You Do Do we have a motion or any revisions? Mr. Forrester, Mr. Chair, if there's not any revisions, I would like to make a motion to accept the October 8th, 2025 minutes as presented. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Mr. Wilson is a second. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that motion to a vote, please. Our second was Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Paula. That carries. We are going to go slightly out of order. We have performance bonds and letters of credit. Without objection, we have a memorandum in our packet for Mr. Fairchild dated November 13th. Is there any discussion on that memorandum or the floor is open for a motion? Mr. Chair, I can make a motion to approve the, excuse me, to accept the releasing of the performance bonds. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote on that motion. I'm sorry, it was Mr. Penn. Okay, that carries. Thank you. Now, we will move on to any necessary postponements or delays. I have received a letter today asking for a withdrawal for the plan MJDP 2558 Lexmark International. This can be found at the bottom of page three. All right, that's item B. Item B on page three? Yes, item B. They've asked for a withdrawal of the plan. They've asked to withdraw the plan. Would that be an indefinite postponement or just a withdrawal? No, just a withdrawal. Okay. They don't want to move forward with it. They want to withdraw it. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any discussion or a motion on that item? Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Owens. I'll move for the withdrawal at the applicant's request of plan WAB 25-1 Lexmark International at their request. Second. All righty. Thank you very much. Second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. Okay. That carries unanimously. All right. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, our next agenda item will be on page two, preliminary subdivision plan PLN MJSUB 25-4. Mr. Chaney. Good afternoon. Chris Chaney, planning staff. We're looking at MJSUB 25-4, the Cox property, Revere Run Unit 2, Jacobs Farm, and the associated waiver, PLN WAV 25-4. Where this is a preliminary subdivision plan, you will be considering the approval of the plan itself and the waiver. I'll go through the staff report for the plan, and then we'll discuss the waiver after that. This property is located at 2449 Liberty Road. On the plan, Liberty Road is to the left. Off the plan to the north is Girardi, and I believe Revere Run is to the south. And then in this location right here, Marblehead currently stubs into the property. And as part of this plan, it's proposed to extend Marblehead into the property to access the single-family lots. The purpose of this plan is to reflect development of 15 single-family lots and a public street, and a waiver for the street cross-sections has been requested. The applicant did submit a revised plan on October 31st, and based on that submittal, we have the following revised recommendations. You should have a blue sheet in your packet with those revised comments. Under the requirements not met, number one, denote arterial landscaping easement for double-frontage lots. These three lots do back up to Liberty Road, but they also have access off of what will be Marblehead, so there is a requirement for arterial landscape easement due to that. Number two, denote construction of the sidewalk connection from Marblehead Drive to Liberty Road on lot 14 shall occur at the same time as home construction. The owner of lot 14 should be responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the sidewalk, and so what that refers to is from what's shown as a turnaround, they are proposing a sidewalk for a pedestrian connection out to Liberty Road. So we need that denoted on the plan. Number three, resolve driveway access to lot 13 prior to certification. So if you look at, this is lot 13, and I believe this is lot 12, and where the property line is currently shown between the two, it doesn't leave enough spacing for a driveway, and I believe, and the applicant may be able to speak to this more, but I believe there was a discussion about possibly doing a driveway easement or moving that line. Number four, depict utility strips at least five and a half feet in width. Number five, provide turnaround detail, so we need some dimensioning on this turnaround and cross section details for that. Under waivers necessary, they have requested a waiver that we'll discuss shortly for the cross sections. Under design considerations, Kentucky Utilities requires, or I'm sorry, request utility easement along the 20-foot building line in lots 14 through 16, and actually I think now with the revised plan that would be 13 through 15 here. And then under plan questions and concerns, number one, discuss stormwater management plan including location, ownership, and maintenance, and number two, is sanitary sewer tap available to each proposed lot and where will it connect to the existing sewer? Staff does recommend approval subject to the following conditions. The sign-offs for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, bike ped, division of water qualities, approval of the capacity assurance program requirements, and then also provided the planning commission grants a waiver of land sub-regulations 6-8A, 6-8F, and exhibits 6-3 and 6-7. And then finally, correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And that's the staff report for the development plan. And in regards to the waiver, you should have a waiver report in your packet as well. That's WAV 25-4. And again, as I previously stated, they're requesting waivers from 6-8A, 6-8F, and exhibits 6-3 and 6-7, and those should be attached in your packet. The land subdivision regulations describe the allowable waivers from the planning commission. The variances granted by the commission shall be noted in the official minutes along with the reasons that justify the granting of the variance. And those are listed as under the land subdivision regulations 1-5A, an exceptional hardship, 1-5B, design innovations and large-scale development, and 1-5C, infill redevelopment facilitation, and 1-5D, alternate designs for environmental water quality considerations. The applicants requesting a waiver to the land subdivision regulations pertaining to design of the termination of a street and alternate cross-sections, the request for the waiver per the applicant is submitted under Article 1-5A, exceptional hardship, and Article 1-5B, design innovation and large-scale development. The subject property is located in a single-family residential R1E zone, which has minimum and maximum lot sizes required. The lots are generally small, and in this case, intended to provide starter housing with lower costs. The lot frontage along Liberty Road is approximately 135 feet, but it doesn't widen until approximately 300 feet back from Liberty Road. The narrowness of the lot does not leave much space to include a 52-foot right-of-way, which is required for a residential cul-de-sac and continuing local street per Exhibit 6-3 of the land subdivision regulations, or the required 100 to 120 foot required for a standard cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround per Exhibit 6-7 of the land subdivision regulations. They're proposing an alternate turnaround and a narrower cross-section. The applicant opines that due to the size and shape of the property, their ability to construct a typical street cross-section and cul-de-sac is limited, and by doing so, they would have to eliminate several buildable lots. Initially, the applicant proposed providing access to the lots in the narrow portion of the parcel with an access easement. Initially, they showed a public right-of-way to approximately this area, and then an access easement across these three lots to provide access to the back three lots as well, and then a 10-foot emergency access easement out to Liberty Road. So through tech committee and subdivision committee, we had numerous discussions about this, and staff recommended that they redesign and try to come up with something that would allow a public right-of-way to access the single-family lots, and therefore doing away with the necessity of having an HOA to maintain the road. In such a small development with the smaller lots, there intended to be starter homes, it seemed like having to include an HOA was a little onerous on the property owners. So they did redesign and resubmit the plan showing the current configuration with the public right-of-way and eliminating the access easements and the emergency access to Liberty Road. So now they're proposing a cross-section that was formally allowed in the land subdivision regulations, and I believe that was from 2011. The design is a 40-foot public right-of-way width. The roadway is 21 feet to the back of the curbs with four and a half foot utility strips and two five-foot sidewalks. They're requesting that the sidewalk on the south side be the responsibility of future developers of the adjoining property, and they opine that this proposal will not reduce the functionality of the road. No homes are proposed on the south side of the street as the proposed right-of-way is immediately adjacent to the common lot line with the property to the south. So this configuration also allows for a connection to the adjacent property should it be developed in the future. So that was one of the suggestions that was made as well to provide that connectivity. But with the constraint of the narrow portion of the parcel, it does kind of limit how much space they have to work with. So that was why they're requesting it in this configuration. Staff recommends approval of the requested waivers to Article 68A, 68F, and Exhibits 63 and 67 for alternate standards for cross sections and cul-de-sac for the following reasons. Granting the requested waiver for the termination of a public street will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare in compliance with the intent of the land subdivision regulations. The applicant is providing an alternate turnaround to allow the safe movement of vehicles and emergency services. And number granting the waiver is consistent with the intent of Article 15A of the land subdivision regulations for exceptional hardship due to the size and shape of the site. Conditions of approval, no parking signs shall be posted along both sides of Marblehead Drive and within the turnaround. This shall be noted on the cross section as well. The second condition, final dimensions and detail of the turnaround must be approved by the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, Traffic Engineering, and Engineering prior to certification of the final record plat. Turnarounds shall include utility strips and sidewalks on both sides. And finally, all utility strips shall be a minimum of five and a half feet in width to accommodate street trees and all underground utilities. With that, I'll turn it over to you all. Okay, thank you Chris. Do we have any questions at this time for either the plan or the requested waiver? Seeing none, thank you very much. Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Cayley, TA Partners, and I'm here on behalf of Mike Cravens. We're in agreement with staff's recommendations and conditions. I would like to note on the blue sheet that the sidewalk talked about in number two is shown on lot 15, so we probably should just have that be 14 or 15 wherever the sidewalk does get built. Okay, with the exception of that one revision, do we have any other discussion? Rory, can you repeat that revision? Sure, blue sheet, requirements not met number two, owner of lot 14 or 15 shall be responsible. It can go on either side through there. We've got plenty of room. We renumbered all the lots when we redid this, and it's currently on 15. That's the only reason I bring it up. So we can just change the number in note two to lot 15. So the revision of 14 to 15. Okay, yes. Do we have any questions at this time? Seeing none, thank you, Rory. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular plan today? Seeing none, is there any final Commissioner comment before we take a vote on the plan and then on the requested waiver? Floor is open for a motion. Mr. Forster. I make a motion for PLN MJ SUB 25-4, the blue sheet, and to revise the requirement number two from lot 14 to lot 15. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Mr. Penn seconded. Do we have any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, we will take a vote on it. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Also on the blue sheet where it says under design considerations, can you request utility easement along 20 foot building line and lots 14 through 16? I don't see a 16. Should that be 13 through 15? That's correct. It should be 13 through 15. Okay. Is Mr. Forster open to amending your motion? Oh, yes. The amended motion permits Davis on from 13 through 15 under design consideration. All righty. And Mr. Penn, you're good with that revision. Thank you. Okay. So yes, thank you, Molly. That's a good catch. Sure. Okay. So we have a revised motion and second. All in favor of that, please cast your vote regardless. Thank you. That carries. Okay. Now we move on to the waiver. Yes. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion for approval of PLN WAV25-4. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Second. Mr. Penn, thank you. Do we have any discussion on the waiver? All right. If not, let's go ahead and take a vote on that as well. All right. That carries unanimously. Thank you, applicants. Moving on to our next item on the agenda today is at the bottom of page two, item number three, development plans. PLN, well, this is the waiver, 25-3 Phelps property and the plan, I suppose. Good afternoon. This is Phelps property. This is located out off of Richmond Road. This is 8th and Spoonsboro, Richmond Road, 8th and Spoonsboro Road. This is 8th and Sway. This is the old Richmond Road that's connecting over here. Currently, the state has a large project going on out there for new R-Cut designs. So with this, they are closing the old Richmond Road access and changing the way 8th and Sway connects up to old Richmond Road. This property is in a triangular shape. It's unique in its own. They're asking for a waiver of Article 16-6A-1 and 16-6A-2, along with 23-A-9K-4 of the zoning ordinance. This is all in relation to corner lots, vehicle use areas in a corner lot, which we have in this location here, because this is an access point coming off of 8th and into the property. This is a private street that they have running through the middle of the property. Also, we have a corner lot located more or less on this whole area here, which is for a convenience store with gas pumps. The proposed development is to have a C-Store with gas pumps, also a restaurant with a patio area, and then they have townhomes and apartments along this back area with a pool. They've had to come in and resubmit a development plan from the previous plan that was approved, because at this current time, they're working with the state as far as getting the right-of-way. This is a process that could take a little while to complete. With that, they pulled up the additional parking area here. They had a connection, a driveway that came around and wrapped around here to have additional parking over in this area, but at this time, we're not including that as part of our waiver as far as a corner lot, because they do not have that shown here. Right now, we're just working on the corner lots in this area and over in here. With that, they're asking for the waivers. They're asking for the waiver for the reduction of the vehicle use area in the front yards and additional parking in the front of the C-C area. This is all C-C community centers, so they asked for additional vehicle use areas in these areas. The whole idea of this development is to have it all pedestrian-friendly, so everything's pulled into the center, to the core, so that they want it to pull the buildings and not have them fronting on 8th and Spoonsboro, but more within the center of the whole overall development. They were asking for waivers for the vehicle use area. With that, there's also part of why they're pulling these buildings into the center area. There's a great change between this development and 8th and Spoonsboro Road. So, pulling those structures in, that helps to create a smaller community type area. The applicant, the waivers that they are asking for will not compromise the public health and safety and welfare of the public. We felt like the request was minimum and allow the site to function in a better community center area. The staff had recommended approval saying the waiver will not compromise the public health and safety welfare and will have a minimum adverse impact due to the vehicle use area in the front yards and as the applicant has designed the development to be pedestrian-friendly and has incorporated traffic calming features into the layout. Additional landscaping along 8th and Spoonsboro frontage will mitigate the aesthetic appearance for the vehicle use areas front yards. The extent of the waiver of the regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant due to the applicant's desire to provide better internal pedestrian connectivity. A strict application of the provisions of the regulations would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant due to the topography and the configuration of the parcel. With the recommendation with approval, the recommendation is made subject to the following provided that the landscape buffer for the vehicle use areas facing 8th and Spoonsboro Road along the top part here 8th and Spoonsboro be a minimum of 10 feet and width per article 18.3a 1.4 of the zoning ordinance. Item b provided that the landscape buffer for the vehicle use areas for lot 1 facing the private street a minimum of 10 foot and width for the rear side yards per 18.3a 1.4 of the zoning ordinance. In order to provide a buffer to the residential use across the private street the front yard facing 8th and Spoonsboro will meet the minimum requirements. So that is this is our lot 1 here it will meet the minimum requirements along 8th and Spoonsboro. With this being a commercial use and this being a residential use um we were looking to see um with increasing the vehicle use screening along that area for a better use. We also ask that they complete sidewalk connections beyond between all structures and the public and private streets per the our note article 23a 9k5 of the zoning ordinance. They have put in a raised pedestrian crossing here to meet to the sidewalks from the convenience store and they do have sidewalks on both sides of the street. They have a path here that comes all the way from one end of the property down across and then it'll go back out eighth of its way and cross 8th and Spoonsboro road. We'd just like to see some additional pedestrian crossings between the convenience store and the restaurant connecting over to the other townhomes in this area. So with that I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Mr. Penn. Cheryl uh the technical committee recommended postponement. They resubmitted the plan that took care of all the items the technical committee was basing their postponement on. Um we're still we haven't looked at that as far as with the development plan because the postponement was more with how this area here was to be developed because at the time they had parking spaces and they also had another apartment complex in here and so this development plan here proposed that we have not reviewed it to do revised conditions for the development plan but they have been working towards redeveloping this to show the parking in this area and then they'll have landscaping along this area here. So we haven't done a revised staff report but we believe that with these revisions it'll work. That's what I was getting at. I didn't see a revised staff report. I need to hear that. Thank you. All right do we have any other commissioner questions at this point for the requested waiver? Okay thank you. And at this point we'll hear from Mr. Barrett. Thank you Chairman Davis, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Tony Barrett here on behalf of the applicant. Lisa Corpus with Wawa is here. Could you raise the? Thank you. I'm up here. Lisa Corpus with Wawa is here with us today. Dick Murphy apologizes he had a funeral to attend today and is not able to be with us here. So you get the second string. So but Cheryl summed up the summary or the waiver request and Mr. Penn I did submit a revised plan and I think it addressed most or all of the listed requirements not met and some of the planned questions or concerns of those that were plan-centric I'll say I've addressed at this point and but we're in agreement with the recommendation and the conditions for the approval. So any questions I'm happy to help. All righty thank you Tony. Do we have any questions or clarifications Mr. Penn? Yeah the only reason I brought that up is that normally when that happens there's a revised staff report and so I was just trying to get the answer to the revised staff report. So Mr. Penn because the Planning Commission is no longer considering approving the plan itself the tech committee is doing that you're considering the waiver only so this plan when it was postponed at the technical committee will go back to technical committee in a few weeks and because Mr. Barrett has submitted a revised plan the staff will do a revised staff report to the technical committee. Okay so technical committee hadn't seen the revised plan. Correct. That makes a difference thank you. Okay do we have any questions for Mr. Barrett anything else? Yes. Yes I do. Mr. Barrett I see on the notes on the plan that the existing canopy is about 90,000 square feet of trees and that's the same amount that is to be removed. So I'm wondering I guess I'm wondering about that. Can you speak to that? I can and I've met with Eric Sutherland the urban forester on site and the reason for that is because of the significant grade change relative to the access to Athens Boonesboro Road and the realigned aphids there's I think it's been a while since I did the tree protection plan but I believe it was about 20 feet of grade change in certain areas and pretty much significant grade change for the whole site if you've been out there there's a very significant elevation change and and so that is the the principal reason. Eric was comfortable as I understand it and I'd let him speak for himself but because of the significant increase of canopy that is proposed he felt that offset the removal. All right thank you. Thank you. Okay all right thank you Mr. Barrett. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular waiver today? Yes if you would please approach the podium and just state your name and it is the policy of the planning commission that everyone from the public who would like to speak has everyone has three minutes and there is no borrowing or lending of time at the planning commission. I'm Tanya Whitfield and I just want to know how does these changes benefit the community? I don't know a fancier way to ask that question so I'm just going to ask it like that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Okay seeing none the floor is open for commissioner discussion or a motion. You want to answer that question first from staff somebody from staff staff can answer I mean I can take a shot it's just not our job to answer that question. I can answer. You want to go ahead B. Yeah one way that I can answer that question is just concerning supply for multi-family housing. We're looking at a vacant and underutilized piece of property and by redeveloping it in this redeveloping it in this way it looks like we're able to add total of I don't see the total number of units here but we're adding and we're increasing the supply of housing which ultimately will help with the demand because we have over demand for housing in our community in any addition of housing to our community especially on vacant and unutilized properties kind of solves that problem by increasing the supply it reduces the pressure on the demand and allows for the market to calibrate and possibly reduce housing cost. I don't know if that's a possibility here but the more housing that we have the better we are able to serve all of our community. Okay thanks B. The floor again is open for discussion or motion Mr. Wilson. Oh well if the commission is comfortable I'll go ahead and make a motion. Sure. Okay I recommend approval of PLNWAV which is the waiver only 25-3 Phelps property with the conditions provided by staff along with the findings. Yes okay thank you Mr. Wilson motion to approve the waiver request second for Mr. Larry Forrester. Do we have any discussion on that motion? Seeing none we will go ahead and take a vote. Who seconded? I did. Oh okay. Okay they just get they're slow. Okay that carries unanimously thank you Mr. Barrett. All right the next item was withdrawn so that takes us to page four item C PLNWAV 25-6. All right Chris. All right so we're going to be looking at the waiver WAV 25-6 for Enzminger and Martha property and Shaw property and this is in conjunction with the development plan 25-60 for the same location this is located at 425 Race Street. I'll kind of quickly go over the development plan just to kind of give you an idea of what we're looking at. This is 4th Street. Race Street is here. We're going to be talking about Conley Street. Hawkins Avenue is here to plan north and Conley Street comes off of Hawkins and stubs into the rear of the subject property and currently that there's a six-foot privacy fence and some vegetation in that area. In regards to the development plan the technical review committee voted to approve on October 29th and it was approved with conditions. The standard sign-offs for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forest, or bike ped, open space, division of fire, division of waste management, U.S. Postal Service and then provided that the planning commission approves the requested waiver of article 16-6 A3A and then finally to correct all the noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met here in the subdivision committee did recommend approval of the waiver and you should have a waiver report in your packet. The applicant is requesting a waiver from zoning ordinance article 16-6 A3A and that should be attached in your packet and that basically states that internal pedestrian walkways shall be required and meet the following standards a minimum of five feet wide where there are no vehicular curb overhang walkways shall be a minimum of seven feet where there is vehicular curb overhang extend the vehicular access point to the building entrances and directly connect to all adjacent rights of way. So they're specifically asking for a waiver for the direct pedestrian connection from the existing building to what will be the new connection to Conley Street in the rear. Under the new changes to our zoning ordinance that allow for waivers of the zoning ordinance under article 21-9 the findings that are necessary for granting a waiver or modification the planning commission may approve waivers of standards upon finding that one the waiver will not compromise public health safety and welfare number two the extent of the waiver of the regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant and three either a the applicant has incorporated other design measures that exceed the minimums of the zone and compensate for non-compliance with the requirements to be waived or b the strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant and under 21-9e the commission may impose additional conditions or restrictions intended to mitigate the specific impact of the modification of waiver these conditions or restrictions shall be noted on the plan and are only able to be modified by the planning commission the applicant does request a waiver of article 16-6a3 of the zoning ordinance and i previously stated those those standards specifically the direct connection to the adjacent right-of-way is the main consideration here the property is located at 425 race street this is lot four in the development so this is this is lot four and then to the right is lot three um in 1993 a plat was recorded that divided the larger part a larger parcel and noted reciprocal parking access and storm water rights across lot three to the east currently i'll see i'm gonna skip ahead just a little bit this is the aerial of the site so this is the subject property here lot three or i'm sorry lot four and this is the property to the east lot three i'm gonna get mixed up in my head i apologize in advance so at the present time there is a common parking lot that was part of that original subdivision with the reciprocal parking agreement due to disagreements between the the occupants there's been litigation and in an attempt to um to solve some of those problems and mitigate the the issues um the uh the applicant is proposing to construct a dedicated uh parking lot behind the the rear of the existing structure and then access that uh from conley street here so i'm going to go back to the the diagram the original development plan for now um lot four is currently being operated as a funeral home and lot three is currently operated as a daycare center conley street itself is substandard in terms of width and lacks improvements such as curbs gutters and sidewalks it's basically an alley at this point with no uh no no sidewalk no pedestrian connection uh itself um it's approximately 130 feet long and no termination exists such as a cul-de-sac or other turnaround um and with this proposal in addition to creating a connection to conley street the applicant will close cross access to lot three with a landscape buffer and a six foot tall fence so they're showing a fence along this property line and then they're required to do the vua landscape buffer in this area they were previously granted on november 10th by the board of adjustment they were granted a variance to the required landscaping on the west side to reduce the landscaping here to give them some more space for the parking lot there is still a five foot utility easement in this area see i might be able to see that a little better if i zoom in excuse me so they're showing um five parking spaces with a with a 24 foot drive aisle and then a sidewalk connection from the parking lot to the rear of the building they also currently have a sidewalk connection from the front of the building out to the sidewalk along race street and currently parking is prohibited along this block of race street uh and that kind of leaves the applicant with no no dedicated parking which again is why they're proposing this this parking lot in order to provide a five foot utility easement along the western property boundary adequately sized parking spaces a drive aisle and the required eight foot landscape buffer here the applicant is requesting this waiver of the direct pedestrian connection to connelly street the applicant has determined that in this situation a landscape buffer between the lots is more of more value and utility than a sidewalk to a substandard street with limited pedestrian movement and so basically it's not likely they could build a sidewalk across the utility easement and in this area for the eight foot landscape buffer to be able to include a pedestrian connection they would have to reduce that as well so they're they're trying to maintain that buffer and fence in this area and it just it just doesn't leave them enough room for a sidewalk in that space and so therefore staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of article 16-6 a3a of the zoning ordinance for the following reasons number one the waiver request does not compromise public health safety and welfare as the parking lot is small with minimal traffic at slow speeds sidewalks are provided to race street in the proposed parking lot but will not connect to connelly street a substandard street number two the extent of the waiver of this particular regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant due to the required dimensions for parking access and landscaping and number three a strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant due to the size and configuration of the lot if this waiver is not granted the applicant would have to reduce landscape buffering or the size of the parking spaces or drive aisle in the parking lot which would impact the utility of the parking lot all right thank you chris do we have any questions for chris on his report regarding the requested waiver okay thank you very much now we will hear from the applicant sorry i'm sorry not not yet all righty oh all right the last uh items that uh mr cheney discussed i thought that i was following him on these conditions the plan was approved with the following conditions i would like to know what those last i would like to know what those last few notes that he just spoke of what what were they the last few things you spoke about all righty um yes sir do you have anyone with you today representing you on this application or this request i'm representing myself okay uh let's oh i'm sorry okay okay all right we will get to we will get to public comment yes sir in just a moment sorry i'm sorry for the uh confusion people no you're right okay do we have any questions from the commission for chris at this point if not thank you chris now we'll hear from the applicant's representation who is the applicant uh good afternoon uh tony barrett here on behalf of the applicant um and uh john taylor from hawkins taylor funeral home is here as well and then you saw brandon gross and lauren nichols from brandon with legal council for the applicant uh chris summed up the uh the the need for the waiver and the uh and the uh recommendation from staff we had a recommendation of approval from the subdivision committee and uh well they don't have anything further to say i'd be happy to answer any questions all righty thank you mr barrett do we have anything to the applicant at this time seeing none thank you all right thank you okay do we have any other final planning commission questions before we move on to public comment seeing none now we uh are happy to hear from members of the public if you would just state your name and everybody gets three minutes hold on one second sir let's we'll get hold on one second sir let's we'll get a microphone yes sir we can't hear you you fine no you're pretty good let's see where can i start here um one of the comments are mr cheney alluded to concerning the litigation between the two properties owners uh it's not all factual and it's not all correct and needs to be further looked into as far as the okay yeah as i said if you would just if you would just state your name please for the record oh paul gardener thank you yes i'm a property owner at the daycare next door myself and my wife here um i'll go back since the microphone's closer to me the this comment of that mr cheney raised about or the statement about the litigations between the two parties is not correct and factual and it needs to be looked into a little farther but my concern today also is that before the october the 22nd board commission planning commission meeting we had expressed some concerns and safety issues and a petition opposing this development plan but it seems like it's it's just almost like a runaway freight train with all the things that taking place so fast and we we don't feel that our concerns safety issues and petition has been represented through this process and i would ask the board if they are aware of the petition the uh safety the concerns and safety issues that was presented on i think it was might be in the thursday before the 22nd planning commission mr forrester excuse me sir do do our staff do we have that petition is that something that was presented to staff we do have citizen comments right in this does that constitute something different than this i don't think yes it does okay so this was a paper copy that mr mr gardner delivered to our office that was in the file the rest had come or arrived in our office via email so paula collected those and attached them in granicus thank you very much so i'm going to take a moment to read this which is going to mean it's going to take a moment for all of you to read it should we pause what should we do if um if i'm remembering correctly uh mr garner uh garner at the um subdivision committee meeting last thursday yes i thought that the uh once they showed that there was a six foot fence all the way to the back of the property i thought that settled your safety concern no that's not correct no okay not at all it's more safety concerns and issues than just offense no okay well i i guess that's the way we took it when we voted to move forward no i uh i've even uh spoke to you and you walk right past me no i didn't even know that you had any record any thought about it okay then it never was spoken on as i say without due respect from the onset it's never been addressed can you just briefly elaborate on what you believe has not been addressed oh it's it's not off the top of my head right now and it's written it's written i'm not can i i'm not sure what his safety concerns are and if if i knew those i might be able to address that could we actually take what mr gardener is referencing and put it on the uh the overhead okay can't be there either okay ok is are you I thank you pardon would you all care to see the list of signatures that I just passed to Mr. Duncan or shall I give there are very many signatures on it ok we will let's we can pass that that part of it down for us to each take a look at Frank say he can't see I can't either it makes two of us I can't I can't see it I can't see it I can't see it there you go now cover your left eye ok let's uh we can keep we can go excuse me yes sir do I still have the floor I have another a petition that was signed that you need to see also you're welcome can I submit that to you submit that and it will be put in the record yes thank you ok can there will be let the planning commission find our footing here on this but yes there will certainly be opportunity for public comment already can we move down just make on the document itself yes is there something that was highlighted at the beginning at the end rather I should have a copy ok Mr. or Ms. Grose yes sorry I did not expect to come up here today if you go the first part of that page one through six those are all the issues that are before the judge right now and this is the first we have seen of this list and so we'll listen to what the safety concerns are but ultimately the child care facility is located on lot three there will be a complete separation of our parking from them I'm not sure how us parking in the rear of our property would cause any kind of safety concerns for the children in a building 50 feet away or 50 yards away but we'll listen and then we'll respond accordingly we just want to make sure that we stay out of the litigation because what we're trying to do is solve the litigation with this particular action and the issue is before just to give a quick summary Judge Van Meter has ruled we are not allowed to park in the daycare's parking and so essentially we have no parking and the issue before the court is do we have a right to drive through their parking lot to reach our parking we rather than continue to litigate that issue we found what we thought was a creative solution to resolve the litigation and so some of what you will hear today may be items in the petition could easily be based upon not accurate information for people that actually signed that petition I do believe that Billy Mallory submitted something also as part of this and I think she may have even responded with a follow up and so either way we will respond accordingly but I just wanted to kind of let you guys know that we're moving forward with this in hopes to resolve the issue between the two parties and disentangle them from each other so that we can essentially both sides can operate their properties on their properties and at this point I doubt talk to one another in the future so thank you alrighty and I guess for clarification today the question in front of the planning commission is whether or not we find it appropriate to grant this property owner at 425 a waiver as requested by them B I'll say that that is correct it's whether we build the 5 foot sidewalk or we provide 5 more feet of grassed area that's really the only question before the board today and offense well I'm sorry 5 feet on the other side over where the utility is yeah we're putting the landscape and the fence we're putting the fence but the waiver is whether or not we need to build that sidewalk in that green strip or whether we keep that green strip sure instead of having more impervious surface correct ok Mr. Nickel and then Mr. Penn alright Mr. Grose I am totally confused so I need a little bit of help here I think we're conflating two issues which you just brought up that there's an issue there's ongoing litigation between lot 3 and lot 4 where previously lot 4 had access to parking on lot 3 and that is under litigation at the moment so my understanding tell me if this is correct I'm just being real simple here we have property 425 Ray Street is the property that we are looking at right now in order to solve their parking problem it is proposed to put parking in the rear of the property I'd like to talk about Conley Street where can can you point to me where Conley Street currently dead ends right there it currently dead ends right there that is existing condition that is correct it stubs right into the back of our property ok so in order to solve a parking problem you're requesting um approval or waiver which allows you by right to develop parking in the rear it's actually more limited than that the waiver itself if you look here this strip right here is an 8 foot vegetative strip and so the waiver is to not have us build a 5 foot concrete sidewalk within that green strip and instead leave it as grass that's the only issue that's all is whether or not we need to build a sidewalk there it's an internal sidewalk internal sidewalk that's the only issue before the court don't say that yeah I know I know yeah so this is so while all these other issues were mentioned today before you the only issue is may we have this as grass or should we install more impervious surface in the rear of the property ok understood the reason I was asking the questions about Conley street is that um normally you know alleys do have the possibility to create safety and well being concerns have safety and well being concerns this alley is already existing so that condition is not changing it's just connecting the Conley street to parcel 425 Ray street yeah and so that's right so right now Conley is built I don't know who built it um but it's been there for public street public street for decades um there is no sidewalk on either side of Conley and we don't anticipate anyone walking up Conley to our business and if we did construct a sidewalk our sidewalk would run here it would run down there and then we would drop them off to no sidewalk once they left the property Ms. Conley does not have sidewalks currently and just to clarify is Conley an alley or a street I think technically it's a street ok that's what I thought I think Bruce did a good job ok Commissioner Davis thank you chair um during uh the staff presentation it was referred to a number of times as a 5 foot utility easement to the but it says 6 foot over there is it 5 or is it 6 it's 6 but it's 5 on our property and 1 on the dollar store property ok thank you I was totally confused ok  I'm going to go ahead and address the concern that I have today is I'm really here for the community and I am about the children that's my first priority is their safety and their well being I've been doing this for 19 years also along with teaching for 7 years so I enjoy children and it is one of the most profound just fulfillment when I go in each day and I see them and I educate them I prepare them for the kindergarten program so my concern that I have is not just really on our side of the road also on the back side because I live in the neighborhood and kids are constantly riding their scooters their bicycles and everything along their stretch and so my thing of it is are we going to stop the kids from being able to learn they're cognitive that's how they grow that's how they learn that's how they understand that they cannot do something they fall down they have to pick themselves up all of this is part of growth and development and I don't want to take none of that away from the children we were told on November the 11th that some signs were taken down by the day care playground and in the stretch of race street those were no parking signs now the problem that I'm having with it when the question was posed about why were these signs taken down the individual who was in leadership stated that they were taken down because it was a 30 year old signs was up for 30 years sorry they were up for 30 years and those signs were reflective of children early on 30 years ago running to the dollar store and they said that we still have children families in the neighborhood so that was not the answer that was not the truth of this situation we have kids still running to that dollar store now they are on scooters now they are on scooters I'm trying to understand why they were removed the parking signs and they were to represent children crossing the road so I don't know if that was the truth or not so that's where I'm at with that concern thank you ma'am I appreciate it enjoy that         no they are all the same which is good so I'm going to read this statement and I need you to help me clarify something it says we are asking our zoning and planning city officials to keep Conley Alley closed to prevent traffic from endangering kids during play time and day care drop it currently has two fences at its termination along the backyard of the subject property so in that regard once you get to the two house or two lots on either side you can't go any further so I guess I would consider that closed can you show me on the screen what it says it says it says open public street that is a dead end street so it is not closed to the public it's a public street and it's open to the public at this time so what you're saying is that the only way to say that would be to keep Conley alley as a dead end street understood that is the clarification that was necessary for me to understand that Conley alley is currently not closed that's what I was asking for so what you're saying is that the only way to say that is to at the end of the public street build an entrance to their parking lot in the back I think that phrase or the statement indicates that the only way to say that is to close the fence along the entire length from the building back to their property line if there are any gaps and they do have a note on the development plan which would remove the fence along Conley and they're indicating that's their construction entrance construct your parking lot from that direction so that note is a bit confusing and misleading to the gardeners that there will be movement through their lot which is opposite of what's depicted. Okay. Thank you. You all answered my question. This is analogous to many other situations we are faced with where as subdivisions are built out oftentimes there are hammerheads or dead ends built into the subdivisions and they consider that closed street to be a great benefit because they get to ride their bikes, they don't have to worry about traffic, but in reality that all of the sub streets when we are talking to people in this community we run into this in many different areas where streets have a hammerhead and once that hammerhead is open neighbors are concerned about increased traffic. Can I add something here that I think might be helpful because I have not seen the petition going around so I don't know if you have anything to add. I think that's the only thing in front of the planning commission. Mr. Forrester, do you have anything? He answered my question. We are still in public comment. Hold on just one moment, sir. Please go ahead. I'm with the east end community development corporation. I have sent in some recommendations or suggestions. Our concern about the small parking lot is that there would be lighting. I don't know that there is lighting now because it is basically a vacant lot. If the fence is removed and we have two properties on the map, there is only one house. At the end of Conley, it would turn into Hawkins. Hawkins is a one-way street that is quite narrow and has all on-street parking. I think what we are talking about are issues that are going to come up with a lot of traffic. I don't think it is an impossible thing to do to put signage at the end of Conley saying right turn only and there needs to be some signage to indicate to the residents and people that come through there that aren't used to traffic coming out of Conley to indicate that now there is through traffic. I think that can be easily solved. I don't know about the issue with the parking lot. These are two businesses. It seems like the other fence would solve that issue. We definitely would not want past traffic to be able to come through that parking lot and not be able to get through. What I wanted to say for the public record is these are two businesses that have served our neighborhood for decades. They seem to have gotten along for decades. We want both businesses to thrive. We have a day care and a funeral home that has taken care of our residents for many years. Let's hope that a fence or whatever the issue is does not divide these two businesses, does not divide our neighborhood. There has been on street parking allowed on race street which really is going to be the only place that the funeral processions can line up. Race street is a very small neighborhood. They all have driveways. There is ample space for the funeral procession on race that would not interfere with traffic. The point I want to make is we support both of these businesses and we want them to stay in our neighborhood. Let's get a microphone. The sidewalk in question about the waiver that is before the commission today, it will not be able to lead from the parking area in the back of 425 to the front of the sidewalk. It will not be able to lead from the parking area in the back of 425 to the front. of Ray Street. You're shaking your head no. No, I don't believe that is, no, they're asking for a waiver to not build a sidewalk at all. That's what I'm saying. It would serve no purpose even if it was or wasn't because it leads to nowhere. The benefit is just to be able to have the space of the four foot sidewalk over there, to be able to have the parking lot paved larger to meet the requirements of a parking lot. And then one more issue on the, just quickly, and I'm done. The litigation was, the opinion and the order from Judge Van Meter was given last year in August. It's already done. I don't know why the applicants are still saying it's in litigation. It's not. Okay. Thank you very much. Is there any other individual who would like to speak on this waiver request today? Seeing none, we will give the applicant any chance of rebuttal if they care for it. I don't have anything to add, but I'm here if you have any questions. Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Groves? Okay. Now, does the Planning Commission have any discussion amongst ourselves? Again, we're here to discuss and consider a waiver request for an internal sidewalk on 425 Ray Street. If we don't have any commissioner discussion, the floor is open for a motion. I would like to, I'd like to ask our attorney again to clarify what we are making a decision on right now. I thought it was, I really liked that you interjected what we are talking about, and I'll try to talk more while you're finishing your bite, but when you have a moment, you can let us know what we are talking about so we can make sure that our decision is understood by everybody here. Sorry about that. The only thing that this Planning Commission has in front of it right now is whether or not to waive the subdivision regulation requirement, which is 16-6A3, that would require a sidewalk to connect the closest right-of-way, which would be Connelly. There's no sidewalks on Connelly, so you'd be, if he had, if the applicant had to build a sidewalk, it would be a sidewalk to go just, it would just end, but that's up to the Planning Commission to decide to grant the waiver. So, whether you grant the waiver or not, they can still connect to Connelly, which was the point that I was trying to explain, but that's the only issue in front of the Planning Commission right now. Okay, yes, thank you. All right, Commissioner Davis. Could I ask Ms. Vaughn if they're from traffic a question? That'd be David. David, could we trouble you with a question, please? David Villiatra with the Division of Traffic Engineering. Vaughn's with Engineering. Oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you for coming up. My question is simply, are there plans to improve Connelly Street such that if this applicant doesn't build a sidewalk, there will be some onus upon someone as yet to be named to connect to a sidewalk on Connelly Street? No, no plans for anything like that at the current time. Should Connelly Street have sidewalks, in your opinion? I probably have to interrupt because that is not what we're here for today. We are here to consider a one waiver request on one piece of property. Okay, before we entertain a motion, I'd like to say to the members of the public, thank you for coming down. We do appreciate your presence and your thoughts, and we're grateful. Now, would anyone like to make a motion on the requested waiver? Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, I will. Knowing that we've got one item, which is the waiver request for the sidewalk, that seems fairly simple, and I'm just going to say, looking at everything, a fence should provide security, and then also, as far as traffic, we're looking at five parking spaces for penal businesses, and I cannot see that creating congestion in any sort of manner. With that said, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of the waiver request, 25-6 Enzminger and Martha property, and Shaw property, which is located at 425 Race Street, for the reasons provided by the staff. Second. Thank you, Ms. Davis. We have a motion from Mr. Owens, a second from Ms. Molly Davis. Any discussion on that? I would say that the very, I think, reasonable comments on signage, on possible future signage on Hawkins, I think that the Division of Traffic may be able to answer those questions. That's not an unreasonable thought at all. Okay. We have a motion and a second. We will put that to a vote. This is to approve the waiver request, and that passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Okay. Our next item on the agenda is also on page four. Item D, PLN WAV 25-5. All right. And I just want to apologize. It was a misunderstanding on my part procedurally on how the packets get put together and the petition didn't get in because of an oversight on my part, and that was not intentional. I'm still learning a little bit. Thank you. We appreciate that. I just wanted to clarify that a little bit. Okay. Moving on. The next waiver we're considering, WAV 25-5, the James P. and Corita W. Arnold property. This is in association with development plan MJDP 2561 for the property located at 2551 Richmond Road. So this property is located. Richmond Road is to the left and to the kind of southwest. New Circle Road is a little bit off of the plan to the north. And then this is Quentin Court in the rear that comes in from the northeast. There's currently a vacant parcel immediately adjacent to the subject property, and then there's another property with a tank. I believe it's a sanitary or a ‑‑ I'm sorry, some sort of tank. This is an existing property with three buildings. There's a multi‑tenant commercial building along the southern property boundary, an existing restaurant that's going through a renovation currently, and then an existing four‑story office building with the associated parking. And then also in this corner here is a two‑story parking structure. It's accessed the top level from the main parking lot, and they're proposing to put a drive aisle in to connect to the lower section of the parking structure, which also can be accessed from Quentin Court. So the associated development plan, the technical review committee voted to approve MJDP 2561 on October 29th. The following conditions were added, sign‑offs for engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, bike ped, open space, division of waste management, division of water qualities approval of the capacity assurance program requirements, U.S. Postal Service, and then provided the planning commission grants the requested waiver of Article 20‑2B, and then finally to correct all the noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And then in your packet you should have a waiver report. And again, it's the same findings for the waiver of the zoning ordinance that we discussed earlier. Also, this property was originally developed between 1989 and 1991, according to the applicant. They're not proposing any additional structures or changes to the existing structures. The only physical changes that they're proposing are to the parking lot. They're adding islands in the parking lot. They're proposing a stub into the adjacent property, which the owner of this property also owns the property to the north, so they're providing an access in there. I should note, too, as well, there's a retaining wall along the property boundary. And then the only other physical change they're proposing is this one‑way drive aisle, which would access the lower portion of the office building. So they're proposing a change in use. They want to keep an office use on the first floor, and then the remaining three upper floors will be residential, including 18 dwelling units. And the site was developed prior to our current standards for open space. They are requesting a waiver to Article 20‑2B of the zoning ordinance, which requires 10 percent vegetated open space and 10 percent usable open space. They're proposing 4.8 percent and 5.5 percent respectively. They've reduced the number of parking spaces from 154 to 125 on the plan, partly to provide interior landscaping islands and meet current standards for vehicular use areas and also to match current market demands for parking. No open space will be removed, and additional vegetated space is provided in an attempt to meet the current standards. However, due to the constraints of the existing site, the applicant is requesting a waiver of Article 20‑2B of the zoning ordinance. Staff does recommend approval of the requested waiver for the following reasons. Number one, this waiver request does not compromise public health, safety, and welfare and supports the intent of Article 20‑2B as the applicant is providing more interior BUA and vegetated open areas than what exists currently. Number two, the extent of the waiver of this particular regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant, as this is an existing operational commercial site. Number three, a strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or it would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant by preventing desirable modifications to the longstanding center by adding 18 dwelling units and improving site circulation. Okay, thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions for Chris on this waiver request? Seeing none, thank you very much. At this time, we will hear from the applicant. Mr. Barrett. Chairman Davis, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett. I'm happy to say this is my last one for today, and hopefully I'll have more in the future. But Chris again summed up the request, and being a preference of less words, I'm just going to ask for your approval based on the findings of staff. So I'm happy to answer any questions. I will say that I'm here on behalf of Jim and Tita Arnold and the owners, and Jim is here if you have any questions for Jim. Thank you. Do we have anything for Tony today? Seeing nothing, thank you very much. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this waiver request today? Seeing none, do we have any final Planning Commissioner comment or questions? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, I'll do this again. And reading through this and seeing this, partially the reason that they're needing this change to go to multifamily or what I call mixed use, I'm very much in favor of this. But with that said, Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the waiver of 25-5 James P. and Carlita W. Arnold property located at 2551 Richmond Road for the reasons provided by the staff. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Second from Mr. Penn. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. That carries. Mr. Forrester had to excuse himself. Okay, that was easy. Moving on. Thank you, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Arnold. Okay. Our next item on the agenda is page 5, Commission Items, an appeal from the Board of Architectural Review. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. The next item on your agenda is an appeal to a decision by the Board of Architectural Review. So this is an application that you all don't get typically very often, usually one to two times a year. And this may be for some of the members of the Planning Commission the first time that you've heard one of these. So we'll walk you through the process as well as what you've got in front of you. So this is a request by the East Main Street Development, LLC. And as far as the Planning Commission action, you have the ability, when a decision by the Board of Adjustment, I mean the Board of Architectural Review, rather, is taken, the public has the ability or the applicant has the ability to appeal that decision. You hold a de novo hearing, which means you take in that existing evidence and the record of the meeting that occurred previously. You hear testimony from the staff. We've got historic preservation present today as well. The applicant has the ability to present information as well as the public. Your task with this is to review our recommendation as far as if the request was acted on correctly, if it's in agreement with the adopted guidelines of the Historic Preservation Commission. So staff will be presenting kind of a record of how we got to this point, the applicant's argument as to why the board erred in their decision, and then make a recommendation on our end. You'll take that information and use that to create your own decision. So the appeal request, this is at 509 East Main Street. I'll orient everyone in a moment on some maps as to its location. So this is within the Belcourt H-1 overlay zone. So this is a zone in which any exterior modifications to the property require a certificate of appropriateness. And so in this case, the applicant is appealing a decision by the BOAR in July to deny their certificate of appropriateness for this property. And this comes down to three elements, the mechanical screening, schematic screening, and STECO over EIFS. That acronym stands for an exterior insulation finish system. So it is essentially a product that is applied to the exterior of the structure. So the applicant is appealing that decision by the BOAR to say that that did not meet the design guidelines. And so we're just going to go over real quick. The Belcourt Historic overlay is shown, and it's outlined here. The subject property is on the outskirts where it fronts on Main Street. So it's at the intersection of Forest and Main Street. Zooming in, or rather, you can see the zoning. So Belcourt is predominantly residential, a mix of R2 and R4. The subject property itself is a B-1. It's been several businesses over the years, and several of you will remember this, as a site that recently within 2023 came to you all for a rezoning to amend some conditional zoning restrictions. So the B-1 that was originally placed on the property was extremely limited. It essentially only allowed for art galleries and antique store uses. They had those conditions expanded within the past couple of years in order to establish a private club use at this location. So that's the Camel Club. That's the current location as of today. And here is an aerial view of the subject property. So this is from 2024. So this is before any of the additions that we will be discussing today. So this is the view of the property as it sits, once again, at Main Street, and then Forest Avenue, which leads kind of deeper into the Belcourt neighborhood. Specifically, today we're going to be talking about the rear of the structure. So the work that has commenced and that is the subject of this appeal is the rear portions here. It's worth noting that the property does have an access point onto Forest, so there is a small parking lot to the rear of the structure. And then around the perimeter, there is existing fencing. As a part of the development plan for the property, there is a plan to plant bamboo along the perimeter. But for the portion that fronts on Forest here, they have a metal gate that is transparent. So not all of that property is essentially wrapped in what will, in the future, grow to be sort of this vegetated buffer. Talking about the legal basis of historic preservations, once again, its desired outcome is an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. Essentially, this is the guidelines or the basis that these properties within these overlays need to be treated similarly and in order for those certificates of appropriateness to be appropriate. So they have the ability to look at exterior changes to the structure, to the property. This includes landscaping and tree protection as well. And so we're here to talk about some modifications to the property that have occurred without a certificate of appropriateness. So this is a view on the left from that rear parking lot. So this is the rear portion of the structure. The original structure dates back to the early 1900s. This is the rear garage addition that was a later addition. And what we will be talking about today and the basis of appeal today is how to handle this vent here as well as the EIFS material that was applied to portions of this structure as well. We'll get into kind of greater detail in a little bit later in the presentation on both of those elements. And then the photo on the right is the view from the Forest Avenue right-of-way. So this is the adjoining residential property to the left, and this is the visibility of, once again, that feature. So we'll be talking about how the guidelines say to locate these necessary mechanical features, what they talk about when making changes to the exterior of a structure, and how that plays in with the appeal. And so this is some photos taken a little early on in the installation process. So this was when they had installed this additional venting. Originally, back in the fall, the applicants did go to the BOAR for several improvements to the property, including an initial ventilation system that was much more limited in scope and did not feature this larger exhaust ventilation. Basically, once they had been approved for those plans, further consultation with building inspection indicated that based on the use that they were wanting, that private club and that kitchen, they needed a larger facility. They ended up installing that venting facility without actually seeking the correct approval first. So the discussion on the design of that venting, where it should be located, how it should be handled relative to the ways that it could be approved by building inspection with the safety of the mechanical facilities never occurred. This is a view from a little bit later where they were installing, once again, that EIFS material. The applicant indicates in their letter that they were experiencing some leaking within the property, and so they applied essentially this synthetic material that acts as insulation and essentially synthetic stucco to the side of those buildings. And this is to kind of give you an extent, because it wasn't applied uniformly throughout the entirety of the rear of the structure. So you can see on the right where the existing original remains that you have the stucco and then essentially enough space that this trim is visible and that this molding here is visible and it's distinct from the existing structure. Whereas with the new application, because it's just being added onto that existing condition, extends further so you see that the—I'm sorry, go back a little bit— the trim around the top here where that new was applied, it sticks out further so it is now flush and that treatment as well. So essentially the application of this additional new material that doesn't match the original stucco that was when this addition was constructed. And this is an example, once again, where that existing wall is meeting that new EIFS material. So timeline, because this is a little bit involved case dragging back to fall of 2024. As indicated previously, this property has had numerous requests over the years for the certificate of appropriateness. And so they were granted some permissions in fall of 2024, which included some considerations for that venting system. However, during that process, it was identified that a larger vent was necessary. Under a perfect world, that's where the applicants would have stopped and come back before the Board of Architectural Review with a new design. However, that vent and that siting was installed without a certificate of appropriateness. In March of 2025, the notice was sent out for that venting and the material, and the applicant files to be heard in late March but then requests a postponement to April. April is really where we first start to get kind of a discussion on the site. Included in Granicus in front of you is a record of each of the respective meetings where there was actually a discussion, so that is April, May, and then the final July meeting. So you have that in front of you, as well as public comments that have been sent in, the applicant's information in their appeal, as well as your staff report. So there are a number of items within that for you all to evaluate. But April is really the first time that in front of the BOAR that they get to have this discussion on what has been conducted without appropriate permissions and how to kind of move forward with that. There was a lot of discussion at that meeting, and they continued to the May meeting to discuss additional design changes, once again understanding that the work had already been completed, and so they were trying to navigate what the most effective way to handle that, whether it was screening, relocating those facilities, et cetera. In May, the hearing resumes. The applicant's proposal is much of the same. They brought forth a proposal to paint the mechanical unit. The board indicated that that was not an acceptable solution to them at the time, and the conversation steered to, well, is it possible to screen this in some form or fashion? During the May hearing, that was the end of the 60-day review deadline, so the Board of Architectural Review has that 60-day window, and thus agreed to an extension by the applicant that they needed to act. So that was going to be up before they could hear it in June. So on the record during that hearing, the Board of Architectural Review asked the applicant and their representative, do you all consent to extend this deadline another 60 days? Otherwise, we have to make a determination today. The applicant on the record indicated that they were in favor of extending that deadline another 60 days, so the May item was continued. Noted that typically when there is an agreement to postpone that window, there is some formal paperwork that is sent over, but the applicant had not opted to sign and return that paperwork, but they were on the record asking for that extension. Fast forward to June, the applicant is having a back and forth with staff, the historic preservation staff, as what details that could be incorporated to a screening design, and they provide some basic details, but not in time to be heard in June, so this request continues over to July. The applicant indicates in June that they are not going to be attending the July 2025 hearing. They indicate that because that original 60-day window had passed, and they did not sign the form, that the operation of law takes place and that the request should have been approved already. The applicant does not attend that July hearing, and so in their absence, the request was presented to the BOAR, who ultimately disapproved those items based on the recommendation of the historic preservation staff. Once again, with the action of the BOAR, the applicant now has 30 days to file that appeal. They filed that in August, and so you are now hearing about it now. Just to give you an idea of what the original, the different proposals and how they evolved, the left is the element that was brought forward at the first hearing. This was how they proposed first to paint, so this was the discussion in May. Moving to July, they started having discussions, or what was being presented in July was the applicant's proposal for some type of screening. They provided these images, but not to the detail and specificity that is necessary for the board and the staff to review. Once again, when these were presented in July, the applicant was not present, as they contend that the application should have already been approved. Talking about historic preservation guidelines, we talk about two different elements here. The first is, what do we do with mechanical systems? The second, what do we do when there's changes made to the exterior of the structure? The guidelines really speak to a couple different elements when it comes to these mechanical systems. We know that these are essential for everyday life and life as we've come to expect it, but when we need to include them, they need to be included where they're least visible and intrusive. They talk about locating those to the rear of the structures when possible. This is a little bit of an interesting circumstance because it is a corner lot. It is highly visible generally on all sides, either from the public right-of-way or those adjoining properties. They talk about when these are provided, if they are visible, to find avenues to screen them. That was part of the disconnect with why the request was disapproved in July. The schematic details on the basic screening were not sufficient for the board to evaluate and to really effectively screen this view in use. Moving on to materials, once again, the overarching principle behind historic preservation is not conveying a false historic character. If you've got existing materials, matching those when you're making repairs or additions and essentially matching those where possible. In this instance, this was where you had existing stucco that could have been matched, but however, the applicant chose a different material. The applicant can speak maybe to the thought process on why that material was chosen versus the existing context. Moving on to what the BOAR found. They supported the historic preservation staff recommended disapproval. The existing mechanical venting remained highly visible. It did not feature enough design detail to evaluate the screening proposal. The treatment of that external finish is an imitation material that doesn't match the existing conditions of the site. They found issue with the applicant's proposal there and voted to disapprove their request. The letter of appeal, once again, that packet of information is in front of you on your granicus as well, but essentially it talks about three main aspects. The first and really the bulk of their appeal letter talks about that the request should have been approved because they did not assign the extension form. In staff's review and in consultation with Division of Law, that is outside of the purview of what you are looking at today. If they have a due process claim or violation, the Planning Commission is not the appropriate avenue to discuss that. Your task today is to review the information and the proposal in light of those historic preservation guidelines and evaluate if the Board of Architectural Review made the correct interpretation and decision. The second two are a little bit more relevant to the proceedings today, was that B, that the mechanical venting size increased was required by building inspection. They noted that it has to be a certain amount of space away from the occupied areas on the site and that the initial proposal that was reviewed wasn't sufficient to meet their requirements. The third point that they bring up within the letter is it's cost prohibitive to replace those elements or to reconfigure those aspects. The applicant within their letter of appeal did not cite to any specific historic preservation guidelines or make an argument based on those facts. Planning staff's review, we reviewed the record of the meeting, the video of the meeting, the applicant's materials, as well as the submitted documents, and we found, once again, on the first point, that this is not the appropriate venue to raise a due process argument. You're evaluating the request with respect to the adopted design guidelines. With respect to the mechanical venting, we acknowledge that with that particular use, which is a permitted use in the zone, that it has mechanical needs that need to be addressed, but the issue that we found was with the screening. There wasn't enough detail provided with that design, as, once again, the applicant was not there to provide greater detail or attend that last hearing where they had submitted that information. The core piece of it needs to be located to the rear of the structure. It is, but how visible it is and the steps taken, staff found that that was insufficient to meet those guidelines. With respect to the stucco material, the EIFS material that they applied, it isn't consistent with the existing structure, and the design guidelines very clearly call for consistency when that is possible. Planning staff at this time is recommending disapproval of the applicant's appeal, which would mean that that decision of the BOAR is upheld. Finding that that is disapproval was in agreement, or the disapproval that the proposal was not in agreement with the adopted historic preservation guidelines, specifically guidelines 3.3, 1.2, and 2B1, calling for those facilities to be screened when they are present, calling for a continuity of materials, and not imitating a false or existing element as far as the stucco treatment. So we found that the BOAR acted appropriately in this instance and is recommending disapproval of the applicant's appeal. At this time, I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff. Once again, you've got the record in front of you dating back from the three times that this was actually heard and discussed by the BOAR. We also have historic preservation staff here that can speak to some of the more specific aspects as well. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have any questions from planning commissioners for Daniel at this time? Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. Let me get a clarification on this issue of the screening, which is point number two. It says insufficient detail has been provided regarding the proposed metal screening. What does that mean? Yes. So what you see in front of you is what was proposed by the applicant or what was submitted by the applicant. There is included in the packets as well as email correspondence where our historic preservation staff indicate that these need to be provided with actual architectural detail, actual finishes. Basically, there was not enough information here other than just saying this is a metal screen that we are going to put up, and this is, based on this rendering, how it is going to be located. The specificity, the finish, basically they didn't have enough information even to evaluate whether or not that screening would be an appropriate solution for that issue. Okay. Do we have any other questions from the planning commissioner at this time? Okay. We are going on two hours, and if any one member of the planning commission decides to get up to get a drink of water or go to the bathroom, we lose our quorum. So without objection, I would like to take a five-minute recess so that we can then hear from everyone else with our full attention. So we'll take a five-minute recess. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Good afternoon. Amelia Armstrong from the Historic Preservation Office. I'm also going to introduce Barry Dennis from also our office, who is here. I'd like to thank Daniel for doing such a great job on the presentation. He's run through a lot of my images, so I won't really repeat too many of those at all. I also would like to tell you I've created small limbs of trees in front of you that are the record, and I've also given the record of that. The first document of this first timeline has particular e-mails back and forth. And, of course, we've had a large correspondence with the applicants over the course of their making an application on that, and you'll have a lot of those in these documents. But the first document that's stable, it says East Main Street Timeline, includes sort of a varied timeline of a lot of e-mails back and forth for the last two months leading up from May to the July meeting date. And, of course, I'm going to go through a lot of this because you've seen this already in the previous. I think I wanted to show you that during the construction, the early construction, this square was really reflective of what we really saw in the initial plan that was heard before the BOER. The plan that was supposed to be, that the Board of Architects Review saw, was really just sort of a two-by-two square of event system that was only supposed to be a small mushroom coming out. But because of the event and everything, it became a lot larger. And I'm sure the applicants will go in that further. As you can see, you've seen this work before. This is the air makeup handler that's below, that you have to have ductwork below and then coming up above. I also just want to point that out. I think the important thing that I want to also stress is not only that this APHIS material that was put on here, and this is a newer construction, and I also would like to point out our process of making application sees all types of age of structures. We see older structures and we see newer structures. So this garage, I'm not going to tell you, dates back to the same time period as the main structure. This is a 1990 garage. It is made of concrete block and it had a stucco finish before on it. I think the important thing of this is the fact that everybody who makes application within our Board of Architects Review, our design guidelines within this, has to get a certificate of appropriateness to make repairs to the structure the same way, in a fair process, and this process wasn't carried out. And also the loss of detail of this datum line that you see here was the most important thing, and that was not carried out appropriately. And we do not like the imitation of materials as stated before. And, of course, you've seen some of these pictures before. And, of course, you've seen these pictures before. This is from the street view. These were presented at the July 23rd meeting date from the May carried over to July. You've seen these before. I'm not going to take these too long, but the one thing I wanted to show was back about these particular plans, and these are very hard to read. But there's one. Oh, nope. That was not very hard. But I think when we first saw this, and you actually have these in your information in front of you, we only saw a little tiny square, which would be in this particular area here. That is the only thing for the vent system that we actually got as an application, and it would be in this indentation that we saw. And, of course, we had a long discussion with these applicants going back from January for a long time, and they could have certainly made application or asked us differently about a lot of this information or if there was any change order. Now, typically, I would tell you also that any time applicants make application to building inspection, they would require getting a certificate of appropriateness prior to getting a building permit. Now, a lot of times when you get a permit for the HVAC or getting a vent system, because that is not something very common in this regard, a lot of times the HVAC people sort of get confused by that, and they did not come back and say, hey, did they get a permit in this particular circumstances? They do know now that they need to ask us about that. After our meeting in May, when we met with the applicants, met with building inspection and the historic preservation staff. I would also like to remind people that we are a design review, and so any kind of design needs to come to us for us to review. We don't design elements for people. We actually are the elements. People bring designs to us, and we make, see if that was within the design guidelines or not. And I would just sort of like to thank staff for their presentation. I'd also ask this body to uphold the planning's recommendation and the BOIR's original decision. And if you have any questions, I'm here for you right now. Thank you, Ms. Armstrong. Do we have any questions for the Office of Historic Preservation? Okay. All righty. Thank you, Amelia. All right. Mr. Regard. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis and members of the commission. I'm Andre Regard. I'm here on behalf of 509 East Main LLC and East Main Development LLC. With me is Mr. Hank Morris, who I'm going to allow some time later to speak. He is the primary person that's doing the development. As this commission should be aware, this property was a property that was a bit of a white elephant, one of the few commercial business properties located within that historic overlay. 509 East Main LLC has spent almost $6 million redeveloping this property, and they've done a wonderful, beautiful job of redeveloping it. And if you've gone by the property, you would see that. We're here today because of three specific elements. However, we do disagree with the presentation that the gentleman made that you do not have the right or the obligation to make a decision on whether or not you should even be here today. The fact of the matter is the application, and they've admitted it, was provided. Sixty days passed after the application was submitted. There was no written agreement extending the 60-day period. Section 137E, which is the section which directly precedes the section on appeals under which you're operating today, specifically says if they do not act within 60 days, it is deemed approved. Section 137F says if any party is aggrieved by a decision of the Board of Architectural Review, they are to come before you. My clients are aggrieved by the decision that was made out of time because they're being threatened with violations for not following what the BORA has done. However, what they have done is out of time. So I would ask that the first thing that the Planning Commission has to do is actually have a vote on whether or not you're going to apply 137E, which is the obligation to have a written agreement if not approved within 60 days. There is no written agreement extending the 60 days. Therefore, it would be deemed approved, and the rest of the hearing is unnecessary because there is nothing for you to review at that point. Okay, Mr. Regard is proposing a procedural question to us. Well, first I want to point out that the procedures that this Planning Commission follows are set by ordinance and ultimately up to the Planning Commission, so you don't have to take a vote on this. But there are a few things that I want to say to that. One is that if you actually read the entire provision of Section F, it says that when you appeal you get what's called a de novo hearing upon the appeal, which has legal significance, meaning that de novo you get the entire matter heard again. So to the extent that he is arguing there were any irregularities in the previous hearing before the BOAR, which I would disagree with, I can also get to that in a moment, the solution would be to give you a new hearing, which is exactly what he is getting today. This is the chance for him to tell you why this request complies with the architectural guidelines, not to dispute whether or not there was a written agreement, even though there was on the record a statement requesting a postponement for 60 days, and whether that triggers the section under E or F. There was an appeal that was filed before this Planning Commission. The applicant chose to do that. If the applicant wanted to hang their hats on Section E, there was a separate mechanism that they could do for that purpose. I'm not going to tell him what it is because he's already chosen his remedy. That's for a brand new appeal in front of the Planning Commission. So I don't think a vote is necessary. I think we're here to talk about the guidelines because that is what a de novo hearing requires. Do we have any thoughts? Anyone would like to contribute? Yes. Chairman Davis, I think we should take our legal advice from our counsel. Notwithstanding the arguments that can be made, I think her points are very clear and it outlines our duties and responsibilities accordingly. All right. I believe we will continue, Mr. Regard. So to continue on to the three issues, we're requesting the Planning Commission approve three specific items. One, the mechanical vent modifications that were required by the LFUCG mechanical inspection that took place. Two, that the stucco repair using the drive-it EIFS waterproofing system on the 1990 edition be approved. And finally, that the metal screening that was designed to reduce visibility of the ventilation equipment be approved by this commission. The items that were added to the property were meant to meet life safety requirements and to maintain both the integrity and the appearance of the building with no harm to the historic streetscape. There was a reference made to the fact that normally mechanical systems are on the back of the buildings and can't be seen by anybody else. Well, that's not an accurate statement. Most buildings, particularly buildings that are in historical overlay districts, have budding up neighbors that are behind them and neighbors that are catted corners to them. So the guideline is to put the mechanical system in the rear of the building, and that's what's happened in this case. The denial was not based on aesthetics or compatibility, but on a process, timing, and incomplete detail request. Not on any evidence of visual harm, color mismatches, or stylistic differences. Your role is de novo. That word's been mentioned a couple of times so far. That means that you have a fresh start to look at what has been presented by the applicant and to make your own decision within the guidelines from a practical point of view as well, whether or not what was done or what is proposed is appropriate. As I mentioned earlier, this house is actually odd in that it is a business use. It's B1 zoned. It's had a commercial use for over 40 years. It was known when it was approved for its use as a private club that it would have a kitchen. All kitchens require a venting system. The way we look at it is 99.99% of everything that had to be done was done appropriately, and we're not saying that to say anything at this point was done inappropriately. But these are the last few items to finish related to this building to make sure that it can continue on as an asset to our community and not as a white elephant. The first issue is the approval of the mechanical vent modification. It's important to note that the vent location had already been approved. That was presented by the historical commission themselves. The building plans discussed a vent. Everybody knew there would be a vent, and there was also going to be an air return. As you saw in the photographs, there was a vent. The vent had a mushroom. Then what happened is when the safety inspector came out, he said, you need to push this air that comes out of what they call the mushroom away from the building. They added that extra few feet of metal venting, which angled the exhaust air away from the side of the building. But there was always going to be a vent, just like there was always going to be an air intake. If you notice on the photographs that were presented and that are also in the package, the air intake is along the ground, and they required screening over that. There was a cement wall screening that was put over the air intake. Even though the BOAR approved vent was insufficient for safety, it required a larger code compliant system. We have a situation now where we have competing entities within the Lexington and Fayette County urban government looking at what's happening. One's safety conscious, and another one is aesthetics. My client has to figure out how do they deal with this from an aesthetics point of view. The photographs that were shown were predominantly from one neighbor. They were not streetscape photographs, but there were streetscape photographs, the last ones that were shown, that indicated the screening. When you look at it from the screening point of view, it is practically not noticeable at all, particularly if you paint it as was proposed in a color that matched the building. The location of the venting system, which is the rear of the building, already complies with guideline 3.3, which also asks that you put a screening, which has been proposed. However, the final installation, which was the extension over the mushroom, what they call the mushroom, which was apparent in the picture, was driven by an immediate life safety requirement. It was not an elective design choice. Guideline 3.3a, mechanical equipment should be located where they are least visible and intrusive. Obviously, you cannot have a building with no mechanical system. It is contemplated you will have mechanical equipment. However, you are to put it in the place that is least visible and intrusive. There has been no recommendation of another location that would be less visible or less intrusive. The vent is at the rear. It is not visible from Main Street. It is partially screened. It is really not even visible from the side street unless you are standing at a very particular place, which I will also add, the shrubbery or the bamboo, which is to grow to a height of 15 feet, has not even fully grown yet. There is additional screening along the edge of the parking lot once that green shrubbery grows up to the height of 15 feet. So the issue that was rejected at the July meeting of the Board was focused on the size of the vent. But there is nothing in the code that dictates the size of the vent. In this particular situation, and I want to focus on this, it is not the vent. It is the elbow that pushes the air away that is the real issue. There were some letters from the neighbors complaining about the fact that there was a vent, smells or noise or the existence of the vent being there. The vent being there was approved in October of 2024. The vent was already approved with a COA. The guidelines do not prohibit necessary life safety mechanical equipment, even if it is larger than was anticipated originally. There is simply no alternative location without demolishing the interior structural walls. In this instance, the kitchen was put into the garage. Most of the work was run through the kitchen to the vent area, which was identified last October and approved. And that is where the vent is. The second issue, so we would request that the vent as installed and as modified upon the requirement of the safety inspector be approved by this commission. The second issue is the approval of the stucco drive-it EIFS repair. It is interesting because at least twice I heard the phrase that they should not be allowed to use an imitation material. The reality is that stucco itself is an imitation material. It is to imitate stone and rock. So what has happened is now we have new technology. Drive-it is the most commonly known phrase for the system. It is a system of an exterior installation system, a surface system, that can be used. And in this instance, given, and I will discuss this in a moment, there was an emergency situation because there was water intruding into the building. There was leaking because it was a 1990s edition that was never really made properly. It was not constructed properly. It did not have a moisture barrier. So after making this investment of millions of dollars, they had to do something. So they used not stucco, an imitation system, but drive-it, which is a perfectly acceptable system. Mr. Morris will later discuss numerous developments he's done in places like Miami, Washington, D.C., and other cities where they've used drive-it. And not to, absolutely to recognize the significance of what we have done in Lexington with our historical district. Places like South Beach and Florida have much more important historical buildings from an architectural and design point of view, which readily use drive-it as a solution for exterior modifications and installation to deal with the elements. The photos that you saw clearly show that the finish is identical in appearance to the original. There's no alterations of historical features. To the naked eye, if it weren't pointed out to you, you wouldn't even notice that it was different. The guidelines encourage a continuity of material appearance, and here the appearance is unchanged. I think that's evident from the photos that were shown and that are in the record. EIFS is not specifically prohibited. The only prohibition is materials that give a falsely historic appearance. It's interesting because the word is historic imitation. Historic imitation, which are in our guidelines for Fayette County, means to put a turret on a building or to make the building look like something that didn't exist. Really, historical imitation is not specific to the materials that are used, and that is in the glossary of the guidelines. So the denial by the board was unreasonable. The board objected because the EIFS is a different substrate, not difference in appearance. The guidelines regulate appearance, not invisible internal layers. At the end of the day, it's the same color, it has the same texture, it looks exactly like what's next to it. However, if this commission were to accept the position of the board, that would require the owners of the property to rip out that entire wall and to actually move kitchen equipment, basically to redesign or to stop operating, and it would be a very, very invasive process that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And at the end of the day, aesthetically, you would have the same exact thing. Aesthetically, you would have an imitation material that is on the exterior of the building that looks like the rest of the exterior of the garage area, which is different than other parts of the building. Also, this is not a public-facing improvement, as you saw in the pictures. Therefore, we would request that this commission approve the EIFS stucco repair as an in-kind appearance match restoring water integrity to what is a non-historic addition. The final issue is the approval of the metal vent screen. The historic commission presented their photographs, and you saw them as the last set of photographs that were up there that showed some of the screening. It wasn't the last ones that she showed. It was within the group that she showed, as did Daniel. And the screening, to any person looking at it here today, clearly covers any sort of visual that you could possibly see from that very small area of walking into the parking lot where the metal gate is. It's a perforated metal screen painted to match the pink facade. It was designed by a local architectural firm. It sits behind the block wall, which has a stucco-like exterior to it, which was used to block the air intake vent. The air intake vent was on the bottom. That was built because, as you saw in the photographs, the air intake vent was a number of feet long, so there was a long area of silver venting ductwork that was blocked by the cement block wall. Cement block did not exist. It was not used like it's used today. So that's the cement block wall, approved and installed. And it's going to go up the side of that. It's going to mount on that wall, and it's going to go up the side of the building and block whatever visual you could possibly see if you happened to come onto the property through the gate into the parking lot. The guideline specifically says you will use shrubbery, fencing, or lattice. This is guideline 3.3. That's what's been proposed. It's a type of metal screen or a type of metal lattice. It's doing exactly what the guideline requests. The perforated screen will match in color. It reduces the visual mass. It avoids permanent attachment to the historic walls. If for some reason it needs to be taken down, it's fully reversible, so it's not connected to the building itself. The decision of the board was unreasonable, not because the screen violated guidelines, but because they wanted additional detail, even though detailed drawings were provided, as you saw in the photographs that are in your package. The screening significantly reduces visibility. The staff acknowledged that the mechanicals must be screened, and that's exactly what was submitted. Therefore, we ask that this commission approve the metal screen as compliant with guideline 3.3, resolves any visibility concerns. You're simply not going to resolve visibility concerns from a 360-degree position. It's impossible, and that is why the guidelines specifically allow for screening, which is what was proposed. In summary, all three issues should be approved. The mechanical venting is in the correct location, the rear of the building. The modifications were required for safety reasons. They were done as least intrusively as possible, and now it's been proposed that they're screened. The screen is consistent with the recommended screening methods, and the stucco drive-it assembly preserves the appearance, the color, the texture, all governed by the guidelines, by the H-1 guidelines. That's the objective, is to take buildings like this, to ensure that we have historical consistency, but that we still have economic use of these buildings. There's no negative impact on historic fabric. All of this work was done on a 1990 edition. None of this work was done on the 1907 home. Part of the issue, and Mr. Morris can speak to this when he comes up for some brief comments, is that when they did the original work on the garage, it wasn't even done very well. Otherwise, there would have been a moisture barrier, and you wouldn't have had this issue that had to be repaired. So the venting changes were required by the county, and the water intrusion repairs were necessary to protect the building. The denial that's been proposed, that we're appealing, will produce extreme costs. What's interesting is the board hasn't said to remove the venting either. Everybody acknowledges the venting needs to be there. It was in the original plan. It was approved on the building's plans. It was approved by a COA to have a vent there in October of 2024. So the issue is not to not have a vent. The issue is what is the appearance of the vent? Where is the vent located? How do you screen the vent? All solutions that have been proposed by the applicants. The Planning Commission, you have authority to approve reasonable, code-required, appearance-compatible solutions, and that's what's been done by the applicant here. The applicant has said that we have a reasonable solution. The extension to the venting was code-required, unanticipated, and the appearance is compatible with the historic significance of the area. We would request that you reverse the disapproval, that you approve the appeal, that you approve the mechanical vent system is built, that you approve the proposed perforated metal screening, and that you approve the EIF stucco repair as an in-kind appearance match. With that, I would let Mr. Morris come up, since he has a few more details as being the hands-on developer of the property that he would like to add. Mr. Regard, before we do that, I have just a timeline question. You're correct. The existence of a vent was approved. Am I right that it was only after the representative from the government said, what you have up there is inadequate, and you have to do what we see today. You have to do an extension. You have to make it larger. That was a government employee. Correct. That was a government employee. But what had to be changed, and this is also important, when you look at the picture, some people refer to it as the tuba, but it's an elbow. That sits on what's called a mushroom, which is on any venting system that you walk by any commercial kitchen, you'll see that mushroom. That mushroom was there. There were no complaints at that point. The complaints came after the elbow was added, which was the result of a representative of this government saying, you have to do that. Correct. The mushroom is a 360 vent, so everything goes straight up, and there's a wall there, and there was a concern that any residual, if there were residual grease, even though we want these systems to work and remove all grease, sometimes there is, that that grease could potentially get on the wall, and if it got on the wall, it would be a fire hazard. So an elbow turning that away from the wall was added. And the applicant's two solutions that they have proposed so far has been to paint the metal and or install the metal screening. I believe they've proposed to do both of them, if necessary. Okay. But they certainly will paint it and are prepared to do the screening as was shown on the photographs that you have. Okay. All right. Sure. Chair Davis, are you referring to the timeline where it says October 16th, 2024, the BOAR recommended approval, and it has a list of five things? Because I started back there, and it says that it's changing create openings. It doesn't mention anything about what the ventilation system should look like. Am I misreading something? I don't know the date of when that initial mushroom vent was approved. I just wanted to clarify that the change that was made was not the applicant doing it because they wanted to. They were doing it because they were told by a member of this government, you have to do that for health, safety, and welfare. But where is the – I don't see a picture of what was originally approved. That original approval, Andre, was – I can let Mr. Morris speak to a little more detail of that. What originally was approved was a vent in that location. There is – I will agree there is some lack of definition of what that vent would look like, but it was understood that there was a commercial kitchen. Everybody knows that they're building a commercial kitchen there. There's a size of the vent. There's certain duct work that goes with the vent. And the complaints, my understanding, truly came out when the elbow was added because the vent as installed had the typical mushroom cap to it. Okay. But Mr. Morris may have some additional detail on that, ma'am. And, Mr. Chair, I also have some documentation here that it was sort of shown earlier, but it was kind of too faint to really be seen on the thing. But I have ever so elegantly marked it up in Sharpie, so I can put that up and – sure. Okay. So, yeah. Just to cover your questions. Yeah. So the documents in front of you, I believe, are dated – let's see what the date is on those. Bottom right. Anyway, the – what – Yeah. So that's from September of 2024. So essentially what the BOAR initially considered was the ground level exhaust, and then there's the other angle if you scroll over to the other piece that shows it kind of from the rear. Yeah. So that was what was before the BOAR and kind of initially envisioned. So it looks like there was a – once that was approved, the applicant went forward and began obtaining the permits. At some point, the higher piece was added in, and then the – as described, that additional return vent capacity needed to be upgraded. But those changes were never reflected or brought before the BOAR, as you can kind of see here. Right. So as you can tell from that photograph, it contemplates an air intake on the bottom, which is exterior to the garage, and a venting that's exterior to the garage on the top. That air – that was actually another safety requirement. The air intake became extended longer to clear the venting area that existed from the exhaust vent. So you have the exhaust vent on the top, which would be the top of the brown area. You have the air intake on the bottom. The air intake ended up being longer. That's when they built the screen wall that you saw the picture of, which was built out of CMU, which we commonly call cement block, and an imitation application was put on it that we do call stucco sometimes. Then the vent on the top, then they had to go back and add that elbow that kicks out. So even this picture contemplates exterior ventilation to the building. Right. I know that they did not return to the BOAR when they had to add the tuba, but I also just want a clarification that they didn't just do that for fun. They were told by an official that you have to add increased capacity for that vent. That's correct, and Mr. Morris can provide testimony on that. Thank you. Commissioner, thank you. Hank Morris with the property ownership. I wanted to provide some additional context here. First off, I think throughout the BOAR process there was, I will say, a picture painted that we, as the developer here, were intentionally skirting the historical guidelines and the required process. I just want to provide the context that we are preservationists. Our business is in the restoration of historic hotels across the country. We are certainly no strangers to historical review, historical guidelines, and working collaboratively with city staff on solutions for modernizing historic buildings. I think the reality here is we were building a private members club. We needed a small commercial kitchen. Knowing that any exterior improvements would need to be ultimately approved by the BOAR, we worked with our architect who met with the BOAR staff multiple times, many many months before anything was submitted. We worked collaboratively to figure out where should we locate this vent, where should we locate the kitchen within this building. Ultimately what was determined and what we were advised was locating the exhaust off the back of the building where there is a small setback niche along the rear parking lot was the most inconspicuous place to locate the exhaust. We then took, with considerable costs, quite a bit of time figuring out how we could exhaust our kitchen in a very specific location in this building. We presented that, ultimately presented that in our initial certificate of appropriateness application. We asked our, just transparently, I will agree that what we presented in the initial C of A request probably lacks some clarity as to exactly what this was going to look like. We asked of our mechanical contractor and engineer the dimensions and the extent of what the exhaust duct work and the outdoor make-up area unit would look like. We then provided that information to our architects. Our architects put it into a set of drawings and we submitted those drawings. At no point were we attempting to install a vent that the BOAR did not know about. Fast forward several months, we get through the back end of construction, often times a very stressful process. We had an opening date scheduled. We had employees who had started work. We were working with the city through all of our final inspections. One of those inspections was our final mechanical inspection. We installed the vent and the make-up area unit exactly per plan. We submitted to the mechanical department in advance of doing that a very clear drawing that demonstrated where the exhaust was going to be located, where the make-up area unit was going to be located, consistent with that certificate of appropriateness and what was submitted to the BOAR staff. We get to our final inspection. The mechanical inspector comes out in the field and advises our mechanical contractor that they're concerned about grease-laden vapors coming out of the kitchen exhaust, sitting on the facade of the building and potentially being a fire risk. They asked us that we install a boot that would direct that air away from the building. We very quickly reacted to that and installed that boot. I think that's what we're talking about today, what our neighbors have demonstrated frustration with. The reality here is we don't like this thing. We didn't want to do it. We were simply reacting to a city inspector. We came back before the BOAR and our neighbors with solutions to paint this duct, to screen it. We met on property with both the mechanical department and the BOAR staff asking of their recommendation as to how we deal with this. We submitted to the BOAR what we felt was addressing the concern. Again, we weren't provided any specific feedback as to what we should be doing here. If that feedback can be provided, we will happily do that. We will go back to BOAR. We will present a screening plan. As I understand it, there was some lack of details in what was submitted. We're happy to address that and go through the process. We want to be good neighbors and we understand that this is unsightly. Regarding the issue of the EFIS, first off, the installation of the drive-it system was in response to, three weeks before our opening, heavy rainstorms causing rain to pour inside our brand-new renovated building. We quickly responded by calling our facade contractor. We installed what is very common, a drive-it system with a cementious top coat that appears identical to stucco, as you would see in its existing application on the building. We completed that very quickly, the same way if you own a house and water starts coming down through the roof, you call your roofer, you fix the problem. In a perfect world, we would have made the call to the BOAR staff and asked for approval to do that, but we were also addressing an emergency situation. I think all we're looking for is some reasonableness here. I think if any of you were to come to the building and look at the stucco, the 1990 stucco right next to the EFIS, you would agree that it is identical in appearance. I do understand the point about, because we had to install the waterproofing on the EFIS, that now pushes the facade sitting flush instead of behind the existing trim work. We're welcome to work with the BOAR or the staff or the neighbors on some kind of solution to their liking that installs new trim or reworks that trim so it appears to protrude past the existing finish. We're open to being collaborative here. We thought we had been collaborative here. I would just end by saying that we are very grateful that this was a white elephant of a building. We spent millions of dollars restoring it. We restored hundreds and hundreds of linear feet of hundred-year-old trim work and plaster work and ceiling fixtures and exterior finishes. We are restorationists. We put a lot of pride, effort and money into doing these projects the right way. The process with the BOAR staff we would say that of a lot of unnecessary pressure. As a group that's done hotels, restaurants, bars, restored many buildings in this city, frankly the experience to date with the BOAR would put me in the position where in the future I don't really want to look at a historic project in Lexington because of some of the unreasonableness that we've had to deal with. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees, of permitting fees, of reworking construction all while we believe cooperative through the process. So please tell us what we need to do that we would just look for some direction from the city and some reasonableness here. Thank you very much. Here if any questions. Thank you Mr. Morris. Do we have any questions specifically for Mr. Morris at this time? Mr. Penn. Can somebody explain to me why that the last piece that was added on the exhaust system was for my estimation 2X or 2X and a half bigger than the pipe that it served above the scrubber? Why did you have to have a pipe that big when you're just bringing air up through a lot smaller pipe? You're asking why was the extension piece as large as it is? Yes, because the line that feeds it that goes through the scrubber is not near as big as the piece you've got on top. I can't pretend to have an answer to that. We relied on our mechanical contractor to address the concerns that were raised by the mechanical inspector. We can go back to them and understand if there's a potential to reduce the diameter of that. Well, I don't have any expertise in this at all. Nor do I. But from a farmer's perspective, I don't know how you get more air out of a smaller pipe. Ms. Armstrong, do you have a clarification? Yes, thank you. I think it happens to do with the BTUs of the oven having to push the air out of that. And so, the mushroom was pushing that out, but the tuba had to sort of help force that out further. And the BTUs of that helped force that out further. And that's why that had to be put on top. And are we talking about two different systems? I was under the impression there was an intake and that this was an exhaust. It is an exhaust. I think, if I understood your question, Mr. Penn, is what's coming out of the wall going to the mushroom is a smaller ductwork than what's above the mushroom. What happened is the mushroom is already installed. That ductwork is already installed. The inspector says you need to elbow or boot the air away from the building. Now you have to cover the whole mushroom. The mushroom is bigger than the vent to begin with. So, you've got this new larger area because you've got to capture all of the grease that's coming out of the grease scrubber. So, it creates a bigger pipe. It looks totally out of place, but that's just looks. I'm just asking a question. I don't have any expertise behind that. Mr. Chair, may I have a question? Sure. I have a number of questions, but just one for the applicant, which I hope in the interest of moving this process along might address one of the items, which is you said a local architect designed the metal screening and did architectural drawings. Daniel says the city did not get those. So, can you not simply share the drawings with the city and that be resolved? Do we have the drawings to show? We can do that if they're not on record. We can provide the architectural drawings. We'd be happy to do that. You mean the drawings as opposed to the mock-up that was already shown? A mock-up just shows you a general idea. We want to know dimensions, material, who makes it, elevation, side view, plan view, all that stuff. We do have drawings for the proposed screening. We'd be happy to share them if those haven't made their way into any of the appropriate people's hands. Wonderful. To provide some clarity to that, inside the applicant's appeal documentation, there is a document that's dated about a month after the BOAR appeal that shows in a little bit more. I'm not going to speak for our friends at Historic Preservation as to what level of detail is necessary, but appears to be a more in-depth architectural review with dimensions, materiality, elevations, etc., that were not provided as a part of the process. The applicants, when they submitted just the mock-up that you see on the screen, was the sole piece of evidence that our Historic Preservation staff had when evaluating the quest if it fit the guidelines. It was communicated during that process that the level of detail provided wasn't sufficient, but by that time, the applicants had already indicated that they were not going to engage in that process any further and that it should have been approved by operation of law. I believe an answer to that may also be that what's before the commission is... because it's not really clear. When you read the staff report versus what was actually before the BOAR and what needs to be approved, what we're asking is that the EIFS repair to the stucco, as done, be approved, and that having a metal screening be approved. We will certainly work with whoever we need to work with to make sure that's done appropriately. And that the venting... the fact that a venting system exists itself is really not before the commission. I understand there are lots of parts. I was just hoping we could knock one off without having to dive into everything because this seems like a very complicated... it can be a very complicated process or it could be a simple process, but I think we also have to hear from the public amongst other things. So I'm going to zip my lips. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Morris at this point? Mr. Wilson, do you have anything to say? Just a couple of things. First of all, I appreciate your historic preservation perspective. I'm not a Neverland Woods reader as such, but I was trying to go through this information as quickly as I could, and I noted one name that jumped out at me. This home, this place that you were talking about, was built by Verdner Tandy. And the first thing that came into my mind was, was that Verdner Woodson Tandy, or was it his father? Because his father helped build the courthouse. He was a mason for the courthouse. Verdner Woodson Tandy has another home further down the street. I'm very familiar with him. And so when we talk sometimes about historic and being old, I can appreciate, in this case, it truly is historic. Now, having said that, I had a couple of points. Number one, I appreciate your willingness to do the kinds of... I mean, your presentation here, Mr. Morris, was very enlightening to me, and what have you. So could you not get together with BOA and talk through these other issues that you have and come to some conclusion about that? I mean, in terms of the bidding, I think maybe you ought to go back to the mechanical people who put that thing in and maybe have some discussions with them. And the screening and other things, could that not be resolved by doing as you offered to do here with BOA and working with our staff? Thank you, Commissioner. We would be pleased to do so. To the extent the screening drawings we provided are not in the BOR's hands, we can re-provide them. I think the issue we did run into on the first go-around was perhaps the lack of constructive feedback from the BOAR staff on exactly what they would like us to do. We would very much appreciate a review of those drawings, and to the extent that there's any comments or recommendations as to how we can modify them to meet their needs, we're happy to do that. Mr. Wilson, are you... Okay. Okay, that'd be great. What I'm seeing here are a couple of different scenarios, or a couple of different options. One is a request for retaining the inappropriate EFIS, and then the other is the mechanical venting. I can appreciate the fact that in the field, there are change orders that occur that are necessary to address. And during that process, what I'm seeing, there was a piece that was possibly missing, where the BOAR is not in a position to draw mechanical drawings. The BOAR needs to receive a set of drawings that they can then assess and make some sort of recommendation. And from what I'm hearing here is they have not received that. And we are talking in front of our group to either approve your appeal or deny your appeal. But I think that there's a real possibility to, if you provided the appropriate drawings, real mechanical drawings, that could be reviewed by staff, it looks like you're willing to make some changes and spend the money necessary to do what is required by the BOAR. But the BOAR has not been able to review any of these documents because they do not have them. So I wish we were not in this position today, at this moment, for us, at the Planning Commission, to hear an appeal from an applicant against the ruling of the BOAR. I think that there's still work that could be done, but now we're in a position where we have to make a ruling. And we might have lost the opportunity for you all to work together to solve a change order that was required from the mechanical inspector. So I'll have to defer to our group to figure out how we address this. I do know for a fact that, as the BOAR has said, they don't have the ability to make suggestions on mechanical design. They need to receive a mechanical design in order to make some sort of recommendation. Can I step in for a second here? Because you're correct, this is in front of the Planning Commission right now, and it's either an approval or a denial that this entity has the power to do. If this is denied, technically there's that one-year rule that applies in the ordinance to bring a new application in front of the BOAR, unless the applicant submits new evidence, like drawings, for example, that would support what they're requesting, in which case the BOAR would have to decide if that was sufficient to give it an early rehearing. I believe the Planning Commission has denied things in the past, and the applicant has submitted new evidence and gone back to the BOAR before a year was out. So you were asking about what to do. I was just trying to lay out some of the other options that might exist in a case like this. Maybe Amelia might be able to explain a little more about what the evidence would look like. But that's out there as well. Mr. Penn? Ms. Armstrong, do you have any clarification as we are talking about your office? So say, I guess, if plans did go before the Board of Architecture review, they would have to look vastly different, which may not be that hard to do given what we saw before. With proper dimensions, architectural details, finishes of the edges, and all the other details of the screening. And so what would happen if they were, this case, if it was recommended disapproval of the screening that you saw now, and they wanted to make a new application for the screening, what would happen is the Board would see if there was sufficient evidence, new evidence, a new application would go before the Board of Architecture review with new evidence of screening that would be different than what they've seen before. And the Board would see, okay, they would look at this and say, okay, if there's new screening, they would be able to open the case if it was new evidence. And be able to hear that within, and not have to wait a whole year. But in that case, would the... But it had to be vastly different than what was before. If they did go that route, would then the extended vent also be on the table for their opinion? Potentially. May I ask another question? Hold on. May I comment on that? Ms. Armstrong, are you good for the moment? Okay. Sure. Mr. Regro. It's of our opinion, based on the appeal that was filed and based on the decision that was made, that the screening issue is what is before the Commission, not the fact that the vent exists, nor the fact of how the vent is built. It's a screening issue. So we would ask, as Mr. Morris has said, we're happy to work with the board on the final details of what that screen needs to look like. But we need to also, we would also ask that the Commission put in abeyance any violations, any attempts to disrupt the operations of the business while this is being done. Because that's the scenario that my client's in right now. My client's in a scenario right now where they're technically and potentially in a violation. And we filed an appeal, which we believe stays those sorts of issues. But if we're going to go back, if that's the decision of this Commission, is to go back and work in good faith with the board to come up with a screening solution that is architecturally sound and in accordance with the guidelines, which anticipates you're going to have mechanicals, you just need to screen them, and any sort of violations or limitations in operations are stayed during that period. I believe Mr. Morris has indicated that that's something that's workable. Yeah, the Planning Commission doesn't have the authority to stay the BOAR. But, and also whether or not the BOAR would hear the case, because they would have to decide whether there's new evidence to hear it. So we're not guaranteeing a result, we're just saying what has happened in the past and what we think might be a route to getting this resolved, okay? So, no, the Planning Commission can't enter an order enforcing the BOAR to not enforce it. Mr. Penner, did you have anything at this point? I don't see how we can do anything right now but support the staff on this. And the reason for that is that what Bruce just enumerated what the problems were. So if we're going to vote, I'm just talking about me, I'm going to have to vote to support the staff because that's how we operate here. Now, if that vote, the reason I'm bringing it up now, if that vote doesn't allow them to fix the problem, fix it and go back and start back to square one and come all the way through it, then I don't really want to make that vote because it's very expensive and hard for them to do. If there's a middle ground here, I would love to support the staff and then work in good faith to make this thing happen. But just to penalize them because of past sins and make them start back from square one, I think it's too harsh a penalty. So I'd like to have a little bit of an answer of what they're willing to do before I make my vote. Are we willing to bifurcate the EFIS and the screening issue and perhaps at least address that? Because I'm not hearing the same concerns on the EFIS issue. Perhaps we can address what we can address. We would appreciate it. We also haven't heard any public comment. Exactly. No. What I want to do is, I think we had a half hour here of clarifications that had to occur. Thank you, Mr. Morris. I would like to, if there are no other questions for Mr. Morris, allow Mr. Regard to finish his presentation, if it is not already finished. And then I would like to hear from Historic Preservation, any rebuttals that they may have, as well as Daniel. And then we have citizens here that we want to listen to as well. I believe with the last comments I made about the potential to bifurcate, at least based on what I'm hearing in the dialogue and questioning back and forth, and because I'm not hearing the same questions about the EFIS, so hopefully that gets approved as it was done. And then some sort of mechanism to work through this screening issue specifically. And then I would reserve a minute or two at the end of public comment to address public comments that I haven't heard yet. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Regard. Do we have any final questions? I have a general question. All right. At what time was this, and this is a staff question, in what year was this area designated an H1, having an H1 overlay? 1990. 1990. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Regard. Ms. Armstrong, do you have anything? Or Mr. Dennis? I've been trying to stay out of this case because I own in Belcourt, but there are a few clarifications that I would like to make that are more technical on how the operations work. The guidelines require all structures within the H1, including new structures, to meet the same guidelines and how they're reviewed. Historic preservation looks at the structure from 360 degrees. We don't just look at the front like some cities or where it's visible from the street. The EFAS issue, that took away that datum line to where it's now just kind of a bump on it. So they did mention that there might be something they could do. We would definitely work with them on that. Staff did not receive drawings. We just received a photograph. You couldn't tell what it was. It did say perforated metal. We need construction details that show how it goes together, are there ribs, you know, how these panels fit in for the board. As far as the opening for the vent, the board only saw a rectangular opening, not that whole thing that was there. Every COA that the board issues has two requirements in it. Once reviewed by other LFU CG divisions, it needs to come back to the staff or the board in order to be reviewed. So if they're working on something, they can come to the staff, show us what the issue is, and we can either review that and approve it or send it back to the board. That first COA for the structure, that's actually not the first, but the first one that the board heard, had those two requirements. And I think, as we've discussed, or as you've discussed, LFU CG government does not design. We only tell people what the requirements are. That would be the same thing for building inspection, and just because it doesn't meet the mechanical code, they're not going to design it. It's up to the owner, engineers, to design that. So I think that kind of covers the points that we had, unless you have some questions. Thank you, Barry. Mr. Nickel? I've got a question for you. Yes, sir. It is outside of our purview to stay any enforcement in violations. Yes, sir. But if a decision, my thought process is going to change if the operator is going to have to close the kitchen and close the business until they're able to apply for a new certificate of appropriateness with the appropriate documents, and that could take a year. I understand that that's, we just got read, kind of what the timeline looks like. But it's going to change the way that I think about this, if the business is going to have to shutter part of its operations over this BOAR decision. I believe that's a red herring. We do not fine people. There's nothing that we could fine them for. The law department would have to sue them. And I think, I don't think that they would recommend doing that. So, and my personal opinion, having worked with the board, is if they came back with details that met the guidelines, the board would consider that additional information that they could hear immediately. Okay, thank you for taking that off the table. So what I heard is that the BOAR does not have the ability to shut down the operations of the business itself while a new application is submitted to the BOAR for certificate of appropriateness for the issues that are brought up here. The only way their business would be shut down or delayed would be from a lawsuit from the legal department of planning and zoning. Is that correct? The government. Oh, the government. Okay. So this is, thank you for that information. Sure. Yes, ma'am. I did have a quick question as well. With regard to the EFIS, if the trim was replaced, if the trim was made to look like the original, would that allow the EFIS or is the EFIS always going to be an issue? I believe it's the loss of the detail where it is proud of the exterior surface of the stucco that is more of the issue. Okay. I haven't seen it, so it's hard for me to know how close it looks to stucco. If somebody like me who's not that familiar with stucco, would I know this is stucco and this is EFIS? I don't know. I guess that remains to be seen. But it just seemed to me that the loss of the trim seemed to be a big issue. And it seems like if you could restore the trim to look like the original, then that EFIS versus stucco becomes less of an issue. Yes, ma'am. But staff only makes recommendations to the Board of Architectural Review. It would be their decision. I had another question. What would the metal screen sit on? And this may be a question more for the applicant. You know, they were talking about the screen. It looks like it's sitting on some sort of wall. Is that right? Yes, there's a masonry wall below. And so that new metal screening would spring off of that wall and go up. Is there a reason you couldn't build up the masonry wall instead of putting the metal screen to give it more of a contiguous type of look as opposed to sitting a metal screen on top? That would be a possibility. But with mechanical systems, they have to be able to breathe. And so I don't know if that would create problems for the mechanical. That would be an engineer, not an architect, would have to decide that. Okay. Mr. Morris, it looks like he has a clarification on that question. So if you'd like, we can hear it. Okay. You're welcome to. We did ask that specific question of our mechanical contractor and they advised that that would not be feasible because of the venting issue. And one final question. If the elbow or tube or whatever was painted today, would that help? Is that something that could be done that's not extremely expensive to help the view for now until you all figure out the whole situation? We'd be pleased to do that. And we did present a proposal and a rendering of doing just that to the BOAR, which was denied. But we did propose electrostatically painting that ductwork so it would blend in. Well, according to the renderings you have with the images, it did really, you know, from the pictures, it did really kind of make it blend in. I don't know how it would look in person. We agree. Okay. Those are my questions. Mr. Dennis, anything else? Good. Okay. All right. Sure. Okay. So it wasn't just the visual of the thing. It's the smell and the noise. So I think we have to be careful to know that there are multiple parts of it. Yes. Which is not our purview to decide. All right. Okay. Yes. We've read the written public comment, and shortly we will hear public comment. Mr. Wilson? Oh, I was ready to make a motion. Well, we have to... So applicant is good. Historic preservation is good. At this point, Daniel, do you have anything? Oh, okay. All right. Okay. At this point, we will hear from members of the public. If you would like to speak on this particular appeal, please approach the podium, state your name. Everyone gets three minutes, and there is no borrowing or lending of time at the Planning Commission. Hi. Can you hear me? My name is Trish Smith. Thank you guys for being here. I really appreciate the planning staff and historical staff. I think they made a very thorough, fair, accurate assessment of the situation. I'm speaking in support of the BOAR decision and our city staff and in opposition to the appeal. I am a homeowner in Belcourt. I own six properties in Belcourt, including a tall stucco house that dates from the early 1900s that had sat vacant for seven years when I bought it, full of water leaks. I am very familiar with working with the H1 overlays to renovate a property. And we've managed to do, maintain, renovate all six of our properties, working with Amelia and other preservation staff, within the guidelines. It can be done. Council referred to this as a white elephant property. It is. It is a white elephant property. I don't think that means it's exempt from the guidelines all the rest of the H1 property owners abide by. You know, they are a business. I'm a homeowner. I don't have an opening date. So if when I get water leaks, I have to repair them according to the guidelines. If you guys allow them to permit their appeal, what precedent does that set for me now? Do I get to say, well, it was cheaper and faster for me to use Drive-It. This building got to use Drive-It because it was cheaper and faster for them. You know, I think consistency is very, very, very important. We've been in H1 since 1990. They bought this house a few years ago. These guidelines are no surprise. These parameters are known. Preservation staff will walk you through everything. They have held my hand through some things where I didn't know exactly what to do. I'm sorry owners may not have worked with them as closely as, you know, I've had an opportunity to, to arrive at solutions that were within the guidelines, that met the parameters, and that were consistent with the conditions that we all live under. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for hearing me. I did request additional time because of the proximity of my home and the impact that the tuba and mushroom are having on me. So I wanted to make sure that I get that. And thank you for allowing me that. Number two. And I did bring some photos. Just to show you my proximity. I'm Marcy Deaton. I live at 116 Forest Avenue. My whole side of my property adjusts to the wall that's at the back of their property. I'm here to support the conclusions of historic preservation and the staff findings. But I have a couple of other issues that I really want you to consider as you talk through this. So anyway, this is from my front yard and my front porch. So there's that. This is from my back patio area where I used to grill and eat outside, which I don't as much anymore because of the smoke and stuff. But I'm going to talk about that. Because as you can see, it's pointed directly toward my back patio. And my garage is right there on that side. And I have an apartment over that. So it's coming right at me. This is from my kitchen windows right here. Again, it's pointing right at my house. And this is from inside my office on the third floor and my primary bedroom. So this is the view I get. And particularly at the primary bedroom, because it's higher up, you can see all that ductwork. And you can see the square part and then the mushroom attached. And it's a very large mushroom. And then the tuba. And I wanted to point out, as everybody was talking, that mushroom was never approved. So the only thing approved was the square part that's right below the molding there. So we're talking both about the mushroom and the tuba. So my first issue, now that it's installed, is the fact that it is installed. Now that it's installed, I feel like everybody's focus has turned to, oh, well, it's there and installed, even though without approval. So now we have to figure out how to camouflage it or hide it. I believe it needs to, as I think one of you said, go back to the beginning. I believe sincerely that if the Camel Club had worked with the Boer and Mechanical and their own engineers who crafted this thing from the beginning, maybe their kitchen could have been in a different location. Maybe their vent system inside their kitchen could have been configured differently. Maybe it could have gone vertically and they might have lost a little bit of their patio. I just feel like there would have been other options, but they did not explore those. And now that it's there, they want to hide it or screen it. And I'm going to go on and let you know, I don't think screening is going to hide it. So let me move on to that. There's just a lot. So I have videos and videos. It smokes all the time. Visibly. It's a little hard for me to, I don't know how to do videos. So I had to try to do a screenshot. But you can see where it gets white here. It's this white smoke coming out. And you can see it's lighter up there where the smoke is than down there where it's pink. So let me tell you a story about the smoke. This is from my husband's office, which is a different room. That I have not shown you the view before. And that's him right there actually. So last week on Tuesday, I was in my third floor office working. And I came down the stairs and when I got to the second floor landing, there was like the smoky haze inside my house. And I thought that was really scary because we don't open the windows anymore because of the sound and smell and smoke from this thing. So Frank had gone off to do errands or something. And I went on down to the kitchen, you know, quickly thinking I'd left something on the stove. No, downstairs the air was perfectly clear. I come back upstairs and I found he had opened the window, which we do once in a while because the cat wants to sit there. And he'd left it open when he left. And so my second floor was getting smoky. Which leads me to the proximity problem with this. From where you're sitting to about your fourth row from the back is about the distance. It's about 25 feet from my house. And all my windows on that side of the house. Alright. So I do believe that the vent system itself should be an issue. Not just how to screen it. Alright. And I also am concerned about, well, there's the noise. So I can hear the noise inside my house all over my outside to the point that I don't use my outside like I used to. Because it's just too annoying. And then there's the really strong smell of the cooking mixed with grease, mixed with smoke, which is 25 feet from me. So there's all of that. I'm worried about this grease issue. And I'm not going to read that to you, but at both of the last board meetings when Mr. Morris presented for the club, he talked about they couldn't put it in that corner because of the grease-laden vapors. And the grease-laden vapors. And he said that even a mechanical or a screen with perforations or airflow was not going to work. And he said those things are used for makeup air units, not to direct exhaust of grease-laden vapors from the kitchen exhaust. Well, folks, if they put their mushroom in the wrong place in this corner so that it adds up in there, how is it a solution to add the tuba and blow that grease at other properties? I don't see how that is a reasonable solution. All right. Then I also looked up this and I wanted to point it out that mechanical codes, and I need my glasses because I can't see, about commercial kitchen exhaust near residential areas, there are rules. And I'm surprised this got approved as close as it is to my house and as large as that tuba is and the BTUs coming out of this, which is not a small commercial kitchen. This is a large commercial kitchen. So there's a 30-foot requirement. I'm at 25-ish. Also, the first one is the International Mechanical Code that Kentucky also uses. And it's the exact verbatim language. Exhaust outlets are permitted through external walls, et cetera, et cetera. Where the smoke, grease, gas vapors, and odors in the discharge, et cetera, do not create a public nuisance or fire hazard. Well, I'm telling you, it's a public nuisance to me. And I'm a homeowner for 17 years in Belcourt. And my entire use and enjoyment of my property since this tuba and mushroom have been running for eight months have been completely diminished. Maybe in some cases destroyed. So I don't know that just sending it back to look at another screen is a solution. I really think they need to go back to the beginning. And cost of changing it is not a criteria under any of the historic preservation rules. We've all been at war meetings where everybody else maybe put on faux wood or something and they are told to take it down. Doesn't matter if they can afford it or not. So I think they need to start from the beginning. I think they need to stop operating it until they come up with a better plan or take it down. But I don't think sending it back again is helpful. And I wanted to point out one last thing. I have been at every single meeting about this and everything else. Every time, especially about these last things with the boar, the Camel Club representatives are very gregarious and they agree every single time just like they did today. We want to work with the boar. We want to be good neighbors. Yes, we'll work with the boar. But the evidence that you have in your folder shows that starting last October they had a chance in March and April and May and then September. They don't follow through with cooperating and trying to collaborate and work with people. It is not, it's ingenuine. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, you're fine. I thought you had something to say. Thanks. I'll try to be brief and loud. My name is Mike Smith. I live in Belcourt, 212 East Bell. I also own several properties there. I've lived in Lexington my whole life. I'm a small business owner. I have three businesses. I have an architectural firm. I have a property management firm. I own property. And then I have a development firm. We do infill housing downtown. So I have worked with the city, its regulations, H-1 for the 41 years I've been practicing architecture in Lexington. And I've also designed commercial and institutional projects across the eastern half of the United States. So I have a lot of experience working with cities and authorities that have jurisdiction, which is sort of the general term for people like the BOAR and Historic Commission. I'm here to share my experience working with the Historic Commission, the BOAR. I like working with them. There's two main reasons I like working with them. The regulations are very clear. I'm a planner, so I like to look ahead and I like to know what's going to happen. Their regulations are clear. I've got codes I have to follow when I'm talking about kitchen hoods. I've designed hundreds of commercial kitchens. I know when I work with an engineer how big that hood's going to be. I know what the requirements are, what the clearances are. I can get with the Historic Commission. They're very good to work with. Let's say this works, that doesn't work. You know, that's what I like about it. I have a house that has stucco. You know, and I know when I bought it that I would have to replace, it's an historic district, I'd have to replace it with like-kind materials of the same quality. As an architect, I like that because I think that's important. My pocketbook likes the opportunity maybe to have ephes used because that's less expensive. So, let me know how that goes and maybe I'll save some money going forward. The other thing I like about particularly Amelia and Dennis is they're very accommodating. They hold by the regulations, which is their job, but if there's an issue that comes up in the field, like they do sometimes, or something that is a little bit odd, they'll come out and I find them very easy to work with. They're no more difficult and easier than some of the other agencies that I work with. So, I just wanted to share my support for them and my experience with them. So, that's it. Thank you. Do we have any other members of the public who would like to speak on this appeal? Okay. Mr. Regard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to end with a couple of comments. The final staff's recommendation, which I think captures what the nature of the appeal is, not that I necessarily agree with their recommendation, was disapproval. And it was on two main points. Guideline 3.3 calls for mechanical facilities to be appropriately screened from view and sufficient detail has been provided regarding the proposed metal screening. So, Mr. Morris has told the committee, the commission, that they're willing to work with them on more details for the screening. And the second point that they made, and this is on page 4 of their recommendation, Guidelines 1.20 and 2.B.1 call for continuity of materials in their application when making repairs to the exterior of existing structures. And that's where they took exception to the EFIS system. What I've heard today is that the issue is really with the visual appearance and the trim line has been the main issue that I've heard brought up. And Mr. Morris has discussed that he's willing to look on how to add that trim line up there. It is clearly contemplated that synthetic materials would be used, if you look at the guidelines, for different types of structures at different times. So, I would just want to make sure we're staying focused on those. And then, finally, going back to the issue of what does the commission decide today. I think the decision ultimately is binary. Either what was provided was sufficient and should have been approved, or none of it should have been approved. But it seems that we've decided that maybe we're not going to be that binary and we're going to work collaboratively. We need insurance, though, that to come up here and say, well, we're not in the business of forcing action based on violations. One is inconsistent with their own position, because their letter to the Camel Club was, stop everything you're doing, you're in violation. The board believes they have the ability to stop people from doing stuff, because they said that. They said, stop your construction. I don't know how far they think they can go with that. And then deferring to the law office and saying, well, we don't have any control over what they're going to do. The reason I bring this up goes back to the comment I made a second ago. Either it's binary, and this commission has to make a decision based on the evidence that's before it on a de novo review on two issues. Was the screening as proposed to screen it acceptable? Because screening is allowed in the guidelines. You're going to have mechanical systems. And B, does the FS have to be removed or just the datum line added? That's binary. We say that this commission should rule in favor of the appellant. If the commission is going to have a non-binary decision, then we need assurances that the operations are not going to be stopped and we're willing to work towards the trim line and more detail of the screening. I mean, obviously, my clients have no interest in putting up a screen that's not going to work, that's going to continue to create problems, and that's going to fall down. If you look at the rest of the structure, and I think that's important, and you look at the rest of the work that was done, it's a beautiful renovation of that facility. And we're right there at the one-inch line that we have to get past. Now, everything I've said today, I say with the reservation that I said at the very beginning, which is procedurally, and I have to preserve my record, because I don't know how you're going to vote, but procedurally, I say that the commission had to make a decision on whether or not they should have even heard this initially. So I appreciate your time. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Do you have a recommendation on how you would protect the neighbor from the direct smoke? That's outside of my knowledge. That wasn't the issue, and that's why I was bringing up the point, that wasn't the issue before the BOAR. I mean, there was a kitchen, it was approved, it was approved last October, there was going to be venting. Those are issues that were approved last October. The ability to appeal the idea that there was going to be a rear venting system for a commercial kitchen on a commercial building in that area would have had to have been appealed November of last year after that decision was made. And the neighbor would have had standing to do that. Well, in all fairness, you wouldn't have known that on a plan. You know, it would be something that would have come up once you became operational. There's just no way of knowing that. I just want to add, we do have sympathy for our neighbor. To the extent the mechanical department can provide us approval to redirect that duct away from them, we'll do that. We have a 350 square foot kitchen in this property. It's a commercially zoned building. We needed that kitchen to fulfill our business plan. We started this process and explored many different paths to where that exhaust could be located. I feel as if it's been presented as if we've intentionally taken steps to exhaust towards our neighbor to our rear. That was not the intention. At the beginning of the process, if we were provided guidance to exhaust towards Forest Ave or towards another direction, we would have done that. But the issue of the smoke, the grease-laden vapors, personally I don't think that pertains to the decision of the BOAR. But if we can work with the mechanical department to redirect that somehow to make our neighbor's enjoyment of their property more pleasant, we genuinely are willing to do that. All right. Now, what I would like to do without objection is because Ms. Deaton did not use all of the time allotted to her previously, if you would like to share an additional thought on whatever we were just discussing relevant to that. I do. I just want to reiterate that everybody seems to be skipping over the fact that the mushroom and tuba have never been approved. And there's something mechanically faulty about the whole system that they needed to put the tuba on there in the first place. I think they really need to go back to step one. I think we're going ahead of ourselves to start talking about what kind of screen to put on it. It has to get approved first. It's hanging off a historic building and attached to a historic building and it's not approved. The fact that, as this attorney says, a little box got approved because they have to have a fan, that's completely different than nobody ever saw a rendering of what's there now that's unapproved. I just wanted to reiterate that. Thank you. A clarification question for historic preservation because I'm chronologically trying to put all of this in order. In the staff report we received on page two in the third paragraph under October of 2024, the staff report says, during the inspection for the approved ventilation work, LFUCG building inspection staff indicated that the size of the vent system was not sufficient for the scale and scope of the use. The applicant then installed a larger external ventilation system without historic preservation review and approval. We know that and that's a fact. Notice of the violation for the unapproved mechanical vent changes was issued on March 13, 2025. Is that aspect of the violation still open and are we all looking at all of these items in this question, this appeal? Right. So the BOAR did take action on the vent as well. Part of the denial. That was part of the denial, okay. In part, the screening in some ways was sort of a supplemental type of scenario to sort of, in some ways, sort of appease the vent. To try to rectify the... Right. Because once we met with the inspectors and the applicant, Mr. Morris, and many of the partners, you know, it became clear that as you looked around the site, this is one of the fewer locations to put the vent. But then how are you going to figure out about? So part of that was sort of approving this and then how are you going to justify putting that vent there? And it would also have to receive approval from building inspection. If it changed location. So they... Right. And I would have to say, remember that for building inspection, you know, they review the location. They review the conditions of that vent. You know, they don't design that. And I would say there's, just to clarify one thing, there were two violation letters sent out that sort of had a stop work order that I sent out concurrently sort of in the March 12th that you're referencing and then the next one was in March 25th. All sort of saying to stop work because work kept continually and I kept sending out violation letters like, hey guys, you actually have to talk to us. And so that is what Mr. Regard is mentioning. And what we're doing here is, you know, that's all, the stop work orders were addressed in the July meeting when it was denied, the project was denied. And that's a stop work, not stop operations? That's correct. Okay. Just like stop exterior work. Get a permit. But if you're a restaurant, it's not? That's right. Closed down. That's right. Okay. All right. We're sorry. We're going just a little bit out of order. But Mr. Crum. Okay. Thank you. Hi. I'm Chris Crum, planning staff again. And just wanted to touch on a couple different components of this. So the first being, there was sort of this dichotomy kind of presented that this is sort of competing interests between health, safety and welfare and aesthetics. And the, how are we going to treat this mechanical venting situation? And so as we're taking a look at this, you know, the BOAR doesn't have any purview over what the building inspection threshold, what size of a facility do you need for this permitted use in this zone? They have their own requirements. If they do or do not, you know, the building code was brought up earlier. If there's any issues with that, that's a building, you know, inspection consideration. But really where this should have played out in the process was they went before the BOAR with a particular set of drawings. Hey, this is what we need in order to make our business work. Along the way between, I guess, their consultations with their experts, consultations with building inspections. Suddenly that adds this new element to this that wasn't previously considered by the BOAR. Under a perfect system, they would have gone back and had the conversation. Okay, we have a permitted use in the zone. We are by right allowed to have this restaurant component with this feature. The guidelines say, yes, you're allowed to have these type of features. How do we make these things work with location, with screening, with the implementation of it? That didn't occur due to the way that this was just carried through. Certain aspects about that, unfortunately, once again, the smell and the noise issues that were raised are very valid concerns. But once again, we are talking about the aesthetics of this particular application and its compliance with the guidelines. The guidelines here, as I bring them up again, speak to, here we go, really the location and that screening treatment. When we were looking at the application, when planning staff was evaluating this application, we looked first at that location. Yes, it is located to the rear of the structure. It needed to be bigger because of X, Y, and Z considerations within building inspection. They indicated that. How do we make that fit within the guidelines and make this appropriate for a historic area? That's where that third piece comes in, that screening piece. The BOAR indicated at their meetings that this is where the direction they wanted that conversation to go. During that May hearing, they indicated that that was going, and the applicants were working towards that until they stopped communicating and stopped moving that discussion forward. Had they continued that discussion and attended the July meeting instead of taking the route that they did, they could have maybe arrived at a need for, okay, this is the specific detail needed to evaluate this request, but what was provided simply wasn't adequate, so we have to evaluate this as if there's no real screening plan involved at all. That was part of the disconnect here where the system's saying, yeah, mechanical systems are a part of our modern life. They're part of the operation of this business. They are necessary in order to work, but you haven't taken the effort or shown and dictated to the BOAR how that's going to be implemented. Moving on to the stucco question, the guidelines as we read them were very clear. We're talking about materials of wooden stucco original to a structure should be maintained and repaired. Original and or existing siding materials should be replaced only where necessary and with in-kind materials. I know there was some discussion earlier about trim and some of those other features, but from staff's reading of the historic preservation guidelines, this is just a flat-out issue with a violation. Once again, you as the planning commission, as the decision-making body, have the freedom to rule on that as you wish, but this was where staff's concerned. Yes, we are losing some architectural elements, but on its face, they have admitted that they chose a different material for some practical considerations, but as noted through some of the neighborhood comment, this is sort of the balancing act that all entities within a historic preservation, that own property in a historic preservation district, sort of experience. Once again, the issues that came up with the staffs on our review was once again the screening element wasn't adequately defined. That's something that appears with a new submission, a more fleshed-out submission, could be addressed through the BOAR with a full discussion between them and the safety professionals on what type of screening would be appropriate here. Was that going to cause an issue with what is being discharged from that vent? That larger conversation didn't get to take place, and so the BOAR evaluated, as you saw earlier today. Once again, that ethos material isn't consistent, even though it is similar in appearance, it is a different material, and that's where planning staff was coming from with our recommendation, that it didn't meet those specific guidelines, because it doesn't. I'd be happy to answer any other questions from planning staff's perspective. You've heard from historic preservation as well as the applicant in the neighborhood. Daniel, I do have a question. Sure. The second bullet point, mechanical venting meets the guidelines location requirements, but it's not adequately screened. Is that planning staff saying, well, we see where our own mechanical engineers are saying that it was inadequate and you need something more, so we accept that, but it needs to be screened and we need detail to that? That is accurate to that. Okay. I think that's a very important point to make in all of these discussions, is that aspect of staff's recommendation. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Daniel before I'm sure we'll have plenty of discussion? Thank you. Thank you, Daniel. Okay. Well, I'm sure there's some thoughts maybe to be thrown around or any discussion from the planning commission? Yeah. Let me say that I think what we know here, our decisions here are binary. We either approve or disapprove. But the behavior of the people and the applicants, the other people, they are not binary. They've got a lot of leeway and a lot of wiggle room based on what I've heard here. So I don't have any particular problem, but in my position is I think we should support the staff on the disapproval part and then let them go back to work on the other part. Yes, sir. Mr. Nickel? My biggest concern is disruption of the business while a new application is submitted. And I feel comfortable from what I've heard that it's not a stop business order. It was a stop exterior work order. And the stop exterior work, the work has been completed. The certificate of occupancy has been received. The business is in operation. And I wanted to make sure that there was no recourse that could shut the business down. And I've been satisfied that that is not the case. The business will not be shut down no matter what decision is made here today. Mr. Wilson, back to your point about supporting the staff. In the staff report, it just says the disapproval of the COA by the BOAR is appropriate as the proposal is not in agreement with the adopted historic preservation guidelines. But then, as Daniel said here, the staff is accepting, in essence, the vent as a practical necessity. But then earlier when I asked Ms. Armstrong, could the vent become an issue with BOAR? Could it be an item of discussion? And she said, yes, the vent itself. Am I correct in repeating what I thought? I don't ever want to speak for anybody. I think this is a clarification worthy of really looking at. I think this is, I mean, I think, I think potentially as long as, that I think if there was appropriate screening that would meet the guidelines and be a finished, we'd have finished, have a, you know, a finished product come forward with finished architectural details, then I think that would go a long way to helping this. I mean, the board has seen this for at least six months, right? And they have had potential to see this. So I sort of feel like they have as much, I think they have pretty much agreement with what Daniel, even though they don't see Daniel's comments, but I think they are in agreement with that in some ways. You know, because they think they know that they, a kitchen has occurred. They can't stop that from happening. They can't close a business down because of that. And also, if we think about the location of the building, that is probably going to be a location that would meet that particular guidelines. I think we do all wish that it was as impactful to other parties in the neighborhood as it is. I'm not, I'm going to say that, but I think when I say potentially, I think, you know, everybody has qualms about that particular issue. But I think if they came forward with potential architectural plans, that would be appropriate. Okay. Well, we've had so many details flying around with so many different offices and parties, and I just think that as much clarity as we can have with a motion, with our intent, going in essence back to the BOAR, that the Planning Commission accepted a staff report. Staff has told us on the record that they interpret the fan to be a mechanical, practical necessity at this point. That is basically saying, well, the Planning Commission has accepted the staff's recommendation, which included that. So BOAR, we're not going to talk about removing the fan, or if the applicant wants to talk about that, or moving it, that's fine. But it can't be something that, we're basically releasing them from that issue with this, with what Daniel had written in his presentation. That's why I wanted just clarification on that. Correct. I mean, I see your point on that. I mean, correct, I think, I mean, just to let you know, there's been a lot of discussion about how do you deal with this particular element? Do you try to build a chimney going higher? Because the whole issue is the fact that you couldn't invent this, and we didn't discuss this through the deck itself, because of the fact that it had to be so high up above the deck because of the living space, the usable space of the deck. So it had to be, had so much clearance. Could you project that further, higher, to project it higher? So it goes, you know, that's the expense that happens if you project that higher. So it's not projecting sort of towards the north, towards the neighbor, if it's projecting higher. And that's the expense that comes to the applicant if that tuba shoots out in a different direction. Okay. Alrighty. Thank you, Amelia. It sounds like we're getting pretty, yes, sir, Mr. Pim. You know, in my experience, where there's a will, there's a way. And I think what this is telling us is that for that business to operate in this environment as close to the neighbors as they have, they've got to take in a lot more consideration about what the neighbors have to have in order to be able to work with them, to be part of their club, to enjoy the business. You can't turn it loose where it runs right back in their windows. So I'm going to support the staff, but I'm going to support the staff hoping that the next plan that comes back puts that above the roofline. It's not going to be beautiful. You're not going to screen it. But you've got to get it out of your windows. That's common sense. I have to support the staff because of the binary situation. But that's exactly what has to happen for coexistence. And the sooner you realize it, the better. Thank you, Mr. Pim. I have felt throughout this hearing an awful lot of sympathy both for the applicant and the neighbors because I can understand if the applicant is told by a representative of, in essence, I know it's different, but the city who is also either granting or not granting permission on architectural design choice. But you're told by a representative of the city, you're going to have to do something bigger. And it's going to cost more, but okay, I want to be in accord with the regulations, so I'll go ahead and do it. I can see how it would be very easy to fail to remember that I have to take that back to the other division in the city. So I have a lot of sympathy on that front. But then seeing the pictures from the next door neighbor and knowing the impact of smoke and grease and odors, I have tremendous sympathy on that front, too. So I think Mr. Pim is right. Hopefully we can work this out once and for all. And just like a lot of times we ask our applicants to bend, I think it's important that our BOAR and very fine Historic Preservation staff do the same as far as they can to come to a conclusion on this bend, namely. That's all I have. If anybody else has anything else to contribute, or the floor is open for a motion. Yes, Molly? I would like to make a motion, Chair. Alrighty, thank you. I'd like to make a motion to support the staff recommendation to disapprove the appeal and that the original decision of the BOAR be upheld for the reasons stated in the staff report on BOAR 2025-2 East Main Street Development, LLC. Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Molly Davis, second from Commissioner Bill Wilson. Any discussion to that motion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. All right, that carries unanimously. Thank you, everyone, and thank you, members of the public, for speaking. We, again, do appreciate and value your perspective. Thank you, applicant, for everything you've done. Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, everyone gets an extra glass of sweet tea tonight. You all have done beautifully. Done beautifully, and thank you very much for your hard work this afternoon. I want to remind you that we are off schedule this month because of the Thanksgiving holiday, so our zoning hearing will be next Thursday, November 20th at 1.30 in this room. There will be no Planning Commission work session for the month of November, so we'll see you all again next week in here for the zoning hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, and without objection, unless Mr. Wilson has something else. Okay, we are adjourned. Thank you.