I've been unfaithful, darling, I've gone through misery I feel the guilt, heart tortures me And only you, my darling, all can set me free And darling, all, all I need is just to hear you say You'll forgive me, forgive me Baby, all, all I need To have me touch my head Till you understand me A moment of weakness, Lord Caught me to pray You're trusting me, dear I threw away When I look, look into your eyes I can see the hurt, baby That I feel inside Although I hurt you, baby, you never once complained It makes me feel, sweet darling, that must wash it Tears appear, tears appear running down my face Tears that only you ate, only you can erase it, love All I need is just to hear you say You'll forgive me, forgive me baby Oh, oh I need to have you touch my head Till you understand me Oh, oh you're the one I know, I know I made a big mistake When all your love, darling Yes, I need for the sake It's on my mind It's in my heart You're scared to feel it Tearing me apart With every step I make Every step I take I'll make it up to you I'll make it up to you I'll do the wrong I've done I'll do the wrong I've done I've been as faithful, I know it's true But I'll make it up to you, baby Oh, all I need is just to hear you say You'll forgive me for you, baby Oh, all I need is just to hear you say You're parking at me. You're parking at me. I don't care about you I just want to be the one you love the most Now we can blame it on the yellow moon We can blame it on a thousand stars We can tell them that we broke them Somewhere up and down Blame it all on the car Yeah, there's a good story We can make up But I just wanna tell them all the story of love I don't wanna be your daddy's favorite And I don't wanna be your brother's best friend No baby, that's not the way this love story goes I'm not the answer to your mama's praying And I don't care what all your friends are saying I just wanna be the one you love the most I don't wanna be your daddy's favorite And I don't want to be your brother's best friend No, baby, that's not the way this love story goes I'm not the answer to your mama's praying And I don't care what all your friends are saying I just want to be the one you love the most Yeah, yeah, I just want to be the one you love the most I'm sorry. I met a dead woman She took my heart away She said I've had it coming to me But I wanted it that way I think that any other I was from a tool shed Granddaddy rolled down on Toulon And they built walls all around it, and they made that house a home. And they taught us about good living, and they taught us right and wrong. Lord, there'll never be another place in this world that I'll call home. There'll never be another place in this world that I'll call home. I'm out. I'm getting bugged driving up and down the same old strip I gotta find a new place where the kids are hip My buddies and me, you're getting real well known Yeah, the bad guys know us and they leave us alone I'll get around, I'll get around Get it round, round, round, I get it round Get it round, round, round, I get it round Get it round, round, round, I get it round Get it round, round, round, round What was? What was? What was? We always take my car, cause it's never been beat And we've never missed yet with the girls we meet. None of the guys go steady cause it wouldn't be right to leave the best girl home on a Saturday night. I get around, I get around, I get around. Get around, I get around. Get around, I get around. Get around, I get around. Get around. Round, round, get around, I get around Thank you. Let me play now When I had you to myself I didn't want you around Those pretty faces always made through Stand out in a crowd But someone kicked you from the bunch When your glass was all it took Now it's much too late for me Take a second look Oh, baby, give me one more chance Oh, you better know Don't you please let me back in your heart Oh, darling, I was like a vegetable But now since I see you in his arms I do now Ooh, ooh, baby Yeah, yeah, yeah And I'm trying to live without your love One long season night Let me show you, girl That I don't want to write Every street you walk around It just ain't no sound To follow with the girl I can keep it all around Let me take my own Baby, all I need is one more chance One, two, three, let me Back in your heart Oh darling I was glad to let you go Let you go But now the same Time to see you And it's gone Uh-huh Oh, baby, I need one more chance To be a little girl, let me know Baby, baby, baby Forget what I can do Oh, baby, I was like to let you know But now since I need you And it's all Spare me all this hard You're my girl Oh, baby, I need you one more chance. I'll tell you that I love you. I want you back. I want you back. Get up. Out! Knock it out! Yeah! Out! Super homies! Coast to coast! Easy to get anywhere Transmortimental overload Just by behind the wheel I'll just feel When there's no destination That's too far And somewhere on the way You might find out who you are Living in America Out of eyes Sitching the station Living in America And he's across the nation Living in America Got to have a celebration Right in my soul Ah! Ah! Booth day! Fat bang Many miles Of the railroad track All night's Radio Keep on running through The rock and roll show All night diners I'll keep you awake On black combat And a hard roll You might have to walk All night But everybody's working Over time Living in America Yeah I Station to station Living in America Heading Constination Living in America Yeah Got to have a celebration Yeah The End It's the Kansas City Atlanta Atlanta Stato and LA Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah I live in America I live in America I live in America Hey, I know what it means I can't see Living in a very cold Hey, the murderer, eat your heart out Hey, the murderer Hey Living in a very cold I'm gonna I'm gonna It's just a station Living in a very cold So nice with your bad self I feel good I'm your boogey man That's what I am I'm here to do Whatever I can Be a early morning Late afternoon or at midnight It's time to serve to all the pleasure To all the heat you To all the do with all All for you I wanna be your Be your rubber ball I wanna be the one You love most of all Oh yeah I'm a boogeyman I'm a boogeyman Turn me on I'm a boogeyman I'm a boogeyman I'll do what you want I'm a boogeyman I'm a boogeyman Turn me on I'm a boogeyman I'm a boogeyman I'll do what you want I'm a boogeyman That's what I am I'm here to do Whatever I can Be it early morning, late afternoon, or at midnight, it's never too soon. Don't want to take you to what I'm going to do. I want to give my all, all to you. And I want you to completely understand where I am and where I am all again. I'm a goodie man, I'm a goodie man, turn me on I'm a goodie man, I'm a goodie man, I do what you want THE END The End Thank you. ORCHESTRA PLAYS Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. introduce one of our new commission members, Mr. Healy-Bell. And at this time, I'd like to sort of give him an opportunity to introduce himself to us. And the key word here is briefly. Now, you have to turn your mic on with that little red button there. Well, thank you so very much. My name is Healy-Bell, and I'm honored to be here with all of you all today. Just briefly, I've been a Lexingtonian for now five generations and such. We're in the thoroughbred business. My grandfather's Hal Price Headley, known to be the founder and first president of Keeneland. We have Mill Ridge Farm here in Lexington, with which I'm a general manager. And I'm delighted to be a part of this. Well, thank you, and we're glad to have you with us. We have one other member who is not with us, Mr. Forrester, but when he comes, we'll give him an opportunity to introduce himself as well. I might say that in the confirmation hearings, one of the things that was particularly impressive to me from both our new commission members is that they all both said that they would be open-minded, that they would be fair. They're team players, but they're individuals, and they vote individually, that they make up their own minds about things. That's all we could ask of anyone. We also have Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, who has been reappointed for another 25 years to the Council. And for some strange reason, they let me get through, too, so we're back at that. So we're all happy to be back together again. We've got several members that are on vacation and on business. As you can see, we're missing a few folks, but we'll try to catch up with them at another time. Now we're ready for postponements and our withdrawals. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Ball Homes Incorporated. It's on page 8, item G of your agenda. I'd like to request a one-month postponement for the Peninsula and Squires Apartments. We're still working through a couple of the discussion items, and we'll be back here next August. I think it's the 11th, I believe. It's the 10th. 10th. August the 10th. August of the 11th, we found out, is 2016 or something like that. This is August the 10th. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Move postponing of Plan 1700-061 to August 10th. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Mr. Frank Penn, that we postpone PLN MJDP 17-61, the Peninsula at Squires Apartments, amended until August the 10th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? My screen didn't work and I have to use the mask. Okay. We've got a problem with the screens, but we've got the approval on it. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chris Clendett, and on behalf of Manchester Development, LLC, this is page 6, item B on your agenda. I'd like to request a two-week postponement, Mr. Chairman. That's until July the 27th? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am, Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, move postponement of PLN MJDP 1754 Manchester Development until July 27. Second. It's been properly moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we are postponed PLN MJDP 17-54 Manchester Development, LLC, Distillery District East Unit 1 as amended for two weeks, that is to July the 27th. Any other discussion on the motion? Now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? It seems like we're back in business now. I don't think it was the fault of the computer. It was the operator. You know that's right. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Motion carries. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. On page one of the agenda plan, MJSUB 17-00026, RML citation, request a two-week postponement to your July 27th hearing. And the reason? Why do you want to postpone? Why do you want to postpone? We've made a lot of headway on some of the items, on the conditions, and we feel we'll be ready in two weeks to hear this. Okay. Well, our bylaws require us to ask for a reason just in case. Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? I will ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I move for a two-week postponement to July 27th for PLNMJSUB17-26 to the July 27th meeting. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we postpone PLNMJSUB17-26 RML citation Hill and Meyer interest LTD to July 27th. Any other discussion on this motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. And then on page 5 of your agenda, under development plans, PLNMJDP17-00042, RML citation, this is a development plan that goes along with the plat that we just postponed, and I'd like to hear those both together, two-week postpone. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Now we're ready for a motion on this, too. Mr. Chairman, I move postponement of PLNMJDP 17-42 to July 27th. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved again by Mr. Frank Pence, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we postpone PLNMJDP 17-42, RML Citation, Hill and Meyer Interest LTD, until July 27th. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. on page 7, bottom of the page, item F, Major Development Plan 17-60, Sunny Slope Farm, Unit 1A. We'd like to follow the recommendations of the subdivision committee. Request a one-month postponement to August 10th. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? It's got a lot to do with the commission. Anyone on the commission? Now we're ready for a motion for that. Mr. Chair, I'll move for a postponement of Plan MJDP 17-60 Sunny Slope Farm for one month until August 10th. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone PLN MJDP 17-60 Sunny Slope Farm Unit 1A until August 10th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. You're welcome. You're going to vote on it? You're welcome. It's dead now. Thank you. With that, I think we can move forward to the— Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Staff has an item to bring to your attention. Oh, okay. We were waiting to see if anyone was here to represent the plan. We did receive a written communication from the applicant. It's on page six of your agenda, item D. This is Major Development Plan 17-58, Henry Clay Subdivision, also known as the Dolly Land Company, an adaptive reuse project proposal. This property is located at 1400 Delaware Avenue. The applicant has requested a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? We're ready for a motion. Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, move postponement of PLNMJDP 17-58 Henry Clay subdivision for one month, August 10th. The motion has been made by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. It has been seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we postpone PLN MJDP 17-58, Henrik-Leigh Subdivision, Dolly Land Company, LLC Adaptive Reuse Project for one month or until August the 10th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. The motion carries. Okay. Okay, is that all for withdrawals, postponements, et cetera? Okay, Mr. Salley, what do we have in the way of a consent agenda here? Looks like the rest. Chairman, I'm glad to report to you in the Planning Commission. We have a very lengthy consent agenda this afternoon, thanks to the good work of many engineers locally and to the subdivision committee at your meeting. And in that case, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. Go ahead, Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a total of 11 subdivision plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first of those appears on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda. This is Major Subdivision 17-30, the NDC property, also known as the Wellington Development, Unit 1B, Section 2, Lot 19. This is an amended final record plat for property at 209 Ruscio Way. The next agenda item is Major Subdivision 17-31, Beaumont Farm, Unit 10, Lot 4C. It's the B6P area and also known as Kroger's, an amended final record plat for property at 3161 Beaumont Center. Page 2, Item D, this item is Major Subdivision 17-33, Tuscany, Siena, Unit 2B, for property located at 1970 Winchester Road, a portion of that address. The next agenda item is also on the consent agenda, Major Subdivision 17-34, Masterson Hills Unit 1D, or a portion of 3,000 Spur Road, and its accompanying unit on the next item, Major Subdivision 17-35, Masterson Hills Unit 1E, also a portion of 3,000 Spur Road. Those both are on the consent agenda. as is the next agenda item, page 3, item G, Major Subdivision 17-36, Unit 6B of the New Market Property, Phase 1. This property is at 1263 Angus Trail, a portion of that address. On page 3, item H, we find Major Subdivision 17-37, the New Market Property, Unit 6A, again located upon a portion of 1263 Angus Trail. Page 3, item I, we have Major Subdivision 17-37, the New Market Property Unit, pardon me, the Sharkey Property Unit 1, Block 10A amended, and amended final record plat for property at 124 Louis Place. The next agenda item is Major Subdivision 17-39, Tuscany, Siena, Unit 3C, for property again, with an address being a portion of 1970 Winchester Road. On page 4, item K, we find Major Subdivision 17-40, Willhite Park, Unit 1B, Section 1, an amended final record plat for property at 3520 Arbor Drive. And the final subdivision plan on your consent agenda is on page 4, item M of your meeting agenda, Major Subdivision 17-42, Patchen-Wilkes Townhomes, Section 2, amended, an amended final plat for property at 2101 Patchen Lake Lane. Mr. Chairman, you'll note on the consent agenda that findings are required for the Planning Commission should you approve this plan. We have drafted some, and we'll put them on the overhead for your consideration in just a few moments. There are several development plans that have been recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. The first is on your meeting agenda on page 6, item C, Major DP 17-57, Spring Bay and Greendale Hills Unit 3, amended final development plan for property at 1249 Greendale Road. On page 7, item E, we find Major DP 17-59, Hospitality Motor Ends Incorporated and BP Oil Company Incorporated, also known as Dollar General. This is for a plan for property at 2167 North Broadway. On page 9 of your agenda item I, we have Major DP 17-63, the Riddell Plaza Lot 3, also known as the Parker property. This property has an address of 1100 and 1180 South Broadway. Flipping over to the second page of your consent agenda, we have on page 9 item J of your meeting agenda, Major DP 17-64 for the Sharkey property, Unit 1, Lot 10A. This is also known as Townley Center, and this property is at 124 Louis Place. The last development plan is page 9, item K, Major DP 17-65, Greendale Hills, formerly Chesapeake Equine, and Centerpoint Christian Church. This is an amended final development plan for property at 865 Greendale Road. In addition, there is one development plan that's been recommended for re-approval by your subdivision committee. This item is on page 10 of your meeting agenda, item L, DP 2016-55. This would be Brighton Place Shops, phase 2, also known as the Gillis property, located at 3080 Old Todd's Road. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the commission can consider approving these plans, as has been recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or one of the applicants would ask you to pull one of these items at this time to allow it to have further discussion later in your meeting this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to pull any of these particular items for additional discussion? Mr. Cravens. Anyone on the commission? Yes, Mr. Cravens. Mr. Chairman, I have a plan on that consent agenda, and I'm going to recuse myself. Okay, please, I think for the record, which one is it? It's Plan 17-40, Will Height Park. Okay. Anyone on the commission would like to pull any of these items for additional discussion? If not, then we'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented by staff. Second. Well, it's been properly moved by Ms. Mundy and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. She beats you to it, Mr. Owens. To approve the consent agenda as presented by staff, any discussions on the motion? Thank you. Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, the motion carries, so the consent agenda has been approved. Thank you. Thank you. The next one that I think we have to hear will be, I guess it's on page four, the Lexington Clinic. Thank you. While we're getting set up for that, without objection from the commission, we'll go over to the performance bonds and letters of credit. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to move approval of the release and call of bonds. Okay. Get a second? Second. Okay. Okay. Mr. Mike Cravens makes the motion. Mr. Frank Penn seconds that we approve the call of bonds. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Thank you. That motion carries. So taking care of that. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Martin, members of the commission, the first item on your agenda today is on page four, item I. It is Major Subdivision Plan 17-41, Lexington Clinic, PSC, Lot 1. Excuse me. I made a mistake. When I had that last motion, I didn't do it with findings. We just presumed that it included the adoption of findings. If that's okay, I messed up on that. I will admit my mistakes. Moving right along, Mr. Martin, you go right. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Here we are located on South Broadway, next to Parkway Drive. This is the Lexington Clinic. I'm sure most people are familiar with this original site of the Lexington Clinic. And back here, what we have is the outpatient surgery center. And they are proposing to subdivide this property into two lots. It's a very simple amended plan to subdivide this property. Now, what's interesting, and you have a waiver before you today, is that in 2003, this was a plat that created two lots and created this lot. Subsequently, in 2012, they consolidated them back together into one lot. Now, for financial reasons and similar circumstances, because of staff's understanding, we may see an amended development plan in the future. They're going to do some work in expansion and improve their facilities. They need to re-subdivide the property. So that's what this plant is doing that is before you today, is just recreating this as a freestanding lot. Now, the need for the waiver is the fact that it's P1, And P1 has a 60-foot frontage requirement on an approved street. Obviously, that's South Broadway. Staff has reviewed it. We are recommending approval of the waiver for rather obvious reasons. In 2003, this was created on a plat, and staff found no evidence of any waiver request at that time. And again, it's governed by a development plan. They have reciprocal parking and access on the property. So staff is recommending approval not only of the PLAT, but the waiver request. Again, it's somewhat unusual in that it was created, as I said, in 2003 and approved and recorded. And now they're just trying to duplicate that action with this PLAT today. And I'll be happy to answer it. Any questions you may have for staff? Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, good afternoon. Steve Rochelle, representing the clinic. I think Tom's done an excellent job of explaining why we have this platform for you. In 2003, we needed to do it one way for one financing, and in 2012, our lenders wanted to consolidate it. And now, for financing and other modern reasons, we need to subdivide it again. And so in terms of the public, everyone should be assured that the operations of the clinic will be identical as they are now. And the ASC is in the back and the office tower is in the front, and there will be no change to the public. And we'd appreciate your approval and stand ready for any questions. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular plan? Anyone on the commission has anything to say? If not, then we'll entertain a motion. I guess we'll have the same number on. Can we take both of them at the same time on this, or do I have to have them separate? Well, we'll take them separate then. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I'll move for approval of Plan MJ SUV 17-41 Lexington Clinic with 11 noted conditions. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLN MJ SUV 17-41 Lexington Clinic PSC Lot 1 as amended with 11 conditions identified by staff. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Now for the waiver. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJ SUV 17-41 waiver. waiver that's associated with this Lexington Clinic for the two reasons provided by staff. Second. Okay, again, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Owens, second by Ms. Karen Monday that we approve the waiver for Plan MJSUB 17-41 Lexington Clinic PSC Lot 1 with the two conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? that motion carries thank you Thank you. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, the next item is on page 5. It's item N on your meeting agenda, and this is Major Subdivision 16-10 for Grasmere Unit 6. This property has an address of 945 Bravington Way. The plat is one that we discussed briefly toward the conclusion of your subdivision committee meeting last week, and it is a plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission within the last year on October the 14th. It was approved with eight conditions and all but one of those conditions has been met. And the reason that this is on your agenda, the applicant has asked for a continued discussion to consider one item related to your prior approval. to orient you to the location of the property we are on Manowar Boulevard well south of the signalized intersection at Harrodsburg Road and well to the north and west of the next signalized intersection which would be Clays Mill Road between those we have intersections of Grasmere in this direction to the north and west and to Old the Higbee Mill Road to the south and east of this location as well. Revington Way for years was a stub street that was within just a few feet, a few hundred feet, a couple hundred feet of Manowar Boulevard and has never been extended to that roadway. And you may recall this property came into the Planning Commission a couple years ago to continue the stub into a cul-de-sac and subdivide three lots on it and at the same time to maintain a barricade required by the Urban County Council years ago to not allow vehicular access from Bravington onto Manowar Boulevard. In the Commission's approval of the plat, you did require a pedestrian connection to be maintained to the two sidewalk systems of both the new public street cul-de-sac and Manowar Boulevard. There are six lots depicted. There is a tree protection area, a significant tree protection area, proposed on the northern end of the property, and a smaller one on the southern end of the property. The reason this is before you is due to arterial screening along Manowar Boulevard. When you have lots of backing and side orientation to Manowar, that is a consistent requirement of the land subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance is that we have arterial screening. There is an easement proposed on lot 3 that is 10 feet in width, and that's a little bit narrow, but ordinarily will suffice to accomplish arterial screening. There is not such an easement proposed on this lot, but in lieu of that, there is a detailed note describing how the landscape material will be in place to achieve the arterial screening that's required by Article 18 of the zoning ordinance. The reason this item is before you is because of condition number 8 in your prior approval last October. This is lot 4, and this is the lot that does not have an easement depicted on it. Most of the landscaping is to be planted between the right-of-way fence and the sidewalk on Manowar, but not all of that landscaping has been put into place. We have just passed the spring planting season. We're now in the heat of the summer, as today's weather and temperature attests, and so the applicant would like permission to bond that landscaping and proceed forward with the plat. Thank you. Thank you. I must apologize. I must apologize. I must apologize. I must apologize to you about this plan. I forgot to hand out the staff exhibit to you. This is the article of the subregs that describe that the plantings need to be in place when you consider these plans, or they need to be bonded. And with the applicant asking that they be bonded, there is nothing here that requires a waiver, but it does require Planning Commission approval. And so that is the main reason this has been brought back to you as a continued discussion item. To accomplish this, the staff has added one item on the agenda that you can see, item number nine, provided the commission approves the bonding of the screening, and we've just slightly reworded that, and if we can move that off the overhead, it'll show the wording, to a more positive statement where the Planning Commission hereby requires the bonding of the arterial screening for this section of the ordinance. Once you approve that, this bond can be placed for the material that's not there, and that's probably less than half of the required material. I would estimate, having seen the site, that half or more of the material is in place with the spring planting season. We're talking about completing the screening. That probably will dovetail nicely with home construction on the lots once this goes to record. Ordinarily, that can harm landscape material as foundations and utilities are extended to homes, so this may actually work out very well for this lot. and then also the other lot that's required to have landscaping. So the staff has absolutely no issue with this. We would ask you to make this light change to number nine, and certainly we're recommending approval. I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have of our review of this or of this section of the subregs. Any questions from Mr. Saleh? Okay. Thank you. Applicant. Rory Cayley with EA Partners. I'm in complete agreement with Bill and request approval. That's good. I like those types of presentations. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, anyone on the commission? I'm ready for a motion. Okay, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of Plan PLN MJSUB 16-10 with the eight noted conditions and adding number nine as recommended by staff on bonding and interior screening. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Mr. Mike Cravens, that we approve PLN MJSUB 16-10, Grash Mill, Unit 6, with the eight conditions provided by staff, adding number nine with the wording as allotted there. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are on the bottom of page 8 of your agenda. This is a major development plan, 17-62, for the Wendell Subdivision, lot 2B. This is property that is located out on Higby Mill Road, and here's the intersection with Clayton's Mill. Higby Mill extends here and then intersects and transitions into Cornwall Drive, and of course, Manowar Boulevard. The plan you just looked at was just back up Man of War in that direction a short distance. As you all are well aware, the creek bisects this property and this location. These are the townhouses that were approved on a previous plan that you, I know, are very familiar with. This particular plan is proposing the one-story, 9,000-square-foot preschool daycare building, along with the associated parking. Access is going to be through what was old Clay's Mill right-of-way, which is now an access easement that will serve this property, as well as the single-family home that sits in this location approximately on the property. As you can see from your agenda, we have our standard sign-offs for the development plan that you see before you, which is also a preliminary subdivision plan as well, because there is a plat that has been approved that subdivides this property into the two lots, lot 2B and lot 2A. there are a couple of large issues that affected this property that have been scrutinized and discussed at length that have to be addressed and as you all are well aware again with the creek and the floodplain has a large impact on the property and at this time the bridge the old bridge across the creek, it's over topped during flood waters. The applicant has committed to rebuild that bridge, they're going to have to cross the creek, that bridge will be elevated above the 100 year flood plain, that's a requirement, they'll have to do that. They also are going to have to do a CLOMER, a letter of map revision on this property as well as the entire property in this location, a flood study, to evaluate and adjust the floodplain as that study will dictate. And that, if you look at condition 15 on the top of page 9, where it says discuss the timing of the townhouse construction, that development plan has expired. They're going to have to come back to you for reapproval of that townhouse development plan. and that is connected to 13 and what i just discussed with you was resolve the timing of the clomer the clomer is going to be for all this property they can't they can't build these down houses until that clomer is accepted and it was uh staff's understanding that that clomer was to be submitted uh tomorrow i believe on friday is their target date to submit for its review. And with that, again, it will take into account the proposal, the bridge, the creek. And there was considerable discussion and concern from fire and emergency access during a flood event. And with the elevation of that bridge, that will help them get across there if they need to, as well as if for some reason the road is blocked. Because this road is subject to flooding. This road is in the 100-year floodplain as well, but it's not their responsibility to elevate a public road. They can use man-of-war. So this was a subject of much discussion, and the reason we have a resolution, and staff is confident that the new bridge will be more than adequate for ensuring public safety access. You also have before you today a waiver request. This waiver request has been a long time coming. It started with the discussion of the townhouses and the appropriate improvements to Higby Mill Road. As you all are well aware, this is an old rural road that has been in existence for a long time. Bob O'Leary originally goes back to the 1800s to serve that entire part of the county and then was paved over the years and that sort of thing. And it very much maintains the characteristics of a rural road. It's somewhat narrow, no improvements on the side. It was never built with a crown to shed water, because back in the day they just built roads and they didn't think to do what we do today, which is allow them to shed water. And that's the important aspect of your waiver request today. They're requesting a waiver on the cross section to not do curb and gutter or any paved widening of the street. What they have agreed to do, and this goes all the way back to the original townhouse discussion with increased pedestrian activity and that sort of thing, is to build a sidewalk along Higbee Mill all the way to provide safe pedestrian access along Higbee Mill Road so people can walk and get out and also make it to the park and not have to walk out in the old Higbee Mill right of way. They will have a sidewalk they can walk on. So they are proposing to build a sidewalk. And as you can see, it extends all the way down and will serve the daycare as well. There's been a lot of meetings and a lot of work that's gone into the plan. Staff is recommending approval of this plan, and we have consulted at length with the Division of Traffic Engineering and the applicant, along with engineering, to address the flooding problem. And I will expand on that slightly. Because the road didn't crown, what they are proposing to do is allow the water to drain into the ditch along the road and put pipes in various locations and then allow that water to flow onto their property and be dealt with appropriately, either being transmitted to the creek or whatever engineering solution is agreed upon by our engineers and the applicants' engineers as well. and I'm sure he'll be happy to elaborate on that for you if you have questions about that. But it is actually the stormwater drainage that is the key for the waiver request here. So with that, as I stated, staff is recommending approval, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Ms. Dolenz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, clarify one thing. I've got two questions. Just clarify one thing. You mentioned that the fire would have access to this off of Manowar if necessary. I don't remember any access easements, access ingress, egress. There isn't, but they have assured us that if they need to get there, they're going to get there. You know, they are very much. The second thing, when we saw and approved the townhouses, was curb and gutter approved on old Hickby Mill on that plan? It actually was, and that's an important key. The plat was approved with full improvements. So this waiver is, will, if you approve this waiver, that will retroactively impact that plat when they go to record. So I'm going to go back to that plat as well? Yes, sir. It is impacting the entire frontage on both lots. Okay. Yes. Mr. Penn. Mr. Martin, the timing of the improvements of the road back to the daycare center, is that before the building is constructed? In other words, will that bridge and improvements to the road that comes off Higmey Mill back into the house and the project, would that bridge have to be constructed before they construct the daycare? I believe the applicant could probably answer that question best for you, but I would assume that that will all be timed together because that building will not be occupied until the new bridge is in place. And that is also part of the review process and the engineering design for the Clomer as well. Okay. Because I had the same concern that Mr. Owens had that, you know, there's only one way in and one way out there. and I wasn't aware that you could just drive off Manowar Boulevard into a piece of property. Everywhere I've been on Manowar, there's a fence. There is, yes, sir. But I do believe in our conversations with our fire folks, they have the ability to overcome barriers like fences and that sort of thing if they need to. I didn't know the planning used that, but that's all right. Mr. Martin, one quick question for clarification. Do we have 15 items that says the 15th says discuss timing? Is that resolved now? Do we change that wording from discuss to resolve? I believe that, yes, sir, that would be appropriate. And, again, as I stated, and the applicants in your year can certainly elaborate, that's related to the CLOMER, and it's quite an extensive study that will be required. Any questions, additional questions? Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. We're in agreement with these conditions and would be glad to answer any of your questions. Any questions for Mr. Carter? Thank you. I guess there's no questions. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Let me follow up with Frank's. Okay, you want to call? Matt, yeah, thank you. Matt, just as a follow-up with Frank's question as to when will the improvements on old Clay's Mill be built? The plan is to, it'll all be built at once. What we will do is, while we're building the bridge, we'll have to do a temporary crossing on the creek, and it'll probably just be a low culvert where you can just drive across and then we'll take the culvert out upon completion of the bridge. But at the same time, we will be constructing the site, the building, both sites actually. So construction traffic would handle the use of the... It would not be using man-of-war. Yeah. No. And it would be used in temporary and before occupancy the new bridge gets built. Absolutely, yes. Thank you. Mr. Penn has a follow-up. Madam, while you're here, the clomer applies to both pieces of property. You've got to get the clomer before you can start construction? Yes. Yes, because of the flood plan being on both properties, yeah, we will be getting the clomer, and we are filing that tomorrow. Thank you. Yes. Any other questions for Mr. Carter? Okay. And anyone in the audience have any issues, concerns? Okay. Commission? If not, we're ready. We'll need two motions. One for the flat, for the development, and then one for the waiver. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 17-62 with the 15 conditions. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Frank Penn and second by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we approve PLN MJDP 17-62 Wendell Subdivision Lot 2B with the 15 conditions identified by staff, changing disgust to resolve on the 15. Is it agreeable with you? Yes, sir. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move for approval of the waiver request for MJDP 17-62 as presented by staff. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve PLN-MJDP 17-62 Wendell subdivision lot 2B. That's the waiver request with the reasons identified by staff. Any other questions on the motion? Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are at the bottom of page 10. This is Plan MJDP 17-68, also known as DP 2006-137, Providence Place and Interstate Service Center, Unit 6. now this is the final development plan that was approved for property located out on Providence Place Parkway here's Newtown Pike as it extends out and on further into the rest of the property primarily known as Kingston and here we have Hackney Place which has been constructed the parkway as well has been constructed and has been extended as you all are probably aware further into the property because you recently saw a development plan much deeper into the property in this direction. Hackney Place, of course, connects to Stanton Way where we have the various motels and restaurants located, the Cracker Barrel. And you also recently approved a development plan in this location to replace the old Knights Inn. Just recently approved that. So they will need to reference that DP on this plan. since that's a new development since this was approved. You can see they show the commercial outlots consistent with the commercial space with the zone, the CC zone, and this is a residential component that was approved with townhouses. Parking to the interior, again, that you can see located here, This is an existing residence on the property, along with barns and various structures that exist out on the property at this time. And again, as you all are well aware, there's a scenic resource and a large setback off of Newtown Pike. The applicant has brought this back to you for reapproval because it has expired and they can't pull any building permits off of it. So they need to get it re-approved in order to proceed with any development they may want to proceed with and construct on this property. And I would add that you just recently approved, as did the Council, a text amendment that allows activities in this center, community center-type activities, banquet. That's a banquet facility, which the applicant, I'm sure, could elaborate to you on if they have any plans. but that was a recent change that you approved to the CC zone that would conceivably allow the use of some of the existing structures in the home and that sort of thing for those types of activities. However, again, any modifications to the property would require a permit, possible amendments to the plan as well. But at this time, they are just asking for re-approval of the existing development plan. And staff has reviewed this, and you can see from your agenda we are recommending re-approval of the plan. Any questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Tom, just one question at a moment. On the development plan, the building, the red rectangle to the back left of the house, is that a proposed new building? Yeah, I believe it is proposed, yes. Okay. Is that the location of an existing barn? The applicant would have to probably answer that question. It's frankly been a while since I've driven back in there. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? No. Thank you. The applicant? Yeah, we'll find out. Mr. Chairman, I'm Joel Brown, and I'm requesting the re-approval of this final development plan, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you all might have. Okay. Maybe Mr. Orange, you want to go back at it again? I do, too. Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is to the red rectangular proposed commercial building, I guess, just to the back left of the house. Is that current? Is that where the barn is located? Or are you replacing the barn or going to use the barn or building? No, those are historical buildings that I had moved and have done a certain amount of conservation on, and I would hope that we could find a commercial use in the future so they can be preserved. Okay. That red building, the proposed red rectangle, is that the existing barn then? Yes, it is. Okay. All right. If I may, Mr. Chair, as I expressed at the banquet facility text amendment, which I have no problem with and I have no problem with the CC land here. The two concerns that I've got is that and it's not particularly the first part particularly not pointing to you is the fact that you know we have yet to really build any residential on CC land and you know I think we've got to find a way to make that happen. I'm not sure how but I think we've got to find a way to make that happen. Does that mean, you know, the commercial development seems to come first and the residential never comes afterwards? And to that end, quite honestly, residential currently backing up to those barns, I have a hard time, not that they won't keep the bill, I just have a hard time seeing that they would ever be occupied with the current condition there. The first part's not up to you. What are your plans as far as those other barns and outbuildings? Do you have any specific plans now? No. As I said, it's my hope that in the future they can be used in some way for commercial-type buildings. and my property is for sale, that isn't really your question, but a number of the people that have been interested in it have been a drug rehabilitation facility and special event things, which you all were kind enough to approve, and they seem to be very eager to use those because of the way they look for those types of things. So maybe I'm not answering the question. I'm trying to. You're beginning to. Thank you. It goes on to the one part that I had as far as globally, us, the city, not seeming to be able to find a way to build the residential components of this CC land. and to that end I would I guess maybe look towards the staff. If he's looking at using those barns as commercial structures as well, right now I don't see the parking availability for that either. I think when the plan was initially approved the parking was compliant and I'm not sure that we've had a text amendment to those numbers since 2006. So it may appear that the parking doesn't meet, but I can't imagine that we missed that 11 years ago. Bill, if various commercial ventures did come into those barn aspects, and I agree, they are old. I wonder at times if we get mixed up with historic and old, but I know they've been around for a long time. Those are large barns which could house a lot of activities. To me, a lot of activities means parking, and anything that occurs there, I would presume they would have to come forth with a development plan to show how all of it was going to flow. Certainly, if they want to change the use from what was approved in 06, yes, they'd need an amended plan showing new uses, and then the parking calculations would be reexamined at that time. I've not been in the barns. Some barns are large one-story. Others, as you well know, have mezzanines or complete second stories. So that also may have a bearing on what's in this barn. Okay. All right. You all are educated, and forgive me if I might add this. On this particular plan, it only asks for the use of one building, and they were very picky when this plan was made that there was enough parking for what was on that. And I'm not asking for use of the other buildings unless there was a different plan made. Maybe I shouldn't have said that, but I did. Mr. Penn has a question for you. What's that? Mr. Penn has a question for you. Joe, sir. I worked in those barns for a lot of my life, all three of them. They're very large barns. They're very old barns. Obviously, I've got a little age on me to say that I've worked in them, but I worked in them a lot. What my concern is, is globally on this, as you market it, because I know it's for sale, that we don't give the impression to the people that buy your property that the housing part of that CC, you just don't have to worry about it. Because you can see from what Mr. Owen just said and what I'm about to tell you is that we would like to make a CC work. And housing is definitely part of that. The commercial always comes. The residential never gets built. Now, I'm not fussing at you for coming down to the development plan. and I just don't want you to market this business to somebody else to say that all that can be used commercially and we can ignore the residential part of that. So it has nothing to do with your re-approval. It has everything to do with how you market the property. Absolutely. Any other questions? I mean, Mr. Chair. Okay, Mr. Holmes. And I would concur with what Frank said. 98% of this has nothing to do with what you're trying to do there or what you're requesting. I'm pretty sure I approved the approval of this the first time. I may not have it. I'm not sure. But I don't have a problem with it. I would just love to be able to see some residential components on the CC aspect work. As far as bill with staff, I guess, we've discussed this in the past. Is there any way that we can tie commercial development to residential or residential to development to make sure that the residential component gets built? The commission does have the ability to impose timing restrictions on one use over another. I'm not sure that's ever been contemplated for this property, but yes, the commission has the ability to do that. You can limit use of some of the commercial area until some of the residential is there in proportions that are not too onerous, I think. Any recommendations? Is it a 50-50 step, 25-25 step? I think, to be honest with you, that's something probably the staff would want to look at pretty closely. We probably also want to talk to the applicant just to see what maybe fits into their thinking on that, especially since this is an 11-year-old plan that this has really never come up on before. I think from the staff perspective, we want to take just a little bit of time to consider that. Okay. Rather than just take a guess right here and now. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this plan? Any additional time? Mr. Chairman, if not, I just want for the record to let you know that Mr. Brown has submitted the required affidavit on the signposting. It looks to be in order. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Anything else on the commission? Discussion? Yeah. I guess everybody's heard where I'm leaning and looking at, just trying to make it happen. I don't want to hold this up today. Is it possible legal or bill to add a condition to resolve the possibility of step construction for residential and commercial to the staff's satisfaction? Is that reasonable wording? I didn't really have an issue with your wording until you said to the approval of the staff. It seems odd that you would delegate that to the staff. The resolved condition I think is doable. I'm looking at Ms. Jones over there, but the approval of the staff maybe is a little concerning to me. Well, you can say resolve the condition. I'm with Bill. I'm actually further than Bill because the whole thing makes me a little anxious on the fly. But anyway, that being said, maybe you could resolve the timing of the residential in conjunction with the commercial some way. But are you saying you think it needs to come back to the commission? Well, I think that would be inherent if the staff and the applicant were not in accord on that. and often we, I won't say often, but you've heard us enough to know that on occasion we'll make a presentation to you and the applicant will be there and we'll say we know that we have to get together on this one issue and we don't, we'll be back in front of you. That's kind of how I see this one. If the applicant and the staff can't agree on the wording of that type of restriction, being that it's being new to the development, I think we would likely wind up back in front of you, just from my personal perspective. Mr. Pan. Would it work to, say, discuss the use of CC zone in this property going forward to include the residential? What my concern is on this is like I asked the applicant, Mr. Brown. He's actively marketing this piece of property, and I want whoever buys this piece of property to understand what we expect in a CC zone and not just to say, well, past history said we've never built any residential in the CEC, so we'll just continue to go with that. Our intention, that is a really unique piece of property. It has a lot of history. That house, I mean, I don't want to go through all that. Mr. Brown knows all that. But the house is a unique deal, and what's there is unique. What we don't have is the residential part of that, and there's several of us on the Planning Commission would really like to see residential in that area. And so however we could word that just so it would be on the plan to trigger future discussion, I'd like to do. And I don't know how to word that, but I don't know whether discuss, would do it or not. Resolve probably is too strong a word. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes, sir. Ms. Wade and I have kind of had a sidebar. We would like to offer a condition that might pass muster with Ms. Jones and the rest of the staff, just for the commission to consider as an additional condition. I have a chance to, I can't read it up there. I have to come back here. Resolve timing. Resolve timing. Read that. Resolve timing of residential development compared to commercial use on the subject property. So what that would tell the staff is we expect there to be a note or some addition to this plan that resolves that issue prior to it being served. That's exactly what we want. Okay. That seemed to fit the... Bill, would you be okay to say that compared to the development of commercial use on the property? Ms. Wade and I are nodding in agreement. I mean, I just think it's important enough, based on what you all are saying here, that it definitely be strongly worded. So that, obviously, it appears you all have some significant interest in this, though. I think it should be worded that way. So what's the new wording now? Oh, you are working on that? Okay, here we go. resolve timing of residential development compared to the development of commercial use on the subject property. Does that capture? It does. Yes. Okay. Mr. Craven. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to this. We haven't done that on any of the other CCs. I mean, they're old. They've been out there years and years. and yeah, the residential hadn't been built there, but that's just property owner's right, or whoever buys it, to build when they want to build it. And I suspect with these residential things will be built, but I don't think it's fair to single this guy out because he's the last guy in here and put something like that, that could hurt his ability to sell the property. So I object to that. Okay, anyone else have any comments about this? Ms. Dallins? I would offer Mr. Brown to come up and voice his idea in response to Mr. Craven's, you know, it hasn't been built yet because maybe we haven't asked for it to be built in the right way. And there's nothing that says CC Land won't come before us again in the future. I don't know if I'm allowed to ask questions, but on the Knights Inn property that's next to me, are they required to have a residential component? And for the buildings that are in this development plan, I was told when it was submitted that my residence, which is about 8,000 square feet, and the other house there, which is about 2,500 square feet, fulfilled the residential requirement for the buildings that are proposed to be used commercially on this. So it really isn't ignoring it, I don't think. and everyone, just so you know, my realtor is John Paul Miller, and they tell everyone and show them the CC thing, which says that you have to have that. So no one's trying to sneak that past anyone. And it could be if things went really well and I became a little more fortunate and my Powerball ticket would work out, I might put in a wedding facility there in that barn, and I'd love to stay in my house the rest of my life. I don't know if that's of any use to you all or not, But thank you, Mr. Graven. I do feel a little picked on at this moment. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the Commission? Any other thoughts from the staff on this? Actually, I'm looking at it as two parts, and I'll let my Commission members help me out here a little bit. One is the applicant is coming forward for reapproval. That's one piece. But the second piece that I hear from the concerns are expressed related to what might happen to that particular land related to residential use. And this is the reason why you're asking for an additional condition. Is that pretty much summarizing it? Yep. Okay. Mr. Craven makes an interesting point. I'll go back to him. He says, why are we asking this applicant to do this when we have not done this in the past? Can anyone help educate me on that? Yeah, Ms. McPlumley. Too often we approve situations that later we regret. And this is an opportunity to wait for the residential to come. Okay. And I'm not waiting for it to, that it will happen, that we have a ceasing zone, and we're supposed to have residential. And I'm sorry. Oh, it's really zoning. Okay. Very good. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I don't believe this is in the ordinance that when you do a CC that the residential has to be built or the commercial one before the other at the same time. I don't think there's anything in that ordinance that states you have to do that. So you can't just make this stuff up. I mean, you're changing the ordinance by something like this. I mean, I think you have to go by the ordinance and by what we've done in the past. And the residential will get built when it's needed. But he may build it first. I don't know. Maybe somebody buys it and wants some apartments. But I think you've got to go by the ordinance. You can't just change the ordinance. Mr. Chair. I have just Mr. Penn next in and you. So, Mike, that's like saying we don't change the zone. We're just based on past history. You know, you could change the zone on this, make it a B6P, or do a lot of things in here that you could do. What we're trying to say is if you're going to keep the CC zoning, then you need to address the residential part of it. It's not that you can't change the zone. It's the fact that if he's going to keep the zone, we need to ask for that. Well, I'm saying if you're going to keep the zone, you've got to go back. You've got to look at what the zone says, what the CC says. It doesn't say build a residential at the same time as the other. It doesn't say. So if you want to impose this, you've got to do a text amendment and change that in the ordinance, in my mind. Okay, let's give Ms. Owens. I'd simply ask legal whether we can do it according to the ordinance or not. Well, I'm looking at the ordinance for CC zones, and the intent of that says that the intent of the zones to implement the community center land use designation in the expansionary master plan by providing a mixture of residential uses and non-residential uses serving the needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. But a community center or private club is a principal use in that zone, as well as single-family, two-family, multifamily townhouses, community residences, golf courses, churches. So, you know, to Mr. Craven's point, I guess it's not specifically spelled out that way, but what I'm hearing from the Commission is that you don't believe that the intent of the zone is being met if both aren't coming at the same time or relatively close together. Relatively. I mean, it's up to you all to determine how you interpret that intent or how you want to enforce it. Okay. I think we've had a sufficient amount of discussion. Let's move this along here. And, of course, the way we do it is with a motion. Mr. Horns? Yeah, Bill, Tracy, could you put that statement back up there? I'm ready to make a motion. My motion would be for the re-approval of Plan MJDP 17-68, Providence Place, and Interstate Service Center, Unit 6, with the nine noted, ten noted conditions. I believe I'm correct. We added a tenth last time out. And adding an eleventh to read with what is on the screen as far as resolved timing of residential development compared to the development of commercial use on the subject property. Okay. I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, there's 12. We've added three since the original ones. 11 and 12 is on page 11, so the motion that's on the screen would be number 13. Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we approve the re-approval of PLN MJDP 17-68, a.k.a. DP 2006-137 Providence Place and Interstate Servant Centers Unit 6 with the 12 conditions as identified by staff with adding the 13th as it appears on the screen, that is the resolved timing of residential development compared to the development of the commercial use on the subject property. The second has already been made. The question is for discussion. Yes, sir. Okay. I mean, that looks harmless enough, but what does resolve mean? I mean, is it going to get in a room over there and talk to staff and say, well, we don't want to do this now, and the staff say, okay, all right. I mean, how is it going to go down? that well in my opinion just thinking about it from this angle that the staff would get together with the applicant and have a discussion about this particular item and then see what they could come up with if it they can't resolve it's going to have to come back here well i mean once the staff agrees with whatever then then we move forward with what the staff's agreement and with the recommendation of this body so i don't see the point of this i guess okay any other discussion Hearing none, I'll move the motion. Then all those in favor of the stated motion, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries 6 to 1. Thank you. Next. Thank you. Ms. Gall. Hello. We're on page 11. We are looking at the JTC property, Track 2, Lots 1A and 1B. This property is located over off of Otoma Drive. We have Sandersville Road, Georgetown Road is out here. We just did a development plan to put in the grocery store and some other miscellaneous items down through here. So this is the back of Tomah Drive. They had a development plan approved to put in warehousing units. They have three of the units built right now, but the plan's old enough. It was in 2003 that it has expired. They want to come back and build some of the additional approved warehousing structures. So with that, they have the first, there's eight conditions, and then we've asked for them to also get the Division of Water Quality's approval for the Capacity Assurance Program. And with the reapproval, we'll need a second certification of approval on this plan. And with that, I'll leave it open to you all. if there's any comments or questions. Okay, any questions? Applicant? Is the applicant here? I don't see anybody. Well, okay. I thought he was going to be here. Okay, anyone in the audience would like to speak to this agenda item? Are you with this? Okay, Lynn, you're the... I was looking for the other guy that came in with the letter. Are they in agreement with the conditions that are set forth with this to ask for re-approval? I suppose. I don't see any problem with that, counsel. Okay, would you identify yourself for the record? My name is Kurt Heselbach with Thoroughbred Engineering. Okay, thank you. Any discussion? Anyone else would like to speak from the audience? Commission members? We're ready for a motion then. Would you like a motion for our mic? Okay. Where is it? It's on page 11. Okay. No, I know where it is. I'm going to move approval of plan 17-83 for the reasons provided by staff. I guess it's a re-approval. Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Cravens. Do I get a second? I'll second. Do I have a second? Yes. I have a second by Mr. Frank Penn that we re-approve PLN MJDP 17-83, a.k.a. DP 2003-111, JTC Property Track 2, Lots 1A and 1B as amended with the conditions identified by staff. Any other questions on the discussion on the motion? Go ahead. Nope. Okay. Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, the motion passes 6 to 1. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This next item appears on the bottom of page 11 of your agenda. This is DP 2016-63, the old numbers, for Maple Leaf subdivision, an amended final development plan for property at 3110 Maple Leaf Drive. The purpose of this amendment is to provide and add what was originally proposed as a write-in, write-out to Manowar Boulevard for the Maple Leaf Shopping Center. And you'll see it's on your agenda listed as a re-approval. In fact, what has been requested is the extension of your prior approval from 364 days ago. The shopping center is at the corner of Maple Leaf Drive and Manowar Boulevard. Of course, this is a signalized intersection. And we have a number of stores along the main part of the shopping center, an approved building that I do not believe has been constructed at this location here, and a number of outlots that have been developed, including a convenience store, a restaurant and another mixed restaurant and retail building there. The proposal is to add a write-in on this plan from Manowar Boulevard. Initially a write-in and write-out both had been requested and as this plan progressed through your committee meetings it was determined that this was a little too close to this intersection to authorize a safe exit from the property here but it was fine to have an entrance into the center from that location. So this is the plan that was approved by the Planning Commission in July of last year. The applicant has not certified this plan, meaning they have not brought the Mylar into our office, demonstrating that they have met all of the conditions of your approval from last July, and they have asked for approval of a one-year extension. This could have been on your consent agenda, except the staff made a mistake. We took it as a re-approval rather than an extension. So we certainly apologize to the applicant. I wanted to give you a brief explanation and apologize to you as well, but the staff certainly has no objection to continuing your approval of this plan from last July for yet another year. And we are recommending approval of a one-year extension subject to the same conditions that were approved last July 14th of last year. I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about this, about our revised recommendation, which is on the blue sheet at your place. or about the development plan proposal. Any questions for Mr. Salley? OK. Thank you. Applicant. Tony Barrett here on behalf of the applicant. Just in agreement with extending the approval for another year, we've resolved the alignment of the entrance with traffic engineering and ready to move forward. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular plan? If not, we'll entertain a motion for approval. Please note that what we're really doing is extending the prior approval for one year. If, in fact, you're so inclined to make that motion. Mr. Dolan? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'll move for the extension of Plan 2016-63 Maple Leaf Subdivision with the revised staff recommendations. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we extend the prior approval for one year subject to the same conditions that they had before. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Any, uh, Mr. Duncan, any other commission items? Well, yes, but that comes to a third part. We've got the way it is on the agenda is election of office, delegation of secretary's duties, and then the BOAR. So I suppose we can move along with the election of offices as such. Please note that the nominating committee that volunteered to help and like to thank the nominating committee, which was comprised of Ms. Plumlee, Mr. Cravens, and Mr. Owens, They presented their slate, which is on the back of your agenda item, for Chairperson William Wilson, Vice Chair Mr. Frank Penn, Secretary Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, Parliamentarian Ms. Karen Mundy. If you re-elect these officers, they're asking for a raise, I might add, and a parking place. I just wanted to throw that in there. The first thing I have to do as chair, according to our bylaws, I have mentioned the slate. The next issue becomes if there are any nominations from the floor for any of the four positions that we've identified here, either for chairperson, vice chair, secretary, or parliamentarian. Any recommendations from the floor? Any recommendations? Just as a parliamentary thing, do it three times. Yes. Move. The nomination cease. Okay. It's been probably moved that the nominations be closed. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. It's been probably moved and a second that the nominations be closed on the slate that is presented by the nominating committee. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Or do we? Okay. Now we move to the actual vote for the people that have been identified through the nominating committee. I need a motion then for these persons to assume the offices that they've been nominated for. Mr. Cravens? Mr. Chairman, move the slate as written. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Mike Cravens, second by Mr. Mike Owens, that the slate should be adopted as presented, with the chairperson being Mr. William Wilson, Vice Chair, Mr. Frank Penn, Secretary, Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, Parliamentarian, Ms. Karen Mundy. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen. The motion is approved, so congratulations to all those officers. I will continue to work on our parking place. The delegation of Secretary's duties, the Commission's passed procedure for carrying out the Secretary's duties, except for signing minutes has been to delegate that authority to the director of the Division of Planning and his staff. The chair requests that the commission consider taking similar action at this time, so we'll need a motion for that if you wouldn't mind. Ms. Plumlee? So moved. I'll second. It's been properly moved and seconded properly moved by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that the chair does delegate the commission that the staff, that the director of Division and Planning and his staff take care of the minutes for us. Any other discussion on that motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries. Now we get to the, I think the last item on the agenda is the BOA appeal. Who is presenting that? Okay. It's been requested that we take a two-minute break, if you don't mind. We've got some elderly members on this. I already took my break, so I understand. you don't mind give us a couple minutes THE END The End ¶¶ The End ¶¶ The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Call the meeting back to order. Thank you. This next presentation will be slightly unusual. We have two staff presentations, one for and one against, that we'll be interested in. So please proceed. Good afternoon. Thank you, guys. Glad we're back from break. And I am here to present today about a BOAR appeal. It's Case 1-2017. Applicant is Ken Parr for the owners, Karen and Michael Sheets, and the address is 239 Deshay Road. I believe the staff report that I've presented is in your packet, and I'll be referencing some of the exhibits that are within that packet. This particular project is, or parcel, is at the corner of Deshay Road and Slashes Road, and it's located within the Ashland Park Historic District, so an H-1 overlay, of course. So we are here because a certificate of appropriateness was requested to demolish an existing sunroom and then build a new addition onto the rear elevation of the applicant's property. It was presented before the Board of Architectural Review in April of 2017, and it was approved for a certificate of appropriateness with conditions. We are here because the applicant is appealing one of those conditions. That particular condition is noted on the staff report as number two regarding that all new windows installed in the addition would have to be the configuration of one over one. Within the staff report, I have a diagram illustrating what that means, example of double hung windows with six over six configuration with their muttons, and then one over one, which is the particular one that staff has approved. So the appellant would like to modify condition number two to allow the six over six double hung windows. At the meeting, the addition was determined to be appropriate, as they received their certificate of appropriateness, and appropriate for its location, size, and scale. It was noted the roof design and window locations were compatible, and the addition reflects characteristics of the current period in design that does not imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period. So during that particular meeting on April 12, 2017, discussion about this particular item was brought up. The applicant did reference that they would like to install new 6-over-6 windows in their new addition. The historic preservation staff did note that they had recommended to prohibit that. BOAR members discussed back and forth. One was in favor of that. Others were not because they referenced that it would be mimicking history by trying to mimic the 6 over 6 windows that were in the original structure. The applicant also responded to the discussion referencing a previously approved COA of a similar design at 255 North Hanover, which is in the same historic overlay. Yes. North Hanover or South Hanover? I think it's South. South. It is South. Is it South? Sorry. South Hanover. But with no exhibits to present about that case study, staff and board with no recollection of that particular project moved forward with discussion, and the COA was approved with the condition to utilize one-over-one windows in the new addition. So we are here today because the applicant would like to install the six-over-six double-hung windows in their particular project. So staff has explored the local precedent as presented by the appellant. We've referenced the National Park Service's Secretary of Interior Standards for continued guidance and reviewed the exhibit submitted by the appellant. You can reference Exhibit A for their submittals, and then Exhibit C begins the particular review of the case study. So I'll start with that. The precedent case was with 255 South Hanover. Exhibit C on the map references the location of the two parcels and how close they are in proximity to one another. The residential structure at this location is also in the same historic overlay. It came before the BOAR seven months prior to the 239 Deshaies Road application, and it was approved for a COA for an addition that was similar in scale, materials, design, and they utilized the six over six double hung windows. Then looking at the standards by the National Park Service, I just want to pull out a couple of lines of those as they are guidelines that we would want to reference here. And in accordance with the standards, it states a new addition must preserve the building's historic character, and in order to do that it must be differentiated but compatible with the historic building. It can do that in a number of ways, but another line states, the difference may be subtle, but it must be clear. A new addition to the historic building should protect visual qualities that make the building eligible for National Register of Historic Places. I bring that up because we'll discuss those in just a second. And then lastly, looking at the exhibits, the architect for this particular project submitted some exploratory drawings to look at what would the particular project be if you were to do all one over one double hung windows in the new addition as it compares to the historic 6 over 6. Then if you were to mix and match those, because I believe the BOAR staff, BOAR, they approved the use of the original 6 over 6 that were to be removed from the addition. but reinstall them back into the new addition. So you would have a mixture of the 6 over 6 with 1 over 1 in a new addition. And then lastly, they looked at an example of what would it be if they installed all 6 over 6 double-hung windows. So those are small in the write-up from staff, but you can see those in a larger scale in Exhibit A. So in studying these case exhibits, planning staff has taken these factors into consideration and concurs with the BOAR that the proposed addition has been designed in such a manner that preserves the building's historic character. So what this means simply is the addition itself can be seen as being different from the historic structure. The proposal with a different step down in the roof line, the elevation, the wall step back, so it's a differentiation there to denote what is old versus new. and then also the materiality clearly shows you what is old versus new, meaning the historic structure is of the brick and the new being wood cladding. So while the one-over-one windows amplifies this differentiation of what is old versus new, the staff is of the opinion that the distinction is still perceived if you use a six-over-six double-hung window in the new edition. So with that said, the old versus new, with the use of the six-over-six windows, is subtle but clear as required per the guidelines. Additionally, the case that is a precedent at 255 South Hanover illustrates the use of the same requested windows that are 6 over 6 to a similar addition project, therefore setting a precedent for the case of 239 Deshaies Road. So in conclusion, the staff recommends approval to modify condition number 2 to allow the 6 over 6 windows and with all of the reasons, as we've just stated. So if there are any questions, I'm happy to. Any questions? Okay. Now we'll get the second part. Ms. Kerr. Good afternoon, Commission members and Mr. Chair. I'm Betty Kerr. I'm the Historic Preservation Officer for the Urban County Government. First, before I forget, I have a tendency to always forget this. We'd like to enter for the record the design guidelines and all the record of this case. And, Barry, would you be kind enough to hand that over there? With me is Barry Dennis, who is Historic Preservation Specialist with our office. Barry is who, over the time of this case, has largely been staff working with it, although we're a small staff and we all end up participating in most all the applications in some way. I have also brought and put at your place the record, which is not necessarily anything you need to read at the moment unless you want some nighttime reading, but also some photographs and a summary sheet at the front that has a few of the key design guidelines from the local historic district design guidelines that are utilized to review all applications, as you're aware. And could I have the images of you got? Okay. Yes, I do. Aha, it's magic. Thank you, Mr. Sully. This is the property at 239 Deshay Road. And just pulled by view, I don't expect you to see details in this image, but to give you some idea of the context. It is an interesting parcel. It's Ashland Park has a series of these pie-shaped lots, and this is one of them. And so it's wider in the front and becomes quite narrow in the back. And here's the front elevation just to give you orientation. And then the two side elevations. I'm kind of moving along on because it's only the rear elevation that will be literally having the attachment of the new rear construction. Oh, I'm sorry. This was the south elevation. And then this is the rear elevation as it stands now, and of course where the proposed teardown, well, approved teardown of the existing sunroom with the awnings bordering at the one story, that will be torn off. And then the approved new addition, which you're seeing in your drawings, which are also in your photo packet, and in Brandy's staff report. That is, of course, what's been approved to be constructed. So everything was worked out very nicely and I think very much within the guidelines and is reflected in the Board of Architectural Review's decision with the one sticking point that is what is the nature of the appeal today, that being the specifics about the windows. It's a little bit, I guess let me back up real quickly and point out just three things about the design guidelines to emphasize in the single-page handout that you have. This has in it the basic philosophy that's from the Secretary of the Interiors, who are your federal mandate that's utilized all over the country, is the core philosophies of the design guidelines in every community with preservation processes. But one of the things to note is one of the key things it references is to not mimic historic elements and historic whole entire designs. And that's a core philosophy that you'll see, as I mentioned, throughout. So obviously the first and foremost is to be sure you're not building a whole replica house. But it boils all the way down to the details, the nitty-gritty of windows and cornice details and stoops and all the things you would know. I put in the second section that says Windows with the number 24 in front of it. That's, of course, a reference to where it is in the guidelines. The reason to include this statement is not because it is literally pertinent to the new construction, but because there's often confusion about what the difference is between what the guidelines ask for to be done with the historic structures and renovating those existing situations and what the guidelines under new construction call for. And there are differences, obviously, and you're well aware of that. So the reason I included that one is to note that while it talks about referencing and correctly copying missing elements when a window is missing, say, from a historic existing structure, that would be appropriate because you are returning something that you have documentation for, that this is in this 1920s house, say it was missing its front parlor window. This guideline that is under the number 24 is speaking expressly to that situation. So sometimes people want to think that that also applies to let's go ahead and we should make it very specifically detail out just like the old, but put it in new construction, and that's where kind of the divide happens, because as you've already heard from Brandy very articulately, the new construction is intended to be very representative of the era in which it's built, hopefully well-designed, great materials, compatible with the historic, but in no way trying to fool the eye or be representative of something it's not. And so it's meant to be good design, good outcome that people can understand easily and is well scaled for the addition to the existing structure it's being added to and reflecting today's time. So the last entry I would note on the, if you flip the page or turn your page, I'm not sure if, I can't remember if I print a juror's and two pages or one. But I think essentially this summarizes that the installation of ornament or details that give buildings an imitation historic appearance is not allowed. And while Brandy has very well noted the approved design for this whole new addition very much meets the design guidelines and hence was very unanimously approved by the Board, The fact that it broadly and with its cladding and so forth of materials meets those guidelines. Also, though, is intended to have it that you address those specific details on down to windows, door trims, and all the things I've mentioned. So with that in mind, let me show you a few of the properties around that have had new additions put on them have been completed that you can see where some of the philosophies reflected in these guidelines have been exhibited. And we'll start, well, I should point out, I forgot that I brought this one with us on the screen. This shows you, you have these drawings, but we just took the liberty of using the red circles to point out very easily. This has an unusual scenario in this case in that the applicants requested to recycle the windows that would be removed because of the new addition. In other words, they would be becoming inside walls. And so they wanted to repurpose these windows and put them in the addition. And the board did approve that, but it makes it even more important that the other windows that are new have that identity as being noticeably different and noticeably of today's time. So the new approval of the one-over-one is not only consistent with 99 percent of the cases the board has approved over time relative to being sure you contrast between the windows in the existing historic house you're adding to and the windows that come to be in your new addition, but it is plainly intended to, in this situation expressly, where you're going to have the recycling and reutilization of six windows out of the 12 that will be your openings in the new addition. They are literally from the earlier house, and so these are period windows. And so it's even more important that the other six windows be easily identified is we are not period windows, and we are part of the story that this new edition is going to have to tell as time moves forward. One thing perhaps I should note, and I do have it in a photograph. It's probably, Barry, this may be beside you in my folder. But reference has been made to the property at 255 South Hanover. And I think before I finish up with my examples and such, it might be the smoothest. If you'll just hand me that, I'll get it. Excuse me. I dropped my photographs. Let's see here. Well, I'll keep talking, and maybe they'll crawl out. It's amazing what you have tucked in your folders. I do apologize. If you would, Barry, could you all put these up on Elmo? This is these three. Any two of them is fine. Thank you. I apologize for the delay. This is 255 South Hanover getting ready to pop up on your screen. And it's been referenced as the case that set a precedent for the decision that you see reflected in what's being appealed today. It was noted that at the time it was mentioned in the hearing while these windows were being discussed for the board to take their action on, that neither the board nor the staff could just call up in their head what the scenario was about this 255 South Hanover. And so we've since, of course, researched it a bit and found that this is a case that in the staff report, frankly, there was just human error. It's a one-off kind of situation, and the word anomaly would be accurate. It's a human error that it did not get caught to recommend disapproval of what those six-over-six windows were proposed. And the case was all very kind of clean, and it was something that the board elected to only sound when it came to the hearing. And so it had no formal presentation with all the details of the cases, which we normally do with, of course, cases that are heard in full, just like you all do with your cases that you're able to sound. And so I think it's very unfortunate because it is being held out as a precedent, but the other 99 percent of the cases that are similar to this don't reflect that outcome. So I can't change the fact that the board did approve that. I can't testify to you whether they were really attuned to the fact that they were approving six over six windows that matched the house this addition was being added to and hence contradict the intent of the guidelines, because, of course, I'm not privy to what they were thinking. But for whatever all occurred in it, it is, in retrospect, unfortunate because it's not consistent with either the intent of the guidelines nor reflective of what the Board of Architectural Review's votes have reflected, as I say, on about 99% of the other cases. I'm not suggesting that changes a thing about the outcome. We're accepting the fact it is what was approved, it is what got built, and here it is on your screen. And what I'll show you the, oops, see if I can find my little pointer barment. There we go. No, I'm sorry, I need to go back. There we are. These are the windows, the new windows in the new addition. This is the one that's the anomaly, the 255 South Hanover. This is the historic mass of the house. And if you'll go to the other image, please. Would you give him two? It's just a little more pulled back shot. I will not take your time, but you can be looking at it as I proceed on. But what the result is when this 6 over 6 situation happened is that now the addition that got made about a year ago and the existing house it was added to now have fully matching window details, which is what's not the goal of this process, and I think you have heard enough about that. So at the end of the day, certainly we thought it would help you to show you about six examples of cases where the new additions are what are intended by the guidelines. And we're not going anywhere. Can you switch me back over? He's working on it. Thank you. This is your case, your windows that are going to be taken out and put in the addition. I'm still on 239 South Hanover, the matter before you. And these are just closer-up pictures of the windows that will be recycled as they will, of necessity, be removed from the old house to make way for the addition. A total of six, and then there are two, of course, there, and then they'll be joined by the six that result in your appeal, the new ones. These are the six sample projects, six or seven, that show you examples of the ones that you have one window type in your existing mass and then a change of window type in terms of the way the window openings are defined, one over ones, large panes, singles, that sort of thing. And it's very difficult in this room with that lighting to see the distinctions, but this small house out in the Seven Parks local historic district has six over six windows there. You can see it to the left where the meters are on the wall. That's a six over six, and as you can see, the new addition has more contemporary window treatments. This property, you can see, has got, it's in Belcourt, I believe, yeah, East Belcourt, and it has a more contemporary design approach for the building for the addition envelope and also as a result of that a more contemporary more box-like rhythm to the window glass and that is exhibited but it results in something you can see the whole scale's good and all about the whole addition and it is a unified approach by everything reflecting it's of this time and and is a good piece of integrated design. This is in Fayette Park. And again, now the big house portion, the historic mass, has one over ones and some, I think, two over twos in the back side. And then the large sunroom and other pieces of additions reflect the larger panes. It's a handsome house. I'm sorry, I'm getting distracted. You know, architecture geeks, what can I tell you? Now, this one on the shea, this is where you've got this very small addition, that being right here is the addition, so not a big, massive thing. You can see multiple panes in the historic house, and you've just got a one-over-one, very simple, very clean, streamlined design in your new addition. and then this is on West 3rd Street a considerably scaled house and it has again contrasted I won't go into all the nuances you get the gist contrasted so that the new addition windows very definitely let you know that they are a different patterning of glass rhythms and scale in terms of the verticalities than in the historic mass and then this is on West 3rd Street Also, this you'll see has in the historic house 2 over 2. This one does merit mentioning the detail. 2 over 2 is right here on the first floor, and then 1 over 1 exists there, which is not uncommon to find houses over time, get different window configurations. But you kind of look for the predominance if indeed it's had some changes hither and yon, one here and one there. And so the end result on this one was to reference the idea of 2 over 2, but it's sort of exploded. These are 1 over 1s. Every one of these, this is a 1 over 1, this is a 1 over 1, etc., etc. They're all operable opening window that will open, both on the first and second floor. But I don't think you would suggest there can be any confusion about historic versus new on this. I think that's all abroad. So to finish, you'll find that just three or four last thoughts, that the details on this, as I say, they really do matter. They may be subtle, but they're an important part of what all goes into getting these architectural elements to be really successful. As I've mentioned, the design is consistent with 99% of what's been approved, that being the decision of the one-over-ones for this property by the Board, and we're fully acknowledging the anomaly that occurred with the 255 South Hanover. We're all in our business, and you all as well as ourselves and everybody in the government, so aware of precedent, and I would tell you that no precedent was intended, I don't believe, or no action that would meant to be able to be served as a precedent was what occurred there. But it did happen. That's just the way of it. So the board did vote unanimously to have the one-over-one windows be the outcome of this to be sure it reflected differently from the ones that are being recycled out onto the addition. and we would request that the Commission uphold the decision of the Board of Architecture Review. And if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer. Any questions for Ms. Kerr right now? I think we'll probably ask you some questions a little bit later on. The applicant? Good afternoon. I'm Ken Parr with Wilms Architects and I'm here with Karen and Michael Sheets. I guess the first thing I would say is we agree with the planning staff approval. And I think they've both done a thorough job of explaining, you know, what we're trying to accomplish. A couple of things, I guess, that I'd like to address, and I know you've probably read everything, but we've been working with the BOAR since 2016 on this. We've been through concept reviews and plan reviews. We did go through the whole process, and we're down to the last piece of this process, and that's the windows. In reading the historic guidelines, there's nothing in there that specifically restricts the use of muttons in windows or doesn't restrict them. It just, as they pointed out, it just says that you cannot mimic historic details, which is a very broad statement. One over one windows, in our opinion, are not any more or less historic than six over six windows. They appear in historic construction and modern construction all the time. We don't feel like it promotes a sense of false history because this is an obvious addition to a 1925 brick house with different cornice details, different very simple trim details. details, and it was found to be in compliance overall with the Board of Architectural Review, with the exception of the windows. As far as the other house that we worked on, I'm familiar with that house because I prepared the drawings for it, and I submitted the window specs and all the requested information through the BOAR. are. So, you know, our opinion is that house was approved according to the guidelines. And, you know, I'd entertain any other questions that you all might have. Any questions? Mr. Cravens. Yeah, Ken, these, the windows in the existing house, they got storm windows on them? Yes, they do. When you take them from there and put them back, are you going to put storm windows back on them? Yes, we would. Okay, and does the existing house have vinyl and carnage on it? Excuse me? Does the existing house have vinyl and carnage up on it? Does it have what on them? Vinyl or aluminum or some kind of carnage? There are aluminum storm windows. No, no, no, the carnage itself, the overhang. Yeah, it does have vinyl. The existing trim of the house has been covered in vinyl. We don't know when. But one of the things that we did talk about is we were going to explore removing that vinyl and replacing whatever we find up there if it's replaceable. If it turns out that they just covered a bunch of rotted wood, we'll probably leave the trim and casing up there. The new addition will all be done in wood and painted. There won't be any more vinyl trim on the house. That's too bad. Fatal, I like vital. So you're going to take these windows out of the old house and put them in the new addition. Where are the new windows going to go in the new addition? I'm trying to look at these. Well, there's 12 openings, and we've only got six old windows. But it doesn't show. I mean, is this the plan? Well, yeah. If you, let's see. Do you want us to go back to the image that you're on the screen? Yeah, it's Exhibit A. Exhibit A, Mike. Look at Exhibit A. Exhibit A shows the mix of the old and the new windows. Well, I mean, I'm just looking at this elevation. It looks like there's some windows on that back part that are four over four. Is that right? okay um yeah do you see the ones that have the little symbol on them that say r oh thank you oh there it is yeah and it's the band right there okay great thank you those are existing windows being reused right there those are the new windows without muttons in them. Okay. So is this your plan here? Yes. It shows a four over four on those back windows, the new windows. Which exhibit is that? I can't see it. It's too small. Is that what he wants to do? That doesn't look like mine. oh from the from the concept review oh because they get the history okay i've got a i've got a plan up here it shows those back windows are four over four panes yeah that could be the concept review okay is that what you move beyond that is that what you want to do there you want to make those six over six what we're proposing well this is what was approved by the board of architecture review right here they said we could use the old windows but we had to use these windows so without mud so i prepared that to explain to you all what was approved by the board of review if you're looking at a hand drawing with four over four that would have been from the concept and we moved beyond that well that's just on the more narrow windows is the four over four is that what you want to put there no you want to put six over six there too correct and change the size of those windows oh in in the old house no but on the one story edition yeah if you want to come over here and look at this yeah maybe you can do that you need a microphone yeah the mic this was this this was in a drawing that we used when we were working on different configurations we presented this to the Board of Architectural Review and that's when they said no you can't do that and you need to use windows with no buttons so we changed so this was a previous submit okay so where's the new plan you got a new one okay the new plan there this is exhibit a that's what they approved but that's showing one over one that's showing what one over one correct and that's what the board approved that's not what you want to do and what what we wanted to approve was this okay it's still a four over four on that back one little side yeah in my mind that's a 404. That is correct. And are those windows, are you doing the clad windows or what are you doing? They would also be wood windows if they're new. Okay, you're not doing clad. No. But true divided light. Correct. True divided light, single glazed. Wood windows is what my client would like to use. I have a question too, but go ahead. I'm a little confused. Your appeal is wanting to go from 1 over 1 to 6 over 6. That is correct. But the drawing that you have, it shows this 4 over 4. I guess that's my question, I guess. Well, really, as you look at it, there are several different kinds of windows, okay? There are small windows that have 4 over 4. there's a couple of casement windows that have six divided lights in them and there is a with a fixed picture window in the center so really I guess I misspoke when I said six over six our appeal is to be able to use muttons in the windows okay so what your and I think that's in my letter that I sent okay In summary, we would like to request approval to use muttons in the windows of the new construction. That's what we're trying to accomplish. Whether a 4 over 4 or 6 over 6. Well, what letter? I don't know what letter. All I have, sir, is based on is the information. This was the packet from planning staff, and it's Exhibit A. It's my letter to the staff. Oh, okay. Okay, okay, it's on, it's Exhibit A, it's on the, if you go past the. Go to the second page under Summary, that is exactly what we're trying to accomplish here. Now here's the confusion. It says Option 1, repurpose six existing double-hung windows with 6 over 6. And you've consistently said 6 over 6. But when I look at what you said that you wanted for design, I see 4 over 4. Now, help me out with... Some windows are different sizes. You can't put six over six muttons in all of them. Okay. So that's why some of the smaller windows only have four divided lights. And if you look at the little casements up there, some of them only have six lights in a casement. But really, it's not the number of lights. It's the fact that we would like to be able to use muttons. Muttons versus no muttons. That's what it really comes down to, I think. So, okay. Okay, any other questions? Is there anyone else in here that would like to speak, either for us? Yes, sir, then you please come forward. Yes, hi, I'm Michael Sheets, one of the owners of the house. I just wanted to state that for some reason, lights, button windows with divided lights are considered historic, and yet you go out to any window sales company now that does not sell historic windows, sells modern windows, you'll see mostly divided light windows, not one over one. You'll see four over one. You'll see one over one. You'll see a lot of six over six. So I don't think by using six over six windows, we're really recreating historic windows. We're simply using windows essentially that we prefer because we simply don't think one over one windows really are what we want in our house. If they were historic windows, then I would have to agree. But the fact that 6 over 6 windows are sold today as non-historic windows, and that's wooden windows with actually divided lights, not clad windows, that I don't consider really the use of 6 over 6 or 4 over 4, that is, windows with muttons, to be a historical design window. It's simply one of the various types of windows that you can purchase from any window company today, and the window companies certainly are not historic window sales companies. So thanks. Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this particular issue? Okay, what we'll do now is reverse the thing. Ms. Kerr, you get a chance to go next and kind of summarize or emphasize whatever statement you'd like to make. Thank you. I'll be very brief. One thing I think I've already made all our points and won't reiterate anything about that. I'm a little perplexed at this point relative to some of the discussion that's been going on here just within the last few comments about the variety of what's being proposed as far as the application for the appeal, because it seems now to be different types of window dimension, window articulations within those windows. And I would caution that if the Planning Commission does have an interest in granting there be divided lights, what we call divided lights, multiple panes in this, and of course I'm recommending representing the BOAR that that not be the outcome, but you understand where I'm headed, I would caution you that it needs to be very finite about what it is that your vote might be approving. It's not able to be a kind of moving target of you can decide later what you're going to put in this window and that window and this window. Potentially, and what I'm hearing at the moment concerns me because you could end up with a real hodgepodge, And that could be not a very successful design outcome, even ignoring some of the base issues that are so important that we've talked about. So the issue about historic windows versus new windows and those design features, no one is suggesting that only in the past did people use 6 over 6 windows or multi-pane windows, and that only in the present people use 1 over 1s. That's never been suggested. The reality is what's needed here is to have the two eras of construction have a legitimate contrast in their window articulations so that you see one and you go, hey, in 1980-whatever, excuse me, 1920-whatever, this was what this house was built with and with these beautiful six-over-sixes. And then you step around to the back and you say, And gosh, sometime in the 19, in the 20-teens, they made this nice addition. And you see it articulated by the siding as Hardy Plank and all the things we've talked about. So I think that's all I have, but again, I'm available if you have questions. Thank you. Ann has a question for you. When you all reviewed that plan, you allowed them to move existing windows. So by the very fact of you doing that, doesn't that defeat your argument where it ought to be one way or the other? By you letting them move the old windows to the new construction, how does that differ from what they're wanting to do? Well, it's a very fair question. And I will be direct and say that the staff recommendation on it was not in the proposal to relocate windows. that it was just proposed to um i don't think was it in the initial proposal barry to relocate i'm sorry it was in the initial proposal to relocate the windows but the staff recommended that all 12 windows be one over one and that they not mix and match um the board i think expressed in their comments there an interest in not throwing away nice good first growth wood windows and opened the door by that decision to let them reuse them on their addition. It's the first time that's happened and we were a little surprised as staff but I'm not criticizing I'm just reporting the news but it is complicated the outcome in the sense of the articulation of the errors. I cannot suggest that has not will not be the case. That's what I'm not concerned at all. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Staff, we're in the rebuttal. Do you have a last comment of any kind? Petitioner, do you have anything else to say? I would like to say one thing about reusing the existing windows. is something that michael and karen wanted to do michael's very handy and intends to restore all the windows in the house they're all the original windows it was kind of an unusual request to the the board of review when we asked to use them in the new edition and there was discussion about that and you know our position was that when that you know when we reuse the window um we're complying with some of the guidelines okay now i i understand this is not in the new construction guidelines but in the renovation and and restoration guidelines there's quite a bit of language about how great old windows are how superior they are to new windows how much more efficient it is to reuse old windows and it talks all about them and then it's silent on that when it goes to the new construction so it was kind of an unusual quest that our our client wanted to restore the old windows and reuse them but i think the board recognized that when they approved our request. Thank you. To the Commission members, are there any? Yes, sir, Mr. Bell. This is my first question. I'm just curious, how long has this dispute been going on? You mentioned 2016. Do you mind just giving me a little guidance on how long this has been going on? Yes, the Sheets bought the house in 2016, and they set about thinking about an addition. They first wanted a master suite and bathroom on the first floor, as well as some other additions. They went to the Board of Architecture Review, this was before I was involved, with the design, and it was sent back. It was not approved. At that point, they contacted me, I think, in December of 2016, and we started developing plans in January. We had a meeting with staff. Then we had a concept review meeting in April. And from that review, we took our plans to the next level. The concept review were just hand sketches. And we took our next level where we developed them on CAD and became very specific with what the drawings would look like. Following that is when we got the approval with the exception of number two about the muttons in the windows. And then, let's see, April. That was April 12th. Yeah, April, then May, June, July. It took us to July to get on your schedule. So we've been sitting tight, waiting for this to happen. And, you know, depending on the outcome, we'd like to finish our drawings and start construction before the season's over. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'm opening it up to the other commission members if they have questions for anybody. Okay, yes, Ms. Mundy. And I'm not sure who this is to, but I remember recently in the last six months, We looked at a situation in a historic district of a property that they had replaced the windows, unbeknownst to them, and they were vinyl windows, and they had vinyl soffit, and they had other issues or whatever that were involved with vinyl materials being on the property. And I think you guys wanted them to come back and put back in wooden windows. And I think our decision was, if I remember correctly, that they could keep the windows that they had. I guess what I'm struggling with is you gave them, or the BOA gave them permission to repurpose the windows that they had. So if I'm understanding all the rhetoric today, they have permission to repurpose the six windows. There are another six windows that they don't have that now you're asking them to do something totally different with. And I struggle with the fact that you're, in my mind, it's a very confusing situation because, yes, you can reuse these windows. oh wait before we were going to make them replace windows and now we're back to you can repurpose these windows but then we want the other windows to be completely different and i really struggle with that and i and honestly i struggle with some of this design that i'm seeing as to why it has to be so very, very different if maybe they're trying to establish a value, a continued value for the property. So, I mean, like this house on Belcourt, I'm sorry, that's a complete turnoff for me, that addition that was put on that house, because I'm looking at these historic areas as they should be, in my mind, contained historically. So then when you have someone put on, and maybe it's because I'm not as familiar with your guidelines, and I'll plead ignorance on that, but I'm looking at it from my standpoint and for what I do for a living every day, and I'm looking at the value added or the value taken away, and I'm really struggling with the fact that they're wanting to repurpose six windows. And you're saying, okay, you can do that. Oh, but wait, we want the other six to be completely different. And I'm looking at that as the property owner and the value added or taken away from them. So can you help me understand that better? Somewhere in there, there's a book. Seriously, I'm not, you know, not in jest. But it's, you're intertwining a lot of complicated things, and that's why you're struggling, I believe. First of all, it's difficult to mix and match property discussions from one property to another one. So you've referenced the property that was before you in January that was 401 North Limestone, and that's the one that had installed vinyl windows, thrown out their windows that were original to it and put in the vinyl windows. And the process of the historic districts has not allowed vinyl to be utilized in any way, shape, or form since 2009. And so that was just a direct, obvious these were in violation. Having said that, it was your all's choice, and you acted accordingly to grant that particular situation in their request for an appeal. So I would set that one aside because it is not relative very much, if at all, to this one. So your next step to be to come to the case at hand, which is the 239 to Shea, in that, as I said, it is unusual for this request and for the Board to approve putting the historic windows into the new addition. It is the first time we've seen that occur. But the design guidelines that over, they flow through for use in every application, but each application is to be looked at specific to that house, that setting, that vacant lot, whatever. So they're philosophical. The guidelines are philosophical streams of intents, and you apply them on a case-by-case basis reflective of what the property owner is asking for and what the existing condition is. So with that in mind, you fall back on this specific application because its request is to do work on new construction on a rear addition. You fall back to the intent of the design philosophies stated for new construction, And that's what you see reflected in why to go with a one-over-one window, because it is going to express itself as created at the time this edition is being put on, and it is not going to suggest it's ever been part of the historic house. So you're keeping a divide, even though some friends from the other building have come right on over and joined the new edition. You're still going to look at those and know those were not created in 2017. Those were created much earlier. And in this instance, hopefully the visitor is going to look at that and go, they seem to match the historic house. Tell us the story. Because buildings really tell you a story at the end of the day. Does that help you? Yeah. And as far as the design guidelines, seriously, I would invite you, if you ever, any of you, or together all of you, want to meet and, you know, we can do it in 15-minute increments, we can do it in one-hour increment, whatever would work for you all, we'd be delighted to help you dive into those guidelines and see what they really address and give you some background as to why the rationales are what they are. They're illustrated, they're on the web, and I know you have a ton of things on your plate, But if there's ever an opportunity and we can be of help with utilizing these guidelines as you need to and are doing so nicely with these appeals, we'd be so glad to help you. I did go online and look at them after the vinyl window discussions or whatever. But I have to tell you, because of what I do, I really struggle with the value added and the value take away with some of those guidelines. But that's because of what I do as a realtor. I understand. And it's always to keep in mind that some people see the same property that you referenced, you were not thrilled with the new addition. Others look at that and go, that is a great addition. Everybody can have their opinion. But your guidelines have to have some rationale as to how this is worked through on every one of these proposals. Because it's a complex, you know, coming up with good design in all aspects, whether it's engineering or structures or anything. This isn't simple stuff. I think other places that we have lived, to preserve the historic value is more important than trying to change the value. Well, actually, our community's guidelines reflect both. They reflect, first and foremost, protecting the historic resources and not doing any harm or any change to those. It opens the door, however, for there being more contemporary approaches to new houses, freestanding new houses, or new additions. But again, they have to, with their base issues, fit your form, your scale, your heights, your setbacks, the baselines of all the things you're used to dealing with. So it can be, you know, a colonial Williamsburg wants everything to look like colonial Williamsburg, even if it's built two years ago. That's right. Or that's their comfort level. But you will see that varies from community to community across this country. And Lexington, I'd say, is middle of the road, quite frankly. in terms of the intent of the guidelines. Okay. All right. Thank you. It's all in the details. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission members? Okay, then what I'll do is, yes, sir. I think, Michael Sheets again, I think the overriding concern within the guidelines for historic renovation is that, and I think this has been stated before, that there's an obvious demarcation between, let's say in this case, 1925 and 2017. Given the construction of our addition on the back of the house, if 6 over 6 or 4 over 4, that is, mutton windows with divided lights are put in. I don't think anyone is going to walk to the back of a house and say, my gosh, this edition was put on in 1925. It's obvious it's a new edition. Whether or not there's 1 over 1, 4 over 4, 6 over 6, 8 over 8, it's obvious not a 1925 edition. I think this is the overriding guideline focus of historic preservation. It doesn't look like you're recreating history. I don't think six over six windows, somebody's going to say they've tried to recreate history. They've simply put divided light windows in their addition that's obviously not 1925. So again, I think if we're talking about the concern on which the focus of historic preservation guidelines points us, I don't think it has to be every single detail has to be, no, it can't look anything like 1925. It can't look anything like 1950. It has to look like something that would be built in a Frank Lloyd White House. I think, obviously, that the flexibility should be there as long as the flexibility doesn't create the impression that this addition was put on in 1925 or 1930. It's obvious that it's the 2017 window. And again, since you can buy six over six divided light windows as new windows, I don't think that anyone would say, oh, if you go out to Congleton Lumber, you're not allowed to look in this section of Congleton Lumber because they've got six over six windows, and that's the historic section. And again, I think that it's obvious that this is not a historic addition from 1925, no matter what windows we put in. Thank you. With that, I'm going to close the public part of this hearing, and we'll bring it back to the Commission now for some additional discussion among ourselves or our motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir, Mr. Craig. If you're all ready, I can make the motion. You may want to discuss. Is it, well, the question is, is there any additional? First of all, make the motion. All right, then you can, okay. All right, I want to move approval of the appeal for BOAR 2017-1 by reasons by our staff, our planning staff down there, 1 and 2, and by reason that they allowed the applicant to use the existing windows, therefore creating a 6 over 6 on that part. And I think all the windows should have divided lights in them. They should all match. And I guess so that they don't – is this the plan? I'm trying to figure out if this is the plan that shows the 404s in the back. Okay. I think the windows should match this drawing, too. I'll put that in the motion. So moved. Okay, let me make sure that I have your motion correct. Let me say, Mr. Mike Cravens has moved for the support. Mr. Mike Cravens has moved approval of and seconded by Mr. Frank Penn that we uphold the BOA's approval, with the exception of number two, in which case we are modifying that to allow the applicant to do 6 over 6 or 4 over 4, with the other conditions being the same. Is that fair enough in terms of the statement? Well, and I have an exhibit here. Okay, and attaching the exhibit to the motion. I realize that 4 over 4 is in scale with a 6 over 6. It's a much more narrow window, so you would have to eliminate some of the pains. You couldn't put a 6 over 6 in that. Okay. Let me go back just to be clear. we are moving for the approval of the support of BOAR 2017-1 and the staff's support for this with the exception of number 2 in which case we're changing it from 1 over 1 to 6 over 6 or 4 over 4 and I think that's it is that the essence of the motion? I'm trying to because the BOAR allowed them to put the old windows in. Okay, because the BOAR allowed them to put the old windows in the new section. Right. And we also add to that motion that we want the visual exhibit attached as well. Is that clear enough? If it is, then if there's no other discussion, please vote when it comes up on your monitors. Mike. Mike. Okay. I don't know. It might be helpful so that everyone is in the app and knows that. Can they post that up on the screen? Okay. He's requesting that you put. You just want to clarify. It is drawing number two that you're referring to. Okay, that's the official drawing that we want to attach to this motion. Is everybody in agreement with that? Okay. Any other questions or discussion items on the motion? And please reflect your vote when it comes up on your screens. Yes, sir. They look like they're trying to say something out there, but I know we're in a motion. Well, I've closed it to the audience. It's now left up to us. I've closed that part of the committee hearing. It's now left up to us. The motion's on the floor. It's been second. We're ready for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. The appeal has been granted. Thank you. Well, I have one other thing to say after the motion. Ms. Kerr, every time we get into these discussions about guidelines and things, I do get confused myself. And I guess for some reason I majored in history when I was in school. I'd like to take you up on your offer to have a little bit more additional education about it because I'm too a little bit confused about what is and what was and what's what. So if it's agreeable with you, I'll give you a call. It will probably be after July the 20th because of some other commitments. And if my other colleagues would like to be a part of that, okay, then maybe we can set it up. If everyone would like to do the same thing, then in that case maybe we'll just set up a time when you can come back and talk to us all, maybe doing a work session or something, because I definitely need some additional education on this. We'll be very glad to do that. Okay. Thank you. Now we have Mr. Duncan, you got anything? Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the staff, we want to congratulate the new officers and that you are returned to the chair and that also welcome you and Ms. Plumlee back to the Planning Commission and Mr. Bell, new to the Planning Commission, Mr. Forrester when he gets here. So we're delighted to work with the returning members and looking forward to working with the new members. And I also want to remind you that this is not the end. We've got meetings again next week. So please join us for the Planning Commission work session, and that will be at 1.30 on Thursday the 20th. We'll be in the Phoenix Building on the third floor, as we have been for the other work sessions. The topic will be primarily the goals and objectives for the comprehensive plan. Okay. Also, Mr. Bell, thank you again for your service to the community. We know that we have a lot of meetings and things to help us out a little bit. I'm going to be getting your email address because I usually give the commission members a kind of a heads up of what they can anticipate. And that will also give you an idea a little bit about what we could face, although we never know until we get down here what's what. But it does give you a little bit of an overview of what's what. Also, we have a special announcement. Now, which one of you gentlemen, Mr. Penn or Mr. Owens, would like us to make a special announcement? As you all noticed in our committee meetings, Mr. Salley has informed us that he will be retiring at the end of this month. And Mr. Owens and I would like to invite you to a meeting at the Thoroughbred Club on the 26th. What time? Six to eight. At six to eight, we want to invite the staff. I want all of you all to come, and as many of the commission members as can. And if you'll let us know anybody else that you'd like to invite, we'd certainly like to do it. It's hard for me to say goodbye to this guy, but I'd like to get a chance to roast him one more time. Well, thank you all, gentlemen, for taking on the responsibility of that. The official invite will come out. Okay, and the other thing, too, let me appeal to, and I'll send out another announcement, that these gentlemen are doing this, but it would be helpful if we could help them out a little bit financially on this. I don't know. We don't know how many people are coming, so we'll have to figure out an RSVP system and then try to figure out what the possible contribution could be. But we're asking for whatever support you can provide, and we thank Mr. Owens and Mr. Penn for taking the lead on this, and I think it will be a real nice affair. I'm looking forward to roasting him as well. The main thing is we want people to come. That's it. Anything else to come before this biting? Without objection, then the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. I bet you think this song is about you, don't you, don't you? Oh, you had me several years ago When I was still quite naive When you said that we made such a pretty pair And that you would never leave But you gave away the things you loved And one of them was me I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee, clouds in my coffee You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you You're so vain, I bet you think this song is about you Don't you, don't you, don't you I had some dreams They were clouds in my coffee Clouds in my coffee And you're so vain We probably think this song is about you You're so vain I bet you think this song is about you Don't you, don't you When I hear you went up to Sanatoga And your heart's naturally won Then you blew your leered jet up to Nova Scotia to see the total eclipse of the sun. When you're where you should be all the time. And when you're not, you're with some underworld spy or the wife of a close friend. Wife of a close friend. And you're so vain. You probably think this song is about you You're so vain I bet you think this song is about you Don't you, don't you