But it's really how we make each other feel I love you for all the wrong reasons I need you every night and every day Yes, I love you For all the wrong reasons Cause you love me In all the right way I love you For all the wrong reasons I need you Every night and every day Yes, I love you For all the wrong reasons But you love me In all the right ways I'm sorry. Three wheels Who's gonna make that first mistake Who wants to wear Gypsum leather All the way To Phile We'll see you next time. Thank you. Can you hear us? We are good to go. You're on the air. Thank you so much. Okay. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. It's now 1.30. Welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission. subdivision items meeting and we call this meeting to orders march 11th 2021. First up I want to read the governor's statement due to the COVID-19 pandemic state of an emergency and governor Brashear's executive orders regarding social distancing this meeting is held via teleconference pursuant to senate bill 150 as signed by the governor on march 30th 2020 and Attorney General Opinion 20-05 and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. Next up on the agenda item two, we don't have any minutes for approval. That meeting was canceled due to the weather. So we'll move down for staff. actually before I go to staff let's hit page seven which will be the performance bonds and letters of credit if there's any questions or concerns if not I will ask for a motion of approval for the performance bonds and letters of credit Mr. Chairman I move for approval of the performance bonds and credits as presented by staff. Okay, thank you, Mr. Penn. And we have a second by Mr. DeMovlin. Any discussion to that motion? I'm seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, unanimous. Thank you. Okay, next up, agenda item three uh postponements and or withdrawals step we'll see if there's anyone in the audience today that um has a request for a postponement we do have a few hands up so donna if you'll allow um mr nicholson to speak first yep I'm here on behalf of Ball Holmes on page three of your agenda, MJDP 20-67 Spring Lake. Staff has asked us to kind of postpone it one more month in order to continue working with them in order to see if there's not something more we can do with regards to the single family lots on the formerly single loaded street. And so we are happy to sit down with him and continue talking. So we'd ask you all one month postponement until I believe it's the April 8th meeting. All right. Any questions for Mr. Nicholson for this one month postponement for the April 8th meeting? Not seeing any. The floor is open for a motion. Ms. Plumlee. Ms. Plumlee, you're on mute. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair, move postponement of PLNMJDP 2067 Spring Lake until April 8th. Okay, thank you. We have a motion and a seconded by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? Not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. The next individual that has asked to speak with Scott Southall. Okay. Afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I'd like to direct your attention to page two, item A, PLN, MJDP, 20-00-57 Griffin Gate Office Park amended and would like to request a one month postponement to the April 8th meeting. We have been continuing to work with traffic engineering and engineering on the location of the entrance. We believe we've got something worked out, but we're still communicating with them on the details of that. Thank you. Any discussions to that one-month postponement that's recommended by Mr. Southall? Not seeing any. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Wilson? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a move for postponement of plan MJDP 20-57 Griffith Gate Office Park as amended until April the 8th. Thank you. And a seconded by Ms. Plumlee. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Southall. Thank you, sir. And then the third individual that requested a raise of hand was Mr. Casey. Okay, how you doing? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory K with EA partners. We could go to page eight. This is under staff items. We have a minor development plan 21-003 South Elkhorn Village. Talking with the staff this morning. I think we're going to go a different route with this so I'd like to have this one withdrawn. Just to clarify, just withdrawn from planning commission consideration, right? but you still wish to have it on their development plan? Okay. Yes, yes. Okay. All right. So we have a motion to withdraw this particular item from the Planning Commission. Approval items. Do we have any further discussion for this particular item? Not seeing any. Okay, the floor is open. Floor in motion. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move withdrawal of PLNMJDP 21-3 South Elkhorn Village as requested by the applicant. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Ms. Meyer, thank you. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion is approved unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay, so now we're back up to staff. I don't see any other postponements or withdrawals. And now we'll open the floor for staff for any consent agenda. Good afternoon. We do have several items on the consent agenda today. Let me just go ahead and go ahead. Considered, and just as a reminder, these items were recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. They have no discussion items listed on the agenda. they have no waivers or other particulars that need attention by the commission so they're recommended for approval generally i'll read through these and if there's anyone in the audience or if there's any of the applicants or any planning commission members who wish to have any of these items heard just ask that you wait till the end and identify yourself by raising your hand and letting us know that you'd like to have an item pulled from the consent agenda to be heard today. Our first item is on page six, item G, PLN-MJDP 20-84, Eppington and Eppington property, track one, and this is only for lots two through four, and it's amended final development plan. That property is located at 4235 Harrodsburg Road. The next item also appears on page 6, item H, PLN MJDP 21-1, Man of War Development Unit 2A, Lot A-19, also an amended final development plan, for property located at 1920-1936 Bryant Road, as well as 1925 Justice Drive. Next item appears on page 6, item I on the agenda. This also has the requirement for a posting of a sign. And we do have a finding or a small short report that was provided to the commission for this as well. It is PLN MJDP 21-2 for Manchester Development LLC. The Distillery District East, Unit 1, amended. The property is located at 941 Manchester Street. And we did receive information from the applicant that included their notice listing and affidavit that they posted it on time on the site. Page 7, Item K is our next item. PLN MJDP 21-4 for the Atkins property, lot 1A and 1B amended. For some reason, I think this one maybe needs to be removed today. Let's see. Yeah, I have my notes here. It's going to be pulled. Ms. Wade, per the applicant, they would like this item pulled to discuss some amendments that they proposing to the development plan okay so we can we can skip page um seven item k the atkins property item then the last two on our consent agenda today are re-approval items that the commission the subdivision committee considered the first one appears on page three item b pln mjdp 20-64 so this is one the commission saw recently um for beaumont farm unit one section five, lots nine and ten. And then the second one, also another recent approval that just needed a few changes. On page four item D, PLN MJDP 20-73, the Liberty Road Service Center. The first one up there was on Midnight Pass and this one is on Liberty Road. We'll just ask, again we struck out the Atkins property one, so that leaves five items on the consent agenda. If there's anyone present that wishes to have any of these items that I read be pulled from the consent agenda? Tracy, if I may. Yep. Mr. Chair? Yes. The Ethington and Ethington, I mentioned to Matt last time we were together, I just have some questions about the traffic. Those are church that feeds into that exit there at the light. And there's also, I understood, And what caught my attention was when, and again, nothing against, but there's going to be a Chick-fil-A there. And the idea that a Chick-fil-A in a church are feeding right into that, that one little spot. I just like, I asked for Matt or somebody to give a further explanation on the traffic there. If that's, that means we've got to hear it, then we've got to hear it, but that's what I'd like to do. Chick-fil-A's are not open on Sundays. That's a good point. But they have a, they have a day school. There's the thing. That's the problem. No problem. We'll take that one off. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. Any further questions on the consent agenda? Can we post that consent agenda back up for everyone to see? Not seeing any. The floor is open for any motion. with the adjustments that were made. So that leaves four items. Yep. It will be four items. We'll be taking out the item on page six, item G, and also taking out the Atkins property on page seven, which is item K. So the motion would be to admit those two items. Mr. Poe. Include? Okay. I move to approve the consent agenda for March 11, 2021, with the exception of PLN and MJDP 2084, for Ethington and Ethington property and PLNM JDP 2104 Atkins property. Okay. Also, and this is Frank, you wanted to mention the findings for the Manchester? Yeah, I wanted to do that also to include the re-approvals. All right. So, Mr. Polar, you're amending yours to include the findings and for the Manchester development and the re-approvals? That'd be fine. Okay, thank you. So we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Mr. Penn is seconded. Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passed unanimously. Thank you. All right. So next up, we should be on page two. Final record plat, PLN FRP-20-48. We do have a waiver request for this application as well. Staff? This plan is FRP 20-48 Lexington Mall property, Planet Fitness Athletic facility. This property is located at the corner of Richmond Road and East New Circle Road. We have Home Depot in this location. We just approved a development plan for Planet Fitness in this area. This is to subdivide the property into two lots. they're bringing it back to us it was approved by the tech but they're bringing it back asking for a waiver because they have to create the lot to be able to sell it and the waiver is asking for waiver of the completion excuse me the waiver for to for the completion of the public improvements for the property so they want to be able to do those they want to get the plat signed and record it so that they can do the improvements at the time that they're doing the construction work on the on the site instead of having to get the improvements done prior to the plat signature so with that I open it to you all it had simple sign-offs and a couple cleanup conditions they were the discussion questions were cleaned up with the development plan as far as the parking reciprocal parking and the pedestrian improvements we had a this being b6p zone it had a multi-mobile development portion that went with the development plan so with that those were resolved with the final development plan. I'll open it to you if there's any other comments or questions. Any commission members have any comments or questions for staff at this time? Not seeing any. Is there anyone? Excuse me. The applicant? Mr. Phillips is here today and he raised his hand to speak. Mr. Phillips, we're going to move you in as a panel. I'll move this. It'll take a minute. There he goes. Mr. Phillips, are you there? Mr. Phillips? He's on mute right now. Okay, we can hear you. All right. Good afternoon. This is Kevin Phillips with Interest Engineering. As Cheryl said, the sewer is only 85 or so feet long, and there'll just be a public ladder will be connected from the public sewer that's very nearby in the southeast corner of the property to this new lot. So they will perform that work at the time of the construction of the other improvements to the lot associated with this plan at Fitness. There were two discussion items still on the conditions. I think we've submitted a plan that addresses those items, and staff can confirm whether we've done that or not. But the two discussion items, I guess if nothing else, just change those to resolve. I would request they change the resolve instead of discuss. Other than that, I don't think I have anything else to add unless you have questions. staff is giving me thumbs up for items 10 and 11 to change discuss to resolve just let everyone know from the commission standpoint does any commission members have any questions for mr phillips not seeing any is there anyone out in the audience that would like to speak on behalf or against this particular agenda item today, you can do so by raising your hand. Not seeing any. So we'll pull it back to the commission for a vote. The floor is open. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? I move for approval of PLNFR 2048 Lexington Mall, changing number 10 and number 11 to resolve and approve of the waiver request in Article 4.8. All right. Thank you. And we have a second by Mr. DeMovlin. Any further discussion? Not seeing any. Please raise your hand for approval. Okay. Motion passes unanimously, Mr. Phillips. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good day. Okay. All right. Next on the agenda item, we should be on page 5, item E, PLN, MJDP-20-78, guest properties. We do have an EAMP report with this as well. Yes, thank you. Let me get to the slide here. Okay, this is MJDP-20-78 for Guest Property Unit 8, Phase 3. This is located at 4105 Sperling Drive. So we have Hayes Boulevard to the west, and then Sperling Drive is down to the south of the plan. The purpose of this amendment is to depict the development of these four apartment buildings. And then they're also revising the site statistics and several of the general notes on the plan. We have our typical sign offs. And then we just have a few extra conditions. Number 13 is about the legend denoting different line types, just because there's so many different types of lines on this plan. That actually has been added to the plan. It's to the right of the title block, kind of on the bottom. And the applicant has indicated that he will label that legend. We also have exactions to the approval of the Division of Planning required. And then finally, our last condition is about resolving the 60% open space requirement for the special design area. And I'm going to move to the next slide. We actually received an exhibit from the applicant that shows the portion of this development that's in the special design area, kind of the left side of the plan. that along with other properties that have already been built within that area are only 21 percent of the entire special design area so it is meeting that requirement and next I'm going to have Mr. Martin come up here and talk about the EAMT report Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as you are aware, there is a compliance report necessary with this particular plan. The AMP always requires compliance with the AMP when you have a development plan, a final development plan filed. And as Lauren explained to you, this is the four apartment buildings that they're building in this little spot right here with the associated parking. It is part of this overall unit eight development through here. And this is kind of the last little piece of that development. Now, in terms of the future land use element, it is consistent with recommendations of the AMP that have recommended a residential land use, as well as this area, which is a community center area, and it's all the way up through here and into here. Oops. Got to go back. That's what I'm looking for. There we go. So, again, the addition of these 56 units is consistent with the future land use plan for Unit 2C, or expansionary, pardon me, Unit 2C. It's Unit 8 overall. So, again, this is consistent with the land use element in the EMP for this area. Some of you may recall, although most of you don't believe were present, when this area was initially rezoned and then proposed for development, they had a convenience store on this piece of property, along with a residential or a commercial building with residential above in this location. And they withdrew that and went forward with the multifamily aspect of this property. So this has been here now for some time. And now it's before you again today just to add these residential units. It's a small piece of CC that's set here. And no one has shown any particular commercial development potential for this property. And again, the history on this is that when Hayes Boulevard was constructed, it had to be altered a little bit in its location. And it actually changed the size and reduced the size of this CC area. So it is a relatively small CC area. But again, the residential portion is consistent with the land use element of the AMP. Let's see. Excuse me. Its frontage, as you can see, is on A's Boulevard and Sparling in this location. The Greenway, and you all have heard this a lot, the Greenway, and in this area is the Greenway. It runs all back through here and all the way back through Guest. It crosses Hayes and goes down. and the greenway eventually ends up at jacobson park and as you all are aware the greenway is also part of the regional stormwater system the greenway is the principal design feature it kind of ties this all together there will be a trail eventually to that greenway as well there are several design features that are required under the ordinance that be incorporated into these buildings that addresses their architectural features. And again, they are proposing to meet that as the other buildings did in the section or unit eight. The community design element is, again, an aspect of your AMP, and it is primarily an evaluation of the greenway and how it ties the neighborhoods all together. along with the pedestrian connections that exist. Now, this little piece, because it's surrounded by Greenway, and you can see that, it's primarily pedestrian connections will be the existing public sidewalk system along the frontage that will allow these residents then to access other aspects of the development, the trail location here. So again, it is consistent with the overall community design element for Unit 8. The infrastructure element is relatively simple now for this area. It's been under development for a long time. As we all know, Hayes Boulevard is built. It's an exactable required feature of the EAMP. The regional stormwater system that I just mentioned, that the greenways are all part of, it's largely built and complete in this area. There's still some work that remains in other areas, but in this area of this unit and 2C, most of it is complete. There's some work that's going to have to be done downstream near Walnut Hill, Chalzburg, and Jacobson Park. There's still a few features that remain in that area that need to be constructed. Most prominently are some wetlands in that area of the Greenway. So the sewer system has been in place. The trunk line that's required to serve this area is in place. So in conclusion, the staff does find that the addition of these four buildings and the development of this area is consistent with the recommendations of the EAMP. Thank you, Tom. Any questions for staff? I have one. Tom, is the CC portion of that development pretty much what we see where the housing units are, or is it bigger than that? It's a little bit bigger. It expands over into a little bit. There's another building in that area. It's a little bit bigger. The reason I ask you that question is most CC units that we have don't have the residential. They just have the commercial or the stores. So is CCC the right zoning for this now that's all conditional? It's all residential? Well, it's consistent with the AMP and the recommendations. We do have one CC out by Todd's Road that has townhouses and a C-store, I believe. So that one does have a mix. again i think the principal problem here mr pen is that when that cc got smaller with the cost of land and the exactions it's not generated any real commercial interest so um it's just kind of a historical aspect of this particular area yeah i remember when i remember when we first did it and And, you know, most of the time, like out on Newtown Pike, we have the commercial. We don't have the residential. Yes. So that's been the history of CC. I just wonder, you know, if that's the appropriate zone for residential. Well, I think that's probably a bigger discussion, Mr. Ben, on the function of that zone. Yes. Let's just call that an observation. Thanks, sir. Yes. All right. Okay. Mr. Pohl. A quick question, Tom. Where do those architectural standards come from? The ordinance. They're actually in the ordinance that was developed when the AMP was adopted. Are those standards still in the ordinance? Yes, they're under Article 23. You have to dig through the ordinance. You'll find them. They're not particularly difficult to meet. They speak to masonry facades. They speak to a certain percentage of window space. They're relatively minimal, to be perfectly honest with you. Well, there's one of them that I find extremely objectionable, and that's why I asked. What would it take to change those? A text amendment. Okay. And, you know, and I would, I think staff would agree, it wouldn't hurt to look at those again. Yeah, they seem really out of date to me, particularly the one about the roof pitch issue. Yes. Yes, sir. And yes. And again, as you all are aware, the AMP was adopted in the 90s, and the ordinance changes followed shortly thereafter. Thank you. okay not seeing any other hands raised at this time applicant is that uh is it um it should be calling mr haley and mr nicholson I didn't see Mr. Nicholson. I think he left out. Hold on, hold on. Go down some? No, there he goes. Okay. Okay, Mr. Nicholson and Rory. I wouldn't leave you early, Chairman. You know that. Well, the game's on, so I thought you left us with a game. I've not moved from this chair. My phone's vibrating. I don't know what's going on. It's making me a little paranoid, but, you know, it's okay. Well, for the record, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant RML. We are, Rory Cayley is also here with EA Partners, and we are in complete agreement with the staff's recommendations of approval, the final development plan, and the EAMP compliance statement and those conditions that are kind of placed on those approvals. Tom is very right. This property, it's been around for a while and it's gone through the block. It has been vacant for quite some time. It came in with the 96 expansion. It was zoned back in the early 2000s. I think it was 2002. And in 2010, this general area came and brought in a development plan that included this particular parcel. And the neighborhood at that time objected to the commercial use of this particular parcel. And so we withdrew that parcel from the overall development plan for most of the rest of guest unit eight. um you know at the end of the day the commission and the council made it very clear that this is the exact type of vacant parcel that we have to make sure ends up getting developed because it is perfectly suitable for development and due to the kind of concerns with the commercial use that came up last time we wanted to bring in a residential uh basically use to uh for this particular parcel Mr. Penn, the multifamily we are proposing is a principal permitted use in the CC zone. We had to basically kind of alter some of the, basically the floor area of these buildings. It is actually the smallest apartment buildings that we offer. All four of these are under 20,000 square feet in total. With regards to the special design area, we have submitted the exhibit that Lauren kind of went over. It's a total of 14.97 acres, which kind of requires 8.98 acres, which is 60%. We're showing 11.77 acres of dedicated green space and open space and greenway for that special design area. So we well exceed that 60% requirement. I'm happy to get into any specific questions you all may have on this project. At the end of the day, we just knew that this parcel couldn't continue to sit vacant, and we wanted to make sure we brought in the residential aspect that our community's been basically calling for. I'm happy to answer any questions, but this meets all the requirements of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, and it is a principal permitted use. And so we would ask you to adopt the recommendations of staff. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Not seeing any. Is there any citizens that are on the call at this moment that would like to speak on behalf or against this particular agenda item? You can do so by raising your hand. Okay. Let's go back up. Nope. All right. Not seeing any. So we'll bring this back to the commission members. The floor is open for further discussion or a motion. Mr. Demoglin? I'll move for approval of PLNN JDP 2078 guest properties with the 15 items. And that's including the EAMP compliance report? Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. We have a second by Mr. Bell. thank you any further discussion to that motion not seeing any oh miss plumley yeah it's good thank you i i just wanted to uh in to go along with uh the suggestion about the text amendment that we put that on the wish list just just yes it came across on our screen i think staff picked it up i know i looked at it too from Graham. Yes. Thank you. And thank you, Graham. Any further discussions of that motion? Not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Kelly also very much. Okay, we're still on On page 5, item F, PLN, MJDP-20-80. We do have revised conditions to this application. Excuse me. Yes, to this application. Staff? Thank you. Okay, so this next item is MJDP-20-80 for Haynes Brothers Properties. This is located at 840 Angliana Avenue. This is just a rendering of the proposed development. This property is off of Angliana Avenue, which is just south of For Sales Road. This is the final development plan for the property. The applicant did submit a revised plan to us on March 9th that has addressed most of the conditions from the subdivision committee staff report. So we have most of our typical sign-offs on this plan. Condition 12 is about the width of the proposed water and storm sewer easements. The applicant has added the width of the sanitary sewer easements, but they still need to do that for the water and storm sewer easements as well. So that's a quick fix. Number 13 is about compliance with the requirements of Article 15-7 for the infill and redevelopment multifamily construction requirements. And that is something that can be denoted throughout the plan. Number 14 is regarding the documentation for compliance with the multifamily design standards. And the applicant has actually given us several exhibits that show that that compliance is being met. I just wanted to show the first page here. So, first of all, as far as the buffering in the rear of the townhouses, that can be resolved. The applicant has indicated that these little boxes at the back of the townhomes are going to be at-grade patios, concrete patios. We still have a discussion about the removal of the underground detention bioswales, and I'm just going to let the applicant address that whenever it's their turn to speak. We also can resolve the proximity of the townhouse end units to the dumpsters. Going back to the color rendering, you can see that the end unit townhomes have been relocated so that they are further away from the dumpsters. And I want to point out that this color rendering shows that change has been made. However, their revised plan does not currently show that change. So the applicant just needs to make sure that they make that revision to the plan. And then number 15, we still have a discussion about the detention and water quality compliance, kind of going along the lines with the underground detention, the bioswales that have been removed. We also can resolve the internal pedestrian circulation. The applicant has added various crosswalks throughout the site, and there's quite a bit of pedestrian connectivity on the site. And finally, we can resolve the significant changes from the preliminary development plan. This plan does have less density than the preliminary plan. It's also relocated the amenities to be more internal to the site, but the multifamily design standards have been addressed, and the recent revisions made to this plan have addressed concerns that staff had about the changes for the preliminary plan. And with that, I will open it up to the commission. Okay. Any commission members have any questions for staff at this moment? Not seeing any. Applicant? Okay. All right, we have one. Oh, it's left-hand corner. Yep, it's Jihad. Can you unmute yourself, sir? Mr. Halani? Yes. All right. Good afternoon. This is Jihad Halani and Matt Carter here. I believe John should be with us, Mr. Woodo. but I'll go ahead and go through the comments of the staff so we agree with the staff with all the comments and related to discussion for the underground detention basin slash virus well the reason it has been there's changes from the preliminary development plan and the final development plan and why it has been removed is basically The LFUCG stormwater manual section 1.8 state if there's any reduction in impervious area from the pre-development to the post-development, detention is not required. and then specific and also it go farther said if there is any reduction of impervious area that's in excess of 20 percent also the water quality is not required so basically in redevelopment site stormwater management and water quality is required up to 20 percent if the impervious area can reduce between in excess of 20 percent that means these are not required and then if it's between 0 and 20 percent it can be a combination of a green infrastructure as well as reduction in stormwater management so our development is producing decreasing the impervious area by 20 percent but in addition of that we're going to be doing all the roof drain from the building as well especially the perimeter building is going to go through a grass media before it cannot drain into a storm sewer. So even though we are reducing it by 20%, we're still planning to do some stormwater management through the infiltration of the roof drain into the grass media. Okay. Thank you. Does any commission members have any questions for the applicant? I'm not seeing any. If there's any citizens that would like to speak on behalf or against this particular application item today, you can do so by raising your hand. Okay. Make sure. All right. Not seeing anything. So we'll bring it back to the commission for further discussion or emotion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I want to compliment the applicant on redoing this plan. The Southern District Committee saw the preliminary development plan and there was a lot of discussion. This plan has been pretty well redone. Knowing that property as well as I do, I know the fall from Anglin Avenue back toward the end of the property, they said 15 feet. I don't doubt it. It's pretty large fall. So I want to compliment on working with the staff for this and revised as we see the revised staff recommendations for approval now and the resolvable items ought to be able to be handled. Thank you, Ms. Penn. Ms. Plumlee, do you have your hand raised too? Yes, thank you. I just wanted to check it with water quality. Are they okay with the applicant's description of how they solve the problem? If anyone's available. Is anybody available with water quality? Is she there? There's a hand raised in the attendee section right now. Yeah, is engineering available? Give you time. Yeah. She's at the bottom. Go back up. There we go. Okay, Ms. Atkins. Oh, yes, right. Okay. Yes, I agree with their description and what they're explaining that they're going to do, but they'll have to present documentation that supports their statements, and they have to comply with the manual regardless. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Plumlee, is your question resolved? Yes. Thank you. Right. All right. I'm not seeing any other hands. The floor is open. Yes, Mr. Bell. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2080 with the 17 conditions that changed 16 and 17 to resolve as described by staff. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Yes, sir. Do we have a second? Mr. Poles? Okay. All in favor, please do so by raising your hand. Okay. We have Mr. Wilson, is your hand raised or are you opposing? No. Okay. All right. All right. Application approved unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. You know, this is instructive for me. This might be a lesson that these go better if I just don't say anything. You think? Mr. Woodall, that is frequently the case. There's no billable hours. That's great. You all have a great weekend. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, man. Frank, you didn't have to do that to him. i'm used to it i'm used to it with him it's okay we are page six pln mjd p-20-84 this was pulled from the consent agenda commission member bell had questions about the traffic with the school i think there's a church and the church has a school so there's some traffic questions there Mr. Bell sorry about that went the wrong direction okay um we're at the top of page six MJDP 20-84 Ethington and Ethington property track one lots two three four lots two three four is what we're looking at right now two three and four as you can see that this property up here in the front was zone b1 then we had townhomes and then single family residential on the back. At the time of the zoning, they did not require a traffic study. The church was already existing over here off of Madrone Way. Here's Harrodsburg Road. Our access point in and out of the new area is right here in the front off of Harrodsburg Road. there isn't additional access off of the drone but they can also enter an exit right here at the time when this was all done we did not know exactly what the uses were going to be so we didn't make any conditional zoning restrictions to say what they could and could not do I don't know that that answers your questions maybe the applicant vision engineering can give you more information so Cheryl if I may ask they're by Madrone so that's a light there and if it was a parting kind of comment I understand there was going to be a Chick-fil-A right on that potentially on that uh in that development right there on the corner and my my concern is if it feeds out onto i mean it's a short it's a short area short drive or whatever you want to say that madrone area street and and uh the day school feeds right into that same area um and there there's potential real i mean we all know i mean chick-fil-a is the greatest product in the world and it's very popular. So my concern is the feed onto Madrone along with the feed from the day school. So now you know I appreciate that there's another entrance exit onto Harrisburg Road but you know you've got a lot of potential traffic. It is a collect it is also Tom brought up the reminder this is a collector street. so it's designed so it's designed to carry that that traffic flow and the church access is also existing all right the church the church has been an existing um access point for quite a while now so this new was all designed with the idea this being a collector to be able to handle the traffic flow from the church and from this new development area so so what y'all are suggesting is and y'all knew potentially that there was a chick-fil-a that was going to go in there no we didn't know at the time that the property was rezoned okay so do y'all feel as if uh it that that collector street can handle chick-fil-a traffic along with it along with the church okay uh if i may thank you yes Yes, Mr. Bill, we do believe it can handle the traffic. And remember that there are other connections. The church can come down here and then they can take Old Heritsburg Road out to Military Pike, for instance. They could even go back through, use Madrone to go back to the neighborhood and out to Manowar. Yes, Lion Drive and out to Manowar. Of course, that's one of the issues the neighborhood had with this particular zone change. But again, it is a collector street, and it's a signalized intersection, which will assist in the traffic flow. And people do have options. And again, as you're very much aware, this is a large arterial that has been improved. So again, there's always going to be some traffic conflicts during the busy hours. But we're satisfied that the public street infrastructure is adequate. So if you're satisfied, I'm satisfied. So thank you very much. And by the way, though, I will relate to you something we've done. On the spring site on Harrisburg Road, which developed in accordance with the zoning ordinance, there came a point where staff said no more fast food, no more drive-thrus, no more drive-thrus because of the traffic they generate. So we always have that option as these properties come in, if there are any changes, If they want to propose any fast food, drive-thrus, that sort of thing, certainly when we come before this body, it is something we would want to discuss. Well, all I'm saying, they're not likely to take a right and go out the other entrance exit onto Harrisburg Road. I mean, that's the most feasible one right there at Madrone. and it's going to you know they're going to have to adapt that stoplight to handle traffic which I believe they can do but it's a very short area there's a lot of feeder that comes into that but again I respect yourselves and if y'all are comfortable I'm comfortable. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Mr. Bell. Any further questions for staff? Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. I'm trying to find it. Yeah, that's not advocate. Okay, can you hear me? Yes. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. Just a couple of things I wanted to add. Chick-fil-A, their peak of their traffic is lunch. They're not as heavy in the morning and the late afternoon. They peak at lunchtime. Harrisburg Road, it's more peaking in the mornings and the afternoon. So the lunch is really not a problem. A couple other things is the church, it does have a daycare during the week. And their capacity, I looked it up before this hearing, and I believe it's like 29 is what they're showing on their website. Also, we did a, during the zone change, we had to do a traffic study for this. And we included in the traffic study a full build out for the development. and we had two of these outlots we had them as fast food restaurants in the study so um the study was reviewed by uh lfucg and and accepted ultimately for the zone change so and it is a collector road as as staff mentioned so we really feel like this intersection and the and the road itself can handle the traffic that will be generated. Matt, thank you very much. We all know there's fast food and then there's Chick-fil-A. So they're a little bit different worlds, but I appreciate your efforts and attention to it. That's all I cared about. So thank you all very much. Sure. Thank you. Okay, any further questions for the applicant? The commission members. I'm not seeing any. I just want to ask, is there any citizens out there that would like to speak on behalf of this application, either for or against? Please do so by raising your hand. I'm not seeing any. I'm going to bring this back to the commission. For further discussion or any motion. Mr. Poe. I move to approve PLNMJDP 2084, I think to an ethington properties. I have a motion and a seconded by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion approved unanimously. Thank you. All right. It should be on page 7, PLNMJDP-21-3. Agenda items J. Thank you. Okay, this is the NDC property, Unit 1A, Flot 21 for the Jiffy Lube oil change. This property is located in the Meyer Shopping Center off Reynolds Road Road at 351 Meijer Way. And the purpose of this amendment is to depict the proposed building and the parking on lot 21G for the Jiffy Loop. The applicant submitted a revised development plan on March 9th that has addressed most of the conditions. And based on that revised submission, we have today's revised set of conditions. We have most of our typical sign-offs on this plan. And then as you can see, the applicant has addressed just about all of their cleanup conditions. We still need the language and the owner's certification corrected. And then our last condition is about resolving the multimodal requirements that are per Article 12-8H of the zoning ordinance. And we've actually received a multimodal exhibit on the screen from the applicant. And that just shows the existing and the proposed sidewalks, ADA ramps, and then also the nearest bus stop location. So we think that that item has been met. And with that, I will open it up to the Planning Commission. Commission members, questions for staff? I see any. Applicant? Okay, you're on mute, sir. Can you unmute yourself? All right. Maybe that's better. Yeah. Okay. As far as the Jiffy Lube goes in the design staff, we agree with planning staff. We've gone through several iterations to get the site to meet not only conditions favorable to the planning staff, but also favorable to Myers. they've turned out to be pickier than you folks. So I believe the plan that we have now meets everyone's requirements and we would like to request approval. Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? I'm not seeing any. if there are any citizens that would like to speak either for or against this particular application item, please do so by raising your hand. I see any. I'll bring it back to the commission for further questions or discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman. Oh, I got Mr. Penn, Mr. Bell. Oh, he's shaking his head. Hold on. No, Mr. Penn can make a motion at least. Okay, thank you. Mr. Penn? Yes, I want to thank the applicant from cutting 21 conditions down to 12. That's very helpful to us, and it's very rare that the applicant is more picky than the planning commission. I'm glad to know there are such people in this world. And I'd like to move that PLNMJDP 21-3 with revised 12 conditions be approved. Great. Thank you. We have a second by Mr. DeMoviland. Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion is approved unanimously. Thank you, Anthony. Thank you very much. Thank you. All righty. Next up, page 7, agenda item K, PLN, MJDP-21-4, Atkins property. Okay. We did that. Yeah, we did that. Oh, did we? No, we pulled that. No, no, no, guys. That was pulled from the consent agenda earlier. I appreciate y'all looking out for me. It seems familiar because they just did their bill change like a month or two years ago. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, This is the final development plan, major development plan 21-4 for the Atkins property. It was on your consent agenda and had been recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. However, the applicant is proposing a change and we advise them that it'd be best to move forward, but inform you of this particular change. Now, just to orient you, again, here we are, Tates Creek and Walden Drive. This is the area, the two apartment buildings that they're proposing. They're going to subdivide, create two lots with one building on each lot, as you can see here. Access at this location, access for this one at this location. They are 6,900-plus square foot footprints. Of course, they're odd shaped, as you can see, because it's a difficult site, steep topography, and it's somewhat confined. The total square footage of each building is over 20,000 square feet. The change that they're proposing is all internal. These were eight unit buildings. They have discovered that in working with the architect that they want to add one unit per building. So it'll increase the density of the units from eight to nine in each building, two additional units, and they'll have to adjust their parking accordingly. And that's the nature of the change. You may recall there was considerable discussion about the trees and mitigation of the removal of the trees. an agreement was reached with the applicant and they are providing trees to be planted in cooperation with parks and our environmental staff for riparian trees in bellwood park and also they're going to plant some trees along one of our new trail sections as well and that's going to be underway shortly and they're going to do that prior to certification of this plan so staff is very pleased that we were able to work out those mitigation measures with them for the loss of the trees on this site. And again, it's a relatively small change, but they were going to postpone. And we said, no, there's no need to postpone for this minor change in addition of a unit. So that's why it was pulled from your consent agenda. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Close open for any questions for staff. Mr. Pohl? I would assume that you've looked at the parking situation and they will be able to handle that? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And they will certainly elaborate on what measures they've had to take, but they're anticipating it to be all interior. Thank you. Great. okay we'll move over to the applicant hi good afternoon everyone um adam bender with cmw i am joined by brian hill i don't know if he's been added or not um but the the buildings were originally going to be four story the first floor was the parking garage then the next two floors would have three units a piece and the top floor would have two larger units we're going to change that so that it's just three units per floor i did want to mention with parking this will up our required parking to 17 spaces for each building the plan that you see in front of you actually has 17 spaces provided so parking will not be an issue either way we are looking to hopefully get maybe one more space in uh for marketing reasons but um either way parking will not be an issue okay thank you brian did you have anything that you wanted to add no i just thank you um we started out with nine units with with with the idea that on the top floor um there would be larger units but as we've gotten into the design it's just a more feasible project to go ahead and because the the units are large they're going to be 1400 1500 square feet regardless and um it's just a more feasible building to be able to to to add that one more unit from a construction standpoint, hence the, the, the request. So as Tom said, no change whatsoever to the template of the building. It's just a matter of, and we, we already meet the parking criteria. As Adam said, we were, we're confident we're going to be able to get one more parking space underneath and, and that will be reflected on some tweaks. We'll have to do the development plan. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Any questions for the applicant? Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on behalf or against this particular item? I'll bring it back to commission members. Further discussion or a motion? Mr. DeMovillin. I move that we approve PLN and JDP 2104 Atkins property with its 17 conditions. Second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussions of that motion? Seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you all. Motion passed unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you. You too. Okay. Page 8, BOAR 2021-1, Rachel Sawyer. We'd like to, if we can, limit this to no more than five, maybe 10 minutes per each side. No, no, not yet. Okay, sorry about that. I'm having technical difficulties. So if we could, staff, you're up. And I think we have Ms. Betty, how are you doing? And it was one other person, right? Amelia Armstrong, yeah. And then the appellant is also on, Mr. John Sawyer. He is the representative for Ms. Rachel Sawyer and Ms. Brenda Sawyer. Okay, thank you, Hal. All right. And Mr. Chair, before I get going, I would like to indicate that staff has placed in your Google Drive the Article 13 of the LFUCG zoning ordinance, the H1 design guidelines, and the minutes and information provided by the HPO staff for this hearing. I'll go ahead and start my screen share and run through our presentation here. This is the BOAR 2021. Mr. Chairman, if I could just for a second introduce myself with John Sawyer. Normally in an appeal, the appellant speaks first and then the appellee speaks second. Is that not the process here? No, it's not. Okay, just clarification. Thank you. No, you're fine. You're fine. Thank you. Okay, Hal. All right. Thank you very much, sir. I'll go ahead and share my screen. This is BOAR 2021-1. This is for the property at 612 Central Avenue. The appellant is requesting the Planning Commission review of a decision made by the Board of Architectural Review, or as I will refer to going forward, the BOAR. On December 16, 2020, was this case number 03630612. A Certificate of Appropriateness, or a COA, I will refer to it as that going forward as well, was requested to retain six vinyl windows and the brick in the panel below the window located in the kitchen area. The BOAR determined that the modification to replace the panel below the garden window and partially brick in the opening was appropriate, I'm sorry, denied the modification to replace the windows. However, found that the brick replacement was appropriate and issued a COA for that brick replacement. I am going to kind of go a little quicker to meet your time frame here, sir, but a lot of what we will be discussing will be focused on the inability or the prohibiting of vinyl or vinyl clad windows outlined in the local historic and landmark design guidelines, or what we'll refer to as the design guidelines, which were adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission. The request for the disapproval by the BOAR was three members voting to disapprove and one member voting against the motion. The appellant is requesting that review of the disapproval to retain the windows. Before we jump into the specific case, it is important to note that the historic district legislation has been determined to be constitutional as it produces an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. In other words, the neighborhood receives the average reciprocity of advantage whereby individuals may be restricted on some elements of what they are able to do on the exterior of their property, but gain the benefits from the restrictions of those surrounding properties. The restrictions provide construction consistency over time while respecting the historic character of the area and preserving the historic structures. There is no distinction within Article 13 of the zoning ordinance between those properties that have been identified as historically significant or contributing to a national historic district and those that are newer in construction or new construction. For any property within the H-1 overlay zone, a certificate of appropriateness, or the COA, is required prior to the installation or initiation of any new construction on, any exterior change to, or any demolition of all or any part of a building, structure, or sign on the premises in an area protected by the H-1 overlay. All applications are reviewed for agreement with the design guidelines. In this case, the appellant did not receive a COA prior to replacing the windows and adding the brick to the opening portion of the opening brick opening for the portion of the structure and sought to achieve a COA following a citation by the HPO staff. Subject property is located in the Aylesburg Historic Overlay area, as you can see here. It is located on this portion, right in this location highlighted. The Aylesburg Historic Overlay was established in 1998. It is one of our largest historic overlays with 640 properties. If we look at the zoning, it is primarily residential in character with the vast majority of it as R3 or the planned neighborhood residential. This property is of that distinction with the R3 zoning and is surrounded by R3 zoning. The property, here's a closer look, looking at the aerial photography of the specific property at 612 Central Avenue. The street, we're looking down Central Avenue, looking towards downtown. And then the property itself. I will say the applicant or the appellant has done a very good job in rehabilitating this property. However, there was a misstep in all of this with not applying for that certificate of appropriateness. Here we have a timeline of the case. On June 30th, the owner purchased the property on August 2020. Schaefer property began their refurbishment on the property with the planned completion date of October 30th. On October 20th, the letter was sent from the HBO to the owner of the property indicating the violation of the zoning ordinance due to the replacement of the windows without a COA. On November 20th, 2020, the appellant applied for their COA for the replacement of the windows and the installation of the brickwork. On December 16, the BOAR had their public hearing, which resulted in the approval for the brickwork and a disapproval for the window replacement. And then again, on January 12, 2021, the appellant filed their appeal with the Division of Planning. At the December 16, 2020 BOAR hearing, the request was to keep those windows and the brickwork. The appellant indicated that they were not aware that they were in an H1 overlay zone, and that the modifications of the structure were met to meet the values of the historic district, even though they did not know. The BOAR determined that the proposed change to the brickwork was compatible with the surrounding character. However, the board determined that the replacement of the windows from the wood windows to the vinyl-clad windows was in direct opposition to the design guidelines. A letter of appeal was sent on January 12 of this year. The appellant indicated that the BOAR erred in the disapproval of their COA in several different ways. And what we have here is a summation of their letter of appeal. They indicated that the BOAR decision was unreasonably relying on the design guidelines. And even when they were in conflict with the LFUCG zoning ordinance and the code of ordinances. The design guidelines are outdated and improperly, unreasonably, and unnecessarily applied, resulting in the BOAR exceeding the scope of the enabling policies for historic preservation. The building is not historic. The windows in question were not historic, and the replacement windows are top-selling and high-quality upgrades to the property. And then finally, the appellant feels that there is a clear conflict between the design guidelines and the commercial realities based by property owners updating homes located within historic districts. This gives you another picture of some of those windows that have been applied. These are photos taken this past week in which you can see the vinyl clad windows located throughout the property. And here you can get a look at that replacement brickwork. that will, just the staining on that will fade over time and will blend. So within the design guidelines, there are specific principles that are geared towards the use of windows and the replacement of windows. Design guideline, or the design principle specifically talks about when it is appropriate and what is appropriate to be a replacement product. In this case, the like kind or an in-kind match of wood windows would be the most preferable. However, when a window is so deteriorated, baked enamel or anodized aluminum clad may be considered only if the original windows cannot be repaired. But in this section, it specifically says that vinyl or vinyl clad windows are not allowed. This is somewhat different from a lot of the areas in the design guidelines and the fact that it gives a black or white situation. You either are applying the design standards or you have done vinyl and you are no longer in line with the design standards that are presented. in some of the other areas we are talking about the paneling of windows and and trying to maintain the character of the structure when it was added into the h1 overlay and then finally it gets into the like-kind matches of sign size material and design i will i do want to stress that uh the use of vinyl or vinyl clad in this case was described by the applicant in many different ways. And we'll get into some of the drawbacks of their recommendations. First, the appellant does argue that the BOAR decision was unreasonable to rely on the design guidelines, even when they conflict with the LFUCG zoning ordinance and the code of ordinances. Staff finds that there's no conflict with either the zoning ordinance or the code of ordinances. In this case, by applying the design guidelines and the BOAR reviewing those design guidelines, it actually fits with Article 13-5A. The board shall review and decide applications for certificates of appropriateness in compliance with the design guidelines and criteria adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission. In this case, the HPC has made the determination of what is appropriate for H1 overlays. And it is found that in our community in Lexington, vinyl is explicitly prohibited in the design guidelines. The Board of Architectural Review made that based off of those design guidelines adopted by the HPC. And that will actually play into what the Planning Commission has the ability to do to that. The design guidelines are outdated and improperly, unreasonably, and unnecessarily applied, resulting in the BOAR exceeding the scope of the enabling policies for historic preservation. The design guidelines were adopted by the HBC following extensive research in a public hearing in 2006. It was, or I'm sorry, in 2008. And they have been revised twice since that time. Once in 2010, once again in 2016. Leading into the 2016 changes, the Planning Commission actually asked the HBC to review what they have and to look at certain areas that might be in conflict. One of those areas that was reviewed was vinyl windows. At that time, the HPC decided that they wanted to maintain their design guidelines and the prohibiting of vinyl. The Historic Preservation Commission also adopts design guidelines in conformance with the character of Lexington. The applicant goes through an exhaustive list of other communities that do it differently. When we're looking at historic districts and guidelines associated with the designs of those historic districts for both historic properties, new properties, or older properties that were not historic in nature, they still need to apply to Lexington standards. The applicant does choose other communities that allows for vinyl, but that has not been something that the HPC has allowed in our community. The limiting of material types in historic districts has been upheld from a local, state, and federal level for all historic districts throughout the U.S. The building is not historic, the windows in question are not historic, and the replacement of the windows are top-selling and high-quality upgrades to the property. Regardless of the historic nature of the structure, the property must adhere to the design guidelines if it was within an H-1 overlay. This goes back to that equitable distribution of benefits and burdens whereby the property owner gains the average reciprocity of advantage by having everybody else be impacted by these same rules. The H-1 overlay zone is meant to further the goals and purpose of Article 13 and preserve, protect, and perpetuate the use of historic districts and landmarks. Finally, new construction of principal primary residential structures are not allowed to use vinyl or vinyl-clad windows. Older structures that have had vinyl put in before a H1 overlay is imposed are allowed to keep those vinyl windows. However, in this case, the windows that were applied with the construction were wood and should be done in a like kind or in an effort to meet the design guidelines. Finally, similar windows can be purchased that meet or exceed the quality that conform to those guidelines. And our last argument here, there is a clear conflict between the design guidelines and the commercial realities faced by property owners updating homes located in historic districts. The requirements of the H-1 overlay zone are available to the public and have been adhered to by refurbishments throughout the county. The appellant did not seek a COA prior to the start of the modification of the structure, which would have clarified the problems that are being discussed today. In addition, it is the responsibility of the landowner to understand their zoning and the restrictions thereof. In this case, with the H1 overlay zone, the restrictions on materials and design. Finally, the planning commission does not have purview over the creation or modification of the local historic district and landmark H1 design review guidelines. This is specifically in the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. So if there were to be a modification to our design review guidelines, it would need to be done in that location. For those purposes, staff recommends disapproval of this appeal and upholding the BOAR decision. The denial of the certificate of appropriateness by the Board of Architectural Review is consistent with their charge in determining appropriateness of the requested exterior alterations based on the design guidelines established by the local Historic Preservation Commission. It is also consistent with the past actions of the board in determining acceptability of the type of window replacement. If you have any questions, I know that was very quick and I tried to hit all those levels. I'd be happy to answer them now from a planning staff perspective. I know that the HPO staff has a few comments that they would like to make as well. I see it anyhow. Ms. Kerr? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And in the interest of time, we will not take your time to add any more additional comments. comments. I think your planning staff through HAL have done an excellent study of this and reflected that in their report and recommendations and would ask the Planning Commission to uphold Board of Architectural Review's denial of this application and its outcome as built without permits. Certainly we're available if you have any questions. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Penn. Yes, I would like to ask Ms. Kerr, if we uphold the ruling of the BOAR, what is the remedy? There is, be sure I'm not on mute. There is another appeal level possible, and that is to appeal to court for the appellant, of course. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Kerr at this time? I'm not seeing any. Advocate? Mr. Sawyer? Yeah, hi there. This is John Sawyer. May I share the screen, Mr. Chairman? Yes, you may. All right. Here we go. Is everybody looking at a picture of a house? Not yet. Not yet. Here it is. Hang on. There we go. How's that? There we go. Thank you. While you're looking at the building, let me quickly introduce myself. Again, I'm conscious of the time as well. I thank you, by the way, for allowing us to be together on a day when UK was playing basketball. That's normally a national holiday. I also listened with great interest over the Chick-fil-A report, and I'm thankful for that, too. So thank you all. Again, I'm John Sawyer. The name coincidence with the applicant, Rachel Sawyer, is the fact I happen to be her father. I'm also a lawyer. I've been practicing in Lexington for over 40 years, but not in real estate. What you're looking at, and I'll make my arguments while we go through these photos, is the old house that was purchased by my daughter. Rachel is a first-time homeowner. She's 33 years old, single. She works at Big Ass Fan, is a big fan of Lexington, and a very strong advocate of the town of downtown, of the character of downtown Lexington, and the historical districts. My parents, her grandparents, actually lived just a block or so away from here on Clay Avenue back in the day and graduated from Henry Clay High School on Main Street back in the 40s. So we're very much keenly aware that preserving the quality of Lexington is important. What I wanted to show you on this first picture real quickly is on the left side is a new window that's been installed. The right is the old windows. This building was built in 1985. It is a fourplex. The prior owners released it for the most part. There was no maintenance done to these windows. The seals are totally gone. Water damage at the bottom. This is true in the front and back. These are not real storm windows, and there's been no paint applied to anything for some time. Windows were beyond repair. And the bottom picture, what you'll see is plywood over what had been a insert greenhouse type window for the kitchen. And this is simply plywood that is also rotted out. I'm unaware this was ever approved by the planning commission. I don't know when it was done. And these windows all need to be replaced, as did the shutters. The shutters were beyond repair, busted in most places, and had significant rot. Now, if I can go to the next slide real quickly, I did want to mention the brickwork, just to kind of point what Rachel was interested in doing. We could have easily come up with some other workaround to get rid of that plywood on the bottom, but the decision was made to use brick and put in a very nice casement window. we went to the trouble of spending extra money to actually have this brick pulled off the stoop the front porch stoop over here on the side you can't see replaced with brick that was as close as we could get to match it so that it will look just like the house when it's finished that's my daughter's house as you see it today these are all the replacement windows all new shutters the front door everything's been redone we're redoing the railing all new painting, all new landscaping. She has spent quite a bit of money replacing a lot of things in the house to make it look consistent with the character for Lexington. I want to point out that in terms of the character of the fourplex, there's all kinds of windows. This is at best an aluminum window. The owner's not sure if it is vinyl. It has no buttons of any kind. That was replaced from a six over six wood window by him. Again, he is unaware of any COA requirement or anything you did to get that approved. Down the street are, at the next unit over, casement windows, also replacement, no muttons of any kind. These are aluminum, and there are no storm windows. It's just a single pane glass, and then the house at the end of the street is still got wood windows, so three out of the four houses have had replacement windows. I also wanted you to see the basement windows were in bad shape and have been replaced with casement windows as well. You can see them here with a little different angle. There's a view of the entire townhouse complex from the street. And I think as the planning staff indicated earlier, the work Rachel's done really does blend in well with the character of the neighborhood. Now, what is at issue in the appeal? I think one of the members of the planning commission said, well, what's actually going to happen if we lose or win? And what happened is we had three different builders quote for us on this property to do the rehab work, all recognized Lexington builders. Two different real estate agents were involved, five different people. We did not need to use a lawyer. I read over the transfer deed. Again, I practice law, but it was unaware that this property was in a historic district. None of those five people told us we accept that's our fault. We apologize. We should have gotten a COA. That's on us. But the windows we put in, what is being asked us to do is to tear out over $10,000 worth of windows and replace them with another $10,000 worth of windows. It won't be any better than the ones we put in. And that's what I want to talk about a little bit in my argument. So the question was asked, what's the remedy here? The remedy is my daughter will have to spend $20,000 having already spent and installed windows, plus all the misery of going to do that inside. And this is front and back of the house. and putting in windows that are of no better quality. And at the end of the day, back to this balance that the staff was talking about, the kind of given back and forth between owners and the city, I think this hardship on Rachel, when you think about the actual qualities of these windows, has got to be something we take into consideration today in hearing the appeal. Now, Rachel's windows meet all the requirements. And I would like to quickly show you a couple more pictures. There's the basement. and there is the kitchen window as it's installed. You can see again the installation. I'd like to start by saying these are not vinyl windows. If these were vinyl windows, not only would we have not appealed, we would have simply replaced them. These are wood windows, and they have an extruded vinyl treatment on them, and they're not even, in my view, vinyl cladding, and so what we have here is some ambiguity over what the word vinyl means and what the word vinyl cladding means. Now, in your guidelines, the screen you're looking at now is in page 82 of the guidelines, which talks about first sighting. And there was a reason I'm referring to this. The very last highlighted section says that vinyl sighting is made from pineal vinyl chlorine, PVC, and it's not a good thing. If you then go to the section on windows, which was sighted by the staff, and you look at what I've highlighted here, there's a reason. And we agree with this for not having vinyl windows. In the first highlighted section, they expand and contract with temperature changes. Yes, they do. In the second highlighted section, they don't look like historic wood windows. I think the pictures show that the windows we installed certainly do look like historic wood windows. And then lastly, it says, as noted in the section on siting, vinyl is harmful and can't be disposed of. Well, these windows can be recycled, the ones that are made by Rachel, because they're predominantly wood. Now, when we got to the planning, we got to the Board of Adjustment Review, the chairman, Mr. Davidson, made a number of comments. And I've highlighted some of those in my materials. I don't know if you all had a chance to get our brief and read them. But a couple of things that he said included the idea that there's no flexibility whatsoever on the kind of windows that are put in based on what the guidelines say. I find that interesting in that in the case just prior to ours, Mr. Dickinson also said, when considering whether to allow a fence to be more than six feet in height, which they did, it's actually almost eight feet in height. There was a word in the provisions of the guidelines that said, well, they're generally supposed to be six feet. He said, I don't know exactly what generally means. The direct quote is, it's never clear what it means. He said the word is vague. He said there needs to be flexibility in how we look at things. He also said, I think I know what the intent of the guidelines is. And all I'm saying is you've got the same ambiguity when you think about the word vinyl. And I'd like to show another slide if I could. Vinyl resins are the problem. PVC is not a good use for windows. Hollow core vinyl windows should not be used in any house, in my opinion, certainly not in a historical district. But I've put some information down here about both the Anderson E-series and Pella windows called Enduroclads. Both of these types of windows have been approved. Let me say this again, have been approved by the staff. But I want you to notice what's highlighted. The Anderson windows use polyvinyl iodine and the eduroclad windows use fluoropoliper resins. Both of those are over 70 percent vinyl and should, if you properly apply these guidelines, be disallowed as vinyl windows or vinyl clad windows. They are not anodized aluminum, nor are they baked aluminum. But these windows have been approved. So what do we have again? And we have this ambiguity about what exactly this idea of disallowing vinyl windows is. The other thing that's important about the guidelines is this is the overall approach that is supposed to be taken by the Board of Architectural Review on page 41 of your guidelines. The primary approach is the emphasis on preservation. That's at the top of the highlighted section. If you look a little farther down, it says rehabilitation of historic buildings is to be reviewed to determine impact, compatibility and appropriateness. And it should work with the historic building or structure. What this does not say is that the guidelines are in and of themselves the only thing we look at. You look at the totality of what's going on. In fact, what we're supposed to have is something that is compatible with the historical commission objectives. And the guidelines even define compatibility. It says you are compatible if you are in harmony with the location and surroundings. And I would like to go back to a picture of my daughter's house again and argue that she is not only compatible, she is just fine. Now, the other thing I'd like to say, and I know I want to watch my time, is are these windows a problem from a preservation or deterioration standpoint? I don't know if any of you guys were able to read the papers that we submitted, but in those, we looked at the warranties for Enduroclad Pella windows. Again, they have been approved by your staff, and we looked at the warranty for the Anderson 400s. the anderson 400 window actually has a longer warranty against deterioration and problems with fading than the pella windows that are made of aluminum and again this is where these guidelines are either being too broadly applied or they're out of step with technology i i disagree with what was said earlier the guidelines were written in 2008 and the window section has not been changed since 2008 and i think it doesn't take a big jump to say in 12 years, window technology is different. We didn't have an iPhone until 2007. And these windows are just fine. There is nothing wrong with their durability or their ability to withstand temperature, weather, they're triple sealed, which was the problem with the wood windows. They're actually superior to the kind of windows that have been approved. So our request is pretty simple at the end of it all. We think our windows not only meet, but exceed what the real intent of the guidelines is. And to just blindly say, well, the guidelines say you can't have vinyl or vinyl clad windows is too ambiguous. And we need to go back to the chairman of the board's very own words. I'm not clear what vinyl was meant to stop. It's vague. There should be some flexibility in how we deal with things. And I think this commission, the planning commission, could understand the intent of making sure that proper windows are installed in a house. Lastly is the hardship to Rachel to rip out perfectly good windows. We're in the middle of a pandemic. Everybody is working on the best economic solutions they can. I think you can see from the picture of my daughter's house and from everything else we've done, these windows are just fine. Now, do we need to maybe relook at these guidelines? One solution I'll suggest to you, if you want to remit this whole process back to the Board of Architectural Review, we'll work on whether or not these windows are fine, and maybe that will lead to a change in the guidelines. But what shouldn't happen, in my opinion, is we shouldn't just say the windows have to come out and be replaced, because the only windows we replace them with are not going to be any better, have no longer a warranty, and won't do anything to improve the character. I think this is, without a question, one of these unusual situations where form is being elevated over substance. I appreciate everything the Planning Commission staff said about the history and everything else, but the reality of an appeal is, was the decision of the Board of Adjustments for Review correct? And again, what Mr. Dickinson said, and he actually, in my view, swayed the decision, said this, vinyl is emphatically rejected. Vinyl does not hold up well. It has a bad history of deteriorating and looking quite unsightly. He also went out to say say that we have no flexibility here. Yet he said in a case just before that, and I think at countless times, the planning or the Board of Architects Review makes exceptions based on the totality of the circumstances. These are wood windows. They happen to have a vinyl extruded exterior. That's it. And they actually have the same amount of vinyl in them, by the way, that the EnduraClad Plus does and the Anderson Series E. They work the same. Our view is they should be allowed, or at worst, we should simply go back with the staff of the Historic Preservation Office, take a look at these guidelines, take a look at whether or not that language should be changed, let our windows stay in until we know something more definitive, and then we'll come back. But what we shouldn't do is start an example of having good windows ripped out for no particular reason. And again, I wouldn't even make this argument if these were really vinyl windows, hollow core vinyl windows. That's what you wanted to never have in these buildings. I agree. But these are wood windows. And the last thing I'll say is the staff refused. The staff refused to look at the merits of the window. They never went past the words vinyl and vinyl cladding. We asked them to. We sent them the specs. We sent them the more material. They refused to look at it. In fact, the staff at one time told us they thought there was a commercial advantage to Anderson if they allowed these windows to come in. None of that goes to what the historic preservation policies are all about. And again, I'll leave you with a picture of the house. Thank you very much for your time. That's our position on what should happen. And again, what we're asking for is either reverse the decision of BOAR or send us back to have them look over this problem, whether or not the language and the guidelines need changing. Thank you very much. I'll take any questions from anybody. Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. Does any commission member have any questions for Mr. Sawyer? Mr. Davis, you're on mute too. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sawyer, I read over your lengthy attachments and I thank you for that information. The one thing I did not see and maybe I overlooked it was a copy of the seller's disclosure of property condition from when this property was purchased. And the reason I ask to see that, if you perhaps have it, is on the last page of that disclosure, which is a Commonwealth of Kentucky State form. It asks the seller, is this property located in a historic district? And so I'd be interested to see what the answer was on that disclosure that your daughter would have signed as part of this purchase. Yeah, thank you for that question. I can answer it. I can't hold this up and show it to you, but let me let me relinquish the screen sharing. Yes, yes, you can. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I should have done that a minute ago. Sir, the answer is I'm actually looking at the disclosure on that question. It's question R on page three. It says, is the property in historic district? The mark here is don't know. We did ask the closing attorney. Again, I read their deed from my daughter because I'm a lawyer, but there was actually a lawyer there on behalf of the seller that is a real estate lawyer. They said they didn't have any any indication it was all three of the builders never told us that we interviewed and got quotes from. And the two real estate agents never said a word about it either. And as I said at the beginning, I want to be very clear about this. We 100 percent support historic districts. We 100 percent want this to be a show place for downtown Lexington. My daughter is a new wave of people like this. We would have done something different. And were these really vinyl windows, I don't think we would have bought them in the first place, but I definitely would rip them out and put new ones in. What doesn't make sense is to rip out perfectly good windows just because the staff has hung up on the word vinyl and vinyl clad. But to answer your question is, it says it doesn't know. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, one more thing, if I could. I do want to say this because we've done it at every level. I do want to apologize. We take full responsibility for the fact we didn't get a COA ahead of time. I think what happened is one of the staff members was literally driving down the street, saw our house, gave us a citation. We got a citation. It's the first thing we heard about it. and we've been working ever since and trying to figure this out. We support everything that's going on here. But again, the remedy doesn't seem to be the right remedy here. This doesn't create a precedent. And these are good windows. And I think other homeowners in this area need to know with a lot more specificity than what's in the guidelines today how this actually works. But again, I want to be very clear. We would fix this problem ourselves on our own nickel if it was a real problem. It's not a problem. These are good windows. The number one selling replacement window in America is the Anderson 400 series. And by the way, it is used in a lot of historic districts. Why the staff gave us the French Quarter, I'll never know. But the French Quarter does not prohibit vinyl clad windows. Let me say that again. They are not prohibited even in the French Quarter. I've got that page of their materials in here if you want me to screen share it. And I think it's disingenuous for the staff to suggest that there's some combination of vinyl that somehow then pollutes the idea of vinyl clad. As I said, all the windows that the staff approves, every brand has a vinyl coating on the aluminum. And the reason is these polymers have become so good at preventing corrosion, fading, chalking and everything else. The longest warranty in the industry, these windows, the very ones we put in. Against what? Chalking, baiting, deterioration. They have more seals on them, window seals, than any window made by Pella, any window, including the ones approved by the staff. So if the windows themselves are fine, there should be no reason to tear them out. And guidelines are just guidelines. If you look at the Department of Interior, the whole idea behind historical preservation is to use them to guide you to make decisions. That's it. They're not rules. They're not rigid requirements. They are guides. And so, again, I'd like to leave the windows in. I'll work with the staff any way you want us to, but pulling them out and spending another $10,000 to throw away good windows just doesn't seem to make any sense to us. Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. Pull this back to staff. Do you have any comments to Mr. Sawyer's statements and also Ms. Kerr as well? From a staff perspective, I believe that the staff's presentation today gets at the heart of the matter. Within the guidelines, which are an adopted element of our city's kind of operations, it does make a distinction for this that says it's either vinyl or vinyl cladding or it's not. So in this case, if and I do not believe that the the Planning Commission has the ability to send this back to the BOAR to have a conversation about the guidelines, because the BOAR is not the one that generates the guidelines. It's actually the Historic Preservation Commission. So I think the decision before the Planning Commission is to either uphold the BOAR decision or to reverse that decision. And I'll turn it over to Ms. Kerr if she has any comments that she would like to say. Thank you. yes thank you the um historic preservation commission when the guidelines reviews to consider updates are done they are extensive they get a lot of input from people in the industry from architects from contractors from property owners from citizens a lot of people and so it is correct to say that each time the guidelines updates are considered in most recently 2016 2010 windows are discussed and determined each time of those two reviews that there was no need to make any further adjustment because the guidelines as they are written then and currently written were serving very well to depict and charge the Board of Architectural Review with the outcomes that are determined appropriate and what are the well-suited to cope with the applications that are coming along in the present time of 2000 and even 21. changes in the construction industry and the market of materials are an ongoing evolution which is a good thing and our process does keep up with that evolution by having these occasional updates and we don't in the meantime between updates just sit and pretend we aren't keeping up we are keeping up and our guidelines are very current they're consistent with the intent and what are the Preservations Commission's careful considerations reflected. The notation from the applicant about stating about the chairman, Mr. Jim Dickinson, chair of the Board of Architecture Review, referring to a case that was heard prior to the application for their property on Central Avenue. That was a case to do with another historic district to do with a fence. And it was not about vinyl at all. It was a wood fence and to do with design decisions and height decisions tied to it being a property definer wood fence. So it's not comparing similar applications or anything related specifically. It's like comparing sort of an apple to a grapefruit. um this is a precedent setting topic and outcome of this case if indeed the uh applicant were allowed to continue to uh retain these windows it it would be a precedent setting because the board of architectural review has not uh varied from their use of these design guidelines and their interpretation of those guidelines on the topic of vinyl. And it is the one topic in the design review guidelines that is, as Mr. Bailey noted, stated in black and white, vinyl is not allowed and vinyl clad elements are not allowed. And this window is no different from any other that the outcome of it is it is a vinyl clad window. So I don't think there's any confusion there at all. The. Reference to that, the staff noted that they would recommend an Anderson window of vinyl. I think there may have been some honest confusion, perhaps, that the applicant took what Ms. Armstrong, who was in the field at their site talking to them, was indicating that. And we've talked about this, but she's here, and maybe I best just leave it to her to explain. But the summary to me, and then I'll turn to Amelia for any additional comment, was that she was referencing that Anderson holds a patent on this window, and that that's really all she was saying. We do not recommend, staff does not recommend, as you would know to know, any particular product, any brand, any particular line. We don't recommend particular contractors. You know, we just, this process does not, and the government does not go there. um relative to being aware if your property is in a local historic district uh there are certainly many ways that potential property owners and then new property owners and old property owners who have held their property for a while all can double check about whether their property is in a local historic district and the first and foremost simple way to do that is the pva records they reflect your land use zoning and people look to them very frequently for that and for all the properties that are listed in the designated historic districts. It has your land use zoning designation information and then a parenthesis H1. And it is no confusion about that. And if anybody doesn't understand it, they just need to ask what's H1 referred to relative to my land use zoning language in this material. There are also the historic districts are on website of the urban county government available to any and all. They are signs out on the street around the borders of these districts. And I know many of you are well aware of that on the planning commission because you've heard me speak about that before. But I think it's something that the property owners do have to do their due diligence to find out what their land use zoning and any other regulatory processes in place affecting that property is they need to have checked on that. Unless you have additional questions I think that's what we have and I guess I should ask if Ms. Armstrong do you have anything you would like to comment tied to this statement about recommending the Anderson window? I think you summed that up pretty well that's pretty much the only conversation I had I would only mention that in these units which we call the cousin properties which are all flanking around the Woodland Park we've had several window replacements because by the time that nowadays the they were built in 85 by the time now we've had a lot of windows that have failed and the replacement of the windows has been quite common usually it's replacement of an in-kind window, wood with wood and such. So that's not uncommon at all for these properties to have. We've issued quite a bit of permits in the last 15 years for those kind of replacement windows or any kind of replacement windows in these properties. The issue is replacing the wood with a similar material of what's there. And again, we have no issue with any type of window they replace. I think part of what we try to do is explain the different kind of windows that are out there as part of an education for a lot of people who don't know. And it's one of those things that, you know, Anderson does have the patent on, the early patent on a vinyl clad versus some of the other products that have both vinyl and aluminum clad patents. And that's all I would end on. Thank you, Ms. Armstrong and Ms. Kerr. Mr. Chairman, just a short rebuttal, if I may. Yes, I was going to get to you, Ms. Sawyer. I was going to ask, we've got a question here from one of the members. But yes, you're next. um so you might have answered my my my question uh amelia the um the the adjoining condos then are those dated uh condos that have old windows in them and they haven't been replaced yet is that what the situation the example that he gave i would say just looking from those those actually have been replaced from the original ones except the ones in the very end. I don't know when the replacement occurred. So are those acceptable windows in or those wood windows or they are not? I believe there's a mixture as Mr. Sawyer had mentioned of aluminum clad. There's some vinyl sort of with no button systems in it and some sort of snap in buttons and that's one of the issues too is you know any kind of replacement we need to match in kind having a either simulated vitalite um and match the pattern that's there now which doesn't occur so it looks like to me the the ones in those stretch are um you know have been replaced but not probably with what the original windows that were built when they were built in 85 so how how was that committed then who could have acquired the h1 overlay i'm sorry no yes the h1 overlay wasn't established until 1980 98 and there are significant changes that occur between the construction of the house in 85 and then uh again in 1998 so that hasn't that hasn't occurred since that those windows have been replaced since 98. If I can if I can answer the question. Hold on. Stop. No we're not going to do that. We're going to be respectful. My question is to how. How can you clarify that for me? The windows been replaced since 98. So if those windows have been replaced with a vinyl window in 1998 they were either replaced without a COA or they were replacing other vinyl windows that were established prior to 1998. We've seen this with other cases in the historic districts. Two years ago, or three years ago, we had a case similar to this in which we discussed the replacement of vinyl windows with vinyl windows, in which the person had a blend of both vinyl windows and wood windows. The wood windows had to be replaced in kind with other wood windows, and the vinyl windows were able to be replaced with vinyl windows. So there's a little bit of milieu in that that takes a little bit of reorganization. Okay, so what you're saying, these were wooden windows, just to clarify, and they need to be replaced with wooden windows. Is that correct? That is the essence of this. Or in the case, they can go to an aluminum cladding or an enamel-based cladding. Yeah, my second question, and again to Ms. Kerr, is that y'all do review this. The last time you reviewed the quality of the windows was in 2016. So you review it on a consistent basis? That's correct. We review it on intervals with some frequency. Okay, thank you very much. okay a quick question is it also required to have simulated divided light in your windows uh for the h1 overlay so that's a miscarb sure um either one it's if if windows have divided lights in terms of their identity, then it is to put them back with another window that has a divided light. What's not allowed are the snap-in muttons that are just sandwiched between the glass and are just flat. Yes. Yeah, grills between the glass are not allowed, correct? Right. Do we have grills between the glass and the product that we're looking at right now? Amelia, you're the one that studied this. Right. This would be correct. So these windows went from a six over six configuration to a sort of a two over two scenario with grills between glass. So they have grills between the glass, which is not acceptable, and they have a vinyl cladding on the exterior, which is not acceptable. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Sawyer, I'm going to allow you now to. Yeah, short rebuttal. You should be looking at the fourplex. I want to answer the first question for Mr. Bell. The windows in, we're 612, this is 608, and this is 604, and the one on the very end is 600. The windows in 604 and 608 have been replaced since 1998. We've talked to the owners. They're the same people. they never even thought about getting a COA, weren't even aware of it. So I'll disagree with any characterization that they replaced before this became a historical district. This window, I'm circling with my mouse, just so you know, was a six over six wood window. It has no muttons in it whatsoever. And he's not sure if it's vinyl or aluminum. Over here at 604, these are all been replaced from 606 wood windows to pure casement style. So we've gone from wood windows to nothing but glass. This is actually over a stairway. No muttons at all, not two over two, four over four, six over six. And at the end, you have a mixed bag. You've got six over six and you've got 12 over 18 on a picture window. I would also point out, I surveyed this. This is in our appendix, in our brief. There are 15 different mutton styles in this historic district that I counted just on four streets. It's in the appendix. They're all addressed. And all but two of them or snap-in. So I disagree that the staff is not allowed snap-in buttons at all kinds of windows. Alunimum, and these are not baked enamel or aluminum anodized windows. I checked with both owners, they are not. These would not be allowed under the guidelines. And as for our windows and why I picked the example from the chairman on the fence, they were trying to decide whether they have to, you know, automatically and with no adjustment whatsoever apply guidelines. And he says, no, our job is to get at the intent of what we're trying to stop here, which is bad windows, windows that will deteriorate. These windows won't deteriorate. And again, the guidelines themselves say the goal here is harmony with the character of the neighborhood. And again, I actually look at a picture of my daughter's house, as well as the windows. And I think it's very easy to see they're not only consistent with the character, people have walked up and down the street and told her that her house looks better than anyone in the neighborhood. And the last thing I'll point out, if again there's not ambiguity over vinyl, is this last slide, is a case from October 2020, just a few months ago, where the staff approved in the South Ashland District the installation of Anderson E-series windows. Now Anderson E-series windows, by the guideline definition, should be determined to be vinyl clad. The polymer that's on an Anderson E-series is vinyl. It's an aluminum window, but it's not baked and it's not anodized. Only two that are allowed under the guidelines. So if the guidelines were always strictly applied the way they're trying to do it to Rachel, this set of windows should be denied. So should Pella and Duroclads, which are vinyl clad, and so should be Pella and Duroclad Plus. Both types of windows have been approved by the staff. Again, vinyl is not such a broad blanket that we throw it over every window that is made. You throw it over windows that are vinyl, hollow core PVC. That is not these windows. And I think I'm the most upset with the refusal, just a flat out refusal to the staff to discuss with us the merits of these windows to decide whether they're good enough, whether they meet the requirements of the Historic Commission, or are we going to get hung up on this idea that, well, it says vinyl and vinyl clad are permitted, end of discussion, when their very own staff has allowed vinyl-clad windows to be installed. So again, I don't think the remedy here should be to tear out brand new windows that are perfectly good and replace them with windows that are no better. It does not create a precedent, by the way. At the risk of saying like a lawyer, I did the research. Administrative findings of the Planning Commission are not precedential from a statutory standpoint. And the ordinance itself, not just the guidelines, again, talks about nothing more than compatibility with the historic preservation ordinances. These windows are compatible. They comply. And again, I appreciate all the time you're taking, but common sense, I think at some point also has to balance into this. And there is nothing about these windows that would suggest there's a reason, not based on durability, appearance, or anything else that they should come out. And again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all we've got to say. Thank you, Mr. Sawyer. I'm going to close this part of the hearing out and bring it back to the commission. I know we had... Can he take the house off and put the people on, please? Yeah. Mr. Sawyer, thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not that good at Zoom. I apologize. I'll shut up. Thank you, sir. Bring us back to the commission for any further discussions we've had. Well, I'd like to, could we hear from Hal on a rebuttal to that rebuttal? I think Hal's rebuttal enough. I think the chair is correct. I think we stand by the statements that we made before. Mr. Wilson? Yeah, I have one clarifying statement, not statement, but a question, and this is kind of a minor thing per se, I think. But this is to my realtor friends who are on the commission. If a realtor, before a realtor sells a piece of property or is in the process, are they required by law to put in writing that it's a historical district? You want to go in order? Zach, you first. Ivy, you go second. Mr. Wilson, that's a very good question. And this entire case is deja vu all over again from another case we had last year. a board of architectural review appeal. And in that case, the buyers were represented by a realtor. The home was, I think, listed by a realtor. An attorney closed the transaction for them. The buyer, I think in that case, was a lawyer. And when he started doing significant work and spending significant money, staff said, you need to stop because you've not gone through the proper channels. And when he appealed to the planning commission that he not have to put everything back, this body said no, the Board of Architectural Review is right. It is always incumbent upon your representative, your realtor, the listing agent, all parties involved to do their best to disclose as much as they possibly can about a property. But ultimately, the responsibility has to fall to the buyer to say, I am satisfied. And for me, I was expecting the answer to my question to be that on the disclosure, it said, no, it's not in a historic district. But for the answer to be, I don't know, and there not to be any follow up on that. and then for the closing attorney to shrug his shoulders and say, I don't know. I know I'm answering more than what you asked, Mr. Wilson. No, this is good. I just struggle with all of this, and I only wish the applicant did the diligence on their purchase with the same vigor that they put into this appeal. Okay. Because if they had, they would never have had any problem at all. They would have applied for an appropriate certificate and permits, and staff would have guided them through, and everything would have been fine. And staff is correct. This property is in an H-1, and historically, properties in H-1 zones appreciate faster than properties not in H-1 overlays. overlays. And so the owner, the now owner will benefit from that appreciation because again, it's an equitable shared cost of participating and living and owning in an H1. So I'm sorry that the buyer's agent did not turn that stone over and look and disclose. Commissioner DeMovlin, Commissioner Barksdale, please fill in where I've left gaps. Anthony, do you want to say anything? Or Ms. Boxdale, I'm pretty sure you're going to echo the same. You know, I'm just going to say that there's a form that's required by the State Protection Cabinet called the Seller's Disclosure Form. I'm not sure of the date, but I think it was sometime in late 2019 added a line where the seller is to fill out and disclose whether it's in one. And now, you know, we're in a planning commission hearing. We're not debating the real estate industry and what their practices are. So I think we're a little off topic with regard to that. I would concur that if somebody wants to change a requirement at closings for there to be a document signed acknowledging this, that maybe that would be helpful for the future. So someone can't just walk in and say they weren't aware. But none of us know who was aware of what or when other than the testimony. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Boxdale. You got any comments? No, I mean, exactly what they were saying. It's just, you know, kind of one of those things that maybe as a listing agent, you would have pulled the PBA. I don't know. And, you know, with it being in 1985, it doesn't immediately strike you as being historic. but it really doesn't have to do with the age so much as it does with the zoning. I mean, so it's just kind of one of those things you rely on the seller to tell you everything about the property and sometimes they don't. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the comprehensive review on that and the time that my colleagues have provided me to get a little lesson in how that should be a play into this. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Nickel. I just want to reiterate real quick for our committee that we ended up in like our debate on vinyl and not vinyl. The windows as well don't have the proper grill pattern. They have grills between the glass, which are not allowed as well. So you need to have simulated divided light to meet that requirement as well. So it's not just a vinyl debate. It's a grill debate. And I don't want to get into that debate at all. And I think these decisions need to be made by the BOAR. And they evaluate products often. It's a terrible situation for the homeowner. It's always terrible. And we do need to give people the appropriate time because it is expensive. And it's not a good situation to be in. But I know that the BOAR chooses products on a regular basis. And people go present to them and say, can we have this product be approved for this use? and they look at it and thoroughly review and either say yes or no. So that's how the product's chosen or excluded. Thank you, Mr. Newber. I also echo the thoroughness of the discussion. I thank y'all because it's not in my area. So thank y'all so very much. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Penn? Yes, I'm long enough in the tooth to remember when aluminum was not permitted. and I can remember a VOR hearing where they brought the windows in and at that particular time aluminum clad windows were not allowed at that time so they have evolved and I will testify the fact that you know it used to be one or the other and now aluminum is is approved so it's not that they don't look at those things and not that they don't change their guidelines and I just want to put that out there for what it's worse. Thank you. Okay. Well, the floor is open for emotion here. Mr. Pohl. Just a real quick confirmation of what Mr. Nichols said. Regardless of the the quality of the window, the lack of mutton's exterior of the glass is a huge problem. I would argue that it is a big difference visually when there's no mutton on the exterior of the glass. Thank you, Mr. Bo. Mr. Davis? Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion if you'd like it. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we uphold the decision of the Board of Architectural Review 2021-1, Rachel Sawyer and Brenda Sawyer. Okay, we have a motion to uphold the decision made by the BOAR. We have a second to that motion. Mr. Pohl has seconded that motion. Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So next up, we're at staff items. And that one was withdrawn. And I think we have one other staff item we're looking at. Who's on that? Mr. Duncan is there? I didn't see his name. Oh, there you go. Hey, Jim. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, you all. Thank you for sticking with us today. In exchange for a long day We would like to invite you all To cancel an upcoming meeting For which we have no agenda So we are recommending to you That you cancel the March 25th 1.30 Zoning hearings Ordinarily scheduled for that time Because we do not have any applications That need to be heard on that meeting Mr. Bell, you got your hand raised For a motion on that You're not going to motion to cancel the meeting? I will. Ms. Plumlee, she got you. She got you, Craig. Ms. Plumlee? Well, no, if he wants to cancel, then I'll cancel also. Anyway, I move cancel March 25th, zoning meeting. Okay. And I was seconded by Mr. Nickel. Any further discussion? I don't see none. Nope. All in favor, raise your hand. Okay. And Mr. Chair, we do invite you all to come back next week, a week from today on Thursday the 18th at 1.30 for the work session. We do have a robust agenda for you at that time. All right. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, he said a robust agenda. Does that suggest that it's a lengthy agenda? It suggests, Mr. Wilson, that you are going to get a lot of good information next Thursday. My question is, is the issue of the word good. In other words, in order for words to be immortal, do they have to be eternal? No, sir. We will probably not be as long as we are today, but we will still feel every purposeful moment of next Thursday. Thank you. Graham's got a friend here. What's going on here? Show it to us. Oh, my goodness. Yeah. He's grown up. Can he vote? Put your paw right here. He does hear. He hears it. Put his paw up, Graham, next time. Thank you, everybody. We did go a little longer, but I thought it was pretty good today. Very good questions. Really good questions, actually. So, won't hold you any longer. I had a text message that UK lost, so hope nobody's feelings are hurt. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So have a good weekend and see everybody next week. Thank you. Take care.