# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - March 14, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 14, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2918 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2918?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-03-14 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 22,235 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 March 14, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included seven agenda items, ten motions and votes, and four public comments. The Commission addressed a mix of development and amendment proposals. Three items were postponed: the Distillery District (Final Record Plat), Deerfield Shopping Center (Development Plan), and Sams Property (Development Plan). Four items were approved: Forest Park Addition, Block E, Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 (AMD); Berry Hill Development B-6P Prop., Lots 1 & 2 (AMD); and Scioto Memorial Hospital (AMD). The Commission also denied William Kevin Murphy's appeal of a Board of Architectural Review decision. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Frank Penn, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Carolyn Plumlee, and William Wilson **Absent:** Eunice Beatty, Patrick Brewer, Will Berkley, and Karen Mundy **Late arrivals:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes from January 17, 2013** [timestamp: 0:10:17] Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. Voting in favor: Mike Owens, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Frank Penn, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Carolyn Plumlee, and William Wilson. **Postponement of PLAN 2013-17F: Distillery District to March 28, 2013** [timestamp: 0:11:21] Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. **Postponement of ZDP 2012-76: Deerfield Shopping Center to April 11, 2013** [timestamp: 0:12:25] Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. **Postponement of DP 2013-6: Sams Property (AMD) to April 11, 2013** [timestamp: 0:13:33] Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Penn. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. **Approval of Consent Agenda Items (except DP 2013-24: Scioto Memorial Hospital)** [timestamp: 0:18:33] Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Ms. Roche-Phillips. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. **Approval of PLAN 2013-9F: Forest Park Addition with Revised Conditions** [timestamp: 0:27:54] Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. Approval includes 14 conditions addressing drainage, traffic, landscaping, addressing, tree protection, utilities, and lot specifications. **Approval of DP 2013-11: Berry Hill Development B-6P Prop., Lots 1 & 2 (AMD)** [timestamp: 0:31:17] Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. Approval includes 14 conditions addressing engineering, traffic, landscaping, fire safety, waste management, and drainage requirements. **Approval of DP 2013-24: Scioto Memorial Hospital (AMD)** [timestamp: 0:43:11] Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Penn. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. Approval includes 16 conditions addressing engineering, traffic, landscaping, fire safety, zoning compliance, and floodplain requirements. **Disapproval of BOAR 2013-1: William Kevin Murphy Appeal** [timestamp: 0:208:06] Motion by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. **Recommendation to Board of Architectural Review to Review COA to Incorporate Landscaping Plan** [timestamp: 0:20:40] Motion by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Passed by voice vote with 4 ayes and 3 nays. Voting in favor: Mike Owens, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, and Lynn Roche-Phillips. Voting against: Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and William Wilson. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the board during the public comment period. **Deric Haley** [timestamp: 0:17:17] spoke regarding the Scioto Memorial Hospital amendment. He requested removal of DP 2013-24 from the consent agenda to allow for further discussion, citing the need for expedited review due to construction delays. **William Kevin Murphy** [timestamp: 0:59:11] appealed a Board of Architectural Review decision. He argued that a landscaping condition from 2001 was not properly enforced and that the Board of Architectural Review failed to consider all evidence, including a handwritten note requiring a planting plan. **Dick Murphy** [timestamp: 1:24:41] defended the Board of Architectural Review decision. He stated that the 2012 approval of the deck extension was appropriate, noting that the landscaping condition was met in 2001 and that the applicant had complied with all procedures, including submitting a new landscape plan. **Betty Kerr** [timestamp: 1:49:31] provided clarification from the Historic Preservation Office. She explained that the Board of Architectural Review only reviews what is requested by the applicant and that conditions are only added if they are directly tied to the request, rather than being imposed arbitrarily. ## Contested Items **Enforcement of Landscaping Condition from 2001** A heated discussion arose regarding the enforceability of a landscaping condition that had been imposed in 2001. The core disagreement centered on whether this condition could be enforced despite not appearing on the Certificate of Appropriateness. The appeal involved detailed debate over several interconnected issues: - **Historical records**: Participants disputed what documentation existed regarding the original 2001 condition and how it had been recorded - **Procedural fairness**: Questions were raised about whether enforcing an unlisted condition violated proper procedures - **Board authority**: The discussion examined the role and responsibilities of the Board of Architectural Review in applying and enforcing conditions from prior approvals The nature of the dispute was characterized as a heated discussion, indicating significant disagreement among the parties involved about how to resolve the discrepancy between the condition's existence and its absence from official documentation. ## Distillery District (Final Record Plat) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2013-17F **Outcome:** Postponed to March 28, 2013 The Commission considered the final record plat for the Distillery District during this meeting [timestamp: 0:10:50]. Justin Drury presented the item to the Commission. The applicant requested a postponement of the plan to allow for additional time. The Commission granted this request without objection from either the audience or Commission members present. No specific concerns or substantive discussion of the plat details were recorded during this agenda item, as the focus was on accommodating the applicant's scheduling needs. ## Deerfield Shopping Center (Development Plan) **Identifier:** ZDP 2012-76 Mr. Martin presented the development plan for Deerfield Shopping Center [timestamp: 0:11:55]. The applicant requested a postponement of the plan review. Following this request, the Commission proceeded without objections from either the audience or Commission members present. **Outcome:** The plan was postponed to April 11, 2013. ## Sams Property (AMD) (Development Plan) **Identifier:** DP 2013-6 **Discussion Summary** Mr. Martin presented the Sams Property development plan amendment to the Commission [timestamp: 0:13:00]. The applicant requested a postponement of the item to allow for additional time before proceeding with the review. **Outcome** The Commission voted to postpone consideration of the Sams Property (AMD) (Development Plan) to April 11, 2013. The postponement was granted following the applicant's request, and no objections were raised by either audience members or Commission members present at the meeting. ## Forest Park Addition, Block E, Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 (AMD) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2013-9F The board discussed and approved the Forest Park Addition, Block E, Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 amendment proposal [timestamp: 0:20:10]. Key speakers in this discussion included Mr. Martin and Dick Murphy. The plan was approved with revised conditions. The approval required two specific modifications to the proposal: - The non-conforming structure on Lot 1 must be denoted on the plan - Lot geometrics must be addressed The outcome of the discussion was approval of the amendment with these conditions incorporated into the final plan. ## Berry Hill Development B-6P Prop., Lots 1 & 2 (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2013-11 The development proposal for Berry Hill Development B-6P Property, Lots 1 & 2 was discussed and approved during this meeting. [timestamp: 0:29:03] **Key Speakers** Ms. Cull and Brandy Martin presented on this agenda item. **Outcome** The plan was approved with 14 conditions attached to the approval. **Conditions of Approval** The approval included requirements addressing: - Resolution of drainage issues - Compliance with tree canopy requirements ## Scioto Memorial Hospital (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2013-24 **Type:** Discussion **Outcome:** Approved The plan for Scioto Memorial Hospital (AMD) was presented for consideration [timestamp: 0:31:57]. Key speakers on this item included Mr. Martin and John Hill. The applicant requested expedited processing of the plan. In response to this request, the plan was approved with 16 conditions. Notably, the approval excluded the requirement for Technical Committee review, which would normally be part of the standard review process. The plan received approval by the decision-making body at this meeting. ## William Kevin Murphy – Appeal of Board of Architectural Review **Identifier:** BOAR 2013-1 **Outcome:** The appeal was denied, upholding the Board of Architectural Review's decision. A subsequent motion was made to recommend that the Board review the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to incorporate the landscaping plan. **Key Speakers:** - William Kevin Murphy - Dick Murphy - Betty Kerr **Discussion Summary:** The meeting included discussion of William Kevin Murphy's appeal of a Board of Architectural Review decision. The appeal centered on matters related to a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated landscaping plans for the property in question. Following the presentation and deliberation on the appeal, the body voted to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the original Board of Architectural Review decision. However, recognizing the landscaping plan as a relevant consideration, a motion was subsequently made to recommend that the Board of Architectural Review review the Certificate of Appropriateness with the intent to incorporate the landscaping plan into the approval. This dual outcome—denying the appeal while recommending further review of the COA with landscaping considerations—reflected the body's position on both the procedural appeal and the substantive design elements at issue. [timestamp: 0:43:41] --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of minutes from January 17, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Postponement of PLAN 2013-17F: Distillery District to March 28, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Postponement of ZDP 2012-76: Deerfield Shopping Center to April 11, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Postponement of DP 2013-6: Sams Property (AMD) to April 11, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of Consent Agenda items except DP 2013-24: Scioto Memorial Hospital - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of PLAN 2013-9F: Forest Park Addition with revised conditions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of DP 2013-11: Berry Hill Development B-6P Prop., Lots 1 & 2 (AMD) with 14 conditions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of DP 2013-24: Scioto Memorial Hospital (AMD) with 16 conditions, excluding condition 17 - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Disapproval of BOAR 2013-1: William Kevin Murphy appeal - **Motion** — passed (4-3): Recommendation to Board of Architectural Review to review COA to incorporate landscaping plan --- ## Full transcript Cause here I go again I love you I love you I love you. I love you. I can't explain, I can't explain. I can't see. She gave me more, she gave it all to me Now baby, what's wrong with that? I need to know Cause here I go again I love you I love you Love doesn't come in a minute Sometimes it doesn't come at all I only know that when I'm in it It isn't silly Love isn't silly Love isn't silly at all, baby How can I tell you about my loved one? How can I tell you about my loved one? How can I tell you about my loved one? How can I tell you about my loved one? Thank you. guitar solo Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Actually, both clocks say it's a little bit after 1.30, So this is March 14, 2013. I will call this meeting to order. First on the agenda would be approval of minutes from January 17. I believe there is a revised version that was sent to you by e-mail. If there's any other changes, please let it be known. Otherwise, we can entertain a motion for approval. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded for the minutes of January 17, 2013. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon. I'm Justin Drury with 2020 Land Surveying. If you'll turn to page 2, item C, Distillery District, final record plat, 1200 Manchester Street. We'd like to request a two-week proposal. or postponement, I'm sorry, on that plan. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move two-week postponement of plan 2013-17F. Thank you. That would be March 29th? 28th. 28th, thank you. Yes, March 28th. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement until March 28th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martin. Staff does have two items to bring to your attention. The first item is on page two of your agenda. Under development plans, item A, ZDP 2012-76, Deerfield Shopping Center. It's property located at 1949 Nicholasville Road. Staff has received a written communication from the applicant requesting a one-month postponement. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. I move for one month postponement of planned ZDP 2012, Day 76, and I don't have a date. March 11th? April 11th? Yes, sir. April 11th. Okay, thank you. Motion's been made for postponement. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until April 11th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda? Yes, sir. Pardon me, Mr. and we do have one more item the staff does to bring to your attention. It is item B under development plans on page 3 of your agenda. It is development plan 2013-6, SAM's property amended. This is for property located at 2640 Spur Road. We have received written communication from the applicant requesting a one-month postponement. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded for postponement of DP 2013-6 until April 11th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes as well. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, we'll move on to consent agenda items. You do have a consent agenda before you. Mr. Sally, I'll ask you to walk us through that. Gladly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. I am pleased to tell you that many of your items remaining on your meeting agenda today do qualify for consideration at this time for approval on your consent agenda. The first such item appears on page 2 of your meeting agenda, Item B, Plan 2013-16F, Elk Hill Farm. This is a subdivision plat for property located at 4524 Russell Cave Road. This item does require an affidavit for the signposting that's required by the land subdivision regulations. The staff has received that affidavit and the sign was posted more than two weeks prior to today's meeting. The next item on your consent agenda is one, the first of a number of development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. It appears on page 4 of your meeting agenda, item D, DP 2013-17, R.T. Jordan and Manowar Place, also known as Belmont Run Apartments. This is an amended final development plan for property located at 1229, 1232, and 1234 Manowar Place. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, page 4, item E, DP 2013-18, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 5, Lot 7, property located at 1146 Monarch Street. On page 4, item F of your meeting agenda, this plan is also on the consent agenda, DP2013-19, Amendment No. 10 to the final development plan for Brookhaven Subdivision. This involves property located at 2434 and 2450 Nicholasville Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda. appears on page 5, item G, DP 2013-12, an amended final development plan for Morningside Market. This involves property located at National Avenue and North Ashland Avenue. This plan also requires an affidavit for signposting. This affidavit has been submitted to the staff and states that the sign was posted more than two weeks prior to today's meeting. On page 5, item H of your meeting agenda, This item is on the consent agenda as well, DP 2011-91, Red Mile Mixed-Use Development. This plan involves property located at 1200 Red Mile Road. The final item on your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda, page 6, item I, DP 2013-24, an amended final development plan for Ceoto Memorial Hospital. This involves property located at 3051 Rio Dosa Drive. Mr. Chairman, these items can be considered for approval as recommended by your subdivision committee at this time. That would be unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or one of the applicants would ask to have one of these plans removed from the consent agenda to allow further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Saleh. Anyone in the audience wish to pull one of these to be heard? Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Derek Haley with Haley Contracting. I'd like to waive the Ceota Memorial Hospital from going to the technical committee, if at all possible. It's item 17 on that. Mr. Haley, we would get to that question in a moment. You want this thing to be heard then and not approved through the consent agenda? Yes. Okay, thank you. That's Scioto Memorial Hospital on page 6, item I. Anyone else wish to pull one of these items from the consent agenda for hearing? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read with the exception of the last one, Scioto Memorial Hospital. Yes, sir. I'd like to move the consent agenda with the exception of item I, as it's pulled, and to approve the other items on the consent agenda. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda with the exception of Scioto Memorial Hospital. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Our first item that we will hear is on page one. At the bottom of the page, it's Forest Park edition. We'll let the staff set up. And in the meantime, we do have a release and call of bonds before you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move for release and call of bonds. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded before the release and call of bonds on the memorandum dated March 14, 2013. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Let me say real quick, we do have revised conditions that are on a yellow sheet in front of you. Go ahead, Mr. Martin. The item that you have before you is the first item on your subdivision, Plan 2013-9F, the Forest Park Edition, Block E, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. This is a proposal. No. No. Oh, I hear now. There you go. Operator error. We have Elizabeth Street at its intersection with Waller Avenue. This is the corner area at that intersection. The proposal is to subdivide these three lots, or these two lots, pardon me, into three. And I know you all remember the conversation from your ass with you very well, so I won't belabor that. What you see before you is a revised plan consistent with the staff's recommendation that they address the geometrics of this lot, these lots. And what we, the change, the primary change, as you may recall, we recommended approval if they would alter this lot line as you see it today. It was offset on the previous submission. They have made that change. You can see it before you today. the significant aspect of that change is this now becomes a single family lot this will be a single family lot again under the R2 meaning the R1D standards this lot now becomes the duplex lot under R2 it has the square footage it has the frontage and this now can be the lot if they so choose they can develop a duplex on this lot again prior to that they wanted to do it at this location There's already a structure on this lot, I believe, as the Planning Commission is aware, as there is one here. So this will be the location for any new construction at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this plan, as we did before, subject to these conditions that you see before you. I would add briefly that number nine, denote that the structure on lock one is a nonconforming structure that is intended to remain has not yet been clearly denoted on this plan. The structure is there. It's clearly graphically shown as a nonconforming structure, but we would just like to have that clearly denoted on the plan. They have met the other conditions. and staff again as we did at your last as we informed you at your last meeting recommending approval of the subdivision that you see before you be happy to question time i'm a little behind on this one but explain to me there is an existing house there where the duplex is going to go yes sir there is an existing house here and here Now, off the property on this lot, I believe a house was removed by a different owner. So there's a structure here, a structure here. We ask that this one be shown because it is impacted so severely by the building lines that we wanted it clear that it is nonconforming under today's standards. This will be the vacant lot and subject to any new construction. Where will the access be if they build the building? There is a driveway proposed here, here, and here. This is existing. This is existing access to this lot, and this will be a new access point. Thank you. Ms. Phillips? Tom, is lot one the 7,600-square-foot one, the larger? This is now just in excess of 7,600-square-foot feet. I'm concerned about the way that condition 9 is worded. To note that the structure on lot 1 is a non-conforming structure, we know that, that is intended to remain. This is an existing structure. It's been remodeled. It has units in it. This will remain. Oh, that's lot 1. This is lot 1, yes, ma'am. Here's lot 2. Okay. Which does have a structure again as well. And then this is the new lot, in essence, which will have a house built on it. Yeah, it's this was platted actually in 1919 and these building lines were established on the original plat, but all the houses were built in this area. Not in conformance with that building line. Other questions? Mr. Martin, you mentioned access points. Parking is supposed to be behind the house, behind the building line? In the infill and redevelopment area, which this is, all the parking has to be behind the building line. Behind the building line? Yes. Okay. And as we briefly discussed, I believe, at your last meeting, there are limits on the parking in the infill and redevelopment, which are also impacted by the restricted parking along the frontage. So there is maximum parking on these properties. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy, representing the owner of the property. And we did meet with the staff since your last meeting, totally redid the plan. And whereas there was a question before as to whether Lot 3 was an irregular or regularly shaped lot, It is now clearly a very regular-shaped lot. And I think from what Mr. Martin said, that on your yellow sheet notes 7 and 8 can be removed. Is that correct? Because they've been complied with. He has met those conditions, yes. And so 9, as you say, you want to stay on that. So we're in agreement with the conditions 1 through 6 and the 9, which I guess will become 7 now on that. Do you have a yellow sheet? Yeah. Okay. The renumbered. The 7 and 8 you're in agreement with, I presume. Yeah, we've already complied with those on the face of the plant. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, what kind of information can you give us as far as parking at this time? When we met with the staff and are meeting the requirements that all the parking be behind the lot lines, I think most of it is behind the houses actually on that. So we have looked at it with the architect and can comply with all those requirements. Do you have any idea, any knowledge? I presume since you've got three lots, three separate parking scenarios, not one combined crossing lot lines. That's what I'm asking. That's right. They're all three. Each lot stands on its own. Yes. Okay. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing. You got a question first? Ready for a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve Plan 2013-9F with the staff recommendations. I also wanted to thank the developer for listening to us and making the revisions as requested. Thank you. The motion has been made for approval with revised conditions and seconded by Mr. Wilson. No further discussion on the motion. We'll ask for a vote. That motion passes, and I would like to echo the sentiments of Dr. Phillips and of the working and rearrangements of everything on this. Thank you. next I believe is the Berry Hill development you have a revision revised conditions I'll put it that way before you on a pink sheet It's at the bottom of page 3, item C, continuing to page 4. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Yes, we're going to head over to Buckhorn Drive, which is over off the east side of town on Manowar development. We have the Berry Hill development. These buildings here outlined are currently all developed. We're in today for this building here to add square footage to the development. When we reviewed this in front of you all, in front of the committee, the development plan, there were some questions and concerns over some water flooding that are around the property. But since then, the applicant and the Division of Water Quality have worked together, so that's why we have the revised conditions today for Berry Hills development plan. We have the standard sign-offs, one through nine. We are keeping the Division of Water Quality as one of the sign-offs. We have to document the tree canopy requirements, correct plan title, delete note number seven. They have a duplication to label the canopy on lot three. After reviewing that, we believe now we can recommend it for approval. Thank you, Ms. Cull. Any questions? if not applicant good afternoon your name sir brandy martin brandy okay you're in agreement with the revised conditions anything to add okay thank you anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan any further questions from the commission seeing none i'll close this part of the hearing and open up for any comments or a motion. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2013-11 with the 14 conditions that's spelled out by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of DP 2013-11. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Our next would be the Scioto Memorial Hospital D.P. 2013-24 on page 6, item J. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the plan that you see before you is on page 6, item I, DP 2013-24, Ceoto Memorial Hospital, amended. It is an amended development plan. It is property that is located out at Manowar and Ria Dosa. Of course, we've got the Kroger's and the large shopping plaza in the area. We have this area, which is the area of the amendment. This is an associated development with the overall property. On this side of Rio Dosa, I believe you have a treatment facility at this location to get you oriented. The plan is a bit of an interesting plan. This is Richmond Place Nursing Home, an assisted living retirement community. This is, I believe, a memory center. This was an area that was approved in 1997. That was the last time this plan was before the Planning Commission, and it was for approval here. This was originally approved as a conditional use. It came to the Planning Commission because of the number of units that had been approved in this property. Subsequently, when it was amended, it was also to add units to this section, and that was in the 80s. Later on, it came to the board for this, the board of adjustment for this particular use. Now, the original number of units was 165. It was amended to 175. The amendment that you see before you is to amend this use to include 190 units in this facility. It is all interior. There is nothing being done physically to the exterior of the property. It's brought back to you because this body governs the number of units that are allowed in this facility. It is a late plan. it was reviewed by your staff it was recommended by the subdivision committee for approval subject to the conditions that you see before you staff would like to report that we received this revision that you see yesterday afternoon and we did not want to rush through any kind of review at that time the conditions however they have we have had a chance to look at it and they've they've made progress and they've met several of the cleanup conditions that you see on your agenda. And I would add, staff would, that these are cleanup conditions. Much has to do with the age of the plan and just the lack of information that we normally would require in today's environment under today's regulations, as well as just some old information that made it onto the original submittal. And they've made good progress at addressing those items. It is staff's understanding, we'd like to report to you as well, that they have met and discussed this with some of the sign-off agencies that are involved. And with that, again, we understand that, as you heard earlier, that the applicant would like to waive review by the technical committee. As I stated before, there is no work being proposed anywhere but inside the existing structure. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, ma'am. Tom, does the addition of these extra units require any kind of state approval? Under their licensing, they'll have to answer that question. I'm not aware of that. Other questions? Yes, sir. I'd like to know why is it they want to review the way the technical committee? They are here to explain that. I'll be happy to tell you what staff's understanding is. They've started on the construction, and they have construction concerns and scheduling concerns with trying to continue the work, and they're wishing to coordinate the work. There is more than one contractor at work within the facility. So that's staff's understanding of the situation. I'm sure they'll be happy, if necessary, to elaborate on that. Other questions? Mr. Martin, with what you just said, is that putting the cart before the horse a little bit? Again, I would just add that it's all internal work. This is a site plan. There's no issues that we're aware of on the site. They have made effort, once they were aware, to clean up the plan. They've met with some of our sign-off agencies. So I think staff is comfortable to say that's positive development and a positive approach. You got this late yesterday, you said? Yes, sir. But you haven't had a chance to give us a revised conditions? We did not have the opportunity to give you revised conditions. I can state that they have met several, about four or five of the cleanup conditions. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you. Hi. John Hill, Foster Rowland Incorporated. and I'm assisting Haley Contracting with the approval of this plan. I'd like to answer any questions I could that the commission may have. Mr. Penn? Yeah, I want to follow up on Mr. Wilson's comment. Why the late file plan and why the way of the technical committee? Tell us what your – give us a little history of what's going on here. Well, they started, I guess, permitted a couple of the unit transitions through building inspection before it became a planning issue with building inspection. And they were taking two-bedroom units, converting them into one-bedroom units, and that way they'd have one additional unit. And the next time the applicant applied for a building permit, it was known then that it was an increase in the units, and they put a stop on the project. and basically the bid was submitted with the time frame of completion. It was not known to Mr. Haley that there was any issue going forward since he had already permitted a couple of them. And now he's kind of behind the eight ball with the hospital out there. And so we would ask that maybe instead of waiting the additional three weeks, since it's all inside work, if it may expedite his project. So the hospital started out just to do a couple of them and then decide they want to do many of them? I believe the contract, we started with five and got permitted for five apartments to create ten. and when I came in the apartment complex it was it was successful they were able to rent the the price on the apartment on a two-bedroom was their concern so they figured if they could divide them into two apartments and get less money for each but equal what they were out with it being a two-bedroom we're not changing any waste we're just rearranging some things and creating firewalls and two separate dwellings. And to answer your question earlier, this is independent living, building. It doesn't fall under any kind of state-regulated. Thank you. Yes, sir. Just a clarification. All of this then is just a matter of timing? Yes, sir. That's it for the most part? Yeah, yes. Okay. And the time element is three weeks is what we're talking about? He's actually been stopped from doing his promised construction for about three weeks already because, you know, building inspection permitted him the first time. Now he submitted now, so the hospital is, I guess it will be a month and a half behind the end result now. Hold on. I've got one question as far as number 14 revised lot coverage square footage to include proposed 372 square foot addition. I think that came up, and we really didn't get an answer in subdivision. Can either one of you all explain what that is? The last revision was for them to build an outside refrigeration unit on the back of one of those buildings, and the label was still on the plan when it was submitted as a proposed part of the building, and it's now existing. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Yep. Just one question. So there are no exterior improvements to the property, no amendments to the site plan in any way? Not at all. That being said, if the Commission is ready, I'm ready to make a motion. Let me see if there's anyone else in the audience who should speak to this. Anyone else in the audience who should speak to this plan? If not, any other questions, Commission? Ready for a motion, then. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve DP 2013-24 with the 16 conditions recommended by staff, excluding number 17, which would prevent this, eliminate the requirement to go back to technical. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2013-24 with the now 16 conditions. No further questions. I'll ask you to vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next on our agenda would be BOAR 2013-1, William Kevin Murphy at 137 West Bell Court. This is an appeal for a review. you've got information before you on a brown sheet Good afternoon. This is on page 6 of your agenda. It's item A under commission items, BOAR 2013-1, and its appeal made by Mr. William Kevin Murphy for property at 137 West Belcourt. This property is in the Belcourt Historic District and Neighborhood off of East Main Street, and the property itself is a corner lot on the corner of Sayre and West Belcourt. We've got Sayre Avenue, West Belcourt. This is Main Street down here, and this is the subject property right there. The property has about 8,250 square feet, and the residence on there, if you'd put the next one up there, Bill, please, is a two-story residence, and it contains a little over 3,600 square feet. And in 2001, in June of 2001, an addition and a deck on the back of the house were approved by the Board of Architectural Review and then a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued in September that same year. And it's a little bit hard to read, a little bit dark, but this is the addition that was put on and then here is the existing deck. And then in August of this last year, An extension was requested to that deck as part of a larger project that included the deck, patio, and additional landscaping. And the deck had to go to the Board of Architecture Review, but the patio and the landscaping were approved by staff. This request for the deck was approved by the BOAR on November 14th, and Mr. Murphy is appealing that decision. This is the drawing that was submitted. Got the house, the existing porch that was put on in 2001, the existing deck that was put on in 2001. Here is the patio that was just requested, and this is the deck extension that was requested. They've also requested additional landscaping that would go between the deck and the fence. In his letter of appeal, Mr. Murphy said that the BOER failed to recognize that a previous condition requiring approval of a landscape buffering plan had been placed on the approval of the original deck and the extension of the deck is to be attached to that deck. And by not recognizing that previous condition, the landscaping that was installed in 2002 and that was removed for this was in violation of the condition that was imposed in 2001. prior to the hearing in November Mr. Murphy requested by way of an open record to request the record of the 2001 hearing when the original deck was approved and he wanted to see what he believed was an imposed condition regarding the landscaping when the original deck and the other new elements were approved for the site generally when the board approves a change to a property any conditions that they impose are shown on the certificate of appropriateness If an applicant chooses to fulfill the conditions that the board has imposed before the Certificate of Appropriateness is issued, then they don't show up on the Certificate of Appropriateness because they've already been done. That's the case in this case right here. The applicant had fulfilled the conditions before the Certificate of Appropriateness was issued in September. There aren't any transcribed minutes of the 2001 hearing, but there is an audio recording, and that provides right now, until the minutes are done, the official record of that hearing. And in that recording, the Board's discussion and their action reflecting the staff's recommendation state the staff's conditions that all exposed would be painted or stained and that the details of the porch railing be provided to the staff, which was done. And then they added two conditions that the deck elevation be lowered in order to not require a guardrail and that the staff review and approve a landscape plan for the property, and that was done. Those plans were submitted to the staff prior to the COA being approved, and that allowed the permit to be issued without the conditions to be stated on there. Mr. Murphy was at the November hearing in 2012, and he asked for clarification from the board regarding the applicability of that one condition that was imposed regarding the landscape plan. because the trees had already been removed at 137. Belcourt, Mr. Mrokey lives at the property next door to 141, or he lives at 141 and this is at 137. And the trees were removed so that the deck could be extended, and he believed that that was in violation of the condition that the board had imposed. He asked the board to come up with a solution to make the deck more compatible with this property because he felt that this increased size of the deck was going to result in an increased level of an invasion of privacy that he felt that he was already experiencing. Mr. Scott Campbell, who is the property owner's landscape designer, was present at the 2012 hearing. He responded to the board's questions about any landscaping and the plans that were proposed. And he said that the trees that are proposed between, which along here I do believe, are tall, they're fast-growing, and they're columnar-type trees that would provide a green fence, and they're easily pruned and managed, and so they could be made into basically a green fence. They would grow tall enough to provide a good screen. And they are longer-lived plants than the redbuds that have been removed. And I believe the redbuds, I'm not sure, but I believe the redbuds were along here. I'm not positive about that, but I think that's the case. but their lifespan is longer than the red buds that have been taken out and they would provide a good screen for the property. There was a long discussion between Mr. Murphy and the board regarding these issues and he again contended that because the trees were required in 2001, they shouldn't have been removed and it was in violation of the condition that was imposed by the board. But if you take that interpretation to its logical conclusion, if that's the case, then nobody can make any further changes to a property if the board has approved something, and that's not the case. And the chair said as much in the hearing. He said that if you go through the proper channels and you get board of architectural approval or even staff approval if something is minimal, then changes can't be made to a property in the future, and it's not set in stone like this would imply. And in this case, as far as the trees go, it was the right of the property owner to remove these trees. Ten inches is the required diameter that kicks in Board of Architectural Review approval, review and approval of trees being removed, and these were only five to six inches in diameter. So it didn't even require staff approval or staff review for this. And one of the board members went on to say that it wasn't a matter of violating or complying with the design guidelines. It was an issue of privacy and noise, and that's something that should be worked out between property owners. It's not something for the board to determine whether it's appropriate or not. And the trees, if they were given the opportunity to grow and mature, they would provide a good screen for the property. And in his final remarks to the board, Mr. Murphy cited the zoning ordinance. There's a section in the zoning ordinance in Article 15 that says that for every inch or for every foot on a property that a building extends beyond 50 feet, then you have to add an inch to the side yard requirement. And Mr. Murphy contended that because the deck extended farther than the 50 feet and made the house longer than 50 feet, then this should be set back accordingly. Well, a deck is a structure, yes, but this section in the zoning ordinance was written to apply to buildings, between buildings and buildings, for air and light space. And it doesn't apply to a deck, the distance between a deck and a fence, or the distance between a deck and a property line. The board acknowledged, and so they understood his concerns, but according to the design guidelines and their interpretation of the design guidelines, this fit any design guideline that was cited by the staff, and they voted unanimously to approve this. There were six design guidelines cited by the staff in the report, and those are listed on page three of your staff report. They're all equally applicable, and they all apply to the location and the method of construction and the development of open space, and the intent is to not be visually intrusive or that they should fit in with the historic district or the individual property. And looking at this, we found no flaws in either the staff's review or the board's review of this case or their decision. It's consistent with their charge in reviewing and applying the design guidelines, and all of the design guidelines are applicable and all of them support the board's decision and we recommend that you uphold the board's decision in this case and the three reasons are listed on your staff report and on your agenda. If you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be glad to answer them. And Ms. Kerr is here, Ms. Armstrong is here, and Mr. Murphy and Mr. Murphy are here. Any questions for Ms. Rackers? One quick question. I heard something early on that the deck, the request was to lower height of the deck. Right. It had been apparently a height that would make it questionable as to whether a guardrail was needed around it, and so they requested that it be made lower, and it was. Do you know what the height of the deck is? I don't, but they can answer that. Good. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, BOAR, who's coming forward? Okay. Okay. Good afternoon. Thank you, Ms. Reckers, for your thorough report. I'd like to enter into the record right now the record, the guidelines, and the article 13 of the zone new ordinance. Since we are recording, name? Excuse me. Amelia Armstrong, Historic Preservation Office. And to walk you through these images here. The contractor for the owner, property owner, met in August to discuss with staff the proposal to construct the patio, the landscaping, and the deck. Staff did administratively issue the work for the landscaping and the patio space. And so here's the property at 137 West Belcourt. And this is prior to the issuance of the deck. And you can see the landscaping. This is the area in question. This is the deck that was lowered, the existing one now, in 2001, so it would not have to have a handrail. So that 2001 references the deck lowering is from 2001, so they wouldn't have to have a handrail across that. It would just have a step to lower down. And then here's a bit closer up view of that deck, and you can see the flags are sort of the indication where the proposed deck was, and that it was previously approved by the board, was to be put in. And sort of here's the location staying from the deck looking into the yard. They had already done some mulching and landscaping at that time. This is the actual deck that is in question, and you can see landscaping was put in along the fence line at that time as well. sort of walk you through the whole yard. The deck did step in from the other deck, as you can see here. And again, another view of the proposed deck. with what you can see in the landscaping in the background. This, of course, is the plan that Ms. Rackers had previously showed. This is sort of the plan of the deck in question. This is the plan that was approved in 2001 that showed when the whole rear addition plus the railings on the front and the rear porch were added, as long as the small deck. This is the area in question. And so the BYR approved the plan. However, the permit wasn't issued, and you can see this in your record, until September because they needed to work out the details and come back with their plan. And that's when the certificate appropriateness was finally issued, and you can see that in the information that's provided. You can see this was in the plan that had come back with the landscaping proposed on the side in these areas. is staff did not view the site prior to the the trees being removed before the landscaping was done in august it was issued it was um pronounced by the applicant in that they were doing a whole new landscaping plan in the back and it's what you saw in those previous images so and to cap The staff and the board both found the deck was within the guidelines and asked that you uphold the BYR decision. And myself and Betty Kerr will be here if you have any questions. Any questions? Yes, yes. Amelia, is there any lighting on the deck? I noticed that there was some louvered lighting that points downward, but is there any lighting on the deck? Not on the deck itself, just where the steps were that you saw. Ms. Plumley? Are those trees still there, the ones that are there? Yes, ma'am. That was taken in January of this year. Any other questions? At this point in time, I think I will go to Mr. Kevin Murphy, William Kevin Murphy, and we'll hear from him. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Kevin Murphy. I do have a PowerPoint that has some additional photographs that I wasn't sure if I was going to need or not, but I would like for this to be a discussion. In addition, I'd like to give a brief introduction, if I may. First of all, I would like to state that it is not my intent to malign any individual, group, organization, or institution by filing this appeal. I've lived next door to David Jones for over 14 years, and I have never had any unpleasant words with him. And then I'd like to just give you a little background on who I am, where I'm coming from, and why I find some fault with this. First of all, I'd like to let you know that I am a licensed architect in the state of Kentucky. I'm also an associate professor. I teach architectural history at Bluegrass Community and Technical College. I've been involved in neighborhood activities. I'm the former president of the Belcourt Neighborhood Association. In 2006, I served on the comprehensive update plan for the urban county government. I'm a former board member of the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, former Hampton Court Neighborhood Association president, former Northside Neighborhood Association board member. Thirty years ago, I was a planner for the Lexington Fayette Urban County government. A little more than that, I was a building inspector for the urban county government. I handled Board of Adjustment, Board of Architectural Review cases. Bottom line is, I want to let you know I support historic preservation, and I have for most of my life. I have three goals today. They can be very simply stated. The first one, and foremost, is to protect my property. Secondly, to establish the validity and enforceability of conditions of approval by the Board of Architectural Review for 137 West Bell in 2001. I think that's the real heart of my appeal. And I intend to show that there are some discrepancies in what you've seen already today. And thirdly, it was noted by Barb Rackers in her staff report and presentation that indeed I did file an appeal with the Board of Adjustment concerning applicability of building codes to this project. and I withdrew that appeal after a meeting with Dewey Crow, the director of that division, and three members of his staff, and we concluded that the best thing to do was to try to initiate a review through this body of the zoning ordinance for the areas that deal with decks, deck extensions into required yards. because even one of the members of the building inspection staff was surprised to learn that day that there's no definition in our zoning ordinance for a deck. There's no definition. So I would like to get to that a little bit later. Okay, I have some exhibits as well that I would like to give you. It reminds me of the old saying, you can't fight City Hall. This gives you a sense of the amount of paperwork and the amount of time that has been generated on my mark over the last five months trying to gather the information that I need to support my review. I have found the number of people in the record. Mr. Murphy, keep handing out. while you're handing out, I just want to mention, one, we need you at the microphone when you're talking, okay? And then two, we do have a 30-minute time limit on your presentation here. I will try to be brief. Yeah. I will try to be brief. As a matter of fact, I have a narrative that I'll try to cut down. Does anybody else need one of these? Okay. Okay. All right. I could just go through the exhibits, but I'm nervous. Okay. First of all, the first two exhibits deal with a little bit of history. If you will look at those, from the 2001 appeal, Exhibit 1 is from when the Joneses requested a room addition, porch addition and deck at the rear of their house. I was not able to attend that hearing. I did write a letter, that's Exhibit 1, dated June 18, 2001, to Ms. Betty Kerr stating my objections. Exhibit 2, which I will get to a little bit later in detail, is a transcript that I prepared from the audio tape that I was able to obtain through an open records request. Which one was that? October, November, January. I've got it noted later on. But I went ahead and prepared that transcript, since there were no minutes from the 2001 meeting, for, in particular, about the four-minute section of that tape that dealt with the motion and the approval of that deck. And you'll note I have highlighted at minute 44, a forced condition was added that staff approve a planting plan. Okay, we'll come back to that. Moving right along, Exhibit No. 3 is the copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued in 2001, and you'll note that there's no condition of landscaping on that certificate. Okay, then we move on to the 2012 appeal. November 14th, I believe, was the hearing. In June of 2012 was when the landscaping work began in the Joneses' backyard. And again, I'm not, well, when you live in a historic district and you awaken one day to the sound of chainsaws, it raises a red flag. So upon hearing and seeing that, I was the one that alerted Historic Preservation Office that indeed there was activity going on over there that I think they needed to look at. So at any rate, that happened. And they required, as a result of that, that the Joneses appear before the Board of Architectural Review for their deck extension. They approved the patio and the walkways and everything else in-house, but they were going to require that they go before the Board of Architectural Review. Well, upon receiving the notice of that meeting, Exhibit 4 is my response to Martin Janacchio objecting to some level of that extension, which is more like a doubling of the deck rather than an extension of the deck. And at that time, frankly, I had not remembered. I'm getting old. It had been 11 years. I had forgotten about any landscape requirement. Exhibit 5 is a letter that I wrote to Martin Genocchio the next day when I remembered it. And I have highlighted in the second paragraph a sentence that reads, However, my recollection is that a condition was placed on that approval, referring to the 2001, requiring the Joneses to submit a landscape plan for approval in order to provide adequate screening of the room addition and deck from my property. Well, by that time, staff recommendation had already been written. They had already recommended approval. When I talked to Martin about this letter, Martin said, well, I'll go check the files. we may have to change our recommendation. Well, that's where we get to Exhibit 6 and 5. Yeah, 5 we just did. And that was because due to a series of inabilities to get a quorum, that first BOAR meeting was postponed twice. The second scheduled meeting, which I believe was, well, still in October, wasn't it? Or was it into November? I can't recall. Well, let me go ahead. On October 19th, I submitted the open records request for specific items to review from the file of both the 2001 and 2012 appeals. That's Exhibit 6. It lists the items that I requested. Page two of that exhibit is the reply that I received from Amelia Armstrong. On October 22nd, I reviewed those documents, only to find that no minutes were available from the June 20, 2001 meeting. No approved landscape drawings were presented to me at that time. And there was no condition on the certificate of appropriateness. So, you know, I was very surprised about that. However, Amelia pointed out to me, and I noticed, that there were notes in the file in the form of letters of transmittal that were handwritten notes by Martin Gianocchio that were sent to the architect on the project. That's Exhibit 7, page 2 and 3 in particular of Exhibit 7, where I've highlighted Martin's handwriting where he sent on page 3 a handwritten fax to Alan Heisel specifically requiring a planting plan to be submitted. Now remember, at this time, I had not seen any planting plans yet. This was all the evidence I had. And going into the November 14th meeting, that was it. I consulted with two attorneys prior to that meeting, and they both told me I didn't have a snowball's chance in you-know-where of getting them to uphold that without a plan and without it being noted on the Certificate of Appropriateness. However, based on the strength of the handwritten notes in the form of those letters, I filed this appeal that we're hearing now of the decision of the BOAR under the requirements of Article 13. Exhibit 8 and 9 are the letters that I wrote to file the appeal and the response that I got setting the date. Well, moving right along. Although I had requested a copy of the staff report for this hearing as early as January 16th, I didn't receive the report until January 30th, the day before the hearing on January 31st. Upon reviewing that report, I noted that reference was made to certain documents that I had not been shown through the open records request process and determined that a postponement of this case was in order to allow me to review the documents. You guys granted a two-week postponement at that time. Well, unfortunately, I had a personal tragedy in the family that is covered with Exhibit 11. We don't need to go into that, which ended up getting another postponement. And again, I'm very sorry for the length of this, but it has gone on. In the meantime, though, I did meet with Richard Murphy, who is the attorney for David Jones, on February 12th. In hopes of resolving this matter prior to the public hearing, Exhibit 12 shows copies of the e-mails and the follow-up letter that I wrote to Mr. Murphy, which was Exhibit 13, confirming that that meeting had occurred. However, the following week, Mr. Murphy telephoned me to inform me that David Jones had no desire to work things out prior to the public hearing. So, the next section I have deals with open records requests, but it's all covered in the exhibits, and I can pretty much skip through those except for one additional open records request that I made that is Exhibit 14. On February 25th, I submitted an open records request to the Historic Preservation Office for documents related to another case in my neighborhood relating to additional landscape screening requirements as a condition to approval. That's that letter, along with some other things. My purpose in requesting these documents was to illustrate the importance of listing all conditions of approval on a certificate of appropriateness in order to assure compliance in perpetuity or until amended. In this example that I pulled, landscaping materials required in 2005 and listed as a condition number 2-4 as screening of car lights at front loop, which is highlighted on the certificate of appropriateness, which is exhibit 15. and the following page are minutes from that meeting where it was approved at the end, and I've highlighted again the motion made by the BOAR adding that condition. Well, that was 2005, that landscaping due to the drought conditions we had died in 2010. I called Martin Genocchio and said, Martin, those screening hollies died. What can we do about that? He said, I'll get right on it. Called them up. They replaced them. There are three beautiful holly trees put back in place now. So there was the enforcement in. Without that note, it wouldn't have happened. Okay, so after some additional searching, Amelia, who was helping me out on this, found the amended plan that showed the screening of the headlights. But it was dated 2004, which was about six months prior to the hearing. So I don't know. That was a discrepancy. Okay. On that request, I also requested a copy of the portion of the operations manual or policy manual of the Historic Preservation Office that outlines the first. Mr. Murphy, let me interrupt you just for a second. You've got about four more minutes on your presentation. You started at 20. Two 20. That's fine. I can finish up then. Exhibit 16 was what I was given in response to why and how decisions are made to place conditions on certificates of appropriateness. You'll notice I have highlighted under Certificate of Appropriateness, it specifically says in the ordinance, The certificate shall also delineate any conditions imposed by the Board of Historic Preservation Officer in approving the request in order to grant the certificate. Okay. All right. In conclusion, obviously this has taken a lot of time. It's taken a lot of effort on my part, on the part of Mr. Jones. I believe it put Mr. Jones in a position of building a deck that is technically in violation of a condition of approval. When you apply Article 13 under Certificate of Appropriateness to these cases, you must ask yourself how conditions can be omitted if they're met. Let logic prevail, as one can assume that a met condition is indeed still a condition. It doesn't go away or would never have had to have been met. The logic makes no sense to me. And then finally, the last exhibit has to do with an email from Dewey Crow based on our meeting back on January 15th. We agreed after that meeting that a more positive approach would be to request as part of this hearing that the Planning Commission direct their staff to investigate possible changes that need to be made to the existing ordinance regarding DEX and propose a text amendment to that effect. Finished. Mr. Murphy, my Kentucky math was a little bit off. I didn't mean to rush you. Wait, if that's the case, I have one more exhibit that I would like to mark as Exhibit 17A. And what it is, is the prelude section in the Historic Preservation Guidelines. And I will read the paragraph that I believe applies. And it says, New construction, either through the addition of rooms, porches, decks, or dormers, or the construction of a freestanding building, should respect the visual and historic characteristics of existing buildings, sites, streetscapes, and the district or landmark. This is accomplished through reinforcement of scale, materials, and overall design of neighboring buildings. New construction that does not necessitate the removal of significant historic fabric is an asset. How much time do I have? Because I do have some images that I think will give a little bit more insight as to what we're looking at. Which time do you need for the images? I could just show five pictures and I'm finished. You're more than welcome to. Thank you. Did you find that? Okay, great. Okay, this is really a modification. Hello? Of the same PowerPoint that I presented in November, what I wanted to point out in that case was that the houses are very close together. The Jones' house does have a nonconforming side yard. There's only four feet. Okay, could you go to the next image, please? Or do I have control of that? Okay, this image was to illustrate over the last eight years the type of landscaping that's been put in both properties. I commend David Jones. He's done a lot of work on his house. I try to keep up with the Joneses, but he's been there a few years longer than I have. I'm working on it. Next image, please. Again, more landscaping. Next image. Okay, the image on the right illustrates from the white fence over what their side yard is on that side. That's the four feet. You can see on the other side, I have a 7-foot setback plus, and in the staff report is referenced the 15-foot landscape buffer that I put in my yard to buffer the original addition and deck. Next image, please. Oh, that's a little close-up of it. Okay. Next image again, please. Okay, this is a rear view, and again, commending Mr. Jones for improving his rear property. This is what the rear elevation of their house looked like in 2002. But if you'll show the next slide, what it shows is the relationship between the views out the back doors of both houses. You can't really see mine that well. But at any rate, it is 90 degrees to the side. Next image, please. And there it is with the addition. You can see my back door a little bit better. Next image, please. Again, more of the landscaping that I've put in over the years. Next, please. And again, a relationship on the left from 2001 and 2012 with the addition next door. Next image, please. And again, a comparison of what's been done, which is an improvement. Next. And more images. Next. And again, some of the same images that Amelia showed, but I have, please, next slide. Some views out my windows on the second floor, but next image, please, and more of my second floor views. Next, next, next, next. Okay, this is an interesting view. It shows the backyard and those trees that we're talking about before they were cut down last summer. Next image, please. This is just another aerial view showing the side yards. Next image and another one next next next next Okay, this is a view taken Back in the fall that shows again the relationships of the house Houses the garage and if you'll show the next image, please the new deck in relationship to that fence and garage Next. Okay. That's it. I wanted to show those images to give you a clear illustration of where things are. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Murphy at this point? Yes. Dr. Phillips? Mr. Murphy, your issue is, if I can just boil it down, the removal of the landscaping offer that was put as a condition in 2001? Essentially, yes. It was, if you'll go back and watch any of the tape from the November 2012 meeting, you will see that the main thrust of my argument was trying to establish that it was a condition and nobody would back me up. And ultimately, my argument was that if indeed condition but there were no minutes and there were no drawings then how could you extend a deck without amending the required landscape plan if the landscaping is there where the deck is now well it's it clearly said the deck stops here well i don't understand why there are no minutes that's i have no idea why that is well if you look at exhibit 15 i have another part of my question Okay. All right. You were concerned about the 2001 landscaping being removed, and those were the red buds that we saw in the 2001. Well, yes. Well, it was unclear what was required in landscaping. Is there not a buffer now? There is a buffer, but there's no condition. In other words, my fear is that, and I don't believe David Jones is going to cut those trees down, but I don't know about the next owner. And again, citing the case from 2005 where there was a condition on the certificate of appropriateness, it was very clear that those trees were a condition, and when they died, they were obliged to replace them. That's all I'm looking for. Any other questions? Not at this point, it doesn't look like. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this at this point? The other Mr. Murphy. The more familiar, is that what you say? I've got some paper for you, too, here. I'm Dick Murphy. This Murphy is representing Jones, and the appellant in this case is another Murphy. That's a little confusing, but I'm representing David Jones, who's the property owner here, who's the one who really has the interest in this, but he's not the appellant. We are happy with the decision that the Board of Architectural Review rendered back in November. But I want to emphasize, we're not appealing the decision. We're happy with the decision that the Board of Architectural Review made. I've known David and his late wife, Pidney, for many, many years. I've known Kevin Murphy for many, many years. And unfortunately, sometimes neighbors don't see eye-to-eye on things, and this is one of the cases. But I want to assure you that David Jones went through all the proper procedures, followed all procedures he needed to to do this. I'm going to go through my exhibits real fast. I've got about five pages there. They're dated January 31st, but that's when the original hearing was scheduled on here. The first page of my exhibits, I have the Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued a couple months ago, November 15th. For the deck, he applied for a deck. The staff signed off on the landscaping and the one other aspect, which isn't relevant, but the landscaping was a staff review issue. The deck was a BOAR issue. The appeal has been taken from the BOAR action on the deck. Here's the conditions that has to be consistent with plans presented and decks band boards to be painted. Next is the building permit that was obtained for the deck before it was built. So that was the appropriate timing on that. Then third page is the Certificate of Appropriateness back from 2002. Now I want to emphasize to you that this appeal is not about the 2002 case, but it has been brought up, so I put in the Certificate of Appropriateness from the 2001 case was issued later. There are five conditions on there. None of them are related to landscaping because they had complied with the landscaping requirement already. Next one is the building permit that was issued to do the elevated deck and the house addition back in 2001. and last thing I have in this handout is just an excerpt from the zoning ordinance where it tells you what you have to get a permit for in the historic district before you can do it. You have to get a lot more permits in the H-1 than you do if you're not in H-1, but they have a list of things you don't have to get a permit for. One of them is painting a house that's already been painted. You don't have to get a permit to paint your house. Another one is pruning trees and shrubbery and removal of trees less than 10 inches in diameter. You can cut down a tree less than 10 inches in diameter unconditionally under the ordinance here. And there are two trees that here were removed. I'll discuss those in a minute. But the ordinance is very clear. You don't need any kind of a permit to cut down a tree less than 10 inches in diameter. So I want to tell you what we did here. David, in his backyard, if you could go to the first photo we had there, this was taken just a few months ago after the deck was built. It had a space, and it showed in one of Kevin Murphy's pictures, a place taken from his second floor, a place where grass wouldn't grow. David wanted to have an area where you could use your backyard and wouldn't get yourself muddy every time you went out there because it was shady, grass wouldn't grow. So he has constructed this, we'll call it a deck, it's just 8 to 10 inches off the ground, it's just a distance of a 2 by 8 or 2 by 10 off the ground to keep it off treated lumber, 215 square feet, 215. That's about 2% of the lot size of this lot. with lots over 8,000 square feet, 215 square foot deck. No railing because the Board of Architecture review didn't think that was appropriate. Essentially, you're sitting on the ground if you sit on the deck, maybe 8 to 10 inches above the ground, but it was put in so they could enjoy the backyard. Going to the second picture, this is another view. I just wanted to show you that there's a detached garage here. This is, again, showing the detached garage, and it does show how close the houses are there. This is the Jones house here. That's Kevin Murphy's house here. That's the next house down there. They're all pretty close together. It's R2. This is a duplex zone, and the density under the comp plan is medium density, 5 to 10 units per acre. So it's a fairly high-density single-family detached area. Going to the next picture, photograph three, which is labeled number three on the back there. We just wanted to show you that the additional deck which was constructed is offset from the part of the deck that was previously constructed once that gets up there. There we go. We can see here that here is the deck that was built under the 2001 permit, and this is the deck that was built just a few months ago. You can see the offset there on that. And the next picture, which I've labeled 3A on the back, this shows the screening along the – this is from the deck looking toward the Kevin Murphy property line. Now, these aren't showing up real well because it was dark here. Along this property line right here, these are a magnolia species. You can see the top of the fence right there. That's a six-foot-tall privacy fence, which has been there forever. And these trees are, these magnolia cultivars are about two feet above the top of the fence there. in the same location. The only difference between 2001 approval and this approval is that in 2001, when he submitted his landscape plan, he had arbovita here, found that the arbovita were not doing real well here and needed to replace them with another species. So he's got in here, this is a magnolia species on here. So same location. It's already eight feet tall. That's the screening along there. Next picture, if you would, but that's not all the screening along here. Back in 2001, now here's the dividing line here. To the right is the Magnolia cultivars, which were in the same location as the Arba Vita were after the 2001 approval. Now, in 2001, nothing was approved down to the left of this property line. But now David has planted, this is a cypress species, down the rest of the property line to the garage down there. So as we speak today, there is twice as much screening along that property line as there was after the 2001 approval. because there was no screening there, no requirement for any screening there, where David has the cypress cultivar. So along that line, half of it's a magnolia species and half of it's a cypress species, but it's all landscaped down that line now. Going to the next picture, this is the drawing from after 2001. This was where the arborvitae were and now where the magnolia cultivar is, right here. Now you can see down here there's no landscaping requirement. That's where now the cypress species is. These two redbuds were removed. They weren't doing well either. Now there are two trees. There's one tree about here. And there's one tree right about here that are planted. Unfortunately, our landscaper couldn't be here, Scott Campbell, who's the one that David hired. Scott is a landscaper. It's Scott Campbell Designs. He happens to live catty corner across the street, so he's very familiar with this. Scott designed this. We think the new ones are a cherry variety, but we're not sure of the species. Scott knows that. He was here six weeks ago, along with one of our neighbors, couldn't be here today. So I wanted to show you the 2001 drawing in which we've superimposed the new deck on here so you can see where the extra screening is along there. Now, we complied to the question before the Board of Architecture review in November. As I said, the landscaping was a staff sign-off in November, which is the case that's under appeal to you today, was was this deck appropriate architecturally? And I want to clarify some of the things that the Board of Architecture Review doesn't get into. They don't get into, for instance, whether the deck meets code, whether it's structurally sound. They don't get into that because that's building inspection. Building inspectors look at that when we go in to get our permit. They don't get into whether there's enough privacy between houses. They don't get into that. That's dealt with by setbacks and all that sort of thing. What they do get into is if you want to change your house, is it architecturally compatible with the historic district? And to make that decision, they look at the guidelines, which were, I think, originally Department of Interior guidelines, which are adopted by the city here as to whether we comply with them. Those guidelines are put on page three of your staff report. There's 100 or more guidelines, but only about five or six of them apply to decks. So the question before the board was, does this deck comply with the guidelines relating to decks? They found that it did. Let's look at those real briefly. First one was decks should be located at the rear of the buildings. Check. We're at the rear. Second one is decks should be stained or painted to match. They want us to leave it natural. It's going to be sealed, but leave natural. Check off that one. Third is decks should be simple rather than ornate in design. Can't be too much more simple than this, just along the ground. They talk about balusters and that sort of thing. The BOAR in this case said don't want any balusters or railings. Fourth is railings should continue the line and spacing of existing balustrades. Well, again, they didn't want any on this one, so they said no. We want you to comply by not having any. Fifth is landscape elements and site elements should not be visually intrusive or suggest a false sense of history. Again, a deck eight inches off the ground is not visually intrusive in this area. Finally, open space should only be developed in scale, use, and character with the site and the local historic district. Again, we covered only 2% of this lot, no railings, only 8 inches above. There was an existing deck there. So we comply with those guidelines, and the Board of Architecture Review agreed and said, yes, you comply and voted to grant us the certificate of appropriateness on there. we seem to be on a semantic question here as to whether the 2001 condition if there was a condition is complied with and should it be carried forward I listened to the tape too and I agree with Mr. Murphy's transcript on his exhibit two if you could look at exhibit two of what he handed you At the bottom of the page is what we get into where he's highlighted one of the BOAR members said, add a fourth condition that staff approve a planting plan. And then on the very bottom, BOAR voice one, well, I think they're going to have to give something overall because they've shown things on here that are not really going into any details. Going on the top of the next page, here's the key to it. so I think the screening should extend from the corner of the existing structure to the edge of the proposed deck from the corner of the existing structure right there to the edge of the proposed deck this is what it was in 2001 and they said that the applicant could submit a planting plan to the staff he did he proposed Arbovita on there Now, does that mean it goes on forever? No, it doesn't, because the purpose of the historic zone, they'll all tell you, and I agree with it, is not to freeze a house in time. Say, okay, you've got to be exactly that way. You're allowed to change your living conditions. It would be very onerous if you could say never change anything about your house. You can make changes, but the catch is, on most of them you have to come back and make sure the changes are compatible with the architecture in the area. For instance, if David had installed windows in 2001, the Anderson Model 3500 or whatever it is, and he wanted to come back in 2013 and put more energy-efficient windows in there, the board wouldn't say, no, you can't, because we put a condition on you that you be the Anderson Model 1500, and you can never change that. They wouldn't do that. They would not reference the earlier case, and they'd say, okay, what do you want to put it in there? Is it compatible with the district? You're allowed to make changes and continuously to make changes as long as it's compatible with the architectural district there. So in 2012, David came back and needed to add on the deck because they didn't want to get muddy when they're in the backyard. He submitted a landscape plan to the staff which showed another species of landscaping where that is and landscaping down the side, which the board approved. Now, I think the question is boiled down to, did the BOAR, the Board of Architecture Review, make a mistake four months ago when they didn't hold David Jones to having this row of arbovita on there? And I think absolutely they didn't, because the ordinance says you can cut a tree under 10 inches, you can change other landscaping without coming back. And I think this case illustrates exactly why the ordinance is that way, because the arbovitae weren't working. You need to change things every once in a while. You need to change species. And so I think this illustrates that, no, the BOAR conditions are not like your conditional zoning restrictions. They are conditions that David had to comply with before he could get a certificate of appropriateness back in 2001. He complied with it again when he put the deck up. And I want to remind you, the only appeal is about the deck today. But I know there's other conditions been raised here. And he's got a different species in there that will work better on there. And part of this is a matter of principle. And the principle from our side is that we don't feel we should be held to any other conditions except ones that everybody else is. In other words, we're fine with the BOAR approval we got in 2012. There were a number of items he had to do. He has complied with all of those. and we understand that if he's going to make other significant changes, he has to come back to the BOAR, but we also understand, like many other people, that there are certain things he can do without coming back to the BOAR. And if you want to start requiring that conditions be in perpetuity in the BOAR, that's where it should be a text amendment. It should be a discussing item for everybody in the community and an historic preservation community as to whether a condition once imposed, which has been complied with and was not listed on the certificate of appropriateness, whether that's something that gets extra life, even if it's not listed on your certificate of appropriateness, and is something that's enforced in perpetuity. Again, in this case, there was no condition about landscaping on our Certificate of Appropriateness. All the board did in 2001 was want to see landscaping in that stretch. They submitted it. They did it. It didn't work. Needed another species there. They came back, submitted a new plan to the staff. Staff signed off with it and did it and put the deck in. So, as I said, we comply with the guidelines of the VOAR, and we feel that David has done everything he needed to, got all his permits, acted lawfully in every step of the way, violated no ordinances, and the incidental result is we're supplying more screening than was originally required in 2001 on this. There's more screening along that line there. So I know you're wearing a different hat today. You're not acting in zoning. You're acting as an appeals board, and your decision is, is the BOAR proper? Did they act properly? We feel very strongly they did act totally properly. And I do want to remind you, hopefully you'll agree with us. Now, if you agree with us, we're the property owner, but if you agree that the BOAR acted properly, you turn down the appeal. The effect of your turning down the appeal is to affirm the action of the BOAR. Thank you very much, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for Mr. Dick Murphy? Thank you, sir. At this point, anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? I'm going to go with rebuttal at this point. I'm going to ask Mr. Kevin Murphy to come forward with any rebuttal if he has any. I do have one or two items. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. A couple of points that I would like to make. First of all, I think it's clear that, as I said in the very beginning of my opening statement, you probably boil this down to whether or not there was a condition in 2001 for the landscaping. And I think that we have kind of seen the historic preservation staff say it was a condition. I think we've kind of seen that the planning staff has said it was a condition, but they're not conditions in perpetuity. They're not conditions that are put on certificates of appropriateness. So maybe they go away. I don't know. But bear in mind, in 2001, if you go back to Exhibit 2 that I showed you, that landscaping was a condition that allowed an addition, a porch, and a deck to be built. Period. Okay. Now, as far as Mr. Murphy's statement goes, there's one or two things I'd like to comment on that. I got a little scatterbrained when you cut me short there. I do have one statement that addresses his comment from his exhibit, number five, about the removal of trees that are of a 10-inch caliper. First of all, let me say, let us not confuse historic plantings, which is what that is intended to deal with, that are part of a plan that is required as a condition of approval. I'm sorry, let us not confuse historic plantings with plantings that are part of a condition, that are part of a plan for approval. And I think that's what we're dealing with here. We're not dealing with apples and apples when we talk about the landscaping that was removed versus historic plantings. Certainly, those plantings weren't 10 years old. They were not historic. But they were a condition for the approval of the room addition, deck, and porch. Okay, secondly, one of the major issues here on this appeal is that this evidence was not presented in November 2012. The Board of Architectural Review was not presented with any evidence except my plea that there was a landscaping condition in 2001. They totally disregarded that in making their approval. Now, if you will go back to Exhibit 16, page 2 of that deals with, let me find it here, I've got it, bear with me, deals with. Mr. Murphy, this is rebuttal or new information now. Yes, it is new information. It's not information that I gave you. I'm asking for you. You've provided it to us. I'm asking for rebuttal on what's been said. You're absolutely correct. The only thing I wanted to point out on the previous exhibit was that there is a clause in the ordinance that if new evidence that was not presented at the time of the previous hearing is found, then the board is obliged, the BOAR, to rehear that case. I just wanted to point that out. Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. Sorry. Thank you very much. Ms. Armstrong, Ms. Kerr, rebuttal? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Planning Commission members. I'm Betty Kerr. I'm the Director of Historic Preservation. To clarify several things, if I may, the reason Mr. Murphy is correct in his last comments in his rebuttal about saying in 2012 that there was no material put forward to the BOAR in their weighing of that 2012 request to extend the deck about a condition, because there was no condition in 2001. That condition was met in providing by the applicant of the planting plan. That was what was requested by the board. I think one thing that's being lost in everybody's interpretations, as this is all talked about, is that this case was very similar to hundreds of cases. This process handles on a regular basis in the sense that an applicant makes a request for whatever items they want to do. and in doing so then the process, staff, board, et cetera, just as you all do, reviews the nature of that request and how it fits into the guidelines and all the things you know. And then both 2001 and 2012 scenarios, the applicant requested the deck, the plantings, and so on. So what the board was reviewing was the applicant's request for a deck, the applicant's request for plantings with that deck, and discussing whether that fits into the guidelines. So the reason it's not a condition to bring forward something that was not requested by the applicant and adding it as a condition, they were reviewing that which the applicant was already electing to ask them to issue a permit to allow, including plantings. This process, the H-1 process, does not order people to do additional work unless it is something so closely tied to it would make it possible to accomplish what you have requested that it would be appropriate to do so. It only reviews that which you ask to do, and the permits issued respond to that request. You may do what you've asked for of this list. You are denied doing something else you've asked for that didn't meet the guidelines. And so when the board says staff, you're to review as that condition in 2001, staff, you are to review a landscaping plan before this is carried out, that is a directive to look at the fine tunings of what this applicant's asking in general to do but hasn't provided enough information. So they really are not in that 2001 scenario, and I've listened to the tape. I wasn't present for that meeting. Amelia wasn't working here in the government at that point. I was off helping the History Museum get up and going for about a year, and so I wasn't party to all those things at that time. But the reason to go through that is I think there's a little misperception about what the process, the H-1 process, is empowered to do in that it doesn't just pull things out of the air and say, we also think you should do this. It does finesse some things. That is true. But those things appear as conditions, like that you're going to add a window, that you've requested to build a structure that has four windows on one side, but the board in their review thinks it's not appropriately scaled and that it would be in compliance with guidelines if you added a fifth window. that becomes a condition, and you are to do so, to carry that out. And that would ride along for the future. But in this instance, Mr. Jones' request in 2001 is very typical of ones all the time. He wants to put in landscaping as part of a project, including a deck. And the condition is only responding to staff here to find the nuances and be sure it's okay, which we did. That information was provided, we this process. And everything moved on. Fast forward to 2012 quickly, same thing. The applicant made a request to put in plantings in 2012 that the staff was empowered to grant that permit on. It was a no-whoopy kind of thing. Then when the deck came forward, that is not something the staff is empowered to act on, so it goes to the board. But things that people request to carry out, they have the right to not carry them out. People request to put in a brick wall, and they decide they can't afford it. There's no harm done. You just let your permit expire, and nothing happens. Unless it's something under code enforcement that's noticed and ordered for the safety of the building, repairs and public safety and that kind of thing, People can elect to not carry out anything they ask to get a permit for in the historic process. And so it is a driven by the applicant property owner program that reviews and approves the manner in which they're going to carry out that which they are electing to do. The conditions that do get added do become you're expected to carry them out if indeed that is applied. But the conditions were met in this situation, both in the 2001 and there were no conditions in the 2012, other than what the applicant was requesting to do. They are all about finessing what he is volunteering to do. So on the issue about the open records request, all of the file per his request was made available every time. to the applicant, and I don't know if he has a sense that the drawing was not available to him, why that would be the case, because it's sitting right there in the file, and to our knowledge, sitting right there the whole time when it was made available. The one thing quickly about bell house is clarification. Bell house, it was a condition, and I'm not going to go all through that, but there is a difference in that permit. that falls in the category of those trees were specifically to respond as an additional piece to something being approved. So it was a condition such as more typically you all might be thinking of. And that's why it was replaced. And property owners can remove things less than 10 inches. You've heard that. You know it. And so Mr. Jones did not need to get permission to remove what he did remove. and the only reason is to just so you'll know and not be overly worried it is unfortunate we do have some meetings that there are not minutes this goes back in time and that are not minutes it is predominantly the result of being too short staffed and an inability to in intervals it has happened to have that happen the good news is we do have the record through other means audio DVD etc. Thank you for your patience. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Any questions from the Commission members for anyone? No? Okay. If that's the situation, I will close this part of the hearing and open it up for any comments or discussion among the Commission members. Any comments? Yes. Is that right? No? I do have something, but go ahead. I think for me the question is whether or not the vegetation, the landscaping buffer was a requirement of the 2001 COA. and inasmuch as it was not articulated on the paper copy of the COA, I think that Mr. Murphy, the record shows that it was intended to be a part of that and possibly because of the short staffing, because of the issues that were going on within the Historic Preservation Office at that time, it did not get incorporated into that certificate of appropriateness. I think the same issues that caused that to have not been included in the COA were probably similar to why we don't have a set of minutes for that. But I think that the record from the transcript shows that that was clearly the intent. So that being the case, in my view, I think that the board in 2012 didn't have all the evidence in order to render an appropriate decision. I think the deck was all of the elements associated with the improvement in 2012. Everything was made in accordance with the Board of Architectural Review guidelines, but there was no stipulation for the landscaping. And I'm not sure what the appropriate procedure is, but I would like for the Board of Architectural Review to at least consider revising that COA to require that the landscape buffer that Mr. Jones installed, out of the goodness of his heart, that it be maintained in perpetuity. Because clearly the spirit of that vegetative buffer in 2001, given its extent along the deck that was constructed, the room that was constructed, the idea was to create some screening. Mr. Campbell, your landscaper, felt the same way, extended with the cypress trees to continue on with the deck addition or the raised platform, if that's what we want to call it. But that was not a condition in this COA because it was not picked up as a condition in the 2001 COA. So I'm not sure what the appropriate procedure is, but I think that the Board of Architectural Review you probably should revise that COA to insist that the landscaping buffer be maintained for the duration. Thank you. Ms. Blandon? I kind of take just the opposite view. I'm looking at the COA from November 15, 2012, and there is no requirement for screening, no condition for screening for the new deck. So that leads me to believe why would there have been a condition for screening for the old deck. Obviously, that's not something that the Board of Architectural Review deems under their purview, or they probably would have proposed screening for the new deck as well. So I think the two conditions, the two certificates of appropriateness are consistent, and as Ms. Kerr stated, it's not something that typically is a condition, And so I think they made the correct decision. Mr. Penn? I'm going to look at this just as the appeal, whether they're approved to approve the appeal or disapprove the appeal. Whether it was intended or not intended I think is a great question. I don't really think it's what we're looking at here today. I think landscaping is done to be neighborly, to screen out something you don't want to see. There's a lot of reasons why you do landscaping. And I feel like the Board of Architecture Review really didn't have any reason to require that that screening go a certain length to stop. I mean, I think that's immaterial to what we're looking at today. I understand why he would make his motion to override this based on that, but I don't think that's what we're here looking at today. Other comments, questions? I'll add my two cents worth. A lot of what I've heard today has to do with process, I think. And right or wrong, what I think what I'm hearing boils down to is that Mr. Kevin Murphy is asking for some help to provide some protection as far as this landscaping is concerned. Whether it was on the COA or not or was supposed to be or not, I believe there's probably a landscape plan that was put forth. And even in Mr. Acker's comments that there was a, oh, the deck was approved by the BOAR, but the patio and landscaping, if I remember correctly, was approved by the staff. At this point, personally, I would like to see a little bit of protection as far as the landscaping would be concerned. That has been stated. Understandable, it does get removed from time to time, has to be removed from time to time, has to be pruned back from time to time. I think the intent has been put forth quite well by Mr. Jones and the fact that he has put back very adequate screening, landscaping, and I think the intent there is very obvious. Personally, I'm in the mode of, we're in discussion phase, I'm in the mode of disapproving the appeal, but I would like to see some sort of benefit weighed towards Mr. Kevin Murphy for inclusion of a landscape plan in the BOAR records, in the certificate of appropriateness, if that's where it should go. But, you know, like I said, most of this, from what I've heard today, is more about process. And I think the intent of both neighbors is for the well-being of the neighborhood and themselves. And I think landscaping-wise, that's obvious. So, like I said, there might have been five cents worth and still weren't. But those are my comments and thoughts right now. Let me ask legal. Can we ask for landscaping or a landscaping plan to be included at this point in a certificate of appropriateness through an amendment or something? I'm going to let, well, let me say this. I don't think the guidelines are clear on that. I think Betty may have a comment about something. It is there now, the landscaping plan. It was approved in August of 2012 by staff. That's part of that, you were saying, the hearing before the November hearing. I mean, the permit issued by staff in August before the November came along with the deck itself. is a landscaping plan and an at-grade pavement area. And so that's on file. It is a live document that is able to be looked at, carried through, and it was submitted by the applicant, approved as submitted by staff, and it's part of the record. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments, questions? After my ten cents worth? Yes, ma'am. Then I don't know if this is to Betty or to Tracy. Then if it is part of that landscaping plan as we currently see it with the cypress trees, then that is a part of the permanent record for the COA for this new deck, then is the question whether or not conditions or that plan can be amended? About would that be in perpetuity is what you're asking or something like that. I don't know, and we'd have to talk to law about this, if you can make landscaping in perpetuity. That's kind of a problematic scenario. It seems that the spirit and intent of landscaping was carried forward from 2001 to the present day, and I applaud Mr. Jones for having done that. I understand. And the property owner has reflected and has had present landscaping throughout all this. The 2001 decision had landscaping. It continued on up. He removes it in the summer and gets his permit in August and carries out another landscaping plan that is in place when the BOAR reviews the November piece for the deck. So what has actually occurred meets what you're discussing. The most literal answer to what I think you're asking about, does it tie that landscaping to the presence of a deck? Not literally, no. at the present time. And so that would take an additional action of the board, were you to wish that to happen. But the permits are in place as individual, reflecting their individual topics. Okay. Is that what you need, law and board? Okay. Anything to add, Ms. Jones? No. Any other discussion points, comments? If not, Carla's been up there for a while. I'm ready for a motion. That's where I was headed. Okay. I move disapproval of the BOAR appeal about 137 West Bell Court, so we would be upholding the BOAR decision. For the reasons provided by staff. For the reasons provided by staff. Thank you. The motion has been made for disapproval of the appeal BOAR 2013-1. Do we have a second? I'll second. The motion has been made and seconded. Question? Yes, ma'am. I have a question on the motion for legal. Is this the appropriate course if we wanted to ask the Board of Architectural Review to revisit the COA to incorporate the landscaping plan? I think you might have to make that separately just because this is on the appeal, which is what's before you, as Mr. Penn was talking about earlier. Do we need to be explicit that we are denying the appeal? Well, I'm not sure how we separate out the deck being done in an appropriate way, but somehow reincorporating the landscaping plan. Well, if you're going to disapprove this appeal based on the findings provided by staff, there's nothing about the landscaping plan specifically in there. So if you want to do that, I think you need to go ahead and take the action you want to take on the appeal. And then if you want to make some separate recommendation back to the Board of Architectural Review, that's up to you all. Thank you. Any other questions regarding the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes for disapproval. Any further action? Yes, ma'am. May I make another motion? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move that, given the discussion that we've had, that I think the Planning Commission should recommend to the Board of Adjustment that they review the COA to incorporate the landscaping plan as presented as a part of the COA. I second. Motion's been made and seconded for it. Yes, sir? Are you ready for discussion? Yes, sir. Hold on one second. I'm a parliamentarian speaking. Motion was made and seconded. I'm ready for discussion. Yes. That's where we were until you interrupted me. Mr. Cravens, go ahead. Didn't Ms. Kerr say there was a landscape plan? Approved by staff. And the reason for that, you know, there's a whole long array of things that the board has mandated the staff to be able to handle, to help people move forward more quickly and be able to carry out a lot of things that they've said are within the criterion for us to handle. So that's just so you'll know how that comes about. So, yes, so there is a permit issued and the materials submitted that are the basis for that permit and hence the plan attached to that permit are on record of that August decision. Let me ask, is it the fact that the landscaping was already existing before he applied for the deck? Is that why maybe there's some of the... Yes, I think the board... We do that all the time. was well aware the landscaping was in place and had been committed to and some of it planted. And I can't remember, was it all in the ground at the time the BOAR heard it in November? I think it was. Yeah, so that's why it might not be a condition. And so to them, as you do with any application, the board was hearing it, looking at the existing conditions, and the landscaping was there. Had the landscaping, if I may, I think to be the devil's advocate for a second, Had there been no permit already issued for landscaping to be in this location and or it not having been already put in place, I think you would have seen the board saying, well, wait a minute, we need to talk about landscaping. What are you planning to that? Where's your proposal? So there is a thought process about all of that, I think, if I may second guess what the board members, of course, who knows individuals, but I think that this all was part of what they took into account. and it's reflected in their november decision and it responds to what they saw as the existing conditions and the permits already on file and they were informed in the november meeting of the issuance of the august and i would say that's not unlike development plans that we do where there's landscaping required and if it's existing a lot of times we allow the existing landscaping in lieu of new landscaping i serve on i've served on the landscape review committee for nine years so I've seen a lot of this. Mr. Penn, question regarding the motion? Yeah, I don't think the motion is necessary because just what she said there, I don't think you need to go back and re-stamp the certificate of appropriateness. You know, I think if you want to consider that in future situations, you might say to them it would have been clear for us had you had something on the certificate of appropriateness or had you had a note or had you had minutes or whatever would have made this hearing a lot easier. But for us to go back and say you need to, in retrospect, go back and put that on certificate of appropriateness, I just think it's overkill because there's no intent not to do it to start with. And we're talking about this original mode. We're not trying to talk about changing a text or an ordinance or anything like that. So I just think it's overkill to do that when there's no intent to do anything other than that. Other comments? I agree, and I think we're adding yet another layer of bureaucracy. It's something that can be handled more expeditiously at the staff level and has worked, and I think we just need to keep that up. If we're going to add another layer, I think, A, we need to think about it, and, B, is that a text amendment? I mean, we're really kind of fundamentally changing their process, and so if we're going to do that, then I think that needs a little more. I don't know what the process is for that. Okay. Go ahead. I don't think that we are adding another layer of bureaucracy, and I don't think that we're amending the process. All I'm asking is that we have two different time sequences. The landscaping plan was approved apparently in August, and the DEC COA was approved in December. Can we somehow link the two and have the DEC plan incorporate explicitly the landscaping plan? And if that's a COA amendment by the Board of Architectural Reviews, then so be it. If it can be done by staff, then that's great, too. I just want to, in some way, put those two together. Okay. I would tend to agree with Dr. Phillips. Mr. Murphy, one quick comment. Board of Architecture Review is not in the privacy business. Maybe you feel it should be. If you feel it should be, the way to do it is to change the ordinance to require that they look at it. If you get them into the privacy business, it's a whole other ballgame for them. They're looking at historic compatibility here. They're not looking at neighborhood claims that I can see into your yard or you can see into mine. If you do that, you'll have to double or triple the staff that they have. you'll have much longer public hearings. My client complied with every procedure. He's doubled the landscaping here. I don't think he should be penalized by changing the procedure on him when he's a good guy in this process. He's doubled the landscaping. He's the one providing the privacy, as it should be, and he is. The Board of Architecture Review is reviewing whether it's architecture compatible. That's what they did. The appeal was from the deck. It wasn't from the staff approval of the landscape plan. And again, my client complied with everything on this one. I don't think the burden should be placed on him because the Planning Commission feels that the Board of Architecture Review ought to be looking at privacy and ought to be imposing permanent conditions regarding other things than historic issues. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. I think I'm going to call for a vote here. We've got a motion. Mr. Kevin Murphy. Thank you. I just want to make one comment, and I understand and appreciate Mr. Craven's comment about existing landscaping, But I want to point out that motion to tie the two together, the already existing landscaping and the deck, and the previous deck that was conditioned with landscaping, will not cost David Jones a cent. It's already done. All I'm looking for is that added assurance for the next owner. That's all. Thank you, sir. Ms. Blanton? I have one quick question for Ms. Kerr. Is adding landscaping to the certificate of approval then make it have to be in perpetuity versus if staff just approves a landscaping plan, it's for that moment in time? They would be two separate approaches. The permits that are issued, the August permit granting the landscaping, that permit's good for a year, the person carries it out, whatever, that can be changed down the pike. Again, if it is less than 10 inches, he can elect to remove it because he has elected to install it and gotten a permit for it. If, indeed, the Board of Architecture Review intends there to be always a planting strip adjacent to some built element, then it would need to be ordered as a condition that it will retain a landscaping buffer as part of that. We have not, in historic preservation, had a situation that I know of that really takes it to that how do you steer a landscaping commitment in perpetuity. So this would be a dramatic step that we would be taking. Once things achieve a mass in terms of plantings, Once it gets, if it's a tree, bigger than 10 inches, then it falls under the criteria of it will absolutely be reviewed and need to be a permit to be removed. So it does have a perpetuity piece in that sense. But when you're talking about things that, by the nature of the planting species and or shortness of time, they stay less than 10 inches, we've just not had that yet have to be process-wise really defined. Okay. I just think that's the answer to your question. Absolutely. I think we would be taking a dramatic step here today that, as Mr. Murphy said, would be better addressed in other issues rather than, you know, making the Board of Architectural Review take on landscaping and privacy issues. I mean, you're looking at old neighborhoods, and I've lived in them. I mean, you sacrifice privacy, but in exchange you get to live in a really great old house in an old neighborhood. But to try and ensure for everyone privacy when there's four feet maybe separating a house is just not going to happen. And I just think this is the wrong place to work on that. We do have a motion on the floor and a second. And Mr. Penn? I just want to point out that I don't think it's a planning commission. I have purview right now to say this is the way the Board of Architecture review should go. I think you can recommend, you can do those types of things, but if you're going to try to get the BOAR to do something like this, it needs a lot more vetting than us, and I don't think we have the authority to tell them to do that or not to do it anyway. Now, legal can step in and tell us whether we do or we don't, but that's a big step for us to go just because of one case. Yes, I think we're ready to vote. To remind everybody, would you like to restate your motion? we have down the motion is to recommend that the BOAR review the landscape plan as part of the COA okay that motion was made and seconded so I'll call for a vote at this time please vote when it comes up on the screen That motion passes. Passes 4 to 3. So we're going to take a, I'd like to thank everyone for coming and voicing their concerns. And I appreciate it very much. We're going to take just a five-minute break and then go to our work session. Thank you. She's waiting! For another lover For another lover Oh, darling. Oh, darling. Oh, where are you? Oh, lover. I was proud of. So we tried to love you. Oh, my. And never do wrong. You hold my hand. Your little hand. I'll know too soon. That all so grand. Please hold my hand. My dearer. I'm stronger. To try To love a two That's my lover For you Thank you. Say that, say that it's a, say it isn't so painful to tell me that you're dissatisfied. Last time I asked you, I really got a lame excuse. I know that you lied. Now wicked things don't happen You see, I'm going down and more But when you play in a quiet way That bites it even more Say, tell me what you want Yeah, I do it, baby I promise right now Say, who props for When you would stop no motivation Had you on the ground I know your first reaction Is slide away, hide away goodbye But if there's a doubt Maybe I can give out But that's a reason why You have to say it isn't so It isn't so I said it isn't so It isn't so long I say it isn't so long It isn't so long I say it isn't so long It isn't so long I say that we like to be strangers At the party to everyone's in a shell I say that you like to move with the best of them You know we move so well Don't need someone to lean on I know there's an open door But if my face is within your place I want you even more So baby, say it's all It isn't so long It isn't so long It isn't so long I say it isn't so long It isn't so long Oh, say this out Say this out Say this out Say this out Say this out Say this out Say this out Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I know it's so hard, you know I know it's so hard It is a sin, it's so sad, isn't it? They'll look me so far away You don't have to say it is a way It's so sad, isn't it? Ah! It's so sad, isn't it? It's so sad, isn't it? All you know it's so sad, isn't it? Don't you know I wanna make it long? People smile and tell me I'm the lucky one And we've just begun I think I'm gonna have a son He will be like him and me As free as a dove Conceived in love The sun is gonna shine above And even though we ain't got money I'm so in love with you, honey Everything will bring a chain of love And in the morning when I rise Bring a tear of joy to my eyes and tell me everything's gonna be alright Love a guy who holds the world in a paper cup Drink it up, love him and he'll bring you love And if you find he helps your mind Better take him home Yeah, don't you live alone Try to groom it lovers own And even though we ain't got money I'm so in love with you, honey Everything will bring a chain of love And in the morning when I rise Bring a tear of joy to my eyes And tell me everything's gonna be alright And even though we ain't got money I'm so in love with you, honey Everything will bring a change of love And in the morning when I rise Bring a tear of joy to my eyes And tell me everything's gonna be alright Thank you. You always say you like my style You say I'm tough and kind of wild Am I too much for you to say I swear this time it's not a game I know the lot of girls Know this I won't deny I'll give out love I'll give it more than a try That was it That was it This is now Let me prove my love girl I'll make you proud I never made Never made This kind of vow But that was it And this is now I've let a thousand lives succeed And there's been a lot of broken dreams My mind has just swept love aside But you broke me down You put me wide I doubted all compassion But you showed me the score I can't doubt it I don't doubt it no more That was it That was it This is how Let me prove my love now I'll make you proud I never made This kind of vow That was then And this is now I'm not a lot of girls No, this I won't deny I'll give my love I'll give it more than I try I won't say That was it This is time Let me prove my love, girl I'll make you proud I never made Never made This kind of vow That wasn't This is how That wasn't This is how But that was it, and this is now When I get home, babe I'm gonna let you find All day I've been thinking about you, babe My one desire Wrap arms around you Oh, babe, I wanna taste your lips I wanna bring your fantasy Yeah. Don't know what I do without you, babe. Don't know where I'd be. You're not just another love. I know you're everything to me. Every time I'm with you, babe, I can't believe it's true. When you lay on my arms and you do the things you do. You can see it in my eyes, I can feel it in your touch You don't have to say a thing, just let me show how much I love you, I need you I want to kiss you all over And over again I want to kiss you all over Till the night closes in Till the night closes in Stay with me, lay with me Holding me, loving me, baby Here with me, near with me Feeling you're close to me, baby So show me, show me everything you do Cause baby, no one does it quite like you I love you I need you Oh baby I want to kiss you all over Over again I want to kiss you all over Till the night closes in Till the night closes in Till the night closes in Till the night closes in Till the night closes in Till the night closes Taking my time Choosing my lines Trying to decide what to do Looks like my style Don't wanna get on Got myself on the phone Seems to me You don't wanna talk about it Seems to me You just need your pretty head You walk away Places I've known Things that I'm growing Don't taste the same without you I got myself in This mess I've been I'm not so startled without you Seems to me Dark all night, here comes the morning Seems to me You just want your place every day Seems to me You don't want to talk about it Seems to me You just feel pretty And walk away I need to cool myself down Stop it around Thinking some words I can't name you I need you halfway Nothing to say Still I don't suppose I can blame ya Seems to me You don't wanna talk about it seems to me You just keep your head and walk away Walk away I'm out. I love you. Because love can't go there Because love we've all together Because love we've all part Because love we've all been one When I was met you I knew that my life would never be the same And I knew that you felt it too Never feel alone again, boy Cause you're a smoker, so secure Guns, because of love, I know better Because of love, we can't get better Because of love, we can't get better Because love will never find Because love will never find Because love will never find I don't care what people say You're the one that brings me so much joy When I look at your smile and eyes My heart wants to dance for tears Only you are my one And I never wanna leave your sign If you're right, let's be together I'll never feel it long again Cause the end makes me feel so secure Cause I'm gonna send you a message Cause I don't know I'm gonna be better Cause I love you, I'm getting better Cause I love you, I'm hard Cause I love you, I'm never part Cause I love you, I'm gonna be I know you're a fool We know it's cause of love I feel so high I know nobody else because of love Because of love Because of love Because of love I know that there's Because of love Because of love I know that there's Shoulda, shoulda, shoulda, shoulda, shoulda I know that it's because I love you Can't be Because I love you I'm my Because I love you I'm my Because I love you I know that Because I love you Can't be It's because of love It's because of love It's because of love It's because of love Yeah, love It's because of love Yeah, it's because of love It's because of love, baby It's because of love I love you, baby In the night so still Oh, I'll build you a kingdom That I have on to you Lookin' out for love Big, big love You said that you loved me And that you always will Oh, you made me a year In that house, oh, dear Lookin' at me Make me love Oh, oh, oh, oh I wake up Alone with me all I wake up But only to fall Looking out for love We'll be right back. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Take out the papers and the trash Or you don't get no spending cash If you don't scrub that kitchen blur You ain't gonna rock and roll no more Don't go back Just finish cleaning up your room Let's see that duck out with that broom Get all that garbage out of sight Or you don't go out Friday night Don't talk back You just put on your coat and hat And walk yourself to the laundromat And when you finish doing that Bring in the dog and put out the castle Don't talk back Thank you. Don't you give me no dirty looks Your father help me knows what cooks Just tell your hood to fit outside You ain't got time to take a ride Don't talk back Jackety-yak, jackety-yak Jackety-yak, jackety-yak Jackety-yak, jackety-yak You keep saying you've got something for me Something you call love but confess You've been a messin' where you shouldn't have been a messin' And now someone else is gettin' all your best These boots are made for walkin' And that's just what they do One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you Yeah You keep lying when you ought to be choosing And you keep losing when you ought to not bet You keep saving when you ought to be changing Now what's right is right, but you ain't been right yet These boots are made for walking And that's just what they'll do One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you You keep playing where you shouldn't be playing And you keep thinking that you'll never get burned Ha! I just found me a brand new box that matches the air. And what he knows you ain't had time to learn. These boots are made for walking and that's just what they'll do. One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you. Are you ready, boo? Start walking. Young man, there's no need to feel down I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground I said, young man, cause you're in a new town There's no need to be unhappy Young man, there's a place you can go I said, young man, when you're short on your dough You can stay there And I'm sure you will find many ways to have a good touch It's fun to stay at the YMCA It's fun to stay at the YMCA They have everything, wonderful joy You can hang out with all the boys It's fun to stay at the YMCA It's hard to stay at home. YMCA. You can get yourself free. You can have a good meal. You can do whatever you feel. Young man. Are you listening to me? I said. Young man. What do you want to be? I said. Young man. You can make brilliant dreams. But you've got to know this won't be. No man does it all by himself. I say, young man, put your pride on the shelf and just go there to the YMCA. I'm sure they can help you today. It's fun to stay at the YMCA. It's fun to stay at the YMCA. They have never been for your man to enjoy. You can hang out with all my boys It's fun to stay at the YMCA It's fun to stay at the YMCA You can get your zeppelin You can have a good meal You can do whatever you feel Young man I was once in your shoes I said I was Down and out with the blues I felt no man Till an hour or night I felt the whole world was so giant, that's when Someone came up to me and said, look me Take a walk up the street, it's a place there Called the YMCA, they can start you back on your way It's fun to stay at the YMCA It's fun to stay at the YMCA. They have everything, but your mental and joy. You can hang on with all the boys. YMCA. It's fun to stay at the YMCA. Young man, young man, there's no need to feel down. Young man, young man, pick yourself off the ground. YMCA You're riding in that snow YMCA No man, no man You'll be all by yourself No man, no man Put your pride on your shell YMCA I'm out. I just walk away. They can beg and they can sleep, but they can't see the light. Cause the boy with the cold, hot cash is always Mr. I. Cause we are living in a material world, and I am a material girl. You know that we are living in a material world And I am a material girl Some boys romance, some boys know that that's alright with me If they can't raise my interest then I'll have to let them leave Some boys try and some boys die But I don't let them play Only boys let's save their pennies Leave my rainy day Cause we are living in a material world And I am a material girl And we are living in a material world And I am a material girl Oh, yeah. And I'm all right, you see Experiences that made me rich And now they're after me Cause everybody's living in a material world And I am a material girl You know that we are living in a material world And I am a material girl Living in a material world And I am a material girl You know that we are living in a material world And I am a material girl A material A material A material A material world A material world A material world A material world Living in a material world See the stone set in your eyes See the thorn twist in your side I'll wait for you Sleight of hand, interest of faith On a bed of mail she makes me wait And I wait without you With or without you With or without you Through the storm we reach the shore You give it all but I want more And I'm waiting for you With or without you With or without you I can't live Hey everyone, welcome to Retail Perspective. I'm Devin, I'm here at Bella Road. Pretty woman, walking down the street Pretty woman, the kind I like to meet Pretty woman, I don't believe you It must be true No one can look as good as you Mercy Pretty woman, won't you pardon me Pretty woman, I couldn't help but see Pretty woman, oh you look lovely as to me Are you lonely just like me? Welcome back. I'm Devin with the DLC, and I'm here with Betty at Bella Rose. How are you doing today, Betty? Wonderful. I'm so glad you all are here. Yeah, happy to be here. So tell me about Bella Rose. I know there's a lot of history. There certainly is. Devin, we are celebrating 33 years in business this year in the spring, and we're in the business of cheering up women. We have been blessed with we can dress you, your mother, and your grandmother. So we can get you ready for derby, weddings, prom, just a casual dinner out. We have several trunk shows scheduled. We have hat designers that will be coming in in about, oh, really, a few weeks that will be doing custom hats to match your dress. We have bridesmaids' dresses downstairs. And, Devin, an area of the business that is growing beautifully is Mother of the Bridegroom. Mother of the Bridegroom is so, they're younger and peppier, so they don't really want to look like the grandmother, even though we dress lots of sassy little grandmothers. But that is something that we really take a lot of pride in and enjoy being part of those special days. it's almost as though there's always a special event going on here in the community. There's a fundraiser. There's Art in Bloom coming up. There's the Heart Ball. And we keep track of where your dresses are going in terms of we don't want you to show up with the same dress on. So we really honor that feature that we're able to do and have a great selection, as always. You can just look around. There's no lack of beautiful dresses here. You notice a ton of gorgeous accessories and purses and dresses for all sorts of occasions. So where are you located downtown? We're on the corner of Upper and Maxwell. It is a destination, and it's definitely worth it. We are Bella Rose, big city fashion and small town charm. It's come on in, kick your shoes off, and stay a while. The right dress is here for you, whatever your event might be. We are open 10 to 6, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. Thursday is our late day. We're here until 8, and it's always a fun girls' night out. And then on Saturdays from 10 to 5, and you can find us on Facebook. We have a website, but it's basically just kind of a home page. We really want you to come into the shop and have the experience and just to let us assist you in getting ready for whatever your occasion might be. Absolutely. So what do you like about being located downtown? well there's so much opportunity down here i mean just when i came to this corner 33 years ago it was uh very different with all the condominiums and all the downtown life just the whole pulse of downtown is it's so energetic i mean i love farmer's market i love seeing the families walk parking and walking on the weekends you know all of the camaraderie with our sports with with the basketball you know it's just um we always enjoy that and get always get new people in that have never that have been by and never made it into the shop um and just the convenience of being downtown I mean it's beautiful the tree-lined streets and just it's it's just magical the historical neighborhood um is one of the most beautiful and sought after in the in the community absolutely being close to the universities and and again in two seconds being downtown We have a Shoshana trunk show coming up, which I think this will be the fourth or possibly fifth year in a row that we have a great successful outcome from that. That gets us rolling into Derby. Easter, you can get your Easter dress from Shoshana. We have shipments of Millie coming in. We have, of course, Keeneland, graduation, prom, and then those famous two seconds, two minutes of the Kentucky Derby, which we are very well represented at the Derby with the custom hats and one-of-a-kind outfits. So we're just very excited to be celebrating 33 years in business and just feel so blessed that we have the privilege of dressing so many women. And we're just grateful for this community and surrounding communities that we have, the repeat clientele that we do. And the age range, that's quite special. Absolutely. Definitely such a nice addition to downtown and a destination. We love our location. I've had so much fun here today at Bella Rose and for everything that's going on downtown visit downtownlex.com