There's all the feeling Oh, what a feeling Boy! Boy! Now in the street there is violence, and then a lot of stuff, work to be done. No place to hang out or wash in, and then I can't blame all on the sun. Oh no, we're gonna rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'll take it higher. Oh, we're gonna rock down to Electric Avenue, and then we'll take it higher. Thank you. We'll take it higher. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. We're going to rock down to Electric Avenue. And then we'll take it higher. Oh, we're going to rock down to Electric Avenue. Avenue and then we'll take it higher. Who is to blame in one country? Never can get to the one. Dealing in multiplication and they still can't feed everyone. Oh no, we're gonna rock down to Electric Avenue. Thank you. All right, go right ahead. All right. Okay, I'm calling the meeting to order. And first off, I have to read the following statement. Due to the COVID-19 state of emergency, this meeting is being held via live video teleconference pursuant to the 2020 Senate Bill 150 and in accordance with KRS 61.826. It appears that all board members are here and present. And our first order of business is approval of the May 19, 2021 minutes. And I'm looking for a motion for approval. I'll make a motion. We have our newest member, Mr. Michael. if you're able to turn on your video, that way you can participate visually in the meeting. And I'm going to go ahead and click ask to start video that way you'll get a prompt from us if you're having a hard time finding the video option. Okay, now Mr. Michael, I'm going to ask you to unmute and see if we can do that. If you're able to hear me and can unmute, do so at this time. It looks like you are unmuted. Can you confirm that you are present? Okay, we are not able to hear or see you, Mr. Michael. If you could, let's see. I'm going to click ask to start video one more time just to see if that will work. If not, we may have to have you call the Division of Planning mainline and we'll see if someone can assist you in getting on to the meeting. Thank you. All right. Mr. Michael, if you could give us a call, we will attempt to get you logged on to the meeting so that we can see and hear you. Otherwise, we do have a forum so we can go ahead and and move forward in the meantime. And we'll just see if Mr. Michael is able to join us as we go through. I'll go ahead and make that motion to approve the previous minutes. And is there a second? I would go ahead and second that motion. Okay. All in favor? Raise your hand. Say aye. Okay. Motion passes. We are going to go ahead and start with case number 4, 2021. that's 201 West Short Street, Nathan Zamorin. The request is to install a plaque related to the unlearned fear and hate artwork and lighting on the western building facade. And I'll ask Autumn to read the design review officer report into the record. All right, I will go ahead and share my screen. All right. So this application is a request to install a plaque related to the unlearned fear and hate artwork and lighting for that plaque onto the western facade of the property at 201 West Short Street. So here we have an aerial photo of the property at 201 West Short just to sort of orient you. It is along the corner of Short and Upper just behind the old courthouse building. It is listed in the historic preservation downtown Lexington building inventory as a significant structure, meaning that it contributes to the character of the block and contributes to the character of downtown based on its historic qualities. It is also on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing structure in the downtown commercial district. So this application is related to a previous application to inform the public that that previous artwork that was approved by this board to be installed is there. So the proposed plaque is to inform the public of the unlearned fear and hate artwork which you see pictured here. As I mentioned, this is the second application to the CADRB related to this property and this artwork. In 2018, an authorization permit was approved to install a permanent sculpture no larger than 24 feet in diameter stainless steel halo as submitted on the west side of the building. And that's the image that you see there. This is the poem that the artwork is based on that was part of this art project. So the applicant is now asking to install a metal plaque to inform the public about the artwork and about why it's there essentially. So this is a four by eight foot aluminum base with the plaque information on it. This is the proposed location here that you see outlined in red. They are also proposing an LED wall wash monument light to be installed above the plaque to light it so that folks can read it in the evenings and things like that. The Division of Historic Preservation was consulted in this application as well to inform our findings, and they did mention that this was a significant structure. They noted that while the plaque is large, it will not be out of scale on the overall size of the building and the plaque that it is related to. They do recommend that particular care be taken in installing the plaque in the light fixture. The installation hardware should be installed in the mortar joints and not in the brick so as to protect that historic brick facade. Additionally, the application does meet several of the basic principles and design guidelines of the courthouse area. Principle number two is to enhance the street level as an inviting place for pedestrians. Then it also is an agreement with the following design guidelines. 2.15, develop the ground floor level of a project to encourage pedestrian activity. Design guideline 3.1, to preserve character defining features that are intact. 3.26 says that an addition should be compatible in scale, materials, and character with the material of the building. 3.27 says an addition should not damage or obscure historically or architecturally important features. 3.6 design an alteration to be compatible with the historic character of the property. And 3.7 which says to avoid alterations that damage historic features. Based on these reasons, staff has recommended approval for this authorization permit to install the aluminum plaque and the associated light fixture. That recommendation is subject to two conditions that any necessary approval from the State Historic Preservation Office be obtained prior to installation of the plaque. And the installation of the plaque and light fixture shall be done in a manner that does not deface the brick facade. The installation hardware shall be installed in mortar joints and shall be small enough in diameter to not damage that brick facade. That concludes my presentation and I will stop my share and open it up to you all for discussion. I'll call on the applicant to make their presentation. Thank you so much, Autumn, and thank you for having me here today. We're excited to create some signage and provide some context for the sculpture that was installed a couple of years ago, which we had a dedication last year. So this is kind of the capstone for this project and a legacy piece for a larger community activity that really helps bring some more public art downtown. And as Jim Gray, Mayor Gray, called for public art that aligns with our current community values. So we're very excited to provide some context for that sculpture and I'm pleased to bring this forward today. And we will be able to, of course, adhere to the installation techniques that have been mentioned. And also I called the State Historic Preservation Office today. So I started the process of getting that approved and we'll make sure that's in place before we go to install. And I'll open it up to our board to have if we want to discuss or have any questions for the applicant. I just wanted to say that I appreciate the work that you all have done on this. I think it's a great piece and something that's much needed downtown. So, you know, I just wanted to say we appreciate that. Thank you. If there's nobody else, I move to approve case number 4-2021-201 West Short Street. Before we have a motion, I do notice that there are three attendees in the audience. It might be a good idea to ask if any of those folks were here to comment on this matter. If they are, they could raise their hand digitally at this time. I see one person has LexArts next to their name, but I'm guessing they may just be here listening. Okay, looks like none of our attendees are raising their hand, so I will mute myself and I'll open it back up to you also. Nicole, I think if you have something, you can go ahead. I just wanted to say that I was going to abstain on this matter since I've chaired a LexArts committee the last several years, so I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to weigh in. I was just going to ask about the color of the lighting. Are you following the design guidelines relative to selecting lighting? I think it's supposed to follow natural day lighting conditions, like the color temperature. We can definitely take that into consideration. We are looking at an LED light, so we can definitely uh you're saying go more towards a natural warm light as opposed to a sterile white light well i think there's like um i think there's some language about that in the design guidelines about selecting um i don't know that would be super warm i guess if it's led you may have some control is it going to have like a range of colors i think that we were not going with a full color spectrum, but more of a general lighting fixture that would have a fixed hue. So I'll look at those guidelines and make sure that we're selecting the proper warmth of the color. Okay. any other questions if not I think Sam okay I'll make the motion again then um um I move to approve case number 4-2021-201 West Short Street. And is there a second motion? Yeah. All in favor is aye and raise your hand. Aye. Aye. All right. Motion carries. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it. And we'll move on to the second item, case number three, 2021-111-113, Cheapside. And they are requesting to construct a detached glass floor addition to the front of the building to serve as floating balcony type entrance space alterations to the building include making two windows into doors on the second level of exact appearance scale and detailing as the existing windows. And I'll ask Autumn to read the design review officer report into the record. Right, and I will share my screen again. All right, so this is a request to construct a detached glass floored addition to the front of the building to serve as a floating balcony type entertaining space at 111 and 113 Cheatside. So again, here's an aerial view. This property is located on Cheatside at Tandy Park adjacent to the pavilion. Go ahead and go on to the next slide here. This building was constructed around 1890 and is known as the Fayette Safety Vault and Trust Co. building. It is noted as outstanding in the historic preservation downtown Lexington building inventory, as you can see here. And it is also listed on the National Register individually and as a part of the downtown commercial National Register District. and that is what this photo is from. It was submitted as part of that application back in 1980. I'll read you a quote from that downtown commercial district national register nomination that discusses this building. It says that the Fayette Safety Vault and Trust building listed on the National Register at 111 Cheapside is one of the most interesting, impressive, and intact late high Victorian buildings in Lexington. The architect H. L. Rowe combined Victorian Gothic with new Grecian motifs creating a lavish yet tough overall facade utilizing an amazing variety of stone textures and decorative elements. It is crowned with a rare surviving tall gable set against a polychrome slate roof with prickly iron cresting along the ridge. So this property has been before this board several times. This is the third application and it originally came before the CADRB in 2015. This is the location of the bar that is known as Centro at the pavilion area. And in 2015, an authorization permit was approved to remove a glass door, windows, and transom from the facade and replace them with metal-clad folding glass doors with a transom above and to install a new wood metal awning located between the existing stone columns. So this is the drawings that were submitted and approved at that time that reflect what Centro looks like now. now. And here are a couple of photos that I just snapped today so you can see what the structure looks like today. In 2016, the applicant came back to the CADRB. They didn't actually go before the full board at that time, but they did discuss it with the design review officer at that time. They submitted a concept for the addition of a balcony on the second floor, but they did postpone that after discussing it with the design officer. The staff had recommended that the applicant seek an option that would not disrupt the facade and would respect the historic qualities of the building. There were substantial concerns about adding a balcony to the historic facade and the damage that that would do to that structure. Then in 2017, they returned again and they actually did go to the board this time. In this proposal, they wanted to remove the middle portion of the second story windows, so this area here, and they wanted to replace those fully operable folding doors as you can see in this rendering here they sort of were going to propose a railing situation where folks could look out onto the pavilion but not a whole balcony. Staff in the courthouse area designer B board were still not supportive of this proposal. They still had major concerns about that enlarging the openings and losing those historic windows and openings and the damage to the stonework that would occur from from that process. So instead at that time they did approve an authorization permit to replace the existing double hung windows with casement windows to utilize those existing window openings. I do not believe that that was done. And then finally we have the application that is before us today. So this is the rendering of the current proposal. They are proposing to create what they're calling a visually connected addition to the building. This would expand the opportunity... Sorry. This would expand the operation of Centro to the second floor and create an elevated outdoor space. They've indicated that this structure is not a true balcony. It will be structurally freestanding, but it will have to be connected to the building facade and changes would have to be made to the historic windows. They are proposing to remove two of the existing windows and to replace those with doors to access the structure. And below each of those doors a portion of the stone facade would have to be removed to allow for the connection between the balcony structure and the building. They've indicated that they would plan to retain the windows and the stone in storage should there ever be a desire to return the building to its original facade. And then it's also important to note that this structure and really any extension of this building from the front wall plane would be located within the right-of-way. This is not actually on their property. This is in the LFUCG right-of-way. And so they would have to secure an encroachment agreement from LFUCG. And I don't have any information about the feasibility of that. I don't have any comments from engineering who handles those encroachment agreements, but that is something for us to keep in mind. Again, these are the drawings that were submitted showing the original floor plan, showing the revised floor plan with the structure here, here in a rendering showing the structure. And again, some additional drawings here showing what the proposed glass-floored detached balcony structure would look like. So historic preservation staff, again, helps us in our review of these applications. They indicated that the proposed addition would adversely affect the historic building for the following reasons. it would dominate the historic structure, dominate the front elevation of the structure, negatively impacting the building site and setting and disrupt the view of the historic structure and the streetscape along Chiefside. They said that the proposal to add this balcony structure and system would also affect the historic structure by removal of the two historic windows located in the east facade at the second floor level to create doorways that would be required for access to the second floor. That would have a substantial adverse effect on the historically intact elevation and result in lost historic fabric of the original windows and stonework. They also were concerned that there would be additional adverse changes because the windows would potentially have to be widened in order to accommodate the necessary door width by code for accessing that balcony structure. For those reasons and because the proposal does not meet the design principles or design guidelines of the courthouse area design guidelines. Staff is recommending disapproval. It is not in compliance with the basic principles. Principle number four, if a building is historic structure, then respect its earlier character. And it's also not in compliance with the following guidelines. So 2.1 says to maintain the alignment of buildings at the sidewalk edge. 2.13 says building entrances should appear similar to those used historically. 3.1 says that we should preserve character defining features that are intact. 3.4 says for a commercial storefront building, a rehabilitation project should preserve the following characteristics. Upper story windows, windows located above the street level. These usually have vertical orientation and appear to be less transparent than the large expanse of glass in the storefront below. Design guideline 3.26 says in addition, should be compatible in scale, materials and character with the main building. 3.27 says in addition should not damage or obscure historically or architecturally important features. 3.6 says to design an alteration to be compatible with the historic character of the property. 3.7 says to avoid alterations that damage historic features. 3.13 says to preserve historic upper story windows. And 3.21 says historic building materials and craftsmanship add textural qualities as well as visual continuity and character to the streetscape and should be preserved. So again, for these reasons, staff is recommending a disapproval of this authorization permit to construct a glass floored addition to the front of the building to serve as a floating balcony type entertaining space and alterations to the building, including making two windows into doors on the second level of exact appearance scale and detailing as the existing windows. And I will go ahead and stop my screen share. If you'll have any questions or would like to see of those drawings again though I'll be happy to pull them back up. At this time I will ask the applicant to present any materials that they may have. Yes good afternoon this is Darren Taylor. I am not able to start my video for some reason I'm not sure I attempted to do so but it would not let me do that so I don't know if that's something Let's let's invite there. Yeah, it says it cannot fail to start the video camera. So I'm not sure what's going on there. So I apologize for that. Yeah, I've got your invitation. I accepted it. It said failed to start the camera. So I'm not sure what what's going on. But we can continue without seeing you if that is OK with you. That's fine with me. Yeah, no, that's okay. I just wanted to make sure if I could be seen, I could be. First off, I appreciate you all having me here today. I appreciate you all considering our proposal for the project. Autumn, thank you for your presentation, and I hope that the documents that we submitted were clear as to what the proposal is and hopefully relays the intent. I thought I would just give a kind of very, very brief overview of how we came to this presentation proposal that we're making, just so you can understand both the impetus and the thought process behind what the owner is looking to do. You know, when obviously they've come before this body before to propose a similar sort of addition engagement to the front of this building. and so when they approached us with this um you know the discussion was had is obviously how to do uh something that has a minimal impact not only on the micro scale of the building but on the macro scale of the really the courthouse uh courtyard there in tandy park um in engaging with that in a different way and so you know the desire for the owner to do this is to not only enhance their their building and their business and and give people uh another place to to exist there and engage with that building but to also uh sort of experience the city and the urban environment in a different way uh in an elevated way um i think that the tandy park uh that urban condition that's there is is a really good one for lexington and a more unique one where we don't just have your traditional building sidewalk street uh well obviously the the courtyard and the in the in the open area out there for the for the park and the um pavilion are a unique urban condition for us and that's that's a positive thing so i think they were looking for a way to engage people coming to lexington patrons of the of the of the uh establishment to be able to to not only see that that courtyard differently but to see the building differently and so that's really the impetus for for the big picture kind of macro uh piece of that um and then you know on the micro is obviously we didn't want to um inhibit the building as minimal as possible obviously and and i think you know the last two proposals were very much about um things being you know either attached to the building or vastly altering that second floor uh which i think is is the desire is to really have this the from from the from the second floor up and third floor be as intact as possible so our desire was to as much we could pull this element off um create some transparency with the glass floor um and and minimally engage the patrons with the with the lengthening of the windows on the second floor um we don't need to widen them but lengthening them obviously would remove the bit of stone below it and then the window the doors would be custom made come back and match the styles and rails of those windows to really get that sort of feel of the facade as it is existing so um really the impetus here was minimal intrusion physically um visually obviously this is a bigger element than say an awning per se or even the previous proposal of of the the sort of balcony that was that was cantilevered off the building um you know obviously this is a much stouter element, but it was felt that this would be an engagement from the extension of the building, the extension of the business, out into the park and out into the plaza. So that's, again, kind of just a brief overview of not only why they're seeking this, but our kind of design process and thoughts as we approached it. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. At this point, I think we can ask our board for discussion and then following that if there are any public comments. So I'll start with with our board. or any questions we may have. I think, I mean, I can start. I don't necessarily have a question, but I just have some comments on the proposal and the review. I think that I appreciate the innovative approach to rethinking space in downtown Lexington. I think if this were a situation where the building was adjacent to a surface parking lot, I could see how it would create a much more quality of life and public realm. You know, but I think my hesitation and issue with this is, you know, Tandy and the pavilion area are a designed piece of public space and pushing out into it and claiming some of that territory in a public right of way. I, you're not only kind of taking over, but you're also pushing that building facade frontage there as well. So again, I think if it's on the side of a building next to a parking lot, I could see this situation occurring. But for me, the actual location, that's where I kind of have some issues with it. Any other comments or questions from the board? yeah um i i agree with you aaron i think um you know autumn summed it up really well in terms of um just kind of the ways in which this doesn't uh align with the courthouse area um you know what the goals and intentions were um particularly with the you know maintaining um the aspects of the facades and how people engage at the ground level, and then also, you know, how they interact and view the upper stories of buildings. And of course, I just, you know, have concerns too about really touching much more of that historic facade, especially the removal of windows wholesale. you know, I'm not opposed to change, but that seems like a major shift from what that facade would look like when we've already sort of shifted from that at the ground level. I would just add to the comments of Aaron and Samantha that I am wondering, like I was wondering like how what the reaction would be if if this was just like a covered um sidewalk level you know kind of entry versus having occupiable space above the sidewalk i feel like once you introduce um floor area into the public right away then it really does change the character of um of that space and that public space and um you know uh i guess i wonder you know from the applicant if they had considered um like is it you know is the priority always to have occupiable space on the second floor over the sidewalk you know um which i i mean we're commenting our comments are limited to, you know, how it's affecting the courthouse area, but I'm just wondering how, um, you know, just how that's gonna, um, affect, you know, the overall space and set precedence, you know, for future applicants in a, you know, undesirable way. would you like a response to that Ms. Lechner is that well you could share a little bit more of the thinking on that sure no I'm happy to I think that's actually a really good point and I think our point of view when we were approaching this was it was actually being elevated above the street at that level being outside as well and engaging with that really actually what I would call probably the nicest urban view in Lexington, you get a mix of all different architectural styles in that view that are out towards Tandy Park, towards 21C, towards City Center, and you engage with all these different architectural elements that for us weren't actually apparent really at the street level or at pedestrian level, that being elevated up kind of gave you that sort of view out, and so I think that was the design impetus, that was like where the kind of thesis of it was going and just to be able to elevate people. And I think part of it also was driven a little bit by the owner's concern for just some safety elements with patrons being down at street level. There's issues sometimes with folks coming by and either panhandling or engaging with people who are relaxing or enjoying the patio in a different way. So there was a little bit of that as well. But really for us, it was about that elevation and about being able to use the second floor and the third floor of the building. You know, since its inception, this building has been some level of office space up there. And it's really a spectacular space. And I think on its own is very concise and very tight. But to have the ability for people to be inside and be outside at that level up above gave another opportunity from a business standpoint for the owner to use the building more completely. And I think that was a little bit part of it. So it had a couple different pieces, but I think its spirit at its inception was the design idea to elevate above the street. To answer your question, hopefully that did. Thank you. Mr. Taylor, I have a sort of a practicality question, too. um i you know uh considering that um the majority of the of the courthouse area design review board are are women um uh you know i'm just sort of wondering how would one use a glass floored um a glass a glass floored uh terrace like that um you know how how does this not become a piece of performance art? Sure. That's a great question. Totally great question. So when we came up with the idea and the owner had the idea for the floor, he said, well, what if we did a glass floor? Well, I've seen and done a lot of places. I've never done one, but let me do some research. So I got in touch with a gentleman who owns a company in New York state that does these systems. And so we spoke with him at length. We actually, the proposal that we gave to you is just very broadly designed and engineered toward his specifications for the space that we have. So when you're looking in plan and you're seeing those divisions, that's actually the width of the panels that there would be. And he was actually very thorough in my conversation. But the other thing about it is the glazing that comes is actually, I'll call it a frosted glass for a lack of a better term, but anything beyond about six inches above it, you can't see. I mean, you can't even see a shadow. If someone's foot is on the floor, it looks like a shadow. So it's very much a very opaque material but the light is able to filter through so it's it's a it's a completely frosted system um and and that's kind of the design that was the big question that most people have had as well have seen this this is well how do you use that function well it's a it's a frosted glass and it's a structural system actually it's got a steel uh substructure and then the glass itself is structural um and so it's i learned a lot doing that because like i said i I haven't ever done one before, but he was very educational. So I hope that answered your question there. That did. Unfortunately, it swings me even further into one column, just because I think that that then means that the closer you get to the building, the less that you're able to appreciate it, then you can't look up at the facade and really view it unless you are a patron and able to be on that second floor. And I think that that's the problem. I can understand that view. And I think this is sort of part and parcel to your question you're posing, but one of the things that we attempted to do with the materiality of what you're seeing was to respond to the materials that are sort of present in the door assembly that was changed back in 2015, to just understand that that is more of contemporary infusion into the building as far as materials and appearance go and we were attempting to kind of follow that line or that lead a little bit to not try to compete with the building so that the the steel superstructure and you know matches in appearance and aesthetics with that whole glass facade on the first floor to kind of respond to that but then doesn't compete necessarily with with the building itself as far as the stonework goes and kind of the ornamental elements that are there. So that's just kind of a little bit of why we went to that area of design, materials, and aesthetics. I was going to ask another question. I was a little unclear about what's happening with the fire escape, because on the render of images, it disappears. and I wondered if that was if that's considered part of the historic you know that's a separate issue I guess but like were you planning on just removing that completely or yes is the direct answer the my client the owner of the building has said that in the previous iteration when he had spoken to and I wasn't in on these conversations so I'm not 100% sure who's the person who was saying this was that that element was able to be removed and and that's from an aesthetic standpoint that would be something i think we would want to also you know have a discussion about but that from an aesthetic standpoint is one piece but from also a safety standpoint is another um one of the proposals that would be made for this and we've been discussing this is actually adding an exterior stair to the back in an alley of this if you look at the building it's l-shaped in plan and there's a there's a common alley in the back to be able to put a stair out down into that space to get people out as another means of egress um so i think there's a lot of obviously um things that need to be considered with this proposal as we move should we be able to move forward should we continue to detail and consider this is is obviously um as as as autumn mentioned uh there's the the easement the right-of-way discussion that's big piece of this that would need to be obviously handled but also you know thinking about egress and trying to solve that so there's definitely some challenges beyond this that we have to get to but obviously we wanted to come and be here first before we really got to those elements to understand uh you know what our challenges were in this proposal I guess I'm not sure if there's anybody in the audience that from the public that want to comment. I can't see that on my end. It looks like there is one attendee present. If you are interested in speaking on this matter, please raise your hand digitally. If not, we can just move on. I'm not seeing a hand raise. It looks like Representative Mr. Frazier is raising his hand. I believe he's the attorney for the applicant. Oh, you're not. You can unmute yourself and speak. Thank you. I didn't realize I could do that. I've done a lot of these Zooms with the city, and I didn't realize I had the capacity to speak. I had the capacity to do that. I am not here as an attorney. I am an attorney, James Frazier. I'm the managing member of the McBrayer Law Firm. I'm here. I am also chair of the downtown Lexington Management District, the DLMD. And I'm sure most of you are aware that the DLMD is charged with the mission of helping to maintain, revitalize, and whatever is necessary for the core of our downtown. This particular property lies within our management district. It's a very gerrymandered geographical scope, giving you a visual from the Civic Center to Midland, from High Street, wraps around the old Gratz Park Hotel and back. So it's kind of a hodgepodge, but it basically takes into the downtown core area. So our mission, if you will, for the DLMD has been to invigorate, economically support, develop, and provide a clean and safe and hopefully aesthetically appealing environment for patrons, for customers, people who work and live and play in downtown. pound. This particular location has come to perform our board previously for grants. We have two sources of grants in our funding budget. One is the recovery grant from the COVID, which we are still helping folks reopen, reestablish their business relationships, hopefully with their customers and not to go out of business. And the second one has been the property improvement grants. And for that, and within this core and within this plaza area, we have issued matching grants to a number of institutions to provide facade enhancements, such as the doors that you all referred to earlier in your discussion. We have done awnings. And we, of course, do lots of lighting. Most of you have probably seen. And quite frankly, we were the initial funders of your first item on the agenda, Unlearn Fear and Hate. That was our pet project, quite frankly. So our job is to try to bring enhancements to the downtown core. I'm not an architect. I'm not an engineer. I'm simply here to support the downtown businesses. and in light of what has been going on in our downtown for the past couple of years, a great deal of our budget goes to enhanced safety. We've hired many off-duty police officers, sheriff deputies, primarily for that area, that plaza down there. And so we see any opportunity to get folks necessarily off the street and be able to enjoy the plaza benefits while being above some of the issues that have arisen in the last two years as a positive from our perspective. Again, we are economically development oriented. We are safety and clean oriented. And I think we've done a nice job on those facts. I don't weigh in on the historical adaptive reuse aspects of what you all do here. I'm simply trying to import to you that from our standpoint, the DLMD, all businesses are important. All vitalization recovery is important. And the more we can have folks downtown, the better, the safer it's going to be, quite frankly, and the more economically viable for all of the respective businesses. So that's the perspective of which I come. And I kind of wonder if you thought I might be in a legal capacity, but I'm not here today. So for what that is worth, I wanted you to give you my thoughts as chair of the DLMD. Thank you, Mr. Frazier. Thank you. Would anyone like to comment or respond on our board? I just had a few thoughts. Basically, you know, with the historic modifications and changes not being in line with the guidelines, as well as, you know, some of the easement questions. And I think there's a way to modify that facade in terms of being able to use those upper, at least the second floor, maybe the third floor in a better way. But it seems to me that that structure really competes with everything that's going on there. It just seems really overpowering in terms of the historic, the buildings, Tandy Park, all you can kind of see. So I'm not sure what that looks like, but it seems like there might be a better way to kind of mix new with old and still allow for a better use of that historic building. yeah i would um the only uh other comment i would say in response um maybe to some of mr fraser's things um and i appreciate all the support that you give to businesses downtown I would be cautious to suggest that moving people to a second floor off of the first floor would actually, I think, would contribute more to an unsafe pedestrian plaza. You know, adding people to that plaza space, public tenants, visitors is only going to help activate that space and keep it safe from a urban design principle. But just a comment. If there's no other questions or comments, I would open it up to our board for a motion for approval or disapproval. Or I think we can also postpone. That's another option as well, I believe. I'll make a motion again. I move to disapprove case number 3-2021, 111-113, Cheapside, for the reasons stated by staff in their staff report. I'm going to second the motion. All in favor of the motion? I can raise your hand or speak. Yep. Okay. The motion is passed. I will ask Autumn to report on staff approval items since the last meeting. If there are any. There are none. Okay. All right, then I think with that, I believe we just need a motion to adjourn. Oh, wait, Sam, do you have something? No, I was going to say I moved to adjourn. Okay. I second the motion. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.