# Board of Architectural Review - October 19, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 19, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5663 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5663?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-10-19 - **Last revised**: October 19, 2022 - **Length**: 14,355 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 October 19, 2022, at 101 East Vine Street, Room 220, with the Chairman presiding. The meeting addressed three main agenda categories: Staff Approvals, Certificate of Appropriateness Applications, and Conceptual Review, all of which were informational in nature. During the session, the board conducted 11 motions and votes on various architectural review matters. The meeting included one public comment from a community member. The board's work focused on reviewing and processing architectural applications and proposals within their jurisdiction, maintaining the procedural oversight of development projects in the area. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on October 19, 2022: **Present:** • Chairman • Ryan Hughes • Steve Byers • Lisa Blackadar • Darren Taylor • Patrick Onor • Doug Slaymaker All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included eleven motions, all decided by voice vote and all passed. The votes primarily concerned certificates of appropriateness for various properties and solar panel installations. **Certificates of Appropriateness Approved:** - **365 Transylvania Park** - Motion by Chair, passed with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] - **147 Woodland Avenue** - Motion by Mr. Chairman, passed with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] - **172 Forest Avenue** - Motion by Chair, passed with specific conditions regarding porch roof and siding [timestamp: 00:00] - **757 Caden Lane** - Motion by Mr. Chair, passed with standard two conditions and height condition [timestamp: 00:00] - **612 North Broadway** - Motion by Chair, passed with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] - **419 Arcadia Park** - Motion by Mr. Chair, passed with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] - **570 Arcadia Park** - Motion by Chair, passed with standard two conditions [timestamp: 00:00] **Solar Panel Decisions:** - **137 South Hanover Avenue** - Two separate motions were made regarding this property. The first motion by Mr. Chairman to disapprove solar panels on the front porch passed [timestamp: 00:00]. A second motion to approve solar panels on the southeast elevation with standard two conditions also passed [timestamp: 00:00] - **237 Barberry Lane** - Motion by Chair to disapprove solar panels on the south addition passed [timestamp: 00:00] **Policy Motion:** - A motion was passed requesting the Historic Preservation Commission to review guidelines for solar panels [timestamp: 00:00] All motions were decided by voice vote with no recorded individual vote counts or abstentions. The specific members who seconded the motions were not identified in the record. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one resident addressed the board regarding solar panel installation challenges. **Doug Slaymaker** spoke about issues related to solar panel placement at 237 Barberry Lane [timestamp: 00:00]. Slaymaker outlined the difficulties and limitations he faces in installing solar panels on the rear portion of his property. He cited two primary concerns: reduced efficiency of the solar system when panels are positioned in the rear location, and the increased costs associated with this placement configuration. The resident's comments highlighted practical challenges that property owners may encounter when attempting to install renewable energy systems while potentially working within local zoning or aesthetic requirements that might restrict front-yard installations. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary area of contention regarding the installation of solar panels on historic properties [timestamp not available]. **Solar Panels on Historic Properties** A heated discussion emerged among board members concerning the appropriateness of installing solar panels on historic buildings, with particular focus on their placement on primary elevations. The debate centered on balancing historic preservation standards with the growing need to accommodate renewable energy technologies. The disagreement involved multiple board members who expressed differing views on how strictly historic guidelines should be applied when property owners seek to install solar energy systems. Some participants argued for maintaining traditional aesthetic standards that would restrict visible solar installations on street-facing facades, while others advocated for more flexible interpretations that would allow renewable energy improvements. The discussion highlighted the challenge of updating existing preservation guidelines to address modern sustainability needs without compromising the historic character of protected properties. Board members recognized the tension between environmental goals and historic preservation requirements. The outcome of this contentious discussion was a decision to review current guidelines with the goal of developing clearer standards for renewable energy installations on historic properties. The board acknowledged the need to create policies that could accommodate both preservation objectives and contemporary energy efficiency improvements, though specific timeline or implementation details for the guideline review were not specified in the available materials. This debate reflects broader challenges facing historic preservation boards nationwide as communities increasingly prioritize renewable energy adoption while maintaining their historic character and architectural integrity. ## Staff Approvals [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed staff approvals for various renovation and replacement projects within historic districts. The Chairman presented an overview of recent approvals that had been processed by staff under their administrative authority. The staff approvals covered a range of maintenance and improvement projects affecting historic properties, including: • Door surrounds replacements and renovations • Sidewalk repairs and replacements • Roof maintenance and replacement work • Various structural improvements and modifications These items represented routine maintenance and minor alterations that fall within staff's delegated approval authority for historic district properties. Such approvals allow property owners to proceed with necessary work without requiring full board review, streamlining the process for standard maintenance items that meet established guidelines. The presentation served as an informational update to keep board members informed of the ongoing preservation activities within their jurisdiction. No specific concerns were raised during the discussion, and no board action was required as these items had already been approved through the administrative process. This agenda item demonstrates the board's oversight role in monitoring staff decisions while allowing efficient processing of routine historic preservation matters that comply with established standards and guidelines. ## Certificate of Appropriateness Applications [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed multiple Certificate of Appropriateness applications for various construction and modification projects within historic districts. The discussion involved several key participants including the Chairman, Ryan Hughes, Steve Byers, Lisa Blackadar, Darren Taylor, and Patrick Onor. The applications under consideration covered a range of projects, with solar panel installations being a prominent topic of discussion. The board also examined proposals for deck constructions and building additions, all of which required approval due to their location within designated historic districts. Board members engaged in detailed discussions about each application, evaluating how the proposed changes would impact the historic character and integrity of the affected properties and surrounding areas. The review process involved careful consideration of design elements, materials, and overall compatibility with existing historic structures. The participants examined various aspects of the applications, likely including architectural details, visual impact assessments, and compliance with established historic preservation guidelines. Solar panel installations appeared to be a particular focus, as these modern additions require special consideration when being integrated into historic properties. The agenda item was classified as informational, indicating that the board was reviewing and discussing the applications as part of their regular oversight process. The involvement of multiple speakers suggests there was substantial dialogue about the various projects and their appropriateness within the historic district context. This review process represents the board's ongoing responsibility to balance property owners' needs for modifications and improvements with the preservation of historic district character and compliance with established preservation standards. ## Conceptual Review [timestamp: 00:00] The board conducted a conceptual review for a proposed addition at 720 Central Avenue during agenda item 3. The discussion focused on evaluating the design, scale, and potential impacts of the proposed addition on the existing historic structure. Key speakers during this agenda item included Darren Taylor and Vince Thompson, who participated in the review process. The conceptual review served as an informational discussion, allowing the board to examine the preliminary plans and provide feedback on the proposed development. The review centered on assessing how the proposed addition would integrate with the historic character of the property at 720 Central Avenue. Board members evaluated various aspects of the design to determine its appropriateness for the historic structure and surrounding context. This agenda item was classified as informational, meaning no formal action was taken during the meeting. The conceptual review process allows applicants to receive preliminary feedback from the board before submitting formal applications, helping to identify potential issues early in the design process. The discussion provided an opportunity for the board to offer guidance on the proposed addition's compatibility with the historic property, though specific details of the concerns raised or recommendations made were not detailed in the available materials. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 365 Transylvania Park with standard two conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 147 Woodland Avenue with standard two conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 172 Forest Avenue with specific conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 757 Caden Lane with standard two conditions and height condition - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 612 North Broadway with standard two conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 419 Arcadia Park with standard two conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of certificate of appropriateness for 570 Arcadia Park with standard two conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Disapproval of solar panels on the front porch at 137 South Hanover Avenue - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of solar panels on the southeast elevation at 137 South Hanover Avenue with standard two conditions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Request to the Historic Preservation Commission to review guidelines for solar panels - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Disapproval of solar panels on the south addition of 237 Barberry Lane --- ## Full transcript The board, which is appointed by the mayor and 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 all your projects. The board encourages and recommends that applicants choose them as 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're listed on their 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 from any other instance 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 of the applications. This eliminates the necessity for all applicants to appear before the board. There are a total of 28 approved applications noted on today's agenda. They are as follows. In the Ashland Park Historic District at 114 Deshea Road, renovate doors around. At 1016 Fincastle Road, replace the sidewalks. At 132 South Hanover, replace roof shingles. In the Ellsford Historic District at 320 Ellsford Place, renovate structure. At 324 Ellsford Place, renovate structure. At 348 Linden Walk, renovate front porch. at 354 Linden Walk, renovate Front Forge. At 463 East Maxwell Street, renovate the structure. At 333 Transylvania Park, renovate structure. At 147 Woodland Avenue, remove tree and replace fence. And at 338 Woodland Avenue, replace fencing. In the Belcourt Historic District, at 125 Forest Avenue, repair, renovate brick stair system. In the Constitution Street Historic District at 234 North Limestone, renovated structure. At 159 East 3rd Street, install fencing. In the Fayette Park Historic District at 416 Fayette Park, reissued the COA. In the Northside Historic District at 239 North Broadway, removed damaging and deteriorated tree. At 547 North Broadway, replaced damaged window. In the Pensacola historic district at 145 Lackawanna Drive, removed and replaced deteriorated trees. At 169 Pensacola Drive, renovated fallen tree. In the seven parks historic district at 419 Arcadia Park, replaced fencing. At 221 Barbary Lane, removed dying pine tree. At 1613 Elizabeth Street, removed deteriorated tree. at 213 Barbary Lane, remove deteriorated tree, and 207 Barbary Lane, remove a deteriorated tree. In the South Hill Historic District, at 359 South Upper Street, renovate the rear deck in sight. In the South Ashland Central Avenue Historic District, at 270 South Ashland, renovate structure. In the Woodward Heights Historic District, at 716 West Maxwell Street, renovate structure in sight. and finally a 360 Marino Street renovate structure. We will go to our applications. I will note the first one and the last one. Both deal with the installation of solar panels, and both of them will probably necessitate a hearing, so I'll hear all the other cases first before those. Moving then to 365 Transylvania Park to construct deck and patio. Is the applicant here? Good afternoon, Chairman. My name is Ryan Hughes. All right. I will run the proceedings, but I will not vote in this particular proceeding since you're my neighbor. Yes, sir. All right. So I believe the staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what we call the standard two conditions. Let me read them to you in the record. If any changes are made, then all three information submitted. Resubmit the changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Are we in agreement with that one? Yes, sir. And number two, once reviewed by the other divisions, returning changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Are we in agreement? Yes. Right. Any questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 191-30365-H at 365 Transylvania Park, I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions as read into the record. 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. Opposed, nay. Motion passes and the certificate of appropriateness is approved as conditioned. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Chairman. Good luck with your project. All right. Turning now to our next application at 147 Woodland Avenue. Scope of work is demolish deck and construct patio. Is the applicant here? Come on up. All right, if you state your name for the record, please. Sir, Steve Byers. Lisa Blackadar. Nice to see you. The staff has approved your application to demolish a wood deck and construct a stone paver patio in place of the deck. They have added to it what I call our standard conditions. And let me just read them briefly into the record. The first condition being if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to the staff or board for review and approval prior to the start of work. Are you in agreement? Yes. Secondly, once reviewed by the other city divisions, returning changes to staff aboard for review and approval prior to start of work. You agree with that one? Yes. All right, then. Do we have any comments or questions from the board members? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 21031. Sorry. 21030147-K at 147 Woodland Avenue. I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two 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. Opposed nay. Motion carries and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you so much and good luck with your project. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Turning next to our next application at 172 Forest Avenue in the Belcourt Historic District, demolished additions, constructed additions, and abortions. Applicant here. Hey, Darren. Mr. Taylor, you've been a frequent visitor lately. That's right, I know. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. All right. All right. I believe. That's right. The staff has recommended approval of the application, but they have what I would call two substantive conditions. The first one being the second floor porch roof be tucked under the second floor corners. Are you in agreement with that? Yes, we are. Number two is the lap siding on the first floor porch should be a six-inch exposure in lieu of eight inches. We're in agreement with that, yes. All right, and the other two are the standard two conditions I've previously read. Yes, sir. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Very good then. I'm ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 07280172-D at 172 Forrest Avenue, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness with the following two nonstandard conditions, Number one being the second floor porch roof be tucked under the second floor cornice. Number two, the lap siding on the first floor porch be a six-inch exposure in lieu of eight-inch. And then the remaining number three and four, the standard two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the COA is approved. Thank you all. Thank you. Going now to 757 Caden Lane. Scope of work is install solar panels on the rear roof. And I believe this one has straight up approval. I'm just double checking. Yes. Patrick Onoro on behalf of Lori Wagner. All right. Again, state your name, please. Patrick Onoro. All right. Yes, Onoro. The staff has recommended approval subject to our standard two conditions and one substantive, I just want to check with you on that, that any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of the work. Any agreement with that? Agreed. Thank you. And you're in agreement with the other two conditions? Yes, sir. All right. Any questions or comments from the board members? Questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, is here who's ready for a motion? Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 02960757-J at 757 Caden Lane, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions and with an additional condition that any increase in height shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the start of work. Thank you. Any second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair will call the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries, and the COA has conditions approved. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Turning now to 612 North Broadway at Northside Historic District. The scope of work is to construct a pool house and associated site work. Is the applicant here? Mr. Chairman, the applicant is not here. He received his staff report by email, and I heard from him that he received it, but he did not comment on the recommendations. Okay, these are standard two conditions. I suspect there's no need to defer taking consideration of this motion, so I would like to move forward with it. I'll read them into the record. the standard two conditions or if any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the change to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. And the other is being number two, once reviewed by the other city divisions, any changes shall be returned to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. I assume that we're in agreement with that, so I'm ready for a motion. Any comment from the audience on this one? Hearing none, I believe we're ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 025-00612-H at 612 North Broadway, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions as read into the record. 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. Opposed nay. Motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Turning to our next application at 419 Arcadia Park in the Seven Parks District. Scope of work is construct barrage and greenhouse. Yes sir. Lee Sims 419 Arcadia Park. Okay Mr. Sims. Staff has recommended approval of your application subject to what I've been calling the standard two conditions, which I have previously read. Are you in agreement with those two conditions? Yes, sir. Any questions or comments from the board members about this? Any questions or comments from the audience? Hearing none, then. The chair is ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, in regards to case number 00510417-B at 419 Arcadia Park, I move that we approve the certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Is there a second? Second. All right. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The motion passes and the COA as condition is approved. Thank you, Mr. Simms. Thank you. Okay. Turning now to 570 Arcadia Park. Scope of work is alter openings. Is the applicant here? The applicant is not present, excuse me, but has received a copy of their staff report. I'm glad to hear you join the club as well. Welcome to the froggy throat crawl. All right, thank you so much. Again, these are just the standard two conditions. So I believe we can move forward. I'll read them into the record just to make sure. If any changes are made that alter the information submitted, resubmit the changes to staff for review and approval prior to start of work. The other being, once reviewed by the other city divisions, resubmit changes to staff or board for review and approval prior to start of work. Any discussion on the application? Any comments from the audience? Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case number 00510570-E at 570 Arcadia Park, I move to approve this certificate of appropriateness with the standard two conditions. All right. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the chair calls the question. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. The motion carries and the COA as condition is approved. Okay. Okay, we are now at 237 Barbary Lane, which is a solar panel application, which I'm going to defer to. I know that you won't be hurt. So in terms of the order of agenda, the application for south handover avenues ahead of you. So Dr. Francis and your consultant. Okay, let me call then 137 South Hanover Avenue. This is a continuation of a proceeding that we started last month. Scope of work is install the solar panels on the main and porch roof. During that process, we asked for a study from the staff. I think the procedure would be for the staff to present a study first and then to hear from you, Dr. Francis. All right. Okay. Amelia? And were you here at the last one? Okay. So we're, yeah. All right. You don't have to walk us through the entire thing. I'm going to move forward a little bit on this case to a couple of... Slides. So with the solar panel study, we prepared this with putting our guidelines first on this sheet. Because that's what we have to adhere to first. And specifically, the guidelines we're looking for is that it should not be mounted on the primary elevations of the buildings. It should be located at the rear of the principal or attached to the rear of the principal building and not on that primary elevation. And we considered the front porch the primary elevation. And in doing so, I also looked at, and you'll see, the Secretary of Interior standards, and specifically there were ten Secretary of Interior standards for rehab. And we've chosen to look, most all people look at two. I would tell you with the study, I actually contained it to all the states that actually touched Kentucky. So I did Kentucky itself, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and I did also look at D.C., Washington, D.C. So these are the primary studies that I looked at around here because the climate is so similar to ours. And I didn't look at the four top states ranking from the solar group, SEIC or SEIA, which is the Solar Industry Association, which is the top rating places are Texas, Florida, California, and North Carolina, not in that order. California being number one at this point, North Carolina being number four. But I did study the perimeter, and I chose, I just looked at particular historic districts within each state to sort of look at what they've done within that study. I didn't, you know, I think I do have a packet of information I've researched and gleaned sort of some from all over the country, but specifically I looked at those particular areas because they have such similar climates as ours, which I thought was important. And I'm going to go forward with some mapping that sort of looked at some of the studies that have been done as far as the range of what sun we have. And then this is one of the global horizontal solar irradiance in where our sun comes from and how many times and sort of an overview of that. I did look at going back to what we always have to look at is where we get gleaned most of our research, you know, and where our guidelines sort of come from, the Secretary of Interior guidelines for rehab, which has, and everybody uses sort of the standard two, standard number two, which is the store character should be retained, preserved. That means that any solar panels installed needs not to have any kind of historic fabric removed. And then standard number nine sort of regenerates that and talks about any alteration should not be taken away and everything should be compatible with existing structure. And then there was a study from the National Trust put out for the practical approaches for installing solar technologies on historic preservation from historic preservation properties in 2011. And there's quite a bit of those. I put those in specifically because it does talk about not placing on the front. And I know that Dr. Francis in his study talked about a lot of this technology was not relevant or dated, but at the same time, most all communities look at the fact that all solar panels should be not the primary elevation. Now, some of them do use a grading process. In North Carolina, there's a grading process, so they look at least visible, most visible, and three tracks of sort of looking at and of where they are most present. And we don't, ours is more of, you know, we look at a 360 approach to solar panels, allowing solar panels to be on the rear and non-primary elevation. But they sort of look at sort of a grading process of what, and that's mostly specifically at corner properties where you have a lot of visibility on one, you know, the secondary elevations because they face the street. And then I'll go back to these are the recommendations and what is recommended and not recommended for solar panels and their placement. Specifically, I looked at residential structures. I did not look at commercial structures that typically can be installed behind parapets and not necessarily be visible from the street because I think the visibility is a big thing. And then again, this is the second part of that. These are their recommendations and these are actually in your study as well. I think there was most recently a pretty big case that was in Washington, D.C., about the installation of solar panels where somebody had already had solar panels in one of the historic districts and they wanted to add more. And this was a big high-profile case that got a lot of press in the news. And there was recently a, there was an op-ed piece that was put in the New York Times about, and criticizing historic districts, thinking they were pretty antiquated about not allowing solar panels. And I thought it was pretty poignant that one of the people who commented on that particular situation was the fact that it was the president for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. And he said, historic preservation is one of the most successful strategies for urban sustainability that any city can employ, using existing buildings, stock conserving energy, and avoids the high environmental costs for new construction. And he also would like to mention that Zeran uniqueness and the livability of characters. And so I think my point on this is the fact that I think we've had a lot of people come forward with situations that sort of polarize solar panels and historic preservation, when that is not necessarily the case in the sense that you can't be more green than trying to retain your structure. And I think if we can make amends and allow solar panels in particular situations, we are being green. This particular client that we're talking about now, 137, we've recommended approval of solar panels on his non-primary elevations. I think that the concern is about how that affects the primary elevation, and the fact that our guidelines specifically say not to have him on the primary elevation, and the precedent setting of what that happens for further down the road. And I feel like during a lot of this research and reading about different communities that all, and you guys are not alone in this particular situation. There are situations all over. But, you know, from Oak Park, Illinois, to, you know, Asheville, North Carolina, to St. Louis that has two historic districts, one allowing solar panels on the front, one not in different historic districts. I mean, this is a challenge all over of how you come up with that particular aesthetic and make them work. But I think many historic preservation articles I read about, you know, I read solar-based information and also from a historic preservation standpoint. And it seems to me in the study that historic preservation people are really trying to tell that this is green. You're already being green. And one study also talks about the fact that many times people are not addressing some of the energy saving costs in their house as far as insulation and helping to sort of make their house more effective and being green in that way, as well as adding solar panels or being that. And I think there was a couple of things, and there's some other points I wanted to mention that are listed in the solar panel study. They talk about making sure that they are not placed, as we've talked about, with their place on the side gable roof, that they're placed back from the edge and not necessarily, which we've already practiced in our particular area. and then that we are pretty much consistent with most all other communities for having to deal with this. And there are 34 states that actually have pretty much a directive that solar, they would have a goal of meeting so many solar panels within their community. And of course, we are not necessarily one of those. And you can see on the, you can sort of tell which ones on the list are. But I think even within those communities, they still give deference to making sure that they are not on the front of the structure or not as highly visible and won't create a negative impact on the building. And is there any questions you would like to ask? Ms. Hill? I don't have any specific questions at this point. I have one, and that is I'm just wondering, did you get into any review at all about solar panels being installed in a flat manner so that they're not visible from the roadway? There are some communities that do allow that. I think, and they do talk about them being minimal, that they are not as highly visible. Their guidelines have a different, they use the word visible versus not on the front primary elevation. Sorry. They use visibility as their measure versus us that use not on the primary elevation. And I think some communities do look at that. There's a couple, I think there's a couple of cases of that in Washington, D.C. And I think also in some of the other, like Illinois, I think, and I think St. Louis have some, too. However, I think they have used the term visibility, which is the big thing, versus on the primary elevation. I was looking at your, I guess if you're counting, one, two, three, your fourth page where you have this little chart broken down. Was there any significance to the graying out or the highlight? No, I just couldn't get it off there. Sorry. I wasn't sure what you were saying. I tried and tried and tried. No, they sort of had that, and I couldn't. There's nothing to that. Sorry. Because in the recommended section was, you know, installing a low-profile solar device on historic building, so it's not visible or only minimally visible from the public right-of-way. You're differentiating that because they are dealing with a visibility standard as opposed to a location standard, for lack of a better word? Pretty much. There's a gradation of visible versus... And I guess your view is the front porch is typically a part of the primary elevation. We would consider everything that faces the street the primary elevation. But I would say, and I think to clarify that, everything that faces the street at the front of the house, not necessarily the side. All right. I guess that's all the questions I have. Dr. Francis, you want to go first or your consultant? I just want to pick up where we left off. At last we spoke, Ms. Hill, it was my impression that you agreed that being on the flat on the front was not in violation of the primary elevation. Is that accurate? I was suggesting the guidelines talk about the primary elevation. and not being visible. I think it actually includes both, doesn't it? So there is a visibility issue related to it. But it does also very clearly address the primary elevation. I was making the observation that visibility, I couldn't even see it in the photographs. So for me, visibility was a big issue. And that I was not giving the same weight to the porch, though I can see that that is certainly a prominent feature of the building. So I'm here to listen and to learn. This is an evolving question and issue, and we need to find. I did a lot of research from the National Park Service, and clearly Louisville's redoing their standards completely. There is a lot of rework being done, so there's a lot of pressure. And historic houses are, by their mere nature of not tearing them down, is a green position. But there's only so much you can do with a historic house living in one to make it energy efficient. That's not a whole business model, though. That's what we do. My goal is to not sell more solar panels. It's to insulate. We upgraded his HVAC, lowering his needs before we did it. We've done some insulation work. I don't want to sell more solar panels. The synergy of your home is the whole point. It is, but that's hard to do. It is. And we took great care to make these as invisible as humanly possible, and it was the best canvas that he had for us to work with. Yeah, the difficult part for me is that we're in the middle of a conversation that should have happened before anything was installed. And so that puts us in a kind of a no-win situation. It is a conversation that the board has stepped into for several years as we've had applications and as we've thoughtfully considered it. But then to have an application that's really retro makes this a more kind of conflictual condition. And I believe I explained before that we took over this project from another company, and we were under the impression that it had already been done. And we've actually established a policy in my company to make sure that it's been done because of this job. So you'll never have me in front of you again on the retro. It'll always be on the front end of it. But we are where we are, and we're trying to help Dr. Francis move through this. Understood. Thank you, Jay. Larry Francis, 137 South Hanover. Mr. Chairman and Board, thank you for hearing me. You know, as a physician, you really enjoy difficult cases, and I didn't mean to throw a difficult case your way, but I think I did. So just in talking specifically about the regulations that prohibit solar panels on the primary elevation, not being an architect, primary elevation to me has an elevation or a pitch to a roof or structure. The panels are completely flat on a flat roof. And so beyond that, the guidelines for the historic neighborhoods that discuss solar panels dated back to 2016. And then I went through all of the online material, and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation were published in the 90s, dates back to the 70s, and really I think 1977 or so. So the standards, when I went to the web hyperlink on the website, I tried to go to the standards and I couldn't get there from the website. So there was some outdated material there. The current recommendations say that installing mechanical and service equipment on a roof, such as air conditioning transformers or solar collectors, when required that they be inconspicuous from public right-of-way and do not damage or obscure the character-defining features of the structure, and that is recommended. It doesn't say anything about primary elevation. And then according to the U.S. Department of Interior, the technical preservation services, solar panels installed on historic property in a location that cannot be seen from the ground will meet the Secretary of Interior's standards for rehabilitation. An installation in which particular care is taken that doesn't obscure or radically change damage or destroy a character defining feature, and again there's that character defining features, is recommended. It doesn't say it's allowed, it says is recommended. So regarding energy efficiency, they talk about, and this is the Department of Interior, talks about placing new additions to increase energy efficiency on the non-character defining elevation is recommended. And the standards are to be applied in a reasonable manner, and you have to take into account the economic and technical feasibility. In this particular project, the technical feasibility was that this was really the only location that you could have adequate solar collection to achieve the energy standard that we were looking for. So when you look at other, and this is outside of the Department of Interior, but if you look at other national government agencies that look at this topic, the National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the recommendation regarding solar panels in historic areas, low profile panels set on flat roofs provide quote an ideal surface for solar arrays quote. So to minimize the visibility they do recommend setting these back from the edge which these are. So in sum I would just leave the committee with the board with the recommendations that are current that this project was consistent installation on a flat roof. if it does not obscure, radically change, damage or destroy the character of the building in any way. There's, and it goes on to say that it is recommended that the low profile panels be installed in that manner. And I won't go too much further, but in this particular project, if you drive down Central Avenue or if you walk or drive either way on South Ashland Avenue, The rear elevation of this house is perfectly visible. This will be seen in three directions of travel if we move these to the back as is specifically allowed. So really this is less of a character changing element than if the panels were installed in the manner as prescribed in the guidelines. So respectfully, thank you very much for hearing me. Any questions? Susan? I don't have any specific questions. I appreciate the research that you've done to look into other kind of wider view. Our charge, of course, is to look at the guidelines as they currently exist. Just one question, Doctor. is I think I remember from the last presentation that you're saying alternatively if you could not have the flat roof, you would be putting other panels on the rear elevation of the house. The only alternative. That erotically is going to be more visible than what's on the porch. Mr. Chairman, that's my opinion. And the other question, Doctor, is this project not feasible if you don't have those additional panels? The project wouldn't attain, it would obtain some meaningful change, but it would not zero the power bill. Could you give me a percentage? Is it 50%? Yeah. Okay. So if we move the panels to the rear elevation as is prescribed, you can see them very clearly from central and Ashland. Well, and the orientation, if it's moved, I mean, orientation is if you cut the usefulness of generating energy by 50 percent, then it changes the formula completely. And that is one of the challenges that we deal with, A, because the grid in Lexington is skewed by, you know, 40 degrees. But so the only other suggestion that I could make is that because looking at what I think you're saying, the rear side of your roof, it seems, A, you're not going to generate that much energy, and, B, it's going to be really challenging to fit much of any of them on it. I don't know if you've actually. It's more visible to the other streets. Yeah. And I understand the visibility piece of it, it is. But I'm just stating in terms of efficiency, it really doesn't. And taking into account the tree canopy, this was an ideal location. The rear elevation, if we place solar panels here and here, as you come down Central Avenue, you directly face the back of the house. And you will see those solar panels directly. So I'll leave you with that and thank you. Well, thank you. Chair. I think the irony is that in some ways the compromise that was reached in the guidelines was not visibility, but placement and location. And in some ways, the fact that it can be visible, but if it's in the right place, which means it's not distracting from the front part of the house is an important consideration. Sarah, did you have any questions or comments? I have a couple of comments. Sure, go ahead. So I do appreciate all the additional research you've done, and I totally agree that we need to be finding ways to put solar panels on houses and historic houses in particular, but we do have to adhere to the guidelines and what the guidelines say. And there are several things in the practical approaches to installing solar technologies. And you kind of skip to the one that mostly adheres to you. But there's a lot of other information here that really says it should be in the back of the house. It should not be visible on the primary elevation. If on a flat roof, you know, it's preferable that they're behind parapet walls. And so there's a lot of stuff there that really gives additional guidance about how those should look. And as much as I want to be able to say you can't see them, the fact is you can see them from the street. And it's not highly visible, but it is a line, and our guidelines do put them on the primary facade. And the, you know, and that it says avoid placing solar panels on street facing soffits or roofs. and this is kind of a street-facing roof. And so I just feel like we're not quite meeting the guidelines, and maybe we need to add, and our guidelines need to be changed in such a way that would allow this low-profile look from the street to be acceptable, but right now I just don't feel like it is. I think, Dr. Bart, in fairness to you, you have advocated for something, And very often the visionary is two steps ahead of the rest of the world. And in this instance, this is going to have to be an issue that's going to have to be resolved by the commission. We can't set the standards. We have to enforce the standards as we interpret them. And so, as much as sympathetic as I am to the idea, notwithstanding the fact that you jumped the gun. And you had a question? It's more of a conversation with the board that I think you've identified kind of the core issue here. And that the BOAR is dependent on the Commission for Historic Preservation to initiate the process of review of guidelines that we find increasing changes across the landscape of historic preservation. And this one seems to be in the crosshairs the most of what we've been seeing. Is there a way to request that that be put before the commission and that we hold the final decision on, since it's already in place, we hold this for a final review? It may be that the outcome is right where we are now, but given the changes that are occurring rapidly with renewable energies, would that be a fair request? That's beginning to sound like a legal issue. Tracy? Tracy? I mean, I think that this board has asked the Historic Preservation Commission to look at things before, but what the timeline is on that or what they do with it, I really don't know how long that would be. I don't have any control over that. And also, even if the applicant's agreeable to it, you still have something on the property that is in violation of your guidelines until there's a decision made, and then it might still be. So I don't know that that – I understand what you're asking, but I don't know if that'd be the best procedure to move forward with at this point. There is also a – unless it's waived, there is a restriction on how quickly we have to review these and get approval. It would setting a specific timeline for a final decision by the Board of Architectural Review be kind of balanced, give some potential closure then to the issue. Would that make it a more useful step to take legally? I guess, are you asking that, I mean, I don't think you all can set any timelines on historic preservation of when they have to make a decision. So I don't really know how you would impose your own timeline and any timeline at this point the applicant would have to be agreeable to so you don't get beyond that 60 days. Well, the reality is if we deny this application, there's going to be an appeal process, I'm sure, stemming from this, which will take some time to work out. I think we can go on record saying we would like to have this issue brought up by the commission as expeditiously as possible. I would support that fully. Okay. If you'd like to make a motion to that effect, you may. I so move that we request that the Commission for Historic Preservation set a committee in motion to review the guidelines that include the review of solar panels. All right. Do I have a second to that motion? Second. Any further discussion on that motion? By the way, I'm in agreement with that. I'm going to take it one step further. I will draft a letter to the staff along those lines. I'll circulate it to the other board members, and we'll send that out next week. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Yes, ma'am. May I just make one other comment? Is that you have numerous steps you can take here. But to add another step is, and I know tree canopy, which is really important to our city and needs to be. It's important to our planet. And it's his neighbor's tree canopy, not his, so he really has no control over it. Yeah, I fully understand, is that there are support, there are ways of doing support systems for solar panels that can be very attractive and much less intrusive than being on a roof, actually. So just as a consideration. If I may, if the committee is not inclined to approve, which I understand, would a parapet wall be a solution that would move us beyond this? At the front elevation, no. I think that would change the historic nature of that. Let's not make it more visible. Several of the neighbor houses have crown molding. They do have the crown molding, but that's, your neighborhood is a relatively new inclusion, and that would be, those are changes to the porches that would never have been approved by us. So, good try. It's a complicated issue. Let me go ahead and call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Can I make a quick statement? Aye. Sure. As the largest solar contractor in the state that's going to have to deal with this moving forward, if you and your letter to the commission would ask them, instead of the front of the building, the visibility, because it seems like there's an either or there, I think that would make a dramatic impact on how we move forward. Is that fair? I think actually my letter was not going to be near that specific. They will actually begin to solicit comments from the industry and from stakeholders. Can I be on that list? You're a stakeholder, so you have an opportunity. If I understand the process properly, if they get into a study on this issue, and this is not going to happen tomorrow. Right, I understand. But if they get into a study of the issue, they will actually send out a notice that they're actually looking at the issue in terms of amending the guidelines and that there will be an opportunity for comment. Okay. Or there should be. If it's like any other regulatory process, that's the way it works. And you can always pick up the phone and call Ms. Kirk. Sounds good to me. Thank you. Thank you for your comment. Let me go ahead and call this motion and dispose of it. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. We'll draft a letter and get it out next week. Now, let's go to the application itself. We have an application in front of us. That's both a partial approval and partial disapproval. Is there a comment from the audience? Oh, hello. I almost didn't recognize you. Well, you were at your side profile. Hi. Do we have to start over? No. I'm sorry. There are two parts to this, and the first part is the staff has recommended disapproval of the placement of the solar panels on the front porch. Let me have a motion as to that, one way or the other. Mr. Chairman, in regards to case number 08760137-I at 137, I move that we disapprove the certificate of appropriateness for the placement of the solar panels on the front porch. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Do we have any further discussion on the motion? And Suzanne, I'm just going to go ahead. We're too far along in the process. Okay. So I'm assuming that you're abstaining or not present for this. All right. So I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes. As to the other part of the application, which is there is an approval of the solar panels on the southeast elevation with the following conditions. Those are the standard conditions. I believe previously there was an agreement with those. So those are the standard. Do I have a motion? So moved. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, the Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the approval of the solar panels on the southeast elevation subject to the standard two conditions say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed nay? Motion passes. Thank you, Dr. All right. May I just comment? I do appreciate the applications. I do appreciate your willingness to be in dialogue about this issue. It's a really important issue as we find balance in moving forward. So thank you. I agree with that. It's just about the guidelines as they are right now. Can I say I really wish you hadn't jumped the gun? Okay. I have lost my... Agenda? No. Yeah. That was back at number one. This is what happens. Oh. I've actually lost the application. Here it is. Nope. Let me have the agenda please real quick. All right. I believe we're now finally ready for 237 Barbary Lane. Okay. Now this is. This isn't from number eight, I don't know if that's appropriate. But, okay. Let me explain real, I know that you're ready to make your presentation. Let me explain to you the process. Yes, please. Please identify yourself for the record, your name. Thank you for this chance to speak for you all. This is Doug Slaymaker, 237 of Barberry Lane. All right, I'm assuming that you would like to have a hearing on the disapproval of your application. I guess. I confess to not knowing what I stepped into. I thought everybody wants solar, and solar was easy, and it seemed like a good idea to me until when I got the regulations and I got your mail and the report the other day, I realized, oh, I see what's going on. The regulations make sense. I understand. But following up on the last case, it's also the reason, I think the main reason I'm actually here is because I realize. You're getting ahead of me. Okay. I can have, we can do one of two ways. You can either say that you want to resubmit an application that would be in conformity to the guidelines, or we can have Ms. Armstrong make a presentation and we can consider your application as submitted. I understand. Let's do the latter if we can. I'd prefer to do the latter. Okay. All right, Ms. Armstrong. Okay. So this is the structure at 237 Barberry, and they're proposing to install 18 flush-mounted solar panels on the front elevation. They will use a light rail system to install the modules, and the modules are the typical size of 67 by 41. and they'll be less than six inches from the plane of the roof. And I've included that and just sort of some details of that. I also did include, you know, Google Solar Maps has a solar map that shows, you know, what gets most sun. And so here is his area, or this particular house, 237. I also included the garage because it actually seems to get more sun or just as much sun as the physical structure. And then I also included the whole area of Seven Parks. And this particular area of just actually Barbary and Dancer pointing out. This area over here that doesn't get as much sun is the highlighted yellow parts here. that do get more sun. And again, this is the property, and if you note, note that the garage gets as much sun as the front elevation of that structure. I'm assuming the brightness of the yellow indicates the intensity of the sun? That is correct. That actually, if you could see the summary at the bottom. Oh, there it is down there. Okay, thank you. And just to point out, you're pretty much in this range here versus a lot of the structures in that if we match the color up. And, of course, it's a south orientation, right? Correct. Okay. All right. So the top of the page being north, the bottom of the page being south. Okay. Guidelines are included for reference, and I would specifically point out about the guideline about solar panels number B. It should not be mounted on primary elevations. It should be located in the rear principal building and attached to the rear of the principal building. SAP finds the barrels to install the solar panels on the south side of the roof should be further studied. And, of course, I mentioned that guideline before. solar panels should not be mounted on the primary elevation, should be located in the rear of the principal building attached to the rear of the principal building and the solar panels should be attached to the leaf flush to that. And the proposal to install these solar panels is not within the guidelines because they're on the primary elevation. And staff suggest looking at another location to investigate in lieu of the primary elevation. And recommendation staff recommends disapproval as proposed. I also will go through the packet that was submitted that shows the outline, sort of the railing, how it's going to be installed in the rail system. solar panels here and this is all of course in your packet and and of course Mr. Sleighmaker is present so. All right Mr. Sleighmaker any questions of Amelia first? Mr. Sleighmaker now is your chance. I'm sorry I'm not sure where to begin. First off, when I got the packet, the first question is the obvious question, why not put them in the back? The answer comes back from the company that it reduces the kilowatt-hour production by half, then lowers the number of panels, which makes about an hour. This model is already at 48, 51% energy offset, like 5,300 kilowatt-hours. To put them in the back, takes that down to half of that, which is going to be a 25% offset, at I think 2,500 kilowatt hours, which makes it moot as far as I'm concerned. The shed in addition has a skylight. Pick up that microphone. Oh, is that the problem? Sure thing. The shed as well has a skylight, which impedes the number of panels we can put back there, and apparently running whatever appropriate conduit is expensive enough that it would hardly make sense at the end of the day. At least that's how it looks to me now. All right. That helps. Any questions? Have you considered the front roof area faces southwest, basically? And your garage roof adjacent that's parallel that faces southeast, have you had a chance to look at what that generation could be? because I think you're going to find that it's very close to equal to the southwest elevation. I didn't look as closely as I could have, but my impression certainly when I was asking similar questions was that actually, no, given the need for extra electrical, the shed would need a new roof. So I'd have to consider that as well before we put that on there. And so with all those things considered, it was looking like it's less than half, and therefore not worth doing. Okay, well, I do agree that you're going to have to run more cabling to hook up to the house because your inverter would be back at the garage. And I understand the roof, since the panels are guaranteed for about 25 years, but should expect a 30 to 40-year life, which is going to probably exceed your garage roof anyway. But that southeast face and orientation should be as strong a one as the southwest. That's interesting. Okay. Having monitored a similar configuration pretty closely, I was surprised. Okay. Thank you. Suzanne, anything? Sarah? I don't have any additional comments from where we've already been today. I want solar panels, but this clearly is not within the guidelines. And Mr. Slavemaker, I want to thank you so much for not jumping to God and for bringing this to us before we went into the problem of saying to you, great idea, 40 place. Regretfully, not all houses are configured in such a way that they can benefit from solar panels. But I think Susan's giving you a couple ideas that you can look at. There was an argument made to us several years ago that there ought to be an equal protection right extended to houses that should have solar panels on the front elevation. We're not there yet. But that's a study that I think is coming. There are seemingly everyday changes in how solar arrays are done. We're almost at the point, if we're not there already, with solar shingles. that do not look like anything other than shingles. So that may be coming in a few more years. But I want to thank you so much for working with us on the application process and for submitting it to us prior to your installation. And if I may, can I be part of the whatever mail chain activism that goes with the commission business? Because I'm on board and I would like to be in support in any way I can. I suspect there will be some kind of a notice given. There will be considerable opportunity to have comment because the guidelines that are in use today are still quite current. And what we want is the opportunity to see what people's additional tolerance has become for things such as this. and then if the tolerance is there, adjust accordingly, because there are many of these that are all important ideas, but there's also on the other end of the spectrum, and this is my hat, the expectation of the community within what the historic districts are going to protect and result in and what they think they voted to have and supported to have come as their designations and such. So welcome to the party. All right. Thank you for that. All right. Mr. Flammaker, thank you so much. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from the audience? I just would like to say there is one letter of opposition in there. There is a letter of protest that was, I think, your neighbor across the street. Right. And the other thing that was really funny in my study, and I'll just say because it's really funny that talking about putting solar panels on, nobody goes to Charleston to look for solar panels. It's actually been said to us several times by a range of people, and it wasn't always Charleston, but the concept. And I just always kind of grin. Okay. But that may change. All right. So if they can get it into roof panels, that'd be fabulous. They are. They are, but I did notice that some of the various national guidelines addressed roof shingles specifically, and those guidelines aren't quite there yet. Well, and also the possibilities of them not being mounted on the historic structure, alternate installation. As we know, there are, but it does add some cost, which then reduces the payback time for your solar. I think quite a few years ago, about five years ago, Darren Taylor and I did actually have a conversation about roof shingles, and I did research that a little bit, but they've just ebbed and flowed, and they're in an ebbing state right now. It may be the time is finally arriving. All right, is there any further discussion on this application? If not, Chair is ready for a motion. Chair, per case 01180237-E at 237 Barbary Lane, I move to disapprove this COA as reviewed. All right. Is there a second? Second. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor of disapproving the application, submitting a solar panel on the south elevation of the house, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion passes, and unfortunately, sir, your application is disapproved. All right. All right, we are now at the conceptual review. Do we need to take a moment? I need to take a momentary break, but we can move forward without me. Would you all like to take a break before we go into the conceptual read? All right, we're going to call a, what, five-minute break? Five-minute break, and we'll pick it up. Thank you. So this is, we're now at the conceptual review portion. At 702 Central Avenue, is the applicant here? You know I have to ask any relation? No. Darren Taylor, 239 North Mill Street. All right. Vince Thompson. All right. Okay. All right. So this is the application for a conceptual review. And whose is it? No, Barry? Okay. Go ahead. Y'all sit down and make yourselves at home. So this is 702 Central Avenue, and the scope of work is to construct a rear addition. The applicant is requesting a conceptual review for the construction of an addition across the rear of the structure. the proposed materials are clapboard siding, aluminum clad wood, doors and windows. The addition, let me give you the lay of the house to start. So obviously this is the front of the house, which faces north on central. and this is the rear. The addition will come across the back and add a second floor to this area along with a shed dormer between the chimney that you can see peeking up there and this chimney. So the addition eliminates the central rear dormer. The proposed addition adds new stories on the rear single floor portion of the structure, and the addition includes an open porch at the first and second floor and a new shed and hip roof dormer. The guidelines are included for your use. As findings, as this is a conceptual review, the staff does not have findings at this time. The following are some questions that the board may want to consider for comment. Is the design appropriately scaled and not overwhelming to the historic structure and site? Is the proposed addition to be built in a manner that avoids substantive removal or loss of historic materials and which does not damage or destroy the main architectural features of the building? Does the proposed design keep the exterior walls of the original building as intact as possible and use existing door and window openings for connecting the addition to the building? Is the proposed second floor design appropriate when it is to be made by adding new stories? Is it appropriate to fully remove and replace the existing center dormer from the historic structure? And is it appropriate to copy the east hip roof design, meaning this section? to the west side? Or does that design mimic history? Is the proposed shed dormer compatible in design and in keeping with the building's design, roof-shaped materials, and location of window, door, and cornice heights? Is it appropriate to fill the space between the two chimneys with a shed dormer? And does the construction of that shed dormer create a potential water infiltration issue? That is the end of the staff report, unless the board has questions, and I'll let Mr. Taylor take you through the drawings. I do have one quick question. I just want to make sure I understand what exactly is going to be demoed out, or what's going to be added. I'm having a little trouble following this proposal. Sure. When a second floor is added on this one story area to increase the height here, this for lack of a better term, dormer will completely go away. And then this roof shape will be repeated on the west side of the roof. So what happens to the chimney then? The chimneys remain. Okay. Maybe I should show you the drawings here. Okay. So this is the proposed new addition, The single floor open porch extends off the rear. This area is new second floor. This is the existing hip roof. This is the new. These are the two chimneys and this is the shed roof located between those two chimneys. Does that answer your question? It does, and thank you. Thank you. All right. Who's making the presentation? Mr. Thompson. Mr. Compton, go ahead. Yeah, we're the architects for the owners over on 720 Central, and they've hired us to do, in addition to the back of their home, they're in need of some additional bedrooms and a larger kitchen. They're trying to extend their family and want to make just a nice exterior living space that's covered and a bigger kitchen to allow for more kids in the kitchen and adding some bedrooms so that they can have some family members come into town and stay for long periods of time. So, you know, we've been kind of working through, you know, some concepts and, you know, trying to achieve their goals of increasing square footage in bedrooms, relaying out the existing master bedroom to better serve them with more closet space at a bathroom. and ultimately the size of the addition is driven by the program of the kitchen on the first floor. So we're coming out about 12 or so feet from that existing wall that's there now on the addition. So we'd be taking that wall out and just extending the kitchen that way. And then beyond that, we've got our cupboard. We've got our covered porch. You know, we just thought that in the midst of design and their desire to increase bedrooms in the home, that since we're blowing out that wall, making a bigger kitchen, you know, there could have been an opportunity to, you know, take advantage of that roof, which is why we're proposing to add that second floor. We thought it could be a nice feature to have, you know, kind of a second-story balcony. as well. One piece I'd like to say is this house was originally actually at some point moved. It used to face Ashland Avenue and it had a much deeper yard and so now it actually has kind of an abbreviated yard as it backs up to the houses that go down Ashland. So they feel a little bit claustrophobic there because the sight lines are very tight on the side with the driveway and then the neighboring house on down Central Avenue. So, part of this idea was to get some sort of outdoor space that felt a little bit more enclosed and controlled and they weren't out there sort of on almost like a fishbowl. And so that was a little bit the driver of kind of these covered areas that are stacked. So they had a little bit of privacy within that sort of environment. But they've got a tighter site, so we were obviously wanting to stay within the form of the house as we went back. And to Vince's point, on the rear kind of matching that hip, we thought it was just kind of a nice juxtaposition form-making-wise or volumetrically to be able to kind of speak to that. And that was the driver for the form of it. And obviously he spoke to the program. I think there's also two things or at least one strong thing that's in error in the drawing is that we're not proposing a standing seam metal roof for the main volume of the house, only for the front porch redo. Everything else would be shingles. I think that was graphically and called out in air, and Barry called us and asked about that. So I just wanted to clarify that. And then, Mr. Dickinson, to your point about what's being demolished or what's being extended, we're keeping basically the confines of the sides of the existing addition that's in the back, but we're sort of eroding that rear wall of it to get space as we move back. So there's an edge that's being kept or controlled on the sides. So who wants to start first? So let me just ask a question about clarification on the roof. In looking at the two roof plans, is the existing front porch going from shingles to metal roof? Or is it just the new addition portion? Can you be more clear about that? Yeah, I think the front patio roof. You can use that handheld microphone if you like. You can pull it up, and I've got the laser pointer here, too. Yeah, that front roof right there is just deteriorating, and they were wanting to go back with a standing seam metal and replace that. It's turned now, I believe. Okay. And then on the rear part of the building, what's? Yes. That as well, too, would be standing seen. Only the porch, the lower porch, the first floor. Okay. But the rest of the main volume roofs would be shingles as to match the existing, I guess, and replace that. Okay, and then the only other comment I'll make about, and this is a useful drawing to be looking at, is the question about creating a water problem. And it's really, and I'm going to call you by first name since we've got two tailors here, right? Where the dormers hit the new extended shed and right behind the chimneys, on the upside of the chimneys, yeah, right in there, it does look like you're creating, have the potential to create a major water. Is there any reason why that kind of, so the ridgeline of each of those dormers at the upside of it, why that valley kind of just continue up to hit the side of the shed roof? So if that continues up toward the existing ridge line, I mean, you see the problem that's being created, and I think there's an easy solution to it that I don't think either creates. It shouldn't put you anywhere close to that original ridge line, which we don't want you to, but it does should get rid of some of that water issue yeah I think that that one's messy yeah I think there we were just sort of testing ideas on the roof and I think we're not the client isn't necessarily locked in to this specific roof design I think they like the idea I think the porches was a little more important to them kind of having that be more of that low slope roof and that kind feel but I know they'd be open to looking at different options there. So the other question has to do with that smaller dormer that's going to have to be taken out. Is that original to the house? And I'm sorry it's not showing up on this plan. Let's go back to the existing roof plan. Barry and Emilia, you all may be able to speak to that. It seems it doesn't have any programmatic value on the second floor. It's not like there's a room in there or a bathroom or anything. It's in the hallway. Yeah, it's the hallway. So we're just, it's right here. So it, you know, it does give light at the top of the stairs, but, you know, this stair was added. And so we felt like maybe this had been added. I mean, your headroom's already clear here at the top. So we weren't sure exactly how that was functioning. It seemed a little odd here as a condition to be original, original, but there's the petrol that maybe this was here and this wasn't. I'm not certain. Okay. Thank you. That is an odd dormer, and we would really need to get in to the structure to do some research to determine if it's original or not, if it was added, and possibly even when it was added, but at this point, we do not know that, unless Ms. Carter does. Well, I remember. You remember when it was built, correct? Well, actually, what is sort of funny as a total aside, but it is a conceptual informal review. My grandmother lived down the street from this house at the time it was moved, and It has memories of it being moved. And of course, the front porch is in the configuration it is because it was on a corner lot. So anyway, we would need to do just what Mr. Dennis said, which is get in and look into this. I would say a long time ago, and this had gone down, there was this weird shed-like structure, almost like a dormer had, it was sort of in the yard, some kind of weird asymmetric looking thing. Actually, that was related to some sort of funky early solar. That's right. Is that a term art for architectural strangeness? Well, it was very strange. So it was sort of in the middle of the yard. It looked like a scapey teepee or something. It was very strange. It was weird. But I did get the feeling when I was back there looking at that, that some of that material up at that dorm were built at the same time that that was built. Like there were some changes back there and they sort of looked the same. I might say the bottom line is we will be professionally, if we could, making a visit to facilitate this discussion. Hopefully with you all, the architectural team with us, if we could all talk about that. and then we'll report out to the board on what we find out. Suzanne, anything at this point? Just to add that dormer has a very odd dimensioned window or a historic. If it were to be historic, it has an odd shaped window. Yeah, I mean, so there it is. It's a picture window. It's not a proportion that you would expect it to be. You see the stair accommodation, that little side stair that comes up. Is there any indication that the floor was changed at that upper level that you've noticed? I don't remember that at all. I don't think so. Yeah. Well, it's not going to be huge laws. Sarah? All right, I have a few comments about this design. And I think you could go to A202. Okay. A202. I appreciate that you want to have an outside porch and an outside porch. I don't have an issue with that. ask but i think that you are just trying to extend the look of the historic structure and it has no indication that it's new and in addition to this building we need to um inset it um you know kind of where we're doing that addition and not just keep doing the same kind of shingles and i think if you inset that second floor that you're adding and you think about that roof shape not trying to imitate the other dormer but think about how that whole roof shape might work together with that second floor and what you're trying to do to create a room on the third floor you can create something that looks like a new addition to this building that would be more appropriate than trying to just continue that existing structure sure and that's kind of what i saw on that i i didn't think the size was wrong i liked the porches but i just felt like that area and what that was doing to your roof made it really a difficult room yeah um that could be maybe achieved by just making it feel like it's only piece to that okay and just so we're clear so i understand what you're saying we're obviously talking about this area here and kind of how that's working obviously you know over here as well in a way we have some more erosion of wall but this is definitely more wall adjacent to wall um yeah you're just continuing on that same siding that you have you're trying to match that same roof line that's on the opposite side you know on the the sorry the left building elevation on the top you know you are insetting all of that for that foot and really it it looks like its own thing and it's an addition but on this side it just looks like you're it just i think you could make it read more clearly as a new edition sure yeah thank you i think i would like to have someone address the question of the guidelines uh really disfavoring additions by making a new story and also how much substantive historic material are we losing with this reconfiguration? I'll bite on that if you would like, at least part of it, and then we'll need to ask the applicants, architects a bit. Ms. Kerr, if you could speak more clearly into the mic. Sorry. Actually, having a voice is a new thing for me, so this is good. Normally, you're crystal clear. I'm sorry. So one of the questions I had was what you know about the kitchen existing, which is to be built on top of and blown out the back. And I have the same kind of questions that has been asked about the dormer, about that space. And we can help with that also in terms of research and on-site. So we just need to do more legwork on this application in conjunction with the applicants to learn some of those facts. Because obviously if the kitchen, the one-story area that is being requested to put the second floor on top of is early on, original or early on on this building, then per our guidelines that will be an issue. And I know all the board is aware of that and you all as architects probably as well. Also the issue of the design needing to be more contemporary is very important relative to the design guidelines. And so we would say ditto to looking into options on that more. The rear yard is not very big, and this is getting to be a pretty big extension back out into that open space. And does the floor area ratio regulations apply to this property? I believe it does because it's on the west side of South Ashland. Central it would do it, but the east and west side both are at central. This property's eastern property line. That's right. So you have a floor area ratio formula to address. And just put that on the list. and I do think from our design guidelines relative to site considerations that mathematics of floor area ratio aside, it is something that needs to be studied and make sure that there is still a good existing scale of open space surviving on this parcel once this addition, if it's approved, were constructed to be in compliance with the H-1 guidelines. I think I lost track, Mr. Dickinson, of some part of your question. How much of the historic mass are we going to lose? Substantive historic mass will we be losing? Oh, yes. That's tied to kind of what I was speaking about, about needing to further investigate the architectural evolution of this building. But, yes, and if what would be lost are found to be original elements, then we will need to be taking second and third considerations to this to stay in compliance to the guidelines. Yeah, looking at the house, it's hard to tell what's what. Well, and I think there's a possibility that the house grew and it may relate some of it to the time in which it was relocated. They may have not moved a kind of service piece of it on the back, left or torn that off and moved and built back something else in lieu of it. Often in relocating buildings, you kind of take the big chunk and don't necessarily bring along the attachments that are often one-story versus two-story, if it's a two-story mass. When was the house moved? When was it moved? Do you remember? My grandmother's memory of it would be she lived there, starting in 1917 made their home there okay but I'm not sure she was living on the street at the time or just remembered that when it was moved so it's it's a verbal story to me and I don't have any date to go with it that house that replaces it might be 30s or 40s and I was just in my head and thought maybe that was a time Hughes houses that's gonna say 1928 or 31 Yeah, something like that. Yeah. So, and we'll look in the survey. We've not, with this being a conceptual, we haven't done the legwork from our end that we do. We'll look in the survey, and actually I'm the one that wrote the survey, but it was actually in 1983, I think, so that I wrote the survey. Oh, boy. I may have addressed the date of the move in that document. Certainly, if I found a research method to know it, I would have put it in there. So may we get back to you on this? Sure. Thank you. I'm going to suggest we're probably going to need another conceptual. I think we've made enough substantive suggestions of changes that it might be better trying to give us another conceptual review, just to make sure we're all on the same track. Between this review and that review, is that okay for staff and us to make a visit and look at things and get our heads around some things? I think that will help us be responsible with resources. Absolutely. We would definitely like to visit the site with you. And if some walls could be opened up to where we could see some of the actual framing members or even get into a crawl space, that would be very helpful. Sure. Yeah. Okay. I don't think the basement extends under the addition. I think Ms. Hill had another comment. Yeah, focusing on the roof again and looking at the building elevations and realizing that that new sloped roof coming off the existing ridgeline is going to need to step down so that the original ridge line reads clearly as assuming that is the original ridge line stays very visible and not compromised by the new shed roof. And since we are having an informal, can I comment tied to that? A question tied to that? With that chimney on the west side obviously they'll be most closely impacted by the roof line changes. We also want to be sure that the chimney doesn't become scale-wise look like a stub sitting up there and also if any functionality is going on with that chimney like burning wood fires certainly there could be some venting although in this day and age pretty much that's getting taken care of otherwise. We want to be cautious about a roof getting too near a functioning chimney, height-wise. I just was going to comment on the C-101 drawing, which shows the mass in context with the surroundings. I think to show, to illustrate that, if that was more like a Noli map in that it was darkened in for the interior space, a lighter patch for porch space and open space being open, then that mass is not much different than the surroundings. And I don't think that those outlines for the others actually accommodate their porches either. So, you know, porches are half open. They don't really have the same mass as and aren't perceived and shouldn't be perceived as the same thing as a totally enclosed space. So. That's a good point. And I think, Betty, back to your comment about the FAR. And obviously, we do so many projects and I'm doing FAR calcs rolling around in my head. I think that we looked at that, and I think we were either close to or just over it in the initial design, just given because of the scale of the front yard. But that doesn't answer the FAR question. I think we should look at the scale of it as it relates. It's a technical and then an aesthetic slash massing conversation, right? Right. Right. Okay, anything else? Well, and also the placement of it, the fact that it is placed further back from in the front yard. The front yard is bigger. So the house is set back farther in the front yard. Affects that, you know, it shouldn't be penalized too much by going farther back than the others because it's been set back farther in the front. You know, I mean, it is, that has to be considered as a whole lot versus, you know, there is not a front yard line there in Central Avenue that it has to maintain, that it has to be up against. It's not up against. So I don't think it's too massive is essentially what I'm. Appreciate that. One of the other things that we were sort of charged with originally from the clients was thinking about a potential garage back there. And there's just, there's number one, there's no room to really circulate a vehicle past this building. There's also some pretty mature trees right on the property line slash driveway. So right now they have a parking court in the front that exists for that. And it sort of just got to the point where they were kind of like, you know, we're okay with that. We'd rather have a more backyard and the space we can use. So we sort of, I think, went away or guided them away from that as like trying to shoehorn that in there. It's like, you know, by the time you throw a garage back there, even if it's an accessory structure coming off the sidelines, it would just cram that in. And you have a rhythm of accessory structures down Ashland Avenue that they're looking directly at. And it just didn't feel right to sort of cram that. It's actually kind of a nice view because you get an accident metric view of all the backs of the houses down Ashland and you get those accessory structures. We thought, well, what if we raise up above that and we can see all that rather than have a building? So to your point, it was we have a lot of front yard and we tried to let that backyard be the open sort of private space. And if you want to let your client know to make them feel any better, the outbuilding slash garage with additional space right next door predates the historic district. Would not necessarily be within that. But if they're having jealousy issues, just let them know. Yeah, no, I think they're okay. Okay, anything else? But they did have a tree fall in it. They shouldn't be too good. Yes, I saw that. It was pretty rough. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Appreciate the comments. Thanks so much. Do we have minutes to approve? We don't, do we? No, we did the study. Sorry. I figured as much, and I appreciate the studies. Thank you. All right, so if there's nothing further, I believe the Chair is ready for a motion to adjourn. The only thing, Mr. Chair, that I would like to mention is, I know he's not here with us today because he hasn't been in our board meetings as our attorney for many years. We've been blessed with other attorneys from the LFUCG, but I wanted to give a shout out on behalf of the staff and hopefully with the board joining in to Keith Horn, who is retiring from the LFUCG, and he has been a stalwart and super fine attorney with the city for quite a long time and a wonderful assistance to this program and to the Board of Architectural Review. So I just wanted to mention that and make you all aware that he is, if you run into him, he will be with us before retirement, I think, a couple more weeks. Well, we will miss Mr. Horn. Thank you. He's retiring end of the month, I take it? End of the month. All right. And we will be having a new attorney who is back there. All right. Why don't you two come up here so you can introduce the transition. Tracy Jones is going to still be at the city, and you know Tracy, of course, who has been serving, and very nicely so, as our attorney more recently. And she's getting ready to take on focusing on other responsibilities. And so, Tracy, I'll turn it to you to make comment and introduce our newest friend. Well, let me say, some of you know I also do all of the planning and zoning and all of the purchase of development rights programs. So for some time, that's continued to expand. So just recently, Brittany's been in our department for some time. This is Brittany Smith. We've had some reorganizations, of course, with Mr. Horn leaving. that's also brought about some new things in our department so she's going to be assisting me with some of the planning and zoning which is very welcome since i've had no one doing that for some time but inches also be taking over some things that i've been doing in one of them will be this uh... this board so is our first meeting and uh... she's getting acclimated and asking what's a good question so you will be seeing her and at some point you may not be seeing me so uh... but she will be she'll be providing you really good counsel, and she'll be well informed. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the last name. Brittany Smith. So you're going from a Jones to Smith. Brittany? Well, we're delighted to have her, and we will miss you. But, you know, I do still know your phone number, Tracy. I will still be here. We're glad of that. Thank you. Thank you all. Glad to have you both. Nice meeting you, Ms. Smith. We look forward to working with you. Thank you. Can I give you back your pen? All right, anything else? All right, motion to adjourn. So moved. Second? Second. All right, we stand adjourned then. Thank you.