# Planning Commission Zoning Items - July 24, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · July 24, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6496 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6496?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-07-24 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 1, 2026 - **Length**: 16,170 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on July 24, 2025, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting was presided over by Zach Davis. The Commission worked through four agenda items, taking 4 votes and hearing 1 public comment over the course of the session. Of the four agenda items considered, two were approved, one was postponed, and one was denied. The Commission approved the minutes from a prior meeting and also approved the initiation of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. A zoning map amendment request from Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC was postponed, while an appeal brought by Olivia Rockaway was denied. No presentations are reflected in the meeting record. ## Attendance The following commissioners were recorded for the July 24, 2025 Commission meeting. **Present (7):** Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, Mike Owens, Larry Forester, Frank Penn, Bruce Nicol, and Judy Worth. **Absent (4):** Johnathon Davis, Molly Davis, Robin Michler, and Bill Wilson. No commissioners were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took four formal votes during the July 24, 2025 meeting. - **Approval of May 22, 2025 Meeting Minutes** [timestamp: 0:13:33]: Motioned by Larry Forester and seconded by Judy Worth, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes of the May 22, 2025 public hearings. The vote was 7–0, with all members in favor: Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, Mike Owens, Larry Forester, Frank Penn, Bruce Nicol, and Judy Worth. - **PLN-MAR-25-00007 — Postponement of Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** [timestamp: 0:15:05]: Motioned by Mike Owens and seconded by Judy Worth, the Commission voted unanimously to postpone this zoning map amendment. The vote was 7–0, with all members in favor: Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, Mike Owens, Larry Forester, Frank Penn, Bruce Nicol, and Judy Worth. - **BOAR-25-1 — Disapproval of the Appeal for Olivia Rockaway** [timestamp: 1:50:29]: Motioned by Bruce Nicol and seconded by Ivy Barksdale, the Commission voted 6–1 to disapprove the appeal, with the disapproval based on reasons provided by Staff. Voting in favor of disapproval were Ivy Barksdale, Mike Owens, Larry Forester, Frank Penn, Bruce Nicol, and Judy Worth. Zach Davis cast the sole dissenting vote. - **Initiation of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment — Manufactured Housing Regulations** [timestamp: 1:56:46]: Motioned by Frank Penn and seconded by Judy Worth, the Commission voted unanimously to initiate a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to update regulations pertaining to manufactured housing. The vote was 7–0, with all members in favor: Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, Mike Owens, Larry Forester, Frank Penn, Bruce Nicol, and Judy Worth. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period at the July 24, 2025 meeting. - **Diane Lowe** spoke regarding the appeal concerning **115 Penmoken Park** [timestamp: 1:26:47]. Lowe apologized that her contractor had failed to obtain the necessary permits and stated that she was willing to work with her neighbor to resolve the outstanding issues related to the matter. No other public comments were recorded during this meeting. ## Contested Items - **Olivia Rockaway Appeal (115 Penmoken Park):** The Commission considered an appeal filed by Olivia Rockaway concerning a certificate of appropriateness for the property at 115 Penmoken Park. The item was contested, resulting in a split vote of 6-1 to disapprove the appeal. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 13:33] The Commission considered the minutes of the May 22, 2025 public hearings. Larry Forester and Judy Worth were the key speakers on this item. The minutes were approved without noted objection. ## Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC Zoning Map Amendment **Case No. PLN-MAR-25-00007** | [timestamp: 15:05] The Commission took up a petition for a zoning map amendment submitted by Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC. Dick Murphy was the key speaker associated with this item. The petition was **postponed** to allow for further changes to the development plan. No final decision was reached on the merits of the zoning map amendment at this meeting. ## Olivia Rockaway Appeal [timestamp: 1:50:29] The Commission heard agenda item BOAR-25-1, an appeal filed by Olivia Rockaway concerning a certificate of appropriateness for a property located at 115 Penmoken Park. Key speakers during this item included **Daniel Crum** and **Bruce Simpson**, who participated in the presentation and discussion of the appeal. The Commission considered the merits of the certificate of appropriateness as it related to the property in question. Following deliberation, the Commission voted to **disapprove the appeal**, denying the relief sought by the appellant. ## Initiation of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment [timestamp: 1:56:46] The Commission took up the initiation of a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to manufactured housing regulations. Daniel Crum presented the item, which was brought forward to bring the ordinance into compliance with House Bill 160. The proposed text amendment would update the existing regulations governing manufactured housing to align with the requirements established under House Bill 160. The initiation of a text amendment is a procedural step that formally directs staff to begin drafting the specific regulatory language changes, which would then return to the Commission for full review and action at a later meeting. The Commission approved the initiation of the zoning ordinance text amendment. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the minutes of the May 22, 2025 public hearings - **PLN-MAR-25-00007** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC zoning map amendment - **BOAR-25-1** — passed (6-1): Disapproval of the appeal for Olivia Rockaway - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Initiation of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to update regulations pertaining to manufactured housing --- ## Full transcript Show me the way, one more time, I want you, day after day, I want you, day after day. I want you, show me the way, every day, I want you, show me the way, night and day, I want you, day after day. Yeah, oh. Yeah. Melinda was mine till the time that I found her, holdin' Jim, lovin' him. Then Sue came along, loved me strong, that's what I thought, me and Sue, that I do. Don't know that I will, but until I can find me, the girls in the state won't play games behind me, and I'll be what I am, a solitary man, solitary man. I've had it to here, bein' where love's a small word, all time things, paper rain. I know it's been done, havin' one girl who loves you, right or wrong, weak or strong. Don't know that I will, but until I can find me, the girls in the state won't play games behind me, and I'll be what I am, a solitary man, solitary man. Don't know that I will, but until I can find me, the girls in the state won't play games behind me, and I'll be what I am, a solitary man, solitary man. Solitary man. Solitary man. Solitary man. She turned up her nose as she walked by my Cadillac, from the corner of my eye I saw you and you laughed. You were sittin' on the swing on your front porch, paintin' your nails like you were bored, and you yelled she was sure impressed with you. Well, I ain't first class, but I ain't quite trash and wild and a little crazy, too. Some girls don't like boys like me, oh, but some girls do. You didn't ask if you would like a ride, when we pulled out of your yard I bought a tie. You was laughin' at me, I was doin' James Dean, you was the prettiest girl I'd ever seen, when you rolled your eyes and twirled my paper dice. Well, I ain't first class, but I ain't quite trash and wild and a little crazy, too. Some girls don't like boys like me, oh, but some girls do. Well, good old boys don't get no breaks, and rich boys think they got what it takes, but there's someone for each of us, they say. Well, I ain't first class, but I ain't quite trash and wild and a little crazy, too. Some girls don't like boys like me, oh, but some girls do. Well, I ain't first class, but I ain't quite trash and wild and a little crazy, too. Some girls don't like boys like me, oh, but some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. I said some girls do, you know some girls do, like boys like me, you know some girls do. ♪ ♪ ♪ Good afternoon. Today is July 24th, 2025, and this is the meeting of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Planning Commission zoning items public hearing. Before we begin, this is our first hearing after the election of officers, and he was not here to hear it two weeks ago or three weeks ago, but I would like to express the commission's gratitude and the debt that we owe Mr. Forester for your extraordinary five-year term as our chairman. So from all of us, thank you. But thank you, Larry. Okay. First item on the agenda is the approval of the May 22nd, 2025 minutes. Do we have any discussion or motion on that item? Mr. Chair, if there aren't any discussions or additions, I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes for May 22nd, 2025. Thank you, Mr. Forester. We have a second from Mr. Owens. Is there any discussion or any revisions to the minutes? Seeing none, we will take a vote. All right. And that carries unanimously. Thank you. Our next item on the agenda, postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy representing Anderson Communities on page 1 and 2, PLN MAR 25-7, Anderson Campus Rental Properties, LLC, and PLN MJDP 25-26, South Broadway Place, and Lynn Grove Addition and the Associated Variants. We had a meeting with the staff last week, and as a result, we're making some changes to the development plan, just need some more time to do that. We'd request April 14th, excuse me, August 14th, if you have time on your agenda to hear us then. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any discussion items on Mr. Murphy's request or any questions? Seeing none, I suppose do we need three separate motions for this postponement or just the one? Okay. All righty. The floor is open. Are we asking for three? Just the one. Just one. Everything could be longer. Mr. Chair, I'll move for a postponement of Anderson Community Properties Plan, MAR 25-7, the related variants and development plan until August 14th, 2025. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Second from Mr. Penn was that? No, I'm second. Oh, Ms. Forth. Okay. All righty. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll vote. This is postponing to August 14th. Are you okay with that, Mr. Penn? Mr. Penn? What? I'm sorry. Thank you. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Dick. All righty. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, that takes us to page three, item six, BOR 25-1. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. The request we have before us today is an appeal to the decision of the BOAR regarding the property at 115 Penn Moken Park. Just as a reminder, the Planning Commission has the authority to hear appeals to the decision of the BOAR, so a party that is aggrieved can request that the Planning Commission review the record of that meeting and at a public hearing make a ruling on the request. So similar to a way that we normally operate, staff will present our staff report. The applicant will have or the appellant will have the ability to present their testimony. Anyone from the public is available to speak, and you all will rule on whether the BOAR erred in their decision, in this case, to approve a certificate of appropriateness for this location. So the request is a request to appeal the decision that was made regarding 115 Penn Moken Park. This is within the Pensacola Park H1 overlay, and this concerns a rear addition and stoop that was constructed without permits, but once they finally did go through the BOAR process, it was granted a certificate of appropriateness at the April meeting. So this is a third-party appeal, so this is the adjoining property owner is contending that this was issued in error and is seeking to make an appeal of that request. So just to orient everyone, the Pensacola Park historic overlay is our most recent. So this was established in 2019. And just to orient everyone, this is Nicholasville Road as you're heading into town and compromises all of the land between Nicholasville Road and the railway to the west. So this period of development really spans from the 1920s to the 1940s, but this was once again established in 2019, comprised almost uniformly of single-family residential zoning. There are a small little pocket of R3 properties located at the very entrance of Penn Moken Park, but otherwise we're talking about single-family residential development that occurred in the 20s to 40s. And here is the general location of the subject property. Here is an aerial view. So the original house, based on the records that we have, was constructed in the 1940s. So it is this parcel here outlined in blue. And so the original structure is this piece here, constructed in 1940. Later there was an addition added, so the 1970s added this piece to the rear. As you'll notice, the development that is located along Penn Moken Park is sort of varied. So this is 20 years' worth of development, so you have a variety of different housing styles, depths, massing, et cetera. And so what we are hearing today is going to pertain to this portion of the property here. So an addition was constructed in this general area, and the appellant in this case is the adjoining property at 117 Penn Moken here, that once again contends that that was issued in error. Here we have photos of the subject property as it exists today. So pretty standard single family residential structure with vinyl siding. This is the opposite side to the left side of the home. You can see this is the existing structure, and then the addition that was made in the 70s is here. And then just to the rear of that, along that shared property line with 117 Penn Moken, you have the work that was done without a permit. Not fully constructed, but it has the foundations, it has the walls and framing, it has roof, as well as windows installed. These are pictures of nearby homes to kind of give an understanding of the variety that you see in the general area. So this is all along Penn Moken Park. Once again, single family homes, some with additions, some without, once again with varying building masses and forms. So once again, the important things to note for the legal base of historic preservation is that it is sort of applied uniformly across all of the properties within a particular overlay. And that a certificate of appropriateness is required prior to any construction or design changes for any of the parcels. So here we have a plat of the subject property. The area shown in red here shows the addition that was made without permits. So we have the existing residence here, and then the portion to the rear here, that red piece, approximately 20 feet in length, was added. These are pictures that were taken by our historic preservation staff at the beginning of the year. So we have the, once again, existing house here. They did also enclose the screened-in porch, which is being handled separately from this request, which is for the rear addition. But you'll note, once again, that this addition juts out. It shares that same roof line. It shares the same building plane as that 1970s addition. So they went in and put in the foundation. They put in the windows, the framing, and the roof. This is the view from the rear. And so this is basically the northern side of the property. The appellant, in this case, once again, 117, is located on this shared property line. And this gives a view of the area that has received the most attention. So the relationship along this shared property line, between 115 and 117, as pertains to this addition, was really where the bulk of the conversation occurred during the BOAR review process. All of this was done without a certificate of appropriateness. So essentially, basically in the time from Christmas to New Year's, this work was constructed. There was a complaint filed, at which point the BOAR staff, the historic preservation staff, notified them that they needed both building permits, which are handled separately from this review, as well as a certificate of appropriateness was necessary. So once they were alerted of that information, the applicant began the certificate of appropriateness process. Originally, it was set to be heard in February. However, they didn't have a quorum. At the March 19th meeting, they did discuss the request in detail. The original version of the request, the historic preservation staff recommended disapproval. So there was a lot of conversation. A lot of it pertained, once again, to that shared property line between 115 and 117 along the western edge. There was a lot of conversation on the massing, on whether or not that structure should be stepped in further, differences in how the roof was being treated. Basically, a number of design issues were raised. But the request was continued at that meeting. So they gave the opportunity, the BOAR did, an opportunity to work with staff to propose some changes in order to kind of review the request in more depth. At the April 16th public hearing, once again, there was a larger amount of discussion. But the applicant provided an updated design that I'll go into in a moment, that provided updated design details. It was approved with a vote of three to one. Now I do want to note the initial version of the staff report that went out misidentified that as a four to zero vote. The version you have in Granicus and in front of you indicates the correct updated. So it was a three to one vote. But it was approved. And so the applicant within the statutory timeline filed an appeal of that particular request. A representative of the applicants was present at that April 16th hearing. But they, within the time frame, have exercised the right to have this heard by the planning commission today. So talking about those design changes. So these are the changes that were incorporated and were included as conditions on the approval issued by the BOAR. Spoke to a number of different changes that basically served to differentiate the addition from the existing structure. And to, in various different ways, try to kind of break up that massing and provide a delineation between what was existing and what was proposed new. So these included changes to the orientation of the siding and the materials. They talked about replacing the existing vinyl windows would be changed to compliant wooden windows. They proposed a break in the roof line between the addition and the house to kind of differentiate between what was existing and what was being proposed. Pillisters being added at the four corners of the addition also served that same function. It added a bay window and also proposed a rear exit with a rear stoop. So here we have some images, once again, taken from what was constructed. And the right is what was shown at the BOAR hearing in April that showed kind of the proposed changes. So we have this portion of the addition here. And the proposed changes, once again, the existing house has horizontal siding. With additions, it is preferable to have a signifier to change that this is a later addition. So they switched to vertical. My understanding is they originally wanted to install vinyl to match the rest of the house, but switched to the cement material. They changed the windows to reflect the updated, the desires of the HP staff. They added a break in the roof line here. So instead of a 612, which is present for the rest of the house, there would be a 312 break that would serve to kind of delineate and separate the roof lines. They also show a rear stoop, which you will see here. So this is the view from the rear of the property. So whereas they had two existing vinyl windows before, they are now proposing to come back in with a door and an exit stoop, replacing the non-compliant windows with compliant windows. Instead of a gabled roof like they have currently, they're going to change that to a chipped roof. Incorporate, once again, a little bit of a change in the design there. The most impactful changes, though, are along, once again, that shared western boundary. So we have, once again, what is basically a blank wall face as shown here and was originally proposed. They are now inserting bay windows. Once again, that same treatment with the vertical, rather horizontal siding. The changes in the roof form and massing to kind of help break that up, as well as the pilasters to kind of help define the existing condition there. It's worth noting that, once again, this is an existing condition to a certain degree. So whereas the existing addition was built flush with that 1970s piece, that is being carried forward in this request and is one of the pieces that the appellant looks at or cites in their justification letter as to how the historic preservation or the BOAR erred in their decision. So the historic preservation guidelines have an entire section that's dedicated to addition. I will save you from reading all of these, but really it speaks to a couple kind of main considerations. They want this to be subordinate, so located to the rear. They want to preserve the functionality of the existing home, maintaining as much of that character. They don't want the additions to outweigh the original structure in terms of massing and form. And they want to differentiate. One of the biggest core considerations and additions in really any historic preservation setting is making sure that the design is compatible but isn't falsely suggesting that this is original to the home. So there's several ways to do that. One of the areas that was handled kind of most significantly during the BOAR hearing was the item B, which is encouraging a step back when possible from the existing structures to once again delineate that. It also in that same section talks about changes in roof form and roof line in order to accommodate that same effect. So that was talked about at depth during the BOAR hearing, once again speaking to this desire of making sure that these additions are signified but still compatible. Differentiated from the original structure, but once again not out of character with the context of the area that it's in. The BOAR found that there were extraordinary circumstances that applied to this request, and that the guideline relating to the stepping back additions from the existing structure wasn't mandatory. It was a should rather than shall. So it was something that was within their discretion, they opined, to address in other ways. So through the conditions that they imposed, the change in materials, change in roof form, the incorporation of the windows to break up that facade. They found that that was doing a sufficient job to delineate this addition and to meet the intent of those historic preservation guidelines. The letter of appeal submitted by the appellant in this case, once again the adjoining property owner. And you can see this was a photo submitted with the appeal. So this is from the backyard patio of 117. And here we have the existing rear addition there. They cite several aspects in their appeal as to why this should not have been granted. The first is that it was constructed without the necessary approvals or reviews. The second is they hearken back to that second design guideline that suggests that step backs should be utilized to help differentiate the structure. Once again, this was built in line with the 1970s addition, which in and of itself is also in line with the existing home. They also said that it conflicts with the zoning. So when this was originally filed, adding on to the length of the building in this case was causing an increased setback. However, that as a part of the House Bill 443 changes that you all recently implemented was removed. So the applicant is able to construct this addition without requiring a variance at this time. So that is no longer pertinent, although it was something that was applicable when this originally was filed. And then the last was stormwater concerns. So there was concerns raised about the addition and the impact that would have with stormwater and runoff and potential damage on the adjoining property. Of those four items, really the only that is applicable for you all's review is item B. We can't do anything about the kind of how we got this application. You are reviewing whether or not, in strict review of these guidelines, if the BOAR's findings were supportable or if they were issued in error. So as a part of the construction process, they will need to obtain all building permits, all engineering sign offs, all of the standard things that apply to construction in any zone. Here we are really talking about how this relates to the actual historic guidelines. We do have a copy of the full, in all of its glory, historic preservation guidelines. Within Granicus, there was an excerpt that applies to additions, so it's a summarized version of that. But if anyone would like to see that, we have that for the record as well. So in planning staff's review, this is an extension of an existing addition that was added in that 1970s. So that existing condition was defined by having the addition was flush with the existing structure and extending back to the rear of the property line. So the guidelines, once again, that we reviewed for calls for additions to be located to the rear of the structure, differentiated from the original building using these various mechanisms, including massing, materials, and other design, but still compatible with the overall design of the house itself. Staff notes that the fact that this was constructed without permits does complicate the ability to make changes to the design in order to provide that step back that was indicated within those criteria. Once again, cost is not really a factor that really comes into this, so if this was disapproved, the original applicant would be required to remove that addition and build something that was in compliance. But what planning staff looked at wasn't an evaluation of that cost, but rather it wasn't meeting the overall intent of those design guidelines. And so while no step back is provided, there are other aspects of design that have been changed as a part of that process to break up the building massing and to clearly differentiate between what's this new addition and what that existing structure is. Once again, staff doesn't condone or support work without a permit or obtaining those necessary approvals, but you all are answering a very specific question here. And it's not should they have done work without a permit, it is did the BOAR, when their review of the guidelines, err in some way. Staff, in our review, found they did not, so we recommend that the appellant's appeal be disapproved and that the decision to issue a COA for this property be upheld, finding it's in agreement with the design guidelines as indicated in greater detail in the staff report in front of you. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have of staff. I believe we have the appellant as well as the folks from Historic Preservation here as well and any of the information provided to you in Granicus. But happy to take any questions of staff at this time. Thank you, Daniel. Mr. Penn. So we're not to even talk about or consider how they're going to go to this and where the water's going to go. So yeah, as a part, there are no Historic Preservation guidelines that speak to managing stormwater. That's really looked at at the building permit level, and if they don't have a way to make that work, then they won't be issued a building permit and they would be required to remove or modify that structure. So really what you're looking at are the Historic Preservation guidelines. So that will be addressed at the building permits. Yes, sir. Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Cromit at this time? I have one, Daniel. Yes. When you said that that corresponding zoning ordinance requirement has since been removed, was that in May or June when we passed that large? That was a part of the House Bill 443 ZOTA effort, so that was once again kind of one of those that was removed as a part of that process. Okay, and that was in June. Yeah, that was the deep building provisions. It really wouldn't have been anything that you all would have seen but the Board of Adjustment. It was something that came up. But basically it required any building that was past, I believe, 50 feet, to have an increased setback for every foot that it went back. So here they are able to keep that existing setback. Okay, just for clarity's sake, if a developer files a development plan in January of a year and in February we change things, they can still operate under the development rules that were on the books in January. But if we take something away, like in this instance, then it's truly taken away even though it was on the books in December. Yeah, and it's important to note that what we're looking at here isn't a reflection on the zoning or any type of, you know. If that was still on the books, we would still be going through the same COA process. They would have just had to also get a variance. So here the condition as proposed meets the current zoning ordinance and doesn't present an issue, and they're not tied to when this process began. Okay, all right. Thank you, Daniel. Does Historic Preservation have anything, or are you all good? Mr. Dennis? No. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank the planning staff. They did a great job working with us, and we really appreciate that. As you know, the Historic Preservation Office is the staff for the Board of Architectural Review. So we review those projects, and originally there was a call that this construction had taken place. So both preservation and building inspection contacted the owner. They then made an application to the office or to the Board of Architectural Review, which was then heard and postponed from February to March and then continued in April when the board approved it. And I would like to answer any additional questions that you might have. Do we have any questions for Mr. Dennis? Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Thank you. Just one curious question right now. When was this request for appeal filed? I think it came in right before the 30 days that went to planning. I'm pulling the date right now, but I believe it was the 14th. I think that's what I saw in your presentation. Yes, this was received May 14th. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Dennis, at the second hearing where the work was voted on, what was your staff's recommendation to the BOAR? Our recommendation was denial. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Dennis? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chair and members of the commission, I'm Bruce Simpson, and my legal assistant, Orlando Woolfolk, is passing out some handout material for y'all's review. I've got to do it the old-fashioned way because I can't see that screen. Hopefully I can get some eye surgery here in a few months and be able to do that, but bear with me while I go through my material. This is a different kind of case that typically you all don't see that much of, an appeal. In fact, it's the only, to my knowledge, an appeal from one administrative body within the government that is decided by a different administrative body within the same government. I'm not sure that's a good system, but it's been our system for many, many years, and you all have an important role to play today. Even though this is relatively a new concept, you don't get a lot of historic preservation issues, this is an important case for several reasons, which I will illuminate. First, I'm going to focus my presentation on undisputed facts, undisputed facts based on the record. I have prepared in my material, which I'll get to in a moment, certain key testimony that was given by the staff, the historic preservation staff. Like you're all's planning staff, they screen all these applications. They are the experts in historic preservation and what meets the guidelines and what doesn't meet the guidelines. And, of course, the board relies upon the staff recommendation, as you all do. This case took an odd turn for a couple reasons. It's pretty clear that the board was struggling to try to find some way to approve this application, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at no time during the hearing of March and April of this year was this application ever in compliance with the guidelines that guide the Board of Architectural Review for decisions. That's an undisputed fact. It's very disconfirmed. The other undisputed fact is that at no time was a building permit applied for in connection with this large structure. The third undisputed fact is that at no time was an application filed with the Board of Architectural Review to get approval, what's called a certificate of appropriateness, which means it has to pass these guidelines that the Board of Architectural Review sets to guide their decision making. That application at no time during any of this process was ever requested in advance of the construction. So you all have dealt with many times in other instances people coming before you asking for forgiveness rather than permission. Now the twist on this is the Board, and I as a fellow human being, I understand it. Because the applicant was portrayed by her representative who wasn't a lawyer, he indicated he was a friend, which I believe. He wasn't an architect, he wasn't familiar with the sort of preservation. He represented that the applicant sold her house, a larger house, and bought this house, and got a contractor that she relied upon to get all the permits, and they didn't get the permits. And that she was a single lady who lost her husband, had difficulty walking. And I think the Board, rightfully as a fellow human being, will and should do have sympathy on those facts. And this is one of those cases that you may have heard just before. You don't get a lot, it doesn't come up often in these proceedings. It comes up more in court decisions. But there's a principle in the law that talks about the danger of hard cases making bad law. Hard cases making bad law. This is one of those cases. This is an applicant who has very sympathetic facts. She relied upon a contractor to get a permit, he didn't do it. Spoke to get two permits and didn't do either one of them. In contrast to that, I represent Libby Rockaway, the next door neighbor, a young lady, who got all the required permits. Her house was in terrible condition. She had to spend thousands of dollars to meet the guidelines for renovation. Even had to go out of state. And there wasn't any exception created for her. Now, she didn't engage me because of that. I want to point that out, that we have in this case one applicant who never complied with any of the laws. And the person who says, you know, why, they complied with all the laws. They complied with all the laws and had the expense. I'll get to some photographs in just a minute to illustrate why Libby is very upset about this building, this structure. But it was clear during the March and April hearings that the board wanted to do anything possible to approve this application. Notwithstanding the fact that during the March hearing and in the April hearing, after some proposed changes were made that were subsequently approved in April by the board, and right before the board voted, the chair asked the staff, does this comply with the guidelines? And Betty Kerr, the director, and I have her testimony in my material, said no. It doesn't. It's getting there, but it doesn't comply with the guidelines. So right before they went to vote, the attorney who represents the Board of Architectural Review, and they were struggling to come up with, well, how do we get around that? And even prior to making the decision, one of the members of the board said, look, I'm concerned that we're just violating these guidelines, and this is going to create a dangerous precedent for other people to come down in the future, and we won't be able to control it. And the chair said, well, you better not make the motion. So then a motion was crafted, and you will see in a minute through the videotape, where the attorney for the board said, well, these are guidelines. Even though the staff says they're not in compliance with the regulations, the expert testimony says that they're not in compliance. That was the only expert testimony given in this case. The board chose to depart based on the changes that were made that the staff said were still not in compliance with the guidelines. And the way they got around it, it's obvious from what the chair said in his findings, which you will hear, is that the board's attorney says, well, these are guidelines. It says should and not shall. Should and not shall. Well, all the guidelines say should and should. They're guidelines. They're not mandatory. So the board took it upon itself, because they got tugged at the heartstring, and I got that, I get it. And they went ahead and approved an application that they shouldn't have approved, and you will hear the chair, and it's in the material that I've got for you, this shall not be used as any precedent. I'm telling you right now, nobody better come down here without getting a permit for a building permit or a certificate of appropriateness and ask us for approval, because we're not going to give it. Now, I will tell you, as a zoning lawyer, if you all don't turn this down, then a clarion call will be sent out. If anybody has a future case before the Board of Architectural Review that may get appealed to this body, there's a big loophole that's been created at the Board of Architectural Review that you can drive a tractor-trailer truck through. You don't have to get a building permit or a certificate of appropriateness. You don't even have to have the staff recommendation of approval. You can get passed and get a staff recommendation of disapproval twice, twice, and still win if you've got sympathetic facts. And that's how this case got approved. Now, you'll see for yourself. That's a bad precedent. I believe you all would agree that's not the kind of decision-making a responsible governmental body should make. It's not about how sympathetic the facts are. It's not. It's about what's the law complied with that guides decisions that apply equally to everybody. The other principle of the law is ignorance of the law is no excuse. And sometimes people don't follow it. But we have to have accountability regardless of the facts. So in future decisions, if you don't turn this down, then you're going to have the Pandora's box. Well, what are the next exceptional facts? Because I will tell you, if I get a case that some guy who maybe is handicapped in some way or maybe he's just qualified handicapped as being an alcoholic and he just didn't get it and some contractor said he would do it, I'm going to say, look, I'm entitled to equal treatment. He didn't understand. He was disabled. I'm entitled to the same escape from complying with the law as this applicant. I don't believe you want to open up that box. It's not a good precedent under any scenario of governance, just none. These are all undisputed facts. Undisputed facts. Now, I want to show you just a few pictures. If you look under tab number one, this is what we're talking about. Under tab number one, you will see a quote on the right-hand side at the bottom. In order to get it to not be violating the regulations, it would have to not be this long. The length of it is just like those poster boy of why people want to achieve historic districts to prohibit this sort of outcome. In the material that I've got, more elaboration from Betty Kerr, who made this statement, of all of the what typically are called snout houses that are over on around off of Nicholasville Road that are now populated by students, that they've torn them down, just big long stretches to add a lot of people into them. Penmoken was a zone change that came about really from a case that I had. It was a zoning case. There was a boarding house that we rezoned to put in some nice townhouses. They turned into these single family houses. The neighborhood went epiplectic and said, no, we don't want any changes. You all approved it. The planning commission, the council approved it. The Board of Adjustment approved one of the things. The neighbor sued. They won both of those cases. And now it's coming back. This is the first issue that's come up in Penmoken. It's the newest historic district. This is the first test case of this district's integrity. It's going to be upheld. Because everybody's going to be saying, well, if they got away with it, you know, I've got some sympathetic facts, I'm going to come down. And then there's going to be unnecessary lawsuits and all that. This needs to be, quote, Barty Fife, nip it in the bud right now. I mean, it's just fair. Now, the applicant is not without a remedy. She can file another application, take a different shot and try to come up with some different plan. Okay? She can do that. She can do that. But this application, under the experts that testified, is not in compliance. I mean, based on the record of an appeal, this is compelling evidence. There wasn't any evidence to controvert that as a matter of undisputed fact. So in my judgment, you all don't have any other choice legally but to reverse the decision. And you'll see from the tape what I'm talking about. But having a building, this building is almost as big as this addition is the house itself. The house is 24 feet long. This addition is 20 feet long. It is 44 feet long of one solid wall. That was one of the major objections from the staff. That is not going to change under the conditions approved by the board. Not going to change. Still going to be a 44-foot wall. Under the next tab, it's the length of the wall. Under tab number three, just another picture of the house. They added on a screened-in porch that they didn't file a timely application for a permit to build or to get a certificate of appropriateness. The next tab under tab number four is a view from Libby Rockway's patio. She spent a lot of money refurbishing the garage. She turned it into an office between her house and used to be the garage, fixed it all up. It had all been in shambles and running down. It was rickety, rickety, rickety. Now she's going to be looking at a 44-foot wall. The proposal to make it accommodating was to put a big bay window looking right out on top of her little area here, private area, staring right down on top of her private area that she created. That's going to break up the wall to make it accommodating. The staff said, no, that doesn't work. Undisputed, it doesn't work. Under tab number five, we get into transcribed the key statements that the staff made of why this wasn't working, why it wasn't in compliance for you to read. But I'm going to let you see about 20 minutes of the actual testimony from the staff articulating why this wasn't in compliance and why it should have been denied as they recommended. So if we can tee it up. So Mr. Simpson, you said about 20 minutes? I'm sorry? You said about 20 minutes? Yeah. That will take you just slightly over 30. So are you requesting more than 30? We started at 158. Yeah. I mean, I need, after that it's over, two minutes. Okay. In the future, if you would just email staff at least two days before and let us know that you possibly need more time. I will. I got retained late in this case. A lot of the records we were trying to get in and I didn't know what I was looking at until just a couple of days ago. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Nook, do you have a question? Yes, I've got a question before we watch this 20-minute video. Is this video the hearing that was the initial hearing to determine that the addition that was constructed without a permit and without the COA was not in compliance? Is this what we're watching? Yes. Okay. So we're watching this. Then there was another hearing where decisions were made to remedy this situation, which was then approved by the Board of Architectural Review. Is that correct? Yeah, you're watching portions of both of those meetings. Well, I think it's important for us to know which is which. The first, and I'll tell you when it comes up. Please. The testimony is all geared towards non-compliance initially and non-compliance after the changes. There's never been any change to the staff. This testimony is all based on non-compliance with the governing regulations. Okay. I think it's important for us to identify the difference between the first hearing to the second hearing. The first hearing will be the March hearing. And after that, I'll tell you what. In tab number, my transcript is, I think it's tab number five. Five. Five. Tab number five. The first videotape will be of the March hearing. And the second videotape will be of the March hearing. And then the third videotape will be the March hearing. And I agree. The next three will all be the second hearing. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Simpson? Seeing none. Out in the office amongst the three of us, Amelia Berry and myself, and can't find any effective opportunities to bring this into compliance with the guidelines because its biggest challenge is that it's this big form that extends this house to the point of, unless you chop off a good part of it, it would just never. Think for a minute if this had not been carried out. And what you're seeing, this big rectangle added on the back, came forward, and it was recommended disapproval. You might look at having done it with a hyphen, something coming out that then might have two or three little modulated steps of things that end up with maybe 50 to 60% of this square footage in total in a more irregular volume that's not this train car look. You know, you just can't subtly modify something that's already formed and in this state. Well, and the other thing is, short of doing substantial alteration, that I think the cost effectiveness goes right out the door. But I haven't priced anything because it's not something that we have the business of knowing the owner's investment and stuff in this. But it's a terribly sad situation. And the fact that the contractor who did bring it to the point that we're physically seeing, you know, literally, am I correct, that party skipped town? Good luck. No more? Yeah, no more. And so she's had no recourse through that other than obviously to locate that person and sue that party or whatever, and that's hers to determine. It's just a pitiful situation. We're really saddened by it. But when I keep saying this is the type of outcome, this is not unlike when all the area around universities gets these big boxes shoved out the back so that they can rent to lots more folks and so forth and so on. You're looking at one. I mean, that's what this is. And that's what people who have come requesting these overlays have wanted to be sure could not happen in their neighborhoods. I assure you this is not for rental purposes. She has a big quilt machine that she wants to put in there. Big what? Quilt machines that are like about 15 or 12 feet long, one of those big ones. I'm not sure. So is it currently in violation? Yes. And then what is the calendar for that violation and an ultimate? What is the ultimate? Well, other pieces of the LFUCG would be involved in enforcement issues to do with this, and they would each have to provide their information, but code enforcement, you know, it's an unfinished situation sitting here. Building inspection built without any permits. There are all sorts of different permitting pieces that are not able to successfully be acquired, and hence it's sitting in violation. So that would take some time. So I mean, sorry to interrupt, but I talked to Elizabeth, I said. The proposal of this already constructed new addition requires further discussion. The rear addition that's currently built is not in compliance with the process or the design review guidelines. While the applicant has submitted change drawings in an attempt to bring the already constructed addition in compliance with the guidelines, staff finds that the current submittal does not go far enough. As noted, the design guideline principle for room and wing additions, which states in planning additions, best approach is to place the addition where they have the least impact on the building's overall form and plan. Exterior walls of the new addition should not be flush with those of existing buildings, but should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building. Likewise, additional roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof lines so that the existing main roof remains evident. There is no break or change in the roof line to distinguish the existing main roof remains evident. There is no break or change in the roof line to distinguish the old from the new. Equally, there is no break in the wall alignment to provide a break to the 64-foot alignment. Guideline 2A, 4B, and D states exterior walls of a new addition should not be flush with those of the existing building, but should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building. Roof lines should be stepped down from the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident and should not imitate an earlier historic style or architectural period. So let me now run through. This is the front of the Gunnison House. This is the side along with the garage. That's the view between the two adjacent structures. And this is the other side, close up. Then the rear, and you can see when we talk about the snap in, we're talking about the grid that just pops in. It's not a separated, divided light or a true divided light. And this is the long 64-foot run that goes from the front of the Gunnison to the rear of the most recent addition. What has been proposed is to place a pile aster at all four corners of the building along with a bay window. So the purpose of that bay window is just to break up that wall? Yes, sir. So in this shot, you can see where the roof is partially reduced to 3 over 12. And then the rear roof would be changed to a hip roof. Staff recommendations. Staff recommends the denial of the submission. However, if the BOAR does approve a COA based on the current proposal, staff recommends the following conditions. We can delete number one and, well, not delete the whole thing, yes, we can delete the whole thing because we have received approvable windows be submitted. And then the two standard conditions. Mary, let me ask you this. Since they have submitted to us drawings, can we add into that the building be constructed in accordance with the drawings that have been submitted? I'm sorry. I could not hear you. Okay. We can't hear me. There we go. Can we add to it that the building be constructed in accordance with the proposal that has just been received by you all, plus submit the final door and window specifications? It would be apparent that they have to build by Mr. Moore. Yes. In your motion, though, to do that, I'm sorry, Barry, I didn't mean to hop in. Well, I think we just need to make that abundantly clear. I think absolutely that your motion should be that specific and more, and if you are inclined to approve it, and that the wording should include something at the front end of it that notes that the recently constructed 64 foot long section will be revised or will be further. So I want to say I appreciate you continuing to work and trying to, and this is probably more of a comment to my fellow board members, trying to make some adjustments that do help what this is doing on this site, given where you are right now. My fear is by approving this, we are going to allow other people to do projects that maybe are not appropriate for the size of the site and the length of that. And so I wonder if there's a way we can add an exception to the motion that would make sure that we're clear that this is, breaking these guideline rules is not acceptable in some way, and I don't know how to do that. Because I have a really big problem with the fact that it isn't meeting several pretty key guidelines. Well, if you're not comfortable making the motion, then perhaps. So I think I have to ask somebody else to make the motion, which I wrote down. I think there will be a notation on this one that we recognize the extraordinary conditions that led to this woman actually erecting this building in good faith due to misrepresentations by her contractor. Am I remembering that correctly? I would caution against something either comes into range of being within the guidelines or not. If it really doesn't meet the guidelines as reflected in the staff's recommendation, which we don't believe it does, we felt we needed to, as staff, consistently interpret the guidelines and recommend disapproval. But the board is absolutely, rightly empowered to take what appropriate action you all feel is the way to take this, any application, including this one. So does that mean that the staff does not approve of these proposed drawings? As drawn and what it includes with that information, it misses meeting the guidelines. It does not meet the guidelines. It's coming toward trying to meet the guidelines, but it's still got some key factors that do not meet the guidelines. And so staff, unlike the board, is not empowered to say, but in this instance, kind of thing. Now, you all are empowered to do whatever is your choice, utilizing the design guidelines Modified, so it would be in conformity with the guidelines. I'll put it out there bluntly. Well, I think your core issue is how big can anything be added to what is a modest size house and how much land coverage the existing situation already uses. Now the lot's pretty deep in this parcel, so I don't think that that is enough to say it can't be done. I think there's room for a volume of this to come on. It all comes down to the details in which it's been done, and the things they're proposing to date come closer. I think you could, instead of that three-part window, put more traditional windows that give you breakage periodically instead of one in the middle, because you're kind of dressing up something that, at the core, still doesn't meet the guidelines. From the staff, we've had quite the talk about this project, obviously, internally, trying to think what could be done to help it, and Barry did a good meeting. I thought y'all had a good meeting about how to try to move this forward. I think I saw flashed up there a site plan. Could that come back? Because what we're looking at makes it... Submit specifications and details for the fill-in porch on the front elevation. Barry, do we have what we need about that? Or were they proposing no changes to as they've done it? It would have to be changed to non-vinyl, because I have a vinyl, too. Right, exactly, yes. There is nothing noted in the drawings about filling in the... Okay, so we would then need the similar rhythm of things to submit what all changes you're going to do to bring that rear porch closure into compliance with the design guidelines. Number seven, submit for review and approval by staff the specifications and details. The specifications and details for bringing the existing screened-in deck into compliance with the guidelines, period. Existing closed-in porch, existing... They've just closed it in. So moved. That's fine with me, that wording. Okay, and you want that to be handled by staff? Pardon me? You want the details to be reviewed and the outcome handled by staff? Correct. And then the standard two conditions. I have some findings as well that might help you all... Ma'am, I cannot hear you, I'm sorry. I have some findings as well that might help you all fit this, if you're going to approve it into the guidelines, if you would like me to bring those up. Can you move a little further to your right so we can see you? There we go, thank you. Now, what are you trying... I'm sorry, I'm not hearing you. I had some findings drafted that may help this approval fit into the guidelines, if you would like those. Okay, and yes, we do need the findings, all right. So, bring them to us, or... Is it going to be about your handwriting? I'll bring those up to you. Do you have such details? I do, that's what I'm looking for. I'm pretty sure he sent it to me. I'm just looking through the emails. Well, depending on what the board decides, you can get with us about that. And I will, well, we'll do it while the board's listening. And this is... Can you use your mic or something? Hello? No, no, she's briefing him. Let me look at it real quick. It says we have a discretion to approve it. We don't want to approve it. Well, yeah, I mean, that's why we're still talking about this, because of the discretion. Yeah, we don't want to... I'm not following your specifications. Well, the guidelines say, should... I think that this is a summary comment. The notations are already written to the record. That would be my reading. All right, okay, gotcha. Okay, thank you. I'm going to note for the record... Which allows us to not break the rules of the guidelines, which is what I was trying to get to before. Right. We will note for the record, and as a finding, and, Brack, I want you to... I'm going to read it, then I'm going to have you agree with it. This is a bit odd, but... Guideline 2A.4 states that exterior walls should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building, and roof lines should be stepped down to the peak of the existing roof line so that the existing main roof remains evident. The use of should in the guideline instead of shall implies that there is a level of discretion. It is not necessarily absolutely mandatory. As has been pointed out to us by the staff, we are here to exercise our discretion as to how those guidelines are to be implemented. In this particular case, the situation involves an applicant who apparently was intentionally deceived by a contractor into making a decision to build a condition thinking she was in compliance by not realizing she needed permits. The record also discloses that this woman is elderly and perhaps not terribly sophisticated. After the situation came to her attention, through her representative, she has made efforts to work with the staff to make adjustments to the drawings as has been reflected by the motion. These are the findings that I believe would warrant a deviation from strict adherence to the guidelines themselves. That's a lot of verbiage, and if you want to just incorporate what I just said into the record, correct, that's fine. And I would like to amend my motion to incorporate the description that has been provided by Mr. Dickinson. Okay. The motion's been made. One last thing, would you? All right. Do we know how far? One minute. Do I have, after all that, do I have a second? Second. We have a second. I don't believe we need to pound this horse any further The chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Do I have a second? Aye. Aye. I'm going to abstain in opposed. Nay. So I'll step out there with you all, and I'll say aye as well. The motion passes. This is perhaps one of the hardest cases we have dealt with, and it needs to be reiterated for any record to be reviewed that this is definitely an extraordinarily unusual situation. If anyone ever dare try to cite this case as precedence, they will be reminded as to why we made the decision that we made. Thank you. This is not to in any way. Okay. Mr. Simpson, before we go on, we're at 43 minutes, so any brevity you could afford us would be appreciated. Yes. One final item of undisputed fact. You heard the finding that these were unusual circumstances, unusual facts, that the applicant got taken advantage of, and that she may not be sophisticated, and et cetera, et cetera, and all of that. You heard that. The final undisputed fact is this. The applicant never testified. Never. Not in the March hearing, not in the April hearing, not in any hearing did the applicant testify. She didn't show up. The only person that showed up was her representative, the young man that spoke. That was the only one. So in terms of the evidence, it was all hearsay that came through him about these facts. And the board made a decision based on those representations, not the applicant's testimony, not even an affidavit. And then finally, after all of the back and forth and changes, the staff repeatedly said at the April hearing, the final hearing, this does not meet the guidelines. There was no evidence for that board to make a decision that it comported with the guidelines. They just came up on their own on the basis of no evidence to support the decision. As a matter of law, that is a void decision. And based on the law, based on sound public policy reasons, this tribunal, the final one that should set the standard on not seeking forgiveness rather than permission, regardless of who you are, we can't create exceptions, we would be inundated with appeals on everything. And based on that, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I ask that you sustain the appeal and revoke the certificate of appropriateness. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Would the property owner like to speak? You're welcome to, ma'am. Just approach the podium and state your name. My name is Diane Lowe, and I own the property at 115 Panmulgan Park. First of all, I have to apologize that my contractor, unbeknownst to me, did not get a permit for this structure. Secondly, I did not realize it was an historic district. I was never told that when I bought the home. I went back and looked at the beginning of the street and saw a little one-foot sign, and that's the only time I realized that it was historic. And the representative that attended the board meetings for me is extremely experienced in construction and worked with me to get the architectural plans. He had a surveyor out there, an electrician. We complied, he complied, with everything that the board was asking. I'm fixed income, so I don't have a lot of lawyers and charts to put up. I just wanted to speak on my own behalf. And it was mentioned to me that we were afraid I was going to be renting out to students, and that's the furthest thing from my mind. I do not want a stranger in my house. And they mentioned the quilting. My family doesn't want any more quilts from me, so I concentrate on charity quilts for my guild, and I am a member of Quilts of Valor. We make quilts for the veterans. And since I moved from a 2,600-square-foot home to an 1,100, I did need an extra room for my sewing hobbies. So it's something that I really need. We did everything that the board asked. I've been thinking about that bay window and her objections to that, and I really was not for a bay window in the first place when I talked to Paul. And we can certainly change that to just a couple of windows surrounding that structure. I had assumed everything was taken care of and approved when the board approved it, not realizing that there were some guidelines that said, you know, should instead of shall, and that was going to be a point of contention. I'm willing to work with my neighbor to make her feel as comfortable as she can with the building. And I'm not sure what else I can say except that I thought everything was taken care of. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lowe. Do the members of the Planning Commission have any questions for Ms. Lowe? Okay. Seeing none at this time, thank you so much. All right. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to speak on this appeal? That said, Mr. Simpson, do you have any brief follow-ups? Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Do we have anything further from Mr. Dennis? Okay. Mr. Crum. Put the presentation back up. All right. So Daniel Crum, Planning staff once again. I just wanted to provide some clarification to some of the statements that were made earlier. Moving forward to the site plan for the property. So there was, I guess at several points, representations made about a 40-foot structure, a 60-foot structure. The addition that is the subject of this appeal is 24 feet in depth. It's approximately 11 in width. So what we are discussing today is an approximately 250-square-foot addition to this existing home, resulting in an overall length of approximately 60 feet. Staff would also like to point out, if we can go back to the aerial here, such a length is not out of character with the surrounding context. We have at its largest, I believe, north of a 100-foot long structure here. Longer structures present across the street. 120 here is over 80 feet long. So when we talk about on similarly sized lots. So when we talk about the concept of this going from 40 feet to 60 feet, this is sort of the context of the neighborhood that we're looking at. With respect to how the findings for the staff report that you see in front of you from planning staff was generated. We do review the findings and the testimony and everything that is presented at the BOAR hearing. We also review independently the historic preservation guidelines. And so I'm going to bring those back up and just sort of very briefly hit the aspects in which planning staff found that these were in agreement with the guidelines. So when we talk about additions, point A speaks to locating them at the rear of the building. This is being done there. Item B, which is sort of the piece that's sort of been most contentious, starts with a statement that talks about it being secondary, smaller, and simpler to the original proposal in scale, design, and placement. It then goes on further to describe several aspects that this can be achieved, both through stepping back, through roof line, through connectors. And so when the BOAR in their findings noted that this is a suggestion, it's a modifier of this core premise or the actual criteria is it should be secondary, smaller, and simpler in those aspects. It's ways to meet that particular requirement. So when staff is looking at this proposal, where you've located it to the rear of the structure, you've incorporated these aspects that differentiate the design, the placement of the structure, we found that it was meeting criteria B. It talks about it being a compatible design as far as the placement and rhythm of these different facilities. Staff found that was an agreement. It's not imitating an earlier historic style architectural period, reflecting kind of current design. So it's once again trying to tie the distance between not representing itself as ahistoric, but not being out of character with what the existing structure has or what is present within that historic district. Once again, it's not modifying any portion of the original structure. You've got the original floor plan. This is an addition to the rear, an addition on an addition. It's keeping the existing conditions of the original building, talking about exterior walls, not adding new stories, has chosen a compatible material, and is not detracting from the historic character of the original structure. So staff's recommendation that the BOAR did approve this or did not approve this in error is based on a reading and the findings and the actual guidelines that are supported here in front of you. Let's see, other information. Once again, the discussion on the applicant obtaining permits first or going through this process out of order is not really relevant here. The job for the planning commission is did the BOAR err when they said that this was an agreement with the historic preservation guidelines. Staff in our staff report identifies the aspects in which we think it has based on what you're seeing in front of you. So that is, I think, all that we needed to add at this time. Okay, one clarification real quick, Daniel. You said staff finds that it is not in violation or disagreement with historic design. Yes, so our staff's finding, it's a little bit of a convoluted because this is a third party appeal. We recommend disapproval of the appeal, finding that the BOAR did not err in granting a certificate of appropriateness at this location as in disagreement with the guidelines that you see in front of you. Which are all included in the citation that staff provides. Okay. Do we have any final questions for Daniel? I do. Yes, sir. Daniel, help me understand here. What was the recommendation of the BOAR to their board? So the historic preservation staff, and they made two recommendations. So there was, to Commissioner Nichols' point earlier, there was comments and testimony provided from the March hearing before changes were made, as well as after that. So I think that's an important distinction to place. The historic preservation staff, who is writing kind of the core report, they recommended disapproval of that time. And they cited that they felt that the step in was more essential. And that their recommendation of disapproval was based on that, with the applicant having addressed the other aspects. They also, in the same report, did provide findings for approval, should the board move to go that way. So that's where that initial recommendation, the BOAR heard the testimony from the staff there, the circumstances of the situation, the testimony of the neighbors, and moved with a vote of 3-1 to approve the certificate of appropriateness. Well, just help me understand. Their recommendation to the BOAR, their original recommendation, just like you all's recommendation to us, was that for approval or disapproval? That was disapproval. Okay. And so the staff, not the staff, the BOAR used findings to overturn their recommendation? Yes. Thank you. And to what Mr. Penn was referencing, I believe this is correct, it's on page 28 of the April 16th, 2025, I suppose this is a staff report from historic preservation staff. Their findings, their recommendations, and then if the BOAR does approve a COA, the three suggestions they had to the BOAR on that front. Mr. Nickel. Yes, I've got a question, Mr. Crum. I want to look specifically on item B. You said that the statement exterior wall should be stepped in a minimum of 12 inches from the edges of the existing building and roof line should be stepped in down from the peak of the existing roof line so the existing main roof remains evident. You said that the planning staff's reading of that, that that is a descriptor of the sentence before, it's not a prescription of how all additions should be constructed. So yes, so essentially this list, the first sentence of each of these aspects kind of gets to the actual criteria that you're evaluating. Here they provide examples of ways to do that. This isn't an exhaustive list of how to achieve that. But especially regarding kind of the breadth of applications you would typically see is being provided as an example. So they are providing several ways that this can be achieved, including step backs, including modifications of those roof lines. And staff found that they did in fact modify the roof line and they included the additional changes in design, changes in material. In order to differentiate and meet that core conceit, which is that it's secondary, smaller, and simpler in scale, design, and placement, and clearly delineated. Which is sort of the running theme between all of these. Once again, preserve the original structure, construct additions so that they're compatible. Staff found that those were being met throughout the guidelines in our review. Okay, so it's not prescriptive, it's not a shall that is being enforced on all additions. Yes, and we- What I'm referring to is the step back. Yes, and as noted during the presentation, the BOAR has discretion in the review and approval of these. So once again, that's giving direction to the board of things that are important to consider, ways to achieve these guidelines. Ultimately, they found that the request overall met these despite not including a 12 foot, I mean not 12 foot, a 12 inch step back, which they viewed as non-mandatory. Okay, and so when the BOAR, the board themselves were making their decision, they used the findings that were presented by the architectural review staff to solve the problem of the addition being identified as an addition by adding columns to the exterior of the property, and that therefore met requirement B. Yes. And that was the decision made, that was the finding that was used by the BOAR, and that informed their decision to approve the revised plan. Yes. Okay, thank you. A bit of clarification, I don't think preservation staff provided sketches, did they? Or was that from the applicant? No, so the historic preservation staff does not generate designs. The applicant, the visuals that you all saw as part of this presentation, were generated by the applicant in conversations with the historic preservation staff on things that they could realistically do with the situation that they have on the site. Sure. Mr. Pim. So you all are not concerned that we've opened a hole to accommodate people that don't get permits and don't get COAs? Well, I would just say that you all routinely, I mean not routinely in the sense of inundated, but every year or so you will get appeals from the board of architectural review. Several of those you have gone against the recommendations of the historic preservation staff or the BOAR, and ultimately that has not led to an inundation of any application. So once again, each individual property is going to have to prove on its own merits. Here is a slightly different scenario because you're normally hearing appeals where a design was turned down. This is a third-party appeal that is saying that the BOAR did not appropriately consider this site. I'm just trying to get you on the record. It bothers me a little bit in that we've just been through a whole lot of dialogue about objective standards. I've never served on this board, on that board. I'm not clear about what a guideline is and how much latitude there is to depart from what the text says and interpret what that text says. Can somebody address that for me? That's all you, legal. I know. It's a guideline. I don't mean to be flippant, but there are specific things that Daniel has pointed out that are listed in those guidelines that are important. And then this board, which for a brief time I staffed myself, has to take in every single case those guidelines and figure out how they apply or don't apply to that specific property. And much like you all, they often agree with their staff, but sometimes they do not. And so the question then becomes, if they do not, do they have enough evidence in what they heard, what they saw, what they determined to back up what they did, because they do have discretion to interpret those. So that's kind of where we are. And you all's job is to determine if you think their decision was based on what they heard, how they decided, and was an interpretation properly made of those guidelines, and also to consider what you all heard. I mean, you heard more than you usually do because you saw the hearing of what they talked about and what information they were given. And then you've also got your findings in front of you under the tab about this and your information about what they said they wanted them to do in order to find that they were compliant with the guidelines and make that decision. Tracy, while you're speaking, am I correct that the Planning Commission is the venue of last resort for BOAR appeals? Or can they go to circuit court? Right now, the way our ordinance is written, they come to you all first, and then they may also appeal further to circuit court, like any other Planning Commission decision. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Thank you. Daniel, a couple of questions, simple questions. The bay window came into question, I'd say. As far as the side lot line, where is that measured from? Is that measured from the wall, or would it be measured from the outside edge of the bay window now? I would say the wall. Okay. All right. Then secondly, how long has, you know, you showed pictures of snow. It started in December. How long has this been sitting idle? Yes, so according to the record, this work occurred sometime around Christmas. Once again, the process of complaints, violations, et cetera, then ensued, at which point the historic preservation staff initiated their process. So if you're starting in January, and this is when it gets highlighted, they were supposed to go in February. February, the BOAR didn't have a quorum, so it got kicked to March, continued to April, and then the applicant or the appellant has a full month to appeal. And so very nearly met that window, and now you all are hearing it. So it has been basically since the beginning of the year that this process was halted and stopped. Okay. So it's been seven months? Yes. Okay. All right. A couple of comments later. All right. Do we have anything else for Daniel at this point? Seeing none, thank you, Daniel. All right. Maybe this is a good time for the commissioners to either discuss amongst themselves, ask ourselves any questions, or if anyone would like a recess, we could certainly entertain that, too. But the floor is open. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I heard I guess his testimony on video that this was a terribly bad situation. I would agree that it got off to a terribly bad start with a bad step. What I've seen since, the owner of 115 has been trying to be compliant, doing things hopefully the right way, offering changes in roofs, windows, doors, columns, et cetera. The fact of a 60-foot side wall without a setback is a difficult situation. However, when Daniel showed overviews a moment ago, two doors down on 119, I'm pretty sure that that house has a side wall of equal length. So it does happen. Lastly, years when I first started sitting behind here, I was on the Board of Adjustment, and a Board of Adjustment member of mine made a comment on one occasion as far as precedent-setting, saying that there's no such thing as a precedent-setting request or situation simply because every application is different. There's no application that's exactly alike. And that has stuck with me over the years, and I still believe it to this day. So I'm going to say at this point I'm in favor of supporting the staff's recommendations. Do we have any other comment? I'm going to say this. I, in general, agree with you. The thing that bothers me is I remember another appeal where we had an extension on the back of a house, I believe on Virginia Avenue, and the property owner was from another country, and he was not a particularly sympathetic person. And we all assumed he do you all remember the case? Do you see what I'm talking about over here? Do you remember that case? I don't know what road it was. It was over there in this same area. And there's a part of me that says everybody needs to be treated equally, and if an applicant is sympathetic we have a tendency to go one way, and if the applicant is not sympathetic we have a tendency to go another way. And I'm not suggesting we change your recommendation. I'm just waving a flag for us here that says I think we need to be careful. Mr. Chair, I was just going to say that that was a comment, not necessarily a recommendation, but it is a comment. Sure. If nobody has anything else, personally I'm very sympathetic to the appellant, and I'm not inclined to support this staff recommendation as it's written. Do we have any other comment, discussion, motion? Mr. Nickel. All right. I'll make a motion. I'm going to make a motion on BOAR 25-1 Olivia Rockway, and the motion is following the staff's recommendations. The motion is for a disapproval of the third party appeal and that the original decision of the BOAR be upheld for the following reasons. That the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness by the Board of Architecture Review is appropriate as the proposed modifications are in agreement with Design Guidelines 2.A.4 established by the Local Historic Preservation Committee. Thank you, Mr. Nickel. Do we have a second? Seconded from Ms. Barksdale. So to be clear, this is denying the appeal. Denying the appeal. In essence. Yes. Okay. We will put that to a vote. All right. That carries almost unanimously. Six to one. Thank you, everyone. Thank you for coming. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate you. Okay. Moving along, we had an addition yesterday to our agenda, which is the initiation of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Get this rowdy crowd under control and Daniel could go. Daniel Crone, Planning Staff, once again. This is just a sort of a refresher. We are asking you all today to initiate a Zoning Ordinance text amendment that is aimed into bringing us to compliance with a new state law that has been passed that will take place next year. I provided a very. If you have any discussions, could you please take them out of chambers? Thank you. Sorry, Daniel. So a lot of the. I just wanted to provide a quick summary. This will be familiar to anyone that attended the work session, but hopefully provided some additional graphics here that should help clarify some of the distinctions that we're looking at moving forward. But ultimately, this is a request that is going to bring us in compliance with House Bill 160, which deals with qualified manufactured homes, essentially set some requirements that if you meet the certain criteria to be considered a qualified manufactured home, that you have to be treated essentially the same as a single family residence, allowed in the same zones, subject to the same requirements. Once again, the difference between the mobile homes and the manufactured homes was something that I actually had to educate myself on, but really was based on when they were constructed. So 1976 is the dividing on what a mobile home is versus a manufactured home is something that's built after 76. So this applies only to the bottom category, manufactured homes. Specifically, a group of homes that have to be recently constructed, so it has to be within the past five years. It has to have all of the wheels and other parts that operate during transport removed. It has to be affixed to a permanent foundation. It has minimum size requirements. So that's a minimum of 20 feet wide and a total size greater than 900 square feet. There are some limited exceptions for extremely small lots that would allow you to reduce that somewhat, but is just generally greater than the size of a, say, standard single wide manufactured home. So we have a picture here. This is an example of what those can look like today, including kind of more common roof forms, but it has to be permanently affixed, has to meet the size requirement, has to have been constructed within the past five years. If they come to us like this, we are unable to treat a home like this any different than a single family residence or a site built standard home. This would still be subject. We're just very topical because we just had a presentation for the historic preservation. If it's in an area like that, it still has to be subject to all of those requirements. So if it's applied equally in the sense of a ND1 or an H1 overlay, those can still restrict and require certain requirements. Here are some other examples of how these can look nowadays. Once again, if it meets all of those criteria, then we do not get a choice in the actual design, but rather it would just have to be approved by right. But these are examples of manufactured homes that are brought onto the site and then installed and affixed to a permanent foundation. Some examples of stuff that would not meet, far left, if it doesn't have a foundation, it doesn't qualify. In the middle, if it is not within the past five years, it does not qualify. And on the far right, which would be a brand new home, if it doesn't meet the size qualifications, it does not be considered. So if it doesn't meet those criterias, then we can still regulate those as per our normal processes. Our normal processes do need an update. So we need to create definitions that are in line with the state's requirements. That's going to require fixing and tweaking some things within the mobile home park zone as well. So we've already received some very helpful comments on that. This will be things that we will bring forward to you and discuss during our standard review process. So this will go to the committees. There'll be opportunities for edits, public comment, etc. But this is the first step in getting that initiated. So if you all initiate today, the committees will get that in early September. It'll go to a planning commission zoning hearing on September 25th. And then go to Urban County Council where they would take it at their own discretion. However, it does need to be in place by July 1st, 2026 in order to meet the state's requirements. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Once again, there'll be opportunities later on to answer kind of a more in-depth look at some of the language. Included in Granicus is some draft text that staff has put together. Once again, knowing that that'll be subject to change as we go through. Thank you, Daniel. Mr. Pim. Are you looking for initiation of a text amendment? Yes. Well, because my cohort, Ivy Barksdale, has educated me on that, I want to approve the initiation of a zoned text amendment. Okay. Mr. Pim moves for initiation of this zoning ordinance text amendment. Second from Commissioner Wirth. Thank you. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, we'll put that to a vote. All right. That carries unanimously. Thank you. That just about concludes our agenda today. Mr. Duncan had an update on Mr. Wilson's requested work session to discuss affordable housing, and I'm going to lean on Mr. Penn, since Mr. Wilson's not here, to help us flush out exactly what we think he was desiring. And, of course, he can. I know. Frank. Frank Penn. I was just saying that Mr. Duncan's going to give us an update on the work session that Mr. Wilson had requested regarding the topic of affordable housing. Mr. Wilson's not here. Maybe you could help us with what it was we believe he would like us to discuss, people he would like to speak with, just a general overview. And, of course, he can always email or call Jim, too. The work session that we had piqued our interest because of the man that lives in Florida and what we've been able to find out just by asking questions. What we'd really like to do is have a work session that has some of the players in the room, Austin Sims, Todd Johnson, and some of the bankers. We've got Larry on one end. Let's put Luther Deaton on the other, and let's both of them talk about how we finance these things over a long period of time. If we're going to do this, if we're going to do what needs to be done for affordable housing, there's not a model out there we can follow. There's models out there we can take pieces and parts, but with the council doing what they've done and put 1% of the budget in a housing trust fund, and they've been doing that since 2014, there's enough money there, if we would do it right, that we can make a dent in affordable housing. I don't know the answers. I don't know a lot of questions. So if we could have a work session that had some of the players in the room, Todd Johnson, for instance, that want to talk about the nuts and bolts of what makes this happen and what keeps it from happening, we'd like to go that route. If somebody wants to add to that, that's fine, but that's basically what we're looking for. Just one addition on potential attendees would be those that participate in the low-income housing tax credit generating affordable housing for individuals and families making less than 60% of AMI. So that would be Johan Graham from AU Associates, Zach Worsham from Winterwood. I know those are the two biggest players, but they are themselves making a significant dent in our need for affordable housing for the lowest of the income earners. And I think having them here to talk about how they have had the ability to affect change by delivering product for those individuals in that AMI is important. Because, as we know, we go from very low income all the way up to workforce housing. And there's many different players that participate in each different segment. So those two, I think, would be important to send an invitation to. Thank you. Ms. Worth, did you have anything? I was just going to add, I think I've heard comments enough to know that nobody's saying that we've not done a good job with what we've done. It's more a matter of how can we scale up using the resources that the community has committed, but maybe trying. You're looking at some alternative financing mechanisms and things like that, right? Well, they're out there. It's just a question of whether they apply or not. And I don't know the answer to that. Mr. Forrester. Two things. We may consider doing the financing piece on a separate meeting because you can't get to the financing until you know what the plan is. We need to get the product. We need to figure out, yeah. Just so you don't have everybody in college, maybe the bankers come in after we do the meeting. Also, senior housing is, I didn't hear about that, the Urban League has some senior housing and affordable housing. They are CHOTO representatives, so they are part of that group. They went out to Transit Baseball Park, too. That's a growing need. So the senior housing is affordable senior housing. I don't want to speak for Ivy, but do you find any difficulties in that area from your perspective? Well, I really haven't done a lot in the area of senior housing. One of the things, though, that does come to mind for me is that as we talk about affordable housing, that I want to make sure that we're also focused on the purchase of housing, not just on rentals, that we do need to still be able to allow the average person to be able to purchase a home in Fayette County. That's where I thought the manufactured homes might give us some options. Well, to piggyback on that, Mr. Duncan, as Bruce rightly said, there's different levels of this. Affordable housing, being rental income, is one thing. Affordable housing, where people can build equity, is another. And so we don't know what the solution is, but everybody knows what the problem is. And until we address it on a scale that we haven't seen before, we're not going to meet the need. And I don't know what the answer is, but I think that by the council putting 1 percent of the budget, that's $5.8 million this coming budget cycle, there's opportunities there to do a lot. And whether you do it with present money or you do it with bonded money makes a whole lot of difference, because bonding money ties one council to the next. Budget money ties one year to one year. So if you could get a program big enough that you were using bonded money, you would absolutely continue this program. And for instance, the PDR money is based on bonded money. So that's for what it's worth. All right. Does that give you what you need? So, Mr. Chair, I'm going to say back what I've heard, and I'm terribly sorry. I've said this a hundred times. The sound in this room is so bad, so I may have missed what you all said. So please correct me. Don't let me tell you what you said. You tell me what you said. But I heard Mr. Penn say that we wanted Austin Sims to come and Todd Johnson to be there, and then Mr. Penn said the bankers, and then Mr. Forrester said something about banking. So was that in support of what Mr. Penn said, or was that something different than what Mr. Penn said? It's similar, but not in the same meeting. Not in the first meeting. Not in the same meeting. Does everyone concur that the bankers don't need to be at the? Okay. So Austin Sims, Todd Johnson, and you all punctuated people who can make it happen, or what is making it happen or what's keeping it from happening. And then Bruce talked about the low-income housing tax credit and mentioned that representatives of AU Associates and Winterwood are experts at that. So that would be Austin from the Housing Authority, AU and Winterwood, both affordable housing providers, as well as a representative, Todd, from the building industry. And then, I'm sorry, Ivy, you mentioned the, who mentioned the Urban League, was that? It don't matter. Okay. Urban League, but someone from Urban League also to talk about senior affordable housing. Is that? Yes. Okay. And then Ivy's concern was also not just affordable rental housing, but affordable purchase housing as well. Can somebody talk about that? What did I miss on that? Okay. Well, the chair and I talked about this, and I'll get to next week in just a minute, but we do have a number of things really for the rest of the year that we need to be covering with you all for business in the work sessions. However, I do believe, based on what we have to talk about, that the September 18th work session, Thursday, September 18th, we already have some other things on there, but I believe we could put a housing roundtable-type discussion on that meeting as well. So that's what we'll aim for. So for the next two work sessions, next week in August, we've already got those committed, but we'll see if we can get something for you for the September meeting. Okay. And then, Mr. Chair, if I may, since I'm talking about work sessions, we do have a fifth Thursday work session next week, July 31st. We'll be back in the Phoenix building. We're going to be giving you a we have you all recall that we, the council, the mayor and the council, added staff for us at the beginning of last fiscal year. Well, we had just recently gotten one of those sections fully staffed up. So we'd like to introduce you to the outreach and strategic planning section, give you an update on what they've been doing, what will be coming up. They'll be talking to you mainly about kind of a transportation aspect of things, the complete streets that we're working on, the street program that the council is working on, and then something called asphalt art, which is very much a transportation related. So we've got an OSP, outreach and strategic planning update. We also have another ZOTA to talk to you about from environmental services. And then we have, even though we had a consultant update for Blue Sky last week, we have another staff update for the Blue Sky small area plan. So we do have a full work session for you all next week and do hope everybody can be in the Phoenix building at 1.30. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, staff. If we have nothing else, we are adjourned.