Music Thank you. January 12, 2023, the new year. First on the agenda item, we have the approval of minutes, and these minutes are from December 8th, 2022. The floor will be open for a motion for the approval of minutes. Ms. Wirth? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the December 8th, 2022 minutes as submitted. Thank you. Do we have a second? Okay, we have a second. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Next on the agenda, we're going to go out of order just for his sake. He wants to go home early, so we're going to recognize Mr. Bill Wilson. He was a past member of the Planning Commission, a past chair. He's been a leader in this community. I've learned a lot from him, still learning a lot from him. But he did say that he needed to get home pretty quick. He didn't want to stay long, so I'm going to do him a favor today. But Mr. Wilson, if you don't mind stepping up here, we would like to recognize you. And my commission member beside me wants to read off this certificate that we were offered to you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Mr. William Wilson from the Planning Commission. And whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Wilson for his valuable service to this commission from September 10th, 2009 to June 30th, 2021, having served on this commission's zoning committee for the entirety of his term, and also having served as chairperson, vice chairperson, and parliamentarian of the commission. And whereas Mr. Wilson has been influential in the formation of several small area studies, I'm sorry, several small area plans and studies, notably the Armstrong Mill West Small Area Plan, the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, the Windburn Small Area Plan, the Red Mile Development Plan, the Oxford Circle Redevelopment Feasibility Study, the Fayette Housing Demand Study, and the Imagine-Nicolasville Road Corridor Plan, the 2017 update of the Rural Land Management Plan, multiple text amendments to the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, most notably the Recreation and Tourism Text Amendment, and the formation and adoption of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, the formation and adoption of Imagine Lexington, the 2018 comprehensive plan including the place builder, and whereas Mr. Wilson has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Lexington Fayette County as reflected in his decisions regarding land use and development, and whereas the members of this commission and the staff feel that the service and guidance contributed by Mr. Wilson will be greatly missed by this body. Now, therefore, be it resolved, the members of this commission and the staff do hereby express our gratitude to Mr. Wilson for his service to this commission and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County. And we, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission and staff, do hereby wish for Mr. Wilson much happiness and continued success and ask that he continue to give valuable guidance to members of this commission. And be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Wilson and also spread upon the minute book of this body. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to go first. And after you read all that, Mr. Davis, I was concerned about that. I got to thinking, how did I do that? I just want you to know that I was off my medication at the time. All those things took place. let me say that i'm not necessarily deserving all those fine words but i am deeply appreciative for all the things that you all say it in work with me to do i'm also appreciative of this commission uh... the work i know i've worked with everyone except one gentleman up there but all of you have been very supportive you've been good mentors to me and i think we pulled some really good uh... put some good votes on the table and we did what we could for the citizens of lexon so i thank you for that I'd also like to thank three mayors, Mayor Newberry, Gray, and Linda Gordon, I think, were the ones who kept me here and allowed me to continue my participation. I'd also like to thank the professional staff. They did a wonderful job. They prepped me for generally these meetings. And one of the things I'll tell you about them is that they never once tried to influence my vote in one way or another. They simply provided me with the facts, but they wanted to make sure that I was armed with all the information that I had. So I thank them. I think you've got a good staff, a good professional staff behind you, and I think they will continue to work and lead you and guide you as you go along. And finally, I'd like to thank the public, because without this process, this is really democracy in action. So I'd like to thank you all for coming down, and whether you're for something or against something, the idea is you're participating, and that's important. And for the representatives, I see Mr. Simpson and Mr. Murphy here. the attorneys have always done a really good job and a very professional job. So I'd like to thank you all as well. So I'm off to retirement, and I'm smiling on my way out the door. Happy trails to me. I thank you so very, very much for the time that I spent with you. Hope you will continue to do the best interest for the community, as I know you will. Vote your conscience and continue, and Godspeed. Thank you. Thank you. We'll take a picture. All right, everybody over here. All right, everybody over here. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, that was always good to see Bill. Next, we go back to Agenda Item 3, get back in order. Postponements and withdrawals. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of Publix, page 4, Item E. plan MJDP22, Hoover and Fort Fieldpot Evangelistic Association property. We've been working with the staff for quite some time on this development plan, and we're still needing some further adjustments. We've made an adjustment that we want to share with the staff this week, and we'd like to have a two-week postponement, if the chair and the commission please, on this plan for the Fort Fieldpot Evangelistic Association property. It's a Publix grocery store. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. We also have to meet with the neighborhood, too, before we come back. I do have any questions from the commission. Is the staff agreeable to the two-week postponement? We have a very full agenda on the 26th with zoning items. It didn't take that long. Well, you still have discussion items on your, right, to resolve? I think when we meet, we show you our plan. A lot of that's going to be resolved, Tracy. His request. Tom will be there no matter what, so that won't. We'll be there. Okay. So that meeting will be the 26th. That's the requested postponement. Is there any questions, concerns? And let me say this, if it's not resolved with the staff, but before then we'll postpone it again. I mean, we're not going to have a contested hearing on this. Gotcha. Mr. Pohl? So I move to postpone PLNMADP 2262 for two weeks. Okay, thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. DeMovilland. They have you down, Ms. Worth. Oh, that's okay. I'll second it. Okay, we can vote via Granicus. All right, motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. on page 8 of your agenda, item 1 under zoning items. Staff would like to request a two-week postponement of PLN MAR 2200023, IBC 8th and South LLC. The staff did not post the signs for the subject property in a timely manner. Per KRS and Article 6 of the zoning ordinance, this is required two weeks prior to a public hearing. In this case, the zoning planner did not have the signs posted in time. Staff would like to request a two-week postponement to the January 26th public hearing. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Mr. Chair, I move to motion to postpone PLNMAR 22-23, IVCP, Athens South, to the January 26th. Okay, thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, second. by Mr. Bell. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, thank you. I think we've had... I want to make sure we also, from the commission members... Mr. Chairman? Yes. Excuse me. Staff has several items to bring to your attention. Thank you. The first item is on page three of your agenda. Under development plans, PLN MJDP 18-4, also known as DP 2004 153 Triple Stars property. This is property located at 920 Old Todd's Road. We have been communicating with the applicant. They are still working with a design professional to revise the layout. You can see by the 2004 original plan, they have to address some of the newer parking requirements and similar items. and they're still working on that and they requested a one month postponement. Okay. All right. And that's the February 9th meeting. Okay. If there's no questions, the floor is open. Mr. Polk? Move to postpone PLNMJDP 18-4 for one month. Okay. And that's to the February 9th meeting. Is there a second? Second. Okay. We have a second. Please vote Villagranicus. We have three. You can pick your poison. You can miss Barksdale this time. That's fine. Judy's seconded, too. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, on page five. Mr. Martin, pardon me, I would vote yes, I don't know why mine did not communicate. Thank you. Are we ready? Are we ready? Okay, sorry for interrupting Mr. Martin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page five, item F, Major development plan 22-74, Lexington Mall, Lot 6A, also known as the Tidal Wave Auto Spa. This is located at 2401 Richmond Road. Staff has communicated with that applicant. They are requesting a one month postponement. They have some issues to continue to work out on that plan. Okay, thank you. If there's no questions, the floor is open for a one month postponement. Mr. Chair, I move to postpone PLNN JDP 2274 for one month to February 9th. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a second by Ms. Meyer. Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Is there any more? Is that it? One more? Okay, sir. The last item staff has to bring to your attention is on page six, the bottom of the agenda, item H. This is Major Development Plan 22-79, the Coleman property, Newtown Pike, Hampton Inn, and Suites amended. This is property located out at 1880 Newtown Pike. There are numerous issues to be worked out on this plan as well, and they are continuing to work on those at this time. So they're requesting a one-month postponement. All right. So we have a request for a one-month postponement. The floor is open. Mr. Demovelin. I move to postpone PLNM JDP 2279 Coleman property to February 9th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Boxdale. Thank you. Okay, please vote for the Grannicus. All right, motion passes. All right. You got it? Okay, thank you. And before we go any further, I want to get, we do need a, we have an action item here for the letters of credit to release and call the bonds. So we need a motion to accept. The floor is open. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the memorandum of release and call bonds. Thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Davis, second by Mr. Bell. Please vote to be a granicus. All righty. Motion passes. Thank you. Next up, consent agenda. Thank you, Chairman Forrester. We do have a few items today that appear on your consent agenda for the Planning Commission. And so I'll read through those for your acceptance. And if there's no one in the audience that wishes to have those items heard, we'll pull them off if that is the case that there is someone. Okay, we do have one. So let me read through those and we'll see if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have an item pulled. Or if the Planning Commission wishes to hear any of these items, it is just four items today. so the first item appears in your regular agenda on page three and it's item 2b this is a final development that is final development plan that is seeking re-approval for pln mjdp 19-52 for kids house child care center and that property is located at 1449 and 1452 bryan avenue so anyone present that wishes to have this item heard? Okay, seeing none. The next item is on page four, and it is item 2C, also a final development plan seeking re-approval. PLN MJDP 21-45 for the Richardson property, located at 324 Hannah Todd Place, and as noted on the consent agenda, that did require a posting of a sign, and Mr. Barlow provided the affidavit of such this afternoon the next item is on page six of your regular agenda page or item 2g pln mjdp 22-78 for shadow wood phase 2 rich wood bend this is the item that the applicant has indicated prime engineering has indicated they actually would like to present to you today because they're asking for a small change so that one we would ask you not to approve on the consent agenda And then the next item is on page 7, item 2I, PLN MJDP 22-83 for the Overbrook Land Company and Smiley property, also known as Lexus Parking Expansion. And that's for property located at 1230 and 1264 East New Circle Road. Anybody in the audience that wishes to have that item heard? Okay, seeing none, we would ask that the commission consider approving the consent agenda as amended. Okay, thank you. The floor is open for the approval of the consent agenda. Move to approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? With the exception of G, right? Just in the remove. With the exception of G. With the exception of G. Yes. Thank you, Robin. And we have a second. Ms. Worth? Okay. All right. Now please vote via Grant. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. And then Mr. Martin will come and start us on page two with some final subdivision plots. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item that you have before you today on your agenda is on page two under final subdivision plans. It is a final record plan 22-42 for the Loudoun Park edition, block 15 and lot two. Now, the reason that this is before you today is that under our current zoning ordinance, well, first of all, here they are, they're proposing to subdivide this lot into three subdivisions, into three lots. And the reason they're before you for your approval, and there's a finding you make stating that these non-conforming lots can legally be subdivided. Why? Because they've been in use as independent lots with dwelling units for years, before the ordinance. And what your staff does and what the ordinance requires is documentation of this. One of those is bring in your utility bills. Show that you've had KU water bill hookups to these individual units. Another, although this isn't required to demonstrate that they've been there, they do have to demonstrate their sewer taps. And we hope they're individual because then they're maintained by the individual property owner. Sometimes we have circumstances in these older subdivisions, they share one. So then what has to be done is just maintenance notes have to be put on the plat so that the owners understand they're sharing maintenance. This is more common with duplexes, and we find that issue. In this particular case, we have had information submitted. And again, this is an older subdivision. This is Loudon Park addition. Loudon Park itself was platted in the 1890s. This area of our community off of Pemberton and 7th Street is also an older area of our community. And we have here, there we go. There they are. They even have the same addresses. This is from our Sanborn maps. Those are the fire insurance maps that Sanborn Company was out in New York City. They did fire insurance maps for the fire insurance industry. And they traveled all over the country and they mapped communities. And they mapped our community. And they started doing this in the late 1800s. And they continued all the way up. And last, I think they stopped in the early 70s. I think we have an update to one that actually was done in the early 70s just prior to merger. This is from a 1934 Sanborn map book that's in my office. It's wonderful and fun to read, and I'd encourage you to stop by sometime and just take a look at it. It is a snapshot. You can flip through. They're hand-drawn, they're beautiful, and see historical changes in where things used to be in our community. And again, because of my profession and other interests, I just find them fun and fascinating. So again, we wanted you to see, there they are, sitting on this one lot, three dwelling units. Been there for quite some time. So with that, staff is recommending approval to you today of this subdivision plat. I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. Any questions? Not seeing any. Thank you, sir. The applicant is here. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Gary Roland with KM Surveying. Don't have anything to add other than they've been treated as more or The last three separate properties, the PVA had showed them as three separate parcels, three existing houses. And we're just trying to clear up the way that they're platted so that they can be conveyed individually. So if anybody has any questions, I mean, Lauren, happy to answer. Thank you, Mr. Rowland. Do we have any questions from Mr. Rowland? I'm not seeing any. Is there anyone in the audience? All right. Will you bring it back to the commission for a vote? The floor is open. Yes, Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNFRP 2242. Thank you, sir. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Okay, seconded by Ms. Boxdale. Any further discussion? Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Rolando. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we're going to move right on down to item B. This is a final record plat, 22-50 Sebastian Property Unit 3G. Now this is out on Leastown Road. And you've seen a lot of this plan recently, you may recall. They amended the overall plan for this property to add these townhouses. And you may recall there was discussion about they fronted onto Lee's Town accesses from the rear on these access easements. There was a sidewalk pedestrian facility along the front of the units that are oriented towards Lee's Town. There was a waiver request on property down in this area where the detention basin was recently as well. This particular waiver request for these townhouses relates to a construction timing issue. And that issue is related to the townhouses and the access easement. The issue that the applicant has in terms of timing is to set the final elevation of the access easement. It has to be relative to the finished elevations of the townhouses. So that they're going to have a garage, they're going to have a driveway. The driveway and the access easement have to tie in together. And of course the foundation, the townhouses, it all has to drain correctly. So it's just a matter of construction timing. And to do that and to meet that, first of all, they have to pull a permit. They have to pull a permit, and then they have to start building the foundations of these townhouses. Well, they can't do that without the plat. So the plat needs to be recorded so, again, they can start construction, address the grading issues, and then they will build the access easements. Normally, an access easement is a form of public infrastructure and would be built prior to recording the plant. And in this case, again, with those construction issues, this is similar. This same developer did some townhouses to the rear of this property, back towards the railroad in that direction, where they had townhouses that backed up to the greenway. They had a similar issue in timing construction of the townhouses that were served by an access easement. It's a similar situation. We are recommending your staff, your subdivision committee of recommended approval subject to the conditions you see on the agenda. Be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? I see any. Okay, thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, Members of Planning Commission, Rory K with EA Partners. Tom is correct and we request approval. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. I don't think anybody has any questions. So we'll bring it back to the commission. The floor is open. Demovela? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN FRP 2250 Sebastian, property with the 11 conditions. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Second by Mr. Beall. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, moving right along. on your agenda. To another record plat, this is at the bottom, starts at the bottom of page two, continues on to the next page on page three. This is a minor subdivision plan, 22-50 Willis and Justin Sauter, 1974 trust property. This is property located at 3723 Newtown Pike. We were referring this to you today because there's a waiver associated with this minor plat. In staff's review of this plat, we discovered an issue that we felt a waiver needed to address. We refer in those cases to you. There's some other cases where we occasionally need to refer a minor plat to you. You don't normally see them. So here it is again, minor subdivision plan. And this is a proposal, it's a consolidation plan. And what they are proposing is to take, there's a lot, an existing lot here at the front along Newtown Pike. Here we are, here's Newtown Pike. And this is north of Ironworks. We're headed on out towards Scott County. So we're north of Ironworks. there's a back lot that sits here. And they're proposing to take these two lots and consolidate them and reconfigure them into what you see before you, here and here. Now, once this consolidation is recorded, what they're creating is this lot right here, which is about 44 acres. This lot is going to be, double-check my numbers, There's a 88-acre lot. Now, your minimum lot size in the AR is 40 acres. So both of these lots are going to have conforming acreage. One of them already does, the big one in the rear. But by reconfiguring these lots, they're going to have frontage for both lots, where the current lot in the rear does not. Now, they're proposing to give this lot conforming frontage, which will be over 750 feet of frontage, which is the minimum, 750. This lot will have about 728, I believe is the number, footage. So it's just a little short of being conforming. Simple truth is the frontage of this property on Newtown couldn't meet two 750 feet frontage lots. They're just a few feet short. So they're creating a completely conforming lot in this location, acreage and frontage. This, of course, greatly exceeds the acreage, but will be about 39 feet short of meeting the frontage requirement. And you may recall from a previous discussion in the AR, that's at the right-of-way line. It's not at the building line like it is on a cul-de-sac. If you remember the Talon discussion, yeah, that's a similar situation. And just to help illustrate this, here's Newtown. And here's the property in front. And there's the property in the rear. There's the horse park. So you can see this property has no access under our required access standards in our subdivision. There's others out there. There's others out there without access that would be required under our ordinance. And just to point out to you, there's some interesting geometry out there in the ag area. Very interesting geometry. So anyway, again, this kind of illustrates the situation where they are. and instead of having this smaller property with frontage on Newtown and this property with no frontage on Newtown, they'll have those lots with both lots having frontage on Newtown. And so with that, the staff has reviewed this and are recommending approval of the waiver request, request, which is again for the frontage. Like I said, about 39 feet. Any questions for staff? I'm not seeing any. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant? Mr. Rowland? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Gary Rowland with CAM Surveying. On this, I'd like to just sort of reiterate that there's currently two existing lots, one of which has no road frontage. And when we reconfigure this, we're still going to be left with a totally conforming lot, another lot that would conform on the area. It just wouldn't have the road frontage requirements. But again, we're going from no road frontage to very closely matching what the requirement would be for the zoning ordinance. If anyone has any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer. Any questions for the applicant? I'm not seeing any. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rola. All right. Any citizen? Okay. We'll bring it back. The floor is open. Meyer? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN and SUB 2250, Willis and Justin Sauter, with the four conditions and also approval of the petition for the waiver. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Okay. Second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Oh, no second. Okay. Unanimously, thank you. Mr. Chair? Yes. If I may, I failed to include the waiver in the Sebastian property. So I would like to make a motion to approve the waiver as presented for PLN FRP 2250, the Sebastian property. Okay, all right, and we have a second by Mr. Bell. And then we'll vote again via Granicus for the waiver. Thank you, Mr. Demolvin. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, now we're going to move on to page six. We're going to address that plan that was pulled off your consent agenda by the applicant. That is item G, major development plan. This is 22-78 Shadowwood. Phase 2. This, you may recall, was a zone change recently for an affordable development apartment complex out off of Old Todd's Road. and this is remnant right-of-way and that's why it's being presented to you today is the issue with this remnant right-of-way. They've had to modify the plan due to construction, high construction costs. They dropped off the amenity building and moved those amenities into one of the apartment buildings. Granted, I believe it probably less square footage but that's what they've had to do due to those concerns. They lost one unit from their total proposed. The layout, the parking is basically the same. They had to adjust the building location. The building here, and again you can see how they're distributed, very similar to the original plan. The amenities building was kind of in this area, and it just had to go away due to costs associated with the site, including grade issues and retaining walls. They can elaborate on that if you want to hear more. But they're here today because this right-of-way issue, when you abandon right-of-way, well, it becomes part of the adjoining properties. And in this situation, that creates a lot line. So now they have an issue and they need a variance of their setback off this lot line. And that's because it goes half and half. They get half and this property owner here should get half. Now, again, it's staff's understanding they've tried to contact that adjoining property owner and communicate with them and see if they can work something out. There's also, they can go to court and make the case that they deserve all the right of way, but you have to go to court. It's an involved process. This is an affordable housing project. Funding is imperative. The timing of that funding, you know, you can't jeopardize the loss of that funding in affordable housing and then try to go back and get it and compete, and it's a serious issue. So with that, they want to present it to you today and elaborate on that situation. And what it's going to result in is a note on the plan requiring BOA approval of a variance to the setback, again for this building relative to the old right-of-way in that location. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Okay. Any questions for staff? Yes. Rob? I might have just missed this, but where is the lot line for the adjacent property? For the adjacent property? Once the right-of-way is closed, it's going to run down the middle of that old right-of-way. So that driveway will be on both properties? Yeah, that's part of the issue they're going to have to deal with. And they can elaborate on their plans for that because, yes, that's part of the issue indeed. Okay. Yeah, thanks for clarifying. Appreciate it. Okay, applicant. Good afternoon, I'm Steve Garland with Prime AE. With me is Johan Graham with AU and Associates. So I want to thank the staff and everybody at the city. Everybody's been helping us with this very unique situation, dealing with this right away and different paths. And that's why we revised the note after the subdivision subcommittee was to give a path just in case the process with this right-of-way gets drawn out a little longer. So would you like to speak to? Sure. The right-of-way exists to serve a house, I don't know, roughly the second building from the left. there's a house on the property and when old todd's road and codel drive were realigned there was a need created to have right away to access that existing house on the property now that we own all the properties including that old house that are shown on the screen the writer right away is really no longer needed because we have access to both old todd's and codel drive so that there's a need to abandon the right away and consolidate the plats but in order to do that we we have to get cooperation from our neighbor who never has had access to the right-of-way, but borders it. And per, I'm not sure statute is the right word, but per statute, we split right-of-way when something like that happens. So we're in the negotiation process to try to split that right-of-way or pay them to let us have it all. But that could take upwards to a year if we have to go to court. So the easiest way around that is to not consolidate the plat at this time and just get a variance on the lot line for the right-of-way so we can build that front building as it is shown right now and not have to abandon the right-of-way until that process goes to the court so it explained that correctly so oh and we did follow the board of adjustment it was filed yesterday so that hearing's on the 13th of february okay mr mickland I'm just curious if you did you have discussion with staff about coming out of Todd's Road old Todd's Road instead of topography makes that almost impossible so they I don't know if you do this old biker bar who sits in a stone house in that location it was the outlaws biker bar It's, I think, 20 or 30 feet up off of Todd's Road. So the existing access point on Codell is the proposed new one, because that's where the topography of the land kind of allows access to the site. Okay, thanks. Mm-hm. No questions for the applicant? Ms. Worth? No, I know that this is to the applicant. Okay. I said I don't know. Well, let me ask it and we'll figure out your guess too. I'm just looking at our 12 conditions and based on what you've said, what is really being requested is approval subject to the 12 conditions plus approval by the BOA of a variance to the setback. Is that what's really on the table? Yes, ma'am. Yes, that would be. That note would be added. Okay. So if we're ready for a motion, I'll move to approve. If there's no questions or concerns, the floor is open. So you have that. Do you want me to restate that? Yes. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLN-MJDP-2278 with the 12 conditions noted by staff plus a board additional condition requiring board of adjustment approval of a variance to the setback which we were understand was filed yesterday thank you we have a motion do we have a second to that motion seconded by miss boxdale any further discussion hearing none please vote via granicus okay thank you Okay. I'll put this on page 11. Staff items B, B-O-A-R 22-1. Dr. Larry Francis. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. We will be handing out some documentations of the record, but before we get into our presentation, we do have elements of this case that we need to enter into the record as this is an appeal of a decision by the Board of Architectural Review to the Urban County Planning Commission. First, we have Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance establishing historic preservation in our community and the adoption of the guidelines. next the local historic district and landmark h1 design review guidelines the imagine lexington 2018 comprehensive plan which references the historic preservation for the community the letter of appeal from the applicant the record of the meeting including the minutes from the september 21st 2022 boar meeting as well as the november the october 19th 2022 minutes and then also the staff report from the hpo staff to the board of architectural review we also have the staff report which you can find on granicus and a digital copy of the staff presentation today we are looking at the property located at 137 south hanover street this application is being made by Dr. Larry Bart Francis. This is seeking to allow for the retention of solar panels that were installed on the front of a building without a certificate of appropriateness by the appellant. The appellant argues that the BOAR erred in their decision and that the disapproval was not in agreement with the Secretary of Interior Standards. The action of the BOAR was to disapprove the Certificate of Appropriateness at their October 19th meeting for the addition of panels on the front porch roof. There was actually an approval for the panels that were applied to the southeastern portion of the roof line. Just looking at the location of the property, we are located within the Ashland Park Historic Overlay. This was established in 2012. It is primarily comprised of two-family residential zoning or the R2 zone. This is a rather large historic district with approximately 51 acres, slightly over. The primary characteristics of this area is that it was constructed largely around 1920 to 1930, has a fairly cohesive sense of style throughout the area. There are a few different zones within this area as well. There are a few parcels of land that are zoned R3, or the planned neighborhood residential, and one parcel that is zoned R4, or the high-density apartment residential zone. There is one property that is B1, or the neighborhood business zone, located just over close to off of Euclid and heading out Tate's Creek. I missed it. The property that we are talking about, 137 South Hanover, is located right here. With this next view, you can see just the historic development, a little bit of the land use. It is largely that single-family residential, even though it is in the R2 zone. There are various instances of duplexes within that area and a few non-conforming multifamily as well as the properties that are conforming and multifamily up along what is East Main and then turns into Richmond Road. It just kind of transitions right in front of the Ashland Park Historic District. The property that we are looking at is located on your screen here. It extends back into the property, you can see the application of the solar panels on the front roof right here. There is also an established solar panel grouping right on top of the roof. Jumping around into the property, just another look at the front roof line with the panels installed. Down south Hanover, some of the adjacent properties within the area and then again another look into the property itself. Just a bit of history on this case. The property owner purchased their property in December 2013. In August of 2022, the HPO staff, while conducting typical reviews of areas, found that the solar panels had been installed without a COA. They reached out to the applicant, indicated that they did need to go through the Historic Preservation Office and the Board of Architectural Review hearing process to apply anything to the outside of the structure. There are specific regulations associated or guidelines associated with the application of solar panels. In August of 2022, after receiving the information that they did need to apply, the applicant did go through the process. Initially, the case was heard in September of 2022. The staff recommended the approval for the installation along the southeastern portion of the roofline, but disapproval for the installation on the front porch roof. The applicant indicated that at those hearings that they were in agreement with the SOI standards or the Secretary of Interior standards that really lead a lot of the local historic guidelines and that this was the best location for those panels. The BOAR at that meeting or at that hearing decided that they needed greater information on solar panels and historic districts. The staff went back, the HPO staff went back, provided a significant amount of more information, which you can see in your packets in front of you, about not only the placement of solar panels, but what some of the neighboring states have put into place for their historic guidelines. In October 2022, the HPO presented that further information, which still recommended disapproval for the application of solar panels on the front porch roof. The BOAR made that decision to disapprove that front porch, and the applicant went through their appeal process to this planning commission in the end of October of 2022. Staff received this on October 27th. Within the applicants or the appellants, excuse me, letter of appeal, they indicated that there were several errors within the decision made by the BOAR. First, they indicated that the front porch is a flat roof rather than a pitched roof and is therefore not part of the front elevation of the structure. They indicated that this was a primary reason for the BOAR's decision to disapprove and what is referenced within the design guidelines. Additionally, they indicated that the front porch solar panels that they have applied are inconspicuous and are not distracting from the historic character of the structure, which is meeting with some of the SOI standards and the historic guidelines. and that shifting the panels would cause greater impact on the Central Avenue side, or the Central Avenue Historic District, which is on the back side of the building, where solar panels are recommended for this area. Finally, they found that the restriction of this on the front of the building was unreasonable. The SOI standards specifically take into account the reasonable application of the historic guidelines and take into account the economic and feasibility and technological feasibility of all of this. So within the guidelines, we do have a section that specifically gets into the placement of solar panels. They are recommended for the rear and side and on the walls or roof of the rear and side of structures. These specifically indicate where this should and should not be with the primary elevation or the front-facing elevation not being an appropriate location for the solar panels applied. You can see there are some examples in some illustrations that have been provided and specifically calling for them even on a side street side yard to be placed onto the side of the structure itself and not on the front facing portion. Again, we have another example in which it would be facing the rear yard. Additionally, whenever we're looking at a porch, it is a projection into the front yard in which item D or number D here is talking a little bit how it should be laying flat and should never be located within that front yard. In terms of the SOI standards, staff did another review. The HPO staff did a significant review of this within their justification for disapproval. it does talk about location, specifically calling for it to be in the rear or to the side, and stressing that it should not have a visual impact along the primary streetscape. So there is an SOI recommendation for the placement of solar panels within historic districts, specifically calling for them to be placed to the back. It also does talk about if it is going to be on a flat roof, that it should be inconspicuous, and it should not impact the primary streetscape. They talk all too often about flat roofs, more in the case of commercial, large-scale commercial buildings that don't have a pitched roof, so that it would be sunken down and hidden by a parapet. In review of the BOAR position, staff found that their position was correct. We are in agreement with that decision that was made. The front porch is part of that primary elevation of the structure, and the solar panels are visible from the streetscape. Whereas you look at the initial pictures of the structure itself, you can barely see anything that is on the side view of the structure, not only from the height of the structure, but it being off of the primary area whereas you can see the solar panels that have been applied from the streetscape additionally it the soi standards do acknowledge the potential impact on surrounding properties and stress that it be located to the side or the rear and not detract from the primary historic character or the flow across a historic street and then that the the restriction is not unreasonable. In this case, the BOAR did approve partial aspect of their application and recommended other areas in which this could go. The issue really is that they were applied prior to the application, and it is a costly move to move them to the back of the structure or to a side of a structure. So staff does find that the BOAR decision was correct. Staff recommends the disapproval of the appeal to the Planning Commission. The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness by the BOAR is consistent with Design Guideline 116-ABND as established within the local historic by the local historic preservation commission. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer. Any questions? Thank you. Yes, sir. And I do believe that the members of the HPO staff have a presentation, a few comments they would like to make, and then the applicant is here today, or the representative of the applicant is also here today. Good afternoon. Amelia Armstrong with the Historic Preservation Office. I'd just like to thank Hal for his very complete presentation. I also would like to introduce Barry Dennis, who's also here from our office. I'll be brief and just indicate a couple more pictures. But I think Mr. Bailey has pretty much handled everything. Just to walk you through the images at the time of the BOAR meeting and a couple of today, that you can see the front porch. course we did disapprove those and then as you and this is seen from Central Avenue the panels that are been installed on the roof here those have been approved as they do meet our guidelines and then this is just sort of a map from the solar panels that Google solar panel that we included and then And again, the front image. I would just like to reiterate, we feel that the front porch is part of the front elevation. When you received plans for a house or anything like that, those plans include a front porch or an entryway of some sort. And so we feel everything that faces the street or the entryway of the house would be the front elevation. and I think we would just ask that you uphold the BOAR's decision and deny the application. Thank you. Any other questions? Sorry. No, you're fine. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Yes. Mr. Davis. Okay. Okay. Within our packet, it notes in the minutes of the September 21st BOAR meeting that this was not the first time the property owner had done exterior work or alterations without obtaining a COA. What is the history? When he first bought the application, he installed a six-foot vinyl fence, and it was disapproved by our Board of Architecture Review. Actually went before the board, and it actually was appealed. It went before this body, the Planning Commission, and actually was approved. And then six months later, he replaced it because the vinyl was too shiny of a forest pool. Okay. Mr. McClure. Yeah, I have a question because I was looking through some of the guidance in the notes here, Amelia. And some of the guidance indicates that solar panels shouldn't be installed until other energy-efficient upgrades have been made. The applicant noted something that does seem relevant to some of our changing times, that increasingly these are being used to charge batteries on cars and things like that. That is true. You'll find that those points were brought up at both BOAR meetings. He does use these. I guess there's a total across the front. He has two Teslas that he does charge. But Mr. Clark from Synergy, who's here as his representative, will explain that he actually has done an exhaustive upgrade on a lot of his utilities to bring those up to speed. And I think we have approved. We've proved there's been a total of 21 cases have come before our board for the last five years. 19, apart from this one and another one that wanted to put him on the front, have been approved. We are also suggesting that Dr. Francis look at all the other alternatives on his site to move the phones on the front that would be able to charge his vehicles. And when I was biking around or walking or looking before this hearing, there's another front porch solar panel on Ashland Avenue, it appears, which is higher because it's off the second story. But what was the discussion on that? And I'm not quite sure exactly that address. Okay. Okay. None have actually gone before our board on Ashland. We've actually had three on South Hanover. Okay. So you've had three on South Hanover? Including this one, yes. Okay. That have been approved. But they did not allow any on the primary facade? Correct. Thank you. All right, great. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Commission. My name is Jamie Clark. I'm the owner of Synergy Home. We do heating, cooling, and solar. Dr. Francis asked me to represent him today. He is an ER physician in Hazard, Kentucky, and they couldn't spare him. So, sorry, my voice normally carries well enough on its own. The question about energy efficiency initiatives, we did a full energy retrofit on his house, all new HVAC, the highest efficiency of good. We sprayed foam in his attic. he's probably got the most efficient house on South Hanover. The solar was the last piece to that. In regards to the certificate of applying for it before the solar was done, we actually came into the project midstream. He had hired another solar contractor that had gone bankrupt, and we were told as a company that it had already been taken care of, and I think Dr. Francis was misled in that, so we were misled vicariously through that. So we all kind of got caught on the back end of this. So that's not something that is the norm with my business. Thank you, sir. Do we have any comments, questions? The primary point that I would make on this is more of a common sense point. If you're looking at the front of this house where the porch is, the solar panels are approximately an inch and a half thick, and you can see a black line across the Hanover-facing portion. If we move them to the other side, as suggested BOAR, they're going to be in direct line of sight to the folks on Central. So you might improve the look on Hanover, but you're going to dramatically negatively impact the view from Central. And if you don't know much about solar panels, solar panels are best in facing south. That's where we're going to get the best gain. Their recommendation is to put them on the north face of the house would be dramatically less effective than what we are. So, and it's just, to me as a citizen, it doesn't make sense for that one and a half inch black strip to be more important than 14 solar panels facing the neighbors on Central Avenue. Thank you, sir. Do you all have to consider doing any kind of woodwork? So that was brought up as a suggestion by Dr. Francis and the architecture review. Apparently, that's been a sticky wicket on that street specifically. He had talked about doing kind of a dental mold or something around it to hide the one in that inch, and it was quickly shot down. So I don't know the intricacies of that, but that was something he volunteered he would be happy to do. Barry Dennis. The guidelines specifically talk about front elevations of structures not being allowed to be modified pretty much in any manner. Although the guidelines do go on and say that side or rear portions of the structure can be acceptable to have some changes done. Whenever we're reviewing projects and the Board of Architectural Review has their hearings, it is implicit that changes not occur to the front of the structure. That would cause anyone to think that that might be original to the building or be some type of change. I think we have a conflicting point of view from the Secretary of Interior. They highlight that solar panels need to have a south face. They highlight that solar panels should be inconspicuous when possible, but then they give you a green light on the side and the rear. In this case, they're as inconspicuous as possible now, and if you put them on the only other available roof face, they're going to be dramatically more impactful to the neighbors on Central Avenue. there. So you might be adhering to the letter of the statute, but you're going to negatively impact the neighbors on the other street. And again, I drop back to we have an inch and a half of visibility on the front of that roof. The panels that are on the roof now, I mean, are there as many panels that can be on that side? So there's 14 panels on the roof to get the same amount of energy on the north face of the house, we would have to more than double that and again that's what the architectural review has suggested, we put them on the north face to get the same amount of energy generation to offset his electric cars. We're going to put probably 30 panels on the back roof. But you have panels on one side of the house now? Correct. He has 30 panels total, so on that side over there there's 16 and then 14 on the roof. panels be added to that to that side and what's the loss of energy if you were to remove the if the pan if we you know the panels get removed from the front porch uh... what's the energy put it in dollars and cents about seventy five dollars a month in energy but can be can be uh... homeowner still he can still have the energy for what he wants to use. I mean, he still has the ability to use the solar panels and charge his cars. Is that correct? So I think the direction the homeowner is going to go, because we've talked about the different options, is those 14 panels, because they're in direct south face sun, they're very prominent. they're doing a very good job to replace that same amount he's going to have to put up to 30 on the back of the house and potentially the garage. Mr. Clark, you said the panels are an inch and a half thick but they're clearly sitting on a structure that raises them up above the roof. What is the height of that structure? They're on a small foot. We don't lay them flat on a rubber roof, but there is a lip around that roof molding as is. So if you're standing in the driveway, you're really going to see about an inch and a half of it. To be technically correct, it's 44 millimeters. What is the height from the top of the roof to the top of the panel? From the rubber membrane to the top of the panel? I would say approximately three and a half inches because the foot is about... Is it six? Okay. So it depends on the foot we used, but I don't know what the height of the molding is around the perimeter. Do we know that? I think he's just asking from the plane of the roof. Okay. So they're saying six. It doesn't appear that to me, but I didn't measure it. I just bring that up because I looked at it today, and it certainly looks like a whole lot more than an inch and a half. And so I just wanted to clarify that. So the panel itself is what's visible. What you're probably looking at is shadow underneath of the panel. Yeah, unfortunately the obstruction that is happening because of that installation is the problem. It's not an inch and a half of obstruction. It's an obstruction that actually you can see in this photograph that it obstructs the view of the bottom part of the window. And it's the further away from the home that you get, the more it is evident. And that street is a wide street. It has a median down the middle. so when you're on the other side of the median it's it's very evident it it makes a statement and it's it's not nothing that's my point i would still say it's going to be dramatically more attractive and more inconspicuous than 30 panels on the roof facing central avenue and if i was on central avenue that would be something that i would be you know adamant about I would point out that the photo that Ms. Armstrong showed taken from Central Avenue, to get that photograph you have to really kind of work to find that. It's not, the house is not particularly evident from central avenue in fact it's not at all you really have to look for it so i would agree that it's that side of the house is visible from the neighbors who really from this property to the left of the house which is on the corner of central and Hanover. But other than that, it doesn't really have a major effect on the reading of the house. I think the photo that she showed is the side view. If you're coming down central, you'll see the rear of the house a lot more obvious, and that's where they're recommending we put the additional or move the panels to. Do we have a photo of that elevation? I don't think I have one down that alley, but I think I would show that this is the Google solar maps that get the most light. In the image that was taken is in this particular area of this side here. If you go just past his pool, that's where central wraps around. So you'll be driving straight towards the rear of the home. And then from a solar, from a photovoltaic absorption, you can look the south. The lighter area is where it's desirable for solar, the darker area is where it's not. So the only space they've got left to put is a place that's getting half the energy. So it would require twice as much. So it's going to be much more conspicuous. I'd like to take us back to Ms. Meyer's question because I'm not clear on the answer you gave her. I understood her to ask without adding the 30 additional panels. If the panels on the front were removed and the existing panels left, would there be sufficient generation there to charge the cars? So the goal was to take the house as a whole down to zero energy. You know, that was the whole scope of work. I think we're fairly close to that. I don't know. I haven't looked at his energy bill lately. but this would take better than 50% of the solar power off the house. So whether he's powering his car or his heating and cooling, he would still have some solar energy, but in order to replace that, it would take twice as much on the rear of the house. Thank you. Hey, Jamie. This whole neighborhood's part of the historic overlay, the central houses, these, and they all own the homes and they can change the homes or the exterior based on getting approval. It doesn't appear, and I know you weren't there the entire time, but was approval ever given to have the solar panels on that flat roof piece? So that's what I was saying at the beginning of my point. We took over from a company that actually went out of business, and they had told him that it was approved, and he told me it was approved. And as a company, we've actually reengineered our process. Anytime we touch a project, whether we're the first ones in or not, we're checking with the VOR to make sure it's been approved. Right. I understand that, but you're here representing the property owner. Right. So this is a question for the property owner's representative. Was it ever approved? I've been told by the property owner that he was misled by the other company that's no longer in business. Okay. We do a ton of work in this area, and I'm in front of the architectural review five times a year. It's important that we maintain a healthy relationship. I'm never going to put panels on a job that haven't been approved. Again, we were told and we didn't verify, so that started a new process in my business. We now verify. Okay. Is there more questions? All right. Thank you. Mr. Bailey. Mr. Chair, just want to make a couple points of clarification. Within the staff report, there is the specific height of the solar panels off of the roof. The applicant provided it within their letter of appeal. So it is quite a bit more than an inch and a half. But also for any findings for this, you would be making that against the historic design guidelines. So if you were to find that the BOAR were correct in their interpretation of the guidelines and the application of solar, that this was in violation of the guidelines, you would agree with them. If you were to go against that, you would have to find that this is somehow in agreement with the historic guidelines. In this case, staff has a hard time saying that it is in agreement when it is fairly straightforward within the guidelines to say that it is to be located either to the side or the rear of the structure. The impact that that has on off streets, streets that are along the side street side yard or rear yard, that is taken into account within the SOI standards because they specifically bring up that the primary wall face or the primary elevations are those that should be protected. Thank you. Can I speak to that as well? Well, so we're about to approach the historic guideline, and I'm going to work with Amelia to see we can amend some of this, because we've not had solar panels before. I mean, this is a new thing. And I'm sure 100 years ago when they started running electric lines down the streets, people objected to that. The guidelines are going to have to evolve, just like the Secretary of Interior's guidelines are evolving. I firmly believe that the guideline of being inconspicuous is greater than the guideline of being conspicuous to the neighbor behind. And I think that our laws need to evolve with solar. You know, Kentucky is 46th in the nation in solar right now. If you look at a lot of our east and west coast states, they're growing greatly in acceptance of what solar should look like and what it does. as a business owner, we are very intentional at making the solar we put on people's homes, specifically on the front of homes, attractive. I don't want ugly solar in Lexington because I want people to see it and get comfortable with it and spend more money with my company. That's how we grow an industry. So just because it's the way we've always done it doesn't mean it's the way we're always going to do it. And this is something we need to address today or tomorrow. in this particular situation, I think this is by far the most attractive place to put it on this person's home. And we're looking at a neighborhood, not just one street. This is the best place to put it on this person's home for the neighborhood, not just for the 100 feet of Hanover Avenue. Thank you. All right. Mr. Bell? Yeah, with that in mind, Graham, I get back to my question kind of of any kind of facings. Do you have any thoughts on the evolution of this and the historic side, and could you dress these things up to make them, quote, more appealing or satisfactory, in your opinion? I mean, to me, this is really cut and dried. The guidelines are very clear, and the installation violates the guidelines. and I'm really sympathetic with Mr. Clark's position, and I'm personally familiar with the work that he does and have enormous admiration for what he does. But for me, we're not in the business of rewriting the guidelines, and I'm very sympathetic also to his comment that the guidelines need to evolve. And I've had many discussions about other kinds of technologies, particularly material technologies, that I thought should be allowable but were not approvable under current guidelines. And once again, it's a situation where the movement toward new paradigms is not our job. It's not our job to make that movement happen. It's our job to look at what the guidelines are and make a decision based on that. Yeah, and I appreciate this specific situation. I'm really talking about the future and your thoughts towards the future, if we should evolve, if you feel like. Well, personally, I'm also very sympathetic with the need for energy conservation. And personally, I think we're in big trouble as a species, and things are going to be changing dramatically over the next 50 years. And something like this in 25 or 50 years, people may laugh at our decision at this point. but again I just don't think that we're empowered to be the ones to take that leap. I was really just asking your opinion, not off the record, but just kind of a sidebar kind of a thing just because it can be so noted that maybe we ought to change with time and your opinion matters. Thank you. Just going to follow on that and say I think in the comp plan update recommendations, We made some comments about green construction and some other things, and maybe as we move into the new comp plan, we need to put a greater emphasis on making these kind of changes and updating them more rapidly. Good points. Thank you. Mr. Mickler? Yeah, I have a couple of questions regarding this. I'm sort of very sympathetic with the appeal and the intent to provide alternative energy, and I'm also understanding that we're here today to vote on whether the Board of Architectural Review was correct in their interpretation of the guidelines. So I have a couple of questions following up about some of the definitions in these guidelines so that I understand them. What is the definition of primary elevation? Well, as noted before, the primary elevation is the elevation that you enter the structure from the front of the road. So we consider everything that's facing as you enter that front door, the primary elevation, which includes the front porch, includes the windows, includes the stoop, includes that roof line that is facing the main structure. And so just out of curiosity, so the primary elevation is that front of the structure, and it doesn't matter if it is 10 stories tall or one story, solar panels would not be allowed on the front of that structure according to these guidelines. That is correct. So according to that guideline, it doesn't matter if you can't see it at all. Well, I would say if you had a parapet roof, that might be a little different because you're putting it where if it was a main structure like Hanover Towers, that might be a little different because they've got cell phone towers. But if we're talking about this two-and-a-half-story structure and say, for instance, you've got a set of houseplants and you're looking at the houseplants and you see four elevations. You see the front elevation, you see the rear elevation, and you see the sides. The front elevation includes the front porch, the windows, and the entryway into the structure. And the guidelines right now, it's a flat prohibition of solar panels regardless of slope or angle. We're talking about, we consider the primary elevation everything that faces that front street. That includes that roof. May I ask a hypothetical? Yeah. So taking Robin's questioning one step further, if that porch hypothetically had a parapet roof and therefore the panels would be invisible from the street no matter where you stood and in fact invisible from almost any structure around there. Would that make a difference in the determination? It would make a difference. I mean, you know, each case in the BOAR, as you've probably encountered, is on a case-by-case basis with all particular circumstances. And say, for instance, this was a, you know, a flat roof structure. That might be a little different if it had a parapet roof. I mean, and actually some of the guidelines, the Secretary of Interior guidelines and some of the best practices talking about, you know, using a parapet roof. But in this particular circumstances, we're not dealing with parapet roof. We're dealing with a low-pitch roof that's still considered to be the front of the structure. Robin, more questions? Or Mr. Michler? So, I mean, as I understand what you're saying, if it's on the primary, if it's on the front of the house, I'm just going to use language that I commonly understand here, whether it's one inch or six inches is according to the guidelines right now or whether it's visible or whether it was a sloped roof where you could see 20 inches. According to the guidelines right now, it's all out. That's right. And I would say, you know, we did a huge amount of research on, you know, looking at communities everywhere in specifically focusing the ones within this particular climate, because I would point out that historic preservation is in essence green. I also mentioned that this particular area with this heavily treed area is very green. So in most all guidelines within all historic districts all look at not putting solar panels on the front elevations. So even in North Carolina, which is one of the top four states for solar panels, they're number three or four, I believe, they also have guidelines written that no solar panels need to be seen from the front elevation within all historic districts. So we are sort of consistent with many of our communities within the nation. in the eight states I looked at during the study. Thank you. Yes. Yes. I've got a question. As you all consider, as your group, as Historic Preservation Office considers updating the guidelines for solar panels, Do you anticipate there being a change in the fact that they cannot be on the front elevation, considering you referenced North Carolina, who's a top five solar panel, using state, has the same recommendations? Normally, we go with precedent. So is the president of the state with North Carolina that you anticipate not changing for our community? I can't answer that because the studies that would occur are going to be pretty lengthy. You know, the last time we had a change in the guidelines, we had a very lengthy discussion and relied on a lot of experts and looked at the various different information. So the Historic Preservation Commission who would be conducting that study, it might be very lengthy to do, and I can't project what that committee will come up with. How often do you review the guidelines? It depends. I think our last review was in 2016, so we're update, and then before that was in 2009 where we had a big overhaul of the guidelines. So this hadn't been reviewed since 2016? Correct. But then I think there's been discussion that will be occurring this year. Okay. Thank you. Wow. That's a great question. We bring it back to the commission at this moment, at this junction. There's a lot of questions that have been asked. of questions been that a lot of questions been answered some uh it was opening up again for further comments amongst the commission if there are any um just the floor is open question um on a roof like that would it be possible to recess the panels into the roof it within there would that be acceptable? Not necessarily without actually changing the whole design of the front porch. And I think it would, I don't think I've seen anywhere where people have done that. And I think on our, as Mr. Dennis alluded, you know, changes to the front of the architectural design are not going to be considered favorable towards our historic preservation. That's why I was thinking if you set them in and then the roof maintains its flatness, but I don't know how deep you're talking about or anything like that, but just a thought. So I would speak to that. There are several houses on Hanover that have similar porches that have molding on them, either dental molding or some type of mullions, for lack of a better term, And the homeowner has offered that as one of his, you know, agreements, you know, to try to make this move forward. Talking about the guidelines not changing since 2016, I've been in heating and cooling 29 years as of April. In 2016, solar was less than 10% of my revenue. In 2022, it was 60% of my revenue. It overtook heating and air. I think we really need to evolve faster. the technology is evolving faster than the guidelines are evolving. And I still, as a citizen, I don't know the bureaucracy of this, but as a citizen, I think we have two questions here. The Secretary of Interior, they give two recommendations to make it inconspicuous or to put it on the back of the House. And I think it's dramatically more inconspicuous where it is now than on the back of the House. The third option would be to put some type of molding around it, And it would look similar to houses three and four doors down from it that have done that prior to the H-1 overlay. So I don't think this is a yes-no question. I think there's several opportunities here to set a precedent moving forward, especially because this group and historic preservation are what homeowners associations around Lexington look to to set their guidelines. And as a solar contractor who has fought tooth and nail for the solar industry for the last decade, HOAs are one of the biggest hindrances to us growing in industry. So you're not just making a yes or no decision in front of the house or the back of the house. I think this is a little bit larger than that. And I think a common sense looking at that picture right there, that flat black line on the top of that roof is the most attractive place on that house to put those solar panels. And that's the intent of the guidelines, right, is to make the home as most attractive and as close to the historical as it's always been. So if we look at the intent of the guideline, this follows it better than any recommendations been made by BOAR. All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, I do need to clarify. This is a yes or no. This is not an opportunity to go through and add modifiers. The Historic Preservation Office and the BOAR is the appropriate place to amend an application. In this case, the applicant has asked if they can appeal the decision if the BOAR erred. The determination of this planning commission at this time is to say they erred and they can have this on the front porch, or they did not and they cannot have it on the front porch. Anything beyond that is a conversation that should be held with the BOAR. are, the HPO staff, and be done at a separate application phase. So this is somewhat where we're sitting with this application today. So this is a yes or no conversation. Okay. I got two questions, one here and the second one here. You go first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bailey, the decision that we make today, can he appeal that or is that a final decision? He can appeal that. That goes to the circuit court next. Thank you. That ties very closely into what my question is. What's the process for what happens to these panels during an appeal? If this is disapproved today and the applicant does not go forward with another appeal to the circuit court, they would have to have them removed from the front of the structure. I believe that they've had conversations with the HPO staff about what that would mean and what other opportunities there are. But if they were to go forward and go to the circuit court, it would have a very similar conversation to what we are having today. Did the BOAR err in their decision? And did the Planning Commission err in their decision? And then they would look at that evidence. Again, it would be a yes or a no. It wouldn't be any modifications. It would just be that review. Okay. Okay. Okay. We, uh. Yeah, we never left. Nobody's gone home? No, I know. I can't do anything but just say that. No. Yeah, we're back. I would, you all know where I stand on this, and I would just point out that this photograph that we've been looking at the whole time is damning evidence, because in a letter from the appellant, he quotes the Secretary of Interior saying, quote, quote, installing mechanical and service equipment on the roof, such as air conditioning transformers or solar collectors, when required for the new use so that they are inconspicuous from the public right of way and do not damage or obscure character-defining features is recommended, unquote. And I would argue that this photograph makes it very clear that the installation does, in fact, damage and obscure character-defining features. It's very clear to me that you can't see the bottom of those windows. Those windows are absolutely character-defining features. The element changes the vocabulary of the front porch, which has a really wonderful horizontal statement balanced by the piers that support it. And it muddies the appearance of the front elevation. So to me, it absolutely damages and obscures character-defining features. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Okay, so we're going to, floor is open. Members, for a motion. I'd move to support the BOAR on this and reject the appellant's effort to overturn their decision. Okay, we have a motion and a second by Mr. Bell. Any further discussions to that motion? Hearing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Okay. Can I say yes, but I don't like having to do it? Yes, you can say what you like. This is like taking down a tree on what you're doing. My heart told me one thing, and I had to do something else, so I have to vote yes. Yeah. That's the point. If you would put your microphone on. You want me to say that? I said, this is a decision like taking down the tree on Richmond Road. My heart tells me one thing. My head tells me something else. In this arena, I feel like I have to vote yes. Okay. Well, thank you. That was a tough decision for sure. I guess next up is the meeting is adjourned here just a reminder that we are back to having work sessions on a monthly basis so we had a couple months off next week we'll have a work session in the Phoenix building on the third floor on Thursday at 1.30 okay thank you thank you meetings adjourned