# Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing - March 12, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 12, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3607 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3607?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-03-12 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 18,695 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 12, 2015, 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 10 agenda items and resulted in 18 motions and votes. The commission heard 7 public comments during the session. The meeting covered a range of planning matters, including approval of previous meeting minutes, consideration of postponements or withdrawals, review of land subdivision items, and approval of performance bonds and letters of credit. Commission items and staff items were also addressed. The meeting concluded with announcements of next meeting dates before adjournment. ## Attendance The following 25 individuals were present at the meeting on March 12, 2015: - Mike Owens - Mike Cravens - Will Berkley - Patrick Brewer - Karen Mundy - Carolyn Plumlee - Joseph Smith - Bill Wilson - David Drake - Frank Penn - Chris King - Bill Sallee - Barbara Rackers - Tom Martin - Cheryl Gallt - Kelly Hunter - Dave Jarman - Denice Bullock - Hillard Newman - Casey Kaucher - Tim Queary - Greg Lengal - Joshua Thiel - Tracy Jones - Andrea Brown No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Amended Minutes** [timestamp: 00:09:51] The amended minutes from December 11, 2014 were approved unanimously. Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Richardson. All 11 members voted in favor. **Postponements** Three items were postponed by unanimous vote: - DP 2015-18: Fritz Farm, LLC & DMK Development Group postponed to March 28, 2015 [timestamp: 00:11:04]. Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Wilson. - Plan 2014-101F: Long Valley Farm, KY, Inc., Unit 2-B postponed to April 9, 2015 [timestamp: 00:12:17]. Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Richardson. - Work session postponed to March 19, 2015 [timestamp: 00:12:47]. Motion by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. **Plan Approvals** Five subdivision and development plans were approved unanimously: - Plan 2015-12F: Melrose Addition, Block D, Lots 2 & 3, with deletion of condition #12 [timestamp: 00:19:00]. Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Ms. Richardson. - Plan 2015-13F: Clark Property, Unit 3-A, with deletion of condition #8 [timestamp: 00:24:58]. Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Mundy. - Plan 2015-14F: Clark Property, Unit 3-B, with deletion of condition #9 [timestamp: 00:24:58]. Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Mundy. - Plan 2015-20F: Woodland Park Subdivision (AMD), with deletion of condition #12 and revision of condition #13 [timestamp: 00:36:49]. Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Smith. - Plan 2015-21F: Watts Farm, Tract 4, Lot 1 (AMD) [timestamp: 00:38:59]. Motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded by Mr. Carter. **Development Plan Approvals** Six development plans were approved unanimously: - DP 2015-15: Clays Mill Center, Unit 1-B, Block B, Lot 2 (AMD) [timestamp: 00:42:57]. Motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded by Mr. Boaz. - DP 2015-16: Tattersall Square, Lot 2 (AMD) [timestamp: 00:53:59]. Motion by Ms. Richardson, seconded by Mr. Penn. - DP 2015-17: Adams Property (AMD) [timestamp: 01:08:40]. Motion by Ms. Richardson, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. - DP 2015-19: South Farm Marketplace, Lot 3 (AMD) [timestamp: 01:11:30]. Motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Smith. - DP 2014-80: Providence Place, Tract 3, Lots 5A & 5B (AMD) [timestamp: 01:14:59]. Motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Smith. - DP 2014-72: Coons Property, Tract 1 [timestamp: 01:22:50]. Motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Smith. **Performance Bonds and Letter of Credit** [timestamp: 01:23:21] Approval passed unanimously. Motion by Mr. Chairman, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. **Appeal BOAR 2015-1: Mike L. Warner** A motion to disapprove the appeal failed 5-6 [timestamp: 02:29:22]. Motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Smith. Voting in favor: Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Karen Mundy. Voting against: Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, Bill Wilson, David Drake, Frank Penn, Chris King. A subsequent motion to approve the appeal passed 6-4 [timestamp: 02:39:37]. Motion by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Barkley. Voting in favor: Mike Owens, Mike Cravens, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee. Voting against: Joseph Smith, Bill Wilson, David Drake, Frank Penn. ## Public Comment Seven speakers addressed the body during public comment, primarily discussing a vinyl fence installation in the Ashland Park Historic District and related regulatory concerns. **Mr. Warner** [02:00:08] spoke in appeal of a decision regarding his vinyl fence installation. He acknowledged installing vinyl rather than the approved wood fence, but argued for grandfathering the installation based on its aesthetic quality, public recognition, and the absence of explicit prohibition against vinyl in the fence guidelines. **Mr. Brewer** [02:13:23] supported upholding the Board of Architectural Review (BOAR) decision, praising the renovation quality while arguing that mistakes cannot be grandfathered and that existing guidelines should be enforced. **Mr. Cravens** [02:16:31] identified a regulatory gap, noting that the lack of explicit mention of vinyl fences in the guidelines creates a loophole. He recommended revising the rules to address modern materials. **Ms. Plumlee** [02:18:05] expressed concern about inconsistent enforcement, emphasizing that past decisions were not enforced and calling for consistent application of commission rulings. **Mr. Drake** [02:19:12] acknowledged the tension between preserving historic character and accommodating modern, safer materials like vinyl. He suggested a review of the guidelines to address this balance. **Ms. Richardson** [02:21:51] criticized ambiguous language in the design guidelines, specifically the use of "typically" and material lists that could be misinterpreted. She called for more specific wording. **Ms. Mundy** [02:24:58] noted that vinyl fences are permitted in Williamsburg, Virginia's historic district, suggesting that Lexington's guidelines may be outdated by comparison. The comments collectively raised questions about guideline clarity, enforcement consistency, and whether regulations should be updated to reflect modern materials and practices used in other historic districts. ## Contested Items **Vinyl Fence in Ashland Park Historic District** A heated discussion arose regarding the approval of a vinyl fence in the Ashland Park Historic District, prompted by an appeal from Mike L. Warner. The core disagreement centered on whether the vinyl fence should be grandfathered despite being explicitly prohibited by the district's design guidelines. The debate reflected a fundamental tension between strict adherence to historic preservation standards and allowing exceptions for existing installations. The initial motion to disapprove the fence resulted in a closely divided vote of 5-6, indicating significant disagreement among decision-makers about the appropriate course of action. Following this split decision, a second vote was held on the matter. This vote passed 6-4 in favor of approval, ultimately allowing the vinyl fence to remain in the Ashland Park Historic District despite its conflict with established design guidelines. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers [timestamp: 00:00:00]. Mike Owens presided over the opening of the session. ## Approval of Minutes The amended minutes from the December 11, 2014 meeting were presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:09:51] Mr. Cravens moved to approve the minutes, and Ms. Richardson seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. ## Postponements or Withdrawals Three postponement requests were considered and approved during this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:11:04] **Postponements Granted:** - **DP 2015-18** was postponed to March 28, 2015 - **Plan 2014-101F** was postponed to April 9, 2015 - **Work session** was postponed to March 19, 2015 **Speakers and Outcome:** Mr. Penn, Ms. Plumlee, and Ms. Mundy participated in the discussion. All three postponement motions passed unanimously. ## Land Subdivision Items During this agenda item, the board discussed and acted upon several subdivision plans. [timestamp: 00:19:00] **Plans Reviewed and Approved** Four subdivision plans were presented for consideration: - **Plan 2015-12F** – Approved with the deletion of condition #12 - **Plan 2015-13F** – Approved with the deletion of condition #8 - **Plan 2015-14F** – Approved with the deletion of condition #9 - **Plan 2015-20F** – Approved with a revised condition #13 and deletion of condition #12 **Key Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Jarman, Ms. Gallt, Mr. Kahly, and Mr. Murphy. **Outcome** All four subdivision plans were approved. The board made modifications to the standard conditions attached to these plans, removing certain conditions entirely in three cases and revising a condition in one case. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit The board discussed the release and call of bonds dated March 12, 2015. Mr. Chairman presided over this agenda item. The matter was brought to a vote and approved unanimously by the board. ## Commission Items The Commission discussed an appeal by Mike L. Warner regarding a vinyl fence in the Ashland Park Historic District [timestamp: 02:29:22]. **Speakers and Participants** The following individuals participated in the discussion: Ms. Rackers, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Warner, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cravens, Ms. Plumlee, Mr. Drake, Ms. Richardson, and Ms. Mundy. **Outcome** A motion to disapprove the appeal failed with a vote of 5-6. A subsequent motion to approve the appeal passed with a vote of 6-4. The appeal was ultimately approved. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 00:12:47] Mr. King announced an upcoming work session scheduled for March 19, 2015. The work session will focus on discussion of the ZOTA 2014-4: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses petition. This item was presented for informational purposes. ## Audience Items No audience items were presented during this portion of the meeting. ## Next Meeting Dates The following meeting dates were announced: * **Subdivision Committee**: April 2, 2015 * **Subdivision Items Public Meeting**: April 9, 2015 This was presented as an informational item with no debate or concerns raised. ## Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:40:09 following a motion by Mr. Smith and a second by Mr. Barkley. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of the amended minutes from December 11, 2014 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Postponement of DP 2015-18: Fritz Farm, LLC & DMK Development Group to March 28, 2015 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Postponement of Plan 2014-101F: Long Valley Farm, KY, Inc., Unit 2-B to April 9, 2015 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Postponement of the work session to March 19, 2015 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of Plan 2015-12F: Melrose Addition, Block D, Lots 2 & 3, with deletion of condition #12 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of Plan 2015-13F: Clark Property, Unit 3-A, with deletion of condition #8 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of Plan 2015-14F: Clark Property, Unit 3-B, with deletion of condition #9 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of Plan 2015-20F: Woodland Park Subdivision (AMD), with deletion of condition #12 and revision of condition #13 to 'resolve possible need for the Division of Water Quality’s approval of the Capacity Assurance Program requirements' - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of Plan 2015-21F: Watts Farm, Tract 4, Lot 1 (AMD), with 11 conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of DP 2015-15: Clays Mill Center, Unit 1-B, Block B, Lot 2 (AMD), with 17 conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of DP 2015-16: Tattersall Square, Lot 2 (AMD), with 14 conditions and revision of condition #14 to 'resolve internal vehicular access' - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of DP 2015-17: Adams Property (aka: Brighton 3050 & Cadentown Subdivision, Lot 10) (AMD), with revised conditions and deletion of condition #12 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of DP 2015-19: South Farm Marketplace, Lot 3 (AMD), with 10 conditions - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of DP 2014-80: Providence Place, Tract 3, Lots 5A & 5B (AMD), with 12 conditions and noting EAMP compliance report - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of DP 2014-72: Coons Property, Tract 1 (a portion of), with deletion of condition #14 - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of performance bonds and letter of credit - **Motion** — failed (5-6): Disapproval of appeal BOAR 2015-1: Mike L. Warner - **Motion** — passed (6-4): Approval of appeal BOAR 2015-1: Mike L. Warner --- ## Full transcript And I have always rescued for a long time, for 20 years actually. And in that 20 years, you know, for many of those, we didn't have social media. So four years ago, I got involved in social media rescue. There was a lot of drama. It was a lot of time spent not being able to really see the reward. Let somebody love you. Let somebody love you. Better let somebody love you. Before it's too late. I love you I love you Is all that I can say I love you I love you The same old words I'm saying In the same old way I love you I love you Three words that are divine And now, my dear I'm waiting to hear the words That will make you mine Little girl, I love you. Can't you see I love you? I love you. Can't you see I love you? I love you, I love you, three words that are divine. And now, my dear, I'm waiting to hear the words that make you know. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, 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'm crazy for your love Out of my head for you My mind just can't believe What you're making my body do I'm delirious over you And I just can't get enough You're driving me mad Making me crazy for your love Thought I heard the telephone ringing It must be my imagination Thought I heard a knocking on the door I guess it was wishful thinking When I closed my eyes I could see your face To feel you touching me Oh darling don't you know I need to find a real way To make you see That I'm crazy for your love Out of my head for you My mind just can't believe What you're making my body do I'm delirious over you And I just can't get enough You're driving me mad Making me crazy for your love When I close my eyes I can see your face Feel you touching me Oh darling, don't you know I need to find a real way To make you see That I'm crazy for your love I'll look my head for you You're driving me mad Making me crazy for your love You're driving me mad Making me crazy Making me crazy for your love Making me crazy Crazy for your love Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ 30 seconds. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this wonderful day, even. We'll call this meeting to order for March 12th. And first on the agenda would be approval of minutes. We did have minutes from December 11, 2014. I emailed two commission members, and I believe they were before us as well. There were a couple of corrections that has been noted. Are there any other corrections to these minutes that need to be brought to the attention? If not, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the minutes December 11th as corrected. Motion has been made in second and for approval of the minutes from December 11, 2014. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Next would be postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of DMK Development Group. we would like to request a two-week postponement for DP 2015-18 on page 5 of your agenda to the March 26th Planning Commission meeting. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? It's on page 5. It's Fritz Farm, DP 2015-18, 4210, Nicholasville Road. Commission members, if not, I'll entertain a motion for postponement. Mr. Chairman, I move for a two-week postponement to the March 26th medium, DP 2015-18. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement for two weeks of DP 2015-18. please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you sir other requests for postponements or withdrawals mr. Martin mr. chairman members of the commission staff has one item to bring to your attention it is on page one of your agenda under final subdivision plans staff has it is plan And 2014-101F Long Valley Farm, Kentucky Incorporated Unit 2B. This is property located at Long Valley Lane and Russell Cave Road. Staff has received a written request for a one-month postponement on this plan. Thank you, Mr. Martin. That would be postponed until April the 9th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion for postponement. Yes. Mr. Chair, I move postponement of Plan 2014-101F Long Valley Farm to April 9th. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until April 9th for Plan 2014-101F. Please vote. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion for postponement of today's work session and to amend the meeting and filing schedule to allow work session to be next week on March the 19th. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Plumlee. Any questions regarding this? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes. Mr. Chairman, we note that time is 1 30 p.m. in this this room. Thank you, sir. Okay. 1 30 p.m. next week, March the 19th. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements withdrawals? If not, let me just kind of give the guidelines for today. Because of our wonderful weather last week we did not have committee meetings and as a result we have no consent agenda today and also as a result as you'll notice on the agenda there's no recommendations because we didn't meet from the uh from the subdivision committee um as a result the remaining items will be heard uh some of them will be rather brief uh but we do have to go through it so So with that, we'll start with the first one on page two, which is plan 2015-12F, Melrose edition, block D. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. This is Plan 2015-12F, Melrose Edition, Block D, Lots 2 and 3, and amended final record plat for property located at 112 and 114 Thompson Road. And the purpose of this amendment is to subdivide one lot existing into two lots. This property is located just past the Lexington Cemetery on West Main Street and just to the left once you cross over the railroad tracks on Thompson Road. The purpose of the plat, as I said, was to subdivide the present lot into two equal lots. After review, the tech committee and your staff, we've recommended approval subject to the normal conditions, the standard conditions, one through seven, including cap assurance program certification. Going on down to condition number eight, we ask that they revise the engineer survey or certification to the approval of the division of planning. Number nine, correct note number one, refer to an erosion control plan per Article 16 of the Code of Ordinances. Bring that up to date. Ten, denote compliance with Article 8-7, Paragraph O, Subparagraph C, and Article 15-7 as applicable to infill and redevelopment requirements. That's what this is. This is in the infill and redevelopment. We felt that that should appear on the plat. 11 to note that there is but not shown a standard three-foot drainage easement parallel to all side and rear lot lines. That's a convention for all plats and residential development. Lastly, number 12, discuss the sanitary sewer service to the proposed lot, which is this lot here. sanitary sewer course runs out here. And we simply ask that they confirm that there is currently service to that lot. If not, it involves simply a tap onto the existing sewer line. We ask that they confirm whether or not that lot is served currently by sewer. And with that, we'll take your questions and comments. Any questions? So let me ask this. Does the sign-off as far as number seven take care of the, would take care of number 12 as far as sanitary sewer? Not literally. It is our understanding that we need to have documentation of the CAP requirements, of conformance to the CAP requirements. I understand. And then the sewer tap would follow that. Yes, it would follow that in payment of it. Very good. Is the applicant here? No, sir. I don't believe the applicant is here. Anyone else want to speak on this plan? Mr. Penn? David, is that the same requirement for both lots now? We divide into two lots, right? That's what the proposal is? Yes, sir. to divide the existing one lot into two. Do they have the sewer verification on the part of the lot they're not subdivided? Yes, sir, they do. It is currently served. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Selle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can probably delete condition number 12 because number 7 exists. If there is a capacity issue, then they will not be able to meet condition number 7 and there would be no new sewer tap. Okay. They'd be on a waiting list or have some other measures they could employ to try and get service. Okay. All right, then. So number seven would cover that one discussion item? Yes, sir. Okay. All right, then. So it is possible to delete number seven if it's the wishes of the commission. Mr. Chairman, I think it would probably be better to delete 12 and leave that one. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's what I meant. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Thank you for correcting me. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan 2015-12F with the deletion of number 12. Okay, thank you. Seconded by Mrs. Richardson. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next, at the bottom of page 2 is Clark Properties. It's Plan 2015-13F. And then at the very bottom, I think I heard we may show these things together, is Plan 2015-14F, Clark Property Unit 3B. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I just was going to get you in the location. We're out in the expansion area off of Polo Club Boulevard. We have Polo Club Boulevard. We're between the I-75 and the Polo Club. You can see where we have Lexington Rails to Trail that is going to be along the south side of this property. As you said, we do have two plans. I'll just go through one at a time. Unit 3A. Unit 3A is to take one piece of property and subdivide it into 34 lots, single family lots. We have recommendation of approval with 10 conditions. The first seven on this plan are just typical sign-offs from different governmental agencies and utility companies. And we have a couple other cleanup conditions to go along with this. As I said, this is in the expansion area, so we will review the exactions prior to signing. I can go on 3B. 3B is the second plat, and this is to take one piece of property and subdivide it into 12 lots. Again, we have approval on it by the staff with nine conditions. The first seven, again, are typical sign-offs in utilities and governmental agencies. Again, exactions, and then we have a discussed need for a minimum floor elevation on the property. Oops. On the adjacent property, there was a minimum floor elevation on this lot. And so we just wanted to make sure that these are looked at to see if they need to have finished floor elevations. If so, we need to add a note to the plan. As I said, there is recommendation for approval on that one also. Does anybody have any comments, questions? Questions for Ms. Galt? No? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kaley, good afternoon. Afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Plat 3A is your first one. We're in agreement with the conditions. Number 8, the adjoining plat information is correct. I've talked with staff. so we can, I think we couldn't ignore that one. And with 3B, number nine, the discussion for the minimum floor elevations, that should be part of our engineering sign-offs. The reason the adjoining single lot had a minimum floor setup was to protect the builder from himself, essentially. All the pieces before it come first, and he had a lower spot. He's a bit lower than the curb, and we wanted to make sure that he didn't build his house such that he flooded himself. So that one lot we set a minimum floor elevation to keep him raised up. The rest of these will all get reviewed before sending down the as-built, and if they were graded low, we'll give them minimum floor elevations. But that will be handled through engineering. Questions for Mr. Kaling? Yes? No? I thought you were leaning forward too. Hold on just a second. Okay, so Mr. Kennedy, your belief is number 8 can be deleted? Is that what you're saying? Yes. It is correct on the PLAT itself. Plan 2015-13F, the first one, number 8, correct Clark property PLAT information? Yeah, when you have one PLAT gets recorded in sections, you actually have two PLATs with the same plan number on records. So when they reviewed it the first time, they saw that the plan I referenced had already been recorded. It was just a section. So the plan number stays the same. I think we're getting nods from the staff saying that's okay? Yes, deletion number 8 is fine. I think if it just reflected section 1, section 2, that could accomplish the same thing. I have no objection. I think Mr. Cayley is saying on the second plan, 14F, he feels like that will be covered under engineering sign-off? We do not disagree. Okay. So that can be deleted as well then. Anything else from anyone? If not, anyone in the audience want to discuss this? If not, I'll entertain motions. I'd like separate motions for the two plans. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of Plan 2015-13F, Clark Property, deleting number 8. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2015-13F, deleting number 8. Please vote. Everybody's quick today. That motion passes. Mr. K. Now, for the second one. Move approval of 2015-14F, Clark Property, Unit 3B, deleting number 9. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. Deleting number 9 on Plan 2015-14L. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Moving to page 3. It's Woodland Park Subdivision, Plan 2015-20L. Thank you. to Woodland Park. We have Woodland Avenue up here, Kentucky in between. This plan here is to subdivide one piece of property into two. They currently have a building townhome on the property, and they're wanting to come in to subdivide it into two different lots. And so we came up with 13 conditions that were approved by the staff. The first five are typical sign-offs with governmental agencies, utility companies. We have several other conditions for cleanups. This was a late file, so this needs to go back in front of the tech in a couple weeks. Then we have discussed possible need for the Division of Water Quality's approval of the capacity. This home was built prior to the capacity program back in 2011, so I'm not sure that they need the capacity because they've already been in the homes. I don't know that we need a sign-off from them because they've currently been occupying these homes. But they only had one sewer tap to the property so they had to have a lateral put on the property. We would like to have them add a note that says who's going to maintain that lateral, who's going to be responsible for that on the plan for that. Otherwise, anybody have any comments, Questions? Questions? So what would your recommendation be to satisfy your wishes? Mr. Chairman, I think I can weigh in on this. Okay. Number 13, I think the easiest thing to do would just be to replace the word discuss with resolve. Okay. The reason for that, the lateral note would be one means of resolving this condition. The unknown is whether or not the lateral that's there will be deemed to be sufficient to serve both units with the subdivision. That is very likely. However, if an additional sewer tap is needed, then the requirements of the Capacity Assurance Program would kick in. So by resolving this condition, I think we can get either outcome on this plan. Thank you. It seems like, Ms. Gallif, there's several conditions here regarding access, garage access, access easement, and so forth. Correct. Can you explain that? The townhomes are currently built right here, one's on this edge and one's on this edge, and they have a driveway access that leads from the front around to the back. They have two garages in the back of the property for the townhomes. so they the garages are already built they were approved with the board of adjustment approval as far as the setbacks several years ago so now we're just coming in that's why you see this odd shaped property line and we have an access easement they show it and it stops here at the property line when it actually needs to go up to the garages that's all okay we want to clarify Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions, Ms. Gall? Yes, ma'am. So the garages are only on the one lot, the existing lot, and they are remaining, yet the access is on the opposite lot to get to them. That's why we want a little more clarification as to how far the access easement and the responsibilities for it. Yes. okay well it was they were having to subdivide it for um my understanding is for the bank they're having to subdivide the property itself because it was originally done as condos so anybody else the applicant probably has more information on that we'll get to him he may have the answers that we're looking for. Mr. Murphy, thank you, Cheryl. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing the applicant on here. The applicant is Molly Lewis, who's with me in the front row. She's the owner of one of these two units right now, and Wes Witt, our surveyor, is in the back there. Just to give you a little background, these were constructed. These are very nice units. This is a two-unit building. It was built in 2007, 2008, and it was done as a condominium. So it's set up as a condominium project right now. This is brought to you because Ms. Lewis is in the process of selling her unit, and since the advent of the Great Recession, it has become a lot more difficult to finance condominium units. it'd be a lot easier if the owner can actually own the actual dirt under the unit which would entail a subdivision plan so what this is that you will see no change on the ground whatsoever it's the applicant is in the process of dissolving the condominium association they can do it because both both parties agree or in total agreement with what's going on and we'll change it from a condominium into a duplex which is subdivided down the center line and essentially be the same as it is now but just in a different form of ownership. The so as I said you'll see no changes on the ground the the building is built in the front the driveways on the right side the garage is on the left so we're gonna put easements both on the plant and in private deed restrictions specifying that both parties can use the driveway on the right side unit, and both parties can use the garage on the left side unit. That's a fair trade going back and forth on that. So really, we're in agreement with the staff recommendations. On 13, we're agreeable with the staff's condition. I'm confident we're grandfathered in since we were built three years before the capacity assurance program came through, but we have no problem in making that assurance. On 12, we did want to ask you about 12 review of technical committee. We understand the staff's concerns. We're under some heavy-duty time constraints on a closing, and the closing is scheduled just a few days after the technical committee meeting occurs. The problem is that, and Mr. Berkeley, you may know more about this than I do, but we're told that the appraiser cannot start his appraisal until the plat's actually recorded. And it's not going to be recorded until a number of days after the technical committee. So what I'm leading up to is asking you to waive number 12, the review of the technical committee, if that is at all possible, because it would be extremely helpful in reaching the closing that we're trying to reach. We've got an anxious situation here on the closing. Questions? Mr. Penn. Mr. Penn, chime in before you did. Mr. Murphy, being as the easement is on one property and the garage is on the other, are there responsibilities for maintaining both properties shared by both property owners, whether it be the garage or the driveway? Well, they're drawing up the documents on now. One garage will be assigned to one unit, one to the other, and they'll be deciding whether the maintenance is assigned to, you know, it may be that the maintenance of that garage is assigned to the right unit and the other one is assigned to the left unit. But what about the driveway? Who maintains the driveway? They'll probably have to jointly maintain that, yes. I think right now it's set that it's jointly maintained right now by the two condominium unit owners, and it's likely that that will be set the same way. Molly's nodding her head yes, that both owners will be charged with maintenance responsibilities on the driveway. That's not unusual. It's like on townhouse associations. There'll have to be an owner's group here, and they'll have to agree on doing all the maintenance and that sort of thing. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, Mr. Murphy was, I know it's a modern building. Was that built with the proper fire separation to put a lot line down the middle? As I understand it was. As I said, it was built in 2007 and 2008. So it's got the proper rating. I mean, a condo would be a little different fire separation. My understanding is yes. Yes. Other questions? Anyone else? wish to speak on this plan if not mr. Wilson just one question maybe for the staff or at least for my clarification is it okay for us to do this without the technical committee's review that that it's the Commission's purview whether not just check I think because this is such one lot division I'm not sure the staff has any objection to deleting that. The likelihood of needing additional easements is very low on this type of plan. You just answered my question, Bill. Anything else? Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval of Plan 2015-20F Woodland Park Subdivision with the exclusion of number 12 and with a waiver of number 12 and with the 13 reading resolve possible need for the Division of Water Quality's approval. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of Plan 2015-28, deleting number 12 and changing number 13 to resolve. Everyone's already voted. That motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next on the agenda is Plan 2015-21F Watts Farm. Staff set up for that. I will let somebody else do some plans here sometime today. We love seeing you there. Go right ahead. Okay. We're going to head out Takes Creek Road at Reading Road. We were just here with a zone change. This is for Watts Farm. We came in and re-zoned the back portion to the B1. This is so that we can put the new restaurant here, subdivide, and keep the strip shops here and the other, and now have the restaurant here. So we're coming in subdividing one lot into two for that restaurant. So we came up with, the staff had come up with 11 conditions on this. The first five are just the typical sign-offs and utility easements. And then the rest of the notes are some cleanup conditions. Once again, this was another late file. And so we have to be reviewed by the technical committee on this plan. And I don't know if there's any other comments, questions. Questions from Ms. Galt? No, not yet. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. We are in agreement with the 11 conditions, including the technical committee prior to certification. Thank you, sir. Questions? No? If anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? If not, I'm ready for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of Plan 2015-21F with the 11 noted conditions. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. Plan 2015-21F. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Next, at the bottom of page 3, Development Plans BP 2015-15, Clay's Mill Center. It extends over on to page 4 with 17 conditions. Okay, we're at Clay's Mill Shops. We're heading towards the south end of town. We have Clay's Mill Road, Key Shire Way. Key Shire Way is the one that swoops around to the circle at Wellington and Reynolds Road. This is the corner here. We have a Burger King currently located in this spot, and we have a strip center and a couple other restaurants, another building behind it. This development plan is to come in. They are going to tear down the Burger King, as I understand, tear down and replace the Burger King with additional building square footage and some changes, modifications to their parking lot. So the staff has reviewed it, and we came up with an approval with 17 conditions. The first nine conditions are sign-offs. That also includes documentation from the Division of Water Quality for the capacity with the new building. We have some additional cleanup conditions, just minor notes that need to be added to the plan. And with that, I'll leave it with you all to see if there's any comments or questions. Questions from Ms. Galt? Cheryl, if you would, with number 12, dimension sidewalks, off-street parking area, and drive-through lane. And if the building is, to me, if the building is swelling, getting bigger, the drive-through, parking lot, et cetera, may be getting smaller. Are we sure there's room? We just want to make sure that we have the correct dimensions on those. That's what that's for. That's part of that question. All right. Verify that they're meeting the minimums. That's why we're asking for the dimensions. Okay. All right, then. Very good. Any other questions? if not applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Brad Boaz with CMW on behalf of the developer, and we're in agreement with the 17 conditions and ask for your approval. Thank you. Any questions? If not, thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this plan? Seeing none. If there's no questions, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2015-15. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of DP 2015-15. With 17 conditions, please vote. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Moving down the page, DP 2015-16, Tattersall Square, with 14 conditions. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this is item B on page 4. It is DP 2015-16, Tattersall Square, a lot too amended. This is property that's located on South Broadway, which is in this location. Here is the Red Mile Road, Virginia Avenue, the intersection here, Nelms Avenue. This is the area where there was an apple market, a marathon and that sort of thing, a restaurant. There was a former Mexican restaurant. There is a motel that sits back here. And, of course, the Waffle House and then the burger place is in this location. So that's where we're located. Here is the existing access point. The amendment, and you can see it, the drive comes back and serves the property. They are amending this area. They're going to redevelop this into some restaurants and a beauty salon. There's a little over 8,000 square feet located here. and then there's associated parking that you can see in this location. It has been recommended for approval, subject to fairly standard sign-off conditions. There are a few cleanup conditions that you can see on your agenda, just necessary to clarify some of the information. What is a little different about this, and the reason you see a discussion item about the access, the last condition on your agenda. This is kind of an interesting lotting pattern that's developed over time. The private access drive, you all probably can't read it very well, but that says lot one. This is lot one. So the access actually is lotted as part of lot one, but it is an easement. It's an access easement. It serves the entire area. And they have reciprocal parking and access agreements. But due to this little bit different lotting pattern, the way it's developed, there are a couple of concerns. And one concern that staff and traffic had in particular was they are adding three access points into the access easement. And you can see from over here by the Waffle House, there's an access point here and here. So the concern is that there are too many access points here, and there was a discussion that this one be closed. So that was one of the concerns. The other concern, and this isn't really a major concern, but just there's a lot of notes that address the access and address the easement and the use of it. and over time they're a little bit out of date and they need to be tweaked and clarified due to the lotting pattern that I described to you. So with that, staff does believe that that can be resolved with the applicant. We are recommending approval of the plan and if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to try to answer them. Questions? Tom, you highlighted or pointed to three access points which come out. There's a fourth one as well around the corner, I guess. Well, there is. Yes, sir. But the primary concern was in this area with all the traffic that can be moving into this part of the access easement. And of course, it's proximity to Broadway. So there was concern expressed. Do you know what's currently there? Pardon? Do you know what is currently there? I believe there's two access points there currently. Okay. And I believe this one does exist. What's the purpose? Purpose of... Yes. They are proposing some restaurants and a beauty salon. How many restaurants? Three, I believe. Yes, three. Three restaurants and one beauty salon? One beauty salon. Okay. You can have lunch while you're waiting on your appointment, Mr. Owens. Yeah, of course, yeah. Of course. Multiple choices. Okay, very good. Any other questions? Applicant? Again, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Again, my name is Brad Boaz with CMW. Yeah, I just want to clarify that we're showing three additional, not three additional, three exits out of the parcel into the private access. There are currently two at exit to the right of the sheet, which is east. And after discussing with traffic, we're okay with reducing that back to two the way that it is now, and then leaving the one that exits to the north as it's in a similar location now. I guess my only question is for Mr. Martin on to just provide a little bit more information on your second point of the access, just to make sure I fully understand what you meant by clarifying the language. Again, the notes, and we'll be happy to go over the notes with the applicant. there is some wording in those notes that refers to lotting that no longer quite exists under this pattern. And we just want it very clear. See, there was a record plat, and there was a consolidation plat, and now there's this plan. So we just want the notes to be very clear in the way they reference this property. It's not a major item, but we just want some clarity. As I said, there's at least three or four notes addressing access on this plan among the properties. So it's just a matter of making them clear. Thank you. Mr. Penn? I want to ask the applicant, if you're going to put three restaurants and a beauty shop in there versus what was there, is that more traffic generating other than the Minute Mart or the Apple Mart or whatever it's called? Is that about the same traffic generator? Mr. Penn, we did not do a traffic analysis comparing the gas station going full tilt to what's there now. And we are not 100% sure on what type of restaurants we're going in. We do know of one tenant right now and the beauty salon. So there's two vacant that they're marketing for restaurants. So it's difficult to say worst case scenario, higher or less. How much are you expanding the footprint of what's already there? it's 8,000 square feet is all three of them going to be all four i'm going to be in that 8,000 square foot footprint uh no sir i believe it check the stats it's it's 8,400 total okay post-construction um and i just don't have the exact size of the footprint today. Okay. But we are meeting the parking regulations as far as number of spaces required. And there's the reciprocal parking amongst the entire development. Any other questions? Mr. Burrow has, did you say you, what about the access points? Are you agreeable to removing one of them? Yes, sir. Okay. If I may to define which one, And the second one in from South Broadway would be the access point that gets removed. Yes, sir. And then you'll have three remaining total. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. So let me, I don't know, I might, Mr. Martin, you're coming back for something? To answer Mr. Penn's question, the current square footage for the market is a little over 5,000 square feet. So this is roughly a 3,000 square foot increase in size. So does it meet? I know it meets the half. Does it barely meet? Does it meet it? I'm talking about the parking requirements now that you've gone to. They meet the parking, but they meet the parking because they all share parking and access. I understand. Yeah, Mr. Brewer. Just, again, I thought I knew what you were talking about with closing the access, but if I understand right, you're now talking about closing the second one on your side of this drawing. Is that correct? That one. That one. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. That would be the second one in from South Broadway. On the left. On the left. And to clarify, I believe we required 59 spaces and we're providing 75. Okay. And I don't know, Mr. Martin or Mr. Salley, would it be appropriate to change number 17 to resolve access notes on development plan and remove the second access point from South Broadway? The applicant has agreed to do that, and I think that would be appropriate. I'm just asking for language, yes. Well, that would be very specific, yes. Okay. we stick with resolve, the internal access I think would satisfy it as well. Okay. All right, then. Anything else? If not, anyone, I'm sorry, anyone in the audience wish to speak on this plan? No? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. I hope I have this right. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of DP 2015-16 Tattersall Square Lot 2 with the 14 existing conditions and changing number 14 to resolve internal vehicular access. So. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded with 14 conditions changing number 14 to resolve. if there's no questions please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes thank you next at the bottom of the page Adams property BP 2015-17 we do have a revision that's before you on a manila white off-white ivory sheet of paper Thank you. Yes, sir. This is Development Plan 2015-17, the Adams property, also known as Brighton 3050 and Cadentown subdivision, Lot 10, an amended final development plan for property located at 2985 Liberty Road, 3050 Helmsdale Place, and 852 Campbell Lane. The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate 2985 Liberty Road, this area, into the development and add parking and a dumpster location here. So this is the area of the amendment. The technical committee and staff had recommended approval subject to the following conditions. before getting into that. I will say that today, earlier today, we received information from the Division of Engineering and Water Quality regarding identified wetlands and sanitary sewers in this area through here. It cuts diagonally through the property, which is illustrated from a previous development plan over here. And so we could revise our recommendations accordingly. hence you have this pass out okay you have the revised conditions here on your pass out which I will refer to we have recommended approval subject to the usual conditions the standard conditions on down through number 8 they have met the cap assurance program requirements condition 9 number 8 correct the B1 area required parking. That is 49 spaces in lieu of 46. We ask for the addition of the grease trap plan notes on the plan. And revise verbiage of note number 7. Provide a pedestrian connection between the existing and proposed apartment buildings here. This is the existing area. all this up here, this existing sidewalk, termination of sidewalk. This is the new proposed apartment buildings here, sidewalks, termination of sidewalks, simply that they connect these pedestrian facilities across here. Discuss a proposed access to the public right-of-way. This is in reference to the area here at the intersection of Liberty Road, Old Todd's Road. These two rights of way that currently exist. They are not ideal. This one is actually too close to Liberty Road. It does not meet with approval of traffic engineering. As a matter of fact, they're not in favor of it. However, both of these are existing, and we felt like that merits some discussion of the situation and the traffic flow in and out of here, particularly with it being so close to Liberty Road. Last of all, denote on the plan the wetland area per the approved 2002 and 2009 development plans. This is simply the addition of the notation and depiction of the old in green versus the new designated wetlands in blue from the previous plan on to the new plan. We ask that this information be transferred over to the new plan. With that, we'll take your questions and comments. Questions? For anyone? Nope. Okay, let's hear from the applicant. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. I'm here with Rory Kaley for this development plan. We've reviewed the revised conditions that we just received, and we're in agreement with all of those. In fact, Rory has already worked on some of these, and he has a revised plan to give to the staff after this meeting. He mentioned the access to the public right-of-way, and there's really not much, I think, to say. This is, part of this is still Old Bryant Road. Remember, there used to be several roads coming in here. You had Bryant, you had Todd's, and Liberty, and they've all been redone in the past several years with the widening of Liberty Road. the relocation of Old Todd's Road and so on. This is a separate lot, and it's in separate ownership, even though we're putting these together on the same plan, but it's separate ownership, separate financing, so this has two places to have access to the public right-of-way. One would be Liberty Road, and one is somewhere on this Bryant Road. This is the way it's been shown on the two previous plans we've shown you before when we've brought these in for zoning. If you recall last year, we first brought in this piece for the B1 R4, and then we brought in this last triangle late last year to square this off. And we've shown this consistently there. It's obviously not ideal, but as you know, if you've been out there, because across the street you have this entrance for Speedway, this entrance for Speedway. It's separated by an island. This entrance for Speedway. So we felt like that we put it in the best place we could possibly show it and have designed our circulation to accommodate that. And again, that's the only right-of-way this lot has the opportunity to have access to. And we don't think that Liberty Road is one that would be permitted. So with that, I feel like we've discussed it, and it's the best that we can do given the existing circumstances out there. With that, we would just ask that you approve the plan based on these conditions, eliminating what is now condition 12. I'll be glad to answer any questions, and Rory is here too if you want some more detail about the plan. It's essentially the same layout we've brought you before. We're just now putting these together. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Any questions from Ms. Wiseman? Yes, ma'am. Is there a second exit or entrance from the larger existing parcel there kind of beside that front building? From here to? Yes. The building right at your pen, right beside that, is there an exit into that other property? No. At the end of that building. There. Yes. We're showing a connection there. Okay. There is another one. Yeah. Good coverage for fire then. Right. There's two ways in and out. Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Plumlee? Yes. Is the staff okay with resolving 12 instead of discuss? I think the planning staff is fine with that. I'm not sure about traffic engineering. Traffic, would you like to weigh in? Good afternoon. Glad I could come up here and join you. I am. I agree. Traffic has kind of expressed their concern about the location of that all along, and it was kind of just to ensure that we don't love it. It is an already approved access point for that lot. Mr. Penn? Being as you're up here, I might as well ask this question. So you're saying two wrongs make a right? There's no way we can fix this? Not without eliminating it completely. Are you worried about backing up on Liberty Road? People want to make a left-hand turn in there? Yeah, I'm worried about there's insufficient storage prior to that intersection. Pulling off their site, there's not enough storage. If Speedway has three entrances across the road... Correct. I just can't believe we've developed this whole thing and all of a sudden, whoops, we got a lot here and we never thought we'd ever develop it, so we didn't worry about it. When we developed the piece behind it, we knew that was there. that's my problem with doing this one piece at a time sooner or later you have to pay the piper and we're paying the piper right here yes sir and and when the traffic gets up and says well we don't like it but i guess we'll have to have it you know that really bothers me and and we're all just you know we're all not thinking far enough long enough whatever i understand the They say, well, we've got the property. We've got to have it. But if we're backing traffic back up on Liberty Road after three cars, making a left-hand turn in there, you know, I'm sorry for all those people that are hung up, too, especially the people coming down Liberty Road. And it's easy for us to say, fine, just check off on it and go on. So two wrongs make a right. I think where the Liberty Road traffic won't be as affected, it's going to be on their entrance. from Liberty Road back into that shopping center. Right. The traffic coming to Liberty Road is going to be affected. Correct. The traffic coming from their property to Liberty Road. Anything else, Mr. Hill? Can't you drive out through that complex and come out on Hemsdale Place? Correct. Okay. So that's done, I guess, right? Yes. Okay. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. This is just curiosity. This doesn't have anything to track. Okay, good. Thank you. I'm just curious how you provide the death-friend connection. Is it like a crosswalk painted on the parking lot? I mean, it obviously is open. I think they wanted to make sure internally there was some connection between these new buildings and this. And so you can't really see the way this is rendered. But this sidewalk will just continue this way across the parking lot. Just like we do now. Like this building, this exists. As you go from this building, you can crosswalk here across these driveways. And this is a driveway, so this sidewalk now stops at this access internally. We're going to pick that sidewalk up and continue it over onto this driveway. Yeah, so it'll be internal, right? We won't be sending people out and walking to traffic on purpose. On purpose. Any other questions? Okay, so let me make one note. The revised staff recommendations, the conditions I believe are misnumbered. We have two number eights there. So actually right now there's 14 conditions, and our discussion has seemed to center around the old number 12 or what should be number 13, I guess. so anyone else wish to speak on this plan seeing none it's up to the wishes of the planning commission ready for motion if there's no other questions yes sir mr chairman i'm going to prove Move approval of 2015-17, revised staff recommendations with both number eights. What are you doing with number 12? What are you doing with number 12? Number 12 was discussed, so deleted. Okay. Motion's been made, and Ms. Richardson, did you second? Is that what I heard? Yes. A motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2015-17 with the conditions noted by staff deleting their number 12 that says discuss proposed access to public right-of-way. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Moving on, down at the bottom of page 5, South Farm Marketplace, DP 2015-19, you do have a revision that is before you on a tan sheet of paper. Yes, ma'am. Okay. This is development plan for South Farm. We are doing a modification amendment to the McDonald's. We're going to go out Nicholasville Road to Man of War. We have the Walmart, Lowe's, and the other small restaurants. McDonald's is located on Nicholasville Road, and they're wanting to add a second drive-through. I tried to blow this up. To add a second drive-through for the McDonald's and changes the circulation in the dumpster location. The staff originally reviewed it before the technical committee, and we had 17 conditions, but we worked with it. applicant and he came in with the revised plan so that is why you have a revised set of conditions um with that they were able to redo the cleanup conditions most of them they have just two left but the other eight conditions on the plan are all typical sign-offs from different governmental agencies so um this the staff is now recommending approval again with this plan Is there any other questions? Questions for Ms. Galt? No. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. My name is Nick Jordan with GRW, and I'm representing McDonald's, Mr. Mercer and Mr. Ferris. We agree to these conditions, and no problem taking care of those. Thank you, sir. any questions for the applicant? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Seeing none, and if there's no questions from the commission, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir, Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of DP 2015-19 with the 10 noted conditions. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2015-19 with the revised 10 conditions. please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Next on the agenda, we move to page 6. It's DP 2014-80, Providence Place Track 3. There's 12 noted conditions, and you do have an EAMP compliance report that is before you as well. It's been handed out. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the next item on your agenda is item F, DP 2014-80, Providence Place, Track 3, Lots 5A and 5B amended. This is a continued discussion that's been brought back to you for your consideration and approval. We are out on Providence Parkway. Here is Newtown Pike, Providence Parkway through here, Hackney Place that connects the commercial area and that area over in here. This is Mary Fay Place, which has, of course, not been constructed yet, which stubs into Dr. Poole's property. This is the area in question. You just recently approved this plan. It's farm credit building. They got approved a certain square footage. I believe you tweaked it and it went up once. It's going up again. They are back because they've increased the square footage by a little over 500 square feet. It's not affected the parking, not affected the access. You may remember the big question before you when this was originally approved were the access points and this was the agreed upon access point on this property. We have handed out for you the compliance statement that was prepared for this plan. This little 500 square foot little over that addition does not affect the compliance of course and we are still recommending approval of a finding on that compliance. With that you can see that we are recommending approval, but subject to the same conditions on the original approval. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. And yes, we did call Dr. Poole, let her know that a little change was happening, and she seemed very okay with it. Any questions for Mr. Martin? If not, applicant, anything to add? I've got your affidavit. Very little was said, but you do have an EAMP compliance report before you. Doesn't look like anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan. No. Okay. It's getting thin. If there's no questions from the Planning Commission, I would entertain a motion on DP 2014-80. Mr. Chairman, do you want a separate motion for the compliance report? I think if you just note the compliance, it would be fine. All right, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of DP 2014-80 with the 12 conditions, noting the compliance report with it. Thank you. I'm seconded by Mr. Smith for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Down at the bottom of the page, Coons property, DP 2014-72, track 1. This is a continued discussion item. Actually, it does continue on to page 7 with one added condition. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. This is item G, DP 2014-72 Coons property, tract one. This, too, is a continued discussion. item being brought back to you for your consideration today. This plan was just recently approved by the Planning Commission. It is an assisted living facility to be located on Sarin Drive. Here's Chaz Drive in here and Manowar would be in that direction. This is an 89 unit large assisted living and memory care facility. You can see the access here and here. You may recall Again, you can see the large open space as part of this plan. There's floodplain, significant floodplain that impacts this property along with the setback and the topography. In an effort to certify this plan, staff engaged the applicant in a conversation about exact square footages. They did a calculation with the architect and discovered there was a slight discrepancy. discrepancy. And in an effort to work that out, they discovered, well, we actually are going to intend to build a little bit more than what was approved. I believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of seven, maybe 800 square feet. It's not a large number, is staff's understanding. But again, it is necessary for this body to approve increases in square footages. So it still is well within the requirements of the R4 zone. And staff is recommending approval subject to the original conditions. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, that's just to clarify the numbers. Yes, pardon me. All right, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Applicant, anything to add? No, Mr. Chairman, at this time, we agree with all the conditions. I maybe have one question for clarification, if possible. Sure. Your name, though? I'm sorry? Get you on the record. Your name? Kevin Rich, Rich Design Studios. Thank you, Kevin. Note number 14 that denotes access to proposed open space and private park area on plan. We had conversations with staff as this was approved in September. We have since moved into construction drawings, grading, and such. Mr. Martin mentioned the topography challenges. on the site, and we do have access to the open space on the north side of the project via Sarin Drive, which we are providing internal access to, but a secondary access was not able to be provided based upon the topography constraints. And so I just want to make sure that either that is eliminated or clarified based upon allowing the access via Sarin Drive as opposed to internal. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Mr. Rich is correct. We've had that discussion, and that was discussed at length with staff when we tried to resolve that. They can access it on the sidewalk, that open area. Okay. That can be accessed, and it's compliant. They had problems, again, with the topography and the drainage, with trying to get a trail system, a walking system internally into that open space. But, again, access is available. It's along a sidewalk, and that's acceptable to staff. Okay. Mr. Brewer, question? Yeah, Tom, what's the total square footage before you found out that there was an extra 800? Okay. The total square footage was, let me see if I can read this, 39,650 square feet in the footprint. And the problem we had was the total square footage was over 85,000, and we couldn't determine that exactly out of the numbers and the configuration that they gave us. So we asked that to be clarified, and so they started breaking out their actual numbers for us. And when they did that, they discovered the extra, because it's actually a multi-story building, you see. And all we have is a footprint. And so we said, your FAR and your footprint don't quite add up. And so we asked for clarification. Well, that's really interesting. The reason I asked the question was I was thinking this is silly for us to be wasting our time on 800 square feet. But actually you found out there was a significant difference in what was identified and what was actually there or going to be there. Well, we had problems reconciling the square footage in the FAR, which is total square footage, versus the footprint, the lot coverage. Okay. And if you look at that configuration, that's one of the... Okay. So, Mr. Martin, with number 14, are you saying we can delete that? I believe that Mr. Rich is correct that they are unable to provide an internal walking path access to that open space. That had been part of the initial conversations with them. We had hoped that they had been able, they had hoped that they would be able to do that. But upon further site work and analysis, with the floodplain in this area and this, this is a drainage area. It just presented a very difficult challenge in terms of grading and getting ADA compliance. So, I mean, we have a nice sidewalk. They have internal connections to that sidewalk. So people can access this open space by just walking along a nice sidewalk. Yeah, I think staff's comfortable with that. Okay. So it can be deleted is what you're saying? I believe so. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. Anyone else want to speak on this? If not, any other questions from Planning Commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of DP 2014-72 Coons Property, Track 1, deleting staff recommendation number 14. Motion's been made and seconded for approval. DP 2014-72, deleting number 14 from the 15 noted conditions. please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. On the agenda would be approval of performance bonds and letter of credit. Mr. Chairman, let's move approval of the performance bonds and letter of credit. Thank you. Do we have a second? A second by Ms. Plumlee. This would be for the approval of the release and call of bonds dated March 12, 2015. That motion passes. Thank you. Under commission items, we've got BOAR 2015-1. Mike L. Warner. You want to recess? I'd like a brief recess from a couple of commission members, so we'll take five minutes. Wow. That's why he's got to go to the bathroom. ¶¶ Thank you. This break will be extended for a brief period, maybe eight or ten minutes. Thank you. Take their seats. We'll resume. Thank you, everyone, for the patience. Ms. Rackers, we may continue. This is on page 7 of your agenda. It's item number 1 under commission items. and BOAR 2015-1 is a request by Michael Warner, who is the contractor for the owners of 137 South Hanover. This property is two properties north of Fincastle in the Ashland Park Historic District. This is the property right here. We've got South Hanover, Fincastle is here, South Ashland is up here, and Main Street is up in this area. The house is a two-story brick, and it was built in 1921. and the board denied a certificate of appropriateness on December 10th for a vinyl fence in the rear yard of the property. And this house was extensively renovated in the spring of 2014. It took first place in the People's Choice Award for remodeled homes. There were several renovations, some of which went to the staff and were approved by the staff, and then some of them had to go to the Board of Architecture Review, and those were reviewed at the May 14th hearing. And those are listed on page one of your staff report, the ones that went to the board. They did recommend approval. One of the changes was for a six-foot privacy fence around the yard. And it was noted on the elevation drawings that the fence was to be made of wood, not vinyl. And in the motion that the board made, one of their recommendations was that the final details come back to either the staff or the board for a review. And then once the work was completed, the historic preservation staff did their usual inspection of the property. and they found that the fence in the back was made of vinyl rather than wood. And Bill, if you could put up the photo, please. This is the rear of the property. All of this was changed, and I think this was also changed. They put the steps in here, put the saltwater pool in here, and this is the fence that surrounds the rear yard that is the subject of this hearing. Historic Preservation sent a notice of violation to the property owners, and they requested that the vinyl be allowed to remain because it was very costly to install. And they put in a request for another certificate of appropriateness, and that was heard at the December 10th public hearing. The Historic Preservation staff presented their staff report and their analysis with a recommendation of disapproval, and they cited applicable design guidelines and design principles. There was a lengthy discussion at the meeting between the applicant and the board, and Mr. Warner explained why they chose the vinyl rather than wood. He said it was the property owner's material of choice because this is a saltwater pool and based on the options that were given to them by Geddes Fence and Pool, who did both projects, they did the pooling and the fence, they thought that the vinyl fence would be the better material for surrounding a saltwater pool. He did concede that the design guidelines generally prohibit vinyl, but he said that he thought that they only applied to principal structures not to fences and he thought that fiberglass was permitted for fences and if fiberglass was permitted then vinyl should be permitted he also said that it's going to be confined to the rear yard which it is and so no one would see it and in response to that the chair said that they can't regulate only what is in the rear in the rear yards or what can be seen from the street they have to regulate what's in the rear yards the whole property has to be considered and it has to be considered on its own as well as an element of the entire historic district in which it's located. They can't make allowances for changes to the rear yards or other small changes that would go against the design guidelines because that would begin to chip away at the character of the neighborhood and that could lead to the entire neighborhood losing its historic character and they are in the business of preserving and maintaining H1 properties and neighborhoods. He asked the staff for clarification with regard to the use of fiberglass and Ms. Armstrong explained that that reference is in the design guideline for new construction of primary structures. It's not in the fence design guidelines. She also said that the design guidelines generally disallow vinyl, and that is throughout the design guidelines. And the design guidelines are broken out into various elements of properties. You get the entire property, you get site elements, landscaping, hardscaping, you get primary structures, you get accessory structures, you get fences, you get windows, you get fine architectural details. And so vinyl states in each one of the design guidelines, except for the one for fences, that vinyl is not allowed. It doesn't make a specific reference to vinyl in the fence design guideline. However, it does state which materials are allowed, and that would be brick, masonry, wire, wrought iron, cast iron, that kind of thing. There is no reference to vinyl at all. And the staff in their presentation cited several design guidelines and principles to support their recommendation for disapproval, and the basics of those are the second last paragraph on page two in your staff report. And then the final statements of the staff report underscore those design guidelines. One of the statements is that use of a vinyl fence rather than wood is not within the character of the Ashland Park Historic District as the predominant materials for fences in that area are wood, iron, and or brick. It concludes by stating that the use of vinyl provides an imitation historic appearance in a suburban in character which is not permitted for this historic urban neighborhood. When the board was discussing this, each one of the board members expressed his and her agreement with what the staff had said. They voted unanimously with the exception of one because he abstained because he is in the notification area of the property, so he abstained from voting. But they voted unanimously to disapprove this. And in Mr. Warner's letter of appeal, he said that the certificate of appropriateness simply states that it was approved for a six-foot privacy fence, which is true, and that there was no mention of materials. But the drawings did indicate that there would be a wood privacy fence, and the chair said that that was what the board approved based on the drawings. and materials were not questioned because of the notation on the drawings. And if there would have been any question in their minds about materials, they would have said something and they would not have allowed vinyl. And in our review of this, we can't see that either the staff or the board erred in their assessment of the vinyl fence with regard to the design guidelines. Even though there isn't a specific reference to vinyl in the fence design guidelines or the design principle is throughout the rest of the design guidelines. And that should be some indication because of the, what's the word, together with the prohibition of vinyl, you would think that when it does specify that it has the specific materials that are allowed, that that would disallow the vinyl, and at least it would cause them to ask whether it was allowed or not when they send it back to their staff or the board. And then it was specifically noted in the board's final comments that no vinyl fences are in the Ashland Park Historic District. And if they were allowed to keep this fence, it would set a precedent, and it would probably cause a domino effect. And in that case, it would possibly lead to the historic character of the Ashland Park Historic Neighborhood being just gone. And they're, like I said, in the business of maintaining and preserving historic districts. So we're recommending disapproval and ask that you uphold the board, and there are three reasons. One is that it's consistent with their charge in determining appropriateness for a property or a change on a property based on the design guidelines. One is that the interpretation with regard to the use of vinyl is consistent with their disallowance of vinyl in the rest of the design guidelines. It doesn't mention anything in the fence design guidelines, but it's consistent with the rest of the design guidelines. Vinyl has never been permitted in an historic district, even with the new design guidelines that are a little bit more lenient with regard to materials. A little bit more variety is allowed. And then the third reason is that the reference in the design guidelines to use of more contemporary materials, including fiberglass, which resulted in a misinterpretation of the guidelines by the appellant, is contained in the design principle for new construction in primary structures and is not referenced in the design principle or design guidelines for fences. This is a good indication that it, and by extension, vinyl may not be used for fences, even though there is no specific language regarding preclusion of its use in the text addressing fences. If you have any questions about the staff report, I would be happy to answer them. Ms. Armstrong is here from Historic Preservation, and they have a new employee, Mr. Barry Dennis. He's also here, and Mr. Warner is here. Any questions for Ms. Rackers? If not, yes? Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate for her or someone else. What's the age of these design guidelines? When were they? That was within the last five to ten years. 2010. I'm sorry? The guidelines were revised in 2010. Ten. Was there any consideration at that time of the corrosive effects of salt water, or was there any reason to be concerned at that time? Were there saltwater pools, something that was, I don't want to say common, but that was deployed in Fayette County? I can't answer all of those questions because I'm not as familiar with the installation of pools of saltwater nature as much as I am just regular pools within our H1 overlays. but I think Mr. Dennis has done some research on those and found that there is widely no real information no difference between any kind of fence installation with regards to saltwater pools because if you think about it if you have going out on the beach you have piers made out of wood with saltwater effect there So I think we've only installed pools that, and this pool was an existing pool situation. It was just sort of repaired by Gettys. There was no discussion about saltwater at the time the fence was installed. Thank you. So, and I think, I'm going to ask Mr. Dennis to enter the record of our staff reports, the denial letter, the approval letters for both the May meetings and of the December meeting. And also, additionally, he's passing out the plan that states that the fence is indicating it's supposed to be wood. And I will visually walk you around the site at this time. This, of course, is 137 South Hanover. It's sort of along the driveway side. There was an extensive work done as far as replacement of a deck and extension of a deck, as well as the new fence. And this property actually did have masonry walls around it. Those masonry walls were taken down, and that was on the north side of the property. And on the south side, there was a lattice fence. And on the back, there was a chain length. So it was sort of various different fence materials. When the fence was first proposed, it was proposed at eight foot, but at the meeting it was actually approved at a six-foot, and that was at the May 14th meeting. But they initially proposed an eight-foot fence, and staff had recommended disapproval of that, and then the board approved a six-foot fence. Just here's, again, the fence. And this is sort of other views, and you saw the previous picture from Mrs. Ruckers. Mrs. Ruckers at the fence. And this is the plan. You have a plan, this plan at your desk, and this is the notation that states that this is supposed to be a wood fence. I would also just briefly forgot to thank Mrs. Rackers for a very comprehensive report, and I'm also going to now turn my segment over to Mr. Dennis. Good afternoon. This is my first time in front of you. As Amelia pointed out, the drawings that were submitted were submitted for an eight-foot fence, and it was noted to be a wood fence, which is in keeping with the design guidelines. there has been some discussion about fiberglass being allowed or that it is not mentioned within the fence guidelines. It is not mentioned, but only materials that are approved or can be approved are mentioned at that point, which is wood, metal, and expanded metal in some areas. so I would say that the vinyl is excluded by not being included in what is allowed. Additionally, you may look at the certificate of appropriateness that was issued. The bottom line of that says the property may now be considered for issuance of a building permit by the Building Inspection Division, or if a building permit is not required for the alterations requested, the work may begin. In our research, there were no permits issued by the building inspection department for either the fence or the deck that was changed. The only permit that we have was specifically for interior construction. So that may have been another area or another point that this could have been caught. And that's really all I have for you unless you have any questions. Any questions? In this report, can you take us directly to where it talks about the fencing guidelines in your report here? in let me find that okay it's on the staff report dated 515 page 30 guidelines for site and setting And it's under the design principle. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? what is woven wire would that mean that chain link would be acceptable? No, chain link is not. And I don't believe we've included any photos. You've probably seen it before. It typically has in the panels the little small arches, and it's a pretty common historic material from the early part of the 20th century. Thank you. Other questions? Since we're talking about this, well, I don't know. If there's not any questions right now, let's hear from the applicant. Members of the Planning Commission, I apologize for my not being here, as I should have been. I saw I was last on the agenda and asked my good friend Wes Witt how long these typically took, and he said about three hours. So I'm a builder and lost a lot of time to snow, and I thought I would catch up. So I apologize. Thank you for allowing me to come back. Amelia has been wonderful. Sorry, if you would, for the record, since we're audio. Oh, Mike Warner. Thank you. And I am representing the owners of 137 South Hanover. Amelia has been wonderful, as of all the members of the Board of Architectural Review, to work with. When I met with them, I made it very clear This is not an adversarial thing. This is simply a mistake was made. We admit the mistake was made, and we have some reasons to want to argue that point, and that's why I'm here, perhaps. We did, as this lady explained, we won first place in the Remodelers Tour right after it was completed. We've never tried to hide this fence. We opened it up to thousands of viewers right after that and won first place in the People's Choice Award. The people who went through the homes placed their votes, and we were first place winner in that this home was, including the fence. It was published in the Home Seller magazine showing pictures of the house, the interior, the exterior, the pool, and the fence. It was published in Topps magazine, again, showing all the same pictures. So it's been a widely publicized house. Can you go back one slide? I don't know how to do that. Just this arrow here. Oh, wait a second. Somebody just did it. You know, this is a picture of it and a close-up picture of it. And it, to me, not to argue that it's not wood. It is not wood. It is vinyl. Now, our argument to the Board of Architectural Review was that, as it's been stated by everyone, that it is not prohibited in the fence guidelines. And the gentleman, I think he said it was, these were the only ones allowed, but I don't read the guidelines that way. It says, fences were typically constructed of wood, cast and wrought iron, brick, stone, and woven wire. Lexington has a number of historic metal fences. Historic fences should be preserved and maintained. The construction of new fences based upon historic designs and materials is also appropriate. Cast iron or woven wire is preferable for 19th and 20th century buildings. Wood fences are also allowed. However, it is important to keep the fence as transparent as possible so as not to obscure the view of the historic building. I don't take that as an exclusive list of building materials. We did reference the fiberglass only to bring up the point that, as they've all said, vinyl and fiberglass were both only mentioned when they were talking about the principal residence. They were never mentioned in the fence guidelines. So I'm here representing the owners, admitting a mistake was made. I think it's a great-looking fence. I think even from this close-up view, if I told you that was wood with a great paint job, everyone would say it looks like a nice fence. Lastly, the only thing, and again, I'm sorry I'm late. I appreciate you letting me speak. I appreciate everything that Amelia and her board has done to allow us to present this. The only thing I would say is as a builder and having to deal with building inspection and building enforcement, codes change. Things change. We rewrite the code. As Mr. Drake said, asked the question, when was this last written? I'm quite certain that it will be updated as time goes forward, and I would expect that there would be some reference in the fencing materials to be more specific of what it can use. But in building codes, we're allowed to do what's called grandfathered in. I don't anticipate this being a chink in the armor for future residences. I see it as being a mistake, an honest mistake was made, and we're asking to allow this fence to remain at least through its lifetime. The owners have said when its lifetime is up, they will take it down and replace it with whatever fence the H1 overlay would like to see. But because of the fact there's no reference in here about materials specifically excluded in fencing, we are respectfully asking that you allow this fence to remain grandfather in under whatever conditions that may be. So I'm glad to be here. Thank you, Mr. Warner. Any questions for Mr. Warner? No? Doesn't look like it. Thank you, sir. rebuttals from staff or BOAR? Mr. Penn, question? I've got a question for Amelia. Help me understand, in the new guidelines, what did we do about vinyl-clad windows? Are they still prohibited? Vinyl, in general, is prohibited within the guidelines. However, aluminum-clad windows are permitted. So the change was the aluminum-clad was allowed? Correct, sir. Okay, because I didn't know it was aluminum or vinyl, but the aluminum and the vinyl was not. That's right. Now, while I have you up here, you said on one side of that was a brick wall? Yes, sir. I assume it was in disrepair? Actually, it was not. It was sort of covered with ivy, but it was the owner's taste to remove that wall to put up this. Okay. So it would have been your all's preference to keep the brick? Not necessarily. The brick was added, and it was actually branded a permit to be removed and replaced with a wood fence. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Cravens? Yes. When was this H1 overlay put on this street? This was approved in January 22, 2014. Or 13, excuse me. So just a year and a half ago or so? Two years ago. Two years ago. So anything that was allowed, anything was allowed up until then on all those houses, right? Correct. So there's probably some vinyl on some of those additions and things all through there. That's correct. In those cases, all those conditions were accepted and grandfathered in as existing conditions. Okay. Other questions? Ms. Plumlee? Yes, my question is, if we vote to uphold the BOAR decision, what happens to the fence now? Then the applicants would have to make an application for a new fence. Other questions? Hold on just a second. You got a question? Yes, go ahead. Has vinyl fence ever been vetted? Actually, this is the first vinyl fence that we've ever encountered. Okay, I'm talking about by the folks that lay out the design principles. Actually, throughout the whole guidelines, there was sort of a no vinyl policy. And it didn't specifically say fences. Because the way I read this, I agree with what Mr. Warner is saying. It's very vague. And so my question is, when these principles were drawn up, was vinyl ever discussed, vetted? Yes, vinyl was discussed quite a bit, but for fences, I think it was not even something they were thinking of, you know, as far as people introducing fences. It was more the intent and the philosophy of these new guidelines having a no vinyl policy. And they particularly concentrated on materials versus the building materials on the physical structure versus a fence. Mr. Cravens? Mr. Drake. Go ahead. During the discussion of the guidelines, what was the objection to vinyl? Is it aesthetic looks, or is it some of the quality of the material? I think a combination of all of those were discussed, in the sense that there was also an environmental component to vinyl being added. There was a what? An environmental component to the discussion of vinyl being on materials. But our guidelines are sort of overall, they sort of encompass all our historic districts. So we wanted to, I guess their discussion was to make sure that vinyl was just not looked at as a material that they wanted to continue using in the historic districts. Well, help me understand something you just said. I would think the environmental and health and safety aspects would argue for vinyl rather than against it and the energy efficiency qualities of vinyl. And I think they were talking about other kind of the detriments to vinyl sort of leaching out and so forth from building materials and that kind of thing. That was one part of the discussion that was not a main component. But there's particular, the guidelines, they really were looking for materials that sometimes match profiles better with windows, for instance, and columns and other building materials and siding and so forth as well. Thank you. Mr. Brewer. Yeah, I don't have a question. Are we ready for discussion now, or where are you? I think we've got a few questions at the moment. I'll wait till then. Okay. It says fence is constructed of wood. Is any kind of wood permitted? I mean, could I put wood boards up there like that and paint them white? Yes. wood board wood fences usually consist of we've had some sort of more artistic fences installed we've had pressure treated fences installed cedar fences you know sometimes you have some have lattice at the top some don't have lattice at the top you know typically the guidelines really talk about making sure the fences are finished and that you know really your stringers are sort of in the interior of the yard and so forth, but from the exterior, you know, I think you could have, you know, various different materials, so. So. Except vinyl. Yeah. Vinyl is vinyl, but everything I do, new house, everything's got vinyl on it now, so eventually that's going to be in your historic ricks when those houses get old enough. But depending on my skill as a painter, I could put a wood fence up there and make it look just like that. Right? Paint it white. If it's wood. Yeah. Correct. Are there any, excuse me. Yes, go ahead. Are there any guidelines for color? In other words, you all don't have a problem with the fact that it's white. No, we actually don't review color. Okay. so I could put a pink fence in. You certainly could. Pink wooden fence. That's correct. Other questions? Okay. Amanda, I'm having trouble with the woven wire part of this. You know, from a farmer's perspective, woven wire looks, I can't imagine putting woven wire around your swimming pool unless I'm trying to keep rabbits out. This is actually, this is sort of a throwback to some of these historic areas do have some older fences that are of that era you're talking about, and that you can go back and replace. It's sort of to distinguish the difference between a chain-length fence, which has a very different appearance than the woven wire. Right, right. Right. So I think it's the woven wire is very, very rarely do we actually ever install or have somebody have an application for that. Right. And it's really, I've got a picture of it in the guidelines, but I think you've got a pretty good handle of what that is. Yeah, I've put up a lot of woven wire. I just never thought about putting it up in town to shield swimming pools. Right. And it's mostly just to replace. Sometimes people ask for applications for just to restore what's there. And that's pretty much what that is. Other questions? If not, I've got one for Mr. Warner. With what I'm seeing here, the drawings said wood fence. Was that the intent for all of the fence and at some point it changed to vinyl? Mr. Owens, it strictly was an honest mistake. We, Tom Burke was hired as an architect, and he put that on there without any discussion of the owners or myself or Getty's Fence Company. And it was an oversight on my part not to refer back to that. But I can't, you know, we made a mistake. No, I understand. It was just a notation on a plan put on by an architect, and we got, and then we saw six-foot fence approved. we never really looked back. We kind of moved forward. Okay. All right. And I think Ms. Plumlee or Ms. Richardson, one, asked what was going to be asked of them if this is disapproved, and she said they would make application for a new fence, but they would ask that this fence be taken down, and that, of course, is why we're here representing the owners, that they would prefer not to have the expense of taking down this and building a new one, and perhaps with wood and painting it to look just the same. Sure. Okay. I have a question. Yes, sir. Ms. Warren, do you have an estimate of the cost of taking down and replacing this wooden fence? That's out of curiosity. The cost of this fence was about $9,000. So to take it down, taking down, we're real good at destruction. Construction is a different matter, but to take it down is not going to cost a lot, but then you've got to pay to install a new fence so it would be an additional cost to the owner. What would a wooden fence? Probably the same thing, another 9,000. Probably about the same. It just would not be as durable as this. Any other questions? Okay. Whoops, one more. No. For who? The storks. Oh. The stork folks. Not that this necessarily matters, but you said something about a notification area, so neighbors were notified of your all previous hearing correct what what were there was there neighborhood opposition there there was no neighborhood opposition and I would just like to reiterate that a no building permit was also obtained for this fence anything else any other questions if if not I'll close it and go to to discussion, comments, and then motion. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, I've got comments, not a question, but several comments. The first would be I think it's a beautiful job. The renovation is truly outstanding, and the architect and builders and everybody involved should be complimented on that. However, I look at this from a perspective of our reviewing something our peers have done, and I think that should be something that's done pretty carefully. The plans stated would. I mean, that clearly was what was the intent according to the plans which were filed. Mistake was made. You don't grandfather in mistakes. your grandfather in things that are in existence when the plans change. H1 is our most strict guidelines for a reason. These are neighborhoods that are extraordinary. And whether you can see a change or not, I think a violation of the rules of the H1 is significant. Whether you can put up a wood fence and paint it to look the same as this I think is irrelevant. And I think the argument that because it wasn't stated that it's prohibited means that it's allowed is completely wrong. They've got examples of what's allowed listed. If you took that argument, you could say, well, I want to put up a broken glass fence because it's not stated that I can't do it. And I just think that's the wrong logic. I think that that's flawed. I think we need to put some credibility into our peers, our colleagues on the BOAR. They've done their due diligence. They made a decision. I don't see that they made any mistakes or that there's been any new evidence or anything else that would lead me procedurally to say that this needs to be overruled. We've got a very competent staff that's reviewed it. It's told us that we need to disapprove. And I think the cost of discussions, I think, quite frankly, if you're talking about $10,000 or $20,000, that's probably dropping the bucket to what this renovation costs, certainly what the house is worth. So I'm not making a motion. I just wanted to open the discussion with a level set from my perspective. Thank you. Mr. Penn? I want to piggyback on what Patrick said, but I want to do it from a different way. The reason I ask Amanda about the vinyl clad versus the aluminum clad, because we had a discussion on these window things back through the years, because it was so expensive to do it with just all wood windows, prohibitively expensive, and the new guidelines lets them use white aluminum, but doesn't let them use vinyl. So that, to me, for me, is a pretty good indication that vinyl was just not acceptable. And being as the BOA fights we've had over these vinyl-clad windows versus aluminum windows versus wooden windows, we've won on the aluminum. That's in the guidelines now. It makes them a lot more affordable. I can't stretch the no vinyl from the use on the house to the use on the fence. I just think that's too big a stretch. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, you know, plans tend to change. There's probably some changes made on these plans as you were doing the job. So the fact that says wood fence, I mean, plans do change under construction. And then I think the fact that it says no vinyl, when I read that, I think of no vinyl siding or no vinyl windows or carnage or any of that is what it means. because the vinyl fence is basically a new product. I mean, they haven't been out in that style for a whole long time. So, I mean, I think there's a crack in these regulations. They detail everything else in here down to the last minor detail, but the fact that it doesn't say no vinyl fences, no vinyl on fences. I mean, I think that's a small crack in the rigs in that whatever happens here, that ought to be, you know, there ought to be some language added to that, what you mean when you say no vinyl. Anyone else? Ms. Plumlee, I think, is next. Yes, thank you. The reason I ask the question about what happened to the fence is because of enforcement after this body makes a decision. Nearly three years ago, we made a decision. It was never enforced. The gazebo is still on the same property that we said, no, it shouldn't be there anymore. So if somehow enforcement has to be relative to our decision, I don't know if it is or not, but if we make these decisions, as Mr. Brewer said, with our sister bodies, then we have to expect the government to enforce it or else we're wasting our time here. Thanks. Mr. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't disagree with anything any of my colleagues have said. I would urge, though, if something is done to follow Mr. Craven's suggestion of revising or amending the design guidelines, that vinyl be given perhaps a different look, a different consideration. I think from an environmental and a health and safety aspect, vinyl is much preferable to wood. It's not laden with arsenic, creosote, and all of the other hazardous materials. It's very stable. And as Mr. Craven said, not only do plans change, technology changes. And I think we run the risk of being behind the technology curve. Probably in this instance we are behind it, but as has been said, too, we have a consideration to uphold the guidelines as they exist. This troubles me. I'm torn with this issue, and I don't want to undercut our colleagues and assist our agency. but at the same time I'm sympathetic to the applicant's dilemma. Thank you. Mr. Brewer, something to add? Yeah, I'll just come back to, and it sounds funny, I agree with everything that's just been said, counter to what I said before, but from a different perspective, that if we're going to rule here against this, appeal, then I would encourage this discussion to be taken up as the focus of a, whether it's a working group or a subcommittee or whatever the appropriate place would be, to see whether it's appropriate at this point to change the rules to allow vinyl. As it stands right now, in my assessment of this, it's prohibited. it. And I'm certain that had the builder or the owner gone back and said, we want to clarify we made a mistake, or we didn't want this to state wood, we want to make it vinyl, that they would have been denied. And so, again, I don't think that we should be, the quote for legislative, legislating from the bench. It's not appropriate for us to allow something that's disallowed or not allowed by the existing rules. Ms. Richardson. Because the historical requirements are always pretty strict and have good reason to be strict and very specific, I really do have a problem. I would like to see this rewritten because, to me, fences were typically and then a list is given. To me, that says these are suggestions, not that this is the golden rule on the only thing that could be used. I think that's extremely misleading. And if I were building a fence, I wouldn't necessarily go and look at the requirements for windows. So that what it says about fences says typically, word typically, and a list is given. And I think that is a real flaw in the regulations because it can certainly, in my opinion, be easily misinterpreted. And it has been, obviously, misinterpreted. And I think that if we're going to have all of these rules and these very strict regulations and then require enforcement of taking down a structure of something that's already been constructed, that is expensive. then I think we need to be incredibly specific about what can and what cannot be used. And this really does bother me. Mr. Berkeley? I guess I kind of look at this a little different. I don't see that we're necessarily going against the BOAR because they've not vetted it. I mean, she said that. So how do we know? You know, we know how they feel about windows, but we don't know how they feel about fences. I don't know what you mean. Their ruling is a pretty clear statement. They don't want vinyl fences. We're talking about the BOAR as opposed to the Historic Preservation Commission. It's not the BOAR that made the design guidelines. It's the Historic Preservation Commission. BOAR enforces them and interprets them. Okay, but my point is that she said that vinyl fences have never been vetted by the people that design these guidelines. Okay, but it's not the BOAR. Okay, well, I'm sorry if I said the wrong thing, but my point is that it's not been vetted. But vinyl was talked about extensively, and one of the reasons that it's disallowed, and aside from what Amelia has said, or in addition to what Amelia has said, is that vinyl melts and it sends off fumes, and it is dangerous to human health. And that is basically one of the reasons that it was disallowed with the design guidelines. Ms. Mundy? Ms. Mundy? We lived in Virginia near Williamsburg for a long time, and I have to go back to the historic preservation and all that's gone on in Williamsburg. And vinyl fences are allowed in historic Williamsburg, Virginia. So that kind of, to me, says maybe we are a little behind. Our guidelines don't truly prohibit it. And I'm thinking that, you know, if it's good enough for Williamsburg, Virginia, and the historic district in Williamsburg, Virginia, it's probably good enough for the historic district in Lexington. that's my thought. Other comments? Go right ahead. Well first of all I like the fence I like it it looks good and also I would like to say to Mr. Warner that many times when I've sat on this committee most of the time people do not come and admit a mistake what they do is they come and use rhetoric to try to cover it, but I'm sympathetic to anybody who comes up and says, we made a mistake and here we go. But I'm in agreement with my colleagues. We've got a law here, and I also agree with my other colleagues who indicated that this may be something that might want to be reviewed, but under the current rules and regulations, I don't see how anyone else could do anything else other than disapprove. But again, I put all that in a context of thank you for your presentation and also thank you for the admission that openly, which a lot of people just don't do, at least while I've been here. Others? No, let me close then. One, having seen Mr. Warner's work, the People's Choice Award is just a testament as to the work he does. That's not in question here, though. We have an H-1 overlay for specific reasons. And I've heard arguments here on both sides, and I think there may be a small crack in the regulations here when it comes to vinyl fencing. I don't know how big that crack is. I don't know if it warrants approval of this or not. We know vinyl in any other setting in an H1 overlay would not be allowed, simply put. We've had that discussion many times in the past. What I wish is that people would have gone and asked a question and they would have gotten a quick answer. Sitting here in the past, we've had this discussion many times, and to me, I can see vinyl fences was never an issue before because they didn't exist, simply put. Unfortunately, I don't think that's reason to allow it here at this time. I'm very sorry to say. A mistake's been made, but we've got an H-1 overlay that I think we've got to adhere to. And as far as my thoughts is concerned, I'm sorry for the cost involved with all this. but if we're going to have historic overlay districts we've got to support it simply put so if no one else wishes to chime in I think we're done and I can call for a vote I'm not for a vote we haven't got to that point we need a motion I'm sorry anyone wish to make a motion I'll go okay And I'd just preface it with the statement also that this is not a review of the work that was done or the vote that comes out of it is not that. I think as a body we've got to uphold the rules that were given. I think it's a very worthwhile endeavor to revisit this and see if the rules are wrong, but this is not the place or the time to change the rules. Move forward disapproval of the appeal. we've got a motion for disapproval of the appeal BOAR 2015-1 Michael Warner do we have a second motion's been made and seconded for disapproval of the appeal if there's no questions vote when it comes up on the screen this is for disapproval of the appeal the motion has failed by six to five vote so Mr. Parliamentarian the ruling as it is is that the motion has failed that's it and you simply cannot according to parliamentary procedures, reverse the motion by any other things unless you want to do something significant. In other words, the motion has died. The motion has died. Is there a single motion? Can we move to suspend the rules? You can. You can indeed. Okay. If you do vote to suspend the rules, then you would have to do so on a two-thirds vote. You simply can't do that on a majority vote. Okay. I move to suspend the rules and retry the motion. Do we have a second on the motion to suspend the rules? Question? I think we need a second first, and then we're going to motion has been made and seconded. Question? Yeah, we're suspending the rules to revisit my motion that was disapproved. Or do you want to make a different motion? I want to make a motion for approval. I don't think you need to suspend the rules to make a different motion, do you? According to him. We've been there before. Yes, sir. You do? Yes, you would, because otherwise you'd have to significantly change the essence. you simply can't go from a negative to a positive. If we could get rid of the parliamentarian, we could. Now, now. Now, now, now, now. We're going to keep the parliamentarian. Okay. The motion is to suspend the rules to allow for a second vote. It was seconded by Mr. Berkeley. Any questions concerning the motion? I have a question, Mr. Chairman, perhaps not concerning the motion, But if this motion fails, then what dilemma is the applicant in? Can I ask to go back? You can answer, I believe. What that means is that the motion fails, that the applicant loses his appeal in this particular body. In other words, the applicant will be allowed to do whatever they want to do based on this body's decision. because the body, in effect, has voted that the rules were nebulous, confusing, and consequently deserve the—and, in effect, we have grandfathered this particular fence into that NDO overlay. Even without considering another motion? Yes. You've already got it. I can't figure out why you would— I already got it. Well, I couldn't figure that either, but that's—he asked the question. I was ruling from a parliamentarian's perspective. In fact, if I may say, the applicant actually has won right now on the publication on the vote that was taken. Well, in that case, I'd like to ask Mr. Craig. So I couldn't understand why. Okay. Withdrawal the motion. Okay. Okay. So the motion's been withdrawn. Are you okay with that, Mr. Berkeley? Okay. Any questions? Anything else, Mr. Parliamentarian? Anything else? I'm not okay with that. You're not okay with that? Yeah, because your ordinance says that when there's an appeal that you shall, and, you know, I use that word sparingly when I talk to you all, but when I tell you shall means shall, conduct a public hearing and vote to approve or deny the appeal. So you haven't done either right now, as I see it. And if you go to London now, no, we didn't. No, we didn't. Oh, well. Patrick's motion was to disapprove the appeal. In other words, not agree with the appeal. And that motion failed. Okay, so we need to know the motion. But there's not a motion, you know. In response to your question of what happens if you go the other way and that doesn't pass either, then what happens, then I think probably the BOAR decision is going to stand because you all voted, but you could take no action with your vote, which I know you don't agree with, but, I mean, we've got to come out of this ordinance. I'm trying to get clarification on exactly now what the motion was vis-a-vis what we voted. As I understood it, we voted to, in effect, uphold the staff and the BOA's decision. Is that right? No. Okay. The motion was made to support the BOA's decision to deny the appeals. appeals. Right. And that motion failed. My motion was to agree with the BOR's decision to deny. Okay. Having said that, then what does that mean? I mean, from your legal perspective. That means that the applicant, or the party that wants the fence to be there filed this appeal to get you all to agree with him and not what the BOAR did. Which would mean you would be disapproving his appeal because his appeal was to get that decision changed. The decision the BOAR made was, you can't do this. We're not going to allow you to build a vinyl fence. We're disapproving your appeal to that. He then appealed to you all because under the ordinance, you're the next body of appeal from the BOAR asking the same thing, saying, in effect, I've been to the BOAR procedurally. They have said no to my appeal. They've disapproved my appeal. So now I'm coming to you all at the next level, and the recommendation from the staff was that this board also disapprove the appeal, which would uphold the BOAR decision. So if you approve the appeal, then you would be agreeing with the applicant who's asking to let the fence remain. And Patrick's motion? We didn't do that. Patrick's motion was to disapprove the appeal because you have to look at it from who filed the appeal, and that would uphold the decision of the BOAR. But that motion failed when you voted. Okay, and with that said, Once that motion failed, then where does that leave the applicant now? I think that's the problem. I mean, you don't have... In other words, if we did not uphold the appeal of the BOAR, if we had gone in a different direction, that's one thing, but we agreed with the BOAR. No, we did not agree with the BOAR. To that end, does that not allow the applicant to proceed? I think it's questions. That's a question. Okay, I've got another question. If my motion was not clear to anybody on the commission, I don't know what needs to be done to restate it. But the intent of my motion, whether it was correct or incorrect, and please legal, teach me before I make another mistake. I was supporting the BOAR's decision to disapprove. I was supporting the staff's, or my intent was to support the staff's recommendation for disapproval. If that was not what you all thought I was saying and you voted in a different way, I think we need to fix it. That's the way I interpreted it. I think the interpretation is correct. His motion failed, so, I mean, either we need another motion to approve and you're going to make us go through this. If that's the case, then your suspension of the rules would be in order. but is it related to the motion that you made? So let's just do it. Let's just see what happens. Okay. One question. Because does the ordinance not say that, I mean, it says shall, right? So it says we either have to approve or disapprove, and we've not. Does that trump the parliamentary procedure? Yes, it would. I think it does. It does, and I would agree. No parliamentary procedure can overrule the laws of the land, of the Constitution, or anything like that. You don't really have to suspend. You don't have to suspend. Okay. That's what I was saying. Once I heard all that information, based on that, I said you don't need a suspension. But if it's a legal issue that we do, then, I mean, we can back it up. I think she still wants a motion, though. She still wants a motion. Tracy, do you still want a motion? I think you need some kind of a motion. Okay. To approve. You've made a motion to disapprove. That motion has failed. It failed, yeah. Okay. So, okay. So, we need a new motion. All right. No, he withdrew his motion for suspension of rules. Do they have to wait until next meeting to make it back? Would you like to make a motion? I want to make a motion to spin the rules. No, we don't need to do that. Oh, you don't? Okay. I want to make a motion to approve the applicant's findings. The applicant's appeal. His appeal, yeah. Second. So, motion BOAR 2015-1 Michael Warner is to approve his appeal of the BOAR's decision. Correct? That's right. Motion was seconded by Mr. Barkley. Any questions in regards to the motion? I'd like to make sure with counsel that that does what we think it does. I'm assuming you're wanting to grant the appeal and allow the fence to stay. That's what the motion is going to do. Yes, that's what it's designed to do. That's what it's going to do if you vote in favor of it. Okay. So, the motion's been made and seconded. Any other questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. On a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 to 4 vote. Did we lose someone? Did someone not vote? Mr. Chairman, the motion still passes on the 65 vote. And Mr. Chairman, as it relates to parliamentary, just a simple rule, this is one of the reasons why you never should, even though it's in our constitutional level, make a negative motion because of the confusion that we've had. Essentially, you haven't changed anything. You've given the applicant the opportunity to go forward, which is why you have the parliamentary set. But in a line with our legal and our lawyer and what have you, you've reversed it and done the same thing. Okay. Thank you, sir. We do have a work session next week. Anything from the staff? Any other commission items? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion passes.