# Courthouse Area Design Review Board - June 17, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Board · June 17, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6802 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6802?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-06-17 - **Body**: Board - **Last revised**: June 19, 2026 - **Length**: 11,034 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 June 17, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. at 101 East Vine St., Lexington, KY 40507, with the Chair presiding over the session. The meeting's agenda consisted of one item — Applications for Authorization Permits — which was approved by the Board. Over the course of the meeting, one vote was taken, and no public comments were heard. ## Votes and Decisions One formal vote was taken during the June 17, 2026 Board meeting. - **Approval of Modifications to 249 West Short Street** [timestamp: 1:01:03]: The Board voted on a motion to approve modifications to the property at 249 West Short Street. The motion passed by voice vote, with one nay recorded and no abstentions. Because this was a voice vote rather than a roll call vote, individual member votes for and against are not identified in the record. The approval was granted with the following conditions: the phone booth is to be considered as art, and no changes are to be made to the Market Street side of the property. ## Contested Items **Modifications to 249 West Short Street** The board considered an application involving modifications to the property at 249 West Short Street, specifically the removal of windows and the installation of doors with a Juliet railing. The item was contested, as staff had reviewed the proposal and recommended denial prior to the board's deliberation. Despite the staff recommendation against approval, the board ultimately voted to approve the application, though with conditions attached. The split between staff's position and the board's final decision made this one of the more contentious items of the meeting, resulting in a divided outcome rather than a straightforward approval or denial. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available meeting data. No individual board members or applicants are identified by name in the available meeting data for this item. ## Applications for Authorization Permits [timestamp: 01:02] The Board took up Agenda Item IV, a discussion of applications for authorization permits. The item concerned a proposed modification to the property at **249 West Short Street**. The application involved the **removal of existing windows** and the **installation of doors with a Juliet railing**. Staff and the applicant were the key speakers during this portion of the meeting. - **Staff** presented the application to the Board, outlining the scope of the proposed modifications. - **The applicant** participated in the discussion regarding the planned changes to the property. Following the presentation and discussion, the Board **approved** the application for the authorization permit. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-1): Approval of modifications to 249 West Short Street --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. 001. So this is the historic photo that has been modified substantially to the current condition. The scope of work for this project is to remove two windows, which would be these two. once those are removed, doors would be placed along with a Juliet-type railing to meet code issues. So the historic property, known as the Northern Bank Building and later as the New Union Building, was listed on the National Register as a contributing structure to the downtown commercial National Register District. In 2009, Historic Preservation Downtown Lexington Inventory designates this building as contributing. Buildings with this designation are those that contribute to the block and or the downtown and which contribute to the context and development themes. quoting from that inventory concerning 249 West Short Street. Two late 19th century buildings at Short and Market, historically known as the Northern Bank, and their Art Deco smaller commercial building neighbor to the north facing Market, are each representative of their respective heiress. Located across the street from or in close proximity to Lexington's 5th Courthouse, These commercial buildings are highly indicative of the type of development occurring downtown between 1880 and 1950. The building was constructed circa 1889-1890 and was remodeled circa 1962. It was designed by prominent Lexington architect H.L. Rowe with a 1962 renovation designed by architect in Warfield Gratz. As the National Register nomination for the Downtown Historic District, the 2009 Historic Preservation Downtown Inventory lists the structure as contributing. with the changes to the original design having gained historic significance prior to either the National Register listing or the listing as contributing in the 2009 Historic Preservation Downtown Lexington Inventory. The proposal for the current application requires the removal of substantial historic fabric and modification of the building's historic short street facade. The two openings on the first floor are to be enlarged vertically by lowering the window opening to the level of the interior finished floor. The applicant proposes installing pairs of Colby bifold doors in each of the proposed enlarged openings. The guidelines discourage the removal of historic fabric and character-defining features of a historic structure when modifications are made to the historic structure. The structure being listed on the National Register of Historic Places, it is eligible for historic tax credits through the Kentucky Heritage Council, which could be used for historic renovation or repairs to the facade. The windows in question are located within flat stone panels that were installed when in Warfield Gratz, a prominent Lexington architect, remodeled the structure in 1962. The window openings that are proposed for changes are original to the 1962 renovation. The openings have a rectangular stone trim around the openings that match the stone panels. The guidelines for the courthouse area design review guidelines are based upon the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Preservation and Standards for Preservation. The following are the guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the treatment that are appropriate for use in reviewing the current proposal. These numbers are from the Secretary of the Interior Standards, so these are the correct. The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact repairable historic materials or alterations of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 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 a commercial storefront building, a rehabilitation project should preserve those character-defining elements. B, is 3.7, avoid alterations that damage historic features. C, guideline 3.8, preserve the historic character of the storefront when it is intact. and D3.11 maintain a historically significant storefront opening. The application does not comply with the following Secretary of the Interior Standards. And again, those are the three that I read earlier. So that's the end of the staff report. Let me go through a little bit here. Obviously, the applicant, as you have seen, has submitted additional documents for review. The floor plans are not really what we are looking at in this situation. The only change would be the two windows. the rest of the interior is at the applicant's will, how he wants to handle those. So this is the area that we're speaking about. And you can see the accordion doors. the metal Juliet railing, and then to the left of that one is the British telephone booth. And this, that right there. Does the board have any questions for staff? So I know when we were in here last time, we had talked about if we brought these Market Street down to ground level as well. Am I reading this right, that you've got that depicted on the drawings, on that bottom picture, or the bottom part of these? No, it's only the two openings that are in question for a change. Okay. I may have asked him to catch that up for you. Mr. Luffman, can you go to the microphone, please? At the board's request, you asked me to provide the options. So I believe I asked him to include that as something for you to have a visual for what you were requesting to see, if that makes sense. That's not necessarily what I'm proposing. I have some slides that I could show you on what I want to show you. If you're prepared for that. Is there any more specific questions for staff before we invite the applicant? All right. Thank you. I'm sorry, I could not hear that. Oh, I just asked if there were any more questions for staff before we ask the applicant to come up. I believe not, so applicant. Okay, thank you. And thank you to staff. I read the staff report and I understand why the denial is suggested as last time. I'm a little confused on preserving the whole historic fabric because if we're asking to expand further windows, that's disturbing further historical fabric. So it's a little bit confusing in my mind, but I understand the denial in general. Because if we're not going to do the windows, if it's just binary, are we just doing these front windows? Then I can understand the denial. But then asking for further disruption to the historic building to match is a little confusing. I'm going to go through and see what you think with these images. And so I just wanted to give you a little background on what we're doing. and I promise that part will be quick because I know you don't like the historical building and stuff is much more important to you. But this is downtown Lexington, obviously, and there are zero distillery experiences in this region. So there are some downtown distillery options. There's one out across the street from Carson's called Fresh Bourbon, and then there's a few out in the distillery district, none within this region. And I think there's two reasons why. You'll see that Louisville clearly has destroyed us on capturing the bourbon tourism market over the past decade. Lexington's trying with these outside of the downtown area, but there's not a feature for any bourbon fan in this downtown Lexington. So we were here in this very room working on a text amendment for micro distillery downtown, despite the fact that it's very difficult to do that in downtown Lexington. There's not a whole lot of space. These are historic buildings we're dealing with. It's a very heavy cost to make it happen. And on top of that, this is just a stock chart of Brown Forman Corporation, who is one of the more prominent producers of whiskey. And you can see that just as a depiction of what the market was over the past decade and what it has been over the last couple of years. It's been brutal. And I wanted to just highlight that in my hopes that you'll understand how financially strapped I am on this project. and it's been incredibly hard for me to just try to will this thing to happen truly. I've been fundraising publicly. I've hosted events. I came up short on my fundraise for the project and I'm still just grinding away despite the market telling me to stop, despite historic telling me that I shouldn't do it, and there's a whole lot of things that are trying to convince me not to do this project, but I'm still willing to push forward. and I'm asking just for you to understand what I'm going through. I figured I'd take a snapshot of my bank account, and this is what I'm working with on the project right now. This is not a large-scale development. I'm not Brown Foreman. I'm not being able to make choices based on cost right now. And so I just want you to understand that. Now, I know that shouldn't weigh into your decision, but that's why I was noticeably shook last time I was here because I was being asked to spend, And I've done a quote on what to expand the further windows, and it would be over $24,000 just to do the demolition and opening of those openings and to get a basic glass into those additional window spaces. And that's difficult. But I want to talk with the board, and let's look at this reasonably, hopefully. What I've asked for is to lower the sills of those two windows. Frankly, that's the extent of the structural issues that I'm asking for for the building. and we're cutting into cement that was put in within the last 60, 70 years, not historic. I'm not asking to break up these beautiful brick columns that go all the way up. I mean, I think if you looked at this building, probably the ugliest part of the building is what we're cutting into. It's been covered up by benches that homeless people have been sleeping on for the past several years. We got those benches removed, but it's not something that's like, in my opinion, historic fabric of the building. And then we're asking to install the guardrails just for code because we don't want to put in steps there. And we want to remove the ugly ATM. And I'll show you an image of what we want to produce with the English phone booth. So this is the current. We had those benches removed. And so I'm showing you this is just like some stained concrete. I mean, it is 60-something years old, but it's not nearly as pretty as the surrounding stonework that is. It's actually, I think, the ugliest part of that building. besides the ATM, which is uglier than that. This is the phone booth concept that we're hoping to put in. That's an image of the brand of who makes these doors. Now, ours would be more compact because there's only going to be four panels on the doors, and these are smaller openings. We're not asking to expand or widen the openings. And so this is essentially what we're asking the board to approve. I think this is a massive improvement from just the look of the building. I think if I showed both images to pick a demographic in Lexington, Kentucky, you pick which one has a better look for Lexington, Kentucky. I think it's a no-brainer that this is a massive improvement. While maintaining this is a no-brainer historic building, it's undeniable to me that this building is still an incredibly historic site in Lexington, Kentucky with these modifications. And then this is just an AI image. and obviously I'm going to come back here because I haven't asked for any sign changes or removing the awning on the front, which is a circular, strange awning, and I would like to put a light up. And I think that this is what we want the building to look like on brand, but classy, make it look like a British-style pub in Lexington. I'm going to come back here and approve, hopefully, these aesthetic changes when we get to it. And then I wanted to highlight one thing. This is an image that I showed without the AI. last time when I was here. And it was a mistake on my part, but it also really, I understand why the board asked me to keep those windows on the side to make them, to expand them as well for symmetry. I think it's a, but what I'm, what I realized from this, and I'll be honest, you guys threw me for a loop because I hadn't considered that. And I didn't even consider that this building was symmetrical. It isn't. And so when you see it, I've taken this picture from off center to make it look symmetrical. And I took it on purpose like that before I came in here because that's how the building looked the best, but it's not the way the building really looks. And I'm going to highlight you two pictures that show you how this building actually is not symmetrical at all. And so what we're actually trying to do is make it more symmetrical with the short street vision to match Dudley's to make it look a little bit more in line with what the average viewer would see from a vantage point where 90% of people would see this picture rather than from Market Street. This is just to depict that there's not much symmetry. The gap between the column and then the window is not consistent. And pick either measurement, whether it's stone to stone or stone to ATM. The window on the left is significantly wider. The awning on the left is wider. And that's just to highlight that symmetry. But take a look at this picture from Market Street from the different vantage point. It's not even close. Like this is the gaps and the width is quite a bit different. So lowering these sills is not going to make this building symmetrical, so to speak. So I just wanted to highlight that and understand like why I'm really I'm asking yet again for two things today. One is for you to somewhat acknowledge what historic preservation has asked for and say that deny this project. And if that's the case, then so be it. I will keep those windows. We're going to open our bar. we'll keep that ATM and we'll move on. I mean, that's okay. What I'd like to do, and what I think anyone in Lexington would want us to do, is to lower those, make those doors, make it prettier, maybe put a British-style phone booth in there just on brand and it's kind of cool, but that's up to you to decide if that's cool and that's worth being in Lexington instead of that ATM. And because this is what I'm going to end up having to leave it as if chosen to leave it. Obviously, I'll rebrand the awnings, of course. And so this is what I would like it to look like. And that's my ask of you today is to, A, understand that we're not really messing with the historical, in my opinion. Now, I know the Historical Preservation Board would disagree with me on that, and I understand that's their job. But I also hope you understand that we're going to take extra care and expense to make sure that we use limestone sills, We use high-quality doors. We use just things that look really good to make a building really shine. Thank you. Does anybody from the board have questions for the applicant at this time? I have a question. Ms. Kerr can probably answer it for me. On Dudley's, their windows go down lower than these windows do. Were they like that to begin with, or did Dudley's get approval from the Historical Board to put in those larger lower windows the way they are? And here's an image for you, Ken, to look at that. Yeah, I was thinking about before Dudley's was there, what the windows looked like previously. I have my self-knowledge of the answer to that. I was not involved in the downtown district process at that time. And so I'm sure we could research it and get you an answer, but I know you'd like one now. I think the outcome of them being able to be, because they can be walked out, correct? As they've been done. So they would not have, over time in the past, been likely at all to be walkoutable. So I believe that part of that, I remember the part being asked about the irregularity of the step and the handicap ramp situation and the tight confines to the sidewalk. But as far as what they did on the structures, front elevation of physically, I can't promise you. But I believe that in the process that would have authorized it would have been this board, your board, for the downtown courthouse overlay. And I'm so sorry I don't know the answer. But I think that it would not have innately, historically, unless it was a grocery store door that somebody would walk through to go access into the center of a space, rhythmically, these commercial buildings didn't have to-the-floor openings cut out. What are you looking at? This is 2006. Why don't you get that put up on the thing? Well, that's very interesting. We have the answer. You're going to see it on the photograph. No, I was going to say put it on the screen, Amelia. You can't. Thank you. 2006. Interesting. Trying to remember what was in that building before. Law offices maybe or something. And she'll bring that around so you can see it. Thank you. And obviously those are infills, those windows are infills to the historic structure that is the Dudleys building, now the Dudleys building. Can we see the original historic image on this? Amelia, would you bring that back to show the applicant? I don't have that. That was in the staff report? That was in various, yeah. The prior presentation. Oh, she has it too. Yeah, it's not really clear. I feel like it's not clear. I'm sorry, did you get to see that? It was briefly up there. It was shocking, actually. I'm not even sure how that turned into this. Let me, Amelia, when you can, we need that image shown to the applicant, the one you circulated to the board. If you look at this, these two things went away. Yeah. Right here's the entrance right there. Brought together. And you can see how the round arch tops just make all the difference in terms of the rhythm on the historic image. So what I'm looking at is based on this picture, the windows that are on either side of the door have already been replaced because they're smaller windows. In the 1962 renovation. Oh, okay. They've been there since the 60s. Okay. So, yeah. And they're not the 1960s that you're seeing windows, the squared ones. They are a result of that renovation. And with the documentation that's available through these images, they could be returned to something that's more of the original configuration. They're not sacrosanct, the ones, the 1960s rhythm that's present. But one of the things that is the goal when you do have documentation is not to introduce yet another style of outcome, because you're kind of just repeating what they did in the 60s, which is having at it and making a change. But I would say it's available to be corrected in some manner, and that's partly what you're weighing, is what manner in which to make that 1960s alteration have the availability of being changed out. I have a question for the applicant. On one of the floor plans that we were provided, A101, first floor, it shows the accordion door and then the railing. And my question is, is there enough space there to allow for that folding to happen in the way that the plan shows? It's a little misleading that there isn't enough space for those to fold up. Is it pushing out? Does that accordion push in? They will slide inward. So if this is the opening and I'm sitting inside at a table, there will be one table in the middle, and they can accordion out around that table, if that makes sense. So then the table would still be sitting there. You don't have to move it. I think each panel, I can't remember what the width of those windows is. I think it was, I want to say, 90 inches, I want to say. So each panel is roughly two feet, maybe. So they accordion into the space. Correct. Out. Correct. Absolutely. So the six-inch space that the railing has, we're not going to have any conflict with that accordion. No. No. It would be fabricated on the exterior of the building. Yeah. Okay. And the windows would remain on the interior. Ryan, did I understand that you don't want to make any changes to the windows on the Market Street side? Do you want to leave them as they are? Yes, I put that in a plan at the request of the board because we were all looking at that same image that misled us all, I think. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it misled me. And I was really, I actually, when I walked away from here, I was like, wow, maybe they're right. And I went back and looked at the building and immediately realized it wasn't symmetrical. But the whole way there, I was thinking, they're right. I didn't even think about that. So I put it in the plans for you to look at it, what it would look like, but that's not what I'm requesting. You're requesting to keep them as they are? I am. Please. So I do have a question. I guess I'm wondering why, like, looking at this image here, you wouldn't consider having the same strategy as Dudley's since this compositionally was all, you know, part of the same buildings, in which case this – Well, one was an addition, right, by the same owner, in the same style, and all of that. Of school, but they are not one structure. Yeah, so, I mean, I guess, yeah, like, if you look at the historic image, they all had that same sort of unifying sort of gable structure across the facade. And so with respect to that, did you consider making the storefront glazing to the edge of the columns? Yeah. Thank you. Because now it's, yeah, it's like it's yet another hybrid condition. And it's, I do think the symmetry, you know, a lot of times symmetry is like an illusion. It's not like an exact measurement. It's like a sort of rhythm. And, you know, this is one way of looking at the project. But when you look at the building that you're proposing this in, it's really symmetrical on the diagonal. Not literally, but optically, which is a separate case. I understand. So, yeah, I mean, so back to the original question is, like, did you consider not just, you know, I mean, having a strategy similar to Dudley's, not that I'm saying that that would be, you know, the best way to go, but. I would actually like to ask, if that's okay, ask Barry his opinion on that. Because if you recall, I asked Barry to first come visit the building, and I talked to him about both options, which was just lengthening the window or going column to column. He and I both, from the inside and outside, I don't want to put words in your mouth, Barry, but both determined that it would maintain the historic structure of the building better, but also work better for the building itself. Barry, what are your words on that? There's quite a bit of interior detail that would have to be modified, removed, in order to run it completely to the columns. There might – we were just standing there looking at it, obviously. We didn't do any grinds or get any dimensions. so there might be a way to do something with it, but it wasn't investigated. And I genuinely think that the building works better just from a functionality purpose if we don't do what you're suggesting, even though my initial thought was to try to make it match just like Dudley's because I like that look. I think it looks beautiful. I actually don't think the cement between the stone column and the window is all that beautiful, frankly. I think it would be better if it were gone. That being said, to your point on whether those doors opening, if you make them several feet wider, now the panels are bigger. Now it's harder to open them into the room and not be disruptive. Beyond that, when you look inside from the building, there's no question that you would be tearing out a bunch of interior stone and interior brick. And lastly, it's quite a bit more expensive to do that. So we figured the least disruptive thing to do to the building would be to lower that by a couple feet, cut straight down. That way we can maintain the same stone outline around the window, which I think has some historical significance. And that way we can maintain that rather than getting rid of it. Ryan, could you put the picture back up that has your proposal next to Dudley so we can see them side by side again? Would you flip back to my presentation? This is mine? Okay, sorry. Okay, you're right. I'm trying to figure out. You had the British awnings. Well, there. Well, yeah, that. But I thought you had a bigger image that showed Dudley's. You know, I don't think the British awnings won. Here we go. It didn't show Dudley's. It doesn't show Dudley's, no. And this is an AI rendering. There's a very good chance that those dimensions are off. You know what I mean? But it was just able to. I'm just trying to get in my head how much similarity they had with Dudley's. In my opinion, quite a bit more, but certainly not exactly. But on the Market Street side, though, that just shows up on this rendering, but you don't plan to do that. You don't plan to do the windows and awnings on the Market Street side. On Market Street? On the Market Street side of the building. Yeah, do you want me to show you the image from that side? Is that what you're asking? He's at this time not planning to do that. Right, yeah, you plan to leave it the way it is. Please. from a cost standpoint because I don't think it improves anything. Not to mention, the Market Street side, we're having booths installed. That's the whole side of the seating. So from looking in from the window, you're just going to see more of the booth, which is, in my opinion, just strange. Can I ask about the telephone booth and the functionality of it? Is it just a visual piece of art, or is there something that you do? So our brand is a transatlantic bourbon that we bottle here in America, and we barrel it. And then we, sorry, we barrel it here. It ages here for six years. We ship the whiskey over to England. It ages there for another year. We bottle it there. It's a very British-American brand. It's all founded on the story of, I don't know if you know the story, I'd never say die, but this horse was born in Lexington, and he ended up becoming an underdog champion over in England. Queen Elizabeth II seized this race, falls in love with Kentucky. A lot of people think that Never Say Die had a lot to do with why we're the horse racing capital of the world, but more so, the Beatles were founded on a bet that was made on that horse from Lexington, because the mother of the drummer of the Beatles made a bet on Never Say Die in the 1954 Epsom Derby with all of her money at 33 to 1 underdog. And so she founded the Casbah Coffee Club in downtown Liverpool and told the boys, her son's Pete Best, the original drummer of the Beatles, they were called the Quarrymen back then. And I promise I'm getting to the point. So she tells the boys, go paint the basement of this building I just bought downtown, which is kind of cool because this place has a basement. I don't know if you know that Bob Estes dug the basement down to 12 feet ceiling height in this. and we don't have the money to do anything with it yet, but that's in the plan someday. All this is to say we really want to lean into the whole British-American kind of vibe. We think that this, everyone who knows Never Say Die really loves the British-American ties, and so we think nothing better than a British phone booth to really be welcoming to them. Ideally, as you saw in the historic picture, that used to be a door, and there is an interior door in there. We haven't figured it out with code yet because I don't know if I can do this yet. I would like your approval today to see if we can make that a bespoke entrance for people who are actually doing our tours and going upstairs for the tour. If nothing else, it's something cool that people can go into, type on the phone, and maybe get a code that gets them something for the tour. I don't know. We're just going to try to come up with something kitschy for it that's memorable for our fans. Or it just sits there as a pretty thing, a talking point. if it's going to yes if it's going to be a door absolutely if yeah if not yes because i don't want anybody tipping it over those things cost like four thousand dollars and i want to make sure it's maybe not attach it to the building betty maybe like put bolts down into this we're going to make sure it just stays in place you know what i mean well the only reason i'm asking about that is that art is not, you know, it's freestanding art. It would not be reviewed as part of this building's construction project. If it becomes united and connected to the building, then it becomes part of the construction project. But I know you don't want whatever to walk away. No. I mean, a couple of walls holding it on not to be such that it turns into that it's become integrated into structure. Betty, is your mic, I think, check, make sure your mic is on. It's fine. No, it's gone off. Sorry. Oh, so now I can really yell at you. I'm sorry. So I'm saying that art, freestanding art, is not reviewed as part of a structure's renovation. But if it is integrated into the, as in physically built into the wall or into the niche, and that you can't pull it away, you would have to be able to remove it and have no evidence it's been in there to consider it freestanding. And otherwise, it's part of the building and under your purview. but if it's totally freestanding, it's not within the board's perfum. And we would, you can get these for cheap. They make them for $1,500. You can buy them on Wayfair, but I don't get the feeling that that's going to be as substantial. We were going to make sure we purchased one that was fabricated out of high-quality metal and that would actually withstand and actually be there for a long time. Ryan, is that something you actually want to do? or is it just sort of a placekeeper? No, sir, we absolutely want to do it. I will be very disappointed if I don't have a British red phone booth somewhere in front of this building. I put it in every rendering I use for my fundraising. I think it's just an iconic, eye-catching thing to do, and it's a heck of a lot prettier than an ATM, and that's what I was thinking. I actually never considered putting it there as an entrance for whatever reason until you asked me about the ATM last time, which I literally was laser-focused on trying to get this building construction going. I hadn't even thought about what to do with the ATM, and this seemed like a really good option. One thing to be aware of, and you already know it, is that if it's an ingress and egress doorway, it has to meet the fire code dimensions. And it may not. It looks rather narrow to meet the code, but you can't just sit here and judge that. Or maybe we have one fabricated and then made to meet code. That opening is big enough to meet the requirement. It's just whether we can fit the phone booth in there to do it. You'd probably run into some obstacles, you know, because if this would be the primary entrance for people on a tour, then that has to be treated as the primary egress route, even if there's another one. You're right. I think I might be dreaming. I'll be honest. It might be artwork. I think it is. Also, just one last thing. Staff would call attention to the landfall relative to the discussion of an idea of do the doors all the way down to the grade. Dudley's had the same problem. That's the part I did know about was about the elevation changes and the pitch and all, and it really complicates things to get into that. So having them open inward and not try to come to grade is a much cleaner outcome in terms of the challenges of trying to come all the way to grade. Agreed. Yeah, it was easier for Dudleys than it would be for us. Right. There's, from the pictures today, particularly, you can see it wouldn't have been as severe. Right. And you'll also get into the sidewalk permit problems and all that kind of thing. And that's that they couldn't be resolved, but I'm just saying it becomes more complicated. Right. Yes? Have you considered these just being operable windows in the existing historic opening? I think we talked about that last time. We did. And I'm not really sure what structure of window would be operable. Are you suggesting bifold? Yeah, you can put. Right. At this point, they're not going to act as doors, right, because there's no circulation. Correct. And you're just recreating that sill height with a rail when the existing material is at that height. Right. I understand. And yes. It would be less complicated. It would be cheaper. And you'd accomplish the same, potentially, if view is what you're interested in, and the open air aspect, like you're accomplishing that in that existing historic opening. I understand. And yes, that would be an easier, cheaper way to do this. I wouldn't have to pay for the railings. I wouldn't have to do any stone work. Why do I want to do it this way? Is because, I think I said this last time, if you're in a bar and they open up the doors and it's floor to ceiling doors and it's open, people are excited about that. There's something different about that compared to opening a window. And I don't know what that is. I can't put my finger on it. But it's undeniable. That's why bars spend tons of money downtown to put up these garage doors that go all the way up so that they feel like it's completely as open as possible. Also, honestly... May I ask, have you considered the climate here, too, that in general they're going to be closed for probably three seasons? Yeah, no, it's fair. Trust me. But our best months, I'd say 80% of the revenue that we make from this building will be between March and June, and then September through November. Those are the best weather months. Those are when everybody's here for bourbon tourism. I know this because I own three Airbnbs downtown, and our business in July, January, February is pretty poor. And there's just not a whole lot of people doing anything in Lexington. I don't think there's going to be many people in our bar. So we'll keep the doors closed those months. But I think I wanted to show you. And I understand you're trying to persuade us that the symmetry is about a different access than what we see the symmetry as. but I'm still of the opinion that that rhythm is about the corner. I understand. And I think that you could maintain that rhythm by maintaining those existing openings and using an operable window. If that's the choice, then I honestly, I hate to say this, but I don't think I would change the windows. I don't think it makes a big enough impact. I'm not saying that just to get what I want today. I promise you, I don't think it's worth buying bifold windows that come up to your waist. I've never seen those before. And in my opinion, I just don't think it's what the people want. I really don't. Like what our customers would want. I also think if the point is to keep this cement below, I can't be convinced that that's so pretty that I can't get rid of it. Like, maybe it is to someone else here, but if I'm looking at these two images, I think if you took a vote of people in Lexington, which one looks better, which is a more inviting structure, which is a better business, it's not even close that this is a better look for the customer, for the building. And frankly, I don't think that looks much different, if that makes sense. This is just not worth preserving, in my opinion. I hate to say it like that because I know that it is from the 60s and there was an architect that did it. But the architect didn't do nearly as cool of a job as the original architect back in the 1800s. I mean, the rest of this building is so much prettier than the part around these windows. It's not even close. And so, yes, I understand. But I think what I'm asking for is incredibly reasonable. I really do. I didn't come in here like some developer would who would ask for the moon just to get what they want as a compromise. I came in with what I thought would be a very respectable, reasonable request, not asking for the moon. That's why I was kind of actually genuinely surprised last time because I wasn't asking for much. But I did see your point on the symmetry because of the angle I took it on the building. And I get it's not – I'm not belittling the fact that I am making a change to that from that one vantage point. But I think that the success of the project will be significantly better if I do what I'm proposing. No doubt. And then who knows? Maybe the thing becomes an iconic distillery in downtown Lexington, the way that so many distilleries have, like Castle and Key and others that have been renovated. And who knows? Maybe we're just rolling in the money. We can restore more physical features. I agree that the original of that building with the peak on the center of the door was incredibly cool. There's historical features that would love to be restored. I just can't afford it. Maybe we can someday. Well, I appreciate you bringing in the new renderings and the new drawings. And I really think it looks great. Thanks. And I'm asking you to go outside of your comfort zone, believe me. I am asking for leniency on this because it says very clearly right here, staff approves denial. So I'm asking you to go against what the staff has proposed here. And so I know I'm asking a lot. I'm not belittling that either. Could you put the image back on the screen again that shows your property and Dudley's property side by side? Yes, sir. Well, your property with what you proposed to put in, not the existing. I don't think I have that image, Ken. You had it up there a minute ago. Maybe I did. No. Maybe it was in the root. I don't think it had Dudley's. I don't think I did that. I think it just had his awnings. Yeah. Anyway, what I was just trying to envision, I think what you're proposing matches up a lot better with Dudley's than what's there now. Thank you. I completely agree. I'll find that what's there now. There. There's no doubt it improves the look of Short Street. There's a lot of similarity with your proposed change. I didn't make one of these with that, but I can. Yeah. Might help put your drawing back up. Which of the changed one? This? Yeah, not the photo reference, but the actual line drawing. Oh, that's on Barry's report. Again, we'd switch back over. I guess one comment I would make just to the board as we think about our decision is I do think it does increase pedestrian interest, something that does come from the guidelines. This corner has had a lot of turnover and the current windows don't create as much pedestrian level interest as other buildings in that area for what that's worth. Is this which one? Well, I know if you go around the corner to Centro Bluegrass Tavern, those guys have, you know, I wasn't on this board when that was approved. But they have very similar ground floor doors or sealed floor doors on their windows. So I have a question about the elevation. I suppose that the placement of the windows is based off of field measurements. Is that true? Because I don't understand why they're not centered. inside of the vertical columns like we see on the photographs? Yeah, I don't know either. You get what you pay for. In this world, I asked an architect to put this in there for me, and I didn't pay for a whole lot of work on the field measurements. I thought he had that, of the actual. Because we used some prior plans that were of this building that we were given, And so I just assumed that he had accurate measurements. I'm sorry. But yeah, you're right. Being our architect, correct me if I'm wrong, or any of you, that he's taken the same unit and put it in both the windows. Oh, I see. And then he's just put the one on the right-hand window instead of centering it in the actual space, he set it to the right. But it's a twin to the one, and the reason the one on the left is the size it is, is to accommodate the infamous ATM. I do think the windows are the same size, though, Betty. We measured them the other day, didn't we? Yeah. Yeah, I think the windows are indeed the same size. This is just a mistake on the placement of that window, I think. Right, you're not moving the window, you're just pushing it down. Absolutely not. Yeah, I think you've been clear on just vertical. Straight down. And we'll use the existing sill, if possible, to mirror the stonework on the sides so that the perimeter of the window remains intact. And then we'll put the best possible match that we can for a foot sill just to put at the base. Are you seeing what we're talking about, about the width? I've noticed that. The ATM, of course, is the door opening for the old go upstairs. So we can not call it the ATM. We can just say the little door opening. And there's either something wrong with the drawing or the units are not the same size. But you could certainly, the applicant could correct that and it be looked at by staff depending on what action you, the board, want to take. What it looks like he did is just drop the windows on the right and with the same spacing as the one to the left, even though you have the additional ATM. That's what I'm saying. Right. Yeah. It's as if there's another ATM in his right-hand window. Okay, but anyway, my point is that the staff could work with the applicant to be sure that things are centered to be twins, or as close to it as is realistic. Going back a couple of years ago, and maybe I'm confused with some other applicant, but the bar on the corner of Cheapside and Short Street. Across the street from this? across the street from but right on the corner yeah with the corner entrance make approve modifying the windows over there a couple years ago that was raised and it never got furthered by the property owner and it just sort of didn't go anywhere never happened but now they've got doors that open now in In the window area? In the window area. I was thinking. They wanted it to go down further, but I think that there's an entrance down there where they take supplies. Right. It had complications. Right. Yeah. Barry and I both, I think, stood over there and talked with the applicant about that one. So it does ring a bell. Was it approved by our board? Mm-hmm. It just never done. No, it got. Well, it sounds like. It's not the way they originally wanted it to, but. Okay. It isn't what they asked for, but it was modified to what they've done. That project was originally going to have a balcony over that basement entrance that you're speaking of. And then they were going to put a stage on the interior. So that would have had to go to the board. The only thing that we actually went further with was just replacing a window in the opening, and the existing window was not historic at the time. And that was done at staff, not by your board. They didn't change the opening size or anything. Right. It was minimal enough of a change of, it didn't change anything physically of the surround and everything, that it was approved by staff. the window that you see today. But they gave up. Well, Barry just explained about the not following to create the stage and all that kind of thing. It changed. And I want you to understand I'm not dismissing the idea of just putting the windows in. I don't think it helps. But I want you to understand that I'm not trying to be hard-headed about this. If the board does vote to approve this, I don't want you to consider it a loss. I didn't comply with what you asked me to comply with. I hope you will consider it a win. That you've helped a developer keep the historic preservation of a building and also prove that we can be open-minded about letting a business try to maybe stretch a little bit of the boundaries just to make sure that they can be as effective as they can as a business. And then hopefully we get more distilleries downtown because I hope they do. Some would say that would be competition. I think we need more of this downtown. And I would be a huge advocate for your board saying they were helpful to me. And I didn't ask for too much. I made a reasonable request, and they said yes. And I think that that's a good signal to others who want to do something and take a risk like this. I have a question for the staff. Are there any regulations relative to the historic preservation with respect to selecting railing, the design of the railing, or the materials? Yes. I do need something smaller between me and you all. Certainly the railing is the design of the railing would be what you are approving if you approve this drawing. So the core design of it, if you don't agree with it, you would need to raise that and not have that. It could be built from these drawings as it is proposed, or if you feel it needs to have some other design attention, you could condition a vote that further details of the railings are to be worked out with staff, or that they be designed in a different fashion. But new material, new element being put on the openings is included in your purview for review in detail. It's a pretty basic railing, frankly. So there's nothing particularly problematic as proposed. Okay. Do you have any suggestions on the design of it? Because I'm genuinely indifferent on that. We want it to look as British as possible, but whatever that means. Yeah, I mean, that's if, I guess if you make any significant changes, you could always meet with the staff to review it. I think guidelines-wise that the intent that is the most successful is something that's clean-lined and doesn't try to copy something from the past and be more curlicues or intricate or anything like that, but serves its purpose as an element, and it just sort of doesn't create much distraction, and it integrates into the elevation quietly. I think that's a successful outcome to use for a philosophy to get there with this. The more detail you try to add to something like this, the more attention you call to it, and it's really not meant to be part of your focus of the building's elevation. Are there any further questions for the applicant or staff from the board? Nope. Okay. If there's no more discussion, I guess we need to ask for a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve. I think we should probably put it with some conditions. Defining the telephone booth as not part of the building would probably be needed to be included in that. And also that it doesn't include the other Market Street windows, just as clarification. Could I make a suggestion on that film booth? we miraculously can turn that into an entrance per code and make it a cool feature for the building, we would have to secure it in there. Whether or not we would be incredibly careful about how we would do that and I would work with the Historic Society on how to do it. I'm not sure. I think if you make a motion that it remains not part of the building, then that excludes that altogether if that makes sense. Maybe I'm wrong. The option of that. If it turns into a functional door, it'll have to go through this process. However, the door frame is to be constructed and the door what it is and the dimensions and all that kind of thing. So you can either have it as a piece of art and not include it in your permit because it's going to aside from maybe two bolts to hold it from walking away, it's going to be a piece of art just sitting there. Or you're going to have it not be sitting there and make the door be an element that references maybe a phone booth. And that gets you into all sorts of problems because you're introducing a look that an American building, it is not appropriate on an American building to pretend that it's a phone booth. It would probably open up a lot of more discussion. You're getting into Disneyland. So leave it as a piece of art is my recommendation. Could I try, well, here's my request, that I will maybe make some effort to see if it's something that we could convert into a door in the nature of people loving speakeasies and goofy things like this, and people love Disneyland too, but I'm not trying to say that. I think there's a 5% chance that I get that pulled off to where I can bring it back before this board and ask for that instead. dead, but I won't, it doesn't need to be part of this discussion. We can just table that as, label it as artwork now, it's fine with me, and I may come back for it, if we can miraculously turn that thing into something cool. A door. But I hear you, trust me. I think there's a very slim chance that I'm going to be able to make that a door. I've always known that. I think it's more interesting as a piece of art, anyway. Frankly. And your life would be much simpler. I understand. But there's not a single person that would come into a tour through a phone booth and not go home and tell their friends about it. So there's an element there. We'll see. But I'm with you. I agree. It's the hard road. And me being an entrepreneur, I always try to take the hard, crazy, shocking way to go do things. So I respect the restraint. We have to have a crash bar from the inside to get out if you want it to be a real door. Never mind. You're going in the direction that will get this, I think, so the board can take its action. Okay. So I'll amend my motion to approved, but with the phone booth being a piece of art and not making any changes to the Market Street side. Well, that part you don't need to include in your motion because it's not part of the application. Well, the drawings say it, so I just wanted to clarify. The elevation says it. Yeah. They didn't initially. We didn't advertise it or anything to do that. So anyway, it won't hurt anything to include that language if you'd like it to. And I think hearing what you just said is a good plan. Just go ahead and state it. Would it be helpful to make the motion saying pending revised drawings showing no changes to the Market Street side? I don't know. I'm just giving you ideas. We're fine. Just leave it in your motion, and we'll make a note, and it'll be in the minutes and all the things. and I think you're good. Is there any discussion about the motion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Those that are opposed? Yeah, I'm opposed. Motion carries. I appreciate it, and I promise you Lexington's going to appreciate it. I really mean that. Thank you. Okay, there's no other permits or board items at this time, so we can adjourn the meeting. All right. And if I... Thank you. Thank you. Because I've been working tonight Even now When there's someone else who cares When there's someone home who's waiting just for me Even now I think about you as I'm climbing up the stairs And I wonder what to do so she won't see And even now, when I know it wasn't right, and I found a better life than what we had, Even now I wake up crying in the middle of the night And I can't believe it still could hurt so bad Even now when I have come so far I wonder where you are I wonder why it's still so hard without you Even now, when I come shining through I swear I think of you And how I wish you knew Even now Even now, when I never hear your name And the world has changed so much since you've been gone Even now, I still remember And the feeling's still the same And this pain inside of me goes on and on Even now Even now When I've come so far I wonder where you are I wonder why it's still so hard without you Even now When I come shining through I swear I think of you And God I wish to do Somehow Even now Thank you. See the curtains hanging in the window In the evening over Friday night Little light is shining through the window Let me know everything's alright Summer breeze makes me feel fine Flowing through the jasmine in my mind Summer breeze makes me feel fine Flowing through the jasmine in my mind See the paper laying on the side wall A little music from the house next door So I walk on up to the doorstep Through the screen and across the floor Summer breeze makes me feel fine Flowing through the jasmine in my mind Summer breeze makes me feel fine Flowing through the jasmine in my mind Sweet days of summer The jasperns in room July is dressed up And playing her tune And I come home From a hard day's work And you're waiting there I'll kill in the world See the smell when you're in the kitchen Feel it cooking on the plates for two Feel the arms that reach out to hold me In the evening when the day is through Summer breeze Makes me feel fine Glowing through the jasmine at my mind Summer breeze Makes me feel fine Flowing through the jazz moon in my mind Where are those happy days? They seem so hard to find I tried to reach for you But you have closed your mind Whatever happened to our love I wish I understood It used to be so nice It used to be so good So when you're near me darling Can't you hear me S.O.S The love you gave me, nothing else can save me, S.O.S. When you're gone, how can I even try to go on? When you're gone, though I try, how can I carry on? You seem so far away Though you were standing near You made me feel alive But something that I feel I really tried to make it out I wish I understood What happened to our love It's just a basic look So when you're near me, darling, can't you hear me? S.O.S. The love you gave me, nothing else can save me. S.O.S. When you're gone, how can I even try to go on? When you're gone, though I try, how can I? S.O.S. When you're gone, how can I even try to go on? When you're gone, no I try, how can I carry on? When you're gone, how can I even try to go on? When you're gone, no I try, how can I carry on? I'm sorry. I'm leaving. I must be on my way. The time is drawing near My train is going I see it in your eyes The love beneath your tears But I'll be lonely without you And I'll need your love to see me through So please believe me My heart is in your hand And I'll be missing you Cause you know it's you, babe Whenever I get weary And I've had enough Feel like giving up You know it's you, babe Giving me the courage and the strength I need Please believe that it's true Babe, I love you Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh giving up You know it's you, babe Giving me the courage and the strength I need Please believe that it's true Babe, I love you Maybe I'm leaving, I'll say it once again And somehow try to smile I know the feeling we're trying to forget If only for a while Cause I'll be lonely without you And I'll need your love to see me through Please believe me My heart is in your hands Cause I'll be missing you Babe, I love you Babe, I love you Ooh, baby Oh, Elizabeth, I long to see your pretty face I long to touch your lips I long to feel your warm embrace Don't know if I could ever live my life without you Oh, listen, love I'm sure missing you I remember when we shared a life together It gave me strength and love The life that felt brand new But you're so far away I have to say I'm feeling blue Oh, Elizabeth, I'm sure missing you. Oh, Elizabeth, I long to see your pretty face. I long to touch your lips. I long to feel your warm and grace. Don't know if I could ever live my life without you Oh, it isn't that I'm sure missing you Well, it's been said before That I've caused many heartaches And I wonder if that part's really true Being right or wrong feels my heart will surely break Oh, Elizabeth, I hope you understand Oh, Elizabeth I long to see your pretty face I long to touch your hands I long to feel your warmness Don't know if I can ever live my life without you Oh, we live tonight, I'm sure missing you Don't know if I can ever live my life without you Oh, we live tonight, I'm sure missing you Oh, Elizabeth Sitting in the morning sun I'll be sitting when the evening comes Watching the ships roll in And then I'll watch them roll away again Yeah, I'm sitting on the dock of the bay Watching the tide roll away Ooh, I'm just sitting on the dock of the bay Wasting time I left my home in Georgia Headed for the Frisco Bay Cause I've had nothing to live for And look like nothing's gonna come my way So I'm just gonna sit on the dock of the bay Watching the tide roll away I'm sitting on a darker bed Wasting time Looks like nothing's gonna change Everything still remains the same I can't do what ten people tell me to do So I guess I'll remain the same Sitting here resting my bones And this loneliness won't leave me alone It's 2,000 miles I roam Just to make this dock my home Now I'm just gonna sit at the dock of a bay Watching the tide roll away Sitting on that dock of bay Wasting time Thank you. sunrise staring slowly across the sky said goodbye he was just a hired hand working on the dreams he planned to try The days go by. Every night when the sun goes down. Just another lonely boy in town. She's out running around. She wasn't just another woman. And I couldn't keep on coming on Been so long Oh, and it's a hollow feeling When it comes down to dealing in friends It never ends Take another shot of courage Wonder why the right words never come You just get numb It's another tequila sunrise This whole world still looks the same Another frame I'm sorry. I don't know why they don't explode You got your hands in my back pockets And Sam Cooke singing on the radio You say that I'm the boy Who can make it all come true Well, I'm telling you that I don't know If I know what to do You say it's alright Hold tight Well, I don't even know If I'm doing this right Well, all right Hold tight We could stay out all day We could run around all night Well, all night All night Well, it's time to go home And I ain't even done with the night Well, I don't know no good comings And I don't know no cool lines I feel the heat of your frustration I know it's burning you up deep down inside You say that I'm the boy Who can make it all come true Well, I'm telling you that I don't know If I know what to do Say it's all right, hold tight Well, I don't even know if I'm doing this right Well, all right, hold tight We could stay out a day We could run around all night Well, all night, all night Well, it's time to go home And I ain't even done with the night Ain't even done with the night Hold tight Well, I don't even know If I'm doing this right Well, all right, hold tight We could stay out of date Or we could run around all night