# Planning Commission Meeting - October 13, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 13, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2207 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2207?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-10-13 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 25,389 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on October 13, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Cravens presided over the meeting, which included 12 agenda items and resulted in 9 motions and votes. The Commission heard 9 public comments during the meeting. The agenda covered a range of planning and zoning matters. The Commission approved routine items including the call to order, approval of minutes, and consideration of postponements or withdrawals. A consent agenda with no discussion items and a discussion items agenda were both approved. The Commission also addressed zoning items, approved a resolution for a former Planning Commission member, and heard an appeal in the case of BOAR 2011-1: James V. Johnson Appeal. Additionally, the Commission received informational reports on staff items, audience items, and next meeting dates before adjourning. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 13, 2011: * Mike Cravens * Mike Owens * Marie Copeland * Frank Penn * Eunice Beatty * Carla Blanton * Derek Paulsen * Will Berkley * Patrick Brewer * Lynn Roche-Phillips * William Wilson No members were absent from the meeting. Patrick Brewer and William Wilson arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions All votes during this meeting were conducted by voice vote and passed unanimously with no dissenting votes or abstentions. **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 00:03:43] The minutes from September 8, 2011 were approved on a motion by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Beatty. The vote was 9-0. **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 00:15:13] Approval of Consent Agenda items passed on a motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Paulsen, with a vote of 11-0. **PLAN 2007-197P: Masterson Hills (a portion of) (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:19:42] Reapproval of this plan passed 11-0 on a motion by Ms. Copeland, seconded by Ms. Roche-Phillips. The approval was conditioned on Building Inspection's approval of landscaping and required street tree information, and the Urban Forester's approval of the tree preservation plan and required street tree information. **PLAN 2011-105F: Spy Coast Farm Kentucky, LLC** [timestamp: 00:37:17] Approval of this plan with waiver of frontage requirements for Lot 2 passed 11-0 on a motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Beatty. Conditions included deletion of access easement acreage from Lot 1 information and waiver of frontage requirements for Lot 2. **Frontage Requirements Waiver for PLAN 2011-105F, Lot 2** [timestamp: 00:37:52] A separate vote on the waiver for frontage requirements passed 11-0 on a motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded by Mr. Owens. **DP 2011-83: Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lots 8 & 13** [timestamp: 01:13:05] Approval with revised conditions passed 11-0 on a motion by Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Conditions required denoting reciprocal parking on the development plan and resolving the need for additional parking. **DP 2011-86: Hamburg Place Community, Multifamily, Phase 2A, Lot 3** [timestamp: 01:42:36] Approval with revised conditions passed 11-0 on a motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded by Ms. Beatty. Conditions included denoting potential phase 2 parking if needed and removing traffic signal and right turn lane notes from the plan. **ZOTA 2011-10: Amendment to Article 8-1(d)** [timestamp: 02:30:19] Amendment to allow Historic House Museum as conditional use in A-R zone passed 11-0 on a motion by Ms. Phillips, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Four conditions were imposed regarding operation by responsible entities, museum association membership, prohibition on expansion beyond historic footprint, and restriction of activities to the educational mission. **BOAR 2011-1: James V. Johnson Appeal** [timestamp: 03:07:26] Approval of the appeal for painting previously unpainted brick walls passed 11-0 on a motion by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Blanton. ## Public Comment Nine speakers addressed the board on various development and design matters. **Spy Coast Farm Subdivision** Sam Carneal, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the Spy Coast Farm subdivision [timestamp: 00:30:55]. He emphasized that the subdivision aligns with existing farm use, avoids disrupting paddocks, and supports a USDA-approved equine quarantine facility. Carneal noted that the access easement is permanent and deed-restricted. **Sharkey Property Development** Michael Prather, Homeowner Association President, spoke in support of the Sharkey Property development [timestamp: 00:55:02]. He stated that an agreement with the applicant resolves concerns about drive-throughs, lighting, and landscaping, and urged approval to avoid delays in development. Joe Albaugh, a resident, also expressed support for the development [timestamp: 01:02:03], emphasizing the importance of having national brands in the area and the need for full occupancy to maintain property values. **Hamburg Place Community Development** Dick Murphy, representing the developer, spoke in support of the Hamburg Place Community development [timestamp: 01:29:07]. He argued that the project meets all requirements and requested removal of the parking surplus and traffic signal notes based on future phase planning. **Historic House Museum Text Amendment** Three speakers supported the Historic House Museum text amendment. Nox Van Ogle, representing the Fayette Alliance, spoke at [timestamp: 02:09:18], emphasizing that the alternative text amendment balances agritourism with agricultural protection and supports proposed restrictions on events and expansion. Billy Van Pelt, representing the Rural Land Management Board, confirmed at [timestamp: 02:15:30] that the alternative text amendment complies with the PDR conservation easement and supports the proposed language. Headley Bell, representing Mill Ridge Farm, affirmed at [timestamp: 02:18:53] that the Murphys are excellent neighbors and that the project will not disrupt farming operations. **Painting Brick Walls Appeal** Betty Kerr, Director of Historic Preservation, opposed the appeal for painting brick walls [timestamp: 02:40:54], arguing that the house has not historically been painted and that the Board of Architectural Review correctly denied the permit based on design guidelines. Jim Johnson, the property owner, spoke in support of the appeal [timestamp: 02:55:56], stating he painted the front and back walls in 1980 and wants to complete the job to match the green color, noting neighbor approval and the house's current appearance. ## Contested Items The October 13, 2011 meeting included three items that generated significant discussion and disagreement among commissioners and community members. **Historic House Museum Text Amendment** This amendment divided the board over how to balance agritourism with agricultural protection. Commissioners debated alternative text proposals, with some members supporting the amendment while others expressed concerns about its long-term effects. The primary point of contention centered on potential impacts to rural character and the adequacy of existing infrastructure to support the proposed uses. **Spy Coast Farm Subdivision Frontage Waiver** Commissioners engaged in heated discussion regarding a frontage waiver for the Spy Coast Farm subdivision. The debate focused on the permanence of access easements and concerns about a lot lacking direct road access. Despite the property's approval as a USDA-approved equine facility, commissioners questioned whether the easement arrangement could lead to future misuse or complications. The permanence and enforceability of the access agreement emerged as key points of contention. **Sharkey Property Drive-Throughs** Community opposition arose regarding drive-through operations proposed for the Sharkey Property. Neighbors voiced concerns about noise, lighting, and increased traffic impacts on the surrounding area. However, a resolution was reached through negotiation: the applicant and neighbors reached a mutual agreement that addressed the community's concerns and allowed the project to move forward. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers [timestamp: 00:00]. Mike Cravens presided over the opening of the session. Attendance was confirmed with 11 members present. This count included members who arrived after the meeting commenced. The call to order was approved. ## Approval of Minutes The meeting proceeded to approve the minutes from the September 8, 2011, meeting. [timestamp: 00:03:43] Mr. Owens and Ms. Beatty participated in this agenda item. The minutes were approved by voice vote with no objections raised. ## Postponements or Withdrawals No requests for postponement or withdrawal were made during the meeting. [timestamp: 00:04:13] ## Consent Agenda - No Discussion Items [timestamp: 00:15:13] A series of final subdivision and development plans were approved by consent agenda without discussion. Mr. Sallee presented the items for approval. The following projects were approved: - Coldstream Research Campus - Mahan Property units - Sable Holdings - Additional subdivision and development plans **Outcome:** All consent agenda items were approved. ## Discussion Items The Commission discussed and voted on several major subdivision and development plans during this portion of the meeting [timestamp: 00:16:27]. **Projects Reviewed** The following projects were presented for consideration: - Masterson Hills reapproval - Spy Coast Farm subdivision with frontage waiver - Sharkey Property development with drive-throughs - Hamburg Place multifamily project - Additional subdivision and development plans **Key Participants** The discussion involved Ms. Gallt, Mr. Martin, Mr. Murphy, and Sam Carneal, who contributed to the deliberations on these various proposals. **Outcome** The Commission approved the discussion items presented during this agenda section. ## Zoning Items The Commission held a public hearing on ZOTA 2011-10, a proposed amendment to allow historic house museums as conditional uses in the A-R zone [timestamp: 01:46:18]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Martin, Dick Murphy, Nox Van Ogle, Billy Van Pelt, and Betty Kerr. **Outcome** Following extensive discussion, the Commission approved an alternative text amendment addressing the zoning proposal. ## Resolution for Former Planning Commission Member [timestamp: 00:05:10] A resolution honoring Carolyn Richardson for her service as a Planning Commission member and Chair was presented and approved during this meeting. Mike Cravens presented the resolution recognizing Richardson's contributions to the Planning Commission. Richardson was presented with the resolution and responded with a heartfelt speech thanking the Commission and staff for their work and support during her tenure. The resolution was approved without noted opposition or concerns. ## BOAR 2011-1: James V. Johnson Appeal [timestamp: 02:31:31] The Commission reviewed an appeal by James Johnson regarding permission to paint previously unpainted brick walls on his historic home. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Ms. Rackers, Betty Kerr, and Jim Johnson. **Outcome** The appeal was approved. The Commission's decision was based on the property owner's right to make the requested modification and ambiguity identified in the design guidelines governing the work. ## Staff Items Staff provided information about interior and minor exterior renovations to the Fayette County Public Schools warehouse facility located at 1126 Russell Cave Road. This item was presented for informational purposes only. No specific speakers were identified for this agenda item, and no transcript timestamp is available to locate the discussion in the meeting recording. ## Audience Items During this portion of the meeting, citizens were invited to speak on planning-related matters. The discussion began at approximately [timestamp: 00:55:02]. Several residents spoke in support of two specific proposals: - **Sharkey Property development** — Multiple speakers expressed support for this project - **Historic House Museum amendment** — Residents also voiced support for this amendment Key speakers during this segment included Michael Prather and Joe Albaugh, who addressed the assembled body on these planning-related topics. The outcome of this agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. The citizen comments were received for the record and consideration by the planning body. ## Next Meeting Dates The following meeting dates were announced: * Work Session scheduled for October 20, 2011 * Zoning Items Public Hearing scheduled for October 27, 2011 This was an informational item with no debate or discussion recorded. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned after all agenda items were addressed [timestamp: 03:08:36]. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of minutes from September 8, 2011 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Reapproval of PLAN 2007-197P: Masterson Hills (a portion of) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of PLAN 2011-105F: Spy Coast Farm Kentucky, LLC with waiver of frontage requirements for Lot 2 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of waiver for frontage requirements for Lot 2 in PLAN 2011-105F - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of DP 2011-83: Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lots 8 & 13 with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of DP 2011-86: Hamburg Place Community, Multifamily, Phase 2A, Lot 3 with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of ZOTA 2011-10: Amendment to Article 8-1(d) to allow Historic House Museum as conditional use in A-R zone - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of appeal BOAR 2011-1: James V. Johnson for painting previously unpainted brick walls --- ## Full transcript I need you, I need you I had the time for all the time she needed me. I wish I'd realized, but I was much too blind to see. All she wanted was to love me, but all I did was turn away. If I'd known how much she needed me, she might be here today. And if I'd only been more open and understood her ways She might be in my arms tonight But who am I to say? If I'd only been more loving when she needed a best friend If I'd only patched up pieces that she needed me to mend If I'd seen her troubled heart and figured out just what to do She might be laying here tonight, saying I love you All she wanted was to love me, but all I did was turn away If I'd known how much she needed me, she might be here today And if I'd only been more open and understood her ways She might be in my arms tonight But who am I to say She should be Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Beatty. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals? None? That's got to be a first. Okay. All right. Next, we have a special presentation for one of our former commissioners, Carolyn Richardson, and a past chairman. and so if the commissioners will join me around in the horseshoe here we'll present it to her It was hard. Ms. Carolyn Richardson has joined me here, and just permit me to read this resolution. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Planning Commission and staff, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Ms. Carolyn Richardson from the Planning Commission and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Ms. Richardson for her valuable service to the Commission from September 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011, having served on the Commission's Subdivision Committee, Chair of the Zoning Committee, and also having served as Chair of the Commission by unanimous vote of her peers. and whereas Ms. Richardson has been influential in the adoption of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and whereas Ms. Richardson has been influential in the formation of the South Nixville Road Small Area Plan, the Central Sector Small Area Plan, the East End Small Area Plan, the Red Mile Village Development Plan, the Housing Market Study, the Non-Residential Infill and Redevelopment Study, and the text amendments encouraging and facilitating infill and redevelopment. And whereas Ms. Richardson has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County as reflected in her decisions regarding land use and development. And whereas the members of the Commission and the staff feel that this service and guidance contributed by Ms. Richardson will be greatly missed by this body. Now, therefore, it be resolved, we, the members of the Commission, along with the staff, do hereby express our gratitude to Ms. Richardson for her service to this Commission and to the citizens of Lexington-Fayette County, and we, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission, and its staff, do hereby wish Ms. Richardson much happiness and continued success, and that she continue to give valuable guidance to the members of this Commission. and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Richardson and also spread upon the minute book, This Body, dated October 13, 2011. Thank you very much. I suppose that congratulations are in order, or maybe my deepest sympathy might be in order for you having been elected the new chairman. But, no, it is a true privilege and an honor to be able to serve on the Planning Commission. There are, I think, many, many ways in which folks can give back to their communities. but I don't know that there's any that is more rewarding and also more time-consuming than the Planning Commission, and it's certainly been a privilege to be able to be a part of this commission. And to my former fellow commissioners, I like to say that I certainly have enjoyed serving with each and every one of you, or most of you, because we've got some new ones. And I've enjoyed serving with you, and I certainly do have a great appreciation for the work and the time and the effort that you all put in. It is not an easy task, and I wish you best, best of luck, as you continue on that path of putting that comprehensive plan together. It's tedious, it's long, it's hard work, it's extra hours, but the end result provides the city with the tools it needs to move forward. And that is very important, and your work is very important. So hang in there. It just takes a while to get from point A to point B, and I know you'll do it and make us all proud. And I'd like to give a special thanks to the staff. I have worked with a lot of people over the years in a lot of different areas, and I can say confidently that I have never worked with a group of people who are more loyal, who are more dedicated, nor who are more professional. And it's been wonderful to work with them. And for some of us slower commissioners, I think your patience and your good humor has never ceased to amaze me. And I'm grateful for that. You all do a wonderful job, and you are doing work that will indeed move this city forward. So I thank all of you, the commission members, the staff of the commission, and I wish you all well and thank you very much. You all have to get off to work or attend. I've got time to make the third race. All right. All right. Now we're down to our land subdivision items, and I guess the staff will set up and present those. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to report most of your items on your meeting agenda today. Do qualify for consideration at this time on your consent agenda. There are a number of final subdivision plans that qualify. The first appears on page 2, item A of your meeting agenda. This is plan 2011-90F, an amended final record plat for the Coldstream Research Campus, Unit 3, Lots 8, 9A, and 9B. This is for property located at 1676 and 1648 McGrathiana Parkway. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2011-102F, Mayhem Property Unit 1H. The following item is also on your consent agenda, Page 2, Item C, Plan 2011-103F, Mayhem Property Unit 1I, as is the following item on page 2, item D, Plan 2011-104F, Mayhem Property Unit 1J. All of these properties are located near Ridgewater Drive and Manitoba Lane. There's another subdivision plat on your consent agenda, page 3, item F of your meeting agenda, Plan 2011-74F, Sable Holdings 2, LLC. This involves property at 615 through 617 West Short Street. There are four plats that have been recommended for re-approval by your subdivision committee that appear on your consent agenda. The first is on page 3, item G, of your meeting agenda, Plan 2005-166F, the Clark property, Unit 1B, Section 2, for property located on a portion of 1551 Deer Haven Lane. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 3, item H, Plan 2006-139F, New Market Property, Units 1D and 7A, located at 1321 Deerhaven Lane, a portion of. The next item on your meeting agenda on page 4, item I, also is on the consent agenda, Plan 2006-240F, New Market, Phase 1, Unit 1E, involving property, again, a portion of 1201 Deerhaven Lane. The next item on your meeting agenda on page 4, item J, is on the consent agenda, Plan 2007-156F, the Clark Property Unit 1M. This property is located at Polo Club Boulevard and Ice House Way. In addition, there are two development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on page 5, item B, DP 2011-84, the Michael Gentry property, located at 3292 Richmond Road. And the final item appearing in your consent agenda is on page 5, item C, and amended final development plan DP 2011-85 for Wiggins & Company, Inc., involving property located at 2490 Nicholasville Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time, all of these plans can be considered for approval on your consent agenda unless a member of the Commission or a member of the audience or perhaps an applicant would wish to have one of the items discussed in more detail. Thank you. Okay. Does anyone on the Commission want to pull any of these off? Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to hear any of these? Very well. Chair will entertain a motion for approval. Patrick Brewer moved approval of the consent agenda. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Derek Paulson. Everybody vote when you can. Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, we'll move to the full discussion plan items, and we'll set up and begin in just a moment. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. All right, go ahead. Good afternoon. We're going to be on page one. We're looking at plan 2007-197P, Masterson Station Hills, a portion of amended. It's off the 3000 Spur Road. This plan here was approved back in October of 2007 and signed. This is a preliminary subdivision plan for them to be able to create the roads. they're asking to come back because it is now expired in time that they have not done their final record plat so they've asked to come back and have this reapproved so that they can continue on with this area in the Masterson Station. We had recommended approval with nine conditions. We are now wanting to amend two of those conditions. Condition number three, to have building inspections approval of landscaping, we want to remove the street tree requirement off of building inspection and move it towards the urban forest or under condition number five, approval of tree preservation and required street tree information. With that, we recommend approval. All right. Very good. Any questions? Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't see you. Okay, that's okay. I'm just wondering, how come this was not on the consent agenda? Because this has now expired from the time that this was approved. It's exceeded the amount of time. So therefore, we have to bring this back in front of you to have it reapproved. It takes three years. Anything else? I'm sorry. Any other questions? All right. Rory? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We are in agreement with the revised nine conditions and request approval. All right. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this? Okay, seeing none. The Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kaye, I have a question. Are we re-approving that whole block? Everything highlighted. Everything on the left-hand side. Okay. Everything in the heavy black line. Okay. Thank you. I move for approval of Plan 2007-197-P. Masterson Hills. All right. We have a motion for approval by Ms. Copeland. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Lynn Phillips. Everybody vote when you can. And motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is a final record plat. It is at the bottom of page 2, item E, and continues over to page 3. It is a final record plan 2011-105F Spy Coast Farm, Kentucky, LLC. This is an agricultural AR proposed subdivision. It is located out at the northwest corner of the intersection of Ironworks Pike and Newtown. Pike. We have an aerial photograph for you here again to show where the property is located. Here is Ironworks Pike. Here is Newtown Pike here. Mount Horeb is located here. This is the horse park. We're headed towards the interstate. So here again is the total of Spy Coast Farm. It is 330 acres in total. They are proposing to subdivide it in the five tracks that you see here. Tract one, It's 47 acres. Track 2 is 65. Track 3 is 40 acres. This is the minimum size, you may recall, that's allowed in our AR zone. 4 is 106 acres, and 5 is a 68-acre track. Again, it's a proposal to subdivide the 330 into 5. In the formation that you see here before you, frontages exist along both Newtown Pike and Ironworks. There is an existing pattern of farm roads that do exist on the farm. The plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. The conditions that you see on the top of page 3, the first six are standard conditions for every final record plat that you will see that this body is asked to approve. Number seven is a cleanup condition to delete the access easement acreage from Lot 1 information, and that is this easement that this lot, this plat, proposes to create. There are two other easements that are being created by this plat as well. These easements are designed to serve Lot 4 and provide access to Lot 4, Although it has frontage in several locations, it is currently accessed by this farm road system, and we wanted these designated as easements to ensure that that access would remain. This access easement that is the subject of the condition to remove the acreage reference is to serve Lot 2. And lot two is the subject of condition number eight on your plan, which is the waiver request that you have before you today. That was handed out with you, and you should find it at your seats. It is the white handout. The applicant has requested a waiver of the required lot frontage for lot number two, the 65-acre tract that you see on the plat. They are requesting that it be served by the access easement that I pointed out to you and that the lotting be waived by this body of the frontage, pardon me, for lot number two so that it can accommodate the use on lot two. That use is that this area of the farm has currently been approved by the USDA as an equine center for the exportation, the collection and exportation of equine semen to both EU countries and to Great Britain. That is a very significant business in the equine industry, and this has received that approval. They are also proposing to use these existing facilities as a quarantine facility. And again, quarantine facilities are very important to the equine industry, as you can imagine. That was an issue that came up during the WIG and those activities. The requirements for these types of facilities are very strict. They're federal requirements or state requirements, and isolating the access is important. Controlling it would be a better word. Having controlled access into these facilities is very important. That is one reason they have proposed this particular lotting pattern with that access easement. Staff has reviewed this, and staff is recommending approval of the waiver. I would add that in the past, specifically in 2007, there were three waivers identical to this one for different reasons. different farm uses, but three identical waivers were granted by this body in 2007, one of which was just a little bit to the northeast of this property on Huffman Mill Road. There was another one that was granted further on out at the intersection of Huffman Mill and Lemons Mill Road. Again, that's moving northeast of this property. And then that very same year, there was one granted for property on Hume Bedford Road right on the Fayette-Bourbon County line. It was an interesting year for that particular waiver. But, again, they were all recommended for approval and approved by this body. Staff, as I said, again, is recommending approval of this waiver as well. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Chairman? Yes. Tom, let me ask you two questions. One of them is that the access easement that you're granting, or both access easements, will go with the property. There will be deed-restricted access easements, right? Yes, sir. The other thing, on the corner of Newtown and Ironworks, that track in there that's not highlighted, that is a separate deed to it? Yes, sir. So actually you're going to have six. It is a separate deeded tract that preexists subdivision regulations and is not subject to this plat. But it is owned by Spy Coast Farm, but it is a legal tract. Thank you. Yes, Lynn. Following up on what Mr. Penn had to say, there's a little triangular-shaped piece that's under the word town. Yes, ma'am. And is that a lot of record already? Yes, ma'am. What you see are deeded tracks. And this is also a separately deeded track under separate ownership, I believe. Now, there is a little tiny piece in here that is owned by the applicant. But I believe this is actually owned, I believe, by Castleton Farms. They could elaborate on that. But, yeah, it's a rather unique little piece here. and Newtown Pike, of course, is what actually probably created that little separation. Following up, too, on what Frank said, I mean, from a practical matter, I don't think that it's a good idea for us to be approving large lots that don't have any kind of direct access. But how much easement will be provided onto Ironworks? Can you describe that easement? Yes, ma'am. Again, if you look over here, you can see on the aerial photograph, there is an existing network of roads that currently exist on the property. All the properties have direct access either to Ironworks or to Newtown Pike, with, again, the exception of Lot 2, subject of the waiver, which this existing farm road will be their access easement. How big is the farm road? This is 50 feet. In width, but what about length? In width. Pardon? Length. Oh, in length, it is the, oh, gosh, let me see. It is well over 1,000, 1,500 feet, it appears. We didn't actually, have not actually measured that. But I'm trying to read the bearing, frankly, and I've covered up the bearing when I colored the. Well, I mean, I recognize that this use is unique, and there is a requirement that access to lot number two be restricted because of this use. But once that lot is created, that lot is created in perpetuity regardless of what kind of land use exists there. So I'm concerned about the easement and providing permanent access to that lot so that we're not a party to any potential problems after the USDA facility might go away. I would point out again the three easements or the three waivers that I gave you as an example in 07 were done just for the overall ag operations. They weren't as specified as this particular use that you have before you today. I would add, too, these access easements are existing farm roads that were necessary to this tract, although they do have frontage and could achieve access later should they choose to and request a permit from KDOT for access. Okay. Is the applicant, any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Sam Corneal from Guest Manningly Natchezon, representing Spy Coast Farm, Kentucky. We're in agreement, first off, with the recommendations of the Committee. We're in agreement with them. To address Commissioner Penn's comments or question, the farm was originally purchased in two deeds composed of six tracks. What we're seeking to do in this subdivision is take four of the existing tracks and subdivide them into five. The lines that are showing there follow the usage of the property, the farm roads, the paddocks, more closely aligning with the way that the farm is used today to make sure lot lines don't go through the middle of paddocks or barns, make sure it stays in line. To answer your question, the actual easement is 1,057 feet. That's straight. It doesn't count the jog along ironworks. Again, what we're seeking to use Lot 2 for is a quarantine facility handling both the importation of live animals. When animals are brought in from overseas, horses, say before a horse show, they have to be quarantined for 21 to 35 days to prove that there's not any communicable diseases. It protects the horse population. This is a permanent facility. There's an eight-stall barn. There's a riding ring, various paddocks, allows for control of the animals and preventing access. It's also, at the end of November, it achieved USDA certification as a controlled semen facility where semen is collected to be exported. Again, the horses there have to be in a little bit tighter control even to make sure that we aren't exporting problems with the semen. Other than that, again, the subdivision seeks to take four existing tracks and make them into five. We do own on the corner of Ironworks and Newtown. I don't remember the exact acreage, but it's in excess of 40 acres. And there are actually two small tracts there that are old remnant houses that were tenant houses and farm-hunter houses. And we do not own the triangular section that's owned by someone else. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you may have. On the access easement off of Newtown Pike, going through number five? Yes, sir. How wide is that access easement? I will have to. I do not have that noted on the copy of the survey that I have. It's 50, just like the. My only reason for asking that is I want to, if we're going to grant that, I want it to be a permanent access easement so that if you do sell for lot number five, they have the choice of whether to create another access or use that easement. It would be noted on the plan as a permanent access easement. Thanks, Professor. Any other questions? Lynn. I'm just curious. You said you're creating, you had six lots and you're creating five? Yeah. Well, no, there are several lots that aren't involved in this subdivision. The lot on the corner of Ironworks in Newtown is not part of this. And the two little lots, which are, like I said, tenant houses, those aren't involved in this plan. But there are four lots involved in the plan as it is, so dividing to make five. Okay. And those lot lines, you said that they were cleaned up so that you don't have lot lines that... Right. The lines that are proposed that are shown in green in Mr. Martin's schematic there follow existing farm roads or fence lines to keep everything. I'm just wondering what the difference is from the existing layout, how those lines are changing. If I may, the original bulk of the property was this, was purchased in 2008. this section here was purchased in 2009 and this was used as the parking for the world equestrian games which is actually in truth when the access road was put in it was put into the parking lot so what we're doing is there's a actually a creek and a culvert that runs through here sort of the lot itself naturally sure is divided so what we're seeking to do is take this corner of this lot and and the back section of these two lots to create really lot two. Okay. Thank you. So are you going to sell these lots? There's no present plan to. Like I said, they're currently deeded in six lots. They could have been sold without going through any type of approval process. There's no intent to do that. It just makes sense to clean it up while we're trying to get the quarantine to put in place. Okay, very good. Are horses currently being quarantined on lot two? Yes, ma'am. Currently? Yes, that started. The approval was, like I said, was received the last week of last month. You said November. I'm sorry. You meant September. I meant September. My apologies. okay any other questions all right we also just uh as a point of housekeeping we've posted the required sign and i have an affidated to that fact that we get to very good is there anyone in the audience who wish to speak to this okay very good all right i'll turn it back over to Commission for any more discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2011-105F, also considering the waiver. Do you want that with the motion? Maybe make a separate motion. All right, sir. I move the approval of Plan 2011-105F with the following conditions. Second. Okay, we have a motion for approval by Frank Penn, a second by Ms. Beatty. Everybody vote. That motion carries. Okay, now we'll need a motion for the waiver. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the waiver on Plan 2011-105 as presented on the white paper. All right, very good. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Mr. Owens, everybody vote when they can. The motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. I wasn't there. Of course, I wasn't on the commission. It's against what he's done up there. It's against everything he's done. See if they'd have flipped that around. They'd been fighting. Still wouldn't see him come in from the back because of what he's trying. Trying to think for what worked better. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. The next plan on your agenda appears on the bottom of page 4 and extends over to the top of page 5. This is DP 2011-83, an amended final development plan for the Sharkey Property Unit 1 involving Lots 8 and 13. This involves property at 1781 Sharkey Way. I do have one letter that the staff received right at the start of today's meeting from Mary Ann Harper asking about notice regarding future plans for the area more than speaking to this particular area. but we would like to circulate this to the commission at this time. I'd like to take just a moment to orient the commission to the location of the subject property. If we could zoom out just a little bit so we can get the surrounding arterials, I think that will help on the overhead. Thank you. The subject property is on the southern quadrant of the interchange of Leestown Road and New Circle Road here, New Circle Road Northwest, New Circle Road. It is internal to the Townley Center development, which our development plan named for many years has been the Sharkey property. And what's on the overhead is the identified subject property, which is in a curve of Hatter Lane at the corner of Sharky Way and also Old Town Walk here. The property is Zone B1. It's in a neighborhood business zone, as is property to the east. Across the street is R3 property. There is an apartment development, a single-family development. Directly to the northwest is B3 zoning where there's a motel, hotel that has been developed. And if you're familiar with the area, you know that there's retail stores and several restaurants in the development as well, mostly located to the east of the subject property and then between the subject property and the frontage along Lee's Town Road. We also have an aerial photo of this area to show you the current improvements. This is viewing the property in the same location. You can see the subject property in the photo is vacant, although it is currently under development for a single building. We'll show that plan to you in just a moment. To orient you, we have several restaurants, convenience store. This is a sit-down restaurant and a mixed-use building here and here where there are like a mixture of retail and restaurant perhaps even office uses this would be the hotel here is the apartment complex with the clubhouse and then the single family homes also in the townly development on the bottom part of the photo final exhibit on the overhead is one that identifies the subject property as it's currently approved the staff believes this This is the plan that is under development for the property. It shows a single building with two restaurants and a retail use and off-street parking, has currently access approved to Hatter Lane and to Sharkey Way and has an internal circulation connection to the adjacent property which has been developed there. So there are, in essence, three ways in and out of the property currently. the staff did provide to the commission a revised staff recommendation we were not sure whether or not this item would be postponed it has had a recommendation postponement from your technical committee from the staff and also from your subdivision committee if we could put the amendment back up on the the current plan thank you back up on overhead the amendment to this plan does not change the proposed building other than one of the retail uses is no longer proposed all three of the tenant spaces if you will are now proposed for restaurant uses the main significance of that is a restaurant use is required much more parking than the current combination of uses for instance the existing development plan has a surplus of 16 spaces there are 33 required and and 49 approved on this plan. The amended plan has a requirement of 38 and 39 are proposed. What is really driving the amendment is the addition of a drive-through lane here on this part of the property to serve the rear of the middle tenant, if you will. The other significant change to the plan is the currently approved plan only has one one-way movement, and that is on this portion of the property here, this plan would only have one two-way movement right here into the southern property. This would remain one way, and these two would also become one way to serve the drive-through as well. You can see from your agenda that your subdivision committee did have a number of standard conditions. I would categorize them as items 1 through 8, a couple of cleanup conditions, and a discussion about the parking. Also, those of you attending the subdivision committee will know that there was also some discussion about the proposed drive-through lane as well. Since this plan has not been revised and since it obviously is not being requested for postponement, The staff did conclude that this plan does propose to change the essential character of the approved development, and that is the basis of our revised recommendation to you. The staff is recommending disapproval of the plan amendment that is currently before you for four reasons. The amendment will change the essential character of the development in that the surplus of parking will be greatly reduced from 16 to 1 space. Secondly, only one drive-through is currently proposed, although the plan is identifying two, one on the southeast side of the building and the other on the northwest side of the building. Thirdly, the existing circulation pattern will greatly change in terms of one-way movements, and finally, no reciprocal parking has been identified for the property immediately to the south. At this point, before you hear from the applicant and then from any citizens who may happen to be here, the staff will be glad to answer any questions about our recommendation or the past reviews of this plan today. Okay. Are there any questions? All right. Thank you. Very good. Applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing Dennis Anderson, the owner, and, of course, Tony Barrett is with us today, our designer. John Strom from Dennis' office is here somewhere, and Dennis is here on the second row. And there's also a number of people from the Townley Neighborhood Association here with us today. We are going ahead with this because we have worked very diligently in the last week with the Neighborhood Association. For those of you all who were at the subdivision committee meeting, we think we've addressed all the issues that came up at the subdivision committee meeting. We've worked out an agreement with the Neighborhood Association, and we knew the Neighborhood Association was coming down here today. I learned this morning that the staff wanted us to postpone it, but at that point we knew the Neighborhood Association people were coming down. We didn't think it was feasible or fair to them to tell them, oh, you know, go back and come again another day. when they plan to be off work and take off their activities to come here today. So we want to tell you where we're at on this. Again, we think it's in posture to be approved. Real quickly, what we did, Dennis has met with the association officers, and an agreement was made between the parties on this, about this, which significantly, I think, resolves the issues. What was resolved on this, and you all know that the discussion at the subdivision committee was the second drive-through window and the impact that would have on residential, which is across the street over here. Here's our building with the three units. Here's another commercial building over here. And so we worked out an agreement with these items. One is that the main one being that we agreed that although this shows true drive-through windows, that only one of them would be operated at any time by a business. In other words, right now Firehouse Subs has it on the end, and as long as Firehouse Subs has it, it'll have it. And if Firehouse Subs says they don't want it anymore, if they move out, then we would have the opportunity of having a drive-through on the other unit as we're showing it here. I drafted up a proposed note. Dennis corrects me as that Firehouse may not have one, But the note is the same, is that only one business shall have an operational drive-through window at any given time. So that way there's only going to be one drive-through window on this three-unit building at any one particular time. What this development plan will do is give us some flexibility in siting this based upon the needs of the tenants as they come into the building here. Second part of this is that the menu boards and speakers will not be positioned at the rear of the building. They'll be on the sides of the building. Third is that Dennis and the Townley Neighborhood Association are working out additional landscaping along the boundaries there. Now, we will not be increasing the size of the area, but what we're going to be doing is increasing the amount of landscaping in there and putting it more dense. We want to make sure that by making it dense, we don't make it too dense that the plants can't survive, but they're working out a plan with a neighborhood association to put additional landscaping along there to shield the light or activity from the residential area. And fourth, an agreement about the lighting, that the lighting will be directed downward and softward so not to disturb the residential people over here on that. So we have worked that out. Now, some of these things, for instance, the landscaping, we're not expecting you to approve our wording on the landscaping. What we're asking you to do is to approve that our plan meets the required minimum, and we're going to have to go beyond that in our working with the Neighborhood Association here. So we're not asking you to work out a note on that for us. We are agreeing to put this note on the plan as far as only having one drive-through window in operation at a time. So we think we meet all the requirements. Just going down the staff reasons for disapproval, the first one is one I haven't seen before. Basically it says we meet minimum parking requirements. In fact, we have one space more than what the zoning ordinance requires. Therefore, turn this plan down. Well, I think we meet minimum parking, and that is what is required. But beyond that, we have agreed that if additional parking is needed, this property is also owned by Dennis, and this area right here is available for parking, and we will put a reciprocal parking note on there. To resolve that, that's a simple item that will be placed on the plan before certification. The second one is only one accessory drive-through lane is currently requested for use on the property. However, two are now proposed on the plan when closing family residential use. We think we've addressed that through the note we're proposing here. Only one would have one at one time. Third, the one-way traffic movement. We think that makes it safer to have one way going around the building. We think that's a better traffic situation. And fourth, no reciprocal parking has been identified, and we've agreed to label that note right there. But mostly, again, we're here because we've dragged the neighbors down here for this is the third meeting they've been to in three weeks, and we don't want to drag them down again, to be honest about it. That's why we're asking to go ahead with this at this point. But we do feel very strongly that we meet the requirements here, and we have taken to heart the comments you all made at the subdivision committee last week. We met with the representatives who were there and the president of the Homeowners Association, who is not at that meeting, and other members of here, and we have worked out a mutually agreeable solution to this issue on here. So with that, we would ask you to approve this development plan. I think you can do that with the conditions listed on your agenda. On number 11, it simply says denote need for reciprocal parking on the development plan. We can denote that. 12, discuss the need for additional parking over the minimum. And again, we meet the minimum. We meet the ordinance requirement. But even if we need more, we've got it right here. So I think we've solved those two issues. And I understand the staff's position. We have worked fast on this, and we've only had a week since the last meeting. But I think we thought by meeting those final two notes, we would solve the things here. And, again, we'd ask for your approval of this development plan. I know there's neighborhood representatives here who want to address you as well. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anyone from the neighborhood wish to speak? And how many would be speaking? My name is Michael Prather, and I'm the Homeowner Association President. And I live up to the front of this development, very close to this piece of commercial real estate. I've lived in the development since inception back in 2006. I have several other homeowners that are here today that live right across the street from this development, and we have worked over the past three to four days to come up with the agreement. Everything that Mr. Murphy said was our proposals in conjunction with them to come up with what we feel is a very good solution. It's a mixed-use development. I think we all understand where we live, what we bought into, which by definition is new urbanism. This is the type of development that very closely puts single-family houses at the heart of the development, flanked by townhouses, flanked by apartments, that you have these different levels of living within walking distance to the commercial real estate, the restaurants, the nail shop, the gym, the dry cleaners, everything that we take access to very easily. So with working through the solutions that Mr. Murphy made mention, You know, all that we ask is that there's only one drive-through window in operation at a time for the entire building, that the menus and speakers are on the sides of the building, not on the rear, so the projection of the speakers aren't going towards the houses, that the landscaping is above average, that it's more of mature plants that are being planted. So they'll, from the very beginning, go ahead and give us probably about a waist-high barrier for headlights, which we've gone out and measured. I drive a sport utility myself and have pulled in and out of every spot to look at the headlights across the back of the fences to the back of the houses. And if we have bushes that come up about waist-high to get started, and it's something of a green plant that stays green year-round, it's going to be totally sufficient versus some type of wall. I would prefer to have something heavenly made versus man-made. We need more green back there. So that's a perfect solution. And then the last piece is having a softer, more downward, direct light that's not going to be shining back directly on the houses that are in the rear. So with those pieces, we've worked through it. We were in total agreement. We've met with the Meadowthorpe Home, our neighborhood association, to give them our opinion. And they're like, if you guys are unanimous in your vote, which we all are as a board. We just want to see this be built out properly from the very beginning, not slow down their development, and get these good tenants in this building. To me, I'm in real estate for a living. It's more important, I think, to have good businesses versus empty buildings, and to me this is the smart way to go. So with that said, we do ask that we don't delay this. Let's approve this and move forward, and I think that's been in the best interest of everybody involved. Okay. Very well. You have a question? Yes. You're saying that the squawk boxes are... Yes, ma'am. Could you walk over and show us exactly where the squawk boxes are going to be? I live right here. You need to take a microphone. We're recording this, so we need... No problem. Just to give you a point of reference, I live in this house right here. This neighbor is here today, this neighbor is here, and this neighbor is here. So to me, these are the ones that are most affected by this piece of real estate. What we're proposing is that the menu and speakers are on the exteriors of the sides of the building. They are projecting sound in that direction and that the pickup window is on the backside. So there's no drive-through speakers and menu on the back of the building projecting noise in that direction. So this is where we're saying we want these menu boards and speaker systems to be. Does that answer your question? Yes, so that little green snail or slug is going to stay there? That is my understanding. I don't think that piece is in place right now, the little drive-thru piece, but that's what will go in place because a car would be able to pull in, order on the side of the building, and then be able to drive around. And then my understanding is there will be a small bump out built that that's where this middle tenant would be able to serve the product out of the window. So that would come in place, but they would order here or here, but this particular tenant, which already has the drive-through that's been approved, does not use it because their business is a self-serve, so they need their customers to go inside. So at some point in time, if this middle building is not using it and this tenant would want it, then their message board and speaker would be on this side projecting in this direction. and then their drive-through would be just right through there, and then I don't know if that would get removed at a later date if that particular tenant didn't need it. And it's one-way traffic. That is my understanding. All the way around. I'm Tony Barrett, Barrett Partners. The traffic pattern is this is two-way, so you can come in and access back and forth in the front of the unit of the building off of Sharky Way to orient the drive-through movement. It comes around in this way, one way, in this direction. So this is one way in. I'm sorry, this is two ways. So you can come in and circle around the building and leave, or you can come in here and circle around the building and get around. So it's basically this is the one way. This is two way. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, excuse me. Mr. Parather, you mentioned, I think I understood you right, but for clarification, you're president of the... Just the Single Family Homes Homeowner Association. Of Townley. That is correct. Okay. All right, then. Thank you. With everybody's permission, may I ask if there's anybody else with our association that would like to speak or have any questions? I'll do that. Okay. You have to come up here to do that. Is there anyone else in the neighborhood that wishes to speak? Yes, sir. State your name and address. I hope I can do this. I've had a cold. First of all, I want to thank you for appearing before you. I live in the house that's just angled off from the property end. Could you give us your name and address? Sir. She is right across from here. I live in Lot 20, and it runs over here. My name is Joe. Last name is Albaugh. I live at 132 Town Square Park. When I heard what the tenants were there, I thought, man, this is nice. You've got a firehouse sub, an ice cream store. And then I heard that the donut shop was coming. I thought I died and went to heaven. I mean, and all of these are national brands. These are not Mom and Pop or Susie's Place. and at first I was against the double driveway and I still am. I just think it's too congested, but I'm not against one window at a time. I think it's important that our subdivision were mixed use, that we keep these buildings full and not with flea markets and that type of stuff. When most realtors have problems, they run and take anybody in the door. we or Mr. Anderson has landed in national firms and that's pretty tough in these times as you well know and I think it's more important to have a good occupant in a building than a boarded up building I think it affects our land and our property so much more of having empty buildings I appreciate it and I've lived there since day one so I've seen a lot go on out there and I talk more but I can't So thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Do you have any questions? Does anybody have any questions? Let's see. Anyone else from the neighborhood or in the audience? All right. So we're going to turn it back over to the commission for a discussion or motion. Yes, sir. I have one question related to the parking. Yes, sir. Okay. It has to do with the reciprocating parking that has been identified with the adjoining parking structure. I understand that they do meet the minimum with the one additional. But the question I have is, is that parking, reciprocal parking, available at the same time that the restaurants are open, or is it just an evening thing? In other words, if I pull in there in the daytime and wanted to park over there in that area, would I be able to do that? I've never seen that parking. Come to the microphone. Name and... I'm Dennis Anderson. I live at 3804 Steel Meadow. Did I get that right, Mr. Chairman? I've never seen the parking lot that's behind, I think it's marked building B there. I've never seen it full. Another thing that's going on in this building is we've got users whose traffic is different time of the day. we've got a firehouse that's going to be busy in the noon hour. We've got the yogurt that's going to be busier in the evening. And what we're trying to do is get coffee and donuts and things of that nature. And they came and said, you know, we've got to have a drive-thru. That's when this came about. We didn't use the drive-thru with the self-serve yogurt, so we didn't build it, didn't put it on there. And I can understand the neighbors. They don't, you know, even though we're not using it now, they want to ensure that it's approved, that it doesn't ever come back to haunt them. And that's how we got to one or the other, but not both. We can have one or the other drive-thrus, but not both. I think that's a good way to go. But we're using that to try to get the coffee and donut guy to the table. Let me ask for clarification. Does that mean that if I came there and I didn't want to park on the other side and wanted to park in the secondary lot over here, could I do that? Yes. And then walk my donuts off, huh? Yes. I can't. There's even a sidewalk here. All right. Any other questions? Mike. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, Mr. Murphy, to kind of follow up on what Mr. Wilson was asking as far as the reciprocal parking, would it be appropriate to put a note either on the plan or a condition that they would be reciprocal parking? I think you could change 11 instead of saying denote the need for reciprocal parking to denote reciprocal parking on the development plan. Okay. All right, then. And then I guess my other concern, even though it doesn't sound like it's going to be used at the present time, the proposed drive-through that's on the end, it looks to me like with where the menu board and microphone and so forth, the speaker would be, there's not much room available as far as stacking until you get, you know, Are you proposing just one window to order and pick up? I think you know where I'm coming from. There's not much room as far as stacking there. I'll get Dennis to answer that. You are correct. That draft was not built because we put the orange leaf yogurt in there. And the functionality of it going forward, I don't know if it is or not. Whether it would ever get built or not, I don't know that it would. But we just like having different options so we can accommodate the needs of the businesses we put in there so that the businesses we put in there are successful. Sure. But I don't know that that drive-thru will ever be built, but we wanted to keep our options open. We would have to put it towards the back, and we'd have to put the window towards the front so there would be two or three stacks so they could have it ready by the time they got there. Just as long as everybody recognizes that it's still got to be on the side. Okay. Thank you. We recognize that's a challenge. Thank you. Dennis, there's not a window there now. No window there. Okay. And it's at least a five-year lease of options. Okay. All right. Just a minute. I would like to just simply applaud Mr. Murphy and Mr. Anderson for going back and communicating directly with those residents and subdivision committee. we had a lengthy discussion, and the residents made themselves very clear about some conditions that we were concerned about. So I really do appreciate the communication and the ability to come to a mutual agreement. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Copeland-Jesson. Yes. Does the staff now, with this arrangement, are you agreed to it? Well, if the plan had been postponed for a couple of weeks, we might have been able to get up to speed with all of these new developments. So I think that's very telling. So it's okay with you all? Yeah, the conditions listed on your agenda are adequate for this plan. Okay. Including the parking? Yes, the revision to number 11 would suffice. Okay. Mr. Chairman. With that, I would like to... Let me ask one more question. Bill, with your comment, you're also comfortable with the fact that there might be another drive-in built on the end of that building, given the stacking would be very short? Well, obviously, that would have to be reviewed at the time of any permit, probably by traffic engineering, to make sure that the minimum of five could be met. Okay, so it would be reviewed if they decided to put it in. Yes, it would either have to be met or there would have to be a dimensional variance to that. Thank you. If I can, if this drive-through is open, this drive-through is closed. So we could use this drive-through lane as our stacking and it comes around like that. So by virtue of that other one being closed, when that one opened, that creates the stacking space. Very good. Okay. Okay. Yes, Ms. Phillips. I wanted to ask a question. With the reciprocal parking arrangement, is staff comfortable with the existing numbers of parking spaces being adequate? Well, we know there is a surplus on the other property. What we don't know is the timing of those. We would want to make sure that the demand isn't the same at the same time of day. But from a ministerial perspective, they do meet the minimum requirements? Yes. Okay. Okay. If I may, I think there may be a motion coming soon, but I'd like to echo Ms. Beatty's sentiments. Having been in the subdivision committee, there was a lot of discussion, a lot of concern, and I'd like to applaud everyone for working together on this. All right. Very good. May I ask, sorry, I didn't ask to be heard, the revision that Mr. Murphy had, the amendment that Mr. Murphy had requested, if that could be put back up, I'd appreciate it. We'll put it on the overhead. And it says only one drive-through per business? That's not what I was asking about. Yeah, only one business. Is your intent that there be only one drive-thru per building or per business? Well, that was for the three-unit building. So, yes, one drive-thru operating for the three-unit building. and what I was trying to say, only one business in that building can have an operational drive-thru window at any given time. Yeah, and just so that we're clear, it doesn't mean that if you have three businesses, there can be three drive-thru windows. That is correct. Okay. We are not. Okay. We might like that in an ideal world, but we're not asking for that. Maybe tighten up the language in some way so that we could add that as a condition. Yeah, for billing. All right, very good. I move that we accept DP 2011-83, Sharkey Properties Unit 1, Lots 8 and 13, with the now 11 conditions, because we can remove number 12. Is that correct, Chris? Yeah. Mr. King? Yes. And with the responses that the applicant has given for the reasons the staff have disapproved, so the 11 conditions. All right. Very good. We have a second by Mr. Wilson. Are you adding the new language to? Yes, with the responses that the applicant has given. Okay. That also goes, that response is, or at least I assume that that response is in, was in response to the staff's disapproval. Okay. That's right. Okay, we still have a second. So everybody vote. Yes. May I speak to the motion? You may. Would you accept an amendment that scratches the words the need for from condition number 11? So that condition 11 says denote reciprocal parking on the development plan? Yes. Can you just state that? Yes. Okay. So we are leaving reciprocal parking on the development plan. So number 11 will read, denote reciprocal parking on the development plan. Right. And the second still stands. Okay, still second. Will there also be a 12th condition? Yes. I thought number 12 really should read, resolve the need for additional parking. No. She's talking about the note. Oh, for this note? Should that be a condition? Should that note be a condition? Okay. Mr. King, that should be a condition. So that should be number 12. Okay, does everybody understand? All right, let's vote. Mine is too. Aye. Everybody in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. That motion carries next. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is at the bottom of page 5. It's item D, DP 2011-86, Hamburg Place Community, Multifamily, Phase 2A, Lot 3. This is a final development plan. It is located on property out at the corner of Sir Barton and Old Rosebud Way. This way on the plan would be towards Winchester Road and Lowe's and those developments. This is the West Wind subdivision up in this area. This, of course, is the area of the plan amendment that we have before you today. This area is townhouse developments that is largely built out. The most recent plans you have seen were up in this area for the extension of Old Rosebud and the Trilogy nursing facility and the assisted living apartment home on the corner up in here. This plan you see before you has two apartment buildings, an accessory building, and a pool area. The overall site is six acres. They are proposing 150 units, 225 parking spaces. These are three-story buildings, a little over 198,000 square feet total. There's an access point here off Old Rosebud, access point here and here on Sir Barton. Outlined in blue for you, here you can see is the floodplain that affects this property, And this faint orange line that you see here is the 25-foot setback that's required by Article 9 of your zoning ordinance off of the flood plain. This plan had been reviewed and initially recommended for approval by your technical committee and your subdivision, I mean your planning staff. And then at subdivision committee, unfortunately, we had a revised plan that failed to meet the minimum parking requirements. Since that time, they did submit another revision to staff. That was yesterday morning, and you will find a brown piece of paper with revised conditions before you today that addresses the new plan, the revised plan that you see before you. The staff now recommends approval of the plan subject to the first eight conditions that you see on your revised conditions, which are very standard conditions for the plan. We have an additional condition, number nine, which is denote or remove the timing restrictions for the garages proposed within 25 feet of the floodplain. Again, we highlighted for you the blue floodplain line. Here's the orange setback line. In here, they're showing some garages. They cannot be built there with the floodplain in its current configuration. They're going to have to either remove those or they do have the option to denote a timing mechanism for those to be built. That's based on the applicant is submitting a CLOMER to FEMA. And once it's accepted and approved, it will change the configuration of the floodplain. We're anticipating that will remove that conflict. So therefore, either they can address the conflict now or address that through a timing note as well. Well, staff has a condition number 10, which is clarify the tree protection area and tree protection plan for the area. And again, as you can see this overall area, we have a tree protection plan that addresses the entire development. We're asking them to clarify the tree protection plan for this area as well. in effect to break it out, explain it to us. And the reason for that is this plan, in terms of tree protection, has an impact on the overall development as well. We highlighted some of the trees for you. You can see in this area it is a heavily treed area. It's a very lovely area. There are some very large trees. This is a 32-inch sycamore. Right here we have a 37-inch ash tree, And that's one of the reasons staff has a concern and wants to clarify this tree protection plan. Concentrated up and through here in this area are a tremendous number of ash trees. And as I think most people are aware with the emerald borer problem, we're losing our ash trees. So we think it's very important that the tree protection plan be clarified. And should these trees, of course, be lost, then we need canopy provided for the area. and not again just for this development, but it impacts the overall development. Staff is also asking that they clearly denote the Board of Adjustments approval of the setback variance prior to certification. The plan that you see before you is a group residential project. It has more stringent setback requirements than the underlying zone. The applicant has submitted a plan to the Board of Adjustment requesting a variance to the setback. The setback, if approved, will match what you see before you today, which is 20 feet. This is similar, you may recall, to the apartments at Louie Place in the Sharkey development plan you just saw before you. Those apartments that you approved, they too were a group residential and had to go to the Board of Adjustment to address their setback situation. That is what exists with this plan today. And again, the applicant has submitted that. It is on the agenda for the Board of Adjustments. So therefore, we're asking that they verify that they have approval of that prior to certification of this plan. We have item 14 on your revised conditions. This is discuss the status of traffic signal and a right turn lane per notes 13 and 14 on this plan. This is an interesting condition. These notes address traffic improvements that were committed to by the Hamburg developer and the Tuscany developer. Now, what you see before you on this site, this is neither the Hamburg or the Tuscany developer. The applicant is purchased or planning to purchase this property from the church that was previously approved here. Staff wants to make it clear and wanted it on the table. so that the Planning Commission knows that we're getting to a point where those improvements may very well be needed. That is being driven by the development in the area and the fact that this is a 150-unit apartment. You've seen some new developments on Old Rosebud, and so staff wants that out and aware. We want everyone aware that that issue is coming. It's pending. We have talked with traffic engineering and it is our staff's understanding that right now the issue is not volume, but it is accidents. People travel at a fairly high rate of speed on Sir Barton, as you're probably aware if you've been out there. And there have been a certain number of accidents in this area. And once they reach a certain threshold, that will kick in the requirement for the traffic signal. Now again, I would just reiterate, we don't believe we're there yet, but we're getting very close. And we just wanted that issue out on the table and everybody aware of it. The final condition is item 15, which is revise the proposed parking to indicate a surplus of at least eight spaces. Staff has prepared for you a little exhibit. when the initial plan was submitted to staff, as now, they were right on the money for their parking, meeting the exact minimum requirement for parking. Due to the nature of this development, its location, and the amount of traffic, we were concerned if they shouldn't provide some overage. We prepared this exhibit, and staff was able to discover 18 additional parking spaces, Knowing that there may be some slight problems with a few of those, staff felt like that at least eight surplus spaces could be provided. Granted, it's a small surplus, but we feel like that's a reasonable number to add just some additional parking onto this development. Again, with that, staff is recommending approval of this plan. I would add that on item 14, which is discuss, those notes are going to remain on this plan. Unless you feel that some sort of improvement should be done by this applicant, which we don't feel are truly needed at this time, that could be stricken from your approval should you see fit. But we just wanted everyone aware there have been issues and are issues out there with traffic. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer that. So are there any questions? Yes, Ms. Copeland. Mr. Martin, let's talk about the traffic light. Hamburg and Tuscany are going to pay for the light to be installed. Is that right? It is my understanding that they agreed to do those improvements, and that is what the notes state. Okay, what triggers that? can a neighborhood organization come and file a petition, or how does that get triggered? It would be triggered by the actual need determined by engineering studies that have to do new traffic counts, that sort of thing. But they could ask for the engineering studies? Yes, they could. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Tom, parking-wise, you mentioned they've just turned in another revision. The current revision you see before you today, we received yesterday morning. Okay. And there's still a need, or the parking is rather tight. Do you feel like they need a few more? We feel like a few more would be beneficial. Let me move back to your discussion as far as the remove or denote timing restrictions for garages. I presume those garages are part of the parking that's being counted. Yes, sir, they are. You said you assume that the clomer will remove the conflict. What happens if the clomer doesn't remove the conflict? The garages will not be allowed to be built there. they can still have parking there under our special permit process. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing Watermark Residential, which is the company that is developing this. This is under a purchase contract with the church, as Mr. Martin mentioned. Josh Purvis is with me from Watermark Residential, and Mark McIntosh, our designer from HDR Engineers. And we're in general agreement with the staff recommendation. We have one quibble with them I wanted to talk to you about, and that is the parking. But to give you a little background on this, this has, I think, been delayed once. We had the issue was the floodplain in here, and we had a meeting with our engineers, met with the city engineers, water quality division, engineering division. I think it was generally agreed that the FEMA floodplain here is larger than it should be, and that is because the FEMA floodplain did not take into account the fact that in Hamburg, the detention areas have been constructed already and are functioning. And so I think all the engineers were very confident that once the CLOMER, the conditional letter of map revision, is submitted to FEMA, that we will shrink that floodplain area based upon the reality on what's out there so that it's highly likely that this floodplain that you see on here will be smaller. I think all the engineers are pretty confident about that. Obviously, we can't guarantee it until the FEMA rules. and then we get our final LOMER, which is the letter of map provision on that. So that's sort of the background on there, and that affected our plans on here, and we will not be able to build the garages until we get that final determination. Now, parking is allowed in the floodplain as long as we go through the special permit procedures, which we have to go through through the Division of Engineering on there. The quibble we have is with the last condition, revised proposed parking, to indicate a surplus of at least three spaces. And let me put the portion of the development plan up on the overhead here. This is the statistical summary. And again, we learned about the issue about parking this morning, and Josh was en route here, so we weren't able to discuss this until just prior to the meeting here. But we'd prefer to go with the parking we're showing. We meet the minimum parking requirement, and here's why. We have 150 units here, and our calculations are shown on this Lot 3 summary, which is on the development plan which we have submitted. We have 150 units, and in the zone we're in, we calculate it two ways. We have to have at least one and a half spaces per unit, and doing that, that requires 225 spaces, which we are showing. To be safe, we have to calculate it a second way, which is 0.9 spaces per bedroom. And that change came in, what, about, I don't know, five to eight years ago when people had concerns about three- and four-bedroom units in apartment complexes and needing more spaces due to those. So they changed it to say you also must meet 0.9 spaces per bedroom in the overall complex. Now, we have a mixture here of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. And using the number of bedrooms on there, it calculates that we need 222 parking spaces, three fewer than the other way we calculated. So the 225 is what we're required to show because that's the higher amount that's required under those two calculations. Now, based upon Watermark's experience in building these, they've built a number of them, and they feel that 1.5 per unit is sufficient to meet the parking needs that they'll have. Now, I could just say, hey, we meet the required parking. That's all we want to say, but I want to discuss it a little bit more. The staff's exhibit shows that if we get out here and find out that we do need some additional spaces, we do have the space to provide that on site, to provide additional parking spaces, if that does become necessary. But we feel that why pave the grass areas or the landscape areas right now where they could be better put in landscape areas when we don't think we need them, we meet the minimum required parking, and it's better aesthetically and for the environment and for drainage to have as little parking and as little paving as you can. So that's where we're coming from on that. And also, we do have a transit stop. I mean, regardless of it, just to relate to you additionally, we do have a transit stop across the street. Under the ordinance, we are allowed a 10% reduction in parking if we have a transit stop across the street. We can reduce parking 5%, or excuse me, one space per bicycle parking area. There's a limit on that as well, which we could use if we needed. We're not using either of those. Even though we have a transit shelter right across the street, which would entitle us to 10% reduction, and we can provide bicycle parking, which would allow another reduction. We're not using those. So we feel like we'd rather not pave those areas if we don't have to on that. We meet the required based upon both the experience of Watermark in doing these things and upon the two ways we have to calculate it under the ordinance. bear in mind the ordinance was changed a few years ago to deal with larger bedroom numbers of bedrooms and units on that we meet that as well so we we'd ask you to delete the last note which is 15 i think the staff has said we can delete note 14 on that traffic signal issue as well so that's where we're at and we hope you'll approve this and with with removing those last two notes Thank you. All right. Very good. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this? Okay. C-9-1-1. We'll turn it back over to the Commission for any comments and or motion. Yes, Ms. Copeland. Mr. Watermark, could I ask you a question? what is what type of tenant do you expect to be in this building well we actually look for a young young professional not a lot of families we don't do a lot of three bedroom units in in this development we don't see a big impact on local schools that's why we don't see a big impact on parking you know our per unit we don't have a lot of bedrooms compared to other developments that we do, and we feel that 1.5 is appropriate for this development. Do you think that person will be walking to the grocery store or driving? Driving, bus stop across the street, we see both those as viable options. And with the sidewalk system in Hamburg, walking to the grocery is definitely not out of the question. Okay. Now, is there a way you could put the eight spaces on the plan, but shrub them up instead of building them? That's an interesting question. I mean, in your planting, you could say, someday we may need eight spaces. But right now, there are going to be shrubs, not trees. Yeah, and the issue with that, I guess, is more curb than it is you'd have to go in and remove curb and put back curb where the shrub was. So I guess that would probably be the question for Mark. Yeah, we can denote that. Okay. Yeah, that'd be fine. And that was my issue, I guess, kind of with looking at the site plan. Aesthetically, we still have to look at renters and the well-being for them, wanting a well-landscaped apartment community. Obviously, with the backdrop that we have, as Mr. Martin pointed out, the beautiful ash trees and everything, that we need to maintain that. And that was our main concern was infringing on landscaping within the community. But it could be done. It could be done. So particularly if you had islands and you just wiped out the whole island. Yes, once again, just my concern is on landscaping. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Mr. Martin, didn't you show on the plan and subdivision committee how the eight spaces could be contributed? We had the exhibit that you see before you today that demonstrated that we felt there could be additional spaces on site. Yeah. All right. so mr martin the the rationale that they just gave about the minimum spaces does that satisfy they they do meet the minimum parking required if that's your question yes ma'am staff was recommending that they provide some additional over and above the required and did i hear you say that you could do that you could do the surplus parking we have the space to do it if it's ever needed in the future we don't think we're ever going to need it and we don't we don't want to build it now because we don't think we'll need it so i mean if what miss copeland was saying is a possibility we can we have the space there if you all want us to show where it can go if we need it in the future, we're okay with doing that. You answered my question. Thank you. Mr. Martin, I have a question. What is this, why are we trying to require more spaces than are required? This is the second plan we've seen today like that. I mean, you need to change the requirements if you want more parking. You can't just make this up. Staff was concerned about the automobile-centric nature of this development as it exists, and we're concerned at times, again, with the number of people that may occupy apartments, et cetera, if more parking is needed. It has been our experience in certain circumstances in apartment complexes, parking is overburdened by the number of residents. Okay. this is an automobile-dependent complex because it's pretty far away from services, except for the bus. So how could we change that to say, Mr. Martin, kind of coming together in a compromise, how could we say it to denote potential parking spaces on the plan? Yes, ma'am. I think they could do it by perhaps showing them as a phase two so that they wouldn't be required to build them at this time. If they would just indicate those extra spaces as a phase that could be built as needed. And then what would kick it in? What would make it happen? Their need or somebody else's need? Well, I think it would be their need that would kick it in in that regard. Is that okay with you, Mr. Warimar? That's fine. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Thank you. Okay. So you've agreed to what on the parking? What did you agree to do? We agreed to show as a future phase two, if we decide more parking is needed, we'll denote it on the site plan now where we'll put it. Okay. Okay. All right. No more questions, let's move it. Mr. Chairman, I'm making an attempt at this. I'll move for approval of DP 2011-86 with 14 conditions. We're going to go with the first 13, deleting 14 and 15, and having a new 14 to read to note potential phase 2 parking, if needed, shall be shown. Okay, very good. We have a second. What happened to the traffic signal note? You went, no, they said that could be taken out. Yes, we just wanted to bring it to your attention that these improvements are going to be an issue in the near future, we believe. So, Mr. Martin, don't you want the traffic signal left on it? The notes are on the plan, and they will remain. We literally wanted to bring them to the full Planning Commission's attention. It's written on the plan, yeah. Okay, we need a second. Second. A second by Ms. Beatty. Any other discussion? Okay. Mr. Chairman, don't you think that ought to say up to eight spaces on that Phase 2? Well, they were going to— Or do you think they shouldn't? They were going to show eight spaces, right? Okay. Okay. All right. Let's vote. That motion carries. Thank you. All right. It looks like we're down to the public hearings on the zoning ordinance text amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think you have one more subdivision item. It's on the top of page six. Performance bonds? Yes, sir, the bonds and letters of credit. Thank you. Thank you. I was going to do that while we were setting up. So let's do the performance bonds and letters of credit while we're getting ready for this zoning ordinance. We'll get a motion on that. Move approval of the performance bond memorandum as outlined by staff. Okay, we have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Everybody vote. That motion carries. Yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Cravens, members of the Commission. The next item on our agenda today is a zoning ordinance item. our zoning item, and it is found on page 6 of your agenda. It is ZOTA 2011-10. This is an amendment to Article 8-1D of the zoning ordinance to allow a historic house museum as a conditional use in the agricultural rural zone. I want to direct your attention to the handout I just provided. Normally, at zoning hearings, we have a notebook. What we've done is just pull the information from those notebooks and staple them together for the commission today. There are also the same materials at the back of the room for any of the audience to review. In addition, I've provided three letters that the staff received from several organizations, the first being the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, the second from Millridge Farm, and the third from the Fayette Alliance. and I will note that the Fayette Alliance letter came yesterday and we prepared our handout and they submitted a revision this morning, so I've given that to Carla. It's slightly different than the one in your packet, so if you want to review both or wait for the one that's being circulated. This application has been requested by the Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation, Incorporated, and it's to add the use of a historic house museum in the AR zone. I've displayed historic house museum definition on the overhead for the commission and members of the public to review, but generally it's a house reused as a museum for any of a number of reasons, but it also includes as accessory uses the sale of, or retail sale of objects or memorabilia, as well as allowing for the holding of meetings and social events. The historic house museums were originally or first defined in our zoning ordinance in 2003 when this use was also added just to our residential zones. That was a request by the Division of Planning and the Division of Historic Preservation in that year to allow for better protection and preservation of one particular house, the Pope Villa. And that Pope Villa was designed by architect Benjamin Latrobe, and since that time, another house has been approved by the Board of Adjustment as well, the Tusca House, which is near downtown. Both of these have been granted approval as historic house museums inside the urban service area. These two museums are recent examples, but Fayette County also has several other historic house museums or places that fit within that definition now. We have Ashland. We have Waveland Museum, the Mary Todd Lincoln House, as well as the Hunt Morgan House, also near downtown. The text amendment in 2003 really just codified that use and allowed for other places to be used for historic house museums, hopefully to the benefit of the community. That amendment did allow just historic house museums in residential zones, but museums themselves are also allowed in several business zones as well as the mixed-use zones. In the staff's research, we found that museums have never been a permitted use in any of the agricultural zones, though. In terms of history and our agricultural zone amendments to uses in that zone, in 1994 the council established an ad hoc committee to look at the AR zone and to really revamp it because the uses had really grown in that area. And in some cases were large scale and out of character with the rural area. In general, the conditional uses in the AR zone at that time were eliminated. Those that were eliminated were ones that consumed large amounts of land like golf courses. The AR zone currently allows 27 conditional uses, seven of which are agriculturally related and 20 of which are really more non-agricultural related, and those 20 are restricted in terms of square footage or buildable square footage on the lot to 10,000 square feet. The 10,000 square foot number was established based on a survey at the time of existing churches and other non-residential conditional uses in the AR zone. And those restrictions or changes to the AR zone were made in 1994 and then became effective in 1995. At this time, the applicant is asking to add historic house museums to the AR zone. And what prompted that is the fact that they have the opportunity to run or operate a museum in a residence known as Helm Place, which is located on Bowman Mill, just outside the urban service area boundary. They also currently own and operate the Mary Todd Lincoln House in downtown Lexington. It should be noted that there are currently two historic or two museums in the AR zone, and they are located at Bluegrass Airport and at the Kentucky Horse Museum. There's an additional facility, which most people think of as a museum, but the Board of Adjustment has approved it as a school, which is the Headley Whitney Museum. And it also is operated in the AR area, but is not a government facility. It's a privately owned and operated facility. The applicant has submitted a justification which opines that historic cast museums are appropriate in the AR zone and that this is a way to preserve our rural historic treasures for the benefit of our community. and in assessing a text amendment to the AR zone, the staff would mention that 98% of our rural service area is zoned AR. So the commission must consider the potential long-term impacts of adding a new use, even as a conditional use, and also any unintended consequences that could arise from adding historic house museums in the AR zone. The staff does agree with the applicant that there are significant resources in the AR areas that could be preserved and open to the public for the betterment of the community. And while the applicant didn't specifically note that our agree to being located in terms of ordinance location under the 10,000-square-foot limit, the staff would suggest that that restriction apply to this particular use as well. because when we reviewed the use, our primary concern was the potential traffic impact in the rural area from visitors as well as school field trips to a museum. And if the text amendment is approved, the Board of Adjustment, it being a conditional use, the Board of Adjustment would have the ability to review any of the public facilities and whether they're adequate for a museum. They would be able to review the size and number of special events for a museum and also institute any time limitations for that particular use on a case-by-case basis. As a conditional use, there would also be the opportunity for neighbors of the particular museum to come to a public hearing and voice their concerns or support to the Board of Adjustment. So the staff recommends approval of the request for a historic house museum, and we list three reasons on our agenda and in the staff report related to the benefit to the community. We also note that it should be restricted to the 10,000 square feet and that it's appropriate for the board to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. The staff came to this recommendation in September, and since then the applicant has met with several concerned organizations, And subsequent to those meetings, they appeared at the zoning committee one week ago and presented a revision to their proposed text amendment, and that is attached at the end, third page of the handout. At this time, the staff remains comfortable with our original recommendation for approval of historic house museums in the AR zone without the changes proposed by the applicant. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. I'm a little confused. So this is not the version you would recommend? And what's the change to this versus what? I think the staff met, and we remain comfortable with adding historic house museums with the 10,000-square-foot limit and with the Board of Adjustment reviewing it on a case-by-case basis. We are aware and understand that the applicant is willing to subject this use to all of these additional restrictions and that other parties are also interested in that. The staff just really felt comfortable with the Board of Adjustment addressing those on a case-by-case basis rather than adding it to the ordinance. And I think Mr. Murphy will address the specifics of their proposal. I just wanted the Commission to know, though, that last week in zoning committee, this is the text that we approved. Thank you. Not the staff. The zoning committee did recommend approval of changes. It did because all of the parties came to us, and everyone agreed to this. So I don't see why we need to be less restrictive. And the commission, like I said, the zoning committee, this is what we approved. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The applicant. This is the hardest working guy in here today. Yeah. I apologize for you all having to listen to me again, but we'll take it short. This is a very important matter, though, and I'm very, very pleased to be working with the Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation, Incorporated, which is a nonprofit corporation, as you all know, here in Lexington, which operates the Mary Todd Lincoln House. And with me today is Dee Dee Moran, who's chairperson of the board. She's back there raising her hand. And Gwen Thompson, who's the executive director of the foundation. Jack Cunningham of Frost Brown Todd is with me, who's one of the leading trusts and estate lawyers in Kentucky. He's been working with the foundation on this since it was a gift through a trust. And we're also pleased to have a number of other board members of the foundation with us. If you all could just raise your hand here if you're a board member as well. And I found it's been a pleasure working with them. They're a very dedicated and hardworking group of people who are willing to take on a very significant new responsibility, which is to administer a second house museum for this community. And we're here today because I know this is a general ordinance which applies throughout AR, but we have to run it through what we're proposing to you, and this is a good example of why we feel a text amendment is needed. The late Mary Genevieve Murphy and her husband, the late Joe Murphy, have made a very generous gift to this community, and they've made it through the foundation, and that is of their home, Helm Place, on Bowmans Mill Road, and they've willed it to the foundation to be used as a period museum. And just for the record, my last name is Murphy. I'm not related to Mary Genevieve Murphy and Joe Murphy, but I did know both of them personally. And I know that this gift is in keeping with their generous spirit that they demonstrated throughout their lives, and it's a great testament to them of what they're doing. This particular property on Bowman's Mill Road, we're talking about the house, but to just give you a little background, it is 150 acres total. Most of that is under lease to the adjacent Mill Ridge Farm, which uses it as part of its farming operations, so it is still used for agricultural purposes. But this particular property, I think, meets really the three tests. Maybe you just need to meet one of these, but it's historic, it's architecturally significant, and the sense of places has been preserved through the years. And I won't give you a history lecture, but just to let you know on this, this house was built in the 1850s by Colonel Abraham Bowman. Of course, it's on Bowman's Mill Road. and was later owned by Emily Todd Helm, who was the half-sister of Mary Todd Lincoln. And now Emily Todd Helm was married to Benjamin Harden Helm, who became a Brigadier General in the Connecticut. Confederate Army. He was killed at the Battle of Chickamauga. And a little interesting sidelight is that after he was killed, Emily Todd Helm, the widow of a Confederate general, went to the White House to visit her half-sister, Mary Todd Lincoln, in Washington. This house was later owned by William Townsend, who was a prominent attorney here in town. I think he was one of the founding members of a predecessor to the Stalkine and Ogden law firm. But more important than that, he was a nationally known Lincoln scholar and memorabilia collector. And so he carried on sort of the Lincoln tradition in this house. He and his wife, Genevieve, gave it in their will to their daughter, Mary Genevieve Murphy. And as I mentioned, she and her husband, late Joe Murphy, have given it through the trust to the Kentucky Mansions Preservation Foundation. Joe Murphy lived in this house up until earlier this year when he passed away in his 90s. So this has the historic importance. It has architectural importance. And I'll let the pictures do the speaking for me. This is a Greek revival structure, and I've just got three pictures which show you the significance of it. They're not showing up real well, but that's the building itself. And if you could go on and show the last two, just show the setting on the property on Bowman's Mill Road. Actually, the house is visible in the picture in the trees in the background. And the last one, again, shows you that you can see the house on the right side in the entranceway coming in. So it has architectural significance as well. And the Murphys have retained the sense of place that was there. As I said, they've kept the 150 acres around us. This was a rural mansion, and they have preserved the rural character it was in. And Mary Genevieve and Joe went to great lengths to do this. This property is on the National Register. It is the only rural H1 overlay. We have a local overlay. And they've done a conservation easement to the Rural Land and Management Board here in town. So the logical final step they took is to give it to the Mansions Preservation Foundation to be open to all as a museum here in Lexington. As I mentioned, this particular property is pretty heavily regulated even before you all act because any exterior change has to go through the Board of Architectural Review since we're in the H-1 zone. and since there's a conservation easement, any alteration or change in use has to be approved by the Rural Land Management Board as well. And if you approve the text amendment before we can use it as a museum, we'd have to go through the Board of Adjustment to have a full hearing before that board on the appropriateness of this use. So this is one step in our journey to get this open as a museum for the public to enjoy. Anyway, as the staff mentioned, we need a text amendment because right now historic house museums aren't expressly allowed in the AR zone. In 2003, you all or your predecessors passed an amendment to allow them in the residential zones, and now we have the Pope Villa and the Tuscan Museum, which are the two historic house museums in the urban area. And at the committees, I know we postponed this last month because we had some concerns expressed by the Fayette Alliance, the Rural Land Management Board, and Mill Ridge Farm about maybe somewhat specifically about our use, but maybe also just in general how this impacts the AR zone in particular. So in doing that, we met with them, and we appreciate the meetings we've had with all three of those organizations, and we came up with an alternative proposal, which I think the staff has handed out to you, and I've got copies to hand out as well. I'm not sure. I didn't see the staff thing that they handed out, whether there's one word in there that we added to it. We, at the zoning committee last week, we had mentioned to you all, there's some discussion, we said we would consult with Betty Kerr, who's the director of the Division of Historic Preservation, on this. And after our consultation with Ms. Kerr, we added one word, and I'm just, that may be on what the staff gave you, but where we said, house will not be expanded beyond its current or documented historic footprint. So that was a suggested change we put in after we met with Betty, adding that word documented in here. But what this amendment does is four things. One, it says that it has to be a responsible entity which operates this because it has to be a governmental entity or a private nonprofit which has obtained 501c3 status. And second, it has to be a member of a recognized museum association. We listed five of them there. It doesn't say you have to be one of those five, but it says such as one of those five, so that the organization operating this is truly a museum organization wanting to do this for museum purposes. And then we have two more things which deal with how the property is used itself. The first is it cannot be expanded beyond its current or documented historic footprint. And finally, all activities and events shall relate to the educational mission of the governmental or nonprofit entity which is operating it. So with those changes, which was a compromise between the discussions we had with Fayette Alliance and the Rural Land Management Board and Mill Ridge Farm, I think all parties got comfortable with this language. Our board felt that we could operate the museum under these guidelines in the way that they wanted to operate it, and I think those other organizations are comfortable with it too. They're here. They can speak for themselves as well. So that's how we arrived at this, and this is what we did present to the zoning committee with that addition of the one word after we consulted with Ms. Kerr, the director of the Division of Historic Preservation. So we thank you very much for your consideration of this, and we're real excited about this opportunity. We think this house is potentially as important to the rural area of Fayette County as the Mary Todd Lincoln House is to the urban area of Fayette County, and it speaks to the same era. It's very interesting, the interplay between those two houses that we have here. And, of course, the foundation is experienced in operating a house like this. They've been doing it for a number of years. and they have a good record here. I think they don't get a lot of publicity. They sort of fly under the radar, and I think that shows what a good job they're doing. They've done a good job through the years. They're operating it very well, and it's an important asset to the community, both history and tourism, and we think Helm Place will be as well. So thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Just to give you all a break from Dick, I'm Jack Cunningham. I want to make sure that you all do understand the gravity of the situation. Mrs. Murphy's will provided what's called a conditional gift. That conditional gift for the foundation is that that property be held and operated as a historic house museum. Now, having known Joe and Mary Genevieve for a number of years, I know that they did not anticipate what the foundation would have to do in order to operate as a historic house museum. If that is not accomplished, then because of the condition precedent, then that property will be disposed of by the balance of Mary Genevieve's trust document, which is certainly going to be a loss to this community of a historic house. So I want to make sure you understand the gravity of the situation. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Yes, Knox. Thank you, Chairman. As you all know, my name is Nox Van Ogle, and I'm here on behalf of the Fayette Alliance. And first of all, I would just like to say it's been a real pleasure to work with all of the various stakeholders on this case. It's a win-win, and if I may, I'll just speak for a few minutes on why we believe it is a win-win for everyone. We ask that you recommend approval of the alternative text amendment language that we have before you today. which, if adopted, will allow a historic house museum as a non-agricultural conditional use in the AR zone. We believe that this language strikes an appropriate balance between protecting our signature industries and bluegrass landscape on one hand, while also securing new agritourism opportunities in the rural area on the other. And it accomplishes this balance really in three ways. First, the Texas Amendment establishes operational requirements. Not just anyone can open a historic house museum in the rural area, but rather they must satisfy specific criteria in the Internal Revenue Code and the property must meet the architectural and educational requirements of a bona fide museum association. With this criteria in place, truly significant homes can be legitimately identified as museums for purposes of public education and appreciation, which is important given the environmental sensitivity and infrastructure limits of the rural area. Second, the museum cannot be expanded beyond its current or documented historic footprint. This will protect the historic envelope of the house that makes it significant and worthy of museum status in the first place, while also respecting the 10,000 square foot limit of non-ag uses in the rural area. By operating within this footprint, it ensures the educational thrust of the museum's activities and will minimize potential disruptions to neighboring farms and residences. And third, the rental of these museums for social, commercial, and conference events will be prohibited in the rural area. Only educational activities such as tours, viewings, and organizational meetings or symposiums would be allowed. However, fundraising and social activities may be a component of these educational events. This provision is key, as party museums in the rural area would not only undermine the 140-plus banquet and wedding rental facilities already doing business inside the city, but also they would threaten the pastoral setting and infrastructure in place that support ag enterprise in the rural area. And why is this important? As you all have heard me talk a lot about, Fayette County farmland is different than most in the entire world in that it is an active landscape teeming with valuable yet fractious horses and livestock. This scenario is our international brand, but it is also a sensitive one, vulnerable to traffic, noise, trespassers, waste, and water quality issues created by intensive development. Therefore, while we want to create additional agritourism opportunities in Fayette County, such as historic house museums, trails, and others, it must be done carefully and in a way that first respects the needs of our signature industries and brand we want to celebrate. By starting from this vantage point and honoring the Rural Land Management Plan's fundamental recommendation that, quote, principal permitted uses in the rural area be those associated first with agriculture and non-ag conditional uses be kept to a minimum, we will strengthen, not endanger, the proverbial goose that lay the golden egg here in Lexington. In so doing, we can continue a land use tradition that attracts international investors the world over to buy our priceless state county soils for raising exceptional horses, livestock, and food, an enterprise that contributes $3 billion annually to our regional economy and supports over 20,000 local jobs. After requesting postponement of this issue a few weeks ago, all interested parties worked together in good faith to draft the alternative text amendment language before you today. We believe it achieves a win-win for the entire community. It affords rural historic museums viable business opportunities while also safeguarding the needs of neighboring farms. From an administrative standpoint, the proposal also makes a lot of sense, because it clearly and uniformly regulates historic house museums in the rural area at the zoning ordinance level, and not on an inconsistent, perhaps, case-by-case basis at the Board of Adjustment. Attempting to regulate social and commercial events at the Board of Adjustment will put the legal and financial onus on Fayette County farmers to negotiate with museums on throwing parties. County-wide farmers do not have the time nor the resources to be in the party planning business and simply put farmers and area residents would have to defend themselves every time a museum wanted to rent its facilities for social events and this condition would jeopardize Fayette County status and marketability as horse capital of the world all in conclusion the Fayette Alliance is very proud of the alternative text amendment language that is before you today we have we're we're proud of it we're very thankful and grateful to have worked with the museum foundation and the rural land management board on this proposal and we respectfully request that you recommend its approval thank you very good thanks uh yes Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. As you know, I'm Billy Van Pelt. I'm here today representing the Purchase of Development Rights Program and the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board. As outlined by the previous speakers, we've been working together on the alternate text for the Historic House Museum. I'm here today to support that text amendment and to speak specifically to the Helm Place project, but to also address the countywide implications of the text amendment proposed by the staff. The proposed text amendment from the staff does not comply with the terms of the PDR conservation easement on Helm Place or any other PDR conservation easement. With regard to Helm Place, the Rural Land Management Board would have to withdraw their approval of this historic house museum if the staff-recommended version is approved. The Rural Land Management Board approval is based upon the text amendment that is proposed by the applicant and supported by the Fayette Alliance. And thank you for putting my slides up there. As you all may know, this is Carrick House on North Limestone. This is on the corner of North Limestone and 3rd Street. And this is a social special event facility. This is the historic core of the house. The first floor is roughly 4,500 square feet. The second floor is roughly 4,300 square feet. This is the addition from the historic structure to the left of the frame and then moving across to the right. This is approximately 9,000 square feet. So this will give you some perspective on what a potential 10,000 square feet looks like because if you have a relatively small historic house in the rural area, you have the ability to expand that by up to 10,000 square feet. I just wanted to give you some sense of what that looks like. And then in the final slide, you can see the parking required and the depth of that structure. So I think the takeaways here is that with the current historic house museum definition and the text proposed by the staff, special event uses become primary, with the agricultural uses becoming secondary. and secondly the expansion or the potential expansion up to 10,000 square feet becomes primary and the historic value, the historic structure and the historic context becomes secondary and I just want to reaffirm that we have worked very well with the Mansions Foundation and the Fayette Alliance we're very proud of what we've done to get a win-win for the entire community. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Headley Bell, and I'm the managing partner of Mill Ridge Farm. I come here today supporting this text amendment and supporting everything that these various organizations have done to bring us together. We presently lease approximately 130 acres, which surround the Elm Place. And we are the ones who will be impacted the most with this change. You would never find any better neighbors than Mr. and Ms. Murphy. And the generosity that they're suggesting here with this gift indicates what tremendous people they truly are. but I come here today just to endorse it to say that we have leased this land since 1985 we have put over $400,000 worth of improvements in the land we run approximately 1,100 acres in this proximity and this is a vital part of our land and our farm and we look forward to working in the future with Mr. Cunningham and with the Museum Foundation. And thank the rural land management for all that they have done, as well as the Fayette Alliance. Thank you very much. All right, thank you. Anyone else? Good afternoon. I'm Betty Kerr, Director of Historic Preservation here with the Urban County Government. And as Mr. Murphy mentioned, they, after meeting with the subcommittee with you all and working with the various partners, Kentucky Mansions and all the ones that have already spoken, came and brought to me in my role as preservation officer this alternative text amendment to review and provide comment. and as has been indicated to you, we did so by adding all of one word, but I think a substantive word perhaps in terms of the interpretation of this. So from the historic preservation perspective of our efforts here in the city and as the party who oversees the H-1 process that Helm Place is participating in and has for many years, it's been an H-1 overlay property and is, as has been said, our only rural H-1 designated property to date since 1990. The Murphys were unbelievable protectors of this property and really have, as everyone has indicated, made a tremendous gift to our community and to central Kentucky by making this possible. So I would urge you, as well as you have already been requested, to support this alternative text amendment for adoption tied to getting this an allowed use, or a conditional use at least, possible in this zone. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this in the audience? All right. We'll close the hearing and turn it over to the Commission. I'm sorry. I had a question for Mr. Murphy first. What kind of timeline are you on in terms of needing this approved before you would lose the House? Well, it's very quick. I know that. Jack may be able to speak to that better, but I don't think there's a cast-in-stone deadline, but we know we must act extremely quickly on this one. I don't know if you can answer this question for me, but the organization that you're representing also runs the Mary Todd Lincoln House. Yes, that's right. Is that a self-sustaining? Do they do fundraising, or do they, you know, just based on the admission they charge, are they able to maintain the house? We would like a contribution for each one of you all for the continuing maintenance of the Mary Todd Lincoln House, and that would be very welcome. I think I'm correct, and you all correct me if I'm wrong. We get contributions, donations from people. I don't think they could run it alone on the admission that they charge to come there. All right. Any other questions? Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no question. I've got a statement, though. I've been sitting here listening, and I think I've counted six different entities that's come up and spoken in regards to this at this moment. We might have to bring custodial staff in to get anybody else. After hearing this, to begin with, we've got the wishes of one family. However, recognizing that this is a zone-type text amendment, I do think that it's appropriate for the entire AR zone, recognizing that there's many possibles that could occur in other parts of the agricultural zone, which would be similar to this. I've got, you know, the farm I take care of has got four different pieces of property, I think, that would fall in that category. So I do think it's appropriate. As far as the Board of Adjustment, I'm not speaking for them by any stretch of the imagination. Having served on it, I do like definitive-type guidelines to go with. and I think the language that's been proposed as the alternative would be appropriate. And kind of, I guess, in closing, I would just simply say I appreciate everyone, as I said, and you never know the custodial staff might come into this, but everyone that has come together and worked so hard on this language in a fairly short amount of time, it seems like. So with that said, when time comes, I would be voting in favor of the alternative text and willing to make a motion when everyone's finished. Okay. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Brewer's next. I'll always defer to Frank. All right. Go ahead, Frank. I hope that's on age. As I looked at this, farming out on the north end of Lexington, I've sat here just while you all have spoken and thought of 20 different homes that could very well be used as historic museums. Very period-directed homes, very well-maintained homes, very majestic homes. My concern for this whole thing is that we do this right. This is the first text amendment that we have brought forward that addresses this to the AR zone. And it's a very precious zone for us. It's our brand. It's our signature. And I would hope that this could be adopted in the alternative text situation. I'll certainly be voting that way. But the main thing I want to impart on you today is the fact that we're starting in an area here that we really need to look at. They won't all be historic homes, but they're all very well-maintained, very nice homes. And we don't want to try to create a situation where, in a short-term view, we can make a few dollars, but in a long-term view, we really hurt the goose. And I'll be supporting the alternative manner for that, for those very reasons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, thank you. Well, I'm going to be very short here because I'm going to echo. I'm not going to echo it. I agree with what's been said. The thing that I do want to point out is I think, at least in my experience here, it's unprecedented how we've had two potentially very contentious issues. The work has been done. The spade work has been done. I applaud everybody in this, dealing with this issue as well as the previous one. I find it just fantastic that the various parties got the issues worked out in advance. I think what has been said as far as the alternative language is spot on. Anything that risks the PDR program in a way I think is threatening. I was really kind of laughing at Knox's comment about the farmers going into the BOAR hearings all the time. I hadn't thought of that, but that's really true. People would have to do that. So I'm in full support of the alternative language. Very good. Okay, Ms. Blanton. I've got a slightly different perspective, and I don't want to hold up this particular house museum, but I think if we're thinking that this is going to be agritourism that's going to help protect our land, that we're fooling ourselves. I mean, if the Mary Todd Lincoln Home cannot stand on its own in terms of bringing money in to be self-sustaining, this is not going to be a revenue generator for our agricultural community. And I think as we look bigger picture at the comprehensive plan and updating the rural land management plan, that while we need to preserve that rural character, we also need to be thinking about tourism, agritourism, that really can bring some money in. And, you know, doing wedding receptions once a month on agricultural land is a heck of a lot better than subdividing it into 40-acre lots. So I think we've got to be realistic, mindful of the rural character, but do what we can to help those farms that are not doing well to not go into foreclosure and not want to be subdivided into 40-acre lots. Thank you. Very good. Ms. Copeland? I hope I get this right. My parents were really good friends of Mr. and Mrs. Murphy. They partied together. Mr. Murphy sold cars to my father, and Mr. Murphy kept a sharp eye on me as I was going through high school to make sure I behaved. But they were a class act and a very elegant, refined, southern gentleman and his wife. I knew Mr. Murphy much better than Ms. Murphy. But this is a house that had parties with julep cups and spring water and mint that they grew on the farm. Just lovely people. And they were very open and shared their property with many people. Their Christmas cards were outstanding. They would be happy with the alternative text. I don't think they want a circus-like atmosphere at their house. I support the alternative text, and Mr. Murphy, I hope I got this right. All right. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? Mr. Chair, if the Commission is ready for a motion, I'm ready to make it. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the alternative text amendment to Section 8-1, parentheses D, for conditional uses in the AR zone, and this is the alternative text amendment that was presented by Mr. Murphy. Second. Okay, we have a motion for approval, and Mr. Wilson's seconded, and that's to the ZOTA 2011-1C. Very well. Everybody vote when we can. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we've got one other item. Is Mr. Murphy staying around for this one also? Oh, no. We've got next we have the VOAR 2011-1. one afternoon this is the first one of these we've had in a while this is on page six of your agenda. It's item B under commission items and it's BOAR 2011-1. It's an appeal made by Mr. James Johnson for property at 615 Boonesboro Avenue which is in the Belcourt Historic District. It's kind of difficult to see but on the map it actually shows that the district is shaded in gray but it's basically around like this and it goes down to Main Street and comes around to Walton Avenue and around like this. Here is the property right here. That's 615 Boonesboro Avenue. And the BOAR denied this certificate of appropriateness on August 10th. It was a request to paint previously unpainted brick walls on a house. Two of the walls, the front and the rear walls, are painted already. The two side walls are not. and this is a one-and-a-half-story brick residence, and as I said, the front and the rear are painted and the sides are not, and the sides include the chimneys. In mid-July, the historic preservation inspector was going through Belcourt Historic District, and she noticed that painters were starting to cut in around the edges of windows and the foundation to paint the house, and she told them to cease because a certificate of appropriateness was needed to do any kind of exterior work on this, and they hadn't applied for that. This was on a Friday afternoon. The following Monday, the applicant, who is also the owner of the property, came into the Historic Preservation Office and requested a certificate of appropriateness to paint those two walls in the chimneys. This went to the BOAR on August 10th, and they unanimously disapproved it, and they cited one specific design guideline, which was 1.3.h. But we've got several photos. The Historic Preservation Office has several photos of this property, either around the time or before the time and even after the time that Belcorp became an historic district. One was dated in 1980, and that showed the front of the house being painted. Some of the photos show the rear of the house being painted, but the two sides have never been painted. And this is significant because it explains the situation that we have here today, because generally when an historic district is implemented, what is existing on a property is grandfathered in. And so that pretty much determines what can be done to the property in the future. And Ms. Kirk can explain that a little bit better, but that is generally the case. There were five design guidelines cited in Historic Preservation's report to the BOAR, and those are listed on page two of your staff report. And one of those is that brickwork that has never been painted should not be painted. In Mr. Johnson's presentation to the BOAR, he said that he had painted the two walls in anticipation of the H-1 overlay. And for whatever reason, he didn't finish the job, but he said because the house is one house and it had four walls, just because two of the walls were not painted does not mean it's not a painted structure. So theoretically, if that was the interpretation of the BOAR, that would allow the other two walls to be painted, but it wasn't their interpretation. and the BOAR chairman actually said in the meeting that that is one interpretation of this design guideline. There's a second interpretation that's more restrictive, and that was the interpretation that the BOAR and the staff made, and that is that the design guideline applies to individual walls of a structure, not just the structure itself, and that would not allow any additional paint to be put on it. Mr. Johnson said that years ago, after he painted the house, after he painted the two walls, he moved away and the house was rented for about 10 to 12 years and the people that lived in the house tried to remove the paint and since then he's moved back and he would like to finish what he started although he would like to change the color of the house that's got it has had two different colors on the house now one was blue and then the color that's on there now is green but the tenants attempted to remove the paint and I'm not sure how successful it was but he would like to repaint and the two walls the front wall and the rear wall are currently painted and he would like to repaint and make all four of the walls match of the design guidelines the five design guidelines that were actually cited two of them are really applicable 1.3.h and 1.3.i and one says that brickwork and masonry that has never been painted should not be painted and the other one says the brickwork and masonry that was historically painted should remain painted so it seems to cause a conflict in this situation and at the BOAR meeting, there was some discussion among the members, and they ultimately determined that 1.3.H should apply to individual walls, and because of that, they turned his application down. And we looked at the record of the case, and there are no flaws in the review by either the staff of the Historic Preservation Office or the BOAR. They did what they were charged to do, which is to interpret and apply the design guidelines as it applies to painting this house. But because these are design guidelines, they're subject to interpretation, and even though they're subject to interpretation, sometimes they're not as clear as others. Other times they're very clear in this case. Because we've got two walls painted and two walls unpainted, they seem to conflict, and it's not as clear-cut a case as it usually would be. The only way to get the walls to match, there are two ways to get the walls to match. One would be to paint all four walls, which would be in violation of 1.3.h, and the other would be to take all the paint off of the walls, which would seem to be in violation of 1.3.i. And I'm not sure if that is actual or not, but that seems to be the case. And if all four walls were the same, rather than having two walls painted and two walls not painted, that would contribute more to the whole character of the neighborhood, the overall character of the neighborhood, than having two walls painted and two walls unpainted. As I said, the front and the rear walls have been painted twice. First time was blue, second time was green, and to remove all of the paint would be very difficult, it seems, and it would be very costly, and it's not guaranteed that all the paint would come off, and it's not also guaranteed that all the walls would match once the paint was taken off, and to leave the brick intact as it should be, it seems to be very, very abrasive to the structure itself. So, based on the record of the hearing, there are two distinct interpretations here. One is what, well, it would be according to what should constitute a painted structure, and then what should be the desired outcome here. And the BOAR and their staff took the more restrictive approach in that it applied to individual walls. The applicant took the more general approach in that once two walls are painted, then the house should be considered painted. And when there is an ambiguity such as this, a clear ambiguity, or when there's an ambiguity that clearly exists in a situation, then case law says that it has to be construed in favor of the property owner. So based on this and based on the fact that in this case, having all four of the walls match in the conflict that is between 1.3.h and 1.3.i, It seems that we can accept the applicant's interpretation of the design guideline and recommend approval for his appeal here. And we've got two reasons for a recommendation, and those are listed in your staff report. Although the denial of a certificate of appropriateness by the Board of Architectural Review was consistent with the charge in interpreting the design guidelines established by the Local Historic Preservation Commission, specifically Guideline 1.3.h, as it applies to painting the remaining two walls of the residence at 615 Boonesboro Avenue. In this specific case, it seems that the overall character of the entire neighborhood-slash-historic district outweighs maintaining the architectural integrity of two walls of an otherwise painted residence. And the second is, given the two valid interpretations of Guideline 1.3.h, and given legal deference to the property owner in this matter based on case law, A more general interpretation of the statement, brickwork and masonry on a structure that has never been painted should not be painted, can be supported rather than brickwork or masonry on a surface that has never been painted should not be painted. And like I said, we've recommended approval of his appeal. Mr. Johnson is here, and Ms. Kerr is here to present their case. If you have any questions, and she can answer any questions as far as interpretations or anything like that. Okay, very good. Thank you. Greetings again. I'm Betty Kerr, Director of Historic Preservation. Amelia, who is our preservation inspector, is handing out to you some various materials about this that are the bit of the record, minutes and so forth and so on. And then the second piece is the segment of the design guidelines that are specific to masonry and painting and so forth. and I will submit for the record all the minutes and so forth and so on, the guidelines. And I brought a full set of the design guidelines. I don't know if you want those, but I'd rather you not. We'd rather not kill the trees. we did bring the photos that Ms. Rackers mentioned are part of our archives an ongoing file that is created as these cases come forward as you can see beginning in 1980 we have a number, it's interesting we have a number of increments of time represented with this house That is not always true, but we're very fortunate there are as many images of it in our files as there are. In this image, the larger image shows you, and you can't see the detail too well in this light, but that the, can this be enhanced at all? Can you manipulate that a bit if you would? But what it shows you is that the only portion of the house painted in 1980 is under the front porch roof, the front porch expanse. Outside of the columns that form the outer edges of the front porch, the paint is not applied, and so there's a little portion on each end of the front elevation that was not painted, and then the remainder of the body of the house. The area does become the historic district in 1990, and in 1989, you can see from this image, it's the house on the right, the gray-blue color, that they have painted the front only to include outside the columns of the porch. So that's the additional territory on the front that gets painted. Side walls continue to remain unpainted, and the chimneys, of course, as well. And then in 1990, you'll see that the property, I assume this is a tenant. The owner said that they didn't remove the paint, but that somebody who lived in the house took the paint off of the front under the porch area, leaving the outer pieces between the column and the outside wall on both. And then the next image shows you the rear of the house in 1992. This is not the gambrel roof house. We were photographing this because of parking and driveway situations, So that's why the picture is centered on that. But the house to the right, partially behind the tree, with the painted rear wall and the unpainted sidewall is, of course, the one that you're reviewing today. And that documents that one in 92. In 93, you can see that the front continuing condition has paint with the sides unpainted. And then in 97, this is a more general view of the streetscape. By the way, I would mention while we have this image up, most of the houses on the street are unpainted in their natural condition. I think there's one exception to that. The total Belcourt Historic District has about 155 properties, and we didn't do a formal survey, but I think an educated guess would be that roughly a third of the houses in the area have paint for their surface finish on the exterior, and the other two-thirds are unpainted masonry. And some are clapboard, of course, and obviously are a painted surface. 2001 continues to have the front painted. In 2005, the front area has been stripped again. Part of the paint has been removed. It seems to be an ongoing theme of a tug-of-war about the front elevation, taking it off and putting it back on. In 2007, you can see that underneath the porch area is unpainted. It's a little hard to see in this image, but it is. And then the paint surface is only on the outer edges of the front. Now, the back wall, excuse me, I would say, has continued to be a painted condition throughout many of these time periods. We don't know of any time that the rear wall, once painted in 1980, was stripped of its paint. So I think the story on the rear wall is a 1980 forward that it's been pretty much an existing condition. And then in 2010, under the porch area continues to be an unpainted brick with the outer areas that we have discussed. And then that brings us to the time period when 2011, which is when our inspector Amelia encounters the fact that paint has started to be applied to the side areas as well without the permit and so on, as Ms. Rackers described. She's already mentioned about the design guidelines. For those that work with the preservation guidelines on a regular basis and the design review board, there really is not the ambiguity that might have been suggested, with all due respect to my much respected cohort here at the urban county government, Ms. Rackers. In terms of those guidelines, first of all, be aware, each case is looked at on a case-by-case basis specific to the individual structure that the work is being proposed for, and then is it appropriate for that structure, and then is it appropriate in character for the things that the historic elements further constituting the streetscape and the neighborhood and so forth. But it's always guidelines and these applications looked at at the start and the decisions rendered specific to that which is affected of the immediate house or where the new build is to happen or whatever. The fact that the paint was only introduced to any part of this house circa 1980 is an important part of what is the consideration here, because this is not what you would term a historically painted house. The fact it's had paint on two walls and one on an ongoing basis, one coming and going a bit, since 1982, the present really doesn't constitute a historically painted house. Historically painted usually is one that shows that it's been for decades and decades a painted surface finish. It has lots of paint buildup on it, something that usually has been painted probably within 10, 15, 20 years of when it was constructed. And this house was built about 1915. So I think that's a key thing to keep in mind, because one One of the things that the process is charged with weighing is, has this been the character, the identity-defying feature of this house historically? And history is a longer window than from 1980 to the present. It's not at all uncommon if somebody comes forward, say this entire house was painted in 1980 and somebody bought it last week, and they came and said, I'd like to remove the paint from this house. These same guidelines would be utilized, the two particularly that have been referenced relative to retaining paint on historically painted houses and not painting ones that haven't been. And certainly we've had cases very similar to my example where it's been determined by the Board that the paint can be removed because it's a one- and two-layer paint job that It has only been put on in the last 15, 20, 25 years, and therefore has not historically been part of the identity of this house. And that, I think, is an important thing to factor into these considerations. Now it is correct, of course, that at the time the house came into, along with the neighborhood, under the H-1 process, it brought a mixed message. It has paint on a couple of the surfaces, back and front wall, and unpainted on the sides and those chimneys. But it doesn't suggest that the answer to that is to further what would not be approved, since it is in an area with regulation today. So it's grandfathered in with its two painted walls, but the guidelines don't really want to urge, and you don't see the language in guidelines saying, and if something is partly in violation of what your regulations would approve, go on and further that violation by adding more of it to it. This is a situation that the brick could, should a property owner come along that wishes to remove the paint and unite the house to what is its historic condition, we would argue that being natural brick. This house probably could be cleaned the paint off that brick quite successfully with not a whole lot of effort. It is to say it's a one- and two-layer paint job. It's a very good historic brick. It shows a very hard-fired surface, and professionally we would suspect it would clean up beautifully. So it's not to say the property owner doesn't have the current right to continue right on and have those two painted walls, the front one and the back one. They certainly do. They are legitimately grandfathered in. but is it appropriate to further that condition on what would not be a recommended manner, which is to paint those unpainted walls. The denial of the application by the Board is very consistent, by the Board being Board of Architecture Review, is very consistent with their interpretation of these guidelines in a consistent manner on other similar situations, similar being the topic of historically unpainted brick being painted. It is an unusual situation about the two walls are painted, two walls are not. I'm not going to kid you. We don't see that very often. But the way the board interpreted the design guidelines, as I say, is very consistent with how they've handled the base issue that they are charged with on this in other applications. So I would request that the Planning Commission uphold the intent of the design review guidelines and as reflected in the action of the Board of Architecture Review and deny this appeal. Certainly if you have questions, I'd be glad to answer. Any questions? Ms. Cuffler? Yes, Ms. Kerr. Yesterday I turned on the television and meant to hit channel 2, but I got channel 3, and I was already in the back. I should say I'm sorry already. So the Board of Architectural Review was on, and I was amazed at the talent that is on the Board of Architectural Review. And I think if the planning staff knew who had heard this case and their qualifications, it would certainly give them pause. I mean, how did you get all that talent? Well, we've been very fortunate. we, this community, and those of us who work with the process. The three members that were present for this case, and I think who you were seeing in action last night, all three are architects who very generously, like you all do, donate their time to serve their community. And they do have a lot of expertise, and it's been very rewarding working with the currently seated board. It's always a good group, but I feel we've had a particularly good one recently. Well, let's get specific. There's Graham Pohl. He's on the board, and he is a contemporary thinker. There's Greg Hossfield. He's the chair. I thought Billings was the chair. No, Greg Hossfield is the chair. Okay, well, that's why he talked a lot, I guess. And he's an architect with who? Greg's with GGBN. Yeah. Who? GBBN. Yeah. And then who else heard the case? Mr. Jackson? Ron Jackson was there, yes. And he's an architect. He's a private firm and does freelance work. He works with Gray Construction and others. Is he historic preservation, too? He does all sorts of projects, to my knowledge. I don't know. Okay. And then Mr. Billings is a? He's an attorney. An attorney. So we've got three architects and an attorney, and to get all of them to agree to anything, I mean three architects agreeing on something is pretty big, but then to have an attorney approve it, this is a weighty measure here. But I just want to point that out, that it wasn't just regular people that sit on the Board of Architectural Review. But there's a trend that I think is happening, and that is it's the individual person's right versus because I own the property and how we interpret historical zones. just because something happens in the south on a historic property, say in Charleston, on Catfish Row, where Porgy and Bess was, or in San Francisco with the Painted Ladies, or in Key West, that does not translate to our historic zones because to keep our historic zones authentic, We have to do Lexington authentic. And I've driven by this property twice, and I don't think it looks 1920 Lexington authentic with its current coat of paint. So I support the BOAR decision, and I think we should defer. If we want people of that caliber serving on the BOAR, then we ought to at least give them the respect of their judgment. And so I very much approve of the BOAR judgment. Okay, thank you. Do you have a question? Mr. Chair, I don't have a question, but I just want us to be in order, and I'd like to hear the other side before the commission goes into discussion. Well, we're trying to get to that. Okay. Applicant. Good afternoon. My name is Jim Johnson. I'm the owner of the property at 615. going back to 1980 when we first heard about the preservation historic society a number of us made overtures to our properties to anticipate some of this and I in painting my house or started to paint the house figured or thought to myself that this is enough I've satisfied whatever requirements, and when I'm ready to decide on what I'm going to do, I'll paint the house. It started off blue. I didn't like blue. We had a divorce that forced me to move off for a few years. When I came back, I decided to green, so we started painting it green. I asked my neighbors. They were fine with it. I've got a few letters that are complimenting me on the house. They note that a house painted in the front and the back just doesn't make sense. You've got to have a house of the same color. I can't understand why the house cannot be one color, green. And it started off getting painted. The sides are covered with bird droppings. And it's just a house needing paint. I don't know much more what else to say, but I just decided I wanted a green house. I get along with my neighbors fine and everybody seems to like the new color it's nothing terribly historic about it all those houses are a bit different through that neighborhood there's 32 other brick houses painted a different color that speaks to the content of the neighborhood that we like painted brick hounds there's enough of them there to support that so I'm just here to ask for your help and please let me paint my house that's about all I can say thank you are there any questions Yes, Mr. Wilson. Yes, I forgot, Mr. Johnson, is it? How many homes are in the neighborhood? How many? How many? I heard someone say earlier 130, but I haven't counted them. Okay, I mean, just a rough estimate, about 130? I would guess. And did I hear you say that approximately 32 of them already have painted their houses different colors? I don't know how long they've been painted, but they're now brick-painted homes. Okay, thank you. Okay. Any other questions? I've got a quick question, yeah. So if this is disapproved, they're allowed to keep two sides painted, two sides unpainted, which to me just sounds ridiculous. if we disapprove it. I personally think the regular natural brick would look much better than painted, but again, it's not my house. If we disapprove it, is somebody going to pay for the removal of the paint so that it goes back to the natural brick? Well, due to the fact it was an existing condition pre the area being designated the historic district, the property owner has the right to continue having the two surfaces that were painted at that time continue. And it is a little unusual. I'd be the first one to agree with you. However, the portions that were natural brick and continue to be that until August of this year when they started to paint the whole thing would need to have the paint taken off to return it to the condition it was before they started those sides. Does that answer your question? Well, no, not exactly. I'm trying to get it to the point where it's uniform. I think if I lived in this neighborhood and there was a house beside me that was painted orange on one side and green on the other, I did not particularly like that, or if it was natural brick on one and painted on the other. So I understand that the rules being what they are of grandfathering in two walls doesn't sound right to me. I think if the house was grandfathered in, the house is grandfathered in. With complete deference to what Marie identified. I mean, I've got great respect for those architects. So I tread very delicately here because I don't try to overrule somebody like that. I think they have much more experience and knowledge in this than I ever will. I'm looking at it from the more layman's terms of if I lived in this neighborhood, I would not want to see this house half and half. and if the city is going to prohibit the owner from painting it, I think the city should take on the responsibility of removing the paint and bringing it back to the natural state. Well, and certainly if the property owner elected to do that, a permit would be issued for that to be done. As far as the finance to do it, I certainly am not in a position to commit the urban county government to provide funds. But I think the paint could easily be removed. The paint actually was already off the front porch area, except for those end zones that I talked about at the time they started this paint job in August. And so that has just been applied. And then so there's the back wall and then what they've just put on and then about two feet on either side of the columns. And then, unfortunately, they went on and were cutting in the openings and such at the time the inspector encountered it. So that would have to come off, too, if they elected to unite the House to an original natural finished brick, which is what the guidelines would have be the outcome if all things were even here. By the way, just as a comment, be aware, please, that the H-1 process does not review paint color, just as an aside. Okay, Mr. Paulson. The house has been painted for approximately 30 years. Is that correct? The two walls we're discussing, pretty much so. And you stated that if you were to... With changes, the only clarification, with some periods of time, some years, that the front was not the case. You stated that if he were to apply for a permit to have the paint removed, he would be approved? Correct. And in here in the guy that says brick and masonry that was historically painted should remain painted. My question is, if he sells this house and in 30 years the new owner decides he wants to remove that paint to make it whole, will that then be considered historically painted? Could it have been painted for 60 years? Well, I don't mean to be joking, but I will be pleased to not be the one here to talk about that. I do take your question seriously. Obviously, at that time, it would be an interpretation to be determined within the regulation they're working with. But if it were in the current time period, the 30 years is not enough to constitute it being historic. As time passes, it's hard to predict the future. I don't know how they would interpret it, but I would think that it would come closer to the side of it's not what the house was intended to be, which is a natural finished brick. It made it that way for an awful lot of years, and that was its historic character. Right. I agree. It sounds like his intent, though, 30 years ago was to paint the whole house, and he just didn't quite get finished with it. So my concern is that future owners may be stuck with a half-painted house. I'm awfully glad to say this is the first situation like this we've encountered. All right. Thank you. Ms. Copeland. I don't think that the person who painted the front porch part of the house ran out of paint or never finished his job. That occurred before air conditioning, before television, when people left the inside of the house and came outside and sat on the porch until the house cooled off with all the windows open and cross ventilation. And they made, if you look at the old photograph, they had a railing, and they sort of enclosed a room. Well, it would be a lot cooler and more refreshing to sit on a white enclosed front porch of sorts than it would be to sit on a red brick wall, dirty red brick wall. There, that one. That was typical of houses before air conditioning and porches. And they made no pretense about painting outside. They did not paint outside the right-hand column and the left-hand column. Between the column and the downspout, there was no paint. That was an outside room for that house at that time. I'm sorry you don't have enough birthdays to understand this. But that is a grandmother's porch. Okay. And when they took the railing away, it looks funny. But as long as the railing was there, and if you were back in 1945 or 1950, it was very common. Okay. Anything else on this, Mr. Owens? Yeah. Go ahead. The chair was asking if I have anything. I do have something. In looking at this, it appears to me for whatever reason, part of the house was painted prior to the overlay. And I wished at that time the rest of it had been painted. But with that said, I'm looking at all this as the fact that I'm going with 1.3.1, saying that brickwork and masonry that was historically painted should remain painted. I'm a very uniform sort of guy, and instead of having two painted walls, I'd like to see four painted walls. So with that said, I'm ready for a motion if there's no further questions. I'll move for the staff's recommendation of approval of BOAR 2011-1 James V. Johnson, 615 Boonesboro Avenue for the two reasons stated. Okay. We have a motion for approval to assume to let him paint the whole house. Yes. Okay. Do we have a second? Second by Colin Blanton. Everybody vote? motion carries get your go to the paint store all right i think that concludes our agenda we have a work session next week Okay. Work session next week. Otherwise, we'll have a motion for adjournment. Go ahead. Okay. Meeting is adjourned. I'm out.