Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So I will call the meeting to order for the Courthouse Area Design Review Board, May 20, 2026. Attendance, all of our members are here and present today. There are no previous meeting minutes to approve. So we'll move on to the next item of the agenda, which is applications for authorization permits. And we have a 249 West Short Street case number 2026-001. And I believe we start off with the staff report. As you noted, 249 West Short Street. The purpose of the work is, to quote the applicant, to allow for an open-air feel to the bar while giving customers a more open view to the historic courthouse in downtown. The background for this property, the property is historically known as the Northern Bank Building. and later as the new union building and was listed on the National Register as a contributing structure to the downtown commercial National Register District. The 2009 Historic Preservation Downtown Lexington Inventory designate this building as contributing. Building with this designation are those that contribute to the block and the downtown, which contribute to the context and development themes. Quoting from the inventory concerning 249 West Short Street, two late 19th century buildings at West Short and Market, market, historically known as the Northern Bank, and their Art Deco, smaller commercial building neighbor to the north facing market are representative of their historic eras. Located across the street from or in close proximity to Lexington's Fifth Courthouse, these commercial buildings are highly indicative of the type of development occurring in the downtown between 1880 and 1950. So this is a photograph from the survey, and this is the current conditions. The building was constructed circa 1889-1990 and was remodeled circa 1962. It was designed by architect H.L. Rowe with the 1962 renovation being designed by architect in Warfield Gratz. The proposal for the current application is for modifications of the building's short street facade. The two openings on the first floor are to be enlarged vertically by lowering the window opening to the interior finished floor. So we're talking about these two windows. So this bottom sill detail would be taken out and the window opening would be cut down to the finished floor level, which is about roughly that seat level. If the applicant proposes to install pairs of Colby bifold doors in each of the newly created larger openings, the guidelines discourage the removal of historic fabric and character-defining features of a historic structure when modifications are made to a historic structure. the windows in question are located within flat stone panels that were installed when in warfield grats remodeled the structure in 1962. the window openings that are proposed for changes are original to the 1962 renovation the openings have rectangular stone trim around the openings that match the stone panels staff have noted three things that the board should be aware of that may make the proposal difficult to accomplish while trying to have a building permit issued. The issues are mainly based on the fact that the interior finished floor is at higher elevation than the street sidewalk. The staff recommends denial for the requested change to the facade based on the following. The application does not comply with the following guidelines of the Courthouse Area Review Board. A.3.4, for commercial storefront and a rehabilitation project should preserve these character-defining elements. B.3.7, avoid alterations that damage historic features. C.3.8, preserve the historic character of a storefront when it is intact. And D.3.11, maintain a historically significant storefront opening. And that's the conclusion of the staff report. Does the board have any questions for staff? I do. Camden Skidmore, do we know what the building looked like before the 1962 renovations? Not that I could find. Okay, I didn't know if the windows might have originally gone down there. do you have a rendering of what it would look like with their proposed windows we do not well uh my architect had put it had artificial intelligence to do it and i can try to find that I think that would be really helpful. Lisa Grobert, how do you intend to mitigate that elevation change between inside and outside? That would be for the applicant. Do you want to ask Barry any further questions? You can come back up. If you're ready for the applicant, he can step up. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, so I'm glad this picture is up. Let's keep this up. So if you look to the left where Dudley's is, that's Dudley's Restaurant with the red awnings. And clearly the building itself was built with these stone columns that separate each window opening and doorway opening, which is kind of cool. And so I originally thought we were going to ask Historic Preservation to go ahead and take out all of that cement around the windows so that we match Dudley's, if you can imagine that. Barry told me that that would almost certainly require more of him to oppose that because you're taking out more of the building opening. And then the more that we thought about it, I actually thought keeping the cement on the outsides of the windows would be more beneficial from historic preservation. Because then we got to keep the trim around the windows, which is historic. But then to your question on the floor, because like Dudley's, if you notice, this hill sort of goes up a little bit. So they're much closer to the ground level. And so their doors actually open up. It's one step out, and then you're under their outdoor seating. In our case, it would be two steps. and I didn't like the fact that it would go from step to step to step. You're already out here and you've lost a lot of your outdoor seating space. So we determined to put a Juliet-type balcony on the outside. This was just recently decided upon, so I'm not sure if this was part of our application. Any alteration like that to the exterior would have to come to this board. So we have not received that and obviously not reviewed it. So it's still up in the air. I would like first for you to decide if this would be beneficial to the building and to our business. I think the ideal scenario is that we take out the bottom trim piece, which is a stone below the window. It's a sill of the window. And use that historic to break it in half more or less and put it on the side. so it goes all the way down to floor level, and then we put a new sill in that matches the fabric of that. And then, ideally, we put a balcony or a railing, so to speak, so that it's not in and out access. It's literally, they open up these bifold doors, it's open to the public, open air, but there's no traffic going through it because we want to have tables right there and have that balcony up on top of it. Now, the alternative would be, and for what you could probably approve today if you were, is to put those two steps out, and then we would just have less outdoor seating. So it's either or. The bottom line is we would like to have the open air flow because if you notice, pretend you're standing right here looking at that doorway. That's Fifth Third Pavilion. You're standing right underneath the Fifth Third Pavilion where the stage goes for Thursday Night Live and for everything else that goes on there. So for us to be able to capture business and show, like, have a fun vibe coming out of there like Dudley's does, that is why our main objective with the application. And more so, it just would, I think, modernize the look of it. If you look at the difference between these two buildings, what is currently there and then what Dudley's looks like, the Dudley's is incredibly more inviting of an atmosphere, especially at night when you see the lights and everything like that. Do you propose having awnings with the new windows? Yes. We're going to keep the awnings. Those existing awnings? They would just stay. Is that okay? I'm just asking a question. Yeah, we would reface them, obviously. They wouldn't say high-proof hideaway anymore, but we're going to reface those with the new fabric on there. Or potential, yeah. Button to turn on your mic to speak. And do you want further information about the project itself or why we think that would be beneficial to the project? Go ahead, Barry. Can I ask the board members to turn their mics on and speak in to them when they comment? It's all on that. Also, Madam Chair, if you include while we're at a technical moment, having nothing to do with architecture. But I think that we, as a program, need more drawn information that expressly puts your design forward to scale and things like how you're going to handle the steps, the step downs. All that information needs to come in through this office so that we would then be able to provide that to the board as a group, individually and as a group. Also, I believe there are a couple of historic photographs of this structure. And, well, you've got the one I'm thinking of. I will admit that I'm sort of, you're going to laugh, but I'm sort of the queen of historic photographs. And so it is no fault of Barry's. He didn't find this. But the image popped in my head while sitting hearing the presentation, and I thought, oh, wait, there is one. So this building, the Northern Bank building, is one of the finest of the late 19th century commercial buildings built in our downtown town square. And you will see that in seeing the historic image. The thing that distracts from what a fine building it is is partly that it's lost its conical roof corner architectural anchor. And, you know, one of these days somebody may come along who would like to put that back since we've got documentation for it and so forth as a community. So that's going a little bit sideways specific to this proposal. but I do think having that context information would be of some assistance to you, and most wanting to express how we really need detailed information as staff and you all as a board, in my humble opinion, to further weigh this matter. But that's, of course, up to you all. Yeah, and forgive me for not having the elevations of the photos. I honestly did not know that that was on the agenda until last Friday, so I was not able to get anything put together for you. I apologize. I do have a question. I was curious if the current windows today, I don't believe they do, but I was just wondering if the current windows today open. They do not, and I would like Historic Preservation to probably confirm this, but there's no way that that window is more than 30 years old. It's not a historic window per se. it's standard aluminum um i doubt it dates to the 62 time period and i'm speaking just of the actual window not the opening right and i'm not sure when obviously that atm was put in passed and so it's it's not i i don't feel horrible asking for for this variance so to speak because a i don't think that the this is my opinion of course the exterior on the outside and then what we would be cutting underneath the window is not historic beautiful stonework it looks like flat cement that almost was added after the fact and i might be wrong about that but it seems like it's It's kind of an ugly cement-looking color if you zoom in on it. So I don't think we're taking out something beautiful. I think what we're actually doing is making the historic building look more beautiful. That's just my opinion. And those windows are, frankly, gross. So it would be that or just replacing that window and not gaining any benefit from a business standpoint. They're just really just paying money to replace a window, and that's it. When we could actually really improve the way that the bar functions and the invitingness of it. because this is going to be, after all, the first central downtown distillery and tourism experience in Lexington. I mean, I think we're trying to make it a spectacle, so to speak, like really make it a draw and try to invite people in, if that makes sense. Where is the entrance? Is it on the corner into your business? It is. If you could flip to the other image, it showed it from the corner. Is this a flicker? Okay. And then what is that cross street? I'm sorry, I'm not remembering what the cross street, like market. So that's market. Okay. So do you have any intention to do anything to the market side of the building? No. No. We're going to maintain that same corner entrance. We will, there's like a silly little window at the end on the far right that's currently like a food window because that's where the kitchen is. And so I don't know what we would do with that. Otherwise, it probably would just remain. It's almost like a drive through, like a walk up window for people at late night food. So, no, I don't think we're going to change anything over there. Why did you have something in mind? No, I'm not going to make any recommendations for your alterations. But I Betty mentioned the kind of the corner and the marking of that corner. And if you are only making modifications to the Main Street side, it does not acknowledge anything of the kind of symmetry of that corner. Okay. So, let's just. I can respect that, yeah. The issue is our plan and the way that the bar was set up is that when you walk in these doors on the right, there's a bunch of, there's boots that are lined up on all the seatings on the right side, what's up right against those windows. So if we were to try to open that up as well, it would really mess up the seating. We wouldn't be able to have all those booths, and the way it's currently set up, we would have to do a lot more construction, if that makes sense. You're just modifying the exterior of the building in a, seems to me, in an incomplete way. If you were to make these sort of drastic changes to only one facade of this building that is intended to be kind of a cornerstone. Okay. I see what you're saying. Okay. It's kind of like a balancing of the original design, which was, yeah, that it's kind of symmetrical. I mean, not completely, obviously. But I do have a question about the existing windows. Did you consider making those operable as an alternative to the more drastic approach? we could. It does not give the same feel from a consumer standpoint, I don't believe. I kind of had a similar thought that you had, and I'm just curious, I think back to the comment about having more details of what we're looking at and understanding how much space that you're gaining by extending that panel down, understanding how the operations of those new accordion doors work, if you have a balcony railing there. So I feel like it goes back to, could you still have a functioning open window, but keep the size of the current window there and still get what we're trying to get to? Because I don't disagree having open windows in a business, especially in that corridor that is active, is a very enticing thing. But can we find a way to meet in the middle and not change the opening size? I would hope you would consider otherwise, or maybe even come for a site visit to go in there and try to experience what it would feel like one way or the other as the consumer. Because I think you would find, and maybe if the historic preservation of the building is the only thing we're considering, then yes, I understand. I understand where you're coming from. That would be the solution. So I'm not arguing with that. But what I am saying is it would completely, it would write off the chance for us to have those steps out front. and if we ever did want to actually make it a passageway and make it the way that Dudley's is, then we couldn't do that, or we would have to repurchase because we would have already purchased these windows, if that makes sense. It kind of handcuffs us on what we can or can't do moving forward. But mainly, I just don't think it creates the same vibe, frankly. While it's symmetrical to our building, it's less symmetrical to Dudley's. If you look at that, I mean, it is all, after all, somewhat the same building. And personally, I think taking those down, which is, and this is seen so much more readily than from that Market Street view. I mean, people are, the amount of traffic on short and from the pavilion compared to the way people look at this building on Market Street, which is, if you go over to Market Street right now, there's a ton of trash cans sitting out there on the, It's not like this spectacle of historic preservation out there. No offense to Lexington, but there's a whole dumpster section sitting there. So for me to try to kind of hinder my business, the plans of the business to try to make that side look good, or I'm sorry, to not make this side look good would be kind of a shame, I think. Well, there may not be that condition there forever. Those are temporary trash locations. So we do have to think about the future of that lot could someday be a building and that road could potentially change. But can we all agree that you have to take into account that this was all part of one big building as well. And so I think it does increase symmetry on this side from this view, personally. I think also if you had an intended use where that was circulation and you weren't going to apply a barrier back to it, then I may be more interested in potentially approving this endeavor. But if you're just going to put a barrier back in that same spot and you can't use it as circulation, then I would prefer to maintain the historic barrier that we have, the context of the building. So that was essentially our intention when we came up with the plan and when we submitted our application. And if it's my choice to make that a circulation where people can egress entrance there and put the steps in. Right. But then that's where it comes back to we need more details because knowing codes and that even one step requires a rail, We're going to have more obstructions on that facade than what we're seeing as just some bifold doors. So I would need more information. Understood. So, okay. So I need to get back with you an elevation of it, steps, and then, okay. I understand. I want you to also understand that we're trying to open this thing in July. And I've been waiting for this meeting and was hoping very much to be able to instruct my demo crew to do what they needed to do so we could measure for this opening so that we could actually put a new unit in. And waiting on that is going to delay us. But I understand you've got to do your jobs. Is it not, I guess, give me a little bit more context on, because I do kind of love the idea of it not being a opening from the more we thought about it. Let's just say, for instance, we did have the doors and we did have the railing, and I could provide detail of what we would like to do. Then, in my opinion, it seems like, I don't know, I guess I could show that. When would the next meeting be if I could show that? Because that is our optimal, from a business plan standpoint, the best solution that we can come up with that would allow for what we're hoping the consumer can get out of the project, which is that real open feel, not what a window would provide. I don't know if you've ever been to a bar. The difference between when a bar opens up a garage door or bifold doors or if they just open a window. There's a major difference in my opinion. I mean, I just can't even think. I've never been to a bar where they had windows open, and it was like it created a really cool vibe. But when the doors are open, it's just different. You know what I mean? Our next meeting isn't going to be until September. Understood. So what would you do if you were me? I mean, do we have the opportunity? I don't know. I'm new to or pretty new to this board to, like, go out of cycle and, like, email between each other. You would need to have something that's publicly available to citizens and so forth. It would have to have legal notice. So you can't really communicate from each of your locations and discussion back and forth because it has to be available to the public for the public participation. So what you could do, and this is the first of the courthouse overlay meetings that have been under the wing of our office, the Historic Preservation Office. And I've not known if in the past you all have scheduled a meeting in interrooms that are not limited to the four quarters, four meetings a year. Have you ever had one that's two months later, six weeks later than an existing meeting date? It's never needed to come up, so it's never been a certain way. We've done Zoom up until this time, recorded Zoom. Yeah, after you all gravitated to Zoom like the whole world had to, and then you stayed with Zoom. But with now being back to sort of business can happen as the norm, getting live and in person so the public can attend the meetings. And sometimes you'll have things on your agenda that people will want to sit in the room as interested to make comment, that kind of thing. I found there's a mechanism that he advertises it as a special meeting. Right. And then do it Zoom. Well, they can do it by Zoom if it's a special meeting. we'd have to find a way to accommodate public comment. And our television staff knows of ways to make it such that there's a station that the public could come to and be on the dais of able to speak. Legal notice takes, it has to have two weeks legal notice. So I'd say the soonest you could consider if you wanted to have an interim meeting would be in about six to seven weeks. and that is also just, it's terrible that we can have the same thoughts at that moment. We also would need, before we can advertise it for the special meeting, to have your drawings in hand. We can't advertise it anticipating getting them in the future. So how long do you think you would need to get your architectural renderings together? I could probably have something by next week. So maybe in, say, 10 days. No, probably by Monday or Tuesday, sure, a week. But first of all, it's the board's decision whether you want to have a called meeting to focus on a project, and that's for you all to discuss and determine. And I will make a plea on that. and forgive me for not bringing like this this wasn't perfect i did not this was when i was told when i handed in my application i was told we don't know when the next meeting is going to be and that's the last i heard and then all of a sudden on friday my the prior owner of the owner of the building who we have a ground lease with sent me the letter he got in the mail and so um this is my plea so is in in i've done other historic buildings in in lexington uh with Bourbon House on the corner of Maxwell and Broadway, and we went through the same process, and I worked well with the staff, and their recommendation was not ultimately approved by the Board of Adjustment, but I also maintained as much as I possibly could of the historic character of that building, I think better than most developers were planning to do, and I know that's somewhat irrelevant, but it also proves to the track record that something that was not recommended by staff ended up helping us, that was actually allowed by the BOA, allowed us to go ahead and get started on that project more quickly, and I was able to open the business. And I think that it's an icon of downtown Lexington, and nobody would know a difference about what was changed. It looks beautiful. And I think that's going to be the same case with this. Is it perfect? Did I show up with the proper preparations? Absolutely not. And I apologize for that, truly. I should have had those renderings. I didn't know it was required, and I really should have been more prepared. I admit that. That being said, with us having contractors there trying to get this thing open by July, it would be pretty devastating if the project didn't open until September or October because we were trying to get the right doorways in there. And I think while it is not perfect and while this board has the right to say no, I would hope that you would trust that we are going to, that the modification that I'm making to this building by lowering that sill, which is essentially that. We're lowering those sills by, I think it's like two feet, something like that, maybe two and a half feet, and then putting a nice sill in. It's not going to look a whole heck of a lot different than it currently does, and it's going to match this Dudley side. And we're going to be very mindful and respectful of just making sure that it obviously is going to meet code. It obviously is going to look better than having – I mean, it can't look worse than having an ATM there. whoever allowed that, I'm not saying that, but we've got to also know that we're trying to start a business here and trying to get the first distillery in Lexington open. And the way this is sounding, that might not happen on time because I didn't have my drawings in. And I understand, I'm not belittling the fact that what your concerns are are adequate, and that's for the board to decide is do we want to force me to try to, I don't know, do windows instead of doors. That would be pretty tragic to the project, in my opinion. Well, I think that it would help. I mean, I think that it definitely makes the short street side would look more uniform. I mean, I see what you guys are saying about it not matching from that side, but also we call those temporary dumpsters out there, but they've been there for almost two years. I don't know. I would be interested in entertaining it. My thought is, why don't we just try to have a special meeting that's a little bit sooner if everybody else is on board with that rather than waiting until October or whatever it was. But I really think it's important to have some really good architectural rendering so everyone can see exactly what it's going to look like. I would also suggest taking a look at that older historic image from prior to the 1962 renovation, because it's slightly different than this. And so I don't know if your architect ever looked at that. I would pull that up. I thought that was useful. We'll, of course, be glad to provide that to you if you don't have it. Yeah. Do we need to make a motion about having an interim meeting? Yes, please. And staff has a couple of questions for the board before you consider a motion, please. Okay. Whenever you're ready. Sure. I do have one more comment just to the applicant, though. I believe we can look at your and review your proposed drawings, but I would just warn you that we would not be able to give you authority for any right-of-way improvements, right? So if there was a step in the right-of-way, that's outside of our purview. So we wouldn't be the ultimate authority in approving that entire... Right, that would be building code for sure. From the way I understand it, we are asking specifically, may we open these windows up? lower the sill so that we can put in our doors, order the doors, and then meet building code from there. Well, what will happen, as you're well aware, our office does all the local historic districts, of which there are 16 and several thousand buildings. And so all of the permits, whether it's the Courthouse Overlay Board or the Board of Architectural Review, Board of Adjustment, all of them. All their permits are contingent upon other divisions, reviews of other pieces that fit into your plan and everything, being approved and also that what they reflect will meet the criteria that this board has discussed. So it's a marriage of a lot of things. So I would suggest certainly, and I think you've done this before, to when you do get the drawings done and provide, if indeed the courthouse board is going to consider a special meeting, while that's getting legal notice and so forth, I would strongly encourage you to then be doing your visit to building inspection and planning and so forth about anything that's from the wall of the building out toward the sidewalk. If you're going to want to look at steps as an option and so on. I was on staff for the Dudleys changeouts, and that was a very complicated thing about those two steps and the width of the handicap ramp to meet the ADA requirements and the minimum four-foot sidewalk clearance that is legally necessary, as you're well aware, on all these public sidewalks. So it's kind of like stacking together an Oreo. With all respect, that's why we've come to the conclusion that putting a railing that meets building code on the exterior of the window. And not step out. Correct. I think that, in my opinion, that is by far the best solution from the sidewalk standpoint and from a security standpoint of us in the building. I mean, think about it at 10 o'clock at night when you're allowing people into the bar and it's a beautiful night. We only want one entrance because then we have one person checking IDs and one exit for monitoring theft and et cetera. So it's pretty important that we probably don't do the stairs the more we thought about that. But just I beg the board to put themselves in a business person's shoes. I know I probably should have planned further ahead with this, but I did submit my application several months ago. And this project's set to open in August. And if unless unless I don't think my drawings are going to really. I mean, we'll put the drawings together if necessary. I don't think it's going to make a huge difference. Literally, it's lowering that sill two and a half feet and then envisioning a historic railing that would be out there. And I'm not trying to belittle the project. I understand your job is to keep the historic preservation of Lexington, but it's also, you know, you have to understand, as a Lexington being somewhat pro-business, let's see how, if there's any way to bend the rules. you know not even bend the rules just other people other exceptions have been made constantly from boa and a lot of times it has to do with they've taken a new account that the the business person needs to get their business open i don't know we were talking about the symmetrical value of the building uh if you thought about if it would work if you lowered those other two windows just not make them accordion doors and you know if if that's what it would take to then yeah we'll order new windows and cut those down and it would all match and they'll still be covered up by boots so from that but it would no one would know from the outside because they're pretty tinted windows anyway you can't if you'd walk by there you'd see you can't really see in from that side very well and we'd be willing to do that on the in the urgency of of what we want to do now would be a perfect time to go ahead and cut those out and and get those windows ordered because I'm not opposed to that. If that's what it would take to make sure that this building maintains its historic preservation. And we can get our business open at the same time. Can I do something about this? Are you ready for staff questions? Your drawings are not, they're going to have to be very precise. like construction drawings, but not in the most literal sense be construction drawings. But the permit you receive from this process is something that when you start construction, an inspector can go by and hold those plans and know that you are everything right in order about the construction as you would know. So things like this ATM, are you going to leave that ATM sitting there? We can negotiate if you guys want that thing out of there. I need to get the business open. So if you guys don't like that thing being there and you want something else, I'm... Well, what the process has to look at as a board and as its mission is what would be, within their design guidelines, appropriate alterations to enhance this building, protect it, and enhance this building. It is very difficult to have a successful design outcome when you have a pending problem sitting right beside it. And so you either need to know that you're going to have that ATM there for the foreseeable future, which legally is your right to do. But you don't really make a change like this without looking toward the future a bit. You don't want to get finished in five years from now while you hopefully will still own the building. The ATM people say, you know, we're not going to run that. Is it an operable ATM? It was as recently as the last building owner, and he's given me the keys to it so we could get it going again. Well, I'm just saying you don't want to do good design around an element that negates a positive. It harms the outcome. So it needs to be taken into consideration, is what I'm saying. If the Historic Preservation Society of Lexington, did I say the name right? Sorry. Would like me to take that out, I'd be happy to if I can get my window. It's your choice as the property owner and this board's decision as the review body. Exactly. And no, we're not a historical society. We're an arm of the urban county government. Got it, sir. The other thing is I think you need to have your drawings reflect the dimensions and the appearance of the building without those blue awnings, because they fool the eye about the scale of the real height of that vicinity, and they may not stay there. They may come down in two years, and you would have, look how Dudleys are considerably shorter. You could have this large segment, which you currently have under those awnings, a large segment of the smooth surface, but you can't design good design not knowing what's hiding behind an awning. Right. So your drawings have got to really… Well, frankly, sorry to interrupt. Frankly, the awnings have been drilled into that stone to the point where I would not want to take them out because it's just going to look ugly. Whoever installed those did not do a great historic job there. So I'm going to keep them, but I hear what you're saying. Yeah. I'm just saying that you want to have what you build be successful now, and when the awnings fall off in a tornado, hopefully not. I think that's how they lost the turret on the corner was a tornado. Seriously. But you're kind of, by letting some situations not be fully measured up and known, you're designing kind of an avoid. And if anything changes about the makeup of the presence of the awnings, the presence of the ATM, you're going to have an outcome that you're going to stand back and go, why didn't this work right? So I'm just asking that your drawings accommodate from the door frame of that central door next to its studs, from the edge of that to the corner entrance, and from the sidewalk to the horizontal band just above the awnings, and that you just draw existing condition and then draw the second drawing to be what you're proposing. Okay. And do that with close detail. and we'll provide you any assistance we can toward things and certainly historic photographs such as was seen today and we'll see if we can find any others. There won't be maybe one or two more at best. And the legal notice is not able to be any kind of fluctuation in that time period. It has to be out and in the public two weeks before the meeting whatever date you all set and go in the herald leader accordingly as well. But really I think staff would suggest the board if you're wanting to have this special meeting, it's certainly your decision and we as staff can make that come to be with the things I've already referenced about legal notice and so forth and so on predicated upon the receipt of your complete information, and we cannot put it out for legal notice without having that in hand. I understand. So if I may, I think we can all agree that if we do, yes, it would be ideal to have more drawings and a little bit more thought on this. Am I agreeing that that's the best path forward? Probably not, because I think it can be imagined in this case. It's not a huge change. I think we can all also agree that I think whoever decided that opening up the windows on the other side would provide symmetry is a smart idea. If I'm willing to do that, then it is a good compromising analogy or solution to the thing. I think we can all also agree that the ATM should probably be gone to make the building just look better in general. I'm willing to do that. if I can and then it is your right to say we can put this off and make me put more drawings in and have public comment I don't think there's going to be a single person that's going to show up to make a public comment against this I'd be absolutely shocked and I've been to a lot of meetings that did have a lot of public comment against them this is not going to be one of those and so it almost seems like a delay for no reason when no offense I understand more information would be good but it's also you know analysis paralysis to a point. So I'm definitely, I'm hoping. Yeah, go ahead. The reason that we're asking for these documents is because there's no record of what we're approving. So we could either, I think we could probably vote today and make a decision, or you could give us the additional information that we've requested. Okay. And we can have a follow-up meeting. Those are our two options, right? I think so. I believe so. Yes. Yeah, I mean, I would just say that, you know, typically the expectation from a review board is based off of, you know, traditional architectural representation, drawings, renders, and all of that. And right now it's just kind of vague. I mean, the other thing that we haven't really discussed is that it could be that you submit it and it still doesn't get approved. and that's you know right because that's the way the review boards work you know so i understand so i mean i'm just trying to be so my my hope would be what's the most expedited way that we can do this i will have the drawings to you as soon as possible the and i'll show railings that we would put outside to the balcony type of window railing. There would be no step. And then what would be the most rapid way, no offense, but how could we move as quickly as possible to make sure that they have the information needed so that they can make a decision so that it doesn't delay us. And to meet the state required and local required laws. Of course. I understand. That's why I'm asking you. Yeah. Well, right, we're getting to that. We're talking about the setting of a meeting date, but it's a little premature. Hold on a second. Also, the information needed in those drawings, if you do decide that you're going to request to remove the ATM, and it's totally your choice if you want to leave it, that's your business, but you would need to include in your drawings, if it's taken out, what you're going to do in that vicinity, that void. Well, that's just going to take some time in design and that's going to end up delaying us. So if you're asking me, I hate to say, I would probably rather just leave it because then I don't have to make a hard architectural decision and figure out what I'm going to do with that. That is my right as a property owner. It is an existing thing. I shouldn't have to be forced to decide what I want to do with that. No, you're not forced to. And it is your choice. But if you do request to make a change there, then the process is going to have to have the what are you going to do after the pullout. So you can decide on that. You can probably, it's already a painted surface. I assume it's a metal, probably anodized paint job on it or something. you might be able to, within the process, then review paint on an already painted surface. But there could be a way to lessen its impact, but let it stay there if you chose to. Okay. I hope that you give me some time to figure out, because that's a pretty important component of what we want to do. That's why we're – design always suffers from partial approaches, and it's always about money because, of course, you want to do everything, but there's – it's all money, money, money. But you usually benefit fully from having a plan for the big picture of this elevation, and then maybe you implement it in two or three stages. You know, you get the whatever's going to be worked out about the windows with this board, and then maybe in a year or two, you'll decide you want to take out the ATM and whatever about that. But you don't want to just pretend it's not an issue in your initial startup. I understand. Well, so I'm being, I guess I understand that you would like me to come up with a solution for the ATM. Well, I'm just saying it's your choice. I know. Yeah, I know. Yeah, so that's what I'm saying. If it's my choice, just out of being a – trying my very best to be a respectful business person in Lexington, trying not to – I'm not going to put an eyesore there. I'm going to obviously have a plan down the road. I just don't have time and bandwidth right at this moment. So if you want – and it sounds like you want to choose to retain the ATM, and you can certainly do so. But if you want to make a change relative to the ATM, it will be coming before this board. Yeah, yeah. No, I understand. Before you can do it. Thank you, Ms. Curry. And I understand. And believe me, this is not me trying to dodge the question. I was ready to pull that ATM out there for you because I know everybody in this room can agree it would be prettier without it. And I'm ready to say I'll do it in the very most respectable way possible for the building, the same way I'll do those windows on the side that don't need to be done, just to make it happen. I understand maybe you cannot do that today. But what I'm asking for is as quickly as we can to allow me to have a decision on these doors. I'm going to just ask the board a question in regards to kind of requesting this and having another meeting to review these plans. Is everybody on board with considering this decision? Or if we're not, then there's no point in having, I guess, another meeting. I just want to make sure we're all open to that considering that design solution. That's a good question. I'm open to considering it, but not everybody is. I'm open to consider it. Same here. I would consider it if there has been thoughtful preparation of the documents, right? Understood. I just have one other comment about the bifold doors. I mean, your intention is to create more view, right? Correct. But really, the frame of these things, you're going to end up with maybe 12-inch, 15-inch panels of slivers of glass, when to me, you have right now at eye level a pretty significantly open area to view out. So that's why we can't make an adequate interpretation of what you're proposing unless it's actually in the context of the building, right? I understand. Yes. But I don't know that you are necessarily gaining more view by taking this to the floor. That's a fair calculation. I can calculate the amount of glass shown. It's a fair point. Because you have to consider the frame, too, right? It's not a frameless system. Believe me, I understand. It's probably similar when they're closed. It's undeniably bigger when it's open. And I guess that's the reasoning. But, yeah, I know what you're saying. And it's also we have a couple systems that we were looking at which units could go into this. And I've fought with my contractor on this, actually, because he wants to put a slider in there, like the big pane of the glass, which would give you more view. Personally, I think that looks less historic or less in line with what a historic window would look like. And what Dudley's has, I think, is a little bit better look than that. And then taking it a step further, this is, I mean, our brand is a British bourbon. It's bottled in England, and it's got a British tie to it, and we're trying to have this real historic-looking old doors that look like painted doors that you would see in London, if that makes sense. I would love to see that in a drawing that we can absorb. I understand. Also, you know, the Dudley's openings are going all the way to the rough stone. But you're proposing to keep a portion of... It's the same... Well... It's not. Okay. So are you proposing to keep the jam condition similar and you're not widening that opening? No. So that also... So I was told that that was a bad idea from a historic preservation standpoint. There's just no way for me to know currently if that's what you're proposing or not. And I'm just asking questions. because you continue to compare it to Dudley's, but it's not the same condition. Right. Okay. Any more questions for the applicant at this time? Hearing none, I think we can move on to making a motion about scheduling an interim meeting. Do we have to put a date to that? I don't know that we can put a date to that meeting. It would need to be date specific for legal purposes and for your motion. So you would need to agree to a date. We would have to be sure that are we still thinking about a Zoom type meeting or are we thinking about here in the chamber? It's going to have to have the availability of GTV3. Right. I think we should come back in person. Come back in person? Sounds like the board believes in person would be best. It's up to the board. What is the date? I think we're trying to. Yeah, it depends on what the date is. You can commit to. So this would all be contingent on you providing your drawings by next week. And then we're looking at two weeks from that. Is that what we're saying? No. Legal notice. We have to review the plans and then get the legal notice out. You send it in the mail to people within 200 feet, and you put it in the Herald-Eater. So I'd say you have to allow three weeks minimum to do that. The first week to make it happen, the last two of it to be the legal window time. So three weeks, so a month, I'd say five weeks that you should look at the fifth week from where we are now. And that's about two weeks shorter than normal. And we're a pretty overrun program, so we're glad to do what we can here. But it'll be a push. Betty, are you suggesting the 17th, potentially, of June? which would be before the Board of Architecture review meeting, similar to the setup we have now. I think that's a good possibility if that would work for the board and for the applicant. And I realize it's tight. I can have you drawings by Friday if necessary. I'm going to try my very best. Well, you just need to do the best you can on the drawings, and you're obviously aware that the sooner is good. But don't give up for speed getting the level of info necessary. How was the 17th for a scheduling date? June 17th, right? June 17th? Yes, at 2 o'clock. Would that be possible? We have, just for you all's background today, we have our Board of Architecture review following this meeting, partly for efficiencies with coverage with television. And so I think the rhythm of being, we'd still bring those same efficiencies for this special meeting to be in a similar situation of calendar. And Haley, is that possible for you with television? She's saying that that's possible, June 17 at 2 here in the chamber. May I ask, just so I get these drawings correctly, is the board's preference that I open the Market Street openings to the same level as the Short Street? If that gives me the best chance of approval, even though it's going to cost quite a bit of money to do that, I mean, we're talking tens of thousands of dollars to do that. if that's a mandatory must, I guess I'll do it. I'm not putting you on the spot. I'm just asking so I can give myself the best chance of approval for June 17th. And I noted on what to do with the ATM, and believe me, it's something that I need to think about, but it's also somewhat something I would like to back burner because I'm not sure I have the bandwidth to make sure that we make that perfect at this time. And like you said, it is, I guess, my right to to do that, and I apologize, but I want to make sure that's an intentional, very smart decision that we make, not something that we rush, if that makes sense. I'm not sure that we can answer that. I don't know. I can't. Question? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, you've heard our kind of discussion and comments around it, so I guess I would take that into consideration. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Understood. Okay, I think we need, if everyone's 17th, June 17th looks good for everybody, we need a motion for that date. And Madam Chair, might I suggest you consider addressing in your motion that you would be continuing this application until that stated date and so forth? It would wrap it all up into one rather than having two separate. Yes, correct. Either way works, but it's good as one if you like it. Okay. So a motion to continue the discussion until June 17th at 2 p.m.? Second the motion. Okay. All in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. I think that was unanimous. I was looking down. Yes, it was unanimous. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. There are no other board items at this time. The next item on the agenda is our meetings for the remainder of the year. Obviously, we just scheduled the June 17th meeting, but staff recommends that the next two meetings for the 2026 calendar year be September 16th, 2026, and November 18th, 2026, 2 p.m. in the Council Chamber, second floor government center building on East Main. Do we have to vote on this? And you would do a motion for that as well. And so everybody, I'm sure you're all more familiar than I am with it in the sense of your process. But the intent is that you have established quarterly meetings each calendar year, obviously for a year. And since we're halfway through the year, it's obviously the two. But it's always with the caveat that if you don't have any applications in a cycle, that we will, in conjunction with the chair, get word out to everybody the meeting is canceled and handle letting the public know and so forth and so on. Does anybody have any issues with those dates, proposed dates? Motion to approve the next two meetings for this year. A second. Okay. All in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. And then at your November meeting, you'll receive a calendar proposal for the year of, gosh, 2027. Okay. Any further business? If not, the meeting's adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.