I expect we will not be voting in the early stages as we do some sorting, but we might. What about people who don't have internet access and want to take this survey? Well, we will have paper copies available throughout the community at community centers, at the library, at many, many different locations so that people can pick them up. We'll have some places where people can get help filling them out. And I did want to say back to the process, one of the first things that will occur is just adding to what the vice mayor said, we will have a core group within government which will involve some council staff as well as administrative staff to vet through and be sure they fit the guidelines and the rules first. Do you have an idea of where you want some of the clubs to go to interact with people all the time? Where it would be placed? Well, I won't speak for the council, but I'll say for myself, I've already heard from lots of people who have lots of ideas. I think we'll get, I would say hundreds, we might get thousands of ideas. And, you know, there are a lot of good ideas floating out there, and a lot of groups in town have ideas. There will be opportunity for everybody to submit their ideas, whether they're an individual or a group or a club or a, you know, whatever. So we really haven't crafted a list yet. We want to hear from the public. What are some of the federal requirements for the products? to have cities put money in places where it will help people who were impacted by COVID. And let's face it, almost everybody was, but in different ways, you know. So then the vice mayor spoke to and may want to reiterate the kind of guidelines that we've crafted together. We put some finer points on it. Well, I'll just kind of, for a point of emphasis, When we say people who have been most impacted by COVID, what we understand both nationally, statewide, and locally is that disproportionately there has been people who are vulnerable generally. And so this money is meant to make an impact on those people who have been most negatively impacted. What else? Other questions? What do you all find the most interesting or exciting aspect of including the community in this process? Oh, wow. Well, I think that I'll just say mine and then you can say yours. The most interesting is we have no idea what kind of ideas we'll get. We could have things that at first blush seem like, whoa, wait a minute. And then we vet through them and think about them and they could be the most awesome, most impactful project we could ever do. That's what we're hoping is for long term impact. I would just kind of reiterate what the mayor said. This is a fairly substantial amount of money. It's $120 million. Our annual budget is now close to $400 million, but this is a significant amount of money. It has the potential to be transformative. And what's exciting from my perspective, I'll speak for myself, is exactly what the mayor said also. and that is to see what this community can come up with that will really inspire and make a difference in the long run and just make a huge difference for our community. And one of the things I might add is that we have had conversations together about the workings of this. We will have to, the administration will have to do lots of reporting back to the federal government. Every single thing we're doing with this money has to be reported back. And so we are hopeful that we have some large, as the vice mayor said, transformative projects, that we don't have $1,000, $100 projects. Because, you know, there are a lot of needs in the community, in the neighborhoods. And we think we'll have funds in other places to address some of those smaller needs. And so we're looking for some, you know, real, not necessarily expensive, but not the $100, $1,000, $5,000 projects. We think we can find money for a lot of those other places, other places where it doesn't have to be the federal government reporting and all of the rules that we will have to follow in spending that money. One question. Have the dates for the public hearings been announced? No. I didn't. Have the dates for public hearings been announced? No. And in fact, I expect there will be lots of town halls and council members will want to host things in their district. And it's going to be a great time for the public to have input. But dates are not quite yet announced. They'll be between now and the end of August, I would say. So you'll hear more later. Anything else? Thank you all for being here. Thank you. Thank you. In this world we're just beginning To understand the miracle of living Baby, I was afraid before And I'm not afraid anymore Ooh, baby, do you know if that's what? Ooh, heaven is a place on earth They say in heaven, love comes first New heaven is a place on earth New heaven is a place on earth New heaven is a place on earth New heaven is a place on earth I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I Faces come out of the rain When you're strange No one remembers your name When you're strange When you're strange When you're strange People are strange When you're a stranger Faces look ugly When you're alone Women seem wicked When you're unwanted Streets are uneven When you're down When you're strange Faces come out of the rain When you're strange No one remembers your name When you're strange When you're strange When you're strange All right, yeah When you're strange Paces come out of the rain When you're strange No one remembers your name When you're strange When you're strange When you're strange Right out of town On a boat to the southern island On a reef before the following sea We were making for the train on the outside On the down rim one to Papi 18 On this state and off the wind by the Marquesas We got 80 feet of waterline Nicely making way In a noisy pouring of a line I try to call you But on the midnight watch I realize Why twice you ran away Think about, think about how many times I have fallen Spirits are using me, a larger voice is calling Whatever brought you and me cannot be forgotten I have been around the world Looking for that woman girl Who knows love can endure And you know it will You know it will When you've seen the Southern Cross for the first time You'll understand that's why you came this way Cause the truth you've been running from is so small But it's as big as the promise The promise of a coming day And I'm headed all the way The tears are dying And my love is an act tied to you Tied with a silver chain I have my ship And all my flags are applying She is all that I have left And her music is her name Think about Think about how many times I have fallen Spirits are using me A larger voice is calling Whatever brought you and me Cannot be forgotten I have been around I have been around the world Looking, looking, looking for that woman girl Who does love can endure And you know it, Ray You know it will So we cheated and we tried And we tested And we never failed to fail That was the easiest thing to do You will survive being bested Somebody strong comes along Makes me forget Forget about loving you And the southern crowd Thank you. Not only are we happy to see all 35,225 of you out there tonight. And we appreciate this. We also are broadcasting this tonight live on Radio Margaritaville as we do all of our shows free of charge tonight. And we'll continue to do so all summer, so it's not only going out to Wisconsin and the great Midwest, we're going around the world tonight, Parrothead. I wish I had a pencil thing. you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It's now 1.30. Welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission subdivision items meeting. First up, I want to read the sentence here from the governor. Due to the COVID-19 state of emergency, this meeting is held via teleconference pursuant to 2020 Senate Bill 150 and in accordance with KRS 61.826. Next on the agenda item is item two. We'll have the approval of minutes for May 13th and June 10th, 2021 minutes. The floor is open for a motion. Okay, Mr. Bell. Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. move for approval of the minutes. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second to that motion. Seconded by Mr. Nichols. All in favor, please raise your hand. Larry. Yes. And I'm abstaining. Voting for approval of the June 10th. Okay. All right. We have that on record. uh commission member meyers abstaining from the june 10th vote is that correct no may i'm abstaining from may 13th may 13th okay you cut out i'm sorry may 13th thank you all righty okay next up we're going to skip down a little bit go to page six performance bonds and letters of credit i'd like to get a motion for mr chairman i move for approval of performance bonds and credits presented by staff okay we have a motion we have a second to that motion i'll second second it by miss meyer any further discussion seeing none all in favor please raise your hand okay motion passes unanimously thank you okay Okay. Agenda item three back on page one, postponements or withdrawals. See if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to have their item either postponed today or withdrawn. We have Mr. Gross, Mr. Smorstad, and Mr. Murphy who raised their hand. Okay. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is item A on page two of your agenda related to the Bluegrass Business Park. We are in receipt of the staff's report. For those on the subdivision committee, you will recall we had a lively discussion last week. We would like an opportunity to take some more time to review and analyze the staff's concerns and to determine whether or not there is a path forward. So I would like to be granted until August 12th at 1.30 p.m., a postponement until that date. Okay, Mr. Gross. Does any commission member have any questions for Mr. Gross? So the floor is open. Reporting in progress. The floor is open for a motion for a one-month postponement for August 12th. Mr. Chairman. Ben? I move for a postponement for August 12th for PLN FRP 2128, Bluegrass Business Park. Okay. We have a motion. Second. Second. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thanks. I'll see you guys next month. We'll see you next month. And as a reminder, we'll be in person in the council chambers next month. That's even better. I'll see you guys in person next month. We'll see you next month in person. Mr. Murphy. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page five of your agenda, item D, DLN, MJDP 21, excuse me, 21-00030, Great House Property, Village of Great Acres. I represent the developer Anderson Communities. We are requesting a one-month postponement to August 12th. We are, as a result of this discussion at the subdivision committee, we're setting up a meeting with the planning staff and traffic engineering to discuss our access points and other issues. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any further discussion or questions for Mr. Murphy? The floor is open for a motion for the one-month postponement. Seeing that, the floor is open. Mr. Poe. move to postpone PLN MJDP 2130 Great House property till August 24 to August 12. All right thank you we have a motion you have a second seconded by Mr. Davis all in favor please raise your hand motion passes unanimously thank you Mr. Murphy thank you Good afternoon, Greg. So that will be the third postponement for us. Do we have any questions for the African at this time? We need any. The floor is open for a one-month postponement for August 12th. That's correct. Ms. Meyer? Ms. Meyer? I move for a postponement of PLN MJSUV 21-0001 Belmont Farm Unit 7 for one month as the request of the outcome. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Pohl. All in favor? Oh, Mr. Pohl, you got further? I didn't say anything. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all. Anyone else? Okay, next up, staff consent agenda. Yes, sir. I'm Cameron and Flores and members of the commission. We do have a short consent agenda for you today. It should be in the Google Drive. There are three items that appear on the consent agenda, and I'll read through those and see if there's anyone in the audience or if any of the Planning Commission members wish to have one of these items in the poll. If not, then the Planning Commission can approve these items collectively with one motion. So the first item appears on page two of your agenda, item A. It is a preliminary subdivision plan recommended for re-approval by our subdivision committee. This is an item that predates our new numbering system with the seller. So it's plan 2016-71P, the formal subdivision plan for the Tuscany Unit 11 development located at 1970 Winchester Road, Council District 6. That's our first item. Then we have two development plans. The first one appears on page four, item A, PLN MJDP 18-96 for the Fayette Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 3, located at 130 West Tiverton Way. This is an item that had expired, and the applicant is asking for it to be re-approved with no changes with the same condition. And then the next item is page on page four item B, PLN MJD 20-64, the Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Section 5 for lots 9 and 10, located at 960 Midnight Park. And this item was requesting a continued discussion for a small expansion of one of the hotels on the site. So those three items were recommended for approval by staff as well as the subdivision committee for either re-approval or, well, re-approval for all three. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to have any of these items heard? You can raise your hand at this time. Don't see any hands raised, or if there's anyone on the commission who wishes to have an item presented this afternoon, plan for that as well. I'm not seeing any hands raised. Okay. Well, we can take a motion for the entire consent agenda as presented by staff. The floor is open. Before we motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented. The three items on the consent agenda as presented by staff. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Bell. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And we can move on to our next item on the regulation. We should go on page three. Item C, PLN, MJ, SUV, 21-0003. Okay. I'm trying to get this set up. Just a moment, please. Yeah. It's a separate PowerPoint. I just opened up. Thank you. Does anyone see that presentation now? So our first item today, and usually you don't seem to go on the podium, so this will be a new role for me. I typically have Cheryl and Tom and Lauren do all the tough work. So this case is PLN MJ Sub 21-3, a request or an amendment for a preliminary subdivision plan for Copper Creek Subdivision, also known as Windale Development LLC property. The applicant is today proposing an amendment to their preliminary subdivision plan to adjust the access to a greenway. On this development plan, I'll just try to orient you briefly. There's a road to the north of the Greenway. This is Old Higbee Mill Road, and it intersects Man of War, again, north of this large Greenway. The Greenway is associated with the South Elkhorn Creek and floodplain in this area. area. So again, Man of War to the north and Old Hickby Mill also to the north. Streets to the south are Steamboat Road, which runs parallel to the Greenway, and then several other local roads within the southern subdivision. Other items of note in the area is a local park. This is Waverly Park to the southwest of the subject property, and the applicant is proposing not to really modify the greenway in any way, but rather to modify the access to the greenway. There were 25 lots created by the Planning Commission for this particular development, and in part of that development review in about 2015, access to the greenway was provided. The applicant is now proposing or requesting that the access rather than it be a lot that extends to the frontage of Steamboat Road to actually be just an easement that crosses a single family lot, lot one shown here in yellow. And then having a access directly from Steamboat down to the Greenway. So with that information I'll turn this over to Cheryl. We have a bit of background to provide for you because it does seem like a very simple request but it does have some background that we need to explain to really justify or show why the staff is making a particular recommendation. As you can see, as Tracy said, there's a large, there's a bit of history to this. The preliminary subdivision plan was approved and signed in 2015. A final record plaque and a consolidation plaque in 2017 and the construction of homes and then the request for a consolidation plaque again in 2020 and we'll go through that. This is the certified preliminary subdivision plan, as I said, was done in 2015, showing the single family lots and showing the greenway access right here adjacent to the single family lot leading into the greenway. And then on the south side of Steamboat, they have a greenway access leading into the park. This is a little bit of a blow up on the proposed. You can see the dot sequence here and listing through. There we go. There's the kind of green. And then again, outlining the whole sequence. The Planning Commission approved a preliminary subdivision showing the connection between the Waverly Park, located here to the south, to the greenway, to the north, and it was requested and agreed upon by the developer for a greenway access. There was a greenway note added to the plan indicating that the developer plans to dedicate the greenway to LFECG for a protection of the environmental sensitive area and to construct a multi-use trail. That note is over here to the side on the plan showing that this was approved in 2015. This is showing you the access points to Waverly Park. You can see this was constructed at Nice Trail. This is going to the south side of Steamboat being down at the bottom of the page here and leading into the park. And on the other side, we show the bottom of the access to Waverly Park crossing. Is there a way to get this on? I just clicked the one. I missed the wrong one. Oops. I'm gonna roll over it again. There we go. We have to just drag it out of your way. There we go. I'm sorry. Sorry about that. Just to make it easier for me to see pictures. As you can see, this is the trail system that leads into the park. And as we look across Steamboat, you can see where the proposed trail would take us into what would be the greenway. You can see the tree protection trees that are here in the tree protection of the greenway. This was the consolidation plaque that actually consolidated that lot on the preliminary to the greenway for the greenway access. You can see a better blown up version of it here. It was just a small 25 foot wide at the street frontage. And then it was 40 feet in the rear and it was attached to the lot. Sorry. Okay, it's there. Sorry about that. I'm a little slow on this. And so that shows the connection. This is the final record plat to show the recordation of the 25 watts on the plan. And as you can see, here is the location of the Greenway access point that we were just talking about, the portion of the property that was consolidated. There was a request in July of 2020 to consolidate the green space lot access to the single family dwelling unit, which is the greenway access here to this first lot. And at the time, they also had asked building inspection for a building permit, which was approved in August of 2020. This being the lot and then showing here's the house and the driveway facing to steamboat. um when we were reviewing the uh the consolidation flat that came in um we had some questions about the greenway access we reviewed it amongst the preliminary subdivision plan and we um agreed that we cannot do it because it did not meet the preliminary subdivision plan and we asked for them to withdraw the plan. Then construction continued on the home and as you can see, when they continued to build the home, they then turned the driveway and constructed the driveway over what is, as this grade area, as the greenway access. So they constructed the driveway in this. we received another revised consolidation plan in April of 2021. Like I said, we had told them that we could not consolidate those back last year. And so when they brought us in the revisions, we decided to make a site visit. And upon that site visit, we saw that this driveway was constructed and built and what was the proposed access to the greenway. and so the side entry driveway did not meet the site plan that they had initially had issued the building permit on. As I go back here a minute, you can see the driveway was coming out the front and that was what the building permit was issued and now we have it coming out the side. And that is, so that was against what building permit was when they'd started construction. Upon taking the review of the site, that's when we found that they had built the driveway. And as you can see, the location of the driveway entering into the side of a home. home. This also showed that agreed this is not an agreement with the preliminary subdivision plan with the driveway across the greenway access. It encroached, we said it was 25 foot wide the lot and we believe driveway crouches 18 feet so that does not leave us much for a 10-foot wide access. So we reviewed that. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Tracy with the Greenway Access. So the question really is, why was the Greenway Access requested in 2015? And And why does the staff believe it's still a necessary component for this neighborhood and this portion of Fayette County? And again, that's our proposed greenway and the access to the south and their proposed plan today. In 1994, the green space plan was adopted by the Planning Commission. And at that time, this plan laid out both an urban and a rural avenue for preserving green space and for developing a green space network for our community. Within the urban context, the urban green space sites were identified, as well as the need for urban green space linkages. So if we have parks that are nearby each other, how can we provide a network of green space that can connect those parks? So the parks in this vicinity include, I think there's one, there's Waverly Park. There's going to be one called Clemens Park on Higby Mill Road as well. So these green spaces allow for those linkages to occur. And why do we want linkages? This plan identified three basic desires or needs for the community. Visual linkages for the city to bluegrass images to be enhanced and the visual experience of travelers in the city streets. environmental linkages to interconnect our natural areas to help support the healthy functioning of ecosystems and the benefits they bring to our development and then also a recreational or community linkage to make it more feasible and attractive to travel within the city without relying on cars that is by bicycle or foot so those needs were identified within the 1994 green space plan. In 2002, about a decade later, a greenway master plan was adopted by the planning commission. At that point, the network, not just the idea of the network, but the actual network was put down on paper. And we had a map that was adopted, shown here, of where those linkages should be, what type of linkages they were, either parks or greenways and whether the greenways would be planned to be acquired by the government or if they were going to need a conservation easement and the private property would maintain them. Those things were discussed and developed during that 2002 Greenway Master Plan. So that was about 20 years ago. And this plan is something we've been working from since then that established in this area of our community, the South Elkhorn Greenway Trail, the idea of that. So the South Elkhorn Greenway Trail will actually, is proposed to extend from Veterans Park to the southeast of this site, through the Waveland Historic Site on Waveland Road, and then continue along the Greenway up to identified on this map as P14. and that's the Greenway Trail. The location just to the south of that P14 label is Waverly Park labeled with a 7 so you can see it's associated there and then the red dashed line that appears just in that same vicinity indicates a trail network through the Greenway there. So this is part of a planned connection for our community for now 20 years. In addition, the bike and pedestrian master plan is in place and it continues to identify what are the public health and safety and welfare benefits of providing for these bike and pedestrian trails, in this case, a separated bikeway or trail in the greenway. There's health and environmental benefits, economic benefits, and then access, mobility, and safety benefits for the community. In addition to the plans that are adopted and then the recommendation that was made about six years ago related to access to the Greenway, the land subdivision regulations also were in play at that time. And these regulations, this particular regulation hasn't changed since then. The purpose of Article 6 of the subdivision regulations, which is the chapter dedicated to design and improvement standards, says that these are minimums, design and improvement standards. Standards exceeding the minimum requirement may be provided by the developer or required by the commission. In the case in 2015, the applicant proposed something and the commission approved it, and it was something in excess of the minimum. The minimum established by the subregs is this, other pedestrian walkways, which is what this connection is. So it says, in addition to sidewalks paralleling streets, the commission may also require pedestrian walkways with at least a 10-foot easement to be at mid-block or other locations to provide better pedestrian access to parks, schools, cemeteries, greenways, or other land uses. So in implementing this plan or approving and certifying this plan, we were implementing both the Greenway Green Space Plan, the Greenway Master Plan, developing those green space linkages, but also following the land subdivision regulations as have been adopted for the government. So the staff in reviewing this particular amendment to a preliminary subdivision plan has found first that yes, they are still proposing a link from Waverly Park to the Greenway. However, what's concerning is the width of that link and whether it can actually have a trail constructed within it now that some of the things that have occurred since 2015, namely the construction of a house with a side entry garage with a driveway on that portion of the property. And so, again, I'll just remind you that the preliminary or the land subdivision regulations call for a minimum of a 10-foot easement. But what is concerning is there's not 10 feet left to provide that access for a 10-foot trail. So when the staff reviewed this plan, these were some of the things that we evaluated and helped us come to a conclusion. First, there still needs to be a connection to the Greenway, as recommended by several of the adopted plans for our community. And it should, per the staff members that work on this particular aspect of planning for our community, it should still be at the same location. Second, the 10-foot wide shared use trail requires more than the minimum 10-foot wide easement. In order to maintain and construct a 10-foot wide path, you have to have a little bit more space in order to do that. So a little bit more is dependent on the topography and the nature of the land on which the easement is being placed. In this case, there's steep slopes that have been identified. and so more room was identified for that access in the past. 25 feet at the front and then it widened down to 40 feet as it approached the stream. Next, third, the existing lot has a 25 feet of frontage along Steamboat Road. That's already been platted, but only seven feet remains unencumbered by driveways. A driveway from the west has been encroached on the lot, and then the driveway from the east on the single-family home that was just recently built encroaches another 16 feet. So there's only 7 feet left. So in essence, the proposal doesn't meet the land subdivision regulations because there's not a 10-foot-wide minimum easement that can be created. there's land there that's already encumbered by other other things. Fourth, if the greenway access is consolidated to lot one, for the plat notes and the subdivision plan notes, the future homeowner would be responsible for maintenance of the trail. Generally, that's not the approach that the government wants to take when a shared use Trail is present. The intent is for it to be part of the community's responsibility to maintain that. So putting it on a single family lot is of concern to the staff. And then lastly, the proposed plan doesn't meet the needs of the community, at least not as well as the existing plan. So in that regard, you already have an approved construction or approved, well, construction plans too, approved preliminary subdivision plan, approved plats, and approved construction plans that all meet the regulations. And now the applicant is asking for something less than what meets the needs of the community and meets the regulations that are in place. And so with that, the staff made a recommendation to our technical committee, and then the technical committee's recommendation, of course, passes on to the subdivision committee. And last week, the subdivision committee followed that same recommendation for disapproval of this amended preliminary subdivision plan. So there's six reasons listed on your agenda today. I hope that we've covered them with Cheryl and I's presentation this afternoon. But just briefly, first, there's an adopted green space plan that identifies the need for these linkages in our community. The green space plan and the Greenway Master Plan established this particular location as a proposed greenway, including a trail. A shared use trail was constructed from Waverly Park. as we've shared in our photos, and was planned to continue across steamboat into the Greenway. But the and this urban green space linkage has been depicted on approved plans since 19 or 2015 for this particular site. And then again with the recorded plots in 2017. The planned trail connection on the north side of the Greenway is part of the shared use trail linking parks and greenways throughout this portion of the community. It should not be lost. Fifth, the topography of the land surrounding the plain greenway access and shared use trails steep and any reduction the width of the access lot or access easement may result in the trail not being able to be constructed in a manner that meets ADA requirements or just is able to be constructed without more space. And then lastly, the single family home built on lot one wasn't constructed in conformance with an approved building permit. And a concrete driveway was poured that crossed the property line and encroached on the property about 18 feet. That's that property that's been indicated that it would be dedicated to the government for a greenway access. So with that, we'll stop our presentation and be available to answer any questions about this particular plan. Any questions for staff? There were several things in the Google Drive about this that may be helpful for you. Just the graphics from the Greenway plan and the Green Space plan, as well as an email from a neighbor in the general vicinity who indicated that they were in opposition to eliminating an access to the greenway here. And they actually, it says we support the greenway connection between Waverly and Clements Park. And I want to go on record in opposition of the developers action of approaching 18, 18 feet into the greenway. Okay. Not seeing any questions right now, Tracy. Okay. I'm sure the applicant is here too. Yes. We do have two individuals with their hands raised currently. I believe Mr. Bruce Simpson and EA partners are representing the applicant. We'll bring them in. Actually, I think it's the number of us. There we go. Mr. Simpson and Mr. Cayley, do you have anybody else on the call that you would like brought in as part of your application? I think it'll be Roy and I to start out. All right. All right. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I am Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of Steve Perry and his company. Rory Cayley and Al Gross are with me today. It's a pleasure to see you guys again. I did address the subdivision committee meeting in connection with this matter, and so I'm pleased to be able to address the rest of you today. Let me say at the outset, this is an important case for this commission for several reasons. A couple of them legal, which I'm going to make a couple of legal points. I know this body is not a court, but it is an administrative body, which because it is administrative body and because of the nature of the staff's presentation and their arguments, I'm required to make certain legal objections and connection with their arguments. And it's also important for this body's education about its powers in connection with this particular matter. And it's also important for Steve Perry and other developers in terms of how they approach development with respect to these greenways and trails and what they choose to do voluntarily in the future. So let me respond with a little bit of clarifying history for you guys so that you have a full appreciation of the history of this development. um as was stated in 2015 Mr. Perry started development of this particular property on steamboat drive it was not a zone change it was simply a subdivision plan that came before this body the zoning was already in place R3 and so it was just a preliminary subdivision plan that was needed. It was approved. And in connection with that approval, Mr. Perry volunteered, was not required. There was no obligation on his part to make available access to Greenway down to South Elkhorn Creek and also across the street from Steamboat Drive to Waverly Park. He agreed to do it. Not only did he agree to do it, he went ahead at his own expense and paid for the installation of the trails to the tune of initially, I represented to the subdivision committee of about $40,000. I subsequently found out it was actually much more than that. because he also, with respect to the trail that he created from Steamboat to Waverly Park, he had to obtain an easement from a private property owner, which I'll show you in just a minute. He had to obtain an easement from a private property owner in order to install the trail, obtain the to actually create the trail and then to build the trail to Waverly Park for the benefit of the public. Didn't profit at all from any of this, but he did it. And in addition to creating the trails, he also installed a creek crossing across South Elkhorn Creek. So, Rory, if you would put up the overhead Google Earth snapshot, if you would, of what Steve installed at the time after he got Planning Commission approval. And then kind of outline, if you would, the improvements that he installed. This is the members of the Planning Commission. This is the trail that Steve constructed north of Steamboat, and he had to acquire the easement north of Steamboat. If you could go back, Rory, north of Steamboat. Can you hear us, Bruce? Yeah. He had to acquire that easement and put that asphalt in 10 foot wide. and then on the other side he put the trail in it went down and this is an extremely steep slope extremely steep going down to south elkhorn creek and he built a stream crossing he got a permit from the division of water and built it across the creek now after he installed the stream crossing And he began to experience a number of problems with tree branches and other debris that came down in the creek that blocked the stream crossing, creating a flooding situation, which resulted in complaints from neighbors and citations from the government. which resulted in him getting noticed and he had to pay someone to the tune of about $500 an event to clean it out numerous times to the point where it became such a burden that he just removed the stream crossing and then because the the path that he installed if you could kind of trace that path, very steep path, because that path didn't go across the stream crossing anymore. It was very steep. It was a path to nowhere at that point. It was very dangerous, and it was his personal liability. He removed that path because it created an attractive nuisance to kids on skateboards, bicycles, and joggers, and anybody else that might go down and expect him to be able to cross this creek, he removed that asphalt. And he owns this land. He's always owned it. Now, he owned it in a different legal entity, but he has always owned all of the property upon which this asphalt path, that land, and the property next to it where the home has been built. If you could kind of circle the area there, Roy, where the home has been built. he's always owned all of the land so he did um at the time allocate um not only the stream uh the path uh and built the path on both sides of steamboat but all of the green space area across the creek if you could kind of 14 acres or so roy somewhere in there yeah and actually um with the intention of dedicating it to the government. Now, the government had indicated they, in certain conditions, they wanted him to perform before they would accept it. It was going to be a gift to the government and he's required to do certain things before they would accept it. And subsequently, Steve acquired some other property further down the road, Higby Mill. and um steve is still going to give this property to the government that he has some other property down the road that he's interested in and thought he was going to consummate a land swap with the government that hasn't been obtained yet but the intention is still to obtain it we thought he had we had a land swap but that hasn't been consummated as yet but ultimately believe that will happen and that all of this land will ultimately be donated to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County governor. But in any event, as he started construction on this lot next to the stream, next to the street, the access area going down from Steamboat, he realized that the driveway coming out on steamboat was coming out extremely close to a drainage area down spouted from the drainage area of storm sewers and he needed a way it's not unusual for he had a building permit to build a house of course he didn't make a change to a side entry garage. He owned both lots. He owned both lots. He made a change to a side entry garage on the field. I've talked with building inspection. It's not unusual for that to happen. They've explained to me that they just need to file a subsequent site plan. That has happened. In order to convey the lot, you just need to file a new preliminary subdivision plan in order for that to happen. He could, he can, could right now simply convey an access easement from the lot that he owns right now to this, where the house is and convey clear title. He would prefer to have a consolidation of this area into the, into the lot where the house sits, which is what is before you now. Preliminary subdivision plans are routinely approved. The current preliminary subdivision plan does comply with all of the standards that are applicable to govern preliminary subdivision plan approval. You all approve preliminary subdivision plans by you and your predecessors have a presence of the thousands over the decades. This one is no different. Now, the planning staff is trying to make this different when it's not. Let me tell you why it's not different. They are contending it's different because of the Greenway Master Plan. Now, here's where the legal part comes in. Because for more than three decades, the Kentucky law has expressly stated that comprehensive plans of which the Greenway Master Plan is a part are not a consideration in the approval of subdivision plans. They're just not. What's a consideration in subdivision plans are the objective criteria set out in the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. This is a ministerial decision at this point. Is this preliminary subdivision plan in compliance with the published subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance? And it unquestionably is. There's nothing in the staff's objection that points to a violation of the subdivision regulation. Now, they have cited to a regulation that says that the Planning Commission may require a dedication of at least 10 feet. That is a discretionary regulation. I will come back to that regulation in terms of another legal issue associated with it, but that is a discretionary regulation. It is not a mandatory regulation. It is not an objective regulation that the law says must be met for subdivision approval. We are meeting all of the published criteria for subdivision regulation approval. The staff is pointing to the fact that the building inspector or the building permit was not complied with. Well, a site plan has been submitted that does show the corrected site plan. The fact that a site plan for building permit was not complied with is not a basis under the subdivision regulations to deny subdivision plan approval. There's nothing in the subdivision regulations or the zoning ordinance that says you can deny a preliminary subdivision plan revision based upon the fact that there's been an amendment filed with buildings inspection for amended site plan or that the site plan was changed and the line has been crossed over. because a preliminary subdivision plan is in fact one of the reasons that land is subdivided to make a correction so that you can sell the lot. That's one of the curative effects of a preliminary subdivision plan. It's not a reason to deny under the law approval of a preliminary subdivision plan. So there simply is no legal basis to deny this. All of the justifications that the staff is pointing to simply provide no legal basis under the law to deny this approval. We went through this same kind of procedure when the 2018 comprehensive plan was a consideration. And as you all recall, during the many discussions of place builder, when it had the words shall and a lot of mandatory language, they all got changed to may and permissive language. This particular regulation that Tracy makes reference to clearly states may. It is not a mandatory requirement that must be complied with to secure approval. And as I mentioned a few minutes ago, even though the regulation says you all may impose more than 10 feet of an easement, more than 10 feet that you have the authority to impose upon a private property owner to grant more than 10 feet for a public trail, a shared use trail at the private property With no limitations, with all due respect to whoever imposed this regulation, which was the council, with all due respect, that is an impermissible taking without compensation. There is no way that that will withstand constitutional scrutiny in terms of allowing a government to take some private property owner's land with no limitation without compensation. But it is still permissive. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. At this point, I simply want to have Al Gross ask him a few questions. Al, if you would. I'm right here, Bruce. Al, would you just state your name and profession for the record, please? My name is Albert W. Gross. I'm a licensed professional engineer and land surveyor in the state of Kentucky. And, Al, how long have you been an engineer? Over 40 years. Al, and you're one of the members of EA Partners, is that correct? That is correct. And roughly how many preliminary subdivision plans has your firm filed over the years before the Lexington Bay Area-Urban County Planning Commission? I couldn't hazard a guess, but it's quite a few. Yeah. More than a thousand? I would judge so, yes. Yeah. Have you examined this preliminary subdivision plan? Oh, yes. Is it in compliance with all of the published subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances? Yes, it's uninterpreted. Have you seen anything in the staff report, staff objections, that indicates any breach of the subdivision regulations? No, I have not. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I understand the Greenway Master Plan is an important document, and it serves as an aspirational plan for this community. and and Steve Perry in this proposed subdivision plan has made an allowance for a connection to this greenway in terms of dedicating a 10-foot access easement. Tracy made reference to that that the property owner would have to maintain it. We will certainly clarify that we're willing to dedicate this to the Lexington-Fader-Irban County government. In addition to this, what we've shown on this plan, as a further commitment of goodwill, more than what we're obligated to do, certainly, we have even gone one step further, more than we have to in an effort of compromise and good faith and the commitment. And I hope you understand that Steve has already gone beyond what he's required to do by the expenditure of the money that he has spent and the fact that he's already installed a linkage to Waverly Park on the north side of the street. we've even proposed to widen the dedication of of this easement and and correct me if i'm wrong uh rory um uh and steve we we it may be even possible to even dedicate this as a separate lot Correct me if I'm correct, Roy, on this part of dedicating this to the government for the purposes of this shared use trail. Am I correct about that, this revised exhibit we're about to show? With the area we're talking about, this access trapezoid, yeah, there can be full consolidations or partial consolidations, leaving the access either as an easement or as part of the large open space slot to the rear. Yeah, so we can dedicate this all to the government. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. Can you pull this up? This would be a revised version of what we propose to dedicate. Not that one, but the colored up version. This one here. So can you kind of enlarge that a little bit? Let's find out. So, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, just so that you understand the context of what we're showing you. If you look at, can you kind of outline the trapezoid, if you will, Rory, the whole thing? Yeah, the area in green and tan is the area we're talking about. That is the original subdivided lot, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. And as you can see, the driveway, that is the area that is now attached to the house. And what we're proposing is the area in green and where it flares out. The initial, what we had before the commission now, can you just kind of show the narrow strip that goes down to the creek, Roy? you can see it's kind of a it started out as seven feet then it widens out to 10 goes all the way down to the south elkhorn creek there was some concern expressed about being able because it's such a steep slope once it gets past the driveway that they wanted access to be able to widen it out to do some construction back there so what we're proposing with this revision rather than just grant this as an easement, we would dedicate this as a lot and include all of the, if you could kind of move with the cursor, Roy, all the area over there to the right, dedicate this as an entire lot to the government for access to the greenway. So it would be a considerable amount of more as a separate lot to the government for the access. not an easement, but just as a separate lot, we would amend our subdivision plan to reflect this additional amount of land that would go to the LFUCG that could be incorporated into the 14 acres. You go back, just show that across the creek there, Roy, with your cursor. Oh, sorry. The trail across the creek. Yeah, right. All of that. So, again, this is something that's not required legally, but as a volunteer effort, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, and as a further extension of Mr. Perry's historic goodwill, this is what we're willing to do. But we believe we're entitled to approval, but we're willing to amend our plan, preliminary subdivision plan, to reflect this configuration. And that's what we're asking this commission to approve. And with that, I'll be happy to respond to any questions. I'll stop sharing. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Does any commission members like that ask any questions at this time for the applicant before we move on to the citizen comments if there are any? Okay, Mr. Finn. Bruce, during the subdivision committee we didn't, if you remember I stopped you because we knew we were going to hear all this at a full commission hearing. We didn't get to the point to where this starts out as a seven foot easement and goes back to a 40 foot easement. How do you intend to make a seven foot easement ADA compliant? You know, no one had any objections about ADA compliant when Mr. Perry built the trail to start with. I mean, it's the best we can do at this point, Mr. Penn. Well, when you made the decision to put the driveway out to the side, you effectively cut off the trailer. And you knew it when you did it. And now you come back and you want to consolidate it to make it fine. I don't know how this thing works out. But are you still intended for the city to accept the donation of that property? with a trail that starts out at seven feet? Well, as I mentioned, we don't have to dedicate the trail. We're willing to do it. He can, Mr. Perry can dedicate an access easement and still sell the house. I'm just asking a question, Bruce. It, it, it's an imperfect kind of situation, Mr. Penn. You know, you know, I think it's, it's, it's, it's the best that can be done under the circumstances. I think the city is still getting a pretty good option. You know, to the extent they ever do the work to actually put this linkage in, it's going to be a very expensive connection for the city to ever build. Thank you. Mr. Nickel. You're muted. You're muted. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, can we pull that document up again that shows the three different colors? Sure. Because I want to try to understand this. I think the objective is, or help me walk me through this. Staff is saying 15 feet, then it's now 10 feet, but you all can only offer seven. Is there a certain distance of this R3 lot width you need to achieve to sell this property? I mean, why can't we fix three feet? Why can't you give them the three feet they need? Well, the driveway is already in existence. Well, yeah, you can extend the concrete to the trail. Just go ahead and pour a bunch of concrete right down there, and you've got a trail in the driveway. and chop off the, you know, maybe make a marker. So it is kind of, it's not great for the homeowner to have, you know, share three feet of their driveway with a shared path, but there may be something cool you could do with, I don't know, somehow mark it. I'm just confused. It's, can that happen or not? I mean, maybe that question's for staff. I don't know. Well, you know, one of the difficulties of having a Zoom hearing is, everybody's in a different room. Is it possible to take a brief recess so I can consult with my folks? Is that possible? I don't know. Now we're getting back into the negotiation in a Zoom call, which is not good. I don't think we can do that. Well, I mean, it is what it is. I mean, we've. Bruce, can I interject something? Surely. This is Al Gross. Frank, relative to your seven foot question and ADA compliance, I don't think ADA compliance really speaks to the width in terms of be it seven feet or 10 feet. I think seven would be just as permissible ADA wise as 10. And I think the difficulty at this location for an ADA compliant path is the grade differential, which is why the green shade has exploded in the back to allow some switchback activity to lessen the grade differential between Steamboat and South Elphorn Creek. Mr. Nickel makes a good point. I don't see why the limiting edge of this driveway can't be utilized as part of the path. Again, Bruce alluded to staff maybe having an objection to that, and I guess we have not heard from them relative to that. but common sense seems to tell me that there's ample room to get, excuse me, to get a path from Steamboat down to, down to the creek relative to the conditions that exist on this land. The concern I would have is I certainly wouldn't want to see the path built before there was a proper crossing of the creek. and that is the concern that I would have and Bruce talked about that earlier in his presentation doesn't seem like you can have that connection until you get a viable crossing of the stream that pedestrians and folks that typically use paths such as these can use safely that's all I wanted to interject. I've gotten word from Mr. Perry that he can grant the three-foot easement, Mr. Nickel, to address your question. Mr. Simpson, you say he can? Yeah. Now, I am not an expert. I would want staff to. I was going to call Scott. Make a comment on that. Absolutely. Scott, do you have a statement? Yeah, I do want to just clear a couple of things up. The grade change from the sidewalk down to the creek is roughly 10%. And I'm pretty sure, Al, what is the maximum slope that's ADA compliant? I think it's 8%. 8%. And so that's about 2% difference. And to give you guys an idea of what 2% looks like over 100 feet, what's the maximum cross slope of a sidewalk? Is that 2%? That's 1 inch per foot. You're asking me? Yeah. What is that? I just want to make sure we get that. I think it's a half inch per foot. which is a two percent slope so the difference in what we're looking at from the graves as they exist to an 8da compliant slope is roughly two percent over that hundred feet the other thing to keep in mind is that um when we span a creek there's two ways to do it one is at the stream level which is a low water crossing which is what mr perry had in place and the other is is a bridge and if we did in fact bridge this the abutments would actually be higher than that creek so that would eliminate that need our concern is the constructability uh within those limits the the that was a drainage swell prior to the construction of the driveway and so um we would have to account for drainage we would also have to account for the grades and tying back into those grades. So while it will accommodate a narrower trail width, it would be almost impossible for us to construct it because we would have to essentially probably demolish part of the driveway to get the trail in and then rebuild that driveway. So it does constrain our ability to build a trail here. And we do, you know, while there are a lot of trails that need to be built, um we invest uh quite a lot of money into trails and trail projects in our community i think right now there's roughly 50 million dollars in trail projects going on in our community so so you know while there isn't an exact timeline for the construction of this trail we do build these and they do get built um and this does drastically change our ability um the constructability and the cost associated with that construction um as a result of this and so there's just some things I wanted to point out. Okay, this message is for Scott. Oh, I'm sorry. Hey, Scott, or Mr. Thompson, can we drop it? Excuse me? Yeah, I mean, if we can get back to seeing everybody, unless you need to use this, continue to use this, but that's fine, whichever way. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Mr. Thompson, if they cut off three feet of this driveway, are they able to reconfigure their driveway in some way and we can still get the trail that everybody thinks we should have? We need the width in order to construct the trail, right? So I think what you're talking about is the finished width of the trail. That's not really our concern. You know, I think having a trail that's narrower than 10 feet is not desirable, but in some cases you have to go narrower than that. And that could be the situation in this case. Our issue is that long, narrow run will be unconstructible for us. We won't be able to build that trail without getting construction easements, without demolishing the driveway, without changing some drainage patterns. So it becomes prohibitive, becomes cost prohibitive. And without those construction issues have to be granted as well by those property owners. So, you know, we've we've struggled. Part of the reason we asked for that with this so that we can get these things built because we've run into problems in the past. And so that's kind of the issue here is is if we can't build it. Then we won't. No, I hear you. I hear you there. What you're saying is you need 10 feet wide. Is there some way that... We may need more than that. I mean, we had 25 feet there. What's the number? You had 25 and now we're seven? Is that what you're saying? We're down to seven feet. And that would be the minimum trail width through that section. But it would require at least 21 feet to construct it because you have to account for drainage. And the drainage swells on either side of the creek or on either side of the trail or on one side of the trail. and then the fall from the driveway because that driveway does not descend at the same rate as the ground around it. Right. They've built that up. So they've created a different condition for that trail to be built in. So, you know, not to get too technical, but but but, you know, it becomes prohibitive for us to construct the trail. I think we are. I mean, this is a technical question, unfortunately. Sure. So I think we do need to be technical. I would like to hear what the staff has to say about I mean, is there a way to work around this? Hey, Bruce. I'm not negotiating. Yes. Bruce, what I'd like to do first, too, is let's make sure we don't have any citizens that would like to speak and then come back on the rebuttal stage. I know where you're going, so I think staff has some notes here. So if you don't mind, can we do that? Okay. So at this time, do we have any citizens that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. If there are any members of the audience who would like to speak, please raise your hand now. You can find that in the attendees section. We did have and please make sure that if you are making any comments today you are not doing so within the chat function that should now be disabled. Mr. Lau or Ms. Lau we are now going to allow you to speak. Hi there members of the chair. So we are actually the homeowners or the pending homeowners of this property. We actually have young children who are about to start school in August. So, you know, I do want people to realize there is our family that's actually waiting for the outcome of this house. So we'd, you know, just want to point out that as we're listening to this, we're also trying to, you know, make an informed decision as to, you know, to move forward with the house closure at some distant point, and to also get an understanding of timeline. So I just wanted to point that out that as you're speaking of this, we are here and we're willing to work with everyone on this call, the developer, as well as the committee to make things work for everyone. So just wanted to add our side of the story as well. Thank you for your comments. And I think majority of your comments and questions should be directed to the builder at this time and his lawyer. All right, we're going to bring this back to the rebuttal stage. Mr. Simpson, I know you wanted to speak as well, so I want to make sure you have that opportunity. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I listened to the comments from Mr. Thompson. only underscores my point about the extraordinary provisions of this permissive regulation that allows this Planning Commission impermissible powers to require private property owner to give up all this land for this trail. We've offered up voluntarily land for this trail, and Mr. Thompson says even that's not enough. Even if we go to 10 feet and the extra land at the bottom is not enough, there has to be more. So even though we volunteer more, it's not sufficient. So we have pending before this body, based upon our application and the evidence, a preliminary subdivision plan that is in compliance with the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance and is entitled under the law to be approved. And that's what we ask this body to do. Thank you. Staff? A couple things. Mr. Simpson mentioned that the preliminary subdivision plan before you today is in compliance with the land subdivision regulations, but the staff disagrees because of the discretionary land subdivision regulation that the planning commission did choose to require an access to the greenway. And so, yes, they may, but they did. They activated that discretion in 2015, not these members per se, but the members that were made up the body on that day, they did activate that discretion and said what is necessary to provide a access to the greenway that can accommodate a shared use trail and the topography that exists on this site in order to access this environmentally sensitive piece of property was 25 feet. The reason it got wider in the back is because of either constructability or it was following an existing sanitary sewer easement. You know, both of those are factors. But the Planning Commission chose to use that discretion, and they required it, and Mr. Perry agreed to it. So it's difficult, I think, at this juncture to come back and say the government is asking for something when, in fact, Mr. Perry agreed to it. And as you make plans in life, in general, it's true of subdivision and development plans as well. You make one decision and other decisions flow from that. So a decision was made and we, the government, have made other decisions based on that. The engineering plans were drawn up based on the subdivision plan. The individual lot house plans should have been developed based on the existing infrastructure. So proposing a house with a driveway that went straight into a storm inlet is a decision that was made by Mr. Perry. Not by this body, not by the planning staff, not by the Division of Engineering or any other government entity. And now Mr. Perry is asking the government to give up something he agreed to and we wanted and said we needed because of a decision they made in the field to make a change. Frankly, I don't think that's fair for the community. I don't think it's fair for the neighborhoods that this access point will serve in terms of accessing the network of green space in our community. a 10-foot easement is the minimum. So I don't know how we can expect seven feet at the front and say that complies with the requirements. I mean, the math doesn't add up. Mr. Simpson also painted a very positive light about this temporary low water crossing that was granted not because of a desire, maybe ultimately, of a desire to provide something to the community, but because he needed construction access. From Old Higby Mill and Manowar, there was not a construction access through the neighborhood. His construction access came across the greenway. He built a low water crossing to accommodate that. And he built a haul road on the plans that EA partners did. It says haul road, H-A-U-L-R-O-A-D. Not a trail, not a shared use path. This was intended for construction. And so those intents got mixed up in this process. And Mr. Perry said, hey, we can use this low water crossing for the government's purpose. We can use this haul road for the government's purpose. But he didn't ask the government before he did those things, whether those were the things that met our needs. And they didn't. The haul road was built at a steep slope for trucks, not for pedestrians. And so I think we have to keep in mind some of the bigger picture here. The existing preliminary subdivision plan meets the needs of the community. It met the needs of the developer when he signed off on it. And yet six years later, he has changed his mind. And we're already 95% of the way down the road for the process here. And I don't think that's fair to ask the government to absorb the decisions of the applicant in the field to change plans. Thank you, Tracy. I'm going to bring us back to the commission. Just close this part out and have further comments or questions, concerns. The floor is open. We do know what staff is recommended here. We know what we have in front of us. We'll leave that out. Okay, I got two. Okay, Mr. Bole. I'm in total agreement with staff recommendation for disapproval. Okay, thank you. Mr. Kent. I didn't know the background of this at the subdivision committee. And we had some serious issues about this because we really don't like to go forward with a disapproval recommendation if the staff and the applicant could sit down and try to work it out. And it was obvious that that wasn't going to happen. They wanted to go forward with it. And so, you know, I think we've heard the fact today we'll have to vote to consider it. I hope we vote. Thank you. Anyone else? The floor is open for a motion. Yes, Mr. Folt. Move to disapprove PLNMJ SUB 21-3 Copper Creek subdivision. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion? We have a motion. Seeing none. All in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Mr. Nick, are you abstaining? Okay. Yes, abstain. All right. Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you, Alan. Next up, Page 4, PLN-MJDP-21-29. We do have revised conditions with recommendations of approval. Staff. Sorry. Oh, no, you're fine. Sorry, I had to find my cheat sheet. Yes, sir. just use this See. We have. There we go. Okay, this is MJDB. You don't want to project it. Oh, there's a slide check. Slide check. Okay. There we go. Sorry about that. This is MJDT 21-29, Hybwood Center, Block 21A, Walmart, amended. This is the Walmart on the north side of town. This is New Circle Road, Russell Cave. We have Boardwalk. And I can't see a plan. Oh, you can't see it? Hold on just a second. Okay. Okay, can you see it now? Yes, thank you. Okay, sorry about that. Not quite sure what happened here. Okay, this is New Circle Road, Russell Cave, we have Boardwalk, Park Place. This is our Walmart. We have McDonald's down here on the corner, several other outlots along the front. they are coming in to do an amendment to add additional square footage to do a pickup they're going to create towers to have your cars be able to drive through and pick up your goods from shopping since we've come to this new way of shopping with zinc since the pandemic We order everything online so that we can go through and pick this up. So with the revised conditions, they sent us in a revised plan. And as you know, at the subdivision committee meeting, we had 31 conditions and they did some cleanup. And so they now submitted the revised plan. I noticed that they also submitted some elevations here to show this being the front of Walmart and to show that this is the pickup area on the side. so with that you can see that on this set of revised conditions they were able to clean up a number of items and they were able to take that down to 19 conditions without reading through what what other cleanup conditions they still have to do but 11 of them are sign-offs so So they worked hard on trying to get this to us and get it cleaned up for us to review today. With that, I'll open it to the committee to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any questions for staff? I'm seeing any. Applicant? Mr. Carlson? Bean Carlson? Yes. There you go. Mr. Carlson, you've been admitted as a panelist? panelists, you can unmute yourself and start your video. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, sir. First, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'd like to thank the staff for working with us as well on the application to get this to the point where we are today. I believe that the staff has presented the plan, has presented the elevations. Certainly, I'd be open. This is a new concept in retail shopping that, as staff said, is what seems to be the trend in the days ahead. So Walmart is rolling this out on a number of stores across the country, and this store in Lexington has been selected for one of those. So I'd be happy to answer any questions about the operation or layout of the facility. And then when appropriate, I do have one question regarding the staff comments, the revised comments, so that we could get clarification on that. We can get you clarification right now. If we could, please, it's revised item number 18, document compliance with Article 12H for multimodal accommodations. And then with emphasis for the entire property. I'm assuming entire property means the entire property of our Walmart lot and not all the other individually owned lots within this development. Is that correct? Correct. The Walmart lot and whole. Right. All right. Very good. And I just wanted to clarify that because obviously there are a lot of other properties that were a part of this center, but are not under Walmart's control or ownership. So I wanted that clarification. Thank you. Yes. I'll just clarify one thing from Mr. Carlson. The idea in this zone is for there to be a single plan for a B6P zoned property that ties the anchor site to the outlaws. and allows for the multimodal for the entire site. It is for the entire B6P area. The expectation would be that you would be implementing that just for your property though. From understanding what you're saying, we would not be, you would not be looking for us to extend any multimodal access onto other people's property, but you could potentially be looking for us to extend it to those properties. Yes, or adjacent to. Thank you. Did that answer your question, Mr. Carson? Thank you. All right. No problem. Does any commission member have any questions? Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. I'm not seeing any. We'll bring this back to the commission, and the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Bell? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2129. I would center lot 2A with the 19 amended, 19 conditions as presented by, as presented. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Mr. Davis, any further discussion? Not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh. Put it on page six. No, excuse me. Did we skip the page 8, Trace? Is that development plan Beaumont Forest? Yes, that's where we need to go next. Okay. So we have PLN, MJDP, that's 21-16, Beaumont Forest, Unit 1, Lot 4B. And that's on our addendum. Yes. We have Tom's up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. You are correct. This is Major Development Plan 21-16, Beaumont Forest, Unit 1, Lot 4B. And here we are. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission, this is the amended final development plan that is before you today. This is a building, an existing building, a medical facility that exists back on Members Way, which is part of an office park off of Harrodsburg Road near Alexandria Drive. In this particular instance, this plan was filed with staff on April 2nd of this year as a major development plan. subsequently staff in its review made the determination that it could be a minor development plan and of course that's an expedited review we discussed it with the applicant and they agreed well things proceeded and when the plan was eventually submitted for certification staff discovered that there had been a miscommunication a misunderstanding of the scope of the changes on this plan. Now, the plan is adding the canopy, adjusting the parking. They are adjusting the existing access point. And these are all conditions that can be met, changes that can be met by a minor development plan. The issue that made it a major development plan was this new exit access point. And frankly, that just escaped staff's attention in the initial intake, nor was it really clearly stated in the purpose of amendments. So again, there was some confusion. And unfortunately, that was discovered at the time of certification. In discussing this with the applicant, because of the small nature of the changes, again, a canopy, slight revision to the parking and the function here. And again, a slight change in this access point. It was determined that it was best to bring it before this body today for your approval, because it does require planning commission approval when someone adds a new access point. So again, that's why it is before you today, why it is on your addendum. and with that you can see that staff is recommending approval subjects to six sign-offs and then one cleanup condition which is denote canopy height in feet and again as to make sure that our emergency vehicles can make clearly get through this area right here so there's a minimum requirement for that but again with that staff is that's it's kind of out of the normal process here but again that was due to that miscommunication as to whether it was a minor or a major plan and that is why we brought it before you today and staff is recommending approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? I'm not seeing any. African? good afternoon mr chair members of the committee um we appreciate you all taking the time to hear this plan and today sorry for the for the confusion um but um i don't really have anything to add to what Tom said, but we agree with the conditions that the staff provided. Just ask for your approval. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Not seeing any. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. All right, we'll bring it back to the commission. Close this part out and the floor is open for a motion. Yes, sir. Oh, Mr. Pohl got you. Go right ahead. Mr. Pohl. Move to approve PLN and MJDP 2116, Beaumont, student 1 lot 4 be amended with seven conditions over the seven conditions yeah all right thank you mr. poe and we have a seconded by mr. Davis any further discussion to that motion all in favor please raise your hand motion passes unanimously thank you Now we're on page six. Condition items, BOAR 2021, number two, Jessica and Gary Howe. Thank you very much. Prior to starting with this application, we do have several items that we do need entered into the record for this case. This is an appeal from the Board of Architectural Review to the Planning Commission. As such, you will find in your Google Drive and in your documents the H1 Historic Design Guidelines. Those are associated with, they are created and affirmed by the Historic Preservation Commission, and then they are acted upon and interpreted by the Board of Architectural Review. Additionally, we are entering into the record Article 13 of the LFUCG Zoning Ordinance. This is what establishes the historic preservation entity within our government and the oversight of historic preservation districts or H1 overlay districts. We do have three members of the historic preservation office staff on the call with us today. The director, Ms. Betty Kerr, and then our specialist and inspector, Barry Dennis and Amelia Armstrong. With that, I'll go ahead and start my presentation on this application. And we are starting with BOAR 2021-2. This is for the property located at 255 Delmar Avenue for Jessica and Gary Houck. I, I, the, the proposed change or the request for this BOAR appeal really centers on the retention of windows that have been installed or were installed in the, the front and one in the rear of a property using aluminum windows with glass between grids, or grids between glass, I apologize, guys, that were installed on the structure located within the Bell Court Historic Overlay Zone. The appeal today and the discussion will be a discussion of retaining the installed windows. On March 17, 2021, the BOAR disapproved a certificate of appropriateness for the subject property to replace the original wood windows with inconsistent muntin construction for that district. And I will go through the different elements of what the window construction is and how that plays in with the design guidelines. Just looking at the area that we'll be discussing today, it is in the Bell Court Historic Overlay or the H1 zone. It was established in 1990 with approximately 44 gross acres, 157 buildings, with a primarily focus on a Victorian and a queen-and-style. The property, as you can see, is located in the top of your screen right now. It is 255 Del Mar Avenue. It is actually located right at that intersection between Boomsboro Avenue and Del Mar. It has a very kind of large, slightly different shaped lot compared to what you're seeing for the rest of the area. What's interesting is it is also backing up to some B4 zoning. The primary zoning for this historic overview is R2, or the two-family residential zone, with smaller amounts of R3 and B1. So that R3, the planned neighborhood residential, and the B1, the neighborhood business zone. Getting just a closer view of the subject property, here it is from an aerial. Looking down the street towards the property, the property is actually just right here down at the end of the property. You can see one of our wonderful notification signs that you are entering into a historic district located right here. And then a zoom in on the property itself. So just a bit of history on the case. This is case number 05450255E. The owner purchased the property in November of 2020. In December of 2020, the owner contracted with a group to purchase and then install the windows for the property, done without a certificate of appropriateness. On On February 22nd, 2021, a stop work order was sent to the owners for the process of the modifications. Now, when reviewing the modifications for this, the initial issue was not just limited to the windows. It incorporated other aspects of the site, including the front door, some modification to the brickwork, as well as some modification to other windows. On March 1, 2021, the appellant applied for the Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the windows and the tuck point of the structure. March 17, the BOAR public hearing resulted in approval of a COA for a replacement of a door, utilizing the appropriate materials, and the disapproval of the COA for the window replacement. On April 14, 2021, an appeal was filed with the Division of Planning to hear this in front of the full planning commission. Just another note in association with the constitutionality and the purpose of historic districts, it's 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 the individuals may be restricted on some elements of what they are able to do on the exterior of a property, but gain the benefits of those restrictions from the surrounding properties. The restrictions provide construction consistency over time while respecting the historic character of the area and the preservation of historic structures. There is no distinction within Article 13 of the LFUCG zoning ordinance between those properties that have been identified as historically significant or contributing to a national register or national historic district, and those in a newer construction format. format. That is meant to provide that construction consistency and the high quality of building materials. For any property within an H-1 overlay or a historic district overlay zone, a certificate of appropriateness, the COA, is required prior to the initiation of any new construction on any exterior change to or the demolition of all or any part of any building structure or sign on the premises in an area protected by that H1 overlay. All applications are reviewed for their 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 portions of the structure and sought to achieve that COA following that citation of the HPO staff. So on March 17, 2021, the BOAR hearing was conducted. They sought to retain the replacement windows, which were completed without that COA, and to add a new door to the property. The appellant indicated that they were unaware that the property was within a historic district overlay zone, and that the modifications of the structure met the values associated with the historic district. The applicant also indicated at that hearing that they found that there were other instances of this type of window or similar type windows. The BOAR determined that the proposed change to the front door would be appropriate so long as the correct materials were utilized, but they did disapprove retaining the windows as they did not meet the design guidelines due to the fact that they shifted away from the original one-over-one construction of the window. shifting to a smaller top portion or top stash, and went to a three over one type construction with interior or grids between glass monthly. Again, we received, staff received the letter of appeal on behalf of the Planning Commission. The applicant, or the appellant, It stated that the BOAR erred in their disapproval of the COA, and their decision was incorrect as there were various examples of a similar type window in the neighborhood, and that the proposed replacements are cohesive to the neighborhood. Just taking a look at the historic windows, this gives you an idea of how the window kind of construction was for these bottom areas. This is based off of the PVA photo initially. So you can see with this window that you have a one over one double hung window and the apricot is seeking to go to a smaller top sash, three over one. And as you can see that the muntins or the pieces that divide the light or the glass portions that allow light into a structure are actually within or between the panes of glass. Within the construction of any window, these are a few just examples and an idea of the construction of windows. what we did see is that they are moving to a construction that is similar to this what we're seeing right here. Within the Pella website, this is the type of window that was utilized. The Pella website actually does talk about three different types of windows. In regard to the types of windows, the integral light technology grills are described as the most historically accurate, and they adhere to the exterior and interior face. These are a little bit closer to what is being asked for for a lot of what we're seeing with our historic neighborhoods. We do not allow for snap-ons, but it is clear that even the Pella website is distinguishing between things that are more historically accurate and more readily used in many historic districts across the United States compared to what was actually applied, which is the grills between the glass, which has those permanent aluminum grills that were factory installed between those glass paints. There is a third category, but again, that moves further and further away from a historical type or a more historically accurate type window. In review of the design principles associated with the design guidelines, we shift to the windows section of the design guidelines. It states explicitly that windows of baked enamel or anodized aluminum clad may be considered only if the original windows cannot be repaired. This goes to one of the elements of how this appellant had violated Article 13 of the zoning ordinance and the historic guidelines by not allowing for the review of the original wood windows and removing them without a COA. the applicant had moved forward and led to a bit of a modification of the structure that is not typically called for. Additionally, by not going through the proper review process, they were not given the information to adhere to the design principles in the greatest way possible. As seen in these four different aspects of Section 24, windows should be preserved and maintained in original materials and number of panes. That goes back to the fact that we are shifting from a one-over-one type construction to a three-over-one. Original framing of openings should be retained and maintained. If aluminum clad windows are applied, they should match the historic wood windows as closely as possible in their dimensions, profile, depth of muntins, and surrounding trim. This goes to the shift in the type of rhythm that is produced by the window that was added to the structure. The window replacements are meant to match the appropriate period wood styles, rails, and or muntin profiles. An insulated divided light window shell had an adhered muntin of wood or aluminum with dark non-metallic space bars. This system should not have muntin bars greater than 7-8 inch wide. So again, these are meant to be on the exterior of the window panes, not within the interior of the window panes, and are supposed to meet a similar type of width that is outlined within some of the criteria of the Bell Court Historic Neighborhood. Finally, window replacements should not have snap-on. Interior are flush muntins. Here we are dealing with interior muntins. These muntins are much thinner in profile than the muntins of a historic window and do not provide the opening with the appearance of a historic window. modifying that rhythm that is called for with any type of replacement and is quite important to the exterior appearance of historic structures. Within their argument, the appellant stated that the VOAR was incorrect, as there are various examples of similar type windows in the neighborhood, and that the proposed replacements are cohesive with the neighborhood. it. Article 13-5 really gets into the application of the need for a certificate of appropriateness, and this applicant did not adhere to that, which would have allowed them to match the appropriate style of windows. The design guidelines stress that the windows should be as close of a match with the historic wood windows as possible in their dimensions, and the depth of muntins and the surrounding trim should kind of match that style. And then the Board of Architectural Review made a determination based off of those guidelines, and which were applied to by the Historic Preservation Commission. Furthermore, if there are these exact same type windows, not just similar type windows, in which you're seeing the grids between glass, those windows were either applied to a property illegally or prior to the establishment of the historic district. The Board of Architectural Review is quite consistent with their rulings about the replacement of windows, the types of muntins, and the separation of light when we're looking at the sashes. So with staff's review of the appellant's letter of appeal, as well as the information that they have provided, staff can find no inconsistency with the design guidelines or a problem with the determination of the Board of Architectural Review's denial of the certificate of appropriateness. And this is consistent with past actions of the board. So therefore, staff recommends disapproval of this appeal and that the decision of the BOAR be upheld. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions associated with this appeal. And if you have any questions, also, we can direct those to Ms. Kerr, Ms. Armstrong, or Mr. Dennis. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Davis, is it your time? I just have a question for you as far as procedure is concerned. I have a material fact that I think I could contribute to the discussion as a real estate broker. is now an okay time for me to contribute that fact it's not a statement or opinion or a question it's just something relating to this property no let me get the applicant first yes sir and um because you don't have much time left right yes sir i'm gonna i'm gonna take this phone call real quick and then hop right back on okay all right thank you you'll be here thank you and sir before we jump to the applicant it might be appropriate to see if uh miss kerr uh has anything that she would like to add to the discussion or mr dennis um uh are you all hearing me yes okay i'm trying to get so that you're seeing me but it's saying that you all aren't letting me in to see but That's okay. It's fine not to see me. We're good. The only thing I would particularly note is, again, Mr. Bailey has made a very thorough and thoughtful presentation. And I think is very, very on target with his considerations that he has reflected. The thing I would note is when these people, when projects are done without going through the process in advance of the work being done, which of course is what's to be expected per the ordinance, it not only results in them doing work in violation but it results in the staff of historic preservation administering that program not getting the opportunity to evaluate the the windows in this instance that were removed whether they were original to the house or of considerable vintage whether they needed replacement whether they could have been worked with and retained in the house, which is, of course, the first charge of the historic district process is to keep the original elements and the historic elements when possible. And so it starts everything backwards because of that reality that the historic elements of the building have been removed and this replacement that Mr. Bailey has discussed very fully has come to exist before there's any communication to the process and the permitting piece. So it's an added complication, which I think would be apparent to all of you. The rest, I think Mr. Bailey has talked about very thoroughly and will just be available if there are questions. Ms. Armstrong has been the party of our staff handling this. And so if there are specific questions tied to she has some more photographs up closer of some of the windows and such, if you have questions. So probably for myself or Ms. Armstrong. And then Mr. Dennis is available for our next hearing matter coming up and when you're ready for that. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kerr. Okay. I think I will move on to the appellate right now. And that's Jessica and Gary Hauk. Okay. Good afternoon. I'm Jessica Huck. I'm the homeowner for 255 Delmar. So the windows that we chose were very characteristic for the neighborhood. There's at least six to eight houses with very similar windows and styles, and I do have pictures to show. And I do understand the problems with the inconsistencies with the brick mold and the grids between the glass. I've spoken with Pella and they said they can work with that. They can change the upper sash to the more historically accurate grids outside the pane that are built into the frame. And we can change the brick mold. And I think those are the two biggest violations. And so with those, I think that they would be more appropriate for the area. And that's something that we can work with Pella on doing. So that's what I would be able to do for the windows. Mr. Penn, you had a comment? I didn't know that was possible. Are you willing to do that? Oh, yeah, of course. I mean, you know, had I known this beforehand, I would have done this to start with and gone through the proper things, but I don't. So this is kind of what we can do with the existing windows and the most economically feasible way to address the matter as well. Okay, thank you. Great. Thank you. I guess that goes back to Ms. Kerr. on um i would remind everybody that the the scale of the windows aren't right um the upper sash is sort of betwixt in between it's not a one over one and it's not an upper third leaving a two-thirds ratio. It's kind of neither chicken or an egg. And so it isn't like the historic windows in the other properties. It's in the sort of concept, but the scale isn't properly done. So that's a problem. The achieving true divided light, um i imagine what they're thinking is gluing some sort of an exterior element uh on in lined up with that snap in mutton which probably will not be successful well they said they could they have a whole um they could just take that old window we could just replace the top piece so it's not a gluing it'd be a completely different top piece they could also replace it with just with no grids and i'm willing to do that too your vertical alignments are off in terms of the scale and i don't think the planning commission particularly wants to hear those nuances if you know the staff would have been glad to talk with you about those nuances prior to this meeting if you had come forward and said you'd like to make those adjustments we'd still be glad to hear those options and see what that might consist of but I don't know and I'm not speaking on behalf of the planning commission but making those solutions on the fly with all of us just talking over zoom really we need drawings we need details to to be able to have a legitimate review of what it is you're proposing to remedy the situation but you have a You have a core problem of your sash dimensions top and bottom not being proper. Your brick mold, you know, you've already eradicated the historic molding, wood moldings that formed the sides framing each of those windows. And so, again, just a repeat of what I've just said about how to, if you're thinking of trying to make an adjustment to come into compliance. we would need detail about how that would be accomplished and so I can't really just verbally hearing some and I'm not negating I think it's very good that you want to get to be in compliance but just verbalizing about it we can't really say oh that'll work fine we need to see the detail we had met over that meeting and then I was told it was disapproved and I needed to go through an appeal process and this was the appeal process that was offered to me And so this is what I've taken. And I've spoken with Amelia throughout this process. And she is, we've talked to this before even the initial meeting. But unfortunately, during that meeting, I wasn't even given the opportunity to even suggest these things. It was just disapproved. And so this was, I was told was the next step. And this is the next step that I took. Okay. I hear you. And Amelia, do you have any insights or response that you feel you would like to add for the record? I would just say per your discussion about the sashes, you know, we, you know, you talked, we were talking to Pella and you hadn't articulated that. Miss Howck and I did talk about specifically the brick mold and she and I had had discussed and I talked with the installer too about the fact of being able, not knowing, not being able to use the extruded brick mold that comes with the sash but actually milling new brick mold and that's consistently what we've always talked about and I see Mr. Nickel not intent on that that he knows that we've consistently always asked that the brick mold be milled and Ms. Halk and I had discussed that so I think the brick mold has been settled so to speak with knowing details still need to come back with that and then per the sashes i think um we talked to miss halk and i've worked through many different issues on this house and one of the issues that did not come up is um the fact of um about what can occur with that the the sash dimensions session mentions are the one-third two-third however um they are replacing the the sash that is one over one that has an even balance on the house um and i think um one of the things that she said that she was trying to meet is the fact that the door system that would be installed will have a civil middle meeting they will have um a single door with um transoms on both sides and and what she was trying to do is have the transom or the side light members have the same dimension as the windows. So is what she was talking about, if that makes sense. And, but we had not talked about the windows because I think she was still appealing. I was under the impression she was still trying to retain the windows as she installed them to where they are now. And Mr. Chair, if I may, just very quickly, this is an appeal of the current of what the BOAR made their determination on. So I want to keep our focus on if the BOAR erred in decision and if that error led to the disapproval of a COA rather than a discussion of what can be changed on the property. If this were to be disapproved here today, the appellant would be able to go back to the historic preservation office staff and try to work through some of these solutions at a later time. Yes. Hal, thank you for that. Bruce? Hal, thank you very much for that. I mean, if the decision has to be made on whether the BOAR is correct or not, I'm going to decide that the BRA is correct. I mean, BOAR is definitely correct. but for the homeowner there's a lot of things you can do to eliminate the need to remove the windows and reinstall them you've got frames that are good the installation you've already paid for is good you can remove the sash and achieve what Amelia and Miss Kerr what they need to do so you're not at a full loss but the BAR is 100% right and you all can go figure it out I guarantee that you can solve the solution will be painful but not as painful as you're thinking with milled brick mold and swap the sash out based on hell's uh recent comments uh you'd like to close this part out and open the floor up for a motion well he left came back he's back oh he's back oh okay hey zach I'm easily missed. The fact that I just wanted to point out is I pulled the listing on the multiple listing service, and this was sold in October of 2020. And on the listing itself, which was public, the H1 status is disclosed in the marketing remarks. and then I also hold the seller's disclosure of property condition form and on our seller's disclosure of property condition form in the Commonwealth of Kentucky it asks is this property in a historic district and it was disclosed yes this is in a historic district. Okay that's good thank you Zach appreciate that really good information okay my comment still stands the floor is open for a motion Mr. Nichols. I'd like to make a motion and then a comment, or maybe a comment, actually a comment first and a motion. I think what our parliamentarian brought up is a great fact that we need to know about. If these things come to us and the disclosure statement says and it's signed upon that it's disclosing it's in an H1 overlay, this probably shouldn't come to us. but with that said I'm going to recommend disapproval for BOAR 2021-2 Jessica and Gary Howe per the reasons stated by staff and the BOAR I have a motion seconded by Mr. Pohl any further discussion I got you Grant any further discussion to that motion all in favor please raise your hand okay motion passes and zach i'm going to abstain as i miss the discussion yes thank you okay so miss how it looks like you'll be able to get back with miss curry miss armstrong while working out some details sounds good thank you thank you All right. Next up, BOAR 2021-3, Ray Perry. Very much, sir. I'm going ahead and sharing my screen again. As per the last case, we do need to go through the percutory kind of addition of some of the elements to the record. I do have the H-1 design guidelines entered, as well as Article 13. The applicant has provided their letter of appeal. The Historic Preservation Office staff has also provided all of their information from the case associated with this, as well as draft minutes for this hearing. So this is a BOAR 2021-3. This is Kimberly and Ray Perry's property. The discussion today is focused on the property located at 347 Oldham Avenue. This is within the Ailsford Historic H1 Overlay Zone. The proposed change initially was to retain the vinyl siding that was installed in the structure located within the Historic Overlay Zone. They are seeking to retain that installed vinyl siding. The BOAR disapproved the certificate of appropriateness requested on the April 21st, 2021 for the subject property and that siding. um just to jump in and give you an idea of what we're talking about where we're talking about this is the Ailsford Historic Overlay H1 it's this portion out here not counting Woodland Triangle we are taking this portion out right here Oldham Avenue is located right here uh and it is situated between East High Street and Euclid Avenue uh there are there are approximately 153 gross acres one of our larger historic districts. It contains approximately 640 properties and various forms of housing, primarily dating from the late 19th century to the early 20th century. The property that we are specifically talking about is located right here at 347 Oldham Avenue. The subject area is a blend of residential, professional office, and business land uses, with its primarily being R3 or our planned neighborhood residential into our two-family residential. This specific property is a little bit different as it is the R1E zone, which is a single-family detached, our smallest single-family detached zone, and it abuts R3 or planned neighborhood residential zoning. Getting into the specifics of the property, we are looking down at the property, the aerial here, Oldham Avenue, it's about 5th block. Looking down Oldham towards Euclid, this is actually just right at the corner of East High Street, and then looking at the property itself prior to the application of the vinyl siding. Per all applications, I do like to talk about just the average reciprocity or the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens and the average reciprocity of advantage. We did hear that with the last case in which the historic character is meant to be preserved, but the limitations on specific properties are meant to provide construction consistency and historic preservation throughout the area. As with all applications, to modify the exterior of a structure, an applicant would have to go through the review with the Board of Architectural Review to obtain a certificate of appropriateness. In this case, the applicant did not receive a COA prior to installing the vinyl siding and sought a COA for that application following a letter of notification that was provided by the HPO staff. And one element of this that will come up in a little bit, as you can see from the exterior of the structure, there is a shingle type siding that was applied. This is in fact asbestos siding. This type of siding was in heavy use in the 1950s and 60s, even though it dates all the way back to the late 1870s, 1800s. However, it is still apparent on many different structures throughout Lexington and throughout the United States. The use of asbestos siding has fallen off dramatically. It started its drop off in the late 1960s because there was a fair amount of medical research that tied it to lung cancer and lung difficulties, as well as some other lung issues. So this has really fallen out over time. By the time you hit the late 1980s into the 1990s, it pretty much falls out of favor and is excluded from use for siding nowadays associated with the federal act. The owner purchased the property in November of 2020. There is going to be a significant amount of discussion, and you can see within your packet that the owner was not notified as to the historic designation of the property. Staff recommends that an owner always seek to look for this information on their own. But in this case, the applicant did or the appellant did seek out the information. They were not provided the information by their professional that they were working with. However, with all types of zoning issues, it does fall upon the owner to understand the restrictions of their property. And that includes zoning issues, which an H1 overlay is a zoning category. So in December 2020, the owner contracts to install vinyl siding to encase the asbestos siding without a COA. They were advised by members of the state to go ahead and encase the asbestos siding so that they could deal with some of the health and safety impacts of that. I will stress that encasing in vinyl siding is just one way of dealing with asbestos siding. And I think when dealing with this, it is actually discussed within the design guidelines of how to properly dispose of or replace any type of asbestos siding rather than utilize vinyl side. I'll get into that in just a couple of minutes. On February 26, 2021, a notification was sent to the owners regarding the property's location within the H-1 overlay and that the work that was completed without the COA would need to go forward to the HPO staff and then to the BOAR for review. The applicant subsequently filed the COA request seeking to keep the applied vinyl siding. On April 21st, 2021, the BOAR held their public hearing, resulting in the disapproval of the COA for the vinyl siding. On May 5th, the planning staff received on behalf of the planning commission the appeal that was filed by the appellant. I this just reviews that April 2021 or 21st 2020 BOAR hearing the appellant indicated that they were not aware or that they were unaware that the property was within the H1 overlay zone that the modifications of the structure met the values associated with the historic district and the encasing of the asbestos siding was a safety issue the BOAR determined that the proposed change to the siding was not appropriate as the use of vinyl is prohibited within the design guidelines. We did receive that May 5th letter of appeal upon your court. This case, the applicant indicates or the appellant indicates that the BOAR was incorrect as there are various examples of similar type siding in the neighborhood and that removing the siding would result in potential environmental issues. Just looking at the property, in the top right, you see that picture that shows the house in its more original form. In all likelihood, the vinyl or the asbestos siding was applied later in time than the construction. However, as you can see in the left-hand photo, that vinyl has been applied. The appellant is still working with HPO staff on other elements of this structure, especially the exterior portions of the structure. On the bottom right, you get a bit of a view of the houses that are lined along this street. They are all the one to one and a half story structures, all of similar size, and all are very representative of the construction of this portion of the substitution. Vinyl siding is actually called out specifically in the siding section. It is called out in other areas, specifically the architectural details and features area. But within the design principle for siding, exterior siding materials such as wood are really the wood clackard, wood shingles, and board and batten cladding are the really go-to types of design features or the type of materials utilized for the exterior siding of a structure. and the defined of buildings architectural character. Covering any siding with vinyl, aluminum, or other synthetic sidings is not allowed as these sidings are inappropriate and frequently result in damage to the existing structure. This is associated largely with the, some of the water issues that can occur when you have those types of siding on a building. Much of the time, the vinyl or aluminum synthetic sidings will hide internal issues on a structure and result in major structural damage to the historic structures. When replacement is necessary, there is a focus on in-kind recommendations to match the existing dimensions and profile. And then hardy boards, cementous board may be considered if total replacement is necessary. Getting into the specific aspects of siding with asbestos, the siding of aluminum, asbestos, and vinyl are not compatible materials to historic buildings. Their removal and the rehabilitation of original wood siding is highly encouraged. But this goes back to the need for a review often when looking at any historic structure. In the next section, it does say that siding of synthetic or substitute materials such as vinyl or aluminum over original wood is not appropriate and is not allowed. So the focus on vinyl, synthetic, or substitute materials is somewhat highlighted within the design guidelines in that it is prohibited from use, specifically with the siding of the original structures. Finally, architectural details and features goes into another section as to they should not be utilized, vinyl or aluminum or other synthetic or artificial setting should not cover original features. features. So that gets into a bit of those principles within the design guidelines. The appellant does, makes the argument that the VOAR was incorrect as there are various examples of similar type siding in the neighborhood and that removing the siding would result in potential environmental issues. So the removing of the siding with creating other environmental issues creates some sort of kind of backlog in how things are done. The argument suggests that once an impact is made to a structure, there's no remedy but to allow that violation to occur against the requirements of design guidelines and in violation of Article 13 of the zoning ordinance. There are ways for this siding to be replaced and meet the design guidelines and meet Article 13 of the zoning ordinance. There are also alternative, as I said, there are also alternative solutions to encase or remove that siding. Finally, the potential examples of applied vinyl siding, they were either done illegally or in violation of the zoning ordinance and the design guidelines, or they were applied to the exterior of a structure prior to the establishment of a historic overlay. This is a later overlay. It's not our newest, but this was established in 1998, following a period in which vinyl siding was utilized throughout the United States, but most definitely in Lexington. I will also point out that for some of these vinyl siding aspects, there is that real strong tie to it not being appropriate for some of these areas. And in cases in which it has been done in violation to the zoning ordinance, any referral or statement that something has been applied illegally would result in government action against someone who, or if there's any evidence provided that shows that someone has done this against the Article 13 or the design guidelines, it is incumbent upon the government to then seek to rectify that situation. Because of much of the discussion that was had and because that the vinyl siding is prohibited rather than not suggested, staff could not find any error in the decision of the BOAR. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission uphold the decision that was made by the BOAR, and that those determinations of appropriateness were made based on the design guidelines and established by the local Historic Preservation Commission. On that, I'll go ahead and stop sharing. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them now, or you can turn it over to Ms. Kerr or Mr. Dennis. and Mr. Forrester I'm sorry you're muted right now sir thank you Mr. Bailey any questions for staff okay Ms. Kirk do you would like to add yes the only broad comment I would make at this time and again thank you to Mr. Bailey for his very thorough report, is on the, is what one of the things that he wound up with, which is the issue about that other properties within the Aylesford neighborhood, there are examples who do have vinyl siding as their existing condition, and I just wanted to note that with that 1998 designation of the Aylesford area as a local historic district h1 um that following that so anything that has had vinyl on it at that time of course had the right to in a grandfathered in situation retain their existing condition on uh to the future so some of those are still on some of those vinyl sidings are still on when the time comes that those vinyl clad houses that did exist with it as early as 1998 and before need to be repaired and recited they will not be um probably going to be able to put vinyl uh because now vinyl is just flat prohibited so the you can repair a little bit of a vinyl situation where you just need a foot here and such there but uh because it is at since it was an existing situation prior to the h1 but you cannot install vinyl anew on any of the historic properties and so it's been very consistently enforced and the board's actions reflecting that philosophy and that uh not being allowed has been very consistently honored by the board in their actions. So that was just the broad sweeping. And then Mr. Dennis and I are both available if you have questions. Thank you, Ms. Kerr. So we'll move over to the appellant, Kimberly and Ray Perry. thank you mr chair and members of the committee can you hear me yes okay yes so my husband and i purchased this home like mr bailey said in november of 2020 um for our son to attend school we secured a real estate agent in Lexington, Mr. Jared Brady. We live in Franklin County. We are not familiar with property in Fayette County. So we relied on Mr. Jared Brady to assist us in purchasing this piece of property. During this transaction, we were misled. since this transaction, we have filed a complaint with the Real Estate Commission. I did speak with the general counsel of the Real Estate Commission today, John Hardesty. I have his phone number. You're welcome to call him. He did indicate to me that our real estate agent was misleading, there was misconduct, and that there will be violations against our real estate agent because he did not disclose that this property was in an H1 and that there were restrictions. And so we did not have any knowledge that this property was in a historic district. Had we known, we would not have purchased this property. When we purchased the property, yes, we put vinyl siding on the outside of it. When we were informed that we were not allowed to do that, we immediately stopped. I contacted Amelia first to meet us on property. She was not able to come. So Mr. Barry Dennis met us on the property. We asked him, what do we need to do to comply? And he explained the process. We immediately did what we needed to do. We had ordered vinyl windows and we had ordered a vinyl front porch. We immediately returned those products because they were not going to comply with what you all wanted us to do. Since then, we have complied. We did the certificate of appropriateness and ordered the proper windows. And we did the porch, which was in the picture that Mr. Bailey showed that did seek the approval by the architecture board. In this letter that you all have sent me on your comprehensive plan, I would just like to point out a few things. The comprehensive plan mission states that in your mission you will provide a flexible yet focused planning guidance to assure equitable development of the community's resource and infrastructure that enhances our quality of life and fosters regional planning and economic development. development. The plan's mission statement notes that this will be accomplished while protecting the environment. You heard him, Mr. Bailey, talk a lot about the asbestos. That's what I was trying to do, was protect the environment because the outside of this home is covered in asbestos. Our home inspector said that we needed to do something with it immediately. It was extremely friable. It was crumbling off the sides. I have pictures from my home inspector that showed that it was very damaged. I provided letters from asbestos experts that said something needed to be done. I provided a letter from a certified asbestos inspector that said now that we have put the vinyl encasing on it, that we should not disturb the asbestos containing material now. We should leave it alone. Equitable to me means that other homes in that neighborhood have vinyl on it. So if they can have vinyl, I don't know why we can't have vinyl. In fact, the home next door has yellow vinyl on it, and it's brand new. On page two of the letter that you sent me, it does talk about several modifications being an environmental hazard. Well, I'm going to cause another environmental hazard if I'm required to remove the siding that's on there now. Not only am I going to remove the vinyl siding, I'm going to disturb the asbestos. And now this vinyl siding is going to go to your landfill. I did rely upon my real estate agent. and it says on in the paragraph two three four five paragraph five you say the ultimate responsibility regarding and understanding the zoning of property falls on the potential of the owner i disagree with that i was relying on the professional of my real estate agent to guide me and the purchase of this property. I was a real estate agent and that was my due diligence to help people purchase homes. And if I didn't know the answer to a question when asked, I did not answer it. He admitted that he should have looked at the planning and zoning and that he should have known to tell me that or tell us that. And he didn't. um i just want to know what legal support that i would have why would i have you not used a real estate agent um i'm going to turn it over to my husband now we submitted a photograph i submitted a photograph this morning and if you all could pull the photographs up that you had earlier. First off, Mr. Bailey, the first photo you pulled up, if you could pull that up again of the front of our house, is that possible? Yes, sir, I can do that for you. Yeah, thank you. Bear with me for just a second. Okay, thank you. Is this the one that you were looking for? Would you like the three photos? Well, I can't. Keep going. Okay. So if you look at our house right there and you look at the house to the right, that is yellow, new, vinyl. and look at the top corner up there that is blue wood and when the inspector came out he told me I asked him why are all these vinyl and he said they were grandfathered in that's in my contractor I've had two different contractors point out the vinyl is that vinyl is not as old as 1998 so I did some research and I did discover a photo that was date stamp 2012 with the vinyl siding right next door um so you know that I guess we're being singled out here on this but yeah I feel like we're being discriminated on it um another thing Mr. Bailey for the person before us that went up the lady with the window issue you pointed out the sign that showed the historic district and when we first contacted the historic they said well there's signs posted well i drove all over the street couldn't find the sign and you know i don't know if you drove through this area but there's college kids everywhere so i don't and it's really narrow streets with cars so I don't typically drive around looking at telephone poles for signs, but we did actually finally find the sign, and it's at the very end of the street where it intersects with Euclid, attached to the back end of the telephone pole. So the only way you can see it going down the one-way street is to get past it and turn around and look and see it. And I've got a picture of that too. um again going back to our real estate agent and we would have never done any of this work we would have never even purchased the house if we had known it was in a historic district because we're in frankfurt and i know some people that you know said it's a nightmare so i had no idea what it would be like in lexington i just figured it probably just bad so we wouldn't have done it or we would have done more, but we would have never purchased the house knowing it was in a historic district and then did a bunch of work and not, you know, went to the board first. We would just, we're not that type of people. And the moment we found out, we stopped and sent back the material that we could. But it's, we're at this point now, and it's just been nothing but a nightmare to us, to be honest with you. and our realtor not only it wasn't on the disclosure he never gave us his seller's disclosure period when we asked and i asked on that front porch are you sure this is not in a historic district in his exact words where that's the beauty of this location this street it's not historic district so that's this is where we're at so we did what we took the realtor at his word and then we got the experts on how to handle the asbestos we moved forward and here we are and then we're looking you know when he's telling me you know this i'm looking at the house right next door to me the exact house next door with vinyl so this is where we're at We respectfully request the retention of this final. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any commission members would like to have any further discussions with the appellants at this time? Yeah, I would. Okay, Mr. Penn. uh miss perry i'd like to ask you on this on this asbestos siding it's your testimony that putting vial on it is the safest thing you can do right now because you can't remove it well of course so i went to a certified asbestos inspector I even called EPA and I explained the situation and they both said since it's on there now the best thing to do is do not disturb it because once you disturb it you're making it more friable and it's already damaged um before we even touched it it was in terrible shape it was crumbling off the house to begin with and once you start nailing in it sawing in it cutting in it it becomes airborne and friable and they said the less you disturb it the less you touch it the better off it is so that that's your position of why when you bought the house did you know it was asbestos that was on the house yes sir i did yes that's fine thank you thank you further questions um we just bring this back to the commission again i was going to ask uh well i know mr curry spoke mr dennis i apologize got nudged here do you want to add anything are you okay with what's already been presented Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. I would just like to point out that the EPA, their first recommendation is to use a heavy coat of paint on asbestos before it's removed. Ms. Perry is absolutely correct that nailing and cutting the asbestos releases fibers. Those fibers are many times smaller than human hairs. So in placing the vinyl onto the asbestos siding, that required multiple screws or nails that crack the asbestos even more, which now that those asbestos fibers being so much smaller than human hairs will be sifting down out of from behind the siding and being carried by the wind, the rain into other locations. And as Mr. Bailey mentioned earlier, because you have gone in violation of the guidelines and you don't feel like there is a reason or you feel like that because it's going to make it worse does not relieve citizens from contacting HP and following those guidelines. And I think that would be all I have to say on the matter. Thank you, Mr. Dennis. Mr. Nichol, you had your hand raised. Yes. Hal, can you make that statement you made on the first case defining the decision we are tasked with making right now? The decision that you're tasked with making right now is if the BOAR erred in their decision. In this case, the appellant is stating that the BOAR was not properly able to judge this because the asbestos siding and because the environmental factors of it and erred in their decision by stating that the vinyl needed to be removed. It is staff's perspective that in this case, it was applied without a certificate of appropriateness. And unfortunately, it is prohibited within the zone to utilize the final side. so um i would just like to point out that if it is we are going to have to remove this siding it is disturbed like mr dennis said it's got more holes in it it is more friable and we will not be able to afford to repair or replace it now and it's going to pose more of a hazard now and not to mention that all of this brand new siding is going to have to go to your landfill in Fayette County which I think contradicts your mission of trying to protect your environment. It's what I was trying to do. I was trying to protect your environment by encasing this asbestos containing and had I known this was in a historic district, I would not one have purchased the house. And now that I know, I am complying with your requirements of what you want me to do by using your appropriate windows, by doing your front porch. I'm not trying to get away with anything. I understand your guidelines. I respect that. I'm not. I'm not one of those people to do that. I did not know. Thank you, Ms. Perry. Ms. Kerr, I have a question for you, if I may. What can they do with the investors right now? What should they do, I guess, would be best. What should they do? I think in light of where the situation is, that the solution has to include removal of the vinyl and removal of the asbestos within the parameters of appropriately handling the removal of that asbestos environmentally healthy manner. And that certainly removal of that asbestos was an option before covering it with anything is to appropriately within the criteria for handling asbestos removal to be done. Particularly hearing that the property owners say the asbestos was already in really rough shape before they covered it with the vinyl, it would have been a full consideration to go ahead and remove that asbestos in the first place and not just cover it over with something like that. So I think alternatives that result in the removal of both products are probably necessary. And then recladding the house in either wood siding or a hardy plank siding that would be within the design guidelines would need to be the finished outcome. We cannot afford that. So would you just remove the vinyl and leave it as best as like it was? I'm not. I would say I don't believe that's an option because the probably I'm going to guess that the condition of the asbestos is no longer viable as a cladding material on the exterior of a frame house. in light of what's gone on, both its own deterioration and the methodology probably necessary to put the vinyl on top of it. Just pulling the vinyl off, I don't think you'll have a viable exterior cladding on that house is my guess, but I'm not privy to the details of that, not having seen what was done to install the vinyl and what that did to the existing condition of the house at that time. And it's siding material that is asbestos. Well, I would like to make the comment that the house was wrapped in a foam-like material before the vinyl was placed on. That's to address Mr. Dennis's comments earlier. of it being carried by the wind underneath the vinyl, that it's got a foam wrap underneath the vinyl. There again, you know, we find ourselves in the position of we thought we were doing everything right, and we've got experts in asbestos, top experts in the state, that tell us to leave it on. But, you know. Thank you. I'm going to bring this back to the commission. I'll close this piece out and ask for further discussions. The floor is open. Mr. Nichol? Yeah, my comment is these are just multiple unfortunate situations, but if I'm tasked to make a decision based upon whether it was appropriate or not for the BOR to make the decision, I'm going to say that I would like to uphold their decision. But then again, there's got to be something in between this appeal to us for hours and hours and hours and the initial decision that something's inappropriate. I feel like there needs to be like another committee or something that can, or subcommittee that can find solutions on this kind of stuff. But if I'm having to vote on whether or not I think the BOA might have the right decision, I would say yes. Therefore, I'm going to recommend disapproval of BOAR 2021-3, Ray Perry, per the BOAR's recommendation. can we have some more discussion before motion yes i was going to ask after that motion yeah sorry thank you now we have uh mr bell and then next mr davis yeah i i'd just like to hear from mr davis if we may davis uh mr mrs perry i'm so terribly sorry that you have found yourself in this situation um in i'm a real estate broker and in the commonwealth of kentucky whenever a residence or an apartment or anything that is intended for human occupation as a resident is sold, the state will mean that a seller's disclosure form be completed or a seller reject completing that in writing, which they have the right to do. I'm very sorry that that form was never requested of the seller because, again, it does ask if the property is in a historic district on that form and that seller if they were aware of it they would have had to say yes it is it it was it was requested we requested it yes sir we did um we have text messages um the very first night that we looked at the home i asked mr brady our agent i said i want a seller's disclosure and he said well it's a for sale by owner and he said i said that's okay i still want one and he said well he'll probably just check all no's and i said i still want one and so they exchanged a text message on that but i never got one yeah and he said because the the seller just bought it to flip it. They had never lived there. Then he wouldn't know any of this. And we said, we still want one. But you never received one? Never received one. And the real estate commission knows this. So you never received one, but you chose to close anyways. Well, yes, sir, we did. What happened was my mother died. And so I was in a totally different state of mind and the home purchasing this home was not on my mind at the time. I was doing it. I didn't know, you know, he was doing it and he wasn't paying attention. But then the real estate agent verbally, two different occasions, said this is not in a historic district. It wasn't I don't know, which is what he claimed later. It was this is not in a historic district. Thank you. As far as parliamentary or as the rules go, we're just we're not having we shouldn't be discussing back and forth right now. So I'm just going to continue with my thoughts. Okay. I'm terribly sorry for your loss. And I understand how grief can affect the clearness of your mind. Right. Ms. Perry, you said, again, this is just me making a statement to the commission. You said that you had a real estate license at one point. Yes. And so therefore, you're unlike a member of the public, you by default, having had a license, you have a little more knowledge of how these things should work than an average buyer. Even though you're not currently licensed, you did have a license. I'm very concerned. I always tell my clients, I believe the answer is this, but don't take my word for it. I'm sorry you broke up we can't talk to the applicant appellant right now I'll close that part out so we can't have a conversation it's just the commission just your thoughts yes I always tell my clients I believe the answer is X, Y, Z but don't take my word for it You always, we as realtors are not to be the source of information, but we are to be the source of the source. If I have a planning question from a client, I tell them to call my friends down at the planning office and ask, go directly to the source. Within the Kentucky Real Estate Commission, within the Lexington Bluegrass Association of Realtors, within the Kentucky Association of Realtors, There are processes for members of the public to file a complaint. There are bodies that will judge those complaints. And if a complaint is found, if violation occurred, there is a process for remedy, penalty, et cetera. My thoughts are very similar to Mr. Nichols. I think BOAR, as far as the letter of the law and really even the spirit of the law, I think they made the right decision. it's it's a it's like a root canal you hate to do it but you know you have to so I'm sorry if your agent was deficient I there is no excuse for that but where we are in this situation now this body is going to have to make a decision based on the law and based on equity and based on precedent and because of that i will be supporting mr nichols motion thank you thank you zach yes sir anyone else thank you too zach okay so mr nichols there was a motion for this approval um that motion is still awaiting a second unless there's further discussion If there's no further discussion, I'll second. Mr. Penn has his hand raised. Zach, go ahead and make your second and I'd like to make a comment. Second. All right, I got a motion and a second by Mr. Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? Yeah, I've got a comment. Okay, Mr. Penn. What my concern here is, is that two or three wrongs are making a right here. I don't know how you solve this situation, but whether we uphold the BOAR or we don't uphold the BAR, and I'm tending to uphold them on this, there still has to be a solution. And so before I vote on this, I'd like to know that the professionals, Ms. Kerr, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Dennis, will try to work something out that there's a solution to this problem. Tearing asbestos off the house, I'm just making a comment. I'm not asking for rebuttal. tearing this asbestos off this house is a very risky and expensive proposition and so i don't know whether you can bend the rules enough to help them do that or not but the letter of the law and the right thing to do sometimes has to have a compromise between the two things i would hope that you all could work something out there the motion's on the floor it's been seconded i'm going to uphold the uh uphold the bill ars uh request or I'm not going to deny it. But my question is, is that doesn't solve the problem. That is puts the problem back in both your all's courts. And I would hope that you'd work something out that would be equitable and work to both sides. Mr. Poe? Graham? Yeah. I, you know, I feel the same way as the other commission members who've spoken. I will say that the applicant has clarified that there's a layer of insulating foam underneath the vinyl, which gives you an opportunity to remove the vinyl and then replace it with another siding without actually getting down into the layer of the asbestos. So I think there may be a pretty reasonable solution without disturbing the asbestos. I will say, I would like to add, this is a little bit of anecdotal perhaps, but you know, I did spend my entire career working on many, many historic homes. And I actually owned a home. My first home was almost directly across the street from the house that we're talking about. And it still has asbestos siding on it. And I did a lot of work on that house and did a lot of work with the asbestos siding to replace pieces that were broken and to keep it looking right. And I think that there is in my, this is my personal opinion, there is a lot of hand wringing about asbestos that is overzealous, it's unnecessary. The reality is that for asbestos to become friable takes a lot of disturbance. And it's really not at all dangerous if it's not friable. And in fact, if you were to remove those shingles from the house and put them out and double bag them and put them on the curb, the city would take them to the landfill and land from like anything else. So that gives you a clue. So I just wanted to state that just mostly for the other commission members. So if we get into this again, there's a little bit more information about that particular issue out there. So that's all. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Can I say one more thing? I'm thinking... Oh, no, sir, Mr. Perry. No, sir, we're in our voting. I apologize. Oh, okay. I'm just going to say we work with you. No, no, I'm sorry about that. So we have a motion and a seconded by Mr. Davis. any further discussion to that motion all in favor please raise your hand motion motion any opposed okay we have one opposed two who's the other Graham. Graham, you opposed? No, he held his hand up longer. It was just Mr. Bell. Motion passes for the disapproval as presented by BOAR. This is definitely a difficult situation for us to be in today. I agree with my fellow commission members. I'm not going to echo anything. It's just if there could be a better process, it would be greatly appreciated. Mr. Chair? Yes. Speaking of the process, for any application that you all hear after you've rendered a decision, the manner in which an alternate solution is found that will bring whatever has been gone on and problems into compliance is, if possible, approved by the staff in working with the property owners. And if the solution is not something can be approved by the historic preservation staff, it goes to the BOAR for that solution to be worked out. So there is a methodology and mechanism for having a successful next stage of these things to bring culmination that is successful, hopefully, for all parties involved and still upholds the criteria the LFUCG processes call for. So that will occur on both the matters that have been before you today and any matters in the future. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I commend you for it because I don't know if I can do that all the time. It's sometimes very challenging but the reward is to get everybody helped and get things worked out and move forward. We thank you. We appreciate that explanation, Ms. Kerr. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Bell and all of you members of the Commission. Okay, so next up on the Commission Thank you. Thank you. Election of officers. We have the current The parliamentarian Bill Wilson, Secretary Carolyn Plumlee, Vice Chair Frank Penn, Chair Larry Forster. The nominated committee recommended the parliamentarian Zach Davis, Secretary Janice Meyer, Vice Chair Frank Penn, and Chair Larry Forster. So we will need a motion. Mr. Bell? Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I think that was a great slate. and I recommend approval of that slate. Well done. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Seconded by Mr. Cole. Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. We've got two hands by Mr. Nickel. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Okay, now there's item D, delegation of secretary duties? Yeah. Is that a stamp? Well, no, the planning commission. Yeah, okay. Yeah, Ms. Meyer wants you to do that, I'm sure, because otherwise she'll be taking minutes and signing plans and plans every day of the week. Ms. Meyer makes that motion. Delegate the duty. Okay. Hey, I'm not saying anything. We got a motion. Without further ado. All in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you. I think Mr. Duncan is here as well. Is he still there? There you go. Mr. Chair, good afternoon. Thank you all for sticking with us again and for all your work on this. We do appreciate your attention and the effort that you put into these very challenging decisions. I wanted to bring a couple of things to your attention. Number one is that the approved meeting and filing schedule has us scheduled for a work session next Thursday, July the 15th. However, we would like to recommend that we cancel that meeting and come back to you at our other scheduled work session for the month, which is on July 29th. I noticed on your agenda that that July 29th meeting is not listed, but it is on the approved meeting and filing schedule. So we recommend, Mr. Chair, that you all cancel the meeting next week. We will be meeting no motion needed for the July 29th work session. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Bell? I move for canceling next week's work session. Got a motion? Second? I'll second. Second by Mr. Penn real fast. He doesn't want to chair next week. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then so our next meeting with you all will be on Thursday, July the 22nd, our zoning hearing for the month of July. And that, we believe, will be our last Zoom meeting with you. So that the next week at the July 29th work session, we will be in the Phoenix building. And then starting in August with your subdivision meeting, we will be back in the council chamber. So looking forward to seeing you all in person real soon. And you have just lost your quorum, Mr. vice chair so i guess either the meeting is suspended and oh there he comes back okay yes i'm gonna get ready to adjourn the meeting i'll just hand him a pen off there jim okay good let me sit right here take a knee with frank okay this meeting is now adjourned Thank you.