# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - January 12, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 12, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4141 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4141?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-01-12 - **Last revised**: January 12, 2017 - **Length**: 17,284 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 convened on January 12, 2017, at 1:33 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Bill Wilson presiding as chair. The commission addressed eight agenda items during the session, taking a total of 12 votes on various zoning amendments, development proposals, and procedural matters. Two public comments were heard during the meeting. The commission approved six items, including the Consent Agenda, Community Ventures Properties development, an amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations, appeals for properties at 407 N. Limestone and 401 N. Limestone, and an amendment to the 2017 Meeting & Filing Schedule. However, two significant zoning map amendment cases were postponed: the Ball Homes, Inc. proposal for The Peninsula development and the Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen application for Queen Estate. The meeting demonstrated the commission's ongoing work in managing urban development and zoning matters while ensuring proper procedural review of complex development proposals. ## Attendance The following members were present at the January 12, 2017 meeting: • Bill Wilson • Carolyn Richardson • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Joseph Smith • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Mike Owens Three members were absent: • Frank Penn • Mike Cravens • David Drake No members arrived late to the meeting. Eight of eleven total members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included twelve motions, with ten passing unanimously and two postponements. All eight members present participated in each vote. **Minutes and Administrative Items** The board unanimously approved the December 8, 2016, minutes on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy [timestamp: 00:30]. The Consent Agenda was approved unanimously on a motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee [timestamp: 07:00]. A motion to approve the release and call of bonds passed unanimously, moved by Mike Owens and seconded by Karen Mundy [timestamp: 09:00]. **Postponements** Two zoning map amendments were postponed. Case PLN-MAR-16-00016 (Ball Homes, Inc.) was postponed to January 26, 2017, on a motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Karen Mundy [timestamp: 03:00]. Case PLN-MAR-16-00020 (Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen) was postponed to February 9, 2017, on a motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Joseph Smith [timestamp: 05:00]. **Development Approvals** The Community Ventures Properties development plan (PLN-MJDP-16-00055) was approved unanimously on a motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee [timestamp: 11:00]. The Sarah W. Greg property retracement plat (PLN-MJSUB-16-00059) passed unanimously, moved by Carolyn Richardson and seconded by Joseph Smith [timestamp: 18:00]. The Fair Lawn and W.J. Hayden Subdivision (PLN-MJSUB-16-00058) was continued to February 9, 2017, on a motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Joseph Smith [timestamp: 15:00]. **Regulatory Changes** Amendment SRA 2016-4 to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations passed unanimously on a motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Joseph Smith [timestamp: 21:00]. The 2017 Meeting & Filing Schedule amendment was approved unanimously, moved by Carolyn Richardson and seconded by Joseph Smith [timestamp: 30:00]. **Appeals** Two Board of Appeals cases required roll call votes. BOAR 2016-1 (407 N. Limestone) passed 6-2, with Wilson, Richardson, Mundy, Plumlee, Smith, and Owens voting in favor, while Berkley and Brewer opposed [timestamp: 25:00]. BOAR 2016-2 (401 N. Limestone) also passed 6-2 with identical voting patterns [timestamp: 28:00]. Both motions were made by Mike Owens and seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, both regarding postponements of zoning map amendment cases. **Nathan Billings** [timestamp: 03:30] spoke on behalf of a large number of objectors regarding the postponement of the Ball Homes, Inc. zoning map amendment. Billings expressed frustration with the timing of the postponement but acknowledged agreement with the need for additional time to allow for necessary changes to be made to the development plan. **Rory Kahly** [timestamp: 05:30] addressed the board regarding the Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen zoning map amendment case. Kahly requested a postponement of this item to prevent overloading the agenda for the January 26 meeting. Both public comments focused on procedural matters related to the scheduling and postponement of zoning cases rather than substantive issues with the proposed developments themselves. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split vote among commission members. **Vinyl Window Replacements in Historic District** The commission addressed appeals for vinyl window replacements in a historic district that had previously been denied by the Board of Architectural Review. The disagreement centered on whether to allow modern vinyl windows in buildings located within the historic district boundaries. The Board of Architectural Review had initially rejected the applications, likely citing concerns about maintaining the historic character and architectural integrity of the district. However, the appeals brought before the commission highlighted the financial burden that alternative window materials would place on the property owners. The commission ultimately voted to approve the vinyl window replacement appeals, overturning the Board of Architectural Review's denials. The decision was based on two key factors: the demonstrated financial hardship that requiring more expensive, historically appropriate materials would impose on the applicants, and the determination that the buildings in question were of modern construction rather than historic structures that would require stricter preservation standards. This split decision reflects the ongoing tension in historic preservation between maintaining architectural authenticity and accommodating property owners' practical and financial constraints. The commission's approval suggests they prioritized the economic impact on residents over strict adherence to historic district guidelines in this particular case. ## Ball Homes, Inc. Zoning Map Amendment & The Peninsula [timestamp: 03:00] The commission reviewed petition PLN-MAR-16-00016, a request by Ball Homes, Inc. for a zoning map amendment affecting The Peninsula development. The proposal sought to rezone property from Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to a combination of Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone and High Density Apartment (R-4) zone. Nathan Billings served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The commission examined the details of the proposed zoning changes, which would allow for increased residential density on the affected parcels. However, the commission determined that additional time was needed to address necessary changes to the proposal before moving forward. The specific nature of these required modifications was not detailed in the available materials, but they were significant enough to warrant postponing consideration of the petition. The commission ultimately decided to postpone the Ball Homes, Inc. zoning map amendment rather than approve or deny it at this meeting. This postponement will allow staff and the applicant additional time to make the necessary adjustments identified during the review process before the item returns to the commission for further consideration. ## Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen Zoning Map Amendment & Queen Estate [timestamp: 05:00] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MAR-16-00020, a petition by Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen for a zoning map amendment regarding the Queen Estate property. The proposal sought to rezone the property from Light Industrial (I-1) zone to Highway Service Business (B-3) zone. Rory Kahly addressed the commission regarding this zoning amendment request. However, the commission did not proceed with a full discussion or presentation of the item during this meeting. The commission decided to postpone consideration of this zoning map amendment to a future meeting date. The stated reason for the postponement was to avoid overloading the agenda for the upcoming January 26 meeting, suggesting that meeting already had a substantial number of items scheduled for review. **Outcome:** The Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen zoning map amendment petition was postponed to a later meeting date to manage the commission's workload and ensure adequate time for proper consideration of all agenda items. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 07:00] The commission approved the consent agenda during the January 12, 2017 meeting. Marco Rubio served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The consent agenda included several subdivision and development plans that had been recommended for approval or reapproval by staff. These items were grouped together as routine matters that typically do not require individual discussion or debate. The commission voted to approve the consent agenda as presented, allowing all included subdivision and development plans to move forward in the approval process. No specific concerns were raised regarding any of the items contained within the consent agenda. This procedural vote streamlined the meeting by handling multiple routine development matters simultaneously rather than addressing each item individually. ## Community Ventures Properties [timestamp: 11:00] The commission reviewed and discussed agenda item PLN-MJDP-16-00055 for Community Ventures Properties, a mixed-use development proposal that includes residential, commercial, and event space components. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Jason Morgan, who presented details about the development plan to the commission members. The proposal encompasses multiple types of uses within a single development project, combining housing units with commercial spaces and facilities designed for events. The commission engaged in discussion regarding the various aspects of the proposed development, examining how the different components would work together and integrate with the surrounding area. The mixed-use nature of the project required consideration of how residential, commercial, and event space elements would coexist and function as part of the overall development plan. Following their review and discussion of the proposal, the commission voted to approve the Community Ventures Properties development plan. The approval allows the project to move forward through the development process, with the mixed-use design incorporating the residential, commercial, and event space components as presented. The approval of PLN-MJDP-16-00055 represents the commission's endorsement of the Community Ventures Properties project and its proposed combination of different land uses within a single development framework. ## Amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations [timestamp: 21:00] The commission considered agenda item SRA 2016-4, an amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. Doug Burton presented the proposed changes, which were designed to improve compliance with public improvements requirements in land subdivision projects. The amendment focused on strengthening the regulatory framework governing how developers must complete required public improvements as part of the subdivision approval process. The proposed changes aimed to address compliance issues that had been identified in the current regulations. Burton outlined the specific modifications to Article 4-7, explaining how the amended language would provide clearer requirements and better enforcement mechanisms for ensuring that public improvements are completed according to approved plans and specifications. The commission discussed the practical implications of the proposed amendment and how it would affect future subdivision applications. The changes were presented as necessary improvements to protect public interests and ensure that infrastructure requirements are properly met by developers. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission voted to approve the amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations. The approval will result in updated standards that developers must follow when completing public improvements as part of their subdivision projects. The amended regulations will take effect according to the standard implementation procedures for changes to the Land Subdivision Regulations, providing the commission with enhanced tools to ensure compliance with public improvement requirements in future development projects. ## Appeal for 407 N. Limestone [timestamp: 25:00] The commission considered appeal BOAR 2016-1 regarding 407 N. Limestone, which involved a permit denial by the Board of Architectural Review for vinyl window replacements at the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Laura May and Betty Kerr, who presented information related to the appeal. The original permit application had been denied by the Board of Architectural Review, prompting the property owner to bring the matter before the commission for review. The discussion centered on the proposed vinyl window replacements and whether they met the appropriate standards for the property. The Board of Architectural Review's initial denial was examined, along with the merits of the appeal and any relevant design or historical preservation considerations. After hearing the presentation and discussion from the speakers, the commission voted to approve the appeal. This decision effectively overturned the Board of Architectural Review's denial, allowing the vinyl window replacement project at 407 N. Limestone to proceed as originally proposed. The approval of appeal BOAR 2016-1 concluded this agenda item, with the commission determining that the proposed vinyl window replacements were acceptable for the property despite the initial denial by the Board of Architectural Review. ## Appeal for 401 N. Limestone [timestamp: 28:00] The commission considered appeal BOAR 2016-2 regarding 401 N. Limestone Street. The appeal challenged the Board of Architectural Review's denial of a permit for vinyl window replacements at the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Perry Sholes and Betty Kerr, who presented information regarding the proposed window replacement project and the circumstances surrounding the original permit denial. The commission reviewed the details of the Board of Architectural Review's decision and the grounds for the appeal. The discussion focused on the appropriateness of vinyl window materials for the property and whether the denial was justified under applicable architectural review standards. After deliberation, the commission voted to approve the appeal, effectively overturning the Board of Architectural Review's denial of the vinyl window replacement permit for 401 N. Limestone Street. ## Amendment to the 2017 Meeting & Filing Schedule [timestamp: 30:00] The commission considered an amendment to the 2017 Meeting & Filing Schedule during the January 12, 2017 meeting. Bill Sallee presented the proposed changes to the previously adopted schedule. The amendment addressed two primary issues with the original 2017 schedule: • **Filing deadline corrections** - The amendment corrected errors in previously established filing deadlines to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and provide adequate time for processing. • **January work session location change** - The location for the January work session was modified from the originally designated venue. Bill Sallee explained the necessity of these adjustments to maintain the commission's operational efficiency and ensure all meetings could proceed as planned. The changes were presented as administrative corrections rather than substantive policy modifications. The commission approved the amendment to the 2017 Meeting & Filing Schedule without recorded opposition, allowing the corrected schedule to take effect immediately. This approval ensured that all stakeholders would have accurate information regarding upcoming filing deadlines and meeting locations for the remainder of 2017. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of December 8, 2016, minutes - **PLN-MAR-16-00016** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Ball Homes, Inc. zoning map amendment - **PLN-MAR-16-00020** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Bernard Jeffery and Patricia M. Queen zoning map amendment - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of Consent Agenda - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of release and call of bonds - **PLN-MJDP-16-00055** — passed (8-0): Approval of Community Ventures Properties development plan - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00058** — postponed (8-0): Continuance of Fair Lawn and W.J. Hayden Subdivision - **PLN-MJSUB-16-00059** — passed (8-0): Approval of Sarah W. Greg property retracement plat - **SRA 2016-4** — passed (8-0): Approval of amendment to Article 4-7 of the Land Subdivision Regulations - **BOAR 2016-1** — passed (6-2): Approval of appeal for 407 N. Limestone - **BOAR 2016-2** — passed (6-2): Approval of appeal for 401 N. Limestone - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Amendment to the 2017 Meeting & Filing Schedule --- ## Full transcript Ranch. Leave some pet waste on a sidewalk near Versailles Road? It goes into Wolf Run Creek. So please, don't trash the bluegrass. Hello, I'm Bill Farmer, 5th District Council member, welcoming you to another very special edition of Lexisport. Today we're on the street in downtown Lexington with most of the council and some assembled friends. We've been invited to go down into the pit and meet with Dudley Webb and the developers of the center of downtown. Nobody's been down there much. Our camera will be. Stay with us. You can see the top three levels with the balconies. Those will be residential. They're high-end. and we just feel like we need a real mix of all uses down here, and that's why mixed use makes so much sense. Office building is important. We're in the Class A office business, so is Langley, so are others. Right now there is no Class A space available, basically. We're 97% leased in the financial center, 91% in Vine Center, and about 87% in Langley's building. So we've got to have some space if we're going to get these national tents to come. So that's been the focus of that. Again, that will get started first, and then they're going to build it really in thirds. That end of the block first, phase two will be here, phase three will be here. The tower cranes are here to service all areas of the block, and the sooner we can get them down, the sooner we can use the parking garage. So that's going to be at our advantage to do that. The interesting thing about the tower cranes, people kept saying, why did you leave them, why did you leave them? It costs $35,000 a month to keep them, but you can't find one in the country today. There's so much demand for them, so many high-end construction projects in Nashville, Atlanta. People call during this whole period and say, how much will you take to get them out of there if we can just get them? There was that much demand for them. So we kept them. It's a good thing because it's the only way we can reach all areas of the block without blocking one of the streets. So that's important to us, too. So, again, we plan for a residence in. on this corner of the block here. This is the Marriott that's on this corner of the block down here. And that's still 203 rooms of regular Marriott, high-end. And then the residence inn is 123 suites. That's on this corner. That's the seven-story building. Ballroom space, meeting space, all that? Ballroom space. We have almost a six-housel square foot ballroom in the middle of the block. Okay. And that's like the... Thank you. He will be like him and me, as free as a dove Conceived in love, the sun is gonna shine above And even though we ain't got money I'm so in love with you, honey Everything will bring a chain of love And in the morning when I rise Bring a tear of joy to my eyes And tell me everything's gonna be alright Love a guy who holds the world in a paper cup Drink it up Love him and he'll bring you love And if you find he helps your mind, better take him home. Yeah, don't you live alone. Try to groom at lovers' own. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call the January the 12th, 2017 Urban County Planning Commission to order. I think the first order of business, I wish you a happy new year. With that, we'll have the approval of the minutes. As of the presentation of the minutes of December the 8th, any additions, corrections? Mr. Chairman, move approval of December the 8th minutes as written. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve the minutes of December the 8th, 2016. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Thank you. The motion carries. Are you having problems with that monitor? Are you in now? I'm not helping. Okay. Postponements and withdrawals. Yes sir, Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of planning commission, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Ball Homes. ask postponement for the item number one on page five of your agenda. This is the Peninsula Development Plan. As I told you all at your committee hearings last week, we've had some travel problems with our experts that are coming in, and we need to ask for a two-week postponement to the January 26th Planning Commission meeting, the regularly scheduled zoning agenda. Anyone who would like to speak to this particular issue? Yes, Mr. Billings. Chairman Wilson, thank you. My name is Nathan Billings with Billings Law Firm, and I represent a large number, this time about 700 objectors to this. We were here in December, and I think at least one of the committees heard my frustration because a month ago, we told you it should be heard at the end of January, and they wanted January 12th today, and they came back at the committee hearings last week and asked for a postponement. We don't have an objection to the postponement, but I think for the record, I just want to express the frustration we had that I know the committee heard, just because it's difficult to manage and get motivated to the large number of people that we have involved. I want to commend the applicant that they've started to make the changes that need to go along this plan. Candidly, I still don't think the plan will be ready to be heard at the end of January. I think the changes still need to be made, but I think it's a good idea to continue the postponement to get us along the path to get some additional changes done. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this particular issue? Hearing none, then I'll entertain a motion from the Commission. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of the postponement as requested. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Patrick Brewer, second by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we will postpone Ball Homes Incorporated. PLN MAR 16-16 Ball Homes Incorporated until January the 26th. Any other discussion on the motion? Vote when it comes up on your monitors, please. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Thank you all. Thank you very, very much. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. On page 6, item 2, Bernard Jeffrey and Patricia Queen, zone change. We request a one-month postponement to February 9th, just so we don't overload the 26th. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular issue? Commission members? I think the proposal is one month or until February the 9th, postponement. Well, let's move it. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PONMAR 16-20, Bernard Jeffrey and Patricia M. Queen to February 9th of 2017. Okay, it's been properly moved and seconded by Mr. been properly moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we postpone PLNMAR 16-20 Bernard Jeffrey and Patricia M. Queen until February the 9th, 2017. Any other additional discussion on the motion? Please vote then when it comes up on your monitors. The ayes have it. Motion passes. Thank you. Any additional postponements? I mean additional postponements or withdrawals? If not, then we'll move on to the consent agenda. Mr. Salley. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the commission, good afternoon. I'm very happy to tell you, starting the new year off, that we have a lengthy consent agenda this afternoon. There is one final subdivision plan that has been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee that appears on this agenda. It's the very first item on your agenda. Major Subdivision 16-22, an amended final record plat for Metathorpe Community Business Center Unit 1. This is involving property located at 1447 Antique Drive. This is a plan that was postponed from your meeting last month. In addition, there are four final subdivision plans that have been recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. The first is the next item on the agenda, page 2, item B, plan 2015-136F. Tuscany Unit 10, also incorporating Meeting Street. This property has an address of 2625 Sir Barton Way. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2005-173F Belmont Farm Unit 4B, also known as Coventry. This property has a portion of 2450 Georgetown Road. Plan 2, page 2, Item D. This plan is also on the consent agenda. Plan 2005-174F Belmont Farm Unit 4C Coventry, also at 2450 Georgetown Road, as is the next item, page 3, item E. Plan 2005-175F Belmont Farm Unit 4D, part of Coventry, again at 2450 Georgetown Road. There is one development plan recommended for reapproval by your staff. It appears on page 3, item A of your meeting agenda, DP 2015-74, Cave Hill Townhomes. This property has an address of 2236 Cave Hill Place. Final item on your consent agenda is the next item on your meeting agenda, page 3, item B, Major Development Plan 16-54, Providence Place and Interstate Service Center, Unit 6, Slot 2A. This is amended final development plan for property at 1935 Stanton Way. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the commission can consider approving all of these items, as has been recommended either by your subdivision committee or by the staff, unless a member of the commission, one of the applicants, or a member of today's audience would ask that they be pulled from the consent agenda to afford them more discussion prior to your consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Anyone in the audience would like to pull any of these items for additional discussion? Anyone on the commission would like to pull any of these items for additional discussion? If not, then I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the consent agenda as presented. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Any additional discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Well, that really clears out an agenda. I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. I'm just kidding. Just kidding, just kidding. I know we've got some other work to do. So what's the very first thing on our agenda then will be the community adventures property. While they're setting up, without objection from our commission, item C, performance bonds, letters of credit. We'll entertain a motion to take care of that particular item if we could. Mr. Chair, with Mr. Craven still here. I think we can. Okay. All right. If that's the case, I will move for approval of the release and call of bonds January 12, 2017. I'll have a memo that is before us. Okay. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve of the release of the call of bonds. Any other discussion on that motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Thank you. The motion carries, so we're taking care of that item. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page 4, item C. It's Major Development Plan 16-55, Community Ventures Properties. And you will find at your seat a lovely little purple sheet of revised conditions. And I do not have a microphone to take with me to the drawing. Push this. We may just have to make do if we don't have a microphone. All right. Here we go. Can you hear me? Yes. Very good. All right. This is a final development plan for a project that was recently rezoned, B2A. It is located on Midland Avenue and 3rd Street. I'm sure you're all very familiar with that intersection. This is Lewis Street in this location. And we have the community center over here located here. Right down in here would be the Ellerslie Place townhouses. You've seen that development plan and a lot of plats on that particular development for this area. This is, as I said, a final development plan. This is an existing building in this location. They are proposing buildings that you can see outlined here in red, along with a building in this location with associated parking. And again, with Nelson Avenue and Withrow Avenue, you may recall that this building actually extends over this parking lot. You may recall that from the preliminary development plan on this location here with access from Withrow and from Nelson. In this version, you can see there's a lot of detail as to plazas and areas around the development. They are proposing right in and right out off Midland in this location, right in, right out on 3rd. This brings you into garages that they are proposing, a parking garage on this property, along with the buildings. Building C and Building A are the first phase, with Building B being the second phase of development on this property. The levels that you see here demonstrate the parking garage. and their levels and their association with the buildings. You can see this level here with these. And again, that's to demonstrate the parking and the parking layout in the garages. The Building A is a three-story building. It's 75 feet in height. They've got over 1,200 square feet of proposed retail, over 9,000 square feet of offices being proposed. Up on the stories above, they are proposing apartments. In building A, they have 43 one-bedroom apartments, and it's over 42,000 square feet in that residential alone. They are proposing event space. This development's proposing to be quite a cornerstone of this area of our community with residential, commercial, and again, they have event space in the building as well, over 3,000 square feet of event space. The rooftop is over 2,000 square feet, so they're going to have a rooftop terrace for open space and for events and activities and that sort of thing. This is in Building A. Building B will be four stories, and it's got 26,000-plus square feet of retail planned, as well as 39 one-bedroom apartments and 10 two-bedroom apartments proposed, again, here in Building B. they have a very large terrace planned for building B, which is over 18,000 square feet. So there's going to be a lot of activities and various things possible on that very large outdoor open space terrace on that particular structure. They may wish to elaborate on some of that staff when we've met with them and talked with them. They've talked about a lot of how they want to integrate with the community and have a lot of things that will happen here in this development to complement, again, as I said, this area of our community and the surrounding neighborhoods. The parking, they get a very, very good parking break in B2A, as you all probably recall. And they are required 87 parking spaces. They are providing 180 in the parking garage and in the surface area. They are hoping to have a large, fairly large restaurant, and there will be outdoor seating as well associated with the development. Now, Building C, as you can see, is smaller. It's 44 feet in height. It is 22,000 square feet. It is three stories. Again, retail on the bottom with 110 one-bedroom apartments and six two-bedroom apartments in this building at this location. Staff initially reviewed this plan and recommended it to your committee for postponement due to a series of notes that, in essence, relegated certain issues to the final development plan from the zone change. And again, you may recall that because there were a large number of technical issues, one of which you're very well aware of is the trail, the Town Branch Trail, and its relationship with this development. It's going to go through here. So they have addressed that with a note that they will have to coordinate their construction and their design with that design. And they have met with our trail people, and that is an ongoing process. And they'll be working with that. And they have a typical streetscape here because part of that is they have to adhere to the adopted downtown master landscape plan. So those all kind of play together. They're building their relationship on Midland, the trail, and that landscaping plan. So that's something that's going to evolve with them as they develop along Midland Avenue. And, again, you may recall that was one reason one of the variances recommendations changed during the zone change. I may be taxing your memories, but you may recall there were several variances associated with that. Another issue, again, was the design of these buildings. Again, they have infill requirements, but also a development like this, there was a lot of concern about articulation and architectural design and presentation in this major corridor. We have circulated to you an exhibit that they provided staff for you to look at, And it's also, if we could put it up on the screen, and again, the condition when we receive an exhibit like this, you can see on your revised, it is that they are to meet the spirit of these. It doesn't have to be literally this development, but they would need to comply, substantially comply with this exhibit in the development of the buildings. There was considerable talk about access, and I did, I just pointed out to you, right in, right out, right in, right out. And then Lewis Street. They have an access off of Lewis Street. Lewis Street currently is one way. They assured staff that this will function as is with Lewis Street as one way. It's not their preference. And again, they can elaborate on this if they so wish. It's our understanding their intent is request from the council to a movement on Lewis Street. But that is a council decision. That's not under Planning Commissioner staff's purview. The areas here, there's a lot of little lots. This is comprised of a lot of lots, and you'll see a condition that they need to have a consolidation plat certified and recorded prior to any building permits being issued. That's due to fire code concerns. You can't cross lot lines without firewalls. Obviously, you don't want to build buildings and this sort of thing and drop firewalls on old property lines. So they'll need to consolidate the property prior to those building permits. We, again, with discussion of access, pedestrian improvements, street improvements, you can see conditions that are requiring them to show what improvements along their frontage on Lewis Street, we would like to see those on the cross section, those half street improvements. That's standard, frankly, in any development that we do. The same is true with Withrow Avenue. There's been some additional development in the area. Traffic engineering expressed strong concerns about Withrow, and we're requiring that they show half street improvements on Withrow as well. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the plan. I would add that this grew out of a very productive meeting that staff had with the applicant and his design professionals, or their design professionals. With that, I'll answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Monday. Tom, it serves my memory, and we all know that's not great, but it serves my memory that there is a sewer line through Building A? Yes, ma'am, there is, and it's through B, not A. Okay. It's right here. That will have to go away, and they'll have to take care of that, move it, release the easement. That can be done on a minor plat as well. It could be done as part of that consolidation plat, and then that conflict goes away. Yes, ma'am. It's a very good memory. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission for Mr. Martin? One quick question. You mentioned Lewis Street is one way. Which way is it one way, going toward Third or coming toward Midland right now? I've forgotten which way. It's a good question. Towards downtown. Yeah. Okay. Towards Midland, I believe. Towards Midland. Towards Midland. All right. We had such a discussion in our meeting that we're talking about it going this way and that and two ways. But, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? If not, applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Jason Morgan, and I'm with the McBrayer Law Firm, representing the applicant here today. I'd like to thank the staff and Tom for working so closely with our design team, our professionals, to come up with the revised notes and approval and the recommendation for approval. So with that said, we urge that the commission go ahead and approve the development plan. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to either speak for or against this particular proposal? Okay, I'll add one editorial note. I am really impressed with the architectural design. That is really neat. I hope that comes to fruition in one way or the other because I think that is a wonderful car to work on, but I'm impressed with the activities. I looked in there and I saw, I know that this is just a rendition, but it had barbecue place there, too. I have my choices. Any other discussion? If not, we'll close this part of the meeting and come back to the commission and entertain an additional discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion, please, for the approval of PLNMJDP 16-55 Community Ventures Properties. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Patrick Brewer, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MJDP 16-55 Community Ventures Properties. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Go forth and do good work. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we have two more land subdivision items, and they both appear on your addendum today, which is page 10. I have an exhibit for the first item, and we'll put this up on the board for you in just a moment. Thank you. and the first remaining is a minor subdivision plan that the staff is referring to the Planning Commission. It is Minor Subdivision 16-58, Fairlawn and W.J. Hayden Subdivision. This is a consolidation plat that involves four parcels of property, three of them having North Limestone addresses with 1217, 1313, and 1317 North Lime. It also includes a tract at 100 Withers Avenue. This consolidation plat is on your agenda for one reason, and if I can go to the staff exhibits, I will be glad to tell you what that reason is. It is at the very top of the very first page of the staff exhibits. Good morning. We would like to move forward with consolidating all the properties, including 1217. Our engineer says he needs them consolidated. I appreciate your assistance and recommendations on this. Our contractor and pastor will be attending the meeting. The church's contractor is here. However, the pastor is not here, nor is Mr. Ledet. So I will be glad to introduce this to you, but we may have an alternate recommendation for you in just a few minutes. The property, as I mentioned, involves three tracks on North Limestone Street between Paris Avenue and Withers Avenue. Both of these streets extend to the north and west as far as North Broadway. So these three parcels all front on North Broadway. 100 Withers Avenue is this small lot behind two existing dwellings here. This is the home to the Total Grace Missionary Baptist Church, and the Platte proposes to combine three adjoining parcels into their church property. The church building is here with a parking lot behind. 100 Withers Avenue is also a parking lot. 1317 North Limestone is a vacant track that is currently a lawn. And 1217 North Limestone has a single family residential home and an accessory building on that lot. The staff has had this plat for about a month and we have been in communication with 2020 land surveying about adding building lines to the plat. Those have been added since it was filed, proposed at 35 feet along North Limestone and 30 feet along Withers Avenue. More recently, the staff has made the applicant aware that we are concerned about the inclusion of this lot into the consolidation. As I mentioned, it is currently occupied by a single-family dwelling and an accessory structure. And under the zoning ordinance, if that were to be combined with the church property, it then becomes what's called a parish house under the ordinance. I have a number of exhibits that I will skip over for today's presentation outlining that. Parish houses are conditional uses in our zoning ordinance. A single-family detached dwelling in an R1C zone is a permitted use. So there is a change of use that occurs should this lot alone be consolidated in. And that is the concern why the staff communicated with the applicant and told them that we were interested in referring this if this lot has to be part of the plat. The church has since told us that they are proposing to make changes to their property and making an application to the Board of Adjustment. We've included in the packet an email from our senior planner for the Board of Adjustment regarding the upcoming application cycle to get to the Board of Adjustment. The staff has prepared a lengthy presentation to recommend why this lot not be included in the consolidation plat. I'm glad to go into that presentation, but however, without the representation of the church, I'm not sure is the wisdom of that. I think preferred recommendation might be that the Planning Commission continue your consideration of this plat for a month to your meeting, And then if the church is represented, then we could present fully this and see from the engineer's standpoint why this consolidation is necessary. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission, or if you prefer, I'd be glad to proceed through the entire staff recommendation and report on this. Any comments? I think your comment about the continuance is probably appropriate. I think we'll hold you in abeyance for at least a minute or two and then we'll see what the applicant is. Is anyone here going to speak? Yes, this gentleman's here. I understand he's the contractor for the chair. Okay, then we'll wait. We'll wait and see what he has to say and then we may have to bring you back later, but sir, you may. The reason for that parcel is. Excuse me, sir, would you give us your name and your address for the record? Okay, it's David McMullen, 1313 North Lambstone. Okay, thank you. Total Grace Baptist Church. The purpose of that parcel is we're just going to tear the house down to have off street parking. So that's basically what we're trying to consolidate the lots all together for we can have off street parking on the whole situation. Because beside the house is another partial that goes up to the church back parking lot. So we're just going to add that to the parcel also for parking. Okay, I'm a little lost. What's the issue? I mean- What are you asking me? Well, I'm asking you, in your conferring with the staff, have they agreed with what you've indicated that you could do here? See, they threw me in here for one thing. The biggest one of us came down here and they all of a sudden threw me in here because I'm the contractor. Okay. But basically what we're trying to do is just demolish that house. Okay? Okay. But we have also parking in that area also. I got you. They put you at a disadvantage here. Yes. I got you. And I think that's why I think going back to what Mr. Sally's proposal is that maybe the best thing to do is to give your your representatives of the church an opportunity to be here and to give us a little bit more detail as to what they're looking forward to. Any other questions for this one? Yeah, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess maybe for Bill or Mr. McMullen, has your concerns with this been expressed to the captains of the church? Yes, sir. If you will look at the bottom of the very first page, on January 10th, we emailed that we were reluctant to recommend that Director Duncan sign this plan for the reasons that we have outlined here. There is a zoning issue, and also, there's also almost a presumption of Board of Adjustment approval of some improvements. And by consolidating this lot into the others, you not only create the zoning issue that I've already described, you make it to where the church, if they're denied, would have to come back to the Planning Commission and subdivide off this lot should they want to dispose of the property. That seems to be unnecessary from the staff perspective until the decision by the Board of Adjustment is known. As I told Mr. Ledet yesterday, from the staff perspective, this is strictly a timing issue because the Board of Adjustment application has not been made yet. And obviously the church is proposing changes to their property. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Any other questions? Speaking from the Chair's perspective, I think it would be appropriate to continue this if it's agreeable with the Commission members until we get some other additional information. And perhaps betwixt and between now and the time that you come back, Maybe you'll have some additional discussion as to how that might be worked out. I think the idea is we want to be put in a very positive position to help the church out and do what's what, but at the same time we've got these laws and things we have to contend with and what have you, so we're into that. Any other questions? Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this issue? If not, then I'll turn it back to the commission. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Plumlee. I'm sorry, Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chairman, I move for continuance of PLN MNSUB-16-58. Can I ask for clarification? To one month? Your meeting in February is on the 9th. February the 9th, okay. Continuance to February the 9th. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we have a continuance on PLN, MS, SUB 16-58, Fairlawn, and W.J. Hayden subdivision until February the 9th. Any other discussion on that motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes upon your monitors. Okay. Thank you. Motion carries. We'll pick that up again in February. Mr. Martin, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, On your addendum, there is a second minor subdivision plan that we have forwarded to you for your approval. It is item B, minor subdivision 16-59. It's the Sarah Gregg property. This is a retracement plat. That's a plat that is utilized to plat a piece of property that has previously existed primarily by deed and generally before 1965 when we officially adopted our land subdivision regulations. This particular property is located out on Elk Lick, which is parallel to I-75. It is immediately adjacent to the Floracliff Nature Preserve that you may be familiar with that Mary Wharton left as a preserve. She was a professor at the University of Kentucky and a naturalist. This is going to be combined with that. The applicant is the sanctuary. They are working with the state of Kentucky on this particular piece of property. So they platted it, as you can see, as a retracement plat. Here's the building line. This is an approximate. They're showing the cliffs. And here's Elk Lick Creek right here at this location and the Kentucky River right here. So this is part of the Palisade area of the Kentucky River. Originally, this property extended with a big dogleg all the way out to Richmond Road, now old Richmond Road. The interstate came through. And when the interstate came through, it reconfigured some things and resulted in Elk Lick being built as almost sort of a service road for these properties. Boone Creek is, of course, across the interstate and in close proximity to this property. The reason we brought this to you is that under your subdivision regulations, staff can request or recommend dedication of right-of-way on a minor plat, but it has to be brought to the Planning Commission for your approval. And what was interesting about this is staff recommended that they just maintain it as prescribed right-of-way, the state of Kentucky agency that they're working with insisted that it be dedicated. So we've brought it to you for your approval, and that will accomplish the dedication of right-of-way along this area of frontage on the property. And I'll be – you can see the conditions that we are recommending for approval. There's just a few of them. One is to note that any buildings or structures on the property, any new ones, It would require Board of Health approval. Again, they don't plan on developing the property. It's a nature preserve. But should they in the future? Plans change, build some sort of structure, meeting house, museum, whatever they might do. If it had bathroom facilities, we would want them to, of course, go to the Board of Health and be sure the septic tank was sufficient for that expansion of use. There also is interesting this survey doesn't match the old deed and there's some discrepancy in dimensions and acreage. And you can see number four is we need to resolve those discrepancies prior to certifying and recording this deed. And really, we just have not had the opportunity to sit down with the surveyor and have them explain why there's some of the discrepancies that staff has discovered on this plat relative to the original deed. And the deed goes back to the 1920s, by the way. And suffice to say, technology and surveying has come a long way since then. Not that they weren't very good back in the day. they were but this is one where we suspect there's a good explanation we just have not had a chance to explore that fully with that i'll be able to answer any questions you may have for staff any questions for mr martin okay thank you applicant mr chairman members of the commission i am tom lambden with abacus engineering um on here on behalf of the client i'd just like to say that we're in agreement with the recommendations of the staff and we would just ask for your approval happy to answer questions if you happen. Okay any questions? I think that's it. Thank you sir. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular issue? Okay then back to the Commission. Anyone on the Commission have anything they want to add? If not, ready for a motion, I guess. Ready? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, move approval of Plan MNSUB 1659, Sarah W. Gregg property. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PLN MNSUB 16-59 Sarah W. Gray Property. Any additional discussion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I believe we are on a continued item. from your last hearing it is the sra 2016-4 amendment to article 4-7 of the land subdivision regulations as staff recalls the last hearing where this was under discussion there was concern expressed about some of the language and in the proposal along with where the numbers the unit prices how they were being developed and what process was being followed and the commission and expressed some concern about that. Staff met with the Division of Engineering, discussed those, and I'm happy to introduce to you that the one and only Urban County Engineer, Mr. Doug Burton, is here with us today to answer your questions and explain how all this came about and why this came about, because he is certainly better versed in it than your planning staff is and how this has all come about. And so with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Burton. Thank you. Last time there was a scheduling conflict, so I apologize I wasn't able to be here. And so I went back and watched the meeting, and Mr. Cravens obviously had a lot of concerns about the unit prices, so I spoke with him, probably had a half an hour long conversation with him to discuss where those came from, as well as Mr. Wilson. Unit prices, as language reads now, unit prices are generated through a meeting that we have with the construction industry at a conference that we have every December. The reality is that it hasn't been done that way for several years. And the reason it has been done that way is because the urban county government doesn't have the negotiation power that the development industry does, which means we were basing it on unit prices that we as a governmental entity couldn't go get. If a contractor puts out a bid for items and it comes back at, he can take the low bid, but he actually has the negotiation power to go to that low bid and see if he can get lower prices. We don't have that ability. We simply have to accept low bid. So several years ago it was changed that we use our unit price contract that we put out for small construction projects to generate our unit prices because then we would have real unit prices, ones that we could go out and get. So our unit price contract that we have now that we use through our engineering department and other departments use it as well, is we have eight different firms, contractors, and we basically start with the lowest bid on the list. If we have a small sidewalk project or something to that effect, start with the lowest bid on the list for those unit items, go to that contractor and ask them if they would like to have that job. They can decline that, and we just go down the list. So that's how the unit price contract works for our capital projects. How it works for the sureties is that we take essentially the average of all those contracts, and that is what we use to base our surety prices on. And again, the reason for that is if we were to call a surety, and it's the reason we're changing this language, to be frank, we have sureties that are really, really old and are based on unit prices that were done when that surety was created sometimes up to 20 years ago. If we have to call that surety, we have a huge financial gap in order to construct those infrastructure components that the developer didn't. So now with the unit prices that we have that we've gotten via competitive bid, we have the unit prices that we need in order to construct it if we have to. Also, the next to last statement in the updates is that we're requiring renewal using those new unit prices every four years so that we have unit prices that are no greater than four years old. so that if we do need to call a surety which to refresh your memory from my when i presented a couple times ago we've never done and we never want to to be frank but if we do need to call a surety we actually have a reasonable dollar amount in order to construct whatever infrastructure component was it constructed sidewalks final surface etc so that's where the the language of striking out that based on the procedures manual and meeting with those with those uh with contractors every fall because again the new procedures manual which was just updated last fall doesn't actually call out that procedure the reason it doesn't is because it has been done that way for quite a few years so that that's where the unit prices come came from and again i think that seemed to be the biggest question we had last time and again the reason for this the meat of the change on this language the renewal every four years is to protect ourselves when i say we've never called a surety but in my short tenure of 11 months we've almost called two and the reason being is we have these legacy projects from when the economy had to turn down in 707 and 08 where developers have properties they've sat on for almost 10 years now and that's that's really frustrating if you're a citizen in that neighborhood and you've got final surface still hasn't been put down and you've been living there for seven or eight years so we've had to that that has brought forward the realization that we need to do something to ensure that doesn't happen because in some of those neighborhoods where we were considering calling a surety for instance the price of final surface was something along the lines of three and a half dollars a square yard for for that final surface that's what it's based on on that surety the unit price for it right now is almost eight dollars a square yard so it's a huge gap that we would have had to close the citizens of of lexington would have had to close that gap because the the surety was based on old data. With these changes, we'll be able to get new unit prices that we can go out and competitively get. And if we need to call a surety, we'll be able to actually construct that remaining infrastructure component and, again, provide for the citizens where the developer hasn't been able to. Any questions for Mr. Burton? I guess not. But let me say, Mr. Burton, how much I appreciate. He extended an invitation from Mr. Cravens. I'm sure Mr. Cravens would hear. Thank you for the opportunity to have a countable one-on-one with you. And I also want to thank you publicly as well for giving me the opportunity to explain to me what's what. So I think you may be on call. Mr. Cravens obviously is not here today. So if he has some additional issues, we'll see if we can get him to you in writing or some way that you might be able to address him. No problem. because he was the one who raised the issue and apparently, also on behalf of the commission, we offer apologies to your new staff member. I think she got caught a little bit and what have you. But thank you for your explanation. No problem. Thank you. Anything else? Okay, thank you. Until next time. Mr. Chairman, we're not sure that anyone is here to speak to this item. I was going to say we're running out of people here quickly. Is anyone here that wishes to speak to this sub-reglement? Seeing none, thank you. Okay. And I'll pull it back to the commission. I think there's an item here that they want us to approve with the adjustments made to the surety binding, et cetera. Mr. Chairman, before you leave this item, it might be appropriate for the commission to consider whether or not you're prepared to make a recommendation on this sub-rec amendment, just to kind of close that out. You want a motion? The staff has recommended approval of making these changes. It appears on page 8 of your agenda. toward the middle, and your subdivision committee made no recommendation on this proposed subreg amendment. The subdivision, did you all have a chance to review these? Okay, then do you wish to move on or do you wish to give us an ample opportunity to review? Move on? Okay, then we're ready for motion. then mr chair i was getting ready to make a motion but since i wasn't here on december 8th i better refrain from doing that okay anyone else like to make a motion then okay miss uh plumbly mr chair move approval of sra 2016 4 amendment to article 4 7 d and a bunch of alphabet uh as as recommended by staff. Okay. It has been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Joseph Smith, that we approve SRA 2016-4 Amendment to Article 4-7 of the land subdivision regulations with the recommendations, I think, by staff. Any other discussion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? Okay. The motion does carry. Thank you. I think the next one is the appeals. Is that what's coming up next? I have a question before we get that for legal, if I could. One of the things in noticing this is that the only difference between these two is the address. One says 401 North Limestone, one says 407. After that, everything is the same. My question is, can we consider it as one and then make a separate vote, or is it possible to do that? You can hear the information on them as one, but you'll have to let any individuals that are appealing this speak individually on their particular appeal, and then you'll have to vote separately. Okay. Thank you. That's good enough. And I didn't think there was a need to go through the same thing twice with the wording being the same, but I understand the technicality is connected with the vote and also the activities. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members of the commission. And great minds think alike. I was going to talk about both of them, too, if she said that was okay. So I'm glad you asked. So before us today, we have two appeals for the BOAR, and those are 407 and 401 North Limestone. 407 was heard on September 28th in front of the BOAR, and 401 was heard on October 26th before the BOAR. And just a little bit of information, if you were unable to decipher this from the staff report, is that they voted on the one on September 28th as denying the certificate of appropriateness. On October 26th, the applicant was unable to attend, however, was fully aware of the proceedings that had already happened. So they went ahead and moved forward with the motion to deny that one as well. So both applicants are here today and are appealing the decision of the BOAR. So a little bit of background. These properties are on North Limestone right up Fourth Street. They are in a series of seven townhomes that stretch from 401 to 413 North Limestone. And it is zoned high density apartments and has a historic district overlay. So it's an R4 with an H1 overlay. The appellants are requesting the planning commission to review the decision of the BOAR and to seek a certificate of appropriateness, which they requested to replace their wood frame windows throughout their residences with vinyl replacement windows. However, it is to be noted that the residences have already installed the vinyl windows and were seeking the certificate of appropriateness retroactively. The subject properties were built in 1990 and they were originally in a historic overlay and they sought their certificate of appropriateness before building. At that time, they agreed upon the decision of the board that they were approved for their designs to have a brick front, their rear could be vinyl, and they could also have vinyl soffits. However, the board at that time did say we require wood windows to be a part of this construction. So that's what was built, and that's what had been standing up until this time. Prior to the replacement, the staff requires review of the windows, as you're aware, to determine if they are candidates for replacement. However, the staff was not made aware of the request to replace these, so they did not get to review them. And a certificate of appropriateness was not received before the vinyl windows went in place. In the presentation to the BOAR at the September 28th hearing, Ms. May and her daughter presented to us along with another property that was adjacent to them with the same case. And they explained their desire to replace these existing windows. They also explained their understanding of the whole process, or lack of understanding of the process, I should say. Because they were not made aware that their property was in a historic overlay. Unfortunately, in their seller's disclosure agreement, they were told that it was not in a historic district. So it is kind of unfortunate that they were not aware of that process. And not knowing that process and realizing it was a 1990s building, not being aware it was in an H1, went ahead and replaced the vinyl with the vinyl windows. So they also indicated that during their time with the town home, they made several improvements to the exterior and had not been made aware that they were not in compliance as well. So just wanted to share with you their thoughts and feelings. However, additionally, the historic preservation staff outlined an assessment of the application and made it very clear based on the guidelines. And I won't read through all of them, but I will just highlight a couple. that architectural details should be maintained and retained and shall not be removed or changed original to the building. But if they are, they should be approximate size, shape, material, color, texture, of the visual qualities of the original material, and should not be covered with vinyl or aluminum or other artificial siding. Also, in regards to windows, they say they should be repaired rather than replaced. However, if they are deteriorated to such a severe place, they should be replaced. And vinyl or vinyl-clad windows are not allowed. So hearing all of these various components and understanding the difficulties that the BOAR had to hear this, it is unique in that it is not a historic building itself, but it still remains in a historic overlay. And per the guidelines and per the H1 overlay, the staff recommends that the disapproval and the decision of the BOAR be upheld because they did follow procedures. And based on decisions that they've made in the past, it is still similar to those that they've made. So that is what the staff has to recommend for both 401 and 407 North Limestone. Any questions? Yes, well, I'll go to Mr. Berkley first. Window replacement, is that an improvement that would normally require a building permit to be pulled? I don't know the answer to that. Does anyone else know? Because otherwise, they didn't know they were in this zone. How do you find out? I know the answer to that. Ma'am, don't worry. We'll give you an opportunity in just a minute. I'm sorry. I don't know the answer to that, Mr. Barclay. Okay. We'll get that answer. Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've gone on this vinyl road several times in the past, whether it's windows, fences, or whatever. I am correct with my thinking that typically no vinyl is allowed in a historic district such as this? Correct. So why were they given approval to have vinyl siting on these townhouses? I believe historic preservation will speak more clearly to this, but from my observation of the BOAR meeting, Vinyl in 1989 was considered a modern material that was not seen in the same fashion as we see it today. So it was approved in 1989. However, we've learned that it's not an appropriate material. It does not hold up over time and is a detriment to the overall character of a historic district. So I believe that that's why it was originally a part of the design and why today the design guidelines have been changed. Any reason with that thought process, any reason that why the vinyl siding would be allowed but not a vinyl window? No. Okay, thank you. Yes. Any other questions? Okay, then let's move to the applicant. Yes, ma'am. Don't worry, we'll get you. Thank you. My name is Laura May. I own 407 North Linestone. We purchased it in 2014, and for three weeks after we purchased it in August, we had construction people there on the street doing work inside. We ran into a little bit of more issues with the drainage and the cracked floor joist, so we weren't able to put the windows in at that time because they were not able to open. I was concerned with my daughter living there. She goes to UK, she has roommates, and they live in this property. So when we got our tax check in 2016, we decided to replace the windows. We had never, ever been approached by anyone to tell us that. I mean, obviously we can see the historic homes in the area, but that building was built in 1990 and had vinyl on it. We didn't even think about the windows not being able to be vinyl. The seller didn't say anything. The realtor didn't say anything. The construction people never said anything. I put in a roof and gutters, I matched the color of the building, I never had anyone say anything. Now when I put the windows in, I specifically tried to make sure that we kept the feel of the building. It has a bay window that has like the 40, 60 narrow split windows. We got the same color tan that the building was. We did the same proportion of window. And so the color, the proportion, and the style, we all maintained except for the vinyl. Obviously, we did not know, and that's the sticking point. And so now I've spent money on windows that I had no idea they would not allow vinyl. They're asking me to take them out. I have two children in college, and I thought I was appreciating this building and helping the downtown area. I would have gladly put in wood windows if I would have had any idea that that's what needed to go in. So my concern is that I'm going to have to take these windows out and put in wood windows and that's going to be a financial problem for me. We aren't going to have to wait until we can either get another tax check. I didn't know if there was some other solution that we could make. I mean, I would be glad to inform the next person that buys the place that this is what you have to do. No one informed me of that, but I think if I would have gotten a letter from maybe the historic preservation when we bought it, saying this is historic, even though it's not a building that's historic, you are in this and still subject to that. But being built in 1990, I had no idea that that would be an issue. Any questions for this applicant? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Mundy. Have you ever looked at your PVA tax records? No. Because it will tell you on the PVA tax records that it is in an HD1 overlay area. If it said HD1 overlay, I wouldn't know what that meant. I mean, even if I saw it, I wouldn't know what that meant. And I understand that. But it would tell you on there that you're in an overlay area. And I understand this is an area, believe me, I think a lot of the realtors don't know. I am a realtor, and I think a lot of the realtors don't know what these things mean. But it does tell you on your PVA records that you're in an HD1 neighborhood. But it doesn't tell you what that means. But that should prompt a question, I would think, if you look at your records. Well, I guess I have to plead ignorance then because I had no idea that that would mean any, I didn't even know that that would mean anything. Right. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Just one question, just for clarification. Where are you from? I live in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Okay. My daughter is attending school. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, Ms. Dawins. Ms. May, you own 407? Yes. What's your association with 401 Northamson? I don't have an association with them. It's just, I think, all the townhouses. 401 and 405 were recently purchased, and they are doing renovations as well. And so I think because they were all in the same seven townhouses, they've kind of lumped us together. but we've owned ours since 2014 and had done some things before. So you're not here representing them? No. No, I think there's another gentleman here for 401 and because of this split ownership issue, I'm going to allow him to speak after you get through about 401. So you'll have an opportunity to represent the applicant for 401 like she's representing the applicant for 407. Okay, thank you. Okay. And kind of follow up with what you were asking, I think, Mr. Wilson, And, you know, our language on both staff reports are identical. I know. As in they were just cut and pasted or something. And that's the reason I was asking if she possibly was representing 401 North Lines. Well, as I understand it, you've got two owners of this. Yeah. That's why we have to. And I don't know if 405 has appealed or not. But she was the one that was in September that was at the same time as me. But, no, we. Quick question. How did this come up? You say you didn't know, you put windows in. Right. How did we get where we are today? Well, evidently, I don't know if it was because the other two started renovating their units and then they came through and looked at all of them because nobody said anything to me. I put the windows in in April. This was in September that I had to go before the BOA are, so. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Ms. May? Thank you, but please stand by in case we have additional questions. Now, sir, you want to speak to 401? Yes. Please come forward. And it's an unusual situation. We're hearing them as one, but we've got two applicants. Yes, sir. My name is Perry Shoals. I'm the owner of 401 North Limestone. I purchased this unit in July of this year and did some renovations on it before I moved into the location. So I think the chain of events were precipitated by a request from my contractor to investigate putting a driveway in the back of the building. and when the person went to the city to talk about putting a driveway in, we were then informed that it was in a historical overlay. That's when I was notified that there was some sort of historical organization that oversaw all of the architectural design for that particular townhouse location. So prior to that, again, we had no idea, no knowledge of any sort of historical. I've owned several buildings in multiple cities around the country, and clearly I pay attention to some of those things. Again, to your question about looking at a tax document, codes on a tax document would not have given me any sort of leeway. I would expect a real estate agent or someone to inform me of that and be pretty clear about it. So the one thing I would say about this track of seven townhomes, there's one owner that owned most of them. And when I purchased my unit, at the time that I purchased it, It was, there was a list of code issues from the city of Lexington where the previous owner had let the property decay. Roof, siding, painting, all those types of things. The owner who purchased 405, so there are now several owners that purchased these town homes. So although we've made some mistakes, that area on Limestone Street looks significantly better. is in much better condition than it was when the previous owner owned all of those units. The previous owner still owns one unit right next to me, 403. And if you go and you look down that street, you can see that it's one of the most out of shape locations on the building. So we have owners, we're trying to do the right thing for our property and We're trying to do the right thing to make sure that that part of our neighborhood is better. We made a mistake, right? So I'm asking you, this was not something that was intentional. And there is vinyl on the back of the building. I'm asking you to, this is a significant cost for us to replace windows. And unfortunately, I can't afford. I don't have another tax bill coming in that I might be able to do it. I invested in this property and have put as much money as I have in it to get it to where it's livable for myself at the moment. So I would ask you to really think about what we've done for that neighborhood and done for the property and all those units that are there. They look much better and represent the city much better than the condition that they're in today. I don't know if you have any other questions for me. Thank you. Any questions? Ms. Owens? Any of the renovations that you did require a building permit? The first time we sought to get a building permit, again, was when we tried to work on putting a driveway in the back of the building. Other than that, the only other part of my projects that required a building permit was to put a fence around the building. So we went to the historical preservation, they saw the fence project, they approve the project, and now I'm just having some issues with the access easements that are listed on a plat. And so I'm working through. When was that with the fence? I'm sorry? When was that with the fence? We started investigating the fence sometime in late July, August timeframe. Okay. Much as what Ms. May said, the windows that you replaced, like for like, any changes other than vinyl? Yeah, just vinyl, yes. Okay, thank you. Yes, Mr. Richardson. This can go to either one of you. How many windows are we talking about all the way around? How many windows did you replace? Each one of you can answer. I had eight that I replaced, five in the front and three in the back. And I don't know how this- Did both up and down? Mm-hm. Yeah. So my unit's on the end. So I did, I think, seven windows, but only on the bottom floor. But you did both upper and lower? Up and down, yes. Because I'm right in the middle. Yeah, I got you. How many, have any of you investigated the cost of replacing these windows? I'm afraid to ask. I only know what I paid for the vinyl. I don't know what the wood would be. I assume it would be at least the same, if not more. I'm expecting that it's going to be more, significantly more than, especially to replace. We're not talking about repairing because it's all the structures gone. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Berkley. Someone said, I guess, that when this was originally approved that they allowed vinyl on the back. I pulled up a picture of 401, and it looks like there's a vinyl soffit, there's vinyl on the side, and there's vinyl on the front. Is that accurate? Yeah, there's a porch that extends out, and that gable part of it in the front is vinyl. All that's vinyl. So it's not just on the back. Yeah, right. That's correct. And I believe our sheds are vinyl, aren't they? I don't know. They're in the back. There's a storage unit on the back of each one of the units, and I believe it's maybe vinyl as well. Any other questions? Okay, thanks for the time being. We're now turning it open to citizen participation. Would you all like to come and make your pitch? Perhaps we, I'm Betty Kerr, Director of Historic Preservation for the Irving County Government, and Amelia Armstrong is with me, who's our preservation person out in the field a great deal, along with another party in our office. At this point, since there's been so much discussion, it might just be helpful to perhaps provide a couple of clarifications and perhaps answer some of the questions that you had. Mr. Berkeley, you had the question relative to installing windows necessitate a building permit, and the answer is no. So that was one thing. On the topic of people being aware that they're in historic districts, it is, as Ms. Mundy pointed out, on the PVA documents about your land use zoning, and then it has parentheses and it's an H-1 overlay. So it is an attachment to your land use zoning designation language on any documents like that. And also the historic districts, this area that these appeals are in on limestone at 4th, was designated in 1985 as a local historic district, and it's the Mulberry Hill Historic District. And so it's a couple of blocks of that finger of limestone going up, and it's had a remarkable series of improvements over that time period, as you would know to know. All of our local historic districts, including Mulberry Hill, have at their edges official signs. They're green, they're about this big, and they are mounted on a telephone pole or on a metal pole in the right-of-way, and they tell you that what historic district you're in, it has the seal of the city at the top of the sign. I suspect you've all seen these in the various neighborhoods. But it is certainly something that I think most people are aware when they come and go. And they're put around so that all the outer edges of these, so you can't come into these areas without either in a vehicular or a pedestrian sense having the opportunity to see these designation signs. And I think they're helpful not only to property owners, but to just Lexingtonians in general and to visitors as well. You've asked some. I know Mr. Owens asked a bit, and others of you are chewing on it all. But the topic about vinyl and when it was allowed and now it's not allowed and that sort of thing, And as Brandy so well put forth for you, in the latter part of the 20, sort of 1970s to, well, 1980s through the 1990s, early 20s, early 2000s, vinyl was able to be considered by the Board in the process for new construction. It never, through all the 50-plus years of our local historic districts, has been within our guidelines to allow vinyl to be applied to historic structures of considerable vintages. But new additions on the back of those historic structures in that time period I mentioned in the latter part of the century were able to, when they were to be clad, have vinyl as a consideration because it was considered a contemporary material with new construction occurring. And these townhouses reflect that in terms of being proposed in 1989, built in 1990. And so at the time they were initially approved, they actually were approved to have wood everything. And they were built with wood everything. Masonite was the siding. There is never much distinction, if any, made between front and side and rear. In a design sense, those are weighed equally. So for about 10 years, all the townhouse row, including the two addresses under appeal, were, with their identity, had wood cornice, wood windows, wood clapboard on the back portions where there were framed portions, et cetera. In 1998, the owner who owned the bulk of those townhouses along the row made an application to the H-1 process, to the BOAR, to cover in vinyl a number of those cornices, the clapboard, and so forth. But they did not make application at that time. Well, I should say, and that was approved by the Board to do that because, again, they were recent construction guidelines at that time allowed vinyl to be reflected in that new construction. So in that 10-year window, we looked at the record pretty closely on this, there had been discussion about that the wood had deteriorated and so forth and so on, and quite frankly, I believe some of it probably wasn't installed terribly well and maybe wasn't back-primed and, you know, all the things you all know need to happen. And so the owner's application reflected wanting to just cover that over. And so the board did approve that. nothing was ever, there was no application until the one you're reviewing today's sequence to make any changes to the windows. So the wood windows continued from their completion in 1990 up until this recent time now that we're talking about. So the difference in the guidelines and in the reflected in the board's action and in the staff's recommendation in the different time periods is that because of all the problems that were coming with vinyl in terms of its longevity and staying fresh and so forth, in addition to not being a product that allows you to reflect architectural character. It doesn't get the depth in the moldings and the things that you know are challenged with a produced product like that. Much consideration, and we went through about a year and a half to almost two years, intensive review of the design guidelines in 2009 and, well, really started in 2008. And they were completed in late 2009, and they were implemented, all these revisions to the design guidelines, to make them the most current to the products out there and the industry of construction and what's important to do with historic buildings and new construction and every aspect of this process's philosophies and intents reflected in those guidelines was reviewed. Citizen committee, a big committee, endless meetings. I don't have to say that word to you all. You know about that. But the reason to go on about that a second is it was a really fully vetted topic on every topic, but particularly on vinyl because it had been such a challenge. So the outcome was to change the guidelines and have the guidelines reflect allowing no vinyl from 2010 forward. And so that has been and consistently has been reflected in all the applications that have come forward since that substantial revision to the criteria and to the adopted guidelines. So I hope that helps give you a little framework of how these things have evolved in terms of the process. And we do have photographs of these properties if you have any interest in seeing them, but that's certainly at your choice. And other questions? Any questions? Thank you. I have a question. Okay, just a minute. How many of the townhouses currently have replaced their windows and used vinyl? I mean, there's seven? There's seven townhouses, and the two that are in appeal today plus one more that did not choose to appeal. We haven't said much about that one because they didn't file an appeal, but 405, so adjacent to 407, a couple of doors, obviously, from one separating from 401. So three have come to have vinyl in the last several months. Two are before you today on appeal, and one is in notification of violation. And everybody was at the meetings, and we've had lots of verbal communication with that property owner. They're well aware that the appeal process was there for them, and they chose not to appeal, and so now they will be needing to come into compliance. So the other four. Are the other four individually owned? Yes. Do we know that? Mrs. Bishop owns, she continues to own two. I'm sorry. The lady who owns several and has sold them to some of the folks you're seeing here continues to own two, but resulting in five others being independently held, two of which are before you today on appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Barclay. When you are evaluating an application, I'm assuming you take into consideration the period of the home, the architecture and that kind of thing. Yes, sir. Was that not considered here? I mean, this is a 1990 home, and at that time, vinyl was allowed? As a new construction, I understand, and you're saying it was not allowed under remodeling, which is confusing to me why they would allow it one place and not the other. But it just seems to me that, you know, if we really considered when this was built, that that fits that time period. Right. I think it's a very legitimate philosophy to be balancing and tied to the mechanism by which we are to weigh these things, as both staff and the BOAR and yourselves as the appealing body. the fact that the initial design put forward in 1989 proposed all wood on this building at that builder's choice. They could have made the request at that time, reflecting tied to what you're saying, to build it with vinyl from the get-go. But they did not, and they applied and got approved wood. that set forth that this overlay review process had, in weighing what was requested, taken action to grant wood windows and that that's what they were built with. And so it's difficult to blow off, and I don't mean to be flipped, but to disregard perhaps what was the approval put into play when these were being built as then coming to the current time, partly because the process had already acted once in making that decision and making that out what the builder had requested and the process approved. But secondly, you're now at the time of these requests of current, where they get put in without having review in advance, it, A, removed the possibility to weigh the possibilities of, or the options, if you will, for the board and the staff and the applicant. But it also means that it's having to be considered under the current standards, which would be true of any project coming forward, whether old building, new building, or anything else. And the current standards are very clear that in 2010 it was determined that countywide, within all of our local historic districts, no more vinyl would be introduced. And it's a complicated thing to just say, except in this instance, because there's really nothing unique about this instance that's any different from any number of other properties built in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, as time moves on. So we don't always have the luxury of kind of picking our stop and start points, or our start and stop points, I guess is part of what I'm saying. How when they made application to put the vinyl on that's on the front and the sides, You said that was treated as a new construction, but it was done after the buildings were complete. Why was that allowed then? Why was it not considered remodeling then? In the summer and fall last time? No. When the vinyl was. Oh, in 1998. Yes. Ten years. Which they were built nine years earlier. And they were built in 1989 and moved into in 1990. And that reference I made to the 1998 board review was to cover the then wood that they'd been built with on the cornice, the clapboard and so forth, with vinyl. And that was approved. And that was approved just reflecting the fact that they were reasonably current housing. But it was at a remodeling stage. And I thought you said that they have never allowed vinyl during a remodeling stage. They did allow vinyl to be considered in a remodeling stage up through 2009, but that door closed in 2010. I realize this is intertwined. It's very confusing, and I can understand, I mean, especially somebody from out of town, you know, that I don't know. I don't know the answer. I have another question, please, Betty. The pictures that you all have given us to look at, are these pictures taken prior to the installation? Those were part of the application and the hearing when the Board of Architectural Review heard the matter. So your photographs date from post-installation at the time it was being put forward to the board in September and October last fall. And we have current photographs and all if you would like to see them on your screen. So these are mixed as far as pictures. Some of them are what the applicant sent to us, or are they entirely from the staff? They are what the staff generated at the time of the hearings for the BOER to be informed. So these are the vinyl windows that are pictured? Yes, because the visits made were after the file. None of the pictures represent the original wooden. That we have in the files tied to this project having been in the historic district from the get-go. I just wanted to make sure what I was seeing. I understand. What I was seeing. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if you may. Yes. Betty, one other question in regards to that. In your interpretation, other than being vinyl, are the windows like for like? You know, frame-wise, glass-wise, that kind of stuff? Well, the windows no longer have the wood surrounds. They now have vinyl surrounds. So that's not a like for like because you lose your details. of the trim and the shapes that come with that. So that's the first change that is pretty significant when you're experiencing, you know, walking by it, standing, looking at it, driving by, whatever. And then the nuances of the sashes themselves, they share similar divisions of the lights, as we call them, you know, the squares of the glass. But again, they lack the forms of a wood munton. And so you're missing what defines sort of character-defining features, which are one of the characters of the historic structures throughout the historic district, is that more nuanced treatment in wood. And even though these are newer buildings, they are meant to represent that they're built in current times, but they are also meant to demonstrate a level of quality and identity that speaks to the fact that they're in an area that has a special identity. So, yes, something's been lost in the definition. And that's one of the reasons vinyl is no longer allowed to be considered with the update to the guidelines. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Kerr? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here would like to speak to this particular issue? If not, then we'll have one quick go around. Does staff have any additional things to say as a part of the rebuttal? Okay. The applicants would like to say anything, any more, anything additional based on what you've heard? I don't guess. I guess that they have the pictures of like. Ma'am, yeah, you had to come to the. Sorry. I guess they have pictures of like you can see 407 and you can see the windows. I mean, it's the same color and proportion with the 40-60 split in our building as it was before. I don't know the other buildings, what they look like, because I haven't been up there to look at them since they've been renovated. But ours, I mean, just looking at it, you can't tell. I mean, obviously, if you have a practice eye, you could probably tell that it was vinyl as opposed to wood. But just a person driving by would just see that the windows are neatly maintained and that they are the same color and proportion that they were before. So. Okay. Yes, sir. Just the, there's no homeowners association for these town homes. So there's another missing link and new buyer or a buyer getting this type of information. So I think that's one of the missing pieces. Do you know the other piece we're saying that it doesn't require a permit to replace windows? Then I don't know how a person moving into a structure that was built in the 90s would think to stop. And three people, all well-educated, people that had perfectly good intentions, all three made the same mistake, only with the intent of improving our properties. So none of this was done after someone came and said, you're not allowed to put vinyl windows in. This all happened because we lacked that knowledge. And I agree that there maybe are ways that we could have found that knowledge. But at the speed in which you're moving, trying to renovate some place and do all those kinds of things, there are just a number of different things that weren't in place to give us a signal to say you shouldn't do this. And clearly none of this was done in malice or to avoid or disrespect historical society or any planning commission. Thank you. I'm going to give the commission members another opportunity to ask either Ms. Kerr or the applicants any other questions, Ms. Brewer. I'm struggling with this on multiple levels, and we've dealt with this for, what, five or six years ago? At least. Three years ago, two years ago. And I guess I don't understand why when we've made these points before and reading through the minutes of the board's comments. There's comments from members there stating clearly that they recognize that this ban on vinyl windows is an antiquated and a rule that should be revisited if not revoked. And given that, I guess the question will be why in the world have we not moved to fix this problem? And if it's possible to do that in such a way that it could be revisited in a time frame that would allow these owners not to have to tear out their windows, those because my expectation is if the sentiment that I hear around this commission and the sentiment that I read in the minutes from the original appeal hearing, I think this is something that probably should be changed. And if it's going to be changed in the near future, I don't think it's appropriate to make these homeowners incur the cost of removal and replacement. If it's not something that we're going to change, if the bodies that have authority over this believe that vinyl really should be banned from these historic overlays, it's a different matter. But I think there's enough indecision and uncertainty about it that we need to give a little latitude here. The second part is more troubling for me, quite frankly, and that's that you're faced with the quandary of ignorance of the law is no excuse. and given the rules that we have before us, I don't think we can do anything but agree with the board and deny your application based on the rules. I just think the rules are wrong, and I think the rules need to be changed. Mr. Owens. One question for staff, I guess, first and foremost. question came up earlier as to is there a need to acquire a building permit to change out windows did we ever get an answer to that we did get an answer that and a permit is not required okay thank you and I've I've got some additional comments. Okay, well, go ahead. Not yet, but do you have any other questions? No, I have no other questions. Okay, just a minute. We'll get these other questions, then we'll get to the commission discussion. Yes, Ms. Monday. I guess my question is for staff from the architectural review, I think. Would it appease your feeling of the modernness? That's a poor choice of words. but of the modern look of those windows if there were some trim added around them? It still would not bring it into compliance with the guidelines, and that is something that would have to be weighed by our Board of Architectural Review. The staff would not be empowered to authorize such a change, but it certainly could be put forward to the Board, as the board always considers any application and revision and such. Now, they are prohibited, as you all are, from revisiting the same identical application for a year, and we won't get into the nuances of that, but you understand. Right. But I guess one clarification tied to what you just asked, and that is this isn't the issue about vinyl versus wood. it is not a matter of trying to fool the eye or make something look like it's older than it is. It's about things having integrity of materials and integrity of design features that are successful in the proper scale, materials setting, all the things that come together to result in a really successful outcome. So picking a piece of a feature or an aspect of a feature and trying to change that to perhaps something else, you sometimes can end up with neither fish nor fowl. And that's not a commentary on your suggestion. It's just a philosophical sort of sometimes that's no more successful than other scenarios. Okay. But it would need to be looked at on a case-by-case situation were that to be desired. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Burke, have you all had any debate since our last appeal a couple years ago in regards to? To vinyl? The design review guidelines are reviewed across the board of all the topics periodically, and it will probably be in another year or so that, in general, they will be looked at. And I'm certain we never don't discuss vinyl. It's always a looming kind of thing. But I think if I might, and I don't mean to start again on commentary or presenting evidence, but I don't want to leave anybody with the perception that this decision made in 2010 was done lightly or without very substantive discussion. And it's indeed not an outdated decision, but a quite forward-thinking decision. and that of course is my interpretation and I realize others could have a different opinion of that but it was so substantially thought about and nothing in my perception of the process in my seeing it since that's come into play in 2010 has been of a substantive change that has had any number of people saying oh we need to revisit this and whatever but I'm not saying it shouldn't be and couldn't be. But you saw a couple of the members of the BOAR at the hearings in the fall said that they thought this was a complicated situation and they'd like to revisit the topic of the windows. One of those two members was on the process in 2008, 9, and 10 who did all the evaluation and voted unanimously to prohibit VINAL, and I'm not saying that negates his comments in the current time everybody i think in all of our processes works very diligently to try to have a set of regulation that can be consistently and fairly applied to all applications and then every application has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and that's i think the summary of what i would suggest any other questions for any of the either the applicant or miss kerr okay if If not, I'm going to close this part of the hearing and then I'm going to turn it back to the Commission for discussion and our motion. Yes sir, Ms. Owens. My thoughts, I've sit here on several of these over the years as Patrick recognized, and the guidelines, you know, what we're considering historic district and historic overlay. historic district that historic overlay says no vinyl. I have always gone with that. Maybe didn't like it, but I've always gone with that simply because that was fact of the matter. And I feel like in most situations, vinyl is appropriate in a historic overlay. I will go along with that. However, in this situation, I'm waffling because what I see, several factors. One, this is not an old or historic building. It's 25, 27 years old. The vinyl was approved. That's on the townhouses. Siding, soffit, porch, etc. It was approved. It's not an unapproved type situation. If it had been unapproved, I wouldn't be waffling nearly as much. But it was approved, and the way I see it is that the vinyl windows are consistent with the large part of the construction of townhouses. I've been by there, driving by the street. if there wasn't new stickers in the windows and that kind of stuff you I don't think you'd recognize it I think you know we we hear cases request here all the time and a lot of that time some of the staff's reasonings was in considerations was does this create hardship and in this situation I think it creates a hardship on the applicant if this is upheld and you know at this point I'm like I said I'm waffling to the other side. Anyone else? Well, I agree with everything that everyone has said. I think the confliction that I have as Chair in this particular instance is that you have the law on one hand, which is pretty clear, and then, of course, you have the applicants who have been put in a position of, and I agree with the financial hardship issue. With that said, I think the only way to move this along is to get a motion on the table Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Now, let me clarify the motion, if I could. Thank you. We were allowed to hear both of these 401 and 407 as a unit, but we have to consider them separately. Is that where I understand from Tracy? Yes, you do. You could have, the findings could be the same based on what you've heard, but you still have to have two separate motions. Okay. So we'll address 407 first as part, whatever part of your motion is, whatever. All right. Okay. 407 North Limestone. It's VOAR 2016-2 Perry Scholes. I'm going to move in favor. Can we have a correct number I guess on this? 407 is Laura May and 401 is Perry Shoals. Okay, 401 North Limestone Perry Shoals and this is, is that the one you won first? Well I was wanting the 407 first. You wanted the other one first. I mean the findings are the same, just switch the address. 407 North Limestone. Nancy May? Laura May? Laura May. I'm trying to find my paperwork. Which is BOAR 2016-1. It's Dean and Laura May, 407 North Limestone, if I can get this correct. I'm going to move for approval of the appeal for 407 North Limestone based on the following reasons for finding approval of the appeal. One, the property was originally built in 1990 and a certificate of appropriateness was issued in 1998, which permitted vinyl rear facades and vinyl soffits. Two, although wood windows are normally required in an historic district, vinyl was permitted elsewhere on the specific property when the certificate of appropriateness was issued in 1998. three the property owners installed windows that although vinyl generally reflected the shape and size of the original wood windows which was completed in 1989. Second. Okay, you've heard the motion by Mr. Mike Owens and the motion is in favor of supporting the appeal of BOAR 2016-1 Dean and Laura May at 407 North Limestone. The motion has been made and seconded by Mrs. Plumlee. Now, please note whenever we get into these motions, you are now voting in favor of the applicant with the conditions as outlined by staff, okay? All right, please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Motion passes, 6-2, in favor of the applicants. Second motion. Yes, I've been trying to get to Mr. Scholes for five minutes now. In regards to BOAR 2, 2016, No. 2, Perry Scholes, 401, North Limestone, My motion is for approval of the appeal in favor of the applicant based on the following findings. One, the property was originally built in 1990 and the certificate of appropriateness was issued in 1998, which permitted vinyl rear facades and vinyl soffits. Two, although the wood windows are normally required in a historic district, vinyl was permitted elsewhere on this specific property when the certificate of appropriateness was issued in 1998. Three, the property owners installed windows that although vinyl generally reflected the shape and size of the original windows which were constructed, was construction was completed in 1989. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that the motion is in favor of the appeal of BOAR 2016-2 Perry-Scholes. This is for 401 North Limestone. Any additional discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? The ayes have it. The vote is 62 in favor of the appeal. I think that's it. Thank you. Let's jump. Okay. Staff, I think we have another item here, amendment to the 2017 meeting and filing schedule that we have to take some action on. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. No problem at all. Thank you for allowing the staff to present this to you. You will see this is your adopted meeting and filing schedule for next year, and you see two little dates that are identified on that. If you look very closely, you'll see those are not the same dates. They should be the same dates, and the staff discovered this since the time you originally approved this schedule. We put this on to ask the Commission to be able to change the filing deadline for zoning items in June of this year to June 5th and not June 6th as is listed. Coincidentally, your work session next week is also scheduled for this location. We would ask you to consider changing it to the Phoenix building, the third floor, to allow a different discussion. Mr. Duncan will cover that with you in just a few moments. We would ask you to make those two changes in your meeting and filing schedule, and I'll be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our request. Any questions? Just changing the meeting filing schedule. If not, thank you. We'll have a motion. I need a motion on this, please, to amend the filing schedule. So moved. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Michael and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that we approve the amended filing schedule for 2017. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Oh, okay. All right, Ms. Mundy, we still note that. No, I don't. That's all right. Motion carries, 8 to 0. All right. Mr. Duncan, I guess you're. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to come to the lectern to say a few words about our upcoming Planning Commission work session, just to make sure we were all focused on that and so that our audience at home would get this information as well. We have our work session scheduled for next Thursday, a week from today, January 19th. And just as you have now done with amending the schedule, we are meeting in the third floor of the Phoenix Building. So the same place we met this time last year when we were considering the ED text amendment. So we'll be meeting over there at 1.30 and I hope you all can be there and we hope the others who aren't here can as well. We have three main items on that agenda. The first item is going to be a presentation by Jonathan Hollinger about the status and upcoming events associated with the town branch commons. That's the linear park and trail system that is proposed for the downtown area. Jonathan is now working out of the Mayor's office and he is responsible for that project. He's the point person for that. So he'll have an update for you on the status of that and what we can expect. We will also have an update from the Chair of the Green Space Commission, Greg Butler, who will present to you the findings of the green space survey that was conducted this past fall. that looked at people's attitudes towards green space and defining what green space is and what sort of things we might be wanting to think about in green space, not only in the comprehensive plan, but in all of our regulations. So we'll have that presentation second. And then we'll round out the day with a full and robust discussion and interaction about the comprehensive plan, the 2018 comprehensive plan, which we are calling Imagine Lexington. So we have titled it. It's the 2018 plan. And we are in the midst of these very days, including today, of rolling this out sort of officially. We've launched a new website. We're in partnership with the Bluegrass Community Foundation for an outreach event. We've also scheduled and are publicizing our upcoming public input meetings in February about the plan. So all of that we'll discuss with you next week. But I wanted to sort of give you a heads up about the meeting. We're meeting in the Phoenix Building so that we can have a more interactive one-on-one kind of meeting. We're going to be setting up four stations in the third floor where we'll be talking about trends and analysis. So we'll be looking at the data, the demographic data, the vacant land data, all of the things that sort of help tell the story of where we've come from since we last looked at this and where we think we might be going. We're going to have another station where we'll be looking at the early results of the housing market study. And some of you have been involved in that housing market study with us. We've got some preliminary data on that, so we'll be having a table about that. And we've also done an assessment of commercial floor area ratio. So we'll be talking about what commercial development is in Fayette County, in Lexington right now. We'll be looking at issues related to the rural area and green space. and green space where we'll have a station set up for that. And then we'll also have another station where we'll talk about the public input process, the meetings we have scheduled in February and March, how you all can be involved in that, and what we hope for the public in that. We'll have a brief opening presentation. We'll probably spend about an hour giving you all a chance to rotate through these different stations. We'll have staff there. We'll hope that it will be a very sort of intimate one-on-one kind of experience. Then we'll come back together and follow up with about a 30-minute sort of more formal discussion. So I do all that to say we don't ordinarily introduce the work session in this fashion, but this is really an important kickoff for the comprehensive plan. I will tell you that I hope we will all come, staff, planning commission members, with a mind for just listening to what is being presented. We are in no position at this time to make any sort of decisions about the comprehensive plan. We have two years to do that. This is the 2018 plan. So we're not going to be talking about such specifics as where we should be concentrating our next small area plans, or even the question of where we should expand the urban service boundary. We're not ready to have those discussions yet. What we want to do is get information out about the numbers. We want to get through the public input process in February and see what the public thinks about how we've done over the past few years and what they're expecting for us in the coming days. Then, after we get all that assembled, we can start talking about some of these specifics. So I don't want anybody to come in thinking we're going to solve any problem or lay out the specifics for how we're going to approach this planning effort for 2018. What we simply want to do is present the information we have so far and lay out how we're going to go through gathering, continuing to gather information, lay out the public input process. Then come later in the spring, we'll start talking specifically about the goals and objectives of the plan and some of these other things that certainly the community is interested in and we know that you all will have a great hand in. So all of that to say, Mr. Chair, we hope that everybody can be here next Thursday, be here in the Phoenix Building on the third floor at 1.30 for what we think will be a chock full afternoon of information, but it will also be a good time to launch the comprehensive plan, to get some other information about some things going on to us and to get us ready for what's coming in the spring and summer. Glad to answer any questions, Mr. Chair. Any questions for Mr. Duncan? Good. I think we've got a lot to look forward to. We look forward to seeing you all next week. I would say, Mr. Duncan, one thing that this is 2017, and I had really wished and prayed over the holidays that Santa Claus would bring me a parking space for me and my colleagues. We'll set up a fifth station to discuss that. Seeing that for the record, I just want you to know that we haven't forgotten it. But I do thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other business to come before this body? If not, without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Good job. Hey, we had a lot of fun today.