# Planning Commission Meeting - December 9, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · December 9, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1806 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1806?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-12-09 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 14,525 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on December 9, 2010, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Carolyn Richardson presiding. The meeting addressed 10 agenda items spanning development plan approvals, subdivision matters, performance bonds, and an appeal. Across these items, the Commission took 13 votes, with the majority of contested matters resulting in approval and one item — an Appeal of a BOAR Denial — being denied. Two agenda items were informational in nature, including an Annual Report from the Purchase of Development Rights Program and the Appointment of a Nominating Committee for Commission Officers, neither of which required a vote. No public comments were recorded during the meeting. ## Attendance The following members were present at the December 9, 2010 Commission meeting: - Carolyn Richardson - Mike Cravens - Lynn Roche-Phillips *(arrived late)* - Marie Copeland *(arrived late)* - Ed Holmes - Mike Owens - William Wilson - Eunice Beatty - Carla Blanton - Patrick Brewer *(arrived late)* - Derek Paulsen No members were recorded as absent. Three members — Lynn Roche-Phillips, Marie Copeland, and Patrick Brewer — arrived late to the meeting. All other members were present at the start of the session. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took the following actions during the December 9, 2010 meeting: - **Minutes Approval:** Mike Owens moved, seconded by Mike Cravens, to approve the minutes from the October 14, 2010 meeting. The motion passed by voice vote, 8–0. [timestamp: 0:02] - **PLAN 2010-100F – NDC Property (Wellington), Unit 1-B, Section 2, Lots 19 & 20:** William Wilson moved, seconded by Eunice Beatty, to postpone this item. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0–1, with the item postponed to December 16, 2010. [timestamp: 4:17] - **DP 2010-79 – NDC Property, Unit 1-B, Sec. 2, Lots 19, 20, 20A & 20B:** Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by Mike Owens, to postpone this item to December 16, 2010. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 5:32] - **PLAN 2010-131P – Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property:** Mike Cravens moved, seconded by Derek Paulsen, to postpone this item to January 13, 2011. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 7:16] - **PLAN 2010-129F – Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-C, Section 2, Lots 102 & 103:** Eunice Beatty moved, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to postpone this item to January 13, 2011. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 8:59] - **DP 2010-69 – Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3, Lots 102–106:** Mike Owens moved, seconded by Derek Paulsen, to postpone this item to January 13, 2011. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 10:06] - **PLAN 2010-106F – Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 & 2:** William Wilson moved, seconded by Eunice Beatty, to postpone this item to December 16, 2010. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 11:09] - **Consent Agenda:** Ed Holmes moved, seconded by Derek Paulsen, to approve all consent agenda items. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 15:19] - **PLAN 2005-163P – NDC Property, Unit 5 (Reapproval):** Derek Paulsen moved, seconded by Mike Cravens, to approve this item subject to 7 staff-listed conditions. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 20:20] - **DP 2010-83 – Sayre Christian Village (Phase 1–5) Development Plan:** Ed Holmes moved, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to approve this item subject to staff-listed conditions, with condition #12 deleted and condition #13 modified. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 26:41] - **DP 2010-82 – Schroyer Property, Lot 2A:** Derek Paulsen moved, seconded by William Wilson, to approve this item subject to 7 staff-listed conditions. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 30:30] - **Release and Call of Bonds:** Mike Owens moved, seconded by Mike Cravens, to approve the release and call of bonds. The motion passed by voice vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 31:37] - **BOAR 2010-2 – Appeal for Vinyl Window Replacement, Aylesford Historic District:** Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by Mike Owens, to deny the appeal. The motion passed by roll call vote, 10–0. [timestamp: 1:36:42] ## Appointments The Commission made the following appointments during the December 9, 2010 meeting: - **Mike Owens** was appointed to the **Nominating Committee**. - **Ed Holmes** was appointed to the **Nominating Committee**. - **Mike Cravens** was appointed to the **Nominating Committee**. All three individuals were appointed to serve on the Nominating Committee, resulting in a three-member committee composed of Owens, Holmes, and Cravens. ## Contested Items - **Vinyl Window Replacement in the Aylesford Historic District:** The commission engaged in a heated discussion regarding a request to replace existing windows with vinyl windows in the Aylesford Historic District. The central point of contention was whether vinyl windows are an appropriate material choice within a designated historic district, where preservation standards typically govern the types of materials and alterations permitted on structures. The debate reflected broader tensions between property owner preferences for modern, low-maintenance materials and the preservation standards that historic district designations are intended to uphold. Ultimately, the commission voted to uphold the Board of Architectural Review's (BOAR) prior decision to deny the appeal, affirming that the proposed vinyl window replacement did not meet the requirements for work within the Aylesford Historic District. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 02:34] The Commission reviewed the minutes from the October 14, 2010 meeting. Mike Owens and Mike Cravens were the key speakers during this portion of the meeting. The minutes were reviewed without noted objection, and the Commission approved them. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 03:40] Several plans were postponed to future meetings based on requests from applicants. Key speakers involved in this portion of the meeting included William Wilson, Eunice Beatty, Patrick Brewer, Mike Owens, and Derek Paulsen. The postponements were approved by the Commission. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 15:19] Several items were brought before the Commission as part of the consent agenda, which groups routine or non-controversial matters for a single vote without individual discussion. The consent agenda was presented with participation from Ed Holmes and Derek Paulsen. No separate debate or individual concerns were raised regarding the items included in the consent agenda. The Commission approved the consent agenda as presented. ## NDC Property, Unit 5 **Agenda Item:** PLAN 2005-163P [timestamp: 20:20] The Commission took up the matter of NDC Property, Unit 5, a request for reapproval of a preliminary subdivision plan. Key speakers on this item were Derek Paulsen and Mike Cravens. The item was presented as a reapproval of a previously considered preliminary subdivision plan, brought back before the Commission with conditions attached. The discussion centered on the reapproval process and the applicable conditions governing the subdivision plan for this unit of the NDC Property. The Commission ultimately **approved** the reapproval of the preliminary subdivision plan for NDC Property, Unit 5, with conditions. ## Sayre Christian Village Development Plan **Agenda Item:** DP 2010-83 | [timestamp: 26:41] The Commission took up the development plan for Sayre Christian Village (DP 2010-83), an item brought forward for discussion and action. Key speakers on this item included **Ed Holmes** and **Patrick Brewer**. The agenda item centered on approval of the development plan, with discussion focused on modifications to the conditions attached to the approval. The Commission ultimately **approved** the development plan with those modifications to conditions incorporated. *Note: Detailed information on the specific modifications to conditions, the nature of any concerns raised during discussion, and the full substance of presentations by Holmes and Brewer is not available in the extracted record for this item.* ## Schroyer Property, Lot 2A **Agenda Item:** DP 2010-82 [timestamp: 30:30] The Commission took up a discussion item regarding the minor amended development plan for Schroyer Property, Lot 2A. Key speakers on this item included Derek Paulsen and William Wilson. The item was brought forward for Commission consideration as a minor amendment to an existing development plan. The structured record does not detail the specific contents of the presentation, particular concerns raised during deliberation, or the nature of any debate that occurred during the discussion. The Commission ultimately **approved** the minor amended development plan for Schroyer Property, Lot 2A. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 31:37] The Commission took up the matter of Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit, with Mike Owens and Mike Cravens serving as the key speakers on this agenda item. The item was presented for Commission approval and concerned the release and call of bonds as detailed in the accompanying memorandum. No additional concerns or significant debate are reflected in the available record for this item. The Commission approved the release and call of bonds as presented. ## Appeal of BOAR Denial **Agenda Item: BOAR 2010-2** [timestamp: 1:36:42] The Commission took up an appeal of a denial issued by the Board of Architectural Review (BOAR) concerning the replacement of original wood windows with vinyl windows in the Aylesford Historic District. Key speakers on this item included Patrick Brewer and Mike Owens. The matter centered on whether the replacement of original wood windows with vinyl windows was appropriate within the historic district. The use of vinyl windows in place of original wood windows is a common point of contention in historic preservation proceedings, as maintaining original materials and character-defining features is typically a core standard applied to properties within designated historic districts. The Commission ultimately **denied** the appeal, upholding the original BOAR denial. This outcome affirmed the Board of Architectural Review's earlier determination that the proposed vinyl window replacement did not meet the applicable standards for work within the Aylesford Historic District. ## Annual Report from Purchase of Development Rights Program [timestamp: 1:37:34] Mr. Billy Van Pelt presented the annual report on behalf of the Rural Land Management Board, providing the Commission with an update on the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. The presentation covered the achievements of the PDR program as well as its future goals. No additional details regarding specific acreage figures, funding amounts, parcels acquired, or other program metrics are available from the meeting record. The item was informational in nature, and no formal action or vote was taken by the Commission following the presentation. ## Appointment of Nominating Committee for Commission Officers [timestamp: 1:55:29] The Chair addressed the upcoming need to select officers for the Planning Commission by announcing the appointment of a nominating committee. Carolyn Richardson was identified as a key speaker during this portion of the meeting. Three members were appointed to the nominating committee, which will be responsible for considering candidates for Commission officer positions. The item was informational in nature, with no vote or formal action taken beyond the appointments themselves. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of the minutes from the October 14, 2010 meeting - **PLAN 2010-100F** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of NDC Property (Wellington), Unit 1-B, Section 2, Lots 19 & 20 - **DP 2010-79** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of NDC Property, Unit 1-B, Sec. 2, Lots 19, 20, 20A & 20B - **PLAN 2010-131P** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Hillenmeyer Property & DWS Property - **PLAN 2010-129F** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3-C, Section 2, Lots 102 & 103 - **DP 2010-69** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3, Lots 102-106 - **PLAN 2010-106F** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 & 2 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items - **PLAN 2005-163P** — passed (10-0): Reapproval of NDC Property, Unit 5 - **DP 2010-83** — passed (10-0): Approval of Sayre Christian Village (Phase 1-5) Development Plan - **DP 2010-82** — passed (10-0): Approval of Schroyer Property, Lot 2A - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of release and call of bonds - **BOAR 2010-2** — passed (10-0): Denial of appeal for replacement of windows with vinyl in Aylesford Historic District --- ## Full transcript Преподавание Корректор Е. Воидова Корректор А. Кулакова Корректор А. Кулакова First item of business today is approval of the minutes from the October 14, 2010 meeting. I'll accept a motion to approve these minutes unless there are corrections or additions to those minutes. Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of the minutes as written dated October 14, 2010. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made by Mr. Owens. Second by Mr. Cravens. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. At this time we will take on any postponements or withdrawals. Is there anyone in the audience? Okay. No postponements or withdrawals. Madam Chairman. Yes. Excuse me. Staff does have two postponements to bring to your attention. All right. On page 2 of your agenda under final subdivision plans, item A, plan 2010-100F, NDC property, Wellington unit 1B, section 2, lots 19 and 20 amended for property located at 209 Rushio Way. We have received a request from the applicant for a one-week postponement of that plan to your zoning hearing next week on the 16th. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? The chair will entertain a motion for a one-week postponement to December 16th, plan 2010-100F, NDC property, Wellington unit 1B, section 2, lots 19 and 20 amended. Motion's made by Mr. Wilson. Seconded by Ms. Beatty. All in favor, please vote electronically. Those opposed, vote electronically. Motion carries. Postponed for one week to December 16th. Are there others, Mr. Yes, ma'am. On page 5 of your agenda, item G, DP 2010-79, NDC property, unit 1B, section 2, lots 19, 20, 20A and 20B amended. This is a DP that is associated with the record plat you just postponed. And the applicant has requested a postponement of this development plan for one week as well to your zoning meeting on the 16th. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak to this? Objections? If not, the chair will entertain a motion to postpone for one week to December 16th, DP 2010-79, NDC property, unit 1B, section 2, lots 19, 20, 21A and 21B amended. That was hard. I have a motion by Mr. Brewer. Do I hear a second? Second. Second by Mr. Owens. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Madam Chairman? Yes. I spoke with Mr. Roy Kaley of EA Partners shortly before this meeting, and he informed me that he was to be here personally to postpone several plans. I can see that he's not made it for some reason, but he did send us a written e-mail request for postponements, and I would be happy to go over those with you if you would like. He did inform me he intended to be here. Again, I have no idea why he hasn't been able to make it. I mean, I spoke with him around 1 o'clock, so I don't know. Well, if we have the documentation, then by all means, proceed. The first item, then, to bring to your attention is on Item 1, I mean, Page 1, Preliminary Subdivision Plans. Item A, Plan 2010-131P, Hillenmayer Property and DWS Property amended. This is property located at 2801 Sandersville Road and 803 Greendale Road as well as 2551 Leestown Road. We are requesting a one-month postponement. And that date would be, Mr. Salley? That would be January 13th, your meeting devoted to subdivision and development. Is there any objection from anyone in the audience? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion for Plan 2010-131P, Hillenmayer Property and DWS Property amended for a one-month postponement to the January 13th meeting. Do I hear a motion? Madam Chairman, move to postpone to January 13th, Plan 2010-131P. Motion by Mr. Kravis. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Paulson. All in favor, please vote electronically. Mr. Martin? Madam Chairman, the next item, page 2 of your agenda, under Final Subdivision Plans, Item B, Plan 2010-129F, Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3C, Section 2, Lots 102 and 103 amended for property located on Silver Bell Trace. The applicant is requesting a one-month postponement of this plan. Is there any objection from anyone in the audience? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion for Plan 2010-129F, Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3C, Section 2, Lots 102 and 103 amended for a one-month postponement to December 13th. I'll entertain a motion. Motion by Ms. Beatty. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Brewer. All in favor, please vote electronically. Madam Chairman, excuse me. I see that Mr. Kaley has arrived. However, he gave me the go-ahead to continue the next item. I'm sure if you make a mistake, he'll point it out. I guess I'm on a roll. The next item on your agenda is on page 3 under Development Plans, Item A. It is DP 2010-69, Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3, Lots 102 through 106. This is for a property located on Silver Bell Trace. The applicant has requested a one-month postponement. Is there anyone in the audience object? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion for a postponement of one month to December 13th meeting, DP 2010-69, Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 3, Lots 102 through 106. Madam Chair, I'll move for postponement of DP 2010-69 until January 13th, 2010. About 2011. A motion by Mr. Owens. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Paulson. All in favor are opposed. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Madam Chairman, the last item I wish to postpone on behalf of Mr. Kaley is on your addendum at the rear of your agenda. It is the first item under Land Subdivision Items, Final Subdivision Plans. It is Item D, Plan 2010-106F, Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 and 2, property located at 2599 Old Rosebud Road. They are requesting a one-week postponement of this plan to your December 16th meeting. Is there anyone in the audience to object? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion for postponement of one week to December 16th meeting, Plan 2010-106F, Tuscany, Unit 6, Section 1, Lots 1 and 2. Motion is made by Mr. Wilson, Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Beatty. All in favor, please vote, or opposed, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you, Ms. Martin. The next item on our agenda would be those items, the properties which are up for the consent agenda. Mr. Salley, do you have those? I do, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. There are seven items on your meeting agenda that qualify for consideration at this time on your consent agenda. The first is on page 3, Item C. This is Plan 2010-130F, an amended final record plat for Pinecrest Subdivision, Unit 1F, Lot 20, amended. This involves property located at 3832 Pinecrest Way, and this plat has been recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. There are a number of development plans also that appear on your consent agenda. The first is on page 4 of your meeting agenda, Item B, DP 2010-73, an amended final development plan for Winburn Shopping Center, Unit 1E, Lot 1. This is for property located at 1100 Winburn Drive. The next item on your meeting agenda on page 4, Item C, is also on your consent agenda. This is DP 2010-74, an amended final development plan for Victory Lutheran Church property, Lots 2 through 13. This involves property located at 2868 through 2890 Riadosa Drive. On page 4, Item D of your meeting agenda is DP 2010-76. This is an amended final development plan for the NDC property, Unit 1B, Section 2, Lot 17. This involves property at 233 Ruscio Way. The next item on your meeting agenda on page 5, Item E, is also on the consent agenda. This is DP 2010-77, South Grove Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3, for property located at 1610 through 1618 Harrodsburg Road. On your consent agenda on page 5, Item F of your meeting agenda is DP 2010-78, an amended final development plan for Joe Coons Farm, Unit 2, Lot B, out parcel D. This involves property at 4201 Saron Drive. The final development plan on your consent agenda is on page 5, Item H of your meeting agenda. This is an amended final development plan for DP 2010-60, Hamburg Place Farm, Phase 2, Lot 17. This is for property located on Sir Barton Way. Madam Chair, at this time, the Commission can consider approval of all of these plans per your subdivision committee's recommendations, unless a member of the Commission or a member of the audience would like them removed for discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to pull one of these for further discussion? Is there any Commission member who would like to pull one of these for further discussion? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda. I make a motion to accept the consent agenda as read by Mr. Salley, Madam Chair. Motion by Mr. Holmes. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Paulson. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll be prepared to present the first remaining plan in just a moment. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry about that. Everybody ready? If you would turn to Page 2 on your agenda, we're going to look at Plan 2005-163P, NDC Property Unit 5, amended. This property is located at 451 to 501 West Reynolds Road and 500 West Reynolds Road. This plan is an amended preliminary subdivision plan. To locate this, we have Nicholasville Road, the south NDC property, Nicholasville Road, and Clay's Mill, the old Reynolds Road property. We have Post Road coming in and Wellington Way. What we're looking at is on Vincent Way, which was the Reynolds Road that has now been removed. A portion of it's been removed. The proposal for this plan is to revise the – well, I should tell you. If you look at – there's a copy here of a revised conditions. And the purpose of this plan is to amend the street cross sections to remove a bike path and add a sidewalk and also to remove additional bikeway. If you look up here on the – it's not showing very well. We have a portion of the street cross section coming down the Vincent Way. The bike path was 12 feet wide and it was asphalt. So this is Section BB at the top. They're going from a 12-foot asphalt to a sidewalk and additional yard. It's still in that 12-foot area. And the same along with the property – there's just another piece here, but this is slightly smaller. We're going from a 41-foot paved road to a 31-foot paved road into the subdivision. So they're removing the bike path. They're also removing the bike path that goes over to the park. The bike path was asked to be removed by the neighbors. They didn't like the asphalt in their yards. So with that, the staff has reviewed this plan, and we recommend reapproval of this plan with four conditions that were presented and approved the first time, and we'd like to add three other conditions, the developer's name and address, graphic print and scale, and a bike and pedestrian sign-off from – or sign-off from the bike and pedestrian planner. With that, there you go. If you all have any other questions. Any commission member have a question at this point? Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, my name is John Barlow with Barlow Homes, and I'm asking that the commission approve this plan. Are there any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I make a motion to approve Plan 2005-163P, NDC Property Unit 5, with the seven conditions as stated. A motion by Mr. Paulson, second by Mr. Cravens. Is there any further discussion? If not, everyone please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, the next item on your agenda is on page 6. It is DP-2010-83, Sarah Christian Village, phases 1 through 5 amended. And it's the final development plan for a property located at 3816 Camelot Drive. The property is located in the Bellowood subdivision at the intersections of Camelot, Bellowood Drive, and Greenfield Drive. The rear of the property does back up to Wilson Downing. They have numerous buildings on the site existing in this place, in these areas. The purpose of this amendment was to add this building and these additions to these buildings, as well as to revise their access to Bellowood Drive, new drive parking aisles here, and access to Greenfield Drive off of Bellowood in this area. You last saw this plan as a zoning development plan a few months ago. This is their final development plan that is nearly identical to the plans shown at the time of the zone change. The subdivision committee recommended approval of this plan subject to the 13 conditions on your agenda. There were, however, two discussion items that were brought up from the zone change, items that were, I believe, intended to be discussed at the time of the final development plan. The first one being the discussion of the proposed access on the site. That item was discussed with neighbors at length with the commission, and the staff felt it was important to bring it back. This plan was a late plan, and it will be reviewed by technical committee. The staff felt it important to bring back the discussion of the access on this plan, again, for your consideration. The last one was the discussion of the proposed landscape buffer along Bellowood Drive and Camelot Drive. That item was denoted on the zoning development plan as something to be determined at the time of the final development plan. They have submitted, as you can see behind me, a landscape plan that addresses many of the items on the conditional use report that was approved in accordance with the zone change. There was one item, however, that the staff did not feel that the submitted landscape plan addressed, which was the last item about a series of landscaping islands in the landscape buffer that consists of shrubs or small trees. And so the staff would like to see a revised landscape plan as part of the final certification of this development plan that would address the final condition of the landscape plan as submitted. The discussion item of the proposed access, the staff was comfortable with the access as denoted and considering that there will be also a traffic and solid waste approval of the details of that access point, particularly as it relates to the access points on Greenfield Drive where there is a dumpster located. I believe that's the reason for what initially looked like an awkward access here and here on Greenfield in order to serve that dumpster. I'd be happy to try to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commission? Mr. Holmes. Now, the landscape buffer plan, does that detail the type of plantings? It does detail the types of plantings. It also denotes it has a cross section for a berm to buffer the parking lot. It details the species of plantings as well. Okay. And you say they're going to bring that back revised plan? I ask as part of the resolution of that discussion item that they bring us a revised plan that denotes the landscaping islands in the areas along the corners of Greenfield and Camelot along Belleau Wood. Are there other questions from Commission members? Not? Thank you. Petitioner? Madam Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Jason Banks. We don't have any problem submitting a new landscape plan showing the landscaping islands. We missed that. And as far as access, we discussed that a bunch at the zoning hearing. And I don't think traffic has a problem with it. We've even agreed to make the access off of Belleau Wood one way, you know, because that's the way it's going to function anyway as far as that. Other than that, we agree with staff's comments and request approval. Other questions? Mr. Hollings? In the subdivision, I think we spoke a little bit when you mentioned the one-way traffic in and out. As far as proper signage and so forth or some way to make sure that that happens? That's typically shown on the site plan, which is submitted to building inspection before they get occupancy. Are there other questions? Not? Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this, either in opposition or in support of? If not, then I'll turn it over to the commission, and the chair will entertain a motion or defer the discussion. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve item DP-2010-83 with the staff's, How is it, the landscape islands? We feel that 12 could be deleted if the commission is comfortable with the access as denoted on the plan, and 13 could be changed to resolve. Okay. With the deletion of item 12 and resolve item 13 with the landscape islands. Thank you. I have a motion by Mr. Holmes. Do I have a second? Motion is made and seconded by Mr. Brewer. Is there any further discussion? If not, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Okay. The last item on your subdivision items is on your addendum on page 7 under minor development plans. It is DP-2010-82, the Schroyer property. This is a minor amended development plan for property located at 3600 Palomar Drive. The property is located in the Palomar Shopping Center. This is Wellington Way and Harrodsburg Road. This is the Bank One Shopping Center. It is over here. This is the vet clinic. The purpose of their amendment previously, the last major amended development plan we had brought in additions along the front, an addition on the rear, an addition on the back. This minor amended development plan was submitted to revise parking and access area here and give better clearance for a dumpster access here. And the process is not noted as part of their purpose of amendment was to change the size slightly in the layout of their building envelope. This plan did not have dimensions on it. And as part of staff's review and truthing out the numbers on this plan, we discovered that the building was larger. The addition was slightly larger than would have been approved by the planning commission previously and the staff did not have the authority to approve that increase. And so we have referred it to you for your approval with the seven conditions that you see on the agenda. And I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Are there questions? Not. Thank you. Petitioner? Is there anyone? I don't see the engineer that I've been working with on this plan, so I don't think he's here. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against this plan? Not. We'll turn it over to the commission for any discussion or for a motion. Madam Chair, I make a motion for approval of DP 2010-82, the Shroyer property, lot 2A with the seven conditions as noted. Motion by Mr. Paulson. Do I hear a second? Second. Second by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda is the performance bonds and letters of credit. I think everyone has a copy of those. Is there any discussion regarding any of these, or do I hear a motion for release? Madam Chair, I'll move for approval of a memorandum for the release and call of bonds dated 12-9-2010. I have a motion by Mr. Owens, second by Mr. Cravens. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor, vote electronically. How about if all in favor say aye? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right. The next item of business is under commission items, and it is the BOAR presentation. Good afternoon. On page 6 of your agenda, it's item A under commission items. It's BOAR 2010-2, and it's an appeal by Mr. Arthur Salomon and Mr. Stuart Lowenthal, and they own property at 127 Ransom Avenue in the Aylesford Historic District. I have a letter that was submitted with this appeal from the Appellants Archive. We've got the property at 127 Ransom, that's this right here. We've got Ransom Avenue, which is the connector between High Street and Main Street, and all of the zoning in the area except for this right here, all of the surrounding zoning is R3, R3 with an H1 overlay. These two properties are zone B2A, and they're part of the downtown core. This property was purchased by the Appellants in 1984, which was prior to the H1 overlay, which was done in 1998, and they're asking you all to review a denial of the Board of Architectural Review that they were asking to do vinyl windows, replace their vinyl windows, or replace their wooden windows with vinyl windows. And before Historic Preservation was able to get there and do a stop work order, 12 of the 14 windows on the front of the building were already replaced. And I'd like you to keep in mind through this whole thing that there are 35 windows on the building, and they intend to replace all of the windows because of the draftiness in the building. And what they have replaced so far is less than a third of what they intend to do, and the decision that you all make today is going to have an effect on what they can do with the rest of the building. So keep that in mind if you would, please. This is a two-story brick fourplex, and when Historic Preservation does their presentation, they'll have pictures of this. But there are 14 windows on the front of the building. They are all original to the building, and it's thought that they were retrofitted in the 1960s. The building was built in the 1920s. All of the windows are in extensive need of repair, and as I said, all but two were done, before Historic Preservation was able to put a stop work order on this. It was taken to the Board of Architectural Review, and it was heard on September 22nd. And the reason that Mr. Lowenthal gave for the replacement of the windows is energy efficiency. And he said that he was reproducing what was there within his means, meaning that he was keeping the original openings, and he was doing the one-over-one pane design, which is what the old wood windows were. However, he used vinyl instead of wood or aluminum clay, which are allowed by the design guidelines. The vinyl is not. Bill, if you could put those design guidelines up there, please. These are the guidelines that were listed in Historic Preservation's staff report to the BOAR. There are six of them. The first two of the six are particularly applicable to this request right here, or this appeal. And the others probably were basically prescriptive in the event that they do replace the other windows because they don't all exactly apply to the windows that were existing that were replaced. 124B, which is the second one there, is particularly applicable. One of the reasons that I have this up here is so that you can see the language, how it's written. Most of them use the words should or can, which is a recommendation, and it's subject to interpretation. The last sentence in 124B says vinyl or vinyl clay windows are not allowed. That's basically a command. It's a mandate. So keep that in mind, too, if you would, please. He asked for an allowance to let him do the vinyl windows because he said that you can't tell from the street whether they're vinyl or wood. And in response to that, the chair of the Board of Architectural Reviews explained the recommendation versus the shall in the design guidelines, and Mr. Lowenthal said he still didn't understand, and so one of the BOAR members explained that vinyl is not an historic product. It's relatively new. It wasn't used in historic buildings, and it has a tendency to discolor, and it also has a tendency to dry out and crack after time. And wood, if it's properly maintained, will last a lot longer, and it will preserve the historic fabric of the structure. And he also added that the historic design guidelines across the nation typically disallow use of vinyl. And the chair reminded Mr. Lowenthal that the staff had recommended approval of the replacement of the windows because they were in such bad shape, but he should do it with aluminum clad or wood and that vinyl was not allowed. The replacement is within the design guidelines. The use of vinyl is not. And Mr. Lowenthal again asked him to bend a little bit because appearance is not applicable, he thinks, and so he asked them to allow the vinyl. And from the street, he said it was virtually indistinguishable. You couldn't tell whether they were vinyl or the original wood windows, and so he asked them to let him keep the windows, use them. And actually, what is the appearance is not the deciding issue here. The deciding issue is the fact that the vinyl is not allowed. That should be the deciding issue. That should be what the Board of Architectural Review looks at, what the staff looks at, what you look at as far as this appeal. And the vinyl is strictly prohibited. The BOAR discussed this, and they agreed with the staff, unanimously voted to uphold the staff's recommendation, and it was brought up in that discussion that they owned the property before the 1998 overlay was put in place. And so they explained the notification process, how property owners get notification. They explained that there are three public hearings in the process and the applicants should have known and would have known that this was subject to design guidelines. And I would also like to note that just a few years ago, the design guidelines, you know how you've always had appeals for vinyl windows. The design guidelines were revised a few years ago, probably in 2008 I think they were adopted. And vinyl was a big item of discussion at that time. And they brought in professionals, they brought in builders, they brought in contractors, and they all, after all the discussion and after all the presentations were made, they decided to keep vinyl as a prohibited item. It's just something that's not historic. It's not as aesthetically pleasing as the wood or as other products, and it's not as safe because vinyl has a tendency to melt in a fire. And so they decided to keep vinyl as a prohibited item. And looking at this, I looked at the staff report, I looked at the findings in the staff report and the minutes of the meeting, and I actually watched the video of the meeting. And it doesn't appear that the Board of Architectural Review was in error at all. They applied the design guidelines as they're written, they applied them consistently as they always have, and their decision was based on the language that is in the design guidelines. There's no room for interpretation of this one, as there is in some other ones, but this one, there's not. So we have recommended disapproval in that you uphold the BOAR for the three reasons that are in your staff report. One is the consistency of their application of the design guidelines. One is that appearance is not that it shouldn't be the determining factor in their approval or disapproval. And one is that the design guidelines were revised and vinyl is still prohibited. And I would also like to repeat that the remaining windows that are going to be done are more than like twice as much, at least twice as much as what has already been done in number. So keep that in mind before you decide. And if you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be glad to answer them. If you have any other questions, we have Historic Preservation here, and Mr. Lowenthal is here to present his case. Thank you. Are there any questions? Yes, Ms. Feltz. Were there members of the public present at the BOAR meeting? That I don't know. The members of the Balesford? I'm Betty Kerr, Director of Historic Preservation. Sorry. And in our minutes, we do not reflect, and I don't recall there being anyone else in attendance to speak directly to that application. We would have certainly put them in the minutes had they spoken. There could have been someone sitting in the room observing it who did not speak. We don't have on the record. But to my knowledge, there was not. I have a question for Mr. Holmes. Over here, Betty. Yes. Well, hey, Mr. Holmes. And I do have a few comments to make, too, when you all are ready. Okay. Are we asking that he remove the windows that was installed? The original windows that were installed without a permit, that's correct. Because as installed, they're in violation of the process, and so they need to come into compliance with the process, either by getting a valid permit and carrying it out accordingly or removal, well, which would necessitate removal of the violation. We sort of got the cart before the horse. Would you like to make your presentation now? Just a very, very brief few things, mostly to show you some photographs. I would like to submit to the record the record of the materials, and I believe Amelia, while we've been chatting, has passed these out to you all as well. And, of course, the first piece is the staff report and the letters and so forth and so on, as you are used to seeing. And then sticking out to the side is the little subsection of the minutes, excuse me, of the guidelines referencing the topic at hand, that being the windows topic. And we do, of course, have with us full sets of the guidelines. If anyone would like to do some light reading, we have full sets of the guidelines here, if anybody would like to, and I can circulate this if you would like. Just reach out and let me know. Ms. Rackers has, as always, done a wonderful job of, if I can get this going. We're not working. If you can get it to work, just go through. Ah, it's a miracle. This is the affected property that Ms. Rackers described, and you will see, just keep going through them, Amelia, where it's situated on the street on Ransom. Now, these elevations are not where the changes have been made yet. These are still what were the existing conditions, but this is the sides, and then this is the rear elevation. But the elevation that is before you today with the window changes is the front elevation, which is this. And this is a photograph taken when our inspector, Amelia Armstrong, who I believe you all are familiar with, went by the site and saw the work happening. And so she took photographs at the time. And the windows that have been replaced are there on the left, and some of the, these are the replacement vinyl windows. One of the things that happens when these replacements are done, they've put in what we call a sash kit, and it's set inside the existing opening, and it makes a smaller opening, because the window sashes now are occupying what used to be glass space pretty much before. Where the gentleman, can you go back to one, where the gentleman is visible in the window, there you go, those two windows to the left and where the gentleman is, of course, the window is already out, but those are two of what were the original windows. Initially, when Ms. Armstrong made her site visit, it appeared that the overall, that the historic windows in the building were in pretty good shape and probably could be retrofitted. But upon closer examination of the ones that survived in the other walls, but particularly they had been, the ones that were taken out were set in the backyard, and they were able to look at them up close and personal, as you can see right here, the stack of them to the left. And they had had in the 1960s, as it turns out, some retrofit attempts made to these windows that routed out part of the wood and put some metal stripping in them and so forth and so on. And in conjunction with the fact that they had been removed from the windows and hence what one went in which window was all discombobulated at that point, it really realistically would have been very difficult to put the historic windows back in successfully. So it came to the realization that the solution to this situation as it had evolved was to approve putting in replacement windows, but replacement windows that would be within the guidelines as required. And so that is, of course, then when the Board of Architecture Review took the action, which Ms. Rikers has gone through and described to you. And this is a little unusual for you all perhaps in the sense normally when we're talking about window situations, it's usually the pros and cons of whether the historic windows should be taken out of a building and replacement windows put in. In this instance, it's agreed that taking out the windows and putting in replacement windows is an okay thing. And so the issue is the manner in which it's to be accomplished, the replacement windows that are to be put in. And as Ms. Rikers has very eloquently told you, the vinyl windows are not allowed by the guidelines. And the guidelines were very thoroughly reviewed for over a year or so and updated. And I would pause a second and introduce to you Wynne Meeker, who is the chairman of the Board of Architecture Review. She chaired the effort to review the design review guidelines and is going to tell you just a bit about the rationale and outcome as to why they put so strongly that they would not allow vinyl in the historic districts in the future. So Ms. Meeker? We're going to be very short, by the way. Don't be worried. Thank you, Betty. And I'm happy to have this opportunity to tell you a little bit more about the guidelines and to bring them up to a more up close and personal level for you from the viewpoint of another volunteer layman serving on a city commission. And first of all, I'd like to say that Stuart Lowenthal was a very good running buddy friend of my late husband. And so what I'm saying is nothing personal with Stuart, but it's as my position as chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. Lexington's first local historic district was established in 1958. There are thousands of local historic districts around the country, and each city or governing body has its own set of guidelines. We've had guidelines since 1958, design review guidelines. And two years ago, we spent a year and a half revising our guidelines. We went through it word by word, had all sorts of experts. We had contractors and suppliers and architects and builders and attorneys and local residents and all the divisions of the government to consult with us. We studied guidelines from more than 100 cities across the United States because we wanted to bring ours up to the very latest in building materials and methods. And the two big sticking points in that whole year and a half were windows and siding, what to do because the consensus of all the suppliers and builders was that wood just isn't what it used to be. What you can buy now isn't like the old wood that was originally in the house. If you can buy it, it's very expensive, or you can get it at salvage. So we need to come up with a solution that would be as close as possible to the wood and still retain the historic features of the house. Windows are so important because they're the eyes of the building. And it really decreases the property value to have something sort of artificial stuck up there like vinyl. For example, in siding, we allowed cementious wood to be used as a replacement because of the problems with wood. So what we finally came up with after much discussion was that we would allow aluminum-clad windows to be used, which was a big departure from our guidelines at the time, but we felt it was necessary. Or wood windows, if they were possible to use, if you were possible to get the wood. The reason, and I want to tell you why we said absolutely no vinyl windows. First of all, it ruins the aesthetics, which lowers the property values of not only your property, but the properties around you. And why is that so important? Well, we have found, interestingly enough, in this current real estate debacle that our whole country is going through, that the values of the properties in historic districts have held up better than newer districts. And also, it's interesting to note, although our building permits are way down in Fayette County, applications for the certificates of appropriateness are way up, so historic preservation is helping our economic development by providing jobs and supplies, but the labor is a major portion of historic preservation work. And the reason we didn't, another reason is because, to a person, everyone we consulted said the vinyl windows are temporary. They don't last more than 10 years. When you take them out and replace them, vinyl doesn't degrade in the landfill, so you've always got that vinyl window. And then the thing that really shocked me is when we had the fire marshal and the fire chief come, and when you use vinyl in a building, it's sort of a fire accelerator, and it burns at a much higher temperature and also produces noxious fumes, which made us definitely not have it for the siding, and then the windows would be the same thing. These guidelines have been in place for two years. They are on the web. I hope if you haven't ever had a chance to do it that you will, that you'll look at our historic preservation guidelines. We're quite proud of them because we have them illustrated for the first time, and they're very plain and simple to read, and it shows some of our properties in the historic districts. So I hope that you will honor all our consensus and our hard work as a guidelines committee and not allow vinyl windows in historic districts. And I'd like to turn this back over to Betty. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Meeker. Just a couple of quick other things. The Harvard Historic District was designated in 1998, and we did out of interest check the file to see if this property had participated in getting other permits since the district was created and found that in 2002 that they were cited for doing some replacing of sidewalks without a permit, and they did make an application, which Mr. Lowenthal signed to get a permit to take care of that sidewalk work at the time. I don't think I have anything additional. We would request that you uphold the decision of the Board of Architectural Review, reflecting the fact that the design guidelines don't allow the installation as it has occurred. And we're all available if you have questions. Does anyone on the commission have questions at this point? If not, thank you very much. Mr. Lowenthal? Mr. Lowenthal? Good afternoon. Stuart Lowenthal, Madam Chairman and Urban County Council Planning Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to come and address you today with this appeal. And I thank you for your willingness to hear our side of the story. But I'd like to give you about a three-sentence bio of who I am. I'm a lifelong resident of Lexington. My father was born here. And I respect the historical folks and what they're doing. My background has been in health care, as first a Good Samaritan, as a physical therapist, and in private practice here as a physical therapist for some 30 years. My partner, Arthur Solomon, is the executive CEO of Solomon & Company. Some of you may know him. He's in the life insurance business. He is a permanent member of the Million Dollar Roundtable. He's an investment advisor. And he focuses on capital preservation and retirement issues and 401ks. Now, with that said, I'm going to talk about 127, Ransom. We've owned the property for a little more than 25 years. And we've diligently worked to improve this property over the years. For example, after we bought it, we replaced all the storm windows. We added storm windows. There were none on there when we bought it. We have replaced and installed new heating and air conditioning to the building. We had converted a ñ there was an old cold furnace that we converted and actually removed. We have completely rewired the building. We've installed new kitchens. We've remodeled the bathrooms. We've refinished all the hardwood. This is a triplex. We've painted the interior and the exterior on about a five- to seven-year basis. And we've refurbished the back stairway and decks that were deteriorating and actually falling apart. We try to attract mostly young working professionals. For example, the present tenants, one is a project manager at Lexmark. And another is a sales exec for Windstream. And with this background of care and attention that we've devoted to this property for about 27 years, along the way our tenants would complain about drafty windows. They were deteriorating. They were rattling if we had a strong wind. We thought it was time to replace the windows, at least on the front, where they have the greatest concentration. And I think one of my props here, so I'm going to show you what the windows really look like. Mr. Lowenthal, you might want to take the microphone too. I can talk. I can talk. You need to get it on the record, though. You need to use the microphone. Well, I'm just going to walk it around. It's sort of heavy. And this one's been cleaned up. This is not the worst window. It's a no-brainer to replace it. It needed to be replaced, and so did the other one. So my partner and I decided that we would replace all the front windows. And I've used vinyl windows. I've used vinyl windows in the other rental properties that I've had whenever I've had to replace a window. I've also used it in my home, and some of you perhaps have vinyl windows in your home. And you know that the latest technology is that they are fine windows. They don't require a lot of maintenance. They don't stick. They don't require painting. And these are the issues that we considered when we were thinking about replacing the windows. I did not know that I couldn't use vinyl windows. I know that I can't use vinyl siding. I know I can't use vinyl on the soffits. And I know I can't use them on the fascia board. But I didn't know I couldn't use a vinyl window. Now, I want to show you these pictures a little bit closer. So bear with me a second. I've done this before, so I hope you'll bear with me. Here we go. I thought if you could see what we did, it should be real obvious to you which are the replacement windows and which are the existing windows. And I'm saying that a bit with tongue-in-cheek because you're very good if you can tell the difference. You can't really tell the difference from the street. And you almost have to go up and look and examine that window. But one of the issues when you talk about putting metal wood clad windows or wood windows versus vinyl is the cost. And it really sometimes just boils down to what do you get for the money you spend. Our windows, the vinyl windows were $130. The wood clad replacement and not the top of the line was almost $500. So it's more than three times the amount. I'm a good landlord and I try to accommodate my tenants and I try very hard to keep my property up to a high standard to attract the folks that I do. So consequently, we have vinyl windows. And I did not know that I needed to go before the architecture board. I've learned a lot through this. I knew the other things because Amelia and I had some other issues in the past and I think they were resolved. I want to read the design principle to you. It will just take a minute. There's about six or eight sentences. Because we complied with almost everything there. The design principle states, and this is chapter 24 or is it section 24? Section 24. Window openings, windows, window details, and the size and shape of these elements help establish rhythm, scale, and proportion of buildings and reflect the architectural style and character. Windows should be maintained or repaired to match the original design. If the windows are deteriorated beyond repair, the installation of new windows to match the original design is recommended. And that's what Amelia Armstrong and the historical folks wanted us to do after the fact. Windows of baked enamel or anodized aluminum clad may be considered only if original windows cannot be repaired. Vinyl or vinyl clad windows are not allowed. Original window openings should not be covered or concealed. They should also not be partially enclosed for the installation of smaller windows. The new window openings should not be added on the fronts of the buildings and are discouraged but may be acceptable on the rear of sites. Now, you see the picture up there, and you've got them right in front of you. Are you able to easily identify the original windows? There are four of them there, four original windows, and there are ten new windows. I don't think you can easily identify it. But what I do want to point out is that the concrete seal under the windows was not disturbed. The vertical dividers between the windows are the same original wood, and they remain. The frame around the windows was repaired and replaced as necessary with wood. And with a few areas, some of the seals were rotted, and we replaced those with wood, not vinyl. The small windows above the entrance were in pretty good shape, so we did not replace those, but we made a wood frame and put glass on it so that they would be protected and given them a double pane. By the way, all of our windows have a low E, which are energy efficient, and you probably are familiar with low E windows. There were no changes in any of the other exterior features. The entryway, as you see, the front porch and the door all remain the same. The wrought iron is the same, and everything there has remained unchanged. So I'm getting to a summary here. If you look at the whole facade of the building, probably less or no more than 1% of that building has vinyl. Thirty feet from the street, you would not know that there were any windows replaced. They look exactly like the two windows on the lower right that were still the existing windows. We tried to make it as aesthetic as well as authentic as possible. So I am requesting that today that you give us some relief, allow me to keep the installed windows in place with the understanding that if I'm going to replace additional windows, that I will submit it to the Board of Architectural Review and to Amelia Armstrong and her staff before we install any more windows. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anyone on the commission have questions at this point? Ms. Copeland. Mr. Lowenthal, the window that you brought us, where did it come from? It was one of the ten. I can't tell you exactly where. I would guess that it was, you know, on the bottom left, but I don't know. You have to use the, we might be able to hear you, but the recorder can't. I don't know exactly which one, but I'm guessing that it's one of the lower windows on your left. Okay. If you face it. Well, you said that you painted your building every five to seven years. Well, this is what happens. We do paint it every five to seven years, but that paint, you know, it's weathered. Then we put the storms on, but this is a pretty typical. So inside the storms you did not paint? We did. And it's still weathered like that? It does weather and it does, and it flakes off. And it was retrofitted in the 60s before we owned it. So you've owned it how long? Four. And it's been in the historical district how long, since 98? So you've been in the district 12 years and you didn't know you could put vinyl in it? Oh. I've used, I did not know it. I mean, part, I didn't know it. And you didn't ask? I didn't even know to ask. This is surprising. Well, I have other properties and I've never had a problem. I have run into the issue that I ran into. The Historic Preservation Office, the national office, believes, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, that the windows are the eyes of a building. And they're very important. And once you start changing the eyes, the building doesn't look the same. And I may go to a dentist and he promises me that my smile is going to be the same when I get false teeth. It's not going to be the same. Currently I do not have false teeth. So the eyes are important. There's another thing that's important, Mr. Lowenthal, and see if you go along with this. The Historic District is bounded by a lot of people that have a trust in the common good. And when one person slacks off, it hurts the whole common good of the Historic District. So is it right to tell you that you can do this? It's like people want to live in a shaded area, but they don't want to rake leaves. So is it okay for you to just up and do this and the rest of the Historic District stay pure and original and you not? I mean, that's kind of a moral question here about keeping the integrity of the whole district. Ms. Copeland, when you look at the pictures, can you point out the eyes of the building with the windows that weren't replaced? Can you tell? You're saying the windows are the eyes of the building, but are you able to tell which windows in those pictures were not replaced? If I show you a photograph of me with false teeth and not false teeth, can you tell the difference? I don't know. No, I probably couldn't. But once you destroy the original history, once you destroy the original look, it's then going to always be replaced. It can always be replaced. if you don't destroy the original integrity. And that's the reason for keeping the original eyes, in my view. And to just say it looks the same with your pretty photographs is not really getting at the real issue. It may look the same today from the street and the flying car, but it's never original again. And that's just my personal view. The technology changes. We didn't have vinyl when they were built, you know, when the building was built. The technology has brought the vinyl windows and the vinyl products up, I don't know, tenfold from when it started in the 1940s. If, you know, the technology on false teeth, they were wooden, as I understood, way back. So, you know, and they got away from it. Vinyl went to metal clad windows. You didn't even allow that. But the technology had improved enough that you're now allowing metal clad. And that was just two years ago in the 80s when you made that change. So maybe we're not giving these windows enough credit. They are as good as, and I'll give respect, as many wood windows. The frames are now welded together. There is a metal frame inside the atrium windows, the one that we used. The R factor is as good, if not better, than the old window with the single pane, the double pane. Your question is not a simple yes or no answer to me. And maybe your argument is with the National Historic Preservation Office, which these guidelines, I think, came from there. I watched this old house, and some of you all may watch that on TV and how they remodel it. And on an occasion, they will use vinyl in a non-working window like we have above our entryway. They also use Styrofoam covered with concrete. And I don't know what these things are on the house. Go on the... But I'm just saying that, you know, they want to restore something. The wood is so deteriorated. This I saw, and this was in Boston. Their technology is so that they can restore it to look the same. And the look is what they're preserving, not the identical building product. Mr. Owens. Yes, thank you. Mr. Owens, I have one quick question for you, and then I've got a couple others for other people. Just to clarify, I'm not sure what's going to take place here as far as the vote here, but I hear you ask to allow what you have put in at the present time, and anything else that you did would have to gain approval of the BOAR first. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. A couple other questions, I guess for Ms. Kerr or Amelia. Mr. Lowenthal mentioned, and in myself being out there yesterday looking at the various houses on the street, it appeared to me that there was vinyl, and I'm thinking as far as a consistency type nature throughout the area, there was vinyl on window dormers. There was vinyl on soffits on other houses within two or three houses of this house at 127. And it appeared to me that three to four houses down, there were vinyl-clad windows on one house. Do you have any information about that, or can you address it? I do that every time. I'm sorry. Yes, almost all your historic neighborhoods that come to be designated as historic districts will have changes having been made to them before they're designated as a historic district that would not be approved under the design review guidelines that come into play once an area is designated. And so that's your first thing, is some of those things are preexisting conditions or existing conditions that predate the designation of the area. The design guidelines before they were updated in 2008 only allowed vinyl to be utilized with new construction. It did never allow vinyl to be put on historic structure itself. So if you had a wood clapboard house with that being its main coverage, you would not have had an approval from the design review process to cover that wood or to install vinyl in lieu of that wood. So if it's out there on the historic main parts of the house versus a newer addition at the back, it is there predating the historic district. All right. Thank you. Are there other questions? Ms. Phillips. Mr. Lowenthal, how old is this house? Do you know when it was constructed? I don't, but 1922. Thank you. And how many windows do you have in total that will be replaced? Well, how many windows in total? And you said that you just made repairs to those two over the portico. So how many windows would require replacement? Approximately 35. Okay. Thirty-five additional windows? Total windows. Total windows. Okay. Thank you. Of which how many are the small windows like that, about eight? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. You see the two small windows up top? Yes, sir. Those are not functional windows, but there are also eight more of those windows of the 35. Four sets of two? Okay. Yes. One on all four sides? Okay. So among all those windows, there are 12 that have been replaced on the front? There are 10 that have been replaced on the front. Okay. You've got 14 there, but if you disregard the two above there, 10 of those 12 large windows were replaced. So there's a balance of how many more windows that require replacement? Twenty-one or two, something like that. Okay. Subtracting out those six. Okay. Twenty-one or 22 windows that need to be replaced still? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions? Mr. Kriveth. Well, I always thought vinyl was final, but I use hundreds of vinyl windows. I don't want to take issue with some of their testimony about the quality of them, but we use hundreds of them every year. And like he said, they're very well, they last a very long time, and the U factors, what you refer to, the U factors are very high in the glass and the frames. And I just wonder why you would allow an aluminum clad window. That would look worse if they're replaced with that than the vinyl window. Some of the windows, when you do a wood window with an aluminum clad, the aluminum can more closely copy the profile of what had been the sash edge that cannot be accomplished in vinyl. One of the things that the committee talked about a great deal when they were looking at revising the guidelines and that we see as staff, we're seeing applications come forward for people within the historic districts that bought a property that had vinyl windows, that it's 20 years later, 15 years later. If they're lucky, it's a little over 20 years. And they're needing to replace them because the jam liners have shrunk due to the heat and they've lost their seal in terms of the thermal pain and so forth. So a wood window, when these houses built early 1900s and so forth and before that, you know, maintained, they're still with us 80, 90, 100 years later. We haven't seen any vinyl windows that somebody, nobody's lived long enough to say, hey, my vinyl windows are original to 1962, and 60 years later they're still functioning beautifully. But what we are seeing is a not uncommon situation of people coming and saying, my vinyl windows have failed and I need to replace them. And that's just not a good answer for your historic properties throughout the neighborhood. I'm going to disagree with that, but I guess the fact that these are one over one would not be, I mean, if they were true divided light, you can't get a vinyl window like that. So I understand that part from vinyl windows. Aluminum clad, you can. But these are one over ones, and I mean, I'm a pretty good judge at looking at these. I couldn't tell. He said I was going to have to give up my builder's license if I can't pick them out. I can't tell. And I guess I'd be willing to give him a mulligan on his front anyway. Madam Chair. I have a question for Mr. Kerr or Amanda. Betty? I'm just curious, as the industry evolves, especially in historic preservation, have there been any discussions in industry going towards vinyl or has there been any improvements in the vinyl? Actually, what we're seeing is they're going away from vinyl because of the things we've mentioned. And vinyl, of course, it's not just about windows. It's about siding and wrapping cornices and the whole nine yards. The vinyl siding has been even more problematic as time has passed. And so that's what our data is showing. That's what we're seeing in actuality. With full respect to Mr. Craven's comments, we may need to agree to disagree, at least on, per our experience, what we've been seeing. But a number of communities around the country have revised their guidelines. They started out, as we have discussed, everybody's looking for alternatives because of the wood growth problem. And everybody's earnestly trying to find good solutions to keep everything moving forward. But so communities tried to do that with vinyl, thinking it would be the answer. But we're seeing them go back and saying no to vinyl because of what they're experiencing. Are there other questions from Commission members? Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this? If not, staff, do you have any rebuttal? Do you have any rebuttal? Do you have any other comments, Mr. Lowenthal? Mr. Brewer, did you? Discussion. We'll close this part of the hearing then and we'll open it up for discussion by Commission members. Mr. Brewer. These types of decisions are always difficult. But this one seems pretty clear to me in the sense that we're not here to debate the relative value of vinyl versus wood. We're here to have a hearing on an appeal of a decision that's already been made. So my view on this is two, threefold. The rules are explicit. Vinyl is not allowed in this H1 overlay. The BOA has ruled, and unless we have some compelling evidence to overrule that, I think we have to go with BOA's ruling on that. And when it comes to H1, several of us have been through some very arduous discussions here, long hours trying to debate what happens with an H1 overlay or the new ND1 overlay. When a neighborhood does this, it's a big, big effort. And I think for us to override that does a disservice to everything that went into getting this neighborhood identified as H1. So if you want vinyl to be included in it, I think you should go back and change the rules. But just because you've done it already, to me, does not make it right for us to allow it. So my view is we have to support what the BOAR has done. Thank you, Mr. Brewer. Are there other comments from Commission members? Mr. Allmans. Thank you. Quite frankly, I tend to agree with Mr. Brewer. One, in looking at this, obviously there's a need for replacement. You look at the fact that they were retrofitted after 40 years of use and they're in need of being replaced again. I understand that appearance is not an issue. It's, as Mr. Brewer said, it's in essence in black and white here. By the same token, in this situation, I'm going to also agree with Mr. Cravens in the fact that I have had some experiences with vinyl. And I think over the years vinyl has improved. And quite frankly, after spending, you know, and building a house for the owner of the farm that I manage, which was an elaborate house, and watching a window, an expensive wood window deteriorate within seven years to be replaced, and I might add it was well-painted too, it makes you wonder, as I think Mr. Lowenthal maybe said, wood might not be what it used to be. I feel for Mr. Lowenthal. Personally, I have no problem with the appearance, or I would kind of want to be in his shoes, or not at the present time, but go in the vein of wanting to replace with vinyl. I think the quality is there to make this happen. Unfortunately, as Mr. Brewer said, it's still in black and white. I think, you know, even though this was looked at two years ago or thereabouts, I think maybe it needs to be revisited so that in certain situations vinyl could be allowed, simply put. Any other comments from Commission members? Ms. Blanton. I would urge people to take another look at this. I think the intent is good, but when the result is people are stuck living with deteriorated windows and the energy efficiency is so poor, that's not in the best interest of the neighborhood either to have deteriorating windows. By the same token, I agree with Mr. Brewer, that's not the issue before us today. I wish that it were, but it's not. And I find it kind of hard to believe that Mr. Lowenthal didn't at least have an inkling that this might be something to check into before he went ahead and replaced it. You know, given the publicity that always surrounds this type of change, given the fact that there has been an issue before, so while it doesn't necessarily make common sense to have those windows removed, I don't think that we should reinforce behavior that did not play by the rules. Are there other comments? Ms. Phillips. Just sort of, this is really hard because I support H1, and there's all kinds of evidence out there to suggest that having historic districts and protecting our historical integrity, the heritage of our city, is good all the way around. But at the same time, I feel that holding the line on prohibition of vinyl-clad windows, which are considerably less expensive than their wooden counterparts, has a negative impact in terms of public response to historic districts. And I feel that we're almost throwing out the baby with the bathwater by being as restrictive as we are with some of our H1 standards, and I think this is what precipitated the establishment of the ND1 overlay, is because folks don't want to have to adhere to such expensive and rigorous standards. But at the same time, I appreciate the zealousness and the rigor with which our historic preservation group does their work. So I'm really conflicted. I wish, too, that you guys had allowed vinyl windows in your revision of the guidelines. I think when the Planning Commission asked you all to take a look at it, that's what we were kind of hoping you would do. But I also respect the rationale for your not allowing them, and I think that's perfectly valid. But again, I see this as a really sticky situation because we want to support the H1, we want to support our historic properties in town, but we also don't want to turn the public against maintaining the integrity of our H1 districts. So I don't know what to do. Mr. Cravens. What if the applicant were to take those windows and put them maybe on the rear or something so he doesn't lose all the windows? The design guidelines and the H1 process do not make any distinction between any of the elevations. So our process, our community's process is not predicated on if you can only see it from the street or if it's only on X elevation. The philosophy behind that is to have integrity to the building in all of its elevations. So there isn't room within the process to put something that might be less desirous on some other elevation as a sort of mediation measure. I was just trying to see if we couldn't work this out some way. I understand. You want it all or nothing, right? The process would like for the criteria to be adhered to. Are there other questions from Commission members? Mr. Owens. I'm sorry. It's just educational for myself as much as anything, I guess. Ms. Carwin, you were talking as far as these guidelines and so forth with, say, in wood-clad windows, aluminum-clad. Does the cost of the window come into play or the quality of the window? Well, certainly cost is always a factor with anything to do with renovation and construction, whether it's renovating an existing or building new, and that's always discussed within the options for people in terms of what the Board's decision, the Board of Architectural Review's decisions can reflect. But it's not a bottom line. It's cheaper. Therefore, this is the way it will be allowed. Many things are factored into making the decisions to comply with the guidelines. My question is specific as far as you approving windows. Is it just strictly that it's, you know, if these windows are to be replaced with a wood window, are there any guidelines as to the quality of that wood window? They need to match the style of the existing wood windows, and that does end up steering something about quality, usually, because the historic windows usually have a profile, and when you get into wood windows, your most inexpensive wood window may be very mundane in terms of its detailing, and you'll end up with a little better quality. But technically, the process is not empowered to stipulate a certain brand or brands or level within that. Thank you. I'm sure you know where I'm coming from, because there are expensive wood windows. There's less expensive wood windows. There's economy windows, and the same thing with vinyl and aluminum as well. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chalmers. I'll just quickly add, so we can move on. I guess the difficulty that I see and I see the commission has is when we pass or approve an H1 overlay or we approve an ND1 overlay, there's going to come a time when we have to stand up and either support that overlay or, you know, require changes in it to meet some of the needs, and that's the difficulty I see, and I see it coming on some of the N1 as well, ND1s that we look at when we start talking about affordability, housing, and things along that line. We're going to have a tough decision to be made by this commission, and instead of arguing should it be vinyl or should they not be, we either need to revise those standards that we have to incorporate that, and so it's difficult as these decisions are. I think the bigger issue is once we enact these overlay zones, we unfortunately need to support them. Are there other comments? If not, then the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Brewer, I'm sorry. Madam Chair, given the discussion and based on the recommendations of staff and the initial ruling by the Board of Architectural Review's denial, I move that the Planning Commission also deny this appeal. Is there a second? I second it. We have a motion by Mr. Brewer, second by Mr. Owens or Ms. Copeland, whichever came first. Would you please vote? Is there any further discussion? If not, would you please vote electronically? Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Next item of business is an annual report from the Purchase Development Rights Program. Yes, I see him here. Thank you. Any time now. All right, Madam Chairwoman, I'm here to give the Planning Commission the 2010 update on the Purchase Development Rights Program. This update is required by the ordinance. I've distributed some documents to you. The first item is an op-ed that was written earlier this year, and now that we're ten years into our process, I think it's important to revisit the history of the program a little bit, and then also included a recent blurb on agriculture in Kentucky. The next two items, the spreadsheet that you have and the map, those two items are called out in the ordinance for you to have for your review. So I'll proceed on. As you can see on your map, we are at 25,425 acres. That is almost 51% of the ordinance goal of 50,000 acres by 2020. You've seen some of these before. It's clear that our ag infrastructure, our ag economy is very strong here in Fayette County. We are the number two county in Kentucky for agriculture. Woodford County is number one. Our horse industry statistics speak for themselves. We have an equine cluster here, and for those of you that have seen the presentation that was done by the Equine Task Force that was formed a few years ago, we have an equine cluster here of equine hospitals, equine professionals, and equine facilities that are unmatched worldwide. Tourism, I think that we saw the outcome of tourism as part of the World Equestrian Games, and I think that last bullet sort of says it all, 60% of tourists visit Lexington to see its farms. This slide here relates very closely to the op-ed written by Mr. Lear. Mr. Lear was one of the authors of the PDR program, and he was one of the original incorporators of the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board. We were seeing a loss of our farmland related to 10-acre lot development and to the amount of 4,700 acres, and if we put that inside of New Circle Road, we could have had 20,000 typical residential lots. The goal of the program, as I said, 50,000 acres out of 128,000 in the Horseshoe that is around the urban services area. It's 27% of the land here in Fayette County, and we want to protect the ag, equine, and tourism industries and that sense of place that distinguishes us from the rest of the world. It is a voluntary program. You have to have 20 acres to participate, Our ranking system is called out in the ordinance on how we order and prioritize our easement acquisition. The ordinance was adopted in January of 2000. The board was established that oversees the operation of the program. We meet monthly in our ranking system and, of course, funding. This is the board. It's a broad cross-section of the community. These are the current members that serve on this board, and each one of these representations in the community had a part in the rural land management plan and the setting up the PDR program. These are some of the things that the PDR program or the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board does. It holds the easements, prioritizes acquisitions, and solicits contributions and establishes administrative procedures for the program. Our ranking system is heavily weighted towards agriculture with farm size and soil quality. And the environment is also heavily considered here, as you can see, with historic and cultural assets and reconsolidation of some of those 10-acre lots. But we also give minus points, and that's one of the things that Mr. Lear talks about in his op-ed. We give minus points to allow for an expansion at the right time in the right place. So how do we determine the value of the conservation easement? We use an appraisal. We're looking at raw land value, the value of the raw land before the conservation easement, and the value after, and the difference is the conservation easement value. This is one of the most important slides that you'll see here is funding. We have matched the local investment at a one-to-one rate, and we've matched it at a two-to-one rate up to $5.5 million. We've also decreased our operating expenses by over $162,000 annually over the last four years. PDR makes good economic sense because farmland uses less in services than it pays in taxes, whereas development uses more in services than it pays in taxes. Clearly, this study was done in 1999, and we need to update these numbers, but I think it's apparent that when you provide all the services that are related to development, not just building the house on the lot, that it is very expensive. The types of farms with PDR conservation easements, 228, including 38 donated easements on 1,705 acres. Now, the donated acreage also means that we provided savings to the government of $4.4 million. Those are easements that we hold that we did not have to compensate the landowner for. 123 farms are equine, 92 are general ag, and 13 are other. And I don't think we should get hung up on the types of farms. If you look on the sheet that I gave you, and I underlined something, it says that Kentucky's agriculture is dynamic. It can change, adapt. And I think that's what we have to keep in mind here, that agriculture will continue to evolve. It will continue to adapt. And the important thing is that we're preserving the farmland for that evolution. The round that we're going in and that we've received applications for is round 10. We received 39 applications on 3,200 acres. And the initial and final ranking are complete. This is conservation easement acquisition that will be considered as part of the FY12 budget, which starts on July 1st of 2011. The PDR program is also compared and recognized with other communities around the nation. Some of these other communities have been involved in farmland preservation for over 30 years. So I think the fact that we're where we are in 10 short years is significant. And I think particularly with Sonoma, Marin, and Napa County, California, it's clear that they have a brand that they want to protect. That's why they're preserving their farmland, and that's why we need to continue on with this program. Farmland preservation is also a global issue. Other countries that have some type of farmland preservation programs in place are listed here. It's becoming more and more of an issue because countries without enough productive farmland are purchasing productive farmland from poorer countries to secure their own food supply. And I think those two last bullets are pretty compelling reasons to preserve farmland in the future. Ten benefits of the PDR program. We've talked about our brand in equine tourism and agriculture, but I think we're seeing the results of farmland preservation and encouraging infill and redevelopment in our existing urban services area. It supports the reduction of our carbon footprint and the EPA consent decree by protecting watersheds. It also helps us retain a good credit rating with bonding agencies. Communities that have a strong vision for who they are and where they're going have higher credit ratings with bonding agencies than communities that have sprawl, that don't really have a vision for who they are or where they're going. And this protected farmland is going to protect the base of agriculture in the future for feed, fuel, and for future generations. Any questions? Thank you. Are there questions? Ms. Phillips? Thank you. I love this stuff. Didn't the American Farmland Trust do another study, a follow-up study here in Fayette County more recently than 1999? Yeah. I was going to add that they did another study. I don't think it was for Fayette specifically. I think we've got, or the AFT has done some more recent information. I'd like to see that. Yeah. I'll look into that and circulate that back to Chris. Mr. Holmes, was that your? Okay. Mr. Cravens? Yeah. What's the, during all these budget shortfalls and that kind of stuff that we have, what's the urgency? I mean, can you suspend purchasing these development rights for a year or two until we get through these? I mean, people are losing their jobs at the city and so forth, but we're taking funds and preserving something that's possibly never going to be developed anyway. There are no sewers out. You know, the only way you can develop is in the 40-acre tracts. Of course, sometimes you can develop PDR farms in the 40-acre tracts. But I just wonder what your thought is on that. Well, I'll speak to the, as it relates most closely to the PDR program and just say that the operating expense of the program is less than half of 1% of the entire city budget and that we are getting, maximizing the return on the taxpayer's investment. I don't think there's another program in the government that has had this kind of return to the taxpayer for that investment. Clearly, we need to attract people to live here as part of economic development. So I think to get ourselves out of this and to protect our brand, we have to protect that, which makes us unique. Now, I'm not involved in making the budget decision. We just have to make our case every year as part of the budget process with our council link. We'll start that again in January. And all we do every year is put the facts out there, and the mayor-elect and the council will have to make their decision. Are there other questions for Mr. Van Pelt? Mr. Owens? Billy, I'm sure I guess kind of following up to what Mr. Cravens was saying, the investment that the city is making supporting agriculture in the rural community, I'm sure I would think would pay dividends back in the form of economic impact in one form or another. Sure. And, for instance, we receive $15 million in local tax receipts from tourism. So if the PDR budget is, you know, $1.1 million, and we're generating $15 million in local tax receipts from tourism alone, 23,000 tourism jobs related to this brand. And I think we also have to look at the fact that we're a merged city county, and I think our ag citizens and the folks that are pouring tens of millions of dollars into our rural area, they're asking themselves what did they get out of the merger. Ms. Copeland? Don't we have a mandate from the comprehensive plan? We can't just up and elect to stop our libraries because people don't have jobs. This is not an elective process. Doesn't the comprehensive plan mandate this type of program? Well, I'll say that this is one part of that process. Fayette County has been very proactive in land use planning for over half a century, and you know this. We've had an urban growth boundary since 1958. Then we had the 10-acre minimum in 1964 and the 40-acre minimum in 1999. So I think it's very clear that this community has come together and said this is an asset, this is a long-term investment in our green infrastructure that is going to pay dividends for future generations. And the other reason I gave you this op-ed, I think it's important to say it's a balance. I think we have to look at this as a balance. Mr. Cravins? I guess all I was saying, Billy, was during this recession, maybe you don't spend a million dollars of our budget money, maybe you spend a half million or some reduced rate, take on some responsibility, reduce some impact that you have on the budget for purchasing easement on land that can never be developed anyway. Well, Mr. Cravins, the zoning can change with eight votes on a Thursday night. So the urban growth boundary could be changed, the 40-acre minimum could be changed, and these conservation easements are what's there to protect the farmland. So I think it's very important that we stay on track, and this isn't just another plan that's going to go back on the shelf. The community has invested at this point 20 years into this process, and it's a good plan, and we've been recognized nationally for it. We are a very small part of the budget, less than half of 1 percent, and we have reduced our budget. We're down $162,000 a year from four years ago, and we are sharing staff with other departments, and we are minimizing our overhead while maximizing the return to the taxpayer's investment at a one-to-one rate. Are there other questions? Just as a follow-up, it's obviously just a really good investment, you know, and just because you're having a hard time, you don't stop contributing to your IRA or your retirement program because you need for that to be there in the future, and I perceive this the same way, and I think it's a really smart investment on part of the urban county government and hope we continue to support it and actually up the acreage. Are there other comments from commission members? You're welcome, and on behalf of the chair, vice chair, and treasurer of the Rural Land Management Board, we look forward to working with you on the goals and objectives, the comp plan, and anything that might affect the rural service area. Thank you very much. The last item of business on our agenda is that the bylaws require the first official meeting in December that the chair appoint a nominating committee for new officers to be elected in January, and at this time I would like to appoint Mike Owens as chair, Ed Holmes, and Mike Cravens. You all will report back the first meeting in January. Is there any other information or staff items? Just a couple, Madam Chair. First of all, the staff would like to invite all the commission members, if you are available to join us for a little holiday lunch next Wednesday, the 15th, in our offices, please feel free just to show up as you are, and no matter what you're doing, we would love to have you join us. And the other thing I just wanted to comment on, if you'll look just to my immediate left, this is not a Johnny Cash review coming here with a man in black, but I understand that a certain staff member is commemorating his own birthday today with his garb. You beat me to it. The last thing I said was I was going to wish Mr. Martin a very happy birthday on behalf of the commission. There are no other items, and do I hear a motion? We adjourn. Can we sing happy birthday? I think not. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Second meeting adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.