We have a total of 15 historic districts. The board, which is appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the Urban County Council, is a part of the Division of Historic Preservation. The Historic Preservation Office maintains a full-time staff to assist you with your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants use them as a resource. The historic preservation office is located at 101 East Vine Street, room 220. It is our procedure to consider applications in the order in which they are listed on our agenda. In each case, we'll have a presentation by the staff and we'll hear any additional comments from the applicant. The board will then ask questions or make comments regarding the application and then hear comments from any other interested parties. The chair will then ask the board members to enter a motion. If you wish to address the board, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the public record. We also ask that you write your name on the sign-in sheet by the door so that the information can be recorded correctly. I would like to note the following staff approvals before we begin our review applications. There are certain items that the staff can approve, eliminating the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 12 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 226-228 DeShay Road, renovate front porches. At 210 South Hanover Avenue, Ashland Park Historic District, replace dying pine tree. In the South Ashland's Central Avenue Historic District, at 237 South Ashland, remove hazardous hackberry tree. In the Ellsford Historic District at 415 East High Street, replace fencing. At 428 East Maxwell Street, refurbished windows. At 367 Transylvania Park, repair and replace fence. And at 450 Old Vine Street, remove dying Hackberry. In the Belcourt Historic District at 603 Boonesboro, remove storm damaged tree. In the Ellesmere Park Historic District at 607 Ellesmere Park, renovate site and structure. At 418 West 6th Street in the Northside Historic District, reissue the COA. In the seven parts historic district at 133 Shawnee Place, renovate site and structure. And finally, in the western suburbs historic district at 582 West Short Street, renovate outbuilding. We will turn to our first application at 131 Old Park Avenue. Scope of work is construct front yard fence. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. If you'll state your name for the record. Jim Nelson. Mr. Nelson, I believe the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what I call the standard two conditions. Have you looked those over? Just briefly. Okay, I'll read them into the record. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. and once reviewed by the other divisions, returning a change to the staff or board for review and approval prior to start a work. Are we in agreement with those? Yes, sir. Okay, any comments or questions from the board members? Any comments or questions from the audience? If not, then the chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for case number 32200131F at 131 Old Park Avenue. With the following conditions, one, if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmitted the changes to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work, and number two once reviewed by other LFUCG divisions return any changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work okay do I have a second any further discussion on yes ma'am and if you don't mind state state your name for the record please Rebecca mcculley and i'm just wondering does it need to be cast iron we were a little unclear on the recommendation as to whether there was a specification on the material uh who's very excuse me the application was for ornamental aluminum or wrought iron so it could be either one all right and of course it goes by saying either are within the guidelines okay now applicant are you going to do our raw line or have you decided yet we have not decided yet all right i assume your neighbors or we're we're married married oh right uh it can be either okay according to the specifications at cla and actually all you need to do on it is once you've selected a material is inform the staff and we'll need a cut sheet of your details of that specific material so there's still time for you to work those thoughts through and then just let us know okay okay thank you all right thank you very much the chair will call the question all those in favor of the motion say aye Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA is approved. Turning now to our next application at 132 East Belcourt. Scope of work is demolition of deck and construct covered porch over a new deck in rear yard. Applicant here. Hello, I'm Suzanne Irwin. Ms. Irwin. The board has recommended, or the staff has recommended approval of the application, but they do have some changes. Have you reviewed those changes? I have. Are you in agreement with them? Yes, I am. All right, if you're in agreement, then I'm just going to read them into the record. Yes. The first one is the porch roof not extend beyond the main mass of the structure. The second one is the metal roofing shall have rib space 16 to 18 inches with rib height no more than one and a half feet high. Inches. Inches. Inches, I was wondering about that. Sorry about that. And the metal proved to be fastened to the deck board attached directly to rafters with final details submitted to staff prior to issuance of COA and the remaining two conditions are what I call the standard conditions. Ms. Curry, did you have a concern or a question? Okay. Sometimes I can't read your mind quite right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? If not, then the Chair is ready for a motion. Ms. Hill? I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness for case number 01530132-F with the recommendations as read into the record and as noted by the staff. Do you want me to read those specifically? Just the substantive ones. I'm sorry? Number one and two. Read those into the record. Okay. Specifically, the porch roof not extend beyond the main mass of the structure. Number two, the metal roofing shall have rib space 16 to 18 inches with rib height no more than one and a half inches high. and the metal roof to be fastened to the deck board attached directly to the rafters with final details submitted to the staff prior to issuance of a COA, with the last two, three, and four being standard staff recommendations. Right, and already previously incorporated by reference. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, then the Chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. The motion carries and the certificate of appropriateness is approved. Thank you, Ms. Everett. Thank you very much. All right. I'm going to sound, go ahead and sound an additional application at 225 South Hanover Avenue. Is the applicant here? Hello, my name is Reese Reinhold. Reinhold, how are you today? Hi. The scope of work is change openings, construct fireplace, mudroom and porch, demolish garage and shed, construct garage, shed and lap pool, and install new paving. I was just wondering, have you read over the suggested recommendation and conditions? Yes, we have. Are you in agreement with them? Every one except three. We'd like to discuss three a little bit. In which case then I'm going to have to ask you to sit down and come back. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I was thinking if you had no objection, we would move on ahead. All right then, let's go back to our agenda in the order it's set out. Let's turn to 210 South Hanover Avenue, Scope of Work, constructed wood privacy fence. Is the applicant here? Come on up. Okay. is number three oh yeah number three yeah yes hello my name is diane meatyard yes mr yard um the staff has recommended approval of your application however they are suggesting that the uh the lattice two feet of additional lattice be denied would you like to be heard on that issue yes please all right May we have a presentation from the staff, please? Whose application is this? Okay, you can just sit there for a moment. What we're doing at this point is having a presentation for our findings. Thank you. Excuse me. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to replace a six-foot-high wood privacy fence with a new six-foot-high solid wood privacy fence with a two-foot lattice on top for a total height of eight feet. The proposed fence is located at the perimeter of the backyard. The existing fence has two fence panels along the south, and these are taken from inside. These are the two panels that have the two foot of additional lattice on top. And this is the return back to the house that's referred to. Okay. So it's basically in the same style. And if I understand your recommendation correctly, those will be grandfathered into the current fence, correct? That's correct. Right, okay. So the guidelines are included for your use. The findings, the staff finds that the proposal to construct a wood privacy fence with lattice located on top for a total of eight feet does not meet guideline 3-1-D, which states fences of wood boards provide for privacy should be located in rear yards and generally be no taller than six feet. Staff did determine that the two westernmost panels along the south property line and the return to the structure has a grandfathered condition that consists of a six-foot-high fence with lattice at the top for a total of eight feet. Staff recommends approval of a six-foot-high privacy fence along the south property line and the return to the structure. Staff additionally recommends the denial of the lattice on top of the privacy fence, except for the two westernmost panels along the south property line, and the return to the structure. Then the two standard conditions. I will go ahead and note for the record that we have had some submittals given to us. One is from Cam Surveying LLC, which was sent to Ms. Meat Yard regarding the survey on her property. We also have a letter from the Harris Law Office, Lee Harris Donahue, attorney for Robert and Ellen Sparks, I presume they're neighbors, indicating there may be a concern or a dispute about the property line. I would just go ahead and note for the record that we have no jurisdiction or ability to even address the issue of whether the property line has been correctly staked or marked. All we deal with are the guidelines pertaining to the fence itself. And finally, there is a letter from a email from Mark Streety on the behalf of the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association, which is opposing any new fences within the historic neighborhood boundaries in excess of the six-foot maximum height requirement. Fences that exceed the six-foot height restriction block other neighbor views and sunlight and distract from the historic beauty and composition of our particular and historic neighborhood. At this point, are there any comments or questions from the board members? Ms. Armstrong, anything? I'm sorry. Sarah, I don't know why I said that. I've got Armstrong one ahead today. Sorry. Ms. State, did you have any comments or questions? I'm not thinking fast enough today. I definitely think that we need to stay with our six foot overall height. And once again, you want to speak into the microphone a little bit. I agree that we need to stay with the six foot high. Yes, go ahead. there are several extenuating circumstances that I would like to bring to this board's attention this is your opportunity to do that ma'am thank you first of all I have several police reports that I've had to file against my neighbor for being hostile and obtrusive and obscene to me and my family and I'm happy to share those with you these are only the documents that I've had to file it's not the other numerous times that my family and I have been brazenly harassed by the neighbors at 214 South Hanover Avenue and these are here for you to review and that's why we're requesting the privacy lattice the other extenuating circumstances the properties at 139 and 141 South Hanover Avenue made an appeal for a fence that is over six feet tall and I've included images of those this gentleman has them were these properties were these fences in existence prior to the adoption of the ordinance or of the historic neighborhood no sir I don't know off the top of my head what properties were referring to I can answer this fence because this is one that was actually approved by the board because of which property is this this is going to be 137 south Hanover and this is the one we had the vinyl fence they've actually taken down the vinyl fence and replaced it with a wood fence the wood fence is the one you see on the overhead and that was actually because of a brick wall that was put beside because of the vinyl fence so that fence has extenuating circumstances of being eight foot what are we looking at there that is a picture of my old fence that i currently have that's that's just to show the fence in the neighborhood where i currently live that's kind of caddy corner across the street from my home on south hanover avenue and it's an eight foot fence that's right if you remember miss tate a couple of years ago there was a vinyl fence issue the vinyl fence that was installed and the vinyl fence was at a particular height they've gone back before the board to ask for a particular height because of the brick wall that was built right beside there that exceeded the six foot and most of this is grandfathered because of the existing situation that occurred because of the built structure it also was a situation that the board of architectural review did not approve the fence was built the vinyl fence was built without a permit the board denied it and it went to appeal at the planning commission and so what ms armstrong has just relayed is all correct but it was granted at another body on an appeal process and it responded um to the adjacency which was uh eight feet tall before the h1 overlay was put into place so it's a convoluted situation and And if memory serves me correctly, we went ahead and allowed the eight-foot wooden fence because it matched up with the brick, height of the brick fence. Is that correct? Correct. And this is only for one particular section. The rest of it, this is only a particular deck because the deck is raised. And the rest of it is actually a six-foot wooden fence. And, Madam, what was the other address that you referenced as having a fence greater than six feet? There's two properties together there. Okay, I got you now. I understand. Any other comments? We are only putting the fence on the one side of our property. If you give us permission for the lattice, it's not going to go around the entire perimeter of the property. we only want it as a buffer against existing hostilities is that the south side of the property yes sir only on the south side yes sir okay which which side does your neighbor live the south side which side the the south side to the right side of me is that the one with the high high um wall that we just looked at no no that's across this That's across the street. It's the same street, but just across the street. Okay, I'm following the lattice work that you have that turns into your house. Yes. That one panel, you want to extend that whole panel along the south end. Yes, sir. A&W Fencing would be the fence company. Okay. And their design has been submitted to this board, and that would be a much nicer. lattice than what we currently have okay can that be put up on the screen please working on it okay i love how technology works there we go very good while you're at a pause if you would are those copies that you can submit to our record they're not i don't have copies okay we need to have them in the file for the record so if it's all right with you we will do that first thing in the morning and return these to you via mail thank you this is this is the site plan that was submitted by the fencing company and just orient us which which direction is which this is 210 the property in question and the application does call for it to go completely around the site if I'm hearing a modification she just wants it only on the south side okay To be sure, we're all on the same page. You're saying you only want the lattice on the south side, but you do want a six-foot fence on the balance of your rear yard. Okay. So six-foot all the way around with lattice on top on the south side. Got you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any comments from the board members? Do I have any comments from the audience? Yes, sir. Come on up. And I'll come back to you in a minute. Okay. My name's Robert Sparks. I live at 214 South Hanover. Yes, Mr. Sparks. And our attorney is the one that sent you all the letter. Right. And I was wondering how you can improve something where the boundary is not even established yet. To answer that question briefly, what we are dealing with are applications for construction of the fence. We do not get into the issue of whether or not that fence can actually be constructed on the property line. If there's a dispute about the property line, there's a remedy that you have through the court mechanism. We don't get into that issue. We do not adjudicate property lines. So that's beyond our jurisdiction and ability to adjudicate. But the fact that there may be a dispute does not necessarily forestall us from doing a review of this plan. now if you want to file for an injunction against your neighbor you can do that but that's your remedy which we will okay but in the meantime we still have the authority to go ahead and review the proposal in accordance with the guidelines well and as far as the police reports there's no fact that we don't like each other but the harassment comes from that side because Because that's what they do. They like to call the police out there every time for some little nothing. And then they won't file a police report. Well, we've called them on them, too. But nobody is ever, there's never been a police officer yet that has ever said anything or charged anyone with anything. It's just two neighbors that don't like each other. All right. Well, that's unfortunate, but we do not address that issue. Oh I didn't expect you to I just wanted to address the issue. And your comments are noted for the record. They are now in the record. Okay. Okay thank you Mr. Sparks. Any other comments from the audience? Ms. Tate anything else? I wonder if it's appropriate for us to make a decision on this until we see the direction that the the lawsuit might take yeah actually no I don't think that would be an appropriate thing for us to do at this point it would not be appropriate for us to forestall a decision simply because there is a potential of a dispute between the neighbors. Okay. I'm going to stand out an observation on my own part. I do know that from time to time there are extenuating circumstances when we will for along certain areas that have issue with intrusive neighbors or crime that we will approve a lattice because it is more transparent it doesn't block sunlight but it does give a certain degree of protection to the occupants of the house and I think maybe in this instance they along the south side of the property I think a two-foot extension on the six-foot barrier is not necessarily inappropriate that's just my personal opinion I think the guidelines are flexible enough we have done this in the past when there are extending wing circumstances and appears that we may have those circumstances here that's just my comment well i'm not really comfortable um without hearing from the neighbor who causes so much trouble you just did that was mr sparse that's the neighbor oh excuse me and he was saying basically they don't get along with each other there have been complaint multiple complaints filed on each side they have filed complaints against her she has filed complaints against them okay i've got it and i'm i'm tempted at this point to quote robert frost that good fences make good neighbors miss hill do you have any comment given your observations about previous exceptions for these kinds of conditions the one kind of architectural item I'll note is that the continuation of that trellis just along that one section. It gives a sense of continuousness to it that doesn't break it at an odd spot with that higher raised deck. It gives a better flow to that sense of fence. Josh, anything? I think with the guidelines of it being generally no taller than six feet, considering lattice is not a solid fencing condition. I think this could be appropriate. Okay. All right, do I have a motion? Any further comments from the audience? If not, do I have a, I think we're ready for a motion. I'd have one question that, well, perhaps I should wait for the motion and see what that is. but are we still talking about the entire perimeter fence or are we just talking about the fence between those two? I think we have reached, maybe I didn't articulate it as well as I should have. I think the consensus is, if I'm hearing the consensus other than Ms. Tate, that we will approve a, for the south boundary only, a six-foot fence plus a two-foot lattice, and the rest of the property be enclosed by a six-foot fence. So I think that's the consensus I'm hearing and at this point, if someone would like to make a motion along those lines, along with the other recommendations, that would be appropriate. And the chair can't make your motion. am i hearing from the lack of a motion that we referred to have just the uh We're not quite there yet. Not quite there? Okay. I'll let you all process. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Yes. I move to approve case number 08760210E at 210 South Hanover Avenue with following conditions. that number one, the six-foot fence with a two-foot lattice for a total of eight feet only occupy the southern edge of the property. The south property line? South property line. All right. The remainder of the fencing at this property shall be six-foot high without a lattice. and the following condition and the remaining conditions are two standard conditions. Okay and just to clarify do I have a second? I'll second. And just to clarify the return will also be six foot plus the two foot lattice that's been previously grandfathered into the application. Yes. All right. You'll need some findings to go with that. It is my interpretation with, as it says, generally no taller than six feet. It says of wood boards or privacy, wood boards for privacy should be located in rear yards and generally no taller than six feet. I think in this case we have solid boards that go up to six feet. beyond that there is a porosity to the rest of that I think is appropriate. And I'll amplify on that finding that the two-foot lattice is more transparent as what he is pointing out. It will not block sunlight and it's not present a complete obstacle or barrier if you will between the two properties. And the intent, I think, of the guidelines is to make sure that you don't have a barrier wall greater than six foot. All right, any further discussion on the motion? If not, then the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes with the conditions as recorded into the record. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Okay, Mr. Reinhold. Mr. Ruhl, I do apologize. I was hoping that maybe we would be able to get you out of here earlier, but it's the way... Well, thank you for trying. We're now turning our attention to 225 South Andover Avenue. This is a fairly extensive project. There are several conditions. I'd like to go ahead and read them into the record, and then we can talk about condition number three, I believe it was. The conditions are provide final porch and railing details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to issuance of the COA. Provide final shed details and specifications to staff or bore for review and approval prior to issuance of the COA. Remove the cross bucks from the garage doors and the muttons from all new doors and windows. provide final door and windows details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA provide the final paving selection details and specifications for staff for review and approval prior to issuance of the COA and conditions five and six are what I've been calling the standard conditions and Reese if I'm understanding correctly you'd like to be heard on condition number three yes please and that you're in agreement one two four five and six Yes, sir. All right. Let's have the presentation from the staff then on Condition 3. Well, Barry, we're just working you to death, aren't we? It's better than being ignored. All right. But I'm sorry I didn't hear the specific recommendations that he was questioning. It's number 3. Just number 3. Right. And I'm sorry, the sound system is just not very good in here. It's just feeling deadly as usual. Okay. All right. And I will try to just present the portion of the staff report that would deal with number three. And that would be, in the background, B and D, which is construct a mudroom and porch on the south side of the rear addition the proposed mudroom sets in an L created an L created by the construction of a frame structure covered with clappard siding this is the location the mudroom is approximately 20 feet by 9 feet one story with an EPDM roof A pair of six-over-one double-hung windows are located in the west elevation and a door in the south elevation. Siding is proposed to be a cementitious board, and a new porch is proposed on both sides, on both the north and south, the south and north sides. Additionally, a fireplace with an exterior brick chimney, brick masonry chimney, is proposed on the north side of the addition. So this is the existing addition and the historic structure. This is the location of the new mudroom along with a stoop and steps and a covered porch up above. And this is the one on the north side and the new fireplace with the chimney that's visible to the exterior. This is south elevation. This would be the door in question with the muttons in it. This is the west elevation. Again, muttons across the top of these transoms, and then a six-over-one window there. And then this is a new window in a historic opening, which will be enlarged. This is the north side, again, the muttons. Okay, now D is to construct a 25-foot square, one-and-one-half-story garage. The roof is a simple gable with the ridge perpendicular to the street covered with composite shingles. Two garage doors occur on the front, which is the east elevation, with a paired six-over-one windows centered above the two doors. the same windows are shown on the rear west elevation and two man doors are proposed on the north elevation so these are the windows to the west this faces this faces the east with the garage doors and then these are the bucks in question and these are the man doors on the north elevation. We get back to the site plan. This is the proposed location of the garage. This is the garage proposed to be demolished and then there is a building in this location which is of much later construction. So the guidelines are included for your use. The findings would be B, that concern the issues in question. Let's hold it there. The proposal to construct a mudroom and porch meets guidelines 2A, 4A, and 2A. 4b it is appropriately located at the rear of the building and is secondary smaller and simpler to the original in building scale design and placement the proposal also complies with guideline 2a4c as it is compatible and designed with the original buildings design roof shape materials color location of window doors and the overall design does not imitate an earlier architectural period per 2a4d but the board has held on numerous occasion that muttons in new openings should be single panels of glass and that was also the interpretation of the bucks those are looked at as more of a rural design along with the muttons being a replicating history so that's in the recommendations are to remove the cross box from the garage doors and the muttons from all new doors and windows provide final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a COA that's the end of the that portion of the staff report and if you have any questions I'd be glad to answer them. we agree with the recommendations about the cross books that's be glad to take those off the doors but we have an issue with the windows the one to the far right that window is in the kitchen which has windows that match that in the same room okay you're far right or our far right far right are we talking about stage right or stage left what's that window that's the existing window no it's a new window okay but it's in a room that has there's an opening there already it's smaller right uh it's a different configuration all together let me let me get back to the photos to show you that So this is the window where the window in question will be located. So there's an existing historic window in a different orientation, more horizontal, where the new window will be more vertical. well could you just do a single piece of glass underneath that existing window that window is about four foot three inches wide so it's it's a big window and it's not exactly where the new opening is going to be it's it's more towards the corner the issue we have is there's two other windows in that kitchen which have the muttons in them that are located around the corner on the driveway side of the house and we just think it would be odd not to have the windows match in the same room if you're gonna put them in and then when you look at the rear elevation if that window I think you'd want that to match the windows in the mudroom which are the double ganged windows and we just think the scale of those windows is so much different than the original part of the house the windows above that kind of that scale of time those those pains in kind of ties it all together especially with the transom windows around the side of the house and it doesn't look anything like the original yeah but does tie it together and gives it a little bit of a scale which all the other windows in the house have even though they're just a one pane tall and the transoms the uppers are two panes tall I just think it's important that that tie it all together it just kind of brings the whole addition down a little bit settles it and we especially think the one in the kitchen is very important and then those windows also exist because if they're on the back of the house we wanted them to match what's on the garage and that's well you know one of the things we try to do is to make new additions not look like the existing building so that you can read it in the future and we have we probably have had a number of them that are about that design and with just a clear transom glass over it and it's really okay well we just think that the addition is so different from the house the house is all brick and the addition does stand out totally different regardless of whether the windows match or not it doesn't well for the for people who really pay attention to details in architecture they would be able to see that probably but that you know you know that it's about two percent of the population um so i don't think you'd be giving giving up very much to give up those mountains in that in that room and i think you should do that okay miss hill yeah it seems like to me there are kind kind of three parts to this conversation. There's the new window in the existing building, which would be the only window of its kind if there are no muntins in it. Right. There are the windows in the new addition and the garage, and then there are the transoms. Yes. So they're kind of, one could talk about them separately. And I do agree that the muntins in the windows windows in the new edition don't don't meet the guidelines and do suggest something a relationship to the historic house that's inaccurate i'd really like to hear from the staff about that new window in the existing house maintaining those so that historic house has a kind of similar window quality. It does seem a little odd to have that one window that hangs out there by itself. I understand what you're saying. The board in the past has looked at, and then the staff looked at it the same way, that a new opening, so because of the change in orientation, that we reviewed it as a whole new opening because it lost its historic character of the horizontal with the muttons. So that is the reason for that interpretation. It makes it a little more clear. I can empathize with the applicant that within the space of that kitchen to have two different kinds of windows in the kitchen, which is a historic space and a historic house. Yes. Has the floor plan in that space been opened up and this used to be a pantry window, the horizontal? There's absolutely nothing under it. Yes, it's... It probably was a pantry window or, you know, whatever. But I doubt it was where, unless, you know, maybe the refrigerator sat under it. Who knows? The kitchen probably takes up two or three rooms. This is the existing kitchen, and this is the location of the room, or of the window. Yeah. So it... I think my guess is, from an architectural history perspective, reading the house that the horizontal window reflects that that interior space was something other than primary space at one time. And so the challenge becomes, understandably, now that people are utilizing that space for more day-to-day life and sitting at their tables and working at their countertops, that they want a view and so forth and so on. But the reason the guidelines frame the concept of not replicating the other historic windows in the building is that it's letting you know that a change has been made. And while the change that's being proposed in the opening sense is appropriately scaled for a different version of wall treatment, if we, this process, just mimic that window detailing in terms of the mutton configurations, then you're losing or you're suggesting the story was different for this. You're losing the story of this used to have a more utilitarian back end back there. All houses, as we all know, had, when they're early days, some kind of utilitarian space. And to me, just seeing this, and I haven't been on the property, but that tells me that that's kind of the utility space, historically, of that house. So if the window's going to change out, I don't think we ought to have it look like it's always been a breakfast room or something like that. But that's the philosophies behind the guidelines. So if the shape of the window were quite different from the shape of the other windows in the house, then that would by itself. Looking at the floor plan and knowing that that view from the kitchen out into the yard is a useful view. If it were kind of a long, narrow kind of a window, something that didn't mimic size, suggest that it was always there might be another way to think about it. I know we're not in preliminary design. We do have a countertop that comes into play there too, so making it longer is not an option. And it's pretty tight into the corner of the building, so width's not really an option either. So it almost has to be the size it is or it's not going to go in that space. Well, if it were half the width and a lot taller because it would miss the countertop then, it would in fact. And it does seem like that part of the guidelines trying to make sure that that opening doesn't replicate exactly what's happening in the rest of the historic house. Could that, by making the size of it clearly different, could accommodate what you're trying to accomplish. I don't know. Staff's perspective, I think that it is less of a distraction to let it be the size they're proposing and just inform people by not copying the mutton pattern. But you can probably get several opinions if you stay long enough. They're the ones that matter. Right. If the intent is to, when you're in the kitchen, be able to see the backyard, and I can understand that, why don't you just make it a fixed glass window? Well, I think they'd probably like, since it opens to the driveway, be able to open it where they could talk to their kids in the driveway or communicate out the window. That's a stretch. You have teenage kids. That's a stretch. That's a stretch. They're going to be looking at their cell phones. Probably. I think the shape of the window works well in the space and the size of it. I don't think we're going to have the ability to change it very much unless we just made it smaller. and that's I think that's it's important that it it be big enough that you can look out and see what's going on the driveway I think you should have it as big as you need it for a good view but just don't detail it okay so it's clear to everybody that this is a view window It's my two cents. You love it. The guidelines are pretty clear on this point. I think it is. So it's a new opening in the historic structure. It doesn't even hit a particular rhythm or pattern with how windows would have happened in that old structure either so you've already offset it toward the corner so I think you do need to differentiate it good try any are we ready for a motion so so may I ask the staff a question about transoms which are whether those are considered differently than windows than the muttons in the windows so in the new addition the double hungs on don't it's just the transoms that have the mutton bars right is which doesn't since the primary window that in the historic house that has them as being removed seems like visually the muttons in the new transoms no longer have that replication with the historic house because it won't exist anymore. It's a detail that doesn't exist in the existing house. So if the double hung... There is one on the back, the back door. But that's not the original house. That's just an addition. So that picture's a little dark, but there is one there. So did you have a question? basically it seems to me that maybe I'll pose it as a statement that the new transoms and the mutton bars don't seem to be reflecting a historic condition so could they potentially be left and not be considered just a reflection of a historic condition such as on the new addition with the double on windows that have no money bars, but the transoms do. But the transoms are three-part. Yeah, partly it's that the three-part transom is just a traditional design element that you find elsewhere. It's not necessarily, and I don't disagree with what's been described about, they're not on the current house, you know, the historic house currently, nor have been. But they introduce, the three-part transoms introduce a more old-fashioned kind of tradition. The guidelines really are looking for things to read as products of their time. And so it's getting a little bit into mimicking history, even though you're not mimicking this property. So the singular light transoms tend to be more of today's era in a design outcome. But I think, again, the board certainly can interpret this tied to, as you see, the new construction evolving. Any further discussion? Other thoughts? Are we going to modify the condition? And if, yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, come on up. Are you the homeowner, I wonder? I figured at some point we need to hear from you. Come on up. Hi, I'm Belinda Shirky, and I'm very excited to be the new owner of this historic beautiful house on this beautiful street and I'm happy that you take the time to make sure that we're getting everything right but I just wanted to express my thought about the the windows and the dating of it and I'm I'm not an architect, I just have my own opinion. But I'm really concerned about those single plane windows. They look very 70s to me. And they don't match the elegance of this very graceful house. So I think that, particularly if you looked at the picture, there's no one, I think there's 98% of people would recognize that addition as an addition. and even in my plane, I can see that that was added on. And I think just some small details to, not to mimic or copy, but just to have a graceful balance rather than looking at those single pane windows all the way up kind of read as sort of a sunroom or and to me I'm just trying to express my value or what I place importance on as far as making the back of the house look as beautiful as the front even though no one will really look at it except me and my children and guests but I really hope that you would consider at least the transoms to make it look, in my mind, a little bit more graceful. Thank you. Very well said. Well, you know, I certainly feel like that the windows themselves, all of the new windows, and I do understand the notion of a new window in the existing house, should not have the transom, should not have the mutton bars. I don't know how others feel about the transom. having muttons on the transom doesn't really bother me that much. I like muttons and transoms, but I think they're not so important as when you're looking at this on one sheet paper and just the size of them on top of the regular windows gives you a nice pattern of glazing and it's hard it's hard when you buy a historic property and and you love the things you see there, not to want to duplicate them. But for an owner 75 years from now, I think it's important that they understand what is new and what's not, and so that this isn't mimicry. It's a modern architect and owner trying to make a compatible addition. And I don't think you need the muttons in those to do that. And you can... Are we suggesting that the muttons be eliminated altogether and just be double-handled? is that well I like I like you like the lighter the space yeah and I like the that's a lot of glass well in that room I assume you wanted a lot of great right think how much more sunlight you're gonna get without those mountains it's very important to me the way that the house reads from the back and it's that when you walk into this house it all makes sense until you get to that back addition and and you know I think you will all agree that just removing that back porch area is going to make that so much more beautiful and it it is a A detail that will break up, those vertical lines there will break up that horizontal planking for all of the back of the addition. It's going to look very different from the upper floor. I don't think it'll read like mimicry. I'm not an architect. I'm not a historian, but that's my opinion. I don't think the muttons and the transoms imitate any history on this house. I think they're an appropriate hierarchy to those openings. I don't think they're as traditional as they are just sensible. They're proportional. so in the case of a transom I think this is appropriate and noting the orientation of the house those windows are facing northwest looking so that might do a little to deflect some of that strong west light that you're going to get particularly in the summer months when its way around to the north it's it's going to be a very bright room and they suggest are you inferring then that the buttons would help cut down the light a bit oh in some modest kind of a way okay i think we have exhausted our conversation on this issue are we ready for some kind of motion and findings might as well Ms. Hill, it's time for you to make a complicated motion. Yeah. All right. Let me get my notes together here. Seems to be a few pieces. says she's doing that i have a question okay so from when you get the house done and you work in the backyard when's that on your schedule is it going to be two years from when this work is done or same time or how's that going to work well the addition is going to start right away and then we're going to use the garage as a storage unit until the addition is done and then it'll be demolished okay and then the pool will be installed when the garage is being done and then you'll give more attention to the um the backyard how it's going to be planted and how you're going to turn your car around and and kind of issues. Well, we already have a plan for the turnaround. It's incorporated into a patio. So we have that already. Where is it? We already have a plan for the turnaround. It's incorporated into a patio on the site plan. Oh, yeah. Well, I've got that in front of me. That's not a whole lot of information in terms of detail. So you will come back for that, right? Well, we'd like to just be able to do it through staff, if that's all right. The only thing we'd be doing would be changing the surfaces. And I think it's on that plan where they change from concrete to a paver where the patio is. I can explain that a little bit. But that work was not shown in the drawings that were submitted to you with the package. Since then, Mr. Reinhold has brought in a new site plan and also a plan for the pool shed. So because you hadn't seen them and we hadn't reviewed them, I have them in the slideshow here. So this is the revised site plan with the... The concrete around here changed to stepping stones with turf around the pool and then this portion as pavers of some type. And that's why the recommendation requests that you have them bring those back to us to see exactly what the material will be. And will we see this again? We recommended that you allow the staff to review it, but that would be entirely up to you. But if there is a problem, you'll bring it to us at an EB? Yes, and that's what the recommendation says. Okay. Ready for a motion? I'm sorry, I didn't know you all hadn't seen that yet. No, we hadn't. Go for it. You want me to go for it? Yeah, please. Okay. I move to approve the COA on case number 08760225A at 225 South Hanover Avenue with the staff recommendations of which I'll read with an exception being number three. Number one is provide final porch and rail details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the COA. Number two, provide final shed details and specifications to staff or BOAR for review and approval prior to the issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. Number four, provide final paving selection details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. And then number five and six being the standard conditions. Moving back to number three, removal of the cross box from the garage doors, removing the muttons from the doors and the windows with the exception of the transoms and allowing the transoms to remain with the muttons. final door and window details and specifications to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. And you are, Ms. Hill, out of habit, you're saying a certificate of occupancy. Oh, I'm sorry, certificates of occupancy. I am, you're right. Is that a word? Yes, certificate of appropriateness. I amend all occupancy to appropriateness. Okay, all right. My apologies. Do I have a second? Second. And Ms. Hill, I think I need a finding with respect to the transom, retaining the buttons on the transom, I need a finding or justification. The justification for the transoms are they do not exist in the current, they are not reflected in the current historic house, and they do add some visual variance to those very tall and simple windows without mullions in the upper part of the double hung windows themselves. And I'll further add, it does not create a sense of imitation or being an imitative of history. It is consistent with the overall style and design of the new edition. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, any comments from the audience other than the owner? If not, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA as conditioned is approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, ma'am. All right, I believe we're now at the stage of conceptual review. thank you am i correct on that no we got a couple i'm sorry let me find my agenda we have a couple items uh we have a motion to postpone uh the application on 367 transylvania park uh to april 10. do i have a motion to that effect so move and do i have a second second all right i'll call the uh the question all those in favor say aye aye opposed nay this This application is postponed until April 10. And 1012, 1014, I would just note for the record, has been withdrawn. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I guess now we're ready for the conceptual review. The conceptual review is that 353 South Mill Street install solar panels. Correct. The owner has inquired about solar panels, So I suggest we do a conceptual view to get more clarification and more discussion going about the idea about solar panels. This is, of course, South Mill Street. This was taken yesterday in late afternoon. And their house is this structure right here. I'm sorry, what is the orientation of that house? This is facing east. Okay, all right. It's facing, it's Sashians. Correct, southeast. Yeah, well there's no true. It's right, six on a. We're discussing Sotheby's. Correct, right. Pardon? It's moved. You said southeast, yeah. Southeast. Would you all agree on the direction? The house faces southeast. Right. Southeast. So we'll move forward and maybe look at a site plan and everybody can discuss what orientation you think this house is. And the sad thing is none of the streets in Lexington run true west. It's not a true north-south, it's got, it's a little canted on the axis. God didn't lay out town branch right. Correct. Just think of Broadway as being at 12 o'clock. Right. And north is at 10 o'clock, and you'll be in business. Thank you. Okay. All right. No, it's not. Let's just leave it to everyone to figure that out for themselves. All right, I'm sorry. It's southeast. It is southeast, and we'll move on. This house, right? So this house, that's correct. So, and we'll look at a map here in a little bit, it'll clarify this a bit more. There is actually a rear L, it's a two story rear L and the applicant is making an application for solar panels on that particular section as well. That will come back as a later date. The proposal that we're actually reviewing is a conceptual review is whether it is appropriate to put solar panels on the front elevation, which would be the front roof plane, the one you see. Shoot. In this location, she's gotten some bids and there's some material in your packet. It's a little hard to read, but Ms. Bartley will speak a bit more about that to you. I just want to give you sort of an orientation. It is very hard to see this particular rear L roof line, but there is a rear gable. And so there is one section facing southeast, a true southeast. And this is looking at the north elevation of that rear L. And again, walking down the street, going south, you can see the house again. so first of all and of course this is going back to the map you saw there is a north-south arrow on this map and of course this is the axis here and they're interested in putting them in this location in this location on the rear ale but we'll hear that like i said a later boar meeting And Randy, can you pull up the solar Google maps that we talked about earlier? Google has a solar map that they have and you can see the house in question. So they came out with this map in 2015. That's interesting. And so, guidelines of course included for your reference as this is a conceptual view. We have no findings at this time, however, there are some questions to pose and to consider as we review this application. Is it appropriate to install solar panels on the front of the house? Will the solar panels be inconspicuous on the front elevation? Will the solar panels be inconspicuous on the rear elevation? Do the solar panels have a low profile or lay flush with the roof line? the rear elevation or rear L addition be intrusive location. So the solar panels that Ms. Bartley has submitted are flush mounted. They are raised off the roof line two inches, I believe, to give airflow. And there will be larger panels that would be placed in a line. So there's two inches under the panel, and then how thick is the panel? I think the panel can look at the summation. This is the Allmax Plus. And I believe. Hard to read. What was the question? I'm missing something. I think it's the panel. That's what we're looking at, right. I think it's an overall. They are solar panels, right, they're six inches in depth. And they're 65 by 39 by 1.38 inches. And if you look under the mechanical data under module dimensions, that's where I got that information. Under the middle mechanical data information. Under module dimensions, that gives you the dimensions. How many panels are being proposed to be put? Pardon? How many panels are being proposed? That I don't know. Ms. Bartley can come up to the microphone and speak to that. actually since I've read my findings and the questions I'm going to leave the meeting over to her okay if you state your name please hi my name is Kelly Bartley I'm the homeowners thank you very much for your time oh you're welcome I know it's late at all you'd be amazed how early this is how many panels you plan to put in well we're just at the conceptual review stage at this point but basically then that's what we're trying to get feedback on but if we're looking at the front of the house we could potentially i think get as many as like 20 panels of course what we if we covered the entire front slope of the house which again that's what we're looking for feedback on but to us as the homeowner that would be less conspicuous because it would be uniform of course we can put less you know we're in the conceptual review stage but if I could maybe go through some of the things that I wanted to say and then of course I'm happy to answer questions and we can have a dialogue my husband and I have lived at this house for about nine years we have two kids it's very important to us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and we've done a lot of things toward that effort we installed geothermal at this house we walk to work we do other things this year we found out that we have to replace the roof on our house and so that along with legislation that passed this session in general assembly have spurred us to get in gear on solar and so as miss Armstrong put up we've had we've met with two solar contractors and they both advised us that the only places that we can place solar on our home are on the front slope and there's a small area on the L that Mrs. Armstrong described. In terms of us reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, that back L, both solar contractors, you were asking about number of panels, optimally that placing solar on that back L will reduce our reliance on electricity from the grid by about 20 to 25 percent and so and that's probably a best case scenario if we can place solar on all areas that receive optimal sunlight we can reduce our reliance on electricity from the grid by about 60 to 70 percent based on our current electricity usage of course if we reduce then and so we're looking at those two areas realizing that the front slope which is the slope that faces south southeast is the one that really gives us the biggest bang for the buck we realize and we understand that that may not be ideal in terms of a historic neighborhood and the only reason we felt it was appropriate to have this conversation with you is because there are things about our house that make that front roof quite inconspicuous in at least my view our house like all the other houses on this block of Mill Street sits directly on the sidewalk and so I did bring photos and I'm happy to show those if we want to walk through it but miss Armstrong has given you photos from the opposite sidewalk which is actually the only place you can see our roof okay if you are on the sidewalk that is immediately in front of our house you cannot see our roof no matter where you are on the block if you are in the street unless you're maybe in a semi i guess i should disclaim you cannot see the roof of our house the only place that you can see the roof of our house is from the sidewalk opposite our house about three houses either way and i'm generalizing and i did bring photos if you want to look through that but so obviously you can see the roof here and so what we wanted to have a conversation about is whether or not the board feels like there's any room within the guidelines to approve solar panels for the front of our house as inconspicuous and if so how we might do that because we are replacing our roof and so we might be willing to consider roof color for example the solar panels will be black and so we you know could consider roof color as we just alluded to we could also consider how we place them you know again my gut is that an entire covering the entire roof would be less conspicuous but those are the issues that i've been trying to discuss with amelia and then i also would like your feedback on the back l although i feel like that's an easier hurdle but um even though you know we would only be able to realize a 20 reduction in that reliance that is something we also are considering I have a project for a client that I've been working with for 30 years and their house is in a historic area in Mount Sterling and they were interested in solar as soon as it hit the market and so they've really gone through two different stages with it. The earlier panels you had structure and now they it looks so much better now because it just practically unrolls on. So these would be obviously flush mount and I have a picture that I can show you of an installation that I think kind of illustrates something similar. It won't show, sorry. It shows something similar to how the panels would look on our house. I would suggest that you keep your new roof as close to just the black as you can. Well, that is one of the things that we're, if we don't get approval for solar, you know, a black roof is not really very environmentally friendly. So it absorbs heat. You really kind of want reflective surfaces. And so we certainly are willing to consider a black roof if that's what it takes to be able to do solar. But if absent that, we probably will go with something a little lighter. And so that's why we're trying to get feedback now to see if this might be something that the board is open to. Well, the roof that's under the two roofs that will have the panels on them, what's really nice about this period house for that is it's a good clean rectangle. Right. And if you have a standard dark, dark gray shingle on it, for instance, so that there's not much contrast at all, I think you'd probably like that better. Absolutely. I would agree that if we are going to do solar in the front of the house, we would want a dark roof. I mean, we don't want the solar panels to stand out. I agree. I can give you all, if you're interested, the name and telephone number of the people who own this house. Yeah, that would be great. They love to talk about their soldiers. And it's so similar to the form of your house that I think it would give you a lot of information about how yours is going to look. So I guess my concern is that the guideline that Amelia or Ms. Armstrong pointed out to you, I don't know if she read it in her presentation, I don't think she did, but the design principle says that solar panels should, and I'm quoting, should be located as unobtrusively as possible. And then the guideline 1.16B says that solar panels should not be mounted on primary elevations of a building. They should be located at the rear of the principal building or attached to the rear of the principal building. That should be revised because the solar panels have changed so radically since that time. They were really bulky in the beginning, so once you see them, but you can put those flat ones on that roof, particularly since you can't see the roof if you're a pedestrian or you're in a car. You're not going to notice them. So I guess my question is that does the board have discretion or flexibility? You have put your finger exactly on the issue that we're going to be running up against, and I'm not sure how much discretion we do have to rewrite the guidelines. And unfortunately, you know, it's unfortunate they sort of merge satellite dishes, communication devices, and solar panels all into one standard. And the other issue is regardless of how inconspicuous it may be, I'm not sure that's a controlling factor here. And it's more complicated than meets just – And I'm not trying to be the fuddy-duddy here at all because I'm a firm believer in solar panels. Oh, we all are. The technology has just outstripped this particular guideline, I think. Well, not necessarily. Those guidelines were revised in 2010, and I don't think that there has been proportionately that much difference. There has almost been. Oh, yeah. There's been a lot of improvement, but the concepts that those guidelines reflect are still in play. Is there a real – oh, excuse me, go ahead. Well, so the mechanisms available in the market, I think, certainly have improved. There's no question of that. And I will not begin to suggest that our offices had the opportunity to be checking out through nationally what's going on within the historic districts specific to solar, which is something that we would do if we want to be looking at something substantial like this. our historic preservation commission is who sets the guidelines not the board of architectural review it does that with a lot of public input has kind of a big process that has gone through it certainly takes the input of the board of architectural review members as well but one of the things we've been very individually kind of intrigued with but again not had any experiences in office with yet are the actual shingles that are being done for solar. But that's kind of a very different approach, and the efficiencies are not really well known at this point, I think. Well, and the cost. The cost is quite high. But we haven't gotten to even study that, you know, in that sense. But I think you need to think back to the philosophies, which is more where we as staff have to come from in terms of the intent of the guidelines, not because the guidelines need to stay frozen in time. We're great proponents of updating them to reflect materials available and outcomes that can be accomplished. But at the same time, those under-occurring philosophies of how you protect the historic resource, resource which is always your first rule in historic areas is protecting the historic structures and their fabric which I'm not suggesting your asphalt shingle roof is a historic fabric that has to be protected but the whole envelope of your house is obviously historic fabric and so the underlying thing if you think about what would have to be satisfied to even with the most current technology and all the good things that come with that, where you see it from, first of all, everybody knows, I don't know if you're aware, but all four sides of the structures and the sites are evaluated equally. So accomplishing something on a rear while perhaps a little more possible and no matter what the subject is, all four sides are protected equally by the process. And people experience these neighborhoods out windows of second floors. They experience them from up on a hill looking over at a broader sweep. So it's not just about what angle do you see it immediately from in terms of protecting the resource and the character of that site and then the neighborhood, and it ripples on out. So there are two things. You think about, like, if somebody comes and says, we want to put dormers on this house. Well, this process would tell you you can't install dormers on the front elevation roof line of this house, that you might be able to accomplish them scaled properly and so forth off the backside of the gable roof of this house, possibly, but not necessarily. It would all be about the manner in which you approach it, and so forth and so on. I think you want to be thinking about the philosophies that are behind why you don't put dormers on the front elevation of historic roof lines, because the form itself also has integrity. It's a gable roof form, it's a hip roof form, it's all the different things. and interrupting the understanding of those forms and their mass and volumes, whether you want to talk about putting a dormer on it or talk about putting solar panels on it or adding a third floor to it. The underbelly philosophies have to first be thought through. And then you can drill down to can it be done and not violate those philosophies. So it's not just about solar. This is about a bigger picture issue, about form and character and its design integrity historically and in today's time. And, Betty, I think Ms. Hill may be working under a deadline. I'd like for her to get her office of agents into the record. so uh miss hill oh i'm i'm good thank you okay um so if you want to finish betty i'm listed very closely okay um i i uh i highly congratulate the staff on getting a picture that actually shows the roof i could never find it driving or walking but um but the right angle clearly showed it. I think it is, and I don't think there's anybody on this board who doesn't acknowledge where we are in the 21st century and that the changes we're facing that are so enormous and so big that how we find that balance is critical. So having the conversation helps to move us forward. And lots of experience here with doing solar and net energy buildings and all. So how do we balance that with historic properties? And knowing that part of that balance is, by nature, historic buildings aren't necessarily very energy efficient. And to protect them means that and give them extended life means we do need to find a way to think about these challenges the 21st century. And the guidelines are pretty clear, it seems to me. So how do we find that? How do we begin a conversation that gets us steps closer? Because it's not about a front or a rear elevation when you deal with solar panels. It's about orientation of the building completely, period. And I live in a historic neighborhood, and in fact, solar energy solutions do a layout for me. And as it turned out, in my house, it faces northwest and northeast as a main elevation. So, you know, I would have had non-major elevations to deal with, but it's about orientation. So using generic kind of main elevation and rear elevation doesn't really get us where we need to be. So, A, thank you for meeting with the staff and bringing this to the conversation, because that's the only way that we can have the conversation and figure out the best ways to move forward, because it's going to move forward with or without us. It's got to. And if I may add, the other issue we have to address is you may be the beginning of a change. And so we have to recognize, are we changing irrevocably the overall character of the neighborhood if we start approving solar panels on roofs? And I think that's another issue we have to be concerned with. because these neighborhoods have a certain look and a certain feel and a certain flow to them. And unless we're very careful about how we do this in terms of, if we can, graft an exception, then we have to be careful about how we do that with respect to other houses around you. Right. So it's a, don't get me wrong at all, I would like to figure out a way to get there. but there are obviously concerns that we're going to have to be addressing. I would like to see a little bit more study on the so-called solar shingles. I know the reaction is that they're not terribly efficient, but I understand the efficiencies may be getting better. Actually, Jim, there is... That's fine. You're fine. Tesla is the only company right now that's doing the solar shingles. And right now they're still under review and they have not even gotten out. They've gotten several orders in because I listened to his painful speech once again. But they haven't really flushed out a lot of the details. They've got several orders in. Right now there's only, I think, 12 houses in California that actually have the solar shingles. They're still working out the details. And they're enormously expensive from what I've heard. They are observantly expensive. They do actually come in different, they can come in tile, they can come in the shingle style. They're still working on the reflective quality because that's also an issue that we're trying to be concerned about. But this was, the solar shingles were brought up to me about two years ago, and I looked at them a little bit more at that point. And the funny thing is the person who was interested in or is actually on North Mill Street and has the same orientation as this particular structure. But they've figured out, of course, that they've not actually, Tesla's not fulfilled any of their orders yet because they're still working on 590, you know, getting some details finite. Okay. I don't imagine you want to be their first order. No. So forgive me if I'm belaboring a point. I'm a lawyer, so I like to, you know, really drill in. I have your all's attention. Join the crowd. I've appeared before you. I know you have. So what I'm hearing from the board is that you don't feel like you have discretion to vary from that guideline that says that solar panels can't be on the front, or should, I should say, it uses the word should, should not be on the front elevation of the house. regardless of the conspicuousness of those panels? Well, that's where it gets interesting. Okay. Because if the panel... The way I'm interpreting the guideline is that they don't want something that's going to be distracting and draw attention to itself if they can be installed in such a way that you can't see them. or they begin to flow into the fabric of the house, of the roof itself, then I think we might have some maneuvering room here within the guidelines. Maybe. I'm getting that look, as I usually do. I think the challenge is, programmatically, that we need a ton more information about the specifics of this product, and we can't just base on, hey, it'll work on your house because we're making a decision that we're going to have to be willing to make available to everybody. And that's why I was trying to get that. And that's why I'm saying our office would need to do a lot of work with this and you're going to need a new roof before we could do the level of work that will make this something that a decision could be made that it would be available where appropriate throughout all our 15 historic years. And that's fair. I mean, my husband and I certainly are aware and respectful of the precedent issue. I mean, we understand that. Is your roof presently leaking? It doesn't mean that anybody's wanting to just go, so no solar. You know, it just means we're not quite on board with what it would take to figure out if there is an opportunity for solar. There may not be, but there may be. I don't have any answer. Did you have a question? Is your roof currently leaking, or is it just beginning to age? Yes. No, it's leaking. Oh. We're in crisis mode. So I don't want to take up too much of your time, but I guess I will just ask the further question of, is there an immediate opinion about solar on that L, which this is the clearest view of that L from the street. this is the only place you can actually see that L from and obviously you can't see the roof there is there I am envisioning that that is going to not present heartburn to the staff or the board but maybe I'm being a bit presumptuous. Well it is the rear which helps. Again I don't know if it's worthwhile for us economically to do that. 40% efficiency, I don't know. But we certainly are considering that very seriously and so I want to make I want to be get as much feedback as I can on that separately because that is important to us. If I could suggest for the rear consideration, you know, as sort of a way to tip a toe in the water here as far as the dialogue, if you can find more visual and material specs about panels that, you know, the sheet you gave us, are there examples of houses with them on it that are more than just the simple one you've given us? the single one you've given us. You know, we need more both visuals and technical specifications than what you brought with you today and all to further study, to further inform ourselves tied to your rear L as a start point perhaps. But at the end of the day, it's not a, you know, whatever decision is made, The reason has to be so carefully thought through about what the product is and what its profiles will be and all the things you know is that, again, we have to be ready to make that tool available to other property owners in both similar and maybe not so similar situations. I guess I'm a little bit confused. When you say more information, I am assuming that because the roof, that is not the original roof to the house, we're not seeking to alter the shape of the roof, the form of the roof. We're not seeking to remove chimneys. We're not seeking to alter the form of the house. that I am assuming, based on this guideline, that the only thing you would be judging us by there is conspicuousness. No, we also closely evaluate the material presence, its scale, its how far it rises off the roof, how it finishes as a product. You know, what's the visual outcome of this product? Visual. So we need to know about the product, not so we can go out and make it, but what's it going to appear as when it's applied to your roof? What are people going to experience when they see it? In other words, if you could Photoshop how it's going to look like on your roof would be a step. Yeah. And actually, it boils down to, I think yourself mentioned, it's going to be flush with the roof. So it's not going to be that high up off the roof structure itself, will it? It will follow the same line of the roof, but it does require a two-inch gap for ventilation. Okay. The other issue that just occurred to me is how well do these panels weather? They're warranted for, I think, 25 years, I believe. They may be warranted, but how do they change their color through weathering? It's just something that occurred to me. Okay. What might start out black may get less black over time. So the panels that are out at Locust Trace Agri-Science Farm with Fayette County Public Schools that have been there for nine and a half years, the color has basically not changed. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? All right. Kelly, thank you so much. I liked and agreed with how Betty talked about how we would treat a dormer on a roof. Because we were essentially editing the form of a roof with panels, especially in such a broad, well, any amount of panels that you would put up there, it would alter the form of that roof. So, and that's very much like a dormer. And I think the way our guidelines, as they are written, solar panels should not be mounted on primary elevations of a building. I think it does allow some room to do it in the rear. Okay. Would you consider that back L, the rear? Yeah. Okay. That's one reason we're saying, you know, start information gathering prior to that rear L. Okay. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Your house will move it around so you get the efficiency you want. One other notation about the color of the roof. Josh and I were just talking about it a moment ago. Is there in our physical location on planet Earth, there's a lot of debate about reflective, high-reflective white roofs versus darker roofs. And you can look at it from several different ways. That's not necessarily true if you're in a different location. but to allow you to go ahead and get your roof changed out but still have some future of being able to apply the drugstore panels. Okay, that's fair enough. Thank you. And was it, Kelly? Is Winona still a natural resources attorney? Sorry, what did you say? When did you appear before me? When you were a hearing officer at the cabinet. At natural resources, right? Yeah. That's been a long time. I know, it has been. And you haven't changed until it. Well, you know. This is all informal today. Okay, well, thank you so much. Anything else? I am getting concerned about the backlog of minutes. Okay, I'll just express the concern that maybe bring an attempt to type them up. We're equally concerned. Let's just leave it at that. Okay, all right. If there's nothing else, then I'm ready for a motion to adjourn. So moved. I got a motion from Sarah, a second? Second. We stand adjourned.