# Board of Architectural Review - March 16, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 16, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5542 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5542?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-03-16 - **Last revised**: March 16, 2022 - **Length**: 12,233 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 Board of Architectural Review convened on March 16, 2022, with MR. Chair presiding over the session. The board addressed three main agenda items during the meeting, focusing on administrative matters and development review processes. The meeting began with the approval of minutes from previous sessions held on December 15, 2022 and January 19, 2022. The board then proceeded to review and approve Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, which are required for proposed changes to properties within designated historic districts. The final agenda item involved a conceptual review for multiple properties located at 114, 116, and 120 West High Street, as well as 308 and 320 South Upper Street, which served as an informational discussion for the board members. Throughout the meeting, the board conducted four formal votes on various matters before them. No public comments were recorded during this session, indicating either no members of the public were present to speak or no public comment period was designated for this particular meeting. The board successfully completed all items on their agenda, with two items receiving formal approval and one serving as an informational review to guide future decision-making processes. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on March 16, 2022: • MR. Chair • MR. Gilpin • MISS Kerr • MR. Williams • MISS Hill All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The committee approved four certificates of appropriateness during the meeting, with all motions passing by voice vote. **417 Fayette Park Screen Porch** [timestamp: 30:00] The committee approved a certificate of appropriateness for 417 Fayette Park to construct a screen porch. The motion was made by MR. Chair and passed with 3 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention. MR. Chair, MISS Hill, and MR. Williams voted in favor. The approval included two standard conditions. **731 Caden Lane New Structure** [timestamp: 40:00] A certificate of appropriateness for 731 Caden Lane to construct a new structure was approved unanimously with 3 ayes and 0 nays. MR. Chair, MISS Hill, and MR. Williams all voted in favor. The approval was subject to conditions previously read into the record. **361 Transylvania Park Solar Panels** [timestamp: 45:00] The committee approved a certificate of appropriateness for 361 Transylvania Park to install solar panels. The motion was made by MR. Chair and passed with 3 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention. MR. Chair, MISS Hill, and MR. Williams voted in favor. The approval included the omission of item 1 while maintaining item 2 as conditions. **167 Goodrich Avenue Addition** [timestamp: 50:00] A certificate of appropriateness for 167 Goodrich Avenue to construct an addition was approved unanimously with 3 ayes and 0 nays. MR. Chair, MISS Hill, and MR. Williams all voted in favor. The approval was subject to two standard conditions. All votes were conducted by voice vote, and no roll call votes were taken during the meeting. ## Contested Items The March 16, 2022 meeting featured two significant contested items that generated heated discussions among board members. **Solar Panel Installation at 361 Transylvania Park** The board engaged in a heated discussion regarding the proposed installation of solar panels on the primary elevation of a historic building at 361 Transylvania Park. The debate centered on balancing two competing priorities: environmental sustainability goals and adherence to historic preservation guidelines. Board members grappled with whether the visual impact of solar panels on the building's primary facade would compromise its historic character, while also considering the environmental benefits of renewable energy installation. The discussion highlighted the ongoing challenge of modernizing historic properties while maintaining their architectural integrity. **Conceptual Review of Additions at West High Street and South Upper Street** The second contested item involved a conceptual review of proposed additions to properties at the intersection of West High Street and South Upper Street. The heated discussion focused on finding the appropriate balance between historic preservation requirements and the practical needs of functional reuse. The most contentious aspect of the proposal was the addition of a third story to an existing historic building. Board members debated whether this vertical expansion would be compatible with the building's historic character and the surrounding streetscape, while also considering the property owner's need for additional functional space. The discussion reflected broader tensions in historic preservation between maintaining architectural authenticity and accommodating contemporary uses that ensure buildings remain economically viable. Both contested items exemplified the complex decision-making process faced by historic preservation boards when weighing competing interests and values in their review of proposed changes to historic properties. ## Review of minutes for December 15, 2022 and January 19, 2022 [timestamp: 01:00] The board reviewed the minutes from two previous meetings held on December 15, 2022, and January 19, 2022. MR. Chair led the discussion of this agenda item. The minutes from both meetings were presented to the board for review and approval. No specific details about the content of either set of minutes or any discussion points were recorded in the available materials. The board approved the minutes from both meetings without any noted objections or amendments. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 10:00] The board reviewed multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications during this agenda item. The discussion covered projects at four different locations: 361 Transylvania Park, 417 Fayette Park, 731 Caden Lane, and 167 Goodrich Avenue. The key participants in the discussion included MR. Chair, who facilitated the review process, along with MR. Williams and MISS Hill, who contributed to the evaluation of the various applications. The applications represented a range of proposed modifications or improvements to properties within the historic district. Each location required board approval through the Certificate of Appropriateness process to ensure compliance with historic preservation standards and guidelines. Following their review and discussion of the merits of each application, the board ultimately approved the certificates of appropriateness for the projects under consideration. The approval indicates that the proposed work at these four properties met the necessary criteria for maintaining the historic character and integrity of the district. The successful outcome suggests that applicants had adequately demonstrated how their proposed changes would be compatible with the historic nature of their properties and the surrounding area. ## Conceptual Review for 114, 116, 120 West High Street, 308, 320 South Upper Street [timestamp: 60:00] The board conducted a conceptual review of a development proposal for multiple properties at 114, 116, and 120 West High Street, along with 308 and 320 South Upper Street. The project involves constructing additions, parking facilities, and associated site work across these connected addresses. Steve Grays presented the proposal to the board, outlining the scope of work planned for the historic properties. The discussion centered on balancing new construction needs with the preservation of existing historic elements at the sites. A key component of the proposal includes the addition of a third story to one or more of the existing structures. MR. Chair and MR. Gilpin participated in the discussion, examining how the proposed additions would impact the historic character of the buildings and the surrounding area. The board reviewed plans for parking improvements and site work that would accompany the building additions. The conceptual nature of the review allowed for preliminary feedback on the overall approach before detailed plans are developed. This was an informational session, with no formal action taken by the board. The conceptual review process provides developers with early guidance on historic preservation requirements and design considerations before investing in detailed architectural plans and formal applications. The discussion focused on ensuring that any new construction would be compatible with the historic nature of the properties while meeting the applicant's development goals. The board's feedback during this conceptual phase will help shape the final proposal when it returns for formal review. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 361 Transylvania Park to install solar panels - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 417 Fayette Park to construct a screen porch - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 731 Caden Lane to construct a new structure - **Motion** — passed (3-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 167 Goodrich Avenue to construct an addition --- ## Full transcript If not, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved. Good luck with your project, Greg. Thank you. All right, turning now, this is what I will need to refuse myself on this one. So if I can turn this over to the vice chair. Okay. It's 361 Transylvania Park in the Ellsworth District. Scope of work, install solar panels. And you're on. I'm Ken Slepian at 361 Transylvania Park. Hello, Mr. Slepian. Have you read the report and have you read the four conditions that were stated? Yes. Are you in agreement with them? Not entirely. Okay. Okay. Well, we will sound a couple more of the cases and come back to yours if you don't mind. Okay. Thank you. I did it. All right. Turning now to the next application at 417 Fayette Park. And the Fayette Park is our district. Scope of work is construct a screen porch. Is the applicant here? Mr. Chairman. The applicant was hesitant to come to the meeting today, but did send an email saying she agreed with the staff report recommendations. Okay, I'll note for the record that the staff has recommended approval subject to the standard two conditions, they being once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmitting changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. And secondly, if any changes are made that altered information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. Any questions or comments from the board members? Yes, once again, this is a neighbor. I'll be abstaining from the vote. I understand. Aye. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from my audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 06900417-Y at 417 Fayette Park, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay? Motion passes and the COA is approved as conditioned. Turning now to our next application at 731 Caden Lane in the Caden Town Historic District. Is the applicant here? Excuse me, I'm just close these days. I understand. Mr. Scherter? Please state your names for the record, please. We are Monica and Jimmy Sharp. All right. The staff has reviewed your application. I believe they have. They only had one or two substantive conditions. Let me mention those into the record. The first one being the hardy plank siding have a smooth finish in lieu of a wood grain finish. Are you agreeing with that? Oh, yeah. And number two, the final details of the front sidewalk come back to staff for review. Yeah, can I just ask real quick, in the rules and regulations, they don't really show a whole lot about sidewalk except for what they're made of. So when you say you want to know, like, do you just want the plans on, like, the engineering plans? I think they just want whatever the contractor is proposing for your sidewalk, including its dimensions. So you want the material of the sidewalk? Yes. And specifically over here, I'm sorry, Ms. Sharp. It's okay. We'd like to know if you're going to. We had a discussion about this at a proposal we had two months ago, whether you would like to have it go straight out to the road or to the sidewalk. That's what I was wondering, if you were more concerned about the material or if you were concerned about where it's positioned. That's correct. That's wrong. I didn't really see strict rules and regulations on the sidewalks other than they were showing some like handicap ramps. They didn't want those in the front. They wanted them to the side. but I didn't really see strict rules and regulations about sidewalks. Well, and I think the discussion last time, the last time we had a discussion about this, was whether the consistency of Cain Town, whether it, you know, most of them go to the driveway, but there are some that do go to the front. The front. Like you're, I guess. So we just need to let you all know before we do that. That's correct. Okay. I'm just going to go from the front porch over to the driveway. Right. So if we could just get that back on your site plan and submit back to it, that'd be great. All right. So I think we have a consensus on what's needed for number two. Number three and four are what we refer to as the standard conditions, which I have previously read into the record. Are we in agreement with those? I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? Number three and number four are what we call our standard conditions. I had previously read them into the record. They are evading changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit those changes to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. And finally, once reviewed by the other city divisions, submit all changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of any work. Okay, absolutely. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? When I get the site plans, who do I give those to? To our office. To your office, okay. Okay. All right. We'll probably be bugging you all to death. Okay. I believe we're ready for a motion then. Chair, as per case number 02960731 at 731 Caden Lane, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the conditions that have previously been read into the record. All right. Is there a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then, I'll call the question. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and your certificate appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. Thank you. It's going to be a booger. Looks like a very nice house. You know where I can get some 2x4s cheap? They're about $9. If you find out, let us know. Thank you. You're welcome. Alright, turning now to our last application that can be sounded, 167 Goodrich Avenue. Scope of work is constructed edition. State your name for the record. John Book with 1320 Bryan Avenue. And Mr. Book, I have to acknowledge your assistance in helping me get parked. Yes, sir. With the new parking system we have outside right now. All right, so the staff has reviewed and recommended your application for approval, subject to the standard two conditions. Are you in agreement with those? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? All right, hearing none, the chair will call for the motion. Chair, I move on case number 081-501-63 at 167 Goodrich Avenue, I move to approve the application for appropriateness with the two standard conditions. All right, do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Book, thank you. All right now we'll go back to the 2 cases we're having some discussion. The first one being at 1018 Fontaine Road in the Ashland Park is our district. And what we normally are procedure Mr. Williams if you only heard on that condition about the lowering the second floor we need to have a brief presentation by the staff member. Okay. I hate to make you get up and down, but this is the way it works. Okay, Mr. Dennis. And do you have your remote? Okay, 1018 Fontaine Road. The application is to construct an addition, a garage, and the associated site work. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct an addition to the rear of the historic structure. The proposal is for a two-story hip roof structure covered with a one-story section and one-story screen porch. So let me bring you up to what's going on. So this is the front elevation, obviously. Looking back at the driveway, there is currently a small addition here, which will go away, either engulfed or torn down. I'm not exactly sure. So the new addition would be in this location. It would come out a little further, and then the screen porch would be located a little further out, and then there's a roof section that's one story in there where this is currently shown. So this is the main structure showing the addition, the one story and the porch, the new garage with a new drive that goes back to the rear corner. So these are the current floor plans. Current elevations. So this is the proposed plan. The addition in this second floor plan, this is the one floor enclosed and the one floor screen porch. So again, the one single story, two story, the porch, and the opposite side. So the rear elevation, this is the area that the guidelines had something to say about. So the applicant is also requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a garage the southwest corner of the backyard. The proposal is for a one and a half story gable roof structure covered with a shed dormer on each side of the main roof plate. The garage is approximately 30 feet by 26 feet. Materials proposed to be used on the garage are similar to the addition and consist of James Hardy cementitious siding, aluminum clad Sierra There are specific windows and deposit roof shingles. The guidelines are included for your use. Findings. Staff finds the proposal to construct the addition meets guidelines 2A, 4A. The addition is appropriately located at the rear of the building. Additionally, the proposal generally meets Guideline 2A4B and 2A4C. The addition is secondary, smaller, and simpler to the original building in scale and design and placement. The use of a small connector or link between the addition and the original building is encouraged where appropriate. Exterior walls should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building, And roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line, so the existing main roof remains evident. And it is compatible in design with the original building's design, roof shape, material color, location of window, door, and cornice heights. The BOAR has in the past determined that fascia and soffits of additions should be positioned below the historic structure soffit so that the historic detail is not engulfed by the new work, so that removal of historic fabric is reduced and remains evident. Staff finds the proposal to construct the screen porch portion of the addition meets guidelines 2A, 3A, and 2A, 3B, which state respectively, porches should be built in a manner that avoids substantial loss of historic materials and does not damage or destroy the main architectural features of the building and should keep exterior walls of the original building as intact as possible. The porch also does not present an imitation of historic appearance per guideline 2A3C. Staff finds that the proposal to construct the garage meets 2B2A as it is simple in design, considerably smaller in scale than the primary building. The proposed garage meets guideline 2B2B. It is located in character with other secondary buildings for the street, near an alley, or the rear of the property, not close to or attached to the primary building. Additionally, the proposal meets guideline 2B2C and 2B2D, which state respectively, accessory buildings should be compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape with other secondary buildings in the historic district and should preferably be of brick or wood siding. However, a cementitious board and other contemporary siding may be considered. Vinyl siding is not allowed. The proposal sites the proposed garage and the location of the previous garage and is compatible with the architecture and streetscape of the historic district. The proposal to construct an addition and garage meet the guidelines and will not have a negative impact on either the historic property or the Ashland Park Historic District. Recommendations. Staff recommends approval of the construction of the proposal with the following conditions. Condition one needs to be modified slightly. It should read, lower the roof plate height to allow the new fascia to run under the existing fascia and soffit, and then the two standard conditions. Follow me, you're taking out the word second. Excuse me. Follow me. Follow me, you're taking out the word second. No, floor. Second floor. Take out second and floor and replace it with roof. Okay. And your other change I believe you're making is you meant to say substantial removal as opposed to substantive removal. On page five. Under finding second full paragraph. Second full. Stumbled over the word substantive. I think you meant the right. I think it is substantial. Right. Okay. Okay. So amended. Yes, sir. Okay, Mr. Williams. I'm sorry, go ahead. Tell us, if you will, your objection to that condition or what do you want? It may be a situation where there's just a lack of understanding about precisely what it is we're talking about. Because I just don't see with the addition coming off, let's just say perpendicular to the existing. If you're tying that ridge line in on that hip roof, how are you going to work around the existing fascia? and soffit i guess is my question because in the roof plate height i think is you change that verbiage to that uh the practicality dictates that we would maintain the ceiling height in the second floor because that is a contiguous space um okay mr dennis So to clarify what the staff has suggested is that in the past when we had conditions such as this, the board is required that this fascia drop down below. So the existing fascia binds into the roof plane that is new. So we're not trying to say that all of the fascia would have to be maintained, correct? In other words, we don't have to build like a transit way to a separate building. Okay. So could we accomplish that by simply extending the length of the rafters in the addition so that that fascia would be offset four or six inches? Could I go ahead and interrupt and speak to this? I feel like in a different style building, like a very ornate Greek building or something, or if there was a major architectural feature on the back of the building, that we would want to preserve some of that fascia. But in this particular style, I think it's important to keep that fascia line. And I think it's good that you've dropped the peak of the roof down per the guidelines. But I don't see an issue in this particular project with the fascias needing to misalign. I think they're actually better aligned as drawing. Okay. I agree. That was sort of my argument, too. And Ms. Hill, what are your thoughts? I think the addition is so distinctly a different material and of a different age that I'm comfortable with maintaining the continuation of that fascia line. I'm always the board member that disagrees. I like the line. I think the line makes a lot of sense. It works with how you've designed the building. I don't disagree with any of that. I would like to have seen what it does look like if you drop it a little bit, just to see if it does add a little bit of character and leave that existing structure a little bit higher. Right. I think it would be a good exploration, and you might find that it even adds a little bit of character in keeping that in there. So I would have liked to have seen that, and I think that would be a nice idea. But I don't, I mean, I agree with what the board member said. I mean, the way it's drawn, it makes sense that it's that way, but I do think the guidelines would say you should try to, you know, be a little bit subservient to the existing structure, just a little bit. So are we looking then for a modification of number one to change Smith drawings that would show a preservation of the historic facial? It would be fine to just eliminate number one. All right, eliminate number one altogether? Am I seeing consensus other than Sarah? Because I'm in agreement with the others, sorry. No, I think that's fine. I feel like that's what's going to happen. She's our great dissenter, and we need that. We need to have it. All right. Mr. Williams, I think you've made a persuasive case. I think the board's in agreement that perhaps condition number one should be just eliminated altogether. Okay. That said, noting the sentiments by Ms. Lamar, if there is a way that you can construct that addition that shows or keeps a little bit of the reveal of the original soffit and fascia, that would be nice. Okay. It's not essential, but it would be nice to have that. I'll take that into consideration. Okay, it adds a little bit to the character of the back of your house. Certainly, yeah. And those houses are, it's interesting that set of houses on Fontaine are very interesting stylistically, so if you can keep it. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions or comments about the application? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, regarding case number 07201018-B at 1018 Fontaine Road, I move to approve the application for a certificate of appropriateness with our two standard conditions only. Second. All right. The motion is that we have just the standard conditions. We eliminate the first condition as read into the record. Agreed. I have a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. And we have just shown what we do as a board. All right, so turning now to Transylvania Park, I am recusing on this one. Barry, thanks for presenting that. I think that is an issue on many projects that we would want to keep, so thank you. Ken, you can come up if you like and sit up front. So this is 361 Transylvania Park, and so the proposals install solar panels on this south-facing side. I'll walk you through some images. This is sort of from the road bed. This is the roof. I'm not sure if that's going to work or not. So the idea is there would be a proposal for 14 solar panels. So 11 of them will be in this location. And the proposal will also be to install three in this area between the chimney and the edge of this rake, the edge of the gable there. So the panels will be flat mounted and be the 65 by 39 by 1.38 inches and for approximately six inches high from the roof plane. I'll give you a couple more images here. so again from this peak down to this peak in this general location on the west side of this chimney the proposal will be 11 and then from this front facing gable over to the chimney the proposal is to have three more flat mounted solar panels. And this is the front facing of that. And then sort of here's the proposal for how they would appear on the roof. And this is sort of from Google Solar Maps. It sort of shows also where it highlights the most sun. Okay. Guidelines are included for your reference. Staff finds a proposal to install the solar panels on the southeast side of the roof requires further discussion. The proposal to install the solar panels on the south-facing roof is within the guidelines and appropriate for the structure. Staff finds the height meets the guidelines and should be no higher than six inches. However, the proposal to install the solar panels between the front edge of the roof and the chimney does not meet the guidelines as it is on the primary elevation and is easily visible from the street. The design guidelines 1.16B says, and 1.16D states, satellite dishes, solar panels should not be mounted on primary elevations of the building. They should be located on the rear of the principal building or attached to the rear of the principal, either on the rear walls or the rear slope of the roof. And solar panels are attached to the building, should lay flush with the roof line. Staff recommends approval of the following edition so the panels not be placed between the chimney and the front edge and any crease in the height shall be submitted to staff for review approval prior to the start of the work. And the standard two conditions are the last two. And of course, the applicant is present. Okay. Sure. Ken Slepian at 361 Transylvania Park. Thank you. We're interested to hear what your side of this argument will be. Right. Well, we would like to have, we're fine, obviously, with keeping the 11 panels where they are, but the three panels facing forward, we would like to keep those. And there are a couple reasons for this. And this may sound like I'm talking big picture here, but I think this is a kind of big picture issue. We understand and appreciate the importance of aesthetics and keeping the nature of an historic district. And when Translanya Park went to H1, we were thrilled about that. And so we are quite in keeping with that. But we do think that there are certain things which sometimes might take priority, and this question of energy and renewable energy is one of those. We live in a world, every day we get daily reports about climate change and its impact, and the solutions are going to be all of the above, including big structural changes that have to take place, but also changes that take place down at the individual homeowner level. And given that 70% of Kentucky's electricity on the grid is from coal, anything that can be done to minimize that, I think, is a good. And while we're only talking about three panels here, which is not going to make or break this deal for us, if you think about any number of houses in any number of historic districts, and you remove two or three panels all along the line because of the question of whether it can be seen from the street or not, you start knocking out a significant amount of energy, clean energy, all the way down the line. And so we're talking, I think, about environmental sustainability, but I also think we're talking about sustainability of historic districts because this is going to become more and more of an issue as time goes on. and you're going to have more and more homeowners who are going to want to make changes. And some of them will do it anyway, but others will do it based on the economic viability. And the economic viability, we'll be losing 20% plus of our solar panels if the guidelines are adhered to in this particular case. And again, for one building, that may not be such a big deal. But if you start doing that for all the homes in historic districts, now you're talking about a lot of energy. And so both for environmental sustainability, but also I would argue for sustainability of the historic districts as people seek to move into them. My feeling is that this guideline should be revisited and certainly to separate it away from satellite dishes. Because I think we're talking about a different order of magnitude in terms of what's at stake. And again, this little house is not going to change the world, but I do think it is an important statement in terms of where the BOIR would like to go with this. So that's our position. We would like to see these panels remain. And if you could see from the earlier, from before, from the solar, the Google solar, that is where the maximum amount of sunlight is coming. So it's not an insignificant thing to move that. And even if we move them to the other side of the roof, we're getting a lot less sun over there. And so, again, for maximum efficiency, we would also like to keep those. Can I ask, what percentage of power is this array going to give you? Like, if you have it as designed, is that going to power your full house? No, but it's going to do a significant amount of it. I believe the engineer said somewhere along the orders of 50 to maybe even 75 percent. Will the installation of these solar panels at all damage or change that roof structure? So when they're removed, would you have the original roof structure there? I don't think it would. I'm not an engineer, so I couldn't tell you for sure, but I believe it would leave the roof structure intact. But again, I'm not an engineer on this, so I couldn't tell you with any certainty. Was there any exploration of putting, I know you couldn't put all three, but putting one or two on that back dormer on the side that receives? Which one? On the opposite? Is it the 11? The dormer that is on the back side of the house. That's in sunlight. Yeah. And there's issues with trees and things of that sort as well. So it's not. In that area. Okay, so it's less than ideal in that area. Correct. The engineer did actually do a visual on the house. And in terms of inspecting the house and roof and position of the sun and the trees and other structures, that this was determined to be the most efficient placement. Chair, Chair, my thoughts on this are that per the guidelines, it says they should not be mounted on the primary elevations, the building, and they are not facing the street. and per the images that we saw from the sidewalk, the larger array of 11 panels is going to be more visible or equally, but certainly fully visible to the three panels that are in conversation now. And these panels, per the guidelines, will be attached to the building in line flush to the roof line. I'm comfortable with omitting number one in moving forward with this application. And I will note that it will not damage the roof structure. I know it won't. It was a point I wanted to make that I think that it is really important that we allow solar panels and create and make this exception and encourage people to do them. And at the time when solar panels are removed, the next person doesn't want them, the roof structure is easily returned to its original condition, and it is not damaged. That's… Well, given that these panels have a warranted life of 25 years and a realistic life of 40, They should be on that house for quite some time. I agree with the comments made by the applicant in that this is an issue of the kind of greater picture of the sustainability of historic areas and the responsibility of sustainability of the greater picture. So I am in favor of allowing all panels. My general attitude with the solar panel cases that we see, given the awkward angle of the grid in the city we live in, These get pretty complicated on pretty much everyone we hear. So my general attitude on these is usually as long as it's not on the front slope of the building, I'm usually willing to approve these. And in this case today, I find no problem with what we're seeing. I'd be willing to support this. Are we ready? Would anyone like to make a motion? Yep. Regarding case number 191-30361-H at 361 Transylvania Park, I move that we approve this application of appropriateness with the omission of item 1. Maintaining item two, if there's any increase in the height, shall be submitted to the staff for review and approval prior to the start of work, plus the standard two conditions. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The motion is passed. Your application for certificate appropriateness is approved. Thank you, sir. Good luck with your project. And please have the record reflect my refusal. And we have a recusal from Mr. James Dickinson. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I get to see the house every day. A question for the staff. When I started serving on the board, solar panels was not actually in this guideline, was it? It was? Barely. I thought it was just satellite dishes, and we kind of bridged the gap. Nope. They've always been there since 2009. They've always been there. Since 2009. I'll be. But they're becoming more affordable, and certainly we have shown, I think, some needed flexibility on the installation of those. Okay. Can I make a comment about one of these guidelines, the wording of this? Just when would be an appropriate time to say something about that? Guidelines cannot be amended by this organization. Right, I understand that. If you want to have something brought to the attention of the commission, you can probably just send an email to Ms. Kerr. Can I say something to have it in our record of this meeting? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, the board members, you can go ahead and raise whatever points you'd like to make. And we collect an ongoing list of things so that when the next committee review of the guidelines occurs, we've got this list that builds up. I see a bit of a problem with the guideline that states that the panels attached to the building should lay flush with the roof line because that is not the way that they are installed. That is a true flush mounting is not realistic. It's not really, it's a verbal explanation, but it's not to be literal in the sense of attached flat to the roof. There always needs to be a gap. But the point is not to have them sitting six inches up off the roof. So perhaps my point being the guideline to state, you know, a minimal impact in, you know, a minimal amount away from the roof. Because that gives a little more, I mean, just that if it's not stating what can even in reality be done. I think that then the guidelines can be called into question even to a greater degree. We're glad to make note of your concern. Thanks. May I make a comment? I think what they should be parallel with the roof plate and no higher than six inches above the roof plate. If the no higher than six inches is a realistic dimension with what is being done currently, then I would agree with that. Okay. Any further comments? All right. So noted. I am never sure when we have a conceptual review whether I go ahead and get the minutes approved first and then move to the conceptual review? Yes, you should because we'll be at the informal part of the meeting once we start the conceptual. All right, we have minutes from December 15, 2021 prepared for our review. Do I have a motion to adopt them and to approve them? So moved. So moved. So moved and a second. Second. Any discussion on the minutes? If not, we stand approved. All right, we are now at the conceptual review process involving the addresses of 114, 116, and 120 West High Street, 308 and 320 South Upper Street. The applicant is Steve Graves. The owner is Central Dealers, LLC. and today it's fairly informal in that I believe we'll have a presentation first by the staff of your proposal. I'll make a personal note. I think I'm the only board member that was involved with the prior decision. Mr. Gilpin was. It was my first hearing. All right. Susan talked me out of it. All right. So this is, in some respects, a very interesting and exciting prospect. And Mr. Chair, if I might note, Mr. Gilpin has a time constraint this afternoon. I was about ready to get there. Okay. I'll note to the applicant, Mr. Gilpin needs to be out of here by 530. So we're going to try to keep Mr. Dennis' presentation relatively short, but we want you to be mindful of his time. All right, thank you. Okay. This property is actually a group of properties at 114, 116, 120 West High Street and 308 and 320 South Upper Street. and the scope of work is construct additions, parking, and associated site work. The applicant is requesting a conceptual review to construct a third floor at the current roof level and other multi-floor additions from grade to the circa 1956 office building designed by Central Kentucky architect Thomas Page Edwards for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The historic structure's design reflects the streamlined style representative of mid-20th century architectural design with its clean lines and minimal ornamentation. The structure, which is a good example of its type, has a rectilinear plan and cubic massing of two stories with the second floor extending over an entry courtyard flanked by concrete-capped stone wall, where it fronts on West High Street. It has a structure of steel and concrete skinned with a buff brick veneer laid in a running common bond pattern. Prominent details found on the exterior are grouped windows with concrete sills on the north, south, and east elevations. The original window openings are present throughout, although the windows themselves have been replaced with an aluminum system. Along Upper Street, a large two-story opening in the brick veneer is filled with aluminum glass window system and smooth metal panels, picture framed with brown honed granite. The front central entrance on Upper Street has a center stair rising to an aluminum glass entry framed with honed gray granite. Originally a seal of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was about the front entrance. Because of the upward slope of South Upper Street, the first floor windows on this elevation mainly occur below grade within the stone walled window well. Entry doors along West High Street are picture framed with honed gray granite and opened out onto the ground level. The three proposed additions at grade are located on the upper street or the west or right elevation, High Street, which is the north or front, and that north is how Lexington lays out in the front or left or right, or based on the architect's drawings. The additions are proposed to have an exterior skin made of an unspecified curtain walls or storefront glass and spandrels. The proposed third floor addition incorporates similar materials and covers approximately 90% of the roof. There is a proposed rooftop deck along the north face of the structure. Guardrails for the deck are located above the historic structure's perimeter on the north. The site is not shown in the submittal, and in speaking with the architect, they don't believe they're going to be doing work there. But we'll have to see when the formal submittal comes in. Guidelines are included for your use. and the findings, as this is a conceptual review, therefore the staff has no findings at this time. But the following are some items that the BOAR may want to consider in their discussions. Number one, the upper street elevation is the facade of the historic structure. Does the proposal comply with the guidelines and is it appropriate to construct the proposed west elevation addition? Number two, the high street elevation is the facade of the historic structure. Does the proposal comply with the guidelines? Is it appropriate to construct the proposed north elevation addition? Has the applicant considered adding additional square footage to the property without adding a new story? Is it appropriate to add a new story by adding a third story addition to the historic two-story structure? If it is appropriate to construct the third floor addition, should the perimeter walls be stepped back from the vertical plane of the historic structure's perimeter walls? Is it appropriate to construct the east or left elevation addition, and does it meet the guidelines to construct additions on three of the four building elevations? Has the applicant considered adding additional square footage to the property without having to construct an addition on the high street and upper street elevations? Is it appropriate to construct the high street and upper street additions? And would the use of clear or reflective glass be more appropriate? findings. This is a conceptual review. Therefore, the staff has no recommendations at this time, and there's also no deadline for board action. And I will take you through some photos quickly. This is High Street here. So this would be the northeast corner, and we'll just kind of go around the building. This is that lower level courtyard lower from the street. This is looking from the northwest at the structure along upper street, south upper. Barry, one second quick. The applicants may want to get up and turn around so they can see this screen. Oh, yeah. Well, I'm pointing to things here. Yeah, it's only the one back here that the pointer system that we're doing, and that's what the board is seeing. So feel free to move around, pull a chair out, whatever. Okay, so this is the upper street elevation. You can see the two stories and what was at one time the main entrance. These are the metal panels and the window system that has been put in place. This is the south side elevation. and there's basically just a drive along and some parking along this elevation. Now we're turning the corner to what would be the east elevation. And these are some photos that show the current setting around the structure. So this is to the east, two historic structures, and then the parking access off of High Street. This is the church across Upper. And this would be on the north side of high street diagonally across from the building. This is the drive that comes in off of upper street. And the adjacent historic structure. This is looking from the south portion of the parking to the north. This is looking east where there's a small ton of parking. Having trouble finding the drawing. Here we are. So these are the drawings that were submitted. The existing building, I will let the architect go through it once I just give you a little geography, I guess. So this is the building, upper street, the entrance off of upper and off of high in that kind of parking that I mentioned. So these are the additions that are in question. And unless the board has questions for me, I will turn it over to Mr. Graves. Any questions? Mr. Graves? Hello, everyone. I'm John Rabinowitz. I'm the managing partner of Morgan & Morgan. So I'm here to kind of tell you the how and why, like our interest in this. I'll let Steve get into the architectural aspects and why we're doing what we're doing. But we love Lexington. We do a little bit of advertising. I'm sure you guys have seen it. But in about 2019, we knew that we were outgrowing our space. We're currently in the Bluegrass Center. And we have about, we've gone from just me eight years ago now to 42 employees, 16 attorneys, and we're at about 15,000 square feet. So we started looking for, as you guys can see, we love signage. The big thing for me is accessibility and signage. accessibility for my clients, for my staff, safety and signage if I can get it on a building. So we began the process of looking. Shockingly, in our current building, there's about 10 defense firms that have no interest in putting a Morgan & Morgan sign on the building. So we had some dispute there. So we started looking around town, what availability is there for our space. We need, the way our growth is going, we're projected to have at least 60 to 100 employees in the next year to year and a half. And so we need at least 20,000 square feet. So when we were looking at different areas, my law partner, Adrian Mendiondo, who would be here, but he's in a mediation right now, is a relative of the Webbs. And we heard about this spot. We didn't know that there was ongoing litigation on it, later found out what was going on. And so Adrian took me over there at first in its current state, I think it's like 14,000 square feet. It's actually smaller. And when you walk into the bottom, it's kind of a dungeon basement. There's not a ton of light. Okay. And so at first I had some reservation, but then we started talking through it. Like, could we make this work? What was really desirable to me is having the 60 parking spots because right now I have my staff everywhere, and they're coming in from different parking garages all across the city. And one of them, they had the shooting, so I hate that we're over there right now. And I'd like to get them in one spot. So the parking was such a big aspect to us that I said, you know, we've got to take a hard look at this, and can we design it so that it can accommodate our growth? And so when we got with Steve, we went back and forth on the number of offices we'll need and projected growth. And I always, when I go into a new marketplace, my decision is do I commit into downtown and go really big into downtown or do I go smaller into downtown and go around and kind of like a spoken wheel type approach. But we love this downtown. And so I wanna go big downtown. We wanna invest in downtown. So we came up with this design. And when we learned about the litigation, we said before we go too much into the details, let's work with the Bluegrass Trust and see if they'll work with us in the design and what will they approve. And so we went back and forth with them for a while in designing this till we got to this point. And what we were trying to combine was we wanted to preserve the historical nature of the building, but at the same time, like we need to accommodate our growth. So we thought if we enclosed it but went up, we could do that so that people would drive by and they're going to see all the features. I'm sure Steve will talk about it. They'll see all the historical features still. But this gives us the ability to, like, grow. And so I guess while we're coming here, and I may jump in when we're kind of going through different, some of the questions that were presented. and i can kind of explain to you like really safety light into the building is a big a big thing for for my staff if i we're going to have a large group of people in that uh in the basement area and we want people to feel like it's not a basement right we want as much natural light as we can to come in and so and there's also a drainage issue in the front and part of the reason we're in closing is that but um we just we think that this is a great opportunity to like revitalize a historic building and at the same time help us grow and and we're committed to it so i don't know if you want to add any more to the i didn't know if we wanted to go through some of those some of the questions i think that were raised earlier like maybe we go through those i don't know and i'm actually looking for guidance if there's issue if you guys have suggestions and I'm not familiar with this litigation stage that happened on that property. Can you fill me in real quick? Staff will take care of that. Okay. All right. You may be an attorney, but not now. Okay. Yeah, what we're proposing, I won't go into the details of litigation, would resolve that. Our hope is if we worked out an amicable resolution, it would resolve that. Michael, our attorney is here at the back and I'm eyeing him. Do you want to handle this question or do you want me to? Why don't you come right on up and use my microphone? The secret to answering this is to not get lost in the weeds. I can set a timer if I need to. All right, 60 seconds. The short and simple answer without getting into the weeds is there's an appeal currently ongoing in this litigation. But the appeal is related to a demolition, which is materially different than the concept that's in front of you right now. So all the parties are in agreement with exploring this concept. All the parties litigation have agreed to explore this concept. So basically they're availing themselves of the board's expertise to get feedback on this concept. And as long as everybody gets party litigation is good with that, there's no reason for the board not to give feedback when solicited. And you have people right now soliciting your feedback. So that's where we are. Thank you. So we're caught in the middle of a substantial rehab and historic preservation. Mr. Graves, you're going to need to step up to the mic, please. I'm sorry, I'm not used to my voice, not caring. We're in a situation where we've got a substantial rehab and a historic preservation, and there lies a little bit of issue with both sides. The main issue, I think, that the staff, and I do too as an architect, is the additions. There's a couple of issues for the addition on High Street. One is the building is sunk into the ground. And then the lower area, there's water issues, and more importantly, there's vagrancy issues that affect the tenancy. So the solution was to put a glass box around it so the brick feature on the existing building would be exposed, would be show through. Now, the same thing on the upper street side to take the steps out. There's no way that anybody's going to get into the building because on that side. But there's some nice granite and entry feature around the entrance that also is going to have a, we propose have a glass box around to expose it. from. At night, it would be lit up on the inside and you drive back and that's what you'd see. Your eye goes past the glass. And then the other issue is the lower area being dark. And so we have these window wells on the upper street side that we intended to use, we intend to use as outside walls, just to bring the glass all the way down, obviously not below grade, all the way down, and introduce some light into that. So that upper street side would be a two-story glass structure that sort of sets up that old entrance. And then on the east side, the building obviously was built a long time ago, And it's not ADA compliant, so there needs to be an elevator put in to access both sides of those floors. So that's a good place to put it so it doesn't interrupt the existing structure when we have to cut holes in it and that kind of thing. You just never know what you're going to get and those kind of things. So the engineer's suggestion was to bring the elevator outside the building. And then again, we put a glass box around it so that you could, you know, visually, you can actually see what's existing there versus what we're going to put. And then we had the last issue was the additional square footage. And we needed, because of the parking situation, because the site's sort of odd-shaped anyway, there's only one other place left. And that was to go up. And the idea was to wrap that glass box around to expose everything around it. And that was our solution to add another 6,000 square feet up there. So it's recessed in on the front. There's an exterior patio gathering place that could be desired by the tenant. I think it would be a great little activity spot. Again we're looking at historic reservation because it's in a historic area and a substantial rehab because we've got to put this building back into use or we may lose it. So that's the long and the short of it. I'd be glad to answer any questions. And we just, we again, we were trying to preserve the historic value but still comply with the new, yep, sorry, sorry if you guys can't hear me. We were trying to preserve the, and gentlemen you have a, you have a handheld mic if you're going to use it, it's sitting on the podium if you're going to grab it instead. is it yeah or podium like is a little. I know. It's a lawyer Mike I know right now we want to preserve the historic value but still comply with the new construction guidelines because we knew we had to do that in I can't emphasize enough like how important the parking is we've been asked a lot why don't you go out in the parking lot well it's for the safety of my employee I need to keep those spots for employees reason for my clients that come in. And so, and why are you enclosing the front? Well, I mean, the nail on the head, the two times I've been out there, we've had homeless people out there, and I have people, like, we leave at 7, 8, 9 at night. And I can't, we just need to have some one way in, one way out, and safety for our staff. And so we've tried to do everything we can to preserve it, and at the same time, revitalize it. Is the intention that the main entrance for all people using this building be on the West High Street side? Yes. Okay. That's the closest to grade that we can get. Okay. We also need to have a ramp down to that, which is a little bit of intricacy. So you'll have to have a ramp from your parking area down to that? Yeah, but it's not substantial. Okay. It's only about 10 inches of grade. Okay. Could I? Let's go one at a time on the questions. Suzanne, any other questions at this point? I don't. So the glass box that you're attaching to the south upper street side on the second floor plan, can you explain exactly how that works? I mean, is that actually occupiable space out there? On the second floor plan, the existing facade stays exactly the way it is. The glass wall just goes up in front of it. Okay. And we have included the window wells, so we're going right straight down into the window wells with the glass. So that's almost like a light just to enclose the space, but that's not part of the floor area of the second floor. No, that's right. And it is part of the floor area on the third floor. Yes. Okay. We think that helps frame the old entrance. Okay, Mr. Gilpin. What do you guys think about the additional story? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. The additional story? The additional story. I feel like that's kind of the biggest rub, probably. I don't think the guidelines prohibit additions being added of that sort, so long as it doesn't overwhelm the original primary part of the building. So long as it's compatible and consistent, and obviously it's going to be a new addition. I mean, we're not pretending to be creating a new three-story building. it's always been there. May I make a comment? Sure, go ahead. The guidelines say do not add additional stories. Really? I'm sorry. I'm just looking for which one it is. H. 4.H. All right. Then I stand corrected. I'm not sure what we're going to do. One could make the point that there's not actually a third floor being added just to the original box. It's a continuation of the larger glass box that's going over the top of it, basically. That was a concept. Yes. Again, we're between the historic preservation guidelines and a substantial rehabilitation to a failing building. And it is substantially different than, I think this is what you're commenting on, Susan, is that it's different than simply taking the full plate and just extruding it upwards and making it look like it always had a third story on it. And we're not adding a third floor brick. Right. straight up to try to imitate history. That's right. So I read that in the guidelines. Was there any exploration with that glass box, I'm going to call it, that third floor having a somewhat different articulation that kind of reinforces what that original two-story building was rather than just carrying the glass box. That's interesting. I'd love to talk to you about it because I'm, again, Amelia and Betty and all, we've been down there, we've been talking, and it's a tough one. It's a tough one. And that was our solution. Well, now's your opportunity to talk to them about it. Please tell them whatever you would like them to know. We're flying the center. We didn't add to the building. We added to the addition, if you may. And it provides the needed square footage that the tenant needs to have in order to move into the building. In order to, quote unquote, I keep going back, we're actually going to save this building. I got an interesting question and I'm bouncing around on the kind of glass that we put on this building. Will it be clear so you can see through all the time or will it have a little reflectivity to it so it reflects the neighborhood around it and then at night you know with the lighting inside it could express it would express the building so I'm kind of open with that conversation too, so I'd like some input of whatever you guys, you all might think about it or if you have any opinion on it. Is that a way, since you raised the possibility, is that a way to differentiate that third level is a change in the glass itself? I'm totally thinking out loud here. It could work that way. I would think that it would be uniform, though. The glass bubbles that we're putting on this building would want to be the same. The idea is not the glass bubbles. We want them to go away. We want the brick, exposed brick to come through and the openings and the windows and the same kind of facade that you have now. Trying to make it work. And I agree with Steve. I don't want to say indifferent because I don't know what it would look like, but we really wanted your input on what you guys would prefer, and that would be how we would lean. And so that's one thing. I'm glad you brought that up that we had talked about. We didn't want to get lost in a week. We're open to discussion. I can entertain the sort of display case kind of idea to justify, I guess it's an addition. It's sort of not an addition. It's kind of just a, I mean, we do storm windows. It's like a giant storm window, right? Right. But it looks nice. It's just framed the brick. So, yeah, when I looked at the case earlier, I was more opposed to the upper street and the high street additions, but hearing you talk about it is a little more, I understand it a little better. Anybody else? I think there's a lot going on in this building. So it's hard to wrap your mind around one part of this. And I think there's a lot of it that doesn't meet the guidelines when it comes to the historic district. I think there's another conversation that this is kind of also on the verge of being downtown and is kind of also a downtown building. I think that there's so much going on that I think even though you're saying you want to preserve that historic structure, and even though you're creating this glass boxes that you can kind of see through and see to the historic structure, it still is pretty overwhelming, especially on that front facade. I can kind of wrap my head around this idea of this kind of glass box that kind of wraps around the backside of this structure. and even if like on the upper street side like if that box stayed true kind of all the way around and became this very independent thing but it kind of goes in and out and becomes pretty complicated so like if you could simplify that glass box and that could really be a statement I'm really struggling with the front. My first question was going to be, why are you encasing that front part? But then you explained about the water and things like that, and I was like, okay, that makes sense. Vagrancy is a big issue in water. But it just feels like too much. I'm wondering if it could be minimized or thought through a little bit more so that that front really still reads as that 1950s building. I understand why you did it, and I get that reasoning, but it's, I don't know, it's just a lot. No, I appreciate that. And so one of the things I think we talked about in the last meeting was how this area has, like, the evolution of that area and how different this building was when it was first built. And so what we tried to do is, like, incorporate downtown, but keep that. And then the front part, we really, for safety reasons, could only have one way in and one way out. We could, like, just, we have files in there. We have personnel in there. We can't have multiple entrances right there. And so we wanted to enclose it. Also, it's, again, for the lighting aspect on why we enclosed that with glass. But those are all great recommendations, like something we'll sit back and we know. So just on this sketch, kind of what I was thinking, if you want to step up here in terms of how complicated this glass box is really getting. On this upper side street, you know, you're trying to play out with all of this and match that, but maybe there's a way that that glass box is really just a glass box. and you find a different condition there, so it's not like stepping out. That, to me, is awkward, whereas if that glass box just continued straight down. You all are going to need to probably put that on Elmo. Step back, step back. We need, if you could, and Sarah, if you want to come over and use Elmo, Chris can set you up. But I think we need to get this so that the full board can see what's being talked about. Can I make one more comment before I have to go soon? I think there's a lot of details like that that could be kind of worked out a little bit to make it a simpler glass box. And that's just one example of where it's getting really complicated. Yes, Sarah. That can be done. And the response to the size of the box was based on the size of the window wells. Yeah, I get that, but it still has to. The lower level on the ground floor. And along those. Josh, did you have any other comments? I'm sorry, I'll have to leave. I kind of feel like I'm going to kick the hornet's nest saying this. Josh, get near your mic, please. Sorry. I'll get closer. This building has so many functional problems. It was built, busted the day it was built. So I, on one hand, like, I commend you guys for, like, trying to preserve it and highlight what's in it. but I also am not very passionate about the building, period. So this is where I'm standing on it. So, yeah, I don't know. That's kind of where I'm at. I hate that I have to leave, but. Well, thank you. We may actually. Justice, Josh, we've been there too. And Mr. Grace? Mr. Chair, when you're ready, the staff would make a couple of, not any kind of closing, just a couple of points for the board's consideration kind of right where you are. Okay, I want to make sure we have all the comments recorded and noted first. And Ms. Hill? Yes. And I have a couple comments as well. Okay, I have another question, and that's trying to preserve those corners of the original building as the glass box part of it is being assembled. The only place that that does not occur on is that northwest corner where High and Upper come together. it's the only place that the original historic box doesn't show except just as a panel of brick. The corner itself is incorporated into the glass. That's great. That's good. Yeah. The rest of it stepped back really nicely and really shows that kind of core masonry building. Yeah, it expresses that corner a little better, and I agree with that totally. All right. Anything else, Ms. Hill? And Josh, are you leaving? Yes, I'm leaving. Okay. A couple comments I have, and I'm the lawyer on this panel, and I'm not the architect. I'm keenly aware of the lawsuit that's going on, and I know what's going on there, and I realize that there's a lot of moving parts in that litigation as well, which is why I compliment you for trying to find a solution to it. Have you had a conversation yet with South Hill Neighborhood Association? If you haven't, you need to. I believe Adrian Mendiondo has. He's just not here today. Bluegrass Trust is not the only entity that's a player in that area, and South Hill is vitally important. if you want to make this thing work, you're going to have to have their understanding and endorsement. I believe we have it, but I appreciate that. My other concern is the lighting. And while I'm a believer in modern lighting, I'm wondering if at night it's going to be too overwhelming for South Hill, the residential part, which backs right up on that building. So you may need to think about having an automatic timer where it dims down around 9 or 10 at night, where you still have some lighting, but it's not going to be as bright as you're envisioning it being in the darker part of the evening. I'm also concerned about how your materials will hold up over time, whether that glass will still look as good and clean and clear five years from now as it is today. it might not hurt at all to have some kind of an understanding that morgan morgan's going to be there for quite a while we're going nowhere that will be the case or not you get this building done and then you jump to another building is what i'm trying to morgan morgan is a joint venture partner in this thing yep well i know they're they're very successful i just want to make sure they're not so successfully outgrow that building and then we're left with a problem. Understood. My final comment is, frankly, I like the design. I like the looks of it. It's interesting. I do think the front facade, the facade facing High Street is too obscured. And that needs to be more, you're losing too much of the original look of that building, ugly as it may be in some respects, but it does have a unique architectural design for that neighborhood. And you put your finger right on it, sir, when you're saying there has been an evolution in that neighborhood. And of course, that was the ugly thing that happened to a historic neighborhood. But now it's been 70 some odd years, so it's part of the historic neighborhood. So you're trying to work with that, and I appreciate it. Okay, Ms. Kerr? Well, you just gave the most perfect lead-in to what I have to say. All right. We might need to hit the road and, you know, do a double act. I think everybody needs to remember that this property's anything about it, whether all the nuances and the whole big picture, are having to be measured within the design guidelines for the South Hill District. and how it responds to those guidelines in its context of the South Hill District, which is you just have been saying in a different set of words. Within that, evaluating what is the character and the volume and mass and architectural identities and streetscapes, and you need to do a streetscape study, by the way, as part of this, is what everybody's charged with, both the applicant and the board in their review of the applicant's materials. What is not to be taken into consideration are things that are not within the designation of the historic district. And so it means that the north side of High Street is not part of the considerations in terms of the taller. They're representative of another era's evolution, but they're also representative of an area not part of the designated historic district in a very different charactered area. We went through this, the reason I'm able to say that with comfort, we went through this with considerations about a new building proposal at the corner of Broadway and High, on the southeast corner of Broadway and High, a couple of go-rounds. We've been there and done that. So I just want to be sure that everybody is using the same tools to measure the territory in which this is happening and applying the regulations as intended within that context. We have met as staff. Barry had a really good meeting with these folks. And we'll certainly be glad to do so again. One thing I don't know that we mentioned to you, but your sign's too big. And when you said about bigger the better and everything, I thought, you know, we didn't bring up. Your sign's too big. We'll make sure that's within the guidelines. Thank you. And parking a bus with the wrap on it right out front, and I don't know about that either. But since it's on wheels, you know, that's another matter. So I don't think today, I think that the applicants have heard the baseline issues in terms of the guidelines. I think it's very questionable if you can make the case that this is doable and honor the design guidelines and the intent that we are charged with. Any additional comments? I think there are ways that the guidelines should never get in the way of preservation, in my opinion. My concern is this board has already approved a demolition of this building. And I have been envisioning the fight that we're going to have over whatever comes in its place. And without the restrictions that we currently have with this building, we could be dealing with a much larger edifice if we're not careful. But I am very concerned about what the replacement of this building would be. I think what you're coming up with is a very imaginative, and I think it needs tweaking, and probably a thorough study of the guidelines and probably some briefing on that issue to us. I mean, this is an issue that we have never explored in terms of an addition of another floor of a flat building, which is a little different from all the other, what the guidelines usually deal with, is a commercial building. So I think that's something that needs to be perhaps studied on, briefed. Look to the Secretary of Interior guidelines and how that provision has been interpreted elsewhere. It may be useful to our benefit. And since you have 60 some odd attorneys, I think you can find a couple of them. Okay. Well, I just want everybody to know that the staff will need to be interpreting this application as we do in an even-handed and fair fashion. Absolutely. With every application that we receive and our recommendation at the end of the day will reflect that activity. Absolutely. I'm not saying that at all but there's a reason why we're here too. Absolutely. Don't lose track of the fact that the front orientation of the building is that it's being reoriented, that the building's characters. Well, that's another issue. You see, that's the problem. The orientation of the building instinctively feels like it's on high, but it's not. It's actually on upper, and that's what's so odd about this building. Which is the way it was built. I'm not here to argue. I'm just here to point out the points. But the interesting thing is, since it's a one-of-a-kind, there may be a little bit more flexibility than may originally be envisioned. I'm not saying one way or the other the way I'm voting. But I do prefer preservation over demolition, and that's where I'm at. Appreciate it. In fact, I was the one that voted against the demolition the last time we went through this process. So, gentlemen, thank you for your time. Thank you guys for your time. May I suggest one more thing? You may, before we get into an application process, you may want to do one more conceptual review with us. Okay. Just to get a good feel of whether you really are reading us correctly. And thank you all for your time. Thank you all. Appreciate your time and your insight. Again, as I said before, this is a dichotomy between storage preservation and functional reuse. I think functional reuse has got to be the guiding factor here. Well, I remember the game building they were trying to put in on the corner of High and Broadway when they were trying to put in that, what was it, five, six, seven story building? It was going to be a hotel. What was it called? The game something? Game day. Game day, yeah. And there was another cycle of it. But yeah, the one was 11 and 12 story-ish and the other was six and seven. And so I would prefer to keep the height of that street. Part of the problem with High Street is because it works upslope, upgrade. You know, if you put anything on the grade, it's going to overwhelm the neighborhood. And that's a real problem with development on that street, new development. All right. Thank you, everyone, for your time. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. We've approved the minutes. We'll be happy to work with you. I mean, this was the first blush, and it's a difficult issue, and I think we can all work together and get something done. Okay. Keep this building. I agree. Thank you. All right. So we have had our next meeting will be the third Wednesday of April, which is what? April? April 20th. April 20th. Do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Anything else, Ms. Kerr? So move second. Second. This august body stands adjourned. Thank you. I'm sorry.