy and Javier and I have spoken about at length and how to take that space and what it was intended to be originally and develop that into a business model that they can function with to continue to grow and develop their business. That's your all's job. You're trying to figure out how to take all this old architecture and transform it into a new use. So in our creativity in trying to figure out how to give you that same historic profile that is represented in these illustrations we put together for you, we also are trying to accomplish what's needed from a business model to be able to create that open-air entertainment venue that is in huge demand in downtown Lexington, especially in this courthouse corridor. So it's been pliable. We looked at this as something we wanted to present to you all for what we wanted as business people, but at the same time respecting the architecture. And without question, there's the opportunity to do some restoration on the windows on the second floor and keep those functional and keep them in place. We can certainly be pliable with components of this, But the main center focus of this is getting that open-air venue in the second floor space. And that's why I think this has evolved as we've worked with your staff to try and figure out how we cover both, how we cover their needs as business owners and people who are investing in this architecture, in addition to what the city's desires are to maintain the architectural integrity of what this building was originally. So I feel like it's been a pliable exchange of how do we cover both needs, and there are lots of options when it comes to how we create those open spaces. That first floor system is a door system that is sliding and bifolds back against one wall. We have the option to do French casements. We have the options. There are lots of collaborative efforts. there are lots of collaborative efforts on our part to find something that works well for all of you so i think trying to open that conversation a little bit more was what we expected we weren't coming in here with a hard and fast this is what we've got to have this is what we need it was really my encouragement to javier and amy that they work with you all to come up with a means to maintain the building to clean it even the condition of it just as it was when they took opposed to what it is today has improved dramatically. I don't think you're going to find them to be tenants and investors that are going to decline the integrity of the building. It's been quite the opposite. You're welcome. Thank you. At this point, I'd like to ask, is there any public comment? All right. I would like to open it up for the board here for discussion at this point to ask questions and to make any comments. Can I get a clarification on where staff is on this at the moment after the recent conversation? The last time the staff discussed this internally was to preserve the original openings. So we were not in favor of removing the stone in between the two, not removing the sills, which they have already said, but we're up to discussing the change in the windows to allow a different function. Thanks. This is a tough one for lots of reasons. As a designer myself, I'm all for updating downtown and moving us forward. And I think what you guys did on the first floor is a fantastic addition to downtown, as evidenced by what happens down there now. My struggle with this is that relative to the comments from Historic Preservation and the quality of this building, This is unlike some of the examples we saw. A lot of the examples are of newer construction. And so there's a real kind of conflict, which you guys are, I'm sure, fully aware of, between preserving what's there and providing a new use. Adaptive reuse is a constant challenge in finding where that line is. It's kind of critical. I think in this building it's particularly difficult because it's one of the more significant buildings in the city as opposed to a building where the architectural details are fairly minimal and would not say changes wouldn't be as noticeable. So relative to the staff comment, I would say that I agree about the stonework. I agree about the proportions. I am concerned about removing the existing windows, and if there's a way to maintain those windows, I would be heavily in favor of that. Because one of the things about those windows is the openings, while they are vertical, they produce that small horizontal that relative to the proportion of the overall facade is kind of a welcome relief from the verticality. And so I see those horizontals as fairly critical. And the windows that would replace it because of the opening, you're getting that vertical, which I think just adds to the kind of noise on that facade. And so I would ask if there are not other ways to achieve this, is the top sash of that window fixed? It's fixed, yes. So it can't move, only the bottom sash. Are we on the second floor? Yeah, sorry, I'm looking at my screen. Yeah. So. Of the existing. Okay. Yeah, that's the best picture. That one you all had. So for me, if we're going to wander down the path of keep the original windows and openings, and I've certainly been through this on a residential front, if we replicate the existing window openings in a format with a casement or a French window, yeah? So let's just talk about casement windows. On that second floor, yeah, let's stop there. So the upper portion is fixed where the transoms are, and then the bottom two sashes are operable. So if we can replicate a French-style window in that same exact detail, it's going to be a custom window any way you cut it. So we can replicate the architectural detail of this exactly like it is. It's not going to be a window we're going to drive over to Marvin and buy in any circumstance. So it's going to be a custom application. But if we could leave those transom windows in place and create a casement window to give us that open air venue so we can get that space open, we collaborated a lot of time about was there any way to put those windows on some type of lift system, more like a garage door system, so they'd open and close. But from the standpoint of the construction on the inside and the thickness of those exterior walls, that's not going to be a very practical approach to keep it weathertight as well. I think my question was more maybe there's a way to get both accomplished. Yeah, and that's kind of why we're here. I mean, the objective was, I mean, certainly when we look at that architecture, when this collaboration started, Javier and Amy's objective was to go to the floor. And we've talked and I shared and we collaborated about the fact of keeping the integrity of that facade intact was going to be an issue for everybody. To take out that one vertical support in between those two certainly goes from good to great as it relates to that venue, and it would be really beautiful if you could stand in that space and appreciate that. So we were trying to move from the standpoint of if we kept the third floor architecture exactly as it is and restored those windows and then came down to the second floor and just in that center venue tried to create more of an open-air door system in that midpoint, that would have been ideal for us. If that's an absolute no-go, if you all can't collaborate in that venue, then I think moving to a casement window to at least get that open-air space there, if that vertical divide in between those two is a deal killer, then that's why we're here, is to try and find some midpoint with you all. i'm asking a slightly different question if the upper part of that window is operable meaning the upper sash if you were to lower that upper sash down do you know what height that comes to i'm going to guess i'm just wondering if with with the current window it's above my head height when you're standing in that space so you're thinking about top down yeah you're not going to get yeah and oddly that rail in that window is like right here so yeah because we've kind of hung out the window up there a few times so that was our effort to move to replicating the sashes so that architecturally the building from the facade looked exactly the same but still being able to open those windows during entertainment hours to give the people on the second floor the the same feel as what they're getting from a street level. I love the concept. I also understand the other side and the concern as well. So it is a tough one. It is a really, really tough one. What I have seen, and listen, you can see things, and whether they're practical or even applicable in this particular circumstance, I don't pretend to be a builder, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night either. But the truth of the matter is I wonder if there's a way, because I've seen systems, to keep the historic, basically I don't know if the windows themselves and the materials, but to have them adapted to where what I've seen is one over ones that fold either up or down like this. So they would be out, and maybe that top part could come up because if it's right here, right, if it came up like this. So you still achieve the open air concept that you're going for and yet can put everything back, you know, that it slides back into position. So you keep what would hopefully be when they're closed, you still have the historic replica of what's there. And I know I'm just asking that. I don't know if you've investigated that. if it's practical or applicable even. As it relates to the options for that window, I can tell you as a builder that from the standpoint of weather tightness and the seal of that, you're going to have a much better, firmer seal with a casement window swinging and latching shut than you are in that kind of a backwards accordion version. So you're taking that same bifold door system and trying to fold that window up is that what you're thinking did it go up i've seen them up and down you know where essentially it has a hinge inside and then it hinges back i think you're gonna with the height of that window just the architectural height and certainly i think we're all very open to investigating alternatives for for the application of what we're trying to do we need some real clarity about what points of contention we're fighting here if it's simply the architectural style of the window, there are probably a few options for how we could replicate that and give them as business owners what they need and accommodate what the historic board is concerned about from the appeal of the exterior of the building. But is that vertical separation in the center of that second floor? Is your intuition that that has to stay? Well, that's the recommendation of staff. I would open that up to the board. Yeah, I don't think that's really a question. Okay, so then that stays. So then it's really just a matter of what would we propose from the standpoint of windows to... Yes. Hi, Javier Lanza. Thank you, Ms. Houseman. Okay, guys. All we're asking for in here is to remove that centerpiece, not remove it from the ground up, you know, all the way to the top. We're just removing that. It's important for us just to create the energy for that building. I, as the future owner of that building, understand the construction and the damage that it can cause. But this is why we're doing all this, to make sure that nothing happens to this building. Nobody's damaging the facade of this building. When it comes to the windows, we will do everything that we possibly can to make sure. The windows need to open towards the outside. If I do a garage system, I'm going to do damage to that building because now we're putting rails in there to make that happen. The windows already have termites. You know, the windows are impossible to open at this point. You know, they've been painted in cement and all that over 120 years. We're only asking to get that centerpiece, that middle. We would like to do a little bit of an opener. How we go about it is what we're here for. However, we want to maintain all the horizontal lines like we did downstairs. You guys fought us on that when we were here a couple years ago, about the horizontal lines on the first floor. And we accomplished that for you. We gave you the transit windows. We gave you the lines on the very bottom of the doors. You know, we're not here to remove the lines. We want to keep the lines. We want to keep them across. And there are ways, obviously, as we proved with the doors downstairs. And these are not even doors. These are windows. but there are ways to go about it and do it. You know, and I mean, it's all about, I can't invest on this if I'm not going to create something that my customers are going to be wild by it or they want to come in and spend their money there. If I'm just going to put new windows, nobody's coming. So putting a $300,000 investment into something that it doesn't create anything different, no energy, no nothing, I just don't see the point of it. And I do, I promise you, I want to keep all the securities and the facades of this building. I'm not doing any damage. I'm here to ask for that centerpiece to be removed, and that's it. Nothing else. We're going to keep the transcends and all that. The windows upstairs, they're going to open up. They're going to be restored to the same look. We're not touching anything. When they open outside and they close, those doors are going to look the same. Even though the design on the top windows on both sides are not even original for the building, because we got pictures of that, but we love them. We love the way it looks like right now. They look really cool, and so we want to maintain that. We want to keep that. We're not doing anything other than that centerpiece. And it's all about business. If I can't accomplish something, then my customers are not going to be wowed by or anything like that. Then I'm not going to invest $300,000, bring more revenue to the city, create 12 jobs, 12 new jobs. What would I do all this if all I got is a window that opens up and down? All I'm asking is for you to work with us a little bit. I think we're trying to. I think the comment that you're not doing that much relative to the drawing I have, it's actually fairly different because of those verticals. And so that is significant. The removal of the middle pilaster is hugely significant to the building. Yes, and you are absolutely right. And that's something that we talked to the person who drove us, and I was like, well, that's not what I said. And now the meeting is tomorrow, and I actually told my wife, let's do it by paying just so they can see it. But then we didn't want it to do that. We wanted to come in here and try to show you, or tell you what we're going to try to accomplish. We will not change it. We will not change it from if you tell me, well, it's got to stay there horizontal, I'm not going to surprise you later on with a line being vertical. I want to point out one thing. And that is, when you come before the board, it isn't our personal decision on what gets to go through. Now, we do vote, so the vote is. But if you look at what our position is and what we're appointed to do, it is to interpret the guidelines that have been decided upon and handed down to us. It's not for us to then change the guidelines. We don't get to do that. So whether the decision here for us is, does it meet a requirement of the guidelines to allow you to make that change? And that's really what it boils down to at the end of the day. And these guidelines, I've been on, I'm the longest tenure. There hasn't been a change to the guidelines since I've been on the board. given the fact that staff has said on that center member that there is no guideline to support that change. And so that's really what I think is the key point here. It isn't whether or not we get to make that decision. It is, is there a guideline, or does it meet, or does it break a guideline? Either one. meet to support, break a guideline or violate a guideline more appropriately. At that point, then, it's our position to make a decision to make that interpretation based upon the guideline. So I would put forth, I love the concept. I'm extremely supportive of it. the disappointing point is that the guidelines do not support the removal of that member, in my opinion, in my interpretation. And I think it's pretty clear, unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon preservation. And I totally understand wanting to preserve the structure of a building as well. So I think that's really one crux of this discussion, and that's why we've been working so hard to try to see if there's an alternative way to accomplish what you guys are wanting to accomplish. I love the idea of, obviously, the economic investment in downtown. I like the concept. I love the idea of more revenue and jobs for the city. All of those are positives, and I love your enthusiasm for that area. But that member being removed, I will open it up for the board if anybody else here sees any kind of way that it doesn't violate basically the guidelines, unfortunately. And that's what it boils down to is that it needs to stay. So if that is the crux of the discussion, at this point I think we need to make a vote. So if there is some other way to have further discussion with you and with historical preservation about a way that perhaps you can go back and then come back before us with something that would work or something that we can vote on that would be an alternative plan, we are more than open to do that. So if you're going to make a comment, you need to make it at the microphone so it's on public record. I just want to make the comment that we understand your position. We understand that, and we're in agreement of that. So then the next step would be opening the windows to where they open up instead of this double-hung system that's in there. We can, with, there's so many great window companies that we've already reached out to, that we could work with a design that has those horizontal sashes in the windows. So when the windows are closed, it creates the same look that we see now. However, they open up vertically. We can make sure that the metal seam is really narrow and in a lighter color so that it, in the eyes drawn to those horizontal sashes. I think, Angela, you had some ideas about how to achieve that. Yeah, I mean, I think we need the opportunity at this venue to go back to concept. and meet with a couple of window manufacturers and see what the options are for those openings, because we can recreate a wood window. I mean, there's lots of options and alternatives for how we accomplish what they need from a business venue, but to try and speculate all that now without specific measurements and function of space and how it's going to anchor and how it's going to all of those components. So I think the most important part of this and what started this whole creative meeting was can we open that center vertical separation? Apparently we're all clearly on a position of no. So if that be the case, then I think Javier and Amy and I need to reconvene and evaluate what the options are and bring that back. Do you agree? I would also just mention that there is a guideline 3.13. It specifically addresses windows and doors. Preserve the historic upper story windows. And it talks about the sash specifically. To maintain the historic sash as well, repair the sash rather than replace it when feasible. I think that, you know, that has to also be considered on this. And we can share with you this guideline. You know, it's pretty clear on what it prefers versus what occurs. So just for clarity's sake, so I fully understand and helping guide them, are those the guidelines from the Historic Preservation Board or the Courthouse? No, they are the guidelines of the Court Area Design Review Board. Okay, so that is a published document. We can get a copy of it. Yes, and you can take a look at it, and it's under the windows and doors section, and I would highly recommend that you take a look because I'd hate for you to expend a lot of additional time, effort, and energy without consulting those guidelines. Because at the end of the day, it does come down to do they meet or don't they meet the guidelines. Sometimes there are conflicts. Sometimes they can't be repaired and they have to be replaced. So all of those, at that point, it becomes an interpretation. This is a complete set of guidelines printed out. Save you some paper. Have a little light reading. The other buildings in that venue, second, third floor, the hotel, those restored windows? Yes. The 21C. Yeah, 21C. Answer that, right? Yes. Yes. Those are all the historic windows restored. Okay. I think there might have been four or five that were physically shot, and they were replaced to match. But about 98% of them are the historic original restored. So I'm going to make a, I want to ask the board here, I think we should make a move to postpone and allow them to regroup and make some discussion and decide how they would like to proceed. Do I have a motion? So moved. All right, do I have a second? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All right, so that motion passes. Thank you very much. Did I? I need to do one extra thing. Okay. And so we have one extra item. if you, I'll turn it over to Brandy to bring up for us. Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm sorry, I have to interject. I saw on the screen that the second was Kevin Atkins. He's left the room. Thank you. Oh, yes. Thank you. Thanks. Yes, thank you, Chair. Hold on. Should we bring Graham back in? Yes. Yeah. If he's there. I'm just trying to. I'm not used to that. I'm just trying to keep things moving. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. No, he said that something was a bigger. He wasn't even expecting to make your call. We got him for a minute. Okay. All right, I will ask Brandi to go ahead and bring us. Thank you, Chair, thank you, Board. I have one additional item to bring before you guys today. So I was contacted by a representative of 135 West Main Street. Just to remind you guys, that was approved in December of 2016. This one is adjacent to 21C on Main Street. It was painted blue at one time, if you remember the building. R.L. Brown, I believe, is a sign that's on the front of it. The gentleman or the team came to us with an application, and they were redoing the storefront, adding an awning, adding signage, and they're doing a craft brewery-type restaurant down there. Is that the one that Alt 32 did drawings for? Correct. Yes. Correct. So after their authorization permit was approved at the last meeting, they've started to move forward with construction. They've come across an additional need to install an HVA intake or an air intake, sorry, and a vent exhaust fan on the rear elevation. And so just to remind you what that means, that's onto a parking lot, that billboard parking lot, that short street in Limestone. It's the back alley, essentially. And so using their site, they're looking to put the intake unit there, screen it using some fenced material, which is still to be determined. And all of this is in progress. They were unable to come today, but per our bylaws, a full rehearing is not necessary, nor is public notification required. But they would need an amendment to their authorization permit. Do you know which case number that was, just so that we have that on record? I would have to look back. I don't have that. It's in the minutes, actually. Okay. So we can look. But there are two approaches, I believe, right, Andrea? We have, one, that the board would make a motion to allow staff to review and approve that amendment so I could work with them on those design details. Or, two, we call a special called meeting for the board to come back and hear that. I don't think we have the document for the minutes on here. Oh, okay. Well, I have them. Perfect. Let me just dig that up. So can you, from a legal standpoint, clarify and make sure that I have all that right? Brandy said that perfectly. You do not have to have another hearing on this. It's just an amendment to a previously issued authorization permit. The scope does not require you all to hear everything again. If you would like to hear everything again, you need to do that by a special meeting. Just give me a second. Donna, do we have the minutes in Granicus on your side from last meeting? No, it's back active. Brandy, are those the meeting minutes that were approved at the beginning of the hearing? I have a copy of those. Okay, here we go. This was case number 6-2016, 135 West Main Street. All right. Thank you. Sorry about that. Thank you. All right. And so essentially now that we know you went over, was there anything else that you needed to go over? So it's putting some venting or HVAC intake venting in the back. An exhaust fan and an air intake. Okay. In the back that is not exposed to the major roads, thoroughfares. So I open up for the board. Since we don't have an applicant, we don't have public comment. And do I have a motion to approve for staff to allow? Because you have the two options. Yeah. Special called meeting or staff. So up to you guys. I think in this case it's the last time we saw the project I think there was a discussion about the alterations that had already occurred on the building relative to its significance and so there wasn't really much there as far as I can remember. And so I would my only concern is that that faces, while it might not be the major street, it shouldn't make an already disproportionate issue worse because the back of those buildings that face onto that lot are clearly not the best representation of the downtown fabric. And so saying that, I would be okay to move it to staff approval? Correct me. They're putting a cement with some fencing that is supposed to, I want to say obfuscate or hide what's there. Screening it in, yeah, as well. Are there vents on the building or is it on the ground? Is that what? There would be an exhaust fan, just like we saw on Parley Socials from last time, that would come up at a 45 degree angle off of the rear facade. There's already a couple of vents air intakes, I think, on the backside already. This would be essentially in the same area as where the air intake would be, and I don't know how high the fence would have to be. I have to look back at code for that screening. But I've already advised them that it needs to be metal, stone, or brick. No vinyl, no chain link. And the concrete pad is already poured. And they're trying to make it as small as possible as to not remove their own parking for their building. Okay. All right. Any more comments? Anybody have concerns? If not, does anybody want to put a motion to, I guess, submit it to staff for approval with an addendum to case number 6-2016? I'll let one of you guys come up with it. You're better at it than I am. Yeah, I'll make the motion. All right. I move to approve case number 6-2016, 135 West Main Street, as proposed with a review by staff not having to have a special meeting. All right. Do I have a second on that motion? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Motion passes. And I think that's it, unless there's something else. Oh, we do need to make sure we sign the attendance sheet, which should be in the back, that we need to grab that before we leave. Because that is actually part of the official record. Oh, so it's signing in here. We signed in there, but I'm going to also make sure we do, because at this point, we're not, I don't know that we are, you tell me. We're not officially up and going on this yet, so it's not going to hurt to have a duplicate. So with that, I need a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second? Second. All right. I move to adjourn. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. All right. Thanks, guys. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Yeah, the band on the run The band on the run The band on the run The band on the run Well, the night was falling as the desert world Began to settle down In the town we're searching for us everywhere But we never will be found A man on the run A man on the run And the county judge Who held a grudge We'll search forevermore For the man on the run The man on the run The man on the run The man on the run