# Courthouse Area Design Review Board - August 1, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 1, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4304 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4304?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-08-01 - **Last revised**: August 1, 2017 - **Length**: 6,598 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Courthouse Area Design Review Board convened on August 9, 2017, with Mr. Chair presiding over the session. The meeting addressed two primary agenda items and resulted in three recorded votes during the proceedings. The board accomplished two main tasks during this session: approving the minutes from their February 8, 2017 meeting and reviewing an application for facade improvements at 155 North Limestone. Both agenda items received approval from the board members. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, indicating the session focused primarily on administrative business and the single development application under consideration. The meeting demonstrated the board's ongoing work in reviewing design proposals within the courthouse area, maintaining their oversight responsibilities for architectural and aesthetic improvements to properties in their jurisdiction. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on August 1, 2017: • Brandy • Rebecca Burnworth • Graham • Jim Duncan No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted three votes during the August 1, 2017 meeting, all decided by voice vote. **Minutes Approval** The board voted to approve the minutes from the February 8, 2017 meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition recorded. **155 North Limestone Facade Application** Graham made a motion regarding an application for improvements to the facade at 155 North Limestone, which was seconded by Randy. The motion passed by voice vote. The approval included a condition requiring the applicant to work with historic preservation staff to determine the difficulty level of repairing the transom. **Adjournment** The board voted to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition. All three votes were conducted as voice votes rather than formal roll call votes, so individual member voting records were not recorded. No members voted against any of the motions or abstained from voting. ## Appointments The meeting included one appointment action during the session. Brandy was appointed to the Town Branch Commons project. No additional details were provided in the available meeting materials regarding the specific role or responsibilities associated with this appointment, or the duration of the appointment term. The appointment was processed as part of the meeting's regular business, though transcript timestamps are not available for this particular agenda item. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant point of contention regarding transom repair versus replacement [timestamp not available]. **Transom Repair vs. Replacement Debate** A heated discussion emerged over whether the transom should be repaired or completely replaced. The disagreement centered on balancing economic viability against historic preservation guidelines. The debate involved considerations of cost-effectiveness versus maintaining historical integrity of the structure. Participants weighed the financial implications of repair work against the potentially higher costs of full replacement, while also addressing requirements under historic preservation standards. The discussion was characterized as heated, indicating strong positions on both sides of the issue. However, the specific participants in the debate and the final outcome of this contentious item were not detailed in the available meeting materials. This transom-related decision appears to have been a significant agenda item that required substantial deliberation due to the competing priorities of fiscal responsibility and historic preservation compliance. ## Approval of February 8, 2017 minutes The board reviewed and discussed the minutes from their February 8, 2017 meeting during this agenda item. Following their review, the board voted to approve the minutes as presented. The minutes were approved without any recorded objections or amendments to the document. ## Application for improvements to the facade at 155 North Limestone The board reviewed an application for facade improvements at 155 North Limestone. The proposed work involves removing the existing aluminum storefront system and installing a new mahogany wood storefront featuring moveable windows and other architectural enhancements. Key speakers during the discussion included Rebecca Burnworth and Graham, who presented details about the proposed modifications to the building's street-facing facade. The application was approved by the board, allowing the property owner to proceed with replacing the current aluminum storefront with the proposed mahogany wood system and associated improvements. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the February 8, 2017 minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Application for improvements to the facade at 155 North Limestone - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion for adjournment --- ## Full transcript around Kentucky have really adopted the pinwheel because you know if you look at it it sort of takes you back to your childhood and so we want to serve these children so that they can live normal lives that they can go to the park they can play with their friends and absolutely and then for anyone that wants to support the Children's Advocacy Center our 20th annual evening for the Children's Advocacy Center which is our annual fundraiser is Friday August 25th it's at the Carrick House it's a fun event every year coach Matthew Mitchell as our emcee every year. We have great live auction and silent auction items. The food is delicious. If you know Lundy's, they always care about their food. And we're going to have special confetti cocktails. And then for dessert, we're serving Gigi's cupcakes. Oh my gosh. Yeah, it's a fun birthday theme event. And how big is the event? I mean, this is the event for you every single year. Yeah, this is our sole annual fundraiser that we do. A lot of energy and time goes into this on behalf of our board. Thank you. for attendance for the record, which we have, and also if there's any visitors that they sign in as well on the visitor log. Looks like the first item of business after that is the approval of the February 8, 2017 minutes, which are on our screens if you need to view them. Do I have a motion to approve? So moved. And I need a second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Motion passes. Brandy, I would ask you at this point if there's any projects for postponement or withdrawals? There are none this time. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And continuing right along, it looks like there is an application for authorization permits. that we're going to have you present on. All right. We're going to try it this way this time. Last time we had a little difficulty showing you guys some images. So, Chris, if we can put, thank you. All right. So we are looking at case number 2-2017. The applicant is Rebecca Burnworth for the owner Legato group. The address is 155 North Limestone. The scope of work is to review an application to remove the existing aluminum storefront system in its entirety, install a new mahogany wood storefront with movable windows and a front door, install bench seating integrated in with this new window system, and place landscape planners in the right-of-way, install accent lighting, and install an awning. So the purpose of this work as identified by the applicant is to provide patrons with additional seating, protection from the weather via the awning, and to build a more solid storefront. They have also indicated the existing transom is in batter pair and is not weathertight. So this particular property has not been before the board before, so we can go straight into the findings. As I've already indicated, the desire from this applicant is to alter the storefront. Exhibit A, as up on the screen, is the existing elevation. You can see that the storefront as it is, you have the transom, which is part of the original building. Then you have below that where the storefront system was removed and replaced with an aluminum storefront some time ago. So the storefront was replaced in 1968 as identified by historic preservation. The current storefront system has no historically significant materials intact due to the previous renovation. And this includes a recessed entry, which is here. The recessed entry, even though the materials themselves are not historically significant, the alignment with that inset is how the original storefront was. And we talked about that with the applicant and worked together to ensure that that was reflected in the new design. The proposed storefront has been described as an operable mahogany and glass system that will provide sight lines in and out of the first floor space that will encourage engaging pedestrian street front. The applicant indicated the operable windows would be full height, spanning from above the kick plate, so essentially about one foot, six inches above the finished floor, to the top of the existing transom. So they're proposing to remove that existing transom. You can see some statements, and I'm not going to get into this because I believe the applicant will. They submitted some facade precedents to illustrate to you guys exactly what their ideas are. So I will let Rebecca speak to those when she gets to the podium. The proposed alterations are in support of several of the guidelines, and those are indicated in your packet. But primarily, I want to just hit on a couple of those about engaging pedestrian interest and adding character-defining features to the storefront, to the street, so they are still preserving and enhancing some of those historical defining elements that were present previously. The storefronts, I believe, they are trying to preserve the character by replicating that in their new approach, but with an alternative and contemporary design. The applicant has also indicated a desire for an awning to be provided so that it would provide shade and shelter to guests. This would encroach into the right-of-way about four feet. This would not interfere with any existing streetlights or trees or anything within that right-of-way. Awnings and canopies are encouraged within the Courthouse Review Board area. A fabric awning is encouraged as stated in Design Guideline 2.16. And in 2.18, it is noted that they are used to accentuate character-defining features of the window openings. So the one item that I do want to discuss in more detail today is the architectural element of the transom. The circa 1928 commercial facade with the original transom there is worth a little bit more discussion with you guys. The applicant acknowledged the requirement to express the three parts of the facade, and that's noted in the elevation drawings. So I will get to that. So you can see there is that horizontal line at the kick plate. There is a horizontal line that defines where that transom once was, even though they're removing it. So I do appreciate that they have done that. However, after talking with Historic Preservation and having them go on site with me, we did look at the transom together, and they informed me that they felt that the status of that existing transom, and some pictures are found here. While it does look to be in significant, you know, in bad shape, that it could be repaired. The windows and doors specifically states within the guidelines that we should avoid altering the shapes of these features, which I appreciate the applicant including those three elements. But it also states that character-defining features, especially of historic properties, should be preserved when possible, when they are intact. It states, do not remove or damage character-defining features and preserve intact features with appropriate maintenance techniques. It also states in Design Guideline 3.2, under the Historic Preservation piece, to repair those features that are damaged, so to use methods that will not harm the historic materials. And then in 3.3, if things are missing or they need to be replaced, replace features that are missing or beyond repair, but reconstruct only those portions that are beyond repair. Reconstruct the original element based on adequate evidence is the preferred option. It also states if evidence is missing, then they can go with a simplified version. Then I want to also state in design guideline 3.4, for a commercial storefront building, a rehab project should preserve these character-defining elements, display windows, transom, specifically being called out kick plate entry upper store windows and moldings. The rehabilitation of the historic prismatic glass transom should be sought in this case per the guidelines. Since it is in place, the Department of Historic Preservation has advised that it is something that could be repaired and reinstalled if the appropriate measures were taken. if this is decided upon that it will remain in place they also pointed out that the brick molding which is shown in this image exhibit G, that is from the original facade as well and so that profile should be carried on through the next iteration they also said that since that is missing from the transom below that that could be simplified and would not have to be replicated anywhere else so I say all this just to summarize to say the proposal by the applicant is very nice and is upgrading this particular storefront. Everything from the transom below is activating the street. The materials are appropriate. The character-defining elements are being recognized and reflecting those in the new design. But the transom, which is being proposed to be removed, would be an element that we as the board would need to consider in more detail. And so the staff recommends approval of the authorization permit to remove the existing storefront in its entirety, just the storefront from transom below, install a new mahogany wood storefront as proposed with the operable windows and bench seating, and also with the planters and accent lighting as submitted on the drawings, but with conditions that the historic prismatic glass transom would be retained and repaired. And then moving forward, if there are any additional details that need to be altered, that they come back before staff rather than coming back before the board. So I will leave you with that and turn it over to the applicant. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Rebecca Bermworth with Bermworth Design. I'm representing the owner today and tenant, actually, as well. I guess I thought you'd have they seen have you all seen the the kind of inspiration photos that we were looking at they have you guys have that as well in your packet all right just want to make sure so so the notion here the idea is to kind of fill the window with people and making that bench seating in the window. So the big change here is to go from a very plain storefront that goes all the way from the transom to the ground and kind of start breaking that up and bring the base back in, which we see along other parts of the street. Are these my photos that are up? Are these my photos that are up? Yes. Okay, thank you. So can we dim the lights a little? Oh, that's right, you guys can So I guess long story short, we're really concerned about this transom. I'll go through my slides. It's in really, really bad shape. I'm shocked that historic preservation thought otherwise. My photo here does not quite depict the waviness of the bottom part of the transom. So what we fear is that removal of the aluminum storefront will, yeah, I just fear that they're going to just complete, I mean, we would try, my husband's a contractor, so he can kind of, he's concerned, I'm concerned. I think we would like the leeway to try to, or to understand that they might have to come out. I just I don't know how to deal with the structure above that transom line below and still keep that intact. We're just really concerned about that. I keep going through the photos. I mean, just the the lead caming alone, if you push on these windows, it's completely pliable and movable. So, I mean, weather resistance alone, I just fear. So that is a fantastic picture. I think that's the only piece of brick mold left out of the entire storefront. So the rest is two by fours, and then we have the bottom transom line that, would you think that's supported by the, Eric, do you think that's supported by the aluminum storefront system? At this point, I think. Please step up to the mic so we can capture that. It's such a long span, I think that that aluminum storefront has to be holding it up. There's no steel in there. It's just wood. And you can see a big section of the glass tiles are missing already anyway. And our fear was that we would spend a lot of time trying to rebuild that and then get halfway through and they start falling out and breaking anyway. The ideal, honestly, if you looked at one of our inspiration photos where we do the, can we go back to the drawing? Is my plan up there? Do they have that? Okay, yeah. So that one is the existing storefront. Next page would be, that's the proposed front facade. And then your plan and section are a few slides down. Okay. So ideally, once we get kind of a comfort level with, I guess, how intact that is, if it's going to fall apart in our hands, if it's going to stay whole, or even to be able to just collect those prismatic glass pieces, maybe there's something to reconstructing that within the transom and then watching our dimensions to where we can use those prismatic glasses in the top portion within this rectangle or within that square. but like I said this does come from a literal concern of are these really going to just fall apart and like he said trying to make such an effort to try to restore those when a third of them is missing anyway and not get something that's completely intact in the end that's weather tight and whole so I don't know what else to ask I mean, just you see the design. We are looking to create a movable glass wall that, when open, still has the bench. We want people sitting in that window. When you're coming up the street, we want to see those people kind of activating that space, and then the awning, planters, lighting, et cetera, to honor the inset, which is there. I'm going to go back on your presentation. So there's actually, and this is a really lovely piece, I think, is the old wood lid to that indentation, which would also stay. And then that wood storefront, these would come around here as fixed panels, and then the single door as it is now. Are there any questions about the design and how that is operating? Well, first, does that complete your presentation? I think so. Okay. Thank you. Then I would open it up to the board for questioning. And Chair, I might add that in case you guys have not seen in the applicant exhibits document, if you open that, you can see all of the examples that Ms. Burnworth was discussing. Questions? I had a question to Brandy. Did the Department of Historic Preservation give any alternatives other than repair and retain the transom? When I spoke with the Department of Historic Preservation, no. They were in full support of it being repaired and replaced. However, if you look within the design guidelines, if it is determined that it is beyond repair, that the new storefront should represent and reflect what was there historically. So I think I heard Rebecca speak to the fact that those upper portions of that transom may reflect that prismatic block. That would be awesome. And he had a great idea to use even a fluted glass that would be like that. But if we can reuse them in the upper portion of that design, that would be amazing. I would love that. Because we do, it's not like we want to take them down, throw them away. We would still store them in the hopes that someday the building owner wants to maybe spend the money on restoration. Did that answer your question, Jordan? This drawing indicates that each of those panels is operating from the bottom to the top of the transom. If you were to reuse those, that's highly unlikely that that would be the case, right? it would be very difficult yes so is the we would have to probably back it up with another piece of glass or something like that to where we can get the stability so that the door can't open how critical is it that those panels open from the top to the bottom i think i enjoyed the drama of that um and the the you know when you look at an example like Centro and the openness that that offers. We're actually, we thought about doing that where the whole thing opens, but I think they have a tripping hazard right now that a guard actually has to stand out there and say, says be careful. So we're using the bench as our device to help people from falling out, basically. And then going the rest of the way, Graham, to answer your question. Other questions? Thank you. Well, I would say that it comes down to, first of all, one of two decisions for the board. And that is whether we feel that the transom is salvageable or not. And that's the first part. And then the second part is dependent upon the first part. So I think the first thing that we should do is just discuss that and make sure we have had full discussion disclosure to where we feel confident in making a decision based upon that. Should we then decide that it isn't, then we can have a follow-up discussion on what we would do or what we would approve based upon that. But I don't think the time spent on that discussion is, unless you guys disagree, it really comes down to whether we feel they're solvable or not. And the information that we have in that regard is based on two opinions, and they don't agree with one another. So we either need more information, or in which case we would have to reconsider the case, or we need a path forward by which the applicant can develop that information and submit it to staff. And if that were the case, I would want historic preservation to remain involved and to be provided. Well, I would ask this. I want to be – my concern is this. Things can be repaired. Things can be salvaged. I'm not saying this can or cannot. My concern is at what point does it become not economically viable for it to be salvaged. And that's my concern when I look at this. I've been down to this space and seen this spot walking by. I was, just from the outside view, I'm not going to give an opinion one way or another, but it is in very heavy disrepair. As a business, I also want to give them the opportunity to weigh in on that and whether it's economically viable because that to me has to weigh into it as well. And I would love to hear feedback from Brandy as well on that. On the guidelines are there, but what about economic viability for a business to be able to even accomplish something like that? What if it's 10, 20 times the cost of what it would cost? I mean, realistically, I'm looking at some images here where, are we ever going to get an effect of originality out of them when we're done? We're salvaging something, but will we get? And I understand historic preservation wants to salvage it. I get that, and I appreciate that, and I think that's why we're here, to help facilitate that. At the same time, we're also here to discuss whether, from a business standpoint, whether it's possible or viable from an economic standpoint. And we're supposed to weigh both considerations. in that. So I agree with Graham that we don't have necessarily, we got opposing opinions, I guess is what I'm trying to say. But we also have a business that wants to remodel a building that's in heavy, heavy disrepair in an area that frankly could use some vibrancy added back into it. And so I'd love to have a path forward like you said, where maybe we can have staff allow, you know, give some guidance to staff and allow them, you guys, to get some feedback on the viability of repair on this. And if not, then what is the path forward? So we have kind of a trigger event at that point. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to you guys? So, Brandy, my first question is this. Economic viability of repair. Is there anything in the guidelines that pertains to that, or is this pretty much an abstract area where we have to make some decisions? I'll have Tracy back me up in case I misspeak about this. But as far as the guidelines are concerned and how staff looks at this, it's purely design-oriented. So I had to approach it from the design components as outlined in the guidelines for historic properties. And so those say, for those features that are deteriorated, repair is preferred rather than replacement. But when replacement is necessary, it should be done in a manner similar to that scene historically. So as far as staff is concerned, that's the guidelines that I have to work from. However, if you as the board look at the themes that are in the introduction section, there are items that speak to other things than design. And that's where you as a board have the ability to look at this and weigh all pieces of that. So I might remind you that those themes are, theme one, enabling the creation, growth, and retention of jobs that promote a strong progressive economy. Theme two, promoting the downtown as a regional commercial office, government, residential, and cultural center focal point within the Bluegrass region. Theme three, preserving, protecting, and maintaining existing residential neighborhoods in a manner that ensures stability and highest quality of life for all residents. And then there are goals under those, ensuring that you guide the physical development of the community, ensure the vitality of downtown, and protect and preserve Fayette County's significant historic and cultural heritage. So those are, as the board, those are the overall themes and goals that you guys have, the flexibility to look at projects. But as staff, I have to promote, I have to look at the design guidelines. Thank you very much for that input. Is there anything else that needed to be added to that? No, I agree with what she said. But also in that is that part of the decision you can make under the guidelines is whether or not it can be repaired and reused. Or should be, perhaps. Yeah, I think that's part of your all's decision. I mean, one of my concerns about it is even on repair, and that's where I'm not an expert on the subject, so it makes it very difficult to be able to judge that, is will it have the opacity and allow the sunlight through and the visibility that it originally had? And that's something that I think would be a concern if I'm from a business standpoint. So perhaps what we can do is say seeking some consultation on what it would take to have it done and maybe some direction to staff. And this will, again, go to legal probably too on some sort of guidance on what is economically feasible. and Graham I would ask your opinion too on that because you have to sometimes I think play a role in having to make a decision on trying to salvage what's there versus the feasibility of being able to do that. It's always a dilemma. There's never a very clear cut answer to that but very often when people are encouraged by like the Board of Architectural Review for example to push a little harder, and they come in and think that they need to eliminate something and replace it. And when they're pushed, very often they take the extra step, and they're pleased with the results. So I think it behooves both the community and the owner to look really carefully at stuff like this. I would like to add a concern that I have about the design. Should the transom be replaced, the existing transom not be maintained, I don't think that the design that's been presented to us complies with the guidelines in that the replacement transom that's being proposed is not horizontal in nature. It's split into small vertical elements, and I think that is contrary to the original aesthetic of the building, and I think the guidelines are very clear that if you are going to replace something, it should be replaced in kind, And I think that that particular feature of the existing building is a very strong horizontal feature. The transom is split into three segments, one over the recessed entry, and then the two with the faceted block over the other, the two flanking bays. and those two flanking, all three of those have continuous banks. They're not split into smaller segment, and I think that's an important aspect of the original architecture. And I think if you look at the photograph of the street and you look down the street at the adjacent buildings, that you see a similar treatment and the horizontal the horizontal expression is important and and and I'd like to see the design maintain that you know in a more pronounced way there's another photograph I think maybe in the other in the earlier package that you can see the adjacent properties just so you know No, I did the transom and the base expression just for you, because I know you love that. I'm kind of shocked that you're thinking that it's more vertical than horizontal at this point. And because we don't know what there was there originally. I mean, this is a 1968. Yeah, that storefront is an original. We know that. I'm not talking about the storefront, I'm strictly talking about the transom. Transom itself. Strictly talking about transom. Can we find that photograph that shows the street frontage? I think it was up there earlier. Yeah, that one. So there you can barely see the building next door, but there you see the storefront below the transom in the red building to the left, does not, the lines of that, the vertical lines of that storefront don't continue up through the transom. The transom is a separate element and it's a horizontal element. And I think that's a significant issue. My question then is, though, are we having discussions about something that's actually in the end not going to be as visible because of the awning that's going to come down, correct? No, an awning is inevitably a temporary element that may or may not exist in 10 or 15 years, and I think we have to assume that everything that's being done is going to be visible. Yeah, that's a valid question. Minglewood right next door, actually, the awning covers the entire section of historic glass. Yep. I mean, I was just looking at that on Google Maps down the street. I want you all to think about at this level, I mean, we're probably going to be playing with these glass blocks. I'm pretty sure it's going to fall apart. I don't think that k-ming is going to hold it all. So when we remove it, we're going to be literally just taking those blocks and seeing what we can make out of them. I mean, the vents aren't going to open anymore. I don't know if we can restore those. So just think about it on that level. Is there something we can do with those glass blocks? And, you know, we've looked at the cost of those. They're about $100 a piece for those glass blocks. So just a thought. So your concern, what you were saying, Graham, is essentially that we have one solid horizontal, even though it's broken up by glass blocks with lines, but one solid horizontal piece on either side, correct, of the transom? I mean, the transom's broken, if you look at it logically, left, right, and then the middle that goes over where the door goes. I mean, the transom, the bottom of the transom is a very strong horizontal, unbroken horizontal line. and to me that's an important element. So I just think that the guidelines are pretty clear about replacement in kind, and it might be a minor change to make the design speak that language a little more clearly. It might just be a matter of adding an element in front of that. I guess the problem is if those things open all the way up, then a continuous element is going to be a problem. Continuous horizontal element. And then we kept the panels below stationary. So, Rebecca, and you're... Are you saying that this is breaking up the horizontal, these intermediate supports? I'm sorry? Are you saying that, so this is my horizontal line for the transom that I want to maintain? Are you saying it's broken up by these pieces? It's broken up by all the pieces, and the transom is broken up by every vertical element continues up through the transom, which is not the case in the existing scenario. It's more vertical than it is horizontal, the composition. And as Luther says, we may be discussing something that we don't need to be discussing. Well, I'd still like to, if we give guidance to staff, be able to have, if we're going to be able to do that, to be able to have a path forward as well. I mean, I can somewhat see what you're saying, but with that line that goes across on elevation, you're, you know, I think that that, I guess what I would say is, I'm not, I think it is a little subjective, whether it's horizontal or a vertical perception. I think that also the elevation in relation to the buildings to either side, and that's one of the things I was trying to see, is it has a piece that comes down, and I unfortunately can't bring up Google Maps, which I was looking at, that is similar in nature, basically a height with lines that are similar in nature, meaning the top and the bottom that you're talking about. Chair, may I make a recommendation? Yeah. I hear you guys saying that there's a struggle between whether it remains or it will be replaced with something new. You all have mentioned, is there another assessment that can be done to inform the decision, is it economically viable to repair or should it be removed and a new contemporary approach taken? Could the applicant assess both approaches from a financial standpoint to say, this is what it means impact-wise on a business for us to repair and keep it in place and do this other versus removing and doing the all-new storefront. Then we can have the conversation. Sure. My concern is their time frame. I mean, I know what is supposed to go into that space. and does it then hinder progress towards renovation in an area? As we said, we also the jobs and the ability to kind of revitalize that area. So I do think there's a lot of factors that are in play with the guidelines and how we're supposed to also assess them. I really want, I appreciate historic preservation's input, And you're right, we do have another side as well that says that they're not salvageable. So I think we're sitting here with a lot of questions. What is the time frame? Let's just ask that. What is the time frame for when these renovations are- We'll be open in six weeks. In six weeks. Which is, we're obviously waiting for this day, so. Yeah. If there was a way to strengthen the secondary line there, I'm not sure what you want to call it, Graham, but that second line in that it was more prevalent. I know you have the vertical in between, but I'm saying if it were to be strengthened, And whether emboldened via color or material, maybe it butts out a little bit some sort of way. I know there are windows that it looks like they are opening all the way. But if the material could be changed, is that something that my question to you is, Is that something that would make you feel comfortable with that approach should it be chosen that the transom is not salvageable? Ideally, the vertical lines would not continue up through the transom except at the sides of the recess in the middle as it exists the way it exists now. But I see that you're adding a suggestion of some kind of structural element. Is that what that is, those two thicker posts? Yes. We think that these will be quite heavy windows to build, and I think intuitively put that as an intermediate support. So let me ask you something. Are those at top parts of those windows, right, that are replacing the transom, Are they, when you slide the windows open, are they? They would go with that. They would go with it. That's what I thought. And we're coordinating that with how far the awning sticks out. Sure. I think as a directive to staff, I mean, if we're really talking about how can we follow up with Brandy and staff and keep moving forward, if you all wanted to say to make every effort to make the transom line appear prominent, it would be a really fair directive. Because even with trims and looking at the profile that's there now, to replicate that in a newer wood that can be preserved, I think that can be, I mean, I can easily see how that can be done. and then have the verticals recede into the background. The funny thing is, I don't want to put up my photos. Well, I think they're on here. They actually had to come back and put another piece here because that glass span, do you think that's over 50 square feet? This glass span was too great. They had to come split it up. It's flexi-glass. Yeah. It's not even last. So I guess intuitively, maybe that should be more pieces than that's there now. I just don't know if I'd agree with the huge fans that are there now. Well, we can say one thing. There's no way that it seems like it's feasible, in my opinion. Now this is, again, leave this up to the board, but it doesn't seem in a six week time frame that they're going to be able to restore a transom. So to meet their deadline too, I mean that comes into effect as well. So in the future, future sidebar conversation. If historic preservation has input, I would love to have a representative from historic preservation here so that we can ask them some specifics on what they were making a basis that it could be restored on who, you know. Is that a conjecture? Is it experience? Because that makes a huge impact on us as well. This part opens, because this part is going to be haunting anyway. So if we have. The bricking, the bricking, the brick. It's on this building. Is pretty much the rest of the facade, not the storefront, but the rest of the facade, do we know is that original? It's my understanding that it is, and the applicant is not proposing any additional changes outside of this, the original opening that is there. so i guess i had proposed that we ask for a little more examination as to as to whether the transom is in fact salvageable um and um and that if it is not salvageable that the proposed design be modified in such a way as to accentuate the horizontal line between the lower windows in the transom and with that we would approve the application. Staff. So those would be directives to staff and then they would work for the staff to be able to determine those two points. Yeah. I mean, I'm not opposed to taking that approach. I mean, either. So if we give that directive to staff, we'll allow staff to basically determine whether or not it's eligible, correct? Are we legally within our rights to do that as a board? I think you are. Okay. All right. Well, Graham, I'll allow you to wordsmith it as you normally try to do and do a good job of. Okay. Yeah, the last page is their staff recommendation. Mr. Chair, regarding the application for improvements to the facade at 333 East Short Street, Suite 212. Actually, that's 155 North Limestone. 155 North Limestone. Thank you. I move to tentatively approve the application pending with the following conditions, that the applicant work with historic preservation staff to determine the difficulty level of repairing the transom and that the applicant would, with the preservation staff, report to the Courthouse Area Design Review Board staff with regard to the findings, that the review board staff then make a determination as to reasonability of that restoration. and should the restoration be infeasible, then the proposed design, the staff is empowered to approve the proposal as submitted with the addition of a more aggressively accentuated horizontal line between the lower part of the storefront and the transom above to be more similar to the existing condition. Before we take a second on that, I'd like to ask, make sure that that... I think that'll cover everything that you need to do. I'm Randy. Okay. Second. Motion. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Right now we have an announcement by Jim Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to let the board know that this is perhaps Brandy's last official meeting with you all. She has taken a job out of the mayor's office where she will be managing the Town Branch Commons project, the linear park and trail and recreation facility through town, and she'll be starting that on Monday. So we will be losing Brandy from the Division of Planning, but she won't be going far from the government. But in light of what your recommendation was just now as well, Brandy has also said that she will continue to advise the courthouse area design review board, at least for the foreseeable future, until we can get a replacement and a new person named for that. So Brandy isn't going far. She may even be the staff person for the November meeting, and she'll certainly help us through this project as well. But we wish Brandy all the best. but I also want to let you all know that Donna and our office will continue to be available as a resource for applicants in the community and for any questions that you all might have until such time that we can get this position restaffed. All right. Thank you very much, and congratulations, Brandy. And boo-hoo. We're going to miss you. All right. With that said, do I have a motion for adjournment? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. That closes the August 9, 2017 Court Area Design Review Board.